|
manitou i dont see how macro is harder now if everybody that played the game+progamers said that it was very easy.
and there is a hack in brood war that allows mbs turnin the game easier too.
So basically in SC2 decision between micro/macro will have the same impact on the game since macroing will still be time consuming. The only difference is that you will be able to watch the battles while doing so which opens up some interesting decisionmaking - will I gain more by producing more units or by breaking my macro to micro the units?
Pressing 4mmmm wont harm ur micro that much, cause the whole mbs point is using the UI to make things easier, if it will make u require more balls to do something then it is wrong.
Better, some progamers can both micro and macro perfectly at almost the same time, jaedong 2 muta group+macroing, or NaDa tornado.
I am assuming that ur arguments fit the casual and amateur players then.
|
United States47024 Posts
On December 13 2008 03:06 Klockan3 wrote:
There is a difference, the new one is not required at all if you are just going to play the game casually. But you all seem to ignore this and still screams since it is a small nuisance adapting to it for you.
You don't need to scrap the system entirely though to achieve that goal. Look at Kennigit's idea in the "Potential Solutions to Automine" thread. It makes manual mining not a necessity to play casually, but still gives it advantages at a competitive level.
On December 13 2008 03:25 InRaged wrote:
No, no, no. This shifting focus thingie also brings into the game such entertaining feature as Random Sudden Death. Think of ZvP: you just killed enemy army and decide to go back to your base for 2 seconds to do non sensual, but very important stuff like ordering drones to mine and to click at buildings, then you see red dot at the minimap and immediately come back to your hydras only to find that they are ALL DIED to couple psi-storms. This amazing feature helps to keep such monsters as Jaedong on the ground, so not so great Protoss players would get lucky once in a while and take game from him. Without it he’ll be just unstoppable and that’s not acceptable.
This is an extreme that doesn't happen. If you have Jaedong-level game sense, you know when to look away, and when to keep your eyes on the battle. Naturally, if you see templar in the field with enough energy for storms, its fairly obvious you shouldn't look away until you've sniped them.
On December 13 2008 03:25 InRaged wrote:
One shall never split player's attention by forcing him to do absolutely mindless and unnecessary stuff. That's as fun as having your grandma staying behind you constantly tapping your shoulder asking where are here glasses.
For the love of god, its a game, not a drug. Not every single moment has to be gut-wrenching, stimulating action. Running in football can be seen as an "absolutely mindless and unnecessary stuff," but it still adds to the game. Look at the game as a whole, not at the little bits and pieces.
Its not about the mouse-clicks. Its about the mental focus and time-management, both of which are important skills in any RTS. Removing macro mechanics without suitable compensation greatly de-emphasizes these two things. I'm sure most people that are anti-MBS and anti-automine would be completely open to an alternative that emphasizes a similar mental focus and management ability, even if it is less of an "APM sink," but people have yet to come up with one that doesn't seem extremely forced or artificial.
|
On December 01 2008 16:10 Ronald_McD wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2008 15:55 Misrah wrote:
never pro mbs. The beauty of SC is playing with a strategic mind while simultaneously microing and macroing like a god.
There is no argument. Street fighter two has two characters on a 2d screen. Nothing compared to starcraft's multitasking.
Think about it, pros are so amazing because they can do macro and micro while simultaneously thinking and making strategical decisions. That is why they are pro, and I am a scrub. You have failed to convince me why. But I'm not here to argue over MBS. Street Fighter is a lot simpler, but it's a game nonetheless, and the principles of a game still apply.
exactly
|
On December 13 2008 11:53 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2008 03:25 InRaged wrote:
No, no, no. This shifting focus thingie also brings into the game such entertaining feature as Random Sudden Death. Think of ZvP: you just killed enemy army and decide to go back to your base for 2 seconds to do non sensual, but very important stuff like ordering drones to mine and to click at buildings, then you see red dot at the minimap and immediately come back to your hydras only to find that they are ALL DIED to couple psi-storms. This amazing feature helps to keep such monsters as Jaedong on the ground, so not so great Protoss players would get lucky once in a while and take game from him. Without it he’ll be just unstoppable and that’s not acceptable. This is an extreme that doesn't happen. If you have Jaedong-level game sense, you know when to look away, and when to keep your eyes on the battle. Naturally, if you see templar in the field with enough energy for storms, its fairly obvious you shouldn't look away until you've sniped them.
