|
On December 18 2008 02:54 Archerofaiur wrote:
I agree that fun is a subjective term. Never the less we can usually all agree what fun is just by looking at it.
That being said I have a reason why I wanted to include that as one of your “12 commandments for macro thesis”. I believe that all too often new macro theorycrafters forget the WOW factor when creating there proposals. The WOW factor is what excites you to use the mechanic. It’s the tag line we put on the back of the Starcraft 2 box to get people to buy it. To demonstrate the WOW factor I am going to describe Warp-In in two different ways.
Warp-In without WOW factor
With this ability a player can upgrade his building. The player loses the ability to queue units. The player also loses the ability to create a unit with hotkeys alone or MBS. When the player wants to create a unit they must order the unit. Following this they must move there vision to where they want the unit to go and then they must click the place they want the unit to be created in. They must do this for every single unit they want to make. They can only create a unit in a certain radius of supply buildings.
Warp-In with WOW factor
This ability allows the protoss player to Warp-In units onto anywhere on the battlefield that has pylon power. . You can use phase Prisms to infiltrate behind an enemy base and warp your units from Aiur directly onto his mineral line. You can keep a large reserve ready for what ever expansion is attacked. The more warp gates you have the more mobile reserves you have ready to lay down on an enemy force. Try warping in units behind an attacking army to seal them off. Warping units is faster then regular production of units. Also, Warping units are accompanied by a splashy visual indicator that looks like something out of a cool sci fi flick.
The WOW factor you're describing is called 'demagogy.'
It's a matter of semantics and no the mechanic itself. ;]
|
Nah, the WOW factor is more of a flavor thing rather then propaganda. It is the skin that goes over the mechanic. It is the lore aspect of the mechanic rather then the numbers and processes. We have already noted the excitement that comes from mulit-tasking and decision making. The WOW factor draws its excitement from things like story-form interpretation and visual representation. Warp-In FEELS Protossish. It ties in with everything we know about their values and methods. A zerg mechanic should FEEL zergish.
|
On December 17 2008 16:09 Conquest101 wrote:
List of their suggested criteria:
* The ideal mechanic should be direct in its usage and provide beneficial gameplay.
* The ideal mechanic should have both advantages and disadvantages.
* The ideal mechanic should not have a drastically negative effect for any player, whether for you, your teammate or an opponent and his teammate.
* The ideal mechanic should not discourage micro.
* The ideal mechanic should not alter the MBS or auto-mining features. <----- BOO!
* The ideal mechanic should be flexible in its ability to be balanced.
* The ideal mechanic should not be forced upon a specific map or upon a certain type of player.
* The ideal mechanic's effect should not be random - its results must have definite results.
* Preferably, the ideal mechanic will be dependent upon a player’s choices.
Those are not valid, they were made by some noobs on Battle.net forums and then some guy posted them on the blizzforums macro suggestion board.
You can propose any macro mechanic.
I'd say just be sure its not complicated!
|
We never claimed they were "valid." Calm down.
|
On December 18 2008 05:14 SlickR12345 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2008 16:09 Conquest101 wrote:
List of their suggested criteria:
* The ideal mechanic should be direct in its usage and provide beneficial gameplay.
* The ideal mechanic should have both advantages and disadvantages.
* The ideal mechanic should not have a drastically negative effect for any player, whether for you, your teammate or an opponent and his teammate.
* The ideal mechanic should not discourage micro.
* The ideal mechanic should not alter the MBS or auto-mining features. <----- BOO!
* The ideal mechanic should be flexible in its ability to be balanced.
* The ideal mechanic should not be forced upon a specific map or upon a certain type of player.
* The ideal mechanic's effect should not be random - its results must have definite results.
* Preferably, the ideal mechanic will be dependent upon a player’s choices.
Those are not valid, they were made by some noobs on Battle.net forums and then some guy posted them on the blizzforums macro suggestion board. You can propose any macro mechanic. I'd say just be sure its not complicated!
