TLO on Macro Mechanics
Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
Kitai
United States824 Posts
| ||
shin_toss
Philippines2589 Posts
| ||
AbouSV
Germany1278 Posts
On October 07 2015 01:53 Spyridon wrote: + Show Spoiler + On October 07 2015 00:39 AbouSV wrote: With this in mind, I find what TLO and some other described and defend to be part of the core design of SCII and what defines this precise game (it is not just any RTS, it is this one). Thus removing of changing to much of the aims of the game would change the idea of the game itself (not sure if this last part is clear enough). That is where things get very confusing IMO. Because with SC2, it is more complicated than just "changing too much changes the idea of the game itself". With SC2, you have not only fans of the SC2 game, but many of us are also SC/BW fans as well. Part of the problem is SC2 developers changed many aspects of SC1 that the general public was actually happy with. Adding macro mechanics was one of the things added in SC2 that was NOT in SC1. And I would argue that the whole idea since inception has been a poor one - simply because controls were improved in SC2 and BW required more clicks, so they made something to use up more clicks... That is poor game design! Taking that in to consideration, here is the thing I have to say in response to the paragraph I quoted... In my opinion (and many others) these mechanics never belonged in StarCraft from the start, and they directly changed the idea of the game itself, much as you described in your quote. If the idea and intent behind the mechanic is not for the best of the game, but rather to simply "make the controls harder", why upgrade the controls in the first place? Why take half-measures? Half-measures = nobody wins and the design is sub-par. I believe SC2 should have been the place where innovative mechanics were added. I still do think Blizzard should be the ones innovating. SC2 does not even have a good reputation anymore... And for good reason. Blizzard don't have the best track record for vanilla games at release, but they are a reputation for improving their games steadily with expansions and patches until they are in a better state. Even D3. The D3 team was wiling to do MAJOR CHANGES to the design of the game, even drastic changes such as removing the AH. With as horrible of a release as it had, is in much, much better shape now days. More of my friends have been playing D3 in this recent patch than have played at vanilla D3 release. That is the type of treatment SC2 has needed for years, but the game has not been given the attention it deserves from the developers... Rather than these macro mechanics, if we need something to "require players attention" and "require more clicks" then by all means add something that does that, but make the mechanics add positive substance to the game. From a strategic POV, these mechanics are crap. And regarding TLO's defense of these mechanics... To be honest I did not see very much at all defending the mechanics themselves - their functionality. He defended that they were another place to spend attention, and he defended that some people may build their playstyles around them. But not the actual mechanics themselves. This does not send me a message that says these mechanics should stay in the game, this sends me a message that says players need elsewhere to spend their attention and Blizzard should give us an ideal mechanic in that place, rather than this garbage. Final note - my prior post wasn't really about starting points for other games. Sad as it sounds, SC2 is all that is really left of the true RTS genre. And it is a damn shame that the game is being treated like this... Improvement and innovation should be here if it is going to be anywhere. It's been 5 years... and it is still arguable if SC2 is truly a better game than it was at release... I get your point, indeed, and it hard to argue against because I mostly agree. let's take the comparison with D3 for instance. Sure the removal of the AH (and loot 2.0) changed a lot about the game, but I think that a comparable change to what you ask about SCII (and hopefully SCIII) would be more ingame oriented such as you can un-select your hero (DotA 1, are you around?) to check enemies affixes or others, or you can move your camera around; Things that would change the ingame play from its core, not the context in which you play the game. This is quite subtle, hence most likely arguable too. And so, the big changes about like the context of D3 (to keep the same example, because I find it to be a good one about Blizz's game enhancement) that they are willing/trying to do in SCII, would be more like the archon mode and the automated tournaments (and the ally commander?), and a possible rework of the ladder and matchmaking or different version of unrank maybe. Also, the biggest error, in my opinion, is to hold the choices made at the creation of SCII responsible for what you (general 'you') did not get in a real BW2. Sure this is StarCraft, but this defines more the universe in which you play, than the gameplay itself. SCII is as different from SC1 (BW or not), as W3 was from W2. But that's not what make it a bad/worse game. In another words, they used a existing excellent universe to create a new game. For the transition BW-SCII, I prefer the choice of having a new game, with different and new flaws, that then evolve from it, than a other upgrade of a existing one. This is also a reason why so many people keep playing a lot BW. It is just a other, different game. Unfortunately for them, not a state-of-the-art one, but still a excellent RTS. To conclude, I think we agree on the idea anyway (everything you explained that I did not mention), but just differ about how it should be(/have been) applied. I love SCII, not only for the game itself, but also for everything and everyone that come with it. And I, as many other people, would be just a pleased with another, different, new, (better?) RTS, defining some new mechanics that players would hasten to bend and find exploitable flaws to create so many amazing games as we have see in the past several years, and maybe even more [pleased], who knows? (Edit: Badly placed spoiler tag.) | ||
