Is it wrong to want an simple game ?

We are constantly presented with new sugestions or features that people would like to ad to the game. And some people are constantly saying that the game neds to be more chalenging and harder, nothing has ever enough micro or macro.

So i'm just wondering, what is wrong with wanting an simple good designed game with a good flow. There will not be only pros playing this game, there will also be casuals. I'm one of those casuals, so i'm wondering why do you want to ruin the game for us casuals?

Some people play for fun, and not only for the competition between other players and the thriels it brings. Macro mechanics for example are not fun. They deprive me of that fun sensation of finishing something. I actualy like it very much, when i'm done with the resourcess (everything full and ruining), and can forget about them, and concentrate on other things like army. But with the macro mechanics you are never done with it, since you can never be.
I still remember the old farms in AE2( before the exp), where you had to manualy replenish them every once in a while. And lategame, you probaly had so many, that you had to replenish an farm every 15 seconds. It was one of the most nuisance things in the game, and the number one complain. And the curent macro mechanics remind me exactly of that. So i don't understand why people would like these mechanics, and for some people even those are not enough, they want even more useless features in the game.
You also need a fun game if you want a large playing auidience.

I would like to understand you, so could you explain to me why the macro mechanics are good?

I trust Blizzard to stick with their motto "easy to learn and hard to master".

The best thing about macro mechanics is that casual players do not have to use them. A casual player will have access to every building, unit, and upgrade in the game without the small increase in resource efficiency that comes from the macro mechanics.

Two newbies playing each other can have a great game without remembering to use the macro mechanic as often as possible.

StarCraft IS simple.

There's just harder things in it for those who want them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Perfecttear

Macro mechanics for example are not fun for me.

---

Fixed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

Fixed.

---

For most, would be more accurate. I'm certainly not going to find them "fun."

Fun is killing your enemies units. Fun is pulling off crazy micro and having people say "OMG I can't believe you just did that!" Everything before and after those moments are not what make SC fun. They are what make SC function.

What i cannot understand is that the macro mechanics are being introduced before beta.
Maybe the gameplay doesn't really needs them.
Who knows what are the players capable of doing with the new game after some months. Maybe the gameplay would change for the good.
If you put the mechanics there, the players would use them (unless they suck too much), but maybe they would find other things to do instead of that.
I would simply have the mechanics ready to be introduced at a later stage if it seems like they're really needed. But of course, they don't want negative reactions when beta launches, and i can see people complaining about not enough to click. At least until they realize they could be doing some interesting clicking, instead of casting the same BS ability in the same area all the time like mindless robots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid

For most, would be more accurate. I'm certainly not going to find them "fun."

Fun is killing your enemies units. Fun is pulling off crazy micro and having people say "OMG I can't believe you just did that!" Everything before and after those moments are not what make SC fun. They are what make SC function.

---

Fun is having twice the army as the other guy and steam rolling him. Try out macroing some time :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Norfindel

But of course, they don't want negative reactions when beta launches, and i can see people complaining about not enough to click. At least until they realize they could be doing some interesting clicking, instead of casting the same BS ability in the same area all the time like mindless robots.

---

Once again thats not why there adding macro mechanics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pick

I trust Blizzard to stick with their motto "easy to learn and hard to master".

The best thing about macro mechanics is that casual players do not have to use them. A casual player will have access to every building, unit, and upgrade in the game without the small increase in resource efficiency that comes from the macro mechanics.

Two newbies playing each other can have a great game without remembering to use the macro mechanic as often as possible.

---

I think this is the best answer.

You are right, they are part of the things that make Starcraft divide between casuals and hardcores. These things that are not essential for gameplay but give you the edge over another who doesn't use them. Macro and micro are the most important of these things.

Well in that case could you tell us, what the real reason is?

Ill let Dustin

Quote:

---

TL: To follow that up, what types of challenges do you face when trying to balance the needs of the casual player versus the rage of hardcore players like in the progaming community. You had mentioned the macro mechanics being a big one.

DB: Sure that's definitely a big one – it's a place where we feel we can definitely do better but it then does break other systems. You know a great example I love reading on Teamliquid and elsewhere were not so much that you guys were missing clicks – some people said that and I didn't agree with that – but that we were missing the difference between a macro player and a micro player. That we were destroying the sense of style of the player. I could be playing a micro game and you could be playing a macro game with both the same race, and we are still playing a very different game from one another. And when I saw that I was like “Ohh!” I was opening my eyes like “Thanks! THERE IT IS! That's great! That's genius! That's exactly what we need to try to accomplish”.

