Preface: I have been very negative about Starcraft 2 lately. Teamliquid takes on a group think mentality very readily and I believe some of the respect we have (from blizzard and other communities) may be questioned by the constant negative attitude about changes to the core of SC2. So with that in mind I’d like to start focusing more on solutions (and I’d encourage you to do the same (cough Ki_do 0_o).
The biggest complaint TL staffers/members/and top foreign players have from play testing builds at Blizzard events is that macro is too easy in SC2. There is really no simpler way to put it. It’s a really tough situation to deal with because Blizzard HAS to stay current with RTS trends which right now is automated mining. At the same time they want to try and make a the competitive scene happy and capable. From my play tests I noted that the skill “gradient” had become more shallow. So rather than dwelling on it anymore – I have accepted the fact that automine will exist in SC2 and have tried to come up with a solution. This is my purposal.
Macro Issues from a “competitive” perspective.
Macro is too easy in SC2 relative to BW. The major issue is how can Blizzard create a mechanic that is easy out the door but scaleable to high levels of play. If Automine was “functional” at an AI level but had perks for user interaction then there is more of a reason to look at your minerals/gas and would appease this desire for increased management of resources.
The requirements of a solution are: - Needs to be simple at the base level to appease to wide audience. The way I thought of this was the difference between playing BGH and non-money maps with regards to focus on resource management. An ok player will stay 1 base and just get a bunch of peons – a good player will mass expand knowing that it’s the number of patches available that make a key difference. Both are functional, but the later gives an advantage to the better player. - Needs to be highly scaleable to top levels of play. Good players need to be REWARDED for looking back at their mineral lines and adjusting – 1ssss just doesn’t cut it.
Potential Solution TLDR: Keep the existing SC2 mechanics but adjust so that “good” players are benefitted. Add perks to automine.
This seems the best route to take as despite the “investigation” Blizzard is doing into MBS, automine etc it is quite evident that this functions are here to stay. The issue most “good” or “high level thinking” players have is that there is little scalability when everything is automated. With that in mind, if a player is rewarded for macroing traditionally, this can make a big difference in the result of the game and richens the skill gradient. When ordered to move to a mineral patch peon units should move faster (increase in speed based on balance of course, ill just say 30% faster for this example). From a lore standpoint, if the peon is created, he knows his role is to collect resources as a collective group. If he is ordered directly by the commander, then he would have a sense of responsibility. Having served a few years in the military there is a noticeable increase in moral and efficiency, when commanders have 1 on 1 interaction with their troops – a sense of pride and purpose.
Theoretical Example of this in motion: Mirror matchup, opposite sides of map.
Player A – Average Gamer. Relatively low thinking strategically. Plays with friends/pubs.
Player B – Progamer/Amateur/Clan League/Guild/Team/TL/iCCUP. Wants to maximize economy, wants to find every chance to get a “leg up” on his opponent. Interacts and orders his workers giving them short term bonus to speed.
Player A lets his workers do their thing, they spawn, they mine, have a smoke etc etc. Lets call them “Lazy SCVs”.
Player B on the other hand, has direct involvement with his workers. He understands that while the battle is taking place outside of the base, an army is nothing without its logistical base. By interacting with them, he gets better mining rates, they are more motivated to fight work etc for the dominon/swarm/aiur.
This could have interesting effects on the gas mechanic or may make it unnecessary.
Potential issues with this and tweaks to this idea.
- An SCV “ordered” at the beginning of the match shouldn’t be as effective 20 minutes later. Infact its probably good to have his speed/efficiency drop of as time passes back to the base level (balance depending). - I suppose it could be confusing trying to find which workers were lazy and which were motivated in a saturated mineral line. Perhaps their could be a color or effect change…maybe probes glow brighter or drones pulsate or something when motivated.
Why I think this works
- It keeps in line with the direction blizzard wants to take with SC2. Have a game that is a little more focused on armies rather than econ and is totally open to a general gamer who doesn’t want to spend weeks and months grinding out muscle memory to macro. - It gives players who DO want to do that a much richer gradient to play with. Infact I would argue that this could create more of an effect on resource management than BW depending on the effect of “motivation” and how it would be implemented. - It solves the issue of automing – Yes it is automated and “functional” but there is a bonus for those who want to take a step further
-------
I'd like to hear feedback on this issue. If you don't agree with it, i would like a detailed explanation why - "gimicky" is NOT acceptable. I would like a deep discussion and because i can abuse mod powers ill just delete a crap 1 line post LOL.
Thoughts, comments, concerns, nintendo tips?
----
Problems Chill brought up
1) When you are late game and have 100 scvs you are going to be mining soooo much more with a speed bonus .
Potential Solution - Speed bonus should be relative to the number of scvs you have. At 10 scvs speed bonus is say 20% but at 50 probes its only 4% etc
2) "i come back to my base select all my workers and give them the speed bonus"
Potential Solution - The bonus per scv should be calculated Bonus/Selection. So if the bonus is 5% and you select 40 probes and tell them to mine. Each one gets a bonus of 1.25% because you are a lazy donkey.
Chill[7-0]> kennigit <Chill[7-0]> my point is <Chill[7-0]> if i fucking sit there <Chill[7-0]> and tell my scv to move again <Chill[7-0]> after he returns every piece of minerals <Chill[7-0]> my economy will be fucking incredible <Chill[7-0]> because he wont suffer any speed degredation <Chill[7-0]> meaning the game turns into <Kennigit> well then it should be boolean status <Chill[7-0]> "tell your workers to mine craft" <Kennigit> either he is <Kennigit> under the speed bonus <Kennigit> or he is not <Chill[7-0]> this solution is boolean status <Kennigit> sorry <Kennigit> if you think about real life <Kennigit> if your boss came up <Kennigit> and was like <Kennigit> gogogogogogogogogogogogogogoogogogogogo gogogogogogogogogogogogogogoogogogogog <Kennigit> you'd be like fuck off boss <Kennigit> so the boolean status is it cant be set to true until its set to false like it doesn't reset to optimum value <Kennigit> you have to wait <Kennigit> until hes out of that status
How long will that speed decrease last? If it lasts any more than until it starts collecting minerals, it'd be tough to tell which workers have this speed boost and which don't. Instead, perhaps have automine rallied workers wait X seconds before moving from its spawn point, and it doesn't gain the mining no-collision until it collects minerals so it'll bump into mining workers and other units on the way to the minerals for its first time. Both are bypassed if you select the worker and manually order it to mine.
I like the idea as a not completely forced way of adding macro to the game.
The main problem that I did see with this was that when you have 40-50 workers it would be a huge pain to select them all and tell them all to mine individually. Then I realized I already do this with cloning to split to different patches while maynarding...
Considering how fast progamers can clone these days this mechanic actually makes a lot of sense. The best players will be able to re-split their workers within mere seconds per patch(esp with infinite unit selection), where as better players will do every worker but lose more time and more casual players will either take forever or just mass select.
On November 18 2008 01:37 Zelc wrote: How long will that speed decrease last? If it lasts any more than until it starts collecting minerals, it'd be tough to tell which workers have this speed boost and which don't.
This is why i suggested a clear visual identifier to peons that are under this speed bonus. I dont know how long the bonus would last - balance dependant. Basically it allows you to get minerals slightly faster because you are focusing on it/putting in effort.
I think it could actually work out pretty well, I agree with you on most aspects. The progamers won't care at all I suppose, they play the game in order to become the best and if manually sending your workers to a mineral patch means becoming the best, then they will do it.
One thing that came up in my mind is, why not make it optional? It should be ON as default but in bigger leagues like WGT, iCCup and BWCL they could add it to their rules that you have to play with automining off? Koreans leagues would most certainly put it as OFF, or would they?
It would for sure make the game more noob friendly, but those who want to play it at a serious and competitive level could do so. It would draw more players if it was more "easy" to play.
On November 18 2008 01:37 Zelc wrote: How long will that speed decrease last? If it lasts any more than until it starts collecting minerals, it'd be tough to tell which workers have this speed boost and which don't. Instead, perhaps have automine rallied workers wait X seconds before moving from its spawn point, and it doesn't gain the mining no-collision until it collects minerals so it'll bump into mining workers and other units on the way to the minerals for its first time. Both are bypassed if you select the worker and manually order it to mine.
Pretty neat idea, but it wouldn't serve its purpose in mid game when both players are batteling it out but in early game it's a great idea actualy. This is a really hard question; remove automining and MBS! :D
On November 18 2008 01:44 _Grazze_ wrote: Automining:
I think it could actually work out pretty well, I agree with you on most aspects. The progamers won't care at all I suppose, they play the game in order to become the best and if manually sending your workers to a mineral patch means becoming the best, then they will do it.
One thing that came up in my mind is, why not make it optional? It should be ON as default but in bigger leagues like WGT, iCCup and BWCL they could add it to their rules that you have to play with automining off? Koreans leagues would most certainly put it as OFF, or would they?
It would for sure make the game more noob friendly, but those who want to play it at a serious and competitive level could do so. It would draw more players if it was more "easy" to play.
My thoughts ~~
Yeah i think Blizzard is opposed to "splitting" the community into "the pro/hardcore people" and "the noobs". This idea allows for both to co-exist but there is a clear distinction between who is who.
Good post and I like the approach but doesn't this only affect early game since it won't be worth it to have your workers not autorallied and then be right there when they come out to send them to the mins?
Definitely not worth your time in most cases imo
As far as early game, I don't think this is that hard and so basically this only give an advantage to everyone but the most laziest of players and thus doesn't really accomplish much.
I definitely think this genre of a solution could work though, good thinking!
On November 18 2008 02:15 inReacH wrote: Good post and I like the approach but doesn't this only affect early game since it won't be worth it to have your workers not autorallied and then be right there when they come out to send them to the mins?
Definitely not worth your time in most cases imo
As far as early game, I don't think this is that hard and so basically this only give an advantage to everyone but the most laziest of players and thus doesn't really accomplish much.
I definitely think this genre of a solution could work though, good thinking!
This solution becomes even more viable late game because you have more peons that can receive the bonus. 50 peons with an x% speed bonus....well i guess would depend on how its implemented. If it becomes less effective with more peons then it would have similar effects late game to early game.
What may (or may not) be an problem, but is at least worth considering is it could change the balence in favour of macro, as opposed to the micro-favouring direction is currently is in. Having it so there is ALWAYS a bonus could encourage spending TOO MUCH time at the base, especially as you will not be able to order ALL your workers at once, this will mean there is ALWAYS A BONUS to be accrued from staying in the base, so rather than it being a plate that needs to be kept spinning while the excitement continues, it ends up being something that requires constant attention. Now, this could be a good thing, but i would personally rather see games won through exciting contol or pant-wettingly large armies, rather than through a slight economic advantage that added up.
Perhaps a better way of phrasing it would be to say that it could end up being a punishment rather than a reward, if "speedy workers" become expected, the player "loses out" from neglecting his SCVs, rather than being rewarded for having that lil' bit extra APM that he can use to boost workers.
I'd put in a vote for "workers wait for a bit when rallied but move instantly when ordered".
As an argument for, id also say that its easier for fans to get into, as waiting around for a bit is easier to understand than "a tempory boolean speedboost accrued for a limited time, and requiring individual attention for maximum efficiency". There is something to be said for simplicity in the engine.
On November 18 2008 01:21 Kennigit wrote: 2) "i come back to my base select all my workers and give them the speed bonus"
This wouldn't be as much of a problem if unit selection were still limited to 12 units (or even if Blizzard just chose to increase the number, just not unlimited). Its going to take several tries to get all of you're workers this way if you're blindly drag-selecting, to the point that it may be more effective anyway to do it as the workers pop instead of all at once.
One question: is it a move speed bonus or a mining time reduction? Because if its a move speed bonus, I think this mechanic could also be quite cool for microing your scouting worker.
On November 18 2008 01:21 Kennigit wrote: 2) "i come back to my base select all my workers and give them the speed bonus"
One question: is it a move speed bonus or a mining time reduction? Because if its a move speed bonus, I think this mechanic could also be quite cool for microing your scouting worker.
I hadn't thought about that part - i suppose it could be implemented either way. A bunker rush with speedy scvs or something...yeah this could get really imbalanced really fast hahaha. Should probably have it that they mine faster.
I think the affect should only be capable on newly produced workers. After they pop out but before they have been given any orders they have a buff that allows them to be "motivated" which then increases either how fast they mine or how many minerals/gas they carry with each trip. If you choose to rally to a mineral patch you would have to click the worker onto the patch before he started mining himself. Also i would consider making the mining bonus only work on minerals not gas as it may affect the timing of certain tech too dramatically.
I think this is a horrible suggestion, but I can't think of any rational arguments why it is bad. It just feels like artificially trying to make automine go away. It seems like a stim ability for workers. It would make for an interesting thing to add if they lost some hitpoints when doing this. Good players wouldnt mind because workers would be more harassable. Bad players would hate it because it makes the workers weak and they die too fast.
From the announcement of SC2, and the initial worries about the game, I've said that I think MBS could be ok, and that automine could be ok, but that the two together are way too much. However, I've always thought that MBS would stay, and that automine would be removed. Automine itself seems a touch gimmicky to me, with Zerg having two rally points just to make it work, and all and all the difference for the average players between automine and non-automining is much smaller than the difference between MBS and non-MBS. However, if we were to assume that it is here to stay, we have to look at alternatives to just pure automining.
I first dismissed this idea as gimmicky (sorry Kennigit ), and it still feels a bit gimmicky to me. Less gimmicky than the gas mechanic, but gimmicky nonetheless. One of the things that made SC amazing was that there were no "added" bonuses to make strategic things advantageous. Flanking worked for strategic reasons, not because the game gave your dragoons +25% damage when flanking or something. I would like to see SC2 work in the same way, where advantages develop naturally, and are not forced.
However, the idea does have some potential, mostly because it introduces the idea that miners can be affected negatively until they are controlled. Perhaps have the idea of having collisions on until the unit is selected is a good idea, or perhaps units can keep on mining from the rallied patch until they are manually changed. I'll have to think about it, but I think there is potential in this line of thought.
I also think that thinking of solutions instead of thinking about problems is the way to go. We all know what the problems are, we've all discussed it a thousand times. If we can all brainstorm together, we might give a few good ideas to Blizzard.
I'd like to hear feedback on this issue. If you don't agree with it, i would like a detailed explanation why - "gimicky" does is NOT acceptable. I would like a deep discussion and because i can abuse mod powers ill just delete a crap 1 line post LOL.
On November 18 2008 02:58 onepost wrote: It's a non-solution to a non-problem. Please everyone quit forecasting that the sky will fall and hordes of n00bz will swarm us over should workers no longer need to be told the obvious. Thank you.
You're adding artificial actions into the game, just like the gas mechanic. I don't think we don't need a move that's good in all situations which will lead to mindless spam.
My solution: Let's say SCVs can have stimpack upgrade. When stimpacked SCVs move and gather faster.
Pros Additional micro. Give a temporary boost in economic for timing build.
Cons You can't spam this because SCV only have 60hp For full benefits you must investment in medivac proportion to the number of scv. The enemies can take avantages of low hp scv in a drop.
That's just an example. The idea is you must spend some other "resources" to trade off for you boosted economy. This game is a strategy game afterall, so imo it should emphasize strategic decisions.
i have to agree this solution is horrible... either u have automine or you don't... why accept the fact that SC2 will have automine and yet don't accept it by coming up with absurd mechanics to negate automining for professional play? Its essentially the same as making a "nub" mode when you create a game and have automine and mbs and all that stuff and making a "competetive" mode where you don't which would be used in leagues and stuff. Either you are against automining or you are for it, this "solution" is some weird way of saying "Im against automining, but I know blizz will implement it anyway, so lets try and find a way to make it obsolete!". I recently played C&C red alert 3 and if Blizz wants to put up with the "standard" noobifications of "modern" rts games, they would have to add a "select all attacking units" hotkey and tabs where you can build your army from, regardless of buildings.. A games quality is not determined by some casual gamers who think of whats "standard" interface or not, but by its longevity and player base. As harsh as it may sound, but after a couple of years Blizz will learn the hard way what people really think of SC2 in terms of quality. Why be against a quality game? If seasoned gamers agree that things like automining make the quality worse, why find some absurd arguments for it? Its bad, it has to go, period.
Kennigit I have come up with a way to solve the problems chill brings up.
See, if you can always go back and tell your workers to move faster, you'll never have time for micro and there will be more macro than in BW.
So what you should do is have it so that each worker has one potential speed boost that, once used, can not be used again.
This makes it so that when your workers come out of the nexus, you can still add the speed boost, but you only have to do it once per worker, instead of constantly going back and selecting each of your 50 workers.
This creates a number of other game possibilities, such as the strategy that if you wanted to have a timing push it might be more efficient to save the speed boost for a certain time in the game in which you speed up all your workers at once (don't know, maybe it would be better to just get it going earlier so you get those workers faster).
Another possibility this creates is if they implemented some way in the game to "recharge" your workers. One possible way to do this would be to have this ability cost energy. Another possibility would be to have some kind of other unit's ability or building (like the shield battery) be able to recharge the workers' speed upgrade.
What do you think?
P.S. Another cool trick pros would use this for is things like boxer's scv rush, and drone drilling. When using workers offensively and planning that you are going to do this, a player could save up the workers' speed ability and then use it in a rush. I think this would create some totally baller all-in situations.
P.P.S. One other option you might want to consider is having it as an upgrade, so that you can't use the ability to speed them up until you research that ability. This would open the door for some creative build orders to tech fast to speedy worker ability.
On November 18 2008 02:49 Kennigit wrote: I hadn't thought about that part - i suppose it could be implemented either way. A bunker rush with speedy scvs or something...yeah this could get really imbalanced really fast hahaha. Should probably have it that they mine faster.
It reminds me vaguely of the militia ability of Peasants in Warcraft III, where you would always militial your scouting worker since it increased their move speed.
No one is against a quality game. The fact is that SC2 is in internal alpha and will have a beta into the new year. Automine and MBS are here to stay - rather than complaining about it im trying to come up with solutions. We've been saying it has to go for 2 years and nothing has really changed so the only solution is to adapt to it.
On November 18 2008 03:19 -orb- wrote: Kennigit I have come up with a way to solve the problems chill brings up.
See, if you can always go back and tell your workers to move faster, you'll never have time for micro and there will be more macro than in BW.
So what you should do is have it so that each worker has one potential speed boost that, once used, can not be used again.
This makes it so that when your workers come out of the nexus, you can still add the speed boost, but you only have to do it once per worker, instead of constantly going back and selecting each of your 50 workers.
This creates a number of other game possibilities, such as the strategy that if you wanted to have a timing push it might be more efficient to save the speed boost for a certain time in the game in which you speed up all your workers at once (don't know, maybe it would be better to just get it going earlier so you get those workers faster).
Another possibility this creates is if they implemented some way in the game to "recharge" your workers. One possible way to do this would be to have this ability cost energy. Another possibility would be to have some kind of other unit's ability or building (like the shield battery) be able to recharge the workers' speed upgrade.
What do you think?
P.S. Another cool trick pros would use this for is things like boxer's scv rush, and drone drilling. When using workers offensively and planning that you are going to do this, a player could save up the workers' speed ability and then use it in a rush. I think this would create some totally baller all-in situations.
P.P.S. One other option you might want to consider is having it as an upgrade, so that you can't use the ability to speed them up until you research that ability. This would open the door for some creative build orders to tech fast to speedy worker ability.
I think this is great thinking. Yeah i know my original idea is by no means perfect (or even necessarily right) but hopefully it opens avenues to ideas like this and the stimpack idea. I'd imagine this ability be rechargeable. Also if you see your posts deleted its cause your an idiot.
On November 18 2008 03:20 Kennigit wrote: No one is against a quality game. The fact is that SC2 is in internal alpha and will have a beta into the new year. Automine and MBS are here to stay - rather than complaining about it im trying to come up with solutions. We've been saying it has to go for 2 years and nothing has really changed so the only solution is to adapt to it.
no its not. This is pure opportunism. Its like being against a retarded law the government wants to install and after a cpl years, say "ok w/e we cant do anything against it, lets live with it!". Look at prohibition for example, it was a retarded law and basically nobody followed the law. The customers (the people in my example) have the power, not the institution. There are still other solutions - a mod for the game without automining and mbs, which all the major leagues agree to play. Not buying the game. Forming a coalision of SC websites all making a head article on their front page when beta hits, reading "Don't buy SC2 if you expect a game coming close to SC:BW, it sux from a competetive standpoint!". Basically anything that doesn't involve buckling down to blizz just because they see some retarded premises to make big $$, which dont even exist in reality.
I dont know if anyones mentioned this earlier, but you could just have the bonus apply to NEW scvs only once... It doesnt have to be speed bonus, it could just be the first mineral it returns be double, or bonus and only once. This could add up throughout the game after you've gotten 50 + scvs. I know double minerals would have way more of an impact in the beginning (say you start off with 4 scvs ((bw)) and you tell them to mine you get 64 minerals). But everyone would have to command their first initial game start scvs to mine anyway, so no one would be hurt.
You could also give the bonus a duration time, like 30 secs. So you cant just go back and drag select all scvs and tell them to mine, trying to get the scvs you missed because you were busy microing.
Another way you could do it to make it similar to the way the gas mechanic works is to have workers get a debuff after a certain amount of minerals mined. That debuff might represent their tools/fangs/beams getting less sharp and would make them mine slower. The debuff would be visible and you would have to select the workers and turn it off by clicking some button. You could change the % slower mining rate and the time it takes for it to switch on to balance it :e
On November 18 2008 03:19 -orb- wrote: Kennigit I have come up with a way to solve the problems chill brings up.
See, if you can always go back and tell your workers to move faster, you'll never have time for micro and there will be more macro than in BW.
So what you should do is have it so that each worker has one potential speed boost that, once used, can not be used again.
This makes it so that when your workers come out of the nexus, you can still add the speed boost, but you only have to do it once per worker, instead of constantly going back and selecting each of your 50 workers.
This creates a number of other game possibilities, such as the strategy that if you wanted to have a timing push it might be more efficient to save the speed boost for a certain time in the game in which you speed up all your workers at once (don't know, maybe it would be better to just get it going earlier so you get those workers faster).
Another possibility this creates is if they implemented some way in the game to "recharge" your workers. One possible way to do this would be to have this ability cost energy. Another possibility would be to have some kind of other unit's ability or building (like the shield battery) be able to recharge the workers' speed upgrade.
What do you think?
P.S. Another cool trick pros would use this for is things like boxer's scv rush, and drone drilling. When using workers offensively and planning that you are going to do this, a player could save up the workers' speed ability and then use it in a rush. I think this would create some totally baller all-in situations.
P.P.S. One other option you might want to consider is having it as an upgrade, so that you can't use the ability to speed them up until you research that ability. This would open the door for some creative build orders to tech fast to speedy worker ability.
I think this is great thinking. Yeah i know my original idea is by no means perfect (or even necessarily right) but hopefully it opens avenues to ideas like this and the stimpack idea. I'd imagine this ability be rechargeable. Also if you see your posts deleted its cause your an idiot.
This idea still feels a little forced to me, and I'm not a big fan of any of the specific proposals yet but this is a good line of thought to go down - there is something here.
The thought I am having now is how about, instead of a speed boost, you make those selected SCVs able to carry more minerals per trip. So instead of having 5 minerals, maybe they bring back 12 but still collect at the same rate (or only slightly increased - the idea is improve efficiency). It would be a one use, limited time ability. Perhaps you could have the option to even use the ability expire at some point, say after 3 more workers are made from that CC. This would ensure that there are great benefits to looking back at a base and macroing in a style more like traditional BW.
The problem I have, is that this is almost adding complexity for complexity's sake. Ideally you could have a mechanic that not only requires macro to be used well, but also adds depth to the game as a whole (the speedboost idea is good here; it potentially opens up new gameplans of when to use it for things like bunker rush or timing push).
I think "do this if you want to be competitive"-type solutions should be avoided, they will piss a large part of the userbase off AND they feel sort of silly to implement after we've already gotten automining...
It's like having your cake and then pouring a kg of salt on top of it before you try to eat it.
A good mechanic would need to be something that allows for more customization/fine tuning of your economy. Maybenexttime has posted a suggestion for a gas mechanic where the gas operates in various stages of effeciency, which you can toggle between. I don't have a link right now but that type of solution is much more attractive to me.
If one mode of use turned out to be wholly superior to all the others it could end up sort of useless, but that's fairly easy to patch..
A problem with the speed boost mechanics, apart from them being "use these unless you want to lose", is that yeah, they make sense for the SCV. What about the probe? The drone? It becomes a very contrived solution.
On November 18 2008 04:09 FrozenArbiter wrote: A good mechanic would need to be something that allows for more customization/fine tuning of your economy. Maybenexttime has posted a suggestion for a gas mechanic where the gas operates in various stages of effeciency, which you can toggle between. I don't have a link right now but that type of solution is much more attractive to me.
The problem with this type of solution is that it tends to be a "fire and forget" one-time action, rather than something you're constantly needing to attend to. If you don't have to look back to your base regularly, its not creating macro ACTIONS.
I think this is a great idea, but here's my tweak:
Instead of the workers losing their mining speed bonus over time, they would keep it through entire game, and it would be a small bonus; therefore it would require you have to a lot of uber-peons to make a substantial difference. The uber-peon status would be decided by the very first command to mine: was it given by the player or by the rally point?
This mechanic would encourage players to try to play perfect, like BW does, but also doesn't totally derail your economy if you can't continue to make them through the mid and late game. Most importantly, it gives the superior player a worthwhile advantage.
Also, this mechanic poses interesting strategical questions:
•How many uber-peons do I continue to try to make throughout the game? •Do I send my uber-peons to mine the gold minerals even though it's a hotly contested portion of the map? •Do I use my uber-peons to mine a hidden, naked expansion that is very vulnerable if discovered? •Do I take the time to find and load my uber-peons into a dropship for the island expand? •I just lost a bunch of uber-peons, do I take the time to make more (primarily a mid to late game question)?
Could be cool to see the workers you´ve rallied manually with a kind of boost effect on em, so if u see them without the effect, you just rally them again. Though, it would be cool to see it last like just a while, not the whole game, so you would be forced if u want, to go and autoselect em again to get them back up to boost mode.
On November 18 2008 04:09 FrozenArbiter wrote: A good mechanic would need to be something that allows for more customization/fine tuning of your economy. Maybenexttime has posted a suggestion for a gas mechanic where the gas operates in various stages of effeciency, which you can toggle between. I don't have a link right now but that type of solution is much more attractive to me.
The problem with this type of solution is that it tends to be a "fire and forget" one-time action, rather than something you're constantly needing to attend to. If you don't have to look back to your base regularly, its not creating macro ACTIONS.
The main point is that that [the gas mechanic variation] type of solution has a purpose beyond "make the player click more".
This type of "speed boost if manually ordered" has been brought up before, I'm almost certain, and it's just not gonna fly with most people. There really is no point in including automine if to be competitive you HAVE TO ignore it. People are gonna hate it. I hate it.
Can you see Tasteless explaining this type of mechanic while casting? It's not a result of skilled players clicking faster and getting an advantage because they are able to do something more effeciently - it's a mechanic designed purely to make you click. It's just way, waaay too artifical for my liking.
There has to be strategy involved, there has to be a trade-off somewhere. This is more of a "click this button or you lose" type deal, which really belongs more in an arcade game.
I think this idea has huge potential--much more than the gas mechanic Blizzard has now.
I think this "bonus" should be one time deal. I don't think going back over and over again to mass move your drones off the minerals just to command them to mine again would add to the game.
To lessen the concerns brought up by Chill, I think it should not so much be a speed "bonus" to ordered units, but rather a speed decrease to those who were only sent to the minerals by rally point. This would mean that really great players would not set their rally on the minerals, but would do what is done in BW.
The speed decrease should last a max of about 3 minutes and only happen once. No multiple boosting of workers.
Also, I think this speed decrease should apply to all units on rally point command. Right now, as part of automine, soldiers leave their training facility on attack move orders. So you can just rally into their base and forget about them. But if soldiers movement and attack speed had a slight deficit when moving on "rally orders" then you would want to order them yourselves.
So what you should do is have it so that each worker has one potential speed boost that, once used, can not be used again.
this would make it alot more attractive. But like FA said, this makes sense for the SCV, but not the Probe or the Drone. One is a robot and the other is a Drone, a slave compelled to work by a hive mind, motivation doesn't enter into it.
Good job though on trying to move from complaining to constructive critisism, I approve of this message. So maybe I should contribute something to keep the discussion going... (none of these ideas will be great)
First thing that comes to mind is a simple delay. Automining sends the worker to mine, but it takes a few seconds. Might be a good idea to have some kind of deploy animation for this, it would be frustrating to just have it appear and then sit idly for a few seconds before getting it's ass in gear.
Something about ordering your worker to mine a free mineral in early game (automine sending it to the rallied one), but then again they autosplit too well with the new AI.
Perhaps a gas mechanic that harm the workers. Gas is acidious or something, takes like 5% hp every run, so in order to not have them die you would need to circulate them, basically letting them "cool off" mining minerals (5% +hp every five seconds or something) before they can go back into the refinery. Or if not a damage, perhaps a slow effect (like stacking devourer acid only with movement speed) that is negated by mining minerals.
Way back when the Nomad was announced, I thought it was something like a super SCV, required in order to build Thors or something, and I also thought they should have some kind of mining attribute. Being able to mine with something other than just your workers might be an idea, like ghouls chopping trees in WC3. Of course, while its easy to imagine zerglings mining, the same can't really be said about, for example, Terran units, but then again it doesn't have to be the same mechanic for each race. Zerg can use their melee units to help mine, Terran could get some kind of super SCV, Protoss could have some kind of warp-mine mechanic, I dunno.
I always thought it was kind of contrived that in Starcraft, as opposed to C&C which I played before SC, the minerals were all nicely lined up so that one could squeeze a command center up close and get great mining mileage. Perhaps spreading these out or making them "grow" randomly like the ore in C&C could create some micro opportunities, like keeping off a certain patch for a while to allow it to regrow. Would require getting rid of the minimum distance to minerals for the hatchery/nexus/cc.
Perhaps an optional "scaffolding" or something, helping the workers get to the "good part" of the minerals and getting an increased mining rate?
Drones merging and scvs and probes going all Voltron in order to become better workers, 2scvs = 2.2x mining rate, better mining, hurts more to lose.
Spacegnomes, with jetpacks and +5 mining gloves. Yeah I'm out.
Kennigit, do you mind if I post this on the Battle.net forums if I source you and TL? I would like to give Blizz the best opportunity possible to at least read the recommendation.
At the very least it can get their creative juices flowing in mechanics of this nature.
On November 18 2008 04:44 Savio wrote: I think this idea has huge potential--much more than the gas mechanic Blizzard has now.
I think this "bonus" should be one time deal. I don't think going back over and over again to mass move your drones off the minerals just to command them to mine again would add to the game.
To lessen the concerns brought up by Chill, I think it should not so much be a speed "bonus" to ordered units, but rather a speed decrease to those who were only sent to the minerals by rally point. This would mean that really great players would not set their rally on the minerals, but would do what is done in BW.
The speed decrease should last a max of about 3 minutes and only happen once. No multiple boosting of workers.
Also, I think this speed decrease should apply to all units on rally point command. Right now, as part of automine, soldiers leave their training facility on attack move orders. So you can just rally into their base and forget about them. But if soldiers movement and slight power deficit when moving on "rally orders" then you would want to order them yourselves.
Yes, great, punish the beginners without them even knowing it.
How do you even begin to explain this in the tutorials or the campaign? "Yeah, so hey - if you rally your workers to the minerals they uh.. get a bad case of the mondays. Yeah. Your best bet is to rally them sort of to the side of the mineral, then blindside them and force them right to work before they can protest".
-.-
Also, rally point being attack move instead of move needs to change. Badly. Having a unit run off course because it's chasing a zergling it saw on the fringe of its vision instead of going where I told it to go = bad.
On November 18 2008 04:44 Savio wrote: I think this idea has huge potential--much more than the gas mechanic Blizzard has now.
I think this "bonus" should be one time deal. I don't think going back over and over again to mass move your drones off the minerals just to command them to mine again would add to the game.
To lessen the concerns brought up by Chill, I think it should not so much be a speed "bonus" to ordered units, but rather a speed decrease to those who were only sent to the minerals by rally point. This would mean that really great players would not set their rally on the minerals, but would do what is done in BW.
The speed decrease should last a max of about 3 minutes and only happen once. No multiple boosting of workers.
Also, I think this speed decrease should apply to all units on rally point command. Right now, as part of automine, soldiers leave their training facility on attack move orders. So you can just rally into their base and forget about them. But if soldiers movement and slight power deficit when moving on "rally orders" then you would want to order them yourselves.
Yes, great, punish the beginners without them even knowing it.
How do you even begin to explain this in the tutorials or the campaign? "Yeah, so hey - if you rally your workers to the minerals they uh.. get a bad case of the mondays. Yeah. Your best bet is to rally them sort of to the side of the mineral, then blindside them and force them right to work before they get a chance to protest".
-.-
Also, rally point being attack move instead of move needs to change. Badly. Having a unit run off course because it's chasing a zergling it saw on the fringe of its vision instead of going where I told it to go = bad.
This would be very easy to explain in the tutorial.
"Rally points are orders given to newly trained units to proceed to a given location. They are useful tools included for your convenience. However, be aware that a unit acting under one of these pre-set rally orders will have a small and temporary speed deficit compared to those under the direct orders of the commander"
Then you let them use it for themselves. New kids will not even notice it. It becomes more noticeable at the pro levels. Also remember that how much the deficit is, and its duration is just a balancing matter. It can be made VERY slight or significant according to what makes the game better in beta. Pros, at their level will always choose no not rely on rally points no matter how slight the advantage is.
On November 18 2008 05:03 FrozenArbiter wrote: But it makes no sense..
The issue isn't whether it makes sense or not but whether it improves the game. If it introduces a scalable increase in macro ability at higher levels without putting cumbersome necessities on 2 new players playing, then it is a good mechanic.
Very few things in Starcraft "make sense". But its a great game.
Also, the current gas mechanic doens't make a lot of sense.
I usually evaluate these suggestions by the question: "Does this let me play SMARTER or does it force me to play FASTER?" As professional play showed, effort invested is NOT a tradeoff. There will always be someone who can "outclick" the game.
Blizzards gas mechanic aproach is a attempt at capitalizing on the dual resources system in SC. That would reward players that can "juggle" their income to their specific unit/tech needs (shifting all the time).
There is hardly any strategy in this kind of macro and it hardly gives changing challenges to the players based on the game situation.
To compare, what I consider "good macro" is transition between unit mixes midgame when players need to adjust their income, techdirection, production cycles, micro styles...
"yeah these 9 feet tall monsters can shoot acid 30,000 feet in the air to hit battlecruisers but can only shoot 50 feet on the ground"...making sense is not relevant...the current gas mechanic states than somehow everyone lost the ability to have stable gas income.
Too much calculation and math and precentages involved!!!
A solution must be simple and effective, your is none of that.
Keeping up with glowing workers, precentage points, workers numbers is all too complex, at some point where you have 3 bases and 50 workers its virtually impossible to make out cats from dogs and vice versa.
I'll get back to this thread though with some good idea on how to increase macro.
On November 18 2008 05:03 FrozenArbiter wrote: But it makes no sense..
Yes, FA it makes perfect sense.
Imagine you're in the army, and you're an engineer. You're trying to mine oil, and you do this day in and day out. It's your job and as it gets boring, you obviously don't work at the max efficiency you could if it was your passion rather than your job.
However, if the highest general of the entire army comes and talks to you specifically and tells you to mine as best you can, you would absolutely work faster.
Also, as my idea posted earlier, it could be an upgraded ability, like a special afterburner or speed booster put on that you use as you would use a spell. It could be a one-time deal (explanation you no longer have the afterburner fuel), or it could take energy (the afterburner overheats and needs to cool down) or it could be 1-time and be able to be recharged (refill the fuel for example).
Besides this, it should make sense for gameplay, not for storylining.
The fluff, or story, or explanation behind mechanics shouldn't matter, it's the mechanic itself.
How the fuck do mutalisks stack? How can they turn 180 degrees instantaneously? It doesn't have an explanation because it doesn't need one, it just works as a game.
On November 18 2008 05:16 SlickR12345 wrote: Too much calculation and math and precentages involved!!!
A solution must be simple and effective, your is none of that.
Keeping up with glowing workers, precentage points, workers numbers is all too complex, at some point where you have 3 bases and 50 workers its virtually impossible to make out cats from dogs and vice versa.
I'll get back to this thread though with some good idea on how to increase macro.
On November 18 2008 05:03 FrozenArbiter wrote: But it makes no sense..
Yes, FA it makes perfect sense.
Imagine you're in the army, and you're an engineer. You're trying to mine oil, and you do this day in and day out. It's your job and as it gets boring, you obviously don't work at the max efficiency you could if it was your passion rather than your job.
However, if the highest general of the entire army comes and talks to you specifically and tells you to mine as best you can, you would absolutely work faster.
Also, as my idea posted earlier, it could be an upgraded ability, like a special afterburner or speed booster put on that you use as you would use a spell. It could be a one-time deal (explanation you no longer have the afterburner fuel), or it could take energy (the afterburner overheats and needs to cool down) or it could be 1-time and be able to be recharged (refill the fuel for example).
Besides this, it should make sense for gameplay, not for storylining.
The fluff, or story, or explanation behind mechanics shouldn't matter, it's the mechanic itself.
How the fuck do mutalisks stack? How can they turn 180 degrees instantaneously? It doesn't have an explanation because it doesn't need one, it just works as a game.
It's not a movie, it's a video game.
And why would a robot (the probe) care? Why would a mindless Drone care?
Besides, it doesn't make sense from a gameplay perspective either! You are implementing a mechanic whose sole purpose is to force you to click. It's like hauling building material up a hill without actually intending to build anything, it's so pointless!
The solution has to be elegant, shouldn't penalize players who don't use it (ie Savio suggested that units you sent to mine via rally points would move slower <- which is what "it makes no sense" was a replay to) anymore than it needs to, and most of all it should serve a purpose other than forcing you to click, because then you might as well just not include automine in the first place.
On November 18 2008 05:16 SlickR12345 wrote: Too much calculation and math and precentages involved!!!
A solution must be simple and effective, your is none of that.
Keeping up with glowing workers, precentage points, workers numbers is all too complex, at some point where you have 3 bases and 50 workers its virtually impossible to make out cats from dogs and vice versa.
I'll get back to this thread though with some good idea on how to increase macro.
No complex math is needed by the player.
I mean, does anyone actually know the formula that explains the optimal number of scvs mining? No. You just visually know what the saturation point looks like. Very good players might know the precise number of scvs needed to support their unit production, but that was gained through trial and error I'm sure.
(Unit damage calculation should be simple though, but that is for another topic.)
It's not forcing you to click at all. The argument is that with SBS, the game becomes inaccessible to new players because they will be frustrated with high skill requirements. This solution allows for automine to exist while creating areas for skill growth through resource management.
I think this could be workable. Obviously I think the biggest solution is to have the speed bonus only apply for 30 seconds/1 minute, and only to NEW workers. SCV spawns, you have a 5 second window to motivate him. After that he's a normal SCV and you've wasted time he could have been automining, hence the downside to taking the risk of not queueing your workers to mine.
People have suggested that things like MBS and automine be options that you can turn on or off so pros can play without it. People think that would be the best of both worlds. But it is not realistic. When given the option, it doesn't make sense to toggle something useful off.
But the beauty of this mechanic is that it effectively turns off automine at the pro level not by an artificial "toggle on/off switch" but by creating an incentive program such that every progamer would CHOOSE not to use automine.
Newer players would not be affected by it because it is such a minor boost to them and much more important for them is to figure out how to use psi storm and other huge factors. Only at the pro level where tiny increments of advantage matter will this mechanic be important.
Is known that when a vespene gas goes offline its workers will stop making anything, what will require you to move them to minerals... but 3 (or 6) scvs arent rly any close to SC1 Macro.
The good Thing:
5 and not 3 is the optimal number of vespene geisers workers capacity, so you have now, more impact on economy if ur vespene goes offline.
The Good thing - II :
Gas colector workers that are carrying gas barrels(?) and are set to mine will add the gas ammount it have to the mineral amount its mining ,IF and only IF the mineral patches are blue, so
SCV with 4 gas -> set him to mine -> he takes 6 min per mining -> then 6+4 = 10 ( he will take 10 minerals home 0 gas)
The good thing - III:
If the mineral patches are the golden ones, it will be like:
SCV with 4 gas -> set him to mine -> he takes 6 min per mining -> then 6 - 4 =2 (he will takke 2 mins home, 0 gas)
You have to take the scvs to command center , get the gas they carry , and then reorder them to minerals.
Good thing IV
2 vespene geisers at the same time is like 10 scvs to gas, -10 to min
for zerg its like -> 3 expoes - 30 drones-> it will require more drone management what will fuck them cause they dont have a great amount of workers compared to T or P
for terran and protoss -> a lot of work, cause it will require a lot of worker management (lol?/are u jokin with me n00b?)
I TRIED.
But the Noob mode or Pro mode when creating a game are the best options
On November 18 2008 04:09 FrozenArbiter wrote: A good mechanic would need to be something that allows for more customization/fine tuning of your economy. Maybenexttime has posted a suggestion for a gas mechanic where the gas operates in various stages of effeciency, which you can toggle between. I don't have a link right now but that type of solution is much more attractive to me.
The problem with this type of solution is that it tends to be a "fire and forget" one-time action, rather than something you're constantly needing to attend to. If you don't have to look back to your base regularly, its not creating macro ACTIONS.
Well, the idea behind that mechanic was not to solve the lacking multi-tasking in macro department, but rather giving Blizzard a better alternative to the aritficial gas mechanic they seem so keen on. T___T
The mechanic I proposed would allow for more intriciate BOs, as well as even more thought involved in economy management. You could e.g. take your natural's gas earlier so that the gas accumulates for a period of time before you actually need it (some geysers could e.g. start at 0 gas and would require you to set it to mode III immediately after you take them, rewarding you for taking them ahead of time) or allow you to tech faster by utilizing mode II.
As opposed to the Blizzard gas mechanic, the one proposed by me does not require each and every map to have two geysers in every main/natural.
On November 18 2008 05:29 FrozenArbiter wrote: And why would a robot (the probe) care? Why would a mindless Drone care?
Besides, it doesn't make sense from a gameplay perspective either! You are implementing a mechanic whose sole purpose is to force you to click. It's like hauling building material up a hill without actually intending to build anything, it's so pointless!
The solution has to be elegant, shouldn't penalize players who don't use it (ie Savio suggested that units you sent to mine via rally points would move slower <- which is what "it makes no sense" was a replay to) anymore than it needs to, and most of all it should serve a purpose other than forcing you to click, because then you might as well just not include automine in the first place.
Why does the probe or drone need to care? Did you read my full post? I suggested an alternative reasoning (which as I said IS COMPLETELY WORTHLESS! STOP CARING ABOUT WHY) in which it could be an afterburner or speed/jet booster.
NO! The purpose is not just to click! This creates a lot of strategy that I explained in my first post in the thread!
This creates situations in which you need to decide if you want to use up the speed boost early, or save it up to use all of them at the same time for a timing push, or if it's a researched ability doing a specific build to tech up to it fast, etc.
It also creates the ability to use strategies for worker rushing, like drone drilling and boxer's scv rush, as I also explained earlier.
I am not suggesting the move slower thing, I also believe that is retarded. My modified version of kennigit's suggestion doesn't actively penalize players that don't use it, it just rewards players that do use it! Also, if you enable it as a researched ability, this also would reversely reward players that don't use it for all-in rushes. For example, in PvT in brood war doing a fast 2gate goon build without range. Most people tech straight to range as most people would with this speed boost upgrade, but some people would opt to not tech up to it really fast in exchange for having more units early in the game for a rush.
People have suggested that things like MBS and automine be options that you can turn on or off so pros can play without it. People think that would be the best of both worlds. But it is not realistic. When given the option, it doesn't make sense to toggle something useful off.
But the beauty of this mechanic is that it effectively turns off automine at the pro level not by an artificial "toggle on/off switch" but by creating an incentive program such that every progamer would CHOOSE not to use automine.
Newer players would not be affected by it because it is such a minor boost to them and much more important for them is to figure out how to use psi storm and other huge factors. Only at the pro level where tiny increments of advantage matter will this mechanic be important.
On November 18 2008 05:29 FrozenArbiter wrote: ... The solution has to be elegant, shouldn't penalize players who don't use it (ie Savio suggested that units you sent to mine via rally points would move slower <- which is what "it makes no sense" was a replay to) anymore than it needs to, and most of all it should serve a purpose other than forcing you to click, because then you might as well just not include automine in the first place.
I'm not sure what that means. In Kenningit's suggestion, you are rewarded for not using the rally points, instead of penalized. In other terms, the suggestion is creating a skill gradient for macro where you are penalized for not being as mechanically proficient which is the correct way to go. He also makes the point that Blizzard is practically forced by the market to have auto-mine in the game, which I think is true.
I think his suggestion is very powerful because the idea behind it can be applied to all of the other simplifications in SC2: Devise a way for good players to benefit from not using the automations.
On November 18 2008 05:49 SaharaDrac wrote: I think this could be workable. Obviously I think the biggest solution is to have the speed bonus only apply for 30 seconds/1 minute, and only to NEW workers. SCV spawns, you have a 5 second window to motivate him. After that he's a normal SCV and you've wasted time he could have been automining, hence the downside to taking the risk of not queueing your workers to mine.
Man you are genious, but instead of trying to fix this idea, you have an idea on your own that you haven't realized.
What if workers don't immidiatly start mining minerals? Say you build an SCV and that SCV will be idle for 5(subject to balance) seconds, you can order it to mine minerals and acchieve an advantage or after 5 seconds the SCV will start mining automaticly!
What do you guys think? I think this is great idea and thank you Sahara for making me realize it! This could revolutionize the gameplay, it will be modern, its simple, it will not be forcing you anything and can increase macro for those who are macro players!
On November 18 2008 05:49 SaharaDrac wrote: I think this could be workable. Obviously I think the biggest solution is to have the speed bonus only apply for 30 seconds/1 minute, and only to NEW workers. SCV spawns, you have a 5 second window to motivate him. After that he's a normal SCV and you've wasted time he could have been automining, hence the downside to taking the risk of not queueing your workers to mine.
Man you are genious, but instead of trying to fix this idea, you have an idea on your own that you haven't realized.
What if workers don't immidiatly start mining minerals? Say you build an SCV and that SCV will be idle for 5(subject to balance) seconds, you can order it to mine minerals and acchieve an advantage or after 5 seconds the SCV will start mining automaticly!
What do you guys think? I think this is great idea and thank you Sahara for making me realize it! This could revolutionize the gameplay, it will be modern, its simple, it will not be forcing you anything and can increase macro for those who are macro players!
On November 18 2008 05:29 FrozenArbiter wrote: ... The solution has to be elegant, shouldn't penalize players who don't use it (ie Savio suggested that units you sent to mine via rally points would move slower <- which is what "it makes no sense" was a replay to) anymore than it needs to, and most of all it should serve a purpose other than forcing you to click, because then you might as well just not include automine in the first place.
I'm not sure what that means. In Kenningit's suggestion, you are rewarded for not using the rally points, instead of penalized. In other terms, the suggestion is creating a skill gradient for macro where you are penalized for not being as mechanically proficient which is the correct way to go. He also makes the point that Blizzard is practically forced by the market to have auto-mine in the game, which I think is true.
I think his suggestion is very powerful because the idea behind it can be applied to all of the other simplifications in SC2: Devise a way for good players to benefit from not using the automations.
.. maybe my post is way more confusing than I think it is, but that part is in reference to what Savio suggested.
He suggested, and I paraphrase, that any SCV ordered to mine by means of rally point would become SLOWER than one ordered manually. That sounds like a penalty to me.
On November 18 2008 05:49 SaharaDrac wrote: I think this could be workable. Obviously I think the biggest solution is to have the speed bonus only apply for 30 seconds/1 minute, and only to NEW workers. SCV spawns, you have a 5 second window to motivate him. After that he's a normal SCV and you've wasted time he could have been automining, hence the downside to taking the risk of not queueing your workers to mine.
Man you are genious, but instead of trying to fix this idea, you have an idea on your own that you haven't realized.
What if workers don't immidiatly start mining minerals? Say you build an SCV and that SCV will be idle for 5(subject to balance) seconds, you can order it to mine minerals and acchieve an advantage or after 5 seconds the SCV will start mining automaticly!
What do you guys think? I think this is great idea and thank you Sahara for making me realize it! This could revolutionize the gameplay, it will be modern, its simple, it will not be forcing you anything and can increase macro for those who are macro players!
I'm so glad you're being sarcastic
No, i'm actually not being sarcastic. But throw all that speed bonus things and crap, the idea is only the following: You build a SCV for example and that SCV does not mine for 5 seconds, it those seconds you can manually set it to mine or ignore it and do something else and the SCV will automaticallystart mining after 5 seconds. The seconds are all subject to balance ofcourse, but its a simple straightforward idea that can work!
