|
On December 15 2008 05:22 maybenexttime wrote:
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. ;/
I agree that elegance needs to be a paramount concern in any gameplay system. However, having multiple macro tasks can enhance the core gameplay experience rather then dilute it.
Would you consider warp-in to be diluting or enhancing the core gameplay experience? How fun would protoss be if the only micro action was cast psi storm?
I think too many people view macro as a necessary evil. Macro is both necessary and fun. What we need to start doing is looking at what makes micro so interesting and see how we can apply these principles to macro.
On December 15 2008 05:22 maybenexttime wrote:
Not only that, but predicting the side effects after implementing several different mechanics is much harder than in case of just one.
It would make it harder to balance but that has never stopped blizzard before.
On December 15 2008 05:22 maybenexttime wrote:
Are you assuming players wouldn't have enough time to do all these tasks?
The combination of several macro tasks should be easy enough for begining players to perform at a rudimentary level. However, even pro players should be challenged to perform them perfectly.
As an example lets consider casting a "psi storm" on your probes that makes them +50% faster. New players can perform this with a little practice. However pros will have to work hard to remember to return to cast it in the heat of battle. They will also have to devolep the ability to position it over the maximum number of workers each time.
|
On December 15 2008 06:11 pure.Wasted wrote:
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.
Well, in that regard the Mineral Mechanic does fuel excitement - using Wasteful Strip Mining for reinforcements, rushes, getting back economically after tough harassment, etc.
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.
The reason why I consider to be tacked on is because it's introduced to force/reward certain type of behavior (base related multi-tasking) by restricting things that have previously been not restricted (like e.g. upgrades) in any such way - instead of adding to the game, like imo the Mineral Mechanic does.
I think you're also overestimating the amount of attention/APM dedicated to MACRO when expanding.
As Dreadwave has pointed out, it's mostly not macro, and doesn't take that much time/is not that frequent anyway.
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 think this is the exact opposite of what I'd call 'flexibility.'
I don't think balancing a game where a player can't gain access to something as basic, essential as an upgrade just because he has a differing playstyle.
It essentially forces you to use it if you want to play anything besides simple rush games.
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.
#3 is mostly irrelevant in BW since if you manage your resources well, you'll just make sure the SCV can afford the CC when it gets to the location.
What's more, in SC2 the player pays upfront for any buildings, so that's completely irrelevant here.
#6, as you've noticed, is non-existent in SC2. SO the heaviest APM sink is not there actually.
I think Dreadwave explained that pretty well in his posts on bnet forums.
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.
I think that first of all you suggestion would require much less attention than you're estimating.
Secondly, I'd say it's the other way round - limiting upgrades would extremely change the game, by taking away from the game instead of adding, may I add.
On December 15 2008 10:15 Archerofaiur wrote:
I agree that elegance needs to be a paramount concern in any gameplay system. However, having multiple macro tasks can enhance the core gameplay experience rather then dilute it.
Would you consider warp-in to be diluting or enhancing the core gameplay experience? How fun would protoss be if the only micro action was cast psi storm?
I think too many people view macro as a necessary evil. Macro is both necessary and fun. What we need to start doing is looking at what makes micro so interesting and see how we can apply these principles to macro.
Well, it all depends on how involving those and also how detached from the core gameplay they are mechanics are.
They can't be like some minigames, you know.
I'd definitely consider Warp-in as something really positive gameplay wise.
I think the prime reason why people find micro attractive is that it poses one plyaer against another (usually). The problem here is that any base related task that does that essentially becomes micro - e.g. focus firing with your towers in WC3 or manner Pyloning, etc.
It would make it harder to balance but that has never stopped blizzard before.
You need to consider the fact that balancing BW was a fluke to some degree.
And that Blizzard has more or less decided when they want SC2 to ship.
We need to come up with a mechanic(s) that's likely to get implemented at that stage. It's simply less probable that several (racially different!) mechanics will be added as opposed to just one, and more or less universal at that.
The combination of several macro tasks should be easy enough for begining players to perform at a rudimentary level. However, even pro players should be challenged to perform them perfectly.
The problem here is that adding several different mechanics could possible make a lot of casuals whine "SimCity" - unless the mechanics are really engaging.
As an example lets consider casting a "psi storm" on your probes that makes them +50% faster. New players can perform this with a little practice. However pros will have to work hard to remember to return to cast it in the heat of battle. They will also have to devolep the ability to position it over the maximum number of workers each time.
Thank you for this idea.
It might be a solution to a concern raised by Plexa in another thread.
I'm really thankful you brought that up! ;]
edit: bold - fix, sorry for missing that part
|
On December 26 2008 23:31 maybenexttime wrote:Well, in that regard the Mineral Mechanic does fuel excitement - using Wasteful Strip Mining for reinforcements, rushes, getting back economically after tough harassment, etc.
It doesn't change anything that wasn't in the game already, because there's no way for the enemy to time his attacks by this ability. He's either going to rush your mineral line or he isn't, just like he would if this feature wasn't in the game, and so it adds nothing in the way of excitement.
This is the most simple of my points and I'm not sure why I'm having so much trouble getting it through. When you expand, you're moving around the map, you feel like you're impacting the game in an irreversible manner. It feels important, like having this expansion will completely alter the course of the game from that point on. It feels dynamic and meaningful. No matter how important you make casting something over SCVs or clicking an ability on SCVs, it will never feel dynamic or meaningful, because you're doing it within the safety of your own base, and your opponent cannot directly respond to that action with a counteraction (as opposed to expansion > harass expansion). In that sense, this feature you propose is no different from unrallied-mine, and I think if we have an opportunity to put a dynamic feature into the game, as opposed to a simple one, we should take it.
That is why I'm convinced that an in-base solution is not what we're looking for. It has to be an external task, something that, as I've said before, pits you against your opponent in a way that something you do in your base cannot accomplish.
The reason why I consider to be tacked on is because it's introduced to force/reward certain type of behavior (base related multi-tasking) by restricting things that have previously been not restricted (like e.g. upgrades) in any such way - instead of adding to the game, like imo the Mineral Mechanic does.
Just because my idea says "if you don't do X, you can't have Y" and yours doesn't, doesn't mean yours isn't restrictive. There is clearly a better option for use in the different situations a player finds himself in, and if he doesn't turn on that mode, he's restricting his inflow of money. Sure, he's not losing anything, but he is losing in relation to his opponent, who is taking advantage of it.
And all that said, in a way it isn't any more restricting than unrallied-mine was. "If you don't get EMW, you can't get upgrades" -- "If you don't tell your SCVs to mine, you can't get anything" Yet nobody would think to say that unrallied-mine is "restrictive." I fully expect every player to have to harvest EMW (otherwise the suggestion would be pointless, as they wouldn't be using up the extra APM we're trying to harvest), and between pro players the flexibility would come from other sources.
I think this is the exact opposite of what I'd call 'flexibility.'
I don't think balancing a game where a player can't gain access to something as basic, essential as an upgrade just because he has a differing playstyle.
It essentially forces you to use it if you want to play anything besides simple rush games.
Absolutely. But that is no different from saying "every player must change modes on his workers if he wants to play anything besides simple rushes." Yes, they must do this, but to what degree remains entirely up to them. Maybe one station at a time is enough for them, or maybe they'll have to set up three at a time.
#3 is mostly irrelevant in BW since if you manage your resources well, you'll just make sure the SCV can afford the CC when it gets to the location.
What's more, in SC2 the player pays upfront for any buildings, so that's completely irrelevant here.
That's not what I meant at all. You can't order an SCV to build on black fog, so first you have to issue the move order, and then, once it arrives, you have to issue the build order. That's what I meant by #3, and those are two separate orders, for the second of which the player receives no warning.
#6, as you've noticed, is non-existent in SC2. SO the heaviest APM sink is not there actually.
I have noticed, as I pointed out in the second paragraph you quoted, and that's where the whole "multiple stations" idea comes into play. It makes up for the APM lost on rally-mine.
I think that first of all you suggestion would require much less attention than you're estimating.
Secondly, I'd say it's the other way round - limiting upgrades would extremely change the game, by taking away from the game instead of adding, may I add.
