TeamLiquid Macromanagement Article

This has allot of very interesting information. I think Demo will like all the math and graphs.

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/view...opic_id=101782

Quote:

---

After playing Starcraft II for 10 games and understanding the mechanics, you will see there is actually no choice. It's an illusion of choice. Given the "choice" between using the MULE and scanning, you will always choose the MULE unless forced otherwise by immediately cloaked units. The return is just too great. Even if I were supply capped, I would bank the MULE minerals while building a supply depot before I used the ability to gain extra supply.

---

Allot of people have been saying for months that the Orbital Command has good energy tension. Apparently it doesnt.

Thank you, much much appreciated.

What's with the warning btw?

I have disliked all of these mechanics since the begging and can not understand why they are still in the game. Honestly when I first heard about it a while ago I was frightened but easily laughed it off thinking that it would be removed by next build. (at that point the game was changing drastically every build)

Not only is there no strategy, but ontop of that it's unnecessarily robotic and just detracts from the actual game that I want to enjoy playing.

I scanned it earlier today... it makes me want to scrap the resource mechanics altogether. Is it even possible to make 3 unique yet completely balanced resource gathering mechanics that involve-strategy? I dunno. Given a choice of getting more money or anything else, you'll always choose getting more money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hamshank

Thank you, much much appreciated.

What's with the warning btw?

---

Probably to stimey the inevitable flood of fanboy theorycrafting complaints.

I think it still works as its purpose; to provide some more macro abilities while not forcing anyone to do it. Casual players dont have to build a mule at all, sure they will be making 300 minerals less per minute than people who do, but those are the players that dont make more than 10 scvs anyways, so what do they care.

Point is, its a way to make the game not so "easy" (i know, its a stupid argument but people will always bitch about it if theres automine and MBS, you cant prove to them the game is OK any other way) but its not absolutely necessary to play the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skyze

I think it still works as its purpose; to provide some more macro abilities while not forcing anyone to do it.

---

Wait - what? That's not what I'm reading from the article at all.

Quote:

---

Believe this: There is no choice in the current state of macro mechanics. You get them as quickly as possible and you use them as often as possible. In the end, RTS strategies usually boil down to the simplest common factor - maximize resource production as quickly as possible. Starcraft II's macro mechanics do not open up more options, they seal your strategic fate in the early game.

---

You get them ASAP and use them flawlessly or you lose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trace wm

I scanned it earlier today... it makes me want to scrap the resource mechanics altogether. Is it even possible to make 3 unique yet completely balanced resource gathering mechanics that involve-strategy? I dunno. Given a choice of getting more money or anything else, you'll always choose getting more money.

---

Macro is essential for Starcraft. That much is certain. Yet it is clear that making the player choose between a macro ability and a micro ability is not the best decision making.

I think we need to focus on posisition-based Decision Making. That is what makes Warp-In work so well.

Spawn Larva was going to be in the game in some form. The Queen had variations of the larva ability even before the macro debacle.

I think at this point, there is no reason not to use these macro mechanics, thus indirectly forcing players to utilize them at every chance they get, in order to gain the huge advantages the mechanics can provide.

To my expectations, the Queen could provide only 2 Larvae for 25 energy, with her being so readily available early in the game, gestation at 25 seconds. It continues to give the Zerg player the advantage of skipping the passive Larvae spawning and its limit of 3 per Hatchery, while giving a reasonable amount of choice at that stage of the game.

By reducing the number of Larvae, the attractiveness of Spawn Larvae will decrease slightly, but encourage Players to go on the tech route when Blizzard fixes Tier 2. From tier 2 onward, the usefulness of Spawn Larvae can benefit master macroers, but decrease its worth due the the presence of multiple Hatcheries. At that point, the player does have a reason not to use the Macro mechancs.


-Psi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PsiWarp

I think at this point, there is no reason not to use these macro mechanics, thus indirectly forcing players to utilize them at every chance they get, in order to gain the huge advantages the mechanics can provide.

To my expectations, the Queen could provide only 2 Larvae for 25 energy, with her being so readily available early in the game, gestation at 25 seconds. It continues to give the Zerg player the advantage of skipping the passive Larvae spawning and its limit of 3 per Hatchery, while giving a reasonable amount of choice at that stage of the game.

