Autocast build is a different argument from the rest, so I’ll get it out of the way first.
My logic here is more along the lines of “if you have a build queue, why should it have an arbitrary limit”, followed by “if you have an (unpaid) unlimited build queue, isn’t it QoL to just let you add infinity of unit X”.
For unpaid queue, one of the advantages of this is instaneous-ness. This is good for two reasons:
People with higher pings aren’t disadvantaged as much - their training or construction begins at the exact same time.
You’re not forced to wait for a second or so with your building selected until you get the resources (or start training/constructing later than necessary). Of course, some people see this as skill. But some don’t.
It’s just that I (we) don’t see those as bad habits. They were just things you used to have to do - like adjusting the choke on your car.
I disagree with the comparison. Built-in melodies is more like automated build scripts - decisions on what note to play are being made for you. The comparison here would be if you hold down a piano key it stays loud permanently, rather than having to keep pushing it again.
There’s two parts to macro - [A] deciding what to do and [B] doing it. If we’re talking about QoL etc we’re talking about modernizing a UI. I don’t want to learn/use the mechanical bits of what I see as an outdated system ([B]) if it’s not necessary and I’m not going to use it in the future.
The important skill in macro, to me, is [A]: Choosing what and when to build, based on the current state of the game.
([X/Y] mine)
These arguments assume alternatives of equal quality exist. It’s a bit like saying if you don’t like a manual transmission Ferrari you could always go for a VW or something in a world where Ferarri was the only decent car. We’re here because the alternatives aren’t good for other reasons.
I still disagree. I don’t see it as a difference in style of play, or as simple as being a quality of life change. I view this as learning to adapting to a subset of Warcraft 3. Macro is an important part of the game and is reflective of the ‘Real Time’ aspect just as much as we value the ‘Strategy’. It’s the act of executing unit build timings the accumulation of resources that defines skill.
I don’t believe that a technical issue of ping disadvantages is a significant factor considering all of Warcraft 3’s balance is based heavily on RNG and is much more broad in terms of how units are used rather than when. Even at a unit disadvantage, out-microing your opponent can lead to a bigger advantage than being 3-seconds behind on building a huntress for your timing attack. Automation should not be an excuse to maintain equity between players.
Automated queue (in any fashion) is not itself bad, but it does not belong in standard play. I think a change like this would be more akin to a custom game mode or alternate ladder system (FFAs, 4v4s, etc). I think the change is significant enough to be its own thing.
I completely understand that from an individual perspective, a focus would be better spent on micro than macro. That doesn’t excuse giving up the macro aspect or having QoL features diminish its necessity. I’m not good at Macro, and I’m way better at Micro, but I still value all the perceived complexities because that is what makes it Warcraft 3 and not a MOBA or Starcraft. Same can be said of SC1’s brutal lack of modern QoL systems; adding QoL would result in diminishing the value of Starcraft’s complexity and skill curve. It’s the fact that a pro player is able to manage both a high level of macro and micro that makes them pros. If we were to allow (for example) unlimited unit selection or smart casting, then a big question would be - is it still Starcraft?
I strongly believe Warcraft 3’s Macro AND Micro should be preserved as they are. I’m fine with options as long as they stay separate from the standard way to play.
It’s the same way I viewed BGH$$$ maps in Starcraft. It’s popular and it’s how many people wanted to play Starcraft, but it’s not something that should be integrated into the game as a standard. It can be officially recognized and given as an option, but outside of the standard game mode.
Skill is zero sum. Increase the importance of one thing and you reduce the importance of others. So if you have a game whose main skills are quick strategic thinking and mechanical UI skill, reducing the importance of mechanical UI skill will increase the importance of strategic thinking.
This will result in more innovation, more reactive/adaptive gameplay (rather than sticking to the same plan regardless of your opponent’s actions - many pros even do this). It will especially result in more interesting games for spectators as they don’t get to see (and have little interest in) the mechanical UI actions.
You’ll see more variation in units used, more unusual situations, greater use of the map, etc. [added]: more scouting and counter-scouting, more faking, bluffing, hiding tech.
Currently, at the top level, UI muscle memory requirements means pros will be hesitant to use units they’re not very familiar with and strategies they haven’t practiced to death - even if they’re the best unit/strategy for the current situation.