Naturally, there is a fog of war in the game, which makes it impossible to always know for sure whether there are templars left, or not, no matter how good is your game sense. I thought I made it clear in the previous post.
As for doesn't happen, do you really wanna me to post all the VODs where the Top Progamers haven't split their irradiated mutalisks or didn't dodge the storm because they were macroing at the time storm/irradiate were casted and had no idea about upcoming massacre? I don't even understand how it could be called a choice between macro and micro. That would be a choice, if player saw that coming, but decided to keep clicking 4mmmm before dodging attack, because he thinks reinforcement's timing is more important. Current mechanics allows this kind of choice and I don't know what makes you think you can micro your units properly while doing perfectly timed 4mmmzzzzb...
For the love of god, its a game, not a drug. Not every single moment has to be gut-wrenching, stimulating action. Running in football can be seen as an "absolutely mindless and unnecessary stuff," but it still adds to the game.
Maybe in some kind of Star Trek Universe where everybody has personal teleports, running may seem as unnecessary, but I for one don't know any other way for a human to get closer to the ball.
And yes, it's a game, and game is supposed to be fun. What you're advocating is to purposely put frustrating time-sinking actions into it solely for the sake of making the least entertaining part of the game - the macro-management - more important for the player. How much times it should be rephrased so you understand that this is insanity? Reversing back to the old mechanics is always a possibility. Why you people keep insisting that guys at Blizzard should do it asap? You don't wanna deeper and more entertaining macro-management or what?
Removing macro mechanics without suitable compensation greatly de-emphasizes these two things. I'm sure most people that are anti-MBS and anti-automine would be completely open to an alternative that emphasizes a similar mental focus and management ability, even if it is less of an "APM sink," but people have yet to come up with one that doesn't seem extremely forced or artificial.
I posted one such example at the two previous pages. But no, forget about it — ignoring it and keeping posting that there's nothing that replaces old macro is so much more fun, right.
|
United States47024 Posts
On December 13 2008 18:41 InRaged wrote: I don't even understand how it could be called a choice between macro and micro. That would be a choice, if player saw that coming, but decided to keep clicking 4mmmm before dodging attack, because he thinks reinforcement's timing is more important. Current mechanics allows this kind of choice and I don't know what makes you think you can micro your units properly while doing perfectly timed 4mmmzzzzb...
Strategy is made up of calculated risks. Macroing while there's the potential threat of being stormed or attacked is a calculated risk of giving up a little control for having more units in the future. If you didn't see the templars, then you took a calculated risk by macroing instead of managing your army. On the flip side, its not a meaningful choice if the right answer is immediately apparent. In the case that you see the enemy moving templars in to storm, if you were looking at the battle, the right choice is blatantly obvious (save 8 hydras from storm, or queue up 3 more and lose them? Hmm...).
I posted one such example at the two previous pages. But no, forget about it — ignoring it and keeping posting that there's nothing that replaces old macro is so much more fun, right.
Apologies, I should have prefaced my post with a tl;dr. I will read and edit.
EDIT:
On December 06 2008 01:08 InRaged wrote:
All what need to be done is to somehow turn actions that doesn't depend on game-plan or depend only indirectly into ones, which directly and in a obvious way impact players strategy and, in our case, macro.
For Zerg, good example would be Spawning Creep and Nydus Worming with Overlords/Overseers. If this abilities are made viable enough (in sense, players who constantly use them have bigger advantage over opponent than players who use them rarely) and if they are properly balanced (i.e. opponent can somehow cancel out this abilities once they were used, so player is forced to regularly reuse them), then it will add good amount of macro actions for Zerg and that's exactly what we need.
I assume you were referring to this post. Its a step in the right direction, but I have one issue with it. It doesn't generate enough mental focus-switching to be effective. You simply wouldn't need to put creep all over the place. There's no use for it. If they made it viable, say, by allowing you to put easy Nydus worms on it, then the balance issues would be absolutely absurd (map control EZ?).
EDIT 2:
Figured I should respond to this, since its related.
