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

[ArcherofAiur]

warning - critical mass wall of text incoming!

C'ptain! She cant handle anymore theorycrafting! Im giving her all she gots but she needs more power!



(on a related note I cant wait to see what Gifted says)

[Gifted]

@Demosquid:

**** it. I give up. For real this time.

Little personal opinion here buddy ^_^ And this is a lesson that can benefit all, not just you.

I'm not saying your side is right or wrong, I know you guys have been arguing about this for months. Your editorial busted 8000 words and trust me, I'm very aware of it. I also know that everyone is understanding of your concerns and I am specifically stating that I'm not attacking your opinion. Others may have done so intentionally or unintentionally, but I can't speak on their behalf.

Please calm down and consider comments that are constructive instead of destructive when you read what what other's OPINIONS are. (Which are different than ARGUMENTS.) I personally believe we'll be in a better position if we're trying to BUILD ideas for Starcraft, not DESTROY the ones that are in a testing state. I wanted you to take that into consideration and hopefully you'll see me different than the crowd that you're perceived as lashing back at.

For others:

Please be aware that I'm not reprimanding him, I remind you: This is a lesson that can benefit all. Just, well, I have a little soft spot in my heart for the squid, giving him a little personal attention can't hurt.

@Eligor:

This is the best argument for macro mechanics I've seen, looking at it from this angle I can see what Blizzard's intent in introducing them actually is, and though I am not entirely convinced, this is the first post to sway me in their favour (an example of macro mechanic usage that's not only interesting but even subtle, Blizzard should've put one forth a long time ago).

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Please understand that it's merely my opinion, which will change as the game changes in it's development. I don't make it a goal to place an argument, because I feel they're about pushing information, not about sharing it.

@Archer:

Gifted Im having trouble understanding this part. Your saying that rallypoints arnt good for MULEs because you have to reset them when you expand? Wouldnt it be easier to just change the rallypoint once rather then continually call down the MULE over and over? Also why does this not apply to rally points for SCVs?

2 part answer!

Why is the Build SCV different than Build Mule?
Build Mule is not a "Create unit" spell but a cast spell (Specifically a summon spell) To make a game easy to learn from a development standpoint, consistency will speak volumes to reducing a learning curve... in other words, the removal of "exceptions".

I believe the issue that may cause confusion for you is that "Call Mule" is a summon spell, not a create unit command and I believe you perceive it as the latter. Call Mule would be in the same class of spells as "Spawn infested Terran", "Psi Storm", "Photon Charge", etc. It has a spell cooldown (which create units does not) and doesn't have a cost in terms of minerals (which all create unit commands do)

Explain the rally thing

The reason that I think MULES should not have rally points is due to the creation of an exception. They would be the only "SPELL" in the game that would have one. A good comparison would be setting a rally point to "Comstat Scan" (Pardon if the term is incorrect, you know the ability I am talking about) Consider the scenarios in brief form.

• In the heat of battle at your expansion, you want to create mules at your main that provides the winning minerals that can help you survive. You click and realize the rally is set to the expansion. Because it's a spell, you have no time to react, cooldown is already clicking.
• It's late game, both sides are down to the squallid mineral patches that provide the final moments of the game's supply. You have 3 orbital stations. You scan his base, drop 9 mules to his minerals to assist in depleting it. This would involve a situation you wouldn't want to set rallies to. You would have to reset them back to your base to avoid a mistake, or worst case scenario, forget to.
• In a battle at their expansion, you want to create some AI disturbance... you want to place 2 sets of mules in there to help block the chasing hydralisks and potentially save 2 seige tanks. If rally points were integrated, it would be a 3 click process instead of a 2 click process. Imagine if the person didn't know how to use hotkeys well. This could add the significant time that would cause the death of your seige tanks.
• Imagine if you forgot about placing the rally point in the last scenario...sending mules to their immediate death next time you used them.
• Imagine wanting to use one of the above scenarios, but instead of thinking "I have to make a rally point first" you simply click, placing them in your base, the same mineral patch without thinking.

These are all in game scenarios that help show the decision making involved with what you felt was an "always make at your minerals" mechanic and why it shouldn't have a rally point. It would create scenarios that the rallypoint could be detrimental to the game and add frustration to a user who isn't fully used to it. Where keeping it as a rally-less spell would have no chance for frustration, merely repetitive tasks.

@Demosquid

You will all seriously regret letting PC exist this long, and regret it more if it ships.