Edit:The actuall 6 starting workers can be made to mine immidiatly, but every worker that comes out of the nexus/CC/hatchery will have that 5 seconds idle mechanic!
On November 18 2008 04:41 FrozenArbiter wrote: The main point is that that [the gas mechanic variation] type of solution has a purpose beyond "make the player click more".
This type of "speed boost if manually ordered" has been brought up before, I'm almost certain, and it's just not gonna fly with most people. There really is no point in including automine if to be competitive you HAVE TO ignore it. People are gonna hate it. I hate it.
Therein lies the problem, I guess. How can you have a macro mechanic that differentiates skill without punishing people that don't do it (or rewarding people that do, which is basically the same thing)?
On November 18 2008 04:41 FrozenArbiter wrote: Can you see Tasteless explaining this type of mechanic while casting? It's not a result of skilled players clicking faster and getting an advantage because they are able to do something more effeciently - it's a mechanic designed purely to make you click. It's just way, waaay too artifical for my liking.
There has to be strategy involved, there has to be a trade-off somewhere. This is more of a "click this button or you lose" type deal, which really belongs more in an arcade game.
Even if its not explicitly mentioned, IMO having such a skill is still important. Why? Because even if click through a bunch of units or buildings may not be considered a good skill, multitasking is. It may seem lame for a newbie to lose because he can't click a button faster, but IMO its NOT lame to lose because you multitasked poorly in relation to your opponent. That's a perfectly legitimate skill, even if you think mental skill should be emphasized above physical skill. Multitasking IS a mental skill.
IMO, multitasking is possibly the greatest skill differentiator in all of Starcraft because it differentiates players equally well at all skill levels. Game sense, macro, micro, timing, managing your nerves, all of those have varied degrees of importance across different skill levels, but whether you're a D- newbie, or Kim Taek Yong, having the ability to multitask well can make you stand out at your skill level.
Even if macro mechanics are a bit gimmicky, and a little forced, IMO if they can help encourage multitasking, I'm all for them. I've used the analogy of running in sports before, and I'll do so again. Even though people don't necessarily find running fun, its still ubiquitous across sports because it adds an extra dimension to their play. The mechanic doesn't need to be "fun" or "entertaining" to add to the experience of the game as a whole.
I should point out that my original stance was that I am ok with MBS and automining, but not both. If I would choose to dump one, I would keep MBS and dump automining, since MBS is, IMO, far closer to being RTS convention these days than automining.
see why i am so negative//(no problem kenni*and eviltelletubie* im gonna try to help in these topics k?) definitely turn off or turn on is the way to go noobs dont mess with pros pros dont mess with noobs
and there is no boil point savio,what is it, a noob(not you Savio) trying to force me play a game with automine and mbs, i dont want to. Play your game, your way with your friends, and let me play mine, wtf, isnt it enough that your tumor already took over my game and now want to take over me too ?
I do believe that the UI improvements are here to stay; however, Blizzard needs to compromise between being up to date or being an esport, which can be solved by removing features or adding something like you selected. I also don't think we should force Sc2 to be an esport, there's no reason we can't stick with SC:BW, but that's a different story.
Speed Bonus to Workers: Biggest issue would be just selecting a bunch at once and getting the speed bonus, this would be the biggest problem when you time the speed bonus, because there would be little benefit to using it earlier. The speed bonus would have to be very beneficial though, otherwise even the pros won't feel the need to use it, especially late game. The bonus would have to get progressively more important. You also have to keep in mind that this is very likely to upset casual players just as much as not having automine.
Solution: When a worker comes out, he should have 5 seconds or so to issue the command to move to minerals, if not then he doesn't get the bonus. You could also allow workers to automine if they are not touched after the 5 seconds or something.
Not touching your topic: I'm very against forcing players to do specific things strategy wise. Gas expansions in SC:BW partially govern where a player will expand... Sc2 hasn't developed enough, but I'm worried that Golden Minerals will force players to play in a specific way. This can be solved by map makers, but the point is that I would like to avoid using any methods to increase macro that would force players to do something a specific way.
On November 18 2008 04:41 FrozenArbiter wrote: The main point is that that [the gas mechanic variation] type of solution has a purpose beyond "make the player click more".
This type of "speed boost if manually ordered" has been brought up before, I'm almost certain, and it's just not gonna fly with most people. There really is no point in including automine if to be competitive you HAVE TO ignore it. People are gonna hate it. I hate it.
Therein lies the problem, I guess. How can you have a macro mechanic that differentiates skill without punishing people that don't do it (or rewarding people that do, which is basically the same thing)?
On November 18 2008 04:41 FrozenArbiter wrote: Can you see Tasteless explaining this type of mechanic while casting? It's not a result of skilled players clicking faster and getting an advantage because they are able to do something more effeciently - it's a mechanic designed purely to make you click. It's just way, waaay too artifical for my liking.
There has to be strategy involved, there has to be a trade-off somewhere. This is more of a "click this button or you lose" type deal, which really belongs more in an arcade game.
Even if its not explicitly mentioned, IMO having such a skill is still important. Why? Because even if click through a bunch of units or buildings may not be considered a good skill, multitasking is. It may seem lame for a newbie to lose because he can't click a button faster, but IMO its NOT lame to lose because you multitasked poorly in relation to your opponent. That's a perfectly legitimate skill, even if you think mental skill should be emphasized above physical skill. Multitasking IS a mental skill.
IMO, multitasking is possibly the greatest skill differentiator in all of Starcraft because it differentiates players equally well at all skill levels. Game sense, macro, micro, timing, managing your nerves, all of those have varied degrees of importance across different skill levels, but whether you're a D- newbie, or Kim Taek Yong, having the ability to multitask well can make you stand out at your skill level.
Even if macro mechanics are a bit gimmicky, and a little forced, IMO if they can help encourage multitasking, I'm all for them. I've used the analogy of running in sports before, and I'll do so again. Even though people don't necessarily find running fun, its still ubiquitous across sports because it adds an extra dimension to their play. The mechanic doesn't need to be "fun" or "entertaining" to add to the experience of the game as a whole.
I should point out that my original stance was that I am ok with MBS and automining, but not both. If I would choose to dump one, I would keep MBS and dump automining, since MBS is, IMO, far closer to being RTS convention these days than automining.
Being good at non-mbs macro can be explained in a positive way, I just CANNOT see a way to explain this ability in a similiar manner.
On November 18 2008 05:29 FrozenArbiter wrote: ... The solution has to be elegant, shouldn't penalize players who don't use it (ie Savio suggested that units you sent to mine via rally points would move slower <- which is what "it makes no sense" was a replay to) anymore than it needs to, and most of all it should serve a purpose other than forcing you to click, because then you might as well just not include automine in the first place.
I'm not sure what that means. In Kenningit's suggestion, you are rewarded for not using the rally points, instead of penalized. In other terms, the suggestion is creating a skill gradient for macro where you are penalized for not being as mechanically proficient which is the correct way to go. He also makes the point that Blizzard is practically forced by the market to have auto-mine in the game, which I think is true.
I think his suggestion is very powerful because the idea behind it can be applied to all of the other simplifications in SC2: Devise a way for good players to benefit from not using the automations.
.. maybe my post is way more confusing than I think it is, but that part is in reference to what Savio suggested.
He suggested, and I paraphrase, that any SCV ordered to mine by means of rally point would become SLOWER than one ordered manually. That sounds like a penalty to me.
Yes, I actually like the penalty idea better. However, it would only be penalty if you chose to rely on it. For pro gamers, it would be just like playing BW in terms of automine anyway.
This is a clear way to include automine for beginners and remove it for pros without relying on a "toggle on/off" switch (which I don't think would happen). Instead of removing it with a switch, it removes it through an incentive program that would only matter to highly skilled players.
On November 18 2008 06:15 FrozenArbiter wrote: Being good at non-mbs macro can be explained in a positive way, I just CANNOT see a way to explain this ability in a similiar manner.
Meh, at this point the debate about macro mechanics is getting a bit tiresome. I was hoping that Kennigit's idea would be a decent compromise (requires consistent macro/multitasking at higher level play, but doesn't punish players too harshly for not doing so at low-level play), but apparently even this received flak.
I honestly don't care what they do, but you should need to look at your base to do SOMETHING other than just building new buildings. A game that's only about unit control is a game without multitasking. A game without multitasking is, IMO, a poor RTS.
and there is no boil point savio,what is it, a noob(not you Savio) trying to force me play a game with automine and mbs, i dont want to. Play your game, your way with your friends, and let me play mine, wtf, isnt it enough that your tumor already took over my game and now want to take over me too ?
Thats the whole point of this mechanic. It removes automine for highly skilled players and leaves it in for noobs without NEEDING a toggle button. The built in incentive makes pros CHOOSE not to use automine because very slight advantages can help them win the game and they have the dexterity to do so anyway.
Noobs don't lose games cause their probes were temporarily slowed down a TINY bit. They lose games because they failed to expand or didn't build the right units or cause they only have 8 probes in late game.
If you want automine out for pros, then I would think you would favor this mechanic since it does that. And Blizz is NOT going to put a toggle on/off switch in there. This may be your best chance to get what you want.
On November 18 2008 06:06 TheYango wrote: How can you have a macro mechanic that differentiates skill without punishing people that don't do it (or rewarding people that do, which is basically the same thing)?
Let's consider "No Automine" a macro mechanic. It rewards people who send workers to mine. It punishes people who don't. Haha, no. Seriously, it's more about if it makes sense to the player. Not lore-wise, just how intuitive it is. You were busy doing something and didn't have time to give your workers commands. You lost a few seconds of mining time, it's not so bad, it's your fault, it's fine. You were busy doing something and automine cursed your already mining workers with ensnare. That's lame, it's the fault of the game.
Orb's situational speed boost was the best idea here so far really. You could work with it to get something reasonable for other races. Like, you could remove the passive speed boost from creep and allow overlords or queens or something to either assist the workers with temporary creep area buffs or choose to use them to get stuff to the battlefield faster.
I'd like to hear feedback on this issue. If you don't agree with it, i would like a detailed explanation why - "gimicky" does is NOT acceptable. I would like a deep discussion and because i can abuse mod powers ill just delete a crap 1 line post LOL.
On November 18 2008 02:58 onepost wrote: It's a non-solution to a non-problem. Please everyone quit forecasting that the sky will fall and hordes of n00bz will swarm us over should workers no longer need to be told the obvious. Thank you.
deleted...will leave this for example
I wanted to spare your sensibilities but if you insist...
First, you don't make a convincing case that there is anything to fix or improve, and neither did anyone before you. In fact, the beginning of your article looks like a boring string of quoted or otherwise emphasized buzzwords like "good", "solution", "competitive", "issues", "rewarded", "investigation" and "positive", that I assume is supposed to mesmerize the reader into believing that there is something relevant to improve in a thoughtful and constructive manner, but at least with me it fails miserably. Hence the non-problem statement.
Then you don't make a convincing case that your "solution" solves the non-problem. I'll give you credit for burying into formalities, but in the end your effort falls flat. You could remove all but this one sentence which sums up your "solution": "Add perks to automine." This is old, bland, and uncreative. And negative (!!!) by the way. Adding meaningless clicks is only meant to relieve the existential anxiety of high-APM players, not to improve the game in any way.
Then I'm afraid you don't make a good job of explaining your "solution" to begin with. It looks like a management or macroeconomics textbook (in a most direct sense, by the way), in which they struggle at justifying the unjustifiable with tedious rhetoric. I'll translate your "solution" in my own, far more simple language: have the players whip the workers so that they don't slack off. At the very least, if you had suggested that we boost workers with electrochocs and adrenaline shots, I would have had a good laugh, but this dilbertesque motivation? sense of pride and responsibility? Come on. It's not even funny.
A comparison even more pertinent than management and macroeconomics would be Intelligent Design. Creationists anxious about teH 3v0lUtI0n but failing to make an even remotely rational case (because they can't, it's all about their Holy Bible) repackaged their hysterical nonsense, in an attempt to render their agenda less transparent, into something that somewhat looks like a science. But that hardly fooled anybody, because all they managed to accomplish with their empty "positive" rhetoric was to turn around the bush with not-so-subtle anti-evolution bashing, pointing out non-problems (holes) into the theory that "nothing in particular" (whistles...) was somehow magically supposed to fix. Hence their failure at convincing judges (or anybody but converts) that their creationism turned non-science should be taught in science classrooms.
Last, but not least, you appended Chill's objections to your post, which is self-defeating. If there was any hope left of deceiving anybody into believing that your new mechanics make any sense or serve any purpose, by the time they're done reading his comment (and he's quite direct and crude, by the way), it's gone. I really had a good laugh reading that part, at the very least.
I'd like to be more "positive" about your article and contribute to the deep discussion that you expect, but honestly I can't. It's a poor idea, poorly presented, and poorly written. I expect better from someone aiming at telling industry leader Blizzard Entertainment how to improve their stuff.
I dont like the speed increase idea. I think they should go to the patch they are rallied to, wait a couple seconds (depending on balance), and then find a good patch to mine. You're still intentionally breaking the AI though
to be honest I prefer just getting rid of it all together.
If you are playing players of your skill level, its not going to be a big deal if you cant keep up with telling miners to mine.
I mean if you look at it, starcraft is still tons of fun, even without mbs and automine when you play people that are at your skill level. The fix of how to attract casual players isnt mbs or automine, its a proper matchmaking system. Macro in itself isnt all that tedious or annoying - a noob doesnt do it enough or consistently enough to draw away all their attention from the greater game, and a more experienced player has enough practice and muscle memory for it not to be all that big a deal either.
If we have casual players playing casual players, I think it matters more whether the game is intrinisically fun to play - cool units, gameplay depth, multiple tech trees and viable strategies etc - than on ui improvements.
The claim of pro-auto mine people and pro-mbs people is that including those UI changes, you increase the focus on strategy over mechanics. But if you are playing against people your skill level your mechanics dont have to be perfect, and mechanics dont have to be the center of your play.
tl;dr: proper matchmaking is far more important in enticing casual players than any UI 'improvement'. From a balance standpoint, its equivalent to making the scvs wait before mining...just a different look (you wouldnt HAVE to break the ai, if you coded in a wait command before mining), so the wait imo looks better and makes more sense.
also, there is another complication. If I tell my scv to mine minerals at my opponents base (for scouting or whatever) will they get a speed boost? how long will the boost last if they have to cross the map? How effective will this be in evading units and keeping your scouting scv alive compared to probes or drones?
While this doesnt automatically unbalance it, it does need to be taken into consideration, and having a wait command avoids these things.
also, unless you can somehow code it to only take effect for brand new scvs, you will have progamers microing individual scvs for the speed burst, which increases the skill gap, and just does the opposite of what automine is trying to do (make it easier for a new player to keep up)
I sort of agree with onepost, the OP is sort of an desperate artificial solution to a problem that doesn't actually exist and doesn't affect the gameplay as much as you make it sound like it does.
Automining is not what will make or break SC2 as an e-sport game or as a competitive game, never in a million times, therefor small changes such as these doesn't make any real sense in practice and functions for such a minimal part of the game that it would rather be seen as some "BS"-solution put in the game beacuse Blizzard ran out of ideas.
MBS is the real issues when it comes to starcraft 2, not automining - its here to stay.
On November 18 2008 06:13 vsrooks wrote: Speed Bonus to Workers: Biggest issue would be just selecting a bunch at once and getting the speed bonus, this would be the biggest problem when you time the speed bonus, because there would be little benefit to using it earlier. The speed bonus would have to be very beneficial though, otherwise even the pros won't feel the need to use it, especially late game. The bonus would have to get progressively more important. You also have to keep in mind that this is very likely to upset casual players just as much as not having automine.
Solution: When a worker comes out, he should have 5 seconds or so to issue the command to move to minerals, if not then he doesn't get the bonus. You could also allow workers to automine if they are not touched after the 5 seconds or something.
I addressed this in the OP. Another potential solution is that the "buff" would be applied X/selection ....so if the buff is 4% speed increase and i select all 40 probes and tell them to move their buff is negligable (1%).
The issue of having separate versions is BNET. BNET is going to be a lot different and players competitive and casual will want to take advantage of the AMM and the ease of practicing. BNET will be one way or the other.
Another big issue with BNET in my opinion will be maps. We all know how awful the map choices/rotations are in Wc3 and a lot of that is because of BNET. Players are going to want to play the maps that are being used in the AMM system. It's going to take a LOT of work between KeSPa and Blizzard to make the game work as an esport. That's another topic entirely though, sorry for the rant.
Having automining and MBS together is the biggest issue though and hopefully they can solve it. Another issue is that whatever Blizzard does it needs to be either really cool to casuals like this idea(I'm sure they'll love the idea of SCV morale and extra glowy stuff) or it needs to fly under the radar.
On November 18 2008 06:39 Senx wrote: I sort of agree with onepost, the OP is sort of an desperate artificial solution to a problem that doesn't actually exist and doesn't affect the gameplay as much as you make it sound like it does.
Automining is not what will make or break SC2 as an e-sport game or as a competitive game, never in a million times, therefor small changes such as these doesn't make any real sense in practice and functions for such a minimal part of the game that it would rather be seen as some "BS"-solution put in the game beacuse Blizzard ran out of ideas.
MBS is the real issues when it comes to starcraft 2, not automining - its here to stay.
Here ill just say it. 10 TL staff have played SC2 and we all individually came to the conclusion that MBS is fine (and in most cases that Automine is atrocious in its current form). So this is wrong.
I'd like to hear feedback on this issue. If you don't agree with it, i would like a detailed explanation why - "gimicky" does is NOT acceptable. I would like a deep discussion and because i can abuse mod powers ill just delete a crap 1 line post LOL.
On November 18 2008 02:58 onepost wrote: It's a non-solution to a non-problem. Please everyone quit forecasting that the sky will fall and hordes of n00bz will swarm us over should workers no longer need to be told the obvious. Thank you.
deleted...will leave this for example
I wanted to spare your sensibilities but if you insist...
First, you don't make a convincing case that there is anything to fix or improve, and neither did anyone before you. In fact, the beginning of your article looks like a boring string of quoted or otherwise emphasized buzzwords like "good", "solution", "competitive", "issues", "rewarded", "investigation" and "positive", that I assume is supposed to mesmerize the reader into believing that there is something relevant to improve in a thoughtful and constructive manner, but at least with me it fails miserably. Hence the non-problem statement.
Then you don't make a convincing case that your "solution" solves the non-problem. I'll give you credit for burying into formalities, but in the end your effort falls flat. You could remove all but this one sentence which sums up your "solution": "Add perks to automine." This is old, bland, and uncreative. And negative (!!!) by the way. Adding meaningless clicks is only meant to relieve the existential anxiety of high-APM players, not to improve the game in any way.
Then I'm afraid you don't make a good job of explaining your "solution" to begin with. It looks like a management or macroeconomics textbook (in a most direct sense, by the way), in which they struggle at justifying the unjustifiable with tedious rhetoric. I'll translate your "solution" in my own, far more simple language: have the players whip the workers so that they don't slack off. At the very least, if you had suggested that we boost workers with electrochocs and adrenaline shots, I would have had a good laugh, but this dilbertesque motivation? sense of pride and responsibility? Come on. It's not even funny.
A comparison even more pertinent than management and macroeconomics would be Intelligent Design. Creationists anxious about teH 3v0lUtI0n but failing to make an even remotely rational case (because they can't, it's all about their Holy Bible) repackaged their hysterical nonsense, in an attempt to render their agenda less transparent, into something that somewhat looks like a science. But that hardly fooled anybody, because all they managed to accomplish with their empty "positive" rhetoric was to turn around the bush with not-so-subtle anti-evolution bashing, pointing out non-problems (holes) into the theory that "nothing in particular" (whistles...) was somehow magically supposed to fix. Hence their failure at convincing judges (or anybody but converts) that their creationism turned non-science should be taught in science classrooms.
Last, but not least, you appended Chill's objections to your post, which is self-defeating. If there was any hope left of deceiving anybody into believing that your new mechanics make any sense or serve any purpose, by the time they're done reading his comment (and he's quite direct and crude, by the way), it's gone. I really had a good laugh reading that part, at the very least.
I'd like to be more "positive" about your article and contribute to the deep discussion that you expect, but honestly I can't. It's a poor idea, poorly presented, and poorly written. I expect better from someone aiming at telling industry leader Blizzard Entertainment how to improve their stuff.
You still did not address the mechanic in a way that added to the discussion. See FA's criticism of the mechanic and Chill's reservations. They added to the discussion. This was a very wordy "one-liner".
On another note, I am interested to hear someone who disagrees to address my statement that this mechanic is essentially a way of removing automine for pros while leaving it in for new players without the use of a "toggle on/off" button. Isn't this the best of both worlds?
I'd like to hear feedback on this issue. If you don't agree with it, i would like a detailed explanation why - "gimicky" does is NOT acceptable. I would like a deep discussion and because i can abuse mod powers ill just delete a crap 1 line post LOL.
On November 18 2008 02:58 onepost wrote: It's a non-solution to a non-problem. Please everyone quit forecasting that the sky will fall and hordes of n00bz will swarm us over should workers no longer need to be told the obvious. Thank you.
deleted...will leave this for example
I wanted to spare your sensibilities but if you insist...
First, you don't make a convincing case that there is anything to fix or improve, and neither did anyone before you. In fact, the beginning of your article looks like a boring string of quoted or otherwise emphasized buzzwords like "good", "solution", "competitive", "issues", "rewarded", "investigation" and "positive", that I assume is supposed to mesmerize the reader into believing that there is something relevant to improve in a thoughtful and constructive manner, but at least with me it fails miserably. Hence the non-problem statement.
Then you don't make a convincing case that your "solution" solves the non-problem. I'll give you credit for burying into formalities, but in the end your effort falls flat. You could remove all but this one sentence which sums up your "solution": "Add perks to automine." This is old, bland, and uncreative. And negative (!!!) by the way. Adding meaningless clicks is only meant to relieve the existential anxiety of high-APM players, not to improve the game in any way.
Then I'm afraid you don't make a good job of explaining your "solution" to begin with. It looks like a management or macroeconomics textbook (in a most direct sense, by the way), in which they struggle at justifying the unjustifiable with tedious rhetoric. I'll translate your "solution" in my own, far more simple language: have the players whip the workers so that they don't slack off. At the very least, if you had suggested that we boost workers with electrochocs and adrenaline shots, I would have had a good laugh, but this dilbertesque motivation? sense of pride and responsibility? Come on. It's not even funny.
A comparison even more pertinent than management and macroeconomics would be Intelligent Design. Creationists anxious about teH 3v0lUtI0n but failing to make an even remotely rational case (because they can't, it's all about their Holy Bible) repackaged their hysterical nonsense, in an attempt to render their agenda less transparent, into something that somewhat looks like a science. But that hardly fooled anybody, because all they managed to accomplish with their empty "positive" rhetoric was to turn around the bush with not-so-subtle anti-evolution bashing, pointing out non-problems (holes) into the theory that "nothing in particular" (whistles...) was somehow magically supposed to fix. Hence their failure at convincing judges (or anybody but converts) that their creationism turned non-science should be taught in science classrooms.
Last, but not least, you appended Chill's objections to your post, which is self-defeating. If there was any hope left of deceiving anybody into believing that your new mechanics make any sense or serve any purpose, by the time they're done reading his comment (and he's quite direct and crude, by the way), it's gone. I really had a good laugh reading that part, at the very least.
I'd like to be more "positive" about your article and contribute to the deep discussion that you expect, but honestly I can't. It's a poor idea, poorly presented, and poorly written. I expect better from someone aiming at telling industry leader Blizzard Entertainment how to improve their stuff.
I never said i was right. I said it was a potential solution and that i wanted discussion about the pros and cons. By page 2 we already modifictions and even better or simpler suggestions. It's not about my OP or presenting some masters thesis. You are in a very small minority on this site that feels that automining isn't an issue - it is. All the progamers, top amateurs, staff, and high level thinking players note that it is a serious issue when the management of resources is automated so i don't care if you think its an issue. I'm not justifying the argument because its been argued and agreed upon for months. All i want is potential solutions from the core group of people who have issue with it an encourage some discussion. If you don't think there's a problem then don't post in this thread.
to be honest I prefer just getting rid of it all together.
The problem is that that is almost surely not gonna happen. If we are purist about it then we could end up like the (forgive the political analogy) GOP who couldn't decide between Romney and Huckabee so they just ended up with McCain. If we shoot down decent compromises, then we will probably end up with the current version of automine. Would that be better for SC2 than this mechanic?
Wishing for automine to just be gone altogether would be like me wishing that Reagan would come back from the dead and be the GOP nominee. It allows me to be a "purist" but it just isn't gonna happen.
On November 18 2008 06:39 Senx wrote: I sort of agree with onepost, the OP is sort of an desperate artificial solution to a problem that doesn't actually exist and doesn't affect the gameplay as much as you make it sound like it does.
Automining is not what will make or break SC2 as an e-sport game or as a competitive game, never in a million times, therefor small changes such as these doesn't make any real sense in practice and functions for such a minimal part of the game that it would rather be seen as some "BS"-solution put in the game beacuse Blizzard ran out of ideas.
MBS is the real issues when it comes to starcraft 2, not automining - its here to stay.
in my opinion, automine is much, much worse for competitive play than MBS. with MBS on and automine off, you still have to go back to your base and tell scvs to mine, and it is a really good skill gradient...you are much more effective if you tell each scv to mine when its produced, then if you come back every 5th scv and tell those 5 scvs to start mining...
I mean we already have an idle scv key, isnt automine on top of that a little bit of overkill?
to be honest I prefer just getting rid of it all together.
The problem is that that is almost surely not gonna happen. If we are purist about it then we could end up like the (forgive the political analogy) GOP who couldn't decide between Romney and Huckabee so they just ended up with McCain. If we shoot down decent compromises, then we will probably end up with the current version of automine. Would that be better for SC2 than this mechanic?
Wishing for automine to just be gone altogether would be like me wishing that Reagan would come back from the dead and be the GOP nominee. It allows me to be a "purist" but it just isn't gonna happen.
well to be honest, I have pretty much given up hope of mbs being changed. But automine is a pretty easy coding change, and I havent heard nearly as many positive responses from people whose opinion I respect that played the game as I have with MBS. So if its a problem in beta, I still think it has a decent shot of being changed.
I am a hard-core pro-MBS guy. I fought the "good fight" when the early MBS debate was going on to keep it.
Yet, even I, see that automine is a problem in its current form. So it is definitely an issue that needs to be discussed.
I also don't think that there is a chance in heck that Blizzard is going to remove it completely. They have already stated that they are going to keep up with RTS standards. So the best we can go with is a modified form of automine.
This is the best recommendation I have heard so far because it essentially removes automine, but only from competitive play (Chris Sigaty's Mom can still use automine).
fusion my boy this is a lost fight, for now maybe they can remove automine, but it will come back, even worse in the next games, the new false "mechanics" are the new way to go -if blizzard dont add the noob/pro mode to be choose- its better have gas mechanics,mineral mechanics, worker mechanics than have warcraft in space of course its our task to pray for that to please the korean progamers, otherwise brood war will rule our worlds till the end of our lives( change "our" for "my")
@Kenningit: I'd like to hear your thoughts on my suggestion, which seems to have gotten buried.
Instead of the workers losing their mining speed bonus (they would mine faster, but not move faster) over time, they would keep it through entire game, and it would be a small bonus; therefore it would require you have to a lot of uber-peons to make a substantial difference. The uber-peon status would be decided by the very first command to mine: was it given by the player or by the rally point? (In other words, you can only make more uber-peons by training new ones.)
This mechanic would encourage players to try to play perfect, like BW does, but also doesn't totally derail your economy if you can't continue to make them through the mid and late game. Most importantly, it gives the superior player a worthwhile advantage.
Also, this mechanic poses interesting strategical questions:
•How many uber-peons do I continue to try to make throughout the game? •Do I send my uber-peons to mine the gold minerals even though it's a hotly contested portion of the map? •Do I use my uber-peons to mine a hidden, naked expansion that is very vulnerable if discovered? •Do I take the time to find and load my uber-peons into a dropship for the island expand? •I just lost a bunch of uber-peons, do I take the time to make more (primarily a mid to late game question)?
On November 18 2008 07:06 A3iL3r0n wrote: @Kenningit: I'd like to hear your thoughts on my suggestion, which seems to have gotten buried.
Instead of the workers losing their mining speed bonus (they would mine faster, but not move faster) over time, they would keep it through entire game, and it would be a small bonus; therefore it would require you have to a lot of uber-peons to make a substantial difference. The uber-peon status would be decided by the very first command to mine: was it given by the player or by the rally point?
This mechanic would encourage players to try to play perfect, like BW does, but also doesn't totally derail your economy if you can't continue to make them through the mid and late game. Most importantly, it gives the superior player a worthwhile advantage.
Also, this mechanic poses interesting strategical questions:
•How many uber-peons do I continue to try to make throughout the game? •Do I send my uber-peons to mine the gold minerals even though it's a hotly contested portion of the map? •Do I use my uber-peons to mine a hidden, naked expansion that is very vulnerable if discovered? •Do I take the time to find and load my uber-peons into a dropship for the island expand? •I just lost a bunch of uber-peons, do I take the time to make more (primarily a mid to late game question)?
The main problem with this mechanic is that it is completely worthless late game.
Once you reach late game in starcraft, and you get to 200/200 you are no longer producing workers, and thus you no longer would ever do this "uber-peon" action, so there would still be 0 macro late game.
On November 18 2008 07:01 Savio wrote: I am a hard-core pro-MBS guy. I fought the "good fight" when the early MBS debate was going on to keep it.
Yet, even I, see that automine is a problem in its current form. So it is definitely an issue that needs to be discussed.
I also don't think that there is a chance in heck that Blizzard is going to remove it completely. They have already stated that they are going to keep up with RTS standards. So the best we can go with is a modified form of automine.
This is the best recommendation I have heard so far because it essentially removes automine, but only from competitive play (Chris Sigaty's Mom can still use automine).
well what do you think of the wait alternative I mentioned?
On November 18 2008 07:06 A3iL3r0n wrote: @Kenningit: I'd like to hear your thoughts on my suggestion, which seems to have gotten buried.
Instead of the workers losing their mining speed bonus (they would mine faster, but not move faster) over time, they would keep it through entire game, and it would be a small bonus; therefore it would require you have to a lot of uber-peons to make a substantial difference. The uber-peon status would be decided by the very first command to mine: was it given by the player or by the rally point? (In other words, you can only make more uber-peons by training new ones.)
This mechanic would encourage players to try to play perfect, like BW does, but also doesn't totally derail your economy if you can't continue to make them through the mid and late game. Most importantly, it gives the superior player a worthwhile advantage.
Also, this mechanic poses interesting strategical questions:
•How many uber-peons do I continue to try to make throughout the game? •Do I send my uber-peons to mine the gold minerals even though it's a hotly contested portion of the map? •Do I use my uber-peons to mine a hidden, naked expansion that is very vulnerable if discovered? •Do I take the time to find and load my uber-peons into a dropship for the island expand? •I just lost a bunch of uber-peons, do I take the time to make more (primarily a mid to late game question)?
I can give you my feedback. You mention that your version would not "totally derail your economy..through mid to late game".
I think your version punishes those who use automine MORE in the mid to late game because it is a cumulative growing effect. I much prefer the temporary 1 time effect. That will make it not so huge in the late game.
I also prefer the idea of making it a speed decrease to those that use a rally point rather than a "bonus" to those who do not. And it should apply to ALL units.
But it should be a small enough effect that it would only really turn the tides in a competitive match to keep it noob vs noob compatible.
On November 18 2008 07:01 Savio wrote: I am a hard-core pro-MBS guy. I fought the "good fight" when the early MBS debate was going on to keep it.
Yet, even I, see that automine is a problem in its current form. So it is definitely an issue that needs to be discussed.
I also don't think that there is a chance in heck that Blizzard is going to remove it completely. They have already stated that they are going to keep up with RTS standards. So the best we can go with is a modified form of automine.
This is the best recommendation I have heard so far because it essentially removes automine, but only from competitive play (Chris Sigaty's Mom can still use automine).
well what do you think of the wait alternative I mentioned?
I like the wait idea. It is similar to the speed decrease. I think they both effectively remove automining at the high levels. I support either version.
On November 18 2008 07:06 A3iL3r0n wrote: @Kenningit: I'd like to hear your thoughts on my suggestion, which seems to have gotten buried.
Instead of the workers losing their mining speed bonus (they would mine faster, but not move faster) over time, they would keep it through entire game, and it would be a small bonus; therefore it would require you have to a lot of uber-peons to make a substantial difference. The uber-peon status would be decided by the very first command to mine: was it given by the player or by the rally point?
This mechanic would encourage players to try to play perfect, like BW does, but also doesn't totally derail your economy if you can't continue to make them through the mid and late game. Most importantly, it gives the superior player a worthwhile advantage.
Also, this mechanic poses interesting strategical questions:
•How many uber-peons do I continue to try to make throughout the game? •Do I send my uber-peons to mine the gold minerals even though it's a hotly contested portion of the map? •Do I use my uber-peons to mine a hidden, naked expansion that is very vulnerable if discovered? •Do I take the time to find and load my uber-peons into a dropship for the island expand? •I just lost a bunch of uber-peons, do I take the time to make more (primarily a mid to late game question)?
The main problem with this mechanic is that it is completely worthless late game.
Once you reach late game in starcraft, and you get to 200/200 you are no longer producing workers, and thus you no longer would ever do this "uber-peon" action, so there would still be 0 macro late game.
You don't produce workers in a normal game of BW when you are maxed out. But, if you happened to lose a group of uber-peons, you could make more to replace them at the cost of extra multi-task which would reward players with good mechanics.
Why would there be 0 macro? There still is macro late game in normal BW too, you are making more units. Just as you would in SC2.
I was skeptical at first but now I like this idea better than the current BW setting and I think all objections raised so far are realistically solvable.
My initial reaction was that is was too artificial and that it was hard to explain in common-sense terms the peculiar behavior workers would have. But then again, why do workers in BW move to a mineral patch and then specifically not start mining when the rally point is very deliberately set on the mineral patch? That really makes no sense and it flat-out contradicts the BW creed of units doing exactly what they are told. Or are you going to argue there are instances where you want your workers to move to a patch, but not mine from it?
If you still disagree, try to remember your own reaction when you first thought on your own to set the rally point to a mineral patch, only to discover to your surprise it just doesn't work. We all thought it was weird, a glitch. The only reason the current mechanic is loved is because it's good for pro gaming - that's it. It makes no sense and we love it. This new proposal doesn't require any more than that.
On November 18 2008 07:06 A3iL3r0n wrote: @Kenningit: I'd like to hear your thoughts on my suggestion, which seems to have gotten buried.
Instead of the workers losing their mining speed bonus (they would mine faster, but not move faster) over time, they would keep it through entire game, and it would be a small bonus; therefore it would require you have to a lot of uber-peons to make a substantial difference. The uber-peon status would be decided by the very first command to mine: was it given by the player or by the rally point?
This mechanic would encourage players to try to play perfect, like BW does, but also doesn't totally derail your economy if you can't continue to make them through the mid and late game. Most importantly, it gives the superior player a worthwhile advantage.
Also, this mechanic poses interesting strategical questions:
•How many uber-peons do I continue to try to make throughout the game? •Do I send my uber-peons to mine the gold minerals even though it's a hotly contested portion of the map? •Do I use my uber-peons to mine a hidden, naked expansion that is very vulnerable if discovered? •Do I take the time to find and load my uber-peons into a dropship for the island expand? •I just lost a bunch of uber-peons, do I take the time to make more (primarily a mid to late game question)?
The main problem with this mechanic is that it is completely worthless late game.
Once you reach late game in starcraft, and you get to 200/200 you are no longer producing workers, and thus you no longer would ever do this "uber-peon" action, so there would still be 0 macro late game.
You don't produce workers in a normal game of BW when you are maxed out. But, if you happened to lose a group of uber-peons, you could make more to replace them at the cost of extra multi-task which would reward players with good mechanics.
Why would there be 0 macro? There still is macro late game in normal BW too, you are making more units. Just as you would in SC2.
I dont think the difference so much is macro, but base management (physically going back to your base to do stuff). This might not be such a big deal if its only late game, but the basic theory is this: Starcraft isnt competitive and fun to play just because there are too many things to do, but also because there are too many things to watch. You cant watch your units at the same time you watch your base, so one of those two is going to be imperfect, which is where the fun balancing act comes in. We, as spectators, really dont want perfect micro and perfect macro at the same time, and if a player can watch his units and macro without taking his eyes off those units (with automine, players really only have to take their eyes off their units to build buildings, and with autoqueue we arent sure how much that will occur). Its hard to see how progamers who can watch their units 95% of the time while macroing won't quickly approach perfect or near perfect macro, and its the difference in micro between the players that adds to the excitement factor for the major part. Think how different it would be as a spectator if players always defended very well against reavers, never got caught by lurkers etc. Many of the most exciting units, reaver, lurker, ht+storm, mines etc, are exciting because one mistake by the defender can cause a huge outcome.
Its a bit of a sidetrack, but that is the basic arguement in favor of base management, and since that is the most relevant argument against automine in my oppinion, I think its valuable to point out specifically why from that standpoint automine is bad, and how to fix it according to that model.
The one major pitfall with this sort of idea is if you implement it in a way that makes it nothing more than a forced action; all you're doing is forcing the player not to take advantage of automine, for really no good reason other than making them click more. Trying to negate automine like this seems really forced and artificial, so instead add another action that takes the place of manually ordering your workers.
The idea of a speed boost that has to be constantly administered to your workers works well as an addition to automine, but it has no purpose to exist other than increasing the number of actions needed.
However, make sure that that speed boost(and maybe add some other buff for good measure as well) is useful in situations other than increasing mining speed and make the cooldown time/energy cost/whatever significant enough that blindly using it to increase mining speed keeps you from using it in other situations, and you have a mechanic that both increases the potential for use of workers in early game strategies significantly and increases the amount of actions needed for proper macro in late game.
So how about this - workers have a self-buff spell, speeding up movement + attack speed as well as the speed at which SCVs build and repair. Make it researchable at a CC or barracks, cheap enough to be affordable early game but not so cheap that researching it right away is a matter of course for all openings. Whether it's based on cooldown or energy doesn't really matter, but make the downtime short enough that constantly using it for mining is difficult, but again not so short that it changes into completely mindless spam. This adds a new dimension to worker use in early defence/rushes, and adds to macro considerably - aside from constantly using it to mine faster, you can also have things like saving the boost on three workers to immediately begin mining gas at top speed(and maybe even rotating those three off once their boost expires, putting three freshly boosted ones on), saving the boost on individual workers as part of your BO to get your buildings faster, etc.
I used Terran as an example, but some variation on the same idea could be used for all the races.
Of course this doesn't add as much in terms of raw actions required as a mechanic geared purely to keeping your workers mining quickly; it's not some end-all solution to the reduced macro issue. But this in addition to a few other mechanics that increase macro for each race and you could achieve the same level of involvement as BW macro without artificially limiting the new interface.
A unit upgrade that increases the speed of repair/mining/building does not increase macro or resource management. The speed upgrade buff/spell/inherent ability only would affect players looking to play at a level above "1 v1 Play/obs Python" on east.
It's not about increase the amount of clicks - its about broadening the potential for increasing skill - you can get better at collecting resources when everything is done for you just hitting 1sss every 25 seconds. We are talking about a mechanic that forces high level players to be involved with their resource management IF they want to play at high level etc etc.
On November 18 2008 07:32 armed_ wrote: The one major pitfall with this sort of idea is if you implement it in a way that makes it nothing more than a forced action; all you're doing is forcing the player not to take advantage of automine, for really no good reason other than making them click more.
That's not true, it does something that was nicely explained in a post above you, it forces the competitive player to watch his base - not just click or press hotkeys, but go back to his base and watch it.
It's a point that was made earlier but casual players can skip this feature and just use regular automine, since they have much bigger and more consequential areas to improve than this. It's very important to notice that this proposal has something that plain old BW does not: it doesn't alienate casual players; and it achieves this without taking anything away from the competitive player. Isn't this precisely what should be done?
On November 18 2008 07:41 Kennigit wrote: A unit upgrade that increases the speed of repair/mining/building does not increase macro or resource management. The speed upgrade buff/spell/inherent ability only would affect players looking to play at a level above "1 v1 Play/obs Python" on east.
To be clear, it's a self-buff that would have to be constantly cast to stay in effect, not a passive upgrade. Effectively it would achieve the same thing as your idea of having to go back and manually order your workers to the minerals every so often to keep them mining at top speed in a normal situation, albeit to a lesser degree.
On November 18 2008 07:41 Kennigit wrote: It's not about increase the amount of clicks - its about broadening the potential for increasing skill - you can get better at collecting resources when everything is done for you just hitting 1sss every 25 seconds. We are talking about a mechanic that forces high level players to be involved with their resource management IF they want to play at high level etc etc.
Being involved with resource management = more actions used in it overall, no?
On November 18 2008 07:46 Doctorasul wrote: That's not true, it does something that was nicely explained in a post above you, it forces the competitive player to watch his base - not just click or press hotkeys, but go back to his base and watch it.
If the only reason the player has to go back to his base and watch it is because they're being actively forced to and there's really no reason for them to look at all aside from completely artifical limitations, then looking at your base was never part of the design of the game, and that's what you need to change if you want to have a good game rather than forcing them.
On November 18 2008 07:46 Doctorasul wrote: It's a point that was made earlier but casual players can skip this feature and just use regular automine, since they have much bigger and more consequential areas to improve than this. It's very important to notice that this proposal has something that plain old BW does not: it doesn't alienate casual players; and it achieves this without taking anything away from the competitive player. Isn't this precisely what should be done?
That's pretty much what I was trying to achieve too, just more naturally. Except in this case automine is a given, it's the additional stuff that takes the place of the player going back and manually ordering his workers to the minerals.
i like it, very very good idea, using perks in an rts would definitely innovate the genre... gonna try to find a way to improve that ... wow add stim to scvs would be good, awesome tbh but what about probes and drones? SCVS: Stim Probes: antimatter-engines Drones: good old adrenal glands or something like this
What will Jaedong spend his clicking on when he barely needs to macro his base? What the hell does automine matter, really, when the rest of the UI has become so simple compared to the original? If we use Kennigits idea and boost workers who are sent off manually, of course the progamers are going to do it, but what will they spend the remaining 300 APM on?
I think the idea of trying to nerf automine might be a bit redundant, what is needed is a game-mechanic that will require more than two clicks every 25 seconds. That, or a nerfed automine along with a BUNCH of other macro nerfs, like the peon damaging vespene, etc. Question is how many of those ideas won't be shot down by people saying that it's a ridiculously unintuitive, contrived and un-lorish mechanic only meant to force the player to click.
Then I thought: if Broodwar was played at a setting about 50% faster than the current fastest, having MBS and Automine would probably make the player performance about the same. Doesn't a whole lot of this debate stem from the fact that the game might be moving too slow in it's current build? Isn't this all just an issue of a slow game?
Edit: now that I think of it, wasn't the speed setting at Blizzcon, where the TL staff among others got their info from, one step below fastest?
On November 18 2008 07:41 Kennigit wrote: A unit upgrade that increases the speed of repair/mining/building does not increase macro or resource management. The speed upgrade buff/spell/inherent ability only would affect players looking to play at a level above "1 v1 Play/obs Python" on east.
To be clear, it's a self-buff that would have to be constantly cast to stay in effect, not a passive upgrade. Effectively it would achieve the same thing as your idea of having to go back and manually order your workers to the minerals every so often to keep them mining at top speed in a normal situation, albeit to a lesser degree.
On November 18 2008 07:41 Kennigit wrote: It's not about increase the amount of clicks - its about broadening the potential for increasing skill - you can get better at collecting resources when everything is done for you just hitting 1sss every 25 seconds. We are talking about a mechanic that forces high level players to be involved with their resource management IF they want to play at high level etc etc.
Being involved with resource management = more actions used in it overall, no?
On November 18 2008 07:46 Doctorasul wrote: That's not true, it does something that was nicely explained in a post above you, it forces the competitive player to watch his base - not just click or press hotkeys, but go back to his base and watch it.
If the only reason the player has to go back to his base and watch it is because they're being actively forced to and there's really no reason for them to look at all aside from completely artifical limitations, then looking at your base was never part of the design of the game, and that's what you need to change if you want to have a good game rather than forcing them.
On November 18 2008 07:46 Doctorasul wrote: It's a point that was made earlier but casual players can skip this feature and just use regular automine, since they have much bigger and more consequential areas to improve than this. It's very important to notice that this proposal has something that plain old BW does not: it doesn't alienate casual players; and it achieves this without taking anything away from the competitive player. Isn't this precisely what should be done?
That's pretty much what I was trying to achieve too, just more naturally. Except in this case automine is a given, it's the additional stuff that takes the place of the player going back and manually ordering his workers to the minerals.
Select all workers... Control 0... hit 0, hit hotkey... repeat
What will Jaedong spend his clicking on when he barely needs to macro his base? What the hell does automine matter, really, when the rest of the UI has become so simple compared to the original? If we use Kennigits idea and boost workers who are sent off manually, of course the progamers are going to do it, but what will they spend the remaining 300 APM on?
I think the idea of trying to nerf automine might be a bit redundant, what is needed is a game-mechanic that will require more than two clicks every 25 seconds. That, or a nerfed automine along with a BUNCH of other macro nerfs, like the peon damaging vespene, etc. Question is how many of those ideas won't be shot down by people saying that it's a ridiculously unintuitive, contrived and un-lorish mechanic only meant to force the player to click.
Then I thought: if Broodwar was played at a setting about 50% faster than the current fastest, having MBS and Automine would probably make the player performance about the same. Doesn't a whole lot of this debate stem from the fact that the game might be moving too slow in it's current build? Isn't this all just an issue of a slow game?
Edit: now that I think of it, wasn't the speed setting at Blizzcon, where the TL staff among others got their info from, one step below fastest?
One step below fastest is not going to solve this problem. The problem is that with the current build you almost NEVER have to look at your base. The only times you EVER have to go back to your base are if you need to start a new building queue or if you are getting dropped and need to defend against it.
This makes it so you can just stare at your units 99% of the game, and removes a giant amount of the skill ceiling from the game.
Sure, but I don't think nerfing automine is going to solve anything but that little "forcing you to glance at your base" thing, which really sounds kind of silly. Something more involved and less contrived than a nerfed ui to decide where your attention needs to be please.
On November 18 2008 08:01 armed_ wrote: If the only reason the player has to go back to his base and watch it is because they're being actively forced to and there's really no reason for them to look at all aside from completely artifical limitations, then looking at your base was never part of the design of the game, and that's what you need to change if you want to have a good game rather than forcing them.
I think your use of the word "artificial" is confusing. Not only is the current BW setting more artificial by your use of the word, but by your reasoning it can be argued that making new units or expanding or attacking is also something the player is "forced to do". Ultimately, the game "forces" you to do stuff in order to win, there's nothing wrong with that. This particular feature would "force" a competitive player to go back to his base and manage the economy, therefore not always looking at his army. There is a choice to be made how often to go back to the base, no one will be able to do everything perfectly, the game will be challenging and hard to master and intensive training will pay off. I'm sorry, but unless you'll be able to define "artificial" as something other than an unpleasant gut feeling, your argument falls flat. You also need to show how the current BW setting is not "artificial", yet this proposal is.
On November 18 2008 08:32 Osmoses wrote: I wrote this:
What will Jaedong spend his clicking on when he barely needs to macro his base? What the hell does automine matter, really, when the rest of the UI has become so simple compared to the original? If we use Kennigits idea and boost workers who are sent off manually, of course the progamers are going to do it, but what will they spend the remaining 300 APM on?
I think the idea of trying to nerf automine might be a bit redundant, what is needed is a game-mechanic that will require more than two clicks every 25 seconds. That, or a nerfed automine along with a BUNCH of other macro nerfs, like the peon damaging vespene, etc. Question is how many of those ideas won't be shot down by people saying that it's a ridiculously unintuitive, contrived and un-lorish mechanic only meant to force the player to click.
Then I thought: if Broodwar was played at a setting about 50% faster than the current fastest, having MBS and Automine would probably make the player performance about the same. Doesn't a whole lot of this debate stem from the fact that the game might be moving too slow in it's current build? Isn't this all just an issue of a slow game?
Edit: now that I think of it, wasn't the speed setting at Blizzcon, where the TL staff among others got their info from one step below fastest?
