EPTThe Curious Case of soO's Macro Mechanics - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
SetGuitarsToKill
Canada28396 Posts
| ||
|
Yorkie
United States12612 Posts
I did too but I was actually reading it while listening to the cast of the first game in the background, hearing the crispiness of soO's injects rather than seeing them. Since it didn't take me the full 20 minutes to finish reading I hadn't checked the second game yet  | ||
|
Ej_
47656 Posts
| ||
|
JamesT
United States681 Posts
Oddly enough, I did read the article, very well written, maybe did a little too much of hammering that something integral to the game doesn't have to be the most fun thing ever. I personally love having a bunch of larva at all my hatches to make a massive tech switch into something completely random. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On August 04 2015 03:39 Yorkie wrote: I love when people invoke the phrase "strawman argument" without actually knowing what it means and acting like it's a trump card to pull in internet arguments. The first half are Stuchiu's personal responses to blizzard's own statements on why they feel macro mechanics should be removed First part he breakes down the article into parts and argues against them. First quote stuchiu argues against the phrase "difficult to manage but aren’t really easily noticeable" by providing insight how you can note missed injects. That's an argument against it being "impossible to notice", not against it being "difficult" to notice. It also leaves out all the possibilities of multiple queens injecting the same hatchery (e.g. if you have 3queens on 2bases...). Second part of the breakdown: The opponent isn’t supposed to know what you’re doing. That’s the entire point of fog of war and limited information. Typical strawman. Trying to make it look as if DK wants the opponent to know without scouting, which is simply not what the statement Further, my opponent really has no idea how well I’m doing it either. implies. | ||
|
Koivusto
Finland542 Posts
 I'm up for giving macro mechanics more depth and choices anytime, would be really interesting to see what blizz suggests. If the argument "it's not visible" sticks, blizz can patch up the queen in a way that every time it injects: Fireworks | ||
|
hitpoint
United States1511 Posts
Anyway, cool article. | ||
|
Footler
United States560 Posts
I'm not saying I agree with the idea of removing the macro mechanics but many of things Blizzard stated are actually arguments for removing them. You just don't agree with them. Personally, I think they should stay and that unit design needs to be looked at but that's an entirely different topic. | ||
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19137 Posts
| ||
|
MrMischelito
347 Posts
On August 04 2015 03:02 stuchiu wrote: It is important to note that attention as a limited resource also applies to terran and protoss. [...] The impact of changing macro mechanics on attention as a limited resource should also be discussed — how players manage their attention and how they try to dictate how their opponent manages theirs — because it is subtly one of the most interesting things about Starcraft strategy. it is actually the main fun for me to distract the opponent(s) while balancing at the same time with being distracted myself from macroing in my own base! | ||
|
Sholip
Hungary422 Posts
It's a shame, though, that the article is biased in favor of the macro mechanics. I don't say it would have been easy to stay neutral about the case, but it would be nice to see someone from the TL staff write such an article from the other perspective. Also, this. On August 04 2015 03:35 Big J wrote: Although not with this exact wording, I was going to say the same thing myself.I guess I'm not gonna make a lot of friends here, but the first part of the article is a crap-pile of strawmen that made me stop reading, but one thing I can't get around to respond to is this sentence: Well, it fucking is. It is a fucking game. It is the best fucking argument you can bring for or against a feature of a game. Maybe not on its own because you very well go on to argue why the not fun part can improve the the game overall, but in essence if you were to made a pro/contra-list for a feature the very first question you should ask "is this thing fun?". It's a damn good argument. You may be able to overrule it by considering the overall picture, but you can't just wipe it off the table. | ||
|
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
| ||
|
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19137 Posts
On August 04 2015 03:50 Big J wrote: First part he breakes down the article into parts and argues against them. First quote stuchiu argues against the phrase "difficult to manage but aren’t really easily noticeable" by providing insight how you can note missed injects. That's an argument against it being "impossible to notice", not against it being "difficult" to notice. It also leaves out all the possibilities of multiple queens injecting the same hatchery (e.g. if you have 3queens on 2bases...). Second part of the breakdown: Typical strawman. Trying to make it look as if DK wants the opponent to know without scouting, which is simply not what the statement implies. Don't argue with the OP unless you take the time to read their whole argument. Claiming the intro pissed you off so much you couldn't read the rest is such a cop out. Why are you posting here if you don't read all the information from the writer before developing well informed responses. It illegitimizes everything you post. Additionally: Is it worth nit picking at how the write phrased a few sentences instead of discussing the importance of the macro mechanics in question? These discussion should be fun even if you don't agree. Reread the article, smile, and enjoy the opportunity to debate such a fantastic topic! | ||
