I decided to write an article about this topic, because Starcraft is incredibly important to me, it is, in a very true sense, my life. I felt there are some points in public discussions about the game right now that aren't being addressed. In this article, I'll be explaining a way to learn and approach the game that is different to what is most commonly taught. This way is much closer to the way I learned RTS back when I was young. I'll also be talking about why a complex and oftentimes difficult game will be a beautiful one.
Play like yourself – not like a pro
First of all, I'd like to make a proposal. Try to treat StarCraft like a sandbox! There are so many ways to play this game and you can find your own niche or style. Only when you reach the highest level will you have to master every aspect of StarCraft!
It seems to me that far too often lower league players are tying themselves unnecessarily to the way progamers play. They see, learn and even get taught builds of progamers, without adjusting them to their own skill level. Let me give you an example of how you can change that and probably have a better personal experience with the game.
Let's say you're Zerg, you're on 3 bases and struggle with macroing. You tend to float minerals and gas like it's nobody's business and get frustrated after another loss with 2000 minerals unspent. Macro is hard! But it doesn't have to be, it's only that hard if you want to play ''perfectly'' but aren't yet capable of it. So how can you make it easier? Don't entirely copy progamers!
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 . Once you identify your weaknesses, try to overcompensate. Then, when you start losing matches because you overcompensated, that's when you can tune it down until you find your perfect balance.
The great thing about StarCraft2 and especially Legacy of the Void is that, up until a very high level, you can play the game the way you like. If you enjoy micro, just make sure you add more production than would be required. Get three more barracks than you would need if you kept up production constantly and start those four supply depots before you attack so you can keep your pressure up.
If you're obsessed with macro, try to come as close as possible to pro macro, but don't bother with fancy control groups. Make liberal use of the select all army key, focus your efforts towards scouting so you don't get caught off guard and if necessary make more base defense than you'd see in GSL or WCS.
The main goal is to keep your money low, but you don't need to be perfect. Try to make it as easy for yourself as possible instead of getting frustrated with the game. Progress can and should be gradual. If you can't quite 4gate yet because microing and macroing at the same time is difficult, make it a 6gate. It may be theoretically worse, but you might climb a whole league just because you're finally spending your money. You'll enjoy the game much more and eventually the 6gate will become a 5gate until you reach the goal to pull it off with 4. And not just that, because you're not being held back by that single aspect that keeps frustrating you, you'll also learn the whole game better. As you, yourself, simplify macro it doesn't tower over the rest of cool things StarCraft2 has to offer anymore. Scouting, micro and decision making will become more relevant to your games than hitting your warp-in cycle perfectly.
Time and Action Management
Lately there's a term going around in the community that I couldn't disagree with more: ''Mindless clicking'' which is most prominently referring to larva injecting. The idea is that it's a meaningless task for progamers that they're all capable of doing perfectly while at the same time posing a more difficult and even tedious task for casual players, denying them access to more fun parts of the game.
I think I addressed the problem non-progamers are facing in the previous segment above, so I'll focus on the professional level of play from here on. No one has perfect injects. If you say that, you're simply wrong. While under no pressure, high level players will not miss an inject. But it becomes an interesting mechanic as soon as multitasking comes into play. When you're under attack as Zerg, your enemy will be able to do more than just direct damage. If they manage to keep you stressed and if they manage to play faster than you, they'll also do the indirect damage of making you miss injects and interrupt your creep spread. That means that there's complex on-the-spot decision making going on.
What's better, do I inject and lose a drone because I didn't micro it, or do I try to save the drone and then inject with the risk that I might still lose it and then also have the later inject? It's not always that obvious. The two most satisfying things in SC2 to me are outplaying your opponent with speed and countering speed with strategy.
Most importantly, there is one thing people need to be aware of in my opinion – the more mistakes pros make in their games, the more interesting the matches are. Right now, on the highest level, LotV seems so complex that you're bound to make mistakes and have to prioritize what to focus on. Because of that alone, decision making in SC2 has never felt as important as in Legacy of the Void to me.
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. The more room for mistakes exists, the more room there is to outplay your opponent. And not just that - when people aren't playing close to perfectly, more possibilities arise. Games have much better odds of taking unique turns instead of two players repeating the same standard scenarios again and again. When the game is complex, it's hard to predict for the players, casters and audience what exactly will happen - and that's exciting.
People used to be much worse when we started playing SC2, that's why many fans are nostalgic about matches from 2010 and 2011. The matches were more exciting because they weren't as perfect. A perfect match can be appreciated by people with extremely high understanding of the game, but a back and forth battle in which the victor isn't clear for a long time is exciting to everyone. More mistakes lead to a less obvious outcome of the result.
If pros have to deal with complicated macro and micro at the same time, they won't be able to look at everything happening at once, which will allow them to exploit gaps in their opponent's attention span and force them to make hard choices. That's also exactly what makes exciting comebacks possible, and better players will have more room to make up for a disadvantage if they manage to tear their opponent apart mechanically.
This will also help progamers to distinguish themselves more from amateurs as well as from each other. Highly mechanical players will be able to produce miracle plays but very strategic players will be able to counter it with better preparation and compositions. My hope is that pros will become more unique in their styles once more. It would be amazing if some players could be known as ''strategists'' or ''creative'' () while others are ''multitasking mechanics''. That's only possible with a high enough mechanical skill ceiling though; else everyone will be more or less stylistically indistinguishable.
Play-style diversity
I want to argue that only when both macro and micro are difficult they have meaning.
Lately parts of the community are obsessing about the fact that if we make the design of macro easier, we'll see more amazing battles. Pros will be able to make cool plays all the time and the main culprit, why the game seems boring, is macro. However, I believe that if both players are able to focus mostly on the micro management of their units, we'll end up with less interesting posturing of units. Both players will have their guard up constantly which, in the end, due to defender's advantage, will discourage, not encourage engagements. When that happens, final composition and initial build orders play a bigger role than mechanics and strategy.
Only when macro and micro are relatively equal in importance magic happens. You should have a choice to prioritize one or the other. Either as a conscious decision on how you want to play in general, from match to match or even on engagement to engagement basis.
I know plenty of people who have atrocious macro but made it into masters based purely on micro and sneaky play. While others are great macro players but don't know how to do anything but 1a. They all made a conscious decision though, they decided to play the game the way they like.
With the current complex version LotV I strongly believe that there will be a lot of options for players to differenciate themselves from each other but also change it up from match to match. It's in our interest to promote that diversity, even if at times the difficulty can seem overwhelming.
Conclusion
If the game mechanics are too easy, there will less space for innovation and amazing come backs. Few cookie-cutter build orders will dominate. Players will have to follow a mainstream metagame more strictly and the sandbox will shrink significantly.
If you take away macro mechanics, or make macro easier in general, you take away the choice and freedom that players have to differentiate themselves. Ironically micro players, who are often said to benefit the most from LotV, will actually be the ones who suffer the most from that - when everyone can focus on micro, they won't be able to set themselves apart as much anymore.
I think he's very off on the "play any way you want" philosophy. If one wants to win, they better have their macro booster use down to spades. Macro, in general, is far more important in this game at most levels of play, so, no there really isn't a depth of playstyle diversity as he claims. How I wish it were, but, alas...
Edit: However, I do agree that micro in this game is shallow in itself, but he suggests other things need to be hard so that pros make mistakes in the relatively simple system because their attention is focused elsewhere. Instead, I say make micro deep itself, rather than make other things complex to add mistakes.
This goes further against his "more difficult = better," because we should carefully distinguish between difficulty created by depth, and difficulty created by complexity. Sometimes, it's hard to distinguish, but I'd say his prognosis / rhetoric leans too far to the complexity side instead of the depth side.
Only when macro and micro are relatively equal in importance magic happens. You should have a choice to prioritize one or the other. Either as a conscious decision on how you want to play in general, from match to match or even on engagement to engagement basis.
I know plenty of people who have atrocious macro but made it into masters based purely on micro and sneaky play. While others are great macro players but don't know how to do anything but 1a. They all made a conscious decision though, they decided to play the game the way they like.
Loved the article, especially this part. In fact, that's why zerg in wol/hots is boring imo there isn't a decision to make, inject always takes priority.
On October 03 2015 23:22 Jaedrik wrote: I think he's very off on the "play any way you want" philosophy. If one wants to win, they better have their macro booster use down to spades. Macro, in general, is far more important in this game at most levels of play, so, no there really isn't a depth of playstyle diversity. How I wish it were, but, alas...
Not at all. If you are playing to have fun you really can have meh macro (including stuff like bad builds and/or timings) and still make it to master
Couldn't agree more, macro has to be hard for Starcraft to be amazing!
I think the fact that you can reach Diamond or Master without any real micro, if you just focus on macro, is fascinating and an important factor of Starcraft. On the other hand you can also get Master with cannon rushes/early pools/proxy raxes. The fact that both ways exist make this game so amazing.
Autoinjects on zerg would've destroyed the race imo, so glad it's gone!
Only when macro and micro are relatively equal in importance magic happens. You should have a choice to prioritize one or the other. Either as a conscious decision on how you want to play in general, from match to match or even on engagement to engagement basis.
I know plenty of people who have atrocious macro but made it into masters based purely on micro and sneaky play. While others are great macro players but don't know how to do anything but 1a. They all made a conscious decision though, they decided to play the game the way they like.
Loved the article, especially this part. In fact, that's why zerg in wol/hots is boring imo there isn't a decision to make, inject always takes priority.
On October 03 2015 23:22 Jaedrik wrote: I think he's very off on the "play any way you want" philosophy. If one wants to win, they better have their macro booster use down to spades. Macro, in general, is far more important in this game at most levels of play, so, no there really isn't a depth of playstyle diversity. How I wish it were, but, alas...
Not at all. If you are playing to have fun you really can have meh macro (including stuff like bad builds and/or timings) and still make it to master
From your other response, I see you're talking about LotV, and you'd agree with me if it was WoL / HotS. I guess there isn't really a way to prove it, so I'll just disagree again. Macro boosters still make macro the more important skill, but I'm hopeful about their weakening.
The great thing about StarCraft2 and especially Legacy of the Void is, that up until a very high level, you can play the game the way you like.
You have some rogue commas in there. Rewrite it to say "The great thing about StarCraft2, and especially Legacy of the Void, is that you can play the game the way you like up until a very high level".
Both players will have their guard up constantly which, in the end, due to defender's advantage, will discourage, not encourage engagements.
It's superfluous to say that it will "not encourage" after you have already said that it "will discourage". Rewrite as "Both players will have their guard up constantly, which will discourage engagements due to defender's advantage".
Only when macro and micro are relatively equal in importance magic happens. You should have a choice to prioritize one or the other. Either as a conscious decision on how you want to play in general, from match to match or even on engagement to engagement basis.
I know plenty of people who have atrocious macro but made it into masters based purely on micro and sneaky play. While others are great macro players but don't know how to do anything but 1a. They all made a conscious decision though, they decided to play the game the way they like.
Loved the article, especially this part. In fact, that's why zerg in wol/hots is boring imo there isn't a decision to make, inject always takes priority.
On October 03 2015 23:22 Jaedrik wrote: I think he's very off on the "play any way you want" philosophy. If one wants to win, they better have their macro booster use down to spades. Macro, in general, is far more important in this game at most levels of play, so, no there really isn't a depth of playstyle diversity. How I wish it were, but, alas...
Not at all. If you are playing to have fun you really can have meh macro (including stuff like bad builds and/or timings) and still make it to master
From your other response, I see you're talking about LotV, and you'd agree with me if it was WoL / HotS. I guess there isn't really a way to prove it, so I'll just disagree still. Macro boosters still make macro the more important skill, but I'm hopeful about their weakening.
Nop im talking about wol and hots. I'm not saying to remove macro boosters, just that a) for zerg specifically it's too important imo (doesn't mean it has to be automated, in fact automated injects are terrible and b) while macro is important, especially below the pro level you can make up for it with better micro and decision making, up to a certain extent.
I just wish the macro wouldn't be so much more impactful then the micro. Chosing to do more macro seems to always be the right answer. But they are not very far away from each other.
Really like this article, really spot on despite my feelings.
Great article, agree with most of it, slight oversight here though:
On October 03 2015 23:09 Liquid`TLO wrote: That's only possible with a high enough mechanical skill ceiling though; else everyone will be more or less stylistically indistinguishable.
The current macro is hard, but too simple. A different economy model to break a three base cap would allow for way more playstyles than a high mechanical skill ceiling ever could, and we could get both into Sc2.
On October 03 2015 23:22 Jaedrik wrote: I think he's very off on the "play any way you want" philosophy. If one wants to win, they better have their macro booster use down to spades. Macro, in general, is far more important in this game at most levels of play, so, no there really isn't a depth of playstyle diversity as he claims. How I wish it were, but, alas...
Edit: However, I do agree that micro in this game is shallow in itself, but he suggests other things need to be hard so that pros make mistakes in the relatively simple system because their attention is focused elsewhere. Instead, I say make micro deep itself, rather than make other things complex to add mistakes.
This goes further against his "more difficult = better," because we should carefully distinguish between difficulty created by depth, and difficulty created by complexity. Sometimes, it's hard to distinguish, but I'd say his prognosis / rhetoric leans too far to the complexity side instead of the depth side.
I think people in general underestimate how far you can get with unconventional play as long as you UNDERSTAND your strategy.
You can have someone perform a superficially professional looking build, but if he copied it from a vod and has no clue why some choices were made from what cues, then it will be a more frustrating and probably less effective build than if you made something your own and really understood it inside out (of course learning a pro build inside out is great too).
Macro mechanics, especially inject, just aren't fun to use. That's the problem. TLO looks at this from the pro level and that's fine, he's a pro, but the vast majority of players are not pro and are playing for fun. I'm not sure how we can change this, but a change to make it feel less like a "do this repetitive task every 30 seconds" mechanic would be welcome. We already have unit building macro that sort of functions as that, but that at least feels more natural and like there's decision making involved. Macro mechanics like inject feel very "tacked on" if you will.
Only when macro and micro are relatively equal in importance magic happens. You should have a choice to prioritize one or the other. Either as a conscious decision on how you want to play in general, from match to match or even on engagement to engagement basis.
I know plenty of people who have atrocious macro but made it into masters based purely on micro and sneaky play. While others are great macro players but don't know how to do anything but 1a. They all made a conscious decision though, they decided to play the game the way they like.
Loved the article, especially this part. In fact, that's why zerg in wol/hots is boring imo there isn't a decision to make, inject always takes priority.
On October 03 2015 23:22 Jaedrik wrote: I think he's very off on the "play any way you want" philosophy. If one wants to win, they better have their macro booster use down to spades. Macro, in general, is far more important in this game at most levels of play, so, no there really isn't a depth of playstyle diversity. How I wish it were, but, alas...
Not at all. If you are playing to have fun you really can have meh macro (including stuff like bad builds and/or timings) and still make it to master
From your other response, I see you're talking about LotV, and you'd agree with me if it was WoL / HotS. I guess there isn't really a way to prove it, so I'll just disagree still. Macro boosters still make macro the more important skill, but I'm hopeful about their weakening.
Nop im talking about wol and hots. I'm not saying to remove macro boosters, just that a) for zerg specifically it's too important imo (doesn't mean it has to be automated, in fact automated injects are terrible and b) while macro is important, especially below the pro level you can make up for it with better micro and decision making, up to a certain extent.
Our disagreement is of degrees: the certain extent you talk about I see as limited due to the balance of importance being far in favor of macro still.
On October 03 2015 23:22 Jaedrik wrote: I think he's very off on the "play any way you want" philosophy. If one wants to win, they better have their macro booster use down to spades. Macro, in general, is far more important in this game at most levels of play, so, no there really isn't a depth of playstyle diversity as he claims. How I wish it were, but, alas...
Edit: However, I do agree that micro in this game is shallow in itself, but he suggests other things need to be hard so that pros make mistakes in the relatively simple system because their attention is focused elsewhere. Instead, I say make micro deep itself, rather than make other things complex to add mistakes.
This goes further against his "more difficult = better," because we should carefully distinguish between difficulty created by depth, and difficulty created by complexity. Sometimes, it's hard to distinguish, but I'd say his prognosis / rhetoric leans too far to the complexity side instead of the depth side.
I think people in general underestimate how far you can get with unconventional play as long as you UNDERSTAND your strategy.
You can have someone perform a superficially professional looking build, but if he copied it from a vod and has no clue why some choices were made from what cues, then it will be a more frustrating and probably less effective build than if you made something your own and really understood it inside out (of course learning a pro build inside out is great too).
If you're right, then the underestimation and lack of knowledge is directly because of the complexity I talked about, which makes skill development and mastery unintuitive; that's not desirable game design. Likewise, the lack of their presence can be explained by a lack of depth too: there really aren't as many viable unconventional strategies. I'd like to remove complexity from macro and add depth to micro, which would shore this up magnificently. It's probably a combination of the two.
On October 03 2015 23:46 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: Macro mechanics, especially inject, just aren't fun to use. That's the problem. TLO looks at this from the pro level and that's fine, he's a pro, but the vast majority of players are not pro and are playing for fun. I'm not sure how we can change this, but a change to make it feel less like a "do this repetitive task every 30 seconds" mechanic would be welcome. We already have unit building macro that sort of functions as that, but that at least feels more natural and like there's decision making involved. Macro mechanics like inject feel very "tacked on" if you will.
That's entirely subjective, and you're generalizing. I love lining my build up perfectly because i used chronoboosts just right. I can see why you'd think something like inject isn't fun if your mindset is "i must play this game to improve and the only way to do that is to macro perfectly" though.
Likewise, the lack of their presence can be explained by a lack of depth too: there really aren't as many viable unconventional strategies as you say.
"Viable" is a horribly defined word though. You can't easily compare ladder Bo1 play between two amateurs with modern tournament play between pros, which is the standard that people look at to define something as "viable". Plenty of wierd shit that works on ladder would be shut down horribly in a tournament by watching a replay or two, but that doesn't mean it will hold back someone's "improvement" (another term that is defined pretty badly).
Then I'll define so you catch my meaning properly. Viable is relative to skill level, but is objective. That is, there are definitely strategies that will more often secure victory at certain skill levels. What I'm saying, again, is that there could be many more viable strategies at most or all levels of play if macro wasn't so gosh dang important and complex, and micro had more depth.
But I don't get what you mean about improvement. There are such things as skill development and mastery, and intuitiveness directly impacts these things. Both are made harder if things are unintuitive.
Edit 50000: You don't fall into the "vast majority" that the other gentleman talked about, sir, that's all there really is to that. Fun isn't just subjective, it's normative. Normally, complexity that doesn't add 'enough' (the subjective element) depth is not fun for people. For most people, it isn't enough. There's nothing whatsoever wrong with his generalization. It's an accurate one methinks.
On October 03 2015 23:46 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: Macro mechanics, especially inject, just aren't fun to use. That's the problem. TLO looks at this from the pro level and that's fine, he's a pro, but the vast majority of players are not pro and are playing for fun. I'm not sure how we can change this, but a change to make it feel less like a "do this repetitive task every 30 seconds" mechanic would be welcome. We already have unit building macro that sort of functions as that, but that at least feels more natural and like there's decision making involved. Macro mechanics like inject feel very "tacked on" if you will.
That's entirely subjective, and you're generalizing. I love lining my build up perfectly because i used chronoboosts just right. I can see why you'd think something like inject isn't fun if your mindset is "i must play this game to improve and the only way to do that is to macro perfectly" though.
Likewise, the lack of their presence can be explained by a lack of depth too: there really aren't as many viable unconventional strategies as you say.
"Viable" is a horribly defined word though. You can't easily compare ladder Bo1 play between two amateurs with modern tournament play between pros, which is the standard that people look at to define something as "viable". Plenty of wierd shit that works on ladder would be shut down horribly in a tournament by watching a replay or two, but that doesn't mean it will hold back someone's "improvement" (another term that is defined pretty badly).
On October 03 2015 23:46 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: Macro mechanics, especially inject, just aren't fun to use. That's the problem. TLO looks at this from the pro level and that's fine, he's a pro, but the vast majority of players are not pro and are playing for fun. I'm not sure how we can change this, but a change to make it feel less like a "do this repetitive task every 30 seconds" mechanic would be welcome. We already have unit building macro that sort of functions as that, but that at least feels more natural and like there's decision making involved. Macro mechanics like inject feel very "tacked on" if you will.
That's entirely subjective, and you're generalizing. I love lining my build up perfectly because i used chronoboosts just right. I can see why you'd think something like inject isn't fun if your mindset is "i must play this game to improve and the only way to do that is to macro perfectly" though.
Likewise, the lack of their presence can be explained by a lack of depth too: there really aren't as many viable unconventional strategies as you say.
"Viable" is a horribly defined word though. You can't easily compare ladder Bo1 play between two amateurs with modern tournament play between pros, which is the standard that people look at to define something as "viable". Plenty of wierd shit that works on ladder would be shut down horribly in a tournament by watching a replay or two, but that doesn't mean it will hold back someone's "improvement" (another term that is defined pretty badly).
Then I'll define so you catch my meaning properly. Viable is relative to skill level, but is objective. That is, there are definitely strategies that will more often secure victory at certain skill levels. What I'm saying, again, is that there could be many more viable strategies at most or all levels of play if macro wasn't so gosh dang important and complex, and micro had more depth.
But I don't get what you mean about improvement. There are such things as skill development and mastery, and intuitiveness directly impacts these things. Both are made harder if things are unintuitive.
Edit 50000: You don't fall into the "vast majority" that the other gentleman talked about, sir, that's all there really is to that. Fun isn't just subjective, it's normative. Normally, complexity that doesn't add 'enough' (the subjective element) depth is not fun for people. For most people, it isn't enough. There's nothing whatsoever wrong with his generalization. It's an accurate one methinks.
Could become standard reading, especially for newcomers who might be intimidated by the community's focus on, "understanding the game," which roughly translates into the strict metas that you spoke of.
On October 03 2015 23:46 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: Macro mechanics, especially inject, just aren't fun to use. That's the problem. TLO looks at this from the pro level and that's fine, he's a pro, but the vast majority of players are not pro and are playing for fun. I'm not sure how we can change this, but a change to make it feel less like a "do this repetitive task every 30 seconds" mechanic would be welcome. We already have unit building macro that sort of functions as that, but that at least feels more natural and like there's decision making involved. Macro mechanics like inject feel very "tacked on" if you will.
I love injecting, it's fun for me. It's fine as longs as it's fun for 30% of the players, since there are two more races the others can choose. Not every race has to be fun for everyone and the races being so different is great imo.
