Warcraft Legacy Starcraft Legacy BlizzForums
The Future?

Go Back   BlizzForums > Games > StarCraft Discussion

StarCraft Discussion StarCraft & Brood War lie herein.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes


Old 10-21-2008
 
#16
United States areese87
BF Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,702
 areese87 is made of winareese87 is made of winareese87 is made of winareese87 is made of winareese87 is made of winareese87 is made of winareese87 is made of winareese87 is made of winareese87 is made of winareese87 is made of winareese87 is made of win
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GRUNT View Post

My apologies to you Grunt. SuperKiller, insert your name in my comment, and Bingo- the truth is revealed.
 
areese87 has 1,702 Posts

Obama has won. The seas of change are flooding the streets- a deluge of possibility, a monsoon of opportunity, a literal tsunami of inspiration. We're talking hope. And the only thing left to do is to put on some swimming trunks, maybe a pair of goggles, and just riiiide the wave...

And a major pox on that bastard Jeph Loeb. Everything you touch dies.
 

areese87 is offline


pm.gif   
Reply With Quote


Old 10-21-2008
 
#17
United States Nicol Bolas
BF Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,095
 Nicol Bolas has been here far, far too longNicol Bolas has been here far, far too longNicol Bolas has been here far, far too longNicol Bolas has been here far, far too longNicol Bolas has been here far, far too longNicol Bolas has been here far, far too longNicol Bolas has been here far, far too longNicol Bolas has been here far, far too longNicol Bolas has been here far, far too longNicol Bolas has been here far, far too longNicol Bolas has been here far, far too long
Default

Quote:
I don't want starcraft 2 to play like ZvZ in SC1, where the relative ease of macro (2 hatch max) for the high econ player, the singular point focus on micro (the muta stack) and the absolute impossibility of defense means every game ends very quickly after mutalisks come out. There are few comebacks and many sudden death.
Actually, that's not why ZvZ in SC1 devolved to that state. It does so because defending with the Zerg is more expensive than attacking (Colonies cost Drones, which are critical), because all Zerg units come from Larva, because Tier 2 Zerg units, outside the Mutalisk, are of little value, and because Hydralisks cannot effectively stop Mutalisks.

So it's a question of proper game balance.

I don't see anything in SC2 that will keep comebacks from working. Having a large economy still costs money, and therefore there is an opportunity to attack someone who gains an economic advantage. And SC2 has lots of ways to make people pay for expanding at the wrong time or in the wrong way.

Quote:
imagine if Warp Gates had a build queue and rally point which can be enabled/disabled
If it had a rally point, it wouldn't be Warp-In

Quote:
Warp Gates are something that could be 100% automated, too.
But there is an automated alternative. You sacrifice automatic as a choice to get control over location and a slightly shorter build time. Or, to put it another way, there are two ways to make a Zealot: one that can be automated to a degree and one that is faster, but requires more APM and thought. You're not forcing people to use the unautomated version.

Quote:
If you have the macro skill to keep that Warp Gate constantly busy without the help of a build queue, then because of the faster production, it becomes strictly better than using a Gateway.
Does it?

There is an advantage in units coming out of a Gateway; they start out in your base. If your enemy flanks you, avoiding your Warp-In staging area in favor of smiting your base, it's going to take a long time to get your units back. Whereas if you had your units back near your base, that wouldn't have been as much of a problem.

It is better in the sense that you build units faster. But it can leave your base open to possible attack. Not the biggest disadvantage, certainly. And I suspect that most high-end pros will 100% switch to WarpGates ASAP. But it isn't wrong to use Gateways in the way you're describing.
 

"I still haven't heard a reason why clicks spent overcoming interface limitations to build troops are somehow more indicative of skill than clicks spent maneuvering units and using abilities." - SpiderBrigade
 

Nicol Bolas is offline


pm.gif   
Reply With Quote


Old 10-21-2008
 
#18
United States SWPIGWNG
BF Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 266
 SWPIGWNG has much to be proud ofSWPIGWNG has much to be proud ofSWPIGWNG has much to be proud ofSWPIGWNG has much to be proud ofSWPIGWNG has much to be proud ofSWPIGWNG has much to be proud ofSWPIGWNG has much to be proud ofSWPIGWNG has much to be proud ofSWPIGWNG has much to be proud ofSWPIGWNG has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicol
I don't see anything in SC2 that will keep comebacks from working. Having a large economy still costs money, and therefore there is an opportunity to attack someone who gains an economic advantage. And SC2 has lots of ways to make people pay for expanding at the wrong time or in the wrong way.
Its one thing to use a timing window to punish the opponent while they spend money expanding, it is another to be behind completely. It does happen, from a lucky scarab or damned siege tanks on a cliff overlooking expansion. What often happens is having an economic disadvantage but military parity.