There are several things wrong with your post: - this mechanic will require of the progamer to have exactly as much APM as in BW to have the strive for the best economy; just like in BW, each new worker is to be manually ordered to mine if you want to maximize your economy, the notion they'll have 300 APM to spare is simply wrong - if it were true progamers would be in that situation in BW as well - this is not a click every 25 seconds, you need to go back every time a new worker is produced; if you have 2 bases it's hard, if you have 3 or more it's really hard to keep track of all of them - does any of this sound familiar? - you're missing the point why automine is a concern in the first place; the issue is the player doesn't have as many things to juggle, both in his head but crucially, on the screen; higher speed means sloppier micro and sloppier macro, but macro will still be marginally improvable and will still take too little attention away from other tasks; what we need is for the proportion to change, we need new macro tasks
I'm sorry for bringing up the same points over and over again, but I get the impression people either don't bother to read the thread or they don't understand the arguments that are being made (maybe we're not clear enough).
On November 18 2008 08:54 Osmoses wrote: Sure, but I don't think nerfing automine is going to solve anything but that little "forcing you to glance at your base" thing, which really sounds kind of silly. Something more involved and less contrived than a nerfed ui to decide where your attention needs to be please.
No, sorry, you have not shown how it's contrived. We are forced to do everything we do to win in a game of BW. Why aren't you upset you are being forced to learn the tech tree? Or learn the map? Or learn the hotkeys?
Saying "forcing you to glance at your base thing is silly" is missing a huge part of why BW is both popular and successful at a pro level. Without that frantic element that can never be perfectly mastered and that requires complete immersion and involvement from the player, the game will die. If it's fun and it's good for progaming, then we want it in SC2. It's not "little" or "uninvolved", that's simply an ignorant thing to say.
Since my thread was deleted I'll post my idea in a compact and full manner once again in this thread, so that people don't need to search for my 2 posts to find out how this really works:
What if workers don't immidiatly start mining minerals? Say you build an SCV and that SCV will be idle for 5(subject to balance) seconds, you can order it to mine minerals and acchieve an advantage or after 5 seconds the SCV will start mining automaticly!
Game start potential problem (where casual players won't put workers to mine manually and immidiately start with a disadvantage) There is an easy solution: The actuall 6 starting workers can be made to mine immidiatly, but every worker that comes out of the nexus/CC/hatchery will have that 5 seconds idle mechanic!
On November 18 2008 08:42 vsrooks wrote:Select all workers... Control 0... hit 0, hit hotkey... repeat
Ugh, forgot about unlimited hotkeying. In that case just make the ability need a target, and the buff gets cancelled if the worker switches to another task as well as time running out.
That or have a seperate unit cast the buff, or a building or something, so you have to manually target workers.
On November 18 2008 08:57 Doctorasul wrote: I think your use of the word "artificial" is confusing.
Artificial as in it's not really part of the design of the game once you get past the interface.
When I say artificial in terms of execution, I mean there's no reason the task couldn't be executed with a much simpler input; an ideal input would be just as complex as is needed for the action to be executed exactly as the player wants it, anything more complex then that is just adding artificial difficulty to the execution while not actually making the underlying game any more complex.
By extension of that, any mechanic that only adds to the game due to changes to the interface or somesuch is largely artificial.
That said the interface is just as much part of the game as anything, but in the case of SC2 Blizzard already seems to be focusing on making the interface as little of an obstacle as possible(which is obviously the trend in modern RTS) so the word artificial seems appropriate.
EDIT: Yeah, I'm not good at conveying my thoughts. ;p
On November 18 2008 08:57 Doctorasul wrote: You also need to show how the current BW setting is not "artificial", yet this proposal is.
BW's depth is very artificial given the above. The only reason the game is as skill-based as it is is because of the limitations of the interface; it gets away with not actually having that much to do because it's much more difficult than it would be in a perfectly efficient interface. Again, it's not that I see anything wrong with the game being like that, it's just that Blizzard clearly isn't taking that approach with SC2.
Okay, unless I'm completely misunderstanding you again, it seems like your objections are also applicable to BW then. I'm sure we would all love SC2 to be better than BW in every possible way, but I'll be happy with macro being "only" as good as BW; it would be a pretty big step from the state of SC2 macro right now.
Hi everyone... I've lurked on here for a very long time, but never got round to registering. Used to play SC with Jamie and a few other people (quite badly! ).
Anyway, I had an idea that I thought was worth sharing.
The guiding principle behind selecting workers and telling them to mine is macro + return to base, so players are managing a battle whilst also effectively controlling their economy. I appreciate the reasons for automine, but I agree with some of those on this site, and think that whilst MBS is inevitable, they should get rid of automine and attack rally points.
I think the original suggestion is interesting, but is an overly complex and artificial solution (with various percentages dependent on how many workers you have etc).
Idea
I thought the position of crystals could slowly deteriorate over time, creating problems for workers. I've called this dealignment. I think it could be represented visually by a glow effect, with the player required to individually click on each mineral patch and move an arrow toward the direction of the cc/nexus/hatch etc.
The crystals would dealign over time, reducing the number of minerals gathered per trip, or creating a longer route for the workers.
This idea will a) encourage good players to handle their crystal alignment, but will not force bad players to worry about perfect efficiency; b) require players to return to their base in a way which is not contrived (because it provides an additional element rather than complicating the mining process); and c) provide a scaleable, easily balanced solution (so Blizzard can modify the rate at which the crystals dealign, and also decide whether or not crystals will require alignment more than once (so it could be even more of a macro sink if they wanted).
This could even form a more sophisticated meta game, with players required to correctly orientate a line that was pulsing (something like a Trauma Centre New Blood heart massage mechanic, if anyone is familiar with that). This would be more interesting, and more impressive when progamers rapidly align a series of crystals (echoing impressive cloning).
we better dont have false hopes we can try to help but better not get too high for the fall dont be too hard
Kenni Idea + STIM for workers is very good the ammount of percents and numbers might not be a bad thing, u dont need to know that, just dont drag all ur workers cause it will not be as good as clicking one by one.
I cant think of a different thing without adding things that dont have place in starcraft universe. But if: 5 was the new optimal number for a vespene geiser then it would be good to raise macro
On November 18 2008 09:21 Doctorasul wrote: Okay, unless I'm completely misunderstanding you again, it seems like your objections are also applicable to BW then. I'm sure we would all love SC2 to be better than BW in every possible way, but I'll be happy with macro being "only" as good as BW; it would be a pretty big step from the state of SC2 macro right now.
I'm not saying that the way BW's interface limitations achieve a higher skill ceiling is bad and I want SC2 to be better, I'm just saying that it's very unlikely, given the expectations of the casual market, that it's even possible for Blizzard to take that approach again(it's not like they meant to take that approach the first time, BW is just old). Unless I'm wrong on that(and it would be nice if I am), the only way to get even close to BW quality of gameplay is to just to, put simply, add completely new things to do rather than make old things harder.
Maybe for automine, you can set a rally point for your worker so he automines that patch, but after the current SCV building is done then you have to re-set the automine location, otherwise he will just 'regular' move to the patch, instead of automining it.
On November 18 2008 09:11 SlickR12345 wrote: Since my thread was deleted I'll post my idea in a compact and full manner once again in this thread, so that people don't need to search for my 2 posts to find out how this really works:
What if workers don't immidiatly start mining minerals? Say you build an SCV and that SCV will be idle for 5(subject to balance) seconds, you can order it to mine minerals and acchieve an advantage or after 5 seconds the SCV will start mining automaticly!
Game start potential problem (where casual players won't put workers to mine manually and immidiately start with a disadvantage) There is an easy solution: The actuall 6 starting workers can be made to mine immidiatly, but every worker that comes out of the nexus/CC/hatchery will have that 5 seconds idle mechanic!
It's been mentioned, by me among others (pretty sure someone else said it too).
On November 18 2008 08:54 Osmoses wrote: Sure, but I don't think nerfing automine is going to solve anything but that little "forcing you to glance at your base" thing, which really sounds kind of silly. Something more involved and less contrived than a nerfed ui to decide where your attention needs to be please.
Did you even read the suggestions here, or are you just trolling for the sake of trolling?
Going for a nerfed UI would be getting rid of automine, like we'd been fighting for the past who-knows-how-many-months.
This thread is to stop fighting that fight and instead go with an idea that is creative and adds something of strategy to the game... not nerf the UI.
1. Scouting SCVs would then be able to "speed boost" while scouting. 2. I think it should be a decreased required time to mine for that worker, rather than a faster movement. This will still have the effect of faster mining, but without the tricky changing movement speed. 3. It should last approx. 30 seconds and be a non-resetting boolean value. 4. Also it should not be able to be reactivated. This clears up the problems Chill mentioned.
If it's reusable, it'll become way too important for any game that lasts longer than 10 minutes, even at pubbie level. If that's the case, they might as well just remove automine. With the ideas I've mentioned above, it's still important, similar to mining the closest minerals first, but with maybe greater effect. Get the bonus money sooner rather than later.
On November 18 2008 07:41 Kennigit wrote: A unit upgrade that increases the speed of repair/mining/building does not increase macro or resource management. The speed upgrade buff/spell/inherent ability only would affect players looking to play at a level above "1 v1 Play/obs Python" on east.
To be clear, it's a self-buff that would have to be constantly cast to stay in effect, not a passive upgrade. Effectively it would achieve the same thing as your idea of having to go back and manually order your workers to the minerals every so often to keep them mining at top speed in a normal situation, albeit to a lesser degree.
On November 18 2008 07:41 Kennigit wrote: It's not about increase the amount of clicks - its about broadening the potential for increasing skill - you can get better at collecting resources when everything is done for you just hitting 1sss every 25 seconds. We are talking about a mechanic that forces high level players to be involved with their resource management IF they want to play at high level etc etc.
Being involved with resource management = more actions used in it overall, no?
On November 18 2008 07:46 Doctorasul wrote: That's not true, it does something that was nicely explained in a post above you, it forces the competitive player to watch his base - not just click or press hotkeys, but go back to his base and watch it.
If the only reason the player has to go back to his base and watch it is because they're being actively forced to and there's really no reason for them to look at all aside from completely artifical limitations, then looking at your base was never part of the design of the game, and that's what you need to change if you want to have a good game rather than forcing them.
On November 18 2008 07:46 Doctorasul wrote: It's a point that was made earlier but casual players can skip this feature and just use regular automine, since they have much bigger and more consequential areas to improve than this. It's very important to notice that this proposal has something that plain old BW does not: it doesn't alienate casual players; and it achieves this without taking anything away from the competitive player. Isn't this precisely what should be done?
That's pretty much what I was trying to achieve too, just more naturally. Except in this case automine is a given, it's the additional stuff that takes the place of the player going back and manually ordering his workers to the minerals.
Select all workers... Control 0... hit 0, hit hotkey... repeat
This problem is completely gone when you make it a one-time deal or energy-based action as I have suggested so many times now. Yes, if you can constantly do this then you just set it to a hotkey on every single one of your workers.
If it can only be done once or at least infrequently, it wouldn't matter that you could do them all at the same time, because the only main time you'd be doing it is as they come out of the gate, or just as you get the research done, or right as you're timing it for a burst of money for a timing push or something.
On November 18 2008 10:06 Dromar wrote: Interesting idea. However...
1. Scouting SCVs would then be able to "speed boost" while scouting.
I don't see how this is a problem. If you can only use this ability once in a while, or even only once ever, then using it while scouting would probably be a bad decision, and not unbalanced since the scv would only be able to use it once in the amount of time the scv is going to be in the opponent's base.
2. I think it should be a decreased required time to mine for that worker, rather than a faster movement. This will still have the effect of faster mining, but without the tricky changing movement speed.
This idea has been raised and I completely disagree. Having the worker move faster creates a whole slew of opportunities to use this ability with worker rushes and drone drills. Making it only mine faster takes away a lot of the fun potential I see coming out of this idea.
3. It should last approx. 30 seconds and be a non-resetting boolean value.
Whoa whoa whoa, why are you declaring this like it's the best option? The amount of time it lasts is completely subject to balance, and it could be a one-time use, yes. Another possibility is having it energy-based, like a spell. Example, it takes 200 energy to do, and your units have max 250 energy. This would prevent you from being able to do it very often, and would make it very situational which would force players to really make it part of their strategy when they would activate this.
4. Also it should not be able to be reactivated. This clears up the problems Chill mentioned.
This is not necessarily necessary (lol). This is definitely a possibility (god it would save so much time if people just read through the first page of the thread before posting... so many duplicate ideas), though having it only be able to be done once in a blue moon so-to-speak would be feasable as well, of course with the time in between subject to balance. Probably soemthing long, like 3 minutes.
If it's reusable, it'll become way too important for any game that lasts longer than 10 minutes, even at pubbie level. If that's the case, they might as well just remove automine. With the ideas I've mentioned above, it's still important, similar to mining the closest minerals first, but with maybe greater effect. Get the bonus money sooner rather than later.
Maybe, only testing would tell if it would cause too much disruption with newbie players.
On November 18 2008 08:54 Osmoses wrote: Sure, but I don't think nerfing automine is going to solve anything but that little "forcing you to glance at your base" thing, which really sounds kind of silly. Something more involved and less contrived than a nerfed ui to decide where your attention needs to be please.
Did you even read the suggestions here, or are you just trolling for the sake of trolling?
Going for a nerfed UI would be getting rid of automine, like we'd been fighting for the past who-knows-how-many-months.
This thread is to stop fighting that fight and instead go with an idea that is creative and adds something of strategy to the game... not nerf the UI.
Sorry if I came off as a troll, didn't mean to. I know this thread is about "revamping" the automine, but isn't that pretty much the same thing as nerfing it? Making it less good? I mean, that's the problem we're having right, it being too good, doing too much for the player without any work or thought put into it? Making the player work more for the same payoff sounds like a nerf to me, maybe I don't have my terminology straight.
I made a whole list of suggestions myself, but when I was done I started wondering if automine is really such a big issue, maybe we're blowing it way out of proportion, like we did with MBS (yes I know lots of people are still against MBS but at least people have stopped saying it will kill-the-game-the-end). The way I see it, Automine is not the problem, MBS+Automine+Únlimited unit selection+Smartcasting+building queueing+idle worker button+autosurround is the problem. Them together, not any single one.
Rather than changing automine, I would much rather see other areas in the game creating completely new and interesting/strategic things to spend your apm on. That's one way to go, and another is to make automine more interesting and provide a greater payoff for involved players. But it's gonna have to be one big revamp to fill the hole left by those things I just listed.
On November 18 2008 08:54 Osmoses wrote: Sure, but I don't think nerfing automine is going to solve anything but that little "forcing you to glance at your base" thing, which really sounds kind of silly. Something more involved and less contrived than a nerfed ui to decide where your attention needs to be please.
Did you even read the suggestions here, or are you just trolling for the sake of trolling?
Going for a nerfed UI would be getting rid of automine, like we'd been fighting for the past who-knows-how-many-months.
This thread is to stop fighting that fight and instead go with an idea that is creative and adds something of strategy to the game... not nerf the UI.
Sorry if I came off as a troll, didn't mean to. I know this thread is about "revamping" the automine, but isn't that pretty much the same thing as nerfing it? Making it less good? I mean, that's the problem we're having right, it being too good, doing too much for the player without any work or thought put into it? Making the player work more for the same payoff sounds like a nerf to me, maybe I don't have my terminology straight.
I made a whole list of suggestions myself, but when I was done I started wondering if automine is really such a big issue, maybe we're blowing it way out of proportion, like we did with MBS (yes I know lots of people are still against MBS but at least people have stopped saying it will kill-the-game-the-end). The way I see it, Automine is not the problem, MBS+Automine+Únlimited unit selection+Smartcasting+building queueing+idle worker button+autosurround is the problem. Them together, not any single one.
Rather than changing automine, I would much rather see other areas in the game creating completely new and interesting/strategic things to spend your apm on. That's one way to go, and another is to make automine more interesting and provide a greater payoff for involved players. But it's gonna have to be one big revamp to fill the hole left by those things I just listed.
No, we're not trying to revamp automine at all, we're trying to add something else to give some macro to the game. We're not trying to make the player work more for the same payoff, we're trying to have a player have the option of working more for a better payoff. The point is the average player gets the normal payoff you'd get in brood war with perfect mining macro, whereas the competitive player would get a little bonus by speeding up his workers. The way you see it "automine is not the problem," ?????? Did you not see kennigit say above that 10 different TL staff members played starcraft 2 at blizzard events, and every single one of them individually believes that MBS isn't too big of a deal, but automine is the huge problem here.
Lol also what are you going to use idle worker button for? Your workers mine by themselves, what will you ever need that key for? I don't think that's part of the problem.
YET AGAIN YOU KEEP REITERATING, BUT WE ARE NOT TRYING TO CHANGE AUTOMINE!!! Fuck... you just keep spewing that we are dumbing down the UI and changing automine. Seriously I have to question whether you've read a word of the OP or the ideas people posted. We are NOT I REPEAT NOT trying to change automine, we are trying to create something new to add strategy and macro.
What will Jaedong spend his clicking on when he barely needs to macro his base? What the hell does automine matter, really, when the rest of the UI has become so simple compared to the original? If we use Kennigits idea and boost workers who are sent off manually, of course the progamers are going to do it, but what will they spend the remaining 300 APM on?
I think the idea of trying to nerf automine might be a bit redundant, what is needed is a game-mechanic that will require more than two clicks every 25 seconds. That, or a nerfed automine along with a BUNCH of other macro nerfs, like the peon damaging vespene, etc. Question is how many of those ideas won't be shot down by people saying that it's a ridiculously unintuitive, contrived and un-lorish mechanic only meant to force the player to click.
Then I thought: if Broodwar was played at a setting about 50% faster than the current fastest, having MBS and Automine would probably make the player performance about the same. Doesn't a whole lot of this debate stem from the fact that the game might be moving too slow in it's current build? Isn't this all just an issue of a slow game?
Edit: now that I think of it, wasn't the speed setting at Blizzcon, where the TL staff among others got their info from one step below fastest?
There are several things wrong with your post: - this mechanic will require of the progamer to have exactly as much APM as in BW to have the strive for the best economy; just like in BW, each new worker is to be manually ordered to mine if you want to maximize your economy, the notion they'll have 300 APM to spare is simply wrong - if it were true progamers would be in that situation in BW as well
Not sure if I'm understanding you correctly (maybe neither of us are clear enough) but my point was that if BW had MBS and automine, it would take a huge load off the required APM (300 was just a throwaround number), but if the game speed was also increased then we would essentially have the same game pace with the same required APM to do the same things. Increasing the speed = increasing the difficulty, seems pretty clear to me, starcraft is hard because of the very fact that you have a limited amount of time to do what you need to do.
- this is not a click every 25 seconds, you need to go back every time a new worker is produced; if you have 2 bases it's hard, if you have 3 or more it's really hard to keep track of all of them - does any of this sound familiar?
I thought it took 25 seconds to produce a worker, judging from the previous posts in this thread (I never bothered to find out myself, but thinking about it that might be a tad too much :p) and that's what I meant with two clicks every 25 seconds (worker appears, select worker, click mineral). If you have 3 bases you got 6 (at the very least) clicks every 25 seconds. And yes, this is really hard, but like I was saying, the progamers are doing it, even with the SC1 outdated UI, and my point was that even if we remove automine, the fact that those same progamers will still have MBS among other things will make it very easy for them to manually send their workers to mine. They are spending all their APM in SC1 on doing things which the UI will pretty much do for them in SC2, so where will their excess APM go?
- you're missing the point why automine is a concern in the first place; the issue is the player doesn't have as many things to juggle, both in his head but crucially, on the screen; higher speed means sloppier micro and sloppier macro, but macro will still be marginally improvable and will still take too little attention away from other tasks; what we need is for the proportion to change, we need new macro tasks
I agree, we need new macro tasks, and I thought I had put that very sentence in that post, but I guess I erased it. But I couldn't think of any appropriate macro tasks, I made a whole list a few pages ago that all felt contrived and stupid to me, I'm just not that smart.
Right now we have less things to juggle in SC2, but if we were to increase the speed then maybe:
Starcraft2: less things to juggle + faster game speed = Starcraft: more things to juggle + slower game speed?
Maybe I don't understand the arguments you are making, but are you sure you understand mine?
No, sorry, you have not shown how it's contrived. We are forced to do everything we do to win in a game of BW. Why aren't you upset you are being forced to learn the tech tree? Or learn the map? Or learn the hotkeys?
Point taken. I guess I just have a pre-emptive disposition against this, but the whole "motivation" thing didn't seem to me to belong in Starcraft, and as has been said, it works for the scv but not for the probe or drone. I know Kennigit knows his idea is not perfect, he said so, that's why I'm asking for something better. I offered the best ideas I had, and I myself thought they sounded stupid and contrived, so I'm all out.
Saying "forcing you to glance at your base thing is silly" is missing a huge part of why BW is both popular and successful at a pro level. Without that frantic element that can never be perfectly mastered and that requires complete immersion and involvement from the player, the game will die. If it's fun and it's good for progaming, then we want it in SC2. It's not "little" or "uninvolved", that's simply an ignorant thing to say.
The frantic is fun, having to keep a good eye on your army and your base is good, but doing it solely to send workers to the mineral patch... I want something more involved, and more interesting. I want a more strategic reason for keeping an eye on my base. MBS and Automine and building queue took away three of the four reasons why people go back to their base in BW. They are all here to stay. We need something else to take their place.
On November 18 2008 09:11 SlickR12345 wrote: Since my thread was deleted I'll post my idea in a compact and full manner once again in this thread, so that people don't need to search for my 2 posts to find out how this really works:
What if workers don't immidiatly start mining minerals? Say you build an SCV and that SCV will be idle for 5(subject to balance) seconds, you can order it to mine minerals and acchieve an advantage or after 5 seconds the SCV will start mining automaticly!
Game start potential problem (where casual players won't put workers to mine manually and immidiately start with a disadvantage) There is an easy solution: The actuall 6 starting workers can be made to mine immidiatly, but every worker that comes out of the nexus/CC/hatchery will have that 5 seconds idle mechanic!
Slick, your idea is very similar I think in its effect as the "slow units using rally".
However, I prefer the slow effect because it can be applied to all units, not just workers. So it is slightly better to personally move your marines rather than just rallying into a base on the other side of the map. You can still rally over there, but it would be slightly faster if you moved them.
On November 18 2008 08:54 Osmoses wrote: Sure, but I don't think nerfing automine is going to solve anything but that little "forcing you to glance at your base" thing, which really sounds kind of silly. Something more involved and less contrived than a nerfed ui to decide where your attention needs to be please.
Did you even read the suggestions here, or are you just trolling for the sake of trolling?
Going for a nerfed UI would be getting rid of automine, like we'd been fighting for the past who-knows-how-many-months.
This thread is to stop fighting that fight and instead go with an idea that is creative and adds something of strategy to the game... not nerf the UI.
Sorry if I came off as a troll, didn't mean to. I know this thread is about "revamping" the automine, but isn't that pretty much the same thing as nerfing it? Making it less good? I mean, that's the problem we're having right, it being too good, doing too much for the player without any work or thought put into it? Making the player work more for the same payoff sounds like a nerf to me, maybe I don't have my terminology straight.
I made a whole list of suggestions myself, but when I was done I started wondering if automine is really such a big issue, maybe we're blowing it way out of proportion, like we did with MBS (yes I know lots of people are still against MBS but at least people have stopped saying it will kill-the-game-the-end). The way I see it, Automine is not the problem, MBS+Automine+Únlimited unit selection+Smartcasting+building queueing+idle worker button+autosurround is the problem. Them together, not any single one.
Rather than changing automine, I would much rather see other areas in the game creating completely new and interesting/strategic things to spend your apm on. That's one way to go, and another is to make automine more interesting and provide a greater payoff for involved players. But it's gonna have to be one big revamp to fill the hole left by those things I just listed.
No, we're not trying to revamp automine at all, we're trying to add something else to give some macro to the game. We're not trying to make the player work more for the same payoff, we're trying to have a player have the option of working more for a better payoff. The point is the average player gets the normal payoff you'd get in brood war with perfect mining macro, whereas the competitive player would get a little bonus by speeding up his workers. The way you see it "automine is not the problem," ?????? Did you not see kennigit say above that 10 different TL staff members played starcraft 2 at blizzard events, and every single one of them individually believes that MBS isn't too big of a deal, but automine is the huge problem here.
Lol also what are you going to use idle worker button for? Your workers mine by themselves, what will you ever need that key for? I don't think that's part of the problem.
YET AGAIN YOU KEEP REITERATING, BUT WE ARE NOT TRYING TO CHANGE AUTOMINE!!! Fuck... you just keep spewing that we are dumbing down the UI and changing automine. Seriously I have to question whether you've read a word of the OP or the ideas people posted. We are NOT I REPEAT NOT trying to change automine, we are trying to create something new to add strategy and macro.
I'm sorry, is the name of the thread not "[T] Potential Solutions to Automine"? The OP seems to be wholly about Automining to me, with a few wide statements about macro. I could read "come up with completely new macro ideas" from the OP if I tried really hard but... It really, really seems to be about Automine to me, along with Kennigits one possible tweak to it.
Am I being really illiterate here?
10 different TL staff members played starcraft 2 at blizzard events, and every single one of them individually believes that MBS isn't too big of a deal, but automine is the huge problem here.
But if there was no MBS or unlimited unit selection, etc, only automine, I doubt they would have raised a fuss about it. This is why I said that it's all of the improvements together that are the problem, not automine. As far as making the game too easy, I think automine is a pretty big player, but unlimited unit selection is imho way worse, and with the idle worker button, getting rid of automine would make little difference.
Whoa, we have a lot of ideas coming out of this thread.
It would be nice if we could keep track of them. Maybe Kennigit should shorten his OP and include in the OP some of the ideas that have come out. The ones I see are:
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.
People should argue the merits/problems with each model, pick sides, or propose more models.
This is an effort to organize the thoughts in the thread up to now.
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.
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.
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 15:04 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.
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.
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.
I have never in my life had to press a key twice in SC to build something -_-
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.
The WC3 scene is like somewhere inbetween the foreign SC scene and the Korean SC scene, which is why it always annoys me when people (not you) bring up Creolophus winning the WCG after being inactive. Hello, Draco finished 2nd in TSL while wearing a Retired_ tag!?
Ok, back to your post: yeah, the top SC players have remained on top in the (EDIT: FOREIGN) SC scene, sure. But really, there's nowhere near the same influx of new players... And it's not like the WC3 scene is in constant turmoil with top players dropping in and out either, let's take a look at the Gosugamers.net top 10: Grubby - Around since what, 2004? He's been one of the top since 2005 at least. Lyn - Don't know how long he's been around, but he's dominated 2008. Fly100% - I think he's fairly new. ToD - Been around and on top for about as long as grubby. Moon - Been around since what, 2004? 2005? He was ranked 2nd just a few weeks ago too. TeD - I think he's pretty new school. Happy - New school. Check - I don't know how long he's been around, but fairly old school. Space - Again, don't know how long but at least a couple of years, but perhaps not in this prominent a position? Reign - Old school.
As for luck and what not.. Yeah, I'm sure item drops and critical crits (blademaster) play a part, but SC2 won't have any of those. Even with all this supposed luck, the players maintain disgusting win ratios: Grubby: 74% Lyn: 67% Fly100%: 60% ToD: 71% Moon: 68% TeD: 61% Happy: 61% Check: 58% Space: 57% Reign: 62%
EDIT: In fact, the WC3 ranking has more old school names than the SC top 10 does.
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.
I have never in my life had to press a key twice in SC to build something -_-
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.
The WC3 scene is like somewhere inbetween the foreign SC scene and the Korean SC scene, which is why it always annoys me when people (not you) bring up Creolophus winning the WCG after being inactive. Hello, Draco finished 2nd in TSL while wearing a Retired_ tag!?
Ok, back to your post: yeah, the top SC players have remained on top in the SC scene, sure. But really, there's nowhere near the same influx of new players... And it's not like the WC3 scene is in constant turmoil with top players dropping in and out either, let's take a look at the Gosugamers.net top 10: Grubby - Around since what, 2004? He's been one of the top since 2005 at least. Lyn - Don't know how long he's been around, but he's dominated 2008. Fly100% - I think he's fairly new. ToD - Been around and on top for about as long as grubby. Moon - Been around since what, 2004? 2005? He was ranked 2nd just a few weeks ago too. TeD - I think he's pretty new school. Happy - New school. Check - I don't know how long he's been around, but fairly old school. Space - Again, don't know how long but at least a couple of years, but perhaps not in this prominent a position? Reign - Old school.
As for luck and what not.. Yeah, I'm sure item drops and critical crits (blademaster) play a part, but SC2 won't have any of those. Even with all this supposed luck, the players maintain disgusting win ratios: Grubby: 74% Lyn: 67% Fly100%: 60% ToD: 71% Moon: 68% TeD: 61% Happy: 61% Check: 58% Space: 57% Reign: 62%
EDIT: In fact, the WC3 ranking has more old school names than the SC top 10 does.
His entire point was that Wc3 had the same top players and SC didn't. His opinion was that the top SC players were continually changing because the smart players can't keep up APM wise and he wants Sc2 to be like Wc3 where mechanics don't matter at all and it's all about strategy and that way the top players stay on top.
My point was that the Wc3 scene is just a lot less competitive than the Korean SC scene. A lot like the Foreign SC scene is less competitive than the Korean SC scene.
As far as it being difficult to reach the top of the Wc3 scene because the game is dependent on game sense/strategy, because of the weaker mechanics is wrong. Weaker mechanics allow new players to take over with relative ease, the reason we don't see this in Wc3 is because the scene is less competitive. An example is SK.Violet, he went from being an average amateur to one of the best Orcs in around 2 weeks with a bit of extra training. I know him personally and witnessed it first hand, it wasn't just an improvement in results that appeared so sudden, his skill level increased dramatically with relative ease, because the game is so easy.
Edit: Lyn is really old. Fly100% is actually pretty old, he was around in the scene as a practice partner for a lot of it though. TeD isn't necessairly new, he's just in the scene a lot more since the older and more popular UDs have stopped trying as hard. The only 'new' player on the list would be Happy I think, but I'm not sure as I've never bothered with the RU scene.
You mean YOUR point? Since I'm replying to your post, namely this:
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 think I see what you are saying now but it's really confusing, because your first paragraph sort of contradicts the second..
Also, my definition of old and new is not necessarily in terms of how long they've been playing, but how long they've been "top tier". I could be wrong but I don't think TeD has really been top tier for much more than a year.
Happy is 16 so it's physically impossible for him to be old school ;P
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.
Also, my definition of old and new is not necessarily in terms of how long they've been playing, but how long they've been "top tier". I could be wrong but I don't think TeD has really been top tier for much more than a year.
Happy is 16 so it's physically impossible for him to be old school ;P
Well the original point I was making was that Wc3 and Foreign SC scenes are a lot less competitive than the Korean SC scene, which is why a smaller group of players can win a lot of events and keep a relatively high winning percentage.
My other point was that easier mechanics decreases the skill gap and allows new players to enter the scene with relative ease, even if they're not necessarily more intelligent than other players.
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.
I have never in my life had to press a key twice in SC to build something -_-
I'm not saying it happens all the time, and when you use LL it certainly helps a lot, but it does happen sometimes especially if the connection isn't perfect. Regardless though the point about the engine being inferior is correct, even things like cycling ctrl groups while using the move command messes up if you know what I'm talking about. To clarify, I'm not arguing sc isn't the superior game, because it is, I'm just saying the engine isn't a thing it should be praised for.
Also, some of the suggestions for mineral gathering/upgrades I think are perhaps too much. If you wanna stick with the simplicity of starcraft, then you can't over do it. Then again, as I say that, there's already the current gas mechanic and it is a different game so...I'm not sure that is the best point. I'm just curious what everyone's definition of automining is, I am thinking the fact that you can rally a worker to a resource and it'll start gathering as automining, is this a correct assumption?
[B]EntSC: Very interesting, very mid-late game oriented as well. Expand on the idea?
Hey Everyone
I can’t write for long, because I’m at work, but a couple of people suggested that I expand on the crystal realignment idea that I had last night.
To summarise it again, the principle is to increase macro in lieu of the actions lost by automine. The macro focus is on the crystals, rather than the workers, which I think is an advantage because it enables us to come up with a generic solution. I personally think SCV stim is quite interesting, but we would nee d to come up with similar mechanics for Zerg and Protoss, and ensure that they’re balanced. Not an easy task!
I agree with one poster that I may have overcomplicated my suggestion with the inclusion of an arrow, so I’ll streamline it a bit here.
The crystals should glow when in alignment, which will yield more minerals per worker gather. Over time they should dealign. Crystals should start aligned. To align the crystals, the player should click on each mineral patch, click a hotkey, and then click the CC/Nexus/Hatch (either alternately, or all the crystals once and then the HQ depending on balance).
I think the gather rate has been reduced to 5, so I would suggest 6 for aligned crystals.
To recap the benefits:
- It’s a generic solution, so we don’t need to come up with something for all of the races. - It doesn’t affect worker speed, so there are no micro impact and balancing issues. - It’s easily scaled (crystal dealignment speed, gather rate etc). - It’s easy to do, but difficult to master when you’re microing etc at once too. - It will look to spectators because they will immediately understand that a progamer has pumped his economy with the glowing crystals. - It’s an additional mechanic rather than a change to an existing one. To be blunt, this allows Blizzard to jump on the automine casual gamer bandwagon (which to an extent I endorse from the perspective of getting more people into the game, though I would prefer it not to be included), but provides something additional that won’t feel like a restriction. - It will be essential at progamer level (20 per cent mineral yield increase), but at amateur level will not dramatically impact on their game. - It scales to the mid and long game (in my opinion emulating the present mechanic of non automine (where players build multiple strings of SCVs at CCs and then potentially forget about them)).
If people feel that it has too big an impact on the long game, Blizzard could vary the speed at which crystals dealign (so first alignment; second alignment after 5 minutes; third alignment after 10 minutes etc).
Additional: the skill requirement could be increased dependent upon how easily the different crystal groups can be clicked on (I guess this depends principally on the graphic). Personally, I think it might be quite nice to see a progamer rapidly click on multiple groups realigning them (method analogous to Boxer’s legendary blind of the observers when he was taking down the carriers).
Cheers guys
Ent
P.S: One person said that he didn’t think that automine had a significant impact because the actions required to send the workers to the mineral lines were quite low (cited 2.5 per cent from memory). But in this instance, I think it’s important to recognise that actions don’t actually represent the benefit of the mechanic. The overwhelming advantage of automine is that workers immediately start mining the crystals when produced. When I used to play (APM of about 170, only gamed with Jamie and Cei if you know those players (I always lost )), I regularly forgot about my workers because I was trying so frantically not to lose the battles in the middle of the map. So imo, the advantage of automine is:
Number of actions required by non-automine plus average length of mining time saved. I think that’s another benefit of the above mechanic because it emulates the advantage / disadvantage of the present game.
My two cents: Dealignment should occur often.. if we're gearing towards making players look at their base we should make it actually impactful. I'd say when there are 2 workers per mineral, then it should take about 30-40 seconds to dealign. With different minerals coming out of alignment at different times, this should keep players pretty busy throughtout the game considering the multiple bases. The key is to force the player's attention away from just microing. This mechanic change would almost entirely solve the multitasking issue.
Thanks - it was fun thinking about it! I agree with you re the potential to shorten the dealignment time... I tried to think of something that was scaleable so the sweet spot can be hit in testing. With a decent glow on the minerals or graphic effect it will be very obvious when someone has aligned the crystals or not (it even means Blizzard can do something that looks good, appealing to the casual gamers ).
Workers now have a researchable upgrade (50/50) at command center/nexus/Hatchery Terran : Scv Anti-matter engine Protoss: Probe warp core Zerg: Drone "myxoma"(non sense btw) glands
This ability will raise worker speed for like 15 to 20 seconds (it can be tweaked) and cant be set to autocast, the abilitty also have a cooldown of 3 to 5 seconds, progamers have enough apm to do that cause they are paid for this, noobs will get fucked if they play us, cause thats the way the life should be, the user will have to return home to activate this skill the whole game so the better multitasker will have the edge. You may ask, but if i drag all drones to ctrl+1 and press the hotkey? its so easy yeah but you have to build workers the whole game, and they wont benefit the upgrade unless you return home and manually do that, of course the pathfindin of the game is so great that noobs/casuals will not care about that unless they want to become good players, with hard work come benefits, this statement rule our lives since we are lil children. The Macro minded players /oov/ will most likely scroll over his expansions activating it abilities The Micro minded players /boxer/ will more likely still have less units than oov players but will be able to play art The Mechanic perfect players /Jaedong/ will be able to do all this shit listed above
Actually, myxoma is a tumor, usually of the heart.
Alright, that's it, I'm calling it. Blizzard no longer has any excuse for not solving the macro issue in the next month. TL has come up with very good, workable ideas. I personally like the speed boost and the mineral realignment, maybe even both of them at once. Either way, we need to push these ideas on the dev team, most of them really are win/win and really do solve the problem in the spirit of the game and without scaring away casual players or reviewers.
On November 18 2008 18:43 Alizee- wrote:I'm not saying it happens all the time, and when you use LL it certainly helps a lot, but it does happen sometimes especially if the connection isn't perfect. Regardless though the point about the engine being inferior is correct, even things like cycling ctrl groups while using the move command messes up if you know what I'm talking about.
Um, no. There isn't some inherent flaw in the SC engine that causes it to randomly miss inputs; it would be pretty ridiculous if there was, it's not exactly a great feat of programming to make the game manage to respond to all the player's actions. Unresponsiveness due to latency is just a given, obviously.
On November 18 2008 06:06 TheYango wrote: How can you have a macro mechanic that differentiates skill without punishing people that don't do it (or rewarding people that do, which is basically the same thing)?
Let's consider "No Automine" a macro mechanic. It rewards people who send workers to mine. It punishes people who don't. Haha, no. Seriously, it's more about if it makes sense to the player. Not lore-wise, just how intuitive it is. You were busy doing something and didn't have time to give your workers commands. You lost a few seconds of mining time, it's not so bad, it's your fault, it's fine. You were busy doing something and automine cursed your already mining workers with ensnare. That's lame, it's the fault of the game.
Orb's situational speed boost was the best idea here so far really. You could work with it to get something reasonable for other races. Like, you could remove the passive speed boost from creep and allow overlords or queens or something to either assist the workers with temporary creep area buffs or choose to use them to get stuff to the battlefield faster.
Like a Hatchery ability (upgradable?) that makes Drones work faster for a period of time where the duration of the spell is close to the cooldown
I have to disagree with the notion that the speed bonus mechanic forces newbs to adopt the no-automining play style by being rewarded for manually ordering your workers to mine - it is really no different from microing your units in battle instead of relying on AI.
I.e.:
manually telling your workers to mine = micoring during a battle
relying on automine = letting AI take care of your units
Telling each and every worker he should mine is not very realistic, but neither is telling each Marine where he should move when fighting a Zealot. ;;
And compared to that, neglecting to micro your units penalizes you so much more than neglecting to manually tell your workers to mine and go the auto-mining path instead. Yet, casual players are somehow not crying about being forced to micro - they simply don't and are content with how their units battle it out on their own. T___T
P.S. Someone probably has already posted something along those lines, but I couldn't manage to read the whole thread yet and wanted to post this regardless. ;p
Ok, I have a few problems with most of these ideas, but I'm not sure how to put my objections into words.. I'll try though.
1) Passive vs Active The benefits of handling your SCVs well without automining is sort of passive, if you are effecient, you get an advantage. The benefits of many of the mechanics suggested here are active; click this button and you'll get an advantage.
I feel the active-type mechanics are pure arcade game features and I'm not comfortable with them being in an RTS game..
2) Trade-off There is none. Pretty much all of the mechanics suggested you'd want to be on 100% of the time. You are not making a decision really, since there are no negative effects of using them. It could be argued that the decision lies in wether or not to do something else or perform these economy boosting actions.. But I don't think this is ideal.
I don't think the idea of new mechanics to make up for ones lost is bad tho, and instead of just complaining I'm gonna post an idea of my own.
Mining Efficiency (needs a better name ^^)
Similiar to -orb-'s (I think it was -orb-, I'm sorry if I'm mistaken) suggestion that workers be given a one time/high cooldown speed boost ability, and borrowing from maybenexttime's gas idea, I think being able to set your workers to various efficiency modes would be interesting.
Mode 1: 5 minerals per trip. Normal speed.
Mode 2: 7 minerals gained per trip, but the mineral patch loses 9 (or whatever number ends up being balanced), normal speed. An alternative to this could be the worker moving faster in mode 2, only returning 5, and the patch losing 7.
Now, these are just the first two ideas for modes I could come up with, there might be others. I think that not only does this type of mechanic have a higher chance of being impleneted, but it's gonna offer a lot of strategical options.
If it ends up working out in such a way that you'd want to use only one mode most of the time, things could be tweaked, or (but I find this an unattractive solution for similiar reasons I dislike most of the other ideas so far) you could have the worker start in a mode opposite to what is generally prefered.
EDIT: A more elegant solution would be to balance things in such a way that mode #2 is most effecient for part of the game (ie say your first 2 or 3 expansions) and then mode #1 (the starting mode) being more desireable due to the great number of mining bases you are at (ie your economy is stronger than you need it to be, so conserving minerals is fine).
just to remember Creep doesnt make drones faster and
GJ FA what if instead of workers carrying 7 mins but the patch losing 10 you had to pay 5 mins for each speed boost? 5 x10 = 50 5x 100= 500 that would make the player want expansions ASAP
[B]EntSC: Very interesting, very mid-late game oriented as well. Expand on the idea?
Hey Everyone
I can’t write for long, because I’m at work, but a couple of people suggested that I expand on the crystal realignment idea that I had last night.
To summarise it again, the principle is to increase macro in lieu of the actions lost by automine. The macro focus is on the crystals, rather than the workers, which I think is an advantage because it enables us to come up with a generic solution. I personally think SCV stim is quite interesting, but we would nee d to come up with similar mechanics for Zerg and Protoss, and ensure that they’re balanced. Not an easy task!
I agree with one poster that I may have overcomplicated my suggestion with the inclusion of an arrow, so I’ll streamline it a bit here.
The crystals should glow when in alignment, which will yield more minerals per worker gather. Over time they should dealign. Crystals should start aligned. To align the crystals, the player should click on each mineral patch, click a hotkey, and then click the CC/Nexus/Hatch (either alternately, or all the crystals once and then the HQ depending on balance).
I think the gather rate has been reduced to 5, so I would suggest 6 for aligned crystals.
To recap the benefits:
- It’s a generic solution, so we don’t need to come up with something for all of the races. - It doesn’t affect worker speed, so there are no micro impact and balancing issues. - It’s easily scaled (crystal dealignment speed, gather rate etc). - It’s easy to do, but difficult to master when you’re microing etc at once too. - It will look to spectators because they will immediately understand that a progamer has pumped his economy with the glowing crystals. - It’s an additional mechanic rather than a change to an existing one. To be blunt, this allows Blizzard to jump on the automine casual gamer bandwagon (which to an extent I endorse from the perspective of getting more people into the game, though I would prefer it not to be included), but provides something additional that won’t feel like a restriction. - It will be essential at progamer level (20 per cent mineral yield increase), but at amateur level will not dramatically impact on their game. - It scales to the mid and long game (in my opinion emulating the present mechanic of non automine (where players build multiple strings of SCVs at CCs and then potentially forget about them)).
If people feel that it has too big an impact on the long game, Blizzard could vary the speed at which crystals dealign (so first alignment; second alignment after 5 minutes; third alignment after 10 minutes etc).
Additional: the skill requirement could be increased dependent upon how easily the different crystal groups can be clicked on (I guess this depends principally on the graphic). Personally, I think it might be quite nice to see a progamer rapidly click on multiple groups realigning them (method analogous to Boxer’s legendary blind of the observers when he was taking down the carriers).
Cheers guys
Ent
P.S: One person said that he didn’t think that automine had a significant impact because the actions required to send the workers to the mineral lines were quite low (cited 2.5 per cent from memory). But in this instance, I think it’s important to recognise that actions don’t actually represent the benefit of the mechanic. The overwhelming advantage of automine is that workers immediately start mining the crystals when produced. When I used to play (APM of about 170, only gamed with Jamie and Cei if you know those players (I always lost )), I regularly forgot about my workers because I was trying so frantically not to lose the battles in the middle of the map. So imo, the advantage of automine is:
Number of actions required by non-automine plus average length of mining time saved. I think that’s another benefit of the above mechanic because it emulates the advantage / disadvantage of the present game.
I never thought I'd say this but you're making interesting points.
Actually, if you made your SCV-boosting exactly like stim packs, not only would it be coherent with marines mechanics (don't reinvent something stupid from scratch), but you could get something that's researchable, requires strategy in its use (use only in critical moments, or keep medics at bay), and give a boost to high-APM players (if that makes them happy, why not). What's more, it would help Terrans resist early rushes if they go the tech route (stim packs boost SCV speed, attack power... at a price). I wouldn't object to that.
I don't think you need similar mechanics for zerg and protoss. The zealots and zerglings don't have stim packs and that doesn't make the game imbalanced. As for the mining advantage... the zerg always have more bases anyway, so they naturally mine faster.
For the record though: I'm still against scrapping automine.
I'd like to hear feedback on this issue. If you don't agree with it, i would like a detailed explanation why - "gimicky" does is NOT acceptable. I would like a deep discussion and because i can abuse mod powers ill just delete a crap 1 line post LOL.
On November 18 2008 02:58 onepost wrote: It's a non-solution to a non-problem. Please everyone quit forecasting that the sky will fall and hordes of n00bz will swarm us over should workers no longer need to be told the obvious. Thank you.
deleted...will leave this for example
I wanted to spare your sensibilities but if you insist...
First, you don't make a convincing case that there is anything to fix or improve, and neither did anyone before you. In fact, the beginning of your article looks like a boring string of quoted or otherwise emphasized buzzwords like "good", "solution", "competitive", "issues", "rewarded", "investigation" and "positive", that I assume is supposed to mesmerize the reader into believing that there is something relevant to improve in a thoughtful and constructive manner, but at least with me it fails miserably. Hence the non-problem statement.
Then you don't make a convincing case that your "solution" solves the non-problem. I'll give you credit for burying into formalities, but in the end your effort falls flat. You could remove all but this one sentence which sums up your "solution": "Add perks to automine." This is old, bland, and uncreative. And negative (!!!) by the way. Adding meaningless clicks is only meant to relieve the existential anxiety of high-APM players, not to improve the game in any way.
Then I'm afraid you don't make a good job of explaining your "solution" to begin with. It looks like a management or macroeconomics textbook (in a most direct sense, by the way), in which they struggle at justifying the unjustifiable with tedious rhetoric. I'll translate your "solution" in my own, far more simple language: have the players whip the workers so that they don't slack off. At the very least, if you had suggested that we boost workers with electrochocs and adrenaline shots, I would have had a good laugh, but this dilbertesque motivation? sense of pride and responsibility? Come on. It's not even funny.
A comparison even more pertinent than management and macroeconomics would be Intelligent Design. Creationists anxious about teH 3v0lUtI0n but failing to make an even remotely rational case (because they can't, it's all about their Holy Bible) repackaged their hysterical nonsense, in an attempt to render their agenda less transparent, into something that somewhat looks like a science. But that hardly fooled anybody, because all they managed to accomplish with their empty "positive" rhetoric was to turn around the bush with not-so-subtle anti-evolution bashing, pointing out non-problems (holes) into the theory that "nothing in particular" (whistles...) was somehow magically supposed to fix. Hence their failure at convincing judges (or anybody but converts) that their creationism turned non-science should be taught in science classrooms.
Last, but not least, you appended Chill's objections to your post, which is self-defeating. If there was any hope left of deceiving anybody into believing that your new mechanics make any sense or serve any purpose, by the time they're done reading his comment (and he's quite direct and crude, by the way), it's gone. I really had a good laugh reading that part, at the very least.
I'd like to be more "positive" about your article and contribute to the deep discussion that you expect, but honestly I can't. It's a poor idea, poorly presented, and poorly written. I expect better from someone aiming at telling industry leader Blizzard Entertainment how to improve their stuff.
I never said i was right. I said it was a potential solution and that i wanted discussion about the pros and cons. By page 2 we already modifictions and even better or simpler suggestions. It's not about my OP or presenting some masters thesis. You are in a very small minority on this site that feels that automining isn't an issue - it is. All the progamers, top amateurs, staff, and high level thinking players note that it is a serious issue when the management of resources is automated so i don't care if you think its an issue. I'm not justifying the argument because its been argued and agreed upon for months. All i want is potential solutions from the core group of people who have issue with it an encourage some discussion. If you don't think there's a problem then don't post in this thread.
I think the spirit of your suggestion is good, but clearly not aligned with the direction Blizzard is insistent upon going in.
I really like the toggle-option idea. To answer those who say, "you'd never turn it off because it makes no sense to opt out of an advantage" well SC1 is already modal. I would think of automine as UMS. Or rather, because of Blizzard's intent to play down macro, automine/MBS would be the norm, and "SC1-mode" would be an alternate (set pre-game; you know when you join a game what the mode is). Ladders and professional gaming will standardize SC1 mode, and all the people who play against computer and never BNET, will simply be autominers/MBSers.
On November 18 2008 22:51 FrozenArbiter wrote: Ok, I have a few problems with most of these ideas, but I'm not sure how to put my objections into words.. I'll try though.
