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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sandwich_bird

It doesn't give a choice and you are forced to use it constantly unless you already have a big advantage over your enemy. It's quite easy to prove also. I could just do a ums putting 2 AI against each other (so that they have exactly the same level of skill instead of using humans) and give more minerals to one AI on a definite regular interval and give the same amount of mineral boost to the other AI on an irregular interval. Now if I run this test 20 times on a symmetric map, would that settle the argument once and for all? The AI receiving the regular boost would no doubt win most of the time.

Tbh I shouldn't have to do this because the results are so obvious. If you put skill aside, the chance of winning is only determined by an unknown factor of luck (made by possible imperfection in the AI and the impossibility of having a perfectly symmetric map). If you give more minerals to one AI he obviously have more chance on his side since this is major factor compared to the luck factor previously mentioned.

---

Well, your test actually wouldn't be anything, considering starcraft II is practically a completely different game. Now, when beta comes out, be my guest and test all you want, if you are in the beta. Otherwise I guess we'll have to let those who are in the beta do the testing.

The AI is so messed up in sc that you are likely to get a dud every once in a while as well, which will ruin the test. Not to mention you'll have to do protoss vs protoss, considering thats what this argument is about, and its not even taking into account the other races. How much will not using PC all the time hurt me against zerg/terran, there really is no way to know until beta.

Beta is where we test this.. Beta is where we get an answer of whether or not PC is overpowered, or completely worthless, or needs a change.

Starcraft map editor is not going to be able to give you anywhere close to accurate information.

PS: Just for shits and giggles though... I think you should try it.. I still believe the additional resources wont really change the game that much, because the computer will harvest minerals faster than it produces units as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

We will ignore for now the part were you say Starcraft barely survives with the incredible burden of (scary voice) mass effect spells. But did you really mean to suggest that people wont be Obelisk sniping? Recent feedback says that Muta harass is really good for taking out obelisks.

---

Obelisk sniping exists and will be effective. However, the Obelisk is cheap as hell. If anything, you'd be better off attacking the Probes it casts on.

The point I was trying to get at by quoting my editorial, is that PC has no potential outside what it does. Every other unit/spell in the game can be useful at certain times, and not useful at others. The macro mechanics do not have this. There is no reason to never cast them. They lack choice. They lack strategy. They are BORING.

Quote:

---

So who are you arguing for? You?

---

I'm arguing for gameplay. Not for any particular player.

See, my core beliefs are these:

1: Gameplay means decision making.

2: Good gameplay enhances decision making.

3: Bad gameplay does not.

4: Good behavior that come from bad gameplay can be produced just as well from good gameplay.

5: Thus, there is never any reason to settle for bad gameplay.

My position against PC is that it is a bad gameplay mechanic. Even if it alone were to automatically guarantee that SC2 had the same skill depth as SC1, that would not justify its inclusion for me.

Single-building selection is bad gameplay. Even though it helped create a lot of the skill depth in SC1, that doesn't change the fact that it is bad gameplay.

I oppose PC for the same reason I oppose quick-time events in various game, or nonsense fetch-quests in RPGs, or the entire MMO genre: I am against route busywork, period. They are bad gameplay, no matter what rewards you give someone for doing it.

So you see, it doesn't matter if the competitive player would enjoy PC, or if the casual players would all disregard it. It is bad gameplay. It can be replaced with better mechanics; therefore, it should be.

Quote:

---

If it didnt provide any strategy, there wouldn't be any reason to use it.

---

I'm not going to argue the definition of "strategic" with you. Instead, I'm going to make up a new term: Decision Making.

A mechanic provides Decision Making if it requires you to make decisions as to what you want to do. Note the emphasis: want. Not can do, but want to do.

A reasonable person will always want PC active. Now, they may be unable to execute properly. That is, they may be unable to keep PC active 24/7. But this was not a decision they made for the purpose of something. There was no grand scheme behind their leaving PC off. There was no great idea or something behind it.

They simply forgot.

Execution is always important in an RTS game, make no mistake about it. But mechanics ought not be introduced that add only execution-based issues to the game. Why?

Because if you have two players who have equal execution, it is their decision making that will tell who wins and who loses. With equal execution, the execution-only mechanics stop being useful.

Execution-only mechanics take up valuable space that could be filled by mechanics that involve both execution and decision making. There is no point in making a mechanic that only adds one of these when you could make a mechanic that provides both.