Now one can simply GG as soon as that happens, or one can look for an strategy that prevents the opponent from using his economic advantage and try to claw back into the game. For example, one can draw the opponent into a intense micro battle where he is unable to macro.

Good Marine-Medic micro, for example, kills Zerg unmicroed low tech ground units like nothing. The Zerg player would have to counter micro to survive a push and is thus unable to keep power drone at max efficiency. If the Terran can survive long enough until Sci Vessels or catch up on expansions, there is a chance for a reversal.
------------------------
You could argue that raw APM shouldn't be able to beat a economically stronger and militarily equal opponent, but to those that watch professional SC, that is quite a bit of what its about.
 
 

SWPIGWNG is offline


pm.gif   
Reply With Quote


Old 10-21-2008
 
#19
United States SuperKiller
Cute Small Killer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,803
 SuperKiller has ascended to greatnessSuperKiller has ascended to greatnessSuperKiller has ascended to greatnessSuperKiller has ascended to greatnessSuperKiller has ascended to greatnessSuperKiller has ascended to greatnessSuperKiller has ascended to greatnessSuperKiller has ascended to greatnessSuperKiller has ascended to greatnessSuperKiller has ascended to greatnessSuperKiller has ascended to greatness
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by areese87 View Post
My apologies to you Grunt. SuperKiller, insert your name in my comment, and Bingo- the truth is revealed.
Then you lack any form of comprehension.

you aren't even worth arguing against, but i'll do it anyway. As far as single unit selection, even warcraft 1 had multiple unit selection... and dune had like 25 unit max, powerful units too. There's really not much else to say, as I can still go back and play those games, and enjoy it very much. ~but fear of change? my favorite thing of all in sc2 so far is the warpgate/warp mechanic, I absolutely ador it. I like the positive, but also negative, impact it can have on the players. It requires a players attention to use properly, and also has alot of strategic value as well. There are alot of things I want in sc2 that are duh that have been done like better unit AI, better response to commands, editor, new units, campaign, strategies, ect. That doesn't mean I want to give up things I enjoy and find unique about SC.

the auto-build unit is referring to the fact that selecting your gateway and constantly pressing z for a zealot is just busywork, when the game can start another zealot as soon as the one you built is complete. the task of going back and having to build another scv when you want another right afterwards can be automatic until you turn it off as well. With as much talk of game tasks being "busywork", this falls very well under that little category. I know the unit queue and losing minerals is the important part, and is the reason I WOULD NOT WANT THE AUTOBUILD (positive/negative relationship here), but in terms of removing as much busy work as possible, it makes sense to be implemented.

and arease87, I have absolutely no idea what your viewpoint is on it, as all you do is meaningless mockery of the subject.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicol
Yes, but the only reason to do that is if your APM isn't high enough to do both. If you have enough APM to spend with careful micro and unit production/worker stuff, then there's never a reason why you shouldn't.
Something that seems one-dimensional, such as ordering a worker mine has a multitude of impacts on the game though. When you distract your opponent with harassment, he won't be able to keep up with all of his workers, and suffer. When your opponent is trying to attack from 2 or 3 sides at the same time, he's not easily going to be able to keep up with economic growth. Conversely, the distraction of him going back to perform mining and building troops, can allow you to squeeze in that magical storm that kills 12 hydras that allows you to save your base. Sometimes a player's nonmicro creates oooh moments too. SWPIG said it well when APM, which I'd rather consider as a player's attention, is a limited resource. A player can have 250 APM and still suck donkey balls, so APM isn't really a proper description. This'll happen in SC2 I know, but to a much less degree.

On that note, I'm not necessarily against auto mine, but I don't see an adequate replacement. The new gas mechanic seems awfully overforced. The non-auto-mine procedure is build a worker, order the worker what to do , and he does it. The gas mechanic sounds more like scv dancing between minerals and gas if you want to handle it properly. I haven't played with it, and maybe I could get used to it, but right now I'm not seeing the real positive vs negative on it, just the negative, unless you want to count a few extra minerals. Maybe I'd feel that way about auto mine too, had I not known how big of an impact it really makes.

my fear for SC2, it would be the limited room for improvement. I don't mean in a way that I can macro close to a pro easily , I mean it in a way that I can watch a game of SC that I played and spot all kinds of things I do wrong very very easily and can improve on them. War3 was different, and was, as I felt, incredibly weak in this area, and I don't want SC2 to even come close to that. I know it doesn't look that way right now, but when cookie cutter strategies develop, it may change that entirely. SC has a very broad scope of things that can be improved upon and changed because of the fact that even the best of the best players can do things much better.

those are my thoughts.
 

