|
Like most of the people here, I am opposed to automine and MBS for SC2. I think that they will make the game too easy, too boring, and remove the strategic choice of whether to focus on macro or micro.
However, this thread is not to argue about that. We've had a lot of MBS threads, and they're all pretty much the same. And despite people telling blizzard many times that MBS is bad, they have yet to even try taking it away. To be honest, I doubt that their developers understand BW enough to know why it's bad. They are programmers, not progamers. Plus, I'm sure they'd be flamed to death if they did actually remove MBS- remember that those of us opposed to MBS are in the minority here against a sea of noobs.
So I think it's time to admit defeat. gg. MBS is here to stay. But if it stays, what could they add that would save the game? It's actually not so important whether or not MBS is in the game, what's important is that MACRO is in the game. We need to think of something to add to the game that is difficult, and somewhat mindless, that diverts attention away from your army. I believe Karune actually said in one of the Q and A posts that they were looking for ways to add macro, but I don't think they really understand what they're looking for. We need to help them with this.
Here are some ideas that I have:
1)Build more buildings! Increase unit build times, decrease building sizes and costs. Add more tech buildings also. This would force you to spend a lot of time at your base, making buildings.
2)Reduce the number of minerals in most patches, and make a lot of expansion sites on the map. Force players to be constantly expanding, much more so than in BW.
3)Interactive terrain! One of the things that I really like about SC2 is the way the terrain looks. Make it so that workers can build ramps, dig trenches, dam rivers, and push over rocks. This would both open a lot of strategic options, AND it would force you to be constantly controlling your workers to shape the terrain the way you want it.
Anyway please tell me what you think of my macro ideas, and try to come up with some youselves. Let's save this game!
My apologies for making yet another MBS thread, but I feel that this one will be productive.
|
I like these ideas, but I'm not too sure about the interactive terrain...letting workers completely bypass a choke to a main or natural would be pretty powerful, as well as walling off corner expos and making them "island" expos. This would probably be useful if balanced well, though.
|
True, you'd still want some terrain to be "invincible", or you could also make it so that the terrain is modified by a high tech unit.
|
At least expansion timing and mynarding workers, as well as hidden expos will still be a big deal. But that's really game play, not so much macro.
I can't think of any fresh ideas off the top of my head right now though.
|
I like your third idea, kinda. But the remaining two would change the core gameplay probably even more than MBS.
Another idea that has been proposed is making MBS simulate SBS-macro (to force the players to make decisions and multi-task like in BW) when its needed (i.e. unit production) while leaving all other improvements it brings (mass rally, focus firing with defensive structures, etc.). This could be achieved by restricting the MBS to one building per hotkey like in BW.
I think that's the only real solution since so far other ideas presented have been equally tedious as SBS-macro, and would therefore be equally hated by casual players.
On a sidenote, we're not really in a minority. Casual players WHO CARE about such things as MBS are actually rare. The problem could be ignorant reviewers like e.g. Dan...
|
Uhh if you restrict MBS to one building than it just becomes SBS. And yes, I think that would be good, but I just don't think blizzard will do it.
|
what maybenexttime is saying is different from mbs. his version of mbs wouldn't allow using mbs to make units, only "mass rally, focus firing with defensive structures, etc." Thus it's a nice compromise between the two.
luddite, your number two seems like it would be more of a map-based change rather than anything else. So perhaps we ought to test making gameplay more expo driven by making low $ patch, high expo maps now? Oh and it just struck me that perhaps this change would help zerg most, terran some, and hurt toss. Zerg gets increasing numbers of hatches as the game progresses anyway, at least in current sc. Terran can just lift off buildings, thus saving money. Toss has to build useless nexuses everywhere just to keep up, then.
And number three seems like a good idea. As you said, strategic options open up and reward apm/skill; it also gives blizzard another chance to make the races unique by giving each race unique terrain abilities. But I wonder how they will fare in terms of visibility. IMO sc2 graphics are dazzling enough already, and I don't want to be even more confused by lots of random terrain doodads everywhere.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
personally i think that the warpgate system (which is often forgotten) is a good step in the right direction
warpgates cannot warp in by MBS last i heard, and had to manually select where to warp in each unit from the warpgate
benefit of warpgates is that there is a reduced build time therefore the player who uses this system will have more units than the player who cannot use the warpgates
|
I liked your ideas especially 2) and 3) i also think that Blizzard should make complex unit combos more useful.
