          
Website Feedback
Closed Threads
IRC Updated
irc.quakenet.org #teamliquid
IRC Web Client | | New to Team Liquid? Register here! | | | | The TSL Ladder starts in . Click here for details. | | | |
|
 beyond.wudge Australia. October 29 2009 14:52. Posts 39 | Profile |
A few threads recently have talked about how the whole charge thing lacks strategy. They claim its just a no-brainer repetitive task which you always do.
I really have to put this out there:
Wasn't it meant to be?
People have whinged incessantly about the lack of repetitive macro and now they add in some and people are like "it shouldn't be a no-brainer!"
The point of these additions was more or less to find an excuse to make a player click more back at his base during fights. Doesn't the proton charge do that?
I mean, for a pro player is there _really_ that much 'strategy' to keeping workers and units pumping? If you don't do it you lose.
Sure, what kinds of units you build and if you keep building workers comes into things but seriously, what pro player hasn't got his build so down pat that it is more or less just robotic? There are a series of loose criteria they check against and change their patterns accordingly.
Obviously, in theory having more choices sounds good but if the choices aren't good or fun ones to make them why have them?
As far as I can tell, Blizzard thought their game was strategically pretty sound. Players wanted more mindless macro. They put in some more mindless macro. Why try to make it into something more than it was originally meant to be?Last edit: 2009-10-29 14:53:15 |
|
|
 ViruX New Zealand. October 29 2009 15:18. Posts 214 | Profile Blog |
| It just seems really superficial to me, they get automine to get rid of repetitive brainless tasks and then they throw in photon charge for a repetitive brainless task. Its like a "press button for money" machine, you'd think the protoss would be smart enough for the button to press itself. |
|
|
| beyond.wudge Australia. October 29 2009 15:43. Posts 39 | Profile |
| Because they aren't the same, not to most gamers in terms of the frustration and rewards they entail. |
|
|
 Gliche United States. October 29 2009 15:53. Posts 522 | Profile Blog |
I don't think you're actually understanding the problem brought up. The issue is not "Does it do a good job as a macro mechanic?" It does this fine. Just like the MULE and the Queen. The issue is "Is there strategic tension coupled with this mechanic?" At the moment, it lacks this compared the its counterparts in the other races.
Why would you impede the suggestions for it to be strategically so much more, since it comes across pretty clear that you think a mindless macro mechanic is just that: mindless and strategically shallow? |
| | Tombs with piped-in music. How classy. |
|
|
 Krikkitone United States. October 29 2009 16:18. Posts 304 | Profile |
On October 29 2009 14:52 beyond.wudge wrote:
A few threads recently have talked about how the whole charge thing lacks strategy. They claim its just a no-brainer repetitive task which you always do.
I really have to put this out there:
Wasn't it meant to be?
People have whinged incessantly about the lack of repetitive macro and now they add in some and people are like "it shouldn't be a no-brainer!"
The point of these additions was more or less to find an excuse to make a player click more back at his base during fights. Doesn't the proton charge do that?
As far as I can tell, Blizzard thought their game was strategically pretty sound. Players wanted more mindless macro. They put in some more mindless macro. Why try to make it into something more than it was originally meant to be?
Those aren't the same players.
The players that wanted repetitive/mindless macro (if they exist) are not the same ones that want strategic options with the macro.
Wanting the player to have a reason to come back to base does not mean you want it to be mindless or repetitive.
It seems there are a number of possible views
1. Want to come back to base mindlessly
2. Want to come back to base even if it is mindless
3. Want to come back to base, but only if it is Not mindless
4. Don't want to have to come back to base under Any conditions
I think the real issue is
Groups 1+2 whined about automine + MBS (group 3 occasionally commented that it might be improvable)
then when the macromechanics were put in Groups 3+4 whined about mindlessness (group 2 occasionally remarking that it could be better)
I personally think Blizzard can get a strategic macromechanic, it may take some work in beta to get those options Good and Fun, but that's what beta can be for, changes to introduce strategic balance. (ie multiple Good/Fun options)Last edit: 2009-10-29 16:43:13 |
|
|
| Thingdo United States. October 29 2009 16:34. Posts 9 | Profile |
I agree with the OP.
Basically, the proton charge solved a problem that faced SC2. Half the community wanted to keep macro so that the skill cap wouldn't be lowered. The other half didn't want to be forced to macro just to play the game.
