|
On August 01 2015 22:54 mishimaBeef wrote: why don't you just flip a coin and not bother playing? these extreme arguments are nonsense... similar to how people complained automine, multiple building selection and unlimited unit selection would dumb down the game... but it still seems pretty hard to me... oh right my opponent gets those things too
Claiming that theres no strategy involved in Larva inject is to me extreme nonsense.
|
On August 01 2015 18:44 HellHound wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2015 18:40 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 01 2015 17:48 NEEDZMOAR wrote: So throw the game back a few steps. I have personally always hated the 12 worker start as it makes it more difficullt to scout with overlords and makes for more RNG. I heavily dislike the minerals that forces expanding (why not make expanding a strategic choice rather than something forced upon players). Personally I believe people will get bored of the shrinking amount of strategic choices once the "honeymoon"phase is over.
Macro mechanics are important for the game to keep some of its multitasking and mechanical skillcap (which is something I personally enjoy very much both watching and playing) as well as the strategic depth it offers.
Macro mechanics add no strategic depth. When should you not inject? Never. It adds mechanical requirements and zero strategy. Should I inject first or spread overlords to spot drops should i spread overlord or focus on injects muta harrass should I focus on hitting injects or spreading more creep
If you don't inject regularly at higher levels you lose, plain and simple. You can't delay your mechanic like terran or protoss, zerg has been balanced around high level zergs getting nearly every inject down perfectly, because those were the games that made an imbalance look biggest. The inject has only ever been a mechanical addition with no strategy involved, if you miss it, you fall behind in drones in the early game, or army units in the early or mid game. A missed inject can completely screw any chances of making or defending a timing attack. Only time it doesn't matter as much is late game, where timings don't have to be perfect, but most of the game the decision making you indicated isn't present, it's really just, "I have to drop what I'm doing and nail these injects every 40 seconds".
|
there's about as much strategy in the *execution* of a larva inject as there is in the execution of a command telling a fresh worker to go mine minerals
the *decision* whether to larva inject or spread creep, as far as i can tell is still going to be in the game
|
On August 01 2015 23:47 SebCS wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2015 18:44 HellHound wrote:On August 01 2015 18:40 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 01 2015 17:48 NEEDZMOAR wrote: So throw the game back a few steps. I have personally always hated the 12 worker start as it makes it more difficullt to scout with overlords and makes for more RNG. I heavily dislike the minerals that forces expanding (why not make expanding a strategic choice rather than something forced upon players). Personally I believe people will get bored of the shrinking amount of strategic choices once the "honeymoon"phase is over.
Macro mechanics are important for the game to keep some of its multitasking and mechanical skillcap (which is something I personally enjoy very much both watching and playing) as well as the strategic depth it offers.
Macro mechanics add no strategic depth. When should you not inject? Never. It adds mechanical requirements and zero strategy. Should I inject first or spread overlords to spot drops should i spread overlord or focus on injects muta harrass should I focus on hitting injects or spreading more creep If you don't inject regularly at higher levels you lose, plain and simple. You can't delay your mechanic like terran or protoss, zerg has been balanced around high level zergs getting nearly every inject down perfectly, because those were the games that made an imbalance look biggest. The inject has only ever been a mechanical addition with no strategy involved, if you miss it, you fall behind in drones in the early game, or army units in the early or mid game. A missed inject can completely screw any chances of making or defending a timing attack. Only time it doesn't matter as much is late game, where timings don't have to be perfect, but most of the game the decision making you indicated isn't present, it's really just, "I have to drop what I'm doing and nail these injects every 40 seconds".
Not true, in plenty of builds you dont inject every 25th energy, just as you dont chrono the same thing with every build.
|
On August 01 2015 23:47 SebCS wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2015 18:44 HellHound wrote:On August 01 2015 18:40 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 01 2015 17:48 NEEDZMOAR wrote: So throw the game back a few steps. I have personally always hated the 12 worker start as it makes it more difficullt to scout with overlords and makes for more RNG. I heavily dislike the minerals that forces expanding (why not make expanding a strategic choice rather than something forced upon players). Personally I believe people will get bored of the shrinking amount of strategic choices once the "honeymoon"phase is over.
