|
The most recent patch of the beta took out the macro mechanics. While the idea for it was to reduce the amount of attention players need to devote to it so that they could micro better, there are still plenty of players who prefer the macro side of the game to the micro side. To completely get rid of one side of play isn’t good. What makes sc2 interesting is that there is a balance between macro and micro. You must be good at both and learn how to balance the two to gain advantages. So how can we make macro more interesting for players? I believe the answer is to make it more strategic. Chrono boost is held up as the example for this. What a protoss chooses to chrono boost is a tell as to what they are planning to do. If you s see it on a nexus, then they are focusing on their economy. If you see it on something like a forge or cyber core, then there is a good chance that there is an attack coming soon. If you open up the mechanics to allow for more strategic thinking, then it becomes a choice to utilize a mechanic at a certain time rather than, as some people feel, an APM dump. The goal of this post is to identify areas where the macro side of the game is interesting and where it can be improved upon by allowing more choice and strategic thinking.
Since I will be throwing out a bunch of numbers, I will state this up front instead of at the end: Numbers are not final. They are a rough estimate of an approximate starting power of an ability, and They can be changed easily.
Protoss Before we start with the protoss two things need to be highlighted. First, the Nexus energy would be increased to 200, and second the Nexus would emit a power field to allow buildings to be placed in it or warp ins to happen.
Chrono Boost-25 energy. Functions the same as it did. Increase duration by 5 seconds. It is generally felt that, when it comes to the macro mechanics, protoss is the most interesting. Chrono isn’t limit to what it can be used on like inject nor what it does like Mules. Since protoss is the slowest race, it allows them to get an advantage via time. It’s an interesting mechanic that doesn’t need any tweaking. When the protoss uses it, there is a specific reason why they chose to Chrono x building. The only addition to Chrono is now if it cast on a cannon or nexus (while Photon overcharge is activated change to it below so don’t freak out) they attack faster for the duration of the chrono. This will help protoss defend bases especially late game when they have a lot of energy stored up.
Photon Overcharge-Costs 50 energy. Range down to 9, damage reduced to 10. 15 second duration. Photon Overcharge is moved to the Nexus. The duration, range, and damage have all been decreased, but it will now do a small amount of splash damage similar to the archon.
The idea here is to allow Photon Overcharge as a strategic option rather than an instant defend. By reducing the range, damage, and duration, it becomes a short term stall tactic. To compensate for the nerf it is given a small amount of splash. The protoss has a better way to deal with clumped bio when they attack or clumped mutas when they arrive. But it’s short duration means that the protoss must have additional means to defend. It would be akin to a PF or a few queens. They’re enough to stall an attack for a small amount of time, but require reinforcements to hold it off.
If chrono is made castable on cannons to increase their attack speed then, that allows another option for defense as well. At certain points in the game, the protoss might opt to save energy for an overcharge rather than use chrono (similar to how terrains save energy for scanning instead of dropping mules). Now overcharge is a strategic choice that you invested in. Currently, it is not. The mothership just gathers energy and then casts the spell if needed. There isn’t too much investing into the future involved if the protoss is playing defensively. While offensively a panic recall or time warp because you messed up might open up a counter attack option. This would create energy tension both offensively and defensively. If you are just macroing and use too much chrono at the wrong time, you might leave yourself open. On the offensive side. If you commit to heavily to an attack and chrono your warp gates, then you could leave yourself open to a counter attack.
Warpgate There is a lot of talk about warp gate. The issue of it removing defenders advantage has been a long standing issue. The current change is an attempt to fix that. But it does it in a less than elegant way. The current warp in time is 16 seconds. While the defense is 2. So protoss is almost discouraged from attacking because of the long warp in time. This is not something that we want. Protoss has always been the race that is out on the map without a giant army the least. This change makes it worse. We want protoss to be able to be out on the map aggressively and get stuff done it they can, but because of warp gate it must be controlled. The warp gate isn’t necessarily a “macro mechanic” but it is an important mechanic in the protoss arsenal. I said near the beginning that the Nexus now has a power field. This is where that becomes important. Because of warp gate, there was no defenders advantage in PvP in WOL. This was fixed in HOTS somewhat with overcharge. Now the defending protoss had some way to get an advantage over the aggressor. The current model also takes that into account with the change between aggressive and defensive warp in, but not in the most elegant way. So what to do? We want protoss to have aggressive options, but we want to control them some because of warp in. Here is my solution. Pylons now have 200 energy. They start with 100 energy. They gain energy at the normal rate. Each warp in onto that pylon’s energy field costs 10 energy. Since twilight tech focuses on gateway units, there is a twilight council there is an upgrade to allow pylons to recover energy at double the normal speed. If units are warped in via the nexi’s or warp prism’s power field, there is no energy cost.
