|
I've read the whole thread one more time, just to make sure none of the following has been answered. I have a few pertinent questions:
First, if your goal is truly to add more clicks to the game (don't bug me with synonymic denial) then aren't you attacking the wrong feature? Suppose we build 60 workers on average per game. Mining requires two actions per worker, which gives 120 actions in the whole game. Now suppose you have a conveniently rounded 240 APM. Doesn't automine then cut merely 30 seconds' worth of actions out of a 20+ minutes game, that is, less than 2.5%? Isn't a significant fraction of these at the very beginning of the game, when it matters the least?
Second, there has been some claims (-orb-) that the proposed feature adds strategy to the game. Please explain what you mean by that, because I really don't get it. From my point of view, even the revisions add only clicks.
Third, why this incentive for the player to regularly keep an eye on their bases, possibly as far as possible from where the action takes place? I've got the impression that some consider this as important, but I don't get it; even if that were a good thing, why force it upon the player? If keeping an eye on your base is a good thing, why do we need an additional, artificial reason to do it?
Fourth, what makes supporters of this scheme believe that everybody who disagrees with them belongs to an irreductible trolling minority that cares not to read the thread? I've seen a decent ratio of objectors so far and, myself excluded, they're more polite and making a better job at proving their point. But perhaps that's just me and my worthless opinion.
|
On November 18 2008 11:08 onepost wrote:
I've read the whole thread one more time, just to make sure none of the following has been answered. I have a few pertinent questions:
First, if your goal is truly to add more clicks to the game (don't bug me with synonymic denial) then aren't you attacking the wrong feature? Suppose we build 60 workers on average per game. Mining requires two actions per worker, which gives 120 actions in the whole game. Now suppose you have a conveniently rounded 240 APM. Doesn't automine then cut merely 30 seconds' worth of actions out of a 20+ minutes game, that is, less than 2.5%? Isn't a significant fraction of these at the very beginning of the game, when it matters the least?
Second, there has been some claims (-orb-) that the proposed feature adds strategy to the game. Please explain what you mean by that, because I really don't get it. From my point of view, even the revisions add only clicks.
Third, why this incentive for the player to regularly keep an eye on their bases, possibly as far as possible from where the action takes place? I've got the impression that some consider this as important, but I don't get it; even if that were a good thing, why force it upon the player? If keeping an eye on your base is a good thing, why do we need an additional, artificial reason to do it?
Fourth, what makes supporters of this scheme believe that everybody who disagrees with them belongs to an irreductible trolling minority that cares not to read the thread? I've seen a decent ratio of objectors so far and, myself excluded, they're more polite and making a better job at proving their point. But perhaps that's just me and my worthless opinion.
It's less about clicks than it is forcing a player to divert their attention and multitask. The extra features are fine for the casual audience, but when players are practicing 16 hours a day, you need to give them something etxra to do. If you simplify the game with these features there's going to be a lot lot less diversity between players and games will be a lot less exciting.
|
I was going to make a thread based on tradeoffs that might work to serve a double purpose. Making the game challenging enough while not making it a dumbed down engine. The two things that were on the top of my mind was:
1.) The solution to resource gathering
2.) MBS type issues
So first off as far as resources go, I think a very very simple, but way effective solution would be to KEEP auto rally i.e. if you rally a worker to the minerals then the worker will automatically start mining, however it won't autosplit for you and you still have to do the same classic bw style starts. Now this is rather subtle, but yeah I think maybe it would be a good compromise. The reason I say this is because I know many of you will be thinking that players will have it too easy if they can just rally workers to minerals, but fact of the matter is, most bad players won't be remembering to keep making workers anyhow.
Secondly the mbs type thing, actually I recently have been playing Command and Conquer Red Alert 3, it DOESNT have mbs and it works just fine, infact I think this needs to be stated: The Starcraft engine is complete shit, its not nearly as responsive or as smooth feeling compared to a game like Red Alert 3 or Warcraft 3, you often have to press a key twice, etc. but regardless, the single building selection works just fine red alert 3 and that game is very much about macro. Again though, the difference between single building and multiple buildings is way more subtle than most make it out to be so I don't think it will be a huge effect either way. It also depends on how the interface stays, Red Alert 3 is single building, but you do have the handy tabs at the top right eliminating the need to hotkey all your different production buildings. So needless to say, I think mbs or sbs won't be a big difference depending on the other ui additions. Also I think another KEY factour that people need to consider is will you have as many production buildings as in broodwar? I don't know this answer, some of you that played might have a better answer, but since the game isn't competitively played yet its not able to be fully determined still.
