Contrary to the common sense I would like to argue that removal of macro mechanics does not make the game easier to play. Yes, the mechanical skill check has been removed, but all around people are failing to see the big picture, which has made the game actually harder to play in my opinion than the other way around.
Due to the maxing out being infinitely more harder in LotV than HotS the preservation of units has become a lot more important. Before sending thousands of minerals worth of hellions around the map on suicide missions was a great move, you didn't really lose anything by doing it. Now these units are going to be missing from the most important battles of the game if you do not control them well enough. Where as you can't really impact the opponents usage of macro mechanics that much during the game now there is added value in microing your units better and committing to smarter harass.
If the choice is between mastering mechanical clicking and actually playing the game better from the tactical/strategical point of view, I think we should go for the latter.
Now the tech switches and keeping up with what your opponent is doing are also way more important, because you can't simply instantly remax out of thousand production facilities on the minerals you have banked since you hit 200/200. I think understanding the game better, and being able to figure out what your opponent is doing is harder than mastering mechanical clicking.
As such I conclude that the macro mechanics should not be brought back in a half-assed way that lowers the skill ceiling all around the game. There is no more mechanical skill requirement and the units will be less valuable again. -> Worst of both worlds for many of the RTS fans in a long run in my opinion.
P.S The current build makes the game better for inexperienced e-sports viewers. Resource collection rate based on two variables number of bases and number of workers is much easier to follow than a myriad MULE HAMMER econ. (Ie. it is easier to understand who is winning the game)
No more deathball means there are less non-sensical sacrificial units that do not impact the result of the game if they die. (Hey, that guy has lost 30 hellions during the game, but now he won the game because it all came to one 200 vs 200 stand off. I don't understaaaaaand).
Unit preservation being more important means also that the harass has become slightly more riskier and has more impact on the game. This is easier to understand from the viewer POV.
As the Starcraft 2 viewership has declined from the days of glory I can see the value of making the game easier to follow. I wouldn't want to play or watch a game where I don't have the smallest understanding of why somebody won the game. These changes to the core of the game just might be enough to persuade more players to watch and try the game.
U are claiming "Removal of Macro lowers skill ceiling - Myth", but
1. 70% of ur post is about that macro mechanics are not required anymore due to other stuff (micro, etc) and how this affects the viewership
2. U cannot say it is a myth, cuz it's not. If the absence of something does not make a difference, than that means it is basically "nothing". But adding this "nothing" leads to a harder game, which means that this "nothing" basically has a value. In other words: Having MM will always increase the skill ceiling, cuz u will have more to do. NOT having it will decrease it. Simple as that.
Thus it makes the game easier to play. However the core point is that the game has become harder overall. But saying the removal of MM will not affect the skill ceiling is simply not true.
On August 30 2015 20:22 Phaenoman wrote: U are claiming "Removal of Macro lowers skill ceiling - Myth", but
1. 70% of ur post is about that macro mechanics are not required anymore due to other stuff (micro, etc) and how this affects the viewership
2. U cannot say it is a myth, cuz it's not. If the absence of something does not make a difference, than that means it is basically "nothing". But adding this "nothing" leads to a harder game, which means that this "nothing" has basically a value. In other words: Having MM will always increase the skillceiling, cuz u will have more to do. NOT having it will decrease it. Simple as that.
Thus it makes the game easier to play. However the core point is that the game has become harder overall. But saying the removal of MM will not affect the skill ceilling is simply not true.
You are not following my post. I am arguing that the lower economy will make the decision making harder and the microing so much less unforgiving that the actual skill ceiling is higher without macro boosters because unlike macro boosters, the preservation of units / decision making is affected by your opponents micro and decision making.
You would be right if we scaled economy to match the lack of macro boosters, but currently we are strictly speaking about what kind of impact the removal of macro boosters had on the actual gameplay. The game would be of course harder if we scaled the economy to the current level with macro boosters INCLUDED, but here the change is more dynamical. The loss of economy impacts other areas of the game so much that I believe the actual skill ceiling is higher even tho the mechanical requirements were lowered.
for me i would sooner see some micro boss controlling 2 sets of vacs (or insert army type here) . .x 4, over different areas of the map than do what happening now, not missing their mechanic, enabling them to power out a composition and then move it as one across the map. Oh look, mines either bigger than yours or more effective. of course there are micro moves which happen but hey even i can cntrl click my corruptors to target the colls . .wow.
Id like to see the player that plays the game I THINK blizzard envisions. Little areas of, fighting, harassment, call it what you will. Its happened against me a few times this beta, when i say few i mean like 3. Then im like . . if everyone played like this . . id probably quit as its much easier to ball an army and send it across the map and at this stage of life i really havent the time. Oh wait, but macro mechanics made this a really hard game. Well, considering the above i dont think looking at an area and pressing 2 buttons every 17 seconds or so is harder than that. Lets face it, you could just runa beep timer while you play and u would never miss. (im sure most people are doing this anyway but we dont say these things out loud do we)
can we stop with the whining for a while. we are in beta, let them try things out. for me its a welcome refresh rather than in hots atm everyone is doing the same push, same everything. I lose a bit of excitement a bit when i hear oh, hes doing build x, build y this is build z. To me this isnt strategy, becuase my strategy now for this game is to meet it with X. Lets not forget, they did create the game. Does everyone forget this. Blizzard will deliver a great game like they do time and time again.
Macro mechanics are : - part of what makes the three races so different to play - a way to catch up so that worker loss isn't a death sentence
In the case of the inject and the chronoboost, I agree that the spells HAVE to be casted. There's no choice. So give people a choice, don't cut the macro mechanics.
On August 30 2015 20:22 Phaenoman wrote: U are claiming "Removal of Macro lowers skill ceiling - Myth", but
1. 70% of ur post is about that macro mechanics are not required anymore due to other stuff (micro, etc) and how this affects the viewership
2. U cannot say it is a myth, cuz it's not. If the absence of something does not make a difference, than that means it is basically "nothing". But adding this "nothing" leads to a harder game, which means that this "nothing" has basically a value. In other words: Having MM will always increase the skillceiling, cuz u will have more to do. NOT having it will decrease it. Simple as that.
Thus it makes the game easier to play. However the core point is that the game has become harder overall. But saying the removal of MM will not affect the skill ceilling is simply not true.
You are not following my post. I am arguing that the lower economy will make the decision making harder and the microing so much less unforgiving that the actual skill ceiling is higher without macro boosters because unlike macro boosters, the preservation of units / decision making is affected by your opponents micro and decision making.
You would be right if we scaled economy to match the lack of macro boosters, but currently we are strictly speaking about what kind of impact the removal of macro boosters had on the actual gameplay. The game would be of course harder if we scaled the economy to the current level with macro boosters INCLUDED, but here the change is more dynamical. The loss of economy impacts other areas of the game so much that I believe the actual skill ceiling is higher even tho the mechanical requirements were lowered.