1) Passive vs Active The benefits of handling your SCVs well without automining is sort of passive, if you are effecient, you get an advantage. The benefits of many of the mechanics suggested here are active; click this button and you'll get an advantage.
Hey FA
I just wondered why you feel that managing SCVs in SC1 without automine is passive? You actively have to tell your SCVs to move to each mineral patch and mine (potentially cloning them to ensure mining efficiency). This has to be done multiple times (as you produce more and more strings of SCVs).
I think crystal realignment echoes this mechanic, because you need to periodically realign the crystals in much the same way as you would periodically tell SCVs to go to each mineral patch in Starcraft at present.
I don't know if passive is the right word, but basically it's the opposite of the ACTIVE abilities that have been proposed.
IE with manual mining being more efficient is just.. more efficient. With the movement speed boost, you get an ingame boost to your units for clicking. I dunno, I'm not sure I'm explaining I'm epxlaining things that well, but it makes sense to me.
On November 18 2008 22:51 FrozenArbiter wrote: Ok, I have a few problems with most of these ideas, but I'm not sure how to put my objections into words.. I'll try though.
1) Passive vs Active The benefits of handling your SCVs well without automining is sort of passive, if you are effecient, you get an advantage. The benefits of many of the mechanics suggested here are active; click this button and you'll get an advantage.
I feel the active-type mechanics are pure arcade game features and I'm not comfortable with them being in an RTS game..
2) Trade-off There is none. Pretty much all of the mechanics suggested you'd want to be on 100% of the time. You are not making a decision really, since there are no negative effects of using them. It could be argued that the decision lies in wether or not to do something else or perform these economy boosting actions.. But I don't think this is ideal.
I don't think the idea of new mechanics to make up for ones lost is bad tho, and instead of just complaining I'm gonna post an idea of my own.
Mining Efficiency (needs a better name ^^)
Similiar to -orb-'s (I think it was -orb-, I'm sorry if I'm mistaken) suggestion that workers be given a one time/high cooldown speed boost ability, and borrowing from maybenexttime's gas idea, I think being able to set your workers to various efficiency modes would be interesting.
Mode 1: 5 minerals per trip. Normal speed.
Mode 2: 7 minerals gained per trip, but the mineral patch loses 10 (or whatever number ends up being balanced), normal speed. An alternative to this could be the worker moving faster in mode 2, only returning 5, and the patch losing 7.
Now, these are just the first two ideas for modes I could come up with, there might be others. I think that not only does this type of mechanic have a higher chance of being impleneted, but it's gonna offer a lot of strategical options.
If it ends up working out in such a way that you'd want to use only one mode most of the time, things could be tweaked, or (but I find this an unattractive solution for similiar reasons I dislike most of the other ideas so far) you could have the worker start in a mode opposite to what is generally prefered.
EDIT: A more elegant solution would be to balance things in such a way that mode #2 is most effecient for part of the game (ie say your first 2 or 3 expansions) and then mode #1 (the starting mode) being more desireable due to the great number of mining bases you are at (ie your economy is stronger than you need it to be, so conserving minerals is fine).
Good idea? Bad idea?
I honestly agree with you. I really want to put focus on this:
I feel the active-type mechanics are pure arcade game features and I'm not comfortable with them being in an RTS game..
I´d say it´s slightly more complex. It´s less about active vs. passive but one vs. 2 or more "dimensional". With at LEAST 1 Dimension being the other player(s).
To be a competative feature it needs to be judged in context of the current game. The mining mechanic is truly onedimensional and consistent independently if you are playing against Human or Computer, fastest or slowest, Zerg or Terran... In fact it´s so onedimensional that it´s really really simple to optimize it by automisation. IMHO the stuff that shouldn´t be automated is the stuff a human would be able to do better.
Build orders are one example since they vary greatly depending on a multitude of factors, majorly the own race but also the opponents race, build order, income situation, etc... Of course you can look up some BO´s but the best players are able to adjust their BO´s depending on each individual game. All these factors mean that it´s a highly scalable sucsess factor that would be impossible to automate and even hard to rank (which player has the consistently best BO´s throughout the whole game?)
Edit:
On November 19 2008 01:20 FrozenArbiter wrote: I don't know if passive is the right word, but basically it's the opposite of the ACTIVE abilities that have been proposed.
IE with manual mining being more efficient is just.. more efficient. With the movement speed boost, you get an ingame boost to your units for clicking. I dunno, I'm not sure I'm explaining I'm epxlaining things that well, but it makes sense to me.
As mentioned above I´d say that Active and Passive are the wrong words. More reasonable would be: In context of the current match and not in context of the current match. There are factors in maximising minerals that are affected by the opponent - but none of these touch manual vs. automining. Peon protection, expansion timing, etc... are, even in SC:BW, a lot more gamedeciding than the time peons spend sitting around. I honestly NEVER saw even ONE serious match that was decided by forgetfullness regarding mineral mining (which happens but never makes a REAL difference). The main argument against Automining is that it reduces skill differination - but I don´t see any in Manual Mining.
On November 19 2008 01:20 FrozenArbiter wrote: I don't know if passive is the right word, but basically it's the opposite of the ACTIVE abilities that have been proposed.
IE with manual mining being more efficient is just.. more efficient. With the movement speed boost, you get an ingame boost to your units for clicking. I dunno, I'm not sure I'm explaining I'm epxlaining things that well, but it makes sense to me.
I think I see what you mean, but it depends on your perspective. If we run automine and crystal realignment in parallel within the remit of your argument then I think it can depend on your definition.
I would present it like this:
Default state without automine is SCVs are produced and do not mine. Player has to tell them to gather minerals and he receives income as a result.
Default state with automine is SCVs are produced and gather automatically.
Default state with automine and crystal realignment is crystals are unaligned (as non-gathering SCVs). Player must select the crystals and perform an action (similar in my mind to a player instructing the SCVs to gather minerals). Crystals move out of alignment over time as they are mined. This is analogous to the production of SCVs: as you produce workers you must tell them to gather crystals; as you gather minerals in SC2 with AM, you must realign the crystals.
That's my interpretation of the mechanic - don't know if I wasn't clear or if you still have reservations!
On November 19 2008 01:20 FrozenArbiter wrote: I don't know if passive is the right word, but basically it's the opposite of the ACTIVE abilities that have been proposed.
IE with manual mining being more efficient is just.. more efficient. With the movement speed boost, you get an ingame boost to your units for clicking. I dunno, I'm not sure I'm explaining I'm epxlaining things that well, but it makes sense to me.
I think I see what you mean, but it depends on your perspective. If we run automine and crystal realignment in parallel within the remit of your argument then I think it can depend on your definition.
I would present it like this:
Default state without automine is SCVs are produced and do not mine. Player has to tell them to gather minerals and he receives income as a result.
Default state with automine is SCVs are produced and gather automatically.
Default state with automine and crystal realignment is crystals are unaligned (as non-gathering SCVs). Player must select the crystals and perform an action (similar in my mind to a player instructing the SCVs to gather minerals). Crystals move out of alignment over time as they are mined. This is analogous to the production of SCVs: as you produce workers you must tell them to gather crystals; as you gather minerals in SC2 with AM, you must realign the crystals.
That's my interpretation of the mechanic - don't know if I wasn't clear or if you still have reservations!
Cheers
Ent
My problem with your direct mechanic is that it just "shifts" the mechanic, you explain it quite well yourself: "This is analogous to the production of SCVs: as you produce workers you must tell them to gather crystals; as you gather minerals in SC2 with AM, you must realign the crystals."
I´d like a reason NOT to "align the crystals". Why not make them "targettable" while aligned so that you would be more vulnerable to enemy raids as "payment" for the increased income.
My problem with your direct mechanic is that it just "shifts" the mechanic, you explain it quite well yourself: "This is analogous to the production of SCVs: as you produce workers you must tell them to gather crystals; as you gather minerals in SC2 with AM, you must realign the crystals."
I´d like a reason NOT to "align the crystals". Why not make them "targettable" while aligned so that you would be more vulnerable to enemy raids as "payment" for the increased income.
Ahhh, I see what you mean. My intention though was to develop a mechanic that provided macro in the absence of automine. Without automine SCVs just stand still. We're talking about players moving back to their bases with the specific intention of telling their SCVs to gather; telling SCVs to construct buildings (or perform other actions) is a different mechanic, so the choice is to go back to your base and tell your SCVs to gather, or don't.
There's no advantage in not telling them to gather (apart from the time saving, but we haven't raised that as an argument because the time saving is naturally present with any mechanic that increases macro). So from my perspective crystal alignment is a good solution to the problem of automine because of the parallels with macro in SC1.
If, however, you are talking about coming up with an improved mechanic that doesn't parallel macro in SC1, then I completely take your points about a disadvantage associated with crystal realignment. My intention was just to replace macro in a format acceptable to the casual and competitive gamer with a graphical display that is interesting for spectators.
EntSC, I actually have grown to love your suggestion.
I'm still not sure I fully understand the mechanic of what the player actually needs to do to re-align the minerals (and I think it's open to suggestions as to the actions that need to be done on it), but I really like the idea.
At first I thought it was too complicated, but after you expanded on the idea it seems to me it provides exactly what we need. The only potential problem I see with it is that it's the same with all three races. One of the truly fantastic things about brood war is how each race does pretty much everything differently. This is one of the reason I was so gung-ho about the scv stim/probe afterburner/drone adrenal boost ideas, since it provides that difference between the races which makes starcraft so interesting to play.
Maybe something could be incorporated into your idea to make it different for each race?
My problem with your direct mechanic is that it just "shifts" the mechanic, you explain it quite well yourself: "This is analogous to the production of SCVs: as you produce workers you must tell them to gather crystals; as you gather minerals in SC2 with AM, you must realign the crystals."
I´d like a reason NOT to "align the crystals". Why not make them "targettable" while aligned so that you would be more vulnerable to enemy raids as "payment" for the increased income.
Ahhh, I see what you mean. My intention though was to develop a mechanic that provided macro in the absence of automine. Without automine SCVs just stand still. We're talking about players moving back to their bases with the specific intention of telling their SCVs to gather; telling SCVs to construct buildings (or perform other actions) is a different mechanic, so the choice is to go back to your base and tell your SCVs to gather, or don't.
There's no advantage in not telling them to gather (apart from the time saving, but we haven't raised that as an argument because the time saving is naturally present with any mechanic that increases macro). So from my perspective crystal alignment is a good solution to the problem of automine because of the parallels with macro in SC1.
If, however, you are talking about coming up with an improved mechanic that doesn't parallel macro in SC1, then I completely take your points about a disadvantage associated with crystal realignment. My intention was just to replace macro in a format acceptable to the casual and competitive gamer with a graphical display that is interesting for spectators.
Well you are right, I would like a improved version of Macro compared to SC:BW. As mentioned before I think it´s too onedimensional. Anyone can perfect Manualmining very quicly - most confuse it a bit with Multitasking.
You should try to REPLACE the mechanic, not to REPEAT it in different colours. Right now I see: Old: No income vs. income Yours: Low income vs. High income Mine: Low income low risk vs. High income high risk
I would tweak it to make the speed boost a one-time thing. This way, peon spawns, works slowly until ordered manually to mineral patch at which point it becomes fully productive for its lifespan. This would only work if there is one order/peasant selected (ie keep cloning). This would be the most like SC1, you build then you order to mineral line. This also solves potential abuses about sitting in your base and mineralcrafting to hyper econonmy
On November 19 2008 02:50 See.Blue wrote: I would tweak it to make the speed boost a one-time thing. This way, peon spawns, works slowly until ordered manually to mineral patch at which point it becomes fully productive for its lifespan. This would only work if there is one order/peasant selected (ie keep cloning). This would be the most like SC1, you build then you order to mineral line. This also solves potential abuses about sitting in your base and mineralcrafting to hyper econonmy
On November 19 2008 02:11 -orb- wrote: EntSC, I actually have grown to love your suggestion.
I'm still not sure I fully understand the mechanic of what the player actually needs to do to re-align the minerals (and I think it's open to suggestions as to the actions that need to be done on it), but I really like the idea.
At first I thought it was too complicated, but after you expanded on the idea it seems to me it provides exactly what we need. The only potential problem I see with it is that it's the same with all three races. One of the truly fantastic things about brood war is how each race does pretty much everything differently. This is one of the reason I was so gung-ho about the scv stim/probe afterburner/drone adrenal boost ideas, since it provides that difference between the races which makes starcraft so interesting to play.
Maybe something could be incorporated into your idea to make it different for each race?
Hey Orb, I'm really pleased you like it! The original suggestion was a metagame idea that would require a degree of skill to perform quickly (e.g. dragging an arrow around to face the CC whilst it was pulsing, and match it up with an existing arrow). However, it was suggested that this was too complicated, so I reduced it to just a hotkey / button click. I think one of the benefits is its simplicity, and with the crystal glow, it will be easy to see which progamers have effectively aligned the crystals.
Perhaps to make it more interesting, whilst retaining the simplicity of the mechanic, the crystals could dealign twice. When aligned, they could glow and be worth 6 per trip, when dealigned once they would be worth 5 and twice they would be worth 4. The crystals could appear dimmer each time which would produce a nice graphical display of macro ability. I think this additional complication would be a question for balance as 6 down to 4 is a significant reduction in gather rate.
Another idea I just had was superficial differentiation by making it contingent on a technology, but on reflection I don't think it's a good idea to proscribe certain build orders. I also think it should be available from the beginning of the game. It parallels the lack of automining in SC quite well because all races have to move their SCVs/probes/drones to the mineral line in the same way, but I completely agree with you that differentiation would be preferable if a balanced interesting solution could be found.
Unentschieden: I see where you're coming from now, so I just think we differ on the objectives.
Yes but alternatives aren't always better. I'd love to see SC2 improve upon the model of 1 but in this respect, I think parsimony is critical. Mining is inherently a simple mechanic. A lot of the previous suggestions suggest fundamental changes to how mining works but they are neither intuitive nor do they, while being interesting, (and this is just my opinion) really enhance the gameplay in any real way. Yes they are alternatives but if it isn't broken, don't fix it. I put down my idea just because that will more or less mean breaking even click per click-wise with SC1 which should help uphold the skill differential without adding an complex and somewhat contrived system into the game. If you want macro reform the place to look (and I think Blizz is going in the right direction here) is with production queues with reactors/warpgates.
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.
Not true as a blanket statement. It is subject to balance and beta testing. My idea of it would be that if you rallied soldiers across the entire map, they would arrive maybe 1 or 2 seconds later than those ordered to go. Not enough the decide the outcome of low skill matches (which are decided more by things like 1 person not expanding or bad build orders or not using all your minerals), but it would only make a difference at the pro level.
Pros are so good that tiny changes can give them the slight advantage they need. So the outcome is that the pros would choose to play SC2 just like the did with SC1--with no automine. We know they can do it and that its fun to watch because that's the way SC1 is.
The speed boost thing sounds pretty good to me, but here's another variation on it. I didn't read through all nine pages of this thread, so bear with me if this repeats some stuff:
WORKER MANAGEMENT
Someone earlier posted an idea about the workers getting debuffs, where in essence their mining rate per minute gets decreased because of tools getting weaker/worn out/whatever. This seems like a completely plausible (lore-wise) solution and would allow for competitive play whereby there's a separate building where you send workers to get their drills fixed, so to speak.
In terms of game mechanics, you could basically have the amount of minerals returned by NEW workers = 6 (or 8, i forget the number in the current build), then decrease every minute/two minutes until it bottoms out at 3 per trip to the mineral patch.
The nice part about this mechanic versus the speed boost mechanic is that this slightly hinders players with lots of bases and lots of workers. As someone else also said in one of the MBS threads, there should be a NEGATIVE to having tons of bases and tons of workers. In BW, the negative is that you have to pay attention to more workers that pop out. Here, it could be that you have to pay attention to more workers not working at optimal efficiency.
Heck, we could have both mechanisms in play, with both the speed boost and the workers efficiency decreasing over time. Why not make workers a strategic focus for competitive play?
Thoughts?
EDIT: Also, there's more complexity to this than just HIGHLIGHT ALL WORKERS, CLICK SPEED UP/FIX THINGS BUTTON. At different points in the game, different workers will be at different levels of efficiency, so you can't just blanket tell all workers to go fix themselves. Also, you could have a minor cost for the fixing of each worker (like 5min/worker or something)
Example of 3 levels of players: Completely Casual, Amateur, Progamer -
Completely Casual - Never tells his workers to fix themselves. Beginning of the game, not a big deal and can still play against the amateur macro-wise. Mid-late game, this is a big deal and the casual player will fall behind.
Amateur - Sometimes tells his workers to fix themselves. The amateur would basically wait until all or most of his workers at each base are at low efficiency and then tell them all to go fix themselves. This would allow him MID-level mining efficiency and would work very well against the casual player, but not against the progamer level.
Perfect Progamer - Tells every worker individually to fix themselves at the optimal time (depending on build order, timing, etc). Thus, the perfect progamer would always be at maximal mining efficiency. In this mode, professional play is EVEN HARDER than in current starcraft, because they would have to spend even more time on macro than currently to achieve the perfect balance. However, because no one could be expected to do every single worker perfectly for a 40-min match, there will be a balance trade-off between the amount of time devoted to worker management and army micro/macro.
Regarding FA's idea that he posted about fast mining with an efficiency loss.
I LIKE it.
Actually that is a very interesting idea. I think that the normal mining should be the most efficient overall (obviously it is since you are not losing any minerals), but your idea would allow a player to choose to lose some minerals in exchange for a fast boost to you economy perhaps preparing for a speed rush or a timed push or just cause he needs to fast minerals NOW.
After the emergency situation is over, people would turn off the fast mining because losing 2 minerals for every 7 you mine is a significant loss.
I really like it.
Any of the ideas on the thread, including this one, I think would make the macro aspect of the game more interesting
I kind of like the mineral realigning idea. However doesn't it implicate that the minerals are owned by you if you can click them and then use some action as if they were a unit? Also that feels a bit strange to me :e I would like it more if the minerals were realigned by just attacking the mineral once. Then the only new part that would have to be added to the game would be the minerals glowing when not aligned. I still feel this idea is kind of artificial though. It doesn't feel natural at all But I guess its better than keeping it the way it is.
Maybe adding this as a feature only to the golden minerals would be ok, since they are already a new addition to the game so it wouldn't really be changing anything or adding something that is too unintuitive. They already have exceptions to the rules so to say.
Similiar to -orb-'s (I think it was -orb-, I'm sorry if I'm mistaken) suggestion that workers be given a one time/high cooldown speed boost ability, and borrowing from maybenexttime's gas idea, I think being able to set your workers to various efficiency modes would be interesting.
Mode 1: 5 minerals per trip. Normal speed.
Mode 2: 7 minerals gained per trip, but the mineral patch loses 9 (or whatever number ends up being balanced), normal speed. An alternative to this could be the worker moving faster in mode 2, only returning 5, and the patch losing 7.
Now, these are just the first two ideas for modes I could come up with, there might be others. I think that not only does this type of mechanic have a higher chance of being impleneted, but it's gonna offer a lot of strategical options.
If it ends up working out in such a way that you'd want to use only one mode most of the time, things could be tweaked, or (but I find this an unattractive solution for similiar reasons I dislike most of the other ideas so far) you could have the worker start in a mode opposite to what is generally prefered.
EDIT: A more elegant solution would be to balance things in such a way that mode #2 is most effecient for part of the game (ie say your first 2 or 3 expansions) and then mode #1 (the starting mode) being more desireable due to the great number of mining bases you are at (ie your economy is stronger than you need it to be, so conserving minerals is fine).
Good idea? Bad idea?
Now this I like I think the idea could be worked on more and maybe more modes added or something. But this is a really good basis for an idea. It would both add the need for multitasking on higher levels and have a strategic angle too it as well.
Early in the game you would probably need to turn the speed boost on to not fall behind economically. Once you have saturated your mineral lines you would want to go back and remove the speed boost since it wouldn't make any difference on a saturated line. When you expand and maynard half your workers to your expansion you might want to turn it back on. After you get reaver dropped and lose 2/3 of your workers you might want to turn it back on. Once you gain map control you might want to turn it on and take control of another few expansions. If you are playing a defensive strategy where you know you will have big problems taking more than three expansions before the late game. (Corsair/Reaver or something...) you might want to keep the speed boost off the entire game to save those mineral clutches. It would take a lot of balancing to make sure that both of the modes would be useful in different situations. Might have some implications on map making too :e
God people are so freaking disrespectful in this thread. I seriousy wish I could take away some of yours ability to communicate on the internet considering your extremely unpleasant responses to theory that someone put time and effort into bringing the community. Do you walk up to people in real life and tell them straight to their face that their opinions suck and aren't worth shit?
That being said I like the fundamentals of this theory. The whole point of individual selection seems a bit hard to balance and that might be the reason why this theory may not work in reality.
My suggestion: If you would add this ability of speed increase to the command center and give it a 20-30 sec cooldown I think it could work. The ability would have to be limited in scalability imo to not make it too imbalanced. For an example it could give the speed boost to 10 scvs per command center. Imagine if you had 4 command centers in really late game and had to select them every 20-30 sec and press a button. It's not alot of effort but atleast you need multitasking to pull it off perfectly.
One big problem with this theory (including the one in the OP) is that if your bases are very well saturated you gain nothing from a speed boost (unless you boost gathering time itself) since there will allways be workers queued at patches.
My problem with your direct mechanic is that it just "shifts" the mechanic, you explain it quite well yourself: "This is analogous to the production of SCVs: as you produce workers you must tell them to gather crystals; as you gather minerals in SC2 with AM, you must realign the crystals."
I´d like a reason NOT to "align the crystals". Why not make them "targettable" while aligned so that you would be more vulnerable to enemy raids as "payment" for the increased income.
Ahhh, I see what you mean. My intention though was to develop a mechanic that provided macro in the absence of automine. Without automine SCVs just stand still. We're talking about players moving back to their bases with the specific intention of telling their SCVs to gather; telling SCVs to construct buildings (or perform other actions) is a different mechanic, so the choice is to go back to your base and tell your SCVs to gather, or don't.
There's no advantage in not telling them to gather (apart from the time saving, but we haven't raised that as an argument because the time saving is naturally present with any mechanic that increases macro). So from my perspective crystal alignment is a good solution to the problem of automine because of the parallels with macro in SC1.
If, however, you are talking about coming up with an improved mechanic that doesn't parallel macro in SC1, then I completely take your points about a disadvantage associated with crystal realignment. My intention was just to replace macro in a format acceptable to the casual and competitive gamer with a graphical display that is interesting for spectators.
Well you are right, I would like a improved version of Macro compared to SC:BW. As mentioned before I think it´s too onedimensional. Anyone can perfect Manualmining very quicly - most confuse it a bit with Multitasking.
You should try to REPLACE the mechanic, not to REPEAT it in different colours. Right now I see: Old: No income vs. income Yours: Low income vs. High income Mine: Low income low risk vs. High income high risk
Am I mistaken, or is not the "risk" involved with Ent's idea the fact that you have to leave your army unattended in order to increase your mining speed? Is this not exactly what was desired by the OP and by competitive gamers in general? You need the distraction in order to make battles more exciting, and to make it a strategic decision "Can I win this battle without perfect micro? If not, will I be able to recover my lost units through superior economy? If not, how much will my economy be hurt if I have to spend all my attention at my army's location and how will that affect my building and unit production?"
It seems to me there is plenty of risk involved with going back to adjust your minerals, and that the suggestion (or one similar in design and execution) is something just like what the doctor ordered. A simple, easy to see mechanic that gives the player another decision to make.
NOT simply more "clicks" NOT simply a "reward" or a "penalty" BUT INSTEAD, another strategic decision.
I think this discussion is searching for a thing that is pretty obvious to do and that will make better players benefit from this like manually sending your peons to mine. Thats why the passive/active words came into it, but really those obvious things are just the same things blizzard wants to automatizate, if we find some now, it will disappear in sc3, my thesis that we are lost is right again. So I believe we need to add things like the gas mechanics or potential solutions to automine from a lore standpoint first, and then into mechanics for it never become surreal or utopic
Honestly I believe that there is only one simple solution to automining:
Why not make auto mine for single player only OR maybe better yet, for UMS type play (singleplayer and trigger/scripted base gameplay?????????? Why try to eliminate the intricate parts of competitive gameplay in a mode where novice players usually dont ever play anyway? The novice players that Blizzard is trying to accommodate never end up playing mulitplayer anyway b.c the consensus is that online play is generally harder for them. They play the game for entertainment purposes and not for competitive stimulation. These type of players (casual gamers) play for game lore and dont wish to pursue higher levels of play. These players usually have a hard enough time with single player modes in games - let alone competing in [online play for] RTS's. Multiplayer/online play is suited for the competitive and not for the casual gamer - especially with games as advanced as RTS's. StarCraft is game of many variables in competitive play that most casual players know they dont comprehend - thus the lack of continued play by these individuals. These players play multiplayer to see where they stand with the public and do not pursue it unless they are interested in higher level play. Higher level play would be a game solely that expresses the LACK OF AUTOMATION.
Then again, it would be nice to have a large amount of players committing to a great game. BUT thats where UMS games online would come in!!!!!!!! UMS MODES SHOULD SUPPORT AUTOMINE AS A SCRIPT FOR ENHANCED PLAY VIA TRIGGERS ON THE INTERNET. A MELEE MODE GAME SHOULD BRING A HIGHER LEVEL OF PLAY BY REDUCING AUTOMATION - plain and simple.
My problem with your direct mechanic is that it just "shifts" the mechanic, you explain it quite well yourself: "This is analogous to the production of SCVs: as you produce workers you must tell them to gather crystals; as you gather minerals in SC2 with AM, you must realign the crystals."
I´d like a reason NOT to "align the crystals". Why not make them "targettable" while aligned so that you would be more vulnerable to enemy raids as "payment" for the increased income.
Ahhh, I see what you mean. My intention though was to develop a mechanic that provided macro in the absence of automine. Without automine SCVs just stand still. We're talking about players moving back to their bases with the specific intention of telling their SCVs to gather; telling SCVs to construct buildings (or perform other actions) is a different mechanic, so the choice is to go back to your base and tell your SCVs to gather, or don't.
There's no advantage in not telling them to gather (apart from the time saving, but we haven't raised that as an argument because the time saving is naturally present with any mechanic that increases macro). So from my perspective crystal alignment is a good solution to the problem of automine because of the parallels with macro in SC1.
If, however, you are talking about coming up with an improved mechanic that doesn't parallel macro in SC1, then I completely take your points about a disadvantage associated with crystal realignment. My intention was just to replace macro in a format acceptable to the casual and competitive gamer with a graphical display that is interesting for spectators.
Well you are right, I would like a improved version of Macro compared to SC:BW. As mentioned before I think it´s too onedimensional. Anyone can perfect Manualmining very quicly - most confuse it a bit with Multitasking.
You should try to REPLACE the mechanic, not to REPEAT it in different colours. Right now I see: Old: No income vs. income Yours: Low income vs. High income Mine: Low income low risk vs. High income high risk
Am I mistaken, or is not the "risk" involved with Ent's idea the fact that you have to leave your army unattended in order to increase your mining speed? Is this not exactly what was desired by the OP and by competitive gamers in general? You need the distraction in order to make battles more exciting, and to make it a strategic decision "Can I win this battle without perfect micro? If not, will I be able to recover my lost units through superior economy? If not, how much will my economy be hurt if I have to spend all my attention at my army's location and how will that affect my building and unit production?"
It seems to me there is plenty of risk involved with going back to adjust your minerals, and that the suggestion (or one similar in design and execution) is something just like what the doctor ordered. A simple, easy to see mechanic that gives the player another decision to make.
NOT simply more "clicks" NOT simply a "reward" or a "penalty" BUT INSTEAD, another strategic decision.
THAT'S the sort of thing I think most of us want.
Did you know why SC originally got the 12 unit selection Limit? It was supposed to prevent Rushes.
In practice "limitations" like these are simply being circumvented by sheer training and therefore simply add a entrance barrier for players with less trainingtime. (But I think some here honestly WANT entrance barriers...) Professionals don´t "pay attention" to mudane repetative tasks like that - it´s scientifically proven. Beginners and Proffessionals aproach this entirely differently mentally. It´s a matter of muscle memory, not strategy.
Competative play doesn´t need distractions (please, prove it to me I´m really not seeing it), it needs to be fun (includes fair) even under "powerplay" conditions. One of the worst scenarios would be "200/200 races" every game - even if it were to be completely balanced no one would want (to watch) matches like that.
TL:DR It´s not a strategic desicion, its a trainingtimesink.
My problem with your direct mechanic is that it just "shifts" the mechanic, you explain it quite well yourself: "This is analogous to the production of SCVs: as you produce workers you must tell them to gather crystals; as you gather minerals in SC2 with AM, you must realign the crystals."
I´d like a reason NOT to "align the crystals". Why not make them "targettable" while aligned so that you would be more vulnerable to enemy raids as "payment" for the increased income.
Ahhh, I see what you mean. My intention though was to develop a mechanic that provided macro in the absence of automine. Without automine SCVs just stand still. We're talking about players moving back to their bases with the specific intention of telling their SCVs to gather; telling SCVs to construct buildings (or perform other actions) is a different mechanic, so the choice is to go back to your base and tell your SCVs to gather, or don't.
There's no advantage in not telling them to gather (apart from the time saving, but we haven't raised that as an argument because the time saving is naturally present with any mechanic that increases macro). So from my perspective crystal alignment is a good solution to the problem of automine because of the parallels with macro in SC1.
If, however, you are talking about coming up with an improved mechanic that doesn't parallel macro in SC1, then I completely take your points about a disadvantage associated with crystal realignment. My intention was just to replace macro in a format acceptable to the casual and competitive gamer with a graphical display that is interesting for spectators.
Well you are right, I would like a improved version of Macro compared to SC:BW. As mentioned before I think it´s too onedimensional. Anyone can perfect Manualmining very quicly - most confuse it a bit with Multitasking.
You should try to REPLACE the mechanic, not to REPEAT it in different colours. Right now I see: Old: No income vs. income Yours: Low income vs. High income Mine: Low income low risk vs. High income high risk
Am I mistaken, or is not the "risk" involved with Ent's idea the fact that you have to leave your army unattended in order to increase your mining speed? Is this not exactly what was desired by the OP and by competitive gamers in general? You need the distraction in order to make battles more exciting, and to make it a strategic decision "Can I win this battle without perfect micro? If not, will I be able to recover my lost units through superior economy? If not, how much will my economy be hurt if I have to spend all my attention at my army's location and how will that affect my building and unit production?"
It seems to me there is plenty of risk involved with going back to adjust your minerals, and that the suggestion (or one similar in design and execution) is something just like what the doctor ordered. A simple, easy to see mechanic that gives the player another decision to make.
NOT simply more "clicks" NOT simply a "reward" or a "penalty" BUT INSTEAD, another strategic decision.
THAT'S the sort of thing I think most of us want.
Did you know why SC originally got the 12 unit selection Limit? It was supposed to prevent Rushes.
In practice "limitations" like these are simply being circumvented by sheer training and therefore simply add a entrance barrier for players with less trainingtime. (But I think some here honestly WANT entrance barriers...) Professionals don´t "pay attention" to mudane repetative tasks like that - it´s scientifically proven. Beginners and Proffessionals aproach this entirely differently mentally. It´s a matter of muscle memory, not strategy.
Competative play doesn´t need distractions (please, prove it to me I´m really not seeing it), it needs to be fun (includes fair) even under "powerplay" conditions. One of the worst scenarios would be "200/200 races" every game - even if it were to be completely balanced no one would want (to watch) matches like that.
TL:DR It´s not a strategic desicion, its a trainingtimesink.
Part of SC's addictive quality is the requirement of speed and precision with mouse and keyboard. This is why I never really got into WC3. I did not get the same rush from playing.
The thing about entrance barriers, is that they are only entrance barriers to the serious competitive play. Noobs, and casual players will play the game with other casuals and noobs. So, those games will be unaffected by these "entrance barriers" because the players are all playing at the same level. But at higher levels of play, for people who want to and are willing to invest time to be good, you want skill gradients.
That's where the mechanics requirement comes in. Players are differentiated by their mechanics and their comprehension of strategy. The more you remove the mechanics portion of the game, the less frenzied it becomes and the realizement of the best strategy becomes easier to conceive and execute. StarCraft is not super deep in strategy, but that is balanced out by the need for mechanical proficiency. If you want deep strategy with 0 physical requirements, chess is the game for you.
Basically, what it comes down to is, do you feel rewarded by mastering difficult mechanics or do you see them as annoyances? (So it's merely a preference, not a fact that can be proven either way.)
What about newly built workers walk 50% faster to the patch initially if manually commanded? That gives a slight but immediate return that would add up incrementally.
im sorry but I must protest from a programmer's point of view...
first off we all noe the auto mining is done so that the workers (i call them scv's through out cus im terran biased) automatically go to their minerals, etc
how would blizzard know if the person is interacting w/ the workers initially (i mean rite at the beginning where u must split the scv's) i know from other posts that trying to split the scv's urself actually is ur own undoing since the "smart scv's will move to and empty mineral when u command it to move to a diff mineral patch which might again be occupied by another scv that moved there because it was being "smart." I don't know how you would be able to fix that initial problem without slowing down the scv's too much that even an average gamer could do it easily...
also how is the program suppose to define lazy or bright workers? is it if you click on it it is bright? or if you move it it is bright? etc??
i don't noe about any of you guys or even the progamers for that matter but i really really like using the command queue when i build stuff w/ my scv.. i build osemthing and b4 it start i queue it bak into the mineral fields which makes it so that once it's done it goes rite bak to where it came from... would that be considered lazy worker?
I mean the only thing i see being possible is either highlighting the workes makes them unlazy? in which case i still believe the skill gradient would be shallow... or u must click and then move them? this i think is worse...
also I think automining is kind of a drag but you gotta realized that they put in the vespene gas cool down for a reason... i believe it was their way of making it so that pros who focus will still get the upperhand...
i just don't think it's that great.. like if you have a lot of scv's mining in one base then the spd doesn't realyl matter taht much... because unless you are able to select all the scv's one at a time and then make it so that they move faster when bringing the mineral bak (which is the only spd that matters at that point not the spd going bak to teh mineral because the mineral field will be over saturated anyways) or you select them all and they get like .5% spd boost...
EDIT: it's a good idea but I personally think the programming/balancing part of it will be suchhhh a pain in the ass...if it ever happens it'll prolly come out w/ the lsat cd of sc2...
haha by then most of us will want the automine and lose the spd boost cus we'll be old...
On November 19 2008 06:38 NastyMarine wrote: lol Unentschieden what exactly was scientifcally proven? show me research asap
he's rite it's true pros and novice see things in a different way it has been proven for all differnt subjects, math, physics, art, sports, etc.
it's widely known knowledge that a novice will see a problem and relate to something taht seems familiar (familiar context, objects, etc) whilst a pro will see a problem and be able to abstract away all the unnecessary details and just solve the core of the problem... if you really don't believe me wait till you get to college... one of ur many professors are sure to mention it at least once...
I don't like automining at all and I do agree that better player's should be more rewarded - at least more than in the current build. I can absolutely understand why Blizzard wants to stick with automining as it is considered a standard nowadays. I like your idea, Kennigit, about the temporary speed boost for the mining workers, but selecting them to gain that speed is not that good as it has some major flaws (as pointed out by Chill already). Adding a new mechanic that is rather complex like the selective-speed-boost (I'll call it that way for now). I didn't read the whole thread so I dont know if someone brought that up already.
So I modified your idea: I'd make it more simple. I'd give the Command Center/Hatchery/Nexus a new ability. A propaganda-like "work harder"-call. Clicking on that ability would make all workers in a small radius around the CC/Hatch/Nexus mine 10-15% faster for the next 15-30 seconds.
So a better player could make his workers work 10-15% faster all the time. (The ability would need a cooldown so it can be used again as soon as the effect expired.) Keeping the additional speed up on every expansion would be more harder the more expansions you have. But on the long run it would be a huge boost to the players economy. It's effect would also increase the more workers you have on your expansion. A lesser skilled player wouldn't use it at all or only once in a while, but that wouldn't be a drawback against equally skilled players. The ability could optionally need to be researched to prevent it's use in the early game.
Maybe the speed-gain should be race-dependent because the number of workers/expansions varies for the three races (at least in BW). But this is subject to balance, as well as effect-duration, effect-speed-gain and cooldown.
On November 19 2008 06:38 NastyMarine wrote: lol Unentschieden what exactly was scientifcally proven? show me research asap
National Geographics on the World Cyber Games and Xellos The amateur thinks "ok so I'm gonna build some stuff now", Xellos doesn't have to think about trivial decisions, he executes. I think you can DL it from here: http://ingame.ingame.de/filebase/index.php?action=category&cid=8
I'd give you a direct link but my browser is being a bit of a bastard at the moment.
On November 18 2008 03:19 -orb- wrote: This creates a number of other game possibilities, such as the strategy that if you wanted to have a timing push it might be more efficient to save the speed boost for a certain time in the game in which you speed up all your workers at once (don't know, maybe it would be better to just get it going earlier so you get those workers faster).
i have seen multiple replies excited about the strategic "implications" of making a one time speed boost "decision" during some build order. but it's false and there is no decision. it is always always always always always always most beneficial to increase speed 0ms after your worker exists... how are people thinking this?
Let's stay on topic TL'ers. This thread is about solutions to auto-mine.
This thread is not about what you like better: more or less mechanical requirements. Whichever side you're on, it's your opinion and not some sort of fact that can be proven or disproven.
The topic itself is implicitly on the side of greater mechanical necessity as it asks how we can devise a way to reward players with greater mechanical skill.
My problem with your direct mechanic is that it just "shifts" the mechanic, you explain it quite well yourself: "This is analogous to the production of SCVs: as you produce workers you must tell them to gather crystals; as you gather minerals in SC2 with AM, you must realign the crystals."
I´d like a reason NOT to "align the crystals". Why not make them "targettable" while aligned so that you would be more vulnerable to enemy raids as "payment" for the increased income.
Ahhh, I see what you mean. My intention though was to develop a mechanic that provided macro in the absence of automine. Without automine SCVs just stand still. We're talking about players moving back to their bases with the specific intention of telling their SCVs to gather; telling SCVs to construct buildings (or perform other actions) is a different mechanic, so the choice is to go back to your base and tell your SCVs to gather, or don't.
There's no advantage in not telling them to gather (apart from the time saving, but we haven't raised that as an argument because the time saving is naturally present with any mechanic that increases macro). So from my perspective crystal alignment is a good solution to the problem of automine because of the parallels with macro in SC1.
If, however, you are talking about coming up with an improved mechanic that doesn't parallel macro in SC1, then I completely take your points about a disadvantage associated with crystal realignment. My intention was just to replace macro in a format acceptable to the casual and competitive gamer with a graphical display that is interesting for spectators.
Well you are right, I would like a improved version of Macro compared to SC:BW. As mentioned before I think it´s too onedimensional. Anyone can perfect Manualmining very quicly - most confuse it a bit with Multitasking.
You should try to REPLACE the mechanic, not to REPEAT it in different colours. Right now I see: Old: No income vs. income Yours: Low income vs. High income Mine: Low income low risk vs. High income high risk
Am I mistaken, or is not the "risk" involved with Ent's idea the fact that you have to leave your army unattended in order to increase your mining speed? Is this not exactly what was desired by the OP and by competitive gamers in general? You need the distraction in order to make battles more exciting, and to make it a strategic decision "Can I win this battle without perfect micro? If not, will I be able to recover my lost units through superior economy? If not, how much will my economy be hurt if I have to spend all my attention at my army's location and how will that affect my building and unit production?"
It seems to me there is plenty of risk involved with going back to adjust your minerals, and that the suggestion (or one similar in design and execution) is something just like what the doctor ordered. A simple, easy to see mechanic that gives the player another decision to make.
NOT simply more "clicks" NOT simply a "reward" or a "penalty" BUT INSTEAD, another strategic decision.
THAT'S the sort of thing I think most of us want.
Did you know why SC originally got the 12 unit selection Limit? It was supposed to prevent Rushes.
In practice "limitations" like these are simply being circumvented by sheer training and therefore simply add a entrance barrier for players with less trainingtime. (But I think some here honestly WANT entrance barriers...) Professionals don´t "pay attention" to mudane repetative tasks like that - it´s scientifically proven. Beginners and Proffessionals aproach this entirely differently mentally. It´s a matter of muscle memory, not strategy.
Competative play doesn´t need distractions (please, prove it to me I´m really not seeing it), it needs to be fun (includes fair) even under "powerplay" conditions. One of the worst scenarios would be "200/200 races" every game - even if it were to be completely balanced no one would want (to watch) matches like that.
TL:DR It´s not a strategic desicion, its a trainingtimesink.
Part of SC's addictive quality is the requirement of speed and precision with mouse and keyboard. This is why I never really got into WC3. I did not get the same rush from playing.
Speed and precision are RELATIVLY more a WC3 domain. Unlike SC you can´t let Units simply die, the Resource side is streamlined, Upkeep... WC3 is a radically different game and you might also argue that it´s as a whole not played on such a "high" level as SC in Korea.
That said, SC:BW IS a "faster" game since even economic tasks require "microskill".
On November 19 2008 06:45 A3iL3r0n wrote: The thing about entrance barriers, is that they are only entrance barriers to the serious competitive play. Noobs, and casual players will play the game with other casuals and noobs. So, those games will be unaffected by these "entrance barriers" because the players are all playing at the same level. But at higher levels of play, for people who want to and are willing to invest time to be good, you want skill gradients.
You can have skill gradients without entrance barriers. Gradients are good but they shouldn´t decrease accessability.
On November 19 2008 06:45 A3iL3r0n wrote: That's where the mechanics requirement comes in. Players are differentiated by their mechanics and their comprehension of strategy. The more you remove the mechanics portion of the game, the less frenzied it becomes and the realizement of the best strategy becomes easier to conceive and execute. StarCraft is not super deep in strategy, but that is balanced out by the need for mechanical proficiency. If you want deep strategy with 0 physical requirements, chess is the game for you.
Basically, what it comes down to is, do you feel rewarded by mastering difficult mechanics or do you see them as annoyances? (So it's merely a preference, not a fact that can be proven either way.)
That´s the point - Manualmining ISN´T a difficult mechanic, it´s a distracting one. Even during the argumentation here it´s brought up that players don´t need to be challenged but rather distracted since Multitasking is the REAL skill supposed to be tested.
In competative play, what do you think how big the difference is between the highest average "peondowntime" and the lowest? Especially in the first 5~10 Minutes since downtimes are less significant lategame.
Edit:
On November 19 2008 07:08 A3iL3r0n wrote: Let's stay on topic TL'ers. This thread is about solutions to auto-mine.
This thread is not about what you like better: more or less mechanical requirements. Whichever side you're on, it's your opinion and not some sort of fact that can be proven or disproven.
The topic itself is implicitly on the side of greater mechanical necessity as it asks how we can devise a way to reward players with greater mechanical skill.
I would prefer the mechanical skill to be tested in a more "fluid" enviroment, especially one influenced by the greatest random generator there is: another human.
Make unit "hitboxes" smaller so you´d need to aim better with the Mouse for focus fire. Create individual targets of opportunity, like observers or Targeting drones. Create a enviroment for creative solutions (shoot own units with splash weapons against invisibles, Banelingmines, Forcefields...)
Seems like a lot of people are forgetting that this is supposed to be a solution to the lack of mutlitask in Sc2 because of the addition of automine and MBS, etc. I don't think the goal of the thread is to simply design a new mechanic for mining. It seems pointless to suggest a mechanic that simply changes worker mining, but fails to solve the multitasking issue...
The crystal alignment proposal solves the multitasking issue really well and is the least likely to cause developer problems. It's also the least intrusive towards actual gameplay. Introducing an upgrade so that workers can mine faster seems really intrusive and doens't appear to solve the entire MultiTasking issue.]
Seems like people are getting sidetracked from the original issue is all :/.
On November 19 2008 08:11 FrozenArbiter wrote: I think my idea does both, as you'll want to change the mining mode of your workers regularly, and it has to be done manually.
Just stating my opinion, so no offense or anything. Your idea seems really intrusive to me and in my opinion will really complicate gameplay. It would also be harder for spectators to see. I also don't see it solving the multitasking issue very well. I don't see players indivudally selecting workers very often, I see players just putting groups of workers or all of them on hotkeys and changing their modes. It also seems silly to forfeit map control, so you can sit on one or two base longer. Extra minerals will allow players to expand faster, so they will have more crystals anyways, etc..
Just seems to me like there are easier/better and less intrusive ways to solve the multitasking issue.
i really don't know about overly technical rewards like this. it seems like they still just need to split the games into two styles, the casual and the competitive style. newbies really have every right to play the game at optimal speed and not be hindered but they shouldn't get to play like that at tournaments.
a lot of people worry that will split the community but people seem to ignore that there were already split communities in starcraft and the game is still going strong, BGH, vanilla, ums, teamplay, competitive play. to be completely frank, if blizzard doesn't take action i'm guessing the community will. someone will probably mod sc2 over to have an sc1 interface and we can start pressuring tournaments to take it up that way.
sorry if my advice is redundant, i know i've been saying this stuff forever.
How about no more band aid solutions problems to huge, gaping wounds? You cant fix macro with such solutions as giving your workers a speed increase. It just wont work. The solution needs to be simple, without any increases or decreases in your workers. It just needs to flow with the game. I don't see any solutions other than taking it out.
Blizzard needs to keep the economy so that it constantly needs to be watched over and managed. Automine and MBS just take away from it too much, and unfortunately, I don't see how any of these band aid solutions can fix the bigger underlying problem.
Now, am I actively against automine and MBS? Yes, because I only care about SC2's competitive longevity. I want it to last for years, as StarCraft did. But these new features are only going to greatly decrease the skill gap, which will, in turn, decrease the longevity of the professional scene. To be honest, I don't really care if they are kept in or not, because I don't plan on playing competitively, but I'd still love to see the competitive scene and watch it, if it grows as big.
On November 19 2008 08:25 MyLostTemple wrote: i really don't know about overly technical rewards like this. it seems like they still just need to split the games into two styles, the casual and the competitive style. newbies really have every right to play the game at optimal speed and not be hindered but they shouldn't get to play like that at tournaments.
a lot of people worry that will split the community but people seem to ignore that there were already split communities in starcraft and the game is still going strong, BGH, vanilla, ums, teamplay, competitive play. to be completely frank, if blizzard doesn't take action i'm guessing the community will. someone will probably mod sc2 over to have an sc1 interface and we can start pressuring tournaments to take it up that way.
sorry if my advice is redundant, i know i've been saying this stuff forever.
BNET 2.0 will compltely change that though. With AMM and automated tourneys etc. it's going to be a lot harder to have split communities. :/
My problem with your direct mechanic is that it just "shifts" the mechanic, you explain it quite well yourself: "This is analogous to the production of SCVs: as you produce workers you must tell them to gather crystals; as you gather minerals in SC2 with AM, you must realign the crystals."
I´d like a reason NOT to "align the crystals". Why not make them "targettable" while aligned so that you would be more vulnerable to enemy raids as "payment" for the increased income.
Ahhh, I see what you mean. My intention though was to develop a mechanic that provided macro in the absence of automine. Without automine SCVs just stand still. We're talking about players moving back to their bases with the specific intention of telling their SCVs to gather; telling SCVs to construct buildings (or perform other actions) is a different mechanic, so the choice is to go back to your base and tell your SCVs to gather, or don't.
There's no advantage in not telling them to gather (apart from the time saving, but we haven't raised that as an argument because the time saving is naturally present with any mechanic that increases macro). So from my perspective crystal alignment is a good solution to the problem of automine because of the parallels with macro in SC1.
If, however, you are talking about coming up with an improved mechanic that doesn't parallel macro in SC1, then I completely take your points about a disadvantage associated with crystal realignment. My intention was just to replace macro in a format acceptable to the casual and competitive gamer with a graphical display that is interesting for spectators.
Well you are right, I would like a improved version of Macro compared to SC:BW. As mentioned before I think it´s too onedimensional. Anyone can perfect Manualmining very quicly - most confuse it a bit with Multitasking.
You should try to REPLACE the mechanic, not to REPEAT it in different colours. Right now I see: Old: No income vs. income Yours: Low income vs. High income Mine: Low income low risk vs. High income high risk
Am I mistaken, or is not the "risk" involved with Ent's idea the fact that you have to leave your army unattended in order to increase your mining speed? Is this not exactly what was desired by the OP and by competitive gamers in general? You need the distraction in order to make battles more exciting, and to make it a strategic decision "Can I win this battle without perfect micro? If not, will I be able to recover my lost units through superior economy? If not, how much will my economy be hurt if I have to spend all my attention at my army's location and how will that affect my building and unit production?"
It seems to me there is plenty of risk involved with going back to adjust your minerals, and that the suggestion (or one similar in design and execution) is something just like what the doctor ordered. A simple, easy to see mechanic that gives the player another decision to make.