On October 03 2015 23:46 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: Macro mechanics, especially inject, just aren't fun to use. That's the problem. TLO looks at this from the pro level and that's fine, he's a pro, but the vast majority of players are not pro and are playing for fun. I'm not sure how we can change this, but a change to make it feel less like a "do this repetitive task every 30 seconds" mechanic would be welcome. We already have unit building macro that sort of functions as that, but that at least feels more natural and like there's decision making involved. Macro mechanics like inject feel very "tacked on" if you will.
I love injecting, it's fun for me. It's fine as longs as it's fun for 30% of the players, since there are two more races the others can choose. Not every race has to be fun for everyone and the races being so different is great imo.
I love injects too. They're my biggest joy when offracing as zerg. it's so satisfying when you manage to maintain perfect injects while being under pressure.
Great write-up Dario! Nice suggestion to lower level players, encouring them to deal with a problem which if simplified, would do more harm than good at the higher levels.
On October 03 2015 23:46 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: Macro mechanics, especially inject, just aren't fun to use. That's the problem. TLO looks at this from the pro level and that's fine, he's a pro, but the vast majority of players are not pro and are playing for fun. I'm not sure how we can change this, but a change to make it feel less like a "do this repetitive task every 30 seconds" mechanic would be welcome. We already have unit building macro that sort of functions as that, but that at least feels more natural and like there's decision making involved. Macro mechanics like inject feel very "tacked on" if you will.
I love injecting, it's fun for me. It's fine as longs as it's fun for 30% of the players, since there are two more races the others can choose. Not every race has to be fun for everyone and the races being so different is great imo.
In lotv with hatcheries giving 6 supply and inject just 3 larva I think it becomes viable to not rely on inject so much anymore. Inject is still more economical than macro hatcheries but now I think it will be fine to just inject once in a while and have more hatcheries until you reach high masters if you prefer to play a micro oriented style.
I couldn't agree more with the general outline of that article, however I hold the stance that - in particular the power of - inject leads to the opposite effect. It leads to zerg not being playable "the way you want to", but always relying on great macro play. There is no cutsie play from zerg with certain techs and micro, the race relies on large numbers. And for those numbers you need inject. I mean, there is cutsie play from zerg. But it usually features large amounts of drones behind your cutsie move, or, large scale techswitches. What blizzard has done with the last patch - nerfing inject (amongst other macro boosters) - is the minimum direction to be taken so that what TLO writes can actually become more true.
Macro mechanics, especially inject, just aren't fun to use. That's the problem. TLO looks at this from the pro level and that's fine, he's a pro, but the vast majority of players are not pro and are playing for fun. I'm not sure how we can change this, but a change to make it feel less like a "do this repetitive task every 30 seconds" mechanic would be welcome. We already have unit building macro that sort of functions as that, but that at least feels more natural and like there's decision making involved. Macro mechanics like inject feel very "tacked on" if you will.
Didn't you read the article? Injecting creats a more fun,interesting and complex game. Not directly but indirectly. And many things in Starcraft aren't fun on its own like creating supply but this mechanic has a big impact on other things and through them it makes Starcraft indirectly more fun even though the action itself is rather plain. And it might be personal but injecting is satisfying for me. Having low energy queens on min XY creats a bigger satisfaction for me than a big baneling hit.
Succinct and to the point. It still blows my mind that some people think they have lost games because they didn't have enough mechanics to use chrono boost.
On October 04 2015 00:22 ZAiNs wrote: Succinct and to the point. It still blows my mind that some people think they have lost games because they didn't have enough mechanics to use chrono boost.
Enough APM? They're right, though. Proper utilization of the macro boosters is one of the most important skills at all skill levels given all else is equal with the opponent or scenario in question.
TLO explained his opinion well. In perfect game you would still want to get rid of macromechanics and make engagements hard enough to players make enough mistakes. But TLO might be right and in current SC2 we need "mindless boring" macro. It's shame, but it might be more realistic. At least for progamers, for casuals no inject for example is way better and a lot more fun.
"Play like yourself - not like a pro" I don't know why he put it there. It's partly true, but he forgets that there is big number of players that don't choose progamers build because they think it's better than massing roaches in their league. They want to do the same stuff as progamers that they watch. That's a very strong motivation for 1v1 players. They also want a build that will work as they improve. Sure they are playing at disadvantage, but they don't have to worry about not being able to progress with the build. What TLO is saying will work for some players, but it seems to me he is just saying that because of his narrow field of view.
Removing macroboosters does not mean that there would be no place to be creative.
What Starcraft 2 needs is more varied map pool so we don't see the staleness we've seen in HOTS. BroodWar did have a lot of interesting maps which made pros and casuals think outside the box.
The only thing I can agree with here is the "Play like yourself - not like a pro". Seriously I hate anyone try to copy paste a pro build and when you point out a mistake he did in the game he goes "but it is a pro build". Copying like a retard without understanding what is going on in the game and can he do with his own skill to win.
But about the part that MM are important in the game, I couldn't disagree more. The whole point of those MM existence is to cover the gap of MBS left compared to BW. You needed to go back to your base and start producing from every single production building instead of selecting your hotkey and mass production hotkey. So there was a need to make macro harder.
The issue these MM made is the super boost in economy. Example: Terrans thanks to mules they can sac SCVs late game to gain larger army supply to have more fair late game fight due to no transition point from bio due to bastardized mech state. This seems kinda balanced but it is not fun thing at all. It is super frustrating for both parties.
Zerg another example. Because their supply comes from overlords, they don't even need to go back to base and make depots / pylons. So it will be much simpler than Terrans or Protosses macro by miles. So injects were introduced. The hardest of the 3 MM to balanced that.
Because of how larva stacks in huge numbers, Zerg went from huge army swarm the enemy into a tech switches and instant remaxing.
So basically you want harder macro? Simple. Remove MBS and lets see the harder macro. But making macro boosters as a way to make macro harder is just plain bad and horrible for the game. I'm against making macro super easy mode to focus on battle. I'm against the macro boosters. So again, want harder macro? Remove the MBS and we see harder macro. But macro boosters are not the right method.
On October 04 2015 00:22 ZAiNs wrote: Succinct and to the point. It still blows my mind that some people think they have lost games because they didn't have enough mechanics to use chrono boost.
Enough APM? They're right, though. Proper utilization of the macro boosters is one of the most important skills at all skill levels given all else is equal with the opponent or scenario in question.
No it's not... The first few chronos are super easy because you don't have much else to do. Beyond that it's mainly forges/upgrades/colossi you chrono, for low-level players being supply blocked or just having late forges/upgrade buildings are gonna be way more impactful than them forgetting a chrono or 2. It won't even make a difference let alone ever cost them the game. MULEs are also super forgiving, low-level players are always gonna float too much money any ways so it's no big deal if they don't MULE.
On October 04 2015 00:22 ZAiNs wrote: Succinct and to the point. It still blows my mind that some people think they have lost games because they didn't have enough mechanics to use chrono boost.
Enough APM? They're right, though. Proper utilization of the macro boosters is one of the most important skills at all skill levels given all else is equal with the opponent or scenario in question.
No it's not... The first few chronos are super easy because you don't have much else to do. Beyond that it's mainly forges/upgrades/colossi you chrono, for low-level players being supply blocked or just having late forges/upgrade buildings are gonna be way more impactful than them forgetting a chrono or 2. It won't even make a difference let alone ever cost them the game. MULEs are also super forgiving, low-level players are always gonna float too much money any ways so it's no big deal if they don't MULE.
You're right, I made a steak with my argument. I forgot my original position. D:
Err--let me see, it was--macro in general is complex because macro boosters take precious APM and thought away from stuff like remembering to upgrade / construct pylons, or make facilities to spend the money. Chrono Boost is probably the least offensive of the boosters in this regard, because it's the least significant to macro as a whole in that way. I'm still gonna say they (the boosters) ought to be decreased or removed, because its proportion of complexity and consumption of the APM economy doesn't justify the meager depth it provides.
Very well written. and I agree with almost everything. However this does not mean changing some macro mechanics is not a good idea. For instance, the new chrono boost is indeniably for the better.
Yess! This is why I trust pro opinions much more than random posters on reddit/TL this article is excellent, very clearly thought out. Macro mechanics are a needed part of the game. If all we did was move units around the game would be far less fun to watch and play at the highest level.
On October 04 2015 01:20 TheoMikkelsen wrote: Very well written. and I agree with almost everything. However this does not mean changing some macro mechanics is not a good idea. For instance, the new chrono boost is indeniably for the better.
If reducing strategical depth means improving the game, sure.
This article expresses exactly what I think, and also the reason why macro mechanics in some form should stay in the game.
Seriously, though, TLO's comments on lower-level play are spot on. It really is possible to do crazy things at lower levels, as well as to play many different ways. The main thing constricting lower-level SC2, in my opinion, is the fixation on pro play and build orders.
If the game mechanics are too easy, there will less space for innovation and amazing come backs. Few cookie-cutter build orders will dominate. Players will have to follow a mainstream metagame more strictly and the sandbox will shrink significantly.
If you take away macro mechanics, or make macro easier in general, you take away the choice and freedom that players have to differentiate themselves. Ironically micro players, who are often said to benefit the most from LotV, will actually be the ones who suffer the most from that - when everyone can focus on micro, they won't be able to set themselves apart as much anymore.
Great article, this definitely has me more in the middle of the MM discussion than on the side to greatly simplify or remove them.
I also loved how you encouraged non-pro players to play like themselves, reminding us how much is viable before the highest level of play.
In regard to these comments I quoted, consider that the most popular games or sports have a "simple ruleset" and yet there is much differentiation amongst the highest players. Tennis is two people hitting a ball across a net, yet it has many different personalities and approaches to play (power vs. control).
Csgo is an esport example I would like to reference. The rule set is extremely simple relative to SC2 and yet there are many ways to differentiate skill. Comebacks happen far more often and are more exciting in csgo, relative to their occurrence in starcraft (In my opinion). Imagine if you every time you reloaded in csgo you had to press "r, shift, click, f1, f2, f3, f4" instead of just "r."
Do you think that would make the game more fun or allow players to differentiate skill?
I think simpler mechanics wouldn't diminish a pro-players ability to differentiate skill.
Last but not least, I simply had more fun playing the game during the automated MM patch. I've come to believe FUN is the highest priority of design, period. I haven't played the game since the revert, and haven't really felt the desire to do so (avid sc2 fan here).
On October 04 2015 01:51 ShambhalaWar wrote: In regard to these comments I quoted, consider that the most popular games or sports have a "simple ruleset" and yet there is much differentiation amongst the highest players. Tennis is two people hitting a ball across a net, yet it has many different personalities and approaches to play (power vs. control).
Csgo is an esport example I would like to reference. The rule set is extremely simple relative to SC2 and yet there are many ways to differentiate skill. Comebacks happen far more often and are more exciting in csgo, relative to their occurrence in starcraft (In my opinion). Imagine if you every time you reloaded in csgo you had to press "r, shift, click, f1, f2, f3, f4" instead of just "r."
Yes, but a lof of esports games also apply different rule sets for hardcore competitive gameplay as compared to general play.
Let's take an example from CS:GO, where professionals play on shorter round timers and shorter bomb timers than on Valve's "competitive matchmaking" servers.
SC is rare in the way that the most popular game mode uses the same exact rule set as is used in competitions.
Great thing about a 1v1 game like Starcraft is that there is no reason to even acknowledge the meta if you don't want. I love to watch better players and take tips, but straight up cookie cutter has always been a boring way to play RTS games.
really enjoyed this article but the only thing thats disappointing is it kind of only addresses injects when i think injects are the least problematic of the macro mechanics. Mules are just simply unfair. late game terran barely even need workers and basically translates into terran's army costing energy. to me injects make sense because its such an integral part of zerg - larvae management. without injects it almost seems unfair that zerg gets to produce all their units at once from the same structure where as mules and chronoboost seem "tacked on" and unnecessary
On October 04 2015 02:52 Xhiz wrote: Agreed 100%. Taking away macro mechanics is taking potencial skill diferencials out of the game.
I disagree. We all were to busy with MM so the difference of potential skills in other aspects (micro, strategie etc) doesn't shine at all. The one LotV patch without MM shows clearly that view.
On October 04 2015 03:17 KrOmander wrote: Great thing about a 1v1 game like Starcraft is that there is no reason to even acknowledge the meta if you don't want. I love to watch better players and take tips, but straight up cookie cutter has always been a boring way to play RTS games.
I don't know why people give so much of a fuck about "the meta" in Starcraft to begin with. This isn't MagicTG where you counter the overall best deck by bringing a supoptimal one for that one task. You are always equipped with the same options in starcraft and you should just play to your best knowledge and skill. Trying to get advantages by making blind assumptions is always going to be a bad way to play this game.
"The meta" in starcraft is just a way to describe what is being played, but has no implications on your play whatsoever.
Finally someone can finally tell all the people who scream about making micro more important to go away. Micro is absolutely the WRONG thing to focusing on. The macro mechanics need to be in the game and the game should not be micro focused. If you want micro focused go play warcraft or league.
The argument about automate vs. manual is obsolete. Reduced vs. full HOTS MM is the thing to discuss.
Full HOTS MM narrow down strategic choices and ways to play as any little deviation from max macro gameplay puts you behind more than with lowered/removed MM and therefore you get quicker into do or die situations and more builds/strategies are being consideres all-in or semi all-in. If your third/fourth is late after you committed on anything else but standard macro play with full HOTS MM it is much worse for you than without or with lowered MM. MM help to put games quicker into imbalances because players with advantage can benefit more from an additional base then.
Especially mules make alot of interesting choices of the game completely unviable (but mass larvas too). If you commit on anything that delays your own eco/macrogame a bit in order to kill a few SCV you are in most situations putting yourself behind more as mules negate your dmg while you are delayed still. This requires more commitment in order to be efficient and therefore we see that many full commitment all-ins vs. terran or pure defensive macro game in HOTS. On the other hand LOTV offers alot of new stuff like ravagers and adepts so this should get a bit better and more variable for sure even without MM reductions. This is the topic to discuss tho.
On topic of auto vs manual I agree mostly. Blizzard has found a good solution.
It's sad how many people think they know more than someone who's played the game for 6-10 hours a day for the last 5 years... You can think larva inject is boring to use, or uninteresting to watch, but everything TLO said is undisputable.
On October 04 2015 04:02 Isarios wrote: Finally someone can finally tell all the people who scream about making micro more important to go away. Micro is absolutely the WRONG thing to focusing on. The macro mechanics need to be in the game and the game should not be micro focused. If you want micro focused go play warcraft or league.
agree, instead of simplifying the macro mechanics, i hope blizzard could make it even more complicate especially for protoss and zerg, give them more options just like how terran's mule/supplies/scan works, so that players have a chance to make decision between chrono/injection and other options, and also balance the value behind each options so that none of them has a higher priority at all time, for example, making call down supplies becomes more comparable to mules
On October 04 2015 05:12 ZAiNs wrote: It's sad how many people think they know more than someone who's played the game for 6-10 hours a day for the last 5 years... You can think larva inject is boring to use, or uninteresting to watch, but everything TLO said is undisputable.
No. Just no. That argument doesn't work to begin with. Especially in this case you'd be contradicting yourself, because QXC is also a person who has been playing the game that much and he has voiced an opinion different than TLO's on some of the points here in multiple occasions. Some of the stuff is disputable. And really no, the whole notion that because someone is a pro he is always right is just stupid. (and I do agree with many of TLO's points, but I'm differing in some key aspects)
On October 04 2015 03:17 KrOmander wrote: Great thing about a 1v1 game like Starcraft is that there is no reason to even acknowledge the meta if you don't want. I love to watch better players and take tips, but straight up cookie cutter has always been a boring way to play RTS games.
I don't know why people give so much of a fuck about "the meta" in Starcraft to begin with. This isn't MagicTG where you counter the overall best deck by bringing a supoptimal one for that one task. You are always equipped with the same options in starcraft and you should just play to your best knowledge and skill. Trying to get advantages by making blind assumptions is always going to be a bad way to play this game.
"The meta" in starcraft is just a way to describe what is being played, but has no implications on your play whatsoever.
this is how koreans approach their tournament matches I believe, they're not trying to figure out a GTO solution or anything, just exploit your opponent as much as you can with the info you've been given prior to the matches
It is funny how what he said is completely unrelated to the issue MM creates... Basically:
1. TLO does want macro to be part of the game. 2. TLO sees that MM are the way to do that currently. 3. MM creates many issues that have been explained in details thousands of times. 4. We need a solution to not completely remove the macro but remove the MM due to their damage. 5. Now start thinking.
On October 04 2015 00:48 WrathSCII wrote: The only thing I can agree with here is the "Play like yourself - not like a pro". Seriously I hate anyone try to copy paste a pro build and when you point out a mistake he did in the game he goes "but it is a pro build". Copying like a retard without understanding what is going on in the game and can he do with his own skill to win.
But about the part that MM are important in the game, I couldn't disagree more. The whole point of those MM existence is to cover the gap of MBS left compared to BW. You needed to go back to your base and start producing from every single production building instead of selecting your hotkey and mass production hotkey. So there was a need to make macro harder.
The issue these MM made is the super boost in economy. Example: Terrans thanks to mules they can sac SCVs late game to gain larger army supply to have more fair late game fight due to no transition point from bio due to bastardized mech state. This seems kinda balanced but it is not fun thing at all. It is super frustrating for both parties.
Zerg another example. Because their supply comes from overlords, they don't even need to go back to base and make depots / pylons. So it will be much simpler than Terrans or Protosses macro by miles. So injects were introduced. The hardest of the 3 MM to balanced that.
Because of how larva stacks in huge numbers, Zerg went from huge army swarm the enemy into a tech switches and instant remaxing.
So basically you want harder macro? Simple. Remove MBS and lets see the harder macro. But making macro boosters as a way to make macro harder is just plain bad and horrible for the game. I'm against making macro super easy mode to focus on battle. I'm against the macro boosters. So again, want harder macro? Remove the MBS and we see harder macro. But macro boosters are not the right method.
Blizzard is never going to revert MBS in SC2. So between having macro mechanics or having none at all, which would you choose? In most cases I prefer macro mechanics. The only time I would not is if they completely rebalanced the game around their removal, which would also never happen...
On October 04 2015 00:48 WrathSCII wrote: The only thing I can agree with here is the "Play like yourself - not like a pro". Seriously I hate anyone try to copy paste a pro build and when you point out a mistake he did in the game he goes "but it is a pro build". Copying like a retard without understanding what is going on in the game and can he do with his own skill to win.
But about the part that MM are important in the game, I couldn't disagree more. The whole point of those MM existence is to cover the gap of MBS left compared to BW. You needed to go back to your base and start producing from every single production building instead of selecting your hotkey and mass production hotkey. So there was a need to make macro harder.
The issue these MM made is the super boost in economy. Example: Terrans thanks to mules they can sac SCVs late game to gain larger army supply to have more fair late game fight due to no transition point from bio due to bastardized mech state. This seems kinda balanced but it is not fun thing at all. It is super frustrating for both parties.
Zerg another example. Because their supply comes from overlords, they don't even need to go back to base and make depots / pylons. So it will be much simpler than Terrans or Protosses macro by miles. So injects were introduced. The hardest of the 3 MM to balanced that.
Because of how larva stacks in huge numbers, Zerg went from huge army swarm the enemy into a tech switches and instant remaxing.
So basically you want harder macro? Simple. Remove MBS and lets see the harder macro. But making macro boosters as a way to make macro harder is just plain bad and horrible for the game. I'm against making macro super easy mode to focus on battle. I'm against the macro boosters. So again, want harder macro? Remove the MBS and we see harder macro. But macro boosters are not the right method.
Blizzard is never going to revert MBS in SC2. So between having macro mechanics or having none at all, which would you choose? In most cases I prefer macro mechanics. The only time I would not is if they completely rebalanced the game around their removal, which would also never happen...
I would choose no MM at all just because the horrible effects they have. MBS is just a suggestion. Anything is welcome since the goal we want is to make macro still relevant and critical as micro.
On October 04 2015 05:12 ZAiNs wrote: It's sad how many people think they know more than someone who's played the game for 6-10 hours a day for the last 5 years... You can think larva inject is boring to use, or uninteresting to watch, but everything TLO said is undisputable.
No. Just no. That argument doesn't work to begin with. Especially in this case you'd be contradicting yourself, because QXC is also a person who has been playing the game that much and he has voiced an opinion different than TLO's on some of the points here in multiple occasions. Some of the stuff is disputable. And really no, the whole notion that because someone is a pro he is always right is just stupid. (and I do agree with many of TLO's points, but I'm differing in some key aspects)
I don't think anything Qxc has said contradicts what TLO is saying. Everyone loves to talk about 'macro mechanics' but it's pretty clear that TLO is talking about larva inject, it doesn't matter if your chrono or MULE are a few seconds late due to pressure, it still matters that you have to do them, it's just far less of a priority when it comes to your time resource so you can save them for when you have a suitable gap. Not everything a pro says is correct, but the specific points TLO are making are based on game understanding, and most that are disupting them don't have enough game understanding in the first place. The fact that people are disagreeing just shows that it's impossible to change some people's minds even when a clear argument is presented by someone who knows more than they ever will.
On October 04 2015 05:26 WrathSCII wrote: It is funny how what he said is completely unrelated to the issue MM creates... Basically:
1. TLO does want macro to be part of the game. 2. TLO sees that MM are the way to do that currently. 3. MM creates many issues that have been explained in details thousands of times. 4. We need a solution to not completely remove the macro but remove the MM due to their damage. 5. Now start thinking.
You're looking for an overhaul of the game and that's just not going to happen at this point. Our choice isn't between great macro mechanics and current macro mechanics, it's between current macro and no macro.
Actually we have no choice at all, as per Blizzard's latest posts, but even if we did there is no ideal outcome anymore.
On October 04 2015 04:02 Isarios wrote: Finally someone can finally tell all the people who scream about making micro more important to go away. Micro is absolutely the WRONG thing to focusing on. The macro mechanics need to be in the game and the game should not be micro focused. If you want micro focused go play warcraft or league.
agree, instead of simplifying the macro mechanics, i hope blizzard could make it even more complicate especially for protoss and zerg, give them more options just like how terran's mule/supplies/scan works, so that players have a chance to make decision between chrono/injection and other options, and also balance the value behind each options so that none of them has a higher priority at all time, for example, making call down supplies becomes more comparable to mules
Technically, Zerg and Protoss do have options--Zerg can use the energy for inject, creep, or transfuse and toss, in HOTS, had to decide how to focus their chrono, enabling macro-eco options, aggressive options, or middleroad options. For Zerg, a decision often has to be made with the first couple of queens to tumor or inject.
On October 04 2015 05:12 ZAiNs wrote: It's sad how many people think they know more than someone who's played the game for 6-10 hours a day for the last 5 years... You can think larva inject is boring to use, or uninteresting to watch, but everything TLO said is undisputable.