By reducing the number of Larvae, the attractiveness of Spawn Larvae will decrease slightly, but encourage Players to go on the tech route when Blizzard fixes Tier 2. From tier 2 onward, the usefulness of Spawn Larvae can benefit master macroers, but decrease its worth due the the presence of multiple Hatcheries. At that point, the player does have a reason not to use the Macro mechancs.


-Psi

---

The whole point of the macro mechanics is that you have to use them to win. As soon as you make them weak or make a micro ability just as good you have defeated the purpose.

Instead the decision making should be built into the macro mechanic.

To me, spatial awareness/multitasking macro mechanics like Warp-In/Nydus/Add-on switching is better than mechanics that just force you too look at your base. Most of the macro in SC1 came from sending workers to mine, building units in each production building and to a lesser extent building structures. None of these three are related to income and has more to do with production.

I think Blizzard should focus more in production based macro like Warp-In or some variation of Spawn Larva are better macro mechanics than direct income gain. Perhaps Terran could have a orbital module that drops down to help SCVs construct or perhaps increase the production time in one building temporarily. Perhaps the Obelisks could reset cooldowns for Warp-In or have a Gateway instantly produce units with no build time for the next unit(saying it increases the wormhole speed). Zerg can have a variation of Larva mechanics and abilities that directly benefit the base as it has always done.

It is true the very nature of Macro does enforce its usage in order to win, due to their massive scale of effect. However, you must not be forced to used them due to their huge advantages.

They should be very attractive, game changing even, but not completely necessary. That is my definition of a good mechanic.

Warp-In is great because of its clear disadvantages, MULE, Spawn Larvae and Photon Charge, simply does not possess clear disadvantages. At least to me, the loss of a self regenerating resource does not seem significant.


-Psi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PsiWarp

It is true the very nature of Macro does enforce its usage in order to win, due to their massive scale of effect. However, you must not be forced to used them due to their huge advantage.

They should be very attractive, game changing even, but not completely necessary. That is my definition of a good mechanic.

---

Try not to think of it as like a micro mechanic. Think of it more like the making workers or production buildings mechanic.

You always want to keep making workers.

You always want to keep making buildings.



There are times you may pause to save money for something but your still repeating the mechanic the entire game. Micro abilties are much more situational. So yes macro should always be beneficial. However because it requires a targeting action it must have position-based decision making.

Then my only concern is the scale of the benefits of said Macro mechanics, which continue to prove to be "too good" by their very nature. Here comes the standard excuse of "Balance will find a way".


-Psi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skyze

I think it still works as its purpose; to provide some more macro abilities while not forcing anyone to do it. Casual players dont have to build a mule at all, sure they will be making 300 minerals less per minute than people who do, but those are the players that dont make more than 10 scvs anyways, so what do they care.

---

The macro mechanics are pretty much compulsory. During competitive play anybody who chooses not to take advantage of them will be disadvantaged. Sure a casual player won't have to use them, but on the same principle they may not build multiple barracks or properly saturate their peon line.

Truth be told, if these mechanics remain in the game and there's not enough tension to justify ignoring, then then every single published strat guide will be hinged on their optimal use. It'll become habitual. And what worries me most is that after 100+ games this habit will become monotonous and tedious. That after 2 years of regular playing it'll become sickening. A chore that saps the fun out of the game and keeps players from focusing on the real action and excitement, namely the battles and attack strategies.

Plus on top of that, the notion of watching a replay or televised event where players are constantly recalling their base to enact a few repeated commands doesn't sound thrilling.

I'd like to see more tension built into these macro mechanics, with more decision making on when to use them, and possible drawbacks on using them. The Proton Charge could sap shields from the probes. The mule could deal friendly AOE damage on impact or death. Spawn larva could slow down production of larva for a period of time while providing a quick stimulation in production. And in all cases the cooldown or duration is extended so it's not such a repetitive chore.

The macro abilities are here to stay, just need to work on the tension between multiple abilities.

We don't need to play the game to understand that mass building select and rallying workers to resources will make macro much easier than SC1. We need new macro mechanics to seperate the noobs from the pros.

