|
On December 17 2009 15:32 0neder wrote:
WARP IN IS A MACRO MECHANIC - IT WORKS PERFECTLY AND IS EASY TO BALANCE. NOTHING MORE IS REQUIRED.
1) Caps lock have feelings too.
and 2) Here is the reason for Macro Mechanics if you missed it the first time. Ill let you figure out why just having Warp-In and no other macro mechanics doesnt cut it.
On December 03 2009 16:02 Kennigit wrote:
TL: To follow that up, what types of challenges do you face when trying to balance the needs of the casual player versus the rage of hardcore players like in the progaming community. You had mentioned the macro mechanics being a big one.
DB: Sure that's definitely a big one – it's a place where we feel we can definitely do better but it then does break other systems. You know a great example I love reading on Teamliquid and elsewhere were not so much that you guys were missing clicks – some people said that and I didn't agree with that – but that we were missing the difference between a macro player and a micro player. That we were destroying the sense of style of the player. I could be playing a micro game and you could be playing a macro game with both the same race, and we are still playing a very different game from one another. And when I saw that I was like “Ohh!” I was opening my eyes like “Thanks! THERE IT IS! That's great! That's genius! That's exactly what we need to try to accomplish”.
|
I think the rebut to Mr. DB is made in an earlier reply to this thread.
|
On December 17 2009 22:39 edahl wrote:
I think the rebut to Mr. DB is made in an earlier reply to this thread.
Im not even going to try and refute the "Lead Designer of Starcraft 2 doesnt know what hes talking about" conspiracy theory. If thats where your starting from theres no way I can convince you otherwise :p
|
On December 17 2009 22:44 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2009 22:39 edahl wrote:
I think the rebut to Mr. DB is made in an earlier reply to this thread. Im not even going to try and refute the "Lead Designer of Starcraft 2 doesnt know what hes talking about" conspiracy theory. If thats where your starting from theres no way I can convince you otherwise :p
Conspiracy? Rich.
I tried to make a point about the dangers of throwing too much potential redundancy into the game, and that it is very unlikely that it will 'differentiate micro and macro playstyles', whatever that is. eXigent also had a great reply encapsulating the problem of DB's notion of just these 'micro and macro playstyles', and why we probably don't really want that distinction.
These are all good points, and you might want to try to address these. If you don't I hope Blizzard will. Few are saying that these kinds of mechanics will necessarily fluke, but it is important to tread carefully, and to have a solid backup plan.
Restating the words of DB, however many times, is not going to cut it. They have already been answered. So the way discussion works; you may want to try a new angle, sharpen your point a bit, tell us how the notion of a micro macro balance is wrong, or how macro mechanics will differentiate 'micro macro playstyles', or indeed why we'd want to do that. Not to mention how a Protoss gas mechanic would facilitate that.
This may be slightly off-topic, so we may probably want to move it to another thread.
|
On December 17 2009 12:50 eXigent. wrote:
Micro and Macro are not different types of playstyle, they are both needed in order to be decent at the game. Breaking them down into 2 different playstyles changes the game quite a bit.
I think your taking the two seperate playstyles thing too literally. Read how Dustin phrases it. Its not absolute like you describe it.
On December 17 2009 12:50 eXigent. wrote:
Also, it just doesnt seem to make much sense to state that you can play 2 different styles (micro or macro). There are more than 1 style of play for each race already, that utilizes both micro and macro together to accomplish their goal.
Saying they should be seperated into playstyles just doesn't add up, nor make sense.
These statements dont make sense. There are different styles of playing the game so you cant make more?
On December 17 2009 12:50 eXigent. wrote:
Also, how would they even stack up? A macro player will obviously win the game, because he is able to take map control, out produce and eventually just attack move to victory. The point is , micro and macro are used together to create playstyles, not on their own.
How can I refute statements like this? Its all assumptions.
|
What about having the dark pylon give the ability to boost 1 probe with a proton charge. Last 5 minutes and gives it the mining/gas bonus. 30 energy requirement.
You would have to select which probe you want to boost and it would affect a maximum of 10 probe/ dark pylon because of the duration.
This would also promote killing proton charged probes for raiders.
|
In my opinion the only "macro mechanic" that really needs work is for protoss. Queens and the orbital command seem fine to me. The main problem with proton charge is it feels so artificial. Just a task to repeat every so often to increase resource intake. Zerg and Terran's mechanics feel better in my opinion, mainly because of the tradeoffs. For Zerg there are considerations for making queens or hatcheries, using injection for drones or for a unit production boost. It feels like you are making a tactical decision. The same goes for Terran. You have to decide to upgrade that CC to orbital command, instead of leaving it as a CC or making it a planetary fortress. Once it is a planetary fortress, you have important decisions on how you want to spend your energy: mules, comstats, or supplies.
Proton charge at the very least needs something viable to create energy tension, to make it an actual decision to use it instead of mindless clicks. In my opinion it should just be removed. I think warp in is a good enough mechanic by itself. But if blizzard is bent on adding a "macro mechanic" to protoss; it has to be more than just mindless clicks.
|
If they made it cost resources, i guarantee you that you wont be clicking that button mindlessly. ;p
|
Workers are a macro mechanic that costs resources so you tell me how mindless that is.
|
Yeah but at least with workers you have the choice to cut them for certain strategies, make your timing push or all in attack stronger at the cost of hurting yourself in the long run if it fails. I suppose you could say the same thing about the obelisk. It could be cut for all ins, but as soon as its made any tension or decisions are gone. You just spam proton charge.
|
|
|
On December 18 2009 03:53 789 wrote:
Yeah but at least with workers you have the choice to cut them for certain strategies, make your timing push or all in attack stronger at the cost of hurting yourself in the long run if it fails. I suppose you could say the same thing about the obelisk. It could be cut for all ins, but as soon as its made any tension or decisions are gone. You just spam proton charge.