BGH is the exact opposite, IMHO. It removes strategy (eg. limited mining time) and emphasizes mechanical skill. You have far more income so you need to macro more - the focus is far more on just how fast you can train units - how many buildings can you keep macroing.
I should add, the first section is basically a summation of my most important feelings on the modern-UI/QoL question - making the game more fun/varied/strategic/mentally-challenging is the whole reason I argue about this.
I think that’s a slippery slope. You may as well turn WC3 into a turn-based strategy then, if you wish to increase the importance of strategic thinking by reducing mechanical skill. I know this is an exaggeration; but so is the premise of reducing mechanical UI skill considering Warcraft 3 has considerably low Macro requirements as it is. The mechanical UI skill is important to the overall strategy in terms of how you are spending your resources based on the amount you are obtaining it. Effectively, this is diminishing the Real Time skill out of Resource maangement; IE spending gold effeciently vs overspending on queues rather than efficiently managing it and being able to afford items on the field. An unpaid queue would not increase strategic thinking in any meaningful way; rather it diminishes resource management for units completely. What other strategy would you be implementing that you could not be bothered to execute a well-planned build order?
A large part of punishing the opponent is being able to disrupt their focus. This is the goal of harassing the enemy’s workers. This is the goal of creep-jacking, or stealing their items. The point is each player must focus on multiple things and BE distracted, and it’s the one who makes the fewest mistakes who will have the greatest advantage. It’s capitalizing on these mistakes that differentiates the level of skill between players.
At no point do I see an unpaid queue increasing any strategy, because Warcraft 3’s unit composition is already heavily limited by its upkeep system, selection limit and presence of Heroes (which are the true offense units). At a certain point, your micro skill may be capped by an inability to supplement your own forces because you forgot to build units to replace the ones you’ve lost. Having unpaid queues make up for tunnelvision during a big battle is something that should be punished, because it is a part of the game. Having that resource management element removed because you’ve set your queue and decided not to think about it is not strategy, it’s not Warcraft 3 standard, it’s… essentially a watered down MOBA.
You won’t see ‘more’ variation in units, more unusual situations, more greater use of the map. You will see the same amount; just that the skill of the player prevents them from being able to implement those strategies because of their own oversights. A competant player does not need to spend much time on macro if they hotkey their buildings appropriately. Playing SC2 helped me learn how to macro better, following tips from Day9 has made me a better WC3 player for it. Focusing on improving on macro has made me a better player who is able to focus on more of the map. The point is; it CAN be done at the same time. Learning to do so is a big part of playing the game. If you are unable to split your focus and manage the production of units, then you aren’t playing Warcraft 3 in the way that it is intended to. For the longest while, that is the reason why I play MOBA over WC3; but at no point do I think WC3 should suddenly adopt MOBA-esque ‘QoL’ for the sake of preserving the game as WC3 and not some micro-intense derivative.
Real-time strategic thinking - if you go squorgs and you scout your opponent massing anti-squorgs, you need to rapidly decide what to do, and every second you don’t adapt is a gain for your opponent.
I will agree that distracting, and not being distractible, are skills, and that this would reduce them, but only a little - not enough IMHO to counter the gains elsewhere.
Not making mistakes is important, but it’s too important in WC3 because little else matters. Great ideas and a few mistakes should beat flawless ordinariness.
It only increases it indirectly, by reducing everything else. You could say skill always adds up to 1. If you reduce mechanical skill from 0.3 to 0.2, you gain 0.1 somewhere else - which is intellectual skill.
Clicking on a building just when resources are ready is a macro reflex. A player could beat one with superior strategy because they’re better at that skill - all else being equal - because they have their units just a bit earlier. Remove the importance of that skill and the player with superior strategy wins.
Unpaid queue is most beneficial only a few moments before resources are available (or training is finished). I’d actually prefer have unpaid without queue (and even without autocast train) to queue without unpaid (even with autocast train).
If the intellectual skill fraction is increased it will increase the average intellectual skill (good and rapid planning) of players, increasing adaptive gameplay. Adaptive gameplay almost certainly means more varied units.
If muscle memory is reduced, the downsides to choosing less-practiced units will be smaller - hence more unit variation.
I’m not sure how RTS QoL can be described as MOBA-esque. MOBAs lack every element that RTS QoL relates to.
