Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 52

Thread: Another Macro Idea : Special Resource (needs a name)

  1. #21

    Default Re: Another Macro Idea : Special Resource (needs a name)

    Quote Originally Posted by Gifted View Post
    Well, it's more than just that. When I worked my consulting terms... part of my expertise was attempting to find the meaning behind the discussion. In other words, instead of replying to what they're saying, I would work to identify niches and roles that were the origin of the concerns and be able to provide a directional flow for the meetings to help understand exactly is the most productive way to find a solution to the true problem.

    That's why I got paid the big bucks ^_^

    The reason why I'm holding back is that what I suspected originally as the "origin item" being addressed has seemed to shift as the conversation goes on. At least that's how I percieve it. I think I'm in the "information gathering" mode to see if it's a niche I haven't perceived yet. While my initial response would be "this won't work, blah blah blah" I think it's more important to keep an open mind... the discussion has brought some good points... and it has nothing to do with the words typed but rather the trails of thoughts that have been portrayed.

    When Santrega was considerate enough to approach me in PMs regarding this issue, that's why I didn't initially give him my opinion. It's kinda left field in some ways in terms of the typical train of thought. For that reason, I don't want to give an opinion or jump in prematurely without hearing and observing more input. This way, instead of simply saying what my instinct is, I can identify the true issues this is trying to resolve, compare it with existing niches, mechanics that alternatively exist, compare alternatives, examine it in terms of early/mid/late game reference, consider flaws and new niches to be created, compare it with game identity, compare it with company goals, etc.. This is how I approach game design and why I typically don't just "jump in". That's also why I wanted to give him questions to answer himself. That helps me understand these vital peices of information that help speed up the process of finding viable results.

    I hope I made some sense there, It may have come out as babble.
    Werd? More like WERDS!!!!



    And look who thats coming from :P

  2. #22

    Default Re: Another Macro Idea : Special Resource (needs a name)

    lol Gifted I thought you had said "has not been constructive" but I looked again and saw my mistake. I'm glad you posted what you posted however.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gifted View Post
    Well, it's more than just that. When I worked my consulting terms... part of my expertise was attempting to find the meaning behind the discussion. In other words, instead of replying to what they're saying, I would work to identify niches and roles that were the origin of the concerns and be able to provide a directional flow for the meetings to help understand exactly is the most productive way to find a solution to the true problem.

    That's why I got paid the big bucks ^_^

    The reason why I'm holding back is that what I suspected originally as the "origin item" being addressed has seemed to shift as the conversation goes on. At least that's how I percieve it. I think I'm in the "information gathering" mode to see if it's a niche I haven't perceived yet. While my initial response would be "this won't work, blah blah blah" I think it's more important to keep an open mind... the discussion has brought some good points... and it has nothing to do with the words typed but rather the trails of thoughts that have been portrayed.

    When Santrega was considerate enough to approach me in PMs regarding this issue, that's why I didn't initially give him my opinion. It's kinda left field in some ways in terms of the typical train of thought. For that reason, I don't want to give an opinion or jump in prematurely without hearing and observing more input. This way, instead of simply saying what my instinct is, I can identify the true issues this is trying to resolve, compare it with existing niches, mechanics that alternatively exist, compare alternatives, examine it in terms of early/mid/late game reference, consider flaws and new niches to be created, compare it with game identity, compare it with company goals, etc.. This is how I approach game design and why I typically don't just "jump in". That's also why I wanted to give him questions to answer himself. That helps me understand these vital peices of information that help speed up the process of finding viable results.

    I hope I made some sense there, It may have come out as babble.
    I actually understand exactly what you mean. In my own way of saying it, it's like we pulled off the skin of SC1's macro when we added MBS and rallymine, only to find a poor musculoskeletal structure below. Ever since then, there have been four basic types of approaches:
    put the original skin back on
    take off the skin and leave the structure as is
    give the same workings new skin
    implant an improved musculoskeletal structure

    Over time we've come to realize that the first two things aren't happening, and so we've moved on to the last two. I myself used to be a part of the second group but have moved on to the last group the group that wishes to actually improve the macro rather than just simulate the original macro (third group). Our trouble, like you said, is that we just don't know what this new structure/system should look like. We're not just improving what's already there we're putting something in that wasn't there to begin with. That's why you see the niches and thoughts shift so much. We try one thing, it gets torn to bits, then rinse-repeat. We are slowly but surely shaping something to fill the shapeless void.

    *babble-babble-babble*

  3. #23

    Default Re: Another Macro Idea : Special Resource (needs a name)

    Quote Originally Posted by n00bonicPlague View Post
    lol Gifted I thought you had said "has not been constructive" but I looked again and saw my mistake. I'm glad you posted what you posted however.


    I actually understand exactly what you mean. In my own way of saying it, it's like we pulled off the skin of SC1's macro when we added MBS and rallymine, only to find a poor musculoskeletal structure below. Ever since then, there have been four basic types of approaches:
    put the original skin back on
    take off the skin and leave the structure as is
    give the same workings new skin
    implant an improved musculoskeletal structure

    Over time we've come to realize that the first two things aren't happening, and so we've moved on to the last two. I myself used to be a part of the second group but have moved on to the last group the group that wishes to actually improve the macro rather than just simulate the original macro (third group). Our trouble, like you said, is that we just don't know what this new structure/system should look like. We're not just improving what's already there we're putting something in that wasn't there to begin with. That's why you see the niches and thoughts shift so much. We try one thing, it gets torn to bits, then rinse-repeat. We are slowly but surely shaping something to fill the shapeless void.

    *babble-babble-babble*
    I think my babble was slightly misunderstood. It's kinda hard to explain because I talked about many parts of the process instead of the one I intended to. >.<

    While other people are saying "The macro mechanics are broken or could be broken, what can we theoretically do to fix them?" I stand back and think "Why are they broken? We need to get on the same page about that as a team. If we don't, then we'll have solutions to 3-4 different theoretical problems and people will not be aligned. This will involve arguments and people defending sides when it should be seeking a solution to a mutual problem. The term mutual is the key.

    To find that out we examine the symptoms that we'd like to improve/fix.. This may lead to 3-4 theoretical problems. We then take a step back and release our opinions, identify a priority structure on which one we will assume is the problem for investigation and put all the other theories on the back burner. After we explore that, we identify the pros and cons and then put it on the backshelf with the information we've found as we proceed to the next possibility.

    At the end of the day, the results are all the paths with their pros and cons... nothing that's "right or wrong". This is part of the process I try to encourage when I work on a team with a game. It's also the easiest path to deviate from. Too many times you'll find people who are passionate about their ideas, opinions, approach, etc and are having difficulties letting go of their own opinion to seek the potential of another. Then you have people who care so much about other people who do it that they don't realize that in critiquing those other people, they themselves hypocritically become an associate in the problem. This only hurts the process, as discussions deviate from "Examining pros and cons" to "Proclaiming right and wrong".

    I find that almost all the time, in examining (let's say) 4 issues that a mechanic is attempting to solve, you find about 3-4 other potential issues that could also be the point. Eventually finding out the "real problem" that your "solutions" are trying to fix. At this point, you find that ALL of your previous "solutions" won't fix, because they don't actually fit the niche of the recently identified symptom. I feel too many times in discussion without correct management, the symptom identification is cut short due to time/money constraints or emotional investment into personal ideas/beliefs.

    Even in your example you posted, you focus on the ability to find a solution instead of identifying the proper symptoms. [EDIT: To explain further, the part that I would examine involves where you simply said "find a poor musculoskeletal structure below". This is where I would invest my thought, not the majority of your post. Not intending to insult whatsoever, I made this edit so you could further understand where I examine the conversation and attempt to make it productive] The symptom finding is the more important and time consuming process.. mostly because when you find solutions that work for later issues, it shifts the entire structure you've created thus far... requiring a re-examination of the previous symptoms that could have been effected. In other words, for each niche you "resolve" it exponentially increases the time investment as you have to reexamine all the previous content that was "resolved".