Exactly my point. And this isn't the first time i have made it either...
Tension would be maintained by continued use of energy as well. It would have to cost both to succeed, and it would have to be balanced so that continual use of it would not be beneficial to every strategy.
For example, if it cost 60-ish energy and was a channeling ability (were thinking about proton charge) so the energy wouldnt regenerate during the duration, you would only have enough energy to use it 3 times in succession before running out of energy and having to wait before using it again. This can also be augmented by a cooldown.
I also think that their current approach of adding counter-balance abilities (like scanner sweep) will make this a more diverse mechanic.
I think of the distinction like this:
1) building probes: necessary for income: increase in actual minerals
2) macro mechanic: strategic boosts to your economy at the cost of a down-payment
3) expanding: increases potential minerals
The probes increase real mineral income, expansions increase potential mineral income. The macro mechanics would fall somewhere in between, not increasing actual mineral capacity (new fields) but merely making your current mining more efficient (as it does now). The difference is that you have to sacrifice actual minerals to do it instead of streamlining your economy at no real cost. The energy balance would make it so you cannot abuse this.
To make it more interesting, extra abilities (like sweep) could force you to decide if you want to use them instead.
Lastly, if it is able to be disrupted (on a raid, for example) it would make players more careful about using it. For example, if you just paid money for a macro boost and your enemy swings by for a colossus drop, not only did you spend actual minerals on that boost, but you lost whatever potential minerals you would have earned as well.
|
The probes increase real mineral income, expansions increase potential mineral income. The macro mechanics would fall somewhere in between, not increasing actual mineral capacity (new fields) but merely making your current mining more efficient (as it does now). The difference is that you have to sacrifice actual minerals to do it instead of streamlining your economy at no real cost. The energy balance would make it so you cannot abuse this.
To make it more interesting, extra abilities (like sweep) could force you to decide if you want to use them instead.
Certainly the extra abilities to make you think before you click is necessary. If not...
The main problem with proton charge is it feels so artificial. Just a task to repeat every so often to increase resource intake.
|
I wish we had two seperate words for macro mechanics which do and do not effect ecconomy. At the moment Both Warp-in and Proton Charge are 'macro mechanics'. That is true, but you don't compare Warp-in to MULE. We need a second name for the ecconomy based mechanics.
1) Macro Mechanic
2) Economy Mechanic
or something similar.
|
Warp in I would call a production mechanic, as with the reactor add-on and spawn larvae (which is also the economic macro mechanic). Thats just what I think.
|
I still think that the Protoss and Terran mechanics feel too artificial. I don't think the Protoss really need a resource mechanic, but something that allows for flexibility and requires actual decision-making by the player. The only macro mechanic that I think fits into the personality of the race is the Queen's spawn larvae ability.
|
On December 17 2009 13:02 edahl wrote:
Exactly. Adding artificial "macro mechanics" to "differentiate macro micro play styles". Sure, it's cute for an "eureka" but you have to consider the possibility that the eureka was based on false pretenses. It's like doing mathematics when you're drunk. It's fun at first, but you're probably wrong. The way it's going, I see nothing but one base zergs and APM-sinks. "Sorry".
Something with larvae is the way to go, but we definitely dont want a macro mechanic that gives you less incentive to expand. The zerg macro mechanic should give you a LOT of incentive to expand since that is one of their traits. Putting 2.5 hatcheries worth of larvae on one hatch isnt a good idea from that point of view.
|
Knee_of_Justice
You cannot really use Terran "MULE/Scan energy choice" to tweak Protoss Obelisk.
Not until you move Proton Charge to a Nexus - or else there will be not one but two obelisks per expansion, that's it.
But i really like the idea of "channelling proton charge" that can be disrupted by hitting the Obelisk (Nexus?). That would really promote harass play vs Protoss - although it is a subject to balance.
As a side note - i don't really like the current "1 base Queen" trend. Come on - sitting on a single base spamming larva from a single hatchery? Not Zergish at all.
Sounds more like "1 hatch muta rush 2x2 with a sunken wall" 
|
The ultimate fix to all this BS is simply to remove mineral line waypoint ... It won't feel artificial or dated, because in SC you control every unit manually, that's kind of a thing. And also, it requires some attention to keep it going. That's all Proton Charge and Mule really is; a replacement for the manual worker control because that felt too artificial (did you ever notice in BW?). I cannot imagine how this is any better. Just shave off the redundancy and remove it. That's my 5 cent rant.
|
You can't use scan, but you can come up with a similar energy sink.
As for making more to cover energy tension I was thinking about this cause it's clear that a 200m obelisk is spammable. It would be neat if they had it so obelisks could only be built ON minerals or perhaps within a short range of them. They would emit a small power field which would be their range. Any overlapping power fields double the cost.
Personally the nexus should upgrade (or get an upgrade) for macro and the cc should get an add on just like it used to.
They would have to prevent obelisk spamming somehow
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