This could potentially solve a lot of issues. First, It restores defenders advantage. Typically, heavy gateway pressure is victorious because it snowballs. Things like blink, time warp, and forcefield mean that the protoss retains their units. So if you see an attack coming a reasonable time ahead of it and prepare you still have the advantage. There is a timer on how long a protoss and attack without needing to make additional pylons. The snowball effect is negated some. In PvP, the defender would have a huge advantage because of the nexus. They are not on a clock to get something done. They are not expending energy to defend, but the attacker is. Instead of defenders advantage being about a rally point, it becomes about time. If you can outlast a protoss, then you have the advantage. They will need to make additional offensive pylons or invest in a warp prism. So instead of drastically increasing the offensive warp in time it remains the same, but their aggressive potential is dictated by the amount of energy is on the pylon.
Second, if a pylon gets up it isn’t an immediate headache. Not sure what to label it as so I will explain. Currently, if a pylon is able to get up, then the protoss is typically able to defend it. Then they creep forward with pylons so that they are closer to the enemy base. This is typically a sign that the protoss is winning. They got their first pylon forward, so they are usually able to defend more aggressive pylons. With this model that might not always be the case. Because offensive warp ins require pylons energy, they might not be able to establish a more aggressive pylon because they are low on energy. This gives the defender more time to fight back. So instead of thinking, “crap they got the first pylon up. Oh, great a pylon right outside my third, two pylons I have to deal with now.” It becomes more, “I saw this coming. I have a good sized force. I think I can outlast them. Okay, they are trying to get more aggressive, but they used a lot of warp ins. They might not be able to defend this more aggressive pylon. I’m going to try and snipe It and force them back.”
Third, there are more opportunities for an ebb and flow. If you watch other matchups, there can be back and forth in battles. Zvt bio is a good example of this. Sometimes battles can last a long time, and they advantage shifts back and forth between the terran and the zerg. Typically that doesn’t happen with protoss matches, especially when it comes to warp gate aggression. Usually, one player gets an advantage of some type pretty early in the engagement. Then is snowballs from there. (Ebb and flow can happen in gateway aggressions but that can be a rarity) Picture this: A protoss gets a pylon up. They start to push the zerg back and attack the third. They get a more forward pylon up, but it runs out of energy and the zerg pushes them back to their previous pylon. This pylon now has more energy, and so they can push the zerg back again and try and get that other pylon back up again. It allows for there to be a more dynamic interaction between the armies instead of one side simply snowballing. Snowballing can still happen, just like with anything, but it creates more of a chance for a back and forth.
Fourth, It allows a possible buff to gateway units. It has been generally agreed that because of warp in, gateway units are weaker than they could be. With warp gate more controlled, it allows the chance to go through the gateway units (especially Zealots, adepts, and stalkers) and find areas where they might benefit from an adjustment. Things such as more HP for a zealot since it is usually the meat shield for the army.
The upgrades to allow for faster energy recovery would give a small buff to the gateway and, perhaps, encourage more aggression. The faster recovery rate would mean that warp gate armies could be hyper aggressive, but still be controlled via energy.
Terran
Terran has always had some interesting energy tension with scan vs Mules. But the problem with Mules is that they can provide an unfair advantage to terran. While other races have to spend resources to replenish lost workers, Terran can simply spend energy to get a massive income boost. Mule Drone-Attaches a Mule drone to the targeted SCV for 20-30 seconds costs 35 energy. The SCV now returns 15 minerals per trip. (5 from sc. 10 from the drone). In addition to the mining benefit, the sc. That has the drone attached to it will repair 2x faster and construct buildings at 25-50% faster. This will give it more strategic value. Instead of just pumping minerals the Drone will allow added def with repair either defensively with say a bunker or offensively at ,say, repairing a Thor. It will also have the ability let building construct faster. This would replace supply drop since it would allow a full depot to be finished in less time. The main tension was always mule vs scan, and this keeps that tensions but adds more strategic value to how it is used.
Scan-Functions the same.
Zerg
There is a lot of strategic value in inject vs tumor. Knowing when to save up energy is interesting, so I will leave that alone. However, when it comes to inject it is something that you just do. There really isn’t much thought about that. I love the mechanic, and I enjoy injecting, but perhaps there could be something to compete with inject.
So Transfuse-Same
Creep Tumor-Same
Inject-Spawns 4 larva over the course of 36 seconds (or whatever the queen takes to spawn.) The idea is that it keeps the inject method where it rewards good players for staying on top of their injects, but it helps newer or lower level players out some. Instead of having to wait the full duration for any larva at all, they now gradually spawn over a small duration. So even if you are not on top of your inject, you are given some leeway. Currently, because you have to wait the full amount of time for the larva to spawn, if you miss an inject you are down a full set of larva for about 40 seconds. With this model, if you are late on your inject you get 1 larva about every 10 seconds. You still are punished some missing the inject round, but it is more comparable to terran and protoss now. If you miss a production cycle as terran or protoss, you do not need to wait 40 seconds before you can begin to build a unit. Now the larva will slowly trickle in to allow for some leeway in injecting. It still rewards high level zergs for staying on top of them and allows them to show off their macro skills by getting a big army fast, but it gives some grace to lower level players by letting them have a steady form of larva income. Perhaps even bump up natural larva spawn to 4 and bump inject down to 3 to allow a bit more latitude. It is not auto-cast.