---

To be honest, I agree, even though I fully intend to play SC2 about as seriously as you can play it.

I'm not at all sure I like the macro mechanics, despite having argued for them a lot initially. I'm still in favour of things like warp-in or drop pods tho, just not sure I want to go back to base to cast an AoE spell on my workers once every 30 seconds, seems kinda pointless :)

I didnt think I'd have time for this today, but I found myself with nothing to do at the moment. I'll break this up so that I can better respond.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Perfecttear

We are constantly presented with new sugestions or features that people would like to ad to the game. And some people are constantly saying that the game neds to be more chalenging and harder, nothing has ever enough micro or macro.

So i'm just wondering, what is wrong with wanting an simple good designed game with a good flow. There will not be only pros playing this game, there will also be casuals. I'm one of those casuals, so i'm wondering why do you want to ruin the game for us casuals?

---

Perfecttear, It is a matter of preference. All of us want something different out of the game. Some of us want the challenge of mastering it... Some of us want to totally destroy our friends in it... Some of us want to play it occasionally and just enjoy themselves on it... Some honestly just want to see the blizzard art and starcraft story...

I think you are looking at this wrong. New suggestions don't mean that the game will be inherently harder because of them, but they could be depending on the suggestion. Simple could be looked at as bad because most players are going to fall under the competitive casual category. Where they do play when they have time, but when they do play they want to win.

The players like yourself who play just for fun will have a plethora of map choices and scenarios in sc2. You'll be able to make your own maps and really simplify everything further if you like, and only play that map. The just for fun, I don't care if I win or lose crowd is not the majority, therefore if the game was made to suit them, the game wouldn't be very popular.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Perfecttear

Some people play for fun, and not only for the competition between other players and the thriels it brings. Macro mechanics for example are not fun. They deprive me of that fun sensation of finishing something. I actualy like it very much, when i'm done with the resourcess (everything full and ruining), and can forget about them, and concentrate on other things like army. But with the macro mechanics you are never done with it, since you can never be.
I still remember the old farms in AE2( before the exp), where you had to manualy replenish them every once in a while. And lategame, you probaly had so many, that you had to replenish an farm every 15 seconds. It was one of the most nuisance things in the game, and the number one complain. And the curent macro mechanics remind me exactly of that. So i don't understand why people would like these mechanics, and for some people even those are not enough, they want even more useless features in the game.
You also need a fun game if you want a large playing auidience.

I would like to understand you, so could you explain to me why the macro mechanics are good?

---

RTS games are complicated. This is because it basically is an action chess game. If you decrease the difficulty of the game, the rewards for winning a game are also decreased. If you increase the difficulty of the game, the rewards for winning a game are increased. The side effect is both of these could have an impact on the enjoyment of the game. The key is to increase the difficulty while not effecting how fun the game is in a bad way.

I agree that the macro mechanics as is are not fun because you are forced to return in a specified time throughout the entire game. In comparison, the macro mechanics would be like having to build a new barracks every time you wanted to make more marines. It's not the fact that you have to do it thats the problem, its the fact you have to continuously carry out the same action that makes it less fun.

I suggested a new resource in order to carry out the macro mechanics as permanent boosts because of this. This allows you to gather the resource whenever you want, as fast or as slow as you want, while still being difficult to pull off. Once you have your macro mechanics, if you protect the buildings or units that provide them, you'll never have to cast it again, but thats the key to its difficulty. You have to protect fragile workers over a minute, and you have to protect the macro unit as well as protect any future harvesting. However, its not something you'll feel you absolutely have to do.

Ideally, the resource suggestion I made will allow you to completely avoid it all together. You can simply choose to spend time putting pressure on your opponent and never letting them get the macro mechanic themselves, which means you don't lose ground economically by not doing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pick

I trust Blizzard to stick with their motto "easy to learn and hard to master".

The best thing about macro mechanics is that casual players do not have to use them. A casual player will have access to every building, unit, and upgrade in the game without the small increase in resource efficiency that comes from the macro mechanics.

Two newbies playing each other can have a great game without remembering to use the macro mechanic as often as possible.

---

Casual players will feel they have to do them. The mechanic is there to be used and it will give you a sizable advantage at different points in the game. If you don't do it, you'll likely lose a lot. This is where you are "forced" to use it. Anyone who wants to win, will be forced to repetitively click a spot several times throughout the game to get the same effect.

I thought this was really the only alternative, but I now believe my idea really is the best way to go about the macro mechanics, and it really doesn't force anyone to do it. You can choose sabotage over resource harvesting boost. The strategic choice is whats so valuable in the idea, as well as the future possibilities with a new LIMITED resource.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FrozenArbiter

I'm still in favour of things like warp-in or drop pods tho, just not sure I want to go back to base to cast an AoE spell on my workers once every 30 seconds, seems kinda pointless :)

---

They are reworking the Protoss one FA. By the way have you checked out my remote mining MULE thread?

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/view...opic_id=107698

Santrega, you forgot to add "WARNING: Incoming Wall of Text"

But what you say is true and Perfecttear and others that think the same about macro should read your mass of words

*Still it is a valid opinion and it is good that others discuss their thoughts rather than just let flow by what others say

*EDIT: Commantary was kinda hostile

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Norfindel

What i cannot understand is that the macro mechanics are being introduced before beta.
Maybe the gameplay doesn't really needs them.
Who knows what are the players capable of doing with the new game after some months. Maybe the gameplay would change for the good.
If you put the mechanics there, the players would use them (unless they suck too much), but maybe they would find other things to do instead of that.
I would simply have the mechanics ready to be introduced at a later stage if it seems like they're really needed. But of course, they don't want negative reactions when beta launches, and i can see people complaining about not enough to click. At least until they realize they could be doing some interesting clicking, instead of casting the same BS ability in the same area all the time like mindless robots.

---

~

I don't think the macro mechanics are there solely for replacing automining and mbs. I think Blizzard wanted to see if they could innovate the resource and macro system present in starcraft, as they've already done with mechanics such as reactors and warp-in. The macro-casters then represent player involvement with resourcing, partly to replace the gap am/mbs left, yes, but on the whole they're a more compelling and involved way for a player to manage his economy.

If they are badly designed (such as proton charge seems to be), beta is a good way to discover this and make neccessary adjustments. I also imagine "saving" the macro mechanics for a later state of beta for when the beta participants have decided macro is lacking is endangering the potential quality of the game. This is because the macro mechanics can hardly be tested well if they're added half-way through beta and appear only as concession to demands for more clicks - or more involved micro-play - , and the community would never accept them at such a late stage of the game's development anyway.

It will be perfectly legit to play without macro mechanics. You don't _need_ macro mechanics to win any games, it's just an economy boost. However know that your opponent will most likely use it, because it's there, and it's not that hard to use.

An economic boost helps but if you're more focused on expansion or harassing, it's still just as viable to not use the macro mechanics. I mean if your game level is at a point where you're not spending resources at every second you get it, chances are you're not playing to reach the top tier ranks and are playing for fun. You don't need to wrap your head around it, I mean there's a lot of other things you can do like comp stomps or friendly matches that don't involve being the best of the best and requiring high APM.

All i wish for Christmass is an rude autocast for the macro abilities :)

And i don't have anything against hard games, for example i love Earth2150 which was far more complicated and harder than starcraft or any other rts.

Thank you for your post Santrega :)


edit: Just wondering does anybody know exactly, how much is the difference between a player using them and a player not using them, in resource sense (10%, 30%,50%)?

With all due respect to PT. One of the things I am most looking forward to is 40 mineral drones and super larva generation. Seriously thats going to be alot of fun to play with.

K.I.S.S

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

Fun is having twice the army as the other guy and steam rolling him. Try out macroing some time :D

---

As usual you missed the point.

Yes, fun is having twice the army as the other guy and steam rolling him. But GETTING THERE is not what makes SC fun. And the macro mechanics are part of GETTING THERE. They are FUNCTION, not fun.

So can nobody tell me how much of a difference does using the mechanics make in terms of resourcess? (10%,20%,30%, 50%)?

I mean some people say you are forced to use them or lose instantly, while some say you can just ignore them?

So which is it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Perfecttear

So can nobody tell me how much of a difference does using the mechanics make in terms of resourcess? (10%,20%,30%, 50%)?

I mean some people say you are forced to use them or lose instantly, while some say you can just ignore them?

So which is it?

---

I can tell you, but it will take some math and I dont have the time for that right now... Can you wait for a few days? I'll do the math and send it to you.

It will be a comparison of not using it at all and using the resource harvesting macro mechanics perfectly. (Zerg might be difficult to figure out)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Perfecttear

So can nobody tell me how much of a difference does using the mechanics make in terms of resourcess? (10%,20%,30%)?

I mean some people say you are forced to use them or lose instantly, while some say you can just ignore them?

So which is it?

---

Unfortunately the nature of Spawn Larva and PC makes such a calculation very tricky. Its also dependent on saturation.

A MULE is 300% more effective than an SCV, and every Probe affected by PC becomes 20% more effective, if that helps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FrozenArbiter

To be honest, I agree, even though I fully intend to play SC2 about as seriously as you can play it.

I'm not at all sure I like the macro mechanics, despite having argued for them a lot initially. I'm still in favour of things like warp-in or drop pods tho, just not sure I want to go back to base to cast an AoE spell on my workers once every 30 seconds, seems kinda pointless :)

---

It's interesting to look at the macro mechanics taking into account Blizzard's "easy to learn, difficult to master" philosophy with this. You can be unprecise or even forget about the Terran one (OCC?) since you're allowed to spend all your energy at once. You can also merely use the MULE and ignore the other abilities and you're still not doing too bad. If you do perfect your use of it however you can get a lot of mileage from casting your MULE on time, letting him return resources just before timing out, etc.

With the obelisk that's just not the case. You have to press the sequence of inputs every x seconds or you're unrecoverably behind. It's similar to the worst of starcraft's mechanics, as it's a simple task of which the execution is related mostly to a physical side of the gameplay -- remembering to return every 30 sec.

It's on the level of having high APM or not having high APM.

You will need it to stay competitive if you're a competitive player. If you play for fun, and aren't looking to top the ladders, you don't need to use the macro mechanics. Just like you don't need to make 4+ barracks/factory/starports to play the game and have fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid

As usual you missed the point.

Yes, fun is having twice the army as the other guy and steam rolling him. But GETTING THERE is not what makes SC fun. And the macro mechanics are part of GETTING THERE. They are FUNCTION, not fun.

---

I can make similar arguements that micro is an end to a mean. Any way you slice it games are built on task and reward. "Getting there" as you would.

You just consider different tasks more fun. Which is your opinion as a micro player. Macro players consider other tasks fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

I can make similar arguements that micro is an end to a mean. Any way you slice it games are built on task and reward. "Getting there" as you would.

---

For once, could you try logical followthrough? I'm so sick of having to lead you along like a puppy, pointing out the obvious everyone else can infer.

Macro and micro are BOTH "getting there." What's fun is the outcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

You just consider different tasks more fun. Which is your opinion as a micro player. Macro players consider other tasks fun.

---

You have NO idea if I'm a macro or micro player. Don't try to make a point with baseless bullshit.

Demo for both our sakes and this thread i think its better if i just ignore you now.

I'm wondering, why just not have an autocast posibility on the PC,if you look at autocast, it is meant for spells that repeat alot ;)?
Since you said, that the point of the macro mechanics is not to increase the numbers of clicks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid

For most, would be more accurate. I'm certainly not going to find them "fun."

Fun is killing your enemies units. Fun is pulling off crazy micro and having people say "OMG I can't believe you just did that!" Everything before and after those moments are not what make SC fun. They are what make SC function.

---

Quote:

---

As usual you missed the point.

Yes, fun is having twice the army as the other guy and steam rolling him. But GETTING THERE is not what makes SC fun. And the macro mechanics are part of GETTING THERE. They are FUNCTION, not fun.

---

Actually I disagree with that very much. As a player you are going to find much more variance with what you do in the process of "GETTING THERE". I mean, someone who's been playing starcraft for 6 years and still playing, is constantly working on the process of "GETTING THERE", but things like marine vs lurker battles really haven't changed much if at all during that time. The only thing that has changed the micro in starcraft after all this time is the glitches that people have discovered and learned to use.

Now for spectators I agree, they enjoy the ooh's and aah's of the combat, but as a player, at least for me, the process is a big part of what makes SC a fun game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Perfecttear

I'm wondering, why just not have an autocast posibility on the PC,

---

PC is (presumably) out.

Just for the sake of argument , then why not have autocast on the Quenn (like the medic) and on the OC?
Nobs would have autocast, while the more skilled players would do it manualy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Perfecttear

I'm wondering, why just not have an autocast posibility on the PC,if you look at autocast, it is meant for spells that repeat alot ;)?
Since you said, that the point of the macro mechanics is not to increase the numbers of clicks.

---

Auto-cast on PC, SL, and MULE defeats their purpose.

Remember, micro is the utilization of resources. Macro is the accumulation of resources. Meaningful clicks on units in the field is micro. Meaningful clicks in production is macro. The point isn't to increase clicks, but to make those clicks meaningful. Auto-cast is the absence of clicks, ergo it solves nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Perfecttear

Just for the sake of argument , then why not have autocast on the Quenn (like the medic) and on the OC?