OK now I think I understand what u are trying to tell. I was not talking about the economy boosting part of the mechanics, rather the decision making and the mechanical requirements they add. Tho I do know that Mule, Chrono and Inject do include boosting as well (what I do not enjoy very much)
On August 30 2015 20:53 JackONeill wrote: Macro mechanics are : - part of what makes the three races so different to play - a way to catch up so that worker loss isn't a death sentence
In the case of the inject and the chronoboost, I agree that the spells HAVE to be casted. There's no choice. So give people a choice, don't cut the macro mechanics.
-The three races are sufficiently different to play without macro boosters. Broodwar did not have macro boosters and no one can argue that the races were too similar to play.
-The way to catch up is also the way to power out a deathball, which is inherently bad for the game. The game is more interesting if there are other ways to catch up. Tho, I think the harass needs to be toned down a little so that it's not actually that game ending. Maybe a buff to worker health would be required for the current build.
On August 30 2015 20:53 JackONeill wrote: Macro mechanics are : - part of what makes the three races so different to play - a way to catch up so that worker loss isn't a death sentence
In the case of the inject and the chronoboost, I agree that the spells HAVE to be casted. There's no choice. So give people a choice, don't cut the macro mechanics.
-Races should not be unique based on the economy. It should be on their tech and units. Not how their economy works.
-The idea of mass worker kills comes from the retarded OP worker harassment methods. Such as the Oracles and WM. Also the fact that bases requires 16+6 worker to saturate minerals means a lot of workers will be at a single base. If we made them around 8-10+6 workers at each base, that damage will be reduced in total as it will be easier to remake them. One other issue (guess no one else seeing it as issue) is the 2 gases per base makes 6 workers to optimize it. I hope one day 2 workers to saturate the gas gets tested. The main point of this is to reduce the # of workers per base, thus each harass attack won't lead to 20+ worker death when there is no macro mechanics to cover for your lack of skill to protect them.
BW-style economy and weaker warp gate are very good for the game. However, auto-inject on queens makes their macro incredibly easy and the skill ceiling on economy and base management, especially for zerg, needs to be increased.
I think you are mixing two different things. The nerf of macro-mechanics, which indeed makes the game less forgiving and for which I think most people are open to, and the casualisation of the game by making these macro mechanics autocast.
Nothing would prevent Blizzard to nerfs inject the way they did, i.e. less larva per inject, but without auto-cast abilities.
Starcarft is a game of balance between macro mechanics and micro mechanics. Since they added new units and new abilities that force you to micro more, to keep the game at the same level of difficulty they remove macro mechanics. But by doing that, they destroy the balance between micro and macro, especially for Zerg player, for which the macro management has been made ridiculously easy.
I'm still stunned there's even a debate about this. Everyone agrees macro mechanics could be IMPROVED, particularly by adding better choices between alternative uses for the same energy, more like terran has with MULE and scan. However removing them entirely is an overaggressive and pointless move while automating them..... that just brings sick to my mouth.
The lategame issues can likewise be resolved just by tweaking or replacing the mechanics rather than removing them. Consider for example the effects of a SCV move speed AoE spell rather than a MULE.
You would still require workers on minerals lategame to receive this buff (thus helping the current terran lategame problems), the movement speed coupled with how mining works would not scale beyond a maximum cap allowing it to be balanced effectively just on the moment modifier. Unlike the current MULE it could not be spammed out in one go, it could be used as a defensive ability to help workers escape from drops etc.
This is just one suggestion of the sort of thing I mean. Find ways to make macro mechanics better, don't remove them.
As for protoss, chrono and its timing reliance, I think it's more to do with warp gate and protoss' super fast teching layout than chrono, chrono just exacerbates the effects of the existing design layout. Removing chrono probably would make protoss less "cheesy", however that is due to protoss being structured as a "cheesy" race initially and chrono boost helping them push this to further extremes.
If protoss had slightly slower tech and a more stable setup of gateway units and early tech units it would allow chrono to be implemented without an issue, fixing a bunch of other issues in the process like the MSC reliance etc.
Add in all the usual points about warpin being inferior to normal production for mass production of units, warp gate not just being superior to gateways in all regards and warp gate being an alternative slower production with the "deep strike" advantage.
Adding more choice to the game while preserving balance should always be the goal. The game really doesn't have a balance issue, it's lacking choice if anything. That's why this move is the wrong direction.
People here are once again confusing the skill floor with the skill ceiling. The recent LotV changes have lowered the skill floor but have not lowered the skill ceiling one bit. It's just that you have to apply your APM towards micro and not just macro.
I've been watching Starcraft for around 5 years, and most of the casters point out good micro more often than good macro. Remember when the mutalisk magic box trick was discovered and Thors suddenly became much weaker against them? That micro trick had a comparatively smaller impact on the game than the perfect injects and superior macro of pro players, but they were a more obvious sign of skill than the more impactful injects.
The point is that macro is disproportionately powerful in SC2 compared to micro. Back in the old days of RTS, when SC had competition from C&C and AoE, there were three main strategies in RTS: Rush, Boom, and Tech. Rushing involves attacking early and often. Booming involves building up your economy in order to outproduce your enemy. Teching involves quickly climbing the tech tree to overwhelm your opponent with superior units. In SC2, Rush and Tech strategies are universally referred to as all-in in SC2, when they are considered valid strategies in other RTS games. On the other hand, Boom is called standard play in SC2.
For DotA players, Rush/Boom/Tech is analogous to Gank/Push/Farm. Remember when the only viable strategy in DotA was Push (*cough* Admiral Bulldog *cough*)? This is how unhealthy the HotS metagame is right now.
I love how I am not forced to immediately expand just to keep up with my enemy. I like to attack early, deal some damage, then go on from there. In HotS, early aggression was so weak that you would almost always lose to "standard play." I like how the RTS strategy trinity is balanced once again.
On August 30 2015 22:49 Eternal Dalek wrote: People here are once again confusing the skill floor with the skill ceiling. The recent LotV changes have lowered the skill floor but have not lowered the skill ceiling one bit. It's just that you have to apply your APM towards micro and not just macro.
I disagree. I think the decision making has become more complex due to the added value of units. Further more I argue that the more complex decision making is making the skill ceiling higher than it used to be with higher economy.
The macro mechanical skill ceiling is lowered. As long as the word mechanical is used this is uncontroversial. Any discussion with the mechanics portion ignored is just an opinion piece and you are allowed to feel the way you do.
On August 30 2015 22:49 Eternal Dalek wrote: People here are once again confusing the skill floor with the skill ceiling. The recent LotV changes have lowered the skill floor but have not lowered the skill ceiling one bit. It's just that you have to apply your APM towards micro and not just macro.
