Well, really I just take the "make it less shitty" side because blizzard has made it clear that there's no way in hell that they're automating it.
They could - HERESY - create options to automate all three.
Just toggles that sit there.
Would you like MULEs to spawn at every opportunity and harvest nearby minerals? Y/N.
Would you like the Queen to inject larvae at every opportunity? Y/N.
Would you like Chrono Boost used on the Nexus whenever it is available and you start building a probe? Y/N.
In each case, you're making a decision for the future and allowing the game to fill in for you. You may regret that decision (need energy for scan/transfusion/tumour/to CB another building). The economic benefit for the Protoss is slightly worse than the other two (given they're more likely to only build one probe than the other situations arising).
okay so you can take things to extreme and prove what exactly? Blizzard are trying to achieve a balance between being fun to play for joe sixpack xboxgamertag and difficult enough that the top players are like wizards with a power level of 9000.
That's exactly why I chose that example; because you want a balance.
If you could write macros that controlled what your units and buildings did in a variety of complex situations then the difference between me and Idra becomes much smaller. It's like saying I should be able to ask deep blue what my next move would be in chess. Yes it would make chess easier.
So yeah, balance. At one end you have the hardest game ever made, at the other end you have the easiest. It seems pretty obvious to me if you are trying to create an e-sport that your game would be more the former than the latter.
Er, I think you're conflating depth and hardness (both conceptual and mechanical).
You can make a game hard to master, while having little to a lot of depth, lots of conceptual hardness, little to lots of mechanical difficulty.
For example, playing chess against Big Blue. It is mechanically easy. It is conceptually difficult. It has a lot of depth. It is a hard game and is an e-sport (WAIT WHAT?!).
For another example, consider a bullet hell shmup. It is mechanically difficult. It is conceptually easy. It has little depth. It is a hard game.
(I can't wait for Battletoads multiplayer. Gonna be the best e-sport ever. Also, it seems to me that making your game easy to pirate and LAN capable would help too; poor old Korea)
The thing is, if you automate all those things, there really isn't going to much micro left besides kiting.
There's plenty. What abilities do I use; where do I use them? Do I need to kite? Should I be focus-firing something? What should be going on in my base at this point?
Why not have blink automated so if the stalker's shield drops he blinks in a direction with no enemies, or behind friendly stalkers?
Because that's a player choice. It's an interesting decision. Do I want to gamble my stalkers' lives against my opponents' units? Can I inflict more damage if I don't retreat now than if I do? And similarly, if you choose to blink, you can make mistakes in where you do it to. It's really rather obvious why you don't automate that, but no GOT TO GET IN THERE WITH THE SLIPPERY SLOPE MAN.
unless you decide to retreat your guys. Once you get some spell casters you get to spend all your time micro'ing those. That doesn't even sound fun to play to me.
Whether it sounds fun or not to you is your thing, but I rather enjoyed CoH/DoW2's focus on unit abilities rather than a player's ability to shift-click more quickly and accurately than another's!
Btw, what you'd see at that point is people using micro to abuse that feature, by getting your units to chase a few guys around while the rest of the army, lower in the targeting queue, mows them down. Which would just be wierd.
Already happens with normal targeting on priority units.
but the point of the game is there is very little automation
or if there is, to make it hard to use (noble exception is worker automine)
No, the point of the game is to devise a plan and execute it to kill your opponent. If the game is trying to get in the way of executing your plan, it's not a very clever thing.
Here are some examples of other things Blizzard could implement to make the game have a higher skill cap.
1) Workers now have to be told to return to minerals. You shouldn't just be able to tell a worker to harvest a mineral and have them do it. This means that in fights, good players will be doing better because their high apm and focus on multi-tasking allows them to make sure they don't lose out economically on harvesting during a fight.
2) Ability use should require navigating a menu with the mouse first. Pressing 't' for stim makes is too easy; requiring use of the mouse means the player needs better accuracy and speed to quickly navigate the menu to use their ability.
3) Bring back 24 unit pages! 1a2a3a go!
4) Reduce unit pages to 8 units per page! 1a2a3a4a5a6a go!
