The Hero/Macro Mothership

[newcomplex]

I refer back to my editorial; a section entitled "APM Sinks." Specifically, the portion about profit.

If PC, cast from anything (Obelisk, Mothership, w/e), provides good gains from its use, it will always be used. If it does not, it will never or rarely be used. If you have a single Obelisk casting PC, and PC proves to have a high profit margin, you will always cast PC to the exclusion of all other abilities. This applies to the Mothership as well. If you have a single Mothership casting PC, and PC proves to have a high profit margin, you will always cast PC (and Wormhole Transit to get from base to base faster) to the exclusion of all other abilities.

Essentially, you're turning the Mothership into the Obelisk. It will remain in the base, with its only advantage over the Obelisk being that it has more HP and can attack, if the base is attacked.

And if the profit margin of PC is too low? It'll never use PC and the whole thing will still be pointless.

Essentially, this solves absolutely nothing. The problem is with PC, not the unit it is cast from.

?

Your saying PC will be used over black hole? As you will not use wormhole to wipe out a enemy army off the face of the map (quite literally) if given the chance so you can save energy for PC?

I agree with your conclusion that this is a shit idea, but I don't see how that specifically refutes PC on a mothership other then just macro mechanics were never designed to be anything more then -APM sinks.

If anything, it helps, because a mothership who is being used in passive defense or offense cannot be used to Proton charge, increasing decision making.



(edit: removed my rant to my preceding post)

[DemolitionSquid]

?

Your saying PC will be used over black hole? As you will not use wormhole to wipe out a enemy army off the face of the map (quite literally) if given the chance so you can save energy for PC?

I agree with your conclusion that this is a shit idea, but I don't see how that specifically refutes PC on a mothership other then just macro mechanics were never designed to be anything more then -APM sinks.

If anything, it helps, because a mothership who is being used in passive defense or offense cannot be used to Proton charge, increasing decision making.

I'm saying none of the other abilities will be used unless you're attacked and the enemy is in your base. Just like the Obelisks other abilities aren't used now for the same reasons.

[newcomplex]

I'm saying none of the other abilities will be used unless you're attacked and the enemy is in your base. Just like the Obelisks other abilities aren't used now for the same reasons.

first of all, what about using the mothership offensively or defensively at your front line? Both are potentially game breaking strategies that deny the use of the mothership as a macro mechanic for a potential payoff.






And just because it seems like everyones prerogative to get any thread on these forums to devolve into a discussion about macro-mechanics...

Why is everyone assuming that macro mechanics need to be anything other then semi-unintelligent -apm sinks? Like if it doesn't require one to preform a cost benefit analysis in the midst of managing his army, that somehow it is detrimental to the gameplay of starcraft 2.

Not everything has to be proactive. Making too many proactive mechanics instead of focusing on one or two is actually bad design, because it detracts from the overall cohesion of the game. Macro was never meant to be anything other then to make micro harder. Macro players aren't super good at upper level brain functions such as abstract thinking, they can just press buttons really...really...fast, and not just randomly, but in a coordinated and learned way while still having the attention spam to micro somewhat competently, and to plan out their strategy.

Proton charge is reactive, which is perfectly healthy for this game. Essentially, it adds a basic micro requirement in addition to acting as a game mechanic to deepen strategic complexity (ie: proxy obelisks, last ditch defenses, and "ima chargin mah templars")



People want starcraft to be chess. Starcraft isn't suppose to be chess. Chess is about pure strategic depth. Starcraft is about reaction, timing, unit management (micro without the strategy, just the accuracy of your clicks), as well as strategy. Most importantly, it is about playing under pressure. It is about thinking under pressure. It is about how well you can strategize and micro when you have to fucking maintain 300 -APM just to keep your forces going frin acriss the map.

You people are like "WHY SHOULD WE IMPLEMENT THIS SHALLOW MECHANIC WHEN WE CAN IMPLEMENT SOMETHING TEN TIMES DEEPER". Because implementing all this proactive crap just distracts from the core gameplay.