Quote:

---

I still believe that you can add something to increase warp in time of buildings, and units... Here is an idea...

Ability: Power Surge

---

So, what's stopping someone from simply building another Obelisk to fuel their Pylons? Particularly when a single Obelisk will clearly be unable to do this for more than 5 or so Gateways.

Quote:

---

Again who is supposed to be pro PC?

---

You're clearly pro-mindless-busywork. Or at the very least, willing to settle for such things.

Quote:

---

We will ignore for now the part were you say Starcraft barely survives

---

Which is good, because he never said "barely". So ignoring things that were never said is a good idea.

You know people......

......there is a >1500 reply thread up there made just for this kind of stuff.



I'm gonna do everyone a favor and skip ahead to the point Archer is trying to make:

Regular, repetitive base revisitation is the only way to create proper macro gameplay in Starcraft.


x

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by n00bonicPlague

Base revisitation is an essential part of macro gameplay in Starcraft.

---

The repetitive and regular portion is not necessarily beneficial.

Quote:

---

Regular, repetitive base revisitation is an essential part of macro gameplay in Starcraft.

---

That's a fact. However, that doesn't make the following into facts:

1: Regular, repetitive base visitation is the only way to create effective macro gameplay.

2: Regular, repetitive base visitation is good gameplay.

And given that StarCraft only has one data point, that doesn't even mean that the sequel has to be based on such kinds of macro.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas

1: Regular, repetitive base visitation is the only way to create effective macro gameplay.

---

Actually, I think that's more like what he's saying.

Lemme correct my post......

It bleeds into everything. Everything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaharaDrac

It bleeds into everything. Everything.

---

Like a Zerg hyperevolutionary virus?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

I think Santrega has a very (choosing words carefully) realistic point of view. People here like to look at stuff and slice it up into good parts and bad while ignoring the big picture. I wouldnt be surprised if Santregas perspective was shared by the developers.

---

He's wrong. I'm against the macro mechanics, because they're nearly-mindless repetitive tasks that add no depth to the game, or do it in a very similar way that manually sending workers to mine was. On top of that, i don't really think they're going to solve anything as they're now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas

You're clearly pro-mindless-busywork. Or at the very least, willing to settle for such things.

---

Lets see who is really pro-mindless-busywork. You claim that making workers is this incredible decision making mechanic. Its not. Aside from a couple very very limited instances you always want to be making workers (as TorP). The vast majority of the time its oh 30 seconds have gone by=make worker. Youve just convinced yourself this isnt so to further your crusade against PC.

A few isolated incidences when you dont want to make workers doesnt mean the mechanic as a whole has good decision making. If it did then the early game where you only have one Obelisk and you cast Shield Recharge to defeat an attack would count. This is simiilar to cutting workers where you have a limited amount of resources and you may choose to sacrifice long term minerals for something else. Likewise the end game where there are no minerals and you choose to use your obelisks for shield/energy rechage instead of PC would count. This is similar to stopping worker production. At a certain point in the game making/using workers/PC becomes useless. You cant count one as good decision making and neglect the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

Lets see who is really pro-mindless-busywork. You claim that making workers is this incredible decision making mechanic. Its not. Aside from a couple very very limited instances you always want to be making workers (as TorP). The vast majority of the time its oh 30 seconds have gone by=make worker. Youve just convinced yourself this isnt so to further your crusade against PC.

---

Your point stands...having to make workers periodically is a necessary evil in this game, which to a lesser extent is as mundane as casting PC periodically is. So I ask the question: Why the hell would you want to add more of this crap into the game? It's bad enough we're already forced to make workers at a less than constant rate. Why add another layer of busywork on top of that?

Surely Blizzard can do better than this.

Maybe we should replace workers with something better...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

Maybe we should replace workers with something better...

---

Don't be ridiculous...workers aren't going anywhere dude. It's become accepted in the genre and is an integral part of the game. Sniping workers is a core strategy for crippling economy, and without them this game would drag on.

PC is a contrived experiment in an attempt to add depth to the game. While it succeeds in adding clicking and attention, I'm convinced it fails at adding gameplay improvements. Let's not make playing Protoss a chore.

Why cant we make them autocast? Why should I have to repeatedly cast them every 30 seconds? Why do I have to put up with this mindless busywork when Blizzard can do better?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

Why cant we make them autocast? Why should I have to repeatedly cast them every 30 seconds? Why do I have to put up with this mindless busywork when Blizzard can do better?