Last edited by SuperKiller; 10-22-2008 at 12:22 AM. Reason: fixed wording
SuperKiller has 3,803 Posts
 

SuperKiller is offline


pm.gif  Send a message via AIM to SuperKiller Send a message via MSN to SuperKiller  
Reply With Quote


Old 10-21-2008
 
#20
United States areese87
BF Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,702
 areese87 is made of winareese87 is made of winareese87 is made of winareese87 is made of winareese87 is made of winareese87 is made of winareese87 is made of winareese87 is made of winareese87 is made of winareese87 is made of winareese87 is made of win
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperKiller View Post
Then you lack any form of comprehension.

you aren't even worth arguing against, but i'll do it anyway. As far as single unit selection, even warcraft 1 had multiple unit selection... and dune had like 25 unit max, powerful units too. There's really not much else to say, as I can still go back and play those games, and enjoy it very much. ~but fear of change? my favorite thing of all in sc2 so far is the warpgate/warp mechanic, I absolutely ador it. I like the positive, but also negative, impact it can have on the players. It requires a players attention to use properly, and also has alot of strategic value as well. There are alot of things I want in sc2 that are duh that have been done like better unit AI, better response to commands, editor, new units, campaign, strategies, ect. That doesn't mean I want to give up things I enjoy and find unique about SC.

the auto-build unit is referring to the fact that selecting your gateway and constantly pressing z for a zealot is just busywork, when the game can start another zealot as soon as the one you built is complete. the task of going back and having to build another scv when you want another right afterwards can be automatic until you turn it off as well. With as much talk of game tasks being "busywork", this falls very well under that little category. I know the unit queue and losing minerals is the important part, and is the reason I WOULD NOT WANT IT (positive/negative relationship here), but in terms of removing as much busy work as possible, it makes sense to be implemented.

and arease87, I have absolutely no idea what your viewpoint is on it, as all you do is meaningless mockery of the subject.
.
That is actually true. I DO lack comprehension. It's been said; I can't deny it. I'm also not worth arguing against, but apparently I am worth a few paragraphs. Thank God! I was beginning to fall into self-doubt!

But let's look at your comprehension! Ok, so, analogies are curious things: SBS is to MBS as Single unit selection (SUS) is to MUS. Additonally, "Manual-mine is to Atuo-mine" could substitute for "SBS it to MBS." Now, obviously, neither of us would prefer SUS. And nowhere did I say you did. I used this comparison to note that SUS in games would, by your "macro" standards, mean that it would put more skill potential in the game, as players who overcome a bad UI thus are skilled "macroers," if such a word exists. Which it doesn't. But I could be wrong. Though I'm not. Yet I could be. Point is, I think there are ways to improve the UI, remove busywork and YET STILL have room for skill! Imagine! And not that John Lennon shit-piece. Awful, really, quite cheesy, if I may add.

But of course, you profess that you are not in fear of change. That's lovely. And perhaps, I made quite the generalization! Who knows! But we must address that "analogy" of yours. This "Auto-build" concept is utterly absurd, and not worth arguing about. But hell, I'll...do it anyway! Huh! Ok, so, you say that with a gateway, it could be automated in that you could build "another zealot as soon as the one you built is complete." Well, that would be nice! But wait, that's what...queues are! You just tap "z" there. But wait, areese! If it were automated, you wouldn't need to waste that click!

Or wait...would you? You say, "The task of going back and having to build another scv when you want another right afterwards can be automatic until you turn it off as well."- Hmm...so you...would have to click. Your example is really confusticating me, partner. You could have it automated to build the same unit after the one you clicked to build is finished (that's why queues exist, buddy!), unless you click it off automation. That's one mangled analogy there! Doesn't quite work. Or perhaps my comprehension is off! And note: as Nicol artfully said, the Warp gate analogy doesn't work as well, as you sacrifice the queue (your little auto-build, if you will) for far off teleporting rally points and quick production. There's a choice there! True Macro!