shin_toss
Philippines2589 Posts
Good Job TLO totally agree with you. Multitasking should be a HUGE part of SC2. not just some micro wars lol | ||
Meatex
Australia285 Posts
In the case of SC2 it might be something major like do I go bio or mech on this map or something small like do I send the first overlord vertical or horizontal? TLO makes a strong point that choosing where to spend your attention is an interesting tactical decision and can be part of your play style:- though I agree that currently its always a better choice to prioritize macro over micro but I think LotV is bring it closer to parity. Just imagine two pro players facing off - one the macro king the other micro god. The micro player has a much smaller army but perfect use of abilities and micro units back he is able to defeat the larger army and push forward but then another swarm approaches him and he is only able to reinforce with a few units as he was focusing totally on micro. You may have seen slivers of this kind of game before but I think that is the ideal aim. If you remove or over simplify the macro mechanics added into the game then you no longer have that element of where you spend your time as you can spend all your time watching your army. There are plenty of RTSs that cater to this style of gameplay and personally I find SC2 the MOST REWARDING WHEN i'm nailing all my injects while defending/scouting/harassing etc The game won't be better off or even worse off with major changes to MM - it will just become a different kind of RTS that I feel will lack what made SC2 unique, what made me come from FPS games when no other RTS had managed to grab me | ||
Umpteen
United Kingdom1570 Posts
Sure, you would get smurfing. But you already get smurfing, and removing macro mechanics would reduce the effective skill gap of a smurf. Not to mention that you could lock out the newbie ladder to anyone with platinum/diamond 'hardcore ladder' MMR or above. Personally I would so much rather play in that ladder right now, and then take on the extra challenge of doing it all again harder and faster with macro mechanics in place, as and when I felt ready. The alternative - what we have right now - is that I just don't play. It used to be confusing, (and now that I know better, boring and frustrating), that any remotely fun activities - scouting, harassing, controlling units, you know, activities that attracted me to the game in the first place - invariably cost me more than they benefit me because I'm not injecting my hatcheries on time. Yes, I know that is because I am shit at the game, and that if I got better it wouldn't be like that. But I'm not going to get better because I'm not going to play because it's boring and frustrating. | ||
Madars
Latvia166 Posts
On October 03 2015 23:09 Liquid`TLO wrote: If the game mechanics are too easy, there will less space for innovation and amazing come backs. There will always be enough space for Innovation. | ||
Spyridon
United States997 Posts
On October 07 2015 17:37 AbouSV wrote: I get your point, indeed, and it hard to argue against because I mostly agree. let's take the comparison with D3 for instance. Sure the removal of the AH (and loot 2.0) changed a lot about the game, but I think that a comparable change to what you ask about SCII (and hopefully SCIII) would be more ingame oriented such as you can un-select your hero (DotA 1, are you around?) to check enemies affixes or others, or you can move your camera around; Things that would change the ingame play from its core, not the context in which you play the game. This is quite subtle, hence most likely arguable too. And so, the big changes about like the context of D3 (to keep the same example, because I find it to be a good one about Blizz's game enhancement) that they are willing/trying to do in SCII, would be more like the archon mode and the automated tournaments (and the ally commander?), and a possible rework of the ladder and matchmaking or different version of unrank maybe. Also, the biggest error, in my opinion, is to hold the choices made at the creation of SCII responsible for what you (general 'you') did not get in a real BW2. Sure this is StarCraft, but this defines more the universe in which you play, than the gameplay itself. SCII is as different from SC1 (BW or not), as W3 was from W2. But that's not what make it a bad/worse game. In another words, they used a existing excellent universe to create a new game. For the transition BW-SCII, I prefer the choice of having a new game, with different and new flaws, that then evolve from it, than a other upgrade of a existing one. This is also a reason why so many people keep playing a lot BW. It is just a other, different game. Unfortunately for them, not a state-of-the-art one, but still a excellent RTS. To conclude, I think we agree on the idea anyway (everything you explained that I did not mention), but just differ about how it should be(/have been) applied. I love SCII, not only for the game itself, but also for everything and everyone that come with