Karune posts regarding PC, Batch 53, and YouTube (09/25/09)

Quote:

---

(12:34 am) Jack Doe: This is only a single aspect of the entire racial picture. If we give on one thing, we take from another. So if a mechanic is easier for one race, you better damn well believe other mechanics will be more difficult than their racial counterparts. Paper won't tell you the big picture, beta will tell you that shit.

---

I /agree with what your sayin Gifted, and this quote right here is reallllllyyy awesome, what's hard for one race might not be hard for others, guess we never thought about that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas

a priori

---

Ding!

Quote:

---

(12:32 am) Jack Doe: Saying that Macro Mechanics are imbalanced in comparison to another mechanic is like the statement: [Zerg can produce more units simultaneously so they can win more, this is imbalanced and should be fixed.]

(12:34 am) Jack Doe: This is only a single aspect of the entire racial picture. If we give on one thing, we take from another. So if a mechanic is easier for one race, you better damn well believe other mechanics will be more difficult than their racial counterparts. Paper won't tell you the big picture, beta will tell you that shit.

---

/agree
First, I absolutly agree with Blizzard's veiw on racial balance. Its ok (and actually good for gameplay) if one race can get more minerals, get more units, have more mobility, etc... at certain points in the game. The racial "imbalances" are what makes Starcraft such a great game. Alot of people here arnt realizing that economic imbalances existed in SC1 and it enhanced the game. You balance the whole race not the sum of its parts.




There is one point I feel isnt being talked/addressed by Blizzard and that is the decision making. Gifted can you ask Jack Doe why the player has to continually target hatcheries, mineral lines over and over when a rally point would work just as well? The new macro mechanics have the same lack of position decisions that manual SCV mining in Starcraft 1 had.

For instance, I make an SCV. Now I send that SCV to mine the mineral patch next to it. This is Redundant Targeting since the vast majority of the time I want to send it to the same place. There is no reason that the computer needs to ask me where to send the SCV since there is only one possible location.

Likewise Callingdown MULEs contains Redundant Targeting. You always want to call the MULE down to the same mineral patch over and over again. If the player had to make frequent decisions for where best to place the MULE then this action wouldnt be redundant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gifted

My friend "Jack Doe" when I brought up how often these threads appear in our forums:

Quote:
(12:32 am) Jack Doe: Saying that Macro Mechanics are imbalanced in comparison to another mechanic is like the statement: [Zerg can produce more units simultaneously so they can win more, this is imbalanced and should be fixed.]

(12:34 am) Jack Doe: This is only a single aspect of the entire racial picture. If we give on one thing, we take from another. So if a mechanic is easier for one race, you better damn well believe other mechanics will be more difficult than their racial counterparts. Paper won't tell you the big picture, beta will tell you that shit.

---

While I do agree that the beta will ultimately sort everything out, I still think that the Macro mechanics show themselves as having a negative impact on the game even through cursory examination. The Zerg can already produce more units as it is (or the Protoss less for that matter). The problem is not in the ratios but in the arbitrary ways in which they fluctuate due to the mechanics as well as the fact that they're tacked on top of the already existing ratios, playing with those. For example, Zerglings that are balanced in a game without macro mechanics won't necessarily be balanced in a game with the mechanics present. It's very likely that the mechanics would require from all units very specific stats that may be contradictory to their use and feel as originally conceived. That in itself may not necessarily sound like a bad thing (you have to balance the game one way or another), but it IS limiting as addition of another major factor that prescribes certain stats for all the units in the game. A factor the application and benefits of which may not justify the scope of the limitation imposed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

Likewise Callingdown MULEs contains Redundant Targeting. You always want to call the MULE down to the same mineral patch over and over again. If the player had to make frequent decisions for where best to place the MULE then this action wouldnt be redundant.

---

I do not agree that you can use mule in the same mineral patch because if you do this patch will finish way before the others which had led to a use not ideal.

So u ll have to use in diferente mineral patch and be aware which u have used before to use it optimal, otherwise, u ll loose some mineral.

I agree 100% with the guy who said that until the beta does not have the concept of how the game as a whole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lipebra

I do not agree that you can use mule in the same mineral patch because if you do this patch will finish way before the others which had led to a use not ideal.