|
Why not just have an option to turn off automining, MBS, and the shitty gas mechanic? Hardcore players can still play without all this junk while the casual gamer can still enjoy the game without learning how to macro as intensively. Obviously, top-tier gamers won't be facing beginners very often so it shouldn't be too much of a problem.
|
Armed: Invidivually applying the buff would be just as artificial as having to manually send workers. It's impossible to force players to do something specifically to divert their attention without it being 'artificial'
EntSC: I actually like this idea the best, no MBS for the crystals and players would have to click each mineral faster. It would be like setting rally points in normal SC at the moment, it would work in the late game, so the more mines you have the more you need. Just have crystals dealign after a certain period of time, which would also make it more tedious depending on the level of worker saturation.
Savio: This sounds like the best option, because it would work the best in actual gameplay. You wouldn't have to worry about sending a worker to minerals before making a building or anything. I don't know about applying it to soldiers though, might be a little too much.
Slick: Biggest issue with this is that it's just too 'obvious'. I'm pretty sure most players would just associate this with not having automine. I think casuals are more accepting if you give units a cool buff or debuff.
Kennigit: Very similar to Savio, but it seems to have more problems in my mind; however, I think casuals would like the idea of units getting a buff rather than a debuff.
Summary: I definitely like EntSC's idea the best so far(no offense to anyone), it seems the most fluid and the most fun. I like the idea of quickly selecting each crystal in a row and reactivitng it, by hitting a hotkey and then clicking the CC/Nexus/Hatch. In general though these are all great ideas that would help make Sc2 competitive, but I would personally prefer KeSPa to stick with SC:BW.. for esports to be taken seriously we can't just keep switching games. If Sc2 were designed specifically with KeSPa in mind, then it might merit a switch, but at the moment it doesn't seem like it does.
|
On November 18 2008 11:35 GhostKorean wrote:
Why not just have an option to turn off automining, MBS, and the shitty gas mechanic? Hardcore players can still play without all this junk while the casual gamer can still enjoy the game without learning how to macro as intensively. Obviously, top-tier gamers won't be facing beginners very often so it shouldn't be too much of a problem.
The biggest issue would be BNET. BNET with AMM is a lot different than the SC:BW version. There would have to be two different AMM systems for players to use and chances are the MBS/Automine ladder would be dead, etc.. I don't think Blizzard wants to split their consumers either.
|
For your convenience, I want to leave the list of ideas up on each page so people can easily refer to them when making comparisons or choosing sides, etc.
1. Kennigit's--Speed boost to workers who were manually controlled. Can be done multiple times (or there could be a single time only version)
2. Savio's (I'm such a narcissist)--There should be a one time temporary speed penalty against ALL units under rally command--workers and soldiers.
3. Slick's--For workers under automine control, there should be a timed delay before workers will go to the mineral patch and mine.
4. EntSC--Crystal realignment idea.
5. Armed--Upgradeable timed buff.
|
On November 18 2008 11:58 Savio wrote:
For your convenience, I want to leave the list of ideas up on each page so people can easily refer to them when making comparisons or choosing sides, etc.
1. Kennigit's--Speed boost to workers who were manually controlled. Can be done multiple times (or there could be a single time only version)
2. Savio's (I'm such a narcissist)--There should be a one time temporary speed penalty against ALL units under rally command--workers and soldiers.
3. Slick's--For workers under automine control, there should be a timed delay before workers will go to the mineral patch and mine.
4. EntSC--Crystal realignment idea.
5. Armed--I think I missed this one, explain again and then I will edit.
Don't mean to speak for armed, but I think his general idea was:
Ability that can be upgraded at CC or whatever, pretty cheap, but not cheap enough where it's bought right away every game. You then cast that ability to get a timed buff. The idea to keep it from being used with just one Control Group and HotKey was that you would have to individually select each unit you wanted to cast it on.
|
On November 18 2008 12:09 vsrooks wrote:The idea to keep it from being used with just one Control Group and HotKey was that you would have to individually select each unit you wanted to cast it on.