it. And I, as many other people, would be just a pleased with another, different, new, (better?) RTS, defining some new mechanics that players would hasten to bend and find exploitable flaws to create so many amazing games as we have see in the past several years, and maybe even more [pleased], who knows? (Edit: Badly placed spoiler tag.) Well I mostly agree. But about the BW>SC2 transition, compared to W2-W3... I am glad you brought that up. Because I think that is a good example of them going all out with game design differing from W2. You can clearly tell that W3 is not at all like its predecessor. I will be honest too, the first iteration of W3 I did not think was so great. It was basically about massing any one specific unit. As a great example though, Frozen Throne completely changed the unit design based around this and made it so massing was not the best route anymore. This turned it from a game with major problems into a viable, and very popular (at the time) RTS. I can completely understand if people were upset with the change, but that game was clearly intended to be far off from its predecessor. BW>SC2, was different. If you look at SC2 it has upgraded graphics, but it does not really look like a different game. It "feels" different, the balance is completely different, unit design, economy, etc. But from a viewer, and even a player, it is not "clearly intended to be far off from its predecessor" like WC3 was. Actually if your a SC player moving to SC2, functionality-wise it just feels like improved controls in some areas (control groups buildings etc) but the biggest difference in actually playing your race is that you will need to take advantage of the new macro mechanics. Everything else is similar. And this is where they mess up from a game design perspective, because the macro mechanics were made BECAUSE of the improved controls. Why improve the controls at all if your just going to INTENTIONALLY try to make things more difficult in exchange? Conflict of interests. On your comparison to D3, I disagree that archon and automated tournaments are similar to the changes in D3. Those are different ways to play the game with your friends, but the core game itself is unchanged. The core problems in the games design have not been fixed. Compared to D3, the core of D3 is completely changed. Unit balance, class balance, economy, drops, equipment stats, basically every single area of the game has been without a doubt improved. They even added a completely new mode that was intended to be used for "endgame" - not a side-mode like Archon (which is just a multiplayer version of the same core game) but an actual improvement on how you play the core D3 game after completing the campaign. One thing they promised before release that never came to fruition is a full PvP system, but aside from that the entire game has been worked on. Which is more than you could say for SC2. To fans of the Diablo series, in the state the game is finally in now, I would be able to recommend D3 to a player of the series. I would let them know its not quite as good as D2 in the skill system area, and theres no real PvP. But aside from that? The actual gameplay as you play it still really does feel like Diablo at its core. When it comes to SC2... even if they were big fans of BW, I honestly do not think SC2 is a good recommendation. Too many half-measures. SC2 looks and controls similar to BW, but as I play it does not feel like StarCraft at its core. Feels more like a typical RTS with SC's name branded on it. Damage system, how counters work, turtling, the strategy involved, the influence of build orders, unit design, macro mechanics, economy... all of these things "feel" different, and (in my opinion) feel like degraded versions of StarCraft. Even WC3 improved how damage and counters work from Vanilla > Frozen Throne ~15 years ago. Yet these days the same company is not willing to do the same for SC2, even though it has been needed just as badly. And unlike WC3, the game design of SC2 is not a drastically different direction akin to WC2>WC3. From the SC2 game design it is apparent the intent of their design was to make a game LIKE StarCraft 1, and these changes they made to units, macro mechanics, economy? These changes were done in a genuine effort to improve SC2 relative to SC1. Problem is as it turns out these things have not improved the gameplay. But they have stuck to their guns despite all the issues, something Blizzard would not do 15 years ago (with WC3 as proof)... | ||
Jj_82
Swaziland419 Posts
| ||
NonY
8713 Posts
And this is where they mess up from a game design perspective, because the macro mechanics were made BECAUSE of the improved controls. Why improve the controls at all if your just going to INTENTIONALLY try to make things more difficult in exchange? They did it for the same reason that people to now want the macro mechanics to be removed: replace some "brainless" mechanics with mechanics that are more fun and/or require decisions to be made. This worked for chronoboost and it worked for scan vs mule (not so much drop supply) but it mostly failed for zerg, especially when queens are being made exclusively for inject larva and because queens served an important combat role as well as being the macro mechanic conduit. They weren't trying to reduce the number of actions a player has to make but rather change the nature of those actions to more frequently be interesting or fun. And I hate to cast a really harsh judgment here, but it seems kinda crazy for you to be writing long posts on this topic and game design when you didn't know the answer to that question because it's kinda at the heart of this topic. | ||