---

Alright, are you trying to make a point or just be obnoxious? Because honestly at this point I cannot tell the difference.

I think I'm done with this conversation with you. But mark my words now...Proton Charge will change before beta concludes. Blizzard isn't stupid. And when that happens perhaps you might find solace in The Sims, a game which rewards players for mindless tasks needing to be performed regularly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blazur

Proton Charge will change before beta concludes.

---

I agree with you. For like the tenth time Im not in PC's court. Im merely pointing out what happens when you apply certain reasoning to other aspects of an RTS. Under the logic you guys are using I see no reason making workers should not be able to be autocast. You would still have worker harass and players wouldnt have to do this mindless busywork all game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Santrega

PS: Just for shits and giggles though... I think you should try it.. I still believe the additional resources wont really change the game that much, because the computer will harvest minerals faster than it produces units as well.

---

Ok I will. Not sure on which map though. I'm not gonna use any iccup map, I'll use boxer.

EDIT 1:God it's been a while since I made ums... well Test #1 is underway, if you want the map just ask and I'll upload it.

EDIT 2: Those AI are really an epic fail... They send the probes to the center of the map and mine there plus they build their base in the center too. WTF, will have to try to fix that somehow...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sandwich_bird

Ok I will. Not sure on which map though. I'm not gonna use any iccup map, I'll use boxer.

EDIT 1:God it's been a while since I made ums... well Test #1 is underway, if you want the map just ask and I'll upload it.

EDIT 2: Those AI are really an epic fail... They send the probes to the center of the map and mine there plus they build their base in the center too. WTF, will have to try to fix that somehow...

---

Yeah, its a real pain in the rear trying to get them to do what you want :-/

If at some point you get fed up and quit, upload the map and I'll see if I can make the computer play normally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Santrega

Yeah, its a real pain in the rear trying to get them to do what you want :-/

If at some point you get fed up and quit, upload the map and I'll see if I can make the computer play normally.

---

It seems ok now. I had to remove the minerals in the middle of the map. My only concern right now it that they don't fully use the advantage of the mineral boost but w/e, we'll see what happen.

EDIT: Well it might not be ok... The builded their 12 zealots but I don't think they are gonna attack each other... I'll make the game run a little bit more and see if they decide to fight

EDIT 2: Here's the map http://uploading.com/files/eb424394/TEST.scm/ maybe you can make it work correctly but I don't think we'll be able to do anything with it if the AI doesn't want to use the mineral boost.

Quote:

---

Maybe we should replace workers with something better...

---

I'm not formally against that. However, whatever you suggest that they be replaced with must retain all of the good effects of workers while providing none of the negative ones (and no new negative effects).

However, it should also be noted that the Zerg do not have this problem. Due to centralized production, the Zerg are incapable of constantly building workers. This shows that the negative effects of workers can be eliminated entirely by providing a companion mechanic that competes for the same resource (in this case, larva). So if CCs and Nexii could build something other than workers, something that was integral to their play, then workers would lose all of the negative effects while retaining the positive ones.

Quote:

---

You claim that making workers is this incredible decision making mechanic.

...

Why cant we make them autocast? Why should I have to repeatedly cast them every 30 seconds? Why do I have to put up with this mindless busywork when Blizzard can do better?

---

You Fail Logic Forever. If all you can do is attack strawmen and make false analogies, your commentary is of no value here. Logical fallacies do not win arguments; all it does is annoy people.

Nobody claimed that making workers was an "incredible decision making mechanic". The claim was that it had some decision making, thus making it better than PC which has none. Some > None.

And there are big differences between PC and making workers. PC requires significantly more attention than making a worker with rally-mine. The latter requires one hotkey and a button press: 2 actions. PC requires a targeted mouse-click, which either involves aiming at pixels in the mini-map or going to your base. Either of which is more diverting than building workers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blazur

now...Proton Charge will change before beta concludes.

---

Preach brother!......2000+ posts on the subject, and right there were the truest words uttered.

So is that it.....are we doomed to have every thread cluttered with this ridiculous mincing at the simple mention of PC?

Take a break...either that, or take it back to the 1700 post, Macro mechanics, "flame-parade" stickied at the top of the page.

EDIT:

....As tho I said......nothing....JEEZ-usssss!!


.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas

Nobody claimed that making workers was an "incredible decision making mechanic". The claim was that it had some decision making, thus making it better than PC which has none. Some > None.