Training/construction - nope.
Unit groups - no (or occasionally tiny ones for some heroes).
Harvesting - nope.
MOBA is also basically RTS minus 95% of the strategic elements (or 99% if solo). It’s basically like comparing hockey to golf.
Which goes back to your:
Above you compare my desires to a TBS/turn-based strategy, now you compare them to a MOBA - but TBS and MOBA are like polar opposites. I get the TBS comparison kinda, I don’t get this one at all. MOBAs are almost pure mechanical skill and very little intellectual skill.
When there’s less need to split your focus between macro and micro, you free up time (focus) to engage in more complex strategies like split attacks, scouting, expanding, faking, etc.
Unfortunately, WC3 hasn’t been balanced too well for innovative gameplay. So much teleport makes map position and unit speed less relevant, counters aren’t hard enough, units are too flexible. Original WC3 wasn’t bad, but TFT made things worse (a good example being siege damage changes).
Real-time strategic thinking - if you go squorgs and you scout your opponent massing anti-squorgs, you need to rapidly decide what to do, and every second you don’t adapt is a gain for your opponent.
You can do that without sacrificing anything. Splitting your focus to attend to macro does not inhibit your ability to scout unless you are intentionally tunnel visioning yourself. What happens when you attack the enemy base while your own base is being attacked? You will need to split your attention, and that is a part of the strategy element of all RTS games. This is all a part of army and base management, something integral to the design of WC3.
It only increases it indirectly, by reducing everything else. You could say skill always adds up to 1. If you reduce mechanical skill from 0.3 to 0.2, you gain 0.1 somewhere else - which is intellectual skill.
Not necessarily. Look at MOBAs where all macro-oriented mechanical skill has been (effectively) removed. At the base level, this is still an RTS, simply refined to an extreme where your hero represents an entire army’s worth of offensive capability. Where is your strategy? It’s all about the ganking, the jungling, soaking/last-hitting, buying items and scouting the enemy. These are all the same things you would be doing if you aren’t focusing on macro in WC3.
Yet you now lack the ability to disrupt your opponent’s attention towards any type of macro. You lack the complexity that is involved with attack timings, expanding or having enough resources to buy necessary items. You gained more intellectual skill while limiting options to play mind games with your opponent. We’re simply talking about a different cost, and effectively this changes the underlying complexity of the game.
Clicking on a building just when resources are ready is a macro reflex. A player could beat one with superior strategy because they’re better at that skill - all else being equal - because they have their units just a bit earlier. Remove the importance of that skill and the player with superior strategy wins.
Unpaid queue is most beneficial only a few moments before resources are available (or training is finished). I’d actually prefer have unpaid without queue (and even without autocast train) to queue without unpaid (even with autocast train).
The reason queues are paid is to give a player an option, but at a cost. The design is similar to upkeep, where if you want a larger army, then you will get less mining income. Queues are an advantage. In a situation where queues are no longer an advantage and are baked into a standard way of play, you can equate it to removing upkeep or diminishing it; or adding unlimited selection to make it easier to macro select units. This effectively changes how WC3 plays no matter how you look at it. It is not just quality of life, it is changing how the game is approached entirely. Without upkeep, you will make larger armies. Without selection limits, you would always group your army in a death ball. This is not how Warcraft 3 is played. You may as well be playing a SC2 mod of WC3 instead.
If the intellectual skill fraction is increased it will increase the average intellectual skill (good and rapid planning) of players, increasing adaptive gameplay. Adaptive gameplay almost certainly means more varied units.
There is nothing preventing adaptive gameplay or varied units in any level of the game. I see this as an excuse for not learning how to play the game properly.
Mechanical UI macro and strategic thinking aren’t mutually exclusive.
You aren’t diminishing any ability to strategize by having to click on buildings to make units. That would be like saying driving automatic allows for more intellectual skill vs driving manual; it’s an unfounded statement.
If muscle memory is reduced, the downsides to choosing less-practiced units will be smaller - hence more unit variation.
There is no basis to this statement. Muscle memory is a part of learning how to play any game. Muscle memory is a large part of Micro, and clicking buildings (or more efficiently, hitting a series of hotkeys) to create units is a part of that micro. You would actually be diminishing ‘intellectual skill’ by pre-planning which units to create and committing them to a queue. You aren’t increasing variety if you are queuing up unit production from the same building; unit variety is based on having many buildings and building from each which an unpaid queue would not resolve.