Jj_82
Swaziland419 Posts
With SC2, you have not only fans of the SC2 game, but many of us are also SC/BW fans as well. Part of the problem is SC2 developers changed many aspects of SC1 that the general public was actually happy with. Adding macro mechanics was one of the things added in SC2 that was NOT in SC1. And I would argue that the whole idea since inception has been a poor one - simply because controls were improved in SC2 and BW required more clicks, so they made something to use up more clicks... That is poor game design! Taking that in to consideration, here is the thing I have to say in response to the paragraph I quoted... In my opinion (and many others) these mechanics never belonged in StarCraft from the start, and they directly changed the idea of the game itself, much as you described in your quote. If the idea and intent behind the mechanic is not for the best of the game, but rather to simply "make the controls harder", why upgrade the controls in the first place? Why take half-measures? Half-measures = nobody wins and the design is sub-par. I believe SC2 should have been the place where innovative mechanics were added. I still do think Blizzard should be the ones innovating. SC2 does not even have a good reputation anymore... And for good reason. Blizzard don't have the best track record for vanilla games at release, but they are a reputation for improving their games steadily with expansions and patches until they are in a better state. Even D3. The D3 team was wiling to do MAJOR CHANGES to the design of the game, even drastic changes such as removing the AH. With as horrible of a release as it had, is in much, much better shape now days. More of my friends have been playing D3 in this recent patch than have played at vanilla D3 release. That is the type of treatment SC2 has needed for years, but the game has not been given the attention it deserves from the developers... Rather than these macro mechanics, if we need something to "require players attention" and "require more clicks" then by all means add something that does that, but make the mechanics add positive substance to the game. From a strategic POV, these mechanics are crap. And regarding TLO's defense of these mechanics... To be honest I did not see very much at all defending the mechanics themselves - their functionality. He defended that they were another place to spend attention, and he defended that some people may build their playstyles around them. But not the actual mechanics themselves. This does not send me a message that says these mechanics should stay in the game, this sends me a message that says players need elsewhere to spend their attention and Blizzard should give us an ideal mechanic in that place, rather than this garbage. Final note - my prior post wasn't really about starting points for other games. Sad as it sounds, SC2 is all that is really left of the true RTS genre. And it is a damn shame that the game is being treated like this... Improvement and innovation should be here if it is going to be anywhere. It's been 5 years... and it is still arguable if SC2 is truly a better game than it was at release.] Then - instead of talking so much in an abstract language - why don't you put up some real ideas on how to do it better? Secondly, why do you think a "modern, updated" RTS should always need less clicks? I really don't agree on this, and follow TLO's points much better. | ||
Spyridon
United States997 Posts
On October 08 2015 02:17 NonY wrote: They did it for the same reason that people to now want the macro mechanics to be removed: replace some "brainless" mechanics with mechanics that are more fun and/or require decisions to be made. This worked for chronoboost and it worked for scan vs mule (not so much drop supply) but it mostly failed for zerg, especially when queens are being made exclusively for inject larva and because queens served an important combat role as well as being the macro mechanic conduit. They weren't trying to reduce the number of actions a player has to make but rather change the nature of those actions to more frequently be interesting or fun. And I hate to cast a really harsh judgment here, but it seems kinda crazy for you to be writing long posts on this topic and game design when you didn't know the answer to that question because it's kinda at the heart of this topic. I think you may have misunderstood what I was talking about, because I see no relation with the part you quoted to "reducing the number of actions" or "replacing brainless mechanics". Quite the opposite, the macro mechanics increased the number of actions players had to make,. And I am not sure what "brainless" mechanics were replaced?... the macro mechanics did not replace anything... If you look back at the commentary way back from WoL beta, there is mention of the macro mechanics being added for 3 reasons: Because SC2 has improved controls and since macro was easier than BW they added something else to emulate that, because they thought SC needed a "come back mechanic", and because it could be a way to differentiate the races from each other. Not the reason you just said. And "intentionally making the macro controls more difficult" is the primary aspect of their first reason. Although if they actually added the mechanics for the reason you mentioned, that would be a great thing. That's what designers are supposed to do. But that shows the problem in this games direction from the very beginning. They were explicitly "trying" to build an eSport, rather than a good fun game. They SHOULD have been changing the game to make it