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

[Santrega]

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.

[DemolitionSquid]

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.

[Nicol Bolas]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[n00bonicPlague]

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

[Draco]

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

The repetitive and regular portion is not necessarily beneficial.

[Nicol Bolas]

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.

[n00bonicPlague]

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......

[SaharaDrac]

It bleeds into everything. Everything.

[n00bonicPlague]

It bleeds into everything. Everything.

Like a Zerg hyperevolutionary virus?

[Norfindel]

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.