This wasn't really part of my idea, but at the time I somehow forgot about unlimited hotkey selection so something like this would be necessary to actually increase time spent on macro. The best way I can think of to rework it would probably be to make it a spell on the CC itself, although it's hard to seperate it from the workers without having to make it really spammable, which I was trying to avoid~
So basically doesn't work. ;p
EDIT: I really like EntSC's whole mineral re-aligning or whatever thing. Just make it a click rather than the whole ridiculous drawing an arrow towards the CC minigame nonsense and click on the CC first(having something be activated by clicking on minerals seems unnatural to me.) It scales really nicely as the game progresses and doesn't make any interface improvements useless.
|
On November 18 2008 11:08 onepost wrote:Second, there has been some claims (-orb-) that the proposed feature adds strategy to the game. Please explain what you mean by that, because I really don't get it. From my point of view, even the revisions add only clicks.
Because my idea was to have it as a one-time or very high-cooldown ability that has to be researched.
Thus, it would create an element of strategy in which players would have to choose between standard balanced builds, fast-tech to worker speed boost upgrade builds, and builds that go straight for hardcore units before the opponent can take advantage of the speed boost.
Pardon my rage here, but you are a fucking liar. If you had actually read through the whole thread like you you say you did, you would have seen me explaining this factor probably about 3 times. Instead, you don't read what I've said and pretend to know what I'm talking about saying that all I'm adding is clicks.
|
Instead of having an initial boost, which could be manipulated and abused, how about a buff that stacks upon each retrieval of minerals with a max movement speed of like 5% or something. I think that would mimic the effects of great mechanics in SC. A strong mechanical player will obtain a huge economic advantage the later the game get's because of his stronger mining mechanics. The late game of a player who manually sends workers will look a lot stronger economically if each worker is getting a slowly accumulating slight movement bonus.
Though, perhaps for balance, maybe the mining time should be the only thing getting a buff. It's quite possible there are balance issues with 5% faster moving workers.
Whatever the case is, I like the idea of mechanics that new players are aware of but won't use right away. It gives them sight of what good play looks like. It's simple for them to grasp and aspires them to reach levels like that.
That sort of dynamic is a very viable solution to the issue. Casual players have their lazy but updated ui thing, good players can distance themselves from the average Joe by mechanics aswell as experience and intellect.
This would revive the necessary apm in SC2 from like 120 to 220, where in BW it's like 250.
I agree with the concept and would love to see a mechanic-restoring solution in sc2!!!
|
I'd like to see more discussion in EntSC's idea. It seems like a really good idea that would increase APM/Time Away from Units in relation to the amount of bases/workers you have and it will be persistent throughout the game. Eventually you'll stop continually building workers, but you'll always have to 'realign the crystals'.
It seems like a cool mechanic that could use a very nice glow feature to show what's going on, it would also be really easy to see when spectating a game. The difference in player skill would be very applicable as well, because the faster you can realign the crystals, the less time you would spend at your base. It's also a lot easier to manage from a developer perspective than the worker buff or debuff.
Summary of my current interpretation of EntSC's idea:
After a crystal has been mined a certain number of times it deactivates, which makes drones bring back less crystals from the mine or something. In order to bring it back to full power, you click on the glowing crystal and hit the hotkey for realign and then click on the CC.
|
United States47024 Posts
On November 18 2008 11:24 vsrooks wrote:
It's less about clicks than it is forcing a player to divert their attention and multitask. The extra features are fine for the casual audience, but when players are practicing 16 hours a day, you need to give them something etxra to do. If you simplify the game with these features there's going to be a lot lot less diversity between players and games will be a lot less exciting.
Congratulations, you hit the nail right on the head!
This is probably a bit off-topic, but a lot of anti-manual-mining sentiment seems to come from the idea that its "just clicks." The thing is, if you have another task to perform, its more multitasking. Emphasizing multitasking is a GOOD THING. Even successful RTSs that have reduced macro, like Warcraft III, still emphasize multitasking.
|
This is turning out to be a nice discussion with decent ammount of ideas.
I propose that all ideas are put on the first post, then after through and lenghty discussion we post a poll of which idea has the best probability for success, but also really adds macro in an effective and simple way.
After all this is done, TL.net staff will ofrward all the data to blizzard and wait for a responce!
|
The main issue with the new UI is that it kind of detracts from the "skill" requirement of the game. The ways to introduce skills back into the game involves either micro/marco and basically strategies, but it is not a good idea to make a mechanic that obviously renders automine to be at a significant disadvantage. I think small things such as making the larva move closer to the minerals (maybe not that small) make the game have depth in the early game, as a few extra minerals are important.