NOT simply more "clicks" NOT simply a "reward" or a "penalty" BUT INSTEAD, another strategic decision.
THAT'S the sort of thing I think most of us want.
Did you know why SC originally got the 12 unit selection Limit? It was supposed to prevent Rushes.
In practice "limitations" like these are simply being circumvented by sheer training and therefore simply add a entrance barrier for players with less trainingtime. (But I think some here honestly WANT entrance barriers...) Professionals don´t "pay attention" to mudane repetative tasks like that - it´s scientifically proven. Beginners and Proffessionals aproach this entirely differently mentally. It´s a matter of muscle memory, not strategy.
Well that high entrance level is a major part of sc and is a part many of us want to return. The game shouldn't be allowing players to simply pick it up and play. You could honestly make the same argument apply to the entire sport of ping pong. How much strategy can there possibly be? It's just a game of practicing and reinforcing your muscle memory. Casual players can still have fun with the game if they play against each other. They simply play without any advanced hits and spin techniques. If they want to take their game higher, they practice the difficult learning curve. This is very basic to sc.
I don't like the idea of workers slowing down and getting visual changes, thats just gonna add more clutter to the game screen. We'll end up with every unit having little shit here and there and have unintelligible confusion like warcraft 3.
I do however like the idea of telling workers to keep mining for speed/resource boosts. This will actually give people some useful apm instead of just spamming hotkeys or selecting shit in early game/B O time as well as throughout the game when there are breaks in macro/micro
I think maybe it should be more specific though, Say you must click 1 worker at a time and tell him to mine a crystal and he either gets a 5% speed / attack speed% increase for that gather/return or maybe a mineral bonus of +1 or +2. So this way its not too cheap but in early game it is totally needed to be on the top levels or play.
Totally agree with this too
On November 19 2008 08:25 MyLostTemple wrote: i really don't know about overly technical rewards like this. it seems like they still just need to split the games into two styles, the casual and the competitive style. newbies really have every right to play the game at optimal speed and not be hindered but they shouldn't get to play like that at tournaments.
a lot of people worry that will split the community but people seem to ignore that there were already split communities in starcraft and the game is still going strong, BGH, vanilla, ums, teamplay, competitive play. to be completely frank, if blizzard doesn't take action i'm guessing the community will. someone will probably mod sc2 over to have an sc1 interface and we can start pressuring tournaments to take it up that way.
sorry if my advice is redundant, i know i've been saying this stuff forever.
On November 19 2008 08:38 CharlieMurphy wrote: I don't like the idea of workers slowing down and getting visual changes, thats just gonna add more clutter to the game screen. We'll end up with every unit having little shit here and there and have unintelligible confusion like warcraft 3.
Crystal Alignment seems to solve the multitasking issue in a very simple, non intrusive method, that's also easy for spectators to see.
I like the positive, solution oriented spirit of the original post. The more we account for Blizzard's approach/philosophy, the better the chances our opinions will have an impact on the final game. Blizz believes they have a winning formula for SC2 (and I agree it's pretty good).
1) 5 tasks need to be done but you only have time for 3. 2) These tasks are split between macro and micro. 3) The more compelling these tasks are, the better the game.
The UI "improvements" removed some of the less compelling tasks but at the cost of #2. The tasks are now too lopsided on the side of micro. So the tricky part is coming up with the clever compelling tasks that make their formula work. This thread contains some great macro AMP sinks that would fix #2, but I doubt Blizz would use them. They would just be replacing one uninteresting task with another. I think those like Unentschieden are on the right track.
So say aligned mineral patches are like buildings (where remaining mineral count behaves like HP). Could this make the game more interesting? Possibly. Maybe a zerg response to a FE protoss could be to take the protoss' 2nd expansion. Zerg could mine some patches and destroy the others. So even though the zerg will lose the expansion it could still be worth it to force the protoss to take a more vulnerable expansion later.
It could make small raids on enemy expansions more attractive. The attack force may not be large enough to take out the CC/hatchery/nexus but going after mineral patches could make the raid worth the expense. Raids in general would have a more permanent impact on an opponents economy.
FrozenArbiter, is the distinction you are trying to make between active and passive related to #3?
I think something along these lines is the ideal compromise... An idea i've had previously is that automated worked have a slight delay before they start mining the first time (5sec) or something... Anything along those lines, that makes there a noticeable skill difference.
On November 19 2008 08:47 oki wrote: I like the positive, solution oriented spirit of the original post. The more we account for Blizzard's approach/philosophy, the better the chances our opinions will have an impact on the final game. Blizz believes they have a winning formula for SC2 (and I agree it's pretty good).
1) 5 tasks need to be done but you only have time for 3. 2) These tasks are split between macro and micro. 3) The more compelling these tasks are, the better the game.
The UI "improvements" removed some of the less compelling tasks but at the cost of #2. The tasks are now too lopsided on the side of micro. So the tricky part is coming up with the clever compelling tasks that make their formula work. This thread contains some great macro AMP sinks that would fix #2, but I doubt Blizz would use them. They would just be replacing one uninteresting task with another. I think those like Unentschieden are on the right track.
So say aligned mineral patches are like buildings (where remaining mineral count behaves like HP). Could this make the game more interesting? Possibly. Maybe a zerg response to a FE protoss could be to take the protoss' 2nd expansion. Zerg could mine some patches and destroy the others. So even though the zerg will lose the expansion it could still be worth it to force the protoss to take a more vulnerable expansion later.
It could make small raids on enemy expansions more attractive. The attack force may not be large enough to take out the CC/hatchery/nexus but going after mineral patches could make the raid worth the expense. Raids in general would have a more permanent impact on an opponents economy.
FrozenArbiter, is the distinction you are trying to make between active and passive related to #3?
Being able to destroy minerals with an attack force, would alter the game play drastically and in a very negative manner. Being able to kill workers is definitely good enough.
FrozenArbiter, is the distinction you are trying to make between active and passive related to #3?
Not really, although in my second point I covered that (ie there should be strategical value in the features as well).
By active I mean that, for instance, the idea in the original post, actively awards clicking with ingame buffs.
That's what I was trying to avoid with my suggestion on page 8, I wanted to include a strategy aspect (ie it should be a choice of WHEN and WHY you use it) and I wanted it to be something that you spend time managing (set them to the mode you want them to operate in).
On November 19 2008 08:11 FrozenArbiter wrote: I think my idea does both, as you'll want to change the mining mode of your workers regularly, and it has to be done manually.
Just stating my opinion, so no offense or anything. Your idea seems really intrusive to me and in my opinion will really complicate gameplay. It would also be harder for spectators to see. I also don't see it solving the multitasking issue very well. I don't see players indivudally selecting workers very often, I see players just putting groups of workers or all of them on hotkeys and changing their modes. It also seems silly to forfeit map control, so you can sit on one or two base longer. Extra minerals will allow players to expand faster, so they will have more crystals anyways, etc..
Just seems to me like there are easier/better and less intrusive ways to solve the multitasking issue.
Ok let's say the "standard" for early-midgame becomes the faster mine option (this seems likely), but by default they are set to normal. Now people will go back to their base regularly (perhaps almost as often as with manual mining) to make sure their new workers are set to the proper mode.
It is FAR less intrusive than forcing players to manually send workers to mine so they don't miss out on a speed bonus -_-
Also, the exact ratio for how many minerals you lose when "fast mining" can easily be tweaked, if 5:7 isn't enough then it can be made 5:10 or even more.
The level of obtrusion is the same/arguably less than any of the other mechanics suggested, and unlike all of them, there's choice (ultimately meaning strategy) involved, something which appeals to me and hopefully something that appeals to blizzard and "the masses" (the masses being casual players, game magazines, and hopefully serious players as well, as I consider myself one).
FrozenArbiter, is the distinction you are trying to make between active and passive related to #3?
Not really, although in my second point I covered that (ie there should be strategical value in the features as well).
By active I mean that, for instance, the idea in the original post, actively awards clicking with ingame buffs.
That's what I was trying to avoid with my suggestion on page 8, I wanted to include a strategy aspect (ie it should be a choice of WHEN and WHY you use it) and I wanted it to be something that you spend time managing (set them to the mode you want them to operate in).
There doesn't seem to be any reason to not take advantage of faster mining though. It's always going to be better to take the faster minerals so you can gain map control and expand, etc.. Not to mention the advantage you would gain early game.
You could balance it by making the crystal run out a lot lot faster, but overall the idea is just too complex and doens't solve the issue well enough in my opinion.
On November 19 2008 08:11 FrozenArbiter wrote: I think my idea does both, as you'll want to change the mining mode of your workers regularly, and it has to be done manually.
Just stating my opinion, so no offense or anything. Your idea seems really intrusive to me and in my opinion will really complicate gameplay. It would also be harder for spectators to see. I also don't see it solving the multitasking issue very well. I don't see players indivudally selecting workers very often, I see players just putting groups of workers or all of them on hotkeys and changing their modes. It also seems silly to forfeit map control, so you can sit on one or two base longer. Extra minerals will allow players to expand faster, so they will have more crystals anyways, etc..
Just seems to me like there are easier/better and less intrusive ways to solve the multitasking issue.
Ok let's say the "standard" for early-midgame becomes the faster mine option (this seems likely), but by default they are set to normal. Now people will go back to their base regularly (perhaps almost as often as with manual mining) to make sure their new workers are set to the proper mode.
It is FAR less intrusive than forcing players to manually send workers to mine so they don't miss out on a speed bonus -_-
Also, the exact ratio for how many minerals you lose when "fast mining" can easily be tweaked, if 5:2 isn't enough then it can be made 5:5 or 5:10.
It's definitely better than having workers stop or having to continually tell them to mine, but I'm not a fan of those ideas either. Also manually going to base to set the bonus only solves the lack of multitasking from automine.
Also, the exact ratio for how many minerals you lose when "fast mining" can easily be tweaked, if 5:2 isn't enough then it can be made 5:5 or 5:10.
The level of obtrusion is the same/arguably less than any of the other mechanics suggested, and unlike all of them, there's choice (ultimately meaning strategy) involved, something which appeals to me and hopefully something that appeals to blizzard and "the masses" (the masses being casual players, game magazines, and hopefully serious players as well, as I consider myself one).Last edit: 2008-11-19 09:32:37
Secondly, I disagree - there IS going to be a time when you don't want it turned on - when you are already pulling in minerals faster than you can spend them. If you are sitting at 3 fully saturated bases and full unit supply, power/fast mining would be wasteful.
Further, if the penalty is made more severe, then you'd want to be much more selective with your switching.
It's really not very different from how manual mining works in SC - if you want to be maximally effective you'll instantly set every new worker (manually) to Power Mine, if you don't, you just set a few of them to the mode at once (which is less effective). The same as you can either instantly send all new workers to mine (manually) in SC, or if you don't have the time, you send as many as you queued up, once you do have the time.
On November 19 2008 08:11 FrozenArbiter wrote: I think my idea does both, as you'll want to change the mining mode of your workers regularly, and it has to be done manually.
Just stating my opinion, so no offense or anything. Your idea seems really intrusive to me and in my opinion will really complicate gameplay. It would also be harder for spectators to see. I also don't see it solving the multitasking issue very well. I don't see players indivudally selecting workers very often, I see players just putting groups of workers or all of them on hotkeys and changing their modes. It also seems silly to forfeit map control, so you can sit on one or two base longer. Extra minerals will allow players to expand faster, so they will have more crystals anyways, etc..
Just seems to me like there are easier/better and less intrusive ways to solve the multitasking issue.
Ok let's say the "standard" for early-midgame becomes the faster mine option (this seems likely), but by default they are set to normal. Now people will go back to their base regularly (perhaps almost as often as with manual mining) to make sure their new workers are set to the proper mode.
It is FAR less intrusive than forcing players to manually send workers to mine so they don't miss out on a speed bonus -_-
Also, the exact ratio for how many minerals you lose when "fast mining" can easily be tweaked, if 5:7 isn't enough then it can be made 5:10 or even more.
EDIT: Messed up the numbers a bit, fixed it.
It's definitely better than having workers stop or having to continually tell them to mine, but I'm not a fan of those ideas either. Also manually going to base to set the bonus only solves the lack of multitasking from automine.
But this thread is about automining, so why would it solve anything else :X?
And if you are not in favour of any of these ideas, then what are you in favour of? Unadultered automine? No automine? EntSC's idea?
While on the topic of EntSC's idea, I'm not a big fan - there's no reason why you would NOT align the minerals, so no choice, and no strategy - just mindless clicking. It's not really an active reward (which is good that isn't), but it's still clicking for the sake of clicking.
EDIT: Actually it IS sort of active in that it punishes those who do not adhere to the mechanic by degrading the efficiency of mineral collection IN GAME. As in, the game makes you mine less through a gameplay mechanic.
On November 19 2008 09:12 vsrooks wrote: Being able to destroy minerals with an attack force, would alter the game play drastically and in a very negative manner. Being able to kill workers is definitely good enough.
But remember, Unentschieden suggested this as an amendment to EntSC's alignment idea. He was looking at a way to make the choice interesting. By choosing to make your expansion more efficient you are also choosing to make it more vulnerable. You have control over whether or not your opponent can attach your minerals. Maybe a cautious person like you doesn't align any of their minerals. But I suspect for most people it would vary from expansion to expansion depending on how protected they are.
The entire reason automine needs to be 'solved' is that Sc2 lacks multi tasking, there's nothing necessarily wrong with automining outside of it taking away the need to multitask.
I also don't see your solution brining in a lot of diversity in real-time choices. The only time you wouldn't want more minerals would be if you're maxed, which doesn't last long, which also doesn't add any choice or strategy. If you increase how quickly the mineral rates will disappear, players will only use it for all in strats/grabbing a FE/etc. It could possibly add some diversity to how build orders are executed, but that's about all.
As far as a your mechanic increasing choices available in the game, I can't argue the fact that it would potentially add some changes; however, there are all kinds of new mechanics that could potentially increase depth to the game. The issue that I percieved at hand was solving the lack of multi tasking required in the game. Your solution doesn't seem to do that so much as increase 'game depth'.
I feel that EntSC's idea solves the multitasking issue the best, while keeping things simple. It would be really easy to regulate, very spectator friendly, and I don't see casual players getting too upset over it.
If we're looking at ways to change the gameflow/depth of Sc2, then your idea and other worker ability suggestions would obviously be more suited for that. There are also a lot of other ideas we could come up with to increase 'game depth' as well as add a few more necessary clicks during a game.
The previous points also apply to Oki's statement. If minerals would respawn after a period of time after being 'destoryed' that could work. If you didn't want your minerals to be aligned for safety reasons, that would also take away multi tasking for that player as well, because they wouldn't have the task of aligning their minerals, etc.. It seems more like a change to game depth than to solve the multi task issue.
Edit: Sorry if I seem hostile, I'm not trying to be. I also think you brought up a lot of good points and ideas and with some editing it could definitely work in the game. However, like I said.. it just doesn't seem to solve the multitasking issue so much as it adds more depth to the game.
FrozenArbiter, is the distinction you are trying to make between active and passive related to #3?
Not really, although in my second point I covered that (ie there should be strategical value in the features as well).
By active I mean that, for instance, the idea in the original post, actively awards clicking with ingame buffs.
That's what I was trying to avoid with my suggestion on page 8, I wanted to include a strategy aspect (ie it should be a choice of WHEN and WHY you use it) and I wanted it to be something that you spend time managing (set them to the mode you want them to operate in).
Ah, I think I understand. The word I chose, "compelling", is probably too vague and generic. I feel tasks that involve strategic choice are more compelling.
Maybe I'm alone, but I don't think they're going to try any overly complex solution a fan site proposes. From what I've seen, the only thing they've ever done based on fan sites is nix their own ideas, and replace them with different ideas of their own. Whether it's because of legal reasons, or just because they're pretty stubborn about their own ideas (most likely the latter) I don't know.
The only possible routes I see are them removing their feature, allowing it to be toggled, or letting the community sort it out with mods. Again, I think the last is most likely. Although I don't think it's unhealthy to discuss whatever crazy ideas you have, I agree with Tasteless and think you should prepare yourself for it to be Blizzard's way at release, and hopefully mods will work it out if they only release one version.
***
The thing that bothers me the most is that the purpose of so much of the automation is to make the game accessible to the new player, whereas most of it will only affect like 5% of newbs. Newbs don't use hotkeys, so they don't need mbs. Newbs don't remember to MAKE workers, so they don't need automine. Newbs are already staring at the battle and their army the whole time they are engaged, so they don't need autosurround. The players that the features will affect are the regular players: maybe 25-50% of BGH-type regulars, and then 90%+ of regular/competitive low-money 1v1 players. There is no problem with the game at that level. They're all already hooked, and already buying sc2 regardless. All it will do is close the gaps in competitive play, so D+ iccupers can play like current B- players, etc. I really think the only hope we have for features like this to get out of the game is for Blizzard to think for 10 seconds and realize that most of them WON'T make the game more accessible to new players, but WILL make it more frustrating for regulars and WILL seriously hurt the competitive nature of the game. Attract the new players with flashy graphics, cinematics, campaign, and toggle-able extended death/firing animations. Don't ruin the game for regulars with stupid ideas that won't even draw any new players.
On November 19 2008 11:26 LonelyMargarita wrote: The thing that bothers me the most is that the purpose of so much of the automation is to make the game accessible to the new player, whereas most of it will only affect like 5% of newbs. Newbs don't use hotkeys, so they don't need mbs. Newbs don't remember to MAKE workers, so they don't need automine. Newbs are already staring at the battle and their army the whole time they are engaged, so they don't need autosurround. The players that the features will affect are the regular players: maybe 25-50% of BGH-type regulars, and then 90%+ of regular/competitive low-money 1v1 players. There is no problem with the game at that level. They're all already hooked, and already buying sc2 regardless. All it will do is close the gaps in competitive play, so D+ iccupers can play like current B- players, etc. I really think the only hope we have for features like this to get out of the game is for Blizzard to think for 10 seconds and realize that most of them WON'T make the game more accessible to new players, but WILL make it more frustrating for regulars and WILL seriously hurt the competitive nature of the game. Attract the new players with flashy graphics, cinematics, campaign, and toggle-able extended death/firing animations. Don't ruin the game for regulars with stupid ideas that won't even draw any new players.
I couldn't agree more and no matter what Blizz decides, I really hope people realize this. The only people complaining about MBS are players that want to be the best or close to the best without having a high APM(AKA practice). The only reason to want these features is to make the game easier.
The concept of people being incapable of having a high APM is ridiculous.. all it takes is dedication and practice. Boxer is 28 and a professional gamer, BaBy is like 14 or something(not sure exactly).
On November 19 2008 11:26 LonelyMargarita wrote: The thing that bothers me the most is that the purpose of so much of the automation is to make the game accessible to the new player, whereas most of it will only affect like 5% of newbs. Newbs don't use hotkeys, so they don't need mbs. Newbs don't remember to MAKE workers, so they don't need automine. Newbs are already staring at the battle and their army the whole time they are engaged, so they don't need autosurround. The players that the features will affect are the regular players: maybe 25-50% of BGH-type regulars, and then 90%+ of regular/competitive low-money 1v1 players. There is no problem with the game at that level. They're all already hooked, and already buying sc2 regardless. All it will do is close the gaps in competitive play, so D+ iccupers can play like current B- players, etc. I really think the only hope we have for features like this to get out of the game is for Blizzard to think for 10 seconds and realize that most of them WON'T make the game more accessible to new players, but WILL make it more frustrating for regulars and WILL seriously hurt the competitive nature of the game. Attract the new players with flashy graphics, cinematics, campaign, and toggle-able extended death/firing animations. Don't ruin the game for regulars with stupid ideas that won't even draw any new players.
Yeah I totally agree.
It's really frutstrating because Chris Sigaty doesn't seem to realize that he might convince his wife/mom to play it once or twice, but no matter how easy he makes it they're not going to continue playing it and get hooked.
Sorry, it's 4 am here and I'm too tired to read all of the discussion but reading the first post leads me to believe this is another automine/mbs/whatever = non-competetive etc. etc. bullshit.
I know it has been discussed a bazillion times before but mechanics =/= skill.
RTS games are all about strategy and THINKING (not clicking faster than the other person).
I suppose that Blizzard and most of the creators look at this game from a perspective of an adult person without much experience in the matter (perhaps some casual gaming, SP campaign etc.) and might not share your view on it (as I'm growing older and older I tend to do the same). A good example of how this is percieved could be a very short article about the new documentary about the WC3 pro-scene which is quite a good read and hits the spot.
Some people (hardcore fans) want to see the gamers perform tasks with inhuman speed by creating units/building etc. etc. while still microing heavily during the battles.
What I want to see is someone using a brilliant/unseen/unexpected strategy to overcome his oponent, not faster hand. Fast hands don't go well with psychology/mindgames which make most part of warfare and games of all types so thrilling.
And most of all, you should not fear mbs/automine/whatever scares you in SC2, let the people play, adapt, develop new strategies and so on.
What you really want is diversification of players right from the start which is really bad. What should be done (and it seems it will) is give more or less even chances for everyone at start and see who can come out on top.
Who said current SC pros should be SC2 pros right away?
Edit (I've read some of the posts): Why do you think automine would affect pros in any way? Creating new workers and sending them to mine is (I believe so) so natural to them they don't even really notice it much. So including automine is just a minor convenience for them (might be major since now they have free apm to micro their units) but huge thing for a newbie. It will not decrease the skill gap at all, newbies will still be newbies (but will be more happy about interface being more friendly to them) and pros will be pros.
Seriously, most of the win-factor lies in game-knowledge/experience. Most of the people who play SC do not know when to stop your goons to fire while moving (I'm referring to fire, move, stop, fire, repeat) in efficient enough way to make it an effective strategy. Hell, most people don't even know you can move/fire....
And what about map knowledge? Knowing that 1 tank is enough in this spot instead of 2 to stop the enemy makes a difference... Knowing when/where/how to expand makes a HUGE difference...
You tend to overestimate the mechanics of the game. It's not just numbers you know...
On November 19 2008 12:22 Manit0u wrote: Sorry, it's 4 am here and I'm too tired to read all of the discussion but reading the first post leads me to believe this is another automine/mbs/whatever = non-competetive etc. etc. bullshit.
I know it has been discussed a bazillion times before but mechanics =/= skill.
RTS games are all about strategy and THINKING (not clicking faster than the other person).
No. TURN BASED strategy games are about strategy and thinking. REAL TIME strategy games are about strategy and thinking AND BEING FAST. If you don't want a game that rewards people for being fast, I suggest you play turn based strategy games, not Starcraft or Starcraft 2. It's that way in real sports too: if you want a sport where you have to ski fast and shoot accurately to win, you enter the biathlon. If you can't ski, but enjoy the shooting aspect, you just enter the rifle events. Please do not attempt to use that argument again.
On November 19 2008 12:22 Manit0u wrote: Sorry, it's 4 am here and I'm too tired to read all of the discussion but reading the first post leads me to believe this is another automine/mbs/whatever = non-competetive etc. etc. bullshit.
I know it has been discussed a bazillion times before but mechanics =/= skill.
RTS games are all about strategy and THINKING (not clicking faster than the other person).
I suppose that Blizzard and most of the creators look at this game from a perspective of an adult person without much experience in the matter (perhaps some casual gaming, SP campaign etc.) and might not share your view on it (as I'm growing older and older I tend to do the same). A good example of how this is percieved could be a very short article about the new documentary about the WC3 pro-scene which is quite a good read and hits the spot.
Some people (hardcore fans) want to see the gamers perform tasks with inhuman speed by creating units/building etc. etc. while still microing heavily during the battles.
What I want to see is someone using a brilliant/unseen/unexpected strategy to overcome his oponent, not faster hand. Fast hands don't go well with psychology/mindgames which make most part of warfare and games of all types so thrilling.
And most of all, you should not fear mbs/automine/whatever scares you in SC2, let the people play, adapt, develop new strategies and so on.
What you really want is diversification of players right from the start which is really bad. What should be done (and it seems it will) is give more or less even chances for everyone at start and see who can come out on top.
Who said current SC pros should be SC2 pros right away?
Edit (I've read some of the posts): Why do you think automine would affect pros in any way? Creating new workers and sending them to mine is (I believe so) so natural to them they don't even really notice it much. So including automine is just a minor convenience for them (might be major since now they have free apm to micro their units) but huge thing for a newbie. It will not decrease the skill gap at all, newbies will still be newbies (but will be more happy about interface being more friendly to them) and pros will be pros.
Seriously, most of the win-factor lies in game-knowledge/experience. Most of the people who play SC do not know when to stop your goons to fire while moving (I'm referring to fire, move, stop, fire, repeat) in efficient enough way to make it an effective strategy. Hell, most people don't even know you can move/fire....
And what about map knowledge? Knowing that 1 tank is enough in this spot instead of 2 to stop the enemy makes a difference... Knowing when/where/how to expand makes a HUGE difference...
You tend to overestimate the mechanics of the game. It's not just numbers you know...
In my opinion intelligence and smart play is rewarded a lot more with difficult mechanics. Example: With MBS/Automine: Players have 5 seconds to make a decision. Players A reaches it in 2 seconds. Player B reaches it in 4 seconds. They both perform the required movement/action in time and are able to execute.
Without MBS/Automine: Players have 3 seconds to make a decision. Player A executes. Player B loses.
It's obviously more complex than that, but the smarter player will be able to make decisions faster than the slower player, they'll also be able to think farther ahead. The more actions you give players to think about, the less time they have to think about each action, which is more beneficial for the more intelligent player.
As far as smart players not being able to win games, because the actions will be too difficult to accomplish is a false assumption. Being able to do all of the actions in a game and click things quickly is accomplished through practice. Anyone is capable of doing it, they just need to be dedicated enough.
The cool thing about difficult mechanics as well is that sometimes the less intelligent player will be able to overcome a smarter player through determination and practice. Practice is something that I think should always be rewarded as well as intelligence.
On November 19 2008 12:49 Manit0u wrote: How far? There is no extent as to where you can bring your strategy to.
You call yourself an SC fan?
Britney Spears' fans survived her cutting her hair, private life problems etc. and still love her.
You won't love SC2 no matter what it is?
Read my other post for my true explanation on why I feel Sc2 will hurt gameplay.
Just to counter act the limit to strategy statement:
Example: Grubby(Wc3 player) He used to be able to beat players by outsmarting them, but eventually everyone caught up to him strategy wise and so it's a lot harder for him to win games. He said this in an interview with MYM I believe.
On November 19 2008 12:49 Manit0u wrote: How far? There is no extent as to where you can bring your strategy to.
You call yourself an SC fan?
Britney Spears' fans survived her cutting her hair, private life problems etc. and still love her.
You won't love SC2 no matter what it is?
If you want them to make SC2 a turn based strategy game, please create a thread about it.
If you wish to discuss turn-based games and why to some people RTS games seem to lack strategy after a couple years, make a thread about that (in games forum). I have knowledge and opinions on this and could address them in that forum or in a blog if you really don't understand.
This thread is about the automine feature, and ways to address the problems it creates. Please stay on topic, and please other people ignore those that do not stay on the topic of this thread, so we can keep it on track.
The cool thing about difficult mechanics as well is that sometimes the less intelligent player will be able to overcome a smarter player through determination and practice. Practice is something that I think should always be rewarded as well as intelligence.
I completely agree with you here.
But seriously, whining about something that hasn't been really tested/sent out to the masses and checked out in practice instead of theory is extremely hypocrytic, don't you think?
I would understand if people whined about mbs/automine/whatever being imbalanced after several months of extensively practicing it. I would also understand if they whined about it affecting the pro scene if they were part of it and fulfilled the above statement.
But right now? Complaining about something that is still in alpha phase and haven't really been put into test?
Show me ONE post/blog where a current SC pro-gamer complains about SC2 interface. And I don't mean he/she is saying that 'it's easier'. I mean real complaint like 'mbs really makes this game uncompetetive'...
Edit:
On November 19 2008 12:54 LonelyMargarita wrote: If you want them to make SC2 a turn based strategy game, please create a thread about it.
If you wish to discuss turn-based games and why to some people RTS games seem to lack strategy after a couple years, make a thread about that (in games forum). I have knowledge and opinions on this and could address them in that forum or in a blog if you really don't understand.
This thread is about the automine feature, and ways to address the problems it creates. Please stay on topic, and please other people ignore those that do not stay on the topic of this thread, so we can keep it on track.
I have never ever said that mechanics was not important and that speed at which you makes decisions is not. All I wanted to say is that hindering players =/= making things competetive. How come even in WC3 where you have both automine and mbs there is still a HUGE gap between pros and casual/average players?
All I ever meant is that understanding of the game and it's mechanics is the most important factor and then (if say several people share same understanding) it comes down to physical skill.
The cool thing about difficult mechanics as well is that sometimes the less intelligent player will be able to overcome a smarter player through determination and practice. Practice is something that I think should always be rewarded as well as intelligence.
I completely agree with you here.
But seriously, whining about something that hasn't been really tested/sent out to the masses and checked out in practice instead of theory is extremely hypocrytic, don't you think?
I would understand if people whined about mbs/automine/whatever being imbalanced after several months of extensively practicing it. I would also understand if they whined about it affecting the pro scene if they were part of it and fulfilled the above statement.
But right now? Complaining about something that is still in alpha phase and haven't really been put into test?
Show me ONE post/blog where a current SC pro-gamer complains about SC2 interface. And I don't mean he/she is saying that 'it's easier'. I mean real complaint like 'mbs really makes this game uncompetetive'...
Don't have any specific posts/interviews, but I know a lot of foreign pro gamers have played the game and voiced disapproval of the UI, but yeah obviously no one has played the game extensively; however, it seems better to solve the issue pre release as opposed to solving it later.
As far as experience with MBS/Automine.. it's dumb to compare games, but I'll do it anyways.. a lot of people have experience with Wc3 which has these features and the game is just too 'slow', which is a problem for the reasons I stated previously.
I think the biggest problems is that casual/weaker players are selling themselves short. They assume they can't play a game without MBS/Automine, etc.. When in fact they're perfectly capable of it if they just put in the practice and have the right mindset.
On November 19 2008 12:54 LonelyMargarita wrote: If you want them to make SC2 a turn based strategy game, please create a thread about it.
If you wish to discuss turn-based games and why to some people RTS games seem to lack strategy after a couple years, make a thread about that (in games forum). I have knowledge and opinions on this and could address them in that forum or in a blog if you really don't understand.
This thread is about the automine feature, and ways to address the problems it creates. Please stay on topic, and please other people ignore those that do not stay on the topic of this thread, so we can keep it on track.
I have never ever said that mechanics was not important and that speed at which you makes decisions is not. All I wanted to say is that hindering players =/= making things competetive. How come even in WC3 where you have both automine and mbs there is still a HUGE gap between pros and casual/average players?
All I ever meant is that understanding of the game and it's mechanics is the most important factor and then (if say several people share same understanding) it comes down to physical skill.
There will always be a gap between pros and casual players. The difference is the gap between pro and amateur(semi-pro) players, which is a lot smaller in Wc3 than in SC.
On November 19 2008 13:09 kakisama wrote: anyone feel that all MBS will REALLY do is make micro funner to watch ? instead of watching people macro their way to a win?
On November 19 2008 13:06 vsrooks wrote: it's dumb to compare games, but I'll do it anyways.. a lot of people have experience with Wc3 which has these features and the game is just too 'slow', which is a problem for the reasons I stated previously.
Personally I've played more WC3 than SC and for me they're equally slow... WC3 is slow overall but SC early game is just nothing but scouting/expanding/massing army (unless it's cheese). When I stopped playing WC3 extensively it was fairly common that early stages of the game was heavy harassement etc. which could often win the game pretty fast, 15 minute games were pretty standard while 20 min SC game is considered 'short'.
I don't want to generalize here but that's just how I see things.
Right now WC3 has turned into 'All do the same standard strat vs current race all the time and see what happens' which seems incredibly slow and boring, I hope it will change soon.
Edit: I would also want to point people to the excellent article on the matter here on TL.net
On November 18 2008 03:18 damenmofa wrote: i have to agree this solution is horrible... either u have automine or you don't... why accept the fact that SC2 will have automine and yet don't accept it by coming up with absurd mechanics to negate automining for professional play? Its essentially the same as making a "nub" mode when you create a game and have automine and mbs and all that stuff and making a "competetive" mode where you don't which would be used in leagues and stuff. Either you are against automining or you are for it, this "solution" is some weird way of saying "Im against automining, but I know blizz will implement it anyway, so lets try and find a way to make it obsolete!". I recently played C&C red alert 3 and if Blizz wants to put up with the "standard" noobifications of "modern" rts games, they would have to add a "select all attacking units" hotkey and tabs where you can build your army from, regardless of buildings.. A games quality is not determined by some casual gamers who think of whats "standard" interface or not, but by its longevity and player base. As harsh as it may sound, but after a couple of years Blizz will learn the hard way what people really think of SC2 in terms of quality. Why be against a quality game? If seasoned gamers agree that things like automining make the quality worse, why find some absurd arguments for it? Its bad, it has to go, period.
I think what Kennigit is trying to do is to find some middle ground with Blizzard. Apparently, Bowder's grandma should be able to play the game. At the same time, the competitive community is worried about how it will scale to the higher end of the skill scale.
We can stand on our heads and scream WTH MBS IS BAD IT SUCKS LOL PLS TAKE IT AWAY, but in the end, it's Blizzard's decision. What we're TRYING to do here is find some mechanic that makes it possible for SC2 macro to be as challenging as SCBW macro. That's all this is, period.
On November 19 2008 13:06 vsrooks wrote: it's dumb to compare games, but I'll do it anyways.. a lot of people have experience with Wc3 which has these features and the game is just too 'slow', which is a problem for the reasons I stated previously.
Personally I've played more WC3 than SC and for me they're equally slow... WC3 is slow overall but SC early game is just nothing but scouting/expanding/massing army (unless it's cheese). When I stopped playing WC3 extensively it was fairly common that early stages of the game was heavy harassement etc. which could often win the game pretty fast, 15 minute games were pretty standard while 20 min SC game is considered 'short'.
I don't want to generalize here but that's just how I see things.
Right now WC3 has turned into 'All do the same standard strat vs current race all the time and see what happens' which seems incredibly slow and boring, I hope it will change soon.
Edit: I would also want to point people to the excellent article on the matter here on TL.net
You should probably play more SC/watch more SC then. There's a lot more going on in the early game in SC and the action picks up faster and carries through.
I've also played more Wc3 than SC as well. That article also relates to my other statement about how I feel difficult mechanics benefit both sides.
Just give delay when they start mining when automine is been used (first mining starts a bit slower (not first workers though)), then after let say 9 workers if you put then timely fashion to mine minerals you gain "extra" minerals (around 3-10 worker benefit of extra minerals 20-100, depends if you are up to bar with sending workers to minerals) because autominer had delay before workers started to mine.
This makes automining little bit disadvantaged but still non autominer had to make almost perfect worker micro/macro to get that extra minerals.
On November 19 2008 13:06 vsrooks wrote: it's dumb to compare games, but I'll do it anyways.. a lot of people have experience with Wc3 which has these features and the game is just too 'slow', which is a problem for the reasons I stated previously.
Personally I've played more WC3 than SC and for me they're equally slow... WC3 is slow overall but SC early game is just nothing but scouting/expanding/massing army (unless it's cheese). When I stopped playing WC3 extensively it was fairly common that early stages of the game was heavy harassement etc. which could often win the game pretty fast, 15 minute games were pretty standard while 20 min SC game is considered 'short'.
I don't want to generalize here but that's just how I see things.
Right now WC3 has turned into 'All do the same standard strat vs current race all the time and see what happens' which seems incredibly slow and boring, I hope it will change soon.
Edit: I would also want to point people to the excellent article on the matter here on TL.net
Ever wonder why WC3 has no where near as big a professional scene as SCBW has?
The skill gap is so much bigger in starcraft, so you really shouldn't be trying to use WC3 as an example. Starcraft obviously should be out shining example here, since it's the game that turned into the biggest esport.
Also, I don't know where the hell you got your information from, but you say a 20 minute starcraft game is considered "short." This is so false it's hilarious that you're even trying to argue a point on here with such bad misinformation. It's generally accepted that 15 minutes is an average time for a starcraft game, so how a 20 minute game could possibly be considered short is beyond me.
Edit: If you think that because that article is titled mind over mechanics Stork would have been able to do what he did without his speed and mechanics, you are gravely mistaken.
On November 19 2008 12:49 Manit0u wrote: How far? There is no extent as to where you can bring your strategy to.
You call yourself an SC fan?
Britney Spears' fans survived her cutting her hair, private life problems etc. and still love her.
You won't love SC2 no matter what it is?
I call myself an SC fan for what it is, what it has done, and the skill it takes to master the game. SC2 is a different game, and I won't simply call myself and SC2 fan just because its the sequel to Starcraft.
Just strategy would pretty much bore the hell out of me. Sure, its a big part of the game and all, but taking out the difficult mechanics would, in turn, make the game somewhat less amazing and exciting. With easy mechanics like automine, MBS, etc., I would be able to pull off SK Terran like a B+ level terran. Makes it a whole lot less amazing to see SK Terran in action, and generally, the entire progaming scene in general. Difficult mechanics make the game so much more exciting and great, to know that when that progamer pulled off that awesome micro stunt, he was also macroing his base, moving his army, or doing some form of multitask that only a high level of mechanics could acheive.
God... casual gamers are so lazy these days. Seriously come on automining!?! Geez basically you remove the crust of the bread and only eat the good parts of the bread, there is no satisfaction there because you didn't work as hard for it and you didn't eat your crust. When you work for something and competitively, it gives you a higher sense of purpose and reward. I believe Blizzard should really pay attention to the amount of multitasking and skill it takes if they remove all these mechanics from starcraft.
It´s really annoying that UI improvements still carry the stigma of being "casual-caring". It´s supposed to make the game as a whole better, not to simply pacify a specific target group.
They make the game more accessable for new players and remove a repetative and hardly distinctive mechanic from "competative" play. Thats why I bought up the different thinking ways of newbs and pros - Repetative but mechanically difficult mechanics only affect Players that aren´t used to them.
It´s hard to learn since it´s so unintuitive but very easy to master - once you "got it" the actuall gain of getting better at it dwindles rapidly - as being bought up the only qualifying aspect of Manualmining is the distraction.
But "better" players treat aspects like that more like reflexes than desicions. Remember that article: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=82317 ? Simple mechanics have developed to a point where everyone is good enough at them that they no longer factor in as decisive factor. To quote it:
"As Rage pointed out in his TLFE classic Mind Games, often it's “preparation, confidence and decision-making that makes one player win over the other”. In modern Starcraft, build orders are the order of the day (pun totally intended), with countering them well being the key to winning. No longer can a player just waltz into a series, and walk all over his opponent with pure class."
On November 19 2008 15:16 Unentschieden wrote: It´s really annoying that UI improvements still carry the stigma of being "casual-caring". It´s supposed to make the game as a whole better, not to simply pacify a specific target group.
They make the game more accessable for new players and remove a repetative and hardly distinctive mechanic from "competative" play. Thats why I bought up the different thinking ways of newbs and pros - Repetative but mechanically difficult mechanics only affect Players that aren´t used to them.
It´s hard to learn since it´s so unintuitive but very easy to master - once you "got it" the actuall gain of getting better at it dwindles rapidly - as being bought up the only qualifying aspect of Manualmining is the distraction.
But "better" players treat aspects like that more like reflexes than desicions. Remember that article: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=82317 ? Simple mechanics have developed to a point where everyone is good enough at them that they no longer factor in as decisive factor. To quote it:
"As Rage pointed out in his TLFE classic Mind Games, often it's “preparation, confidence and decision-making that makes one player win over the other”. In modern Starcraft, build orders are the order of the day (pun totally intended), with countering them well being the key to winning. No longer can a player just waltz into a series, and walk all over his opponent with pure class."
Read one of my other posts. Mechanics are not just useless tasks, they force players to make choices, give them more to think about, etc.. I'm tired of people assuming that mechanics are just clicks. There's more to it than that and no one has mastered perfect macro and micro in SC.
Players like Flash and Jaedong have better mechanics than other players as well...
On November 19 2008 09:59 vsrooks wrote: The previous points also apply to Oki's statement.
Vsrooks, I've reread your points several times to try my best to understand what you are saying. I think I get your point about FA's suggestion. If your assumptions are true and everyone goes max-minerals, then I guess it does not bring in a lot of diversity. But it's hard to see how this applies to my statements. It seemed like the risk/reward surrounding a player's decision to align their minerals was so dramatic that you initially felt it would alter game play too much. For all its potential flaws, isn't it safe to say the one thing adding vulnerability brings to the table is diversity? But this actually doesn't matter. I haven't thought about it enough to know if I even like the idea myself. Unentschieden's suggestion was just an example to help illustrate what I was trying to say.
I'm more interested in talking about your 2nd point because it happens to deal with the main thing I was trying to say. It looks like you are trying to zero in on the heart of the matter by separating adding depth and adding macro clicks into 2 separate things. If our goal is to add depth, then you reason FA's and Oki's suggestions are suited for that. But if our goal is to add macro then we should go with EntSC's idea. I can accept this line of reasoning applies to my example. But my main point was that our goal should be to have a positive impact on the actual game with our ideas. If we aren't willing to shift our perspective, it's easy to think Blizzard is arbitrarily brushing aside our opinions. A lot of what LonelyMargarita says is true, to a point. Blizz definitely has their design philosophies that they wont compromise on. But they are not going to ignore a great idea just for the sake of being stubborn. If our ideas fit a certain framework they are more likely to influence the game.
We kind of know what Blizzard is trying to do. Whether you love it or hate it, the current gas mechanic is very telling. They are trying to add macro (#2) while introducing some strategic choice (#3). EntSC's alignment idea is great, but what chance does it have of getting into the game? Altering it to fit Blizzard's goals improves its chances.
On November 19 2008 09:59 vsrooks wrote: The previous points also apply to Oki's statement.
Vsrooks, I've reread your points several times to try my best to understand what you are saying. I think I get your point about FA's suggestion. If your assumptions are true and everyone goes max-minerals, then I guess it does not bring in a lot of diversity. But it's hard to see how this applies to my statements. It seemed like the risk/reward surrounding a player's decision to align their minerals was so dramatic that you initially felt it would alter game play too much. For all its potential flaws, isn't it safe to say the one thing adding vulnerability brings to the table is diversity? But this actually doesn't matter. I haven't thought about it enough to know if I even like the idea myself. Unentschieden's suggestion was just an example to help illustrate what I was trying to say.
I'm more interested in talking about your 2nd point because it happens to deal with the main thing I was trying to say. It looks like you are trying to zero in on the heart of the matter by separating adding depth and adding macro clicks into 2 separate things. If our goal is to add depth, then you reason FA's and Oki's suggestions are suited for that. But if our goal is to add macro then we should go with EntSC's idea. I can accept this line of reasoning applies to my example. But my main point was that our goal should be to have a positive impact on the actual game with our ideas. If we aren't willing to shift our perspective, it's easy to think Blizzard is arbitrarily brushing aside our opinions. A lot of what LonelyMargarita says is true, to a point. Blizz definitely has their design philosophies that they wont compromise on. But they are not going to ignore a great idea just for the sake of being stubborn. If our ideas fit a certain framework they are more likely to influence the game.
We kind of know what Blizzard is trying to do. Whether you love it or hate it, the current gas mechanic is very telling. They are trying to add macro (#2) while introducing some strategic choice (#3). EntSC's alignment idea is great, but what chance does it have of getting into the game? Altering it to fit Blizzard's goals improves its chances.
I have no problem with a balance between macro and game depth. Realistically it would be nice to add game depth using a feature that increases macro. I think this is going to be really hard as any method used to force players to macro more is going to have to feel like 'forced clicks'.
My current issue with the worker mechanics is that they either don't solve the macro issue or they're geared towards just macro with no addition of game depth.
I feel that in a pure macro sense, EntSC's idea is a lot simpler, more fluid, easier to implement, easier to understand, and accomplishes the goal in a lot better way.
In a game depth sense, I think the ideas feel forced. They feel geared towards macro, but in the end only add game depth. I feel that there are a lot better ways to add to the depth of the game.
On November 19 2008 15:16 Unentschieden wrote: It´s really annoying that UI improvements still carry the stigma of being "casual-caring". It´s supposed to make the game as a whole better, not to simply pacify a specific target group.
They make the game more accessable for new players and remove a repetative and hardly distinctive mechanic from "competative" play. Thats why I bought up the different thinking ways of newbs and pros - Repetative but mechanically difficult mechanics only affect Players that aren´t used to them.
It´s hard to learn since it´s so unintuitive but very easy to master - once you "got it" the actuall gain of getting better at it dwindles rapidly - as being bought up the only qualifying aspect of Manualmining is the distraction.
But "better" players treat aspects like that more like reflexes than desicions. Remember that article: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=82317 ? Simple mechanics have developed to a point where everyone is good enough at them that they no longer factor in as decisive factor. To quote it:
"As Rage pointed out in his TLFE classic Mind Games, often it's “preparation, confidence and decision-making that makes one player win over the other”. In modern Starcraft, build orders are the order of the day (pun totally intended), with countering them well being the key to winning. No longer can a player just waltz into a series, and walk all over his opponent with pure class."
Read one of my other posts. Mechanics are not just useless tasks, they force players to make choices, give them more to think about, etc.. I'm tired of people assuming that mechanics are just clicks. There's more to it than that and no one has mastered perfect macro and micro in SC.
Players like Flash and Jaedong have better mechanics than other players as well...
Mechanics - yes. Don´t try to generalize me. I was specifically speaking of Manualmining in this case. THAT truly is just clicks. We aren´t discussing the value of mechanically challenges here but Autominging/Manualmining in specific.
Simply because it can be automated so easily should tell about the gameplay value of Manualmining - its such a mindless task the computer can do it better than the players.
On November 19 2008 15:35 vsrooks wrote: I have no problem with a balance between macro and game depth. Realistically it would be nice to add game depth using a feature that increases macro. I think this is going to be really hard as any method used to force players to macro more is going to have to feel like 'forced clicks'.
My current issue with the worker mechanics is that they either don't solve the macro issue or they're geared towards just macro with no addition of game depth.
I feel that in a pure macro sense, EntSC's idea is a lot simpler, more fluid, easier to implement, easier to understand, and accomplishes the goal in a lot better way.
In a game depth sense, I think the ideas feel forced. They feel geared towards macro, but in the end only add game depth. I feel that there are a lot better ways to add to the depth of the game.
I agree with you about the worker mechanics that are "geared towards just macro with no addition of game depth." But isn't this also true of of EntSC's idea? The alignment idea is simple and elegant, but could you ever picture Blizzard adding a task like this to the game?
On November 19 2008 15:35 vsrooks wrote: I have no problem with a balance between macro and game depth. Realistically it would be nice to add game depth using a feature that increases macro. I think this is going to be really hard as any method used to force players to macro more is going to have to feel like 'forced clicks'.
My current issue with the worker mechanics is that they either don't solve the macro issue or they're geared towards just macro with no addition of game depth.
I feel that in a pure macro sense, EntSC's idea is a lot simpler, more fluid, easier to implement, easier to understand, and accomplishes the goal in a lot better way.
In a game depth sense, I think the ideas feel forced. They feel geared towards macro, but in the end only add game depth. I feel that there are a lot better ways to add to the depth of the game.
I agree with you about the worker mechanics that are "geared towards just macro with no addition of game depth." But isn't this also true of of EntSC's idea? The alignment idea is simple and elegant, but could you ever picture Blizzard adding a task like this to the game?
I said EntSC's idea was geared entirely towards adding macro... I simply said it was the best choice so far and probably the best way to increase macro in general.
Realistically I don't think Blizzard is going to listen to anything, but it's worth a shot. If they are actually looking at making the game competitive without removing automine/MBS, I think EntSC's idea has the best chance of doing that without ridiculously over complicating the game.
On November 19 2008 13:13 Manit0u wrote: Personally I've played more WC3 than SC and for me they're equally slow... WC3 is slow overall but SC early game is just nothing but scouting/expanding/massing army (unless it's cheese). When I stopped playing WC3 extensively it was fairly common that early stages of the game was heavy harassement etc. which could often win the game pretty fast, 15 minute games were pretty standard while 20 min SC game is considered 'short'.
This is why these discussions just don't go anywhere. Everyone arrives at some sort of opinion and conclusion, with no grasp of how much they really understand. If you don't play the game at a certain level, you just won't understand why certain things are important, in SC and WC3.
There's nothing wrong with that, but at least you should be aware of your own gaps of knowledge.
I’ve read over most of this thread again (seems I’m in a different timezone to most people since everyone posts when I’m asleep!). I think I understand the reservations that some people have with my idea (thanks FA and Unentschieden for your explanations).
I tried to focus on a solution that is: simple; provides a macro substitute for automine; is visual; and that is easily balanced. However, I do take people’s points that SC2 should improve on SC1, rather than just replace elements of it. I’m not sure a macro automine replacement is the best method for providing strategic choice, but now that I understand the criticisms, I thought I could make suggestions to incorporate strategy into my idea.