So what is my position? Superkiller, if you haven't gathered that already, your comprehension...well...it needs some tuning.
 
areese87 has 1,702 Posts

Obama has won. The seas of change are flooding the streets- a deluge of possibility, a monsoon of opportunity, a literal tsunami of inspiration. We're talking hope. And the only thing left to do is to put on some swimming trunks, maybe a pair of goggles, and just riiiide the wave...

And a major pox on that bastard Jeph Loeb. Everything you touch dies.
 

areese87 is offline


pm.gif   
Reply With Quote


Old 10-21-2008
 
#21
Singapore GRUNT
BF Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 310
 GRUNT is unstoppable!GRUNT is unstoppable!GRUNT is unstoppable!GRUNT is unstoppable!GRUNT is unstoppable!GRUNT is unstoppable!GRUNT is unstoppable!GRUNT is unstoppable!GRUNT is unstoppable!GRUNT is unstoppable!GRUNT is unstoppable!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by areese87 View Post
as Nicol artfully said, the Warp gate analogy doesn't work as well, as you sacrifice the queue (your little auto-build, if you will) for far off teleporting rally points and quick production. There's a choice there! True Macro!

I suggest you read what I've been saying about Warp Gates and macro. It's only really a choice if you're not GOOD enough to keep that Warp Gate constantly busy. I don't have to teleport a unit to some far off place. I can teleport it to appear right in front of the Warp Gate, like what a unit would normally do when popping out of a Gateway.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas;475339
There is an advantage in units coming out of a Gateway; they start out in your base. If your enemy [I
flanks[/i] you, avoiding your Warp-In staging area in favor of smiting your base, it's going to take a long time to get your units back. Whereas if you had your units back near your base, that wouldn't have been as much of a problem.

It is better in the sense that you build units faster. But it can leave your base open to possible attack. Not the biggest disadvantage, certainly. And I suspect that most high-end pros will 100% switch to WarpGates ASAP. But it isn't wrong to use Gateways in the way you're describing.
Have you become so obsessed with the idea of using Warp-In to send units around the map that you forgot that 'anywhere in Pylon power' can also mean right in front of the Warp Gate you built it from?

If you have one Gateway and queue 5 Zealots, and I have one Warp Gate, and warp-in my Zealots in front of my Warp Gate as soon as each one finishes building and immediately train another, then, I ask you: which of us will have 5 Zealots in front of our Gateway/Warp Gate faster than the other and for the same price?

You give no reason why the Warp Gate CAN'T be automated. That's why I proposed the idea of a rally point for the Warp Gate which can be enabled/disabled. If you enable it, you can queue units and they'll automatically warp in at the desired location (as long as its in Pylon power) when completed, but if you don't, then they're yours to warp-in when you want to, like in the current system. I think it's a good thing that you've naturalised what IS a 'busywork' macro-rewarding ability. Thank God for that - if Blizzard had put in the aforementioned optional rally point system, then people like you would bitch if it gets removed. Like SuperKiller, I'm happy with this new mechanic as it's just another technique to learn to improve my game over people who don't do it. If Blizzard can somehow integrate more stuff like this and the gas mechanic into all three races to make macro sufficiently challenging and rewarding for the player, then I'd be a happy chappy.

The amount of macro in BroodWar and the challenge to master it is a huge part of the game's longevity and wide variety of skill between players. And as I and others have pointed out - not just the variety in skill between players, but the variety in TYPES of players. It truly is a tremendous thing, and StarCraft 2 should strive to preserve as much as possible.
 

Last edited by GRUNT; 10-22-2008 at 12:07 AM.
 

GRUNT is offline


pm.gif   
Reply With Quote


Old 10-22-2008
 
#22
United States SuperKiller
Cute Small Killer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,803
 SuperKiller has ascended to greatnessSuperKiller has ascended to greatnessSuperKiller has ascended to greatnessSuperKiller has ascended to greatnessSuperKiller has ascended to greatnessSuperKiller has ascended to greatnessSuperKiller has ascended to greatnessSuperKiller has ascended to greatnessSuperKiller has ascended to greatnessSuperKiller has ascended to greatnessSuperKiller has ascended to greatness
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by areese87 View Post
That is actually true. I DO lack comprehension. It's been said; I can't deny it. I'm also not worth arguing against, but apparently I am worth a few paragraphs. Thank God! I was beginning to fall into self-doubt!
What can I say? I'm just a nice guy like that.

Quote:
But let's look at your comprehension! Ok, so, analogies are curious things: SBS is to MBS as Single unit selection (SUS) is to MUS. Additonally, "Manual-mine is to Atuo-mine" could substitute for "SBS it to MBS." Now, obviously, neither of us would prefer SUS. And nowhere did I say you did. I used this comparison to note that SUS in games would, by your "macro" standards, mean that it would put more skill potential in the game, as players who overcome a bad UI thus are skilled "macroers," if such a word exists. Which it doesn't. But I could be wrong. Though I'm not. Yet I could be. Point is, I think there are ways to improve the UI, remove busywork and YET STILL have room for skill! Imagine! And not that John Lennon shit-piece. Awful, really, quite cheesy, if I may add.
Thinking there are ways to improve it is different than improving it. reread what I said. I don't care if automine is there if I feel there is something there that does well to replace it. Warpgate is a good replacement to the MBS comparison. I want more ideas like that. I'm happy with that.

Quote:
But of course, you profess that you are not in fear of change. That's lovely. And perhaps, I made quite the generalization! Who knows! But we must address that "analogy" of yours. This "Auto-build" concept is utterly absurd, and not worth arguing about. But hell, I'll...do it anyway! Huh! Ok, so, you say that with a gateway, it could be automated in that you could build "another zealot as soon as the one you built is complete." Well, that would be nice! But wait, that's what...queues are! You just tap "z" there. But wait, areese! If it were automated, you wouldn't need to waste that click!

Or wait...would you? You say, "The task of going back and having to build another scv when you want another right afterwards can be automatic until you turn it off as well."- Hmm...so you...would have to click. Your example is really confusticating me, partner. You could have it automated to build the same unit after the one you clicked to build is finished (that's why queues exist, buddy!), unless you click it off automation. That's one mangled analogy there! Doesn't quite work. Or perhaps my comprehension is off! And note: as Nicol artfully said, the Warp gate analogy doesn't work as well, as you sacrifice the queue (your little auto-build, if you will) for far off teleporting rally points and quick production. There's a choice there! True Macro!
I don't get why the concept of autobuild would be so hard for you to understand. Warcraft 2 had it on the consoles. 1 click vs say 50 clicks of m gets rid of busywork. It's like the energizer bunny, it just keeps going and going and going!!!!!

Quote:
So what is my position? Superkiller, if you haven't gathered that already, your comprehension...well...it needs some tuning.
It is rather hard to figure it out with as much twisting as you do.
 
SuperKiller has 3,803 Posts
 

SuperKiller is offline


pm.gif  Send a message via AIM to SuperKiller Send a message via MSN to SuperKiller  
Reply With Quote


Old 10-22-2008
 
#23
United States areese87
BF Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,702
 areese87 is made of winareese87 is made of winareese87 is made of winareese87 is made of winareese87 is made of winareese87 is made of winareese87 is made of winareese87 is made of winareese87 is made of winareese87 is made of winareese87 is made of win
Default

And what twisting do I do, Superkiller? I mean, sure, I go off on tangents, but that's so much as twisting as it is, well, going off on tangents. Your concept of auto-build is essentially a queue line, albeit infinite. That would seem to be the sole "advantage," but really, who needs that much more queue. And if the queue were infite, I'd be fine with it, though that may look curious. I'm not saying you prefer autobuild; I just wouldn't see it as much different from the current system. Additionally, it removes the choice of whether or not to build a unit. Automation would not know that- the player would.

And my position, if it must be stated, is about there with Nicol Bolas. More or less. Or it's different. Heh.
 
areese87 has 1,702 Posts

Obama has won. The seas of change are flooding the streets- a deluge of possibility, a monsoon of opportunity, a literal tsunami of inspiration. We're talking hope. And the only thing left to do is to put on some swimming trunks, maybe a pair of goggles, and just riiiide the wave...

And a major pox on that bastard Jeph Loeb. Everything you touch dies.
 

areese87 is offline


pm.gif   
Reply With Quote


Old 10-22-2008
 
#24
United States SuperKiller
Cute Small Killer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,803
 SuperKiller has ascended to greatnessSuperKiller has ascended to greatnessSuperKiller has ascended to greatnessSuperKiller has ascended to greatnessSuperKiller has ascended to greatnessSuperKiller has ascended to greatnessSuperKiller has ascended to greatnessSuperKiller has ascended to greatnessSuperKiller has ascended to greatnessSuperKiller has ascended to greatnessSuperKiller has ascended to greatness
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by areese87 View Post
And what twisting do I do, Superkiller? I mean, sure, I go off on tangents, but that's so much as twisting as it is, well, going off on tangents. Your concept of auto-build is essentially a queue line, albeit infinite. That would seem to be the sole "advantage," but really, who needs that much more queue. And if the queue were infite, I'd be fine with it, though that may look curious. I'm not saying you prefer autobuild; I just wouldn't see it as much different from the current system. Additionally, it removes the choice of whether or not to build a unit. Automation would not know that- the player would.