Vespene Link -Costs 25 energy lasts 15-30 seconds. The targeted hatchery will allow drones mining gas to return 5 (or 6) gas per trip. Vesper Link and Inject cannot be used simultaneously on the same hatchery.
Zerg has always been heavily reliant on their gas and now with the ravager and lurker there is more demand for it. So this would do 2 things. First, it would allow zerg to get ahead in the resource the need. Say you are going muta well you can use this to get a short boost in gas resources. Say you need to defend an all in with roaches, you can use this to get a temporary gas boost to try and hold it off. Second, this allows something to compete with inject for the queen managing the hatchery. There would need to be a range on this so that it would only work on the main hatches and not let macro hatches also give a gas boost.
Terran is dictated a lot by the minerals especially with bio that is why the mule is important it gives them a boost where they need it. Protoss relies on time. Their units take a bit to come out, so chrono allows things to be done faster. Zerg is dictated by their gas. So why not allow a way for them to get an advantage there, A good scouting opponent will have something to look for beyond their buildings or drone count. Are they Investing queens into larva or extra gas? It could be a tell as to what they are doing. Say the protoss scouts and doesn’t see a spire, but they see three hatcheries that have Vesper link activated. Perhaps, in a future meta, that could be a big tell that a muta switch is incoming, and they need to prepare. It added decision making to the hatchery queen. Maybe injecting all the time isn’t the best idea anymore. Perhaps getting ahead in gas is better sometimes. It could create an interesting dynamic.
All of these changes are centered around giving the macro part of the game more strategic value. I enjoy the macro side of the game, and I would hate for it to be completely removed. There needs to be a balance between macro and micro and not removing one part of it. With changes like these, then macro has more strategic value. How do you want to use the mule drone? DO you need more production quicker, do you need minerals, or do you need a fast repair. Same goes for inject. Should you be investing into additional larva or is investing into additional gas better?
Remember that the numbers are not final, and they can always be adjusted. Tell me what you guys thing, but keep it constructive. No hating or flaming one way or the other on the macro stance.
|
All very good solutions, but i prefer blizzards solution with warp gate because having energy on pylons would be really confusing with all of the extra bars floating around.
(Pylons are the most produced protoss structure).
|
On August 28 2015 09:38 AkashSky wrote: All very good solutions, but i prefer blizzards solution with warp gate because having energy on pylons would be really confusing with all of the extra bars floating around.
(Pylons are the most produced protoss structure).
True but easy fix. A short 10 second upgrade for the pylon to give it energy. that way only a few key pylons have energy bars.
|
Sorry but I don't think these idea's are very well thought out, plus it feels like you haven't actually played much with the current macro mechanics removal.
Photon Overcharge: You title the post increase Strategic thinking, but then suggest moving P.O to the nexus which limits strategic moves even more. No killing the MSC for denial, PO available at every expansion without the MSC being there. You've basically taken people's complaints about PO and the MSC and increased it. Making MORE wide spread and even harder to attack into a nexus. Yes you nerf some ranges and whatever but not a change most people would support.
Warp Gates: Here's where I think you haven't played the change. Yes Protoss is discouraged from Warp Gate early game because of the long warp in, but once you have your Warp Prism out (which you didn't mention) Protoss aggression is actually buffed. Maybe the Warp Prism still needs tweaking, but I think most people think this is going on the right direction as while the WP might be good, it's not invincible and is able to be picked off. Requiring reinforcement with the WP feels good to me.
MULES: I don't know, you just seem to have added it back in and accomplished nothing. Mules can already repair.
Zerg: More gas, mo problems. You've basically added a factor to zerg that was the problem with Chronoboost. Creating extreme timings that are hard to defend against and balance.
All in all, yes you want to create more 'choices' to the macro mechanics. But it goes completely against the problems which Blizzard was trying to solve with this change. Abuse of mechanics which create imbalance in the race (P and T specifically). Eg. Protoss gimmicky because of the use of Chronoboost on timings. Yes with the removal you're kinda 'homogenizing' the races, but honestly after playing the changes. It does feel like it will increase the quality of the micro in games and game play overall.
P.S Yes Terran probably need some cost changes to units/structures for balance, just like Protoss need some research time changes but the overall end design feel without the macro mechanics seems like it will be good.
|
On August 28 2015 09:52 Beliskner wrote: Sorry but I don't think these idea's are very well thought out, plus it feels like you haven't actually played much with the current macro mechanics removal.
Photon Overcharge: You title the post increase Strategic thinking, but then suggest moving P.O to the nexus which limits strategic moves even more. No killing the MSC for denial, PO available at every expansion without the MSC being there. You've basically taken people's complaints about PO and the MSC and increased it. Making MORE wide spread and even harder to attack into a nexus. Yes you nerf some ranges and whatever but not a change most people would support.
Warp Gates: Here's where I think you haven't played the change. Yes Protoss is discouraged from Warp Gate early game because of the long warp in, but once you have your Warp Prism out (which you didn't mention) Protoss aggression is actually buffed. Maybe the Warp Prism still needs tweaking, but I think most people think this is going on the right direction as while the WP might be good, it's not invincible and is able to be picked off. Requiring reinforcement with the WP feels good to me.
MULES: I don't know, you just seem to have added it back in and accomplished nothing. Mules can already repair.
Zerg: More gas, mo problems. You've basically added a factor to zerg that was the problem with Chronoboost. Creating extreme timings that are hard to defend against and balance.
All in all, yes you want to create more 'choices' to the macro mechanics. But it goes completely against the problems which Blizzard was trying to solve with this change. Abuse of mechanics which create imbalance in the race (P and T specifically). Eg. Protoss gimmicky because of the use of Chronoboost on timings. Yes with the removal you're kinda 'homogenizing' the races, but honestly after playing the changes. It does feel like it will increase the quality of the micro in games and game play overall.
P.S Yes Terran probably need some cost changes to units/structures for balance, just like Protoss need some research time changes but the overall end design feel without the macro mechanics seems like it will be good.
You're wrong on all accounts so let me explain. And yes I have played on the new patch a bunch. Unlike some people, I don't talk out my rear.
1. Overcharge is competing with chrono now. So it's not like you can spam it every time you have a problem in the early and mid game and late game it would be like having a PF or a queen/spines at the base anyway. With chrono affecting cannons it might be beneficial to chrono 3 cannons rather than 1 overcharge.
2. The current WG gate means that you need a prism to do aggressive strategies. This keeps aggressive strats as an option, but limits them due to energy. And I did mention warp prism I said it would be the same as a nexus. You can do aggressive strats with WG but it is controlled via energy so the defenders advantage becomes time rather than travel distance. SO a warp prism is still a very good option because it has infinite warp im potential, but pylons can still be used to warp in limited amounts of troops.
3. The Mule Drone requires and SCV to attach to use. So you cannot just spam mules if you lose a bunch of SCV's like you can currently. They also bring in less income but are less energy overall. So two gives you slightly more than 1 mule now. They also repair faster and can have buildings build slightly faster meaning they are more strategic value than just getting minerals.
4. They are not extreme timings. With Vespene link it's scout able so you can prepare just like chrono. Chrono didn't create extreme timings because you can see it coming.
5. That is not the reason why they are trying the change out (it being imbalanced) they are trying it out because 1) they feel like some of them are not interesting for spectators and 2) trying to help players since the game is fast paced. Thats why I said meat in the middle and not exercise macro mechanics completely in favor or micro. make them more s strategic so there is an identifiable reason to what you are doing.
|
Skimmed OP and thread but wanted to post to give a nod to ideas that push tension in choices. This is where SO much depth arises in SO many games, including RTS. It's built into RTS because of all the extant simple choices which make up macro but comprise the bulk of player choices, but any additional choices just add to the fabric of decision-making and player interaction, so
Not that LotV is going to ever go in this direction
I've always thought mules should be a suit for SCVs that gives them superior powers, instead of a one click cash cow. Would love to see this in the game.
|
On August 28 2015 10:09 Valon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2015 09:52 Beliskner wrote: Sorry but I don't think these idea's are very well thought out, plus it feels like you haven't actually played much with the current macro mechanics removal.
Photon Overcharge: You title the post increase Strategic thinking, but then suggest moving P.O to the nexus which limits strategic moves even more. No killing the MSC for denial, PO available at every expansion without the MSC being there. You've basically taken people's complaints about PO and the MSC and increased it. Making MORE wide spread and even harder to attack into a nexus. Yes you nerf some ranges and whatever but not a change most people would support.
Warp Gates: Here's where I think you haven't played the change. Yes Protoss is discouraged from Warp Gate early game because of the long warp in, but once you have your Warp Prism out (which you didn't mention) Protoss aggression is actually buffed. Maybe the Warp Prism still needs tweaking, but I think most people think this is going on the right direction as while the WP might be good, it's not invincible and is able to be picked off. Requiring reinforcement with the WP feels good to me.
MULES: I don't know, you just seem to have added it back in and accomplished nothing. Mules can already repair.
Zerg: More gas, mo problems. You've basically added a factor to zerg that was the problem with Chronoboost. Creating extreme timings that are hard to defend against and balance.
All in all, yes you want to create more 'choices' to the macro mechanics. But it goes completely against the problems which Blizzard was trying to solve with this change. Abuse of mechanics which create imbalance in the race (P and T specifically). Eg. Protoss gimmicky because of the use of Chronoboost on timings. Yes with the removal you're kinda 'homogenizing' the races, but honestly after playing the changes. It does feel like it will increase the quality of the micro in games and game play overall.
P.S Yes Terran probably need some cost changes to units/structures for balance, just like Protoss need some research time changes but the overall end design feel without the macro mechanics seems like it will be good. You're wrong on all accounts so let me explain. And yes I have played on the new patch a bunch. Unlike some people, I don't talk out my rear. 1. Overcharge is competing with chrono now. So it's not like you can spam it every time you have a problem in the early and mid game and late game it would be like having a PF or a queen/spines at the base anyway. With chrono affecting cannons it might be beneficial to chrono 3 cannons rather than 1 overcharge. 2. The current WG gate means that you need a prism to do aggressive strategies. This keeps aggressive strats as an option, but limits them due to energy. And I did mention warp prism I said it would be the same as a nexus. You can do aggressive strats with WG but it is controlled via energy so the defenders advantage becomes time rather than travel distance. SO a warp prism is still a very good option because it has infinite warp im potential, but pylons can still be used to warp in limited amounts of troops. 3. The Mule Drone requires and SCV to attach to use. So you cannot just spam mules if you lose a bunch of SCV's like you can currently. They also bring in less income but are less energy overall. So two gives you slightly more than 1 mule now. They also repair faster and can have buildings build slightly faster meaning they are more strategic value than just getting minerals. 4. They are not extreme timings. With Vespene link it's scout able so you can prepare just like chrono. Chrono didn't create extreme timings because you can see it coming. 5. That is not the reason why they are trying the change out (it being imbalanced) they are trying it out because 1) they feel like some of them are not interesting for spectators and 2) trying to help players since the game is fast paced. Thats why I said meat in the middle and not exercise macro mechanics completely in favor or micro. make them more s strategic so there is an identifiable reason to what you are doing.
Ok so I'm wrong about WHY they're making the changes. (I personally don't think I am, there's a lot more to the changes than just the few paragraphs that DK has mentioned in the update).
1. You just create scenarios where you MUST bank upto at-least 50 for early game. 2. Yes, exactly you need the Warp Prism. The current change is better because you don't NEED to have fast warpins on the pylons. You've basically just added fast warpin again, Protoss generally have more than 1 forward pylon. 3. Add's no strategic value, you just Mule like you used it. 4. Extreme timings are extreme because even IF you scout they're almost impossible to hold. That is the complaint with Protoss Warpgate timings. 5. So even if that's true, your solutions don't meet in the middle in any way. In fact you've gone in the opposite direction again.
I'm not the one talking out of my ass, I gave you clear reasons as to why the game is better without these mechanics. Unfortunately you might one of those people that cannot see past their attachments to these mechanics, that you're only ideas is to essentially add them back in a even more complex form. Citing more strategy for the macro mechanics, but what exactly is the goal there. Will the game play be better off with those changes? The goal of better micro that DK is looking for isn't there in these changes.
|
On August 28 2015 10:19 EatThePath wrote:Skimmed OP and thread but wanted to post to give a nod to ideas that push tension in choices. This is where SO much depth arises in SO many games, including RTS. It's built into RTS because of all the extant simple choices which make up macro but comprise the bulk of player choices, but any additional choices just add to the fabric of decision-making and player interaction, so Not that LotV is going to ever go in this direction I've always thought mules should be a suit for SCVs that gives them superior powers, instead of a one click cash cow. Would love to see this in the game.
Not that LotV is going to ever go in this direction
LoTV has already add an additional layer of complexity and unit interaction to the game.
The more complex the RTS does not mean that it's by definition a better game. Just adding more and more choice does not make a better game. In fact it can really damage the game and turn it muddy and frustrating. Because of the added complexity it feels like LoTV almost needed a simplification in other areas.
There's beauty to a simple yet decently complex game, Broodwar is a good example, the complexity came from the unit interactions and terrain, not from a multitude of choice.
|
Hard to agree with the points raised when so many assumptions are made on the behalf of our community. I think the current warpgate Blizzard is working on is great. Protoss should have to use a warp prism to maintain their presence at long distances.
|
On August 28 2015 11:11 Beliskner wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2015 10:19 EatThePath wrote:Skimmed OP and thread but wanted to post to give a nod to ideas that push tension in choices. This is where SO much depth arises in SO many games, including RTS. It's built into RTS because of all the extant simple choices which make up macro but comprise the bulk of player choices, but any additional choices just add to the fabric of decision-making and player interaction, so Not that LotV is going to ever go in this direction I've always thought mules should be a suit for SCVs that gives them superior powers, instead of a one click cash cow. Would love to see this in the game. LoTV has already add an additional layer of complexity and unit interaction to the game. The more complex the RTS does not mean that it's by definition a better game. Just adding more and more choice does not make a better game. In fact it can really damage the game and turn it muddy and frustrating. Because of the added complexity it feels like LoTV almost needed a simplification in other areas. There's beauty to a simple yet decently complex game, Broodwar is a good example, the complexity came from the unit interactions and terrain, not from a multitude of choice. Well said. There was a very informative daily from day9 from a long time ago where he was talking about something very similar in SC2 (I think before or around HoTS release). He used pong as an example of a game which is very straightforward but had depth since you could control the direction of the ball based on how you hit it. I can't find the daily but it was a very good one.
But the summary is that something doesn't need to be complicated to have depth.
Also for some reason everyone is talking like macro was removed... It was not. Only the macro boosters were removed. Its still important to keep producing workers saturating bases, creating new bases, armies etc.
|
On August 28 2015 10:38 Beliskner wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2015 10:09 Valon wrote:On August 28 2015 09:52 Beliskner wrote: Sorry but I don't think these idea's are very well thought out, plus it feels like you haven't actually played much with the current macro mechanics removal.
Photon Overcharge: You title the post increase Strategic thinking, but then suggest moving P.O to the nexus which limits strategic moves even more. No killing the MSC for denial, PO available at every expansion without the MSC being there. You've basically taken people's complaints about PO and the MSC and increased it. Making MORE wide spread and even harder to attack into a nexus. Yes you nerf some ranges and whatever but not a change most people would support.
Warp Gates: Here's where I think you haven't played the change. Yes Protoss is discouraged from Warp Gate early game because of the long warp in, but once you have your Warp Prism out (which you didn't mention) Protoss aggression is actually buffed. Maybe the Warp Prism still needs tweaking, but I think most people think this is going on the right direction as while the WP might be good, it's not invincible and is able to be picked off. Requiring reinforcement with the WP feels good to me.
MULES: I don't know, you just seem to have added it back in and accomplished nothing. Mules can already repair.
Zerg: More gas, mo problems. You've basically added a factor to zerg that was the problem with Chronoboost. Creating extreme timings that are hard to defend against and balance.
All in all, yes you want to create more 'choices' to the macro mechanics. But it goes completely against the problems which Blizzard was trying to solve with this change. Abuse of mechanics which create imbalance in the race (P and T specifically). Eg. Protoss gimmicky because of the use of Chronoboost on timings. Yes with the removal you're kinda 'homogenizing' the races, but honestly after playing the changes. It does feel like it will increase the quality of the micro in games and game play overall.
P.S Yes Terran probably need some cost changes to units/structures for balance, just like Protoss need some research time changes but the overall end design feel without the macro mechanics seems like it will be good. You're wrong on all accounts so let me explain. And yes I have played on the new patch a bunch. Unlike some people, I don't talk out my rear. 1. Overcharge is competing with chrono now. So it's not like you can spam it every time you have a problem in the early and mid game and late game it would be like having a PF or a queen/spines at the base anyway. With chrono affecting cannons it might be beneficial to chrono 3 cannons rather than 1 overcharge. 2. The current WG gate means that you need a prism to do aggressive strategies. This keeps aggressive strats as an option, but limits them due to energy. And I did mention warp prism I said it would be the same as a nexus. You can do aggressive strats with WG but it is controlled via energy so the defenders advantage becomes time rather than travel distance. SO a warp prism is still a very good option because it has infinite warp im potential, but pylons can still be used to warp in limited amounts of troops. 3. The Mule Drone requires and SCV to attach to use. So you cannot just spam mules if you lose a bunch of SCV's like you can currently. They also bring in less income but are less energy overall. So two gives you slightly more than 1 mule now. They also repair faster and can have buildings build slightly faster meaning they are more strategic value than just getting minerals. 4. They are not extreme timings. With Vespene link it's scout able so you can prepare just like chrono. Chrono didn't create extreme timings because you can see it coming. 5. That is not the reason why they are trying the change out (it being imbalanced) they are trying it out because 1) they feel like some of them are not interesting for spectators and 2) trying to help players since the game is fast paced. Thats why I said meat in the middle and not exercise macro mechanics completely in favor or micro. make them more s strategic so there is an identifiable reason to what you are doing. Ok so I'm wrong about WHY they're making the changes. (I personally don't think I am, there's a lot more to the changes than just the few paragraphs that DK has mentioned in the update). 1. You just create scenarios where you MUST bank upto at-least 50 for early game. 2. Yes, exactly you need the Warp Prism. The current change is better because you don't NEED to have fast warpins on the pylons. You've basically just added fast warpin again, Protoss generally have more than 1 forward pylon. 3. Add's no strategic value, you just Mule like you used it. 4. Extreme timings are extreme because even IF you scout they're almost impossible to hold. That is the complaint with Protoss Warpgate timings. 5. So even if that's true, your solutions don't meet in the middle in any way. In fact you've gone in the opposite direction again. I'm not the one talking out of my ass, I gave you clear reasons as to why the game is better without these mechanics. Unfortunately you might one of those people that cannot see past their attachments to these mechanics, that you're only ideas is to essentially add them back in a even more complex form. Citing more strategy for the macro mechanics, but what exactly is the goal there. Will the game play be better off with those changes? The goal of better micro that DK is looking for isn't there in these changes.
1. Actually it does the opposite. It would work similar to scan where if there is a certain time that something hits then perhaps you save up energy. It also allows an opportunity for gateway units to be buffed as compensation since it is not as strong.
2. If you bothered to read what I wrote (which it's clear you didn't), then you would see that a wapr prism would allow an endured attack, but a pylon could be used more for pressure. It also creates the chance that if a second pylon is established then it is easier to push back due to it running on energy. You have a chance to push them back and the protoss has to think more strategically about where they put the pylons. The current model is unnecessary slow. This keeps a big downside to proxy pylons but still allows for them to be used offensively.
3. Again read what I wrote. Mules do not require scvs and mine 60 per trip. They also do not repair faster nor do they aid in building construction. The drone would have that potential.
4. No the warp gate timings are due to 3 factors. 1) The fact that 2 pylon has an unlimited warp in potential 2) the attainability of units due to things like blink and force field. and 3) The warp in units. Forcefields have been heavily nerfed in legacy indirectly. The warping in units have taken a nerf as well so that isn't much of an issue and both my suggestion and blizzards but a limit factor on warp ins. Mine just isn't as unneeded;y nerfed as blizzards.
5. No my solutions meet in the middle. They give macro strategic repercussions. When you micro a unit you do it for a specific reason. Now macro become more strategic rather than something that happens every x seconds. You have a specific reason why you are doing something.
You are the one talking put of your rear because it's pretty clear that you didn't read what I wrote as I addressed everything you said i didn't address inside my post. You saw a couple of head lines and a word or 2 and then filled in the rest with what you wanted it to say. I have no attachment to these other than that they are mine. The purpose of beta is to create discussion so new ideas are discovered and that is what I am doing. Maybe you are too petty to that you are blinded by how awesome your ideas are, but I am not. The goal is to create a game that requires strategic thinking on both macro and micro side. That is what sc2 is. Right now, we are trying to make the game more micro intensive though unneeded abilities requiring a button press and getting rid of the macro mechanics. good players can balance both. It's about finding a balance where strategic thinking is key on both fronts. And using the mechanics become a reason and not a chore. Also this post is about macro not micro. Why would I talk about micro in here when it;s not the focus on the post. It's like complaining I didn't talk about bears in my pelican report. PS I did do a small post talking about micro last week. You can find on here easily.
|
On August 28 2015 11:51 Terranist wrote: Hard to agree with the points raised when so many assumptions are made on the behalf of our community. I think the current warpgate Blizzard is working on is great. Protoss should have to use a warp prism to maintain their presence at long distances.
My proposal keeps that same mentally. Warp prism aer important, but it doesn't make warp in on pylons uneededly slow. Also no one is making assumptions here. It's called an idea post. that's what beta is for. Start as discussion so new ideas are discovered and that leads to a better game.
|
There's some interesting ideas here, but I think 1) Blizzard isn't interested in bringing back macro boosters anytime soon, and 2) implementing all of these would make macro even more complex than it is in HotS, to the point that I'm not sure if the increase in strategic choice is really worth it.
I'll go through what I think of your suggestions one by one.
Chrono - You're basically reverting Chrono to its HotS state and buffing it, with the caveat that players investing too heavily into Chrono will sacrifice Photon Overcharge potential. I highly doubt this will ever be tested as it directly goes against the direction Blizzard is aiming towards. And while you point out the strategic benefits of Chrono, there's also arguments elsewhere highlighting its negative impact on the game. Photon Overcharge - I feel that this version has greatly reduced utility. Not only did you nerf its stats, you also put it in competition with Chrono; I don't think players would be patient enough to give up two rounds of economy/tech/production booster in exchange for 10 seconds of middling damage. It might see some use in the late game when Chrono isn't as important, though. Warp Gate - I like this version; at the same time, I don't mind the current LotV version either. I do have a couple questions though. Could you explain further how the Nexus power field would work? I'm assuming that using Warp In on a Nexus power field would drain Nexus energy by 10, just like pylon energy. If this is the case this would actually weaken Protoss defender advantage (especially since, as I said earlier, players will likely prioritize Chrono over any defensive use of Nexus energy). I suppose this is made up by the fact that there are more pylons in a Protoss base and thus more Warp In energy. Also, if a unit is warped in within two overlapping pylon fields, does it drain 10 energy from both of them? If it drains energy from just one, which pylon will it drain energy from? MULE drone - I'm not a fan of this one. Visually the drone would clutter up the screen, unless the ability reskinned the SCV as a MULE. Also I'm not sure how this is strategically more interesting than the MULE, since it mostly does the same thing. Allowing SCVs to construct buildings faster would accelerate Terran tech in a way that would force Blizzard to rebalance Terran building times, similar to how Chrono forced Blizzard to rebalance Protoss upgrade times. The rebalancing process could get messy. Injects - I have no strong opinions on this. I think your idea's good, and the current auto-inject is kinda icky. Vespene Link - Buffing Zerg gas income like this is similar to the way MULE buffs Terran mineral income relative to the other races. By my prediction, this would bloat the size of Zerg gas-intensive armies similar to how MULEs bloat the size of Terran Bio armies. Take from that what you will.