Pure Goon / zeal with MBS would be quite boring to macro in Bw but if you have to make arbiters, zeal, goons, reavers and ht you will be busy.
I think that if Blizzard uses this kind of ideas MBS wont be a real problem. SBS just forces players to make intensive apm-related routines which arent really funny or interesting althought it requiers skill.
|
On June 25 2008 01:36 Plexa wrote:
personally i think that the warpgate system (which is often forgotten) is a good step in the right direction
warpgates cannot warp in by MBS last i heard, and had to manually select where to warp in each unit from the warpgate
benefit of warpgates is that there is a reduced build time therefore the player who uses this system will have more units than the player who cannot use the warpgates
I remember in an interview a dev addressed this, saying korean pros still felt warp gate was too easy. He also seemed legitimately concerned about the fact that veterans know MBS changes a big part of the game while still trying to cater to the expectations of a modern rts. So even though they may not have the answer at this very moment, that relieved a lot of my concerns because it's a genuine issue to them. If they can do more things like warp gates, could be the best of both worlds.
|
RE: MBS
how about "build penalty time" multiplied by the number of buildings you have SELECTED minus one.
ie.
you have 1 building selected = zero build penalty time
2 selected you have (an example remember) 1x build penalty time = 0.5sec
3 selected you have 2x build penalty time = 1.0sec
4 selected you have 3x build penalty time = 1.5sec
etc. etc.
(so if you click each of your buildings individually and build from them one at a time, you get no penalty)
so if you build your units from multiple sources at once, then each unit takes "build penalty time" longer to finish.
in casual (noob?) games, where players frequently build then attack, then build then attack (not much multitasking) there isnt much difference for the players, if their army takes an extra 3-4 seconds to replenish per unit because likely most players will be using MBS and equalizing the penalty against each other.
meanwhile in pro games, the difference even in 1-2 secs can make a significant difference with min-maxed build orders and timing attacks.
the better the players, the more significant this penalty time would be, while lesser players will hardly notice it.
the goal is that the penalty time emulates how long it might take for many lesser-to-medium players to click each building and select a unit to build.
this also means that pro players will have a natural and strategic macro advantage over lesser players, and the advantage scales with game time, as you build up more resources and production buildings you need to be a better player to make the most of it.
and most importantly, this provides a rewarding bonus to good players that they will notice, while barely making a difference to casual players because they simply arent fast enough to appreciate the difference (atleast until they get better and seek to improve their macro skill).
(oh and if you want an ingame justification - you could claim that MBS represents sending your orders through 'middle management' in the chain of command, so if you want something done right, you gotta do it yourself.)
RE: AutoMine
1. Make miners lazy - they dont auto mine straight away, instead they wait after being created for 0.25seconds "per miner in sight range". so early in the game when you reach around 8 miners and start building production buildings, choosing tech, rushing/defending..etc. being distracted from your miners is starting to cost you 2+s mining time per miner. (this 'lazy time' could be varied per race, zerg dont build nearly as many miners as the other races for example).
2. Make miners dumb - they auto mine towards the closest patch even if its being mined (they never mine gas automatically) they dont switch to another patch until they actually try to mine that patch, so you atleast have to change your rally point every now and then or else they will approach the nearest (probably occupied) patch and fail to mine it, and then look for another patch. this should cost another 1-2s of mining time per miner.
so in the first 2 minutes of gameplay assuming it takes about 3s to complete a mining trip and roughly 20s to make a miner and you start with 4 miners (that mine at 8 minerals per trip each) you lose around 50 minerals worth through downtime on mining. thats 2 less zerglings to defend or rush with, or maybe you take another 5 seconds before you can build your barracks etc.
obviously as the game continues, this accumulated downtime spread across a couple of expansions can mean the difference between being able to tech faster or having that extra reaver ready etc.