A few suggestions for early game auto-mine changes
1. Worker speed. When a worker is set to auto-mine, it slows down as it approaches the minerals or the base. The player can manually command it to move near the base, return minerals, move to the minerals, mine, without losing speed, almost like muta harass
While this idea is much like speed boost with manual click, it allows for a greater skill range (almost absurd with a good number of workers), and it becomes impossible to do consistently later. Yes, it won't affect mid-late game macro but a player that does this for even a minute more could have x resources more than his or her opponent early game. Therefore, the trade for this would be focus on troops/scouting/harassing/etc. for an economic advantage which may or may not be worthwhile.
2. Manual Gather. There are two parts to this one, the second part might be a bit too complicated.
Workers should be able to return resources at anytime, before reaching the max amount. Either there can be a counter showing the mineral amount the worker has (obviously the best way would be to return right when 5.5 rounds to 6, but micro intensive), or it could be based on personal timing (so if you screw up, you might only get 5). The other strategic part of this would be in the very early game. For example, 50 is not divisible by 6, and 6x8=48 only 2 minerals short, so it could be better to simply ferry the extra 2 minerals back in a separate run, maybe a second faster, but small advantages add up.
Obviously, this has no effect on mid-late game at all, and taking the trip would in essence lose some time as well (fewer minerals). Therefore, another thing to add might be a gradient in mining, such as 1 mineral mines very very fast, 2 very fast, 3 fast, etc. Of course, there would be a lot of math involved to balance it, but in general a good average distance should be used as the norm. This provides a bit more strategy because although 1 mine would in theory be the best (because if you were waiting for x minerals, you would get it without excess), that fails to take into account the various distances mineral patches are from the base. The farther patches would favor 6 mine and the closer ones favor 1 mine. Each worker should be able to be set on how many they will auto-mine each time. Using auto-mine gives you 6, but specifics can be given (1-6 minerals a trip). If the mineral mine cap was higher, say 50, it would allow mineral massing which would be more strategic (50 minerals will take a long time, but it will be faster than 10x5 and noticeably faster than 1x50 on a normal distance patch).
The problem with the second part is that its a very one time thing. For a given map, it can be easy to find the optimal mine on each patch. Also, when workers change patches due to saturation, things could get very ugly (and I don't think this is a plus for the marco even though it forces more clicky and watching). Mining a large dose of minerals might change the game play too much (faster rushes with max mineral efficiency, but more effective fast expands/tech if they gamble and try to rake in more minerals but be a bit late on cheaper units). I don't really think cap changing is possible.
About previous ideas
Kennigit: Everyone competent will do it early game, but those that need auto-mine will die if the advantage significant within the first 5 minutes. This removes auto-mine early game with something almost tedious. Mid & late game, if a player who wouldn't do this is playing a player that would, a large skill gap would become even larger. In short, I don't think this is useful in giving a slightly better macro player an edge on a slightly better micro player. I would take this over auto-mine though.
Savio: Rally point becomes useless, and in a pro-gaming situation, I would rather see the players focus on battles that need their attention than switch back to base and make sure reinforcements arrive in time. You can say that takes skill, but would you choose between reinforcements on time or saving a few units with micro? Slower movement for workers on auto-mine is nice, but perhaps only for the first minute of mining.
Slick: I would prefer slow worker over idle worker, its about the same thing though.
EntSC: Very interesting, very mid-late game oriented as well. Expand on the idea?
|
I don't have a problem with automining or MBS. You guys talk about how there will be smaller gap between the pros and the casual gamers.. In reality, the "pros" will always find ways to distinguish themselves from rest of the gamers.
Perhaps Blizzard's take on this is that every gamer can potentially reach the top more easily. If it is, I agree 100%. This means more influx of new gamers, AND the pros will have to practice a lot more to improve further.
I actually like the automining and MBS. I think it'll attract more gamers, and the competition will be even harder/entertaining. Also, with the introduction of MBS/automining, the most innovative, most experienced player will naturally be the best player. This will make long-term star players to continue their reign possible. As an audience, I love seeing familiar faces going at it against each other. I've always loved Boxer, Reach, Nal_Ra, Nada, Iloveoov against each other. In WC3, I'm think this is the case (I'm not so sure since I don't follow it much) since I've always seen grubby, moon, or sky in tournaments here and there.
As for casual gaming, I'll give an example on iccup. I expect D~C level players to have poor macro and poor decision making. Overall lack of experience too. Surprisingly, many of the D~C level players are great with macro. This makes me work even harder to win. Consequently, I actually enjoyed playing the game! Sure, I love the occasional "toying with newbies", but it gets boring.
|
United States47024 Posts
On November 18 2008 15:04 stalife wrote:
I don't have a problem with automining or MBS. You guys talk about how there will be smaller gap between the pros and the casual gamers.. In reality, the "pros" will always find ways to distinguish themselves from rest of the gamers.
1) This is not 100% relevant to the thread.
2) For me, its not about skill differentiation. Its about the core of an RTS. Many RTSs that were successful for their gameplay (Starcraft, Age of Empires II, even low-macro RTSs like Warcraft III) have emphasized multitasking as an important skill to the game, regardless of what level you're playing at. I am not against MBS or automining in and of themselves. However, the implementation of both of them reduces the importance of multitasking as a skill, because it allows you to focus on the single action of managing your army, and less on the action of managing your base. Sure, they turn a game of physical clicks into a more mental game, but isn't multitasking a mental skill too? That to me, is bad, not only for Starcraft, but for any RTS.
On November 18 2008 15:04 stalife wrote:
As for casual gaming, I'll give an example on iccup. I expect D~C level players to have poor macro and poor decision making. Overall lack of experience too. Surprisingly, many of the D~C level players are great with macro. This makes me work even harder to win. Consequently, I actually enjoyed playing the game! Sure, I love the occasional "toying with newbies", but it gets boring.
ICCup is a competitive ladder. Pretty much by definition anyone playing on ICCup is not a "casual" player in the sense that its been referred to.
|
On November 18 2008 15:09 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2008 15:04 stalife wrote:
I don't have a problem with automining or MBS. You guys talk about how there will be smaller gap between the pros and the casual gamers.. In reality, the "pros" will always find ways to distinguish themselves from rest of the gamers. 1) This is not 100% relevant to the thread. 2) For me, its not about skill differentiation. Its about the core of an RTS. Many RTSs that were successful for their gameplay (Starcraft, Age of Empires II, even low-macro RTSs like Warcraft III) have emphasized multitasking as an important skill to the game, regardless of what level you're playing at. I am not against MBS or automining in and of themselves. However, the implementation of both of them reduces the importance of multitasking as a skill. Sure, they turn a game of physical clicks into a more mental game, but isn't multitasking a mental skill too? That to me, is bad, not only for Starcraft, but for any RTS.
Well put, also if you look at professional Wc3 scene, it's really quite boring. It's really really hard to make a 'mistake' in Wc3. All of the players have nearly identical macro and the game is based entirely on micro. The issue with this though is that there's only so much you can do with the units you're given. A lot of Wc3 games are decided by item luck, creep luck, etc..
You can argue that certain players are always winning events, but that's based almost entirely on game sense and slightly superior micro. The difference between the best pros and 'amateurs' is really really small. It's also hard to compare the Korean SC scene to the Wc3 scene as well. You're best off comparing the Wc3 scene to the Foreign SC scene, which the top players have remained on top in the Foreign SC scene.
|
United States47024 Posts
On November 18 2008 15:17 vsrooks wrote:
Well put, also if you look at professional Wc3 scene, it's really quite boring. It's really really hard to make a 'mistake' in Wc3. All of the players have nearly identical macro and the game is based entirely on micro. The issue with this though is that there's only so much you can do with the units you're given. A lot of Wc3 games are decided by item luck, creep luck, etc..
You can argue that certain players are always winning events, but that's based almost entirely on game sense and slightly superior micro. The difference between the best pros and 'amateurs' is really really small. It's also hard to compare the Korean SC scene to the Wc3 scene as well. You're best off comparing the Wc3 scene to the Foreign SC scene, which the top players have remained on top in the Foreign SC scene.
I agree with you on these points. I was attempting to approach the issue from a different angle thats not progaming specific, which is to say that, regardless of whether or not you think macro actions differentiate skill or not, they do encourage multitasking, which is important in any RTS, regardless of skill level.
|
Just a suggestion but:
in C&C Generals, The GLA (Zerg oriented Faction) gets a upgrade that increases how much they mine off. So for example, a drone mines 8 minerals off everytime. There could be a late-tech upgrade that would allow "drones" to mine 9-10 minerals every turn. Of course, there would be large balancing issues over this, but because 1zealot>1zergling, and you need a few more zerglings just to fight off 1 zealot, it could be plausible. However, in late-game, you usually pull off units like ultralisks, so the 1-2 extra minerals from 100 or so drones could amount off into just a few ultralisks just from the extra minerals. But if Blizzard could come up with a way to balance this, i think it would be a great idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