Now, if you want to play well, you have to macro, just like SC1. However, if you are new to RTS games, you aren't forced to macro just to play the game. You can get used to other aspects of the game, and start working with the proton charge once you have become more comfortable with things.
It's a good change in my opinion, because I have known people who have fought against the SC1 interface for a few minutes, then just given up and gone back to more modern RTS games. The proton charge allows blizzard to keep macro in the game without scaring off newer players, and I think that was their main intent. |
|
|
| Cloak United States. October 29 2009 18:28. Posts 31 | Profile |
| What does "meant to be" really entail? Because SC1 did it? Aren't sequels supposed to improve upon gameplay? Why not have your cake and eat it too? Why not have a macro APM sink that happens to require a little bit of intelligence? That happens to add diversity to your gameplay? That happens to entertain you mildly when you do it? Is there something wrong with that? If there's only one optimized way of doing things, then was it good decision-making to begin with? Why settle and rationalize? Good, we have an awesome game, why not make it better? Last edit: 2009-10-29 20:02:08 |
| | The more you know, the less you understand. |
|
|
| DeCoup Australia. October 29 2009 19:01. Posts 653 | Profile |
On October 29 2009 16:34 Thingdo wrote:
I agree with the OP.
Basically, the proton charge solved a problem that faced SC2. Half the community wanted to keep macro so that the skill cap wouldn't be lowered. The other half didn't want to be forced to macro just to play the game.
Now, if you want to play well, you have to macro, just like SC1. However, if you are new to RTS games, you aren't forced to macro just to play the game. You can get used to other aspects of the game, and start working with the proton charge once you have become more comfortable with things.
It's a good change in my opinion, because I have known people who have fought against the SC1 interface for a few minutes, then just given up and gone back to more modern RTS games. The proton charge allows blizzard to keep macro in the game without scaring off newer players, and I think that was their main intent.
This pretty much sums it up perfectly.
Yes it might be even better if use of this skill was a tactical decision weight against other abilities as the Muel is for Terran.. but forget about that for one second and take a step back to see what Thingdo is saying. This new way to incorperate further macro and APM into the game is much better than the previous system. We can wish for more all we want... just try to keep it in perspective and remember how good a job is going into the concepts behind the changes from SC1 to SC2 at the same time. |
| |
|
 Plexa New Zealand. October 29 2009 22:35. Posts 16234 | Profile Blog |
On October 29 2009 16:34 Thingdo wrote:
I agree with the OP.
Basically, the proton charge solved a problem that faced SC2. Half the community wanted to keep macro so that the skill cap wouldn't be lowered. The other half didn't want to be forced to macro just to play the game.
Now, if you want to play well, you have to macro, just like SC1. However, if you are new to RTS games, you aren't forced to macro just to play the game. You can get used to other aspects of the game, and start working with the proton charge once you have become more comfortable with things.
It's a good change in my opinion, because I have known people who have fought against the SC1 interface for a few minutes, then just given up and gone back to more modern RTS games. The proton charge allows blizzard to keep macro in the game without scaring off newer players, and I think that was their main intent.
This is an excellent post. |
| | ~ Spirit will set you free ~ |
|
|
 Tom Phoenix October 29 2009 23:41. Posts 648 | Profile |
| Although I agree with the OP to a certain extent, I have to wonder....did the macro mechanics really achieve their intended goal? When I asked him how APM intensive was the game, Zatic said that he was capable of macroing perfectly at 100 APM. While APM in itself is not a goal, the mechanical intensity should have risen with the increased need to go back to your base. Since it did not, it means that the macro mechanics have yet to achieve that goal. |
| | Forget your bias. Forget everything you know about StarCraft 2 - be hopeful. Blizzard knows what they are doing, they are creating a legend. - Greth from SC2GG |
|
|
 Haemonculus United States. October 30 2009 00:02. Posts 2217 | Profile Blog |
On October 29 2009 16:34 Thingdo wrote:
I agree with the OP.
Basically, the proton charge solved a problem that faced SC2. Half the community wanted to keep macro so that the skill cap wouldn't be lowered. The other half didn't want to be forced to macro just to play the game.
Now, if you want to play well, you have to macro, just like SC1. However, if you are new to RTS games, you aren't forced to macro just to play the game. You can get used to other aspects of the game, and start working with the proton charge once you have become more comfortable with things.