No, these are posted on the SCLegacy website. Maybe some noob on Battle.net posted them and then SCL copied/pasted it but they have become the official guideline for this. Go look at the website in the OP.
|
On December 17 2008 23:17 IdrA wrote:
have they considered allowing mbs, but not allowing hotkeying more than 1 building?
that would be acceptable to me, the big problem is not that you dont have to click enough, its that you dont have to look back at your base (away from your army) to make units, but newbies tend to bitch that its tedious and unecessary to go through and click 20 times to make 10 goons.
its not really pertinent to this contest, but would do other people think that would be an acceptable solution to mbs?
I really think this is the perfect solution. Elegant and simple. On one hand, it satisifies those who would be most irked by the removal of MBS, as they likely wouldn't realize the limitation in the first place. It also satisfies those most irked by the ability to macro perfectly without returning to base. It gives us the back and forth of base to combat, while eliminating the need for ridiculous handspeed in clicking gateways, which is no sad loss.
I think this, along with charging a player for a building when they queue it rather than when the worker gets around to building it, negates any need for a macro mechanic.
On December 17 2008 22:40 talismania wrote:
Here's an idea for terran: building upgrades.
How it works: instead of building new buildings, you can opt to upgrade the ones you already have for less cost in order to enhance their effectiveness / abilities. An SCV has to be called to the building to upgrade it, and if the building is a production building it would be inoperable during this time.
Example: you have a supply depot. you want another, but are cheap. So instead of spending 100 for a depot, you upgrade your existing depot for some lower amount, say 75 to get the additional 10 supply. For barracks, upgrades could increase the production rate, for example, or maybe even increase the hp of units built, I dunno.
Benefits of this feature: encourages user to come back to his base and manage it, as you must manually order an SCV over to the target building to upgrade it. Encourages choice-making: do I upgrade one depot a lot and risk that the enemy snipes it somehow, or do I build many? Do I want to upgrade that barracks now -- how will that affect my timing attack? Finally, it feels relatively natural, especially for terran, compared to the gas mechanic. It lends itself well to graphical representation as well. Also, it's easily balanced: you can adjust the power of the upgrades, upgrade time, nature of the upgrades, amount of upgrades, upgrade cost, etc.
I see a problem with this mechanic. It is essentially the same as going back to base and constructing a new building. However, it removes one of the most useful remaining macro skills, which is how to fit all those buildings into your base in the first place.
|
On December 17 2008 23:17 IdrA wrote:
have they considered allowing mbs, but not allowing hotkeying more than 1 building?
that would be acceptable to me, the big problem is not that you dont have to click enough, its that you dont have to look back at your base (away from your army) to make units, but newbies tend to bitch that its tedious and unecessary to go through and click 20 times to make 10 goons.
its not really pertinent to this contest, but would do other people think that would be an acceptable solution to mbs?
This is actually the best idea I've seen (not that I've seen every idea). The only problem I could think of is that it might be wierd drag selecting and spamming 'm' 50 times for anyone who chooses to use mbs (reminiscent of the gas mechanic el oh el), but on the other hand it may make rallying a bit easier for the trade off. Overall the flexibility of it is pretty nice.
|
On December 18 2008 06:12 wrags wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2008 23:17 IdrA wrote:
have they considered allowing mbs, but not allowing hotkeying more than 1 building?
that would be acceptable to me, the big problem is not that you dont have to click enough, its that you dont have to look back at your base (away from your army) to make units, but newbies tend to bitch that its tedious and unecessary to go through and click 20 times to make 10 goons.
its not really pertinent to this contest, but would do other people think that would be an acceptable solution to mbs? This is actually the best idea I've seen (not that I've seen every idea). The only problem I could think of is that it might be wierd drag selecting and spamming 'm' 50 times for anyone who chooses to use mbs (reminiscent of the gas mechanic el oh el), but on the other hand it may make rallying a bit easier for the trade off. Overall the flexibility of it is pretty nice.
I think they'd double-click on a production building and then have all of them (on the screen)selected.
However, it is an illogical solution. If I can select 12 gateways in the first place, then why can I only hotkey one? It's not like I can drag-select 12 dragoons but only hotkey one of them.