On December 08 2008 03:43 InRaged wrote:
Having the path from your base to your opponent's base covered with creep will bring your ground units to your opponent's base 30% faster. It's much bigger advantage than you get from perfect 4z5z6z7z8z.
You figure out.
Like hell thats gonna be cost-effective? To make a wide enough creep path thats useful for your army would take much longer than would make it worth the actions. Players aren't going to take actions that aren't worth the time and resources.
|
On December 13 2008 18:49 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2008 03:43 InRaged wrote:
Having the path from your base to your opponent's base covered with creep will bring your ground units to your opponent's base 30% faster. It's much bigger advantage than you get from perfect 4z5z6z7z8z.
You figure out. Like hell thats gonna be cost-effective? To make a wide enough creep path thats useful for your army would take much longer than would make it worth the actions. Players aren't going to take actions that aren't worth the time and resources.
It should be made viable of course... you shouldn't have to fiddle around too much to get around the map with that, so it should spread reasonably fast and it should be cost efficient to do so (and it should be possible for the enemy to kill/remove the creep of course, but that should take some time so it's not too easily defended against). If you still are at a disadvantage for even bothering to set up a creep route, it's a balance bug which must be fixed by a balance patch.
This feature could also lead to minor mind games like "I made a creep highway to there, so I could attack there, but I'll use the slow route instead to catch him off guard".
It would also make timings harder because you have to learn timings for normal Zerg armies as well as 30% faster Zerg armies.
All in all this is a good thing that would deepen the gameplay while being lore-friendly too (Zergs infest everything).
|
LMAO are you guys joking? There's no way in hell anyone over a retard is gonna send all their overlords into the map to make creep when there is a ball of marines roaming around for map control. How often do you see overlords out and about now in bw? They are a huge liability in TvZ.
Also, I'm not sure how other anti mbs poters feel about this, but I REALLY like games that outright exculde beginners from the actual game until they have polished mechanics. Basically every sport does this with things such as basketball dribbling or learning to hold a bat and hit a baseball or the proper way to hit the ball in tennis and hold the racket. These things are a requirement for an increased learning curve which creates a greater skill gap. Otherwise your just playing another kid's video game.
|
On December 13 2008 22:25 NatsuTerran wrote:
LMAO are you guys joking? There's no way in hell anyone over a retard is gonna send all their overlords into the map to make creep when there is a ball of marines roaming around for map control. How often do you see overlords out and about now in bw? They are a huge liability in TvZ.
The idea is to give Zerg players a incentive to actually try and "infest the map" which would be in contrast to an enemys attempt to prevent this. IF a Zerg player has to decide to either protect his creepsources or learn to deal with the enemy without the 30% speed boost - that would be perfectly fine with me.
On December 13 2008 22:25 NatsuTerran wrote:
Also, I'm not sure how other anti mbs poters feel about this, but I REALLY like games that outright exculde beginners from the actual game until they have polished mechanics.
Seriously? I mean really, do you actually WANT to exclude players? I could understand it if you said something like "keep them from logging into battle net until they played the Multiplayer-Tutoriual" and even that is highly questional.
On December 13 2008 22:25 NatsuTerran wrote:
Basically every sport does this with things such as basketball dribbling or learning to hold a bat and hit a baseball or the proper way to hit the ball in tennis and hold the racket.
Having to learn the rules and entrance barriers are not the same. What you are thinking of would be more like including a minimum height into the official Basketball rules.
Even if you have no clue how to haold a racket you can still play Tennis, obviously not as good as someone who knows the propper grip but it doesn´t prevent you from playing. Nothing in the Tennis rules would disqualify you if you have the "bad grip".
On December 13 2008 22:25 NatsuTerran wrote:
These things are a requirement for an increased learning curve which creates a greater skill gap. Otherwise your just playing another kid's video game.
Wikipedia says:
"The term learning curve refers to the graphical relation between the amount of learning and the time it takes to learn." [...]
"The expression, "steep learning curve" is used in two opposite contexts. Originally it referred to quick progress in learning during the initial stages followed by gradually lesser improvements with further practice. The progress may be measured in different ways, e.g. memory accuracy vs. the number of trials. Over time, the misapprehension has emerged that a "steep" learning curve means that something requires a great deal of effort to learn because of the natural association of the word "steep" with a slope which is difficult to climb. This has led to confusion and disagreements even among "learned" people.