Please try and wrap your brain around the idea that the game is not there to be an unautomated pile of shit.
it's just part of the balance of the game -- yeah it is somewhat a detriment to people who can't do it, but the competitive aspect of the game is based around mechanics paired with good conceptual and mechanical strategery
Which aspects of an RTS game should be dependent upon mechanical ability, and why?
Imagine being Protoss with, say, a mixed warpgate army with a few of your favorite tech unit. Imagine you're against MMM terran. Now imagine that all the Terran has to do to pop every stalker you have is attack-move.
Reading Comprehension Alert.
Again, this isn't about attack-move. It's not about having units automatically select who they're best against*, it's about making attack units of a type easier and involve less superfluous clicks.
*Bear in mind that a conceptually good RTS - which I think Starcraft is - will have more than one target that your unit is good against in a few fights. For example, if said Protoss mixes a Sentry or High Templar into his army? What's best to shoot with your Marauders then; the Stalkers who they do the most damage against, or the Sentry who's preventing your Marines from doing any damage, or the High Templar who's nuking you and Feedbacking your Medi-vacs?
These are the sorts of things that I think make RTSes fun; interesting decisions in a fight. Telling your Marauders to attack each individual Stalker, even though you knew from the beginning of the battle that that is what you needed to do is terrible.
ONE DAY I SHALL BE AN RTS DESIGNER AND MAKE AN RTS AND IT SHALL BLOW ALL YOUR MINDS AWAY AND YOU WILL THINK WOW I WAS SO WRONG ON THE 7TH of SEPTEMBER 2011 THAT IS ALL.
i think you should play turn based strategy games. the whole point of rts' is that they are in real time and that the execution is just as important as the strategy.
Yeah they could do whatever they wanted. They could give the ultralisk wings and let it fly, but that shit will never happen. Blizzard will never make any of these changes you're proposing, for the various balance reasons listed by other people and that it's simply not their vision for the game (that's why they removed wireframe casting).
All you are doing is masturbating all over this thread full of people who do not agree with you or care what you have to say.
Well, really I just take the "make it less shitty" side because blizzard has made it clear that there's no way in hell that they're automating it.
They could - HERESY - create options to automate all three.
Just toggles that sit there.
Would you like MULEs to spawn at every opportunity and harvest nearby minerals? Y/N.
Would you like the Queen to inject larvae at every opportunity? Y/N.
Would you like Chrono Boost used on the Nexus whenever it is available and you start building a probe? Y/N.
In each case, you're making a decision for the future and allowing the game to fill in for you. You may regret that decision (need energy for scan/transfusion/tumour/to CB another building). The economic benefit for the Protoss is slightly worse than the other two (given they're more likely to only build one probe than the other situations arising).
okay so you can take things to extreme and prove what exactly? Blizzard are trying to achieve a balance between being fun to play for joe sixpack xboxgamertag and difficult enough that the top players are like wizards with a power level of 9000.
That's exactly why I chose that example; because you want a balance.
If you could write macros that controlled what your units and buildings did in a variety of complex situations then the difference between me and Idra becomes much smaller. It's like saying I should be able to ask deep blue what my next move would be in chess. Yes it would make chess easier.
So yeah, balance. At one end you have the hardest game ever made, at the other end you have the easiest. It seems pretty obvious to me if you are trying to create an e-sport that your game would be more the former than the latter.
Er, I think you're conflating depth and hardness (both conceptual and mechanical).
You can make a game hard to master, while having little to a lot of depth, lots of conceptual hardness, little to lots of mechanical difficulty.
For example, playing chess against Big Blue. It is mechanically easy. It is conceptually difficult. It has a lot of depth. It is a hard game and is an e-sport (WAIT WHAT?!).
For another example, consider a bullet hell shmup. It is mechanically difficult. It is conceptually easy. It has little depth. It is a hard game.
(I can't wait for Battletoads multiplayer. Gonna be the best e-sport ever. Also, it seems to me that making your game easy to pirate and LAN capable would help too; poor old Korea)
Please stop. You aren't going to convince anyone. Anyone that is decent at the game at least. Your initial posts reek of "Ugh, I just lost a game because my marauders didn't kill stalkers first, therefore they should automatically do it."
And now you are trying way to hard to defend why you would make such a great RTS game designer.
Well, really I just take the "make it less shitty" side because blizzard has made it clear that there's no way in hell that they're automating it.
They could - HERESY - create options to automate all three.
Just toggles that sit there.
Would you like MULEs to spawn at every opportunity and harvest nearby minerals? Y/N.
Would you like the Queen to inject larvae at every opportunity? Y/N.
Would you like Chrono Boost used on the Nexus whenever it is available and you start building a probe? Y/N.
In each case, you're making a decision for the future and allowing the game to fill in for you. You may regret that decision (need energy for scan/transfusion/tumour/to CB another building). The economic benefit for the Protoss is slightly worse than the other two (given they're more likely to only build one probe than the other situations arising).
okay so you can take things to extreme and prove what exactly? Blizzard are trying to achieve a balance between being fun to play for joe sixpack xboxgamertag and difficult enough that the top players are like wizards with a power level of 9000.
That's exactly why I chose that example; because you want a balance.
If you could write macros that controlled what your units and buildings did in a variety of complex situations then the difference between me and Idra becomes much smaller. It's like saying I should be able to ask deep blue what my next move would be in chess. Yes it would make chess easier.
So yeah, balance. At one end you have the hardest game ever made, at the other end you have the easiest. It seems pretty obvious to me if you are trying to create an e-sport that your game would be more the former than the latter.
Er, I think you're conflating depth and hardness (both conceptual and mechanical).
You can make a game hard to master, while having little to a lot of depth, lots of conceptual hardness, little to lots of mechanical difficulty.
For example, playing chess against Big Blue. It is mechanically easy. It is conceptually difficult. It has a lot of depth. It is a hard game and is an e-sport (WAIT WHAT?!).
For another example, consider a bullet hell shmup. It is mechanically difficult. It is conceptually easy. It has little depth. It is a hard game.
(I can't wait for Battletoads multiplayer. Gonna be the best e-sport ever. Also, it seems to me that making your game easy to pirate and LAN capable would help too; poor old Korea)
Nah, dude you are completely wrong on chess.
Chess, man. Yeah, it has familiarities, but Starcraft is a REAL TIME STRATEGY game, which means you are up against things like Time and your ability to decide and PHYSICALLY enact those actions in game.
You are advocating to remove as many physical barriers to the game as possible. You are trying to shift the game into a mind only game. You have the wrong idea about Starcraft and RTS games in general. Someone's physical ability plays as much a part in Starcraft as does their mental capacities, which is why Starcraft has the potential to be an e-sport.
maybe its impossible for him to play the game more than 10 minutes without making a run to the liquor store
its gotta be something like that
there are sometimes when i shouldnt be playing... like 2-5 am... like a WoW addict man... needs the crack. there have definitely been a couple 7 loss runs that were due to overtiredness...
and then the next day, i fight back to .500....
i'd love to see the internal numbers on my stats....
All you are doing is masturbating all over this thread full of people who do not agree with you or care what you have to say.
If you don't want to perpetuate a discussion then stop responding to it. Please don't drop bullshit like this in the thread, because it's already enough of a joy to moderate.
did they ever give any reasoning for this? it made spawn larva so much more tolerable.
Precisely because they wanted you to look at your base (and thus away from your army) to use macro-based abilities (specifically chrono boost, inject larvae, and mules).
Kambing on
@TwitchTV, @Youtube: master-level zerg ladder/customs, commentary, and random miscellany.
0
BethrynUnhappiness is MandatoryRegistered Userregular
It's a straw man. There is conceptual depth to Starcraft in a multitude more ways than there are in something like Nexus Wars, and there are a vast number of interesting decisions which you cannot automate. You are not in the remotest sense representing my argument accurately, and that is exactly what a straw man is.
In general, automating the mechanical execution of banal decisions has little to no effect on conceptual depth; that's why it's desirable.
there are a few other games that have similar situations that aren't automated, but don't take 'thought' or seem very 'interesting.' magic the gathering, for example, has you play and employ cards called Land that generate mana. tapping (using) them isn't particularly interesting or exciting, but it is how you get the primary resource (called mana) to play your other cards.
Tapping a land for mana is a resource system. It's part of the conceptual hardness of the game. Whether a land is tapped or not (and whether a player can untap a land or gain mana through another source) play into the meta-game.
Land-tapping is not a good example of what you're trying to show me. If you want to try another example, go ahead, but stop that one there.
Yeah they could do whatever they wanted. They could give the ultralisk wings and let it fly, but that shit will never happen. Blizzard will never make any of these changes you're proposing, for the various balance reasons listed by other people and that it's simply not their vision for the game (that's why they removed wireframe casting).
did they ever give any reasoning for this? it made spawn larva so much more tolerable.
Precisely because they wanted you to look at your base (and thus away from your army) to use macro-based abilities (specifically chrono boost, inject larvae, and mules).
which would make sense, but then they added minimap casting back in the game, after removing it.
However, with your proposed change, the roaches would get shot at and the lings would just run by. And if there were ultralisks, they would be target fired and the AoE wouldn't hit any lings, so the tanks would get run over. In this case, your change is worse.
No.
The player would have the option of choosing BETWEEN letting the Siege Tanks fire randomly at whatever's nearest (or if they prefer, targetting the shots manually; does anyone do this?) AND having them prioritise a unit type of the player's choise (e.g. roaches).
Also, think about MM against zealots and stalkers. This would help terran a ton and hurt the protoss significantly. Marauders would rip through stalkers, marines would probably shoot zealots, and terran would be happy.
Surely this is indicative of the actual unit balance, since this is what would happen in that scenario if both players have perfect micro?
This seems to be a testament to balancing rather than automation.
But the toss would be sad, because stalkers are actually pretty balls against marauders, and they would really want to shoot at the marines. But then you have to micro your units individually to shoot marines, and if you a-move, they'll hit the marauders since they have the bonus damage, and then you'd probably lose, assuming equal armies. So your change would make this situation more micro intensive and automated in a dumb way.
I'm afraid I don't understand how this situation arises from my change. This doesn't seem like something the Protoss player would tell his units to do.
Again, for clarity; the hotkey I want tells the selected unit to prioritise units of the type I double click on. I am not saying, "Marauders should always auto-target things they're good against".
Then you get cases like say the terran has a bunch of vikings and banshees, and you attack with phoenixes. He can use the banshees to tank now because unless you micro your phoenixes exactly, they will auto target the banshees
Okay, definitely, see above. Again, this is not the argument I am making.
Ok, so you want to be able to tell your units what type of units to prioritize. The problem with going down this road is that you want the game to do micromanagement for you, and this is a case where your argument is a slippery slope, because from what I understand of your argument, you want cases where the game executes, to use your language "perfect micro." What your suggestion is is not changing the way units acquire targets, but you want to be able to give them a complicated set of orders with one command, that is, "target the closest unit of this type, then attack it until it is dead, then target the closest unit of this type, then attack it until it is dead," and so on. Every other command, except for workers, is more elementary: "move here," or "auto attack anything in the way," or "stand here and attack anything in range." You could also make the argument that, well, it's always good for units low on health to run away, so why can't I make units run away at low health? It's good micro, and if you had perfect micro, you'd run away every unit that got low on health so it wouldn't die. You can use the same argument that you are making for your idea for that idea. And so on and so forth, until you just a-move your army into theirs and watch as the computer executes perfect micro for you. Here's an example: in SC1, wraiths would get destroyed by hydralisks, but hey, if you had perfect micro, you could do this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcjQhig88wE
What you are suggesting is that you give the units more ai, which means more of the game is being played for you. While this wouldn't be a bad suggestion in some RTS's, it goes against the entire spirit of Starcraft. The game is not just about macro and positioning and economy and unit mix, it's also about being able to control individual units very well and making them more useful than they would be in the hands of a less skilled player. Your suggestion would dilute the importance of those micro skills. In this case, you seem to want to be playing a TBS not an RTS.
It's a straw man. There is conceptual depth to Starcraft in a multitude more ways than there are in something like Nexus Wars, and there are a vast number of interesting decisions which you cannot automate. You are not in the remotest sense representing my argument accurately, and that is exactly what a straw man is.
In general, automating banal decisions has little to no effect on conceptual depth; that's why it's desirable.
there are a few other games that have similar situations that aren't automated, but don't take 'thought' or seem very 'interesting.' magic the gathering, for example, has you play and employ cards called Land that generate mana. tapping (using) them isn't particularly interesting or exciting, but it is how you get the primary resource (called mana) to play your other cards.
Tapping a land for mana is a resource system. It's part of the conceptual hardness of the game. Whether a land is tapped or not (and whether a player can untap a land or gain mana through another source) play into the meta-game.
Land-tapping is not a good example of what you're trying to show me. If you want to try another example, go ahead, but stop that one there.
that's why starcraft is so deep, because there are so many little things to keep track of.
I... er...
Were you overjoyed when they introduced Inject Larva? Be honest.
can i approach this from a different perspective?
why do you want to take out the mechanical difficulty of the game? is it to make it easier for worse players? do you think it will lead to more interesting strategic decision making?
for example, let's say marauders auto target armored units. now what interesting decision is created by that automation?
did they ever give any reasoning for this? it made spawn larva so much more tolerable.
Precisely because they wanted you to look at your base to use macro-based abilities (specifically chrono boost, inject larvae, and mules).
that's strange. did they actually say that? you know how recently they've been providing reasoning, etc.
cause one of the tool tips is actually "hotkey your buildings so you dont have to look at your base to make units".
just seems kind of contradictory.
Yes. This was precisely the reason they gave when they made the change back in beta.
Using your macro abilities (boosting your production capabilities) is different from production (making stuff), so it's not really contradictory. But that's really just beating around the bush. The real intent is that blizzard wanted all three races to have to go back to their bases to optimize their production, thus rewarding those who can multi-task while under pressure.
Kambing on
@TwitchTV, @Youtube: master-level zerg ladder/customs, commentary, and random miscellany.
In general, automating the mechanical execution of banal decisions has little to no effect on conceptual depth; that's why it's desirable.
this is where you're flat out failing to realize what the purpose of microing is in starcraft. you earlier proposed that you should have the option to automate chronoboosting, which completely misses the fact that remembering to chronoboost, inject larva, use mules, etc. is one of the many many things that separate skill levels in SC2.
It's a straw man. There is conceptual depth to Starcraft in a multitude more ways than there are in something like Nexus Wars, and there are a vast number of interesting decisions which you cannot automate. You are not in the remotest sense representing my argument accurately, and that is exactly what a straw man is.
In general, automating the mechanical execution of banal decisions has little to no effect on conceptual depth; that's why it's desirable.
there are a few other games that have similar situations that aren't automated, but don't take 'thought' or seem very 'interesting.' magic the gathering, for example, has you play and employ cards called Land that generate mana. tapping (using) them isn't particularly interesting or exciting, but it is how you get the primary resource (called mana) to play your other cards.
Tapping a land for mana is a resource system. It's part of the conceptual hardness of the game. Whether a land is tapped or not (and whether a player can untap a land or gain mana through another source) play into the meta-game.
Land-tapping is not a good example of what you're trying to show me. If you want to try another example, go ahead, but stop that one there.
that's why starcraft is so deep, because there are so many little things to keep track of.
I... er...
Were you overjoyed when they introduced Inject Larva? Be honest.
Woah hey here's the problem, you think micromanagement is just a banal decision, which means you don't really understand how Starcraft works. Micro is not a banal decision, being good at it is a skill not everyone has and you need to be good at it to be good at Starcraft, and this is a good thing.
Just out of curiosity, what league are you in? Did you play Brood War? What other RTS's do you play? All of these things could be affecting your view of how the game should work.
It's a straw man. There is conceptual depth to Starcraft in a multitude more ways than there are in something like Nexus Wars, and there are a vast number of interesting decisions which you cannot automate. You are not in the remotest sense representing my argument accurately, and that is exactly what a straw man is.
In general, automating the mechanical execution of banal decisions has little to no effect on conceptual depth; that's why it's desirable.
there are a few other games that have similar situations that aren't automated, but don't take 'thought' or seem very 'interesting.' magic the gathering, for example, has you play and employ cards called Land that generate mana. tapping (using) them isn't particularly interesting or exciting, but it is how you get the primary resource (called mana) to play your other cards.
Tapping a land for mana is a resource system. It's part of the conceptual hardness of the game. Whether a land is tapped or not (and whether a player can untap a land or gain mana through another source) play into the meta-game.
Land-tapping is not a good example of what you're trying to show me. If you want to try another example, go ahead, but stop that one there.
that's why starcraft is so deep, because there are so many little things to keep track of.
I... er...
Were you overjoyed when they introduced Inject Larva? Be honest.
Not that this argument hasn't gone on long enough, but here's my 2 cents, and it's something I've already brought up a couple of times.
Starcraft is NOT a STRATEGY game.
It is a MULTITASKING game with element of strategy in it.
Even at the highest levels of play, the winner isn't determined by who executed the most full proof/best strategy. It is most often determined by who multitasked better by macroing/attacking/defending/harassing/dropping/etc. all at once.
If you want a game that is more about pure strategy, then may I suggest chess, or even supcom. The sooner people realize the game is more about the multitasking and forget about strategy until they are capable of said multitasking, the quicker they will improve.
As a perfect example: starcraft is not a game where you can just go "hmmm...my opponent is building stalkers, I'll just make immortals to counter, gg." I'll still roll over your immortals by having a shit ton more stalkers.
Skut where did you get that opening (build order)? :P
Joe K, I watched the first 10mins of the game vs Terran on Steppes of War, you had 1200 minerals and whatever gas and rapidly increasing, that's like 10 more stalkers? if you were using your warp gates, and that would have crushed what little the Terran had.
I am going to make a little cartoon character, called Macro, and he will be like Mr. Period, watching replays, and dismayed noone likes him
It's a straw man. There is conceptual depth to Starcraft in a multitude more ways than there are in something like Nexus Wars, and there are a vast number of interesting decisions which you cannot automate. You are not in the remotest sense representing my argument accurately, and that is exactly what a straw man is.
In general, automating the mechanical execution of banal decisions has little to no effect on conceptual depth; that's why it's desirable.
there are a few other games that have similar situations that aren't automated, but don't take 'thought' or seem very 'interesting.' magic the gathering, for example, has you play and employ cards called Land that generate mana. tapping (using) them isn't particularly interesting or exciting, but it is how you get the primary resource (called mana) to play your other cards.
Tapping a land for mana is a resource system. It's part of the conceptual hardness of the game. Whether a land is tapped or not (and whether a player can untap a land or gain mana through another source) play into the meta-game.
Land-tapping is not a good example of what you're trying to show me. If you want to try another example, go ahead, but stop that one there.
that's why starcraft is so deep, because there are so many little things to keep track of.
I... er...
Were you overjoyed when they introduced Inject Larva? Be honest.
Not that this argument hasn't gone on long enough, but here's my 2 cents, and it's something I've already brought up a couple of times.
Starcraft is NOT a STRATEGY game.
It is a MULTITASKING game with element of strategy in it.
Even at the highest levels of play, the winner isn't determined by who executed the most full proof/best strategy. It is most often determined by who multitasked better by macroing/attacking/defending/harassing/dropping/etc. all at once.
If you want a game that is more about pure strategy, then may I suggest chess, or even supcom. The sooner people realize the game is more about the multitasking and forget about strategy until they are capable of said multitasking, the quicker they will improve.
As a perfect example: starcraft is not a game where you can just go "hmmm...my opponent is building stalkers, I'll just make immortals to counter, gg." I'll still roll over your immortals by having a shit ton more stalkers.
nah, it's still a strategy game. if youre talking about a dude with 1 arm vs a dude with 4 arms, sure the dude with 4 arms will win.
but assuming close levels of mechanical execution, the better strategy will win. it's just that in turn based strategy games, the level of mechanical execution is so low that it's not a hurdle in any way. and that's just not true of starcraft.
good mechanics will bring you far, no question. but good strategy will bring you just as far. for example, i only average about 40 apms, but im a diamond player cause i have good strategy (i think).
Posts
I've decided that Joe is secretly Jerry Holkins.
PSN: Threeve703
this is a promise!
https://medium.com/@alascii
like
what kind of fundamental misunderstanding is it that makes this possible. tell me when you figure it out
(i didn't think you were actually hating)
its gotta be something like that
i'm actually over .500. and now that i've posted that, the matchmaker will rape me.
Joe's Stream.
another possibility
Just toggles that sit there.
Would you like MULEs to spawn at every opportunity and harvest nearby minerals? Y/N.
Would you like the Queen to inject larvae at every opportunity? Y/N.
Would you like Chrono Boost used on the Nexus whenever it is available and you start building a probe? Y/N.
In each case, you're making a decision for the future and allowing the game to fill in for you. You may regret that decision (need energy for scan/transfusion/tumour/to CB another building). The economic benefit for the Protoss is slightly worse than the other two (given they're more likely to only build one probe than the other situations arising).
That's exactly why I chose that example; because you want a balance.
See your above comment about extreme.
Er, I think you're conflating depth and hardness (both conceptual and mechanical).
You can make a game hard to master, while having little to a lot of depth, lots of conceptual hardness, little to lots of mechanical difficulty.
For example, playing chess against Big Blue. It is mechanically easy. It is conceptually difficult. It has a lot of depth. It is a hard game and is an e-sport (WAIT WHAT?!).
For another example, consider a bullet hell shmup. It is mechanically difficult. It is conceptually easy. It has little depth. It is a hard game.
(I can't wait for Battletoads multiplayer. Gonna be the best e-sport ever. Also, it seems to me that making your game easy to pirate and LAN capable would help too; poor old Korea)
i think you should play turn based strategy games. the whole point of rts' is that they are in real time and that the execution is just as important as the strategy.
This hurts, so much, but it is oh so good.
All you are doing is masturbating all over this thread full of people who do not agree with you or care what you have to say.
Please stop. You aren't going to convince anyone. Anyone that is decent at the game at least. Your initial posts reek of "Ugh, I just lost a game because my marauders didn't kill stalkers first, therefore they should automatically do it."
And now you are trying way to hard to defend why you would make such a great RTS game designer.
Nah, dude you are completely wrong on chess.
Chess, man. Yeah, it has familiarities, but Starcraft is a REAL TIME STRATEGY game, which means you are up against things like Time and your ability to decide and PHYSICALLY enact those actions in game.
You are advocating to remove as many physical barriers to the game as possible. You are trying to shift the game into a mind only game. You have the wrong idea about Starcraft and RTS games in general. Someone's physical ability plays as much a part in Starcraft as does their mental capacities, which is why Starcraft has the potential to be an e-sport.
Chess an e-sport man? You're trolling. Like hard.
there are sometimes when i shouldnt be playing... like 2-5 am... like a WoW addict man... needs the crack. there have definitely been a couple 7 loss runs that were due to overtiredness...
and then the next day, i fight back to .500....
i'd love to see the internal numbers on my stats....
Joe's Stream.
If you don't want to perpetuate a discussion then stop responding to it. Please don't drop bullshit like this in the thread, because it's already enough of a joy to moderate.
did they ever give any reasoning for this? it made spawn larva so much more tolerable.
Precisely because they wanted you to look at your base (and thus away from your army) to use macro-based abilities (specifically chrono boost, inject larvae, and mules).
In general, automating the mechanical execution of banal decisions has little to no effect on conceptual depth; that's why it's desirable.
Tapping a land for mana is a resource system. It's part of the conceptual hardness of the game. Whether a land is tapped or not (and whether a player can untap a land or gain mana through another source) play into the meta-game.
Land-tapping is not a good example of what you're trying to show me. If you want to try another example, go ahead, but stop that one there.
I... er...
Were you overjoyed when they introduced Inject Larva? Be honest.
that's strange. did they actually say that? you know how recently they've been providing reasoning, etc.
cause one of the tool tips is actually "hotkey your buildings so you dont have to look at your base to make units".
just seems kind of contradictory.
Also because they just plain hate zerg.
which would make sense, but then they added minimap casting back in the game, after removing it.
liek wtf blizz?
anyway have you guys heard about my 2v2 nydus worm strategy
Ok, so you want to be able to tell your units what type of units to prioritize. The problem with going down this road is that you want the game to do micromanagement for you, and this is a case where your argument is a slippery slope, because from what I understand of your argument, you want cases where the game executes, to use your language "perfect micro." What your suggestion is is not changing the way units acquire targets, but you want to be able to give them a complicated set of orders with one command, that is, "target the closest unit of this type, then attack it until it is dead, then target the closest unit of this type, then attack it until it is dead," and so on. Every other command, except for workers, is more elementary: "move here," or "auto attack anything in the way," or "stand here and attack anything in range." You could also make the argument that, well, it's always good for units low on health to run away, so why can't I make units run away at low health? It's good micro, and if you had perfect micro, you'd run away every unit that got low on health so it wouldn't die. You can use the same argument that you are making for your idea for that idea. And so on and so forth, until you just a-move your army into theirs and watch as the computer executes perfect micro for you. Here's an example: in SC1, wraiths would get destroyed by hydralisks, but hey, if you had perfect micro, you could do this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcjQhig88wE
What you are suggesting is that you give the units more ai, which means more of the game is being played for you. While this wouldn't be a bad suggestion in some RTS's, it goes against the entire spirit of Starcraft. The game is not just about macro and positioning and economy and unit mix, it's also about being able to control individual units very well and making them more useful than they would be in the hands of a less skilled player. Your suggestion would dilute the importance of those micro skills. In this case, you seem to want to be playing a TBS not an RTS.
can i approach this from a different perspective?
why do you want to take out the mechanical difficulty of the game? is it to make it easier for worse players? do you think it will lead to more interesting strategic decision making?
for example, let's say marauders auto target armored units. now what interesting decision is created by that automation?
just wondering.
Yes. This was precisely the reason they gave when they made the change back in beta.
Using your macro abilities (boosting your production capabilities) is different from production (making stuff), so it's not really contradictory. But that's really just beating around the bush. The real intent is that blizzard wanted all three races to have to go back to their bases to optimize their production, thus rewarding those who can multi-task while under pressure.
basically you nydus worm but if it works they go air and you lose, and if it doesn't work you go air and win.
i'll listen to your objections when it stops having an approx 98% success rate bro
this is where you're flat out failing to realize what the purpose of microing is in starcraft. you earlier proposed that you should have the option to automate chronoboosting, which completely misses the fact that remembering to chronoboost, inject larva, use mules, etc. is one of the many many things that separate skill levels in SC2.
Woah hey here's the problem, you think micromanagement is just a banal decision, which means you don't really understand how Starcraft works. Micro is not a banal decision, being good at it is a skill not everyone has and you need to be good at it to be good at Starcraft, and this is a good thing.
Just out of curiosity, what league are you in? Did you play Brood War? What other RTS's do you play? All of these things could be affecting your view of how the game should work.
Bro, tell me all about it.
sounds good so far. what is it?
Not that this argument hasn't gone on long enough, but here's my 2 cents, and it's something I've already brought up a couple of times.
Starcraft is NOT a STRATEGY game.
It is a MULTITASKING game with element of strategy in it.
Even at the highest levels of play, the winner isn't determined by who executed the most full proof/best strategy. It is most often determined by who multitasked better by macroing/attacking/defending/harassing/dropping/etc. all at once.
If you want a game that is more about pure strategy, then may I suggest chess, or even supcom. The sooner people realize the game is more about the multitasking and forget about strategy until they are capable of said multitasking, the quicker they will improve.
As a perfect example: starcraft is not a game where you can just go "hmmm...my opponent is building stalkers, I'll just make immortals to counter, gg." I'll still roll over your immortals by having a shit ton more stalkers.
you both mass speedling then fast tech to nydus network
then you nydus worm them
then you win*
*addendum the other 2 people are scrublords
Joe K, I watched the first 10mins of the game vs Terran on Steppes of War, you had 1200 minerals and whatever gas and rapidly increasing, that's like 10 more stalkers? if you were using your warp gates, and that would have crushed what little the Terran had.
I am going to make a little cartoon character, called Macro, and he will be like Mr. Period, watching replays, and dismayed noone likes him
nah, it's still a strategy game. if youre talking about a dude with 1 arm vs a dude with 4 arms, sure the dude with 4 arms will win.
but assuming close levels of mechanical execution, the better strategy will win. it's just that in turn based strategy games, the level of mechanical execution is so low that it's not a hurdle in any way. and that's just not true of starcraft.
good mechanics will bring you far, no question. but good strategy will bring you just as far. for example, i only average about 40 apms, but im a diamond player cause i have good strategy (i think).
https://medium.com/@alascii
wtf lol.
pvp...
http://www.teamliquid.net/video/userstream.php?user=iCCup.TV