No. Just no. That argument doesn't work to begin with. Especially in this case you'd be contradicting yourself, because QXC is also a person who has been playing the game that much and he has voiced an opinion different than TLO's on some of the points here in multiple occasions. Some of the stuff is disputable. And really no, the whole notion that because someone is a pro he is always right is just stupid. (and I do agree with many of TLO's points, but I'm differing in some key aspects)
I don't think anything Qxc has said contradicts what TLO is saying. Everyone loves to talk about 'macro mechanics' but it's pretty clear that TLO is talking about larva inject, it doesn't matter if your chrono or MULE are a few seconds late due to pressure, it still matters that you have to do them, it's just far less of a priority when it comes to your time resource so you can save them for when you have a suitable gap. Not everything a pro says is correct, but the specific points TLO are making are based on game understanding, and most that are disupting them don't have enough game understanding in the first place. The fact that people are disagreeing just shows that it's impossible to change some people's minds even when a clear argument is presented by someone who knows more than they ever will.
TLO really didn't say anything special that hasn't been said already and he is late on the discussion as well as the topic he is talking about is already decided by blizzard. As you figured out he mostly meant larva inject with what he said as most arguments he gave don't fit on mules which you can use before and after doing micro and you don't get notable disadvantage from delaying your mules a few seconds within fights.
Why didn't he go to detail on the subject of why zerg needs additionally punishing macro mechanics compared to the other two races and to what extend this is legitimate (current state vs. to be analyses)? In mid and lategame once the production is mostly built e.g. terrans don't have anything to do than queeing and microing units. This allows more progressive and micro oriented play. A zerg still has to both spread creep and do injects no matter if he is on 4 or 7 hatches. What is his opinion on this matter?
Where is the analysis of the effects of macro in general and macro mechanics in each phase of the game and how much do they take away from each race's microabilities in early/mid/endgame? E.g. why would only spreading creep for a lategame zerg not be enough to equal the efforts of the other races in their lategame? How much effect would auto larva inject have on the early and mid game for the other races to make up for?
Where is his analysis of the lowered vs. full MM both manual? What is his opinion about that? etc.
TLO gave some good points and arguments but what he covered is nowhere near the full picture and was more or less what has been discussed in the past few weeks. He picked a few points that he decided to be important in his view and some detailed insight for why he thinks manual is superior. He completely missed out other points like e.g. why terran doesn't need a demanding MM in its lategame but can solely focus on micro/queeing and obviously still is hard enough to play (in lategame basebuilding is done). He also missed out discussing/evaluating pros and cons of the different alternatives. Therefore it is more of an opinion than an overview on the matter. And thats ok, we should neither criticize him for that nor expect that anyone has or can give a full or close to full picture view on this issue without putting weeks of research and work into it and then still can't generalize many things.
Blizzard asked to not continue to discuss the auto vs. manual anymore but focus on the things that still are about to be decided. TLO doesn't discuss the new matter and therefore there is few current relevance in his post. The relevance now is in if reduced MM have a positive or negative effect on the game and what kind of changes do induce which kind of metagame changes that require which other overall/unit/building changes for the respective races and so on.
I more and more get the idea that ppl who state that none else than current pros can have an idea have absolutely no idea themselves (without refering this to the quote). Especially in the context that nothing was put in relation between the three different races (ppl fear to be called balance whiners probably and for a pro it is of course not PC to talk about that too much) but mostly basic knowledge and facts (for anyone in long enough) were stated it is really absurd to call this the end of wisdom on the topic. Ppl who do so have either no idea or interest in maintaining certain opinions.
This explains quite eloquently what I've been feeling in regards to the macro changes. I feel like the decreased mechanical difficulty can only be a bad thing.
Inject can actually be removed, since then you go back every 30 seconds to build units if its gone. xD The other 2 have a bit of decision making to it, while being really forgiving. So just remove injects and add decisionmaking to creeptumors. Or in other words give inactive tumors a death timer, so you can't just spread creep wildly but maintain it with Queens. And yes it sounds more fun to me then injects haha.
On October 04 2015 05:12 ZAiNs wrote: It's sad how many people think they know more than someone who's played the game for 6-10 hours a day for the last 5 years... You can think larva inject is boring to use, or uninteresting to watch, but everything TLO said is undisputable.
No. Just no. That argument doesn't work to begin with. Especially in this case you'd be contradicting yourself, because QXC is also a person who has been playing the game that much and he has voiced an opinion different than TLO's on some of the points here in multiple occasions. Some of the stuff is disputable. And really no, the whole notion that because someone is a pro he is always right is just stupid. (and I do agree with many of TLO's points, but I'm differing in some key aspects)
I don't think anything Qxc has said contradicts what TLO is saying. Everyone loves to talk about 'macro mechanics' but it's pretty clear that TLO is talking about larva inject, it doesn't matter if your chrono or MULE are a few seconds late due to pressure, it still matters that you have to do them, it's just far less of a priority when it comes to your time resource so you can save them for when you have a suitable gap. Not everything a pro says is correct, but the specific points TLO are making are based on game understanding, and most that are disupting them don't have enough game understanding in the first place. The fact that people are disagreeing just shows that it's impossible to change some people's minds even when a clear argument is presented by someone who knows more than they ever will.
TLO really didn't say anything special that hasn't been said already and he is late on the discussion as well as the topic he is talking about is already decided by blizzard. As you figured out he mostly meant larva inject with what he said as most arguments he gave don't fit on mules which you can use before and after doing micro and you don't get notable disadvantage from delaying your mules a few seconds within fights.
Why didn't he go to detail on the subject of why zerg needs additionally punishing macro mechanics compared to the other two races and to what extend this is legitimate (current state vs. to be analyses)? In mid and lategame once the production is mostly built e.g. terrans don't have anything to do than queeing and microing units. This allows more progressive and micro oriented play. A zerg still has to both spread creep and do injects no matter if he is on 4 or 7 hatches. What is his opinion on this matter?
Where is the analysis of the effects of macro in general and macro mechanics in each phase of the game and how much do they take away from each race's microabilities in early/mid/endgame? E.g. why would only spreading creep for a lategame zerg not be enough to equal the efforts of the other races in their lategame? How much effect would auto larva inject have on the early and mid game for the other races to make up for?
Where is his analysis of the lowered vs. full MM both manual? What is his opinion about that? etc.
TLO gave some good points and arguments but what he covered is nowhere near the full picture and was more or less what has been discussed in the past few weeks. He picked a few points that he decided to be important in his view and some detailed insight for why he thinks manual is superior. He completely missed out other points like e.g. why terran doesn't need a demanding MM in its lategame but can solely focus on micro/queeing and obviously still is hard enough to play (in lategame basebuilding is done). He also missed out discussing/evaluating pros and cons of the different alternatives. Therefore it is more of an opinion than an overview on the matter. And thats ok, we should neither criticize him for that nor expect that anyone has or can give a full or close to full picture view on this issue without putting weeks of research and work into it and then still can't generalize many things.
Blizzard asked to not continue to discuss the auto vs. manual anymore but focus on the things that still are about to be decided. TLO doesn't discuss the new matter and therefore there is few current relevance in his post. The relevance now is in if reduced MM have a positive or negative effect on the game and what kind of changes do induce which kind of metagame changes that require which other overall/unit/building changes for the respective races and so on.
I more and more get the idea that ppl who state that none else than current pros can have an idea have absolutely no idea themselves. :p
There is a lot to discuss and TLO decided to focus on the issue in its most basic form. Blizzard has said they are definitely keeping 'macro mechanics' in the game in some form, but there are A LOT of people who want macro mechanics entirely removed, TLO wrote this article to inform them about the implications it would have on pro-level StarCraft, while also throwing in a bonus of telling them how they should be playing the game at their level.
If TLO addressed everything you're saying he should have then the article would be much longer and bloated and thus the key points he wanted to convey with this particular article would lose their impact. To address some of the questions you asked, the macro mechanics are totally different across all races and shouldn't be compared directly. You ask why T/P don't have punishing late-game macro mechanics but Z do and say it's not fair that they also have to spread creep, well the races are very asymmetrical and all require very different things to be done. Zerg have to larva inject even in the late-game but the benefit is that you can remax on any unit composition you want while looking anywhere on the map very quickly and easily.
The few things that TLO decided to address are pretty much undisputable IMO, and to tell him he is wrong about the implications no macro mechanics larva inject would have on the game AT A PRO-LEVEL (which he plays at...) when you're in diamond league is very silly.
And yea thanks for proving my point about people disagreeing so vehemntly with TLO having no idea what they're talking about ~_~.
On October 04 2015 05:12 ZAiNs wrote: It's sad how many people think they know more than someone who's played the game for 6-10 hours a day for the last 5 years... You can think larva inject is boring to use, or uninteresting to watch, but everything TLO said is undisputable.
No. Just no. That argument doesn't work to begin with. Especially in this case you'd be contradicting yourself, because QXC is also a person who has been playing the game that much and he has voiced an opinion different than TLO's on some of the points here in multiple occasions. Some of the stuff is disputable. And really no, the whole notion that because someone is a pro he is always right is just stupid. (and I do agree with many of TLO's points, but I'm differing in some key aspects)
I don't think anything Qxc has said contradicts what TLO is saying. Everyone loves to talk about 'macro mechanics' but it's pretty clear that TLO is talking about larva inject, it doesn't matter if your chrono or MULE are a few seconds late due to pressure, it still matters that you have to do them, it's just far less of a priority when it comes to your time resource so you can save them for when you have a suitable gap. Not everything a pro says is correct, but the specific points TLO are making are based on game understanding, and most that are disupting them don't have enough game understanding in the first place. The fact that people are disagreeing just shows that it's impossible to change some people's minds even when a clear argument is presented by someone who knows more than they ever will.
TLO really didn't say anything special that hasn't been said already and he is late on the discussion as well as the topic he is talking about is already decided by blizzard. As you figured out he mostly meant larva inject with what he said as most arguments he gave don't fit on mules which you can use before and after doing micro and you don't get notable disadvantage from delaying your mules a few seconds within fights.
Why didn't he go to detail on the subject of why zerg needs additionally punishing macro mechanics compared to the other two races and to what extend this is legitimate (current state vs. to be analyses)? In mid and lategame once the production is mostly built e.g. terrans don't have anything to do than queeing and microing units. This allows more progressive and micro oriented play. A zerg still has to both spread creep and do injects no matter if he is on 4 or 7 hatches. What is his opinion on this matter?
Where is the analysis of the effects of macro in general and macro mechanics in each phase of the game and how much do they take away from each race's microabilities in early/mid/endgame? E.g. why would only spreading creep for a lategame zerg not be enough to equal the efforts of the other races in their lategame? How much effect would auto larva inject have on the early and mid game for the other races to make up for?
Where is his analysis of the lowered vs. full MM both manual? What is his opinion about that? etc.
TLO gave some good points and arguments but what he covered is nowhere near the full picture and was more or less what has been discussed in the past few weeks. He picked a few points that he decided to be important in his view and some detailed insight for why he thinks manual is superior. He completely missed out other points like e.g. why terran doesn't need a demanding MM in its lategame but can solely focus on micro/queeing and obviously still is hard enough to play (in lategame basebuilding is done). He also missed out discussing/evaluating pros and cons of the different alternatives. Therefore it is more of an opinion than an overview on the matter. And thats ok, we should neither criticize him for that nor expect that anyone has or can give a full or close to full picture view on this issue without putting weeks of research and work into it and then still can't generalize many things.
Blizzard asked to not continue to discuss the auto vs. manual anymore but focus on the things that still are about to be decided. TLO doesn't discuss the new matter and therefore there is few current relevance in his post. The relevance now is in if reduced MM have a positive or negative effect on the game and what kind of changes do induce which kind of metagame changes that require which other overall/unit/building changes for the respective races and so on.
I more and more get the idea that ppl who state that none else than current pros can have an idea have absolutely no idea themselves. :p
There is a lot to discuss and TLO decided to focus on the issue in its most basic form. Blizzard has said they are definitely keeping 'macro mechanics' in the game in some form, but there are A LOT of people who want macro mechanics entirely removed, TLO wrote this article to inform them about the implications it would have on pro-level StarCraft, while also throwing in a bonus of telling them how they should be playing the game at their level.
If TLO addressed everything you're saying he should have then the article would be much longer and bloated and thus the key points he wanted to convey with this particular article would lose their impact. To address some of the questions you asked, the macro mechanics are totally different across all races and shouldn't be compared directly. You ask why T/P don't have punishing late-game macro mechanics but Z do and say it's not fair that they also have to spread creep, well the races are very asymmetrical and all require very different things to be done. Zerg have to larva inject even in the late-game but the benefit is that you can remax on any unit composition you want while looking anywhere on the map very quickly and easily.
The few things that TLO decided to address are pretty much undisputable IMO, and to tell him he is wrong about the implications no macro mechanics larva inject would have on the game AT A PRO-LEVEL (which he plays at...) when you're in diamond league is very silly.
And yea thanks for proving my point about people disagreeing so vehemntly with TLO having no idea what they're talking about ~_~.
You don't get it mate! Cheers anyway.
Just one little hint, quoting myself:
Why didn't he go to detail on the subject of why zerg needs additionally punishing macro mechanics compared to the other two races and to what extend this is legitimate (current state vs. to be analyses)? In mid and lategame once the production is mostly built e.g. terrans don't have anything to do than queeing and microing units. This allows more progressive and micro oriented play. A zerg still has to both spread creep and do injects no matter if he is on 4 or 7 hatches. What is his opinion on this matter?
I don't majorly disagree with the general things that TLO stated about the difficulty of the game in reference to macro. I figured out that if you want to discuss that it is beneficial to have demanding macro mechanics and detrimental to have easy macro this must be discussed in all directions without factoring out things. A terran in lategame doesn't have these demanding macro mechanics when queeing units but zerg has two with spreading creep and injecting all the time, which can get really tiring when you have alot of hatcheries. How can you argue that it is good for zerg to have this in lategame but it doesn't matter that terran doesn't have it in lategame? The same happens the other way round when removing macro mechanics all together and the early/midgame is getting too easy for zerg but the lategame gets more equal.
TLO doesn't explain at all why it hasn't been detrimental for the game yet that terran hasn't got demanding lategame macro but it would be detrimental to have less demanding early/midgame macro with zerg.
The criticism is about what TLO missed out on and not about what he said, and that was just one relevant example.
On October 04 2015 05:12 ZAiNs wrote: It's sad how many people think they know more than someone who's played the game for 6-10 hours a day for the last 5 years... You can think larva inject is boring to use, or uninteresting to watch, but everything TLO said is undisputable.
No. Just no. That argument doesn't work to begin with. Especially in this case you'd be contradicting yourself, because QXC is also a person who has been playing the game that much and he has voiced an opinion different than TLO's on some of the points here in multiple occasions. Some of the stuff is disputable. And really no, the whole notion that because someone is a pro he is always right is just stupid. (and I do agree with many of TLO's points, but I'm differing in some key aspects)
I don't think anything Qxc has said contradicts what TLO is saying. Everyone loves to talk about 'macro mechanics' but it's pretty clear that TLO is talking about larva inject, it doesn't matter if your chrono or MULE are a few seconds late due to pressure, it still matters that you have to do them, it's just far less of a priority when it comes to your time resource so you can save them for when you have a suitable gap. Not everything a pro says is correct, but the specific points TLO are making are based on game understanding, and most that are disupting them don't have enough game understanding in the first place. The fact that people are disagreeing just shows that it's impossible to change some people's minds even when a clear argument is presented by someone who knows more than they ever will.
TLO really didn't say anything special that hasn't been said already and he is late on the discussion as well as the topic he is talking about is already decided by blizzard. As you figured out he mostly meant larva inject with what he said as most arguments he gave don't fit on mules which you can use before and after doing micro and you don't get notable disadvantage from delaying your mules a few seconds within fights.
Why didn't he go to detail on the subject of why zerg needs additionally punishing macro mechanics compared to the other two races and to what extend this is legitimate (current state vs. to be analyses)? In mid and lategame once the production is mostly built e.g. terrans don't have anything to do than queeing and microing units. This allows more progressive and micro oriented play. A zerg still has to both spread creep and do injects no matter if he is on 4 or 7 hatches. What is his opinion on this matter?
Where is the analysis of the effects of macro in general and macro mechanics in each phase of the game and how much do they take away from each race's microabilities in early/mid/endgame? E.g. why would only spreading creep for a lategame zerg not be enough to equal the efforts of the other races in their lategame? How much effect would auto larva inject have on the early and mid game for the other races to make up for?
Where is his analysis of the lowered vs. full MM both manual? What is his opinion about that? etc.
TLO gave some good points and arguments but what he covered is nowhere near the full picture and was more or less what has been discussed in the past few weeks. He picked a few points that he decided to be important in his view and some detailed insight for why he thinks manual is superior. He completely missed out other points like e.g. why terran doesn't need a demanding MM in its lategame but can solely focus on micro/queeing and obviously still is hard enough to play (in lategame basebuilding is done). He also missed out discussing/evaluating pros and cons of the different alternatives. Therefore it is more of an opinion than an overview on the matter. And thats ok, we should neither criticize him for that nor expect that anyone has or can give a full or close to full picture view on this issue without putting weeks of research and work into it and then still can't generalize many things.
Blizzard asked to not continue to discuss the auto vs. manual anymore but focus on the things that still are about to be decided. TLO doesn't discuss the new matter and therefore there is few current relevance in his post. The relevance now is in if reduced MM have a positive or negative effect on the game and what kind of changes do induce which kind of metagame changes that require which other overall/unit/building changes for the respective races and so on.
I more and more get the idea that ppl who state that none else than current pros can have an idea have absolutely no idea themselves. :p
There is a lot to discuss and TLO decided to focus on the issue in its most basic form. Blizzard has said they are definitely keeping 'macro mechanics' in the game in some form, but there are A LOT of people who want macro mechanics entirely removed, TLO wrote this article to inform them about the implications it would have on pro-level StarCraft, while also throwing in a bonus of telling them how they should be playing the game at their level.
If TLO addressed everything you're saying he should have then the article would be much longer and bloated and thus the key points he wanted to convey with this particular article would lose their impact. To address some of the questions you asked, the macro mechanics are totally different across all races and shouldn't be compared directly. You ask why T/P don't have punishing late-game macro mechanics but Z do and say it's not fair that they also have to spread creep, well the races are very asymmetrical and all require very different things to be done. Zerg have to larva inject even in the late-game but the benefit is that you can remax on any unit composition you want while looking anywhere on the map very quickly and easily.
The few things that TLO decided to address are pretty much undisputable IMO, and to tell him he is wrong about the implications no macro mechanics larva inject would have on the game AT A PRO-LEVEL (which he plays at...) when you're in diamond league is very silly.
And yea thanks for proving my point about people disagreeing so vehemntly with TLO having no idea what they're talking about ~_~.
You don't get it mate! Cheers anyway.
Just one little hint, quoting myself:
Why didn't he go to detail on the subject of why zerg needs additionally punishing macro mechanics compared to the other two races and to what extend this is legitimate (current state vs. to be analyses)? In mid and lategame once the production is mostly built e.g. terrans don't have anything to do than queeing and microing units. This allows more progressive and micro oriented play. A zerg still has to both spread creep and do injects no matter if he is on 4 or 7 hatches. What is his opinion on this matter?
I don't majorly disagree with the general things that TLO stated about the difficulty of the game in reference to MM. I figured out that if you want to discuss that it is beneficial to have demanding macro mechanics and detrimental to have easy macro this must be discussed in all directions without factoring out things. A terran in lategame doesn't have these demanding macro mechanics when queeing units but zerg has two with spreading creep and injecting all the time, which can get really tiring when you have alot of hatcheries. How can you argue that it is good for zerg to have this in lategame but it doesn't matter that terran doesn't have them in lategame? The same is true the other way round when removing macro mechanics alltogether and the early/midgame is getting too easy for zerg but the lategame gets more equal. TLO doesn't explain why it is not detrimental for the game that terran hasn't got demanding lategame macro but it would be detrimental for zerg to have less demanding early/midgame macro.
The criticism is about what TLO missed out on and not about what he said, and that is just one relevant example.
This article isn't meant to be a super in-depth evaluation on every facet of larva inject, it's meant to address a few key points, you're criticising the article for something it had no intention of addressing because it would dilute its key message.
Terran doesn't have to larva inject or spread creep in the late game but they have to do other intensive things. During the late-game especially all 3 races have WAY MORE things to do than can physically be done, larva inject and creep spread are just 2 things to do in an extremely long list of things that can be done, Terran and Protoss have just as many things to do. Even if T/P had less individual things to do, it doesn't really matter if T/P get to devote 3% more of their time to moving their units because the races are asymmetric and their utilization is different.
Your quesiton isn't really about macro mechanics, but why does Zerg have it harder in the late-game which isn't true. In my previous post I gave an example of something in the late-game that is much easier for Zerg than the other races -- they can max on an entire army extremely quickly and easily while looking anywhere they want (like at their army during the tail-end of a fight) by pressing the hotkey with all their Hatcheries and maybe pressing the Ultralisk hotkey 8 times rapidly then holding the Z key for a few seconds to max out on Ultra Ling, whereas T has to manage multiple buildings with queues and P has to look away and warp-in each unit individually which takes time even with holding down the hotkey, and switch between Stargates/Robos if they want any of those units.
On October 04 2015 07:28 KrOmander wrote: Maybe TLO does not find Zerg lategame injects and the ability/luxury to spread creep as difficult as you try and make out?
He probably doesn't find early and midgame terran macro as difficult as I do as well. So what?
What you miss is that it can more or less objectively be measured that zerg macro in early and midgame would be alot easier than that of P/T when macro mechanics were removed (I think everyone agrees here).
But as well I think it is safe to say that with macro mechanics in place the lategame macro of zerg is more diffucult than that of P/T.
@Zains ok, we can leave it to that
Disagreeing on the lategame zerg macro tho. Another aspect of that is that the production of zerg is scattered around the map which requires alot of attention as your units spawn left and right and can easily be picked out before they group up. Even on pro level you see players fail frequently while doing this and in general I got the feeling that spreading creep and injecting is taking too much quality away that could be used better. Anyway the current solution with queeing injects is kind of perfect. Hence now should be discussed to what extend macro mechanics are required, beneficial or detrimental.
On October 04 2015 03:17 KrOmander wrote: Great thing about a 1v1 game like Starcraft is that there is no reason to even acknowledge the meta if you don't want. I love to watch better players and take tips, but straight up cookie cutter has always been a boring way to play RTS games.
I don't know why people give so much of a fuck about "the meta" in Starcraft to begin with. This isn't MagicTG where you counter the overall best deck by bringing a supoptimal one for that one task. You are always equipped with the same options in starcraft and you should just play to your best knowledge and skill. Trying to get advantages by making blind assumptions is always going to be a bad way to play this game.
"The meta" in starcraft is just a way to describe what is being played, but has no implications on your play whatsoever.
This is unexpected. There are fairly obvious advantages that come with being familiar with the meta. Its amorphous, of course, and doesn't guarantee anything, but in a game of limited information, understand trends and having an understanding of probabilities certainly helps in the overall scheme of things.
On October 04 2015 03:17 KrOmander wrote: Great thing about a 1v1 game like Starcraft is that there is no reason to even acknowledge the meta if you don't want. I love to watch better players and take tips, but straight up cookie cutter has always been a boring way to play RTS games.
I don't know why people give so much of a fuck about "the meta" in Starcraft to begin with. This isn't MagicTG where you counter the overall best deck by bringing a supoptimal one for that one task. You are always equipped with the same options in starcraft and you should just play to your best knowledge and skill. Trying to get advantages by making blind assumptions is always going to be a bad way to play this game.
"The meta" in starcraft is just a way to describe what is being played, but has no implications on your play whatsoever.
This is unexpected. There are fairly obvious advantages that come with being familiar with the meta. Its amorphous, of course, and doesn't guarantee anything, but in a game of limited information, understand trends and having an understanding of probabilities certainly helps in the overall scheme of things.
Well, you gotta keep all possibilities in mind. Even if it's unorthodox, but that it's probably because it is weak and you don't need a hard reaction to it. Or with the proper reaction you just flatly win.
On October 03 2015 23:22 Jaedrik wrote: I think he's very off on the "play any way you want" philosophy. If one wants to win, they better have their macro booster use down to spades. Macro, in general, is far more important in this game at most levels of play, so, no there really isn't a depth of playstyle diversity as he claims. How I wish it were, but, alas...
Edit: However, I do agree that micro in this game is shallow in itself, but he suggests other things need to be hard so that pros make mistakes in the relatively simple system because their attention is focused elsewhere. Instead, I say make micro deep itself, rather than make other things complex to add mistakes.
This goes further against his "more difficult = better," because we should carefully distinguish between difficulty created by depth, and difficulty created by complexity. Sometimes, it's hard to distinguish, but I'd say his prognosis / rhetoric leans too far to the complexity side instead of the depth side.
you are wrong. I usualy make 2 extra macro hatcheries when i go muta harass so i dont have to hit injects even close to perfect ok i was only mid master for like 10 season but you can be a capable player without perfect macro just make more unit producing structures to compensate
On October 04 2015 03:17 KrOmander wrote: Great thing about a 1v1 game like Starcraft is that there is no reason to even acknowledge the meta if you don't want. I love to watch better players and take tips, but straight up cookie cutter has always been a boring way to play RTS games.
I don't know why people give so much of a fuck about "the meta" in Starcraft to begin with. This isn't MagicTG where you counter the overall best deck by bringing a supoptimal one for that one task. You are always equipped with the same options in starcraft and you should just play to your best knowledge and skill. Trying to get advantages by making blind assumptions is always going to be a bad way to play this game.
"The meta" in starcraft is just a way to describe what is being played, but has no implications on your play whatsoever.
This is unexpected. There are fairly obvious advantages that come with being familiar with the meta. Its amorphous, of course, and doesn't guarantee anything, but in a game of limited information, understand trends and having an understanding of probabilities certainly helps in the overall scheme of things.
Well, you gotta keep all possibilities in mind. Even if it's unorthodox, but that it's probably because it is weak and you don't need a hard reaction to it. Or with the proper reaction you just flatly win.
Top-level StarCraft involves a lot of calculated risks, when the probability of your opponent doing a specific thing is particularly high, you play differently. Back in the day the PvT meta see-sawed between Templar and Colossus openings, Terrans would see-saw their builds accordingly and if they didn't have knowledge of whether Colossi or Templar were in fashion then they would be at a disadvantage.
On October 04 2015 03:17 KrOmander wrote: Great thing about a 1v1 game like Starcraft is that there is no reason to even acknowledge the meta if you don't want. I love to watch better players and take tips, but straight up cookie cutter has always been a boring way to play RTS games.
I don't know why people give so much of a fuck about "the meta" in Starcraft to begin with. This isn't MagicTG where you counter the overall best deck by bringing a supoptimal one for that one task. You are always equipped with the same options in starcraft and you should just play to your best knowledge and skill. Trying to get advantages by making blind assumptions is always going to be a bad way to play this game.
"The meta" in starcraft is just a way to describe what is being played, but has no implications on your play whatsoever.
This is unexpected. There are fairly obvious advantages that come with being familiar with the meta. Its amorphous, of course, and doesn't guarantee anything, but in a game of limited information, understand trends and having an understanding of probabilities certainly helps in the overall scheme of things.
Well, you gotta keep all possibilities in mind. Even if it's unorthodox, but that it's probably because it is weak and you don't need a hard reaction to it. Or with the proper reaction you just flatly win.
Top-level StarCraft involves a lot of calculated risks, when the probability of your opponent doing a specific thing is particularly high, you play differently. Back in the day the PvT meta see-sawed between Templar and Colossus openings, Terrans would see-saw their builds accordingly and if they didn't have knowledge of whether Colossi or Templar were in fashion then they would be at a disadvantage.
Of course it involves calculated risks. But that's not because of "flavor of the day"-metagame, it's because if a build is weak your opponent is usually not going to play it. And even these calculated risks very often involve a Plan B for "what if he actually does this so that I can manage to not flat-out lose here".
Also promatches are being played in BoX series, so there is an actual metagame going on. On the ladder there isn't. You are playing against someone you don't know and you have only one game to make it count. You just do what you think is in general a good idea in that matchup (or whatever floats your boat).
Like going back to my original point, I don't quite get the fuzz people sometimes make about someone playing a different style that was never really proven to be bad. E.g. when these days someone plays bio TvT or Sky PvZ or when back in the days someone played Mech TvZ. People often make a huge fuzz about it being metagaming and stuff, when it is often just a a solid approach anyways. Maybe not the very best or popular for the time being, but still good enough to make work.
On October 04 2015 03:17 KrOmander wrote: Great thing about a 1v1 game like Starcraft is that there is no reason to even acknowledge the meta if you don't want. I love to watch better players and take tips, but straight up cookie cutter has always been a boring way to play RTS games.
I don't know why people give so much of a fuck about "the meta" in Starcraft to begin with. This isn't MagicTG where you counter the overall best deck by bringing a supoptimal one for that one task. You are always equipped with the same options in starcraft and you should just play to your best knowledge and skill. Trying to get advantages by making blind assumptions is always going to be a bad way to play this game.
"The meta" in starcraft is just a way to describe what is being played, but has no implications on your play whatsoever.
This is unexpected. There are fairly obvious advantages that come with being familiar with the meta. Its amorphous, of course, and doesn't guarantee anything, but in a game of limited information, understand trends and having an understanding of probabilities certainly helps in the overall scheme of things.
Well, you gotta keep all possibilities in mind. Even if it's unorthodox, but that it's probably because it is weak and you don't need a hard reaction to it. Or with the proper reaction you just flatly win.
Top-level StarCraft involves a lot of calculated risks, when the probability of your opponent doing a specific thing is particularly high, you play differently. Back in the day the PvT meta see-sawed between Templar and Colossus openings, Terrans would see-saw their builds accordingly and if they didn't have knowledge of whether Colossi or Templar were in fashion then they would be at a disadvantage.
Of course it involves calculated risks. But that's not because of "flavor of the day"-metagame, it's because if a build is weak your opponent is usually not going to play it. And even these calculated risks very often involve a Plan B for "what if he actually does this so that I can manage to not flat-out lose here".
Also promatches are being played in BoX series, so there is an actual metagame going on. On the ladder there isn't. You are playing against someone you don't know and you have only one game to make it count. You just do what you think is in general a good idea in that matchup (or whatever floats your boat).
Well at higher levels of ladder the metagame is going to emulate the pro level metagame. You may be playing someone you don't know but you can make more accurate assumptions as to what they might do because of the metagame.
For instance Templar openings vs Terran haven't been 'viable' for a long time now, yet there have been a few (probably less than 10 in the last year in Korean games). Because it's so rare the players that opened Templar abused the meta and managed to open with it. The Terran could have had an almost free-win, but instead was on even-footing or a bit behind, but they don't care because the vast majority of the time, playing into the assumption that your opponent is opening Colossus is true. Most of those Templar games probably ended up as Protoss wins but I can't say for sure.
PvP is also super metagame based, there's a lot of risks in openings and understanding the meta lets you mitigate risks a lot.
Whether it's Bo1 or Bo>1 the metagame stays constant because it trascends a single series. Of course playing in a series is a different ballgame and allows you much more freedom to take risks.
And so far you're just talking about builds/unit compositions. The current metagame also involves popular attack locations, cannon rush spots, observer placement, and loaaaads more stuff along those lines.
On October 04 2015 03:17 KrOmander wrote: Great thing about a 1v1 game like Starcraft is that there is no reason to even acknowledge the meta if you don't want. I love to watch better players and take tips, but straight up cookie cutter has always been a boring way to play RTS games.
I don't know why people give so much of a fuck about "the meta" in Starcraft to begin with. This isn't MagicTG where you counter the overall best deck by bringing a supoptimal one for that one task. You are always equipped with the same options in starcraft and you should just play to your best knowledge and skill. Trying to get advantages by making blind assumptions is always going to be a bad way to play this game.
"The meta" in starcraft is just a way to describe what is being played, but has no implications on your play whatsoever.
This is unexpected. There are fairly obvious advantages that come with being familiar with the meta. Its amorphous, of course, and doesn't guarantee anything, but in a game of limited information, understand trends and having an understanding of probabilities certainly helps in the overall scheme of things.
Well, you gotta keep all possibilities in mind. Even if it's unorthodox, but that it's probably because it is weak and you don't need a hard reaction to it. Or with the proper reaction you just flatly win.
Top-level StarCraft involves a lot of calculated risks, when the probability of your opponent doing a specific thing is particularly high, you play differently. Back in the day the PvT meta see-sawed between Templar and Colossus openings, Terrans would see-saw their builds accordingly and if they didn't have knowledge of whether Colossi or Templar were in fashion then they would be at a disadvantage.
Of course it involves calculated risks. But that's not because of "flavor of the day"-metagame, it's because if a build is weak your opponent is usually not going to play it. And even these calculated risks very often involve a Plan B for "what if he actually does this so that I can manage to not flat-out lose here".
Also promatches are being played in BoX series, so there is an actual metagame going on. On the ladder there isn't. You are playing against someone you don't know and you have only one game to make it count. You just do what you think is in general a good idea in that matchup (or whatever floats your boat).
Well at higher levels of ladder the metagame is going to emulate the pro level metagame. You may be playing someone you don't know but you can make more accurate assumptions as to what they might do because of the metagame.
For instance Templar openings vs Terran haven't been 'viable' for a long time now, yet there have been a few (probably less than 10 in the last year in Korean games). Because it's so rare the players that opened Templar abused the meta and managed to open with it. The Terran could have had an almost free-win, but instead was on even-footing or a bit behind, but they don't care because the vast majority of the time, playing into the assumption that your opponent is opening Colossus is true. Most of those Templar games probably ended up as Protoss wins but I can't say for sure.
PvP is also super metagame based, there's a lot of risks in openings and understanding the meta lets you mitigate risks a lot.
Whether it's Bo1 or Bo>1 the metagame stays constant because it trascends a single series. Of course playing in a series is a different ballgame and allows you much more freedom to take risks.
And so far you're just talking about builds/unit compositions. The current metagame also involves popular attack locations, cannon rush spots, observer placement, and loaaaads more stuff along those lines.
Understanding the meta is nothing more than knowing the builds and how to play with and against them in Starcraft. You can play whatever way you want and if it was such a successful way to play it would soon be happening everywhere. Congratz, you figured something out, that's actually really cool. But whether the meta is blink stalkers or phoenixes in PvZ, I still kind of have to play the same way. I have to consider the canonrushes and the maps and stuff, but that's all just knowing how to play the game. That's not "I didn't bring Patron because everyone is countering Patron" metagaming.
On October 04 2015 03:17 KrOmander wrote: Great thing about a 1v1 game like Starcraft is that there is no reason to even acknowledge the meta if you don't want. I love to watch better players and take tips, but straight up cookie cutter has always been a boring way to play RTS games.
I don't know why people give so much of a fuck about "the meta" in Starcraft to begin with. This isn't MagicTG where you counter the overall best deck by bringing a supoptimal one for that one task. You are always equipped with the same options in starcraft and you should just play to your best knowledge and skill. Trying to get advantages by making blind assumptions is always going to be a bad way to play this game.
"The meta" in starcraft is just a way to describe what is being played, but has no implications on your play whatsoever.
This is unexpected. There are fairly obvious advantages that come with being familiar with the meta. Its amorphous, of course, and doesn't guarantee anything, but in a game of limited information, understand trends and having an understanding of probabilities certainly helps in the overall scheme of things.
Well, you gotta keep all possibilities in mind. Even if it's unorthodox, but that it's probably because it is weak and you don't need a hard reaction to it. Or with the proper reaction you just flatly win.
Top-level StarCraft involves a lot of calculated risks, when the probability of your opponent doing a specific thing is particularly high, you play differently. Back in the day the PvT meta see-sawed between Templar and Colossus openings, Terrans would see-saw their builds accordingly and if they didn't have knowledge of whether Colossi or Templar were in fashion then they would be at a disadvantage.
Of course it involves calculated risks. But that's not because of "flavor of the day"-metagame, it's because if a build is weak your opponent is usually not going to play it. And even these calculated risks very often involve a Plan B for "what if he actually does this so that I can manage to not flat-out lose here".
Also promatches are being played in BoX series, so there is an actual metagame going on. On the ladder there isn't. You are playing against someone you don't know and you have only one game to make it count. You just do what you think is in general a good idea in that matchup (or whatever floats your boat).
Well at higher levels of ladder the metagame is going to emulate the pro level metagame. You may be playing someone you don't know but you can make more accurate assumptions as to what they might do because of the metagame.
For instance Templar openings vs Terran haven't been 'viable' for a long time now, yet there have been a few (probably less than 10 in the last year in Korean games). Because it's so rare the players that opened Templar abused the meta and managed to open with it. The Terran could have had an almost free-win, but instead was on even-footing or a bit behind, but they don't care because the vast majority of the time, playing into the assumption that your opponent is opening Colossus is true. Most of those Templar games probably ended up as Protoss wins but I can't say for sure.
PvP is also super metagame based, there's a lot of risks in openings and understanding the meta lets you mitigate risks a lot.
Whether it's Bo1 or Bo>1 the metagame stays constant because it trascends a single series. Of course playing in a series is a different ballgame and allows you much more freedom to take risks.
And so far you're just talking about builds/unit compositions. The current metagame also involves popular attack locations, cannon rush spots, observer placement, and loaaaads more stuff along those lines.
Understanding the meta is nothing more than knowing the builds and how to play with and against them in Starcraft. You can play whatever way you want and if it was such a successful way to play it would soon be happening everywhere. Congratz, you figured something out, that's actually really cool. But whether the meta is blink stalkers or phoenixes in PvZ, I still kind of have to play the same way. I have to consider the canonrushes and the maps and stuff, but that's all just knowing how to play the game. That's not "I didn't bring Patron because everyone is countering Patron" metagaming.
I think the main issue isn't that we have macro mechanics, it's that they're very dull/uninteresting to use and cause a lot of design-related issues such as : *lightning-quick comp switches as Zerg *silly chrono timings and all-ins as Protoss *late game bullshit with multi-MULEs as Terran
It's fine to have MMs and to want a harder game, but you oughtta make the boosters interesting to use and more embedded in what people usually call "mechanical skills". Take, once again, BW as an example : the game didn't have any artificial way to add macro skills but unit production was still infinitely harder (and the learning-curve that much steeper) than SC2's because of how the UI worked.
On October 04 2015 07:28 KrOmander wrote: Maybe TLO does not find Zerg lategame injects and the ability/luxury to spread creep as difficult as you try and make out?
He probably doesn't find early and midgame terran macro as difficult as I do as well. So what?
What you miss is that it can more or less objectively be measured that zerg macro in early and midgame would be alot easier than that of P/T when macro mechanics were removed (I think everyone agrees here).
But as well I think it is safe to say that with macro mechanics in place the lategame macro of zerg is more diffucult than that of P/T.
@Zains ok, we can leave it to that
Disagreeing on the lategame zerg macro tho. Another aspect of that is that the production of zerg is scattered around the map which requires alot of attention as your units spawn left and right and can easily be picked out before they group up. Even on pro level you see players fail frequently while doing this and in general I got the feeling that spreading creep and injecting is taking too much quality away that could be used better. Anyway the current solution with queeing injects is kind of perfect. Hence now should be discussed to what extend macro mechanics are required, beneficial or detrimental.
No I wasn't comparing your play with TLO, what I was trying to say is that maybe TLO doesn't see an issue where you see one with your remarks on Zerg macro having additional punishing macro mechanics in late game.
TLO's core argument that macro mechanics forces interesting choices because there is a limit to a player's attention so that prioritization is required is an argument to remove macro mechanics, not to keep them.
Since human attention is finite, if it's not wasted on mindless clicking then that attention needs to be used more effectively in other areas of the game in order to win. TLO's argument that macro mechanics aren't mindless clicking because attention is finite, forcing prioritization, is fallacious. If we were to accept this, nothing would be mindless clicking. If you had to click the reactor to use the 2nd production queue, or if you had to click medivacs for each heal because it's not auto-cast, or click each unit individually to order them to move/attack then that also wouldn't be mindless clicking because you are forced to prioritize these actions in a time where your attention is required, such as when you're getting harassed.
So this notion from TLO of what determines mindless clicking is everything else but that click itself is absurd, and exactly backwards. What determines whether injects or manual cast medivac heals is mindless isn't everything else, but the action itself. It's about choice. If it's virtually always better to cast injects or medivac heals than not, then requiring it to be manually clicked is mindless clicking, because it's not a choice, it's a artificial UI gimmick designed to frustrate and hinder your attempts to implement the choices that you want to make.
TLO's claim is that these mindless clicks forces people into making interesting choices. But removing these mindless clicks would force people into making even more interesting choices or else they will lose.
paralleluniverse, i agree. It's just need-to-do mechanics. No need to mind about them, just pay attention and click them. They give no choice in play. Blizzes just dont want to remove their "innovations" and to rebalance the game. And pros like tlo mostly think others lower-apm ppl will overrun them with same-class macro and less multitask (coz it goes easier w/o macro-mechs).
Yeah, multitask and planning clicks priotity is important things for rts genre at all, but there are other ways to feel it up: Splitting armies is one of them; Increasing need of extra mining bases is second one (it can be forced by removing macro mechanics and super-effective harass units).
This is a beautifully on-point video, therefore I'm posting it again on your behalf.
The increased worker start, as well as macro boosters, needlessly increase the complexity of the game. They increase complexity in a way that demands 0 APM, it has nothing to do with being able to spare that set of clicks to Inject my Hatchery. It's all about the mental burden the game puts on you, and how many things you have to manage per second of gameplay. Increasing the starting worker count and having macro mechanics that boost the economy do nothing but increase the pace of the game. The result is players have less time to manage the same number of tasks they would have without those things.
StarCraft should be focusing on is depth, not its complexity, and people often fallaciously equate the two without understanding them fully. Increasing complexity simply raises the mental barrier-of-entry, the minimum APM and mental juggling you need to perform to even begin to compete. Increasing depth, on the other hand, raises the mental skill ceiling, putting the strategy in real-time strategy. It creates myriad ways to play based on different maneuvers the players can devise, and is empowered by the mind games that result from the existence of these choices.
Having to maintain a slightly higher APM for Injecting is not a choice, and it's not an alternate way to play. It's a barrier-of-entry mechanic that has no bearing on the strategic depth of the game, and the fact that it's an economy booster to top it off increases the complexity of the game further, by speeding the game up and burdening the players even more. Players who have practiced these mechanics understandably feel attached to the proficiency they feel in them, but the creation of a sunk cost is no reason to abandon the pursuit of perfection for this game.
I completely and wholeheartedly agree. I didn't expect that. I thought that I would at least have a minor nitpick.
Having to maintain a slightly higher APM for Injecting is not a choice, and it's not an alternate way to play. It's a barrier-of-entry mechanic that has no bearing on the strategic depth of the game
Drop the false dichotomy. It can be a barrier of entry, while also having a "bearing on the strategic depth of the game". It is in fact a barrier of entry, but once that barrier has been breached, it makes the game more interesting. If you are busy spreading creep and injecting larvae, and the terran moves around, you'd better make sure that your mutalisks aren't idling in a bad spot. You can pull your mutalisks backwards while you go home to macro, but this makes them less effective, since you are wasting their time. If you are good at reading the situation, then you may be able to get away with sending your mutalisks from harassment point A to harassment point B while macroing, then moving back to control your mutalisks. However, if you misread, and the Terran has a marine squad in between A and B, then you are screwed.
If you are uncertain, you can sacrifice creep spread for more attention to your mutalisks, in case of an ambush. People who value perfect macro over the possibility of hurting their opponent can even choose a style of play that doesn't involve harassment. The point is that apm, when you need enough of it, becomes a limited resource that players must choose how to spend. If there is enough apm to do every thing, then there is no choice.
Furthermore, sneaking in attacks while the opponent is busy macroing wouldn't occur if people would never be busy macroing. They would always be ready for the attack. I like that there is a defender's advantage, and an attacker's advantage. The defender's advantage is obvious, so I don't need to describe it. The attacker's advantage is the advantage of knowing when there will be a battle, and being ready for it. With the ability to do every thing at the same time, the attacker's advantage becomes meaningless.
Just like the video you used says - Depth is purchased with complexity, and it is preferable to have as much depth as possible with as little complexity as possible. The unavoidable implication of this is that the more complexity you are willing to tolerate, the more depth you are rewarded with. I am advocating for keeping the depth given by the extra complexity of apm requirements. If you want a delicious meal, some one is going to have to put in time and effort in to not only preparing that meal, but also honing his skills and acquiring the necessary knowledge. The truly sweet and worthwhile things in life, are those that are hard to reach.
well wrote TLO, i played different zvp and zvz styles in hots got me to masters on eu but so many people told me it wasnt viable or it was just plain bad. even though it worked i always wondered was i doing it wrong or can i play these styles?
On October 03 2015 23:22 Jaedrik wrote: I think he's very off on the "play any way you want" philosophy. If one wants to win, they better have their macro booster use down to spades. Macro, in general, is far more important in this game at most levels of play, so, no there really isn't a depth of playstyle diversity as he claims. How I wish it were, but, alas...
Edit: However, I do agree that micro in this game is shallow in itself, but he suggests other things need to be hard so that pros make mistakes in the relatively simple system because their attention is focused elsewhere. Instead, I say make micro deep itself, rather than make other things complex to add mistakes.
This goes further against his "more difficult = better," because we should carefully distinguish between difficulty created by depth, and difficulty created by complexity. Sometimes, it's hard to distinguish, but I'd say his prognosis / rhetoric leans too far to the complexity side instead of the depth side.
I think people in general underestimate how far you can get with unconventional play as long as you UNDERSTAND your strategy.
You can have someone perform a superficially professional looking build, but if he copied it from a vod and has no clue why some choices were made from what cues, then it will be a more frustrating and probably less effective build than if you made something your own and really understood it inside out (of course learning a pro build inside out is great too).
This is critical for me. I'm typically higher masters, gotten to low GM around 6x total throughout the history of SC2 (although I've taken seasons off). About 2x I've gotten there, I've been random. I don't all-in, but I create my own strategies, often viewed as cheesy because they are nonstandard, but always somewhat macro oriented. Knowing my builds in and out will often throw my opponent off their own build, which I use to get me advantages. I know often what to do because I play unorthodox so much to respond to a variety of instances, where my opponent typically will respond suboptimal. It's ok, because I'm not a pro, nor do I want to be one. I do it because I have fun.
I want to suggest that there are two ways of looking at the inclusion or removal of the mechanics, and that would be from a player perspective, or a spectator one.
As a player I don't loathe the mechanics, I don't find them particularly interesting but I can deal with them and they offer room to improve by unquestionably making the game more complicated and provide more depth. But as a spectator, I find the time spent on those tasks boring beyond belief.
Macro mechanics are great, but I don't think the ones currently in game are the choices that are optimal for an exciting game as an esport. When Jaedong transitions with 60 mutas, its awesome, and I know that means hes been injecting like a beast for the entire game, but up until that point, the injects are near invisible to the viewer. As an esports fan I find the current mechanics uninspiring.
On October 04 2015 10:22 KrOmander wrote: No I wasn't comparing your play with TLO, what I was trying to say is that maybe TLO doesn't see an issue where you see one with your remarks on Zerg macro having additional punishing macro mechanics in late game.
This is not about opinion or subjective experience but about measurable data and the relative difficulty when comparing races with each other and within themselves.
Assumption TLO) Demanding macro is beneficial.
Assumption 1) The difficulty of Z macro is increasing linearly (injects, creep) and exponentially (scattered production) with the amount of bases the player has and therefore with the amount of time played in a game.
Assumpiton 2) The difficulty of T macro is decreasing to a minimum level and it stays there once the production and supply is built in the course of a game, no matter how many bases T is on.
It is of no importance if TLO finds Z lategame macro less difficult than me in this sense. What matters is if the lack of demanding lategame T macro (relative to (a) T early/mid game macro and (b) Z lategame macro) has a detrimental impact on SC2 or not and the increasing demands of Z lategame macro have a beneficial impact or not.
TLO is stating that the lack of demanding macro in general would be detrimental to SC2 without specyfying it reasonably and without looking at all cases. He solely explains that the MM automating would be detrimental to Z game (they would only have a significant impact on Z) and gave some good reasons. But he doesn't explain why the diminishing macro demands of T have no detrimental effect on SC2 lategame in the exact same sense as auto MM would be detrimental to Z, and one must doubt that a) this is generally speaking the case at all and b) he included all factors. If he did explain that and other missing links, then his theory could become congent. And that is what I was pointing at in previous posts.
p.s: This refers to discussion one page up. I myself think that the solution blizzard has found now is kind of perfect and it is important to discuss what beneficial/detrimental impacts lowered/reduced MM can have on SC2.
I need to add one thing:
I think it would greatly help if TLO stated what exactly is a reasonable macro demand level of Z with manual injects in his point of view. Is it Z on 3 base, 4 base, 5 hatch, 6 hatch, 8 hatch, 20 hatch? The beneficial effect he is talking of is not infinite. I am sure and it is obvious that injecting 20 hatches (in a fictitious metagame) would be more detrimental than beneficial. Why didn't TLO report about when the limits are reached and exceeded in his point of view?
How many hatches a Z has to supply in order to equal T macro demands in early/midgame while terran is still building production and supply and in lategame once this is done?
When debating and evaluating automated MM these are important things to talk about imo. The denial of automated MM was brought up in the context of balance as Z macro would become siginificantly easier compared to that of T/P. Then we need to figure out what roughly is balanced. And these are the things that can constructivly help blizzard to get faster and better decisionmaking when analysing current state vs. to be in future patches.
You know what, this is starting to give me a good chuckle because it's nothing new just the old same stuff rehashed and what every other BW was thinking when we heard about how the development was going with this game with MBS and all that good shit.
It never ends.
If some of you haven't felt this way until only now derp. RTS design is just so much fun to tinker around with when it comes to catering to casuals and the like. The thing is.. RTS was never intended to be for casuals in the first place.
I don't really agree, yes we are free to do whatever but a build is a build is because it is optimized. It has a goal, it has transition, it has steps. It means players can follow something and know what they should expect and achieve. If one is to play whatever, it's going to take way longer for that person to polish his build if polishable at all
Hi TLO. I disagree wholeheartedly. MM are an aberration.
Almost none of your arguments hold up to sound logic. I won't waste my time debunking your flawed reasoning because you're late to the party and Blizzard already made their decision (or rather shot themselves in the foot by announcing that release date, lucky you!).
Enjoy your APM contest. I certainly won't enjoy this one dimensional shallow game.
I'll just quote someone I agree with.
On October 04 2015 11:11 paralleluniverse wrote: TLO's core argument that macro mechanics forces interesting choices because there is a limit to a player's attention so that prioritization is required is an argument to remove macro mechanics, not to keep them.
Since human attention is finite, if it's not wasted on mindless clicking then that attention needs to be used more effectively in other areas of the game in order to win. TLO's argument that macro mechanics aren't mindless clicking because attention is finite, forcing prioritization, is fallacious. If we were to accept this, nothing would be mindless clicking. If you had to click the reactor to use the 2nd production queue, or if you had to click medivacs for each heal because it's not auto-cast, or click each unit individually to order them to move/attack then that also wouldn't be mindless clicking because you are forced to prioritize these actions in a time where your attention is required, such as when you're getting harassed.
So this notion from TLO of what determines mindless clicking is everything else but that click itself is absurd, and exactly backwards. What determines whether injects or manual cast medivac heals is mindless isn't everything else, but the action itself. It's about choice. If it's virtually always better to cast injects or medivac heals than not, then requiring it to be manually clicked is mindless clicking, because it's not a choice, it's a artificial UI gimmick designed to frustrate and hinder your attempts to implement the choices that you want to make.
TLO's claim is that these mindless clicks forces people into making interesting choices. But removing these mindless clicks would force people into making even more interesting choices or else they will lose.
I'll add we saw in Archon mode what the extra clicks could be used for. I don't understand how anyone could think it made for a stale or less interesting game...
On October 04 2015 05:12 ZAiNs wrote: It's sad how many people think they know more than someone who's played the game for 6-10 hours a day for the last 5 years... You can think larva inject is boring to use, or uninteresting to watch, but everything TLO said is undisputable.
Appeal to authority over sound logic... This doesn't leave much room for any kind of progress.
On October 04 2015 23:09 nTzzzz wrote: Hi TLO. I disagree wholeheartedly. MM are an aberration.
Almost none of your arguments hold up to sound logic. I won't waste my time debunking your flawed reasoning because you're late to the party and Blizzard already made their decision (or rather shot themselves in the foot by announcing that release date, lucky you!).
Enjoy your APM contest. I certainly won't enjoy this one dimensional shallow game.
On October 04 2015 11:11 paralleluniverse wrote: TLO's core argument that macro mechanics forces interesting choices because there is a limit to a player's attention so that prioritization is required is an argument to remove macro mechanics, not to keep them.
Since human attention is finite, if it's not wasted on mindless clicking then that attention needs to be used more effectively in other areas of the game in order to win. TLO's argument that macro mechanics aren't mindless clicking because attention is finite, forcing prioritization, is fallacious. If we were to accept this, nothing would be mindless clicking. If you had to click the reactor to use the 2nd production queue, or if you had to click medivacs for each heal because it's not auto-cast, or click each unit individually to order them to move/attack then that also wouldn't be mindless clicking because you are forced to prioritize these actions in a time where your attention is required, such as when you're getting harassed.
So this notion from TLO of what determines mindless clicking is everything else but that click itself is absurd, and exactly backwards. What determines whether injects or manual cast medivac heals is mindless isn't everything else, but the action itself. It's about choice. If it's virtually always better to cast injects or medivac heals than not, then requiring it to be manually clicked is mindless clicking, because it's not a choice, it's a artificial UI gimmick designed to frustrate and hinder your attempts to implement the choices that you want to make.
TLO's claim is that these mindless clicks forces people into making interesting choices. But removing these mindless clicks would force people into making even more interesting choices or else they will lose.
I'll add we saw in Archon mode what the extra clicks could be used for. I don't understand how anyone could think it made for a stale or less interesting game...
Archon Mode IS NOT about more clicks being used, it is about more attention in general being used which is quite a bit different
On October 04 2015 23:09 nTzzzz wrote: Hi TLO. I disagree wholeheartedly. MM are an aberration.
Almost none of your arguments hold up to sound logic. I won't waste my time debunking your flawed reasoning because you're late to the party and Blizzard already made their decision (or rather shot themselves in the foot by announcing that release date, lucky you!).
Enjoy your APM contest. I certainly won't enjoy this one dimensional shallow game.
I'll just quote someone I agree with.
On October 04 2015 11:11 paralleluniverse wrote: TLO's core argument that macro mechanics forces interesting choices because there is a limit to a player's attention so that prioritization is required is an argument to remove macro mechanics, not to keep them.
Since human attention is finite, if it's not wasted on mindless clicking then that attention needs to be used more effectively in other areas of the game in order to win. TLO's argument that macro mechanics aren't mindless clicking because attention is finite, forcing prioritization, is fallacious. If we were to accept this, nothing would be mindless clicking. If you had to click the reactor to use the 2nd production queue, or if you had to click medivacs for each heal because it's not auto-cast, or click each unit individually to order them to move/attack then that also wouldn't be mindless clicking because you are forced to prioritize these actions in a time where your attention is required, such as when you're getting harassed.
So this notion from TLO of what determines mindless clicking is everything else but that click itself is absurd, and exactly backwards. What determines whether injects or manual cast medivac heals is mindless isn't everything else, but the action itself. It's about choice. If it's virtually always better to cast injects or medivac heals than not, then requiring it to be manually clicked is mindless clicking, because it's not a choice, it's a artificial UI gimmick designed to frustrate and hinder your attempts to implement the choices that you want to make.
TLO's claim is that these mindless clicks forces people into making interesting choices. But removing these mindless clicks would force people into making even more interesting choices or else they will lose.
I'll add we saw in Archon mode what the extra clicks could be used for. I don't understand how anyone could think it made for a stale or less interesting game...
Archon Mode IS NOT about more clicks being used, it is about more attention in general being used which is quite a bit different
Why do you nitpick over things that bear no relevance to the point I'm making?
On October 04 2015 23:09 nTzzzz wrote: Hi TLO. I disagree wholeheartedly. MM are an aberration.
Almost none of your arguments hold up to sound logic. I won't waste my time debunking your flawed reasoning because you're late to the party and Blizzard already made their decision (or rather shot themselves in the foot by announcing that release date, lucky you!).
Enjoy your APM contest. I certainly won't enjoy this one dimensional shallow game.
I'll just quote someone I agree with.
On October 04 2015 11:11 paralleluniverse wrote: TLO's core argument that macro mechanics forces interesting choices because there is a limit to a player's attention so that prioritization is required is an argument to remove macro mechanics, not to keep them.
Since human attention is finite, if it's not wasted on mindless clicking then that attention needs to be used more effectively in other areas of the game in order to win. TLO's argument that macro mechanics aren't mindless clicking because attention is finite, forcing prioritization, is fallacious. If we were to accept this, nothing would be mindless clicking. If you had to click the reactor to use the 2nd production queue, or if you had to click medivacs for each heal because it's not auto-cast, or click each unit individually to order them to move/attack then that also wouldn't be mindless clicking because you are forced to prioritize these actions in a time where your attention is required, such as when you're getting harassed.
So this notion from TLO of what determines mindless clicking is everything else but that click itself is absurd, and exactly backwards. What determines whether injects or manual cast medivac heals is mindless isn't everything else, but the action itself. It's about choice. If it's virtually always better to cast injects or medivac heals than not, then requiring it to be manually clicked is mindless clicking, because it's not a choice, it's a artificial UI gimmick designed to frustrate and hinder your attempts to implement the choices that you want to make.
TLO's claim is that these mindless clicks forces people into making interesting choices. But removing these mindless clicks would force people into making even more interesting choices or else they will lose.
I'll add we saw in Archon mode what the extra clicks could be used for. I don't understand how anyone could think it made for a stale or less interesting game...
Archon Mode IS NOT about more clicks being used, it is about more attention in general being used which is quite a bit different
Why do you nitpick over things that bear no relevance to the point I'm making?
Seems pretty relevant actually. You're saying archon mode is proof that games are 'better' with more 'useful' clicks, but more clicks is just one part of what you get in archon mode. Like TLO says in his article, focus is a resource, and in archon mode you have 2x it which is more important than the increased number of possible clicks.
On October 04 2015 23:09 nTzzzz wrote: Hi TLO. I disagree wholeheartedly. MM are an aberration.
Almost none of your arguments hold up to sound logic. I won't waste my time debunking your flawed reasoning because you're late to the party and Blizzard already made their decision (or rather shot themselves in the foot by announcing that release date, lucky you!).
Enjoy your APM contest. I certainly won't enjoy this one dimensional shallow game.
I'll just quote someone I agree with.
On October 04 2015 11:11 paralleluniverse wrote: TLO's core argument that macro mechanics forces interesting choices because there is a limit to a player's attention so that prioritization is required is an argument to remove macro mechanics, not to keep them.
Since human attention is finite, if it's not wasted on mindless clicking then that attention needs to be used more effectively in other areas of the game in order to win. TLO's argument that macro mechanics aren't mindless clicking because attention is finite, forcing prioritization, is fallacious. If we were to accept this, nothing would be mindless clicking. If you had to click the reactor to use the 2nd production queue, or if you had to click medivacs for each heal because it's not auto-cast, or click each unit individually to order them to move/attack then that also wouldn't be mindless clicking because you are forced to prioritize these actions in a time where your attention is required, such as when you're getting harassed.
So this notion from TLO of what determines mindless clicking is everything else but that click itself is absurd, and exactly backwards. What determines whether injects or manual cast medivac heals is mindless isn't everything else, but the action itself. It's about choice. If it's virtually always better to cast injects or medivac heals than not, then requiring it to be manually clicked is mindless clicking, because it's not a choice, it's a artificial UI gimmick designed to frustrate and hinder your attempts to implement the choices that you want to make.
TLO's claim is that these mindless clicks forces people into making interesting choices. But removing these mindless clicks would force people into making even more interesting choices or else they will lose.
I'll add we saw in Archon mode what the extra clicks could be used for. I don't understand how anyone could think it made for a stale or less interesting game...
Archon Mode IS NOT about more clicks being used, it is about more attention in general being used which is quite a bit different
Why do you nitpick over things that bear no relevance to the point I'm making?
Seems pretty relevant actually. You're saying archon mode is proof that games are 'better' with more 'useful' clicks, but more clicks is just one part of what you get in archon mode. Like TLO says in his article, focus is a resource, and in archon mode you have 2x it which is more important than the increased number of possible clicks.
No. TLO is saying:
On October 03 2015 23:09 Liquid`TLO wrote: I believe that if both players are able to focus mostly on the micro management of their units, we'll end up with less interesting posturing of units. Both players will have their guard up constantly which, in the end, due to defender's advantage, will discourage, not encourage engagements.
I'm saying more clicks (or "attention", whatever you want to call it) allocated to other things than single player tasks, far from preventing players from distinguishing themselves, makes for a way more dynamic gameplay.
So does slowing down the economic acceleration rate. Injects really have no other point than making the game artificially difficult and are detrimental to the game in many ways.
Contrary to what TLO is saying, there is an infinite amount of interesting things we could be doing with the extra clicks / attention. This is really common sense. I don't know how you can fail to acknowledge that. What I'm saying is that if you do need evidence, Archon mode makes it pretty obvious: it provides players with more clicks and attention that we will ever have in 1v1 (even with MM removed) and the gameplay is anything but stale.
On October 04 2015 11:11 paralleluniverse wrote: TLO's core argument that macro mechanics forces interesting choices because there is a limit to a player's attention so that prioritization is required is an argument to remove macro mechanics, not to keep them.
Since human attention is finite, if it's not wasted on mindless clicking then that attention needs to be used more effectively in other areas of the game in order to win. TLO's argument that macro mechanics aren't mindless clicking because attention is finite, forcing prioritization, is fallacious. If we were to accept this, nothing would be mindless clicking. If you had to click the reactor to use the 2nd production queue, or if you had to click medivacs for each heal because it's not auto-cast, or click each unit individually to order them to move/attack then that also wouldn't be mindless clicking because you are forced to prioritize these actions in a time where your attention is required, such as when you're getting harassed.
So this notion from TLO of what determines mindless clicking is everything else but that click itself is absurd, and exactly backwards. What determines whether injects or manual cast medivac heals is mindless isn't everything else, but the action itself. It's about choice. If it's virtually always better to cast injects or medivac heals than not, then requiring it to be manually clicked is mindless clicking, because it's not a choice, it's a artificial UI gimmick designed to frustrate and hinder your attempts to implement the choices that you want to make.
TLO's claim is that these mindless clicks forces people into making interesting choices. But removing these mindless clicks would force people into making even more interesting choices or else they will lose.
I don't know who you are and what skill level you've achieved in SC, but I feel like the experience of playing at a pro level will tend to make some things clear that you are mistaken about.
You seem very much against mindless clicking, but what is mindless clicking? Doing tasks without having to make any significant decisions? The thing is, at the pro level, almost everyone knows what they ought to be doing for the vast majority of tasks. There are three levels you can judge a player's knowledge: what he does in competitive games, what he does in non-competitive games (when there's no pressure), and what he says he should have done when watching the replay. Watching players on stage against the best in the world, you'll see a lot of mistakes. But 90%+ of mistakes are things the player can immediately point out in replay, and every other pro would agree on the mistake and what should have been done. So are all those things mindless tasks, since the optimal course of action was obvious but simply couldn't be executed when needed?
TLO cuts to the core of the issue by talking about choosing the way you want to play by focusing on the things you want to focus on. The tasks themselves are rarely interesting, at least for a pro player, but the decision of what task to focus on is very interesting and will not have such an easy consensus among pros. Pros will agree "yes you should have been warping in right now" and "yes you needed to be casting force fields right now" but when the demands are simultaneous, which one is the higher priority? When it's a close call, that is the interesting choice. And since SC is so fast paced with so many tasks to do, you will enjoy making those kinds of decisions many times a game if you choose to be aware of them. Otherwise, especially for less competitive player, you have the freedom to focus on whatever you think is fun.
The two important things are that (1) a variety of tasks are in the game and (2) the demands on the player to execute the tasks are frequently more difficult than physically/mentally possible. If either of those things start coming up short, then the game can start to become stagnant very quickly.
I can't imagine the RTS that would satisfy you. I don't see it as possible to start with SC2 and just modify it in some ways to create the RTS you want full of meaningful clicks. I think you'd just break SC2. What I know of games, there are four ways things get interesting: (1) too difficult to execute perfectly all the time [aiming in shooters, micro/macro/multitask in SC2, micro and map awareness in MOBAs, combos in fighters, teamwork in any team game] (2) too difficult to know what to do [strategy in all games] (3) randomness as a game mechanic [chance to proc or crit in MOBA, drawing cards in any card game, dice rolls in board games, shooting low ground to high ground in SC:BW, scarabs] (4) limited information of your opponent [fog of war in MOBA/RTS, when opponent's cards are face down in card games, shooters are first person view only with limited or no radar, fighters you don't know what your opponent's next move is -- actually important for all real-time games]
Card games and board games define themselves by not having any #1 at all, so they're just about figuring out what to do and randomness. If you take just #1 and #4, then you get fighter games. #4 is the essence of Rock Paper Scissors. When there's limited information in a game, it does nothing more than create chaos and invite players to gain advantages by winning Rock Paper Scissors.
SC2 is #1 cranked all the way up, and since it's so high, most tasks themselves are not going to be high on #2. But every game of SC2 is high on #2. It's just that when you're doing 200+ apm, most if it simply can't be high on #2. And without the unpredictability created by #1, as players do some things well and other things poorly in different amounts every game, sometimes on purpose according to their style, #2 would suffer. There's an important synergy between them. You can produce unpredictability with #3 and #4, which would make #2 more complex, but SC2 has kind of shunned #3 and Dota and LoL and HS players and fans often hate it and no SC2 fans are asking for it so I'll just assume we don't want it. And as for #4, it is just RPS like I said and honestly we have plenty of it already and too much of it is not going to satisfy what most RTS players want. There's no room or desirability to crank it up.
Card games like Magic and HS and games like Dota and League and Heroes can get more out of #2 by adding more and more cards and more and more heroes to the game. Every time you add one, it affects every composition/deck and every interaction with opposing compositions/decks. And also since they're just so imbalanced, every balance patch helps #2 as well. But SC2 is stuck with a limited number of units. It does get new maps though, which help.
Of course there's Chess, which contains none of #1, #3 or #4. It doesn't have new pieces added to the game or have its rules changed or get new boards. It is just pure #2 sitting comfortably beyond what's humanly possible. So why not make SC2 more like Chess? What it comes down to is that SC2's identity is tied up in #1 and it's tied up in its particular way of achieving difficulty in execution -- its fast pace and simultaneous but exclusive demands on the player's attention. There's no way to maintain that and also become more like Chess. At least I don't know it. Taking small steps closer toward it only makes a shittier SC2. You'd have to take a leap toward it, and drop SC's identity in the process, in order to land on a good game. TLO's post is assuming that we're on board with #1, and given that, this is the way it must be implemented in order to create the most interesting game possible overall. It's not about piling on the mechanical difficulty but rather being forced to stretch out in different directions, for the sake of #2, not for the sake of #1. Too many directions would be bad as well, but lightening up the macro demands would reduce the stretch too much.
I wish somehow the game was designed around 60-120 apm. Then instead of "epic multitasking" we would have "epic decision making". Someone smash together chess and brood war BibleThump
On October 05 2015 01:28 mishimaBeef wrote: I wish somehow the game was designed around 60-120 apm. Then instead of "epic multitasking" we would have "epic decision making". Someone smash together chess and brood war BibleThump
Then players like elfi would finally be good enough to wim wcs!!!!!!!!!!!! What a beautiful world we're imagining
On October 03 2015 23:46 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: Macro mechanics, especially inject, just aren't fun to use. That's the problem. TLO looks at this from the pro level and that's fine, he's a pro, but the vast majority of players are not pro and are playing for fun. I'm not sure how we can change this, but a change to make it feel less like a "do this repetitive task every 30 seconds" mechanic would be welcome. We already have unit building macro that sort of functions as that, but that at least feels more natural and like there's decision making involved. Macro mechanics like inject feel very "tacked on" if you will.
That's entirely subjective, and you're generalizing. I love lining my build up perfectly because i used chronoboosts just right. I can see why you'd think something like inject isn't fun if your mindset is "i must play this game to improve and the only way to do that is to macro perfectly" though.
Likewise, the lack of their presence can be explained by a lack of depth too: there really aren't as many viable unconventional strategies as you say.
"Viable" is a horribly defined word though. You can't easily compare ladder Bo1 play between two amateurs with modern tournament play between pros, which is the standard that people look at to define something as "viable". Plenty of wierd shit that works on ladder would be shut down horribly in a tournament by watching a replay or two, but that doesn't mean it will hold back someone's "improvement" (another term that is defined pretty badly).
Then I'll define so you catch my meaning properly. Viable is relative to skill level, but is objective. That is, there are definitely strategies that will more often secure victory at certain skill levels. What I'm saying, again, is that there could be many more viable strategies at most or all levels of play if macro wasn't so gosh dang important and complex, and micro had more depth.
But I don't get what you mean about improvement. There are such things as skill development and mastery, and intuitiveness directly impacts these things. Both are made harder if things are unintuitive.
Edit 50000: You don't fall into the "vast majority" that the other gentleman talked about, sir, that's all there really is to that. Fun isn't just subjective, it's normative. Normally, complexity that doesn't add 'enough' (the subjective element) depth is not fun for people. For most people, it isn't enough. There's nothing whatsoever wrong with his generalization. It's an accurate one methinks.
The question is if sc2 is really that what you describe. I dont believe it is. Sc2 isnt complex. Everything is in fact self explanatory. You dont need to know spells, items, units and so on just as in other games. The only rules you have to know in before are that you should make workers, build, create an army, destroy the opponents buildings and thats it. You dont have to know anything else to have fun. If you want to know what a rax is or does you just click on it and it explains to you. The information is delivered in small pieces that way.
But macro is a big part of classical rts. If you remove it sc2 isnt an rts game anymore. There are other games in which you can play army vs army without building anything but these arent classical rts games. But you would be suprised how much micro matters in lotv. An example of my games: The terran was on two base i was on 4 saturated bases but i could not close out the game because of micro. I had also a game other way around which i could drag out simply by microing better than the protoss.
The macro mechanics in sc2 arent difficult. I dont know why people act like that. You dont need perfect injects to win a game. You need enough injects to max out and thats it. Even silver players can do that which is a fact (proven by statistics). In lotv it gets even easier. You have to inject every 2-3 min in midgame until you are maxed. After that you can inject every 5 min.
We dont have to play like pro players to have fun in this game and a lot more is possible than you think. If qxc wins with only reapers consistently vs top masters it means micro and multitasking matter more than you think.
On October 05 2015 01:28 mishimaBeef wrote: I wish somehow the game was designed around 60-120 apm. Then instead of "epic multitasking" we would have "epic decision making". Someone smash together chess and brood war BibleThump
Then players like elfi would finally be good enough to wim wcs!!!!!!!!!!!! What a beautiful world we're imagining
On October 03 2015 23:46 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: Macro mechanics, especially inject, just aren't fun to use. That's the problem. TLO looks at this from the pro level and that's fine, he's a pro, but the vast majority of players are not pro and are playing for fun. I'm not sure how we can change this, but a change to make it feel less like a "do this repetitive task every 30 seconds" mechanic would be welcome. We already have unit building macro that sort of functions as that, but that at least feels more natural and like there's decision making involved. Macro mechanics like inject feel very "tacked on" if you will.
That's entirely subjective, and you're generalizing. I love lining my build up perfectly because i used chronoboosts just right. I can see why you'd think something like inject isn't fun if your mindset is "i must play this game to improve and the only way to do that is to macro perfectly" though.
Likewise, the lack of their presence can be explained by a lack of depth too: there really aren't as many viable unconventional strategies as you say.
"Viable" is a horribly defined word though. You can't easily compare ladder Bo1 play between two amateurs with modern tournament play between pros, which is the standard that people look at to define something as "viable". Plenty of wierd shit that works on ladder would be shut down horribly in a tournament by watching a replay or two, but that doesn't mean it will hold back someone's "improvement" (another term that is defined pretty badly).
Then I'll define so you catch my meaning properly. Viable is relative to skill level, but is objective. That is, there are definitely strategies that will more often secure victory at certain skill levels. What I'm saying, again, is that there could be many more viable strategies at most or all levels of play if macro wasn't so gosh dang important and complex, and micro had more depth.
But I don't get what you mean about improvement. There are such things as skill development and mastery, and intuitiveness directly impacts these things. Both are made harder if things are unintuitive.
Edit 50000: You don't fall into the "vast majority" that the other gentleman talked about, sir, that's all there really is to that. Fun isn't just subjective, it's normative. Normally, complexity that doesn't add 'enough' (the subjective element) depth is not fun for people. For most people, it isn't enough. There's nothing whatsoever wrong with his generalization. It's an accurate one methinks.
But macro is a big part of classical rts. If you remove it sc2 isnt an rts game anymore. There are other games in which you can play army vs army without building anything but these arent classical rts games.
You know what's supposed to be a big part of real time strategy games? Strategy...
Sure, macro is a part of RTS too but nobody's talking about removing macro. We're merely talking about removing MM. The reason is those add an artificial layer of complexity / difficulty while adding no depth / strategic choices to the game. They are even reducing your strategic options by forcing you to focus your attention primarily on executing your macro boosters on time.
Please stop telling us to go play other games. We like SC2. Do you hear us telling you to go play a stupid arcade game because all you care about is the game being difficult?
On October 04 2015 13:56 vOdToasT wrote: Just like the video you used says - Depth is purchased with complexity, and it is preferable to have as much depth as possible with as little complexity as possible. The unavoidable implication of this is that the more complexity you are willing to tolerate, the more depth you are rewarded with. I am advocating for keeping the depth given by the extra complexity of apm requirements. If you want a delicious meal, some one is going to have to put in time and effort in to not only preparing that meal, but also honing his skills and acquiring the necessary knowledge. The truly sweet and worthwhile things in life, are those that are hard to reach.
You don't seem to understand that depth and complexity are not actually related. There is no natural corellation between depth and complexity, a game can be needlessly complex without offering any additional depth. Imagine a version of tic-tac-toe where, in order to make any move, you had to recite a speech based on whether you were X's or O's, perform a secret handshake accordingly, and then assemble the pen you would use to make your mark. All of this is very complicated, but adds absolutely nothing to the depth of creating a line of 3 X's or O's. Likewise, macro boosters offer little strategic depth, while raising complexity in multiple ways.
The idea that increasing complexity likewise increases depth is wholely erroneous. The goal of design should be to increase depth in whatever way you can, while minimizing complexity. It is not something to be sought after, it is something to be avoided. The trap comes when things that naturally increase depth also happen to increase complexity, so people fallaciously equate the two.
On October 04 2015 23:09 nTzzzz wrote: I'll add we saw in Archon mode what the extra clicks could be used for. I don't understand how anyone could think it made for a stale or less interesting game...
Archon Mode IS NOT about more clicks being used, it is about more attention in general being used which is quite a bit different
It's both. Archon Mode reduces the complexity of the game by reducing the mental and physical burden by splitting it between two players. What it does is it gives an individual player twice as much time to manage each individual task they must perform, giving them both extra attention and extra opportunity to click things. And I reckon nTzzzz means to say you have more of both to begin with.
On October 05 2015 01:28 mishimaBeef wrote: I wish somehow the game was designed around 60-120 apm. Then instead of "epic multitasking" we would have "epic decision making". Someone smash together chess and brood war BibleThump
Then players like elfi would finally be good enough to wim wcs!!!!!!!!!!!! What a beautiful world we're imagining
Elfi has best decision making?
It's not farfetched to think that relatively bad overall players will pull more wins with neat strategies is what i meant
On October 05 2015 02:21 NewSunshine wrote: Imagine a version of tic-tac-toe where, in order to make any move, you had to recite a speech based on whether you were X's or O's, perform a secret handshake accordingly, and then assemble the pen you would use to make your mark. All of this is very complicated, but adds absolutely nothing to the depth of creating a line of 3 X's or O's. Likewise, macro boosters offer little strategic depth, while raising complexity in multiple ways.
The idea that increasing complexity likewise increases depth is wholely erroneous. The goal of design should be to increase depth in whatever way you can, while minimizing complexity. It is not something to be sought after, it is something to be avoided. The trap comes when things that naturally increase depth also happen to increase complexity, so people fallaciously equate the two.
Depends on how deep the speech is. This sounds like a version of tic-tac-toe I'd be interested in. When you add rhetoric, story, or narrative to an activity, such as "creating a line of 3 X's or O's" you can be adding quite a bit of depth.
On October 05 2015 02:21 NewSunshine wrote: Imagine a version of tic-tac-toe where, in order to make any move, you had to recite a speech based on whether you were X's or O's, perform a secret handshake accordingly, and then assemble the pen you would use to make your mark. All of this is very complicated, but adds absolutely nothing to the depth of creating a line of 3 X's or O's. Likewise, macro boosters offer little strategic depth, while raising complexity in multiple ways.
The idea that increasing complexity likewise increases depth is wholely erroneous. The goal of design should be to increase depth in whatever way you can, while minimizing complexity. It is not something to be sought after, it is something to be avoided. The trap comes when things that naturally increase depth also happen to increase complexity, so people fallaciously equate the two.
Depends on how deep the speech is. This sounds like a version of tic-tac-toe I'd be interested in. When you add rhetoric, story, or narrative to an activity, such as "creating a line of 3 X's or O's" you can be adding quite a bit of depth.
Not at all, you're confusing complexity for depth. The end goal is creating a line of 3 X's, the intermediate steps I made up add absolutely nothing to the interactions involved with creating said line. They're simply tasks you have to perform. You could increase the depth of tic-tac-toe by adding new rules to the way the board behaves. For example, if I sandwich an O with 2 X's on either side, I can switch all 3 symbols to O's and X's respectively. Whether it's the kind of depth you want is debatable, but it certainly adds depth, because it adds to the maneuvers players can do, it adds to possible strategies and mind games.
On October 05 2015 02:21 NewSunshine wrote: Imagine a version of tic-tac-toe where, in order to make any move, you had to recite a speech based on whether you were X's or O's, perform a secret handshake accordingly, and then assemble the pen you would use to make your mark. All of this is very complicated, but adds absolutely nothing to the depth of creating a line of 3 X's or O's. Likewise, macro boosters offer little strategic depth, while raising complexity in multiple ways.
The idea that increasing complexity likewise increases depth is wholely erroneous. The goal of design should be to increase depth in whatever way you can, while minimizing complexity. It is not something to be sought after, it is something to be avoided. The trap comes when things that naturally increase depth also happen to increase complexity, so people fallaciously equate the two.
Depends on how deep the speech is. This sounds like a version of tic-tac-toe I'd be interested in. When you add rhetoric, story, or narrative to an activity, such as "creating a line of 3 X's or O's" you can be adding quite a bit of depth.
Not at all, you're confusing complexity for depth. The end goal is creating a line of 3 X's, the intermediate steps I made up add absolutely nothing to the interactions involved with creating said line. They're simply tasks you have to perform. You could increase the depth of tic-tac-toe by adding new rules to the way the board behaves. For example, if I sandwich an O with 2 X's on either side, I can switch all 3 symbols to O's and X's respectively. Whether it's the kind of depth you want is debatable, but it certainly adds depth, because it adds to the maneuvers players can do, it adds to possible strategies and mind games.
There is value in executing things, you seem to imply that strategy is the most important thing though. It's pretty simple imo: Executing mechanical tasks is FUN, maybe the macro mechanics itself are not fun, that certainly is debatable, but real time (video) games are fun BECAUSE strategy doesn't overshadow execution, they complement each other.
On October 05 2015 01:28 mishimaBeef wrote: I wish somehow the game was designed around 60-120 apm. Then instead of "epic multitasking" we would have "epic decision making". Someone smash together chess and brood war BibleThump
Then players like elfi would finally be good enough to wim wcs!!!!!!!!!!!! What a beautiful world we're imagining
Elfi has best decision making?
It's not farfetched to think that relatively bad overall players will pull more wins with neat strategies is what i meant
It's far fetched to think worse players will beat better players consistently.
It's not far fetched to think that what constitutes a "good player" will change, obviously when you shift the design elements of the entire game.
I think having to execute a meaningful decision every 0.5-1 seconds is pretty cool, skillful, and more approachable if designed properly.
On October 05 2015 01:28 mishimaBeef wrote: I wish somehow the game was designed around 60-120 apm. Then instead of "epic multitasking" we would have "epic decision making". Someone smash together chess and brood war BibleThump
Then players like elfi would finally be good enough to wim wcs!!!!!!!!!!!! What a beautiful world we're imagining
Elfi has best decision making?
It's not farfetched to think that relatively bad overall players will pull more wins with neat strategies is what i meant
It's far fetched to think worse players will beat better players consistently.
It's not far fetched to think that what constitutes a "good player" will change, obviously when you shift the design elements of the entire game.
I think having to execute a meaningful decision every 0.5 seconds is pretty cool, skillful, and more approachable if designed properly.
If the mechanical aspect is holding back Elfi, Elfi would be better off with a more strategical game. and having to execute a meaningful decision every second would just be convoluted, no? I have a hard time imagining a RTS where every action has to be meaningful
On October 05 2015 02:21 NewSunshine wrote: Imagine a version of tic-tac-toe where, in order to make any move, you had to recite a speech based on whether you were X's or O's, perform a secret handshake accordingly, and then assemble the pen you would use to make your mark. All of this is very complicated, but adds absolutely nothing to the depth of creating a line of 3 X's or O's. Likewise, macro boosters offer little strategic depth, while raising complexity in multiple ways.
The idea that increasing complexity likewise increases depth is wholely erroneous. The goal of design should be to increase depth in whatever way you can, while minimizing complexity. It is not something to be sought after, it is something to be avoided. The trap comes when things that naturally increase depth also happen to increase complexity, so people fallaciously equate the two.
Depends on how deep the speech is. This sounds like a version of tic-tac-toe I'd be interested in. When you add rhetoric, story, or narrative to an activity, such as "creating a line of 3 X's or O's" you can be adding quite a bit of depth.
Not at all, you're confusing complexity for depth. The end goal is creating a line of 3 X's, the intermediate steps I made up add absolutely nothing to the interactions involved with creating said line. They're simply tasks you have to perform. You could increase the depth of tic-tac-toe by adding new rules to the way the board behaves. For example, if I sandwich an O with 2 X's on either side, I can switch all 3 symbols to O's and X's respectively. Whether it's the kind of depth you want is debatable, but it certainly adds depth, because it adds to the maneuvers players can do, it adds to possible strategies and mind games.
There is value in executing things, you seem to imply that strategy is the most important thing though. It's pretty simple imo: Executing mechanical tasks is FUN, maybe the macro mechanics itself are not fun, that certainly is debatable, but real time (video) games are fun BECAUSE strategy doesn't overshadow execution, they complement each other.
Much of the value in an execution-based mechanic comes from the visibility of the execution, and the skill involved with said execution. When the quality of one's execution is invisibile to the opponent, it opens the door to frustrating scenarios. When the skill in question is timing, in particular with macro boosters, it creates situations where one players has a lot less stuff than the other, and they lose, and they can't tell why. Then they find out it was because they were 2 seconds slower on each inject compared to their opponent, something very easy to do and very hard to spot, even in a replay.
I'm not against having difficult executional elements in the game, don't get me wrong, but considering it's supposed to be a strategy game too, I'm sure as hell going to advocate the development of more strategy in the game. It's not an RTS without strategy at every turn.
On October 05 2015 02:21 NewSunshine wrote: Imagine a version of tic-tac-toe where, in order to make any move, you had to recite a speech based on whether you were X's or O's, perform a secret handshake accordingly, and then assemble the pen you would use to make your mark. All of this is very complicated, but adds absolutely nothing to the depth of creating a line of 3 X's or O's. Likewise, macro boosters offer little strategic depth, while raising complexity in multiple ways.
The idea that increasing complexity likewise increases depth is wholely erroneous. The goal of design should be to increase depth in whatever way you can, while minimizing complexity. It is not something to be sought after, it is something to be avoided. The trap comes when things that naturally increase depth also happen to increase complexity, so people fallaciously equate the two.
Depends on how deep the speech is. This sounds like a version of tic-tac-toe I'd be interested in. When you add rhetoric, story, or narrative to an activity, such as "creating a line of 3 X's or O's" you can be adding quite a bit of depth.
Not at all, you're confusing complexity for depth. The end goal is creating a line of 3 X's, the intermediate steps I made up add absolutely nothing to the interactions involved with creating said line. They're simply tasks you have to perform. You could increase the depth of tic-tac-toe by adding new rules to the way the board behaves. For example, if I sandwich an O with 2 X's on either side, I can switch all 3 symbols to O's and X's respectively. Whether it's the kind of depth you want is debatable, but it certainly adds depth, because it adds to the maneuvers players can do, it adds to possible strategies and mind games.
If the interactions in the line are dependent upon verbal cues--as in the placement of an 'x' can be blocked by your opponents use of a certain verbal technique--then you've created a deeper tic-tac-toe. I would not play tic-tac-toe save with my son because the game lacks both complexity and depth.
Generally, black and white distinctions are untenable. With regard to the distinction between complexity and depth, they are particularly untenable in that a player's experience of depth changes with regard to what he or she finds monotonous. Story, in my opinion, would add depth to tic-tac-toe because the lining up of x's and o's is boring. Injecting is enjoyable for me. I don't find it monotonous. I find it requires something of me, in moments of pressure, that challenges me.
I have nothing against you but I am baffled as to your seeming confidence that the line between depth and complexity is obvious. This conversation is largely pushing buttons because that line is not universally agreed upon.
You think I am "confusing complexity for depth" and I think you are too quick too assume that the line between the two is objective.
On October 05 2015 02:21 NewSunshine wrote: Imagine a version of tic-tac-toe where, in order to make any move, you had to recite a speech based on whether you were X's or O's, perform a secret handshake accordingly, and then assemble the pen you would use to make your mark. All of this is very complicated, but adds absolutely nothing to the depth of creating a line of 3 X's or O's. Likewise, macro boosters offer little strategic depth, while raising complexity in multiple ways.
The idea that increasing complexity likewise increases depth is wholely erroneous. The goal of design should be to increase depth in whatever way you can, while minimizing complexity. It is not something to be sought after, it is something to be avoided. The trap comes when things that naturally increase depth also happen to increase complexity, so people fallaciously equate the two.
Depends on how deep the speech is. This sounds like a version of tic-tac-toe I'd be interested in. When you add rhetoric, story, or narrative to an activity, such as "creating a line of 3 X's or O's" you can be adding quite a bit of depth.
Not at all, you're confusing complexity for depth. The end goal is creating a line of 3 X's, the intermediate steps I made up add absolutely nothing to the interactions involved with creating said line. They're simply tasks you have to perform. You could increase the depth of tic-tac-toe by adding new rules to the way the board behaves. For example, if I sandwich an O with 2 X's on either side, I can switch all 3 symbols to O's and X's respectively. Whether it's the kind of depth you want is debatable, but it certainly adds depth, because it adds to the maneuvers players can do, it adds to possible strategies and mind games.
If the interactions in the line are dependent upon verbal cues--as in the placement of an 'x' can be blocked by your opponents use of a certain verbal technique--then you've created a deeper tic-tac-toe. I would not play tic-tac-toe save with my son because the game lacks both complexity and depth.
Generally, black and white distinctions are untenable. With regard to the distinction between complexity and depth, they are particularly untenable in that a player's experience of depth changes with regard to what he or she finds monotonous. Story, in my opinion, would add depth to tic-tac-toe because the lining up of x's and o's is boring. Injecting is enjoyable for me. I don't find it monotonous. I find it requires something of me, in moments of pressure, that challenges me.
I have nothing against you but I am baffled as to your seeming confidence that the line between depth and complexity is obvious. This conversation is largely pushing buttons because that line is not universally agreed upon.
You think I am "confusing complexity for depth" and I think you are too quick too assume that the line between the two is objective.
But it is objective. Saying you find fun in complexity doesn't turn complexity into depth. Most people prefer depth of strategy in their strategy game, so obfuscating the argument is counterproductive. If you want to describe what it is you enjoy about a game that's fine, but it doesn't detract from my arguments.
Bringing up use of verbal techniques for my hypothetical example goes outside the scope of what I describe, so of course it ends up behaving differently. Flat out, the speaking I describe in my example has no nuances or interaction, it's something you have to do exactly one way or you can't play, plain and simple. And the macro boosters we have come dangerously close to fitting that description.
On October 05 2015 01:28 mishimaBeef wrote: I wish somehow the game was designed around 60-120 apm. Then instead of "epic multitasking" we would have "epic decision making". Someone smash together chess and brood war BibleThump
Then players like elfi would finally be good enough to wim wcs!!!!!!!!!!!! What a beautiful world we're imagining
Elfi has best decision making?
It's not farfetched to think that relatively bad overall players will pull more wins with neat strategies is what i meant
It's far fetched to think worse players will beat better players consistently.
It's not far fetched to think that what constitutes a "good player" will change, obviously when you shift the design elements of the entire game.
I think having to execute a meaningful decision every 0.5 seconds is pretty cool, skillful, and more approachable if designed properly.
If the mechanical aspect is holding back Elfi, Elfi would be better off with a more strategical game. and having to execute a meaningful decision every second would just be convoluted, no? I have a hard time imagining a RTS where every action has to be meaningful
Well let's consider speed chess. You basically have to make a meaningful decision every second (or few seconds). However, there is no ability for the player who 'sees further into the game' to get ahead in real-time (i.e. player A knows 10 good moves to play now, but player B wants to study the game board a bit longer - of course you have to use your imagination to abstractly insert fog of war dynamics).
Heck, let's consider pseudo-realistic war scenarios. The general can only command as fast as the medium of communication allows him to talk to his troops. I believe if it's too short, then mechanics and brute force trumps strategy too hard and becomes a game for machines.
On October 05 2015 01:28 mishimaBeef wrote: I wish somehow the game was designed around 60-120 apm. Then instead of "epic multitasking" we would have "epic decision making". Someone smash together chess and brood war BibleThump
I second this. How many people have incredible fun playing football like total noobs ? I can't understand why they can't have the same fun while playing a SC2 game.
I agree with the rest of the article too. Dario so smart.
I second this. How many people have incredible fun playing football like total noobs ? I can't understand why they can't have the same fun while playing a SC2 game.
I agree with the rest of the article too. Dario so smart.
They try, they fail. The same way as they fail in SC2 :-)
I play football a lot(well, played, this year has been bad to my legs, injury after injury ) and I can tell you most of people I meet try to play like pros. Some of them can get there because their difference from us, noobs, is so big. I play with a guy who almost made a national team(knee injury stopped him) and even with his broken knee he is still so good he can do cute moves in full run. Those moves which are forbidden to noobs even when you try it without running and opponent
But most people play like noobs who tries their best. Though you cannot go 10 pool in football, it just does not work, you can try to go full Messi but you will fail when you meet the first defensive player
But I agree. I myself play my weird SC2 P with PvT storm opening(fake colossus) and PvZ colossus into storm(yes, I open with colossus and it works). On low level you can do anything you want and it works Football is just way worse IMO, you actually cannot do anything because you will end up with twisted legs
On October 05 2015 01:28 mishimaBeef wrote: I wish somehow the game was designed around 60-120 apm. Then instead of "epic multitasking" we would have "epic decision making". Someone smash together chess and brood war BibleThump
I'm glad your wish won't come true. Sounds awful
What if the game had a 0.5 second cooldown on actions... ?_?
I always considered myself a good macro player, I was fairly successful in Brood War because of it. I jumped into SC2 with little experience and knowledge and shot up the ranks with my own macro play. I didn't go by any of the styles I was seeing in videos, I just did what I knew best. Most games I lost was either cheese or I was outplayed early because I had a poor build/unit choice.
I think he's dead on, be comfortable first, learn more about the game and you start to adapt and make minor tweaks. You are taking 20 steps backwards and only 1 forward when you try to mimic someone else's style of play entirely.
On October 05 2015 02:21 NewSunshine wrote: Imagine a version of tic-tac-toe where, in order to make any move, you had to recite a speech based on whether you were X's or O's, perform a secret handshake accordingly, and then assemble the pen you would use to make your mark. All of this is very complicated, but adds absolutely nothing to the depth of creating a line of 3 X's or O's. Likewise, macro boosters offer little strategic depth, while raising complexity in multiple ways.
The idea that increasing complexity likewise increases depth is wholely erroneous. The goal of design should be to increase depth in whatever way you can, while minimizing complexity. It is not something to be sought after, it is something to be avoided. The trap comes when things that naturally increase depth also happen to increase complexity, so people fallaciously equate the two.
Depends on how deep the speech is. This sounds like a version of tic-tac-toe I'd be interested in. When you add rhetoric, story, or narrative to an activity, such as "creating a line of 3 X's or O's" you can be adding quite a bit of depth.
Not at all, you're confusing complexity for depth. The end goal is creating a line of 3 X's, the intermediate steps I made up add absolutely nothing to the interactions involved with creating said line. They're simply tasks you have to perform. You could increase the depth of tic-tac-toe by adding new rules to the way the board behaves. For example, if I sandwich an O with 2 X's on either side, I can switch all 3 symbols to O's and X's respectively. Whether it's the kind of depth you want is debatable, but it certainly adds depth, because it adds to the maneuvers players can do, it adds to possible strategies and mind games.
If the interactions in the line are dependent upon verbal cues--as in the placement of an 'x' can be blocked by your opponents use of a certain verbal technique--then you've created a deeper tic-tac-toe. I would not play tic-tac-toe save with my son because the game lacks both complexity and depth.
Generally, black and white distinctions are untenable. With regard to the distinction between complexity and depth, they are particularly untenable in that a player's experience of depth changes with regard to what he or she finds monotonous. Story, in my opinion, would add depth to tic-tac-toe because the lining up of x's and o's is boring. Injecting is enjoyable for me. I don't find it monotonous. I find it requires something of me, in moments of pressure, that challenges me.
I have nothing against you but I am baffled as to your seeming confidence that the line between depth and complexity is obvious. This conversation is largely pushing buttons because that line is not universally agreed upon.
You think I am "confusing complexity for depth" and I think you are too quick too assume that the line between the two is objective.
But it is objective. Saying you find fun in complexity doesn't turn complexity into depth. Most people prefer depth of strategy in their strategy game, so obfuscating the argument is counterproductive. If you want to describe what it is you enjoy about a game that's fine, but it doesn't detract from my arguments.
Bringing up use of verbal techniques for my hypothetical example goes outside the scope of what I describe, so of course it ends up behaving differently. Flat out, the speaking I describe in my example has no nuances or interaction, it's something you have to do exactly one way or you can't play, plain and simple. And the macro boosters we have come dangerously close to fitting that description.
How can you imply that Injects have no nuance or interaction? That is self-evidently untrue.
Depending on my strategy and execution, I am able to exert a certain degree of pressure on you. Depending on your mental fortitude, strategy, and experience, that pressure will affect your ability to Inject. Maybe your Injects will go on being flawless. Maybe you'll be so thrown that you'll forget to Inject for the next minute and a half. Or maybe it'll be any one of an infinite in-between outcomes.
Could Injects be more interactive? Yes. Is that the most profound issue with Injects? Hardly.
The two core issues with Inject Larvae are:
1. They aren't very strategic. Like a lot of other macro in the game, you just have to do them. But - as evident from my comparison to other macro - not everything has to be strategic. Every race has a mechanical requirement and Injects are Zerg's. In exchange for that, they don't have to split their units fifty times per engagement. I wish they had a better mechanical requirement, but if it's between Injects and having no mechanical requirement at all, which appears to be the case this late in the beta, then unfortunately this is the best we can do.
2. They have a very subtle but very huge impact on the game. This is actually the bigger issue. I remember to this day how out-of-nowhere Artosis's statements seemed that "soO has the best macro in the world." There had been no build up to the statement, despite the guy's constant presence in Code S up till that point. He had become a fixture in the upper ranks of Code S and Tasteless and Artosis were basically explicitly confused about why. And then all of a sudden it's clear - he has the best macro and that's why he just made the second finals in a row and is in the running for the third.
What the fuck? If it takes commentators multiple seasons of watching top tier play to realize why the best Zerg is the best Zerg, what hope do viewers have of making sense of the results they see? And we're talking about the core mechanical mechanic of one of three races. This isn't exactly a niche situation.
On October 05 2015 02:21 NewSunshine wrote: Imagine a version of tic-tac-toe where, in order to make any move, you had to recite a speech based on whether you were X's or O's, perform a secret handshake accordingly, and then assemble the pen you would use to make your mark. All of this is very complicated, but adds absolutely nothing to the depth of creating a line of 3 X's or O's. Likewise, macro boosters offer little strategic depth, while raising complexity in multiple ways.
The idea that increasing complexity likewise increases depth is wholely erroneous. The goal of design should be to increase depth in whatever way you can, while minimizing complexity. It is not something to be sought after, it is something to be avoided. The trap comes when things that naturally increase depth also happen to increase complexity, so people fallaciously equate the two.
Depends on how deep the speech is. This sounds like a version of tic-tac-toe I'd be interested in. When you add rhetoric, story, or narrative to an activity, such as "creating a line of 3 X's or O's" you can be adding quite a bit of depth.
Not at all, you're confusing complexity for depth. The end goal is creating a line of 3 X's, the intermediate steps I made up add absolutely nothing to the interactions involved with creating said line. They're simply tasks you have to perform. You could increase the depth of tic-tac-toe by adding new rules to the way the board behaves. For example, if I sandwich an O with 2 X's on either side, I can switch all 3 symbols to O's and X's respectively. Whether it's the kind of depth you want is debatable, but it certainly adds depth, because it adds to the maneuvers players can do, it adds to possible strategies and mind games.
If the interactions in the line are dependent upon verbal cues--as in the placement of an 'x' can be blocked by your opponents use of a certain verbal technique--then you've created a deeper tic-tac-toe. I would not play tic-tac-toe save with my son because the game lacks both complexity and depth.
Generally, black and white distinctions are untenable. With regard to the distinction between complexity and depth, they are particularly untenable in that a player's experience of depth changes with regard to what he or she finds monotonous. Story, in my opinion, would add depth to tic-tac-toe because the lining up of x's and o's is boring. Injecting is enjoyable for me. I don't find it monotonous. I find it requires something of me, in moments of pressure, that challenges me.
I have nothing against you but I am baffled as to your seeming confidence that the line between depth and complexity is obvious. This conversation is largely pushing buttons because that line is not universally agreed upon.
You think I am "confusing complexity for depth" and I think you are too quick too assume that the line between the two is objective.
But it is objective. Saying you find fun in complexity doesn't turn complexity into depth. Most people prefer depth of strategy in their strategy game, so obfuscating the argument is counterproductive. If you want to describe what it is you enjoy about a game that's fine, but it doesn't detract from my arguments.
Bringing up use of verbal techniques for my hypothetical example goes outside the scope of what I describe, so of course it ends up behaving differently. Flat out, the speaking I describe in my example has no nuances or interaction, it's something you have to do exactly one way or you can't play, plain and simple. And the macro boosters we have come dangerously close to fitting that description.
How can you imply that Injects have no nuance or interaction? That is self-evidently untrue.
Depending on my strategy and execution, I am able to exert a certain degree of pressure on you. Depending on your mental fortitude, strategy, and experience, that pressure will affect your ability to Inject. Maybe your Injects will go on being flawless. Maybe you'll be so thrown that you'll forget to Inject for the next minute and a half. Or maybe it'll be any one of an infinite in-between outcomes.
Could Injects be more interactive? Yes. Is that the most profound issue with Injects? Hardly.
The two core issues with Inject Larvae are:
1. They aren't very strategic. Like a lot of other macro in the game, you just have to do them. But - as evident from my comparison to other macro - not everything has to be strategic. Every race has a mechanical requirement and Injects are Zerg's. In exchange for that, they don't have to split their units fifty times per engagement. I wish they had a better mechanical requirement, but if it's between Injects and having no mechanical requirement at all, which appears to be the case this late in the beta, then unfortunately this is the best we can do.
2. They have a very subtle but very huge impact on the game. This is actually the bigger issue. I remember to this day how out-of-nowhere Artosis's statements seemed that "soO has the best macro in the world." There had been no build up to the statement, despite the guy's constant presence in Code S up till that point. He had become a fixture in the upper ranks of Code S and Tasteless and Artosis were basically explicitly confused about why. And then all of a sudden it's clear - he has the best macro and that's why he just made the second finals in a row and is in the running for the third.
What the fuck? If it takes commentators multiple seasons of watching top tier play to realize why the best Zerg is the best Zerg, what hope do viewers have of making sense of the results they see? And we're talking about the core mechanical mechanic of one of three races. This isn't exactly a niche situation.
It sucks, but it is what it is.
I didn't mean for that comparison to be taken too hard, because my main complaint with the macro boosters is exactly what you describe here. I was simply linking it to my example about complexity in games. I agree wholeheartedly about the inordinate impact the macro boosters have, versus their visibility in game. Any complaint I might make about them is really secondary to these facts.
I agree. It's also similar to what Demuslim wrote on faceblog.
Simple Macro + too many units = all creativity boiling down to ONE strategy that is save against all harass and can win if you play that style better than your opponent.
great stuff tlo i pretty much agree with everything although i understand how some lower skilled/slower players might not agree. people have always put too much emphasis on apm, there have been a good number of pros with pretty low apm. there are diamond and even plat players with 200+ apm and then there are top master players with 100-120.
besides i think removing the macro mechanics gives zerg a clear advantage since so much of zerg apm is spent on queens and inject and without inject they wouldnt have that much to do.
On October 05 2015 20:50 EleanorRIgby wrote: great stuff tlo i pretty much agree with everything although i understand how some lower skilled/slower players might not agree. people have always put too much emphasis on apm, there have been a good number of pros with pretty low apm. there are diamond and even plat players with 200+ apm and then there are top master players with 100-120.
besides i think removing the macro mechanics gives zerg a clear advantage since so much of zerg apm is spent on queens and inject and without inject they wouldnt have that much to do.
If remove macro boosters - slower players (80-90% of sc2 community) will be able to play game. Lower eco grow and less actions required will give them time to build infrastructure and manage workers/army in early game. And get FUN of it. And faster/skiller players always find things where to spend their apm, multitask, attention. That's why skilled tlo cant win korean tourneys. Because if there no injections ingame - there are still lot of things to do.
Mainly sc2 is strategy, not an arcade clicker game. So if u want to scale good player over low skilled - make difference in their decision around macro model. Not just how offen of fast they click with their macro-boosters. How about default townhall-worker model? Invest more money into townhall to increase speed of worker production for longer game or invest just in workers to get faster income early? Or maybe just stop (at optimal number) production of workers and go offensive? And if u fail - u lost money u invest in. It's already more flexible and deep mechanic than injections/mules u cast for nothing. It's just a bit broken with gameending harass and super-eco model with macro boosters.
Currently usual win/lose reason in low-leagues (~up to diamond) is one of players lose to game itself.
On October 05 2015 20:50 EleanorRIgby wrote: great stuff tlo i pretty much agree with everything although i understand how some lower skilled/slower players might not agree. people have always put too much emphasis on apm, there have been a good number of pros with pretty low apm. there are diamond and even plat players with 200+ apm and then there are top master players with 100-120.
besides i think removing the macro mechanics gives zerg a clear advantage since so much of zerg apm is spent on queens and inject and without inject they wouldnt have that much to do.
If remove macro boosters - slower players (80-90% of sc2 community) will be able to play game. Lower eco grow and less actions required will give them time to build infrastructure and manage workers/army in early game. And get FUN of it. And faster/skiller players always find things where to spend their apm, multitask, attention. That's why skilled tlo cant win korean tourneys. Because if there no injections ingame - there are still lot of things to do. Even if you are a zerg.
Mainly sc2 is strategy, not an arcade clicker game. So if u want to scale good player over low skilled - make difference in their decision around macro model. Not just how offen of fast they click with their macro-boosters. How about default townhall-worker model? Invest more money into townhall to increase speed of worker production for longer game or invest just in workers to get faster income early? Or maybe just stop (at optimal number) production of workers and go offensive? And if u fail - u lost money u invest in. It's already more flexible and deep mechanic than injections/mules u cast for nothing. It's just a bit broken with gameending harass and super-eco model with macro boosters.
Currently usual win/lose reason in low-leagues (~up to diamond) is one of players lose to game itself.
On October 05 2015 20:50 EleanorRIgby wrote: great stuff tlo i pretty much agree with everything although i understand how some lower skilled/slower players might not agree. people have always put too much emphasis on apm, there have been a good number of pros with pretty low apm. there are diamond and even plat players with 200+ apm and then there are top master players with 100-120.
besides i think removing the macro mechanics gives zerg a clear advantage since so much of zerg apm is spent on queens and inject and without inject they wouldnt have that much to do.
If remove macro boosters - slower players (80-90% of sc2 community) will be able to play game. Lower eco grow and less actions required will give them time to build infrastructure and manage workers/army in early game. And get FUN of it. And faster/skiller players always find things where to spend their apm, multitask, attention. That's why skilled tlo cant win korean tourneys. Because if there no injections ingame - there are still lot of things to do. Even if you are a zerg.
Mainly sc2 is strategy, not an arcade clicker game. So if u want to scale good player over low skilled - make difference in their decision around macro model. Not just how offen of fast they click with their macro-boosters. How about default townhall-worker model? Invest more money into townhall to increase speed of worker production for longer game or invest just in workers to get faster income early? Or maybe just stop (at optimal number) production of workers and go offensive? And if u fail - u lost money u invest in. It's already more flexible and deep mechanic than injections/mules u cast for nothing. It's just a bit broken with gameending harass and super-eco model with macro boosters.
Currently usual win/lose reason in low-leagues (~up to diamond) is one of players lose to game itself.
Sorry, i try to edit and i think i miss the button TT
I have to completely disgree with TLO, I simply don't get his type of thinking. IMO there's a huge difference between useful mechanics, which enable good players to show skill in PLAYING & STRATEGY, and stupid APM dumps as we got in SC2 macro mechanics.
Lets convert the progamers' logic to playing an instrument: of course it's impressive - and also a tool of skill differentiation - if the player can play his instrument blindfolded, with one hand tied on the back, or is able to tune his strings while playing - BUT IS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MAKING MUSIC!!
If a guitar player wants to shine, he shreds some Yngwie Malmsteen instead of noodling Lady in black. The difference compared to SC2: both songs remain music, both are fun to play - though representing completely different universes skillwise - and both still require some sense of musicality to sound well!
SC2 should allow casuals to play simpler strategies while still having fun and give the pros tons of opportunities to execute more complex stuff. Macro mechanics are impressive, but useless barriers, which prevent most players from having fun with what should be the core of the game - strategic choice!
Why do people keep saying sc2 is mostly strategy? The optimal strategy in sc2 is usually pretty clear cut, just depends what you can pull off. The mechanics are what make it so great.
On October 05 2015 22:37 Little-Chimp wrote: Why do people keep saying sc2 is mostly strategy? The optimal strategy in sc2 is usually pretty clear cut, just depends what you can pull off. The mechanics are what make it so great.
'Cos it's called "real time strategy game", not "build learning and proper execution challenge"?
On October 05 2015 22:25 DaMaze wrote: SC2 should allow casuals to play simpler strategies while still having fun and give the pros tons of opportunities to execute more complex stuff.
I don't know why you think SC2 doesn't allow that. To continue comparing it to playing a musical instrument, I'd say that musicality is present at any technical proficiency of the instrument just like strategy is present at any technical proficiency of SC2.
On October 05 2015 22:37 Little-Chimp wrote: Why do people keep saying sc2 is mostly strategy? The optimal strategy in sc2 is usually pretty clear cut, just depends what you can pull off. The mechanics are what make it so great.
The main point of TLO's article is that SC2 isn't mostly about anything. You can make it about whatever you want. The optimal strategy is definitely not often clear. How would you even know? You never know for sure what strategies you aren't aware of until you become aware of them. But the fact is that history has shown many times over and over again that there's always some new discovery to be made that improves a strategy. Whatever we think is perfectly figured out right now remains perfect until it isn't anymore. That's just the way it goes. It is much easier to spot shortcomings in mechanics and they're a more tangible thing to work on and think about for improving. You're kinda more like an engineer working with the laws of science while other people can be scientists and figure out which laws need to be rewritten.
The real thing that makes SC2 great is you can think the mechanics are what make it so great while accepting whatever level of strategic knowledge you have, while someone else can do the reverse by just accepting whatever mechanical ability they've passively accrued and focus completely on tinkering on build orders and trying new compositions and strategy overall.
On October 05 2015 22:54 NonY wrote: I don't know why you think SC2 doesn't allow that.
Because even the simplest strategies require very good mechanical execution. In lower leagues the simplest strategy remains "survive the early game"! Just take a look at the early stage - no matter if it's a ling-all in, proxy 3-raxx or a cannon rush: All of these are near impossible to stop without knowing how to react properly IN ADVANCE and without executing the macro mechanics near perfect. There is absolutely no choice while playing, you either learned how to react and execute these steps well or you simply die. I know several casuals who just left SC2 because of cannon- and bunker rushes.
On October 05 2015 22:54 NonY wrote: The real thing that makes SC2 great is you can think the mechanics are what make it so great while accepting whatever level of strategic knowledge you have, while someone else can do the reverse by just accepting whatever mechanical ability they've passively accrued and focus completely on tinkering on build orders and trying new compositions and strategy overall.
I disagree, because as mentioned above: without proper macro mechanics there is no game to evolve. You just die to early cheese - and especially in lower leagues 80% of the games are early game all ins. Look at gold league ZvZ: even if you scout what's coming, missing 1 or 2 injects or building a few drones too many leads straight into gg.
If you wanna play "just the way you like" as TLO proposed, you still need some really well trained mechanical skill to gain that freedom - even in lower leagues. Strategic choice or build orders may help you survive the early game, yes, but if you dare to play safe, you just die some minutes later due to the economic snowball. So this choice is nothing but an illusion imo.
I love how teamliquid is so FASCINATED by the "difficulty" of executing macro mechanics, specifically larva inject. Let me set this straight by saying that while this is a concern, there are far more pressing turn-offs to lower league players than cyclical larva injects.
To quote your post, TLO: " 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 is the problem with Starcraft II. Not the so called 'difficulty' of macro mechanics. The fact that WHAT you build is so much important than HOW you use the units.
This was true in HotS and WoL. Then LotV came along and solved this issue by adding active abilities to every single unit and jamming in overly strong harass units, making most games a desperate dropship fly swatting competition, into one final spellcasting clusterf@ck of a battle.
The REAL problem is that we as a community asked for simple, intuitive, and responsive move-and-shoot units that could be controlled to great effect. Not the thor. Not the warhound. Not the Colossus. Something like the marine, or the stalker, or even Zealots without a-move charge.
That way, positioning and army control could overcome even the most adverse scenarios, leading to exciting back-and-forth gameplay and personality that can be seen through choice of units and control. ------------------------- In summary: TLO says clicks add tension between different choices of how to allocate scarce attention and APM. He says that without this tension caused by high maintenance macro, the game would be stale and revert to unit composition arms races like before.
My response: You are right, the tension is interesting. However, even if you take that tension away, the core gameplay should be exciting. You indirectly pointed out the BIGGEST problem in Starcraft II. The core gameplay, if pros did not make mistakes as you said, is hard counter army composition arms racing, and throwing harass units at each other. Which you said yourself is STALE. That's because the REAL problem is piss poor quality unit design for many units.
On October 05 2015 22:54 NonY wrote: I don't know why you think SC2 doesn't allow that.
Because even the simplest strategies require very good mechanical execution. In lower leagues the simplest strategy remains "survive the early game"! Just take a look at the early stage - no matter if it's a ling-all in, proxy 3-raxx or a cannon rush: All of these are near impossible to stop without knowing how to react properly IN ADVANCE and without executing the macro mechanics near perfect. There is absolutely no choice while playing, you either learned how to react and execute these steps well or you simply die. I know several casuals who just left SC2 because of cannon- and bunker rushes.