Ugh... I think we have had this same conversation for two years now. When are they starting the beta!? :p

I don't think macro is exactly "required" in SC for the elitists to be satisfied. The game just needs to have enough stuff to do so that you can never be 100% on top of the game where there's ANY situation in any point of the game where you have nothing you need to do.

If macro mechanics are doing that WHILE removing fun from the game (by becoming overly tedious and clearly non-optional) I would prefer the game just scrapped macro mechanics and find a better way to keep players busy. It doesn't have to be in the form of macro, the game just needs to be busying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pandonetho

If macro mechanics are doing that WHILE removing fun from the game (by becoming overly tedious and clearly non-optional) I would prefer the game just scrapped macro mechanics and find a better way to keep players busy. It doesn't have to be in the form of macro, the game just needs to be busying.

---

It is a tough call. Sometimes I think that tedious non-fun stuff is what seperates the casual gamers from the pros. Watching a pro macro-manage 4 bases and 10+ unit producing buildings does not look fun to me but the end result is still amazing.

Maybe the thrill of competition is the fun?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pandonetho

I don't think macro is exactly "required" in SC for the elitists to be satisfied. The game just needs to have enough stuff to do so that you can never be 100% on top of the game where there's ANY situation in any point of the game where you have nothing you need to do.

If macro mechanics are doing that WHILE removing fun from the game (by becoming overly tedious and clearly non-optional) I would prefer the game just scrapped macro mechanics and find a better way to keep players busy. It doesn't have to be in the form of macro, the game just needs to be busying.

---

100% agree with this post, the macro mechanics are really starting to chafe my balls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noise

100% agree with this post, the macro mechanics are really starting to chafe my balls.

---

The reason you say that is because youve only been shown bad macro. Here what is your oppinion of Warp-In. Should that be removed?

He's only talking about the forced macro mechanics; the ones Blizzard made to address the issue. Warp-In feels completely natural and it wasn't even advertised as a macro mechanic. Blizzard made it because it was "cool" and really fit the Protoss. Same goes with Overlord creep drop and Nydus which encourages creep expansion and strategies. Blizzard should make Macro mechanics more in line with Warp-In or Nydus or the original mutant Larva. They didn't make them to increase macro but they the effect of doing so. They shouldn't make mechanics for the sole purpose of increasing macro. They should make fun mechanics that give you advantages that has the consequence of increasing macro. Notice how the new macro mechanics don't feel as natural or integrated as Warp-In? They have to integrate new things into the gameplay instead of making patch ups.

Maybe Blizzard should just start making cool ideas without macro in mind. Maybe then something will happen. Macro isn't solely about returning to your base to do something. The game just needs to be very busy. There just shouldn't be a time where you aren't doing anything and doesn't need to be about production or economics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

The reason you say that is because youve only been shown bad macro. Here what is your oppinion of Warp-In. Should that be removed?

---

I think warp-in is awesome.

Still not really a fan of this marco mechanism.

It's boring and very grindy.

Yes, Warp-In is a great mechanic. It also has nothing to do with resource gathering, which I feel is inherently unbalanceable and/or game-breaking if you try and change it in any way.

Scrap the resource mechanics and find something like Warp-In for Terran and Zerg (maybe give Zerg more reasons to use creep drop).

Back to the Original Article, I would hope the Queen would be able to Inject ONLY drones but forgo the extra mineral costs of those drones. The Macro Mechanic is meant to only allow additional resource building for the other 2 races, why should it also allow zerg production of Hydras/Lings early on?

I'm sure you can balance the cost/energy into making the drone with the energy it takes from the queen but that is just my thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trace wm

Yes, Warp-In is a great mechanic. It also has nothing to do with resource gathering, which I feel is inherently unbalanceable and/or game-breaking if you try and change it in any way.

---

Different resource gathering is not inherently imbalanced. It can be done in an imbalanced way but it can also be done in a balanced way. All the races do not need to have equal resource intake at all points in the game. What matters is the total army effectiveness compared to the other races total army effectiveness. Even then there are timing windows where one race has the advantage. Balance in Starcraft is allot more complicated than "they all must be the same or its unbalanced."

