|
8713 Posts
The thing about the current testing is that it's not anything like putting the game through WCS for a year, for example. As long as they realize that, despite some "pros" playing LotV, the current beta testing tells them almost nothing about esports issues. I would hate for them to be misled by their own process. Long term, SC2 is a game centered around esports. Doing "rapid iteration" beta testing and then being very reluctant to make changes after release does not feel like the best way to develop an esports game. If they continue to stay quite involved post-release, as opposed to how they've been for HotS, then I guess it might turn out okay. I am against patching the game too quickly in response to race balance issues but I'm in favor of patching the game in a timely manner to address game design issues. If there aren't any "macro players" in WCS 2016 then I hope they're willing to do what needs to be done to keep variety in the game.
edit: I can get away with double posting because I'm privileged, but don't do it!
|
there is no strategy involved in making workers and building supply depots, why is this still in the game???
|
David Kim on macro mechanics:
For the multiplayer beta balance I just wanted to talk about two main things. The first is the macro mechanics being cut, something that we’ve been discussing with our community over the last week or so. I’d first like to thank everyone for giving us the feedback on both the pros and cons of potentially cutting this mechanic. And what we’ve kind of decided internally is we’d like to really try out in the next balance update how the game plays if we were to remove these macro mechanics from the game. And the reason for that is because we can theorycraft all day, but it’s really difficult to figure out the exact and specific reasons why these mechanics are good or bad for the game so we really want to identify those things. And the one other thing that I’d like to point out, as many of you guys in the community have pointed out also, is we have increased the difficulty of not just the micro in the game but also the macro as well. So because of things like resource changes now you have to spread out your bases and expand more aggressively which means you have to manage multiple bases at once. And not only that, because of how the resourcing actually works in legacy of the void you gotta check back at each of those locations and manage the probes and worker lines a lot more efficiently as well. Our current thinking is that because we made it a little more difficult on this side, even if we take away a little bit from the macro mechanics we wonder if end result is that it’s a very skillful macro experience for players.
Credit to TheWinks for transcription.
|
On August 08 2015 22:48 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2015 08:51 Trizztein wrote: This debate is really interesting. There's just something I can't help but notice about stuchiu's article: I understand from what I read that the reason for injects to exist is to compensate for the extra charge of macro terran and protoss have to do compared to zerg, making it, by DEFINITION, a band-aid to a problem rather than an true cure to it. Writing it in italic and caps doesn't make it true. Or adding «double angle brackets» for that matter. (How do you even type those??) And please tell me what is the DEFINITION of a band-aid to a problem that separates it from a solution to a problem? Or a true cure to a problem for that matter? Anyway, just got a bit annoyed at your choice of words, sorry about that. I think I understand what you are trying to say. Moving on: Historically, the mule, chrono boost and inject were introduced roughly simultaneously in the WoL beta (or alpha probably?), and the reason was mainly the huuuuge outcry from the ex BWers about how the macro was incredibly simplified through MBS and auto-rally workers. Those were simplified much for the same reasons people bring up now: it's silly to have people do mindless repetitive action (such as clicking through 10 barracks or tell every worker to go mine manually). They still wanted to keep people busy in their bases though, so they introduced the macro mechanics for each race that would introduce meaningful strategical clicks. Don't see what's band-aid about that train of thought. Show nested quote +Mechanics in Starcraft shouldn't just be «robot-like» based, but strategy-based (I really can't see why we shouldn't make the two things - decision making + good mechanics - happen at once when we can - is there a counter-argument to this I'm not aware of?). So, isn't the issue at hand to propose actual concrete changes rather than simply saying «remove the band-aid» or «don't remove it» since we all reckognize there IS a problem? Shouldn't we be focusing our energies on writing articles about these proposed changes with mods incremented in the game to test them, like I believe some mods have been set up to adress the mothership core and warp-gate design issues in the past? Then as you say, people figured out pretty quickly what was the best way to spend the queen/OC/nexus energy, and they turned into pretty mindless tasks for most of the time, especially the inject. So as you say, from that perspective, it'd make sense to try to change or nudge the macro mechanics, especially the inject, to introduce more meaningful choices (or strategy if you want) in the macro clicks. That's definitely a direction I'd welcome, and if you read around you will see suggestions to tweaks as you called for. I'd also like to question whether every single click really needs to be either a strategic choice or removed. If so, you could argue for removing or automating a whole bunch of other mindless tasks that really are pretty straight forward, both in macro and micro, and you'd end up with a game that me personally wouldn't enjoy playing. I don't think anyone actually argues that (so it'd be a strawman to just stop here ftw), but what it does show is that the argument "this click rarely involves strategy, so it should be automated or removed" isn't really enough by itself, unless you also want to remove all other clicks that rarely involve strategy. So before we remove or automate inject, we need to ask why we remove the mindless macro-click of inject, but not remove the mindless macro-click of building supply depots, or the mindless micro-click of blinking back injured stalkers?