If it requires less attention, then just force players to do it more often, until it requires the satisfactory amount of attention. That's our goal here, so that seems pretty straight-forward and common sense to me. Whatever the ideal APM is we're trying to add, that's what the idea would have to fill... so if one station that provides 200 EMW does that, fine. If it takes two that provide 100, or three that provide 66, or four that provide 50, that's left up to the balancers to decide. This becomes exactly as large a part of the game as is called for by the problem we're trying to solve, no more, no less.
As for it "limiting" the game -- I don't really imagine that any player worth his salt would decide to play a game without upgrades, that seems very silly. There is currently a vacuum in macro-APM, and whatever advantageous activity fills that vacuum in SCII, they will attempt their best to do it. So in that sense it will only be limiting to the weaker players, who may struggle with finding the perfect balance (just like they have trouble expanding at the right time)... but for anybody else, it simply becomes a part of the game, just like in SCI you have to have minerals to research, in SCII you have to have EMW to do it. In that sense it isn't limiting at all, it's simply changing the way you go about buying the resource, throwing a few more steps into the chain while forcing more player interaction while it's at it.
Imagine this scenario: player wants to get his EMW up so he goes to build a station, there's two places to do it adjacent to his base, one is in the path of his opponent's rushes (A), the other is to the side (B). Obviously, he'll take (B). Now if he wants to protect it, his defense will be spread between his natural expansion and (B), and already, the game looks and feels completely different than it would had he gone for (A). His choice was directly gleaned from the actions of his opponent, and his opponent can react to this choice with a slew of his own. The player is leaving permanent marks on the map that will shape the battlefield leading up to the finale. With so many things to think about that have to do with his opponent, he's not even going to notice the fact that he's clicking on SCVs and giving them orders to make it all happen. It's subtle macro, because it feeds into the mano-a-mano atmosphere that is the very core of the game, but it will be there to whatever extent we desire. And the more of it we put into the game, the more opportunities the opponent has to react...
If a player in mid-game has to have 3 stations running at the same time, he may choose to place them as close to his natural as possible so he can defend all of them more easily... or he can stagger them throughout the map and make them harder to find and harass for his enemy. Both of these options visibly force the enemy to react, because the enemy always wants you to have less resources, less upgrades and researches, so five minutes in to either scenario, you're looking at a very different game. One is a full-on assault against the expansion AND stations, the other is a hide-and-seek with aerial scouts. Thus, the feature is completely dynamic because it forces the enemy to react, and yourself to react to his reaction, in very visible, un-ignoreable ways. The fact that it adds macro-APM to the game seems almost as an unintended byproduct, which is what the ideal form of macro should always be. Do you see now this fundamental difference between my suggestion and yours?
I do not argue that your suggestion does not solve the APM-macro problem, nor do I argue that it doesn't add some strategy to the game; but I argue that it is so far removed from the core player-vs-player dynamic, that if it is possible to invent an alternative that closely adheres to that core of the game, we look for that route and take it.
|
On December 26 2008 23:31 maybenexttime wrote:
You need to consider the fact that balancing BW was a fluke to some degree.
Or so the myth goes. I always hear people claiming broodwar just miraculously fell into perfect balance but I've never seen anyone support this statement with facts.
On December 26 2008 23:31 maybenexttime wrote:
And that Blizzard has more or less decided when they want SC2 to ship.
Yes, "When its ready"
On December 26 2008 23:31 maybenexttime wrote:
We need to come up with a mechanic(s) that's likely to get implemented at that stage. It's simply less probable that several (racially different!) mechanics will be added as opposed to just one, and more or less universal at that.
Why? Its certainly easier to come up with one macro mechanic but that isn't necessarily better. We could have given protoss psi storm, zerg disease storm and terran mortar storm. It would have been easier but i am not sure "cookie cutter" micro is as exciting as diverse micro. I have little reason to believe macro should be any different.
On December 26 2008 23:31 maybenexttime wrote:
The problem here is that adding several different mechanics could possible make a lot of casuals whine "SimCity" - unless the mechanics are really engaging.