---

Thats an interesting point. Do people feel this is enough of a reason that MULE shouldnt have rally points? I mean you could give the MULE a rally point and just change the rally point periodically. The ability would work just as well.

Also I cant seem to think of a reason why Spawning Larva and Proton Charge arnt also Redundant Targeting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

There is one point I feel isnt being talked/addressed by Blizzard and that is the decision making. Gifted can you ask Jack Doe why the player has to continually target hatcheries, mineral lines over and over when a rally point would work just as well? The new macro mechanics have the same lack of position decisions that manual SCV mining in Starcraft 1 had.

---

Hehe, this is an interesting statement in line of something I've read, I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. [/QUOTE]
Jack and I discussed this last night as well, I don't have his quote but I can describe our mutual agreement. We prefer to call "decision making" something different. We call it "attention" or "multitasking" depending on the subject. It may be semantics.. but it's an important one. We do that because if you look at decision making, it's the "goal" that decides the outcome. When you look at it as attention or multitasking, it becomes a level of skill. (Other levels of skill we define can be exampled as follows: Such as micromanagement, macromanagement, aggressiveness,mental endurance, etc.)

By this measure, something as small as "moving to base, doing mechanic redundantly, moving back" could actually be the 1-3 seconds that your opponent un-burrows the banelings onto your unsuspecting marines who thought they almost took out the zergling threat. We view it more like another skill, much like many people view APM, Micromanagement and Macromanagement. How you balance the use of all your skills as a whole is what you might call "decision making" in our eyes. It's the ability to choose what skills benefit your game the most at any given time and many times we relate it most to mental endurance instead of attention.

I think maybe you can understand this if you relate it to the point you agreed with. Attention/multitasking is just a single sum of the total parts while we might view decision making is the choices you make that's a more global view.

---------------------------

Now that the trivial stuff is out of the way, but important non-the-less, it will help you grasp the full information you seek from the answer I'll give you.

I know he values different level of attention requirements to pull off the same benefits. (aka, macro mechanics are different.) This is because (as agreed upon by Karune's blue post) that other parts of the racial aspects are different as well. By nature of that mentality, I think that if I asked him today, he'd probably answer "Because they're different, and that's ok" or something along those lines with maybe a swear word or two for good measure. I didn't ask him specifically about it last night so I can't tell you exactly what he's say. If I get an opportunity to ask him and I get something different, expect another reply.

Quote:

---

Likewise Callingdown MULEs contains Redundant Targeting. You always want to call the MULE down to the same mineral patch over and over again. If the player had to make frequent decisions for where best to place the MULE then this action wouldnt be redundant.

---

First, there is nothing wrong with redundant targeting. It is a quality that tests a different part of personal skill than the majority of the game. There are circumstances that also don't exist on paper that will exist in game on the fly.

EXAMPLE: Let's say that zerglings are in your main base ravaging your SCVs and you recognize that they're all probably going down. You also recognize that there are 2-3 that start moving away to supply depots specifically. It would be safe to assume in the nature it was performed that it was specifically microed. This leads a person to deduce his plan is to go from the SCV line to start removing as much supply as possible before your defensive force arrives. Terrible, terrible economic damage ring in your head no matter what you choose.

Let's look at it in terms of attention: You were focusing on unit control in midfield and an expansion you are bringing up... this reduced your attention on your base which allowed speedy backdoor attack. You spent attention to bring your units back to the base, even pulling a stim to move faster. Your force will be able to take them down as it's significant, even if a lack of base defense in this case was a flaw in your strategy. While you're waiting those few precious seconds until your help arrives... you decide to spend attention to identify what macro mechanic would benefit most as your economy and soon to be supply will both be rocked to shift your priorities to economic rebuilding.

Let's look at it in terms of decision making: First, there is a decision where to place the mule. If we address your original question, if you had a rally point, you'd have to reset the rally to a new mineral patch in order to your expansion which finishes in about 5 seconds. This is a decision that normally isn't needed but the situation is different than paper. Your main base is under attack and your minerals are desecrated. Let's say you had a surplus of minerals to use at this moment. You'd have a different decision then. You'd be lacking supply and the time it takes to build one could be a great timing for the opponent to assault you again, further applying pressure and testing the limits of your mental endurance. By quickly using the supply boost you'll still be able to further advance your army (and rebuilding of 14 scvs, which is coincidentally the amount of supply on average they could destroy) while rebuilding your economy simultaneously.

/endexample

In many cases, these are the things that help me understand Starcraft when I talk to Jack... he explains game situations that can't exist on paper, but rather, expirience. I've just heard so many scenarios that I think I can bring them about myself now in just perceiving the game. I know all of you can do it on the level of Starcraft, but not Starcraft II yet due to lack of exposure. I hope this helps show how it may be redundant in some times, but at other times it becomes a VERY vital decision making process. I would actually choose a third option, which would be to place them in the main base in view of the zerglings as they leave the mineral line.

I would look at the decision as this: I could gain extra minerals safely, I could create a supply boost as I have a surplus of minerals for now, or I could actually drop the mules in the main base, applying counter-pressure on the zerg for decision making.

I would drop them in the main at the minerals away as the zerglings would run away. I would place them in a way to challenge their mental endurance and aggressiveness. Bringing them away from the supply depot potentially (if they don't, I gain the minerals) which would also bring them closer to my advancing army. I would probably not directly target the minerals as this would make initial micro easier. The goal would be to save the supply depots and examine their attention, if they don't react at all, it's obvious they are putting on hard macro and that I should prepare for a wave 2.

That's how I roll though... I hope this helps your perception

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eligor

While I do agree that the beta will ultimately sort everything out, I still think that the Macro mechanics show themselves as having a negative impact on the game even through cursory examination. The Zerg can already produce more units as it is (or the Protoss less for that matter). The problem is not in the ratios but in the arbitrary ways in which they fluctuate due to the mechanics as well as the fact that they're tacked on top of the already existing ratios, playing with those. For example, Zerglings that are balanced in a game without macro mechanics won't necessarily be balanced in a game with the mechanics present. It's very likely that the mechanics would require from all units very specific stats that may be contradictory to their use and feel as originally conceived. That in itself may not necessarily sound like a bad thing (you have to balance the game one way or another), but it IS limiting as addition of another major factor that prescribes certain stats for all the units in the game. A factor the application and benefits of which may not justify the scope of the limitation imposed.

---

I personally see your point but I feel that it lacks an element that's very important and many times overseen in these discussions.

Variations of skill.

Using a good analogy, in bowling you can power that ball straight down the center, some do angled shots, others just throw the ball for fun and pros have found that applying a correct torque on the ball produces a spin that if mastered can significantly improve your gameplay. Tools are available to all classes, but they are percieved differently by different levels of skill. Bowling gloves are something that casual players will not consider as it's not really needed and while they enjoy winning, they also enjoy learning how to get better at that stage. It's a requirement for pros to have this style of gear and to know how to use it properly. (Bowling is an analogy that Jack uses often for different subjects in Starcraft II, you'd be surprised how often it works ... random fact)

In the same fashion, while newbies may be focusing on building their skill on other aspects of the game, like learning how to do counters, and put less attention on macro mechanics... a pro will have mastered how to handle it while doing 14 other actions in their mind and a partridge in a pear tree. This is merely a factor that is another subset of skills within the larger skills of the entire racial game. Just like in the original starcraft, the use of the macro mechanic will shift as the game progresses in the same way mental endurance will. I'd consider this relational to the way micro plays through different points of the game. While many believe it's MOST important with the first few units you produce, in some games it's more important in midgame and in other games it's not required at all. In a like fashion, the macro mechanics will have the same effect, while it provides a MASSIVE boost in early game if you pull it off, in mid game it can be important or not, based on the skill and decisions you and your opponent will play.

This is of course assuming that they're balanced well, which we know will happen before end of beta.

Heh, my wall of text strikes again!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

Thats an interesting point. Do people feel this is enough of a reason that MULE shouldnt have rally points? I mean you could give the MULE a rally point and just change the rally point periodically. The ability would work just as well.

Also I cant seem to think of a reason why Spawning Larva and Proton Charge arnt also Redundant Targeting.

---

After some thought and the most recent posts, I'd like to present my own reasons that I don't believe the MULE should have a rally.

Clicking would be increased and would not be consistent.

In the assumption that you don't want to place it in the same spot every time, clicks would be:

Currently: Click ability, click destination
With your suggestion: Set rally, click destination, Click ability

If a person sets no rally point, what would happen? If a person forgot they set the rally point, would this be a situation that could provide frustration? Yes as they may place it in the enemy base accidentally. It would also ASSUME that you have vision of the destination, which changes over the face of battle sometimes. Which would force you to click it a few times, then realize that you have no vision, go back and set rally and then click it again.

The mechanic will be confusing to some with a rally point.

Consistency matters when you make the game easy to learn. This would be the only ABILITY (not unit creation) that would involve a rally point. It would be unreasonable for other abilities to have rally points, such as psi storm (Could you imagine click it, and your templar starts running back to your base because that's the last place it used it?) or the spawn infested Terran (Even if it's relational to the unit, you might accidentally throw the marines south of your infestor instead of what you truly want, which would be to defend the northern assault.)

Just because it CAN be used redundantly doesn't mean that the interface should reinforce it to be redundant.

There are many points that a person can make. Such that they want to find new and exciting ways to use the mule... I think that the use of rally points would actually limit the ability in the terms of mental acceptance. If people who don't follow these threads buy the game and get introduced to the mechanics the first time in the game itself, then the inclusion of a rally point may make it seem less flexible from moment one... "Oh, this is something I hit every X seconds" instead of "Oh, you can place this anywhere as an ability? This has potential, even if it's main purpose is to be put on your minerals."

You have to look at it from ALL levels of skill, not just those who have heard the name Starcraft, let alone developed their skill in multiplayer.. hell, let alone a person who has tried multiplayer.. once!

In short, I don't agree with the rally point suggestion, it's taking a simple mechanic and making it more clunky and stealing part of it's racial uniqueness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gifted

We prefer to call "decision making" something different. We call it "attention" or "multitasking" depending on the subject. It may be semantics.. but it's an important one. We do that because if you look at decision making, it's the "goal" that decides the outcome. When you look at it as attention or multitasking, it becomes a level of skill. (Other levels of skill we define can be exampled as follows: Such as micromanagement, macromanagement, aggressiveness,mental endurance, etc.)

By this measure, something as small as "moving to base, doing mechanic redundantly, moving back" could actually be the 1-3 seconds that your opponent un-burrows the banelings onto your unsuspecting marines who thought they almost took out the zergling threat. We view it more like another skill, much like many people view APM, Micromanagement and Macromanagement.

---

So its ok if something doesnt have allot of decision making as long as it encourages a skill (multitasking)? Thats basically been what the whole MBS War was about. lol I cant wait to see what Nicol has to say about this.

Anyway thanks for all the info. Im still digesting the rest and ill post later what I agree/disagree with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gifted

Hehe, this is an interesting statement in line of something I've read, I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.
Jack and I discussed this last night as well, I don't have his quote but I can describe our mutual agreement. We prefer to call "decision making" something different. We call it "attention" or "multitasking" depending on the subject. It may be semantics.. but it's an important one. We do that because if you look at decision making, it's the "goal" that decides the outcome. When you look at it as attention or multitasking, it becomes a level of skill. (Other levels of skill we define can be exampled as follows: Such as micromanagement, macromanagement, aggressiveness,mental endurance, etc.)

By this measure, something as small as "moving to base, doing mechanic redundantly, moving back" could actually be the 1-3 seconds that your opponent un-burrows the banelings onto your unsuspecting marines who thought they almost took out the zergling threat. We view it more like another skill, much like many people view APM, Micromanagement and Macromanagement. How you balance the use of all your skills as a whole is what you might call "decision making" in our eyes. It's the ability to choose what skills benefit your game the most at any given time and many times we relate it most to mental endurance instead of attention.

I think maybe you can understand this if you relate it to the point you agreed with. Attention/multitasking is just a single sum of the total parts while we might view decision making is the choices you make that's a more global view.

---------------------------

Now that the trivial stuff is out of the way, but important non-the-less, it will help you grasp the full information you seek from the answer I'll give you.

I know he values different level of attention requirements to pull off the same benefits. (aka, macro mechanics are different.) This is because (as agreed upon by Karune's blue post) that other parts of the racial aspects are different as well. By nature of that mentality, I think that if I asked him today, he'd probably answer "Because they're different, and that's ok" or something along those lines with maybe a swear word or two for good measure. I didn't ask him specifically about it last night so I can't tell you exactly what he's say. If I get an opportunity to ask him and I get something different, expect another reply.