---

Why shouldnt everything have an autocast option?

Only spels that constantly repeat have autocast, and the macro mechanics are .
It could work if the autocast would be less efective than doing it manualy. Any good player would do it manualy, but the autocast would be for players who don't realy care, just something, so there wouldn't be such a difference between a player using them and a player not using them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Perfecttear

It could work if the autocast would be less efective than doing it manualy. Any good player would do it manualy, but the autocast would be for players who don't realy care, just something, so there wouldn't be such a difference between a player using them and a player not using them.

---

rallymine

Quote:

---

What i cannot understand is that the macro mechanics are being introduced before beta.

---

Because mechanics designed to increase macro tend to also affect things that can very easily spiral out of control (ie: resource gathering). So you need to make sure that this does not happen in play.

Also, because Blizzard didn't start SC2's development with macro in mind, they basically have to improvise. There are certain things that they could have done, but simply don't have the time to do if they want to release SC2 in finite expected time. The earlier that they can do this, the better.

Lastly, your question seems predicated on whether or not SC2 actually needs macro mechanics to make it competitive. That maybe it has whatever constitutes "enough" macro already and doesn't need more.

Quote:

---

One of the things I am most looking forward to is 40 mineral drones and super larva generation.

---

Um, you do know that the 40 mineral Drone thing was just a typo, right?

Quote:

---

I mean some people say you are forced to use them or lose instantly, while some say you can just ignore them?

So which is it?

---

If both of you swear a blood oath not to use them, then you may be able to ignore them. However, why wouldn't either of you break that oath in order to win?

See, the question isn't whether you can just ignore them. Even a low-skill player will use them in the early game when there's just not much to do. What matters is what happens in the mid game, when they're busy microing their army and they need to spawn some larva back in their base(s).

Quote:

---

Macro and micro are BOTH "getting there." What's fun is the outcome.

---

No, what's fun is the direct competition that micro brings and macro lacks.

Micro is directly confrontational: your gain is your enemy's loss. You kill units, the enemy doesn't have those units anymore. You take some high-ground; the enemy can't move there without taking substantial damage. Micro is a swordfight.

Macro is like a race; your speed really has nothing to do with their speed. Your gain is not their loss. And the more time you speed looking at their macro/speed, the less time you spend on your macro/speed.

Of course, it isn't quite as simple as that, since switching between the two is important, so one can trump the other. But when people talk about preferring micro to macro, it is because of the direct competition of micro.

StarCraft is kinda like a race, but instead of red tape at the end, there are two swords. The goal is to get to the end and stab the other guy.

The faster you run, the more likely you are to get to your sword first. Killing an unarmed man doesn't take much effort, so if you get there first you win by default. However, if you get there at the same time, you now have a viscous swordfight to fight.

If you're a swordfighter, the running part isn't interesting. If you're a runner, the sword part is really no different from the tape that you'd usually have.

The analogy isn't perfect. I guess a rush is sort of like grabbing your opponent and breaking their neck right after the start of the race. Harassment is like trying to trip your opponent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Perfecttear

Only spels that constantly repeat have autocast, and the macro mechanics are .
It could work if the autocast would be less efective than doing it manualy. Any good player would do it manualy, but the autocast would be for players who don't realy care, just something, so there wouldn't be such a difference between a player using them and a player not using them.

---

Unfortunately you've found the barrier.

The macro mechanics are there to give macro players a way to play fairly against micro players, to give them the ability to compensate for all the micro in the game. If micro players can set the mechanics on auto-cast and still do their microing, the macro players have gained nothing to very little.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas

Um, you do know that the 40 mineral Drone thing was just a typo, right?

---

I know its not confirmed.

Quote:

---

No, what's fun is the direct competition that micro brings and macro lacks.

Micro is directly confrontational: your gain is your enemy's loss. You kill units, the enemy doesn't have those units anymore. You take some high-ground; the enemy can't move there without taking substantial damage. Micro is a swordfight.

---

Again thats a micro perspective. You find different things fun. I cant tell you that what you find fun out of the game isnt fun so dont try and tell me what I find fun isnt fun k.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Perfecttear

Only spels that constantly repeat have autocast, and the macro mechanics are .
It could work if the autocast would be less efective than doing it manualy. Any good player would do it manualy, but the autocast would be for players who don't realy care, just something, so there wouldn't be such a difference between a player using them and a player not using them.

---

I'm not sure you'll be forced into queens.. it may be simply building another hatchery is close to being as cost-efficient.