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

[trace wm]

I table a motion for word filters on 'proton charge', 'pc', 'mule', 'spawn larva', and 'macro mechanics' between now and the start of beta.

[Norfindel]

I'd like to know what makes building workers accepted, and what makes proton charge rejected?

Who is in charge of accepting and rejecting RTS mechanics and features? I don't believe I saw a poll that suggests proton charge is too repetitive for a good RTS.

Why do I have to build Supply buildings(or units aka overlord) over and over... this obviously has no purpose other than it introduces repetition as an illusion to macro decision making.

Building workers is an strategic decision. You pay 50 minerals now to slightly upgrade the amount of minerals/second you're going to harvest for the rest of the game.

[ArcherofAiur]

Forget it Santrega. Ive had this arguement many times before with them. What they do is continually bring up differences until the have convinced themselves that making workers or supply is not a repetitive activity.

[DemolitionSquid]

Forget it Santrega. Ive had this arguement many times before with them. What they do is continually bring up differences until the have convinced themselves that making workers or supply is not a repetitive activity.

They are repetitive. But they're also not. You have to do them, but its not at a set rate. You don't have to build supply depots every 30 seconds. But you do have to build them eventually. PC has to be every X seconds.

PC: Must be done, every X seconds
Everything Else: Must be done, at random intervals

Why is that so hard for you to understand?

[Blazur]

Forget it Santrega. Ive had this arguement many times before with them. What they do is continually bring up differences until the have convinced themselves that making workers or supply is not a repetitive activity.

I don't see it as repetitive or inane. Workers are borderline monotonous, but the fact that it's not done constantly throughout the game makes it tolerable. There comes a point where your peon line is fully saturated, and you no longer need additional workers unless you're Zerg or are expanding. Plus there's some decision making involved (do I buy another peon or save up for a building/combat unit?).

With supply there's some creativity and strategic options as well. Terrans can wall off chokes and protect buildings with depots. Protoss need to tactfully lay out their base to maximize the pylon power. Zerg are training flying units which can be mobilized to take advantage of their benefits.

Proton Charge has one action: Cast on minerals every X seconds. There's little drawback in doing it since the other abilities are crap (at least when in close proximity to your Nexus) and you can easily build another if you need it. No other component of this game requires you to cast it every X seconds for the entire duration. Not even supply or peon building.

I see where you're going with this argument of yours, but I really think you have no weight in it. Proton Charge is the weakest aspect of SC2 right now, and doesn't bode well for Protoss players if it remains in its current form. I firmly believe that this will detract from the overall enjoyment of playing this game.

[DemolitionSquid]

My prediction: after one month of non-stop PC spam every 30 seconds, Archer will finally understand what repetition means, and shoot himself out of self loathing for promoting this disgusting mechanic.

[sandwich_bird]

My prediction: after one month of non-stop PC spam every 30 seconds, Archer will finally understand what repetition means, and shoot himself out of self loathing for promoting this disgusting mechanic.

Agreed. I can't believe this guy... We should creat a ums to make him understand.

[DemolitionSquid]

Agreed. I can't believe this guy... We should creat a ums to make him understand.

Ha. Lets build a game like Donkey. Every 30 seconds you have to click a button, and if you don't click it within 2 seconds, you get a letter. If you spell Donkey, you lose. But we'll make it so you also have to micro a marine around lurkers, and if it dies you lose that way too.

[Hamshank]

My prediction: after one month of non-stop PC spam every 30 seconds, Archer will finally understand what repetition means, and shoot himself out of self loathing for promoting this disgusting mechanic.

If you're stupid all you can do is repetition

[Nicol Bolas]

Rather than including probe production into your macro you could instead use the obelisk to cast proton charge a couple times on the minimap.

Probe production is far easier. It's just pressing a hotkey; it doesn't require clicking at all. Also, you can queue up probe production, so you don't have to be so exact with the timing.

Trading one resource (energy) for more resources (Minerals), is no different than trading minerals for supply.

Except that it is. Energy is an inexhaustible resource. It is also a resource that is beyond your control: you will get X energy per Y units of time and there is nothing you can do about it.

Oh, and the supply buildings/units do other things too: walls; fly, drop Creep, and become Overseers; provide Psi.

What they do is continually bring up differences until the have convinced themselves that making workers or supply is not a repetitive activity.

They are repetitive in the sense that you have to do it frequently. However, in the case of supply, you clearly build them as needed, not as fast as possible. Thus, the frequency is defined by you, not by an arbitrary time built into the mechanic.

And in the case of workers, it isn't even an issue in SC2, because you don't have to go to your base to do it. It's a simple "1sd" or "1s" or whatever. Even if you did have to build workers continuously (which, as has been pointed out, is a strategic decision), it's only a small annoyance. Oh, and workers cost both minerals and supply, which are resources. Real resources, not like energy.

Differences are different. If you use an analogy of two things that are different in meaningful ways, then it's a false analogy. Thus if you use a false analogy, expect the primary argument against it to show the meaningful ways in which the two things are different.

If you don't like hearing that kind of argument, stop providing false analogies.