More logical would be making MBS not unlimited - for example, you can select 3 buildings at a time max.
|
Vatican City State491 Posts
"REAL LIFE RESOURCES DISTRIBUTION"
Minerals and gas should be kept in "storage points" that could connect with the production spots nearby (e.g. creep distance) in order to provide them with resources used to build. Every town hall would have its own mineral counter and range, in which it would provide them to other facilities (like pylons). Long connections should be either impossible to be made, or consist of “pipes” that would be easy to break (e.g. by muta harass); thus the players should be given the option to transport their resources to their factories (or perhaps “other/old” storage points) by means of peons. Alternatively, they should be given the option to send the resources instantly at a price (e.g. pay a “2” mineral transport fee for each 10 minerals transferred). Of course such things should be also overridden by giving the players the option to move their production facilities (either by floating/teleporting or even removing/selling them).
Continued from the beginning:
Such a system of resource distribution could lead to certain tactical problems - e.g. a new expansion would need its own production facilities, otherwise the opponents could block the path to it, in order to cut off the player from his resources. Transportation could be solved in few ways:
– being able to move minerals by means of the peons (e.g. every peon would grab 100 minerals in order to transport them) – of course the peons could die during the process
-players should be able to create “visible pipes” (that could easily be destroyed)
-players should be given the option to transport the resources instantly by means of some other way, that would cost them a “transport fee” (e.g. underground tunnels, teleports) – for each 10minerals moved this way, they would only get 6
-Perhaps the players should also be given the option to sell their production facilities in order to rebuild them somewhere else (but not the “quick sell” option from CC, to discourage selling damaged buildings).
-Terrans could also fly their buildings; perhaps Protoss should be able to teleport them.
The only drawback of this idea are island maps - one would have to build a dropship to move the minerals (and dropships are fragile). Perhaps players would have to decide to gamble by using dropships, or stay with the reliable “magic transportation techniqes". This would unfortunately mean, that island expansions (that are already hard to defend), would bring lower revenues – but perhaps the mapmakers could balanced it out by placing “upgraded mineral formations” (e.g. special crystals) that would provide additional resources when mined (e.g. 12 minerals instead of 8). This way, islands would not be harmed by the “transport tax”.
|
I dont get why doing a relaxed form of MBS isent enough. I understand that normal people arent going to like an old system.
Think about it, if blizzard released SC2 with the same UI as SC:BW, the rewiers would pull their balls off.
MBS is a good thing for newer and casual players but makes things quite lame for competitve players. Now i dont know any casual gamers that use hotkeys often, they just want to play layed back.
On the other hand Competetive players wont a difficult game that is intense and gives them a great rewarding feeling of acomplisment once they have defeated an opponent.
I think MBS should purely consist in the game a the ability to double click a warp gate (or whatever) in order to select all gates in the vicinity. Everything else should be the same as in BW, one z key tap only makes one zealot and not a hole bunch from all the gates you made. Also you shouldnt be able to use hotkeys to mark several buildings, as this would mostly be used by competetive gamers anyway.
I realise that this is pretty mmuch what Idra said, but i still think its the perfekt solution to the problem.
P.S. Screw automining, that isent much of an issue.
|
Don’t worry about MBS or automining. The contest is about coming up with NEW mechanics that enhance decision making and multi tasking on a global scale.
Think of warp-in and mutant larva as your examples. These two abilities do not revolve around unit micro. Instead they impact the production of your war machine.
Good Luck Have Fun :-P
|
On December 18 2008 11:45 Archerofaiur wrote:
Don’t worry about MBS or automining. The contest is about coming up with NEW mechanics that enhance decision making and multi tasking on a global sense.
Think of warp-in and mutant larva as your examples. These two abilities do not revolve around unit micro. Instead they impact the production of your war machine.
Good Luck Have Fun :-P
except warpin is nothing but an extra click (to place the unit) and mutant larva is a horrible idea that will never ever be used.
why not go back to the mechanic that worked for 10+ years?
|
On December 18 2008 11:52 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2008 11:45 Archerofaiur wrote:
Don’t worry about MBS or automining. The contest is about coming up with NEW mechanics that enhance decision making and multi tasking on a global sense.
Think of warp-in and mutant larva as your examples. These two abilities do not revolve around unit micro. Instead they impact the production of your war machine.
