EPT[O] Q&A 49 - Page 12
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
afg-warrior
Afghanistan328 Posts
| ||
|
NatsuTerran
United States364 Posts
| ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On February 19 2009 19:34 flabortaster wrote: They cannot make these autocast because they all have drawbacks so they're all strategic decisions. Blizzard already said a long time ago that autocasts are reserved to repetitive skills that require no decision, just always use when it's up.Also, in late game, wouldn't it be more efficient to have a DPylon dedicated for the probes set in autocast? I t suddenly becomes trivial. Unless they'll make the DPylon a lot more expensive. Alot of these mechanics becomes a must do in the late game. I mean, wouldn't you want one CC constantly supplying Depots, or another one dropping MULEs? That is not the case here. - If your dark pylons are set to always increase harvest speed, then you won't be using them to cloak units defending your base or to give energy to that HT defending your expansion. - The choice between mule/supply depends on your scv/supply numbers and if you're planning for attacking right now or later on.. - Even then you cannot just spam supplies because then you'll have no scans. - Zergs can't always spam spawn larvaes because you might always need to expand your creep or to use the queen's abilities to defend your main from a drop. Or even save energy and plan for an all-in attack including your queens. It's a strategical decision to use it or not, it isn't always obvious to just use it when it's up. That's why they wouldn't make it an autocast. If you pay attention you'll notice that they put all these drawbacks on purpose so it cannot be automated, since this system is supposed to make up for another automation in the first place. | ||
|
Doctorasul
Romania1145 Posts
| ||
|
Integra
Sweden5626 Posts
Only +1 mineral you say? Considering one probe returns 5 minerals +1 mineral means a 20% increase. Source:http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=15199332909 | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
The UI convention is that powerful AoE abilities that require skill to place are exempt from autocasting. By the way, has it been noted that using proton charge will help improve players psi storming skills. | ||
|
ven
Germany332 Posts
| ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On February 20 2009 03:21 InRaged wrote: you're kidding right?Nothing wrong with using gimmick when same effect could be achieved without using gimmick. Yeah, right. Makes sense as usual. You can't choose not to use manual mining, hence "mundane". But whether you send workers to mine perfectly or sloppily has almost zero impact on the game (outside of early/low-eco game) because of the way resource gathering AI works. Besides, there is limit on how many workers you can have per base and when you're approaching this limit or climbed above it adding workers won't give additional income at all. That's not true for new mechanics, especially not second statement. Therefore, these gimmicks are inevitably more game-deciding and player-demanding than manual-mining. Adding them when you don't even know whether there's need for one is absolutely dumb. as long as you have a non-saturated base you have to go look at it every 20 seconds to do as well as possible. in the mid game when your main and natural arent even saturated this is a very, very big deal. if you dont understand how important it is to send scvs to mine efficiently.... i really dont know what to say. you're just clueless. its far less game deciding if you get a short mining speed boost than if you have half as many workers mining than me. and technically 'not using' manual mining would mean you dont mine at all. some of us are not idiots. some of us can look at available information and draw conclusions. no time consuming macro mechanic->the game will be almost entirely micro oriented->starcraft players do not want that->call for macro mechanics. so yes, we know theres a call for one. Manual-mining has nothing to do with multitasking. You can tell this tales to the blizzard, the noobs they are will believe this, since it's pretty difficult for novices to get in rhythm with this hassle. For any amateur who spend couple months, let alone about a year, to play, it requires zero effort to keep this task in mind and execute these stupid several clicks every time he hotkeys/produces reinforcement or builds additional supplies/defenses/gateways. And it doesn't have any impact on players styles, since something without strict timing can be delayed with no harm for the player. lets play a game. 50 bucks says i have more workers than you after 15 minutes. hell fucking strelok, 2nd or 3rd best white terran, cant even manage his worker production properly. macroing well doesnt have an effect on your micro? watch best play. you can claim its easy all you want. its not. And you're not the one who can tell me what I should play and what not. If anything, You shouldn't comment on game-developing process if you're eager to put frustrating shit into the game just to raise skill ceiling. actually it makes me more qualified, for this specific game. theyve said they intend to make it an esport. an esport must have a sufficiently high skill ceiling. so it is necessary to look at the game design with skill level in mind. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On February 20 2009 03:24 InRaged wrote: yaBW faded in the macro era because players get skilled enough. SC2 will start from this point. Not from 2004 year. And I demand proof for your claims, because I don't see logic in your "common sense" of how adding macro into sequel of the game that already had slipped in the macro era will help differentiate playstyles. since sc2 is exactly the same game as sc1 all the same units, the exact same economic setup, no new abilities or features. and they especially havent made it any easier to attack or harass your opponent. seriously, the only real similarity is the word 'starcraft' in the name. you have absolutely no clue how the game will play. those of us who arent idiots only have a small idea. is war3 a macro oriented game now? are the players somehow less skilled than starcraft players? if nada went over and played war3 would it become a macro oriented game? obviously not. player skill is not the only determining factor of game style. if the game design does not allow for it, its not gonna happen. hence if sc2 is designed properly, it can make both styles equally powerful. obviously thats not easy to do, but thats not a reason to not try. So, wait a second, micro-oriented playstyle is after all nothing else but cheesy/one-base/low-eco play? And that will dissapear from sc2 with auto-mining and mbs? If no, the point of this comment is?.. what? you made a dumb statement, that playing low econ style would get you called a cheesing newbie and blah blah blah. that quote is just a reply to that. the most beloved sc player of all time is also one of the cheesiest. obviously micro oriented play is more than one basing. micro oriented play