---

See you keep saying "some" like its something substantial. It has very very very little decision making. Just like PC. Here do you want me to prove that PC has "some" decision making. Ok my base is under attack early game and I need to sacrifice mineral energy inorder to cast Shield Recharge. Like cutting probes, you are temporarily freeing up a resource, but damaging your economy in the long run.

Quote:

---

See you keep saying "some" like its something substantial.

---

No, I said "some" like it's some, which is larger than none. I made no comparisons to the decision making for other mechanics; only between PC (none) and building workers (some).

Even this small decision making can be game-changing. How many games have been won or lost due to cutting probes and going all-in? These are explicit decisions made by the player in order to enact some particular stratagem. PC has nothing like this.

Quote:

---

Ok my base is under attack early game and I need to sacrifice mineral energy inorder to cast Shield Recharge. Like cutting probes, you are temporarily freeing up a resource, but damaging your economy in the long run.

---

Except you're not. Because you've been casting PC regularly, your Obelisk has between 0 and 49 energy. That can refill the shields of... one Zealot. Maybe. It's just not going to be a significant factor in the actual battle.

That's nothing at all like cutting probes to go all-in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas

Except you're not. Because you've been casting PC regularly, your Obelisk has between 0 and 49 energy. That can refill the shields of... one Zealot. Maybe. It's just not going to be a significant factor in the actual battle.

That's nothing at all like cutting probes to go all-in.

---

Just so we are straight you admit that that counts as "some" decision making, right?

Let me pose this question to you. How many games have been won/loss over a single zealot or dragoon?

Quote:

---

Just so we are straight you admit that that counts as "some" decision making, right?

---

I'd say that it's negligible. It is so unlikely to actually matter in a game that the presence or absence of the decision is of no material value.

However, if you want to argue that this virtual negligible decision making is equivalent, or even comparable, to the decision making with regard to cutting probes, I'd like to hear what you have to say on that matter.

Quote:

---

How many games have been won/loss over a single zealot or dragoon?

---

More than the number of games that have been won/lost over a scant 49 Hp. And remember: that's best-case; average case is only 25 Hp.

Far more games have been won/lost over cutting probes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas

I'd say that it's negligible. It is so unlikely to actually matter in a game that the presence or absence of the decision is of no material value.

However, if you want to argue that this virtual negligible decision making is equivalent, or even comparable, to the decision making with regard to cutting probes, I'd like to hear what you have to say on that matter.

---

Id say it counts as some. Ill admit that cutting probes appears to be more discision making but we are both talking about things that are very very small decision making. And they both have "some" decision making.

I just thought of another possible decision making for Proton Charge. Knowing when to cast PC immediatly or wait a couple seconds for another Probe to finish. Also deciding how many probes to transfer to a new expansion. Also timing your PC to send those Probes.

Archer & PC sitting in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G...

The way a pup adores its master.

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sandwich_bird

EDIT 2: Here's the map http://uploading.com/files/eb424394/TEST.scm/ maybe you can make it work correctly but I don't think we'll be able to do anything with it if the AI doesn't want to use the mineral boost.

---

lol, yeah, i'm gonna get it and check it out.. But thats kind of my point sandwich. Many people are going to be like the AI in the way they never get to a point where they always need to use the extra minerals which come from PC. When people see they dont need to use the extra minerals, they will stop using PC out of laziness, until it starts to have a negative effect on them somehow, whether thats directly causing losses, or causing grief in game.

Each game played will progress in the following way for most people playing the game:

1) Played Game one using PC every chance I got, never ran out of minerals.
2) Played game using PC less, still never ran out of minerals.
3) Played game using PC less, still never ran out of minerals.
4) Played game using PC less, still never ran out of minerals
5) Played game using PC less, ran out of minerals a few times
6) Played game using more pc, this time just enough that again caused me to never run out of minerals.

Only after constantly playing the game, constantly improving every facet of play, will a casual player, or the majority of players, reach a level of play where they are outspending resource intake. That is where they start improving their macro to a point they need to continue to use PC more, and more. Eventually its not just remembering to use PC in X amount of time, but remembering to use several different PCs in X amount of time.

Right now I have not seen anyone use it on more than one base. One could argue you might be better off expanding to high yield mineral fields and using one there alone would be enough of a boost to sustain all of your production unless you are a pro gamer.

I do not believe anyone under pro status will need to use PC all of the time.