When there’s less need to split your focus between macro and micro, you free up time (focus) to engage in more complex strategies like split attacks, scouting, expanding, faking, etc.
Untrue. Pros show that it can all be achieved with enough practice and skill to execute. Watch some Day9 videos breaking down how top SC/2 players are able to macro while attacking AND micro at the same time. Splitting marines to avoid baneling splash while using hotkeys to continue production of marines. That is all a part of strategy, and setting things to a queue would not resolve any of the perceived macro issues that you have brought up. You gain no significant Strategic/Intellectual skill advantage by having queues be unpaid. The ability to queue already exists, and an unpaid queue would not be QoL for anyone who macros efficiently.
It’s like suggesting that making unlimited selection would help micro by decreasing the amount of hotkey groups required. It has the opposite effect because good micro involves separating small groups of units or focusing on individual unit actions. In this case, good macro is about creating units when necessary to make the most of resource management. Queues have the opposite effect and their existence is already a handicap towards low-macro players. The cost of queuing is reflective of a lower skill cap for those who depend on its use. It is inefficient yet effective, and any player who wants to become better at macro would have to focus on good macro play rather than rely more on a system that promotes a ‘set-and-forget’ style of play.
And golf is still hockey (refined to the extreme), just without the team, time pressure, etc…
If you think MOBA is anything like RTS, are you sure you’ve actually played one? Just because the original one used an RTS engine, and they look cosmetically similar? MOBAs are brainless.
Attention management is important, I agree - just not to the extent you do. You still have to manage it. You’re assuming that the hole in time management caused by less macro won’t be filled by something else. If you’re needing to do something, distraction will work, whether it’s macro or managing multi-creeping or whatever.
Sure, macro disruption can be more devastating, eg if the player ends up forgetting to build - but having remembering/forgetting to do a menial task as a big part of your game is less fun than disrupting more mentally complex tasks (army management, planning, scouting).
I don’t agree. Upkeep is a gameplay feature. Queues are QoL - they could be implemented entirely client-side if you wanted (especially unpaid, but either way).
There’s kinda two separate purposes for queues:
Long-duration: Put a lot of units in a queue so you don’t have to manually order them later.
Tiny-duration: Add a unit slightly before it’s ready to train, so you get perfect timing and don’t lose a second or so hovering over the train key waiting for it to become available.
(1) is rarely good play. (2) is nearly always good play.
It’s a statistical side effect. It’s not prevention - it’s about ranking. How people with better adaptive-skill rank compared to better mechanical-skill.
Basketball considers height and ball-skills. If you somehow equalized everyone’s height (eg, via VR), you’d find that, on average, ball skills would increase (and height would decrease) for those succeeding - eg becoming pro.
There’s clearly nothing preventing good ball-skills from shining in basketball, but removing height as a factor would increase ball-skills further.
Here’s a more mathematical way of explaining it.
Say you have a population, and each individial has some amount of skill in A and B.
If you rank each individual on A×0.5 + B×0.5, the average A of the top say 10% will be lower than if you ranked purely by A (¹) - because some people with better A will end up below those with better B. The more weight you give B, the lower the average A will be in the top 10% of players. You could show this on a spreadsheet with random data pretty easily.
(¹): Technically it could be equal if A & B are perfectly rank-correlated for the top 10%, but chances are tiny.
I agree, if that’s how you want to use them. But nobody’s forcing you to.
See the top section of my reply here. xhttps://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/warcraft3/t/minor-suggestion-automation-for-units-and-buildings/3043/15?u=xaxazak-1483
If you spend eons perfecting your talon strat and far less on dryads, your relative performance with talons will be higher than dryads. If a situation arises where these are the best two options, that difference in skill, coupled with habit (or reduced odds in considering dryads), will tilt you towards talons - even if the situation technically makes talons slightly worse.
This isn’t just theoretical - When I watch pros play, I’m always seeing this. They so often go for their comfort units and comfort heroes regardless of the situation.
In many cases, they’re not actually making the wrong decision - going for comfort picks increases their odds because they’re more practiced at using them (and everything related, such as macro timings to train them).