Every 30 seconds for every game of Starcraft 2 you ever play knowing that it provides completely variable returns compared to Spawn Larva and MULES.

Think about it. Just, for once, think about it.

I have thought about it personally. My opinion is that I will never regret "letting it exist this long". We have no power as of yet to control it's fate so why should I take something as strong as regret to the subject? I think you and I can agree that I'm in a position to influence the game directly. Do you feel it would be right for me to present the advice that Photon Charge should be removed/changed without playing the game a minute in my life? It's my opinion that I should not, games are a lot more than paper numbers.

We don't have the full data on it and the data we have is circumstantial and subject to change. Any argument we spend 10 hours arguing about today can change in a single blue post, throwing everything radically around. I'll save my concerns about it til we have it in our hands with beta. We will then have full data that can be confirmed better than paper numbers.. experience. And even then, they're subject to change, which is a good thing.

In the end of the day though, it's just a game... ^_^

@Demosquid

Originally Posted by Santrega
I think what you are most afraid of, is when beta comes out the majority of players disagree with you, and then you are stuck having to play a game in which you are unhappy with some of the features. This is why you are fighting so hard against it now, before real testing of it can happen.

That is EXACTLY what I`m afraid of. That hundreds, thousands of n00bs will let PC into the game, and it won`t be until pros start to emerge who use the mechanic properly (ie. all the time) before you all finally see, "oh shit, Protoss pros can't lose because PC gives them uber minerals and they mass Zealots, but we can't just change the numbers for PC because its nature and power is entirely dependent on Probes, so either it'll never get used because it provides pathetic gains, or always gets used because its gains are too much to be ignored. So now we STILL have to come up with a new way for Protoss to macro and balance it while removing PC."

You speak as if Photon Charge is not subject to change. Dustin Browder has stated in 2 interviews, Chris Sigaty in 1 that Photon Charge is something that they are looking at extensively and look forward to see the data in Beta before they make any changes if it is required. In an interview (granted that's over 4-5 months old I believe) Dustin admitted that the mechanics might have a chance of removal in Beta if the data they receive shows that they will cause problems.

For a person who has put so much effort in the exposure of your opinion and information, I think it would be best to not lose hope. Otherwise it could be perceived that you did all that work as a fool's errand, and I personally don't view you as a fool.

Your ignorance makes me sick, and sometimes I almost hope that it gets into the game, and isn't caught for a year or two, and then suddenly the entire game is broken when the pros come and I get to laugh at you all for killing SC2.

Calling people ignorant for sharing their thoughts or opinions is not a good way to respect them. Do you feel that it would be better to create a 2 way street of respect? It's gotta be built on both sides man. ^_^ I also am willing to admit that no matter how much passion I put into an opinion, it's ok if someone disagrees with it. I think you should take a step back and consider that as it might help you relax a bit.

And if something is "killing SC2" then I have more faith that it will be addressed than doubt that it won't. I'd say more but that's all I can say about it now, the fact is, we've not played the game yet.

@Nicol Bolas

I'm not talking about whether it is balanced. I'm talking about whether it is a good mechanic or not. Even if it is balanced, that doesn't make it good. SBS was balanced, and it wasn't good.

I feel that in some ways your point is very good. The issue to consider is that you need to express a definition to what you call "good". If you consider "good" being "fun" or "intuitive" I agree that PC is neither of those points. It's a chore at core that provides benefits you can reap. You can play the game just fine without it, but those who do chores will have more rewards to reap.

If you play for fun, you can always choose to not use the mechanic because "Chores are not fun" but just in real life, it's typically considered that a person who does their chores will have better rewards to reap in the overall picture and have been proven to succeed easier.

If your definition of "good" is different than the above statement, please clarify it and I'll be happy to reply/share my opinion correctly.

So, why does "doing mechanic redundantly" have to be there? Can't it be "make significant decision about production/resourcing?"

It is my opinion that games should allow for multiple levels of decision making. In a great example, Incredibles by Pixar has a great theme... "If everyone is Super.. then no one is." It's by the difference of decisions you make that allow them to become powerful or insignificant.

I also believe that how the decisions that a person makes be impacted by the counter-decisions that other persons make in a reactive format. When you look at it statistically, it seems the most obvious choice is to always macro. But when you take into effect the actual examples of game play, the equation shifts significantly.