Macro mechanics are important for the game to keep some of its multitasking and mechanical skillcap (which is something I personally enjoy very much both watching and playing) as well as the strategic depth it offers.
Macro mechanics add no strategic depth. When should you not inject? Never. It adds mechanical requirements and zero strategy. Should I inject first or spread overlords to spot drops should i spread overlord or focus on injects muta harrass should I focus on hitting injects or spreading more creep If you don't inject regularly at higher levels you lose, plain and simple. You can't delay your mechanic like terran or protoss, zerg has been balanced around high level zergs getting nearly every inject down perfectly, because those were the games that made an imbalance look biggest. The inject has only ever been a mechanical addition with no strategy involved, if you miss it, you fall behind in drones in the early game, or army units in the early or mid game. A missed inject can completely screw any chances of making or defending a timing attack. Only time it doesn't matter as much is late game, where timings don't have to be perfect, but most of the game the decision making you indicated isn't present, it's really just, "I have to drop what I'm doing and nail these injects every 40 seconds". Even among the extreme top zergs there are no zergs who don't miss injects (soO/Dark are the closest to perfect) It's not because they forget about them but because looking away for the 0.5 sec it takes them could make them lose the game.
|
On August 01 2015 23:49 mishimaBeef wrote: there's about as much strategy in the *execution* of a larva inject as there is in the execution of a command telling a fresh worker to go mine minerals
the *decision* whether to larva inject or spread creep, as far as i can tell is still going to be in the game wat There is no strategy in the execution of anything execution falls under tactics AKA doing things right.
|
there is a strategy in planning your multitask cycle
|
On August 01 2015 19:05 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2015 18:44 HellHound wrote:On August 01 2015 18:40 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 01 2015 17:48 NEEDZMOAR wrote: So throw the game back a few steps. I have personally always hated the 12 worker start as it makes it more difficullt to scout with overlords and makes for more RNG. I heavily dislike the minerals that forces expanding (why not make expanding a strategic choice rather than something forced upon players). Personally I believe people will get bored of the shrinking amount of strategic choices once the "honeymoon"phase is over.
Macro mechanics are important for the game to keep some of its multitasking and mechanical skillcap (which is something I personally enjoy very much both watching and playing) as well as the strategic depth it offers.
Macro mechanics add no strategic depth. When should you not inject? Never. It adds mechanical requirements and zero strategy. Should I inject first or spread overlords to spot drops should i spread overlord or focus on injects muta harrass should I focus on hitting injects or spreading more creep The answer to each of your questions is inject. It goes so far that it may sometimes be better to eat devastating mine shots on your banelings and inject than to eat mediocre mineshots and inject 10seconds late.
I'm afraid these people are right. If you have unlimited APM, larva inject is not strategic. It is always, always better to hit every inject. Larva injects only becomes "strategic" when you do not have enough APM to dedicate to doing everything.
Even if you do not have enough APM, 9/10 times you should focus on macro. Here is an example.
You harass your opponent with a reaper and kill 2 workers. However, you forgot to make workers at home and you have 2 bases. Depending on how long you spent your time micro-ing your reaper, you could've missed making 2-4 workers. You would be better off focusing on macro.
However, there is strategic decisions being made for mules and chronoboost because there are other options. For Zerg players, these options also exist (transfuse, creep tumour). The solution is to make extra queens so these options are irrelevant. You can do them all.
|
On August 02 2015 00:09 cywinr wrote:However, there is strategic decisions being made for mules and chronoboost because there are other options. For Zerg players, these options also exist (transfuse, creep tumour). The solution is to make extra queens so these options are irrelevant. You can do them all. It is a decision in the early game. Making an extra queen requires resources you could have put into two drones instead.
I really hope they don't outright remove macro mechanics from the game.