Another specific context of the term "learning curve" involves the effort required to acquire a new skill (e.g., expertise with a new tool) over a specific period of time. In this context, expressions such as "fast learning curve", "short learning curve", and "steep learning curve" are used. This context involves a different interpretation of fast initial progress vs. time—namely, the amount of progress required at each stage of learning. In this sense, "steep learning curve" represents the need to make significant progress in the initial stages so that a person may start using the new skill with reasonable efficiency, a need often associated with increased efforts in learning. Conversely, the expressions "gradual" or "flat learning curve" imply that the acquisition of a skill may be gradual, so that a reasonable use of the new skill is possible at early stages with a relatively light amount of training."
I´ll try to illustrate: (the -------- is necessary since the forum otherwise removes spaces)
"Skill" (NOT RANKING)
A| ---------------------------------*
B| ---------------------------*
C| -------------------*
D| ------------*
E| -----*
F|*______________________"Time/Effort"
This is (supposted to be) a straight line from beginner (F) to (A) which means that to get from F to E takes the same effort that going from B to A, a highly theoretical curve for which I can´t think of a realistic example right now.
"Skill" (NOT RANKING, not shown: Values "above" A )
A| ----------------------------------------*
B| ----------------------- *
C| ----------*
D| ----*
E| -*
F|*______________________"Time/Effort"
This would be a "easy to learn, hard to master" curve which is actually "steep" just as mentioned in the wikipedia article even though it describes a "flat learning curve" as used in discussions.
Here it is easier/faster to go from F to E than it is to go from B to A.
"Skill" (NOT RANKINGnot shown: Values "above" A )
A| -----------------------------------*
B| ----------------------------------*
C| ------------------------------*
D| ------------------------*
E| ----------------*
F|*______________________"Time/Effort"
That is a "steep learning curve", it is harder to go from F to E than it is to go from B to A, meaning it is relativly hard to learn but "smooth sailing" once you "got it".
And just to illustrate, the Skill-ceiling scenario:
"Skill" (NOT RANKING)
A| ---------*******************
B| -------*
C| -----*
D| ---*
E| -*
F|*______________________"Time/Effort"
Here it is impossible to improve beyond A-Skill.
I´d like you to illustrate your point by copying and modifying my illustration, since I´m not shure I understand what you mean with "increased learning curve".
|
What I'm saying is that my model game falls under your third diagram, where it takes a ton of practice to get into the actual game, but is then steady improvemement once you get there. The kind of games I hate are those that follow the second diagram, which accelerates F players into the E and D ranks rather quickly. I think Starcraft most accurately falls under the thrid diagram, or possibly the last one.
|
On December 14 2008 02:31 NatsuTerran wrote:
What I'm saying is that my model game falls under your third diagram, where it takes a ton of practice to get into the actual game, but is then steady improvemement once you get there. The kind of games I hate are those that follow the second diagram, which accelerates F players into the E and D ranks rather quickly. I think Starcraft most accurately falls under the thrid diagram, or possibly the last one.
I didn´t spell it out before but maybe I have to.
Skill
3| --------------------------*
2| -*
1|*______________________"Time/Effort"
Distances on the axises are equal, the 3 skill player would be than much better as 2 as 2 is better than 1.
That isn´t skill gap though.
In the above diagramm there is a tiny gap between 1 and 2 as it takes the 1 Player little Time/Effort to become as good as 2.
On the other hand the gap between 2 and 3 is significantly larger. It takes a 2Skill Player significantly more Time to be as good as 3 than it took to become a 2Skiller.
Lets try a example: Instead of skill we mesure APM, and that would be the ONLY factor in gaming, meaning that a 50 APM Player is half as "good" than a 100 APM.
APM
300|
200|
100|______________________"Time/Effort"
We assume everyone would start out at 100.
How long does it take to improve up to 200? Does it take more or less time/effort than improving from 200 to 300?
Where is the skill gap bigger, between 100 and 200 or between 200 and 300?