When your base is under attack, you will have a multitude of choices to make

• Your base is under attack from a swarm of zerglings, You have a collosus and 5 zeolots. It's obvious that the zerglings are focus firing your Collosus. Should you eat the losses and make the minerals or use shield recharge of every obelisk to prolong the life?
• You just handled a wave of marines in your base and your disruptor is out of energy. As you're about to return to your macro, your scout in the midfield catches another wave coming, it looks like the fool 3 raxed and you are waiting on two important zeolots. You can take the risk with the minerals but instead choose to argus link your disruptor as the force fields will do significantly more work to get reinforcements there in time.
• You realize that the Zerg are at your front door, two templar come out of your warpgates but one gets pegged off. As you cast your first psi storm, you make up the difference by an argus link on your only templar, allowing the required second storm to sway the battle.

In these examples, I agree that the decision making of Photon Charge is different than the other examples. It's obvious and I feel there is nothing wrong in that. To understand why I see no problem you have to look at a mechanic that many of you haven't discussed as a counterpoint: Unit production.

Terran/Zerg: There is no real other decision made other than what to produce and where the rally point is.
- vs -
Protoss: You have to choose whether you can handle the warp in mechanic, if the cooldown to change from Gateway to Warpin (or reverting back) is worth the temporary removal of unit production, you have to choose where it goes, when it's best placed, keep constant attention/awareness on it, etc. I think that added decision stress on photon charge would create a more difficult race to manage as a whole in terms of awareness and mental endurance in the big picture. There is a whole plethora of decisions that protoss needs when approaching this that are non-existant in the other races.

This is why I'm ok with PC being "easier" or even "more boring" than the others, because they have other mechanics that offset that dramatically. (And if you examine their racial counterparts, they are considered more "boring" or "easier" than the protoss equivelent)

I'm not arguing with the need for macro to impose itself on micro and vice-versa. I'm arguing the need for it to happen with mechanics that require no actual thought in and of themselves.

As I presented in my previous opinion, I just believe that this type of mentality is a focus on a part of the picture instead of the sum of all parts. That's all ^_^

First, there is nothing wrong with redundant targeting. It is a quality that tests a different part of personal skill than the majority of the game.

So, why is rallymining in the game?

While I did say there is nothing wrong with redundant targeting... that doesn't mean that it should be implemented at the cost of an interface that's dated. You can attempt to win this in the angle of "debate" but ultimately, you and I both know deep inside that this game is also supposed to be fun. "Easy to learn, difficult to master".

The existence of the Macro mechanics are to replace the redundant scv macro chore that was in it's precursor. They replaced a chore that was every 20-odd seconds and was essentially REQUIRED to do even succeed at the game with a 30+ second chore that does have more decisions... and can actually be avoided and still enjoy the game. It's a trade off, one that I feel is a better angle, more flexible and more fun angle of the game.

This doesn't derive from the fact that I have a high want for them to be balanced properly, but I can't define "proper" in my own mind without game play experience.

Decision making isn't just "choosing from a number of options." In order for decision making to actually work, at least 2 of those options have to be reasonably viable. If there's one obviously correct choice, and a number of obviously incorrect choices, then there's no actual choice at all.

There's a reason it's called, "The offer you can't refuse."

I have a different opinion. I believe that the decisions to be made are dynamic and change throughout the match. I feel that it's ok that a "default option" exists.

All of your examples that you're referencing involve no real game play experience. I personally find it ok that if you have no other game-changing needs that you use a default ability. What I like is if a game changing play happens, you have a decision to make on the fly. That's where the challenge applies, in the actual game play experience and not in the calm macro times.

As well, the more you place pressure on an individual, the less they may focus on macro mechanics, allowing you a slight lead. This is another form of gameplay that I enjoy, because it gives micro/mental endurance players a way to take a lead against significant forces.

I think it's an "offer you can't refuse, if hell isn't knocking at your door" But that's just my opinion.

This is the best argument for macro mechanics I've seen

And yet, it still doesn't explain why we should have to put up with bad mechanics when you can create good mechanics that have the same multitasking effects.

As I said before, you need to define "good" and "bad" in terms that are more objective and not subjective.

EXAMPLE: While I think that it's bad to have trees painted on marines, I'm sure activists for the environment would deem that more than good. And even some of those activists would rise up and call it "bad" as it's an insult to them.

If you define "good" and "Bad" better then maybe we can constructively look at what parts of it you find inadequate.

@Archer

Nicol have you ever considered that Starcraft isnt just a purely Strategy game? That its a Strategy and "repetitive multitasking" RTS.

Well, actually, I wouldn't go as far to say that Archer, but that's just me. What I would define it is simply "Real-Time Strategy". You have to manage your strategy as well as your use of time.