And that makes the game more boring - especially to watch.
But are they also controlling their double medivac harass on their opponent’s two expansions while scouting and expanding themselves? If they’re capable of managing X things at once, and one of them is macro mechanics, then removing macro mechanics gives them time for something else.
Mostly they’re unnecessary. But there are occasions where they’re beneficial (e.g. mass planes). So if you only use them when it’s beneficial (as good players will) there’s precisely zero downside.
Unless you want to argue there’s never a situation in which they’re useful. But then, is 12 some magic number? Why not 11? 7?
We both agree that using queues in this way makes you play worse (at least it should if the countering is hard enough). But is there anything wrong with that?
Firstly, the queues already exist, so the problem does too. Secondly, ways for people to play badly aren’t bad for the game.
If something’s bad practice, pros won’t do it. So if people claim they want something for QoL, and it’s bad practice so it doesn’t affect pro play, what’s the downside? QoL-ers are happy, pros are unaffected. If it leads some people to bad habits, I have no problem - it’s a competitive environment.
@xaxazak. The truth is you don’t have the mind strength to multitask and adapt in Warcraft 3 games.
Why should blizzard do changes so you can work less and do less to keep up with more skill players ?
The thing is - multitasking is the biggest skill in Warcraft 3 and if you can’t do it - maybe play computer on normal or custom games with map triggers.
If you really wanted to improve - you would practice and go beyond your limit.
Some people don’t want to go beyond their limit but instead want blizzard to lower the game to their low ended micro skills.
I want you too know that if you intend to take this game seriously and want to be the best - you will have to learn micro macro and multitasking as well as body blocking and surrounding.
These mechanics are what separate a normal person from a pro.
The best thing to do is leave the game as it is and have people master the game.
making things automatic, will only make the game casual, what happens with that? sure it may bring more casuals into the game, but as everyone knows, casuals move from game to game, in a couple of months they will move onto another game. and we will be left behind with this dumb automatic sh1t.
same happened to DBZF and the ridiculous auto-combo stuff, first couple of months it was the hot sh1t, and now there’s a tiny fraction of it’s initial players online.
if the game is too hard for you, just pick something else.
It boils down to a big yes, there is something wrong with having unpaid queues vs paid queues. It is a perceptively minor change that has a major impact on the game.
Unlimited unit selection could be considered similar QoL for Micro. The game would change if it were added. It would change how people approach functions in the game by diminishing something else.
You may be fine with diminishing unit production timings because you are not inclined to macro in the first place, which sets up a bias towards other perceived ‘meaningful tasks’ like scouting or double harass. The fallacy comes from dismissing unit production management as a menial task.
To make a reverse argument - what if we were to suggest scouting (as an example of a menial task that does not require full attention) be automated instead of having to click units to path around? What if we make base drop tactics/BM harass easier through more complex AI (auto windwalk when attacked or auto load into zeppelin when attacked). This allows low micro-skilled players to harass at the same level of pros through strategy rather than requiring mechanical skill to pull it off, and they can reserve their intellectual skill for macro. Would you accept this as a gaming option? I would argue against it.
Fundamentally changing the game for the sake of QoL is generally a bad idea.
Did you read the whole conversation. I posted quite a few examples of multitasking that currently isn’t being done by pros. Scouting is often neglected, meaning pros still often don’t spot expansions for long times. Multi-pronged attacks are also rare (although that’s partly due to the square law of battles). Pros aren’t not doing this stuff cos they’re being lazy, it’s just that a significant part of their APM and attention is being spent on menial stuff.
I want multitasking. There are tons of tasks to be done - far more than are being done. Multitasking won’t somehow magically go away if you remove one task.
I never claimed I want an easier game - I actually claim the reverse - I want it harder. But I want the difficulty to be intellectual - making the right decisions should be the most important skill, expertly navigating a deliberately sub-optimal UI is not a skill I want to be part of the game.
Right now it’s pretty easy for mediocre strategists to do well by simply practicing mechanical execution of basic cookie-cutter strategies.
I want it harder. I know it’s counter-intuitive, but I believe that making the UI easier will make the game harder.
For me, the prime aim of QoL enhancements is to increase strategic difficulty.
My arguments are nothing to do with me personally. If you need to know, micro is my weakest skill (esp saving and sniping injured units). But I’m mostly interested in game design issues rather than my own play.