and again, importantly, the difference is really only noticeable for good players, new players will barely notice it, they probably have trouble spending all their resources anyway and will likely have a surplus build up between battles that eclipses the lost mining time penalty. however good players will definitely want the advantage of an extra few units in the early-mid game, and faster tech into the late game.
small differences like these that dont overtly hurt a new player but rather give them explicit game mechanic rewards for improving multitasking skills, while not making them mandatory in games against others around the same skill level.
so a casual player who doesnt really follow build orders strictly, plays money maps, likes to spam a single unit en masse, never even heard of a 'timing attack' will never feel forced into learning the more difficult advanced skills that the pros MUST use because of the knife edge discrimination between winning and losing at high levels.
NOTE: the numbers ive used are just to illustrate by example, i have no idea what the optimum penalty times would be, but people with the stats could work that stuff out.
PS: sorry for the epic meandering post.
|
On June 25 2008 01:36 Plexa wrote:
personally i think that the warpgate system (which is often forgotten) is a good step in the right direction
warpgates cannot warp in by MBS last i heard, and had to manually select where to warp in each unit from the warpgate
benefit of warpgates is that there is a reduced build time therefore the player who uses this system will have more units than the player who cannot use the warpgates
I'm against MBS but I'm still unsure whether I like the idea of warpgates or not. They have a good and a bad point, good being that they reward busy players and bad being that they force one certain playing style if you want to get 100% efficiency. Hard decision to make.
|
On June 25 2008 01:51 ForAdun wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2008 01:36 Plexa wrote:
personally i think that the warpgate system (which is often forgotten) is a good step in the right direction
warpgates cannot warp in by MBS last i heard, and had to manually select where to warp in each unit from the warpgate
benefit of warpgates is that there is a reduced build time therefore the player who uses this system will have more units than the player who cannot use the warpgates I'm against MBS but I'm still unsure whether I like the idea of warpgates or not. They have a good and a bad point, good being that they reward busy players and bad being that they force one certain playing style if you want to get 100% efficiency. Hard decision to make.
Isn't that of how it is now in Brood War now? I think this is all we get because Dustin seems out of ideas and a roll back is wishful thinking.
|
I´d rather have mechanics like the Protoss warp in (which is constanlty being ignored when complaining about lacking macro).
Something thats optional, otherwise there wouldn´t be a point in implementing MBS.
|
You can't just add more macro. If you do, you have to redesign the way the game works. The mechanics that gather resources and produce units. And probably make it more abstract and counter intuitive, without a ground in reality. Yeah, really artificial stuff. Something like warp gates accounts for nothing.
Best would be to either make MBS an option for casual play. Or make MBS have a big penalty which would result in competitive players NEVER EVER using it. Which is probably not possible.
|
As long as MBS is functual it will be used. Queues carry a penality but even then they still get used.
|
On June 25 2008 01:42 Oc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2008 01:36 Plexa wrote:
personally i think that the warpgate system (which is often forgotten) is a good step in the right direction
warpgates cannot warp in by MBS last i heard, and had to manually select where to warp in each unit from the warpgate
benefit of warpgates is that there is a reduced build time therefore the player who uses this system will have more units than the player who cannot use the warpgates I remember in an interview a dev addressed this, saying korean pros still felt warp gate was too easy. He also seemed legitimately concerned about the fact that veterans know MBS changes a big part of the game while still trying to cater to the expectations of a modern rts. So even though they may not have the answer at this very moment, that relieved a lot of my concerns because it's a genuine issue to them. If they can do more things like warp gates, could be the best of both worlds.
Ya, Dustin said this in Blizzcast #3. He is genuinely concerned about the lack of macro, and another issue you never hear much about is that he is also worried about the lack of micro, but to a lesser extent. Blizzard wants this to be the best rts ever and they have indicated they will take as much time as possible to ensure that all players will be happy with the final product. I just hope this is actually possible.
|
I completely agree with the OP, we need more to do in terms of macro. And I'm sure we all know that the decision to focus on micro/macro is important in racial balancing as well.
Anyways, something I liked that another RTS did (a really old one, I think Dune 2000 or something?) is that it allowed workers to build cheap walls. It was just a thin divider that units couldn't pass on ground, but they could attack it. Using this, one could create different choke points in their base, or set up interesting advanced positions, etc. The walls took a while to build though, every section was small so you really had to manage the construction process well.