The macro mechanics are in the game to create a viable sport, without them, there will be no sc2 as a sport. There just isnt enough to the game without some level of difficulty in the macro part of the game. Blizzard hasnt added artificial difficulty, they have merely changed the rules of their game. This happens in all sports, and its required for sc2 to be one. Like it or not, PC is not going anywhere unless a better alternative is thought of, and as of yet, I have not seen one of you guys against it come up with something better.

Quote:

---

I just thought of another possible decision making for Proton Charge. Knowing when to cast PC immediatly or wait a couple seconds for another Probe to finish. Also deciding how many probes to transfer to a new expansion. Also timing your PC to send those Probes.

---

None of those constitute decisions. The optimal play for each of those circumstances can be determined via pure mathematics.

Quote:

---

Each game played will progress in the following way for most people playing the game:

1) Played Game one using PC every chance I got, never ran out of minerals.
2) Played game using PC less, still never ran out of minerals.
3) Played game using PC less, still never ran out of minerals.
4) Played game using PC less, still never ran out of minerals
5) Played game using PC less, ran out of minerals a few times
6) Played game using more pc, this time just enough that again caused me to never run out of minerals.

---

You have a very low opinion of the player that you're talking about. A decent competitive player will not stop using PC; they'll build more production infrastructure so that they can use those extra minerals. This player will be better at the game than the one you describe. Just as players don't stop expanding once they've got "enough" minerals; they expand anyway and build more production stuff.

Quote:

---

The macro mechanics are in the game to create a viable sport, without them, there will be no sc2 as a sport.

---

These mechanics are far too simple and simplistic to be the deciding factor for SC2's viability as an eSport. Players who mastered single-building selection unit construction can handle PC in their sleep.

Quote:

---

Like it or not, PC is not going anywhere unless a better alternative is thought of, and as of yet, I have not seen one of you guys against it come up with something better.

---

Most of the Macro-contest finalists were better.

makeitstopmakeitstopmakeitstopMAKEITSTOP

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

See you keep saying "some" like its something substantial. It has very very very little decision making. Just like PC. Here do you want me to prove that PC has "some" decision making. Ok my base is under attack early game and I need to sacrifice mineral energy inorder to cast Shield Recharge. Like cutting probes, you are temporarily freeing up a resource, but damaging your economy in the long run.

---

Workers are used to gather resources, build, and scout, and you depend so much of this weak, tiny unit, that the enemy is constantly thinking about killing them. There's no doubt that they add depth to the game.

About building them manually, sure, there could be an "autotrain button", but the Zerg will run into trouble with that, and probably it's so easy to train the workers, that it probably won't be worth the risk of mistakenly leaving the autotrain on.

I'm pretty sure you guys have run around and around and around and around again about the same things...

No one really has any solid facts, proof, or much of anything seeing as the games not in beta yet, so you're only fighting opinions at this point, and when you're fighting opinions both people lose because as long as someones fighting they wont be wrong in their opinion.

So I think we should just END the macro convo, and if you must insist on fighting someones opinion about something (which is pointless), please go back to the point discussion thread (macro thread).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by supersonic

I'm pretty sure you guys have run around and around and around and around again about the same things...

No one really has any solid facts, proof, or much of anything seeing as the games not in beta yet, so you're only fighting opinions at this point, and when you're fighting opinions both people lose because as long as someones fighting they wont be wrong in their opinion.

So I think we should just END the macro convo, and if you must insist on fighting someones opinion about something (which is pointless), please go back to the point discussion thread (macro thread).

---

I agree with you completely. We have been arguing semantics and 100% opinion, and we have even used completely unreliable numbers for our math. We need the game to prove our points... This is why beta is so important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Santrega

I agree with you completely. We have been arguing semantics and 100% opinion, and we have even used completely unreliable numbers for our math. We need the game to prove our points... This is why beta is so important.

---

totally right... now where is that thing you call beta.. =/

Quote:

---

We need the game to prove our points... This is why beta is so important.

---

A bad mechanic is a bad mechanic. Just as you don't need to cut your finger to know that it is a bad idea, you don't need to play a bad mechanic to know that it is bad.

As exemplified by people who play SC1 and played SC2, it's a basic fact of human psychology that people will forgive anything if the reward is high enough. They'll even call it "fun" and "enjoyable", even though they would call it dull and boring the moment you take the reward away.

Sitting for a day watching the grass grow is not fun. But it becomes a lot more fun if you know you're going to get $20 million afterwards. Now, this does not change the objective fact that sitting for a day is not fun. But it does change the subjective experience overall.