Some games have this - basically, auto-wander - I am strongly opposed, because the game is making the decision of where to go for you (in this case, randomly).
IMHO zeppelin loading is badly designed, it needs delays (say 1s to load, one at a time, unit is disabled while loading). Perhaps even have attacks cancel loading. Auto-loading would suck, but instant manual loading also sucks. This is in a way similar to those sucky staves of preservation etc - click-to-save-a-unit mechanisms reduce strategic depth.
Autocast windwalk is probably a bad idea simply because it’s easily abused, regardless of other considerations. However, I do favor some other similar things, such as partial refund when under construction structures are destroyed (effectively, auto-cancel) - although this is mainly about latency, everyone wants to cancel at the last second so there’s no decision to be made, just a race between flying arrows and network packets.
I have the feeling that for most autocast spells, if they weren’t originally autocast, requests to make them autocast would be opposed here - but also vice-versa. Necromancers auto-raising skeletons - isn’t that just the computer playing your necros for you? Some buffs/debuffs are autocast, some aren’t (frenzy). If they had been, would anyone be asking for their removal?
From a game design approach, there are many side effects in regards to how Warcraft 3 is intended to be played. The intended way to play is a product of collective Warcraft 3 player expectations on how everyone should ideally play. This means if I am unable to select more than 12 units at a time, then everyone is unable to select more than 12 units at a time, and we know everyone has to adjust their micro to that standard.
Paid queues work because they have very direct and visual costs. You can only queue what you can buy. You only have as much gold as you have spent That is a part of design.
Unpaid queue can be deceptive. You are ‘purchasing’ units in a queue but only pay when they start production. Your actual resources are not reflective of the cost of units you have placed in queue. This leads to a disconnect between perception of unit production and amount of available resources.
If your resources are low and you have high production (lots of barracks), you might not be able to save up for buildings or items. This system also prioritizes quickly-built low-cost units over units over costly units. In a situation where income only trickles in, you would inadvertantly be left with more cheap-cost casters produced while your big hitter melee units sit in a queue waiting to bank above 250g.
This has been communicated as intentional design, and a reason towards why queues are paid in advance. You can use queues as much as you want, you just have to fit it within your resource management. Unpaid queue has significant side effects to resource perception and management without adding a substantial benefit towards macro (beyond paid queues).
The perception of how much gold you actually have vs the amount you spent is complicated with an unpaid queue. It becomes difficult to predict unless you adapt your entire playstyle around that type of play. And frankly, this game has been around long enough where I see this feature having more unintended consequences as a ‘QoL’ addition. If WC3 were still in beta and a different game in the making, then sure we could test this out. However I think this game is set as is, and shouldn’t be complicated further with potential shifts in the meta (of resource management, in this case).
Decisions and strategy are also will you spend your attention in macro or micro, when you will do that how you will manage your time to do that. Strategy isn’t just attack from the hills and ambush the enemy like Helm’s Deep xD
When someone talks about more strategy less mechanics, that’s exactly what for me made the Blizz RTSs particularly war3 onward stand out. I don’t want to see you just did ‘This unit that counter that unit’ the end, strategy solved, Win. You have to do a series of mechanics decisions to achieve it. It does add more depth.
Not true that players don’t scout expands fast, it is not that hard to Shift queue some scout.
I’m not sure what you mean by this. Everyone plays by the same rules, that’s pretty clear, and we all adapt to those rules. But if the rules change, those things are still true. There are better and worse (or at least, more and less popular) rules, and there’s no need to keep bad or unpopular things - especially if you want more players (and more revenue).
I imagined unpaid as optional. You hold a key down while queueing and the units show up with a $ or something above their queue icon.
That’s true, if you use it in the long-term way - assuming the rules work that way. But if you only use it in the tiny-term way it’s unlikely you’ll have more than one thing queued.
You could use different rules though: Make it so the first unpaid item queued gets priority, or add some configurability.
Say you have 2 hotkeys A & B.
A builds in order (except when demands don’t overlap, eg 1st needs more wood but 2nd uses no wood and there’s enough gold for both).
B begins whenever resources are available as long as resources aren’t needed for A.
I’m not sure whether that’s already to complex though.