I disagree. I think the decision making has become more complex due to the added value of units. Further more I argue that the more complex decision making is making the skill ceiling higher than it used to be with higher economy.
I don't understand why you're disagreeing with me. I said that the skill ceiling hasn't been lowered, only the skill floor. If something hasn't been reduced or lowered, then it either stayed the same value or actually increased. Therefore, you disagreeing with me makes no sense; we're actually in agreement with each other.
It does lower the skill ceiling - and here's why. You are right that the removal of the macro boosters puts more emphasis on micro and decision making. The thing is, micro and decision making still existed in the previous iterations of SCII, but macro ALSO existed. That is to say, while now you must have masterful micro and decision making (perhaps slightly more so than before) - before you had to have masterful micro, decision making AND macro. The removal of one skill does put more emphasis on the other two, but it also removes an entire category from the game (without opening up other areas to compensate). At the top level of play, the minutia of each area becomes more and more important. The player who makes slightly less mistakes will usually win. Now you only have 2 categories to mess up in, instead of 3.
Think about it mathematically. Let's say A is Macro, B is Micro and C is Decision making. Let's say that having perfect skill in a category is a rating of 1.
Formula for overall skill with macro:
A+B+C 3
Removing one of these (macro) we get:
B+C 2
The maximum skill you can have is still 1 (perfect), but you only have to be perfect in two categories. Someone with perfect micro and decision making is suddenly a perfect player, even if their macro is shit (this is an oversimplification, but you get the drift). B and C are now both weighted more, certainly, (50% of score instead of 33.33%) but the highest skill ceiling is now easier to obtain. People who rely exclusively on macro are SOL, but most top players excel in all 3 of these categories.
On August 31 2015 06:14 Arghmyliver wrote: It does lower the skill ceiling - and here's why. You are right that the removal of the macro boosters puts more emphasis on micro and decision making. The thing is, micro and decision making still existed in the previous iterations of SCII, but macro ALSO existed. That is to say, while now you must have masterful micro and decision making (perhaps slightly more so than before) - before you had to have masterful micro, decision making AND macro. The removal of one skill does put more emphasis on the other two, but it also removes an entire category from the game (without opening up other areas to compensate). At the top level of play, the minutia of each area becomes more and more important. The player who makes slightly less mistakes will usually win. Now you only have 2 categories to mess up in, instead of 3.
Think about it mathematically. Let's say A is Macro, B is Micro and C is Decision making. Let's say that having perfect skill in a category is a rating of 1.
Formula for overall skill with macro:
A+B+C 3
Removing one of these (macro) we get:
B+C 2
The maximum skill you can have is still 1 (perfect), but you only have to be perfect in two categories. Someone with perfect micro and decision making is suddenly a perfect player, even if their macro is shit (this is an oversimplification, but you get the drift).
Skill ceiling lowered.
This is such a horrible strawman. They're not removing macro at all; they're just making it easier. This is a more accurate formula:
A = Macro B = Micro C = Decision Making
In HotS, the formula is:
(2A + 0.5B + 0.5C) 3
What they're trying to accomplish in LotV is the following:
(A + B + C) 3
Macro has been disproportionately impactful in SC2 to the point that micro really only matters at the highest levels, when everyone has near-perfect macro. How many times have you seen high-level players tell low-level players that they should focus on macro at their level until they climb the ladder enough where micro becomes relevant?
They're making macro easier but trying to increase skill required in other areas - lowering the skill ceiling in some areas and raising it in others for overall not that much change. There shouldn't really be a debate here, it's pretty obvious (especially when looking at zerg)
I will say though that i feel that removing chrono boost makes protoss harder, not easier. Playing economically focused, recovering from worker harass, powering tech etc became much harder. Somebody who wants to get a ton of probes fast is still building them at the same rate as somebody who is maxing out his army or rushing to 2-3 immortals which just wasn't the case before. Mule is not really either way i think, it changes balance (less mineral income) and makes it way harder for terran to take worker losses - but the zerg change (autocast inject for 3 larvae) makes playing mid-lategame way way easier.
On August 31 2015 06:14 Arghmyliver wrote: It does lower the skill ceiling - and here's why. You are right that the removal of the macro boosters puts more emphasis on micro and decision making. The thing is, micro and decision making still existed in the previous iterations of SCII, but macro ALSO existed. That is to say, while now you must have masterful micro and decision making (perhaps slightly more so than before) - before you had to have masterful micro, decision making AND macro. The removal of one skill does put more emphasis on the other two, but it also removes an entire category from the game (without opening up other areas to compensate). At the top level of play, the minutia of each area becomes more and more important. The player who makes slightly less mistakes will usually win. Now you only have 2 categories to mess up in, instead of 3.
Think about it mathematically. Let's say A is Macro, B is Micro and C is Decision making. Let's say that having perfect skill in a category is a rating of 1.
Formula for overall skill with macro:
A+B+C 3
Removing one of these (macro) we get:
B+C 2
The maximum skill you can have is still 1 (perfect), but you only have to be perfect in two categories. Someone with perfect micro and decision making is suddenly a perfect player, even if their macro is shit (this is an oversimplification, but you get the drift). B and C are now both weighted more, certainly, (50% of score instead of 33.33%) but the highest skill ceiling is now easier to obtain. People who rely exclusively on macro are SOL, but most top players excel in all 3 of these categories.
Skill ceiling lowered.
Edit: Added more conclusion.
This fundamentally wrong because you think the 1 (aka perfection) is achievable, wich is not (unless the player is some sort of automaton machine that can see trough fog of war and maybe also the future).
But lets say it is, the level of skill needed yo achieve this 1 is totally different in LotV compared to HotS.
The 1 in LotV for micro is way harder to achieve, so even if there is one less area (wich it isnt macro is still there just a specific set of macro actions where taken not ALL macro) the increase on the rest of the areas makes up for it.
Using your formula 50+50 is still 100 as much as 33.3+33.3+33.3 is.
On August 31 2015 06:14 Arghmyliver wrote: Formula for overall skill with macro:
A+B+C 3
Removing one of these (macro) we get:
B+C 2
The maximum skill you can have is still 1 (perfect), but you only have to be perfect in two categories. Someone with perfect micro and decision making is suddenly a perfect player, even if their macro is shit (this is an oversimplification, but you get the drift). B and C are now both weighted more, certainly, (50% of score instead of 33.33%) but the highest skill ceiling is now easier to obtain. People who rely exclusively on macro are SOL, but most top players excel in all 3 of these categories.
Skill ceiling lowered.
My opinion stands, since the units are more valuable strategically there is added complexity to the decision making, which surpasses the mechanical requirement in this case. Dropping a mule is not that hard. It's a mechanical skill check, however, adding more complexity and strategic depth to the game is making the game infinately harder to the players.