It's a good change in my opinion, because I have known people who have fought against the SC1 interface for a few minutes, then just given up and gone back to more modern RTS games. The proton charge allows blizzard to keep macro in the game without scaring off newer players, and I think that was their main intent.
While I agree mostly, I think that the dark obelisk or whatever it's called should have another ability that uses the same energy or time or whatever that proton charge does. The terran mule ability is nice in my opinion, because you have to choose when to use it. Sure most of the time it's a "hit this button for more money ever X seconds", but you've got to bargain whether or not that extra cash is worth using up your comsat energy.
Proton charge at the moment is very much a "hit this button every X seconds for more money", which isn't a terrible thing. In a lot of ways, remembering to build supply depots every so often is the same thing. Just as knowing when to spam workers without filling up your build queue, or when to cut workers and mass army. Obviously if you are getting attacked and have plenty of spare supply, spending precious minerals and scvs on making additional supply depots is silly. The same should be true for the new macro abilities in SC2.
I can call down mules consistently until I realize that there's DT's hacking up my army, and then I quickly need to stop, and use my scanner. The obelisk simply needs another ability that has a different use. |
| |
|
 PaperLuigi United States. October 30 2009 00:43. Posts 57 | Profile |
I think a lot of folks are overemphasizing the need for strategic decision to be incorporated into every last bit of the game.
In Starcraft 1, there was no "strategic options" for selecting a newly produced worker and telling it to go mine minerals. You either did it and got money or you didn't and suffered from an inferior economy. It's another "press button, receive money" function. And now, instead of selecting the idle worker and right clicking on a mineral patch, it's selecting a building, pressing a hotkey, and clicking near your workers. I'm not sure how long the charge lasts, but say that it lasts however long it takes to make a probe. It would then be the exact same as making your idle probes get to work in Starcraft 1. Actually it would be one or two more clicks/keystrokes! (I ignored how much Proton charge effects your income because I don't know that much, and that is always subject to change etc.) |
|
|
| onmach United States. October 30 2009 02:25. Posts 127 | Profile |
I realize it was invented as an APM sink, but there's no reason it can't be made strategic as well.
Make it more generic, say for example, speed up any units (not just probes, that is lame) under radius of effect by x% for y seconds. That way it can be used economically, offensively or defensively, and then there would also be a strategic aspect of territory control. And the choice to place it next to probes would not necessarily be as black and white as it is now.
The way it is now where it only affects probes is extremely limiting. |
|
|
| Gliche United States. October 30 2009 04:03. Posts 522 | Profile Blog |
It's fine as a macro mechanic, but I also agree with onmach that it could be so much more. I guess a lot of people are satisfied with it simply being for extra macro but I'm not. Giving it more potential makes it something that could be incorporated into strategies for years to come, instead of just figuring out how to stick it in a BO here and there.
Example: something like making the shield recharge ability also give an area of effect +1 shield armor to units and/or buildings would add a new of factor to pressure and harrassment. If a drop or runby makes it into your base, should you shield recharge or should u continue macroing like usual. Is your stalker(or other unit) micro good enough to defend against this, or would the cost of possibly losing some probes outweigh the extra minerals gained from proton charge? Would the shield recharge allow you to keep your probes mining, or would you have to pull them away for some time anyway? Simply applying high pressure to a protoss expo could force a shield recharge instead of a proton charge. It would also make shield recharge more useful.
This is just a example of an idea that doesn't detract from the obelisk being usually used for macro, but adds extra things players can take advantage of, offensively or defensively. It's "ok" if it stays as just macro. Probably my expectations are too high but being just "ok" isn't good enough imo. |
| | Tombs with piped-in music. How classy. |
|
|
| Krikkitone United States. October 30 2009 05:23. Posts 304 | Profile |
On October 30 2009 00:43 PaperLuigi wrote:
I think a lot of folks are overemphasizing the need for strategic decision to be incorporated into every last bit of the game.
In Starcraft 1, there was no "strategic options" for selecting a newly produced worker and telling it to go mine minerals. You either did it and got money or you didn't and suffered from an inferior economy. It's another "press button, receive money" function. And now, instead of selecting the idle worker and right clicking on a mineral patch, it's selecting a building, pressing a hotkey, and clicking near your workers. I'm not sure how long the charge lasts, but say that it lasts however long it takes to make a probe. It would then be the exact same as making your idle probes get to work in Starcraft 1. Actually it would be one or two more clicks/keystrokes! (I ignored how much Proton charge effects your income because I don't know that much, and that is always subject to change etc.)