Again, this only affects long-term unpaid use. And, you could always show a separate value below, total unpaid costs.
If the intended use is for limited short-term production… what is exactly wrong with paid queue? There is no advantage for having it unpaid that makes and sense as an option. It’s a clear advantage over anyone who has a paid queue, albeit one with resource perception consequences.
It is not the same rules the option is functionally different from an existing paid queue. That is like suggesting unlimited selection as an option.
When you say option, do you mean like a custom game mode that allows unpaid queues? Or on an individual basis? Because I still don’t grasp the concept you are suggesting here as I’ve pointed out many conflicts with how resource management actually works in WC3. The cost of buildings and the high dependancy on items can be heavily impacted by misinterpreting available resources.
Short term unpaid is useful when you’re waiting for the last few resources. Costs 100, you’ve got 90 and going to get +10 in a second or two. You save a few 100ms and a second or so of “hover” time, depending on latency and reflexes. Small savings, but not insignificant (and they often compound) - every bit helps.
Paid queue is for when you have the resources now and don’t want production delayed by accidentally using those resources elsewhere and/or don’t want a misleading UI value. (It’s quite similar to ordered (~FIFO) unpaid, except for the UI values).
Both paid and unpaid are available in melee, switched by holding a (customizable) modifier key (probably shift by default).
So unless you use the modifier key while adding to a queue, everything works like it does now.
Short term unpaid is useful when you’re waiting for the last few resources. Costs 100, you’ve got 90 and going to get +10 in a second or two. You save a few 100ms and a second or so of “hover” time, depending on latency and reflexes. Small savings, but not insignificant (and they often compound) - every bit helps.
But there are no effective differences to paid queue other than small savings. Small savings should be the reward of good macro timing.
Paid queue is for when you have the resources now and don’t want production delayed by accidentally using those resources elsewhere and/or don’t want a misleading UI value. (It’s quite similar to ordered (~FIFO) unpaid, except for the UI values).
The paid aspect is not just so that you don’t ‘accidentally use resources intended for other use’. It’s an advance payment. That is the cost of using a queue. The point of WC3’s macro design is based on meaningful macro choices. If you want to save 100ms, then you queue using up resources. If you don’t have those resources then you need to work on your resource management. That is how the game is played.
Both paid and unpaid are available in melee, switched by holding a (customizable) modifier key (probably shift by default).
So unless you use the modifier key while adding to a queue, everything works like it does now.
That simply doesn’t work. I believe you are seeing this feature as how you would use it; as a short term limited queue. I’m looking at this feature with Murphy’s law in mind, and I don’t see the benefits outweighing the flaws considering paid queue does everything you’re asking for given you have the resources to do it. For the specific situation of wanting to queue and not having the resources to do it, I think it’s better to work on that aspect rather than depending on a function in the game.
With the situations that I’ve presented such as unit production priority, resource cost not being reflected and the overall limited use that queues have altogether, it’s better to keep the paid queue the way it is and let players use it only as a stepping stone towards not having to use it at all. Ideally, the goal everyone should strive towards is perfect macro timing where you are using resources to build units manually. That is the ideal way to play the game, not by using queues to save 100ms or shave a bit of time from waiting for resources.
I see unpaid queues as a gateway towards macro laziness. This is a huge incentive towards all-in or early rush strategies for players with low macro attention. Queue up a barracks full of units, rally point to hero and rush. Normally, a player of lower skill may be caught up in the heat of battle and forget to reinforce when necessary, forcing them to switch strategies or learn to macro better. Unpaid queue would have an unintended effect of incentivizing bad strategies like all-in full queue rush because a player has little incentive to learn how to macro properly. Because this is an official feature in the game, they believe this is the intended way the game should be played since there is no perceived cost/punishment for fully queuing a barracks and forgoing macro while in battle. This is not something ‘abusable’ with a paid queue, since all costs are upfront.
Blizz has been pushing automation since 2002. It is most likely we will have automation in buildings in Warcraft 4 or Starcraft 3 for the reason the thread starter wanted it.
As a.i. develops well eventually have self stragtic units. You’ll select a large group and a-key them to move/attack, but as they encounter the enemy they’ll auto fall into a battle formation like a flock of birds. A siege tank will auto path its way to the high ground to siege. Blizz will probably make an auto cast a.i. button.