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

[ArcherofAiur]

Oh, there's the macro race. One player tries to macro more than the opponent. But that's not direct competition; that's running against a clock.

Actually no. Your macroing against the other person, not a clock. Dont try and call it macroing against a clock when its macroing against a person. Its a competition just a different kind of competition. You may not like that part of Starcraft (cause it doesnt involve guns and decision making) but its still the foundation of Starcraft.

Now admitedly most of the RTS genre is moving away from the "APM busywork" emphasis. There was a good interview of a C&C4 designer that showcassed this sentiment. I dont mean this in any kind of hostile way but perhaps Starcraft isnt really the game for some of you.

Strategy Informer: Command & Conquer 4 is introducing a new degree of accessibility for series newcomers. How do you think hardcore C&C players will respond to that?

Jim Vessella: When we announced the game a few weeks ago, we got a bunch of feedback online and some of the fans were really excited about the direction we’re taking with C&C 4, while some of the hardcore fans were a little wary about where we’re taking it. The thing we really want to express is just because we’re changing up the gameplay a bit, it doesn’t mean that we are removing strategic depth from the game. In fact we’re actually opening it up a little bit. It’s not as much about your build order or how fast your APM (Actions Per Minute) can build up your base, but instead it’s more about how you react on the battlefield in terms of working with your team-mates, in terms of choosing your classes and what units you use in battle and where you position yourself. I think there’s going to be a lot of gameplay there for the hardcore RTS players, there’s going to be a lot of units that utilise micro and players can use that in certain situations to gain a tactical advantage. I just want to emphasise that we’re not removing any strategic depth, so I hope the hardcore players will still give it a shot.

[Draco]

An actual fight, a competitive ability, involves having to react to plays by your opponent, while trying to control what your opponent does next. It involves direct conflict, where one player's victory is another player's defeat. You can only practice competitive abilities against, you know, competition.

In short, macro as it has been up until now is passive rather than active. Making macro active I feel is a key to cracking the macro problem. If you can use your macro to attack someone's macro (or even micro?) and have them respond in kind, with direct attacks and defenses that are not entirely unlike micro, then you'll have real macro.

I'd argue that the battles themselves are what you're talking about. Each unit represents the cost of its resources, and depending on the outcome of the battle, it either relatively weakens your opponents resource pool or weakens your own. So, if you approach macro from that angle, there'll be too much overlap.

Macro abilities can have a competitive edge if they affect build order timings. Like my Mule as a temporary super SCV idea, you are directly shaping the strategic environment through your macro decisions.

[Norfindel]

Oh, for God's sake!

Psi Storm = you try to hit enemy units in a battle scenario. It's player skill vs player skill.

PC = you hit your own Probes.

See the difference?

Ever played a PvP when both of the players use Psi Storm, and both have nearly the same skill? I did. It's a shitload of fun trying to keep your units alive, while you storm the enemy units, try to dodge his storms, try to snipe or storm most of his HT's, and decide where the storms do the most damage, etc.

How is PCing your own Probes as fun as that?


You know what would be more interesting than the current macro mechanics? Use the silo mechanics with some kind of special gas deposits that renew after a while, and can be put anywhere by the map maker. So, you're out there in the middle of nowhere, getting your precious gas, and trying to keep the silo alive, while it does it's magick. Even more: the resources obtained with the Silo could be required to be carried by a worker to a Nexus/CC/Hatchery, and the worker could be attacked to steal the resources. That would be more fun.



.

[Nicol Bolas]

Your macroing against the other person, not a clock. Dont try and call it macroing against a clock when its macroing against a person. Its a competition just a different kind of competition.

Um, how is it macroing against the other person? Can the other person's macro hurt you? Not directly. Can their macro slow down your macro? No. So why does the other person need to be there if both of your are in macro-mode?

What you're trying to do is macro faster than the other person. It is as much a competition as a race. There is only one dimension of a race: time. Who's doing it faster. You can run as fast as you can, but you have no effect on how fast your opponent runs.

A race is ultimately about you and the goal line. People gain a psychological boost from being in a race with people, but that's only a mental thing.

Micro requires direct competition. Your gain is your enemy's loss. You affect them and they affect you. Micro cannot exist in a vacuum. This is necessarily more complex than a simple race.

You may not like that part of Starcraft (cause it doesnt involve guns and decision making) but its still the foundation of Starcraft.

So, is that your definition of StarCraft? That it specifically doesn't involve decision making?

Now admitedly most of the RTS genre is moving away from the "APM busywork" emphasis. There was a good interview of a C&C4 designer that showcassed this sentiment. I dont mean this in any kind of hostile way but perhaps Starcraft isnt really the game for some of you.

Why do you equate "busywork" with "macro" and "removal of busywork" with "micro"? That article is about them working on a game that is focused on micro. That is not what I'm talking about.

Is decision-making macro really so alien to you that you can't possibly imagine it?