True starcraft 1 lacked those "strategic options" and that was something about Starcraft 1 that was VERY VERY bad.
Just because it was in SC1 does not mean it was good, instead it was too big of a change to get rid of it in a patch.
Clicks without strategic options=Bad....SC1 had very little bad compared to other RTSs, but it still had the bad, we are hoping SC2 is BETTER than SC1 (ie less bad) |
|
|
| Cloak United States. October 30 2009 09:11. Posts 31 | Profile |
On October 30 2009 00:43 PaperLuigi wrote:
I think a lot of folks are overemphasizing the need for strategic decision to be incorporated into every last bit of the game.
Where's your argument that the game is already good enough and that improvement is superfluous? |
| | The more you know, the less you understand. |
|
|
| phyvo United States. October 30 2009 09:29. Posts 46 | Profile |
Just because the OP thinks that complexity need not be incorporated into every element of the game doesn't mean that he thinks that it can't be improved.
It only implies that fixing Proton Charge seems to him to be more trouble than it's worth compared to everything else one could do. I mean, think about it, a million ideas have been suggested but they're mostly all... too complicated, or just plain suck.
If Proton Charge is to be fixed it would be with something simple. Like, if the obelisk's shield recharge/energy regen abilities were wicked long range or something like that. None of this weird shared mana pool stuff. |
|
|
| Cloak United States. October 30 2009 09:52. Posts 31 | Profile |
On October 30 2009 09:29 phyvo wrote:
Just because the OP thinks that complexity need not be incorporated into every element of the game doesn't mean that he thinks that it can't be improved.
It only implies that fixing Proton Charge seems to him to be more trouble than it's worth compared to everything else one could do. I mean, think about it, a million ideas have been suggested but they're mostly all... too complicated, or just plain suck.
If Proton Charge is to be fixed it would be with something simple. Like, if the obelisk's shield recharge/energy regen abilities were wicked long range or something like that. None of this weird shared mana pool stuff.
We have something that clearly is in need of improvement because it's mindless. Make it not mindless. Simple and easy. If anything, it's the only overt problem with the game at the moment. I fail to see why it'd be more bothersome than any other improvement. We also have no idea how many ideas have actually been tested. You're only assuming it's too complex for its own good just because. |
| | The more you know, the less you understand. |
|
|
| Krikkitone United States. October 30 2009 12:53. Posts 304 | Profile |
On October 30 2009 09:29 phyvo wrote:
Just because the OP thinks that complexity need not be incorporated into every element of the game doesn't mean that he thinks that it can't be improved.
It only implies that fixing Proton Charge seems to him to be more trouble than it's worth compared to everything else one could do. I mean, think about it, a million ideas have been suggested but they're mostly all... too complicated, or just plain suck.
If Proton Charge is to be fixed it would be with something simple. Like, if the obelisk's shield recharge/energy regen abilities were wicked long range or something like that. None of this weird shared mana pool stuff.
Proton Charge Can be fixed with something simple... eliminate it.
I'd prefer a more complicated solution, but that simple one is a possible fix for it.Last edit: 2009-10-30 12:54:16 |
|
|
 Archerofaiur October 30 2009 12:57. Posts 1119 | Profile |
On October 30 2009 12:53 Krikkitone wrote:
Show nested quote +On October 30 2009 09:29 phyvo wrote:
Just because the OP thinks that complexity need not be incorporated into every element of the game doesn't mean that he thinks that it can't be improved.
It only implies that fixing Proton Charge seems to him to be more trouble than it's worth compared to everything else one could do. I mean, think about it, a million ideas have been suggested but they're mostly all... too complicated, or just plain suck.
If Proton Charge is to be fixed it would be with something simple. Like, if the obelisk's shield recharge/energy regen abilities were wicked long range or something like that. None of this weird shared mana pool stuff.
Proton Charge Can be fixed with something simple... eliminate it. I'd prefer a more complicated solution, but that simple one is a possible fix for it.
Should Spawn Larva also be eliminated? |
|
|
| | 1 2 3 4 5 Next All |
|
|
|
 |
|
      
|