And my position, if it must be stated, is about there with Nicol Bolas. More or less. Or it's different. Heh.
Tangent will work too, but by twisting I meant trying to turn manual mine vs automine to single unit selection vs multi unit selection.

the important part of the build queue though, is that you lose the minerals/gas for the cost of the unit as soon as you put a unit into the queue. the idea of the autobuild is that you lose no money until it's time to start the unit's construction, and also saves you from clicking m 30 times to do so. It can be as simple as a right click autocast feature.

Losing minerals is the key aspect of keeping a queue over autobuild, but since I was using it for the talk about busywork, autobuild made more sense. I honestly wouldn't like autobuild, because it would get rid of the cost of using the unit queue.

I used the words positive vs negative before, but maybe cost vs reward is better. build queue gives you the convenience of allowing you to do other things, but at the cost of extra minerals you could have spent on something else to get quicker. It actually becomes a very big deal, because you don't produce as fast or ideally as you could unless you manage it right.



maybe my comparison did suck, but whatever, the point still stands. Autobuild/freequeue would make things more convenient, but you lose the cost vs reward aspect of it which is important to the game and its mechanics.

warpgate has that cost vs reward, in that you lose your build queue, but you can produce troops faster and warp them in pylon power.

for things like manual mine or even SBS, the cost is time, but the reward of handling it better is possibly greater economic/production/management ("macro") over your opponent. The effects of this is both short term and long term. changing it to automine makes it become a dead mechanic, which is fine if they have something to replace it with. The game from I see needs more.
 
SuperKiller has 3,803 Posts
 

SuperKiller is offline


pm.gif  Send a message via AIM to SuperKiller Send a message via MSN to SuperKiller  
Reply With Quote


Old 10-22-2008
 
#25
United States Triceron
BF Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 871
 Triceron has ascended to greatnessTriceron has ascended to greatnessTriceron has ascended to greatnessTriceron has ascended to greatnessTriceron has ascended to greatnessTriceron has ascended to greatnessTriceron has ascended to greatnessTriceron has ascended to greatnessTriceron has ascended to greatnessTriceron has ascended to greatnessTriceron has ascended to greatness
Default

From my understanding Autobuild is something that's already present in other games, take Dawn of War for example. It works perfectly in this game.

There is both a queue and autobuild. Autobuild will build a new unit after the one in progress is done. Queue will allow you to queue up however many units and have them completed one after another. Queues allow you to queue multiple types of units, while autobuild does not.


What is the main advantage of Autobuild? It stops if you don't have the resources, and it doesn't require any excess resources to continue production like a queue might.

It's been a long time since I played SC so I might not be absolute correct, but in War3's case I know that each unit you have in queue costs cash. You spend your cash before you get the unit, and if you don't have the money you can't queue that unit up in any other buildings. You can cheat this by building say 2 units in each building, then setting up a long queue and let the units pop out as you have cash, but you'll hit a point when eventually your units hit the end of the queue and stop production again, forcing you to use the same trick later on if need be.

Autobuild alleviates this problem. Say you had 3 barracks, but very low income. You set all 3 to autobuild whatever units. First building will always build marines as cash comes in, second will start up as soon as cash comes in if the first isn't done yet. 3rd will kick in if there is excess cash coming in while 1+2 are in production. This is more efficient than a queue because you have units being produced as soon as the cash comes in. Compare this to the same situation and are using a queue. You make marines in barracks 1, then you click mmmmmmm to make 7 more behind it. You then have to wait for cash to come in for building 2, then do mmmmmmm for that one. Now for building 3, you'll have to babysit and wait for the moment that cash flows over both barracks 1 AND 2 before you can queue any marines; and on top of that you'll have to replenish whatever units popped out of the queues prior in barracks 1 and 2.

There are many times in the early game where you will have multiple production buildings made and low cash, basically to prepare for massive unit production. autobuild takes the macro off the buildings, simply said.
 

Last edited by Triceron; 10-22-2008 at 01:12 AM.
Triceron has 871 Posts
 

Triceron is offline


pm.gif   
Reply With Quote


Old 10-22-2008
 
#26
United States Nicol Bolas
BF Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,095
 Nicol Bolas has been here far, far too longNicol Bolas has been here far, far too longNicol Bolas has been here far, far too longNicol Bolas has been here far, far too longNicol Bolas has been here far, far too longNicol Bolas has been here far, far too longNicol Bolas has been here far, far too longNicol Bolas has been here far, far too longNicol Bolas has been here far, far too longNicol Bolas has been here far, far too longNicol Bolas has been here far, far too long
Default

Quote:
I haven't played with it, and maybe I could get used to it, but right now I'm not seeing the real positive vs negative on it, just the negative, unless you want to count a few extra minerals.
Yeah, don't bother counting minerals or anything. Just focus on the negatives...

It might be possible, if you time everything right, to work both gases at a base with just 3 workers. That would require emptying the first geyser at the exact moment that the second one comes back online. It also requires keeping track of that so you can switch your workers.

Quote:
If you have one Gateway and queue 5 Zealots, and I have one Warp Gate, and warp-in my Zealots in front of my Warp Gate as soon as each one finishes building and immediately train another, then, I ask you: which of us will have 5 Zealots in front of our Gateway/Warp Gate faster than the other and for the same price?
I think you misunderstand. Warp-In is useful for gaining position over an enemy. So often-times, you will be warping-in near your enemy. That is, while you certainly have the option to have kept a few units on defense, what you will not have is the serendipity of "your enemy attacks you just as 4 Zealots and 4 Dragoons pop out". Or even the more likely, "the enemy attacks, and I have 4 Zealots and 4 Dragoons near enough to my base to pull them back to defend."

Quote:
You give no reason why the Warp Gate CAN'T be automated.
Oh, you could, but that would kinda miss the point. WarpGate gives you an advantage, but it has a mental cost to it. If someone distracts you, or if you're in the middle of a pitched fight that requires intense micro, at some point, you're going to need to stop and Warp-in a few more units or else you lose much of the advantage that WGs provide. Gateways aren't like that, since you can queue up units beforehand, if you know you're going to need intense micro for the next minute or so.

And because the game isn't forcing you to use WGs, it doesn't count as busywork since you don't have to do it.

Quote:
From my understanding Autobuild is something that's already present in other games, take Dawn of War for example. It works perfectly in this game.
That may be, but DoW is not played at the skill levels that SC is played at. Losing a hundred minerals due to an extraneous Zealot can mean delaying your expansion for the next 5 seconds, which can throw off your entire build order. Seconds count in high-level SC, and if you have a computer arbitrarily remove resources, it can get you killed.

Basically, it would be an option that no high-end player would take. Because no high-end player is going to allow the computer to snatch resources from his resource pool without an explicit action. Certainly not in the early-game, and in the late game, a build-queue is sufficient (and more flexible). This is why it is unsuitable automation: because what appears to some to be busywork isn't.
 

"I still haven't heard a reason why clicks spent overcoming interface limitations to build troops are somehow more indicative of skill than clicks spent maneuvering units and using abilities." - SpiderBrigade
 

Nicol Bolas is offline


pm.gif   
Reply With Quote


Old 10-22-2008
 
#27
Canada pureWasted
Temporary Generic Title
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,438
 pureWasted is a name known to allpureWasted is a name known to allpureWasted is a name known to allpureWasted is a name known to allpureWasted is a name known to allpureWasted is a name known to allpureWasted is a name known to allpureWasted is a name known to allpureWasted is a name known to allpureWasted is a name known to allpureWasted is a name known to all
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas View Post
I think you misunderstand. Warp-In is useful for gaining position over an enemy. So often-times, you will be warping-in near your enemy. That is, while you certainly have the option to have kept a few units on defense, what you will not have is the serendipity of "your enemy attacks you just as 4 Zealots and 4 Dragoons pop out". Or even the more likely, "the enemy attacks, and I have 4 Zealots and 4 Dragoons near enough to my base to pull them back to defend."
I believe his point is that as the owner of the Warp Gate, you've got full authority as to where the units will go. Thus, if you can never forget to train a new unit the moment the old one comes out, there is no disadvantage whatsoever, because you will be getting units faster and have more choice in their spawning location -- be it in your base, if that's what you want, or outside of it.
 
pureWasted has 2,438 Posts

My TV Blog

My DeviantArt

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.
 

pureWasted is offline


pm.gif   
Reply With Quote


Old 10-22-2008
 
#28
Singapore GRUNT
BF Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 310
 GRUNT is unstoppable!GRUNT is unstoppable!GRUNT is unstoppable!GRUNT is unstoppable!GRUNT is unstoppable!GRUNT is unstoppable!GRUNT is unstoppable!GRUNT is unstoppable!GRUNT is unstoppable!GRUNT is unstoppable!GRUNT is unstoppable!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pureWasted View Post
I believe his point is that as the owner of the Warp Gate, you've got full authority as to where the units will go. Thus, if you can never forget to train a new unit the moment the old one comes out, there is no disadvantage whatsoever, because you will be getting units faster and have more choice in their spawning location -- be it in your base, if that's what you want, or outside of it.
Bingo! PureWasted gets it. I honestly thought that my explanation was pretty darn clear, but ah well.

Nicol - you are really confusing me now! First you say that you dislike things which COULD be automated, then you laud the Warp Gate mechanic (even though you agree it could be automated) for the same reasons I love it (and other macro-rewarding mechanics) - because of what you call "mental cost" - that's EXACTLY it. The ability to juggle the management of all these economic/production tasks. You basically just argued my case for macro right there.

No one's forcing you to macro your drones during the downtime of Extractors under the current SC2 gas mechanic, but you'll be rewarded if you do. No one's forcing you to keep those Warp Gates constantly busy, but you'll also be rewarded if you do. See what I mean? The 'busywork' is optional in both cases, but you won't be rewarded like the player who has the skill to do it.
 
 

GRUNT is offline


pm.gif   
Reply With Quote


Old 10-22-2008
 
#29
Sweden Todie
Master of Quotation
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 911
 Todie has a reputation beyond reputeTodie has a reputation beyond reputeTodie has a reputation beyond reputeTodie has a reputation beyond reputeTodie has a reputation beyond reputeTodie has a reputation beyond reputeTodie has a reputation beyond reputeTodie has a reputation beyond reputeTodie has a reputation beyond reputeTodie has a reputation beyond reputeTodie has a reputation beyond repute
Default

all this argumentation of sematics is making me so dizzy i probably wont be able to formulate a good enough post to cover my current views about whats at the core of this issue...

But about the warpgates: from where im sitting, Nicol isnt "louding on" warpgates, he's just trying to explain why the warpgate mechanic wouldnt really be itself if it was automated somehow, and why the WG mechanic is a good kind of "new-macro" ... a task to juggle that is less tedious / "busy-work-resembling" because there is choice, skill and drawbacks to the use of it (all of that is connect ofcource).

i think one drawback of relying solely on WG's for unit production that you all seem to have forgotten to mention is the vulnerability of units in mid-warp: they take several seconds to warp in... if an enemy is able to anticipate / spot a loosely defended location you want to warp to, warped in units might get swarmed & decimated before they have a chance to fight back.

i loved the WG-mechanic from day one, and never objected to the build-time bonus. yet, i believe (and hope?) that even some high-end players will sometimes opt to keep using SOME gateways along with their WG's ..... for reasons mentioned above, and also, if there's enough else to think about in the game, even the fastest of players will sometimes want something as convenient as a unit-cue to fall back on - to free up attention for doing other things
 
Todie has 911 Posts


Desirable challenges in SC II ? More strategy, less endless juggling of obvious "must-do" actions

MBS unit prod could make MORE sense - - an altered macro mechanic COULD involve actual strategic decision making.
With great sensibility comes great responsibility
 

Todie is offline


pm.gif   
Reply With Quote


Old 10-22-2008
 
#30
United States Triceron
BF Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 871
 Triceron has ascended to greatnessTriceron has ascended to greatnessTriceron has ascended to greatnessTriceron has ascended to greatnessTriceron has ascended to greatnessTriceron has ascended to greatnessTriceron has ascended to greatnessTriceron has ascended to greatnessTriceron has ascended to greatnessTriceron has ascended to greatnessTriceron has ascended to greatness
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas View Post
Basically, it would be an option that no high-end player would take. Because no high-end player is going to allow the computer to snatch resources from his resource pool without an explicit action. Certainly not in the early-game, and in the late game, a build-queue is sufficient (and more flexible). This is why it is unsuitable automation: because what appears to some to be busywork isn't.
So if you're high-end, don't use autobuild? The queue doesn't go away if you have autobuild, you can have both options. I'm not rooting for autobuild, but I'm not discounting the option if it ever becomes available. It seems like something that would make unit production much easier.
 
Triceron has 871 Posts
 

Triceron is offline


pm.gif   
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Blizzcon Predictions (Did They Come True?) Hydragoon StarCraft Discussion 22 12-05-2008 01:02 AM
BlizzCon 2008 - Ask Us Questions Gradius StarCraft Discussion 73 10-26-2008 12:05 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:20 AM.
Designed by XG3