Thus far I feel the choice on how to use your units has been trivialized by abundance of resources. Now I feel the game is actually harder to master in the current state than with high econ and a mechanical skill check. Tho the topic headline might be a little provocative. If the economy stays same and it's simply a choice "to have or not to have an additional button" then the skill ceiling is higher with an added button obviously.
On August 31 2015 06:14 Arghmyliver wrote: It does lower the skill ceiling - and here's why. You are right that the removal of the macro boosters puts more emphasis on micro and decision making. The thing is, micro and decision making still existed in the previous iterations of SCII, but macro ALSO existed. That is to say, while now you must have masterful micro and decision making (perhaps slightly more so than before) - before you had to have masterful micro, decision making AND macro. The removal of one skill does put more emphasis on the other two, but it also removes an entire category from the game (without opening up other areas to compensate). At the top level of play, the minutia of each area becomes more and more important. The player who makes slightly less mistakes will usually win. Now you only have 2 categories to mess up in, instead of 3.
Think about it mathematically. Let's say A is Macro, B is Micro and C is Decision making. Let's say that having perfect skill in a category is a rating of 1.
Formula for overall skill with macro:
A+B+C 3
Removing one of these (macro) we get:
B+C 2
The maximum skill you can have is still 1 (perfect), but you only have to be perfect in two categories. Someone with perfect micro and decision making is suddenly a perfect player, even if their macro is shit (this is an oversimplification, but you get the drift). B and C are now both weighted more, certainly, (50% of score instead of 33.33%) but the highest skill ceiling is now easier to obtain. People who rely exclusively on macro are SOL, but most top players excel in all 3 of these categories.
Skill ceiling lowered.
Edit: Added more conclusion.
Interesting approach. But what if decisionmaking and micro is getting more diverse and more difficult to handle?
Macro isn't getting removed at all. T/P macro wont get easier at all imo. Dropping mules/chronoboosts isn't really taking away from anything (well chronoboosts maybe even more than mules). Zerg macro is getting easier, sure. Especially in early-midgame this isn't needed. But in lategame when spreading creep and supplying 5+ hatches with injects can get a really tiring task to do, it is defenitely taking away from the ability of zerg to care on other more interesting things (more interesting for the player and for the audience). Also T/P don't have creep spread + injects in lategame. I think the removal of manual injects is just fair when looking at general balance.
Also if we agree on that no player is perfect and every player is doing mistakes, isn't it true that mistakes weigh higher in the 50:50 model than in the 33:33:33 model? Of course we are talking about skill ceilings. But as we agree on the fact than noone ever reaches it as everyone is doing mistakes, isn't the higher weight of failure translating into a bigger distance from the ceiling for everyone? Increasing the distance to skill ceiling is at least subjectively being recognized by players like a higher skill ceiling. (other than that the model is wrong anyway)
Not sure on this. But it feels that way.
@OP we have to wait and see how things develop. Less deathball play should at least in theory be the case. But there are also other effects: 1. reduced minerals per base 2. scared play due to changes and noone really knowing the new metagames yet
On August 31 2015 06:29 Lexender wrote: This fundamentally wrong because you think the 1 (aka perfection) is achievable, wich is not (unless the player is some sort of automaton machine that can see trough fog of war and maybe also the future).
But lets say it is, the level of skill needed yo achieve this 1 is totally different in LotV compared to HotS.
The 1 in LotV for micro is way harder to achieve, so even if there is one less area (wich it isnt macro is still there just a specific set of macro actions where taken not ALL macro) the increase on the rest of the areas makes up for it.
Using your formula 50+50 is still 100 as much as 33.3+33.3+33.3 is.
So no lower skill ceiling.
Certainly absolute perfection is not technically achievable, but the formula still works if the person scores a .9 in those categories instead. A better counterargument is the one above that states that the formula should be a weighted average where each category contributes differently towards a players success. (Eternal Dalek, I wasn't trying to straw man, just theory crafting, your response makes a lot of sense). I'm not trying to argue that 50+50 and 33.3x3 don't both equal 100, its an average. The theoretical perfect 1 score is not actually any harder to achieve because the categories become differently weighted by removing one of them, perfect micro is perfect micro whether you have other stuff to do or not.
Eternal Dalek: The formula you presented is .5A+.25B+.25C, but this applies only at a lower level of play, no? Things like micro and decision making become more weighty as you move up in skill, correct? Let's say we remove the weight on macro and it becomes .33(A+B+C). The skill ceiling is the theoretical upper limit which is going to be 1 regardless.... Hmm, maybe averages aren't the best for determining skill ceiling. So skill ceiling might best be defined as the (theoretical) perfect execution of all game mechanics (Which I agree will never happen Lexender). By removing game mechanics you are, in fact, reducing the sum total of game mechanics, right? Thereby reducing the skill ceiling? My question for you, Dalek, "Does making the game more micro focused at a lower skill level make the game better overall?"
T/P macro wont get easier at all imo. Dropping mules/chronoboosts isn't really taking away from anything (well chronoboosts maybe even more than mules).
Chrono does a lot to make protoss easier to play and more flexible, like diverting chrono's to workers after losing some, upgrades if you fall behind etc. If that stuff happens on the current patch, you're just doomed to be behind there for the next 10 minutes
T/P macro wont get easier at all imo. Dropping mules/chronoboosts isn't really taking away from anything (well chronoboosts maybe even more than mules).
Chrono does a lot to make protoss easier to play and more flexible, like diverting chrono's to workers after losing some, upgrades if you fall behind etc. If that stuff happens on the current patch, you're just doomed to be behind there for the next 10 minutes
Using your formula 50+50 is still 100 as much as 33.3+33.3+33.3 is.
So no lower skill ceiling.
50+50 is 100.
But 50+50+50 is 150.
And 150 is a higher skill ceiling than 100.
You wouldn't say that playing a perfect game of checkers is just as hard as playing a perfect game of chess. You wouldn't say that playing a perfect game of tic-tac-toe is just as hard as playing a perfect game of basketball.
So why would you say that SC2 minus things that take skill is just as hard as baseline SC2?
On August 31 2015 06:14 Arghmyliver wrote: It does lower the skill ceiling - and here's why. You are right that the removal of the macro boosters puts more emphasis on micro and decision making. The thing is, micro and decision making still existed in the previous iterations of SCII, but macro ALSO existed. That is to say, while now you must have masterful micro and decision making (perhaps slightly more so than before) - before you had to have masterful micro, decision making AND macro. The removal of one skill does put more emphasis on the other two, but it also removes an entire category from the game (without opening up other areas to compensate). At the top level of play, the minutia of each area becomes more and more important. The player who makes slightly less mistakes will usually win. Now you only have 2 categories to mess up in, instead of 3.
Think about it mathematically. Let's say A is Macro, B is Micro and C is Decision making. Let's say that having perfect skill in a category is a rating of 1.