One of the biggest gripes about starcraft2's potential in the comp scene is a players passive -apm is a lot, lot lower. This means that the player is able to think about things like strategy a lot easier, because he has less stress on him from macro tasks. By making proton charge more proactive, you actually make micro shallower.

[newcomplex]

woah. I just read the macro thread and it turns out that that last post says I'm agreeing with archerauir. Huh. Go figure. lol.

[DemolitionSquid]

first of all, what about using the mothership offensively or defensively at your front line? Both are potentially game breaking strategies that deny the use of the mothership as a macro mechanic for a potential payoff.

You are so totally missing the point.

X = variable
< = less than
> = greater than

If PC gives <X profit, Mothership will sit in base or "base hop" using its energy on PC, and only use its other abilities when the player is being attacked.

If PC gives >X profit, Mothership will be used offensively and PC will get cast as an afterthought.

And just because it seems like everyones prerogative to get any thread on these forums to devolve into a discussion about macro-mechanics...

Its only Archer. We've proven him wrong, but he won't let up.

Why is everyone assuming that macro mechanics need to be anything other then semi-unintelligent -apm sinks? Like if it doesn't require one to preform a cost benefit analysis in the midst of managing his army, that somehow it is detrimental to the gameplay of starcraft 2.

Because things that require no thought or choice, like sending new workers to mine, should be automated, or given the choice to be automated. That's why rally-mine/auto-mine now exists - to let the player actually do what they want to do with a single decision.

Not everything has to be proactive. Making too many proactive mechanics instead of focusing on one or two is actually bad design, because it detracts from the overall cohesion of the game. Macro was never meant to be anything other then to make micro harder. Macro players aren't super good at upper level brain functions such as abstract thinking, they can just press buttons really...really...fast, and not just randomly, but in a coordinated and learned way while still having the attention spam to micro somewhat competently, and to plan out their strategy.

Macro is not meant to make micro harder. Macro is the culmination of micro focused on ones economy. Selecting a worker and telling it to mine is micro. The effect it has of increasing your resource count to build more workers, or anything, is macro.

What you perceive as "pro macro skill" is just players getting good at fighting SC1's inferior UI. The UI of a game should let the player accomplish what they want to do in the most effective manner. Not having things like auto-mine and MBS and smart-cast in SC1 were actually UI flaws. It just so happened that people who could overcome those flaws better, played the game better, and started getting paid for it.

Is being able to fight a bad UI and do repetitive tasks really fast a skill? Yes.
Is it a good skill to make players learn that "enhances" gameplay? Personally, I don't think so.

Proton charge is reactive, which is perfectly healthy for this game. Essentially, it adds a basic micro requirement in addition to acting as a game mechanic to deepen strategic complexity (ie: proxy obelisks, last ditch defenses, and "ima chargin mah templars")

Proton Charge is NOT reactive, at least not to your opponents actions. Its use is based entirely on the profit margin it gives, based on Probe count.

[newcomplex]

You are so totally missing the point.

X = variable
< = less than
> = greater than

If PC gives <X profit, Mothership will sit in base or "base hop" using its energy on PC, and only use its other abilities when the player is being attacked.

If PC gives >X profit, Mothership will be used offensively and PC will get cast as an afterthought.

But doesn't figuring out what 'x" is require all that kind of upper level thinking and strategy you guys love so much? I mean, while I am passively TPING the mothership around proton charging (further increasing the -apm sink, which is good), It isn't just a matter of "Do my troops need the energy/sheilds" anymore. It becomes "Will I possibly need to blackhole or timebubble to support my troops, giving me enough of a benefit to warrant the economic loss". And since I need to TP to a building, if my troops are not near a building, I have to sacrifice my economy just for the potential of big gain by sending my mothership manually up to help, or building a random proxy pylon.