Further, that article only proves that the designer doesn't know what he's talking about. He, like a lot of people, sees "macro" as just route busywork, and thus tries to replace it with micro. The proper course of action is to replace route busywork with decision making that is still macro.

[ArcherofAiur]

Um, how is it macroing against the other person? Can the other person's macro hurt you? Not directly.

I notice you say not directly. I assume thats because you agree that you are macroing against the other person indirectly. I understand your mindset. Allot of people would rather an RTS was more about direct combat. And to fit that mindset most RTS makers have focused more on the shooting and explosions stuff. So if youd rather that your RTS was more about direct confrontation I would look for a more micro RTS.

So, is that your definition of StarCraft? That it specifically doesn't involve decision making?

In a way yes. Its a race against the opponent. If thats how you want to think of it then think of it that way.


Now could you make a RTS where you had to race against the opponent but you had to make a decision everytime you did the racing action? Maybe. But this game would require a structure radically different from Starcrafts.

[Santrega]

It's clear to me now that this is simply a second interface argument. The same old story, just with different people.

People are saying that they want things in the game that are fun, and not tedious. Whether something is busy-work, it's tedious, or its fun, is entirely dependent on the person playing the game. In so many area's starcraft II has improved the interface to minimize the parts of the game which were frustrating and not fun. However, afterward they realized they needed a higher skill ceiling, and something to which a player could strive to be better at.

I still believe the answer to that realization is the macro mechanics as they currently are. Anything in the game can be called tedious by someone, or not fun by someone else, or busy work. At the end of the day, blizzard has two goals.

1) Make the game a great game
2) Make the game a great sport

The tedious aspects that you guys see are simply the parts of the game which will separate the men from the boys. Those people who really want to just overwhelm people with macro will get 3-4 different spots going all the time with these macro mechanics. Those people who just want everything to be easy, will get what they want. They will not use the macro mechanics, and they'll face other people who don't use the macro mechanics from first-class delivery into an even match by the AMM.

You guys may think what you want is obvious, so did most of those claiming the game is too easy with rally-mining and MBS. The macro mechanics will not be replaced, and PC may get altered, but it also will not be replaced. You can cry and complain all you like, but until beta, and a mass uprising, there is no way in hell blizzard is going to throw out that mechanic, even if dustin believes it needs something more. If they never find that something, it will be in the game as is.

[Draco]

It's clear to me now that this is simply a second interface argument. The same old story, just with different people.

People are saying that they want things in the game that are fun, and not tedious. Whether something is busy-work, it's tedious, or its fun, is entirely dependent on the person playing the game. In so many area's starcraft II has improved the interface to minimize the parts of the game which were frustrating and not fun. However, afterward they realized they needed a higher skill ceiling, and something to which a player could strive to be better at.

I still believe the answer to that realization is the macro mechanics as they currently are. Anything in the game can be called tedious by someone, or not fun by someone else, or busy work. At the end of the day, blizzard has two goals.

1) Make the game a great game
2) Make the game a great sport

The tedious aspects that you guys see are simply the parts of the game which will separate the men from the boys. Those people who really want to just overwhelm people with macro will get 3-4 different spots going all the time with these macro mechanics. Those people who just want everything to be easy, will get what they want. They will not use the macro mechanics, and they'll face other people who don't use the macro mechanics from first-class delivery into an even match by the AMM.

You guys may think what you want is obvious, so did most of those claiming the game is too easy with rally-mining and MBS. The macro mechanics will not be replaced, and PC may get altered, but it also will not be replaced. You can cry and complain all you like, but until beta, and a mass uprising, there is no way in hell blizzard is going to throw out that mechanic, even if dustin believes it needs something more. If they never find that something, it will be in the game as is.

It's pretty obvious that something mindless is already not fun.

Technically difficult things don't have to be tedious and they can still distinguish the good from the bad.

[Norfindel]

Ok, i presented my thoughts of why i think the macro mechanics are boring:
They're casted on the same place every time, on your own base, at known intervals.

Can someone present convincent arguments on why they're fun?

[n00bonicPlague]

What is it with the whole "Starcraft may not be the game for you" bullshit? I'll be damned if I don't make this game my bitch! Seriously — it's not like the differences we are talking here are big enough to make us just quit and try another game. The issues are right around the current macro mechanics. It's not the actual existence or absence of macro that is the problem — most of us want macro mechanics of some form. It's just that we want different kinds. We are nowhere near the level of "this isn't the game for you" or whatever, so quit bringing it up.

[ArcherofAiur]

We are nowhere near the level of "this isn't the game for you" or whatever, so quit bringing it up.

That was allittle harsh. Ill rephrase it as "there may be parts about this game that you dont like". However if you did want a game with more direct competition, combat abilities, micro decision making, less farming, etc... then you should try out DOW2, C&C4 and many of the other RTSs that favor that philosophy.