That's the reason that MMO's work. They have crap for gameplay, but because they provide tangible, significant rewards that are evenly spaced and well apportioned, people have the subjective experience of enjoying playing them. That's also how gambling works: people play for the reward and the anticipation thereof, not the moment-to-moment enjoyment of the task at hand.

None of that makes MMO gameplay objectively good. Nor does it make PC good. All it does is show that some people will happily slog through crap to get the candy.

It doesn't matter if everyone who plays the Beta loves PC. That will not make it a good gameplay mechanic. It will not cause it to spontaneously develop decision making or strategic depth. All that will show is that the people playing the game will enjoy a repetitive mechanic so long as you bribe them enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas

A bad mechanic is a bad mechanic. Just as you don't need to cut your finger to know that it is a bad idea, you don't need to play a bad mechanic to know that it is bad.

As exemplified by people who play SC1 and played SC2, it's a basic fact of human psychology that people will forgive anything if the reward is high enough. They'll even call it "fun" and "enjoyable", even though they would call it dull and boring the moment you take the reward away.

Sitting for a day watching the grass grow is not fun. But it becomes a lot more fun if you know you're going to get $20 million afterwards. Now, this does not change the objective fact that sitting for a day is not fun. But it does change the subjective experience overall.

That's the reason that MMO's work. They have crap for gameplay, but because they provide tangible, significant rewards that are evenly spaced and well apportioned, people have the subjective experience of enjoying playing them. That's also how gambling works: people play for the reward and the anticipation thereof, not the moment-to-moment enjoyment of the task at hand.

None of that makes MMO gameplay objectively good. Nor does it make PC good. All it does is show that some people will happily slog through crap to get the candy.

It doesn't matter if everyone who plays the Beta loves PC. That will not make it a good gameplay mechanic. It will not cause it to spontaneously develop decision making or strategic depth. All that will show is that the people playing the game will enjoy a repetitive mechanic so long as you bribe them enough.

---

See it's funny you say that cause... you still don't know till beta comes out.. it could be totally strategic you just don't know yet.

Quote:

---

See it's funny you say that cause... you still don't know till beta comes out.. it could be totally strategic you just don't know yet.

---

Do you have to actually shoot a bullet into someone's head to know what it will do to them? Of course not; all you need is an understanding of physics, the composition of a human head, and the velocity of a bullet. Practical experience is not the only way to gain knowledge.

What makes PC bad is it's basic structure. There is nothing, nothing about it that can ever be strategic. There is no decision making; you simply use it as often as possible.

Now, you can excuse a bad mechanic. You can even like one. But that doesn't change the fact that it is bad.

Unless the mechanic itself is changed or what it is slaved to is changed, the essential nature of the mechanic is a priori bad. People using the mechanic will not change it, nor will subjective experience of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas

Do you have to actually shoot a bullet into someone's head to know what it will do to them? Of course not; all you need is an understanding of physics, the composition of a human head, and the velocity of a bullet. Practical experience is not the only way to gain knowledge.

What makes PC bad is it's basic structure. There is nothing, nothing about it that can ever be strategic. There is no decision making; you simply use it as often as possible.

Now, you can excuse a bad mechanic. You can even like one. But that doesn't change the fact that it is bad.

Unless the mechanic itself is changed or what it is slaved to is changed, the essential nature of the mechanic is a priori bad. People using the mechanic will not change it, nor will subjective experience of it.

---

ummm yes the very first time you would touch a hot stove to learn it's hot, so your thinking is flawed because you know nothing about PC vs something you already know. What about getting more energy for your HT to cast storm on a swarm of mutalisk? You can't say it's bad and you can't argue about it because you just don't really know, the only thing you guys are arguing about is your opinions and it's pointless, and quite frankly getting kind of annoying.

My thoughts:

For a man who is known for writing walls of text, bask in the glory of simplicity:

Quote:

---

Wait til Beta

---

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.

---

Summary

Nothing new here :) Beta is coming and they're working hard on it. We do know 2 new things from this blue post (Karune's). 1. Blizzard is aware that it's imbalanced. 2. Blizzard is ok with it being imbalanced as they are looking at the game in perception of "races" instead of "individual mechanics within a race". I feel that I agree with that mentality and will do my best to avoid any of the "macro mechanic" subjects until Beta to get a true perspective. *plink plink* My two cents.

If you quote this post/opinion, please start with /agree or /disagree, I'm curious where you stand on my (or Jack's) opinion.