If that isn't strategy and depth I don't know what is.

Because things that require no thought or choice, like sending new workers to mine, should be automated, or given the choice to be automated. That's why rally-mine/auto-mine now exists - to let the player actually do what they want to do with a single decision.

Macro is not meant to make micro harder. Macro is the culmination of micro focused on ones economy. Selecting a worker and telling it to mine is micro. The effect it has of increasing your resource count to build more workers, or anything, is macro.

What you perceive as "pro macro skill" is just players getting good at fighting SC1's inferior UI. The UI of a game should let the player accomplish what they want to do in the most effective manner. Not having things like auto-mine and MBS and smart-cast in SC1 were actually UI flaws. It just so happened that people who could overcome those flaws better, played the game better, and started getting paid for it.

Is being able to fight a bad UI and do repetitive tasks really fast a skill? Yes.
Is it a good skill to make players learn that "enhances" gameplay? Personally, I don't think so.

UI limits? You mean "UI constraints". The UI is suppose to limit what your able to do. For instance, the recent builds of SC2 do not support uh...dunno what to call it, but lets say "prequeaing"...meaning queing up units or buildings when you dont actually have the resources to build them, under the assumption you will when they are about to be built.

That could be construed as a UI "limit", but it isn't, its just a constraint so the player doesn't automate base building.

Sending workers to mine was removed because it was simply not fun to new players, and archaic according to todays standards. While a new player could completely ignore macro mechanics and still preform both well in his campaign play and get some 50% winrate on his "Copper 478 tournament bracket". (luls). If he wants to improve, he now has a gameplay mechanic he needs to master, without being overly annoying at start.

Regardless of what you think about starcraft macro, it a fundamental part of the game. So much "pro moves" that makes the audience scream like girls are a result of clunky macro mechanics. This game would be a completely different game if blizzard attempted to focus purely on proactive (strategic) elements and ignore the reactionary elements that make the game awesome, and an awesome spectator sport.

Starcraft is about making good tactical decisions and preforming good micro under huge stress, such as having to macromanage bases and the like. Starcraft 2 should expand upon the core elements, without changing the core gameplay. Meaning simplification of macro-management should be to improve the awesomeness of micromanagement, not to make macro be this entirely new though demanding task, which would change the sub-genere and gameplay of the game.

Proton Charge is NOT reactive, at least not to your opponents actions. Its use is based entirely on the profit margin it gives, based on Probe count.

It is reactive, you practically defined reactive at the start of the paragraph. If factor x>y, do X, else do Y. Both factors are very obvious. (this is referring to the state of the current proton charge). Hence, I am clicking on the most obvious (reacting) thing to click on every 30 seconds.

Hey squid if it isn't too much trouble could you give me a summary of what Archerofauirs argument even is? I'm having trouble figuring out -_-.

[DemolitionSquid]

But doesn't figuring out what 'x" is require all that kind of upper level thinking and strategy you guys love so much? I mean, while I am passively TPING the mothership around proton charging (further increasing the -apm sink, which is good), It isn't just a matter of "Do my troops need the energy/sheilds" anymore. It becomes "Will I possibly need to blackhole or timebubble to support my troops, giving me enough of a benefit to warrant the economic loss". And since I need to TP to a building, if my troops are not near a building, I have to sacrifice my economy just for the potential of big gain by sending my mothership manually up to help, or building a random proxy pylon.

If that isn't strategy and depth I don't know what is.

You're inventing scenarios that simply won't exist in any large number.

The value of PC can be calculated by anyone with a simple knowledge of algebra. My editorial even gave the equations. The numbers may have been slightly wrong, but I even stated that, and that it was the equations that mattered.

If PC has high profit: You have a Mothership with 200 energy. It takes 50 to cast PC, and 25 to Wormhole. You have 3 bases. You cast on your first base, wormhole, cast on second, wormhole, cast on third. By that time you have 0 energy left. All you can do is hope your energy recharges fast enough for you to keep a constant PC going on your Probes, seeing as you won't have ebergy for abilities.

If PC has low profit: You have a Mothership with 200 energy. You might cast PC once as you wait for your army to Warp-In. Then you'll attack with 150 energy to cast spells. Then you'll retreat, and maybe cast PC as you rebuild your army and if you have nothing better to do.

Its sad when the only time PC gives you pseudo-choice is when its so weak its hardly worth even having it exist.

UI limits? You mean "UI constraints". The UI is suppose to limit what your able to do. For instance, the recent builds of SC2 do not support uh...dunno what to call it, but lets say "prequeaing"...meaning queing up units or buildings when you dont actually have the resources to build them, under the assumption you will when they are about to be built.

That could be construed as a UI "limit", but it isn't, its just a constraint so the player doesn't automate base building.

Sending workers to mine was removed because it was simply not fun to new players, and archaic according to todays standards. While a new player could completely ignore macro mechanics and still preform both well in his campaign play and get some 50% winrate on his "Copper 478 tournament bracket". (luls). If he wants to improve, he now has a gameplay mechanic he needs to master, without being overly annoying at start.

"The UI is suppose to limit what your able to do."

This is the single worst design philosophy possible. That instead of restricting the player in game through unit balance, you should actually make it impossible for him/her to do certain things they instinctively want to do, like MBS.

You have officially offended me.

The UI is suppose to limit what your able to do.Regardless of what you think about starcraft macro, it a fundamental part of the game. So much "pro moves" that makes the audience scream like girls are a result of clunky macro mechanics. This game would be a completely different game if blizzard attempted to focus purely on proactive (strategic) elements and ignore the reactionary elements that make the game awesome, and an awesome spectator sport.

Watch a game of SC. No one cheers because of macro. They cheer because of microing units, or the effect of macro letting the player build a huge army, or a strong unit. Macro is a fundamental part of the game, but it is not what you think it is.

Starcraft is about making good tactical decisions and preforming good micro under huge stress, such as having to macro manage bases and the like. Starcraft 2 should expand upon the core elements, without changing the core gameplay. Meaning simplification of macro-management should be to improve the awesomeness of micromanagement, not to make macro be this entirely new though demanding task, which would change the sub-genere and gameplay of the game.

Your statement is hypocritical. You say StarCraft is about making good tactical decisions, but are supporting a mechanic that fundamentally lacks all choice. Macro doesn't need to take the glory from micro, and I have never suggested as such. It simply needs to be more interesting, and having mechanics that require a random 4 APM every X seconds are not interesting, unless you fail at them so completely you get overrun by a better player anyway.

It is reactive, you practically defined reactive at the start of the paragraph. If factor x>y, do X, else do Y. Both factors are very obvious. (this is referring to the state of the current proton charge). Hence, I am clicking on the most obvious (reacting) thing to click on every 30 seconds.

Its reactive to Probe count, profit. Not to the opponent. When someone discusses "reactive" things, its usually in relation to an opposing force. I thought you meant "reactive to the opponent." I apologize for making a wrong assumption.

Hey squid if it isn't too much trouble could you give me a summary of what Archerofauirs argument even is? I'm having trouble figuring out -_-.

Archers argument can basically be summed up as:

PC makes up for the clicks lost by the introduction of auto-mine, MBS, Smart Cast, etc.
Ignore the fact its inherently imbalanced.
Ignore the fact it offers no choice.
As long as it makes up for the clicks, its acceptable.

This line of thinking is retarded at its core.

[ArcherofAiur]

Muwahahaha
Very gooood Darth Newcomplex. Now strike down Demosquid and complete your training!

[supersonic]

Better than TV by far lol

[DemolitionSquid]

Better than TV by far lol

SC pro gamers, my brilliance, or "Archers Asinine Antics (TM)?"