    (This further points out why I feel it's always important to view it in variable mentality (Pros/Cons) instead of binary (Good/Bad) mentality, but I'll leave that for a future discussion. BTW Nooby/Santrega. I hope this is answering any questions you guys may have on how I approach things, you seem slightly curious/intrigued. I hope it provides a good reason/understanding on what makes me click.)
    Last edited by Gifted; 12-22-2009 at 10:38 AM.
    Please be aware of the SC:L Posting Rules and Guidelines.


    If I were you, I'd look at these links. You might even follow or like them or something...

    StarCraft: Legacy: Like us on Facebook - Follow us on Twitter - Subscribe to our Youtube channel
    Legacy Observer: Watch live on Twitch.tv - Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Subscribe to Youtube Channel

  4. #24

    Default Re: Another Macro Idea : Special Resource (needs a name)

    I'm skeptical of a third resource because of many of the same reasons others have brought up. This is very similar to the oil system, which did not exactly work out as planned.

    A few questions about this 3rd resource.

    1- How easily available is this resource to every player? Is it going to be a part of every starting point? Every expansion? A rare appearance like Yellow minerals?

    2- How many workers do you have to spare to most effectively tap this resource?

  5. #25

    Default Re: Another Macro Idea : Special Resource (needs a name)

    Quote Originally Posted by Gifted View Post
    I think my babble was slightly misunderstood. It's kinda hard to explain because I talked about many parts of the process instead of the one I intended to. >.<
    Merry Christmas Gifted:
    Hidden Content:


    Quote Originally Posted by Gifted View Post
    While other people are saying "The macro mechanics are broken or could be broken, what can we theoretically do to fix them?" I stand back and think "Why are they broken? We need to get on the same page about that as a team. If we don't, then we'll have solutions to 3-4 different theoretical problems and people will not be aligned. This will involve arguments and people defending sides when it should be seeking a solution to a mutual problem. The term mutual is the key.

    To find that out we examine the symptoms that we'd like to improve/fix.. This may lead to 3-4 theoretical problems. We then take a step back and release our opinions, identify a priority structure on which one we will assume is the problem for investigation and put all the other theories on the back burner. After we explore that, we identify the pros and cons and then put it on the backshelf with the information we've found as we proceed to the next possibility.

    At the end of the day, the results are all the paths with their pros and cons... nothing that's "right or wrong". This is part of the process I try to encourage when I work on a team with a game. It's also the easiest path to deviate from. Too many times you'll find people who are passionate about their ideas, opinions, approach, etc and are having difficulties letting go of their own opinion to seek the potential of another. Then you have people who care so much about other people who do it that they don't realize that in critiquing those other people, they themselves hypocritically become an associate in the problem. This only hurts the process, as discussions deviate from "Examining pros and cons" to "Proclaiming right and wrong".

    I find that almost all the time, in examining (let's say) 4 issues that a mechanic is attempting to solve, you find about 3-4 other potential issues that could also be the point. Eventually finding out the "real problem" that your "solutions" are trying to fix. At this point, you find that ALL of your previous "solutions" won't fix, because they don't actually fit the niche of the recently identified symptom. I feel too many times in discussion without correct management, the symptom identification is cut short due to time/money constraints or emotional investment into personal ideas/beliefs.

    Even in your example you posted, you focus on the ability to find a solution instead of identifying the proper symptoms. [EDIT: To explain further, the part that I would examine involves where you simply said "find a poor musculoskeletal structure below". This is where I would invest my thought, not the majority of your post. Not intending to insult whatsoever, I made this edit so you could further understand where I examine the conversation and attempt to make it productive] The symptom finding is the more important and time consuming process.. mostly because when you find solutions that work for later issues, it shifts the entire structure you've created thus far... requiring a re-examination of the previous symptoms that could have been effected. In other words, for each niche you "resolve" it exponentially increases the time investment as you have to reexamine all the previous content that was "resolved".

    (This further points out why I feel it's always important to view it in variable mentality (Pros/Cons) instead of binary (Good/Bad) mentality, but I'll leave that for a future discussion. BTW Nooby/Santrega. I hope this is answering any questions you guys may have on how I approach things, you seem slightly curious/intrigued. I hope it provides a good reason/understanding on what makes me click.)
    I think this is what I was trying to say in my previous post. I myself have also seen the enormous split on what the actual problem is. One crowd says it's this, while the other says it's that, while still another crowd says something entirely different, and really nobody understands any of the other crowds' issues at all. We each have our pros and cons predetermined, and we already have a personal tipping point between when the ratio becomes absolutely good or absolutely bad. Like you said yourself, I also think that we all need to do some serious "soul-searching" individually and as a whole in order to determine if there even is a problem to begin with and, if so, what that problem is.

    Also, no offense taken Gifted I get what you're sayin'.

  6. #26

    Default Re: Another Macro Idea : Special Resource (needs a name)

    I think we've gotten on the same page. Ultimately though we've digressed... The ultimate question regarding this third resource. What is the issue that it fills that any previous suggestion has not addressed? That's the one I'm waiting to see.
    Please be aware of the SC:L Posting Rules and Guidelines.


    If I were you, I'd look at these links. You might even follow or like them or something...

    StarCraft: Legacy: Like us on Facebook - Follow us on Twitter - Subscribe to our Youtube channel
    Legacy Observer: Watch live on Twitch.tv - Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Subscribe to Youtube Channel

  7. #27

    Default Re: Another Macro Idea : Special Resource (needs a name)

    Quote Originally Posted by Gifted View Post
    I think we've gotten on the same page. Ultimately though we've digressed... The ultimate question regarding this third resource. What is the issue that it fills that any previous suggestion has not addressed? That's the one I'm waiting to see.
    Decision making involved in actually carrying out of the action. In the situation where its manually cast every so often, its not something you choose to do, but something you are forced to do. When its something you go and gather to achieve, its something you choose to do because of its benefits, and its not something you have to do every X amount of time.

    Thats as simple as I can make the issue it resolves.
    http://sclegacy.com/forums/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=23&dateline=124193888  6

    Please stop the spread of Mass Effect!!!

  8. #28

    Default Re: Another Macro Idea : Special Resource (needs a name)

    The attempted purpose of my Macro article was to sumarize all of this communities concerns in a clear and concise manner


    You can find it below
    |
    V
    Last edited by ArcherofAiur; 12-22-2009 at 06:52 PM.

  9. #29

    Default Re: Another Macro Idea : Special Resource (needs a name)

    The mere idea of having another resource fills what is believed to be a lack of complexity within SC's macro. It would be more than just increasing the magnitude of existing macro. This would be including something new into SC macro — something that wasn't there before. An entirely new dimension of gameplay would open up for the macro player.

  10. #30

    Default Re: Another Macro Idea : Special Resource (needs a name)

    You know guys, I can't tell you why DB said this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Dustin Browder
    We want the players to go back to their base in order to produce reinforcements. We want them to really take care instead of relying on an automatic process.
    I understand that he said it. I think I still disagree with it though. If this idea provides the same attention requirement, but in a different area of macro other than unit production, why would it be a bad idea because of what he said here?

    Maybe dustin browder and the sc2 team believed forcing you back to your base was the only alternative without ruining the game by changing it into a completely different game... I can speculate all day long on what was going through their minds, but, I wont.

    What I can do is, I can look at this alternative and say "It may be slightly different than starcraft, but it does not change the unit/building tree, it does not change the overall resource design, and at the same time it creates a reason to carry out a meaningful action, rather than repetitive clicking."
    http://sclegacy.com/forums/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=23&dateline=124193888  6

    Please stop the spread of Mass Effect!!!

Similar Threads

  1. Protoss Special Shield Regen: Gone
    By Nicol Bolas in forum StarCraft Discussion
    Replies: 139
    Last Post: 10-24-2009, 01:08 PM
  2. What would YOUR macro be?
    By Xyvik in forum StarCraft Discussion
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 09-24-2009, 09:02 PM
  3. Zerg "macro" idea -- reabsorption
    By n00bonicPlague in forum StarCraft Discussion
    Replies: 68
    Last Post: 08-02-2009, 05:45 PM
  4. Special Ability for Marauder?
    By n00bonicPlague in forum StarCraft Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 05-09-2009, 08:10 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •