Page 327 of 328 FirstFirst ... 227277317325326327328 LastLast
Results 3,261 to 3,270 of 3275

Thread: Macro Mechanics Discussion Thread

  1. #3261

    Default Re: Macro Mechanics Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Krikkitone View Post
    Solutions: Protoss
    Add Argus Link to Nexus (giving CB more tension)... and enabling Protoss Casters (MS+High Templar) to be more interesting
    Intensify CB (instead of 50% for 20 seconds perhaps 100% for 10 sec) to create a more significant effect
    If you checked out the poll I linked to, you could clearly see that tension is not enough to make a bad ability good -- Calldown Supply, one of the most energy-competitive abilities in the game, has the lowest amount of votes by far.

    The Orbital Command is an excellent example of artificial tension. Yes, artificial tension is better than 0 tension. But if your abilities aren't the kindergarten smarts variety, they'll create tension NATURALLY by virtue of competing for the player's attention.

    Zerg
    Increase Hatchery/Lair/Hive (HLH) Larva production rate to 10 sec instead of 15
    Decrease # of Larva on Hatchery to 1, Lair 2, Hive 3
    Redesign Spawn Larva as 50 energy, 5 Larva, 5 sec. (or instant/no delay)

    So zerg are still macro intensive (ie you Must click 's__' once every 10 seconds to get maximum production) but Spawn Larva give Zerg the 'rapid response'
    I don't think you understand any of the actual concerns with Zerg macro. If anything, even pro players will admit that Zerg response time is already way too quick thanks to SL as it is now. You're aggravating that problem and aggravating the issue of SL being an arbitrary horrendous time-sink.

    You just made a terrible mechanic much, much worse.
    Last edited by pure.Wasted; 06-01-2010 at 12:45 PM.
    http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/7699/commun1.png

  2. #3262
    Gradius's Avatar Administrator
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    9,988

    Default Re: Macro Mechanics Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by pure.Wasted View Post
    I want to Warp-In units
    1. I have to select a Probe and order it to build a Pylon closer to the enemy
    2. I have to build a Cybernetics Core
    3. I have to research Warp-In (casting CB on it multiple times if I want to have it researched today)
    4. I have to turn my Gateways into Warp Gates
    4.5. I have to turn all new Gateways into Warp Gates, too
    5. I have to manually select every single unit I'm placing
    6. I have to select a Probe and order it to build a Pylon closer to the enemy (the cycle continues)

    Alternately,
    6. I have to build a Robotics Facility
    7. I have to build a Warp Prism
    8. I have to get the Warp Prism into position and activate its psionic matrix thingamabop
    Everything there but step 5 is not actually part of the warp-in mechanic. If you're saying that getting to warp-in requires more work, and so does spamming the units onto the matrix, I agree with you. In terms of decision making it's definitely not "a thousand times more complicated". When you actually use the mechanic you're faced with the choice of what units you want to make and where to make them. This is simplicity.

  3. #3263

    Default Re: Macro Mechanics Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Gradius View Post
    Everything there but step 5 is not actually part of the warp-in mechanic. If you're saying that getting to warp-in requires more work, and so does spamming the units onto the matrix, I agree with you. In terms of decision making it's definitely not "a thousand times more complicated". When you use the mechanic you're faced with the choice of what units you want to make and where to make them. This is simplicity.
    You're falling into the trap of looking at Warp-In as an isolated mechanic, when what I've been trying to demonstrate is that that is actually impossible, because it is a system of mechanics. Warp-In is intrinsically, intricately connected to everything about how the match develops. It is "complicated," and by this I don't mean that it takes more intelligence to use than CB, but rather that there are numerous steps, and each of these steps is actually connected to something completely OUTSIDE of CB (ie, getting a Cybernetics Core for Warping-In your Zealots for early pressure vs the Z will actually help you transition into Z/Sentry super fast!), and almost all of them can actually be countered by the opponent, adding additional steps into the process (ie, 11.5), Quickly Warp-In some Zealots by the Proxy Pylon to fend off his Zergling counter-attack once your initial rush is defeated, or you lose both a foothold in his base AND valuable supply!).

    ^that sounds like it belongs in a sophisticated competitive game. "Cast X every Y on Z" even when Y and Z are SOMEWHAT variable, doesn't even compare.
    http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/7699/commun1.png

  4. #3264

    Default Re: Macro Mechanics Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by pure.Wasted View Post
    Calldown Supply, one of the most energy-competitive abilities in the game,
    Im not even going to say anything.


    I dont need to.

  5. #3265

    Default Re: Macro Mechanics Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by pure.Wasted View Post
    If you checked out the poll I linked to, you could clearly see that tension is not enough to make a bad ability good -- Calldown Supply, one of the most energy-competitive abilities in the game, has the lowest amount of votes by far.
    because calldown supply has Too much tension ie the other abilities are all better

    Quote Originally Posted by pure.Wasted View Post
    The Orbital Command is an excellent example of artificial tension. Yes, artificial tension is better than 0 tension. But if your abilities aren't the kindergarten smarts variety, they'll create tension NATURALLY by virtue of competing for the player's attention.
    and you ignore the other idea of making CB more 'intense' by giving the same time boost spread out over less time. (that would also make it better, so perhaps it would have to be 100% boost for 9 seconds instead of 10)

    Quote Originally Posted by pure.Wasted View Post
    I don't think you understand any of the actual concerns with Zerg macro. If anything, even pro players will admit that Zerg response time is already way too quick thanks to SL as it is now. You're aggravating that problem and aggravating the issue of SL being an arbitrary horrendous time-sink.

    You just made a terrible mechanic much, much worse.
    It Would give Zerg a better Quick response time, but

    1. More of the Larva production/second would be on the Hatchery as opposed to the Queen
    2. Zerg Instant response would rely on the Queen. (if a Hatchery only supports one Larva normally

    Biggest issue
    3. The Zerg player would NOT have to cast Spawn Larva every 45 seconds/whenever they had the energy, they could wait and cast it multiple time like all the other abilities.


    If its too strong shift it even more...
    HLHs with 0 Larva will produce a new Larva in 8 seconds
    Spawn Larva costs 75 energy for 5 Larva instantly.

    This means Zerg only have a Large pool of Larva the instant after they cast Spawn Larva. Otherwise they have to rely on constant 8 second click production.
    Last edited by Krikkitone; 06-01-2010 at 01:21 PM.
    50 energy, 5 Larva, 5 seconds

  6. #3266

    Default Re: Macro Mechanics Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur View Post
    Im not even going to say anything.


    I dont need to.
    Calldown Supply... takes 50 energy... which you could have used for MULEs or Scan (both usually more useful abilities) instead. That is the textbook definition of energy tension.

    I'm gonna make a wild guess here and assume that you misread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Krikkitone View Post
    because calldown supply has Too much tension ie the other abilities are all better
    People aren't voting for the ability they USE more often. They're voting for the ability that they think is the most INTERESTING.

    Calldown Supply had just as much chance to win as MULEs did. And it's trailing far behind.

    and you ignore the other idea of making CB more 'intense' by giving the same time boost spread out over less time. (that would also make it better, so perhaps it would have to be 100% boost for 9 seconds instead of 10)
    It would really help if you'd read my posts. I'm ignoring this suggestion because it does not solve ANY of my concerns. My issue with CB is not that it doesn't have enough energy tension; if it were, I'd probably enjoy Calldown Supply and MULEs, and I like neither. All of these are inelegant, simplistic, and unsophisticated mechanics that have no place in a game of SC2's ambition.

    This means Zerg only have a Large pool of Larva the instant after they cast Spawn Larva. Otherwise they have to rely on constant 8 second click production.
    I already explained why this is bad. Zerg response time is VERY QUICK right now, borderline TOO quick. It does not need to be QUICKER.
    Last edited by pure.Wasted; 06-01-2010 at 01:38 PM.
    http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/7699/commun1.png

  7. #3267

    Default Re: Macro Mechanics Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by pure.Wasted View Post
    People aren't voting for the ability they USE more often. They're voting for the ability that they think is the most INTERESTING.
    Its not interesting if it isn't really useful.


    Quote Originally Posted by pure.Wasted View Post
    It would really help if you'd read my posts. I'm ignoring this suggestion because it does not solve ANY of my concerns. My issue with CB is not that it doesn't have enough energy tension; if it were, I'd probably enjoy Calldown Supply and MULEs, and I like neither. All of these are inelegant, simplistic, and unsophisticated mechanics that have no place in a game of SC2's ambition.
    The key factor in two of those 3 winning mechanics (which you seem to insist all mechanics must have) is that they involve significant spatial decisions.
    Spatial decision making is not going to be possible for all macro mechanics.

    The expansion process is the only spatially significant way to impact resourcing.



    Quote Originally Posted by pure.Wasted View Post
    I already explained why this is bad. Zerg response time is VERY QUICK right now, borderline TOO quick. It does not need to be QUICKER.
    The issue is making Zerg response time NOT quick, unless they use the Queen.

    The current Zerg 'stock' of larva = 3* # Hatcheries + occasionally 4 for Queens

    Cut down that stock significantly so that

    Fast production speed=Hatcheries (Multiple Hatcheries=most Larva produced over 5 minutes... with proper macro)
    Sudden production=Queens (Multiple Queens=most units produced over 10 seconds)

    This also allows spatial/temporal decision making because you won't have 1 Queen/Hatchery, you can put all your Queens on any of your one hatcheries and save up the Queen's Larva for when you need it.

    If Zerg are producing units too fast, then cut down Both rates.
    50 energy, 5 Larva, 5 seconds

  8. #3268

    Default Re: Macro Mechanics Discussion Thread

    First of all, thanks for taking the time to get inside my head, Krik. Now we can make some... headway... in the discussion!

    Quote Originally Posted by Krikkitone View Post
    Its not interesting if it isn't really useful.
    Right, that's a fair point. But still, if we fall back on, say, Warp-In -- there's clearly no energy tension there. There isn't even a button to push. The tension exists naturally, because the mechanic requires a lot of attention all over the map, and it calls for a lot of decisions to be made. So what I'm saying is while we CAN increase the tension on abilities (your suggestion was to counterbalance CB with something), that doesn't in and of itself make those abilities good. We can put 30 abilities on the OC if we like, but that still won't make any of them, even combined, as interesting as Warp-In.

    One thing done perfectly right is better than a dozen half-assed.

    Spatial decision making is not going to be possible for all macro mechanics.
    Why not?

    As things stand, Chrono Boost is the only truly "macro mechanic" feature the Protoss have (while Warp-In adds lots of macro, it is in fact spatially involved). Yet all it adds is 1 click every 25 seconds; or, heck, if you built it up you can usually burn through a few at a time (especially in late game).

    That's really not that much macro being added to the game, and speaking purely from the clicks POV, I'm willing to bet that we could cut CB right now and not see a huge increase in Protoss performance at pro level of play.

    So the questions are,

    1. Do we even need macro mechanics, ie CB? I think the panic during SC2's early development was largely unfounded, and, at least in CB's case we don't. (Which means at least for Protoss every "macro mechanic" WOULD in fact be spatially involved)

    2. Why is there only room in the game for the spatially involved mechanics that already exist? Why can't we replace CB -- and SL -- with something completely new?

    The expansion process is the only spatially significant way to impact resourcing.
    It's the only way to do so right now.

    1. Do we really need a way to impact resourcing? SC1 got by without them just fine.

    2. If we do, why not invent a new way that takes advantage of new mechanics?

    Here's a wacky new idea! Flying expansions! Imagine a flying rock in the middle of the map (destructible???) with a single red crystal on it. This red crystal can be mined for 50 minerals, or even 100 minerals, per trip. But a player has to use a transport to get his workers up and down from the rock, which means it's incredibly vulnerable to air harassment.

    We took MULEs and made them non-race specific, spatially involved, and interesting!

    And this is completely off the top of my head.

    The issue is making Zerg response time NOT quick, unless they use the Queen.

    The current Zerg 'stock' of larva = 3* # Hatcheries + occasionally 4 for Queens

    Cut down that stock significantly so that

    Fast production speed=Hatcheries (Multiple Hatcheries=most Larva produced over 5 minutes... with proper macro)
    Sudden production=Queens (Multiple Queens=most units produced over 10 seconds)

    This also allows spatial/temporal decision making because you won't have 1 Queen/Hatchery, you can put all your Queens on any of your one hatcheries and save up the Queen's Larva for when you need it.

    If Zerg are producing units too fast, then cut down Both rates.
    But why wouldn't the Zerg cast Spawn Larva as soon as he's able to? It's always better to have units now, rather than later.
    http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/7699/commun1.png

  9. #3269

    Default Re: Macro Mechanics Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by pure.Wasted View Post
    First of all, thanks for taking the time to get inside my head, Krik. Now we can make some... headway... in the discussion!
    Re: Energy tension with CB, that's not somethng to improve it much, but more as to the utility of Argus link.

    The much bigger issue with CB is the "Interest"... the fact that it has the delay makes it less interesting. If it was more 'instant time' then it would be much more interesting... ie +200% for 5 seconds instead of +50% for 20 seconds



    Quote Originally Posted by pure.Wasted View Post
    Why not? (macro hard to do spatial)

    As things stand, Chrono Boost is the only truly "macro mechanic" feature the Protoss have (while Warp-In adds lots of macro, it is in fact spatially involved).
    Macro=/= not spatially involved, it means production/resourcing/map control (vision..mobility)
    However, there is already a spatial resourcing mechanic (expansion.. Mules are slightly tied in to that, but could be better done)
    And a spatial production mechanic (placing buildings... Warp-In for protoss)

    The other mechanics, CB/Spawn Larva are about accellerating production

    The Addons have a useful integration into the build order trading off tech for production

    The Creep has a spatial 'map control' component.


    Quote Originally Posted by pure.Wasted View Post
    Yet all it adds is 1 click every 25 seconds; or, heck, if you built it up you can usually burn through a few at a time (especially in late game).

    That's really not that much macro being added to the game, and speaking purely from the clicks POV, I'm willing to bet that we could cut CB right now and not see a huge increase in Protoss performance at pro level of play.
    The 'nonspatial' macro should be NOT be significant from a clicks point of view but from 'temporal/target' strategy point of view.. for example CB should be When you will increase What. (so the ability to build up and cast multiple times is GOOD)

    Make it more intense and more expensive ...75 energy for +300% boost in speed for 10 seconds (allow Nexuses to store 200 energy) Make its use have a bigger impact on the game.
    [probably rebalance Gateway build time to balance.]

    That would definitely make it more interesting.

    Quote Originally Posted by pure.Wasted View Post
    1. Do we even need macro mechanics, ie CB? I think the panic during SC2's early development was largely unfounded, and, at least in CB's case we don't. (Which means at least for Protoss every "macro mechanic" WOULD in fact be spatially involved)
    I'm not sure we need them but they do seem to add something to the game

    Quote Originally Posted by pure.Wasted View Post
    2. Why is there only room in the game for the spatially involved mechanics that already exist? Why can't we replace CB -- and SL -- with something completely new?
    Well since you really only have production/resourcing/map control, something Completely new would require drastically redoing the game's basic economy. ie the difference between Starcraft and DOTA for example.

    Quote Originally Posted by pure.Wasted View Post

    1. Do we really need a way to impact resourcing? SC1 got by without them just fine.
    SC1 had expansions, MULE / chrono/SL are added parts of the expansion mehanic

    Quote Originally Posted by pure.Wasted View Post
    2. If we do, why not invent a new way that takes advantage of new mechanics?

    Here's a wacky new idea! Flying expansions! Imagine a flying rock in the middle of the map (destructible???) with a single red crystal on it. This red crystal can be mined for 50 minerals, or even 100 minerals, per trip. But a player has to use a transport to get his workers up and down from the rock, which means it's incredibly vulnerable to air harassment.

    We took MULEs and made them non-race specific, spatially involved, and interesting!

    And this is completely off the top of my head.
    And made them dependent on a Very specific tech branch.

    Changing the nature of expansions would be interesting

    Long-distance ones... minerals that give 50-100 per trip... but no CC can be built within a distance of 15 from them.

    Temporary ones...locations with isolated deposits of 100 minerals... they will reappear X minutes after being exhausted (they will only reappear Y times)

    Mobile resource deposits... can be mined from the ground but they move in a fixed pattern.... possibly they move on/under the ground and can be blocked... "Capture" a mineral deposit by placing buildings around it.

    I could see some of these being added in the expansions (yes bad unintended pun)

    Production strategies....building Tech buildings/production buildings/upgrades is a way to sink resources into a particular path..invest now pay off later.

    Quote Originally Posted by pure.Wasted View Post
    But why wouldn't the Zerg cast Spawn Larva as soon as he's able to? It's always better to have units now, rather than later.
    For the change over time.... You have 3 Larva and a Spire, what do you build, 3 Mutalisks or 3 Corrupters?....
    That depends on what your enemy has.
    You might not know what your enemy has...yet

    Maybe it would be better if you could save those 3 Larva for later when you Did know what your enemy had.

    It is better to have the correct units later than wrong units now. (depending on degrees of now/correct/later/wrong)

    For Zerg,
    "Response" capacity = Number of units the Zerg can start producing in 10 seconds.... this is the ability of the Zerg to rebuild or to switch strategy based on new information... based on the total number of Larva the zerg can have at one time (since their resource stockpile is unlimited)

    "Production" capacity= Number of units the Zerg can start producing in 5 minutes...ability of Zerg unit production... based on the average Larva production per second


    By making Queen Spawn Larva instant (but expensive) and Hatchery Spawn Larva fast (but with a low "cap")

    Has the Zerg player choose between
    constant production (use the Hatchery larva as soon as they are produced)
    or
    "Burst" production (Queen Larva... producing units in mass batches)

    This also makes Spawn Larva something that
    1. you can stack (the GOOD thing about MULES/CB)
    2. you can centralize (a little bit of spatial planning)


    This provides a Macromechanic decision, assuming the Queen is reasonably expensive for the rate that she can put out batches of larva... compared to the rate the hatchery can regenerate its larva.




    As for other big interesting changes

    MULE... make the MULE a temporary building that can collect from any Mineral Node, even one Not adjacent to a CC. In esence making it a mini expansion.

    Creep tumor... allow a Creep Tumor to mutate into an active "collection spot" instead of spawning a new Creep tumor. (it would become visible and have a good deal more hp... it would still spread creep)

    Minor changes...Make Calldown Supply more interesting...allow it to be Called down Adjacent to (not on top of) an existing Supply Depot/called down depot. Make it 6 supply for 25 energy... have it be permanently 'lowered' and only 250 hp.
    Last edited by Krikkitone; 06-02-2010 at 04:54 AM.
    50 energy, 5 Larva, 5 seconds

  10. #3270
    Gradius's Avatar Administrator
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    9,988

    Default Re: Macro Mechanics Discussion Thread

    I am going to unstick this thread, as I believe discussion on this topic has finally died down.

    Thread winners:
    ArcherofAiur - 1,045 Posts (holy crap)
    DemolitionSquid - 416 Posts
    Nicol Bolas - 202 Posts

Similar Threads

  1. New Article for the Macro Mechanics
    By RODTHEGOD in forum StarCraft II Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-29-2009, 10:43 PM
  2. What would YOUR macro be?
    By Xyvik in forum StarCraft II Discussion
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 09-24-2009, 09:02 PM
  3. Whose decision was it to have racially unique macro mechanics?
    By n00bonicPlague in forum StarCraft II Discussion
    Replies: 155
    Last Post: 09-23-2009, 06:36 AM
  4. Press Update Discussion Thread.
    By Pandonetho in forum StarCraft II Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-29-2009, 02:20 AM
  5. Making the Macro Mechanics Permanent?
    By ArcherofAiur in forum StarCraft II Discussion
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 05-23-2009, 09:10 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •