Printable View
What arguement for Automining centered on SCVs costing minerals? It seems like your just pointing out differences.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas
I didnt say anything about making MULE autocast. I was talking about rally points.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas
[interesting idea about charging MULEs though]
Fair enough. I thought you were talking about auto-worker production.Quote:
I didnt say anything about making MULE autocast. I was talking about rally points.
Now, this also means that you're right. If we can have rally mining, then we should have rally-Muling. Which only serves to further prove my overall point. That these macro mechanics are perfectly automatable busywork, and should be replaced by things that require decision making (which is the only foolproof guard against automation).
And of course SL would then have to have a rally point to hatcheries...
No, actually it doesnt further your point. Just because its not as hard to do as sc1, doesn't mean its not needed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas
Are you saying you want to go back to SBS and no rally-mining, or something to that effect? Are those really better than having the macro mechanics currently in the game?
You may think that there were plenty of options in that macro mechanic contest we did... but I didnt see anything better than what blizzard added...
You say the macro mechanics are dumbed down because you have to cast it in a certain area, by basically agreeing with norf. Fine, so your answer to that is dumbing it down so you dont have to do anything at all? Your answer to it being too easy, is making it easier? That makes sense.
Again, I'd just use nesting.Quote:
And of course SL would then have to have a rally point to hatcheries...
Most of those mechanics could not be automated. Most of them required decision making. The only things that most of them didn't offer was regularly returning to base.Quote:
You may think that there were plenty of options in that macro mechanic contest we did... but I didnt see anything better than what blizzard added...
Braindead but requires returning to base is worse than requires human intelligence but can be done remotely.
Do people not read? Has reading comprehension dropped off while I wasn't looking? I very clearly said:Quote:
You say the macro mechanics are dumbed down because you have to cast it in a certain area, by basically agreeing with norf. Fine, so your answer to that is dumbing it down so you dont have to do anything at all? Your answer to it being too easy, is making it easier? That makes sense.
I'm advocating the replacement of it. If it can be automated, then you should automate it. At which point it stops serving its purpose. Therefore, the macro mechanics should be those that cannot be automated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Me from 7 posts up
To be honest, I think the best "macro-mechanic" Blizzard has added is Warp-In, and I think Drop-pods for Terran and the Nydus Worm for zerg could easily fill similiar roles and allow for strategical "macro". The only difference would be that it wouldn't be strictly unit production macro, but it would still be work on a macro scale - ie moving units.Quote:
You may think that there were plenty of options in that macro mechanic contest we did... but I didnt see anything better than what blizzard added...
Good thread on drop pods by ArcherofAiur:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/view...topic_id=86604
I don't think this is a direction Blizzard is interested in going though... at least not right now. But I think it has a lot of potential.
Having more economy boost abilites is fine (it's a good idea I think), but trying to make them replicate the busy-work of manual mining/sbs (I say busywork, but I personally enjoy it) is dubious IMO.
October and still no beta...
Yeah, Sorry if my reading comprehension was unable to gather what "a proper macro mechanic that requires regular updating is not something that can be can be automated"Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicol's quote
Even though you quoted it, I still had no idea what you said. Thankfully you translated it for me after you quoted it. However, If you truly think everything that can be automated, should be automated, then I have a few things to say...
1) Everything in starcraft or starcraft 2 can be automated. Don't believe me? Explain computer players?
2) Something shouldn't be automated simply because it can, otherwise, what is the point of making it a game? The point of a game is for you to play it...
3) Automation should consist of things that a player would have a difficult time doing, such as automatically targeting a unit and shooting when it gets into range. It would be extremely difficult to pull that off manually, so it should be automated. It's very difficult to go back to your base and send every single worker to mine, and do the other things in the game that you need to do. If all you needed to do was mine, it would be foolish to automate it. They replaced something that was difficult to do, with something that is much less difficult to do. Whether its tedious, busy-work, or fun is completely opinion.
I'd say that Spawn Mutant Larva (one of the earlier versions of the current mechanic) comes in a close second if not tops Warp-In. The ability to stockpile larva (but they take up supply, so you can't do it forever) and transport them around the map would have been exceedingly cool.Quote:
I think the best "macro-mechanic" Blizzard has added is Warp-In
I know some people had concerns about Warp-In overlap due to being able to transport them. But they're different enough. You have to transport them. With Warp-In, they just appear in some range of Psi.
So... the English language is too much to grasp?Quote:
Sorry if my reading comprehension was unable to gather what "a proper macro mechanic that requires regular updating is not something that can be can be automated"
First, computer players suck. Even with perfect micro and macro, they suck. Why? Because they can't think. Unless the game is actually solved, such that there is a single clearly known path to victory, computer opponents will be unable to discover good strategy for themselves. Their built-in strategies will leave them open for specific timing attacks against them.Quote:
1) Everything in starcraft or starcraft 2 can be automated. Don't believe me? Explain computer players?
Unless you're bringing some Deep Blue level AI to the game, computer opponents suck and always will. They may be difficult for you and me, but for a skilled SC player, they'll die quick and bloody.
Second, you might have noticed the parenthetical clarification I made: "unless it's use draws on irreplaceable resources". That's because irreplaceable resources are irreplaceable. These resources factor very heavily into a player's strategy. Building a worker may seem to cost a negligible amount, but that's one less Marine. That's 1 less supply. That's money that you can never get back, never use to do anything else.
You don't want an automated system to be able to spend irreplaceable resources for the player without their explicit consent. And the best way to get their consent is to make them press a key to do it. Sure, they may misclick, but that's them being stupid.
So, besides general game reviewer/player revolt (ie: people not putting up with stupid interfaces), what is the reason to automate mining and to have MBS?Quote:
Something shouldn't be automated simply because it can, otherwise, what is the point of making it a game? The point of a game is for you to play it...
What does it take to send every single worker to mine? It means going back to each base every time a worker is produced (on a specific clock) and performing 2 actions: select worker, click minerals.Quote:
It's very difficult to go back to your base and send every single worker to mine, and do the other things in the game that you need to do.
What does PC take? Going back to each base on a specific clock and performing 2 actions: cast PC, select target.
What difference am I missing? How long the time is between cycles? How is this significantly easier than putting workers on the minerals?
The only difference is the penalty for failure is less. If you miss a cycle, you don't lose quite as many minerals. And even that isn't true, as missing a cycle of PC on a fully-stocked base can lose you far more minerals than forgetting to send a single Probe to work.
One PC cycle miss on a base means you lose a 20% mining increase. That's effectively one extra probe for every 5 probes. So if you have more than 5 probes at a base (the game starts with 6), you will lose more from a missed PC cycle than you will with a missed probe cycle.
It's a very simple point.
Decision-making good.
Mindless bad.
Miraculously, the other attributes of the abilities like forced base return and multitasking can work with either of these options.
What seems to be the counterargument is that PC and Mule already have decision-making because of their energy tension between the alternatives, when in very circumstantial and risky situations, are no longer entirely negligible. The risk of losing economic advantage outweighs the minimal benefits even in these propped-up situations. Beta will ultimately demonstrate the futility of these options, but rather than playing the clairvoyant sage, why not add the security of good gameplay by making each option intrinsically fun and decisiony?
Most of you guys dance around and deviate from the core issue. Will this addition be fun? Will this addition add strategy and value player input? There are no more questions to be asked.