Formula for overall skill with macro:
A+B+C 3
Removing one of these (macro) we get:
B+C 2
The maximum skill you can have is still 1 (perfect), but you only have to be perfect in two categories. Someone with perfect micro and decision making is suddenly a perfect player, even if their macro is shit (this is an oversimplification, but you get the drift). B and C are now both weighted more, certainly, (50% of score instead of 33.33%) but the highest skill ceiling is now easier to obtain. People who rely exclusively on macro are SOL, but most top players excel in all 3 of these categories.
Skill ceiling lowered.
Edit: Added more conclusion.
This fundamentally wrong because you think the 1 (aka perfection) is achievable, wich is not (unless the player is some sort of automaton machine that can see trough fog of war and maybe also the future).
But lets say it is, the level of skill needed yo achieve this 1 is totally different in LotV compared to HotS.
The 1 in LotV for micro is way harder to achieve, so even if there is one less area (wich it isnt macro is still there just a specific set of macro actions where taken not ALL macro) the increase on the rest of the areas makes up for it.
Using your formula 50+50 is still 100 as much as 33.3+33.3+33.3 is.
So no lower skill ceiling.
Are people start going to argue that the skill ceilling in SC2 is equal to Brood War, because it has less macro mechanics, that's simply untrue.
EVERY time you remove an aspect of the game the skill is lowered, the arguement that you can focus on other things has been debunked at SC2 release.
Have you ever seen a top level player push across the map in BW? TvZ or even Mech TvP, and how literally impossible it is to do it perfectly? Have you seen how hard flanking is for zerg in BW, with 12 ctrl groups? Even Protoss having to individually click on every spellcaster to storm, if you do it with the entire ctrl group they all cast at once in the same spot, gg.
Now, that's ignoring multibuilding selection and automated mining, and hell even the three save screen cap, which meant good players literally had a strategy where to place their F2-4s through game, AND that changed from early to mid to late game.
Vulture micro, muta micro, reaver micro...
All these things added an element, if removed the players wouldn't just *focus* on smth else.
When SC2 got released Blizzard added these mechanics to compensate a bit, Zerg was very well designed in this aspect, but the remax potential made it hard to balance, I never understood why the larva cap wasn't just lowered to 6 and zerg units be made a bit stronger.
But that's besides the point the creep/inject requirement is literally THE defining skill for Zerg. Removing it will fuck the race and lower it's skill cap below the other two races
On August 31 2015 06:14 Arghmyliver wrote: It does lower the skill ceiling - and here's why. You are right that the removal of the macro boosters puts more emphasis on micro and decision making. The thing is, micro and decision making still existed in the previous iterations of SCII, but macro ALSO existed. That is to say, while now you must have masterful micro and decision making (perhaps slightly more so than before) - before you had to have masterful micro, decision making AND macro. The removal of one skill does put more emphasis on the other two, but it also removes an entire category from the game (without opening up other areas to compensate). At the top level of play, the minutia of each area becomes more and more important. The player who makes slightly less mistakes will usually win. Now you only have 2 categories to mess up in, instead of 3.
Think about it mathematically. Let's say A is Macro, B is Micro and C is Decision making. Let's say that having perfect skill in a category is a rating of 1.
Formula for overall skill with macro:
A+B+C 3
Removing one of these (macro) we get:
B+C 2
The maximum skill you can have is still 1 (perfect), but you only have to be perfect in two categories. Someone with perfect micro and decision making is suddenly a perfect player, even if their macro is shit (this is an oversimplification, but you get the drift).
Skill ceiling lowered.
This is such a horrible strawman. They're not removing macro at all; they're just making it easier. This is a more accurate formula:
A = Macro B = Micro C = Decision Making
In HotS, the formula is:
(2A + 0.5B + 0.5C) 3
What they're trying to accomplish in LotV is the following:
(A + B + C) 3
Macro has been disproportionately impactful in SC2 to the point that micro really only matters at the highest levels, when everyone has near-perfect macro. How many times have you seen high-level players tell low-level players that they should focus on macro at their level until they climb the ladder enough where micro becomes relevant?
I have a f**king degree in physics and it's god damn embarrassing to see everyone get this wrong... The math is easy. Did anyone here even go to school?!
Personally, I am split over macro mechanics. I am for macro mechanics, unless blizzard can prove that their removal makes the game more entertaining.
I agree with your post. Now that units are more important, micro will be more critical, and maybe more windows to perform micro will show up (give roaches a flat heal when they burrow so theres incentive to do it?). The problem right now is that its overdone: instead of preserving units, people are content to throw them away in the name of a few workers. I believe that removing macro mechanics was a risky decision and it didn't work out, but now that we see this new window, we can embrace it. I believe the up-comming patch with the reduced macro mechanics will help balance the game out, keeping preserving units important, and more important than sacrificing them for a few workers, which would cause irreparable damage. Combine this micro with manual injects, and every race -should- have an equal amount of micro and macro requirements (since zerg macro w/o injects is pretty much nothing).
With low eco (LoTV), individual units are more important, which is good. But workers are too critical, which isn't too good since players can trade a few units for them. But with high eco (WoL, HoTS), it gets too deathball-y. I think starcraft is about to hit this state where individual units are important, but losing a handful of workers isn't the biggest of deals. Lets pray to the brood war gods of game balance for a bright future filled with e-sports
EDIT: Also, since units are more sparse, the home-field advantage is much more notable (since its easier to reinforce and harder to break), meaning that we might get some brood-war esque multi-pushes.
All the theory crafting is nice and all, but when we talk about skill ceiling what we really mean is ... lets take a common example of NA Grand Masters player (rank 100 to be average), vs good Foreigner pro (TLO), vs a top performing GSL Korean (Innovation).
If 100 games were played we would expect it to look like this, currently:
-Out of 100 games, NA grand masters player would only win 10 against TLO. -Out of 100 games, NA grand masters player probably wins 2 or 3 against Innovation. -Out of 100 games, TLO might win in the teens, against Innovation.
By lowering skill ceiling, what we mean in the future, the same matchups with players will be less differentiated:
-Out of 100 games, NA grand masters player might win 30 against TLO. -Out of 100 games, NA grand masters player might win 15 against Innovation. -Out of 100 games, TLO might win 40 against Innovation.
What this means is that the whole competitive nature of the game is undermined. Wins at the top level will be even more random and mean even less, when they are already random compared to BW.
Having a defined, best player, or best 3 or 4 players really helps define eras, upsets, and the small chance that a foreigner will one day be right up there, and be even more remarkable. When lowering the skill ceiling makes this all more random, nothing is going to matter.
Long way of saying, that my point is, we are all just guessing whether or not this is going to actually affect the skill ceiling at the very top. No one knows, no mater how many formulas we try to make or arguments about micro - we are just guessing. We would only be able to tell when the game goes live and everyone is putting 100% into it.
If I had to guess, I think the current changes will make a notable impact on skill ceiling and on the differentiation at the top of play.
The only myth here is your claim to actually know what you are talking about! You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and should not post anymore on this forum!
If there are 100 things that you can do in a minute and 10 of those were removed, you reduce the skill ceiling, period. SC2 is not a great STRATEGIC game, it mostly relies on pressing buttons quick to distinguish between skill, we are not talking about chess or something, its a basic game with clear hard counters and set build orders!
When you lower the mechanical hardness, you lower skill, period! Its like saying if we remove legs from football you won't reduce skill, give me a break! That is essentially what you are saying.
If we remove arms from basketball you won't reduce skill, yes you will. Most people can make the simple right call whether to dunk or pass, the hard thing is actually doing it, the hard thing is actually controlling the basketball.
Most people know whether to shoot in football or pass, its not that hard, plus its 50%-50%, you'd get it right half of the time, so no skill there, the hard part is actually doing it, the hard part is actually controlling the ball and running for 90 minutes!
Clearly if you remove mechanical requirements you are reducing skill HUGELY, HUGELY, HUGELY!!!
On August 30 2015 19:56 CheRRyKiTTy wrote: Contrary to the common sense I would like to argue that removal of macro mechanics does not make the game easier to play. Yes, the mechanical skill check has been removed, but all around people are failing to see the big picture, which has made the game actually harder to play in my opinion than the other way around.
For Terran and Protoss, the game is less forgiving (both MULEs and Chronoboost allowed you to recover from worker losses) but not necessarily easier. For Zerg, autocast of inject makes the game significantly easier, especially in mid-late game.
On August 30 2015 19:56 CheRRyKiTTy wrote: Now the tech switches and keeping up with what your opponent is doing are also way more important, because you can't simply instantly remax out of thousand production facilities on the minerals you have banked since you hit 200/200. I think understanding the game better, and being able to figure out what your opponent is doing is harder than mastering mechanical clicking.
Figuring out what your opponent is doing is equally important in both scenarios. The only difference is that with a higher mechanical requirement, it's harder to figure out what your opponent is doing because you have more things requiring your attention.
Mechanics allow players to differentiate themselves in ways that pure strategy never could. Different strategic playstyles require different mechanics that are often unique to players (Jaedong remaxing on lings in super late game scenarios comes to mind- the ability to inject like that that late in the game still boggles my mind). It also allows an experienced, mechanically sound player to overcome getting caught off-guard with the power of his mechanics.
On August 30 2015 19:56 CheRRyKiTTy wrote: As the Starcraft 2 viewership has declined from the days of glory I can see the value of making the game easier to follow. I wouldn't want to play or watch a game where I don't have the smallest understanding of why somebody won the game. These changes to the core of the game just might be enough to persuade more players to watch and try the game.
People who dont have an understanding of the game wont enjoy watching it. The reason SC2 viewership has declined is because less people play the game. Removing macro mechanics wont make the game more 'viewer friendly'. We should focus on making a fun, interesting and strategic game rather than a viewer friendly one.
It looks like we're in agreement that the macro mechanics shouldn't be brought back though. I'm not a fan of making inject autocast, as I stated previously, because it was something that really differentiated even pro zerg players from eachother, and because it's a part of what made the race difficult. Even with injects I felt Zerg Macro was the easiest, now it's basically automated. You just need to decide to make units or workers.
I don't think removing macro mechanics is a bad thing. I'm not going to speak for others, but for me personally they are not fun to do or watch. Its simply something your forced to throw APM at to prevent falling behind. Macro mechanics are a measure of mechanical skill and hand speed, but I'm hopeful blizzard has more entertaining ways to accomplish this. In SC1, micro and macro were both incredibly taxing on APM. Every building had to be individually selected, only 12 units to a control group, etc. etc. When I saw a player flawlessly controlling 7+ control groups of units while macroing and dropping, I understood how difficult that was to do and it was exciting to see it done so well. On the other hand, I barely notice the skill behind macro mechanics since observers wont pan away from a battle to see if the zerg is still injecting. People who play a lot might notice, but average users just wont. TLDR: I think there are better ways to differentiate skill between players then an APM sink.
There's still gonna be more to do than what is humanly possible. So the only change to the skill ceiling in terms of LotV with Macro Mechanics vs LotV without is the amount a high mechanical skill player is rewarded. SoO will still have stuff to do always, but he's not rewarded as tremendously for hitting Injects as precisely as he would otherwise. While it's good that the high mechanical player is rewarded it SHOULD be equally as rewarding to excell at micro or for having perfect decision making. So yes in short SoO is nerfed, Parting is buffed. The question moreso should be who do we want to crown the best players rather than skill in one area is nerfed=bad.
In my opinion many of the makro mechanics in SC are cumbersome and should be stream lined and the changes are a good way to do so.
Lets ask the question in another way around: Why not add a mechanic, that will make you have to answer a trivia question correctly or solve a math equation before building a unit or injecting? Woud it make the game more difficult and cumbersome? Yes.
So I think removing the queen inject and not having to think about queen inject for all hatches on the intervals is nice and makes the game more approchable to other players who want to fight instead of injecting.
On August 31 2015 18:38 BillGates wrote: The only myth here is your claim to actually know what you are talking about! You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and should not post anymore on this forum!
If there are 100 things that you can do in a minute and 10 of those were removed, you reduce the skill ceiling, period. SC2 is not a great STRATEGIC game, it mostly relies on pressing buttons quick to distinguish between skill, we are not talking about chess or something, its a basic game with clear hard counters and set build orders!
Not sure if I should actually answer you, because you certainly don't know what you are talking about, but I guess I will.
Now, do you realize that after certain point clicking faster does not gain you greater advantage than actually knowing what do? People make calls that lose them games even when they are slightly faster or better player. Lowering the economy by removing the macro boosters will make decision making more impactful for the result of the game due to the added value to the units. If I was arguing that simply removing macro mechanics made the game harder, then I would be obviously wrong, but I am arguing that the removal of macro mechanics from LotV changed the other aspects of the game considerably to make the decision making involved during the game more complex thus making the overall skill ceiling higher whilst making the mechanical skill cap easier to attain.
Most people know whether to shoot in football or pass, its not that hard, plus its 50%-50%, you'd get it right half of the time, so no skill there, the hard part is actually doing it, the hard part is actually controlling the ball and running for 90 minutes!
Here you are so god damn incorrect that it's insulting as a football fan. The top teams have very tactical approach to the game even when player skill is highly differentiating matter. It's not about to shoot or passt, it's about where and when to shoot/pass/advance to create advantageous position in the game. Andrea Pirlo was not a fast or strong player, but he might have had the greatest decision making in Football EVER. He was physically worst player in the field most of the time, but he was also the most important player during the game due to his creativity and understanding of the field. There are probably under ten people in the world who could make it to the top level even if they had Andrea's technical and athletic ability.