Another option is definitely just decreasing unit production time, so players have to at least pay more attention to their production buildings. Maybe also make it so they are required to just build more buildings, as the OP suggested. This would really increase the pace of the game though, which I think would be good but whatever.
For increasing the micro... I think they just need to bring back some of the units from BW which really allowed players to look like geniuses. For example: medics, vultures, reavers. All lead to intense micro encounters which not only required skill, but were very exciting to watch (double bonus). I look at the replacement units for SC2 and they don't really seem that exciting, despite having good concept art (a novelty which wears off pretty quickly).
|
On June 25 2008 00:09 Luddite wrote:
...
So I think it's time to admit defeat. gg. MBS is here to stay. But if it stays, what could they add that would save the game? It's actually not so important whether or not MBS is in the game, what's important is that MACRO is in the game. We need to think of something to add to the game that is difficult, and somewhat mindless, that diverts attention away from your army [emphasis added]. I believe Karune actually said in one of the Q and A posts that they were looking for ways to add macro, but I don't think they really understand what they're looking for. We need to help them with this.
...
The point of things like MBS, unit cap select increase, automine command, etc. is UI simplification in order to make the game mechanically easier to play (and perhaps more intuitive). This in turn makes the game more playable to people who have no intention of playing it competitively, as well as those beginning to ladder, making them reach a skill level where strategy is comparably important to mouse/hand speed quicker--thus increasing the competitive base of players too. Sure, everybody who understands SC realizes the huge importance of time management and the dynamics of never-have-enough-time gameplay, and how MBS would take away from that. It's quite possible it'll make the game much worse.
But creating new mindless busywork tasks to replace the old...they're never going to do that (intentionally). They're trying to remove that element from the game, so there's no reason IMHO to devise awkward ways that could possibly be accomplished. Anything they do add, such as warp gates (witholding judgement on warp gates atm), would have some kind of strategical element attached to it. Ideally isn't this what you would want: old mindless tasks replaced with new non-mindless tasks that took up as much time? Actually coming up with new stuff that would be non-mindless and take time, though, might likely be impossible or beyond Blizzard's ability at this day and age.
Anyhow, I'd be careful about implying that macro has been removed from the game. All kinds of unit production, expanding, worker timing, unit/mass/tech equation theory, etc. are still in the game, and mastery of these concepts was the signiture of macro beasts like iloveoov. Say that the mechanical difficulty and time management aspects were somewhat removed. It's more precise, and it might sound more palatable to say the non-RTS competitive gamer.
edit: yeah not sure how it'd fit, but buildable walls are kind of cute if nothing else. Actually, what I'm as concerned with is the importance of unit positioning, what with high ground advantage changed and all those terrain-ignoring units like Reapers and Colossi--with these kinds of units as well as mass transport like in Nydus Worms, these walls/choke/positioning concepts become less important.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On June 25 2008 02:00 moebius_string wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2008 01:51 ForAdun wrote:On June 25 2008 01:36 Plexa wrote:
personally i think that the warpgate system (which is often forgotten) is a good step in the right direction
warpgates cannot warp in by MBS last i heard, and had to manually select where to warp in each unit from the warpgate
benefit of warpgates is that there is a reduced build time therefore the player who uses this system will have more units than the player who cannot use the warpgates I'm against MBS but I'm still unsure whether I like the idea of warpgates or not. They have a good and a bad point, good being that they reward busy players and bad being that they force one certain playing style if you want to get 100% efficiency. Hard decision to make. Isn't that of how it is now in Brood War now? I think this is all we get because Dustin seems out of ideas and a roll back is wishful thinking. Theres no real issue for Zerg with respect to MBS as it is essentially the same system from Sc1; thus MBS only affects (really) T and P. P have warpgates while T are... lacking.. a specific macro thing for terran would be beneficial imo
to address the guy would said that warpgates were easy, its that the units build automatically (doh?) warpgates could easily be more difficult to use than gateways in SC1 if you had to initiate build, then place them - instantly double macro
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