As I said earlier, while some of these ideas would be interesting to test, I feel that other ideas here would introduce imbalances that would take a while to balance around. Also, I don't think the community has reached a unanimous consensus yet that macro boosters need to be re-introduced. From what I can tell, people seem to be pretty split down the middle about it. I'd say give the current changes at least another week of testing.
|
On August 28 2015 11:11 Beliskner wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2015 10:19 EatThePath wrote:Skimmed OP and thread but wanted to post to give a nod to ideas that push tension in choices. This is where SO much depth arises in SO many games, including RTS. It's built into RTS because of all the extant simple choices which make up macro but comprise the bulk of player choices, but any additional choices just add to the fabric of decision-making and player interaction, so Not that LotV is going to ever go in this direction I've always thought mules should be a suit for SCVs that gives them superior powers, instead of a one click cash cow. Would love to see this in the game. LoTV has already add an additional layer of complexity and unit interaction to the game. The more complex the RTS does not mean that it's by definition a better game. Just adding more and more choice does not make a better game. In fact it can really damage the game and turn it muddy and frustrating. Because of the added complexity it feels like LoTV almost needed a simplification in other areas. There's beauty to a simple yet decently complex game, Broodwar is a good example, the complexity came from the unit interactions and terrain, not from a multitude of choice. Are you sure? A 2D domain with a multitude of dps sources of varying ranges and casters with various damage-dealing and terrain-altering abilities... how is that not a multitude of choice?
The key part of what you're saying is that there is an assimilatable range of actions to choose from, aka choices matter because you understand their ramifications. Sure, don't add useless options that clutter the interaction space.
What I'm saying is your options should come with pros and cons and should both present threats and offer opportunities to your opposition.
imo the unit interaction in sc2 isn't very deep (for multiple reasons) so macro depth is desirable. so far I'm underwhelmed by what lotv adds in terms of unit interactions.
|
On August 28 2015 13:58 starimk wrote: There's some interesting ideas here, but I think 1) Blizzard isn't interested in bringing back macro boosters anytime soon, and 2) implementing all of these would make macro even more complex than it is in HotS, to the point that I'm not sure if the increase in strategic choice is really worth it.
I'll go through what I think of your suggestions one by one.
Chrono - You're basically reverting Chrono to its HotS state and buffing it, with the caveat that players investing too heavily into Chrono will sacrifice Photon Overcharge potential. I highly doubt this will ever be tested as it directly goes against the direction Blizzard is aiming towards. And while you point out the strategic benefits of Chrono, there's also arguments elsewhere highlighting its negative impact on the game. Photon Overcharge - I feel that this version has greatly reduced utility. Not only did you nerf its stats, you also put it in competition with Chrono; I don't think players would be patient enough to give up two rounds of economy/tech/production booster in exchange for 10 seconds of middling damage. It might see some use in the late game when Chrono isn't as important, though. Warp Gate - I like this version; at the same time, I don't mind the current LotV version either. I do have a couple questions though. Could you explain further how the Nexus power field would work? I'm assuming that using Warp In on a Nexus power field would drain Nexus energy by 10, just like pylon energy. If this is the case this would actually weaken Protoss defender advantage (especially since, as I said earlier, players will likely prioritize Chrono over any defensive use of Nexus energy). I suppose this is made up by the fact that there are more pylons in a Protoss base and thus more Warp In energy. Also, if a unit is warped in within two overlapping pylon fields, does it drain 10 energy from both of them? If it drains energy from just one, which pylon will it drain energy from? MULE drone - I'm not a fan of this one. Visually the drone would clutter up the screen, unless the ability reskinned the SCV as a MULE. Also I'm not sure how this is strategically more interesting than the MULE, since it mostly does the same thing. Allowing SCVs to construct buildings faster would accelerate Terran tech in a way that would force Blizzard to rebalance Terran building times, similar to how Chrono forced Blizzard to rebalance Protoss upgrade times. The rebalancing process could get messy. Injects - I have no strong opinions on this. I think your idea's good, and the current auto-inject is kinda icky. Vespene Link - Buffing Zerg gas income like this is similar to the way MULE buffs Terran mineral income relative to the other races. By my prediction, this would bloat the size of Zerg gas-intensive armies similar to how MULEs bloat the size of Terran Bio armies. Take from that what you will.
As I said earlier, while some of these ideas would be interesting to test, I feel that other ideas here would introduce imbalances that would take a while to balance around. Also, I don't think the community has reached a unanimous consensus yet that macro boosters need to be re-introduced. From what I can tell, people seem to be pretty split down the middle about it. I'd say give the current changes at least another week of testing.
Thanks for the feedback! To answer your question The nexus field and the warp prism field would be able to warp in units and have no energy cost.
|
|
|
|