Clearly if you remove mechanical requirements you are reducing skill HUGELY, HUGELY, HUGELY!!!
You fail to understand that we are speaking strictly in context of LotV and removing these mechanical requirements has also changed the other aspects of the game. The discussion is not centered around the fact if more clicks makes a harder game (obviously if nothing else changes, then having more clicks makes the game harder!) but DID THE LOWER ECONOMY CREATE A GAME DESIGN, WHICH HAS MORE COMPLEX DECISION MAKING TO COMPENSATE THE LOSS OF MECHANICAL SKILL BY MAKING THE DECISION MAKING HARDER?
We are comparing LotV with Macro boosters and without macro boosters. Not a game A which has clicks vs game B which has automated mechanics.
On August 30 2015 20:22 Phaenoman wrote: U are claiming "Removal of Macro lowers skill ceiling - Myth", but
1. 70% of ur post is about that macro mechanics are not required anymore due to other stuff (micro, etc) and how this affects the viewership
2. U cannot say it is a myth, cuz it's not. If the absence of something does not make a difference, than that means it is basically "nothing". But adding this "nothing" leads to a harder game, which means that this "nothing" basically has a value. In other words: Having MM will always increase the skill ceiling, cuz u will have more to do. NOT having it will decrease it. Simple as that.
Thus it makes the game easier to play. However the core point is that the game has become harder overall. But saying the removal of MM will not affect the skill ceiling is simply not true.
No.
People can't do everything.
The amount of actions that can be done by a computer with human-level intelligence before > the amount of actions that can be done by a computer with human-level intelligence after.
But the amount of actions that can be done by a real human before = the most actions that that human can physically do = the amount of actions that can be done by a real human after.
The game just needs to be easy enough so new players don't feel overwhelmed, but have a high enough skill ceiling that even the pros cannot truly master it. A great game has an unreachable skill ceiling, but is fun at all levels. As stated before, I am for a macro mechanics nerf, not removal. The lower Eco means there are less units, which in turn makes nicroing each unit so precious, MEANING that the better micro players will be better rewarded.
It's not too hard to make a low floor/high ceiling skill game. Counter strike and Smash Melee are two great examples. Of course, being the RTS that it is, it's always going to be spooky for new players. Micro, macro and strategy are all 3 key skills of Starcraft. Players should still feel like they're "playing starcraft" at any level, but still be able to get crushed by someone a bi better than them.
New and low levels player will always going to feel overwhelmed, otherwise you are not playing starcraft anymore. We all have been through it, and for those that keeps playing 1v1 I would say that it's because the game was so overwhelming that they played it so much. Starcraft is never going to attract tons of new players, no matter how much you try to simplify it, all you are doing is hurting the game at the highest level.
As for the idea that the lowering of the skill ceiling is a myth is ridiculous. You can be okay with these change, you can believe that starcraft has to be easier and these are perfectly acceptable opinion but the zerg race has been made much more easy than terran and protoss with autocast inject.
On August 31 2015 18:38 BillGates wrote: The only myth here is your claim to actually know what you are talking about! You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and should not post anymore on this forum!
If there are 100 things that you can do in a minute and 10 of those were removed, you reduce the skill ceiling, period. SC2 is not a great STRATEGIC game, it mostly relies on pressing buttons quick to distinguish between skill, we are not talking about chess or something, its a basic game with clear hard counters and set build orders!
When you lower the mechanical hardness, you lower skill, period! Its like saying if we remove legs from football you won't reduce skill, give me a break! That is essentially what you are saying.
If we remove arms from basketball you won't reduce skill, yes you will. Most people can make the simple right call whether to dunk or pass, the hard thing is actually doing it, the hard thing is actually controlling the basketball.
Most people know whether to shoot in football or pass, its not that hard, plus its 50%-50%, you'd get it right half of the time, so no skill there, the hard part is actually doing it, the hard part is actually controlling the ball and running for 90 minutes!
Clearly if you remove mechanical requirements you are reducing skill HUGELY, HUGELY, HUGELY!!!
Why the hell are you against reducing the skill "HUGELY HUGELY HUGELY"?
First your argument is false, and even if it was right, you are still wrong because you do not play at GSL level to care about skill ceiling which you will never reach. The one that will be lowered is the skill floor not the skill ceiling. If the skill ceiling is affected by those cancerous fillers to fill the gap that BW limited engine left, then that shows the horrible basics this game was built upon.
On August 30 2015 20:34 Zee94 wrote: The removal of macro makes zerg ridiculously easy to play and makes them so forgiving.
Oh, you mean like how terran and protoss were before the patch? Nothing bad happened if you missed a mule. Nothing bad happened if you missed a chrono. You can just spend 2 later. If you miss an inject your economy / army would be smaller and you can't just double inject later. Stop crying
On August 30 2015 20:34 Zee94 wrote: The removal of macro makes zerg ridiculously easy to play and makes them so forgiving.
Oh, you mean like how terran and protoss were before the patch? Nothing bad happened if you missed a mule. Nothing bad happened if you missed a chrono. You can just spend 2 later. If you miss an inject your economy / army would be smaller and you can't just double inject later. Stop crying
Your response is far too aggressive for anyone to take seriously. Consider revising your post. What he means to say is that the automated injects makes zerg much easier, since injetcs are pretty much all you need for a good economy. And with them gone, zerg is definetly the easiest race to macro. As a masters zerg back in the day, this is true.
I won't believe that the skill ceiling has been lowered to a point it actually affects the game at the highest level.
Obviously there still is skill in starcraft to exploit, and basic stuff still has yet to be absolutely mastered. But expecting players to be able to play at a TAS level of play is unreasonable. Players can still micro their zealots and all units perfectly in a deathball, but the problem is that theres no need to. Its much more reasonable to give players more visible windows to micro.
Of course, players are just going to get better and better, and approach these levels of perfect TAS play. It will never happen that they reach it and can excecute it consistently, but people are getting better. So, by making the deathball weaker (harder to attain, actually) with a lower economy, each unit matters and micro will become more visible. Because the problem is that players need an unhumanly, 1000 APM to change a lost deathball fight into something that is won.
Because really, do we expect all marth players to do this? http://gfycat.com/RewardingHandsomeGar Or players to be able to powershield any move on reaction? You can't expect players to be machines, but it still is great to have an unattainably high level of play that players strive for.
EDIT: Seriously, look at video 1. You need at least 750 APM to induvidualy micro every marine perfectly. And do you honestly believe players will be able to split vs tanks that well ever? You need easily 1000 APM for that. I might be over-exaggerating, but the micro needed is unfathomable.
I haven't given this a try yet, but protoss without chrono boost... less stuff to do, less multitasking in an RTS, more babysitting... dunno... probably good for those who like to do phoenix or oracles and can't multitask that well, but I'm still very skeptical of this change.
People thinking that the removal of macro mechanics have led to an easier game are just plain wrong, it doesn't impact the skill ceiling one bit and with time this can be proven quite clearly. The problem here is that some people are still playing as they used to when there were MM, just give it a little time and you'll start doing things that you couldn't in the past.
This post mentions a big part of this change, units have more value now and players who maximize their use will have a clear advantage, so we still have a lot of difference between a random GM and a pro player, contrary to what somewhat said about winning more out of 100 games just because of this (which BTW were numbers pulled out of nowhere).
The problem lies on people thinking that you can see the whole picture just by looking at numbers or trying the patch for 1-2 weeks, which isn't enough time for people to adapt their builds to the changes, is the same thing that happened everytime anything was added to the game. Remember medivac boost and how OP it was? Then not so much, did it require nerfs? not really, time was needed to figure out how to properly defend it. Time is needed to figure out what to do with those precious extra seconds you're winning every 1 min with the removal or "autocast" of MM.
There's no "less stuff to do", fortunately SC2 is a very complex game that allow players to focus their efforts in a lot of different areas. Look at Archon Mode, there are 2 players per team in the same 1v1 scenario and there are lots of things to do, at first one might think that since they're dividing "chores" there's "less stuff to do", but we've seen that it's hardly the case, the skill ceiling is higher in Archon mode even if each player is focusing less on MM, just because you can focus more on harass, multi pronged attacks, expanding, defending, etc.
Instead of just mindless ranting people should focus on playing the game and willing to create strategies based on the changes, but more importantly, giving it time to sink in... SC2 is always evolving, pro gamers play way better now than even a year ago, nothing has changed but still people have figured out more stuff to do, leading to more exciting games overall. Will this happen with the removal of MM? I think so, since this is an even bigger change than the others combined. There are still things to polish and things to change, this is not final, but try to embrace the fact that Blizzard is actually trying to change A LOT of things for this expansion, which was something that people were crying about 6 months ago, so just give it more time.
I find it extremely easy to micro my units because it's fun and interesting but I forget chrono sometimes because it's less so. Having different types of clicks (micro clicks, macro clicks, macro "booster" clicks) requires you to be a more well rounded player.
Reducing the macro booster clicks and replacing them with micro clicks makes the game less interesting to me because it just incentivizes everyone to be a micro player.
Making lots of stuff and steamrolling your opponent with it (Bomber style) has always been fun to watch especially when compared to the insane individual unit control of Life, Parting, etc. Don't force all players to play the same way (micro clicks). Open it up so you can have different styles clashing.
It's like watching a tennis match where one guy likes to play from the base line and the other loves coming to the net. It's often more interesting than just two guys at the base line slugging the ball back and forth.
On August 31 2015 01:18 BisuDagger wrote: The macro mechanical skill ceiling is lowered. As long as the word mechanical is used this is uncontroversial. Any discussion with the mechanics portion ignored is just an opinion piece and you are allowed to feel the way you do.
What?
Regardless of the mechanics, chronoboost is the template for a good macro mechanic because it provides choice and variety.
Creep Spread and Inject aren't choices, Zerg builds enough Queens to do both, they are just an APM sink.
On September 01 2015 02:53 Shousan wrote: People thinking that the removal of macro mechanics have led to an easier game are just plain wrong, it doesn't impact the skill ceiling one bit and with time this can be proven quite clearly. The problem here is that some people are still playing as they used to when there were MM, just give it a little time and you'll start doing things that you couldn't in the past.
This post mentions a big part of this change, units have more value now and players who maximize their use will have a clear advantage, so we still have a lot of difference between a random GM and a pro player, contrary to what somewhat said about winning more out of 100 games just because of this (which BTW were numbers pulled out of nowhere).
The problem lies on people thinking that you can see the whole picture just by looking at numbers or trying the patch for 1-2 weeks, which isn't enough time for people to adapt their builds to the changes, is the same thing that happened everytime anything was added to the game. Remember medivac boost and how OP it was? Then not so much, did it require nerfs? not really, time was needed to figure out how to properly defend it. Time is needed to figure out what to do with those precious extra seconds you're winning every 1 min with the removal or "autocast" of MM.
There's no "less stuff to do", fortunately SC2 is a very complex game that allow players to focus their efforts in a lot of different areas. Look at Archon Mode, there are 2 players per team in the same 1v1 scenario and there are lots of things to do, at first one might think that since they're dividing "chores" there's "less stuff to do", but we've seen that it's hardly the case, the skill ceiling is higher in Archon mode even if each player is focusing less on MM, just because you can focus more on harass, multi pronged attacks, expanding, defending, etc.
Instead of just mindless ranting people should focus on playing the game and willing to create strategies based on the changes, but more importantly, giving it time to sink in... SC2 is always evolving, pro gamers play way better now than even a year ago, nothing has changed but still people have figured out more stuff to do, leading to more exciting games overall. Will this happen with the removal of MM? I think so, since this is an even bigger change than the others combined. There are still things to polish and things to change, this is not final, but try to embrace the fact that Blizzard is actually trying to change A LOT of things for this expansion, which was something that people were crying about 6 months ago, so just give it more time.
On August 31 2015 18:38 BillGates wrote: The only myth here is your claim to actually know what you are talking about! You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and should not post anymore on this forum!
If there are 100 things that you can do in a minute and 10 of those were removed, you reduce the skill ceiling, period. SC2 is not a great STRATEGIC game, it mostly relies on pressing buttons quick to distinguish between skill, we are not talking about chess or something, its a basic game with clear hard counters and set build orders!
When you lower the mechanical hardness, you lower skill, period! Its like saying if we remove legs from football you won't reduce skill, give me a break! That is essentially what you are saying.
If we remove arms from basketball you won't reduce skill, yes you will. Most people can make the simple right call whether to dunk or pass, the hard thing is actually doing it, the hard thing is actually controlling the basketball.
Most people know whether to shoot in football or pass, its not that hard, plus its 50%-50%, you'd get it right half of the time, so no skill there, the hard part is actually doing it, the hard part is actually controlling the ball and running for 90 minutes!
Clearly if you remove mechanical requirements you are reducing skill HUGELY, HUGELY, HUGELY!!!
Why the hell are you against reducing the skill "HUGELY HUGELY HUGELY"?
First your argument is false, and even if it was right, you are still wrong because you do not play at GSL level to care about skill ceiling which you will never reach. The one that will be lowered is the skill floor not the skill ceiling. If the skill ceiling is affected by those cancerous fillers to fill the gap that BW limited engine left, then that shows the horrible basics this game was built upon.
So what you are saying is if we cut footballers legs the skill ceiling will remain the same? Ahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What a joke!!!!!! ahahahahah1!!!!!! LOL LOL LOL!!!!!
Go troll someone else troll boy! We don't want useless trolls like you here!