On October 05 2015 22:54 NonY wrote: The real thing that makes SC2 great is you can think the mechanics are what make it so great while accepting whatever level of strategic knowledge you have, while someone else can do the reverse by just accepting whatever mechanical ability they've passively accrued and focus completely on tinkering on build orders and trying new compositions and strategy overall.
I disagree, because as mentioned above: without proper macro mechanics there is no game to evolve. You just die to early cheese - and especially in lower leagues 80% of the games are early game all ins. Look at gold league ZvZ: even if you scout what's coming, missing 1 or 2 injects or building a few drones too many leads straight into gg.
If you wanna play "just the way you like" as TLO proposed, you still need some really well trained mechanical skill to gain that freedom - even in lower leagues. Strategic choice or build orders may help you survive the early game, yes, but if you dare to play safe, you just die some minutes later due to the economic snowball. So this choice is nothing but an illusion imo.
--if there isn't enough build variety in a certain skill bracket, shouldn't you be spreading the gospel of TLO in order to inspire people to do different things? --yeah the game takes SOME mechanics. but saying you need really well trained mechanical skill is blowing it out of proportion. again, it's like an instrument or a sport. without natural talent, some training and practice is required. i mean yeah 80%+ of the population in NA/EU is fat nowadays, but are we really gonna say that being able to play soccer requires well trained running abilities? no, a person who doesn't overeat and who gets some exercise everyday could have some fun playing soccer. it's not unreasonable. a similar modest but steady effort at sc2 will also yield results. are we supposed to change the nature of SC2 when someone quits it in less than a week? it's an activity that requires some skills that people aren't born with. most activities are. there's nothing wrong with that. the general population sucks at everything except the few things they've learned or got talent in. i find it really unfair to hold this against SC2. if someone is the type of person to flit from beginner-friendly activity to beginner-friendly activity, then SC2 multiplayer is not for them. enjoy the campaign and move on. --you win 50% of the games you play unless you're at the extreme top or extreme bottom of the ladder. the people doing those builds in bronze are not doing them like pros. if you consistently lose to people doing those builds, you'll start matching against people who can't even do those builds --you never gain complete freedom for the game to be played out the way you want it to be played out. because there's another person in the game. even when you have the knowledge and mechanics to repel every all-in, you can't stop people from doing what strategy they want. you just rack up wins against those people, which is hopefully satisfying enough to not be boring, and queue up again.
I find TLO's post very... idealistic. It speaks as if macro, micro, and mechanics are all equivalent skills. But in reality, throughout SC2's lifespan, these 3 things were not on equal footing. Macro and mechanics meant far, far more than micro.
I do agree that unit compositions too mean too much, hard counters counter TOO hard. And I agree that it is a good thing that players have to choose where to spend their attention.
But I have one major disagreement: I disagree with the conclusion that macro mechanics are the answer. Mechanics such as this should not be what separates "good" macro from "bad" macro. There should be more strategy involved, and making functions take "more clicks" should not be where players spend their attention.
In my opinion, RTS's are stuck in the 90's. They are using outdated game design, and because SC2 is so well established as a tournament game, they are scared to change that.
In game design, newer iterations should make controls easier, not harder. If you want to do something and it takes 5 clicks, in newer iterations of the game it should NOT take more than 5 clicks, and ideally it should take less. You see this in every genre of game, even the top tournament games/genres.
Yes, that will free up clicks. Yes, players will have more "attention" to spend other places. So what should we do then? We should add some new mechanics that contribute to the game strategically!
That has been my issue with macro mechanics all along. They are not well designed mechanics! More mechanics in the game are good, but they should be sufficiently rewarding, they should contribute strategically, they should be something that both players want to pay attention to & exploit to their advantage. They should encourage player vs player interaction. These current mechanics do very few, if any of these things...
Controls, they should be improved. That is evolution and innovation in game design. And with the extra attention/APM offered, more mechanics that substantially affect the gameplay should be added. Not poorly designed mechanics such as spawn larvae that are a requirement more than an asset. The positives TLO mentioned that the macro mechanics have... Many other game mechanics can offer those same assets, and contribute much more to gameplay, than just making players have to spend their "attention and clicks" there. It should be more than that!! These mechanics don't offer any interesting play/counterplays. Even in TLO's explanation, they are simply just "another place to spend your attention".
I honestly believe RTS's popularity is dying out, not because of MOBA's, but because the game design has stagnated. Because of this, I do not see any new RTS's gaining any real popularity until one of them shakes up the genre and breaks the mold. As everyone here knows, a well designed RTS can be amazing. But overall, SC2 is not very innovative compared to SC/BW at all. And most of the updates/changes in game design have not been positive ones over the previous iterations. Economy, unit design, the damage/armor system... all of those things have degraded in the transition of SC1>SC2, and have caused endless problems that still have not been solved after so many years...
If the game mechanics are too easy, there will less space for innovation and amazing come backs. Few cookie-cutter build orders will dominate. Players will have to follow a mainstream metagame more strictly and the sandbox will shrink significantly.
My problem with this statement is that it's already been shown false, and that has been acknowledged by Blizzard in one of the community feedback updates in regards to the pro archon mode tournaments that were held while mm were removed; even in archon mode, pro players were still making both macro and micro mistakes.
If you take away macro mechanics, or make macro easier in general, you take away the choice and freedom that players have to differentiate themselves. Ironically micro players, who are often said to benefit the most from LotV, will actually be the ones who suffer the most from that - when everyone can focus on micro, they won't be able to set themselves apart as much anymore.
He's overestimating how much APM macro mechanics actually take; it's ~10 on 3 bases, which is almost nothing for a top level player, but matters a lot for the low APM players.
Besides, both of these statements were shown to be false when MM were removed, as blizz acknowledged in one of the community updates...
That said, he's also a Zerg player, and inject is not comparable to the other macro mechanics. It's comparable to making units, because that's the impact it has; you don't lose a bit of economy or delay a timing by 10s for missing it, you lose larva, which has the same impact as missing a production cycle for Terran or Toss, not missing a mule/chrono. It's also the only thing that makes Zerg look back at their base once in a while, which is why the people who actually know what they are talking about are suggesting removing Mule/Chrono, but keeping inject in some form or other.
I wouldn't disagree with his article if he were only referring to Inject, but to generalize the Zerg mechanics to the other races is sort of silly. As Terran/Toss there are other things to force you to look away from a fight and spend APM, and their armies are required to micro more than a Zerg army is in most cases.
It's not that his argument is entirely incorrect, but that he's overestimating the impact that the macro mechanics actually have. Protoss already has warp gate, which forces them to look away from the fight, and prevents them from making units without moving the screen like Terran and Zerg can, which explains why they made Chrono automatic rather than keeping it as it was before.
Terran and Protoss also have to build significantly more structures than Zerg does, which means more time spent looking at their base for macro. Zerg can do almost everything without looking away from their army, and much of their macro can be done with the minimap (Inject can be done using the minimap, which makes it incredibly easy/quick compared to the other mechanics). The only things Zerg actually have to look away from their army for are spreading creep and making tech structures, and the number of structures they have to make is minimal.
hey guys, how about advanced micro-mechanics? When u command "attack", units gain 1 sec buff +50% damage. And it's 1 sec cooldown. So you need to attack-move every 1+ sec, not 0,9 (it's on cd) but ~1 sec. So then u will fight better. Ah? So that's how macro mechanics affect macro. I'm overact obviously, but we can tweak numbers and blizz can implement this.
On October 06 2015 02:25 i_am_Nite wrote: hey guys, how about advanced micro-mechanics? When u command "attack", units gain 1 sec buff +50% damage. And it's 1 sec cooldown. So you need to attack-move every 1+ sec, not 0,9 (it's on cd) but ~1 sec. So then u will fight better. Ah? So that's how macro mechanics affect macro. I'm overact obviously, but we can tweak numbers and blizz can implement this.
You could also implement the exact opposite, where queuing up units would not cost any resources until the unit is actually built, therefore reducing your macro. We could also quite simply get rid of supply depots, overlords, and pylons.
I have an idea. How about we add tongues to each of the units. You have a special button 'shoot tongue' which will cause the units tongue to fly out toward whatever unit it is facing, killing it instantly upon contact. However the ability has a long recharge (3 minutes) and can only be used by one unit. Also tongue travels slowly so it can be dodged.
On October 05 2015 22:25 DaMaze wrote: SC2 should allow casuals to play simpler strategies while still having fun and give the pros tons of opportunities to execute more complex stuff.
I don't know why you think SC2 doesn't allow that. To continue comparing it to playing a musical instrument, I'd say that musicality is present at any technical proficiency of the instrument just like strategy is present at any technical proficiency of SC2.
On October 05 2015 22:37 Little-Chimp wrote: Why do people keep saying sc2 is mostly strategy? The optimal strategy in sc2 is usually pretty clear cut, just depends what you can pull off. The mechanics are what make it so great.
The main point of TLO's article is that SC2 isn't mostly about anything. You can make it about whatever you want. The optimal strategy is definitely not often clear. How would you even know? You never know for sure what strategies you aren't aware of until you become aware of them. But the fact is that history has shown many times over and over again that there's always some new discovery to be made that improves a strategy. Whatever we think is perfectly figured out right now remains perfect until it isn't anymore. That's just the way it goes. It is much easier to spot shortcomings in mechanics and they're a more tangible thing to work on and think about for improving. You're kinda more like an engineer working with the laws of science while other people can be scientists and figure out which laws need to be rewritten.
The real thing that makes SC2 great is you can think the mechanics are what make it so great while accepting whatever level of strategic knowledge you have, while someone else can do the reverse by just accepting whatever mechanical ability they've passively accrued and focus completely on tinkering on build orders and trying new compositions and strategy overall.
hmm yeah I suppose I underestimated the strategy component there. It's easy to get stuck in the same strategy for a while sometimes until someone breaks the mold for a large group of people. Nice post
I feel like there would still be a ton of things to do in the game with the macro mechanics out. No one would ever play a perfect game of starcraft. The spreading of attention and having to decide where to devote your attention to would still exist in the form of harassing while macroing, or multiple small battles going on at once, or all those things combined. There would just be one less artificial thing to worry about, but it wouldn't make the game any easier in the sense that you'd still always have something to do in a competitive game and you'd still have to play just as hard to get the W.
Great article, expressed a lot of the things I've been saying myself.
On October 06 2015 18:05 pzea469 wrote: I feel like there would still be a ton of things to do in the game with the macro mechanics out. No one would ever play a perfect game of starcraft. The spreading of attention and having to decide where to devote your attention to would still exist in the form of harassing while macroing, or multiple small battles going on at once, or all those things combined. There would just be one less artificial thing to worry about, but it wouldn't make the game any easier in the sense that you'd still always have something to do in a competitive game and you'd still have to play just as hard to get the W.
While it's true that no one will play a perfect game in that scenario, I think its undeniable that it reduces the playstyle diversity. You would always have something to do, but you're limiting the macro sense down to a point where everyone would have it be exactly the same. SC2 already has this problem relative to Brood War, where it even the top few players had stronger macro than their peers whereas in SC2 the gap is much smaller (you might even able to make the argument that its nonexistent in some cases). Having components like that gives people greater options in what to focus on and therefore express themselves in their play, which is the beauty of StarCraft at the core.
On October 06 2015 02:11 Spyridon wrote: I find TLO's post very... idealistic. It speaks as if macro, micro, and mechanics are all equivalent skills. But in reality, throughout SC2's lifespan, these 3 things were not on equal footing. Macro and mechanics meant far, far more than micro.
I do agree that unit compositions too mean too much, hard counters counter TOO hard. And I agree that it is a good thing that players have to choose where to spend their attention.
But I have one major disagreement: I disagree with the conclusion that macro mechanics are the answer. Mechanics such as this should not be what separates "good" macro from "bad" macro. There should be more strategy involved, and making functions take "more clicks" should not be where players spend their attention.
In my opinion, RTS's are stuck in the 90's. They are using outdated game design, and because SC2 is so well established as a tournament game, they are scared to change that.
In game design, newer iterations should make controls easier, not harder. If you want to do something and it takes 5 clicks, in newer iterations of the game it should NOT take more than 5 clicks, and ideally it should take less. You see this in every genre of game, even the top tournament games/genres.
Yes, that will free up clicks. Yes, players will have more "attention" to spend other places. So what should we do then? We should add some new mechanics that contribute to the game strategically!
That has been my issue with macro mechanics all along. They are not well designed mechanics! More mechanics in the game are good, but they should be sufficiently rewarding, they should contribute strategically, they should be something that both players want to pay attention to & exploit to their advantage. They should encourage player vs player interaction. These current mechanics do very few, if any of these things...
Controls, they should be improved. That is evolution and innovation in game design. And with the extra attention/APM offered, more mechanics that substantially affect the gameplay should be added. Not poorly designed mechanics such as spawn larvae that are a requirement more than an asset. The positives TLO mentioned that the macro mechanics have... Many other game mechanics can offer those same assets, and contribute much more to gameplay, than just making players have to spend their "attention and clicks" there. It should be more than that!! These mechanics don't offer any interesting play/counterplays. Even in TLO's explanation, they are simply just "another place to spend your attention".
I honestly believe RTS's popularity is dying out, not because of MOBA's, but because the game design has stagnated. Because of this, I do not see any new RTS's gaining any real popularity until one of them shakes up the genre and breaks the mold. As everyone here knows, a well designed RTS can be amazing. But overall, SC2 is not very innovative compared to SC/BW at all. And most of the updates/changes in game design have not been positive ones over the previous iterations. Economy, unit design, the damage/armor system... all of those things have degraded in the transition of SC1>SC2, and have caused endless problems that still have not been solved after so many years...
I find TLO's post very... idealistic. It speaks as if macro, micro, and mechanics are all equivalent skills. But in reality, throughout SC2's lifespan, these 3 things were not on equal footing. Macro and mechanics meant far, far more than micro.
I do agree that unit compositions too mean too much, hard counters counter TOO hard. And I agree that it is a good thing that players have to choose where to spend their attention.
But I have one major disagreement: I disagree with the conclusion that macro mechanics are the answer. Mechanics such as this should not be what separates "good" macro from "bad" macro. There should be more strategy involved, and making functions take "more clicks" should not be where players spend their attention.
In my opinion, RTS's are stuck in the 90's. They are using outdated game design, and because SC2 is so well established as a tournament game, they are scared to change that.
In game design, newer iterations should make controls easier, not harder. If you want to do something and it takes 5 clicks, in newer iterations of the game it should NOT take more than 5 clicks, and ideally it should take less. You see this in every genre of game, even the top tournament games/genres.
Yes, that will free up clicks. Yes, players will have more "attention" to spend other places. So what should we do then? We should add some new mechanics that contribute to the game strategically!
That has been my issue with macro mechanics all along. They are not well designed mechanics! More mechanics in the game are good, but they should be sufficiently rewarding, they should contribute strategically, they should be something that both players want to pay attention to & exploit to their advantage. They should encourage player vs player interaction. These current mechanics do very few, if any of these things...
Controls, they should be improved. That is evolution and innovation in game design. And with the extra attention/APM offered, more mechanics that substantially affect the gameplay should be added. Not poorly designed mechanics such as spawn larvae that are a requirement more than an asset. The positives TLO mentioned that the macro mechanics have... Many other game mechanics can offer those same assets, and contribute much more to gameplay, than just making players have to spend their "attention and clicks" there. It should be more than that!! These mechanics don't offer any interesting play/counterplays. Even in TLO's explanation, they are simply just "another place to spend your attention".
I honestly believe RTS's popularity is dying out, not because of MOBA's, but because the game design has stagnated. Because of this, I do not see any new RTS's gaining any real popularity until one of them shakes up the genre and breaks the mold. As everyone here knows, a well designed RTS can be amazing. But overall, SC2 is not very innovative compared to SC/BW at all. And most of the updates/changes in game design have not been positive ones over the previous iterations. Economy, unit design, the damage/armor system... all of those things have degraded in the transition of SC1>SC2, and have caused endless problems that still have not been solved after so many years...
I kinda agree with you in a way, but I also find this a bit clumsy and off topic here, because this is not about how to make the best RTS for mostly everyone from scratch, based on what we have learnt from so many different games (of many different genre also). But this is about what to expect from the next and last extension of a game we almost all -lets be frank- quite love already (otherwise we would not lose so much time testing, arguing, thinking about it, except for sadists maybe). Indeed, this does not mean we would not love even more a very new game designed from scratch without the inherent flaws of current (/past) RTSs, and for this you are pointing a very good starting points.
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).
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...
On October 06 2015 02:11 Spyridon wrote: I find TLO's post very... idealistic. It speaks as if macro, micro, and mechanics are all equivalent skills. But in reality, throughout SC2's lifespan, these 3 things were not on equal footing. Macro and mechanics meant far, far more than micro.
I do agree that unit compositions too mean too much, hard counters counter TOO hard. And I agree that it is a good thing that players have to choose where to spend their attention.
But I have one major disagreement: I disagree with the conclusion that macro mechanics are the answer. Mechanics such as this should not be what separates "good" macro from "bad" macro. There should be more strategy involved, and making functions take "more clicks" should not be where players spend their attention.
In my opinion, RTS's are stuck in the 90's. They are using outdated game design, and because SC2 is so well established as a tournament game, they are scared to change that.
In game design, newer iterations should make controls easier, not harder. If you want to do something and it takes 5 clicks, in newer iterations of the game it should NOT take more than 5 clicks, and ideally it should take less. You see this in every genre of game, even the top tournament games/genres.
Yes, that will free up clicks. Yes, players will have more "attention" to spend other places. So what should we do then? We should add some new mechanics that contribute to the game strategically!
That has been my issue with macro mechanics all along. They are not well designed mechanics! More mechanics in the game are good, but they should be sufficiently rewarding, they should contribute strategically, they should be something that both players want to pay attention to & exploit to their advantage. They should encourage player vs player interaction. These current mechanics do very few, if any of these things...
Controls, they should be improved. That is evolution and innovation in game design. And with the extra attention/APM offered, more mechanics that substantially affect the gameplay should be added. Not poorly designed mechanics such as spawn larvae that are a requirement more than an asset. The positives TLO mentioned that the macro mechanics have... Many other game mechanics can offer those same assets, and contribute much more to gameplay, than just making players have to spend their "attention and clicks" there. It should be more than that!! These mechanics don't offer any interesting play/counterplays. Even in TLO's explanation, they are simply just "another place to spend your attention".
I honestly believe RTS's popularity is dying out, not because of MOBA's, but because the game design has stagnated. Because of this, I do not see any new RTS's gaining any real popularity until one of them shakes up the genre and breaks the mold. As everyone here knows, a well designed RTS can be amazing. But overall, SC2 is not very innovative compared to SC/BW at all. And most of the updates/changes in game design have not been positive ones over the previous iterations. Economy, unit design, the damage/armor system... all of those things have degraded in the transition of SC1>SC2, and have caused endless problems that still have not been solved after so many years...
Agree completely I think this is truth and the proper answer to what can be disagreed about TLO's post. I think TLO wrote this in the context of where SC2 has a chance to go from the spot it is in : they will not backpedal on all the mistakes, it feels as if the company is simply unable to do such a thing. But from a RTS player perspective looking objectively at how to improve Starcraft 2 or understand its flaws as a RTS game, I feel this answer is spot on.
I love that liquid players reach to the community like that and would like to see you write again there!
However, I believe that if both players are able to focus mostly on the micro management of their units, we'll end up with less interesting posturing of units. Both players will have their guard up constantly which, in the end, due to defender's advantage, will discourage, not encourage engagements
This is my favorite part. What you say's so true there, and I think that's the part of the game that could be improved in a distant future. Giving more options to fight, may it be with units or maps would be a very good thing IMO.
That's what SupCom FA does, and does very well, and IIRC you played it TLO.
Spyridon you're also right, and i think you should give Forged Alliance a go, just to test if the game design of this game is better, according to your opinion/taste. You could like it or learn new things about RTS.
Someone may have suggested this already but why not make macro mechanics a setting in the game? If you are playing in the lower leagues on ladder then you can choose to turn it on or off. If you're diamond or higher, playing with macro mechanics is on by default. This preserves the play style diversity TLO relishes for pros but also makes the game more accessible to newer players.
Well constructed argument/article TLO. I was initially against macro mechanic removal but then gradually started supporting it as I read/researched about it. Now, I'm not sure what the best decision is in terms of how powerful the macro mechanics should be but Blizzard's current stance makes more sense now whereas before I thought they were just being lazy.
Between not having macromechanics and having them, keep them. Blizzard has already decided that they are staying in the game, though -- at least for release.
As far as how well designed the current ones are? Changes are more than welcome.
May I ask about the idea that once we focus on micro the game will fall apart competitively, when games such as league/dota2 are essentially all micro. I understand all the differing factors between the games. I agree with the vast majority of this article but are you certain that simple macro would make the game worse. I am a macro heavy zerg so I like that portion of the game, but don't know the extent it could ruin it.
Wow this is also what I've thought too. In the start of LotV (currently have 500+ games in the beta) started playing all races and I actually stopped following the pro scene for about a year, I just play to whatever strat I could think of and I find it more fun than WoL/HotS. Sure there are still a lot of unbalanced stuff in LotV but for lower league players I think is more fun than WoL and Hots.
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?
LOL at people thinking MM is just about extra clicks and APM. It involves a good memory. I doubt BW would make it big as an esport way back if it doesn't have hard Macro. They keep blabbing about "its an RTS it should be about Strategy blah blah" but they keep forgetting about the "RT" which is Real Time. Anyone can think of a clever strategy but a good defining factor for a good player vs bad. It's called MULTITASKING people.
Good Job TLO totally agree with you. Multitasking should be a HUGE part of SC2. not just some micro wars lol
Any RTS is about interesting choices; 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
I still think a newbie mode would be worth a try to help new players get on board. A separate ladder, capped at Gold, with no macro mechanics. Even without the macro mechanics there's so damn much for a new player to think about. You'd still keep the bronze-grandmaster 'hardcore' ladder just as it is now.
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.
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.)
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)...
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.
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.
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.
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.
@Spyridon: Thanks for your elaborate answer. I think anyone with more than 100 APM can easily spend their clicks anywhere it matters. That's why if some are "lacking meaning" more than others, it's not really an issue anymore. But never mind, I'm no game designer at all. Furthermore, still, I think you're being kind of generalistic. What is a meaningful click? What action should it trigger? In a clickorgy like SC, any action can be meaningful, which is a beautiful thing...
still doesn't explain what are wasteful clicks. If you talking about macro boosters. No. it isn't wasteful clicks, it involves good memory and accurate clicks (if under pressure).
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.
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.
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.
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.
TLO, you're a good guy and I thank you for your time spent writing this article.
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! :-)
I love TLO and this is a great article but I disagree on a important point. But let's start with where I agree completely:
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.