I won´t comment on your ideal learning curve right now because I´m not shure you saw the above and I´m also interested in the other readers opinion, especially on your answer.
|
A| ----------------------------------------*
B| ----------------------- *
C| ----------*
D| ----*
E| -*
F|*______________________"Time/Effort"
This one is the best.
And to answer one of the questions above:
Skill gap is bigger between 100 and 200 than 200 and 300 (at least if you're talking about RTS games here).
|
@OP
i agree.. but this begs the question...
wouldn't that just make starcraft a graphic intensive chess?
mind games are good but mechanical skill is also a key source in being a pro at soemthing...
it's like taking taekwondo and saying that hitting the hardest means u are pro.. no it's not, it's how u manure and control ur timing such that ur first atck leads into the next one and next and thus forth...
but other way is the same.. even if u could plan out how to move and exactly what to do if u do not have the strength to carry out those things u r useless... and as such I don't mind MBS and automine but any more "ez stuff" and the game's gonna go down the wrong hole...
|
On December 13 2008 20:56 0xDEADBEEF wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2008 18:49 TheYango wrote:On December 08 2008 03:43 InRaged wrote:
Having the path from your base to your opponent's base covered with creep will bring your ground units to your opponent's base 30% faster. It's much bigger advantage than you get from perfect 4z5z6z7z8z.
You figure out. Like hell thats gonna be cost-effective? To make a wide enough creep path thats useful for your army would take much longer than would make it worth the actions. Players aren't going to take actions that aren't worth the time and resources. It should be made viable of course... you shouldn't have to fiddle around too much to get around the map with that, so it should spread reasonably fast and it should be cost efficient to do so (and it should be possible for the enemy to kill/remove the creep of course, but that should take some time so it's not too easily defended against). If you still are at a disadvantage for even bothering to set up a creep route, it's a balance bug which must be fixed by a balance patch. This feature could also lead to minor mind games like "I made a creep highway to there, so I could attack there, but I'll use the slow route instead to catch him off guard". It would also make timings harder because you have to learn timings for normal Zerg armies as well as 30% faster Zerg armies. All in all this is a good thing that would deepen the gameplay while being lore-friendly too (Zergs infest everything).
How about this:
If two Overseers (Overlords?) are within each other's creep spawning radius the creep spreads faster (it "wants" to connect its various parts).
I.e.:
8 - creep spawning radii overlap each other - creep spreads faster
o
o - creep spawning radii do not overlap each other - creep spreads normally
What do you think?
Creep spawning would be an amazing asset if they implemented different types of terrain (slowing, damage over time, etc.) - the creep could negate those various effects, making it very useful! ^____^
|
On December 14 2008 03:55 Manit0u wrote:
A| ----------------------------------------*
B| ----------------------- *
C| ----------*
D| ----*
E| -*
F|*______________________"Time/Effort"
This one is the best.
I agree but I was actually fishing for a reason. WHY do you think this one is the best? I have my reasons but I´m actually interested in other peoples opinion about this.
On December 14 2008 03:55 Manit0u wrote:
And to answer one of the questions above:
Skill gap is bigger between 100 and 200 than 200 and 300 (at least if you're talking about RTS games here).
Well not exactly. It´s not important that it is RTS since in this case every other "skill" was ignored.
On December 14 2008 03:13 Unentschieden wrote:
Lets try a example: Instead of skill we mesure APM, and that would be the ONLY factor in gaming, meaning that a 50 APM Player is half as "good" than a 100 APM.
Skill gap DOESN´T describe success differences - If we were lucking for that we would compare on the Vertical scale meaning that a 300 APM player is more likely to win against a 100 APM player than a 200 APM player. That is not true for RTS but for the model I´m using here. It is my fault though, I shouldn´t have used the term APM and kept using the neutral "skill" scale.
Skill
3| --------------------------*
2| -*
1|*______________________"Time/Effort"
When fighting each other equal skill would have an equal chance to win, ergo 1vs1 means 50:50.
But 2vs1 would be 60:40 chance and 3vs1 would be 70:30 and so on, but 3vs2 would again be 60:40.
Maybe it´s easier like this:
Skill it takes to have a Win/Loss Ratio of X against a Opponent with unchanging skill
70:30| --------------------------*
60:40| -*
50:50|*______________________"Time/Effort"
|
On December 14 2008 04:32 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2008 20:56 0xDEADBEEF wrote:On December 13 2008 18:49 TheYango wrote:On December 08 2008 03:43 InRaged wrote:
Having the path from your base to your opponent's base covered with creep will bring your ground units to your opponent's base 30% faster. It's much bigger advantage than you get from perfect 4z5z6z7z8z.
You figure out. Like hell thats gonna be cost-effective? To make a wide enough creep path thats useful for your army would take much longer than would make it worth the actions. Players aren't going to take actions that aren't worth the time and resources. It should be made viable of course... you shouldn't have to fiddle around too much to get around the map with that, so it should spread reasonably fast and it should be cost efficient to do so (and it should be possible for the enemy to kill/remove the creep of course, but that should take some time so it's not too easily defended against). If you still are at a disadvantage for even bothering to set up a creep route, it's a balance bug which must be fixed by a balance patch. This feature could also lead to minor mind games like "I made a creep highway to there, so I could attack there, but I'll use the slow route instead to catch him off guard". It would also make timings harder because you have to learn timings for normal Zerg armies as well as 30% faster Zerg armies. All in all this is a good thing that would deepen the gameplay while being lore-friendly too (Zergs infest everything). How about this: If two Overseers (Overlords?) are within each other's creep spawning radius the creep spreads faster (it "wants" to connect its various parts). I.e.: 8 - creep spawning radii overlap each other - creep spreads faster o o - creep spawning radii do not overlap each other - creep spreads normally What do you think? Creep spawning would be an amazing asset if they implemented different types of terrain (slowing, damage over time, etc.) - the creep could negate those various effects, making it very useful! ^____^
Sounds like a possibility. I like the idea of the creep negating negative (and positive, if there are any?) terrain effects.
I've also thought about overlords being able to use this ability offensively (shooting creep at units to ensnare them). To make that spell more popular... (in order not to make it imbalanced the overlord would have to be exactly over the units which are to be ensnared).
But I think it's kind of useless to think about implementation details, rough brainstorming is sufficient, because Blizzard has full control and power over what they add to the game due to the game's closed nature, and they have to do whatever gets them the most customers because as a commercial company they're dependent on money, they can't just design the game like we or they want to. It needs to have mass appeal, or it will fail.
If Blizzard employees read this forum, they'll just skim over everything and look for decent ideas, but they'll probably never implement an idea exactly as written. Another reason for this is that game balancing is so hard to do (well not exactly hard, but very time consuming => game delaying!) and if you change one thing many other things you would have thought to be independent have suddenly changed too.
So it's best to leave Blizzard room for how exactly they want to implement it - because they need this room to make it "work" with the current state of the game.
|
How would the game fail? People who buy SC2 randomly won't know shit about MBS or any of these discussions.
The majority of people (casual players) around me probably haven't even played any other RTSes since SC. I think the expectation of the mass market is low. On the other hand, people that do play a lot of games (but suck at them) and competitive players have been the most vocal about the direction of SC2.
|
United States47024 Posts
On December 14 2008 05:43 0xDEADBEEF wrote:
But I think it's kind of useless to think about implementation details, rough brainstorming is sufficient, because Blizzard has full control and power over what they add to the game due to the game's closed nature, and they have to do whatever gets them the most customers because as a commercial company they're dependent on money, they can't just design the game like we or they want to. It needs to have mass appeal, or it will fail.
If Blizzard employees read this forum, they'll just skim over everything and look for decent ideas, but they'll probably never implement an idea exactly as written. Another reason for this is that game balancing is so hard to do (well not exactly hard, but very time consuming => game delaying!) and if you change one thing many other things you would have thought to be independent have suddenly changed too.
So it's best to leave Blizzard room for how exactly they want to implement it - because they need this room to make it "work" with the current state of the game.
I still think it feels forced in a way (if you make creep destroyable, or if you make it ensnare enemies, it doesn't feel like creep anymore). As I said, its a step in the right direction. Brainstorming is more productive than flaming one another.
I'll edit if I can think of some way to make this feel more natural.
EDIT: What if you had a relatively small creep radius, but had the creep grow if units die near it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