thrives in low econ situations, so it may be more common. but theres alot more to it than that. for instance, mid game you're dropping 2 zerg expos and you have a full econ running yourself. the macro oriented player stims his marines and puts them on hold position, leaving them to kill everything until 2 lurkers come up. by doing so he allows himself to go macro perfectly, thus having a bunch of new units to attack with when the drops are cleared. a micro oriented player spends his time controlling the units from the 2 drops, meaning hes probably gonna kill at least one base. however, because he focuses his attention on micro his production slips, because if you stop watching your marines for 5 seconds they could very well all die. this makes it very difficult to go back and make 10 more marines every 30 seconds. as such the micro oriented player has alot less new units, but his existing units did more damage. in sc it turned out that the macro oriented play style was easier to do and more effective, but ideally both could be equally as strong. thats what we should be aiming for with sc2. The fuck is this. In sentence you quoted above I was referring to the "then thats your playstyle" which is clearly about BW. And while we're here, it's you who keep insisting that game won't support different playstyles unless there's some crappy gimmick or total step-back to the old UI. It's you who throws unsupported claims only to admit later that people indeed whine a lot about prevalence of macro and then you say there should be more macro-features anyway. I'm for year saying that people should wait for beta before jumping to the assumptions and before reverting back to the bw-way by either dropping automining or by replacing it with some ugly gimmicks. there is nothing about that series of quotes that references bw. and given that we're discussing sc2 theres no reason to make that assumption. the game WILL NOT support a macro oriented play style if there is no time consuming macro task. this is not wild speculation. it is a fact. if it requires no time or effort to macro well... then everyones gonna have near perfect macro. theres not going to be anything to gain by focusing more of your attention on macro, because it wont give you any advantage over people who never move their screen from thir army. please explain what is wrong with using a 'crappy gimmick'? you keep saying that because you have no real argument and the phrase has a negative connotation that you hope will make people dislike it for no rational reason. it is a decent solution that addresses a problem, a problem that everyone but you (even blizzard) agrees existed. | ||
|
omninmo
2349 Posts
| ||
|
Spawkuring
United States755 Posts
Blizzard is opening a poll for "Do you like the new mechanics?". Heh, Blizzard just loves to spark macro debates don't they. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
Most Pro players that had concerns about the MBS, autocast and Auto mineral like the new mechanics now actually will be enough to replace the building clickfeast. See www.teamliquid.net's forum for more details, even progamers that live in SouthKorea like Idra (also posted on the forums )thinks the new mechanics are excellent. So it looks promising. for me in that blizzard poll thread[ Post edited by Sallee ] with "i dont think theyre excellent. bringing back single building selection and manual macro would have been excellent. these are a passable solution to a problem that shouldnt even exist, but as is it seems its the best we're going to get." | ||
|
JohnBall
Brazil1272 Posts
There is no depth on a game like that. | ||
|
furymonkey
New Zealand1587 Posts
On February 19 2009 23:06 ven_ wrote: All units magically have unlimited ammunition and fuel and now some stupid mining cart that gets dropped from outer space runs out of battery after a short amount of time? That's your explanation for them having timed life? Are you kidding me? I'm all for macro mechanics that intensify and diversify the game but if they're like this I'd rather pass. Reason why units have unlimited ammunitions and fuels are because of supply depot, MULE most likely won't count as supply user, so it make sense its battery will eventually runs out. | ||
|
SWPIGWANG
Canada482 Posts
The real issue is strategically degenerate game where every game and every player use the same strategy and mechanics and is thus boring. That is more a issue of balance and depth than mechanics, as classic board games that don't require the DDR have space for individualized styles even without a real time element. On the other hand, DDR don't really have styles since there is one most efficient way that people can move to complete the game. | ||
|
SWPIGWANG
Canada482 Posts
in sc it turned out that the macro oriented play style was easier to do and more effective, but ideally both could be equally as strong. thats what we should be aiming for with sc2. Well, the hardcore players of SC1 (like here) would certainly perfer this, but it hardly means that a micro game is "worthless" and "skill-less." If that wasn't the case, every D- player can beat Jaedong in ZvZ and pull July and Boxers out of their ass. There is alot of space in low econ play that is unexplored and I doubt a perfect player of low econ SC exists. For every point of APM that is removed from macro, one is added to something else, may it be the option to pull boxer lockdowns or dual muta harass. Whether those things work lies in the greater balance of the game and the focus on isolated elements don't mean much. There are more units, more spells and more terrain interactions in the new game for fast and skilled players to find things to do and differentiate themselves. If you ask me, whats needed is a set of interesting and balanced things to build unique strategies and styles around, and what they are exactly isn't that important since it is a new game. | ||
|
deathgod6
United States5064 Posts
Does that mean terran wasn't originally going to have scan?  | ||
|
VorcePA
United States1102 Posts
On February 20 2009 14:07 deathgod6 wrote: Scanner Sweep: using a satellite in high-orbit, the Terrans reveal a large area anywhere on the map and detect all cloaked units within the target area. Does that mean terran wasn't originally going to have scan? No. The command center upgrade that previously had comsat used to be called something different. Both that old upgrade and the new name now both have comsat. | ||
|
PH
United States6173 Posts
| ||
|
Ideas
United States8142 Posts
On February 20 2009 14:50 PH wrote: I figured the kinds of mining boosts they gave to toss and terran would more likely have been given to zerg...even with the queen larva thing, zerg is stiiiill boned economically...): I guess drones mine faster on creep lol I think queens/creep tumors would be a lot more important if creep did more than just make your units move faster, i think it still needs an extra something (maybe regen health faster or something like that). I like the idea of constructing/controlling the Z base with the queen, I just want to see a little more added to it to make it more important. | ||
| ||