Sniping queens is a strategic choice, especially when considering whether the Zerg's strategy is larva-heavy (the Zerg player needs to realise this as well and take precautions accordingly, rebuild lost queens). Chronoboost is strategic in being able to prioritise different options (tech/economy/units). Choosing between scan and mules is strategic, even for the opponent in case of invisible units. Removing mules could completely eliminate DTs from PvT (they already rarely work) and change all of Terran's interactions with invisible/burrowed units.
Should it be toned down? Maybe. I find myself overwhelmed by Zerg injects on many bases, but I'm also not a very good multi-tasker in general. In terms of viewer-experience, I usually only closely follow injects/larvae counts when either a ling-heavy strategy is employed or the intention is to remax after losing the entire army. Other than that I would somewhat agree that macro mechanics aren't necessarily that visible to the viewer, but I'm not sure that is enough of a reason to remove them or deemphasize them heavily. Lots of small things are only visible when looked at closely.
|
Meh, this change goes through and I'm done.
I'm so tired of every game developer being hellbent on making their games easier. That crap butchered Elder Scrolls, World of Warcraft, and even the Soul series. Starcraft was the ONE game that didn't cater to scrubs, and now they want to make it even easier, even though they made SC2 far easier than BW?
Scrubs have every other game on the market, let us have SC2.
|
On August 01 2015 18:40 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2015 17:48 NEEDZMOAR wrote: So throw the game back a few steps. I have personally always hated the 12 worker start as it makes it more difficullt to scout with overlords and makes for more RNG. I heavily dislike the minerals that forces expanding (why not make expanding a strategic choice rather than something forced upon players). Personally I believe people will get bored of the shrinking amount of strategic choices once the "honeymoon"phase is over.
Macro mechanics are important for the game to keep some of its multitasking and mechanical skillcap (which is something I personally enjoy very much both watching and playing) as well as the strategic depth it offers.
Macro mechanics add no strategic depth. When should you not inject? Never. It adds mechanical requirements and zero strategy.
That's an interesting comment.
When should I not inject?
Well, when I'm playing against a FFE, I'll sac my second inject from my second queen to drop a tumour. Why? The creep connecting the natural to third helps defend any all in immensely. At the same time, if I'm doing a timing, I want that inject.
Hell, during a normal game you always have to decide if you want to inject, or watch you army/mutas/whatever. In the late game, your extra hatcheries actually make up for late injects. You have to decide if you need to larva at any given moment, because transitioning into the late game is rough for zerg. If you blindly move your mutas across the map, and go inject, you're probably going to lose half your mutas.
I will agree that for maybe the first 10 minutes (hots), injects are more-or-less a no question ability. After that, it's more of a "can I get away with putting my attention to injects?".
That said, there are pros that have flawless injects regardless - and they shine because of it. Similar to how scarlett's creep spread gave her such huge advantages in her games. At the same time, you have people like Stephano who can forgo injects for insane engagements later in the game, and it will prove them the victor.
I firmly believe inject is a pretty deep ability that has a huge subtle affect to the game, at any level where muscle memory starts to take effect. (Around gold league?)
|
On August 01 2015 18:40 paralleluniverse wrote: Macro mechanics add no strategic depth. When should you not inject? Never.
Not true. There are a number of builds that require a decision between putting down a creep tumor early on or injecting. An extra inject during those timings gives you larvae that you can't spend for approximately 30 seconds. This is based off of HOTS timings that I know really well, but I know from playing LOTV, too, that there are some points where it's the same.
|
The problem with Inject is 1. it is not spammable (unlike MULE or Chronoboost) 2. Queen energy has limited other uses (Creep tumors are good, but not too many are necessary/useful... it becomes more a matter of timing the tumor spread).. they are necessary at some points, but not at enough points
So I'd suggest Inject only takes 5 seconds to produce larva Costs 50 energy produces 2-5 larva (balance)
And a Hatchery can only have a max of 3-8 larva (instead of 19)
So queens are used for rapid remaxing instead of continuous production...ie queen energy is where you store larva.
So Queen macro would be inject.. build inject build inject build when you have extra resources... otherwise you just use hatcheries.
|
I am all for removing the mechanic.