In actuality, all that time that you "use" or "delegate" is only a way to show off how you can fit the most mental focus, actions and investment into the allotted time available. It's also a test on how fast your mind can conceptualize your decisions which you make in comparison to your opponent and the reactions you provide in response to the actions of all parties involved.

There are other aspects of it such as muscle control and coordination, mental preparation, deception and prediction, psychological manipulation. There are other aspects involving practice and execution of maintained mental information... but I'm digressing now.

I'll end it that I think your point is more of a prod to Nicol than actually trying to reach a goal of collaborative thought. My thoughts only, sorry if they offend as that's not the intent.

@Demosquid

No your missing the point. PC is variable. Therefore it changes depending upon stuff. Therefore it cant be balanced. Here ill give a diagram.

You are correct, and by Karune's post, we are also able to discern that Blizzard is fully aware of this. This doesn't mean they'll keep it the same, merely that they're aware.

The process of investigation has lead to it being imbalanced if you examine the specific part of the equation (Macro mechanic vs Macro Mechanic) but when you take it to a more global perception (Race abilities/mechanics versus Race abilities/mechanics) it equalizes out with other aspects of the race. (Disclaimer: No matter what we discuss, the points such as this are subject to change. Becoming attached to an argument at this point could be detrimental to a person's sanity.)

The ONLY way to balance them fully is to provide provide identical mechanics, and if we did that, then we'd unbalance the races as a whole, as other aspects of protoss are more complex.

I know your argument isn't about micro, awareness or decisions, it's about raw numbers. In this case you might feel that my points are not addressing your comments... I feel that I will discuss the raw numbers in beta, please understand that.

@Demosquid

2. All the mechanics are APM sinks. I've stated as such multiple times. There is no reason to never cast them. But PC is the worst of the bunch because it doesn't compete with anything, whereas Mules can compete with scan or supply drop and Larva compete amongst themselves.

While I completely agree that they are APM sinks, I do disagree with your opinion that there is no reason to not cast them. There is some importance of conserving energy for certain moves.

• As a Terran moving against a base with Banshees, Infestors or Dark Templar, it's important to consider scans as a backup in some games.
• As Zerg, It would be important to avoid using them to repair your primary hive after an almost game shattering fight
• As Protoss, there are times that something as simple as a shield battery can sway the battle one way or another. Same with another storm or force field.

Understand, these are BASIC examples, a lot of my previous examples to previous comments should cover a lot of this as well. My counter thoughts are simply that the macro mechanics may take default, the others have situations that they're more useful than the mechanics themselves.

I think it's more the practice of the players themselves that will show this. No one truly used burrow before, but now it's useful. The changes aren't groundbreaking, just more appealing/accessible. I think the introduction of obelisks could provide more interesting shield battery fights/mechanics as it would be more readily available as well. Might I reference "Tempest's Dragoon Micro" as a suggestion on how you might want to choose to use shield battery instead of the PC? (LINK: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kd5tK9svnIQ) [Even if you don't agree with me, you need to ensure you've seen that game, it's mindblowingly good]

3. If you think "the probe boost isn't close to what the mule can bring in per trip" then you didn't read my editorial. Which I suggest you do if you want to keep playing with the big boys.

While I agree that the mule and photon charge can be competitive (and under circumstanced, dwarfed or surpassed) I don't think that your opinion is "superior" to another persons. You are not a "big boy" nor would those you speak to. You guys are just more passionate than the average person in the community on the subject.

I will personally say that this is my first to third post on the subject, but I wouldn't go so far as to demean another person's opinion because I think I'm right. You could have achieved just as much, if not more, help by saying "I have information that you may find helpful in my article, including the math.

While I read through all your article, it was still an opinion. That's something that should always be kept in check in my opinion. I believe that all opinions are valuable, no matter how obscure or intrinsic.

Does it hurt being wrong all the time? How many years has it taken to block out the headache? Read. My. Editorial. Again.

Your hypocrisy is hilarious. You say you can't examine PC unless you look at the whole picture, and yet you can't stop looking at specifics yourself.

I've already stated before that you need to take your tones to a calmer nature. Imagine I repeated them.

I believe the issue isn't that you guys are approaching it from a global perception or not. I believe the issue is that you guys are so focused on making a point or demeaning the other point that you aren't on the same discussion.

You should agree to speak on a global scale from now on, and if someone brings it to a specific point, you should just relate it to the global scale instead of poking at the specific point.. you'll get less frustration out of it imho.

