|
Existing macro mechanic proposals almost always lie in adding features to units and buildings and that is quite limited because it works the same way on every map and adds relatively little to strategy, and balance patches effect all of them at once and map makers can't tweak the importance of macro like, say, the effectiveness of mutalisk harass. In addition, more features added units are hard to read like how it is hard to check factory efficiency and no one ever saw a pimpest factory usage play in a vod.
Here is my proposal to macro that is map dependent. It requires no new game concepts, only extension to the normal-gold mineral concept.
The solution only includes adding more Mineral types. For example:
1. Brown minerals returns 2 minerals a cycle
2. Blue mineral returns 6 minerals a cycle
3. Gold mineral return 10 minerals a cycle
4. Red mineral return 15+ minerals a cycle (for remote mining)
With these mineral patches, we can create all sort of thing to promote all kinds of macro we want. Here are some examples:
1. Make manual mine work better than automine:
Automine is stupid and does not differentiate mineral patches. If you mix gold minerals and brown minerals in a patch, automine would often mine brown minerals first. A macro-ing player can manually move peons to mine gold minerals and reassign rally points after every peon to improve efficiency.
The effectiveness of this mechanic can be tweaked by different mixture of different mineral types.
2. Mining timing:
Minerals can be used to block other minerals to create timings in mining. For example, you can have three brown mineral patches (at 100 minerals each) blocking the path to 6 blue minerals at a expo. This way, you have to start with 6~9 peons at the expo to mine out the blocking patches first, before timing to move from the main to mine the blue.
By having many layers of minerals blocking each other, a complex timing can be made into the map. For example, you may start out with 2 patches, than unblocked to reveal 6 patches, finally end with 3 high patches with 3k minerals each. This would mean the player would need to vary his peon count over the game for the expo, all of which can be planned by the map maker to create timings and more strategy. One interesting way is to have timings to move workers from the main, expo and third every two three minutes in response to number of available minerals and their type.
To make minerals block each other well, some sort of semi-stacked mineral patches might be a good idea to keep the peon travel distance more even.
3. Long distance mining
Existing SC maps are dependent on highly concentrated mineral patches around a nature base placement location. With super high yield minerals, it is possible to put minerals far from possible bases and have mining work more like C&C type harvesters. This can result in even more complicated mining timing (eg. grab the red minerals in the open before enemy's breaks the front contain) It would also require manual mining, as a 120 mineral patch would run out before many rallies can be done, and dumb mining far from the base as just asking for peons to be sniped. If we really give super high yield patches, say 50 a carry with 200 total, mineral steal might be a valid strategy.
---------
Why this is great:
It is a intuitive, easily balanced, strategic, and highly visible macro mechanics.
The peon movement of skilled players would show a lot of strategy in balancing income flow and risk. One can build timings not only out of the macro and resource flow, but also weaknesses peon movements, like a timing drop on the nat when you know the opponent is trying to take advantage of unrevealed gold minerals at 8:20 seconds.
With complex mineral distribution, one can also balance gas/mineral at different phases of the game for even more strategy and fix broken race balances and so on.
N00bs can just play maps with one line of simple blue minerals everywhere.
|
On January 12 2009 10:19 SWPIGWANG wrote:
1. Make manual mine work better than automine:
Automine is stupid and does not differentiate mineral patches. If you mix gold minerals and brown minerals in a patch, automine would often mine brown minerals first. A macro-ing player can manually move peons to mine gold minerals and reassign rally points after every peon to improve efficiency.
What do you mean by: "automine would often mine brown minerals first"? This whole paragraph doesn't make any sense to me.
|
^^It really sounds like it would be redundant to actually reassign workers anyway unless it was the first few minutes of the game. By the time you are 10 minutes in you will have enough workers that they will automatically mine all mineral patches equally whether or not they are brown or gold so that reassigning them won't matter.
The only times you would actually need to reassign workers is in the first few minutes and when you clone workers to send to a new expo.
|
I don't like this idea. Normal blue minerals work just fine in my opinion. Why complicate it? Why make complicated solutions to simple problems?
The problem: Auto-mine is in Starcraft 2, it wasn't in Starcraft 1. The addition of auto-mine might make game mechanics way too easy.
Solutions: If auto-mine doesn't have much of an affect on gameplay it stays. If it does take it out.
|
On January 12 2009 10:28 BanZu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2009 10:19 SWPIGWANG wrote:
1. Make manual mine work better than automine:
Automine is stupid and does not differentiate mineral patches. If you mix gold minerals and brown minerals in a patch, automine would often mine brown minerals first. A macro-ing player can manually move peons to mine gold minerals and reassign rally points after every peon to improve efficiency. What do you mean by: "automine would often mine brown minerals first"? This whole paragraph doesn't make any sense to me.