I don’t think a destructible crystal format is a sensible approach because whilst it would be interesting, it dramatically changes the structure/flow of the game. It’s possibly a bit too radical at this stage in the development process, although in principle, I think it’s a very interesting idea.
To add strategic choice to mineral realignment, I thought there could be a cooldown on the process. Clicking the button/hotkey could send the nearest drone/probe/SCV gathering the minerals to perform a short build animation on the crystal formation. I would suggest this is kept very simple (perhaps with no visual indicator other than the worker moving around the crystal formation as SCVs move at present when constructing buildings, with a change in the hue of the formation to signify the realignment process).
This addition adds strategic choice because it means that there will be a period of time when minerals cannot be harvested from that crystal formation. Progamers will have to choose points in the game when they have sufficient excess minerals to handle the realignment downtime. I think the strength of this mechanic is that it can also be balanced easily (just like the realignment process itself) because the cooldown time can be varied within the context of the gather rate benefit.
Please im new to these forums so dont flame if this has been said before, but why not just have an option when you create a game, to turn off MBS and auto mine? I realise there may be some problems with balance as the game is currently balanced with MBS, but would it really make that much of a difference? Why not just have the option to turn these things off so new gamers and pros are both satisfied, and the gap between beginners and pros remains as gaping as it is in SC:BW?
this idea has been discussed before sexy, and despite the fact that it is the best thing to do, some ppl want to force others to play the game the way they want to
@manitou about mechanics/strategy
when someone says, "clicking faster" its a very ignorant or blind argument, and i believe you are not ignorant , in a fps shooting faster is also clicking faster, in a real time strategy game, clicking faster is also giving orders faster. Do armies in real life have enough time to think like chessmasters?prolly no when fighting in real time, thinking is still one factor, but speed is one also, tension and nervousism are two factors added by this kind of gameplay, you can always play CIV4 or Chess if you want to think every move in a perfect way , Real Time *anything* also brings the risk factor to the game, and if blizzard itself want the game to be very fast-paced, i think that the "FAST" in paced is married with "Speed". If you(not you manitou, just an example) think you are a new Sun-Tzu/Kasparov/whatever and your opponent is a dumb fast clicker and you should be able to defeat him even if you are a "slug" and he is a "jet" then you must think again of what kind of game you are looking for, cause the one that is able to bring its strategy to battlefield faster might always get the edge of the battle.
On November 19 2008 09:59 vsrooks wrote: The entire reason automine needs to be 'solved' is that Sc2 lacks multi tasking, there's nothing necessarily wrong with automining outside of it taking away the need to multitask.
I also don't see your solution brining in a lot of diversity in real-time choices. The only time you wouldn't want more minerals would be if you're maxed, which doesn't last long, which also doesn't add any choice or strategy. If you increase how quickly the mineral rates will disappear, players will only use it for all in strats/grabbing a FE/etc. It could possibly add some diversity to how build orders are executed, but that's about all.
As far as a your mechanic increasing choices available in the game, I can't argue the fact that it would potentially add some changes; however, there are all kinds of new mechanics that could potentially increase depth to the game. The issue that I percieved at hand was solving the lack of multi tasking required in the game. Your solution doesn't seem to do that so much as increase 'game depth'.
I feel that EntSC's idea solves the multitasking issue the best, while keeping things simple. It would be really easy to regulate, very spectator friendly, and I don't see casual players getting too upset over it.
If we're looking at ways to change the gameflow/depth of Sc2, then your idea and other worker ability suggestions would obviously be more suited for that. There are also a lot of other ideas we could come up with to increase 'game depth' as well as add a few more necessary clicks during a game.
The previous points also apply to Oki's statement. If minerals would respawn after a period of time after being 'destoryed' that could work. If you didn't want your minerals to be aligned for safety reasons, that would also take away multi tasking for that player as well, because they wouldn't have the task of aligning their minerals, etc.. It seems more like a change to game depth than to solve the multi task issue.
Edit: Sorry if I seem hostile, I'm not trying to be. I also think you brought up a lot of good points and ideas and with some editing it could definitely work in the game. However, like I said.. it just doesn't seem to solve the multitasking issue so much as it adds more depth to the game.
I don't think we can say *for sure* wether SC2 lacks multitasking at this point or not. I agree that yes, given all the "helpful" features added there is a higher chance of this being the case, but if the metagame of the various matchups develops in the right way, we could see a multitask heavy game inspite of all this.
I recognize that many of the people from here who have tested the game have complained about the lack of things to do, certainly. However, I maintain that playing the game for 2 days, with very little metagame developed, is not going to enable anyone to say for sure how the game will play out in its "final" state.
Moving on, let's assume that - as you have suggested - everybody would want to use mode #2 of my mechanic (although hopefully this wouldn't be the case) for the early/midstages of the game, don't you see that it would then become almost directly analogous to the suggestions given so far in this thread?
If the ideal mode is mode #2, and workers emerge in mode #1, then the professional player would want to make sure that his workers spend as little time in mode #1 as possible - just as he'd want to make sure his workers don't stop for 3 seconds because of a rally mining limitation, or he'd make sure to manually order them to mine for a speedboost (or align his minerals).
The one difference, and in my mind this is crucial, is that my mechanic is not there solely for the purpose of forcing you to click. Not only do I not think Blizzard would add a mechanic whose sole purpose is clicking, but I think reviewers would absolutely murder them if they did.
Further, I think there are some possibilites you are not seeing; if we make the cost of mode 2 quite severe, then it won't be used all the time (which could be seen as a problem) but I certainly think it would be used for more than allins. I'm sure it would have its place in many normal builds, making sure the timing is proper for everything you want to do.
Another thing to keep in mind is that while yes, the issue at hand is increasing multitasking, why do we want that? Because we want depth. If depth can be added in ways that are not purely mechanical (although I would argue that my idea could be implemented in a mechanical way, should you choose to) then that is (almost as) good.
You do not come off as hostile in anyway, and hopefully I don't either. I'm just happy somebody is taking the time to discuss this idea, as I still think it has a lot of potential. I had started writing another reply to this, which I felt might have been better, but I accidently pressed some (unknown) button and it disappeared.. Oh well, hopefully I managed to cover everything I meant to.
EDIT: One thing that I am not sure I have made clear is how I intend the SCVs mode of operation be set - I want this done by selecting the SCVs. NOT by clicking the command center and clicking "power mode" (or whatever name it's given).
So if you want to be maximally efficient you would catch every new SCV and set him to mode 2, and if you slip up/don't have the time, you'll just have to drag select all your SCVs and set them to powermode.
Ah, one more thing - on the subject of spectator friendliness, I think my idea could be quite friendly indeed. Simply have the mining sparks glow bigger and brighter when in mode #2. That's pretty much all you'd really need, although if you wanted to you could add a different worker look - the SCVs could have an extra exhaust pipe pop up or something along those lines.
On November 19 2008 19:15 sexyboi69 wrote: Please im new to these forums so dont flame if this has been said before, but why not just have an option when you create a game, to turn off MBS and auto mine? I realise there may be some problems with balance as the game is currently balanced with MBS, but would it really make that much of a difference? Why not just have the option to turn these things off so new gamers and pros are both satisfied, and the gap between beginners and pros remains as gaping as it is in SC:BW?
I am incredibly strongly against this. All it will lead to is 2 seperate communities, and unlike the seperation of Melee and UMS, these would both be competitive communities (hell, even UMS might develop competitive aspects).
Maybe the game will have enough players at release to support this (although it will hurt the ability to sponsor events and such), but what about in 5 years? In 10?
On November 19 2008 13:06 vsrooks wrote: it's dumb to compare games, but I'll do it anyways.. a lot of people have experience with Wc3 which has these features and the game is just too 'slow', which is a problem for the reasons I stated previously.
Personally I've played more WC3 than SC and for me they're equally slow... WC3 is slow overall but SC early game is just nothing but scouting/expanding/massing army (unless it's cheese). When I stopped playing WC3 extensively it was fairly common that early stages of the game was heavy harassement etc. which could often win the game pretty fast, 15 minute games were pretty standard while 20 min SC game is considered 'short'.
I don't want to generalize here but that's just how I see things.
Right now WC3 has turned into 'All do the same standard strat vs current race all the time and see what happens' which seems incredibly slow and boring, I hope it will change soon.
Edit: I would also want to point people to the excellent article on the matter here on TL.net
It's definitely true that the "action" starts way sooner in WC3 than in SC (it starts @ the 2 minute mark, as soon as your hero pops out basically), and I think Blizzard recognizes this as well, which is probably why they have made it so you start with 6 workers instead of 4. A good change.
However, you are mistaken about the average game length. Surprisingly (or perhaps not so surprisingly, I don't know) the average for both games is pretty much 15 minutes. During PGTour season 7 (I think it was 7, possibly 6) I played something like 500 games as protoss, averaging between 14 and 15 minutes in length - and this was with a fairly conservative style of play for the most part (although, on certain maps I played differently due to the arbiter bug present at the time, which hurt my ability to play long games vs terran).
Oh and @ the quoted vsrooks post: I don't think WC3 is slow due to mbs or automine, if it's slow (which is arguable) it's a result of the small scale and many limitations placed on macro. In SC you have 10 gateways (or 20), in WC3 you have 2.. maybe 4. If you play human maybe even more, but not considerably.
WC3 has upkeep, so you are even punished for massing (incidentally, I feel like my mechanic would have almost the reverse effect).
On November 19 2008 12:49 Manit0u wrote: How far? There is no extent as to where you can bring your strategy to.
You call yourself an SC fan?
Britney Spears' fans survived her cutting her hair, private life problems etc. and still love her.
You won't love SC2 no matter what it is?
Read my other post for my true explanation on why I feel Sc2 will hurt gameplay.
Just to counter act the limit to strategy statement:
Example: Grubby(Wc3 player) He used to be able to beat players by outsmarting them, but eventually everyone caught up to him strategy wise and so it's a lot harder for him to win games. He said this in an interview with MYM I believe.
And if you asked Boxer this, what do you think he would say ? Every new game has this - the smart/creative players start out on top, eventually the dedicated practice machines catch up and it gets harder. Boxer was a bit of both, and Grubby must be as well considering he just won the WCG and the ESL Continental Finals.
On November 19 2008 19:12 EntSC wrote: I’ve read over most of this thread again (seems I’m in a different timezone to most people since everyone posts when I’m asleep!). I think I understand the reservations that some people have with my idea (thanks FA and Unentschieden for your explanations).
I tried to focus on a solution that is: simple; provides a macro substitute for automine; is visual; and that is easily balanced. However, I do take people’s points that SC2 should improve on SC1, rather than just replace elements of it. I’m not sure a macro automine replacement is the best method for providing strategic choice, but now that I understand the criticisms, I thought I could make suggestions to incorporate strategy into my idea.
I don’t think a destructible crystal format is a sensible approach because whilst it would be interesting, it dramatically changes the structure/flow of the game. It’s possibly a bit too radical at this stage in the development process, although in principle, I think it’s a very interesting idea.
To add strategic choice to mineral realignment, I thought there could be a cooldown on the process. Clicking the button/hotkey could send the nearest drone/probe/SCV gathering the minerals to perform a short build animation on the crystal formation. I would suggest this is kept very simple (perhaps with no visual indicator other than the worker moving around the crystal formation as SCVs move at present when constructing buildings, with a change in the hue of the formation to signify the realignment process).
This addition adds strategic choice because it means that there will be a period of time when minerals cannot be harvested from that crystal formation. Progamers will have to choose points in the game when they have sufficient excess minerals to handle the realignment downtime. I think the strength of this mechanic is that it can also be balanced easily (just like the realignment process itself) because the cooldown time can be varied within the context of the gather rate benefit.
That seems to have more potential. I´d say though instead of "alinging" them they should become "refined" -> yellow. That way your opponent could "steal" your timeinvestment by invading when you just finish preparing your mining site.
On the other hand it would be a quite significant desicion to refine or not to refine, especially since earlier/more is pretty much always better in a fast paced game. I´d hate this to become a incentive to Turtle, especially since it might negativly affect a players flexibility.
Edit: Oh, and great post FA. Both your and Ents suggestions go in the same direction, modifications in income rate vs. total sum. I actually like it but I´m concerned that the "quick money" option would always be preferable - if things like that come in we would need more expensive and attractive high Tech options to make long term investmens actually "pay off" (unless there is a Earth 2150 mode: first to get 50.000 Minerals wins...)
I don't wanna go too far off topic, but wc3 feels slow generally because unlike SC where its as simple as massing and who has more units, in WC3 if you lose a unit that means they get more xp for their hero(es) so you play more cautiously, heal up a lot, and generally speaking treat each unit more favourably than you would in SC.
I have to admit though I'm feeling a large amount of confusion in attempting to visualize the whole crystal thing especially not having played alpha or whatever the hell you wanna call it(no sensible company would call a game this far progressed an alpha)so it kinda hurts it a bit. I think a couple considerations though are:
Early game battles, since the game is intended to have clashes start sooner so it would detract from that if you're worrying about aligning crystals, although I think the the crystal alignment idea of EntSC's was more midgame and onward. With that being the case, the game is naturally going to lend itself to being more micro related gamepllay, even if slightly, just by virtue of the fact units having more abilities so when you have that, plus macro(even if it is simplified), AND a third component of screwing around with gas/minerals, it seems too much like you're making an unneccesary amount of work. I'm not talking about making it more difficult, I'm saying it just sounds like ways to stuff accessories on something, but in the end it looks overdone...yeah that kind of thing.
I've seen the discussion of enough up and coming RTS games that I can safely say whether the intentions are for newer players or for players fixed on the competitive aspect, both parties tend to think up of ideas that clutter the game too much, too much of a fantasy idea, and in the end--unless this breaks the trend--the ideas don't end up making it because they just don't work, the developers end up keeping it simple. I'm not trying to discourage the ideas though, just saying what the trend tends to be.
thats not fair for a worker to mine faster if u click it , if u have 3 workers quewed at nexus u cant be at that nexus every time worker spawns to give it the speed , anyway this will generate some major imbalances ! so leave automine as it is or remove it !
I'm D+/C- and my strength is in my micro. My macro is pretty bad. At C- when I watch replays of myself losing, almost every single game I would have won if I had better macro.
In SC2 in its current build I would surely have perfect macro as my macro isn't THAT bad, and that coupled with my good micro would definitely allow me to play really well
I'm D+/C- and my strength is in my micro. My macro is pretty bad. At C- when I watch replays of myself losing, almost every single game I would have won if I had better macro.
In SC2 in its current build I would surely have perfect macro as my macro isn't THAT bad, and that coupled with my good micro would definitely allow me to play really well
By that reasoning, if we got you as micro and another D+ who macroed win vs a B- player in team melee?
And what if automine would remain exactly as it is but resource gathering rate would be higher and unit construction times shorter? Sure you wouldn't have to manually send your workers to mine but you would have a lot more on your hands with just producing units/buildings at a faster rate.
On November 20 2008 04:58 Manit0u wrote: Back on topic for me:
And what if automine would remain exactly as it is but resource gathering rate would be higher and unit construction times shorter? Sure you wouldn't have to manually send your workers to mine but you would have a lot more on your hands with just producing units/buildings at a faster rate.
I like this idea a lot, although the game would turn more into a macro fest, with all of the abilities that the units currently have, a lot of micro and multi-task would still be required. Albeit in a different flavor from BW.
On November 19 2008 13:09 kakisama wrote: anyone feel that all MBS will REALLY do is make micro funner to watch ? instead of watching people macro their way to a win?
Micro in and of itself isn't that interesting. Sit down with a muta micro map, you can learn to control mutas pretty damn well. What makes it amazing is the fact that high-level players can do it along with so many other tasks in the background.
It's not just about adding "clicks" to the game. Adding tasks brings more multitasking into the game, which is very much a legitimate skill in RTS games.
On November 19 2008 15:59 Unentschieden wrote: Simply because it can be automated so easily should tell about the gameplay value of Manualmining - its such a mindless task the computer can do it better than the players.
By that logic, shuttles should just have a "pop reaver" button that just drops a reaver, then picks it up the moment a scarab is fired? Clearly the computer can pick up the reaver more precisely than a human.
I have read most of the thread and I believe I have an idea that is not proposed yet. I am unsure how others will view it but I'll give it a shot at getting criticism.
Have auto-mine be an upgrade. Purchasable at the headquarters for a pretty sum.
This means: - No auto-gathering at the start of the game means gosu worker splitting (especially with 6 workers). - More work on worker management at the start is okay for everyone since there is less to do. - At some point everyone can get auto-mining. - Gosu players have the option to save on resources while doing manual mining, but also have the choice to go into easier-macro-mode for a price to gain an advantage over the opponent. - Moms can get automining earlier for a more enjoyable playing experience when they can't focus on everything anymore some time into a game.
The cost of the auto-mining upgrade can be fine-tuned for the pro gaming side to make it a serious consideration which can seriously help, but which can also get one in trouble if the opponent stays low-econ and pressures at a bad time. Of course I am not sure if this is easily balanced for the moms to be affordable at the right time then. But for the sake of discussion this would be a separate issue.
The bad side, the only one that I personally see (hence this needs more input), is that this would be for every race the same thing which causes some none-uniqueness.
On November 19 2008 13:06 vsrooks wrote: it's dumb to compare games, but I'll do it anyways.. a lot of people have experience with Wc3 which has these features and the game is just too 'slow', which is a problem for the reasons I stated previously.
Personally I've played more WC3 than SC and for me they're equally slow... WC3 is slow overall but SC early game is just nothing but scouting/expanding/massing army (unless it's cheese). When I stopped playing WC3 extensively it was fairly common that early stages of the game was heavy harassement etc. which could often win the game pretty fast, 15 minute games were pretty standard while 20 min SC game is considered 'short'.
I don't want to generalize here but that's just how I see things.
Right now WC3 has turned into 'All do the same standard strat vs current race all the time and see what happens' which seems incredibly slow and boring, I hope it will change soon.
Edit: I would also want to point people to the excellent article on the matter here on TL.net
It's definitely true that the "action" starts way sooner in WC3 than in SC (it starts @ the 2 minute mark, as soon as your hero pops out basically), and I think Blizzard recognizes this as well, which is probably why they have made it so you start with 6 workers instead of 4. A good change.
However, you are mistaken about the average game length. Surprisingly (or perhaps not so surprisingly, I don't know) the average for both games is pretty much 15 minutes. During PGTour season 7 (I think it was 7, possibly 6) I played something like 500 games as protoss, averaging between 14 and 15 minutes in length - and this was with a fairly conservative style of play for the most part (although, on certain maps I played differently due to the arbiter bug present at the time, which hurt my ability to play long games vs terran).
Oh and @ the quoted vsrooks post: I don't think WC3 is slow due to mbs or automine, if it's slow (which is arguable) it's a result of the small scale and many limitations placed on macro. In SC you have 10 gateways (or 20), in WC3 you have 2.. maybe 4. If you play human maybe even more, but not considerably.
WC3 has upkeep, so you are even punished for massing (incidentally, I feel like my mechanic would have almost the reverse effect).
On November 19 2008 12:49 Manit0u wrote: How far? There is no extent as to where you can bring your strategy to.
You call yourself an SC fan?
Britney Spears' fans survived her cutting her hair, private life problems etc. and still love her.
You won't love SC2 no matter what it is?
Read my other post for my true explanation on why I feel Sc2 will hurt gameplay.
Just to counter act the limit to strategy statement:
Example: Grubby(Wc3 player) He used to be able to beat players by outsmarting them, but eventually everyone caught up to him strategy wise and so it's a lot harder for him to win games. He said this in an interview with MYM I believe.
And if you asked Boxer this, what do you think he would say ? Every new game has this - the smart/creative players start out on top, eventually the dedicated practice machines catch up and it gets harder. Boxer was a bit of both, and Grubby must be as well considering he just won the WCG and the ESL Continental Finals.
In no way to I feel that the Wc3 game flow is slow because of MBS/Automine. I feel the gameflow is slower in general for numerous reasons, but not because of mechanics. Not sure where I said that, might have just been bad wording on my part. When I go back and read my posts, I shudder when I think about how badly they sound.. anyways.
In terms of mechanics I think Wc3 is a lot easier than SC. However, the mechanics are also easier because of the slower gameflow as well. When you're only building 7 workers or so, automine isn't a big deal. When you're only building around 10 units, MBS isn't a big deal. Like I said earlier it's hard to compare them.
The Grubby statement was a general comment about a focus on strategy in general, I just had a quote of his from an interview. There's a limit to 'strategy', less so in SC than Wc3, but it's still there. That's why the game itself needs to be difficult to play and the real intelligence should come out through quick in game decisions, which is only possible with harder mechanics.
I do like your worker idea and it's definitely going to add some macro, especially if players are primarily using mode 2. It will obviously have to be balanced to make mode 1 an option, which I think will be difficult without ruining mode 2. The other problem is that players in mode 1(higher macro builds) won't need to switch the workers, whereas players with short game strats(low macro) would have the extra macro, which would balance out the added difficulty. In general I just think the idea is going to either add primarily macro or primarily game depth. I think both of those additions could be added elsewhere. Sorry I don't have any logical arguments. Your idea is actually structurally really good, I just have my doubts about how it will work in actual gameplay.
I also I think if you took your attention away from specifically the workers, it might be easier to find a mechanic that adds game depth and macro in a better way. Like I said in a previous post, we're not necessarily solving the automine issue, but the lack of macro/multitasking, which doesn't necessarily need to involve workers.
On November 19 2008 13:09 kakisama wrote: anyone feel that all MBS will REALLY do is make micro funner to watch ? instead of watching people macro their way to a win?
Micro in and of itself isn't that interesting. Sit down with a muta micro map, you can learn to control mutas pretty damn well. What makes it amazing is the fact that high-level players can do it along with so many other tasks in the background.
It's not just about adding "clicks" to the game. Adding tasks brings more multitasking into the game, which is very much a legitimate skill in RTS games.
On November 19 2008 15:59 Unentschieden wrote: Simply because it can be automated so easily should tell about the gameplay value of Manualmining - its such a mindless task the computer can do it better than the players.
By that logic, shuttles should just have a "pop reaver" button that just drops a reaver, then picks it up the moment a scarab is fired? Clearly the computer can pick up the reaver more precisely than a human.
This is not a good comparision, there are many, MANY cases in which you would not want the shuttle to pick up the reaver, and you would definitely want to target for yourself. I'm not sure I could name a single one where it would be detrimental to have the probe go mine.
@vsrooks
a lot of people have experience with Wc3 which has these features and the game is just too 'slow',
I read this as the game being too slow because of the features, but I can see what you meant to say now.
About having to make mode 1 viable, well, I *think* mode 1 is going to be the prefered mode as soon as you max out/your economy eclipses your ability to spend. In order for it to "solve automining", that's the only time it would need to be viable, since you would have to order all new SCVs to enter mode 2. This is not ideal but still ok I think.
One reason for having macro mechanics be worker-centric is that you produce new workers at regular intervals, so it's a natural focus break or whatever you want to call it.
On November 20 2008 06:05 FrozenArbiter wrote: One reason for having macro mechanics be worker-centric is that you produce new workers at regular intervals, so it's a natural focus break or whatever you want to call it.
Good point, also a reason that EntSC's idea worked as well. Doesn't seem to be any easy answer :/. I prefer EntSC's concept for pure macro reasons, but I think yours stands the best chance of being accepted by Blizzard. Strangely, these are all better concepts than the current gas mechanic though.
would anyone be interested in doing a debate about mbs and automining online and recorded for the masses? i would be happy to represent the anti-mbs anti-automining side.
On November 20 2008 10:04 MyLostTemple wrote: would anyone be interested in doing a debate about mbs and automining online and recorded for the masses? i would be happy to represent the anti-mbs anti-automining side.
Dude, tasteless. You need to get on the next TL podcast along with some other MBS/Automine newb and have it out on the air. This has to happen! Make it your mission!
How about making auto-mine a toggle option. If you have it on, a sound loop plays of guy laughing and calling you a noob over and over again, and sends msgs to other players in the game letting you know you are a noob, until you turn it off.
On November 20 2008 12:23 Luddite wrote: automine needs to be in single player only. That way all the noobs will be happy and it won't affect the "real" game.
I wonder what is the viability of doing this? I assume most (or at least a much larger margin) of casual players are really in it for the single player missions, cool graphics, storyline, etc., then they'll move on to CnC5 or whatever's new at the time.
Problem I foresee is that it would really turn off any chance of casual players becoming more competitive. Once they get used to automine in single player, I don't see them ever wanting to play multiplayer because it won't have automine. So this could cause a considerable number of people to never play multiplayer. Not even 3v3 Hunters.
I think Blizzard would like to reinforce the competitive player base, so they would not want a barrier like that for casual players trying to become more competitive.
That said, seems to me like auto-matchmaking should solve any fear casual players have of getting into competitive play. For example, a friend of mine who's a noob just joined iccup. After 5 games he was D- and playing close and intense games against players of similar skill level. Auto-matchmaking would just improve on this ranking idea to cultivate better, more fun games for people of all skill levels.
On November 20 2008 10:18 FrozenArbiter wrote: Deal with that somewhere else, not in this thread please. If anyone is interested PM him, do not derail the thread.
On November 20 2008 10:04 MyLostTemple wrote: would anyone be interested in doing a debate about mbs and automining online and recorded for the masses? i would be happy to represent the anti-mbs anti-automining side.
Dude, tasteless. You need to get on the next TL podcast along with some other MBS/Automine newb and have it out on the air. This has to happen! Make it your mission!
On November 20 2008 10:04 MyLostTemple wrote: would anyone be interested in doing a debate about mbs and automining online and recorded for the masses? i would be happy to represent the anti-mbs anti-automining side.
fuck yeah, I would. Anti-MBS and anti-automine here.
I repeat, if this is something you want to talk about, make a new topic or continue in PM. I'm deleting any off-topic posts from now on.
On November 20 2008 12:23 Luddite wrote: automine needs to be in single player only. That way all the noobs will be happy and it won't affect the "real" game.
Quoting Kennigit from the opening post:
There is really no simpler way to put it. It’s a really tough situation to deal with because Blizzard HAS to stay current with RTS trends which right now is automated mining. At the same time they want to try and make a the competitive scene happy and capable.
Trying to get blizzard to remove automining is not a productive use of your time, and most of all it's off-topic for this thread.
One of the first ideas discussed in the first page of this thread was very good, and i liked it a lot, i think the direction of the thought process from the thread maker is really good, and so are the ideas people have been posting.
The idea i like the most is the " scv waits a couple seconds to begin mining when on automine VS scv goes instantly mining if ordered directly". that solution keeps things really simple without having the game enginge calculate speeds and selections and things like that, lore-wise its pretty easy to come up with any kind of crap, and i think it really works because early game it would be really really important to pay attention to that, and mid/late game when there are battles going on it wouldnt be as important becuase u already have a shitload of workers mining so it wouldnt hurt u that much but it would STILL make a little difference that will mark the skill gaps in the same way that BW´s mining does.
I think that would be the best solution, hats off to whoever suggested it first, in the first page of the thread.
yeah this would be good cause mine isnt the only thing a scv do, so thats not obvious that you want it to mine, what if you want it to build something/scout?
If you rally the SCV to minerals it's pretty obvious you want it to mine. If you want to build something you can either take it OFF the minerals OR rally it somewhere else.
In addition, and I think I've brought this up before, it becomes an entirely useless "feature" as soon as the mineral fields are saturated, as the worker will have to wait in line regardless. So it basically adds things to do only to a part of the game where it doesn't matter (early stages).
FA, do you think it's worth starting a new thread to stimulate debate about a replacement mechanic for automine? This one has got pretty long / unwieldy, and I've seen several people suggest an automine toggle which suggests (quite understandably) that they're not reading through all of the ideas. If everyone that was interested posted a suggestion on the first page, subsequent pages could be used for debate.
You mean something like taking all the ideas that have been suggested in this thread (the good ones, ie yours, mine, a few others) and posting them all up in the first post? Maybe, could also just edit the first page too. It's Kennigit's thread, so I'll see what he says too.
I hope Blizzard doesn't read this thread and use any of your guys' ideas. They are just terrible fixes. You can't just integrate something that is supposed to flow with the game. Blizzard did it by accident, its not like they knew what macro was and kept it that way because it was so good.
On November 21 2008 01:07 rushz0rz wrote: I hope Blizzard doesn't read this thread and use any of your guys' ideas. They are just terrible fixes. You can't just integrate something that is supposed to flow with the game. Blizzard did it by accident, its not like they knew what macro was and kept it that way because it was so good.
Blizzard doesn´t try to add pure busywork or shallow (aka at worst gameplay neutral) mechanics - otherwise we´d still have the Starbase. Blizzard would have to consider (or at least answer to) a suggestion when it has constant and all around support. That can only apply when such a suggestion is founded in facts - stuff like Siege Tank / Archon art falls under this. (They might still consider them but they wouldn´t officially discuss them)
Many suggestions here start with words like: "We all know SC2 doesn´t have enough Macro, so..." Even IF that were so there would have to be proof or people (like me) would call BS.
You can consider a mechanic poor if it becomes redundand once the above assumtion would for some reason be false.
That´s why I´m not concerned when we are discussing suboptimal mechanics here - Blizzard DOES know what they want for SC2.
On November 21 2008 05:02 Unentschieden wrote:That´s why I´m not concerned when we are discussing suboptimal mechanics here - Blizzard DOES know what they want for SC2.
On November 21 2008 05:02 Unentschieden wrote:That´s why I´m not concerned when we are discussing suboptimal mechanics here - Blizzard DOES know what they want for SC2.
Yeah, they want their moms and wives to play.
Because THATS when e-sports are truly accepted socially. The really big sports are so big because so many people enjoy, play and follow them.
I know you mean it negativly but that is what they went for with WOW and it´s the most successfull videogame ever. Competative play came almost automatically even though WOW is pretty much the exact opposite of competative. It was a LONG process for Blizzard to develop the PvP content as we know it now - people weren´t attracted by that, they demanded it.
SC was the same btw. - they absolutely didn´t expect it to develop such a community (but how could they?) and it took about 7 years to reach a state where everyone was happy with it - it was always good though.
On November 18 2008 02:41 Oliwoli wrote: What may (or may not) be an problem, but is at least worth considering is it could change the balence in favour of macro, as opposed to the micro-favouring direction is currently is in. Having it so there is ALWAYS a bonus could encourage spending TOO MUCH time at the base, especially as you will not be able to order ALL your workers at once, this will mean there is ALWAYS A BONUS to be accrued from staying in the base, so rather than it being a plate that needs to be kept spinning while the excitement continues, it ends up being something that requires constant attention. Now, this could be a good thing, but i would personally rather see games won through exciting contol or pant-wettingly large armies, rather than through a slight economic advantage that added up.
Perhaps a better way of phrasing it would be to say that it could end up being a punishment rather than a reward, if "speedy workers" become expected, the player "loses out" from neglecting his SCVs, rather than being rewarded for having that lil' bit extra APM that he can use to boost workers.
I'd put in a vote for "workers wait for a bit when rallied but move instantly when ordered".
As an argument for, id also say that its easier for fans to get into, as waiting around for a bit is easier to understand than "a tempory boolean speedboost accrued for a limited time, and requiring individual attention for maximum efficiency". There is something to be said for simplicity in the engine.
i actually like this idea. like make the workers wait 5 seconds or something before they automatically mine.
On November 21 2008 05:02 Unentschieden wrote:That´s why I´m not concerned when we are discussing suboptimal mechanics here - Blizzard DOES know what they want for SC2.
Yeah, they want their moms and wives to play.
Because THATS when e-sports are truly accepted socially. The really big sports are so big because so many people enjoy, play and follow them.
I know you mean it negativly but that is what they went for with WOW and it´s the most successfull videogame ever. Competative play came almost automatically even though WOW is pretty much the exact opposite of competative. It was a LONG process for Blizzard to develop the PvP content as we know it now - people weren´t attracted by that, they demanded it.
SC was the same btw. - they absolutely didn´t expect it to develop such a community (but how could they?) and it took about 7 years to reach a state where everyone was happy with it - it was always good though.
WoW is the worst competitive game ever. There's a difference between having a lot of people play a game and having it work as a competitive game or an esport. You can't argue with the Korean SC scene, there isn't a game in the world that can compare, except for possibly CS 1.6.
Another thing to note is that TL is looking at the esports aspect of Sc2, which Blizzard has stated they wanted. These suggestions are what TL feels will help Sc2 become successful as an esport. Also don't confuse a game being played 'competitively' with an esport. Very different things.
On November 21 2008 05:02 Unentschieden wrote:That´s why I´m not concerned when we are discussing suboptimal mechanics here - Blizzard DOES know what they want for SC2.
Yeah, they want their moms and wives to play.
Because THATS when e-sports are truly accepted socially. The really big sports are so big because so many people enjoy, play and follow them.
I know you mean it negativly but that is what they went for with WOW and it´s the most successfull videogame ever. Competative play came almost automatically even though WOW is pretty much the exact opposite of competative. It was a LONG process for Blizzard to develop the PvP content as we know it now - people weren´t attracted by that, they demanded it.
SC was the same btw. - they absolutely didn´t expect it to develop such a community (but how could they?) and it took about 7 years to reach a state where everyone was happy with it - it was always good though.
WoW may be the most successful video game ever, but it's not competitive at all.
You can say what you want about the fact that there are wow arena tournaments, but they're not fun to watch, nor are they nearly as competitive as starcraft is.
So do you want a successful video game that 10 million people play, or do you want a game you actually enjoy being good at. I for one feel good when I own someone in starcraft, whereas in wow when I win an arena match it just feels like a waste of time, since I only had to press (not counting wasd obviously...) like 20 keys total for the match.
On November 21 2008 05:02 Unentschieden wrote:That´s why I´m not concerned when we are discussing suboptimal mechanics here - Blizzard DOES know what they want for SC2.
Yeah, they want their moms and wives to play.
Because THATS when e-sports are truly accepted socially. The really big sports are so big because so many people enjoy, play and follow them.
I know you mean it negativly but that is what they went for with WOW and it´s the most successfull videogame ever. Competative play came almost automatically even though WOW is pretty much the exact opposite of competative. It was a LONG process for Blizzard to develop the PvP content as we know it now - people weren´t attracted by that, they demanded it.
SC was the same btw. - they absolutely didn´t expect it to develop such a community (but how could they?) and it took about 7 years to reach a state where everyone was happy with it - it was always good though.
WoW may be the most successful video game ever, but it's not competitive at all.
You can say what you want about the fact that there are wow arena tournaments, but they're not fun to watch, nor are they nearly as competitive as starcraft is.
So do you want a successful video game that 10 million people play, or do you want a game you actually enjoy being good at. I for one feel good when I own someone in starcraft, whereas in wow when I win an arena match it just feels like a waste of time, since I only had to press (not counting wasd obviously...) like 20 keys total for the match.
1.5 second global cooldown for the win. Also for the record WoW, DOTA, etc. are considered jokes among the majority of the people involved with them, owners/managers/admins/etc.. They're there for free cash and that's about it.
On November 21 2008 05:02 Unentschieden wrote:That´s why I´m not concerned when we are discussing suboptimal mechanics here - Blizzard DOES know what they want for SC2.
Yeah, they want their moms and wives to play.
Because THATS when e-sports are truly accepted socially. The really big sports are so big because so many people enjoy, play and follow them.
I know you mean it negativly but that is what they went for with WOW and it´s the most successfull videogame ever. Competative play came almost automatically even though WOW is pretty much the exact opposite of competative. It was a LONG process for Blizzard to develop the PvP content as we know it now - people weren´t attracted by that, they demanded it.
SC was the same btw. - they absolutely didn´t expect it to develop such a community (but how could they?) and it took about 7 years to reach a state where everyone was happy with it - it was always good though.
WoW may be the most successful video game ever, but it's not competitive at all.
You can say what you want about the fact that there are wow arena tournaments, but they're not fun to watch, nor are they nearly as competitive as starcraft is.
So do you want a successful video game that 10 million people play, or do you want a game you actually enjoy being good at. I for one feel good when I own someone in starcraft, whereas in wow when I win an arena match it just feels like a waste of time, since I only had to press (not counting wasd obviously...) like 20 keys total for the match.
1.5 second global cooldown for the win. Also for the record WoW, DOTA, etc. are considered jokes among the majority of the people involved with them, owners/managers/admins/etc.. They're there for free cash and that's about it.
Gah, listen to yourself. Reading comprehension could you two do that for me? Where did I say WOW was a good competative game? I actually stated the opposite, WOW is a game completely based around cooperation.
The question you have to ask yourselves is WHY are WOW and DOTA etc... being played competativly and attract such a big audience then when they are so "bad"? It´s the "common people" that make the (e-)sport, not the professionals. Where is the e-sport that is only played by a hardcore competative community without "casuals?" They are there but you never heard of them.
On November 20 2008 05:59 Badjas wrote: I have read most of the thread and I believe I have an idea that is not proposed yet. I am unsure how others will view it but I'll give it a shot at getting criticism.
Have auto-mine be an upgrade. Purchasable at the headquarters for a pretty sum.
This means: - No auto-gathering at the start of the game means gosu worker splitting (especially with 6 workers). - More work on worker management at the start is okay for everyone since there is less to do. - At some point everyone can get auto-mining. - Gosu players have the option to save on resources while doing manual mining, but also have the choice to go into easier-macro-mode for a price to gain an advantage over the opponent. - Moms can get automining earlier for a more enjoyable playing experience when they can't focus on everything anymore some time into a game.
The cost of the auto-mining upgrade can be fine-tuned for the pro gaming side to make it a serious consideration which can seriously help, but which can also get one in trouble if the opponent stays low-econ and pressures at a bad time. Of course I am not sure if this is easily balanced for the moms to be affordable at the right time then. But for the sake of discussion this would be a separate issue.
The bad side, the only one that I personally see (hence this needs more input), is that this would be for every race the same thing which causes some none-uniqueness.
Quoting myself here, don't mean to be ego-centric, but it seemed to be a snowed under submission to the thread, and I am curious what you people think.
If you use the delay for workers rallied to minerals, it has to be more than 5 seconds. 5 seconds is less than a trip, so after you have more than one base, it wouldn't be ever worth sending them manually (you get what 3 or 4 more minerals for diverting your attention back to a nexus?). Even pros sometimes get 4 workers backed up after they get to 4 bases, which is a minute without coming back to that nexus (a probe takes about 15 seconds to build). If it's not worth diverting their attention at 400 apm back, then nobody would ever manually send workers at that point.
I think the time it takes to build a worker would be a better delay, so if you're queuing probes, the 1st one you made goes to mine right when the 2nd one comes out. I feel this would be an absolute minimum though, because with 5 minerals per trip, 15 seconds is still only about 8-9 minerals, and even fewer once you have more than 1.5 workers per patch.
It depends who you want this to affect, and how late in the game you want it to affect them. If it's only 5 seconds, it won't affect anyone after the 4 minute mark (no one would manually send after that). If it's 15 seconds, it'll affect pros for 10-12 minutes, but an iccup C user maybe only for 7-8 minutes. The longer the delay, the more users will be affected by it and benefit from manually moving workers. Even at a minute delay there will be points in long games when you and I decide it's not worth going back (at least if you're a terran user), as even NaDa has had 4 scvs idle at an expo in games. ANY delay is still more automation than Broodwar, so it will still close the skill gap to some degree. We can guess based on the approximate mineral advantage gained by manually sending what the delay should be, but we'd really have to wait for beta testing to see how it would play out (assuming they included this feature).
On November 20 2008 05:59 Badjas wrote: I have read most of the thread and I believe I have an idea that is not proposed yet. I am unsure how others will view it but I'll give it a shot at getting criticism.
Have auto-mine be an upgrade. Purchasable at the headquarters for a pretty sum.
This means: - No auto-gathering at the start of the game means gosu worker splitting (especially with 6 workers). - More work on worker management at the start is okay for everyone since there is less to do. - At some point everyone can get auto-mining. - Gosu players have the option to save on resources while doing manual mining, but also have the choice to go into easier-macro-mode for a price to gain an advantage over the opponent. - Moms can get automining earlier for a more enjoyable playing experience when they can't focus on everything anymore some time into a game.
The cost of the auto-mining upgrade can be fine-tuned for the pro gaming side to make it a serious consideration which can seriously help, but which can also get one in trouble if the opponent stays low-econ and pressures at a bad time. Of course I am not sure if this is easily balanced for the moms to be affordable at the right time then. But for the sake of discussion this would be a separate issue.
The bad side, the only one that I personally see (hence this needs more input), is that this would be for every race the same thing which causes some none-uniqueness.
Quoting myself here, don't mean to be ego-centric, but it seemed to be a snowed under submission to the thread, and I am curious what you people think.
I really don't think a UI automation research would fit into Starcraft. I can see other games where you're more directly a "commander" or "general" of an army and when you can research personal powers (UI features) or otherwise acquire them in the game, but not Starcraft. That would be akin to having to research to use attack rally (or rally at all), and would just lead to things like researching the ability to have unlimited zoom-out on the battle-field or an auto-casting psi storm. Unless you can somehow make it so it's a research for an ability for your units, it doesn't really fit with what minerals buy in starcraft.
EDIT: as for gameplay, it also really defeats the purpose of automine altogether. With automine, grandma learns to select nexus and right click on a patch at the beginning of the game, and that's how mining works. Without automine, grandma learns to send her workers manually when she sees them sitting around. With an automine upgrade, she has to learn to send them at the beginning of the game, research the ability, and then select nexus and right click on a mineral patch and forget about mining at some point after the research is done. In a way it's counterproductive to the target audience of the feature.
On November 21 2008 05:02 Unentschieden wrote:That´s why I´m not concerned when we are discussing suboptimal mechanics here - Blizzard DOES know what they want for SC2.
Yeah, they want their moms and wives to play.
Because THATS when e-sports are truly accepted socially. The really big sports are so big because so many people enjoy, play and follow them.
I know you mean it negativly but that is what they went for with WOW and it´s the most successfull videogame ever. Competative play came almost automatically even though WOW is pretty much the exact opposite of competative. It was a LONG process for Blizzard to develop the PvP content as we know it now - people weren´t attracted by that, they demanded it.
SC was the same btw. - they absolutely didn´t expect it to develop such a community (but how could they?) and it took about 7 years to reach a state where everyone was happy with it - it was always good though.
WoW may be the most successful video game ever, but it's not competitive at all.
You can say what you want about the fact that there are wow arena tournaments, but they're not fun to watch, nor are they nearly as competitive as starcraft is.
So do you want a successful video game that 10 million people play, or do you want a game you actually enjoy being good at. I for one feel good when I own someone in starcraft, whereas in wow when I win an arena match it just feels like a waste of time, since I only had to press (not counting wasd obviously...) like 20 keys total for the match.
1.5 second global cooldown for the win. Also for the record WoW, DOTA, etc. are considered jokes among the majority of the people involved with them, owners/managers/admins/etc.. They're there for free cash and that's about it.
Gah, listen to yourself. Reading comprehension could you two do that for me? Where did I say WOW was a good competative game? I actually stated the opposite, WOW is a game completely based around cooperation.
The question you have to ask yourselves is WHY are WOW and DOTA etc... being played competativly and attract such a big audience then when they are so "bad"? It´s the "common people" that make the (e-)sport, not the professionals. Where is the e-sport that is only played by a hardcore competative community without "casuals?" They are there but you never heard of them.
The problem is virtually every game designed with heavy casuals in mind ends up as garbage for the competitive community. There are so many games out there that were good competitively, however once the makers decided to make a sequel geared towards casual gamers the game's competitive quality went down the drain as well. There are several game-sequels which follow this formula including Halo - Halo 3, CS1.6 - CSS, SSBM - SSBB etc. Starcraft is one of the games like Halo 3 which has a split community. Casuals tend to flock towards the money maps and UMS games, while the competitives are almost strictly low money maps, which can be narrowed further to what Koreans have in their map pool at a specific time. I honestly believe it's impossible to have one game satisfy both. Basically it' inversely proportional that the more casual a game is, the less quality the game has for e-sports. Casuals and Hardcores are simply polar opposites.
Manual vs Automine Incorporate something like the warp gate mechanic (more work but with greater yield) into making workers. If you make them manually, they spawn faster, but do not automine (and perhaps cannot be queued). If you hotkey and rally, they take longer to make, but will start mining immediately. Mid/late game with several expansions, this would mean most people would make the switch to automine, leaving those who are good enough not to with an edge.
Restating: Harmful Gas Mechanic This suggestion didn't get any discussion, but I think it may be a good idea. The workers going into the refinery take a small amount of damage each run, meaning the player has to keep track of his workers lest they eventually die. Worse players would notice too late that they have no workers collecting gas left, maybe even good players too in the chaotic late game.
On November 21 2008 22:43 Unentschieden wrote: The question you have to ask yourselves is WHY are WOW and DOTA etc... being played competativly and attract such a big audience then when they are so "bad"? It´s the "common people" that make the (e-)sport, not the professionals. Where is the e-sport that is only played by a hardcore competative community without "casuals?" They are there but you never heard of them.
The answer is: they don't. There are virtually no offline tournaments for WoW, and the DotA competitive community is relatively small. Furthermore (I think the most crucial bit) very few people that don't play WoW or DotA actually watch those games. By contrast, Starcraft both in and outside of Korea draws fair groups of people that don't actually play the game. Even outside of Korea, the number of offline tournaments for Starcraft or Warcraft III are much greater than those for WoW.
You make the analogy to sports, and I think it's a good one. How many 40-year old men go out and play baseball on the weekends? Not many. How many 40-year old men follow professional baseball? Quite a good number.
A game doesn't have to be that easy to access to be successful as a e-sport. By contrast, a game that is difficult builds respect for the players and teams among audiences. Starcraft is already an example of this. It is pretty much without question the most successful e-sport there is.
If you look at WoW arena matches, its actually a pretty poor example of an e-sport, even from a spectator perspective. It's not NEARLY as big as you say it is, and certainly not as big as professional Starcraft (or arguably even Counter-Strike in its heyday). The number of offline tournaments is tiny, as is the number of people who watch them that don't play WoW. To be honest, I'm not even sure that it was demanded because people wanted organized competition. Its debatable that the reason they implemented arena PvP was because people whined that they wanted somewhere to funnel all the people that were ganking left and right in world PvP, and "ruining the experience" for others. Evidence of this is the absolutely abysmal state of balance. If Blizzard had actually implemented PvP for the sake of making a legitimate competitive e-sport, they would have made the effort to fix the class balance issues that plague the current arena meta-game.
IMO you're trying to pin a problem onto something that's unrelated. The lack of acceptance of e-sports in the West has far more to do with the stigma against pro-gamers as a profession and against video games as a legitimate pursuit, rather than how easily accessible they are to spectators.
On November 22 2008 01:38 Osmoses wrote: Manual vs Automine Incorporate something like the warp gate mechanic (more work but with greater yield) into making workers. If you make them manually, they spawn faster, but do not automine (and perhaps cannot be queued). If you hotkey and rally, they take longer to make, but will start mining immediately. Mid/late game with several expansions, this would mean most people would make the switch to automine, leaving those who are good enough not to with an edge.
Restating: Harmful Gas Mechanic This suggestion didn't get any discussion, but I think it may be a good idea. The workers going into the refinery take a small amount of damage each run, meaning the player has to keep track of his workers lest they eventually die. Worse players would notice too late that they have no workers collecting gas left, maybe even good players too in the chaotic late game.
I would go aboslutely fucking insane if #2 was implemented. DO NOT WANT.
#1 is meh, it makes absolutely no sense why this would be the case and you are punishing people for using a game mechanic, which I don't think blizzard will do.
On November 21 2008 22:43 Unentschieden wrote: The question you have to ask yourselves is WHY are WOW and DOTA etc... being played competativly and attract such a big audience then when they are so "bad"? It´s the "common people" that make the (e-)sport, not the professionals. Where is the e-sport that is only played by a hardcore competative community without "casuals?" They are there but you never heard of them.
The answer is: they don't. There are virtually no offline tournaments for WoW, and the DotA competitive community is relatively small. Furthermore (I think the most crucial bit) very few people that don't play WoW or DotA actually watch those games. By contrast, Starcraft both in and outside of Korea draws fair groups of people that don't actually play the game. Even outside of Korea, the number of offline tournaments for Starcraft or Warcraft III are much greater than those for WoW.
Here in Germany the DOTA community is big enough for sponsored Tournaments which means for me it´s "big". The amazing thing about WOW competative play isn´t that it´s good but that it even exists at all since WOW is so countercompetative.
On November 22 2008 02:20 TheYango wrote: You make the analogy to sports, and I think it's a good one. How many 40-year old men go out and play baseball on the weekends? Not many. How many 40-year old men follow professional baseball? Quite a good number.
A game doesn't have to be that easy to access to be successful as a e-sport. By contrast, a game that is difficult builds respect for the players and teams among audiences. Starcraft is already an example of this. It is pretty much without question the most successful e-sport there is.