Not to dumb down the game, but by removing the mechanic, the game will become easier to balance across all levels of play
However, If they do so, I think they need to add something else to the game. I am not sure what.... something that will allow top level pros to differentiate themselves from the semi-pros, who are better than diamond scrubs like myself etc.
maybe they could make different "mechanics" which give you benefits, but not in a direct engagement kind of way. example could be zerg has creep tumors which gives them more vision. The tumors could come from the hatchery not the queen.
Terran has Scanning
protoss could have hallucinate moved to the nexus.
These mechanics could be gained as an upgrade. hence, high level players can use them to be highly effective and will be needed to play at the highest level, lower level players can ignore this and still have a good time.
|
The more I play Beta the more I am seriously despising this 12 worker thing, ZvZ is just auto ling bling wars hatch first is borderline unviable and it's just AGGRESSION right from the get go.
This isn't how Starcraft is played, defensive macro openings need to be viable for aggressive choices to be interesting at all.
It's time to start tinkering with starting worker numbers, I think going down to 10 or even 8 would be sooo much better. The pace of the early game needs to SLOOOW DOWN.
|
This thread makes a good point, but such changes will basicaly reset SC2 development so far. Blizz will have to start balacing the game from the beggining again, seeing if the worker production is balanced between races and etc, and then moving to balance every aspect of the matches. It would take so long to do this and in don't think they want or even can do it.
Also, lowering the worker count will only cause like 1 minute delay in game. As it develops, people will have to expand fast and take care of all expos the same way. And then what? Increase the mineral count again and go back to boring turtle games?
I don't think there's a solution for this. SC2 engine is just too modern to be like BW, where the game is slow paced but hard to execute.
|
I don't understand why every single task in sc2 has to be highly strategic. I would agree that it might be a good idea to slow down the macro as a whole, but removing mechanics is a thing i don't want for starcraft.
|
Why stop with injections?
Let's remove worker production as well. Bases automatically produce workers until they are capped. You can call me a troll for this but this hatred on the Macro game all of the sudden is making me sick, and I can just see blizzard flushing this game down the toilet with this suggestion.
Starcraft 2 is addicting because it is very difficult. I will never understand why Blizzard makes such great games, and they feel the need to dumb it down after its huge success. They did the same thing with World of Warcraft after the second expansion and lost half of their subscribers as a result. People like a challenge, and if you are advocating for the removal of Inject you are a bad player, be offended and play devils advocate all you want but it's the truth. I'm a Diamond Zerg and I love looking at my replays and knowing that I had Macrod a bit better I would have beat that Masters player.
I have loved Legacy, the 12 worker thing has been great in my opinion, the caster units are becoming a bit numerous but I haven't minded them to much. This move to remove Injects has nothing to do with watching Pro players and seeing how well they are injecting, it's to dumb down this game in an attempt to make it appeal to lesser players. It's a bad move and it's going to cost this game a big percentage of it's loyal fan base.
|
On August 03 2015 05:49 L3x_Luthor wrote: if you are advocating for the removal of Inject you are a bad player, be offended and play devils advocate all you want but it's the truth. This sentence made your whole post insignificant.
|
On August 01 2015 18:44 HellHound wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2015 18:40 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 01 2015 17:48 NEEDZMOAR wrote: So throw the game back a few steps. I have personally always hated the 12 worker start as it makes it more difficullt to scout with overlords and makes for more RNG. I heavily dislike the minerals that forces expanding (why not make expanding a strategic choice rather than something forced upon players). Personally I believe people will get bored of the shrinking amount of strategic choices once the "honeymoon"phase is over.
Macro mechanics are important for the game to keep some of its multitasking and mechanical skillcap (which is something I personally enjoy very much both watching and playing) as well as the strategic depth it offers.
Macro mechanics add no strategic depth. When should you not inject? Never. It adds mechanical requirements and zero strategy. Should I inject first or spread overlords to spot drops should i spread overlord or focus on injects muta harrass should I focus on hitting injects or spreading more creep
i think the answer is all above
|
|
|
|