First, there is nothing wrong with redundant targeting. It is a quality that tests a different part of personal skill than the majority of the game. There are circumstances that also don't exist on paper that will exist in game on the fly.

EXAMPLE: Let's say that zerglings are in your main base ravaging your SCVs and you recognize that they're all probably going down. You also recognize that there are 2-3 that start moving away to supply depots specifically. It would be safe to assume in the nature it was performed that it was specifically microed. This leads a person to deduce his plan is to go from the SCV line to start removing as much supply as possible before your defensive force arrives. Terrible, terrible economic damage ring in your head no matter what you choose.

Let's look at it in terms of attention: You were focusing on unit control in midfield and an expansion you are bringing up... this reduced your attention on your base which allowed speedy backdoor attack. You spent attention to bring your units back to the base, even pulling a stim to move faster. Your force will be able to take them down as it's significant, even if a lack of base defense in this case was a flaw in your strategy. While you're waiting those few precious seconds until your help arrives... you decide to spend attention to identify what macro mechanic would benefit most as your economy and soon to be supply will both be rocked to shift your priorities to economic rebuilding.

Let's look at it in terms of decision making: First, there is a decision where to place the mule. If we address your original question, if you had a rally point, you'd have to reset the rally to a new mineral patch in order to your expansion which finishes in about 5 seconds. This is a decision that normally isn't needed but the situation is different than paper. Your main base is under attack and your minerals are desecrated. Let's say you had a surplus of minerals to use at this moment. You'd have a different decision then. You'd be lacking supply and the time it takes to build one could be a great timing for the opponent to assault you again, further applying pressure and testing the limits of your mental endurance. By quickly using the supply boost you'll still be able to further advance your army (and rebuilding of 14 scvs, which is coincidentally the amount of supply on average they could destroy) while rebuilding your economy simultaneously.

/endexample

In many cases, these are the things that help me understand Starcraft when I talk to Jack... he explains game situations that can't exist on paper, but rather, expirience. I've just heard so many scenarios that I think I can bring them about myself now in just perceiving the game. I know all of you can do it on the level of Starcraft, but not Starcraft II yet due to lack of exposure. I hope this helps show how it may be redundant in some times, but at other times it becomes a VERY vital decision making process. I would actually choose a third option, which would be to place them in the main base in view of the zerglings as they leave the mineral line.

I would look at the decision as this: I could gain extra minerals safely, I could create a supply boost as I have a surplus of minerals for now, or I could actually drop the mules in the main base, applying counter-pressure on the zerg for decision making.

I would drop them in the main at the minerals away as the zerglings would run away. I would place them in a way to challenge their mental endurance and aggressiveness. Bringing them away from the supply depot potentially (if they don't, I gain the minerals) which would also bring them closer to my advancing army. I would probably not directly target the minerals as this would make initial micro easier. The goal would be to save the supply depots and examine their attention, if they don't react at all, it's obvious they are putting on hard macro and that I should prepare for a wave 2.

That's how I roll though... I hope this helps your perception

---

This is the best argument for macro mechanics I've seen, looking at it from this angle I can see what Blizzard's intent in introducing them actually is, and though I am not entirely convinced, this is the first post to sway me in their favour (an example of macro mechanic usage that's not only interesting but even subtle, Blizzard should've put one forth a long time ago). :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eligor

This is the best argument for macro mechanics I've seen, looking at it from this angle I can see what Blizzard's intent in introducing them actually is, and though I am not entirely convinced, this is the first post to sway me in their favour (an example of macro mechanic usage that's not only interesting but even subtle, Blizzard should've put one forth a long time ago). :cool:

---

TL has only been saying those same things the entire MBS Wars. This was the problem. Niether side listened to what the other was saying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gifted

Let's look at it in terms of decision making: First, there is a decision where to place the mule. If we address your original question, if you had a rally point, you'd have to reset the rally to a new mineral patch in order to your expansion which finishes in about 5 seconds.

---

Gifted Im having trouble understanding this part. Your saying that rallypoints arnt good for MULEs because you have to reset them when you expand? Wouldnt it be easier to just change the rallypoint once rather then continually call down the MULE over and over? Also why does this not apply to rally points for SCVs?