@Nicol Bolas

Based on what "Jack Doe" has said, I'm starting to get the impression that the only reason the designers added MBS and rally-mine was because anyone new to StarCraft would have instantly revolted upon seeing such things. Reviewers would have panned it as a throwback to 1998. That is, they added these, not because it was better game play, but because it would make their game sell better.

If this is really how the designers feel about it, then they're stupid. It's as simple as that. If they would be fine with SBS and forced mining except that this is not economically feasible in modern RTS gaming, then it's clear that they have slipped into Idolatry.

That is an assumption, an incorrect one at that.

The reason they evolved the interface is because it allowed for a better experience with the game. It was also the fact that as developers, they were not fine with SBS and forced mining for this game. Nothing we discuss on this will change the fact that they are gone, so I will avoid this opinion further. If you believe it, that's fine, but I perceive it as having the intent to antagonize a response and not contribute to the conversation.

ON A PERSONAL NOTE:

This is why I don't like joining the macro mechanics discussion, read my signature... ^_^

[sandwich_bird]

So how much time did it take you to write all of this?

[Gifted]

Um... about an hour... maybe? I type fast and part of my professional expertise is technical writing

[Nicol Bolas]

If you play for fun, you can always choose to not use the mechanic because "Chores are not fun" but just in real life, it's typically considered that a person who does their chores will have better rewards to reap in the overall picture and have been proven to succeed easier.

False dichotomy. Playing to win does not mean having to put up with busywork.

If your definition of "good" is different than the above statement, please clarify it and I'll be happy to reply/share my opinion correctly.

I thought I already stated it:

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.

Should you eat the losses and make the minerals or use shield recharge of every obelisk to prolong the life?

Not a choice. Remember: your Obelisk will have virtually no energy, and each base will only have one. It will extend the life of your Colossus by half a second at most.

You can take the risk with the minerals but instead choose to argus link your disruptor as the force fields will do significantly more work to get reinforcements there in time.

Again, not a choice. Since once again, the Obelisk has little-to-no energy built up, it will barely fuel your Disruptor. Unless only one Force Field is needed, and the energy is just enough to get it, this will never come up.

Terran/Zerg: There is no real other decision made other than what to produce and where the rally point is.

WTF? The choice of what to produce is the choice. Saying that unit production has no choice... I can't even comprehend the logic behind that.

I mean, yes, the Protoss have more of a choice with Warp-In; they have a dimension of location. But that doesn't mean that the unit production of other races is without choice.

This is why I'm ok with PC being "easier" or even "more boring" than the others, because they have other mechanics that offset that dramatically.

False dichotomy: PC has nothing to do with Warp-In. You do not have to saddle a race that has a good mechanic with a bad one. Or at the very least, having a good mechanic does not mean that you can now throw in bad mechanics and be forgiven for it.

The quote from my signature says how I feel about that mode of thought.

As I presented in my previous opinion, I just believe that this type of mentality is a focus on a part of the picture instead of the sum of all parts.

A thing is made from its parts. It retains the properties of its parts. You cannot have a whole without its parts. And unless the interaction between specific parts removes the negative effects of one of its parts, then the whole will retain them.

Further, using good parts does not mean you can't look at the whole of those parts. It just means that your foundation is good.

I have a different opinion. I believe that the decisions to be made are dynamic and change throughout the match. I feel that it's ok that a "default option" exists.

Do you feel that having multiple, frequently competing options would be better? If so, why should Blizzard settle for the alternative that's just "OK?"

The existence of the Macro mechanics are to replace the redundant scv macro chore that was in it's precursor. They replaced a chore that was every 20-odd seconds and was essentially REQUIRED to do even succeed at the game with a 30+ second chore that does have more decisions... and can actually be avoided and still enjoy the game. It's a trade off, one that I feel is a better angle, more flexible and more fun angle of the game.

Yes, it is an improvement. But it's not an improvement enough. Why couldn't the original required chore be replaced with a required non-chore?

Do you understand that not having chores in a videogame is possible? And preferable to having chores? I don't understand the logic behind adding a chore when you can add something that isn't a chore.

That's really what I don't understand. You call it a "chore", a word with definite negative connotations. Yet you're arguing for keeping the chore and arguing against replacing it with something that isn't a chore. How do you justify that?