Thank you for taking my post seriously. And sorry for the caps and such; I only now realised that yes they could be quite annoying when abused, as they did. Anyways, It's really just that oc, some mechanics in SC ask almost no strategical decision once you've figured out what to do with them, but still, as with any strategy, at least, they become part of one given strategy. Injects have to be part of all strategies (at least for games that extend past 5-6 min marks I guess). Period. Even making supply depots implies some decision-making in certain situations: if I invest a alot of money in pushing my army cap now, perhaps I'll have a steadier-production in the long-run, but my initial army input (for the short-term) will be smaller, so if i'm all-inning or want to support an explosive push, I will have to stop doing it at some point and/or do only a very specific amount of it to save my money for army. I will also have to adjust it to what kind of army I want and how supply consuming it is for production/minute. Supplies can also be targeted by my opponent and can harm significantly my production so I have to be wise about where I place them and they matter in the sim cities building placements and scouting and and ... (you get my point) Blinking stalkers is part of micro (not macro, which is the subject at hand here I think), but perhaps it is relevant to the matter and I'm wrong on this.
But just like you, yes, I like to have to do alot of stuff in an RTS, alot of it. It's this sort of «mental/physical juggling» that I find so impressive in pro players. I just want these actions to stay in touch, at least somehow, with the concept of strategy, since it is an Real Time Strategy game we are talking about, aren't we?
All of this being said, I have to admit not reading the entirety of the comments and the tweaks suggested (I'm happy to learn there are quite a few as you say, though; I just felt that the whole article published (not the comments) was perhaps not directed at the right problem and wished to encourage another way.
|
8713 Posts
On August 09 2015 04:25 mishimaBeef wrote:Show nested quote + David Kim on macro mechanics:
For the multiplayer beta balance I just wanted to talk about two main things. The first is the macro mechanics being cut, something that we’ve been discussing with our community over the last week or so. I’d first like to thank everyone for giving us the feedback on both the pros and cons of potentially cutting this mechanic. And what we’ve kind of decided internally is we’d like to really try out in the next balance update how the game plays if we were to remove these macro mechanics from the game. And the reason for that is because we can theorycraft all day, but it’s really difficult to figure out the exact and specific reasons why these mechanics are good or bad for the game so we really want to identify those things. And the one other thing that I’d like to point out, as many of you guys in the community have pointed out also, is we have increased the difficulty of not just the micro in the game but also the macro as well. So because of things like resource changes now you have to spread out your bases and expand more aggressively which means you have to manage multiple bases at once. And not only that, because of how the resourcing actually works in legacy of the void you gotta check back at each of those locations and manage the probes and worker lines a lot more efficiently as well. Our current thinking is that because we made it a little more difficult on this side, even if we take away a little bit from the macro mechanics we wonder if end result is that it’s a very skillful macro experience for players.
Credit to TheWinks for transcription. That's reassuring that at least he feels that macro will still be challenging. Nonetheless I hope that they'll be prepared to make changes for some time after release based on pro play. I'm disappointed that they're using this time to prune things rather than design things.
I feel like worker distribution management is something basic like army positioning. Macro has no equivalent to blinking back hurt stalkers or spreading marines or landing fungals. There could even be macro mechanics that promote fighting, like a channeled ability that makes a nexus build probes faster as long as it hasn't taken damage in the last 30 seconds. So harass builds would be encouraged because they'd get a ton of extra value just for tapping the opponent's nexus. And there'd be all kinds of interesting judgment calls on how much commitment and sacrifice is worth it. Anyway that's just quick brainstorming.. the point is that they could be making macro mechanics 2.0 that address the issues with the current macro mechanics and have synergy with their other design goals with the added benefit of giving the player options for style of play.
But there could be some macro mechanic that is just as important as blinking back hurt stalkers, that is just as challenging to do. That's what producing units without multiple building selection used to be. If you didn't keep up unit production, you were dead. But it took significant time and skill to do it. However if you didn't micro your units, you were also dead. So it is challenging and awesome to do both. Chronoboosting all your gates is similar, because you have to actually move your camera to your gates and move your mouse around and time your clicks, but that maneuver isn't done very often, not even in every single game (nothing like having to do it for every round of production in BW). Anyway, something mechanically difficult and effective like that, with some observer UI component to display it effectively so commentators can pick up on it.
|
Some random thoughts/ideas:
Claims have been made that the pacing is much different with the macro mechanics gone. I think what causes the macro mechanics to fail design-wise is that it tampers with time. Time is a fundamental thing to balance around. When you have stuff suddenly disregarding the game's otherwise normal rules of time (and accelerating different parts of the game at different times), it starts getting complicated fast.
In Legacy we have more units that allow the dynamic of trading APM for power (like babysitting a medivac + tank combo as an example). But, is it wise to have dynamics that trade APM for economy? I think this might be tough to balance. Economy is like a snowball and once it gets rolling with an advantage it snowballs out of control. This is why macro style is so strong. Once the macro player stabilizes on the defense, with the larger economy, it's pretty much gg for the player that is a base down. All they have to do is wait it out.
As far as I can tell, Brood War did not have a mechanic to change the standard rules of time.
|
I hope they don't actually remove the macro mechanics, but maybe a nerf to all of them would be good.
|
Ok, don't take this seriously, just in case.
But to me SC2 is like dancing speed chess. Its like speed chess but you must play while dancing. The dance is an important part, without the dancing its just speed chess. Macro mechanics are like a dance.
Im ok if someone change the dance moves but i don't feel like playing speed chess.
The fun is that nobody can make good moves in the short time or dance well when you have to make a move and think about it every minute. And if the other guy moves in a second you are in trouble.
Picture this in your mind. Its the beauty of SC2.
|
Even if this will be tested there is no way it will go through in the way they proposed.
|
@MJesk, neither BW or Starbow have these mechanics, and neither of them have the flaws that you are suggesting come from the lack of these mechanics. SCI mod is also removing/nerfing them, but we haven't seen any SCI matches yet.
All they do is make the game focused around these repetitive and unenjoyable tasks. You spend like 10 minutes of every game just injecting and spreading creep... then it's often over after one 5 second fight. The game/winner is mostly focused around who has better macro, rather than who makes a better use out of the units they make.
I would highly recommend you watch some BW/Starbow VODs.
On August 08 2015 20:55 newtii wrote: I am astonished to see how many tl users actually like the macro mechanisms. I was expecting opposite reaction since I believe that as players are able to concentrace on micro we will see more small fights over the map. For me microing units is much more fun to play and watch. Great macro isn't appreciated much by the viewers. It doesn't give much wows in a instant even if it was the determing factor between winning and losing the game.
Same.
It seems like it's mostly people who've only played SC2 who want the macro to stay.
|
|
On August 09 2015 07:53 Superbanana wrote: Ok, don't take this seriously, just in case.
But to me SC2 is like dancing speed chess. Its like speed chess but you must play while dancing. The dance is an important part, without the dancing its just speed chess. Macro mechanics are like a dance.
Im ok if someone change the dance moves but i don't feel like playing speed chess.
The fun is that nobody can make good moves in the short time or dance well when you have to make a move and think about it every minute. And if the other guy moves in a second you are in trouble.
Picture this in your mind. Its the beauty of SC2.
Actually I believe this is a superb comparison. As with speed chess, everything is in the preparation: your brain actually plays from models that have been studied prior to the games you play: you don't think during the play (or as little as possible), you only act and react from memory built from careful preparation (Innovation demonstrates this to it's utmost incarnation I believe). And yes, there is the dance aspect because it's all about flawless movement execution, which requires alot of muscle memory, a bit as with improvised music which is also a choregraphy of gestures, with a musician whom adapts to what he hears from his colleagues (his colleagues being an opponent whom you adapt/react to in an SC2 context). I can't help but think this RTS reunites so many things that I love, along with the competitive part And yes, SC2 needs to be something more than speed chess: it needs to be unique, and so mechanics (the «dance» part to it) needs to stay somehow.
Anyways, just giving your argument my support and sharing the excitement
|
On August 09 2015 10:08 MaximilianKohler wrote:@MJesk, neither BW or Starbow have these mechanics, and neither of them have the flaws that you are suggesting come from the lack of these mechanics. SCI mod is also removing/nerfing them, but we haven't seen any SCI matches yet. All they do is make the game focused around these repetitive and unenjoyable tasks. You spend like 10 minutes of every game just injecting and spreading creep... then it's often over after one 5 second fight. The game/winner is mostly focused around who has better macro, rather than who makes a better use out of the units they make. I would highly recommend you watch some BW/Starbow VODs. Show nested quote +On August 08 2015 20:55 newtii wrote: I am astonished to see how many tl users actually like the macro mechanisms. I was expecting opposite reaction since I believe that as players are able to concentrace on micro we will see more small fights over the map. For me microing units is much more fun to play and watch. Great macro isn't appreciated much by the viewers. It doesn't give much wows in a instant even if it was the determing factor between winning and losing the game.