more interesting or fun. Hell, they should be doing that right now. But how many times lately have you heard their reasoning behind changes in the community updates have anything to do with "fun" as the ultimate goal? There is only one mention of "fun" in the last 3 community updates and that was talking about faster creep spread/recede... and with all the major changes they made, fun was not their reasoning behind any of it. Their reasons include "public perception", but you do not see their reasons being "because it makes the game more fun for players" or "because it is the best design for the game"... On October 08 2015 02:30 Jj_82 wrote: Then - instead of talking so much in an abstract language - why don't you put up some real ideas on how to do it better? Secondly, why do you think a "modern, updated" RTS should always need less clicks? I really don't agree on this, and follow TLO's points much better. I have been giving them feedback, and ideas, ever since joining LotV beta when they asked for feedback and started doing the community updates. But that ship has sailed once they completely switched up their direction when they announced the release date. At that point, not only did it become obvious they were rushing the game in order to meet the release date, but they also proved with their own words that game designers are not giving us the best design they are capable of. And saying a modern RTS "always needs less clicks" is bending my words. Modern games should feature improved controls to the current standards. "Less clicks" is pertaining to the specific situations of getting the game to do what you intend. You should not have to jump through hoops to do what you want, once you get the thought in your mind of what you want to do, the controls of a game are supposed to offer a way for you to do that as efficiently as possible. That does not mean the game itself needs less clicks. Just less wasteful clicks. Those freed up clicks can, and should, be used elsewhere with well designed mechanics that offer strategic/competitive game play. Which is the complete opposite of what the current macro mechanics offer. Even in TLO's explanation, the merit of the mecahnics was not their well designed competitive functions, rather that they were just "another place to spend attention and some players styles may focus on doing that more efficiently". Nearly any mechanic can offer those advantages, the mechanics offered should contribute more to the competitive aspect of the game rather than being requirements where if you do not meet the reqs you lose. | ||
Jj_82
Swaziland419 Posts
| ||
jake1138
United States82 Posts
| ||
shin_toss
Philippines2589 Posts
| ||
Emperor_Earth
United States824 Posts
Decision-making itself is a skill. You won't have the attention and APM to do everything. Not even pros do. Not even in archon mode. So you must make a decision based on imperfect information where to spend your attention and actions. And the more important the decision, the more likely there is time pressure to make it, so don't dawdle! The very decision to eschew an inject to reposition your sling/bling flank or to delay a round of warpins to land a key storm/forcefield is itself a skill that is learned. Your attention, if used correctly, is an optimization of your resources, whether mineral/gas or production cycles or units. Not all optimizations are equal. Removing "mindless clicks" only removes decisions and lowers the skill cap at ALL levels, not just the pro level. Removing the "little decisions" that seem innocuous only removes the "little edges" that are so great to build up. The community claims to hate 1a battles where a micro mistake is potentially game-ending. If that's the case, stop trying to reduce the game to one big fight! Fight for the little edges. Fight for the little decisions. | ||
shin_toss
Philippines2589 Posts
On October 08 2015 11:19 Emperor_Earth wrote: The key is: Decision-making itself is a skill. You won't have the attention and APM to do everything. Not even pros do. Not even in archon mode. So you must make a decision based on imperfect information where to spend your attention and actions. And the more important the decision, the more likely there is time pressure to make it, so don't dawdle! The very decision to eschew an inject to reposition your sling/bling flank or to delay a round of warpins to land a key storm/forcefield is itself a skill that is learned. Your attention, if used correctly, is an optimization of your resources, whether mineral/gas or production cycles or units. Not all optimizations are equal. Removing "mindless clicks" only removes decisions and lowers the skill cap at ALL levels, not just the pro level. Removing the "little decisions" that seem innocuous only removes the "little edges" that are so great to build up. The community claims to hate 1a battles where a micro mistake is potentially game-ending. If that's the case, stop trying to reduce the game to one big fight! Fight for the little edges. Fight for the little decisions. +1 | ||
AbouSV
Germany1278 Posts
On October 08 2015 02:47 Spyridon wrote: And I am not sure what "brainless" mechanics were replaced?... the macro mechanics did not replace anything... This, is directly answered by you, on the next paragraph: On October 08 2015 02:47 Spyridon wrote: If you look back at the commentary way back from WoL beta, there is mention of the macro mechanics being added for 3 reasons: Because SC2 has improved controls and since macro was easier than BW they added something else to emulate that, because they thought SC needed a "come back mechanic", and because it could be a way to differentiate the races from each other. So in the end, I'm not sure where you are tying to go to with all this. | ||