Almost. A Proffessional matches "quality" relies on the competitors, not intherit difficulty in a Game. That is why everyone demands "skill scalability/distinction/whatever... , so that game difficulty is as closely related to your enemys skill. Even your 40-year old guy follows baseball because he played and enjoyed the game itself. Respect is given to a players/Teams skill, NOT their games difficulty.
Also, the very definition of proffessional means that the pro can live on it. That means he (or she) needs sponsors. Sponsors are only willing to spend money if they expect a large audience.
My argument the whole time is that a large fanbase leads to competition, NOT competition leads to a large fanbase.(Thats what I was playing at with my sports analogy) The fans are ALWAYS first and form the basis pros can exist on.
On November 22 2008 02:20 TheYango wrote: If you look at WoW arena matches, its actually a pretty poor example of an e-sport, even from a spectator perspective. It's not NEARLY as big as you say it is, and certainly not as big as professional Starcraft (or arguably even Counter-Strike in its heyday). The number of offline tournaments is tiny, as is the number of people who watch them that don't play WoW. To be honest, I'm not even sure that it was demanded because people wanted organized competition. Its debatable that the reason they implemented arena PvP was because people whined that they wanted somewhere to funnel all the people that were ganking left and right in world PvP, and "ruining the experience" for others. Evidence of this is the absolutely abysmal state of balance. If Blizzard had actually implemented PvP for the sake of making a legitimate competitive e-sport, they would have made the effort to fix the class balance issues that plague the current arena meta-game.
Selfquote "The amazing thing about WOW competative play isn´t that it´s good but that it even exists at all since WOW is so countercompetative."
I NEVER said WOW PvP was big or even any good.
On November 22 2008 02:20 TheYango wrote: IMO you're trying to pin a problem onto something that's unrelated. The lack of acceptance of e-sports in the West has far more to do with the stigma against pro-gamers as a profession and against video games as a legitimate pursuit, rather than how easily accessible they are to spectators.
If e-sports want acceptance by everyone they need to be accessable to everyone. It´s pretty much impossible to expect "moms and wives" to accept something they don´t understand. WOW made BIG steps into that direction. It´s not like "older people" form some kind of Bastion of Ignorance. The much referred to "Casuals" didn´t exist 10 Years ago - you were hardcore simply by playing. It also helps that the kids from back then are the parents today.
Also, when did I ever say anything about spectators? I find it very hard to imagine anyone following competitions of a game (no matter what [e-]sport) they never played or don´t like.
Edit: Also something a bit more on Topic.
The core complaint against Automine is that it would equalize players. Proponents are accused of wanting this ("you want to win against better players..."). Players would be equal when they hit the "skill ceiling", when everyone is top in everything and has no nonrandom way of gaining an advantage.
For me there are generally 2 directions against equalization. 1. is the "old" way, by reducing player freedom. By reduction of freedom they would be restricted in "reaching the ceiling". Imagine it as attaching "weights" to a mountain climber so he would have a harder time reaching the top. That is done via distractions ("needs to go back to base") and limitations (one building at a time).
2. is by granting them more freedom. More freedom means a higher ceiling but more importantly more (and unexpected) ways of going "up". Our climber would go up a higher and wider mountain. That is done by adding "gameplaydepht" and reduction of distractions.
On November 21 2008 22:43 Unentschieden wrote: The question you have to ask yourselves is WHY are WOW and DOTA etc... being played competativly and attract such a big audience then when they are so "bad"? It´s the "common people" that make the (e-)sport, not the professionals.
But WoW and DOTA are not esports, which makes your entire point irrelevant.
On November 21 2008 22:43 Unentschieden wrote: The question you have to ask yourselves is WHY are WOW and DOTA etc... being played competativly and attract such a big audience then when they are so "bad"? It´s the "common people" that make the (e-)sport, not the professionals.
But WoW and DOTA are not esports, which makes your entire point irrelevant.
They're considering them both as includes during the ESWC 2009 so I wouldn't make such hasty decisions about it (although I don't really see how WoW could be an e-sport of any kind).
On November 21 2008 22:43 Unentschieden wrote: The question you have to ask yourselves is WHY are WOW and DOTA etc... being played competativly and attract such a big audience then when they are so "bad"? It´s the "common people" that make the (e-)sport, not the professionals.
But WoW and DOTA are not esports, which makes your entire point irrelevant.
"1. is the "old" way, by reducing player freedom. By reduction of freedom they would be restricted in "reaching the ceiling". Imagine it as attaching "weights" to a mountain climber so he would have a harder time reaching the top. That is done via distractions ("needs to go back to base") and limitations (one building at a time)."
"2. is by granting them more freedom. More freedom means a higher ceiling but more importantly more (and unexpected) ways of going "up". Our climber would go up a higher and wider mountain. That is done by adding "gameplaydepht" and reduction of distractions"- Unentschieden
Im sorry i just copied and paste, i idnt want to quote.
Going back to the base and mine and only selecting one building at a time arent distractions or weight on the climber, they are called macro -_-.
The so called "more freedom" you speak about is only "lets focuse only in micro". Going back to base to mine and only selecting one building at a time are a very big part of one of the big aspects in the game, which is called macro. (the 3 being macro, micro, and strategy...at least the way i see the game)
Basicaly by more freedom you want to force the players to emphasize micro and strategy over macro, thus TAKING FREEDOM AWAY from the players, because in broodwar they had this so called freedom to decide if they wanted to focuse more on micro, or on macro. Now its forcing them -_-
On November 22 2008 05:07 Unentschieden wrote: Almost. A Proffessional matches "quality" relies on the competitors, not intherit difficulty in a Game. That is why everyone demands "skill scalability/distinction/whatever... , so that game difficulty is as closely related to your enemys skill. Even your 40-year old guy follows baseball because he played and enjoyed the game itself. Respect is given to a players/Teams skill, NOT their games difficulty.
Precisely. This means that more skillful tasks (microing with macroing in the background) should command more respect. A player won't have nearly as much respect for a pro if he thinks he's remotely capable of anything the pro does.
On November 22 2008 05:07 Unentschieden wrote: My argument the whole time is that a large fanbase leads to competition, NOT competition leads to a large fanbase.(Thats what I was playing at with my sports analogy) The fans are ALWAYS first and form the basis pros can exist on.
No, your argument is that a large USERbase leads to competition. A userbase and a fanbase are two different things, and they aren't always directly correlated. You don't need to be a player to be a fan. Fans and players have different motivations for watching the game. Fans are watching because the game is genuinely fun to watch for them. Players are often motivated by other factors, such as wanting to improve. Because of this, IMO a better measure of e-sport success is when the fanbase is large AND many of them aren't players. In that sense, DotA is a very poor e-sport since its very hard for someone who has never played to pick up on the action (given the complex interactions between different heroes and items), and the number of people who watch actively but have never played the game are very few.
On November 22 2008 05:07 Unentschieden wrote: If e-sports want acceptance by everyone they need to be accessable to everyone. It´s pretty much impossible to expect "moms and wives" to accept something they don´t understand. WOW made BIG steps into that direction. It´s not like "older people" form some kind of Bastion of Ignorance. The much referred to "Casuals" didn´t exist 10 Years ago - you were hardcore simply by playing. It also helps that the kids from back then are the parents today.
You're making the assumption that playing the game well is necessary to understand the game, which is not true at all. At its core, Starcraft is a very simple game for spectators to understand, with some basic knowledge about the units. Making the game easier to PLAY is not correlated to making it easier to understand.
On November 22 2008 05:07 Unentschieden wrote: Also, when did I ever say anything about spectators? I find it very hard to imagine anyone following competitions of a game (no matter what [e-]sport) they never played or don´t like.
Someone from Korea can confirm or deny this, but I'm told that there are plenty of older people in Korea that have never actually played Starcraft but follow professional play quite actively.
And here we go back again to SBS = pro, MBS = noob-friendly discussion etc. I think it would be nice if some mod just run through this thread and removed/moved elsewhere all the offtopic posts (some of them being mine I guess).
Back on track:
Personally I think that no solution is really needed for automine, it doesn't change THAT much. During the early stages of the game you still need to split your workers and you don't have so much on your hands that it would matter if they go automatically to mine or you manually send them there. Sure mid-late game this makes a bit of a difference, with a couple of expansions, some heavy action etc. you might forget/not have time to send your workers to mine but usually at this point your economy should be pretty solid with most patches saturated and this 2-3 workers really won't make huge difference.
I agree however that what it along with mbs does is remove almost completely the need to go back to your base during the fights except for making new buildings. What we get in return is more abilities on the units and this stupid gas mechanic to counter-balance it. Myself, I have no problem with not needing to go back to my base periodically, I think however that the gas mechanic is worse than anything. I don't mean to play the game competetively like some of you but I think that all this automation won't lead to a significant skill gap reduction or anything like it (and if anyone will try to tell me again to look at WC3 and see for myself that the skill gap there is a lot smaller than in SCBW than I can assure you that the gap between a pro and pro-wannabe in WC3 is friggin HUGE).
On November 22 2008 05:07 Unentschieden wrote: Almost. A Proffessional matches "quality" relies on the competitors, not intherit difficulty in a Game. That is why everyone demands "skill scalability/distinction/whatever... , so that game difficulty is as closely related to your enemys skill. Even your 40-year old guy follows baseball because he played and enjoyed the game itself. Respect is given to a players/Teams skill, NOT their games difficulty.
Precisely. This means that more skillful tasks (microing with macroing in the background) should command more respect. A player won't have nearly as much respect for a pro if he thinks he's remotely capable of anything the pro does.
Yes. But it´s not the games duty to "demand" that, it´s the competitors. Players should be the ones to distract their enemys (feints...) not the game itself. And I doubt anything in the game can furthen bringing respect - it takes a lot more than "just" being good to earn respect.
On November 22 2008 05:07 Unentschieden wrote: My argument the whole time is that a large fanbase leads to competition, NOT competition leads to a large fanbase.(Thats what I was playing at with my sports analogy) The fans are ALWAYS first and form the basis pros can exist on.
No, your argument is that a large USERbase leads to competition. A userbase and a fanbase are two different things, and they aren't always directly correlated. You don't need to be a player to be a fan. Fans and players have different motivations for watching the game. Fans are watching because the game is genuinely fun to watch for them. Players are often motivated by other factors, such as wanting to improve. Because of this, IMO a better measure of e-sport success is when the fanbase is large AND many of them aren't players. In that sense, DotA is a very poor e-sport since its very hard for someone who has never played to pick up on the action (given the complex interactions between different heroes and items), and the number of people who watch actively but have never played the game are very few.
Semantics basically but fine. I just hope you don´t think I´m defending DOTA.
On November 22 2008 05:07 Unentschieden wrote: If e-sports want acceptance by everyone they need to be accessable to everyone. It´s pretty much impossible to expect "moms and wives" to accept something they don´t understand. WOW made BIG steps into that direction. It´s not like "older people" form some kind of Bastion of Ignorance. The much referred to "Casuals" didn´t exist 10 Years ago - you were hardcore simply by playing. It also helps that the kids from back then are the parents today.
You're making the assumption that playing the game well is necessary to understand the game, which is not true at all. At its core, Starcraft is a very simple game for spectators to understand, with some basic knowledge about the units. Making the game easier to PLAY is not correlated to making it easier to understand.
Do you have a test person at hand to prove that thesis? In my experience just watching removes they key element from games that make them a unique medium: interactivity. Even if someone can understand a game by watching it, could he/she also apprechiate it?
It sounds a bit like you are trying for the "Casual and Competative are mutually exclusive" angle. Blizzard knows how to make good games that stay good over the whole skillspectrum. The criteria don´t change when you "get better" about what a good game is - but your POV. Some games only start being good when you get better. I´d even say that SC:BW is such a game since many "annoyances" turn into mindless trivia when you train them. Manualmining is as challenging as riding a bike - frustrating at first, natural for the rest of your life.
On November 22 2008 05:07 Unentschieden wrote: Also, when did I ever say anything about spectators? I find it very hard to imagine anyone following competitions of a game (no matter what [e-]sport) they never played or don´t like.
Someone from Korea can confirm or deny this, but I'm told that there are plenty of older people in Korea that have never actually played Starcraft but follow professional play quite actively.
Would be interesting. Well If my theory is wrong I´d like your idea why (if that is true) these "older People" are attracted to SC, especially if they really never had any contact with it before - which makes me wonder how they learned of it in the first place.
On November 22 2008 01:38 Osmoses wrote: Manual vs Automine Incorporate something like the warp gate mechanic (more work but with greater yield) into making workers. If you make them manually, they spawn faster, but do not automine (and perhaps cannot be queued). If you hotkey and rally, they take longer to make, but will start mining immediately. Mid/late game with several expansions, this would mean most people would make the switch to automine, leaving those who are good enough not to with an edge.
Restating: Harmful Gas Mechanic This suggestion didn't get any discussion, but I think it may be a good idea. The workers going into the refinery take a small amount of damage each run, meaning the player has to keep track of his workers lest they eventually die. Worse players would notice too late that they have no workers collecting gas left, maybe even good players too in the chaotic late game.
I would go aboslutely fucking insane if #2 was implemented. DO NOT WANT.
#1 is meh, it makes absolutely no sense why this would be the case and you are punishing people for using a game mechanic, which I don't think blizzard will do.
OK, #1 then. Obviously one could think of dozens of contrived reasons why this would happen, lore-wise (drones get more attention, mature faster, but are born "too soon" to really get into the hive mind, needs a nudge at first, whatever, it can be explained plausibly with some imagination, SCVs and Probes too), and stranger things already exist in SC1.
How about only being able to issue commands to 12 units at a time. Whatever the practical reason this had for being implemented in SC1, lore-wise I think you'd agree it's ridiculous. I mean, I agree that stuff ought to be at least plausible, but you can't deny mechanics solely on account of poor lore, you're limiting youself too much. In Starcraft2, Blizzard is giving us, among other things, unlimited unit selection, and automine, but despite it making perfect sense for things to work this way, few people seem to consider it a good thing, because it make the game less competitive. Less fun.
How plausible is it for a couple of scvs to be able to repair a building that is being destroyed from the opposite side? How plausible is it that shuttles don't have to land in order to pick up it's cargo? Can we please stop using lore to flat out deny game mechanics? As long as it doesn't make me roll my eyes every time I use it, I can handle it if it makes the game more competitive.
You want punishing game mechanics, how about the fact that you can queue up to 5 marines in a single barracks? Players who use this mechanic instead of making more barracks for production are punished by means of lacking efficiency. Like a worker that was easier to create but takes longer to build.
Regarding the practical use of this mechanic, there is no doubt that it would become very important as a means of discerning skill. This is where good players would be able to excel thanks to their superior APM. We want this, right? I'm no game producer (yet...) but punishing players for using a game mechanic that simplifies their play and rewarding those who do without does NOT sound to me like a bad, or even new, aspect in making a competitive game.
@ Manit0u. The question is why do we need automine? You say it isn't a big deal and that things like unit abilities add chores. But that is exactly it. It's adding even more micro and army babysitting tasks. This strays from SC's core gameplay and thus shouldn't be a part of the sequel. It's difficult for Blizzard because they apparently have no clue about the game they made on the meta level. But again, it should be fairly obvious that following the core audience will guarantee success.
Here's a post I found on MLG forums that spells out a huge flaw in current day developer's mindset. They think that casuals, the majority, won't buy their game if it's too hard. However it really won't cost them much revenue at all. Which begs the question, "Why is such a successful game company STILL dumbing down games when they are loaded in the first place."
Originally Posted by Hitzel_89 Okay, so we know that newbie-friendliness and casual appeal sells games in today's market. Blah blah blah, we've heard it all before. If a game has high-quality gameplay today, it then has to compromise greatly for casual appeal. That's where devs start dumbing their games down.
Bull****. I hear this same statement echoed ALL the time not only from this forum, but from just about anybody who enjoys games as something competitive. You know what sells games? Marketing, being a sequel, being synonymous with a genre. It has nothing to do with being built on random bull****. Do you think more people play Halo 3 because of the bullet spread? Seriously, find me one person who bought that game because it realistically conveys converging bullet trajectories and I will shut the hell up.
I'm going to tell you a secret. The majority of a games selling potential is determined far before anybody plays it.
A common example we see on these forums is thus:
X game with horrible core mechanics (pick anyone you want there are plenty) sells brilliantly.
Shadowrun with better mechanics doesn't sell nearly as well.
Typical Conclusion - Obviously Shadowrun was too hard for everybody so this just proves that good games don't sell.
BULL****.
Is anybody starting to see the huge glaring errors in this logic yet?
Shadowrun Marketing = 0 Number of games prior to Shadowrun building up hype for it = 0 Good industry buzz for Shadowrun (reviews and such) nonexistent.
I'm sorry if it seems that I'm being overly hostile to your ideas, I'm not. I just hear the same assumption a lot and I personally see fault in it. Endrant.
As you can see, SC2 will be a sequel. It was getting attention during the alpha. It has the marketing, It has the name, it will sell.
On November 22 2008 07:57 NatsuTerran wrote: Here's a post I found on MLG forums that spells out a huge flaw in current day developer's mindset. They think that casuals, the majority, won't buy their game if it's too hard. However it really won't cost them much revenue at all. Which begs the question, "Why is such a success.
This is actually a fairly good point that I didn't think about. Why am I arguing against the correlation between a big casual user-base and a successful e-sport, when the correlation between a game with easier mechanics and a casual user-base hasn't even been established (and games like Shadowrun contrary evidence that there IS NO correlation between a game with easier mechanics and a strong casual userbase)?
On November 22 2008 01:38 Osmoses wrote: Manual vs Automine Incorporate something like the warp gate mechanic (more work but with greater yield) into making workers. If you make them manually, they spawn faster, but do not automine (and perhaps cannot be queued). If you hotkey and rally, they take longer to make, but will start mining immediately. Mid/late game with several expansions, this would mean most people would make the switch to automine, leaving those who are good enough not to with an edge.
Restating: Harmful Gas Mechanic This suggestion didn't get any discussion, but I think it may be a good idea. The workers going into the refinery take a small amount of damage each run, meaning the player has to keep track of his workers lest they eventually die. Worse players would notice too late that they have no workers collecting gas left, maybe even good players too in the chaotic late game.
I would go aboslutely fucking insane if #2 was implemented. DO NOT WANT.
#1 is meh, it makes absolutely no sense why this would be the case and you are punishing people for using a game mechanic, which I don't think blizzard will do.
OK, #1 then. Obviously one could think of dozens of contrived reasons why this would happen, lore-wise (drones get more attention, mature faster, but are born "too soon" to really get into the hive mind, needs a nudge at first, whatever, it can be explained plausibly with some imagination, SCVs and Probes too), and stranger things already exist in SC1.
No. Nothing stranger already exists in SC. If you want to point something out, then go ahead, but I can't think of any intended mechanics that actively (ie make your units move slower in game, make your units lose hp, make your units go on strike) hurt you for using them.
How about only being able to issue commands to 12 units at a time. Whatever the practical reason this had for being implemented in SC1, lore-wise I think you'd agree it's ridiculous. I mean, I agree that stuff ought to be at least plausible, but you can't deny mechanics solely on account of poor lore, you're limiting youself too much. In Starcraft2, Blizzard is giving us, among other things, unlimited unit selection, and automine, but despite it making perfect sense for things to work this way, few people seem to consider it a good thing, because it make the game less competitive. Less fun.
How plausible is it for a couple of scvs to be able to repair a building that is being destroyed from the opposite side? How plausible is it that shuttles don't have to land in order to pick up it's cargo? Can we please stop using lore to flat out deny game mechanics? As long as it doesn't make me roll my eyes every time I use it, I can handle it if it makes the game more competitive.
Not talking about that type of sense.. I couldn't care less about lore. It just doesn't make sense to add rally-mining and then punish people for using it. It makes no sense to program in a flaw for the sole purpose of forcing you to click more - if you want to make people click more, give them something useful to do. If every 30 seconds a wack-a-mole mini-game appeared in your game, and clicking it gave you 100 minerals, would you like this? It makes about as much sense.
Blizzard capped the unit selection limit to weaken the power of rushing (I think.. or was that the reason for why they didn't include MBS? I don't remember). The equivalent to the automining mechanic you suggested would be that if you selected more than 12 units, they'd start to move slower or not react instantly or something stupid like that -.-
Which is what I was talking about like 8 pages ago when I brought up the whole passive vs active buffs/de-buffs.
You want punishing game mechanics, how about the fact that you can queue up to 5 marines in a single barracks? Players who use this mechanic instead of making more barracks for production are punished by means of lacking efficiency. Like a worker that was easier to create but takes longer to build.
Again, if queing 5 marines meant they built slower than if I queued just one, then you'd have a point. But they don't, and you don't.
Regarding the practical use of this mechanic, there is no doubt that it would become very important as a means of discerning skill. This is where good players would be able to excel thanks to their superior APM. We want this, right? I'm no game producer (yet...) but punishing players for using a game mechanic that simplifies their play and rewarding those who do without does NOT sound to me like a bad, or even new, aspect in making a competitive game.
My two cents of the week.
Or we could implement a mechanic that doesn't punish you for using another mechanic that we implented, but still requires a similiar/identical amount of attention. Such as the ideas proposed by EntSC (crystal re-allignment, unsure what page his post is on) or myself (2 different modes for workers, see page 8 for details).
@Unentschieden
Also, when did I ever say anything about spectators? I find it very hard to imagine anyone following competitions of a game (no matter what [e-]sport) they never played or don´t like.
I have never played quake (actually I have, like once), but I thouroughly enjoyed watching Zero4 vs Cypher from this years Quakecon, as well as the ESWC Athens Q3 finals / semis.
On November 22 2008 01:38 Osmoses wrote: Restating: Harmful Gas Mechanic This suggestion didn't get any discussion, but I think it may be a good idea. The workers going into the refinery take a small amount of damage each run, meaning the player has to keep track of his workers lest they eventually die. Worse players would notice too late that they have no workers collecting gas left, maybe even good players too in the chaotic late game.
I would go aboslutely fucking insane if #2 was implemented. DO NOT WANT.
I agree #2 has little chance of being implemented. Thought I'd try give a succinct explanation why. It's a good simple idea that makes sense, but it falls short in one respect. Blizzard and those in this forum are trying to come up with a clever idea that wont feel intrusive to casuals. Results of neglecting the other ideas?
* Blizzards current gas mechanic - workers idle. * EntSC's patches de-align - workers bring back slightly less each trip. * Gas mechanic from other thread - workers bring back 2 gas per trip.
A casual who neglects #2 sees their workers die. A casual will feel this mechanic is being forced upon them.
Ugh, reading through the last couple of pages this has gotten ridiculously off-topic - I haven't decided wether or not to mass delete off-topic posts, but stop the off-topic discussion.
This is not a topic about MBS vs No MBS. This is not a topic about how to make a succesful e-Sport (as interesting as that is).
This thread is about "Potential Solutions to Automine", and the discussion of ideas that come up in the process.
On November 22 2008 09:25 FrozenArbiter wrote: Ugh, reading through the last couple of pages this has gotten ridiculously off-topic - I haven't decided wether or not to mass delete off-topic posts, but stop the off-topic discussion.
This is not a topic about MBS vs No MBS. This is not a topic about how to make a succesful e-Sport (as interesting as that is).
This thread is about "Potential Solutions to Automine", and the discussion of ideas that come up in the process.
Well given that there seem to be 2 unrelated counterstatements to my "Players are likely to be Spectators" Thesis I´ll consider myself overruled.
But finally on the core thematic again: It´s hard to find a solution for a problem that isn´t really defined.
What is wrong with Automine? A popular answer here seems to be: To less Macro - to what I say: No, thats completely fine in that regard. There is no change in Macrodesicions, only a reduction in required clicks.
But Automine might SHARE a problem with Manualminig: Shallow economy, especially Gas.
Compared to the options you have in regard to Minerals it´s quite sad what you actually DO with Gasmining: 1 Building 3 peons - done. The only decision is WHEN to add the Building.
Solutions might be alternate sources/income Models like FAs suggestion. I´d like to see a market (as mechanic, not necesserly a building)that would let you trade resources (If you feel adventourous: Why not "sell" units).
Blizzard will not create an interface with the sole purpose of improving efficiency (like automine rally), just to punish players who want to use that interface. That would be bad game design.
You guys can argue that auto-ming is bad game design, but that statement would be inaccurate as it is fully accomplishing its intent (making the game easier). You guys might not want autominig because it's bad for competitive gameplay, but it's not "bad design".
So stop brainstorming solutions that result in punishing players for using design as intended. it's not going to happen.
edit - posts after this one suggesting such solutions should be deleted.
i've given it some thought and i haven't come up with anything worth sharing.
It's a difficult problem in the sense that to me it has not been clearly defined.
* i am not convinced that the game - even with MBS and automine - will completely remove physical requirements. I do think that MBS and automine will change when/where the physical requirements are needed, but i don't think that that's necessarily a bad thing.
* No one at team liquid knows how the game plays like. As far as we've been told the game was not being played at the fastest speed. Is anyone trying to argue that starcraft on the old ladder speed is as physically demanding as it is on fastest? Of course not. If anyone thinks that they know how starcraft2 is going to turn out with a few hours of gameplay under their belt, i hold their arrogance in contempt.
* i am not convinced that MBS is a cure-all for macro problems; early game absolutely, but not late game. By map makers (community ones if need be) compensating for easier macro by making more resource heavy maps to the point where you are making 15-20 barracks per game, and 5 of them are in one location and 5 in another and then 10 in your main, it would be a strategical blunder to just keep pumping your marines in all locations instead of focusing on one. This is just one example off the top of my head how the game can adapt for MBS.
* Assuming that the game does lack sufficient physical requirements, i'm not sure how i would want to tackle it from a mechanics perspective. To be clear though: any mechanic that increases physical requirements without adding strategical depth to the game is bad design. Such mechanics scream of an inability to make the game legitimately harder by making slow players struggle against the ui with no purpose other than to punish them for being slow.
* 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.)
because of these reasons coming up with a solution has either not seemed completely warranted, nor easily solved.
edit - FA's idea has been the one i'm most inclined towards but still doesn't sit right with me. This is more my intuition than anything else, which is why i've not responded to it.
Geez, having to read 16 pages before replying is exhausting. I agree with Mora in that I don't see these solutions as necessary, but they're good exercises in game design, so I'll give it a try.
First, it's difficult to come up with a solid mechanic to fill in the multitasking gap that automine leaves, because SC2 must be a good game before can be a good e-sport. Therefore, its mechanics must exemplify good game design before one can consider the competitive aspects.
To help ensure good design, keep these two rules in mind:
1) The mechanic must have direct strategical value.
One of the reasons I believe Blizzard implemented automine is because manually sending your workers to mine has no direct strategic value - you always want your workers to go mine unless you want to use them for something else. Therefore, implementing another mechanic that only forces the player back to their base without any strategic implications would undermine the purpose of including automine in the first place, which is bad design.
2) The mechanic must not punish players for using automine.
Why teach players that they can place their rally point on minerals to rally their workers to mine, and then punish them for doing what you told them to? Being inconsistent with your mechanics turns players off of your game, and is fundamentally bad game design, regardless of how it might benefit the game competitively.
With these guidelines in mind, I'll review my favorite ideas so far in the discussion.
1) Worker speed-boosting
I like this mechanic because it's usable in a variety of situations outside of mining, like scouting. However, if you use it as a one-time boost, or use cooldowns or energy costs, then players will want to use them whenever they're available, cutting down on the strategic value of the speed-boost. Therefore, I think having a health cost for using the ability is the best solution, as players must weigh carefully the benefits of boosting against the disadvantages of lower survivability. It also naturally limits the number of uses of the boost, thus keeping potential for abuse low. Finally, I think the mechanic should remain the same for all three races, though visually different (stimpacks, afterburners, adrenal boosts).
2) Crystal realignment + fast workers
I'm combining EntSC's idea and FA's idea for this one. EntSC's idea of crystal realignment offered little in strategic value IMHO (at least before the most recent modification) and punished players who didn't use it, but was very visually clear. FA's idea, on the other hand, offers a good amount of strategic value but looks like it would be difficult to communicate to players. Therefore, I think a mechanic that combines the two would be the best route.
One way it could work is as follows: Minerals would naturally be in an unaligned state, which offers a normal rate of mining. The player can then send a worker to align the mineral, causing it to glow and offer more minerals per trip, but each trip causes the remaining minerals to decrease by a specific amount. Lore-wise, aligning mineral crystals makes it easier for workers to gather the minerals, but the increased sensitivity of the crystals in their aligned state means that some crystals break every time a worker gathers from the patch. The player can send a worker to an aligned patch to disalign it at any time (same hotkey).
Another way to implement it would use Unentschieden's idea about aligned crystals introducing an element of risk. In this case, aligned crystals would offer more minerals per trip, but it would reduce the armor of units within a certain range, making them more vulnerable to enemy raids. The lore would be that aligned crystals are easier to mine from, but produce harmful vibrations that degrade units' armor.
Finally, I'm going to present an idea I introduced a while back, and which IIRC someone presented recently, that I think would fit well.
Assisting
The basic idea is that you send workers to "assist" different buildings, with an associated benefit for doing so. Multiple workers can assist the same building, but with sharply diminishing returns. The disadvantages to assisting are that the worker is no longer bringing in minerals, and that there is a small mineral cost over time, like with repairing. The worker would assist the building until given another order, draining minerals the whole time, so the player has to decide when they want workers assisting and when they want them mining.
Assisting can be used in a variety of ways. The most common method is assisting a production building to increase the rate of production of that building. However, workers could also assist research buildings to increase the rate of research, or assist supply buildings to increase the supply count.
Assisting has many strategic implications, since you can effectively produce, research, or increase supply faster than your opponent expects by taking a hit to your economy. It also has enough of a disadvantage for using it that players are not punished for not constantly taking advantage of it.
How about changing the way rally points work entirely? Sorry if this has already been posted but I was only able to get about half way through the thread before I got sick of reading all the retarded ideas. Forcing the player to divert their attention back to their base is a great goal, accomplishing it through rather pointless and ill-contrived overly specific worker abilities is ridiculous.
In my opinion the best way to handle this would a complete revamping of the rally system. Rather than setting a permanent rally point for each building, the rally should only be set for the current unit training. Setting rally points for the queued units should be allowed as well by hitting shift (much like waypoints). This seems to me like a reasonable way to encourage multitasking as well as ACTUALLY SERVING A PURPOSE.
Often times you don't want all the varieties of units built from the same building to wind up in the same generic rally point anyways. This way a slower player could choose to queue up 5 workers and shift click the rallies for all queued workers and only have to go back to add rallys once all the units are completed. A faster player could queue up less or even have none in the queue at all. This change in the rally system would also add a bit more multitasking to unit production via mbs as well. You would have to continually add rallys for the 50 gates you have hotkey'd rather than just hitting one number, right clicking, and forgetting about it
I really like therapys idea and was thinking along the same lines myself. I may be easier then manually clicking on a specific worker, but atleast it requires you to glance back at your base.
also like therapy said,new players often queue up more workers then they need so the shift click would only be a mild inconvience to them. meanwhile good players only have 1 worker queued so they would have to glance at there base more often hence more multitasking.
On November 22 2008 15:49 Therapy wrote: How about changing the way rally points work entirely? Sorry if this has already been posted but I was only able to get about half way through the thread before I got sick of reading all the retarded ideas. Forcing the player to divert their attention back to their base is a great goal, accomplishing it through rather pointless and ill-contrived overly specific worker abilities is ridiculous.
In my opinion the best way to handle this would a complete revamping of the rally system. Rather than setting a permanent rally point for each building, the rally should only be set for the current unit training. Setting rally points for the queued units should be allowed as well by hitting shift (much like waypoints). This seems to me like a reasonable way to encourage multitasking as well as ACTUALLY SERVING A PURPOSE.
Often times you don't want all the varieties of units built from the same building to wind up in the same generic rally point anyways. This way a slower player could choose to queue up 5 workers and shift click the rallies for all queued workers and only have to go back to add rallys once all the units are completed. A faster player could queue up less or even have none in the queue at all. This change in the rally system would also add a bit more multitasking to unit production via mbs as well. You would have to continually add rallys for the 50 gates you have hotkey'd rather than just hitting one number, right clicking, and forgetting about it
If you don't want your units to be rallied to the same place, you should just change the rally point?
I mean, I prefer it over something like manually rallying workers for a speed boost, but it's still a bit awkward.
On November 22 2008 14:05 1esu wrote: Geez, having to read 16 pages before replying is exhausting. I agree with Mora in that I don't see these solutions as necessary, but they're good exercises in game design, so I'll give it a try.
First, it's difficult to come up with a solid mechanic to fill in the multitasking gap that automine leaves, because SC2 must be a good game before can be a good e-sport. Therefore, its mechanics must exemplify good game design before one can consider the competitive aspects.
To help ensure good design, keep these two rules in mind:
1) The mechanic must have direct strategical value.
One of the reasons I believe Blizzard implemented automine is because manually sending your workers to mine has no direct strategic value - you always want your workers to go mine unless you want to use them for something else. Therefore, implementing another mechanic that only forces the player back to their base without any strategic implications would undermine the purpose of including automine in the first place, which is bad design.
2) The mechanic must not punish players for using automine.
Why teach players that they can place their rally point on minerals to rally their workers to mine, and then punish them for doing what you told them to? Being inconsistent with your mechanics turns players off of your game, and is fundamentally bad game design, regardless of how it might benefit the game competitively.
With these guidelines in mind, I'll review my favorite ideas so far in the discussion.
1) Worker speed-boosting
I like this mechanic because it's usable in a variety of situations outside of mining, like scouting. However, if you use it as a one-time boost, or use cooldowns or energy costs, then players will want to use them whenever they're available, cutting down on the strategic value of the speed-boost. Therefore, I think having a health cost for using the ability is the best solution, as players must weigh carefully the benefits of boosting against the disadvantages of lower survivability. It also naturally limits the number of uses of the boost, thus keeping potential for abuse low. Finally, I think the mechanic should remain the same for all three races, though visually different (stimpacks, afterburners, adrenal boosts).
2) Crystal realignment + fast workers
I'm combining EntSC's idea and FA's idea for this one. EntSC's idea of crystal realignment offered little in strategic value IMHO (at least before the most recent modification) and punished players who didn't use it, but was very visually clear. FA's idea, on the other hand, offers a good amount of strategic value but looks like it would be difficult to communicate to players. Therefore, I think a mechanic that combines the two would be the best route.
One way it could work is as follows: Minerals would naturally be in an unaligned state, which offers a normal rate of mining. The player can then send a worker to align the mineral, causing it to glow and offer more minerals per trip, but each trip causes the remaining minerals to decrease by a specific amount. Lore-wise, aligning mineral crystals makes it easier for workers to gather the minerals, but the increased sensitivity of the crystals in their aligned state means that some crystals break every time a worker gathers from the patch. The player can send a worker to an aligned patch to disalign it at any time (same hotkey).
Another way to implement it would use Unentschieden's idea about aligned crystals introducing an element of risk. In this case, aligned crystals would offer more minerals per trip, but it would reduce the armor of units within a certain range, making them more vulnerable to enemy raids. The lore would be that aligned crystals are easier to mine from, but produce harmful vibrations that degrade units' armor.
Finally, I'm going to present an idea I introduced a while back, and which IIRC someone presented recently, that I think would fit well.
Assisting
The basic idea is that you send workers to "assist" different buildings, with an associated benefit for doing so. Multiple workers can assist the same building, but with sharply diminishing returns. The disadvantages to assisting are that the worker is no longer bringing in minerals, and that there is a small mineral cost over time, like with repairing. The worker would assist the building until given another order, draining minerals the whole time, so the player has to decide when they want workers assisting and when they want them mining.
Assisting can be used in a variety of ways. The most common method is assisting a production building to increase the rate of production of that building. However, workers could also assist research buildings to increase the rate of research, or assist supply buildings to increase the supply count.
Assisting has many strategic implications, since you can effectively produce, research, or increase supply faster than your opponent expects by taking a hit to your economy. It also has enough of a disadvantage for using it that players are not punished for not constantly taking advantage of it.
That's enough for now, tell me what you think!
Nice post. I do have to point out some issues though. Your 1st suggestion, (more speed less health) would be good if the 3 races were more similar - Currently Terrans would park 1 or 2 Medivacs over the SCVs, Zerg would periodically turn it on and Protoss would be screwed since Probes can´t restore their HP. It does show though that this "problem" needs to be adressed in the context of the whole game - and we have imperfect information about it.
The 2nd aproach is generally good but (unfortunately) workers are always targets of opportunity. A mere aromor debuff wouldn´t change attack priorities - it would be different if the debuff applied to Buildings - in that case your opponent might ignore the workers and try to raid your infrastructure which usually would take a "proper" attack.
I like the assist idea best because honestly, Workers are booring. I liked WC3s ghouls since they were combat and resource gathering units, making desicions a bit more complex. The current omnifunctual workers would work better if they weren´t so numerous (midgame)- it´s a difference when 1 worker out of 5 goes build OR if 1 out of 20 does that.
I'm combining EntSC's idea and FA's idea for this one. EntSC's idea of crystal realignment offered little in strategic value IMHO (at least before the most recent modification) and punished players who didn't use it, but was very visually clear. FA's idea, on the other hand, offers a good amount of strategic value but looks like it would be difficult to communicate to players. Therefore, I think a mechanic that combines the two would be the best route.
One way it could work is as follows: Minerals would naturally be in an unaligned state, which offers a normal rate of mining. The player can then send a worker to align the mineral, causing it to glow and offer more minerals per trip, but each trip causes the remaining minerals to decrease by a specific amount. Lore-wise, aligning mineral crystals makes it easier for workers to gather the minerals, but the increased sensitivity of the crystals in their aligned state means that some crystals break every time a worker gathers from the patch. The player can send a worker to an aligned patch to disalign it at any time (same hotkey).
Another way to implement it would use Unentschieden's idea about aligned crystals introducing an element of risk. In this case, aligned crystals would offer more minerals per trip, but it would reduce the armor of units within a certain range, making them more vulnerable to enemy raids. The lore would be that aligned crystals are easier to mine from, but produce harmful vibrations that degrade units' armor.
Hey 1esu - apologies, but I haven't had a chance to read your idea properly yet, but I just wanted to respond to this first point.
Originally, I was trying to come up with a mechanic that provided an acceptable alternative for casual and competitive players to automine. That was my only real goal. I just wanted to come up with a macro sink that reviewers wouldn't think was archaic, but actually retained that element of SC within SC2. However, on reflection, and having read this thread more thoroughly, I think I'm starting to agree that there should be a strategic trade off for use of the mechanic.
This leads into FA's suggestion, and your twinning of our ideas. I haven't really articulated it yet, but my argument against the suggested strategic impact is that good players will always take a strip mining approach. It might be true that progamers playing with 4 bases at saturation all with aligned crystals, might not align the 5th base, but it really represents very little in the way of strategic decision making because the window for NOT aligning the crystals is so small. True, weaker players that have worse control over their economy may rightly consider not aligning their crystal formations at 3 bases (or earlier), but the intention of this macro mechanic is to raise the skill ceiling and so our focus should be on impacting the top players (with a gradient that everyone can follow so the casuals and less competitive gamers benefit too).
The reason why I advocate taking time to align the crystal formations is because it's an instant decision with an instant opportunity cost. Progamers that have perfect control over their economy need to take the initial hit to their unit production to benefit from more minerals over time. It will encourage them to micro more effectively and preserve units. They will need to calculate the immediate reduction in their mining capacity within the context of their short and long term objectives, whilst also accounting for map structure and how well defended their base is. If, for example, they can't defend an expansion properly, that would be a strong argument for not aligning the crystals. The reverse is true for an increased yield implementation of the mechanic, and so I don't feel it provides any real choice. In essence, strip mining reduces the impact of raiding, because it provides a method of acquiring minerals from an undefended base more quickly and more easily.
On November 22 2008 14:05 1esu wrote: Geez, having to read 16 pages before replying is exhausting. I agree with Mora in that I don't see these solutions as necessary, but they're good exercises in game design, so I'll give it a try.
First, it's difficult to come up with a solid mechanic to fill in the multitasking gap that automine leaves, because SC2 must be a good game before can be a good e-sport. Therefore, its mechanics must exemplify good game design before one can consider the competitive aspects.
To help ensure good design, keep these two rules in mind:
1) The mechanic must have direct strategical value.
One of the reasons I believe Blizzard implemented automine is because manually sending your workers to mine has no direct strategic value - you always want your workers to go mine unless you want to use them for something else. Therefore, implementing another mechanic that only forces the player back to their base without any strategic implications would undermine the purpose of including automine in the first place, which is bad design.
2) The mechanic must not punish players for using automine.
Why teach players that they can place their rally point on minerals to rally their workers to mine, and then punish them for doing what you told them to? Being inconsistent with your mechanics turns players off of your game, and is fundamentally bad game design, regardless of how it might benefit the game competitively.
With these guidelines in mind, I'll review my favorite ideas so far in the discussion.
1) Worker speed-boosting
I like this mechanic because it's usable in a variety of situations outside of mining, like scouting. However, if you use it as a one-time boost, or use cooldowns or energy costs, then players will want to use them whenever they're available, cutting down on the strategic value of the speed-boost. Therefore, I think having a health cost for using the ability is the best solution, as players must weigh carefully the benefits of boosting against the disadvantages of lower survivability. It also naturally limits the number of uses of the boost, thus keeping potential for abuse low. Finally, I think the mechanic should remain the same for all three races, though visually different (stimpacks, afterburners, adrenal boosts).
2) Crystal realignment + fast workers
I'm combining EntSC's idea and FA's idea for this one. EntSC's idea of crystal realignment offered little in strategic value IMHO (at least before the most recent modification) and punished players who didn't use it, but was very visually clear. FA's idea, on the other hand, offers a good amount of strategic value but looks like it would be difficult to communicate to players. Therefore, I think a mechanic that combines the two would be the best route.
One way it could work is as follows: Minerals would naturally be in an unaligned state, which offers a normal rate of mining. The player can then send a worker to align the mineral, causing it to glow and offer more minerals per trip, but each trip causes the remaining minerals to decrease by a specific amount. Lore-wise, aligning mineral crystals makes it easier for workers to gather the minerals, but the increased sensitivity of the crystals in their aligned state means that some crystals break every time a worker gathers from the patch. The player can send a worker to an aligned patch to disalign it at any time (same hotkey).
Another way to implement it would use Unentschieden's idea about aligned crystals introducing an element of risk. In this case, aligned crystals would offer more minerals per trip, but it would reduce the armor of units within a certain range, making them more vulnerable to enemy raids. The lore would be that aligned crystals are easier to mine from, but produce harmful vibrations that degrade units' armor.
Finally, I'm going to present an idea I introduced a while back, and which IIRC someone presented recently, that I think would fit well.
Assisting
The basic idea is that you send workers to "assist" different buildings, with an associated benefit for doing so. Multiple workers can assist the same building, but with sharply diminishing returns. The disadvantages to assisting are that the worker is no longer bringing in minerals, and that there is a small mineral cost over time, like with repairing. The worker would assist the building until given another order, draining minerals the whole time, so the player has to decide when they want workers assisting and when they want them mining.
Assisting can be used in a variety of ways. The most common method is assisting a production building to increase the rate of production of that building. However, workers could also assist research buildings to increase the rate of research, or assist supply buildings to increase the supply count.
Assisting has many strategic implications, since you can effectively produce, research, or increase supply faster than your opponent expects by taking a hit to your economy. It also has enough of a disadvantage for using it that players are not punished for not constantly taking advantage of it.
That's enough for now, tell me what you think!
Nice post. I do have to point out some issues though. Your 1st suggestion, (more speed less health) would be good if the 3 races were more similar - Currently Terrans would park 1 or 2 Medivacs over the SCVs, Zerg would periodically turn it on and Protoss would be screwed since Probes can´t restore their HP. It does show though that this "problem" needs to be adressed in the context of the whole game - and we have imperfect information about it.
Good points, I was just aiming for a more permanent disadvantage than a cooldown or energy cost, as with those there is less strategic value as players would always want to use them whenever the cooldown ends or energy is restored.
The 2nd aproach is generally good but (unfortunately) workers are always targets of opportunity. A mere aromor debuff wouldn´t change attack priorities - it would be different if the debuff applied to Buildings - in that case your opponent might ignore the workers and try to raid your infrastructure which usually would take a "proper" attack.
I don't think it's necessary to change the opponent's attack priorities to have strategic value - the fact that more workers would die from a raid due to the armor decrease makes for enough of a risk/reward decision as is. Still, I think the building debuff has a lot of potential, with proper balance. Players would have to be sure that they could defend their base before aligning their crystals, as a raid could potentially take out the entire base if the player was caught unprepared.
On November 22 2008 23:32 EntSC wrote: This leads into FA's suggestion, and your twinning of our ideas. I haven't really articulated it yet, but my argument against the suggested strategic impact is that good players will always take a strip mining approach. It might be true that progamers playing with 4 bases at saturation all with aligned crystals, might not align the 5th base, but it really represents very little in the way of strategic decision making because the window for NOT aligning the crystals is so small. True, weaker players that have worse control over their economy may rightly consider not aligning their crystal formations at 3 bases (or earlier), but the intention of this macro mechanic is to raise the skill ceiling and so our focus should be on impacting the top players (with a gradient that everyone can follow so the casuals and less competitive gamers benefit too).
The reason why I advocate taking time to align the crystal formations is because it's an instant decision with an instant opportunity cost. Progamers that have perfect control over their economy need to take the initial hit to their unit production to benefit from more minerals over time. It will encourage them to micro more effectively and preserve units. They will need to calculate the immediate reduction in their mining capacity within the context of their short and long term objectives, whilst also accounting for map structure and how well defended their base is. If, for example, they can't defend an expansion properly, that would be a strong argument for not aligning the crystals. The reverse is true for an increased yield implementation of the mechanic, and so I don't feel it provides any real choice. In essence, strip mining reduces the impact of raiding, because it provides a method of acquiring minerals from an undefended base more quickly and more easily.
First, its true that without a significant cost, players would always align the crystals to 'strip mine' the patches. Therefore, the minerals lost per trip should be high enough to entice players to only use alignment in specific situations, instead of a constant practice. Players would get more minerals in the short-term, but in the long-term would run out far faster than their opponents and are thus forced to take expansions when they are not necessarily ready to defend them. Still, this concern is why I lean towards the unit/building armor debuff variation, where there is a clearer risk/reward situation. It also would mean that aligning crystals in undefended bases would be a bad choice, since one's opponent could take out the buildings more easily.
Second, I forgot to include it in my original post (probably because I was tired from reading the 16 pages straight), but I agree that the alignment process should take time, like building, and make the patch inaccessible during the alignment process. The alignment time would probably be shorter than you imagine, however, as aligned crystals would also have one of the above disadvantages and players won't use the mechanic if the risk is significantly greater than the reward.
Finally, I may have misinterpreted your post but it seems that you want dealigned minerals to have lower mining rates than normal, and for aligned minerals to dealign over time, so that players have to go back and re-align them. I think that it's bad design to punish players for not using a mechanic unless that mechanic is fundamental to the genre, like unit production. I would strongly prefer a mechanic that gives an increased yield to aligned minerals and allows that aligned state to last until the player dealigns them, but has a significant disadvantage associated with aligned crystals that entices players to align and dealign minerals in a strategic context. Players should not always want their minerals aligned.
I'm combining EntSC's idea and FA's idea for this one. EntSC's idea of crystal realignment offered little in strategic value IMHO (at least before the most recent modification) and punished players who didn't use it, but was very visually clear. FA's idea, on the other hand, offers a good amount of strategic value but looks like it would be difficult to communicate to players. Therefore, I think a mechanic that combines the two would be the best route.
Could you explain what you mean by "hard to communicate" and why you think the combined version is easier to explain?
I'm combining EntSC's idea and FA's idea for this one. EntSC's idea of crystal realignment offered little in strategic value IMHO (at least before the most recent modification) and punished players who didn't use it, but was very visually clear. FA's idea, on the other hand, offers a good amount of strategic value but looks like it would be difficult to communicate to players. Therefore, I think a mechanic that combines the two would be the best route.
Could you explain what you mean by "hard to communicate" and why you think the combined version is easier to explain?
By "hard to communicate" I mean hard to show it visually in such a way that players and spectators can readily distinguish the mechanic. An example of good communication is how all the units in SC and SC2 are visually distinct from each other, so that players and spectators can readily distinguish between the different types in fast-paced situations.
With your idea of mining efficiency, it seems difficult to visually express the concept of a worker going faster or collecting more while breaking minerals because of its lack of caution. On the other hand, with the crystal realignment mechanic aligned minerals glow brightly compared to dealigned minerals, so it's easy to distinguish which patches a player is using the mechanic on. Therefore, if you combine your mechanic with the crystal alignment visuals, you get a solid mechanic that is easy to distinguish during a base battle.
It's important to ensure that mechanics communicate well visually, since otherwise people might miss or misunderstand the mechanic in the middle of a pitched battle, which is bad for players and spectators. In fact, I should probably edit my proposed guidelines in the original post to include this one.