Same. It seems like it's mostly people who've only played SC2 who want the macro to stay.
See the post by superbanana and my own support of it sooner. These tasks you call «unenjoyable» are actually all the things that ask for a superb and flawless sort of «micro-dance» execution which requires alot of discipline in their training. If you remove them, you get speed-chess: a strategy game which is pretty much all determined by preparation prior to the game because respecting timing windows is a top priority you have to pay respect to. The only thing I ask from these tasks, as I argued earlier, is that they stay in touch with the idea of strategy at least (make sure they don't have to be part of every possible strategy for a race, like injects are).
And as a matter of fact, I did play quite a lot of BW as a kid, then Age of Empires, WC3 and then SC2. In all of them, I could appreciate these qualities I've listed above which connect with my musical background. Music, too, asks for these sort of repetitive perfectly rehearsed micro-moves whose basic blocks can seem redundant (you only need 7 different notes in many Mozart pieces, and isn't depressing a piano key something that can seem terribly repetitive in the long run?), but their sum builds something amazing
|
Seems to me:
If you have 8 workers mining a fresh base, you will benefit from forcing them to mine the high capacity patches. That way, at some time later, if you add another 8 workers, you will mine at double rate. Contrast with the case that they are mining the low capacity patches, at some time later, if you add any workers, the mining rate is still the same since now only 4 patches remain.
#newEconomyDetails #microYourWorkers
TL, DR: Optimal mining depletes all 8 patches at the same time (when feasible)?
|
For many of the comments which are against removing macro from the game, i dont know in what point of the time the concept of macro had been reduced to 3 tasks: mules,crono,inject, lol. The question here is which game we want, we want a macro oriented game where making workers and buildings is more important than control the units, or we want a micro oriented game with more interesting engagements and battles than the typical a+click vs a+click. And dont tell me the bullshit answer of :"I want a game balanced between micro and macro", because right now we have a macro oriented game, and blizz want balance a little modifing 1 task per race, just 1 task of all the macro tasks, and you are crying a lot. Cmon, give me a break.
|
On August 11 2015 05:53 FaiFai wrote: or we want a micro oriented game with more interesting engagements and battles than the typical a+click vs a+click.
lololololololololo. surely all sc2 engages atm are amove vs amove :D:D:D:D:D:D
|
On August 11 2015 06:16 Luolis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2015 05:53 FaiFai wrote: or we want a micro oriented game with more interesting engagements and battles than the typical a+click vs a+click.
lololololololololo. surely all sc2 engages atm are amove vs amove :D:D:D:D:D:D
lolololol, in which part did i say: all sc2 engages. Pfff, why people can't read well.
|
If a change like this would enable players to spend more energy actually doing cool stuff with their units, this game might be interesting to me again. I think people against removing them are afraid of any simplification of game mechanics, even when the complex element didn't really add much to gameplay and wasn't necessary in the first place. These kind of macro mechanics are only interesting when you first start playing SC2. It strikes me as something that's not very noticeable, that only the most hardcore of Starcraft bores find interesting - if I had to choose between a complex task of macro-management and a more simplified macro system in favor of allowing for more of that much-desired micro, I know which one I would choose. I would choose it in a heartbeat and never look back.
|
The Articel totally speaks directly out of my SC Heart. As an SC Player from the first Hour on, i am totally against the cutting strategy from blizzard. We don't need more of that disgusting Heroes of the Storm casual crap. That game is the best Example how to stupidify a game for the mass of the players at all costs... Let the games stay complex and difficult to master, it's a part of a Competition that i like about Games.
|
More and more I wonder if they just need "pro" modes for the game. It does make the game accessible, but it's not totally unheard of. They have amateur tees in golf, they have a shorter 3 point line in college basketball. Like imagine if BW launched today with MBS and auto mine. The mechanical cap would be significantly lower. But then imagine for pro tournaments they took it out. It would make pro play sit on this beautiful perch.
There's an obvious problem with this of course which is ladder. So this would probably only work if an organization was really dedicating cash to making pro tournaments happen and allowed a separate pro ladder / league or something. I even think they could take HOTS, take out MBS and it would still work because I do think macro is beautiful, it's just that it's done a little artificially through macro mechanics now which are honestly too approachable.
|
|
|
|