Re: Macro Mechanics Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DemolitionSquid
I'm going to make a point here, based on what Nicol quoted Archer saying.
PC does not offer choice. However, it may not always be the right choice. This seems contradictory, and I'm sure Archer will find some way to lie and twist it, but it is in fact perfectly logical and I couldn't care less what that weasel thinks at this point.
The key is, as usual, profit. The driving force behind StarCraft. And can be calculated through math.
Essentially, say you have a small force, in a battle. You are facing another force. Your PC is about to run out. What do you do?
If you think you can win the battle without a second of micro, based on your units and your opponents units, then you cast PC.
If you think you can't win it without a second of micro, then you need to ask if losing this force (or a part of it) in the timespan of a single second (4 APM) will cost you less then the minerals you will get from PC.
If yes, cast PC.
If no, micro.
So its not a choice. Its just a very fast calculation.
Demolition squid, you can't put the game into equations like that. It doesn't work. I mean, you could play the game enough until you get a feel for it, but you will never be able to say with anything more then a "hunch" that you are doing the right thing. Even when pro-gamer play, and they're caught in a tough spot, not a single one of them will preform calculations to see if making the 4 workers mine is worth losing a few units and some ground.
It just depends on their hunches.
Re: Macro Mechanics Discussion Thread
Edjumacated Guessing at best. But Demos been on a math kick every since he noticed PC on 4 probes is twice PC on 2 probes. He now only thinks of the game a perfect number equations that are always known and always easily deduced. He recently solved for how hard it is for Protoss to do a templar drop. Turns out the answer is 7.
Re: Macro Mechanics Discussion Thread
The problem is the "choice" PC offers is a choice about whether to wrestle with the UI or not.
If PC and Spawn Larva were automated, there would be no need to bother with it, you would never need to change the automated settings.... That makes it a Bad Mechanic for an RTS. Its OK for Wii sports, though I guess.
Basically anything in the game where you would be changing the automated settings often to get it to do what you want should not be just automated. And also indicates a good mechanic.
Anything in the game where you would almost never be changing the automated settings should be automated or eliminated.
Give me a macromechanic that I would not feel comfortable automating. (the MULE, at the least does that)
Re: Macro Mechanics Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
newcomplex
Demolition squid, you can't put the game into equations like that. It doesn't work. I mean, you could play the game enough until you get a feel for it, but you will never be able to say with anything more then a "hunch" that you are doing the right thing. Even when pro-gamer play, and they're caught in a tough spot, not a single one of them will preform calculations to see if making the 4 workers mine is worth losing a few units and some ground.
It just depends on their hunches.
Not everything can be calculated, and I never said it could be. Why the hell does everyone assume that everything I say relates to "everything?".
This can be calculated, though.
You have the equation for IPS. My numbers for mining rate may be wrong, but once you figure it out for sure once, all you ever need to do is plug in how many Probes you have, and you can figure out your IPS at any given moment in the game. Multiply it by 30 seconds, and you know exactly how many minerals you're going to gain throughout the length of PC. Divide it by 6 minerals a trip, and you'll know exactly how many of those minerals can be directly attributed to PC. Once you know that, its as simple as:
"PC will give me 100 extra minerals. By turning my attention away from my army for 1 second, I stand to maybe lose a Marine. That's 50 minerals. Ergo, PC is the better choice."
Or
"PC will give me 100 extra minerals. My enemy has a High Templar. By turning my attention away from my army for 1 second, I stand to maybe lose my whole army to a Psi Storm. That's well over 100 minerals. Ergo, micro is the better choice."
Just because most people don't do the math, doesn't mean its not possible.
Re: Macro Mechanics Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Krikkitone
The problem is the "choice" PC offers is a choice about whether to wrestle with the UI or not.
If PC and Spawn Larva were automated, there would be no need to bother with it, you would never need to change the automated settings.... That makes it a Bad Mechanic for an RTS. Its OK for Wii sports, though I guess.
Basically anything in the game where you would be changing the automated settings often to get it to do what you want should not be just automated. And also indicates a good mechanic.
Anything in the game where you would almost never be changing the automated settings should be automated or eliminated.
Give me a macromechanic that I would not feel comfortable automating. (the MULE, at the least does that)
Thats not a problem. Thats the point. Its like saying workers are bad cause you have to make so many of them. Or buildings suck cause everything should be mobile.
This all comes back to whether you think players should have to come back to the base to produce reinforcements.
Re: Macro Mechanics Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ArcherofAiur
Its not always the best choice. You can lose games for going back at the wrong time.
If you're a progamer, you won't lose a lot to wait a few seconds and cast it at the right time, unless the amount of resources given is ridiculous. That's why i'm saying they won't solve the problem since a lot of time ago.
Re: Macro Mechanics Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ArcherofAiur
Thats not a problem. Thats the point. Its like saying workers are bad cause you have to make so many of them. Or buildings suck cause everything should be mobile.
This all comes back to whether you think players should have to come back to the base to produce reinforcements.
No, wrestling with the UI, when you don't have to, is Bad.
"Lots of workers"
and
"Immobile buildings"
are not UI limitations.
Something that you would leave alone if it Was automated, but isn't.... that is a UI limitation.
Now if you would constantly be changing what you would tell it to do... like
a unit's attack* [micro]
buildings that are producing reinforcements** [macro]
unit movement* [micro]
Most unit abilities [micro]
construction of buildings (since most you only do once)** [macro]
In that case it should not be automatic, because it is Potentially an interesting part of gameplay (something you want to pay attention to, because your attention and decisions Matter to that mechanic)
*These are semiautomatic, in that you give a command that results in a series of automatic steps being carried out
** These are semiautomatable through Queues (except for Zerg)
If you want something to be an APM sink, then it should also be an ATTENTION sink, ie you should have to Take Care with it(Dustin's phrase not mine)... You should have to make decisions.
Macro players should be ones that can execute and Make better macro decisions so as to end up with more troops where they want them, when they want them
Micro players should be ones that can execute and Make better micro decisions so as to do more damage to the enemy with troops that they currently have on location, and take less damage to those troops.
Basically, the only reason NOT to automate something is when the player would be yelling at the computer "No don't do that, that's stupid! That's not what I Want you to do"....in which case the player needs a UI mechanism to get the computer to do the non-stupid, non-automated thing they want it to do (which requires limiting the automation).
Re: Macro Mechanics Discussion Thread
Not sure where this thread has gone since I last posted, but here's a wild question:
Are there any RTSes out there that require the player to move resources to the individual buildings that use them? For example, imagine SC with a mechanic where you have to command SCVs to take processed minerals and gas from the CC to production buildings so you can make units at them and to upgrade buildings so you can research abilities and make upgrades. Are there any RTSs out there that have you do this?
Re: Macro Mechanics Discussion Thread
Quote:
Are there any RTSes out there that require the player to move resources to the individual buildings that use them? For example, imagine SC with a mechanic where you have to command SCVs to take processed minerals and gas from the CC to production buildings so you can make units at them and to upgrade buildings so you can research abilities and make upgrades. Are there any RTSs out there that have you do this?
I’d imagine it’d be very irritating if there were to be honest...
Re: Macro Mechanics Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Norfindel
If you're a progamer, you won't lose a lot to wait a few seconds and cast it at the right time, unless the amount of resources given is ridiculous. That's why i'm saying they won't solve the problem since a lot of time ago.
Do you want me to show you a FPVOD of a progamer moving away from his army and coming back to find something terrible has happened? And thats just for a worker or two which give allot less immidiate minerals than the macro mechanics.