Good Luck Have Fun :-P except warpin is nothing but an extra click (to place the unit) and mutant larva is a horrible idea that will never ever be used. why not go back to the mechanic that worked for 10+ years?
http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=10697505828&sid=3000
There are a lot of people who disagree with you.
|
On December 18 2008 11:54 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2008 11:52 IdrA wrote:On December 18 2008 11:45 Archerofaiur wrote:
Don’t worry about MBS or automining. The contest is about coming up with NEW mechanics that enhance decision making and multi tasking on a global sense.
Think of warp-in and mutant larva as your examples. These two abilities do not revolve around unit micro. Instead they impact the production of your war machine.
Good Luck Have Fun :-P except warpin is nothing but an extra click (to place the unit) and mutant larva is a horrible idea that will never ever be used. why not go back to the mechanic that worked for 10+ years? http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=10697505828&sid=3000There are a lot of people who disagree with you.
50% total noobs, 40% misguided, 10% trolls from other RTS games staff.
|
On December 18 2008 12:04 SlickR12345 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2008 11:54 Archerofaiur wrote:On December 18 2008 11:52 IdrA wrote:On December 18 2008 11:45 Archerofaiur wrote:
Don’t worry about MBS or automining. The contest is about coming up with NEW mechanics that enhance decision making and multi tasking on a global sense.
Think of warp-in and mutant larva as your examples. These two abilities do not revolve around unit micro. Instead they impact the production of your war machine.
Good Luck Have Fun :-P except warpin is nothing but an extra click (to place the unit) and mutant larva is a horrible idea that will never ever be used. why not go back to the mechanic that worked for 10+ years? http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=10697505828&sid=3000There are a lot of people who disagree with you. 50% total noobs, 40% misguided, 10% trolls from other RTS games staff.
Ad hominem
|
the number of people who support something does not necessarily indicate that the particular thing has merit.
also, I don't think this is the place for coming up with a replacement for mbs, or suggesting reinstating mbs. This is about coming up with different ways to increase macro, regardless of whether or not mbs is in.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On December 18 2008 00:32 Ki_Do wrote:
Put this in criteria:
The Mechanic should force you to look back at your base if you want to make use of it.
if not its an useless mechanic -.- and useless effort
Not true, it just has to divert your attention basically, even if it's not your base specifically  IE if you had to go to the enemies base (purely hypothetically) it'd serve the same purpose.
|
On December 18 2008 11:54 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2008 11:52 IdrA wrote:On December 18 2008 11:45 Archerofaiur wrote:
Don’t worry about MBS or automining. The contest is about coming up with NEW mechanics that enhance decision making and multi tasking on a global sense.
Think of warp-in and mutant larva as your examples. These two abilities do not revolve around unit micro. Instead they impact the production of your war machine.
Good Luck Have Fun :-P except warpin is nothing but an extra click (to place the unit) and mutant larva is a horrible idea that will never ever be used. why not go back to the mechanic that worked for 10+ years? http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=10697505828&sid=3000There are a lot of people who disagree with you.
i said the mutant larvae were a horrible idea that will never be used (in competive game play*), not the warp gates. warp gates will be quite powerful, the cooldown is less than the build times of the units iirc and of course it lets them be built essentially anywhere, it will be used alot. however its not a substitute for a real macro mechanic because.. it doesnt really change anything. instead of going 5zzzz you go 5zclickzclickzclickzclickzclick, which really isnt all that much of a difference. fraction of a second difference if you look at progamer apm.
(note that its not the extra clicking that makes sbs/mbs relevant, its the fact that you can macro without looking away from your army)
|
Sweden33719 Posts
But don't you have to actually place the units somewhere? Which would force you away from your army (or can you do it on the minimap)?
|
depends where you want to warp them in
i would think you just keep a phrase prism with your army, they change to pylon mode pretty much instantaneously, and just warp in new units right there. if you want to have your army warp in at his expansion or something then youd have to look away from your army, but youd still have to look away to control or to send the units to the expansion in the first place without warp in.
so the only way it really changes anything is if you want to warp the units in where your normal rally points would be instead of having them be immediately useful, doesnt really make sense to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