It makes sense at the beginning of an expansion or the beginning of the game, similar to how players split to the closest mineral patches to marginally speed up mining time (except with a lot more of an impact). Once you get anywhere near saturation though, it's going to start not mattering.
|
yup, these complex solutions are really dumb. SC 1 was great because it was so simple and yet so deep. SC 2 will be focused more on micro and tactics + unit composition and will be more sophisticated in these aspects because over half your time isn't spent 1a2a3a4a 5sd6sd7sd8sd9sd. So what? Instead of mindlessly macroing the fastest players will lay traps and execute more harasses.
|
Well, automine doesn't matter near saturation either. After you get 2+ workers per patch it doesn't matter that much any more since additional peon only helps a very little bit.
-----------
With mineral blocking each others to create timings however, automine just don't cut it, for example:
You start with 2 gold, 2 blue minerals first and you saturate it with 10 SCV.
The two gold minerals gets mined out and you are left with 2 blue minerals. You reassign 5 SCV to your expo and reset your rally point to expo.
The two gold minerals gets mined out, revealing 3 gold 3 blue minerals, where you now reassign rally point to the gold mineral....etc
------------
Why complicate it? Why make complicated solutions to simple problems?
Its as complicated as the map maker wants to make it. Like I said, most people can just play with one line of blue minerals and call it a day.
Thats like asking why make maps like Troy or Monty Hall or Plasma. Why don't we all play Hunters or Python and call it a day?
|
its novel, but it adds a lot of complexity. Anything that tries to make up for SBS->MBS that adds complexity isnt really going to work out imo.
Its like they changed SBS to MBS to make it easier/less complex for noobs, and then you replace it with a system that just adds the complexity/difficulty back in another form.
|
these complex solutions are really dumb. This solution is actually incredibly elegant and streamlined.
|
On January 12 2009 10:53 SWPIGWANG wrote:Its as complicated as the map maker wants to make it. Like I said, most people can just play with one line of blue minerals and call it a day. Thats like asking why make maps like Troy or Monty Hall or Plasma. Why don't we all play Hunters or Python and call it a day?
Um...no one plays troy and plasma. They have been out of the leagues for a while now and aren't coming back. The only successful map out of those three was Monty Hall.
Maps like (Neo) Requiem and Blue Storm are more successful as innovative maps than Troy, Plasma, and Monty Hall combined. Blue Storm is better than those three without using mineral walls, closable paths, or egg walls.
|
its novel, but it adds a lot of complexity. Anything that tries to make up for SBS->MBS that adds complexity isnt really going to work out imo.
It is not a necessary mechanic. Just have a line of blue minerals for the least complicated mechanics. Than have gold-blue mixed minerals for something that is closer to existing manual mine complexity. Than have brown-gold for something that result in even higher rewards. Only if that is not complicated enough than do we add blocked mineral timings.
Um...no one plays troy and plasma. They have been out of the leagues for a while now and aren't coming back.
Professional gaming is dynamic and interesting in large part due to constant stream of new maps, some of which obviously would fail.
Given those tools, players and map makers would find the balance between complexity, race balance and strategy. Even if it does result in some unbalanced maps, it is fun to learn those maps and watch them being played while we figure them out.
|
Ooh, I like this idea alot
|
On January 12 2009 11:24 GhostKorean wrote:
Ooh, I like this idea alot
Me too.
And it's not complex at all. It just takes something that's already there and expands it a bit.
|
I think its a good idea. It doesn't "make up" for anything....its just a way to make a map more micro or macro oriented. Even SC1 could benefit from this.
|
|
|
Creative thinking SWIPIGWANG. I actually see a lot of potential in your theorycrafting ability as soon as you get over your hang up about automining.
Your trying to solve the question "How do I undo automing?"
You should be trying to solve the quesiton " How do I make a fun macro mechanic?"
Focus on fun rather then fighting something in the game and I am sure we will see some interesting mechanics out of you.
|
it's a good idea, especially in early game, but when it gets to late game, your not gonna focus on re-assigning probes, but your'e going to have to start micro'ing/moving your guys.
|
i think the different color mineral patches is too confusing, i think they just made things more complicated for the noobs for sc2 when they could make it simple with just make your workers work! i mean of course if you don't have automine and noob forgets about their workers they are punished by not getting more minerals than they could've potentially have, but its the same way if you dont mine effeciently if you just automine, so you reward the other players who remember to mine the correct patches at right time, but then thats the new bar, that practically teh same thing as not having your worker mine maybe to a less extent but still basically the same. XD
|
I think we just have to face it... The Macro won't be as important as in SC/BW... Well it will be as important but it will be way easyer to be good at it... But on the oderhand it seems to me as if flanking and stuff like this will be more important. I feel that frontal assaults will be way less effective due to many Units which are hard to attack if they don't really want to fight you or which are devastating if they can attack you in a good angle.
|
Superb idea.. very clever. I like the simplicity, it is all very in your face, but the intricacies can go very deep. Although I think mineral trickery like described in the op will be applied very limitted in competetive maps, they can be applied and give a map a strong identity and bring variation.
Second thoughts... super high yield minerals may invoke a positive feedback loop.. although proper map design can negate this somewhat. But the stronger army can defend 'maynarding' workers more easily in any case. Terran will have more difficulty defending long distance SCV's because of their less mobile units. Hmm.. has to see this idea in action I say.
I am thinking of dropship-SCV action.. haha. bank robberies..
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