100% agree. So lets make sure they are really engaging and really fun.
On December 26 2008 23:31 maybenexttime wrote:
Thank you for this idea.
It might be a solution raised by Plexa in another thread.
I'm really thankful you brought that up! ;]
You know I read so many of your guy's proposals (seriously alot) I sometimes worry about mistakenly taking someone's idea without giving credit. If you could post the thread he proposed the idea in I'll take a look and see if it rings any bells.
|
Didn't have time to read through all this, but thinking about having a bonus for the attentive gamer - perhaps a one-off bonus for people who macro, such as the aforementioned speed boost but make it one use only and only if used within 5secs of the probe/whatever being trained. This speed boost thing seems a bit lame, though. Too far fetched and manufactured. It is thinking of the game from a mechanics only point and not fitting in with the background and atmosphere of the game.
Another example might be having mineral patches that benefit from having additional workers on them or something like that, so that some patches support 2+ workers, or even similar to the maps like baekma goji where you can eat away at smaller deposits to open new large mineral patches behind - but make a system where you need to manually achieve this.
Perhaps there is room elsewhere for increased probe macro. Just for example - something like this could be used but probably not exactly this - if the xel'naga towers or some other useful neutral building required you sacrifice a probe at it every X seconds to maintain its use this would fulfill a similar role. It mightn't have to be a xel'naga tower but perhaps some way of unlocking more paths around the map, a high yield exp, or blocking an entrance to your base.
These are some thoughts. Might read through the rest of these comments later and submit a more refined post of my thoughts xD
|
Nice idea, definitely needs to be tweaked in order to work the way its supposed to but its a great idea to replace what auto-mine will ruin.
However, this will never be able to completely fix the Macro issues. It will fix automine and perhaps make it more challenging in this regard than BW already is.
But i haven't seen any ideas on fixing what MBS will ruin forever, MACRO.
|
How about this…
---------------------------------------------
Advanced Mining – Worker Ability that targets a mineral patch – Gives the worker +X extra carrying capacity (or +X% gathering speed) for X time (or X trips).
--------------------------------------------
This is how it would work – at any time, you could select your worker(s), click the shortcut for the Ability and then click on a mineral patch you want that worker to gather from.
It has to be “Worker Ability that targets a mineral patch” – otherwise you would just put all your workers in a group and push it every X time. For maximum usage, you’d need to reactivate it every time it wears off.
They could make it race specific to fit in the game: Ts equipment overheat, Z forces drone to work faster (then they get tired), P uses some advance unstable technology or something.
+Add a cool visual effect so you can tell which workers are in the Advanced Mining mode without clicking them. (i.e SCVs get heated metal visual effect, drones some fluid, probes some unstable pulsing lights)
Simple and would fit in the game nicely... now let’s look at what we would get:
- Ability can be scaled well – With +X to gathering blizzard could set how much of a difference it makes, and with X time/trips they could set how intense the macro is.
- Macro skill curve would be huge – From not using it at all for beginners, to using it on all your workers. Ideally, it would actually be humanly impossible to have high enough APM to use it on all your workers in late game, creating an infinitive macro curve.
- Opens up some strategies – For instance, macroing only your workers on yellow minerals, macroing your workers only in the beginning to set a fast rush, then focusing on micro etc.
- Gives the player a choice between macro and micro play style
Unless I missed something, end effect would be mechanics that makes logical in-game sense, looks cool, isn’t necessary so it doesn’t disturb casual players and creates a SC-esque mastering curve.
All numbers could be tweaked through beta and patches later.
Opinions?
|
I don't know if this has been suggested or whatnot but I just thought of something:
Since there is auto-mine, how about make it so that workers don't split out like in SC:BW? We all know that if we grabbed a control group of workers and maynarded them to a fresh expo they would eventually spread out evenly. By forcing each worker to stay at the individual patch that they're assigned to, one would have to individually target each mineral patch with auto-mine whenever a patch reaches the optimal number of workers. This would force players to mine at a slightly lower rate until they choose to split out their workers evenly.
Easy to do but requires some multi-task, not just buildings a ton of workers knowing they'll spread out.
EZPZ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