On November 22 2008 11:53 Mora wrote: * I do not know why the gas mechanic is so hated (though admittedly i haven't read enough about why people hate it). It adds a degree (though arguably small) of depth by cutting off ones gas production in intervals. This requires strategic adaptation to make sure that they are producing their tech and army composition in sync with their gas income. That is the most important aspect of the mechanic. The secondary benefit of the mechanic is to reward players who want to make those scvs do something in the interim instead of being idle. (this is what represents a good mechanic vs a bad mechanic. you want to reward good players for being good, not punish bad players for being bad.)
This argument seems to have been raised a lot, but honestly, it's just a change in point of view. In terms of actual outcome, a reward to good players does the same thing as a punishment to bad players:
Manual mining: You could say that it rewards good players for putting their workers to work, or punishes bad players for leaving them idle.
Gas mechanic: You could say it rewards good players for switching the tasks of their workers, or punishes bad players for not doing so.
See what I did there? Its the exact same damn thing, just with a different point of view.
I think FA's idea of toggling modes is the most natural - both modes have their (dis)advantages and applications. Let me suggest another idea in that vein, if it hasn't been mentioned already. Have mode 1 be the default mining mode and mode 2 be an overdrive mode of sorts, where workers move faster, harvest more per trip, or something. Let mode 2 also have a timer, of sorts - if you run it too long, your worker becomes more inefficient than it is in mode 1. Sound familiar? FPSs use this as a balance mechanic all the time - think ut03 translocator (although THAT was unnecessary imo, but w/e). Thus, the idea is for a worker to stay in mode 2 as much as possible while never completely running out of 'ammo.'
On November 23 2008 11:51 bottomtier wrote: I think FA's idea of toggling modes is the most natural - both modes have their (dis)advantages and applications. Let me suggest another idea in that vein, if it hasn't been mentioned already. Have mode 1 be the default mining mode and mode 2 be an overdrive mode of sorts, where workers move faster, harvest more per trip, or something. Let mode 2 also have a timer, of sorts - if you run it too long, your worker becomes more inefficient than it is in mode 1. Sound familiar? FPSs use this as a balance mechanic all the time - think ut03 translocator (although THAT was unnecessary imo, but w/e). Thus, the idea is for a worker to stay in mode 2 as much as possible while never completely running out of 'ammo.'
LOL, we've been brainstorming on something VERY similar with FA yesterday. The difference was that instead of a timer the workers would become less efficient after a set number of trips (estimated as 15 below, all numbers subject to balance and further tweaks) in mode 2, and the fact that instead of their becoming less efficient than in mode 1 they'd simply waste minerals much more quickly.
Let's say stage 1 of mode 2 is 7/10 (where #1 - what you're credited with, #2 - what you actually mine, #2 - #1 = wasted minerals), and stage 2 is 7/15. If mode 1 is 5/5, then by neglecting your workers and letting them mine in stage 2/mode 2 you're basically mining resources at trice the rate of mode 1, meaning you have to expand three times as fast, which you can't afford.
It means you want your workers to mine as much in mode 2 stage 1 as possible without going into stage 2, that's right, bottomtier.
It also means that the more saturated your mineral line is the faster you're going to go into stage 2, which means that sometimes keeping up with worker management in mode 2 might be too demanding to be beneficial (so switching back to mode 1 is a reasonable solution): this adds a new skill gradient which rewards players good at multi-tasking, and at the same time gives strategical choices to the player regardless of skill level.
Additionally, you'd have to manually switch your workers to mode 2 from the default mode 1 as soon as they're produced.
It also works in every stage of the game as opposed to manual-mining, which is irrelevant when your minerals lines are saturated. This, in turn, means there is a significant APM/multi-tasking sink in the macro department regardless of MBS and auto-mining which not only has physical demands but also plenty of depth on its own!!
Worker/mining mode management would also be very dynamic in the sense that it'd be affected by your opponent's choices:
E.g. if he decides to harass you, you may not have enough time to manage your workers properly and thus go into stage 2 and waste quite a lot of resources. Or if you're already mining back in mode 1 due to high worker saturation and then you suffer an economic blow - you need to decided whather to go back to mode 2, and if so with how many workers, as well as adjust each newly produced workers mode as you're recovering. OR, if you decide that the mineral count in that particular expansion is too low, you need to choose in which expansion you should go back to mode 2 or if in any.
The cooldown would work as follows:
After 15 trips (the "set number" mentioned above) in mode 2 stage 1 the mineral patch is in 15/15 state. The any subsequent trip would make it 1/15 of stage 2.
It takes the mineral patch to go down by one notch slightly more time than an average time a signle trip takes (the exact data would have to be calculated, but for the sake of simplicity in this example, let's say that each trip takes 0.8 sec, so the time it takes the mineral patch to go down by one notch is 1 sec of mining in mode 1 or not mining from that patch at all).
EDIT: The cooldown would be on each individual mineral patch so that to in order to monitor your mining efficiency you'd have to go back to your bases.
Example:
1) A worker in mode 2 mines from a mineral patch.
2) After 15 trips (~12 sec) the patch goes from stage 1 (7/10) to stage 2 (7/15).
3) The worker is switched back to mode 1 or delegated to another patch.
4) After 15 seconds
If the patch is at 15/15 of stage 2, then it takes it 30 seconds to go back to 0/15 state of stage 1. This means you won't be punished infinitely for neglecting your workers but just to a point. It prevents lesser players from suffering economically from having insufficient multi-tasking skills and at the same time does not affect average+ players, who won't ever get to 15/15 state of stage 2 anyway - that's half a minute of neglecting their workers.
More to come later. I need to make our ideas as coherent as possible.
"your worker becomes more inefficient than it is in mode 1"
That's a good alternative. I'll make sure to bring that up in my discussions with FA. ^^
edit: The actual number of trips required for the mineral patch to go from stage 1 (0/#) to stage 2 (0/#) would be determined by playtests. Ideally it should take an equivalent of 20-30 seconds in trips.
There's clearly a problem with automining that will spoil macro/micro mechanics.
Although these mining solutions that establish rules and formulas might work, they are ultimately unintuitive and 'dirty'. Adhering to the original starcraft philisophy, basic gameplay elements such as mining minerals ought to be straight forward and obvious to the player.
With that said, maybe it would be good to have the CC / Nexus be able to queue up one worker instead of the normal 5? Automine could stick around this way..
The number one thing I´d like to see solved/removed is the "Minimum required click" aproach that seems to be the basis of 75% of the suggestions here.
Lets compare to a fighting game, in respect to special attack commands. One aproach would be to make these attacks better but harder to execute.
The other would be to make all attacks equal - even to the very basic ones - but really easy to execute.
(WARNING SIMPLIFICATION) Which one would be more impressive/competative? The 1st one favours mechanical skill, the "pros" would be able to pull of moves "newbs" never even heard of. Newbs loose here because they can´t use certain moves.
The second would favour strategy over mechanical skill since Moves aren´t great by themselves - you need to know how or when to use them. Newbs have all the tools but need to figure out how to use them.
It´s analougous to the Automine vs. Manualmine(and APM sink solutions) insofar as that Mineral income is a "tool" or a "move". There is the dimension of execution (order peon to mine) and the dimension of application (expand, turtle, rush...)
Any pro (whose skill we want to "mesure") would simply outtrain the "mechanical drawback" (look at the current SC:BW proscene), the real difference though is always in application of the tools you gain (Take a look at the article "Mind over Mechanics").
That means that such "simple" stuff would only frustrate beginners since everyone needs these APM sinks to compete but wouldn´t really differinate between competative players since they all had to "learn" it.
And thats where I FINALLY come on topic:
maybenexttimes suggestion has 2 options: one inferior but easy, one superior but hard to execute. He even says so himself: "Good" Players will always go with the 2nd mode.
A modification that would change it to the 2nd aproach (that I´m favouring) would be to make the "switch" between the modes very simple - a button at the Command structure for example. Further Both modes would have advantages and disatvantages, maybe the 2nd modes drawback would be so much wasted resources that it´s enforces "all in" situations.
Or make it even more drastic: Harvest a full Crystal immeadiately but only gain 10% of it´s value. That offers a HUGE boost but ruins you if you can´t win (or at least get even). The idea is that every newb seing such a maneuver should be able to duplicate it - but have to figure out WHEN and HOW exactly to use it. You wouln´t be able to train THAT against the computer.
On November 24 2008 04:16 Unentschieden wrote: Lets compare to a fighting game, in respect to special attack commands. One aproach would be to make these attacks better but harder to execute.
The other would be to make all attacks equal - even to the very basic ones - but really easy to execute.
I can't help but think you don't actually play any fighting games at a decent competitive level. Any good game isn't balanced based on input difficulty; that would just be idiotic(only notable exception I can think of is parries in Third Strike). Moreover all the standard fighting game inputs aren't at all difficult, and any complexity they have exists only to eliminate the possibility of accidental inputs.
Saying that players in a fighting game are limited based on what inputs they can perform is like saying that Starcraft players are limited based on what buttons they are capable of pressing on the keyboard. It's such a low level that it's not even worth considering.
If you try to extend the comparison further and talk about manually challenging combos, then it still makes no sense. A combo in a fighting game is an absolutely rigid set of moves that you have to execute exactly the same once the first hit is landed, and really the only option for a player that wants to compete is to memorize them; the only analogue to that in Starcraft is initial build orders, which are much easier to memorize so aren't really as significant in making the game difficult to learn.
On November 24 2008 04:16 Unentschieden wrote:The second would favour strategy over mechanical skill
I stopped reading right there.
I mean seriously, are you honestly trying to go with the more strategy less clicks option?
Do you really think having pros click 400 times a minute makes them use less strategy? If so you clearly don't watch starcraft. Making sc2 easier WILL NOT add more strategy, it will just make the game easier.
Here's what a well designed macro mechanic should be like:
1) The mechanic must have direct strategical value.
2) The mechanic must not punish players for using automine.
3) The mechanic provides a viable attention/APM sink in macro department.
4) The mechanic creates a wide skill gradient and allows players of different playstyles to distinguish themselves.
5) The mechanic allows for UI features such as MBS or auto-mining to remain untouched and does not punish the players for using them.
6) The mechanic in dynamic in the sense that it depends on the player and his opponent's choices.
7) The mechanic gives plenty of room for necessary tweaks.
8) The mechanic gives the player different alternatives, each having their advantages and disadvantages.
9) The mechanic does not force a specific map design (unlike the current Blizzard gas mechanic).
10) The mechanic is not mindless nor repetitive.
FA's mechanic meets all requirements, imo.
As for your suggestion, Unentschieden, would not meet some of them. E.g. making it CC/Nexus/Hatchery thing would mean it's not an attention/APM sink anymore since you can just remotely manage that like you do with unit production hansk to MBS. Not to mention it wouldn't be used frequently, which means it'd be a gimmicky mechanic.
Your other suggestion would break the balance and wouldn't be an APM/attention sink due to how situational it is.
As for "maybenexttimes suggestion has 2 options: one inferior but easy, one superior but hard to execute. He even says so himself: "Good" Players will always go with the 2nd mode."
You are mistaken.
You'd generally want to stay in mode 2; stage 1 for as long as possible when a particular mineral line is not fully saturated, and only for a set period of time (till you hit stage 2), only when this particular mineral line works unhindered.
Situations in which you'd want to use mode 2 despite stage 2:
- you've been harassed and you need to recover in terms of worker count
- you've discovered that your opponent has been mining from a hidden expansion and you want to get even economically
- you're trying to capitalize on an economic/army advantage
- you're preparing a warp-in drop
- you're trying to capitalize on a hidden expansion
- you're trying to maximize the income from an expansion you know you're going to lose
- you're cheesing with half your workers and the other half and constantly mining in mode 2
Situation in which you'd want to stay in mode 1:
- your mineral line is saturated and you're wasting too much resources (especially if minerals are running dry in that particular expansion)
- you're gathering minerals faster than you can spend them because:
a) you're low on popcap because your opponent killed your popcap structures/ovies or you were sloppy
b) you're low on production structures because of enemy's destroying them or your timing mistake
You'd have to consider all these factors on case by case basis as regards specific mineral lines.
Additionally, you'd have to decide how how frequently you want to adjust your mining modes (micro vs. macro in terms of attention) ans well as plan ahead: e.g. you know your opponent will harass you or you're launching an attention demanding attack yourself and you know you're not gonna be able to mine in mode 2 without suffering from stage 2 for an extended period of time, so you switch back to mode 1 ahead of time.
There's even more to that, but I don't have time to mention it all. But, as you can see, there are plenty decisions to be made with this mechanic. It's all dynamic - depends on what you and your opponent do.
On November 24 2008 04:16 Unentschieden wrote: The number one thing I´d like to see solved/removed is the "Minimum required click" aproach that seems to be the basis of 75% of the suggestions here.
Lets compare to a fighting game, in respect to special attack commands. One aproach would be to make these attacks better but harder to execute.
The other would be to make all attacks equal - even to the very basic ones - but really easy to execute.
(WARNING SIMPLIFICATION) Which one would be more impressive/competative? The 1st one favours mechanical skill, the "pros" would be able to pull of moves "newbs" never even heard of. Newbs loose here because they can´t use certain moves.
The second would favour strategy over mechanical skill since Moves aren´t great by themselves - you need to know how or when to use them. Newbs have all the tools but need to figure out how to use them.
The obvious answer is that neither is the optimal solution. It seems pretty apparent to me that, as with many things, you need a balance of the two. All one and all the other is bad. It's about where to place the balance.
On November 24 2008 04:16 Unentschieden wrote: It´s analougous to the Automine vs. Manualmine(and APM sink solutions) insofar as that Mineral income is a "tool" or a "move". There is the dimension of execution (order peon to mine) and the dimension of application (expand, turtle, rush...)
Any pro (whose skill we want to "mesure") would simply outtrain the "mechanical drawback" (look at the current SC:BW proscene), the real difference though is always in application of the tools you gain (Take a look at the article "Mind over Mechanics").
That means that such "simple" stuff would only frustrate beginners since everyone needs these APM sinks to compete but wouldn´t really differinate between competative players since they all had to "learn" it.
You keep missing the point. It's not just about more clicks. It's about multitasking. Regardless of how easy or complex the actions are in and of themselves, they create the dimension of multitasking. That's a skill differentiator at all levels. There's no "out-training" multitasking. That's why even at pro levels we have players like Bisu who are known for having good multitasking.
On November 24 2008 04:16 Unentschieden wrote: Lets compare to a fighting game, in respect to special attack commands. One aproach would be to make these attacks better but harder to execute.
The other would be to make all attacks equal - even to the very basic ones - but really easy to execute.
I can't help but think you don't actually play any fighting games at a decent competitive level. Any good game isn't balanced based on input difficulty; that would just be idiotic(only notable exception I can think of is parries in Third Strike). Moreover all the standard fighting game inputs aren't at all difficult, and any complexity they have exists only to eliminate the possibility of accidental inputs.
Saying that players in a fighting game are limited based on what inputs they can perform is like saying that Starcraft players are limited based on what buttons they are capable of pressing on the keyboard. It's such a low level that it's not even worth considering.
Even though you looked straight at it you missed the point. Youre trying to convince me of the very point I made: It´s silly to try and make "hard controls" since these only affect and frustrate beginners.
A good fighting games input control is supposed to prevent accidental messups. They AREN`T trying to PROVOKE mistakes to test the players "input skills" or something.
In a certain way SC Players ARE limited in their input control - they can´t use hotkeys for example to use Psistorm from more than one High Templar.
On November 24 2008 04:53 armed_ wrote: If you try to extend the comparison further and talk about manually challenging combos, then it still makes no sense. A combo in a fighting game is an absolutely rigid set of moves that you have to execute exactly the same once the first hit is landed, and really the only option for a player that wants to compete is to memorize them; the only analogue to that in Starcraft is initial build orders, which are much easier to memorize so aren't really as significant in making the game difficult to learn.
Depending on the Fighting game you refer to, there ARE combos with different "paths" for the attacker and "escapes" for the victim. But you were talking about rigid sets of moves - Build Orders don´t really aply. There are several valid ones and NO one always works, it always depends on what your opponent does. What IS always the same is Manual Mining. There is no difference in the build, select, send to mineral no matter if the enemy is Terran, Zerg or Protoss, if he is rushing, Turtling or Teching...
On November 24 2008 04:16 Unentschieden wrote:The second would favour strategy over mechanical skill
I stopped reading right there.
I mean seriously, are you honestly trying to go with the more strategy less clicks option?
Do you really think having pros click 400 times a minute makes them use less strategy? If so you clearly don't watch starcraft. Making sc2 easier WILL NOT add more strategy, it will just make the game easier.
Maybe you should read to the end. You are, just as you said, coming to conclusions. Right here I´m NOT talking about amount of clicks.
What I´m talking about is the relative value of mechanics as success factor.
Imagine there was a mechanic that while hard would make you win every time against anyone who doesn´t use it. That would seperate the scene between thouse that to "it" and thouse that don´t. Said mechanic wouldn´t be a deciding factor in either "subcommunity" since everyone in the "lower" one doesn´t/can´t use it, while everyone does it in the other one.
That would mean to be competative you´d first have to learn the HARD mechanic (Wasn´t it supposed to be easy to learn, hard to master?). Strategy doesn´t apply since you´re trying to work out the mechanic.
Obviously Strategy would apply with the "pros" since said mechanic doesn´t let you win there - everyone is equal (If one was weaker he´d loose every time and be considered "lower community") But then it would ONLY apply there.
But now you are thinking "what if the hard mechanic wasn´t dominant?" Well, no one would do it. "What if it was equal to other aproaches?" Then it would be unpopular (even pros avoid potential mistakesources) but a alternative, possibly a humiliation tool.
So, why should we avoid such a mechanic? It makes the learning process harder. It´s hard but necessary to compete. You risk players using modifications without said mechanic if they aren´t willing to learn it.
You could also replace "Mechanic" with "Strategy" - ever wonder why the spawning pools costs were increased?
A good fighting games input control is supposed to prevent accidental messups. They AREN`T trying to PROVOKE mistakes to test the players "input skills" or something.
...
Depending on the Fighting game you refer to, there ARE combos with different "paths" for the attacker and "escapes" for the victim. But you were talking about rigid sets of moves - Build Orders don´t really aply. There are several valid ones and NO one always works, it always depends on what your opponent does. What IS always the same is Manual Mining. There is no difference in the build, select, send to mineral no matter if the enemy is Terran, Zerg or Protoss, if he is rushing, Turtling or Teching...
I guarantee you if you could dragon punch with only one button, street fighter would be largely unplayable. Even with something as simple as f,d,d/f, people will mess up or get psyched out at times. When your opponent jumps in and you want to DP, you have to commit by leaving block position. I can name countless other examples where a move's input serves as a method of balance.
armed is right; you HAVE to balance between the execution and utility of a task.
edit: also, good players will try to provoke other players to make the wrong inputs whenever possible - this can be said of pretty much every fighting game in the known universe. this goes beyond simple high/low/throw - look up crossups in street fighter.
On November 24 2008 05:19 maybenexttime wrote: Here's what a well designed macro mechanic should be like:
1) The mechanic must have direct strategical value.
Agreed
On November 24 2008 05:19 maybenexttime wrote:
2) The mechanic must not punish players for using automine.
Agreed
On November 24 2008 05:19 maybenexttime wrote: 3) The mechanic provides a viable attention/APM sink in macro department.
Disagree
On November 24 2008 05:19 maybenexttime wrote: 4) The mechanic creates a wide skill gradient and allows players of different playstyles to distinguish themselves.
Agreed
On November 24 2008 05:19 maybenexttime wrote: 5) The mechanic allows for UI features such as MBS or auto-mining to remain untouched and does not punish the players for using them.
Agreed
On November 24 2008 05:19 maybenexttime wrote: 6) The mechanic in dynamic in the sense that it depends on the player and his opponent's choices.
Agreed
On November 24 2008 05:19 maybenexttime wrote: 7) The mechanic gives plenty of room for necessary tweaks.
Agreed
On November 24 2008 05:19 maybenexttime wrote: 8) The mechanic gives the player different alternatives, each having their advantages and disadvantages.
Agreed
On November 24 2008 05:19 maybenexttime wrote: 9) The mechanic does not force a specific map design (unlike the current Blizzard gas mechanic).
Agreed, though I´m not certain what you mean with the comment about the "current" Blizzard gas mechanic (I´m certain they already changed that, they even said they would)
On November 24 2008 05:19 maybenexttime wrote: 10) The mechanic is not mindless nor repetitive.
Agreed
On November 24 2008 05:19 maybenexttime wrote: FA's mechanic meets all requirements, imo.
As for your suggestion, Unentschieden, would not meet some of them. E.g. making it CC/Nexus/Hatchery thing would mean it's not an attention/APM sink anymore since you can just remotely manage that like you do with unit production hansk to MBS. Not to mention it wouldn't be used frequently, which means it'd be a gimmicky mechanic.
Your other suggestion would break the balance and wouldn't be an APM/attention sink due to how situational it is.
You will notice that my suggestion breaks the one requirement I disagree with. If it is a "APM-sink" it means that certain mechanic serves to "soak" player action. The more you do it the better.
You also mention it wouldn´t be used frequently (which isn´t a requirement on your list) - that is fine with me. My criteria isn´t how often it´s used or how much APM it takes - I´m concerned about how it changes gameplay.
I do have to agree it´s suboptimal, it was a modification of previous suggestions into a direction I would support.
On November 24 2008 05:19 maybenexttime wrote: As for "maybenexttimes suggestion has 2 options: one inferior but easy, one superior but hard to execute. He even says so himself: "Good" Players will always go with the 2nd mode."
You are mistaken.
You'd generally want to stay in mode 2; stage 1 for as long as possible when a particular mineral line is not fully saturated, and only for a set period of time (till you hit stage 2), only when this particular mineral line works unhindered.
Situations in which you'd want to use mode 2 despite stage 2:
- you've been harassed and you need to recover in terms of worker count
- you've discovered that your opponent has been mining from a hidden expansion and you want to get even economically
- you're trying to capitalize on an economic/army advantage
- you're preparing a warp-in drop
- you're trying to capitalize on a hidden expansion
- you're trying to maximize the income from an expansion you know you're going to lose
Situation in which you'd want to stay in mode 1:
- your mineral line is saturated and you're wasting too much resources (especially if minerals are running dry in that particular expansion)
- you're gathering minerals faster than you can spend them because:
a) you're low on popcap because your opponent killed your popcap structures/ovies or you were sloppy
b) you're low on production structures because of enemy's destroying them or your timing mistake
You'd have to consider all these factors on case by case basis as regards specific mineral lines.
Additionally, you'd have to decide how how frequently you want to adjust your mining modes (micro vs. macro in terms of attention) ans well as plan ahead: e.g. you know your opponent will harass you or you're launching an attention demanding attack yourself and you know you're not gonna be able to mine in mode 2 without suffering from stage 2 for an extended period of time, so you switch back to mode 1 ahead of time.
There's even more to that, but I don't have time to mention it all. But, as you can see, there are plenty decisions to be made with this mechanic. It's all dynamic - depends on what you and your opponent do.
Well, you know the mechanic better than I do yo I will let that stand until we can actually test it. Arguing about numbers right now would be silly. I was going at it on a more conceptual level, as mentioned above, edging it more into a direction I´d like.
If it will actually work as you detailed above I will support it even if it isn´t something I would come up with.
A good fighting games input control is supposed to prevent accidental messups. They AREN`T trying to PROVOKE mistakes to test the players "input skills" or something.
...
Depending on the Fighting game you refer to, there ARE combos with different "paths" for the attacker and "escapes" for the victim. But you were talking about rigid sets of moves - Build Orders don´t really aply. There are several valid ones and NO one always works, it always depends on what your opponent does. What IS always the same is Manual Mining. There is no difference in the build, select, send to mineral no matter if the enemy is Terran, Zerg or Protoss, if he is rushing, Turtling or Teching...
I guarantee you if you could dragon punch with only one button, street fighter would be largely unplayable. Even with something as simple as f,d,d/f, people will mess up or get psyched out at times. When your opponent jumps in and you want to DP, you have to commit by leaving block position. I can name countless other examples where a move's input serves as a method of balance.
armed is right; you HAVE to balance between the execution and utility of a task.
edit: also, good players will try to provoke other players to make the wrong inputs whenever possible - this can be said of pretty much every fighting game in the known universe. this goes beyond simple high/low/throw - look up crossups in street fighter.
I wasn´t arguing against mechanics itself, which you´d have noticed had you paid attention. In this case it isn´t one button versus easy move but easy move versus unnecessary long move. What is the most complex move in Streetfighter executionwise (not combos)? Is that move a "reward" for the player that can do it or is it "just another move?"
You are right with your comments, they just miss the analogy. Remember that we are talking about SC2 here - I´ll apologize if I confused you.
Im wondering right now: Hatcheries in SC2 do still have larvae to morph all (most) of your units, don't they? So if you set the rallying point of your hatches to the entrance of your base and then produce a bunch of drones, do they move to the rallying point of the hatch or do they start mining? I guess automine only comes into effect when you rally your workers from the CC/Nexus/Hatch directly onto the minerals. So if you play Zerg, do you actually benefit from automining? Would be heavily imbalanced if not...
On November 24 2008 05:44 Unentschieden wrote: Youe trying to convince me of the very point I made: It´s silly to try and make "hard controls" since these only affect and frustrate beginners.
No I'm not. I'm saying that your comparison doesn't work, and so any arguments based upon it are unfounded.
On November 24 2008 05:44 Unentschieden wrote: A good fighting games input control is supposed to prevent accidental messups. They AREN`T trying to PROVOKE mistakes to test the players "input skills" or something.
There's a fundamental difference between requiring a high number of actions and not being able to perform a single action due to convuluted input. The former changes the way you have to play the game, the latter just forces you to learn how to do the input perfectly before playing. More importantly, the latter case doesn't exist in Starcraft, at all. Hence, again, the whole comparison you're making here is flawed.
If you want to compare the manual requirements of Starcraft to something in a fighting game, a better choice would be the speed. Fighting games are changed completely by the fact that they run too fast for players to counter most moves on reaction; essentially, it's what makes guessing game that's at the core of all fighting games possible. It's not there to artificially make the game more difficult by requiring fast reflexes, it makes certain things impossible to make the game more interesting. The manual requirements(and more importantly, the fact that you have to do certain actions at different locations) of Starcraft serve a similiar purpose; they make it impossible for a player to only focus on one thing and succeed, and so forces the player to multitask.
So really, in this case, you can't make a distinction between the degree to which a mechanic is "changing gameplay" and "how much APM it takes" - simply adding an APM sink in the player's base changes gameplay far more than a simple additional strategic choice ever would.
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 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.
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 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 deepand 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.
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.
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").
On November 24 2008 05:19 maybenexttime wrote: As for "maybenexttimes suggestion has 2 options: one inferior but easy, one superior but hard to execute. He even says so himself: "Good" Players will always go with the 2nd mode."
You are mistaken.
You'd generally want to stay in mode 2; stage 1 for as long as possible when a particular mineral line is not fully saturated, and only for a set period of time (till you hit stage 2), only when this particular mineral line works unhindered.
Situations in which you'd want to use mode 2 despite stage 2:
- you've been harassed and you need to recover in terms of worker count
- you've discovered that your opponent has been mining from a hidden expansion and you want to get even economically
- you're trying to capitalize on an economic/army advantage
- you're preparing a warp-in drop
- you're trying to capitalize on a hidden expansion
- you're trying to maximize the income from an expansion you know you're going to lose
Situation in which you'd want to stay in mode 1:
- your mineral line is saturated and you're wasting too much resources (especially if minerals are running dry in that particular expansion)
- you're gathering minerals faster than you can spend them because:
a) you're low on popcap because your opponent killed your popcap structures/ovies or you were sloppy
b) you're low on production structures because of enemy's destroying them or your timing mistake
You'd have to consider all these factors on case by case basis as regards specific mineral lines.
Additionally, you'd have to decide how how frequently you want to adjust your mining modes (micro vs. macro in terms of attention) ans well as plan ahead: e.g. you know your opponent will harass you or you're launching an attention demanding attack yourself and you know you're not gonna be able to mine in mode 2 without suffering from stage 2 for an extended period of time, so you switch back to mode 1 ahead of time.
There's even more to that, but I don't have time to mention it all. But, as you can see, there are plenty decisions to be made with this mechanic. It's all dynamic - depends on what you and your opponent do.
Well, you know the mechanic better than I do yo I will let that stand until we can actually test it. Arguing about numbers right now would be silly. I was going at it on a more conceptual level, as mentioned above, edging it more into a direction I´d like.
If it will actually work as you detailed above I will support it even if it isn´t something I would come up with.
On November 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?
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.
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.
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.
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)
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 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 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.
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.
IMO MBS and automine and shit like that should just be disabled in ladder matches, the same way non-ladder maps are disabled in ladder matches... This sounds like a really round-about solution to a simple problem. Casual gamers will play non-ladder, the same way casual gamers played BGH and and FMP instead of playing ladder. It suits their preference for a less competitive game, so let it be in a less competitive atmosphere. Both parties are pleased.
On November 26 2008 10:51 Chef wrote: IMO MBS and automine and shit like that should just be disabled in ladder matches, the same way non-ladder maps are disabled in ladder matches... This sounds like a really round-about solution to a simple problem. Casual gamers will play non-ladder, the same way casual gamers played BGH and and FMP instead of playing ladder. It suits their preference for a less competitive game, so let it be in a less competitive atmosphere. Both parties are pleased.
You need to take into account the AMM. It's not going to be that simple with the new BNET.
On November 26 2008 10:51 Chef wrote: IMO MBS and automine and shit like that should just be disabled in ladder matches, the same way non-ladder maps are disabled in ladder matches... This sounds like a really round-about solution to a simple problem. Casual gamers will play non-ladder, the same way casual gamers played BGH and and FMP instead of playing ladder. It suits their preference for a less competitive game, so let it be in a less competitive atmosphere. Both parties are pleased.
I'm pretty sure that not only has this been brought up before (it's not really a good solution btw, splitting communities like that, especially when both parties will be competitive, is not good) but it's also a bit off-topic.
Take off the cap of 1 worker mining per mineral patch. This would allow multiple workers to mine the same mineral possibly capped at anywhere from 2-5 per mineral patch. Subject to balance.
----------------------------------
Advantages (for those interested in manually assigning workers to their own patch):
1. Workers sent to the same mineral patches (through automine) are easier to harrass especially with area of effect abilities (storms, banelings, reapers, etc.).
This is in light of especially effective harrassment that Blizzard is pushing. In my opinion, it doesn't necessarily “hurt” people for using automine, but it does reward those who make the effort to spread out their units more making them less susceptible to losing most of their economy at once. This is much like spreading out dragoons out in a line so that they can all fire at once instead of having them clumped (except this is economically instead of militarily).
2. Mineral patch that a lot of workers are focusing on is mined out at a much faster rate.
This has no effect early game; however, if the workers are not spread out, some patches get mined out faster. Thus leaving less “available” mining space for the masses of workers to mine which may effectively decrease mining rate later in the game.
Though this is somewhat of a "negative" for those using automining I do think it is acceptable because the advantage doesn't show up until later AND for the two following reasons:
A. It rewards maynarding workers and then splitting them per patch. This is ESPECIALLY in conjunction with #1 when setting up a new expansion.
B. For those who harrass effectively the defenders who run/clump their workers away from the battle will have a disadvantage (and have to spend a little bit of time redistributing workers). For an experienced player it's the same as "remaynarding" but if there's already enough workers it wouldn't even matter anyway.
3. Pretty much NO effect on BGH or high money maps.
Thus, newbies are happy. I think this is an important in actuality because this will probably be a large majority of those who play. Most non-competitive people like money maps anyway where multi-task isn't as important (a.k.a. expanding and macroing).
----------------------------------
Possible criticisms 1. The game operates faster.
Since the saturation point is reached much later, there is a linear increase in the amount of minerals per extra worker past the about ~16-20 per main base it is now. This may in part be solved by reducing the amount of minerals in the main base to something like 6 patches. In effect, if 3 workers can mine per patch at the same time, there are only “18” slots available to mine at once making it much like having an expansion right off the bat. Saturation would probably occur around ~40 workers or so.
Why this is not necessarily bad
A. It will revitalize one base play making it not "necessary" to expand although the downside is you run out of minerals quicker.
This also has the added side effect of (1) reducing the importance of golden minerals especially if they are at a third expansion and (2) the benefit of obtaining golden minerals if they are in a risky position and it succeeds.
B. It should theorectically make rushes stronger by allowing you to get more military units to be able to harrass more effectively.
From what I've heard the early game worker defense is super strong so this would help counteract it to some extent. A quicker differentiation in economy, tech, and military earlier in the game (through faster gathering because saturation rate is hit slower) should lead to a wider array of economy vs. tech builds.
C. Those who choose not to expand are more susceptible to worker harrass killing them permanently off quickly
D. Makes multitasking harder.
Since saturation is reached slower, you're going to have more minerals to deal with quicker. This increases the need to be quick to anticipate to make extra production facilities, macro some, maintain your army, and defend against the probable harrass.
It is similar to artificially boosting game speed, but IMO is a bit more elegant in doing so.
Possible solutions for balance (if SC should be more about expanding and base management)
1. Decreasing the number of minerals in each mineral patch in the main base.
For example, if each mineral patch in the main contained only 1500 minerals, it would be in the best interest to expand ASAP so you don't have to worry about running out of minerals in your main in under ~7-10 minutes.
If this was implemented, it would may be smart to possible increase the number of patches in the base, but decrease the available minerals. So 12 patches with maybe 1500 minerals (or something subject to map makers and playtesting obviously..) would be more effective. There's low enough minerals that expanding earlier is a good idea, but enough patches so that 1 base play is still effective
2. The ability to "strip mine."
I believe this ability should be a researchable ability that drones, probes and SVCs can use maybe at like tier2 or something. This way those that are waaay too greedy economically may not have enough tech to do this, but those who go for tech builds may be rewarded with the ability to possibly catch up if they fail (of course, it makes it harder because they must expand much sooner than anticipated so it's not without it's tradeoffs).
This will IMO prevent mirrors from being boring. For example, PvP if you decided to go 1gate reavers and the other person decided to go 2gate goon into like fast expand... you're screwed if you can't break him with your reavers. (I hope that was a decent example).
Plus, it can lead for some interesting mind games if you see your opponents workers (with say an aura on them) mining faster to go for a timing push.
Subject to balance of course.
----------------------------------
Other thoughts 1. I like the ability to speed up building construction with use of extra workers. 2. The alignment of crystals seems interesting... but it does feel a bit contrived I suppose. It's probably the best “alternative” IMO beyond the stimming/speed boosting workers. 3. Autocasting needs to go. Or manually casted psistorm and other spells need to be stronger IMO.
On November 26 2008 12:43 eshlow wrote: Simple solutions are the easiest.
Take off the cap of 1 worker mining per mineral patch. This would allow multiple workers to mine the same mineral possibly capped at anywhere from 2-5 per mineral patch. Subject to balance.
The effect on play would be minimal if you also scaled number of mineral stacks, mining time, worker build time and worker cost to give about the same mineral flow as before. If you have very few mineral patches with many workers, you might see more devastating effects of AOE, like you see on fastest maps right now.
This does not really make the game harder though. Having a base mine out gradually or all at one time would not pose a huge difference and does not shift the importance of base management from army management. Also, changing the distribution of workers is not a task that is time critical. It doesn't need to happen at a specific time in order to be effective, unlike sending workers to mine which will hurt you every second you fail to do it.
A game that seeks to force a player to do more than focus on his army needs to have important tasks to be done in the base that can't be done remotely with hotkeys. This is what is so great about the non-automining part of BW and running out of hotkeys for lategame macro. Failing to do the base tasks in BW will hurt immediately and terribly. Looking away from your army groups only hurts you a little but is also immediate.
I wish I could add something positive to this thread, but I have no good ideas that are less artificial than suggestions mentioned here already. T_T
On November 26 2008 12:43 eshlow wrote: Simple solutions are the easiest.
Take off the cap of 1 worker mining per mineral patch. This would allow multiple workers to mine the same mineral possibly capped at anywhere from 2-5 per mineral patch. Subject to balance.
The effect on play would be minimal if you also scaled number of mineral stacks, mining time, worker build time and worker cost to give about the same mineral flow as before. If you have very few mineral patches with many workers, you might see more devastating effects of AOE, like you see on fastest maps right now.
This does not really make the game harder though. Having a base mine out gradually or all at one time would not pose a huge difference and does not shift the importance of base management from army management. Also, changing the distribution of workers is not a task that is time critical. It doesn't need to happen at a specific time in order to be effective, unlike sending workers to mine which will hurt you every second you fail to do it.
A game that seeks to force a player to do more than focus on his army needs to have important tasks to be done in the base that can't be done remotely with hotkeys. This is what is so great about the non-automining part of BW and running out of hotkeys for lategame macro. Failing to do the base tasks in BW will hurt immediately and terribly. Looking away from your army groups only hurts you a little but is also immediate.
I wish I could add something positive to this thread, but I have no good ideas that are less artificial than suggestions mentioned here already. T_T
Hmm, yeah. That's true. It would bring at least back as much "attention" to base management as not having automine.. maybe a bit more.
But you're right... it does do nothing about the negative effect of MBS + hotkeys.
When a hatchery is morphed into a lair it gains five fleshy orifices. A Zerg player can order a drone to embed itself into an orifice. After a morphing period the drone's tail erupts into a tentacle sucker (think squid).
The player can now order this tentacle to mine from a nearby mineral patch or extractor. The tentacle mining rate is more efficient than a saturated drone line. The Zerg player can use the displaced drones for buildings or transfer them to an expo that has not yet upgraded to lair.
I was linked to this thread from elsewheres for the purpose of reading your suggestion, FA, and decided it was high time I registered and did my thing. Anyway, I wanted to start by saying I agree with everything you said "in principle," that providing benefits is better than punishing, that promoting depth is better than something you'd never NOT want to do, going through the bullshit straight to the point of the abilities, all that jazz. Except one point, but I'll get to that in a sec. On to the problems I see with your suggestion:
1. Why not throw "Power Mode" onto your CC? You were talking about abilities working in a very common sense fashion, in the way that they're meant to, and I see this as being contradictory with that message. I can't imagine a time when a player would want some of his SCVs mining one way, and some, another way, which means there's absolutely no reason, other than that the purpose of this solution being made irrelevant, not to throw this ability on the CC instead.*
2. Why does it start in the "wrong" mode? This is more of a continuation on point #1, and you yourself said you had some problems with this idea. If we start it in the right mode for early game, by the late game, you're not really building many SCVs, which means even if it's on your workers when you finally need to do it, you can just select all of them, click one button, and there's not really any macro to it. So obviously that's off the table, and we're back to setting it in the "wrong" mode on purpose -- and that doesn't sit too well with me, because it seems inconsistent with Blizz's (and your) policy of keeping things straight-forward. This is backwards, and seems to be a complication for the sake of it being a complication -- because the solution (starting in the right mode) is so simple.
3. Would players really do it that often? We're looking for a viable attention sink that has to contend with other actions in the game, such as microing during a battle. I have trouble imagining a player deciding that he'd rather go back to his base to tell an SCV to mine 2 minerals more (at a cost, no less) for two trips while the battle lasts instead of seeing the battle through and maybe saving a couple of units that cost 50+ minerals each and getting the SCV afterward. And even when he isn't battling, the difference is so minute (2 minerals), it's not out of the realm of possibility that players would simply leave every second or even third SCV and come back and get a couple in one go, maximizing their time spent.
I think the idea (in its current version) kind of falls apart once you really put it through its paces. It does add depth to the gameplay (or would if we figured out some really interesting modes that would rival for the #1 spot continuously throughout the match), but if we're looking for a real substitute for something as intrusive as telling workers to mine when they're doing absolutely nothing, we have to dig deeper.
*The additional problem with this is that, say we agree to do it in SCII, but eventually SCIII is going to come out, and a feature like this, which is already pushing the envelope now as far as "not entirely common sense" functionality that is there to promote clicking -- in four, or six, or ten, or twenty years, it's going to be very outdated. This just screams, to me, "temporary solution to problem that will be here for a while until we really get to the bottom of it."
Personally, I think MBS, smart casting and automine are just three more things that seperate SC1 from SC2. Those are three features that have been in every modern RTS since SC1.
I really don't see how automine is a huge game-breaker. Macroing in Starcraft 1 is already pretty easy, it's just things like this make it easier on noobs without any real downside to good players. Personally, I've lost quite a few small skirmishes, early-game in matches because I've had to go off micro to assign some fresh probes to my expansion's mineral lines, or lost the advantage of my early expansion because I was microing too much and forgot to assign my probes.
I don't get why the RTS genre has to set bad trends like automated mining.
The game developers cannot see these developments were clearly wrong and killed the game play in their games. This is why the RTS genre is frowned upon.
I don't hate the idea of automining. I'm much more against MBS and the gas change. They could rebalance the game around having more time to micro/play with your troops based on the fact that you don't spend time with your workers anymore. The problem is you don't spend ANY time in your base because you can build everything with a few clicks which takes away the skill of building units.
On December 08 2008 01:49 Showtime! wrote: I don't get why the RTS genre has to set bad trends like automated mining.
The game developers cannot see these developments were clearly wrong and killed the game play in their games. This is why the RTS genre is frowned upon.
You mean like "Aw damn, that worker just went to work by himself. This game doesn't seem fun anymore"? It seems like everyone's against automining because it's a feature that wasn't in Starcraft 1, and there's a whole lot of bigger changes, too, like the new high-ground changes, creep speed bonuses, and reapers/collossi's cliff-jumping.
About the new gas mechanic, I agree it seems annoying and unneccisary.
Going back to Kennigit's original OP. I think the idea is good but that it should just be a one-off thing. When you make the worker you can give it the 'speed up' command just once and it would only last for say, two minutes. Once a worker has been speed-commanded once it should not be able to be again. This would solve the problem of cumulatively massing up much more minerals than the opponent while still creating enough of an 'edge' to be worth doing. There could be three colors then- one for a worker that has not been sped up yet, one for a worker that is currently in speed up mode and one for a worker that has exhausted its speed up potential. Anything that can help make macro an important part of SC2 is worth trying IMO.
I'm going to agree more with eshlow(2-5 workers per patch). That seems the most natural way of balancing out automining with multitasking. However, I would almost like to see a change to make the rally worker AI like regular SC AI, that is it doesn't autosplit out of the gate. This with the standard "1 worker per patch" setup would waste mining time if someone doesn't pay attention, but their worker still mines eventually. For more attentive players this plays out very much like manual mining.
BTW I'm sure my suggestion has been mentioned before, though I haven't seen it in this thread.
On December 07 2008 19:40 maybenexttime wrote: Just a question, did you read my posts explaining FA's mechanic further? I've answered some of your questions there already.
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.
On December 09 2008 05:48 Shadowfury333 wrote: I'm going to agree more with eshlow(2-5 workers per patch). That seems the most natural way of balancing out automining with multitasking. However, I would almost like to see a change to make the rally worker AI like regular SC AI, that is it doesn't autosplit out of the gate. This with the standard "1 worker per patch" setup would waste mining time if someone doesn't pay attention, but their worker still mines eventually. For more attentive players this plays out very much like manual mining.
BTW I'm sure my suggestion has been mentioned before, though I haven't seen it in this thread.
The most immediately apparent negative side effect of this is that it discourages expanding, since mineral saturation will occur much later at a base. Given that fast-expanding already looks like its much less viable than it used to be, I'm not sure this is a good change.
I was linked to this thread from elsewheres for the purpose of reading your suggestion, FA, and decided it was high time I registered and did my thing. Anyway, I wanted to start by saying I agree with everything you said "in principle," that providing benefits is better than punishing, that promoting depth is better than something you'd never NOT want to do, going through the bullshit straight to the point of the abilities, all that jazz. Except one point, but I'll get to that in a sec. On to the problems I see with your suggestion:
1. Why not throw "Power Mode" onto your CC? You were talking about abilities working in a very common sense fashion, in the way that they're meant to, and I see this as being contradictory with that message. I can't imagine a time when a player would want some of his SCVs mining one way, and some, another way, which means there's absolutely no reason, other than that the purpose of this solution being made irrelevant, not to throw this ability on the CC instead.*
2. Why does it start in the "wrong" mode? This is more of a continuation on point #1, and you yourself said you had some problems with this idea. If we start it in the right mode for early game, by the late game, you're not really building many SCVs, which means even if it's on your workers when you finally need to do it, you can just select all of them, click one button, and there's not really any macro to it. So obviously that's off the table, and we're back to setting it in the "wrong" mode on purpose -- and that doesn't sit too well with me, because it seems inconsistent with Blizz's (and your) policy of keeping things straight-forward. This is backwards, and seems to be a complication for the sake of it being a complication -- because the solution (starting in the right mode) is so simple.
3. Would players really do it that often? We're looking for a viable attention sink that has to contend with other actions in the game, such as microing during a battle. I have trouble imagining a player deciding that he'd rather go back to his base to tell an SCV to mine 2 minerals more (at a cost, no less) for two trips while the battle lasts instead of seeing the battle through and maybe saving a couple of units that cost 50+ minerals each and getting the SCV afterward. And even when he isn't battling, the difference is so minute (2 minerals), it's not out of the realm of possibility that players would simply leave every second or even third SCV and come back and get a couple in one go, maximizing their time spent.
I think the idea (in its current version) kind of falls apart once you really put it through its paces. It does add depth to the gameplay (or would if we figured out some really interesting modes that would rival for the #1 spot continuously throughout the match), but if we're looking for a real substitute for something as intrusive as telling workers to mine when they're doing absolutely nothing, we have to dig deeper.
*The additional problem with this is that, say we agree to do it in SCII, but eventually SCIII is going to come out, and a feature like this, which is already pushing the envelope now as far as "not entirely common sense" functionality that is there to promote clicking -- in four, or six, or ten, or twenty years, it's going to be very outdated. This just screams, to me, "temporary solution to problem that will be here for a while until we really get to the bottom of it."
My solution of adding a buildable "mineral extractor" which basically doubles the mineral output of one patch until its destroyed for 50 minerals.
It will with a 100% certainty be used lategame to free up population cap, it will be used in boom builds early since you can't build workers as fast as you like and it gives a way to increase the mineral output above the normal maximum for a fully exploited field.
However you wont want to use it all the time and you can certainly play the game just fine without it, and best of all the whole thing feels 100% intuitive.
On December 09 2008 05:48 Shadowfury333 wrote: I'm going to agree more with eshlow(2-5 workers per patch). That seems the most natural way of balancing out automining with multitasking. However, I would almost like to see a change to make the rally worker AI like regular SC AI, that is it doesn't autosplit out of the gate. This with the standard "1 worker per patch" setup would waste mining time if someone doesn't pay attention, but their worker still mines eventually. For more attentive players this plays out very much like manual mining.
BTW I'm sure my suggestion has been mentioned before, though I haven't seen it in this thread.
The most immediately apparent negative side effect of this is that it discourages expanding, since mineral saturation will occur much later at a base. Given that fast-expanding already looks like its much less viable than it used to be, I'm not sure this is a good change.
You're right, which I why I then suggested making rallied workers not auto-split immediately, and instead risk delaying at a mineral patch, which would make manual worker control rewarded while still allowing players to not pay attention, but have a slower economy.
Ok, just to make a point and help you. 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
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.
On December 07 2008 19:40 maybenexttime wrote: Just a question, did you read my posts explaining FA's mechanic further? I've answered some of your questions there already.
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).
dont worry ppl blizzard will work hard and pull through like they always have. i mean wc3 is different that sc so i do agree i like sc better but that doesn't mean they failed at wc3
I like the idea of manually spreading workers to prevent harassment, it seems like something that can be casually added in, without even telling the casual community.
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.
I guess I'm repeating myself here, but looking at everyone's solutions, I think FA's mechanic really is the most natural, intuitive, and able to compromise. proper timing is especially emphasized; if the mechanic is executed properly the optimal approach in the early game for a player would be to reassign workers to different patches at least once to allow other patches to cool down - macro would be of paramount importance to ensure the least waste of minerals. this variation also has the benefit of scalability, which I see as the most compelling feature. as a player approaches 200/200 and saturates his mineral line, inefficiency strikes faster, so you have to manage your macro more often (or simply stay in mode 1) - of course by now you have an army/armies to micro. multitasking truly becomes a bitch, which is what starcraft's all about, is it not?
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.
Well, our mechanic assumes removing the Blizzard gas mechanic.
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. ;]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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. ;;
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...
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...
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...
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):
"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.
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. ;;
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. ;;
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.
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. ;;
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.
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.
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.
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.
--------------------------------------------- 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.
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.
EPT
), and it still feels a bit gimmicky to me. Less gimmicky than the gas mechanic, but gimmicky nonetheless. One of the things that made SC amazing was that there were no "added" bonuses to make strategic things advantageous. Flanking worked for strategic reasons, not because the game gave your dragoons +25% damage when flanking or something. I would like to see SC2 work in the same way, where advantages develop naturally, and are not forced.