The reason they evolved the interface is because it allowed for a better experience with the game. It was also the fact that as developers, they were not fine with SBS and forced mining for this game. Nothing we discuss on this will change the fact that they are gone, so I will avoid this opinion further. If you believe it, that's fine, but I perceive it as having the intent to antagonize a response and not contribute to the conversation.

This is the sequence of events that Blizzard performed:

1: They removed activities that clearly are busywork, replacing them with efficient forms that do not require going back to your base at regular intervals.

2: They then added activities that are clearly busywork, that require you to go back to your base at regular intervals.

They literally replaced one chore with another, slightly less onerous chore. So clearly, Blizzard has no problem with chores in the game. Yet chores are bad gameplay.

There are three conclusions one can derive from this:

1: That Blizzard has no problem with bad gameplay in the game. This is the direct conclusion, made assuming that they made these decisions with full knowledge of everything they were doing. This does not speak well of their thought processes.

2: Ignorance. Blizzard isn't thinking in terms of "chores"; they're thinking only of the whole and not of the parts. So they don't really understand that they have deliberately put bad gameplay into the game. This also does not speak well of their thought processes.

3: They don't believe that chores are bad gameplay. This again does not speak well of their thought processes.

They recognized a problem, fixed it, then did the same thing again. Every argument that can be made against SBS in favor of MBS can be made against PC in favor of an Obelisk that simply radiates a permanent AoE field (you can even replicate Argus and Shield recharge, by having the field have an on/off switch. If it's on, the Obelisk gains no energy). That's the problem with what Blizzard has done; it is inherently self-contradictory.

This goes to a point that ArcherofAiur made, which you responded to thusly:

I believe the issue that may cause confusion for you is that "Call Mule" is a summon spell, not a create unit command and I believe you perceive it as the latter.

Semantics. Nothing more.

When StarCraft 3 comes along, and they decide to modernize their interface more, why would it be unreasonable for Blizzard to allow this particular ability to be automatically cast?

I don't believe that there is any macro mechanic that you can create which has no decision making, yet cannot technically be automated to achieve the equivalent effect. The only thing that stops Spawn Larva, PC, and Mules from being automated is a decision by Blizzard to specifically not automate them.

[flabortast]

I wonder what would happen if Blizzard just didn't give in to the stupid macro debacle...

[Pandonetho]

Nicol, after that long post with much effort put into it you should only expect one thing.

Archer to lead up with a question of some sort which leads to another thing

Or

Archer replying to one part of your post (and it could be rhetorical).

And then we all ride the pony express to the start of the argument once again. Because we all know Archer loves to learn about macro!

[Gifted]

*writing a reply to Nicol*

Update: Will write it some other time, power outage killed my response

[Norfindel]

I feel that in some ways your point is very good. The issue to consider is that you need to express a definition to what you call "good". If you consider "good" being "fun" or "intuitive" I agree that PC is neither of those points. It's a chore at core that provides benefits you can reap. You can play the game just fine without it, but those who do chores will have more rewards to reap.

Seriously, i'm starting to think nobody reads anybody else's posts. It's very easy to spot what a bad mechanic is: a mechanic without meaningful choices. PC doesn't have any other choice than "use it, or not". The place to cast it is fixed, and you don't even need to think if you want to do it, because casting it as much as possible is always a good idea. No drawbacks of any kind, save for the very small APM requirement (PC fails even at drawing attention away from the battlefield).

Also, i can hardly believe that someone inside Blizzard really thinks that going to his base and casting something at 25+ second intervals can make ***ANY*** difference to a progamer. It's like, i don't know, anyone is suddently heavy on crack, or something, because the progamers were the people that can send every worker back to minerals, and build every unit from his multiple buildings all the time in SC1 with incredible efficiency. That's ligth-years away from casting something in your base at 25+ second intervals. There's not even the slightliest chance that this would make any difference to a progamer.

If nothing changes about the mechanics, i predict:
- Macro mechanics won't really solve anything.
- Will be empty mechanics that people will feel forced to do, but most people won't be happy about using them (as interesting as working putting screws all the day).
- Zerg will eat the other races alive with Spawn Larva.
- Less than 1 week after beta starts, someone will develop a program that plays a beep at the speaker at 25/30/etc second intervals.
- 1 month after beta starts, someone will improve this into an on-screen timer (not before, because he was busy playing the game).

[Gifted]

@Norfindel:

Your reply is very well thought out but holds one point to reconsider.

Can you look at that point from the perspective of the entire scope of skill instead of the pro gamers? Imagine it as it could be approached by each league as an ability/skill to master. I'd like to hear your reply with that to think about.