|
midnight999
United States257 Posts
As an aside, TL has been a bit vocal against Blizzard, hasn't it? Or is it just me? | ||
|
mishimaBeef
Canada2259 Posts
Calling upon the words of Pascal: "I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time." | ||
|
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19137 Posts
On August 04 2015 04:02 Sholip wrote: Nice writeup, although I disagree with a lot of things. At this point, though, it seems that about half of the community does not want changes because they are happy with what they got (used to), and the other half wants a change because they find macro mechanics tiring/not fun. Not that it's a problem, but it seems neither side can convince the other with any amount of arguments. It's a shame, though, that the article is biased in favor of the macro mechanics. I don't say it would have been easy to stay neutral about the case, but it would be nice to see someone from the TL staff write such an article from the other perspective. Also, this. Although not with this exact wording, I was going to say the same thing myself. I'm not sure anyone on staff shares that perspective. Maybe someone who is good at Devil's Advocate could try it. | ||
|
HaRuHi
1220 Posts
The second argument is that mechanics—and therefore macro-mechanics—play too large a part in a player's victory or defeat in a game that's supposed to be about strategy. This is only true if there is a large disparity between player skill. Isn't that what Blizzard tries to cater to, hence the phrase Ease of accessability? Because what if there is a large disparity between player skill, yet you both are ranked the same? You might be in Platin and think you do everything right, your opponent also Platin seems to lose every battle, yet he overcomes you by cheer numbers. For a non-casual it is time to start looking if he might focuses on the wrong aspect of the game, for gold-league Claire, it becomes a guessing game of why she lost certain games, while seemingly crushed through others. When the game is concentrated on one part alone, then even Silver-leage Larry knows how to improve (removing the fog of war above the nebolous concept of time-management). I do not want Blizzard to cater to filthy casuals, but Blizzard really wants to, I think your post dodges this critical point, what about Silver-league Larry? | ||
|
imre
France9263 Posts
| ||
|
Superbanana
2369 Posts
On August 04 2015 03:35 Big J wrote: I guess I'm not gonna make a lot of friends here, but the first part of the article is a crap-pile of strawmen that made me stop reading, but one thing I can't get around to respond to is this sentence: Well, it fucking is. It is a fucking game. It is the best fucking argument you can bring for or against a feature of a game. Maybe not on its own because you very well go on to argue why the not fun part can improve the the game overall, but in essence if you were to made a pro/contra-list for a feature the very first question you should ask "is this thing fun?". It's a damn good argument. You may be able to overrule it by considering the overall picture, but you can't just wipe it off the table. Yes, that was the first thing that came to my mind when i read that part. "Not fun" is a pretty good reason to remove some build/unit/playstyle from the game. What makes the DT rush ok is the fact that its actually fun. Its "not fun" when its frustrating, but that is a part of competitive games. Its fun to defend it, knowing it could be DTs makes it more exciting, same goes for pretty much any cheese. Inperfect information is a big part of the game, i would hate to know the exact number of larvae my zerg opponent have. I would hate if every terran maxed out at 12 because everyone have perfect mechanics (if they are removed). Imagine how f*cking boring zerg would be without creep spread and larvae injects. Nobody can do it perfectly and still fight, scout and think about the right moves, and thats how i like it. I always mess up my injects and my creep spread halts during fights, the idea of improving that makes me click the play button. Part of the fun of watching pro games is to see all the macro going on even with all the action in the middle of the map. Altough micro is prolly the best part what makes SC2 is the multitask. Making decisions, scouting, macroing and fighting. As the article says, macro mechanics can be fun too when its put in the game context. A larvae inject mini-game is not fun, but in SC2 it is. To be honest, if i wanted a fight RTS i would play Heroes of the Storm because the fights are more fun, and if i wanted a strategy game i would play civilization or chess because the strategy is deeper (in my opinion, and yes, i do play those games). I like SC2 because its a lot of stuff working together, mechanical precision included. edit: to sum it up, i completely agree. edit2: some people suggested improvements for this aspect of the game and thats what blizz should have in mind. | ||
|
Sholip
Hungary422 Posts
On August 04 2015 04:08 BisuDagger wrote: I'm not sure anyone on staff shares that perspective. Maybe someone who is good at Devil's Advocate could try it. Really? That's unfortunate. I mean, I could write an article myself but I'm afraid it would not have the same weight as an "official" TL writeup. I think a lot of people will now remember, "Ah yes, that debate. Even the TL staff themselves were against the changes." If someone from TL could show the other side of the coin, that might get people to actually think instead of blindly clinging to their own opinions they formed immediately after the topic was brought up. Also, I think it would be a pretty good trend for the future to write double critics like in case of some film reviews, coming with two texts from people with generally opposing ideas. | ||
| ||