MatteDaemon
8 Posts
Only when you reach the highest level will you have to master every aspect of StarCraft! At the highest level, it's improbable that every aspect of the game's mastered; what's "every aspect of StarCraft"? Progamers often have to cut corners and take conscious risks to get an edge in their matches. But for you it's perfectly fine to get a safety spore if you struggle with Dark Templar regularly. When trying really hard to micro your mutas or lings like Life does it's fine if you add extra hatcheries to spend your money more easily . A blind spore would do many more (Zerg) progamers good. It's interesting how many professional matches are (still) lost simply because at least one "blind" spore wasn't made (and a Dark Templar strategy (more or less) ends the game). "Getting behind" by making a few spores seems less desirable than a guaranteed loss; perhaps I don't fully understand because I'm not a progamer. Many Zerg progamers don't build enough macro hatches. If a Zerg has X,000 minerals where X is greater than or equal to 2 (and assuming we're in mid-to-late game), I doubt there's any decent justification to not build a macro hatchery (if at that time the Zerg has less than some number of hatcheries after which building another provides nonpositive benefit). Knowing whatever that exact limit is (or asymptotically approaches) would be useful. (In Wings of Liberty,) Stephano frequently did things that conventionally get Zerg "far behind". He'd invest heavily in static defense, he didn't hesitate to build macro hatcheries when floating several thousand minerals. It seems like his conscious risk taking by not cutting corners occasionally gained him an implicit edge that allowed him to: a) not immediately lose, allowing him to make a possible comeback; in most cases he was better than his opponents in later stages of the game. b) not lose vital tech structures during the mid-late game, which increased the likelihood of him being able to build the correct unit types post-engagement, consequently maximizing the damage done via follow-up attacks (or at least provide him the ability to adequately defend a counter / follow-up attack). It seems to've worked out well for him in the long run (as a WoL progamer). The less mistakes pros are making, the more it'll be about producing the perfect unit composition and we'll be back to what made SC2 stale previously. That's false. Many of the best and most interesting games were the product of "perfect" unit compositions, à la NesTea vs. Mvp, Squirtle vs. Mvp, etc. Only when macro and micro are relatively equal in importance magic happens. In the same vein as the quote previous to the last, most of the best games resulted from the (bitwise exclusive-OR) of macro or micro. What I mean by that is they were products of only macro or micro but not both macro and micro. The importance of both macro and micro in those "magical" situations wasn't directly proportional. In such cases, they were great games (or situations) because the games developed into a state where only micro mattered. Whichever player first lost their "über-army" ended up in a situation where macro mattered nought; the game'd been decided. Thank you for your post, Dario, and I'll continue supporting your stream and wish you all the best in LoTV! :-) | ||
IcemanAsi
Israel681 Posts
1. To be good, RTS games must be impossible to play perfectly - YES 2. To enable expression, there must be a possibility of focusing on different aspects of the game for different players - YES 3. Larave Inject assists in making Zerg impossible to play perfectly - YES and here comes the clincher: 4. Larvae Inject gives a possibility of focusing on different aspects of the game for different players - NO! focusing on Larvae Inject ( and presumbly, but not always, macro) or on combat management (micro) is a binary choice, yes, but this choice does not express itself within Larvae Inject itself. There are no choices made when you click Larave Inject, only if you click it or not, which is why it doesn't allow enough expression, which is why people don't like it, which is why it is boring. In a way the same can be said on mules ( they only mine resources ) but Larvae Inject is a much more central to Zerg gameplay then mules are to Terran, which compounds the issue, and Mules do allow some expression in mule drop location and spread. Basically, when you click Larave Inject you aren't making an expression about yourself as a player, in contrast a mech player making mech units express himself as a mech player, as a bio player express himself while making marines. Sure, you can say you just want to keep making units at all time, but there are a ton of very small decisions, what units do I make first, where, and each click reinforces your stylistic choices as a player. Larvae Inject doesn't do this, it feels the same when I am going macro 3 hatch pool and trying to rush sixtry drones and when I'm going for a seven roach rush. It doesn't deviate, doesn't allow for expression. Which makes it feel flat and external to the player. A possible solution could be to split the Larave Inject into two distinct abilities, both related to production, but one macro facing and the other micro facing. So for example you can have the old inject and a different ability that gives you special larvae that make only drones but cheaper or faster. It's about charging Larave Inject with meaning so that it can operate as a point of focus for different players in different ways. | ||
| ||