Well, this pretty much confirms all my suspicions.

I wonder if people are concerned enough now to want to do something about it?

We tried to put together a joint effort and everyone was silent. How about now?

*Ahem*

I TOLD YOU SO.

That is all.

What the heck do you expect us to do...?

I guess we could put together an outline of our concerns with the ability and some possible solutions we've brainstormed, but here's the bottom line:

We need beta to do that effectively.

Quote:

---

Back to the Original Article, I would hope the Queen would be able to Inject ONLY drones but forgo the extra mineral costs of those drones. The Macro Mechanic is meant to only allow additional resource building for the other 2 races, why should it also allow zerg production of Hydras/Lings early on?

---

Because the larvae ability is also the equivalent of Warp-in and the Reactor for Protoss and Terran respectively.

Also it'd be pretty useless if it was just extra drones...

IMO I think all Econ Macroing abilities and things relating to mining and or gassing, should be REMOVED! It doesn't feel StarCrafty at ALL..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by supersonic

IMO I think all Econ Macroing abilities and things relating to mining and or gassing, should be REMOVED! It doesn't feel StarCrafty at ALL..

---

Yah lets have a game with no economic competition where everyone has the same size army and the one who psi storms better wins.


Actually that would probably be alittle boring, they should add heroes as well.

Why isn't the old way of taking and holding expansions enough for resource macro (along with the perceived gas shortage with the two geyser system)? Just because they added in auto-mining doesn't mean they need to add in something else resource related.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trace wm

Why isn't the old way of taking and holding expansions enough for resource macro (along with the perceived gas shortage with the two geyser system)? Just because they added in auto-mining doesn't mean they need to add in something else resource related.

---

The best way to figure out these things is to look at other RTS games that have done this and what the effect has been. Allot of RTS have abandoned macro style play. You can tell how it changes the nature of the game.]

Now if you wanted to make an all micro RTS (WC4!) then that would be fine. In fact it would be fun. You could also make an all macro RTS like Supreme Commander. And that would be fun too.

But it niether of these gametypes would produce the same gameplay as a micro/macro game like Starcraft.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

The best way to figure out these things is to look at other RTS games that have done this and what the effect has been. Allot of RTS have abandoned macro style play. You can tell how it changes the nature of the game.]

Now if you wanted to make an all micro RTS (WC4!) then that would be fine. In fact it would be fun. You could also make an all macro RTS like Supreme Commander. And that would be fun too.

But it niether of these gametypes would produce the same gameplay as a micro/macro game like Starcraft.

---

So you're saying with the minor auto-mining tweak the very fundamentals of Brood War change?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trace wm

So you're saying with the minor auto-mining tweak the very fundamentals of Brood War change?

---

Only the most fundamental aspect. Bigger vs Better armies. That tiny tiny detail of SCVs not being able to mine when rallied was huge. That tiny little detail of not being able to select more than one building changed the very nature of the game.

For the record I support automining. I think there were problems with the old worker mechanic. But you havnt solved the core problem: A deficency of decision making in the underlying economic model. Youve put a brand new roof on the house but your basements still flooded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

Yah lets have a game with no economic competition where everyone has the same size army and the one who psi storms better wins.


Actually that would probably be alittle boring, they should add heroes as well.

---

oh yeeah because that's how SC1 worked right?

I know MBS changes a lot. Same with unlimited unit selection. But they aren't mining related.

I don't see how auto-mining affects that much, which is why I don't see the need for resource-centric macro mechanics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by supersonic

oh yeeah because that's how SC1 worked right?

---

I said it as a reference to WC3. Out of curiosity do you know how they got the idea for WC3? It started as an experiment with Starcraft to make it micro focused.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trace wm

I know MBS changes a lot. Same with unlimited unit selection. But they aren't mining related.

I don't see how auto-mining affects that much, which is why I don't see the need for resource-centric macro mechanics.

---

To increase your mineral intake you had to invest attention in it. This meant every time you wanted to get a bigger army you had to sacrifice making your army better (by microing it).

This meant that each player was playing two games a combat competition and also an economic competition to see who could maintain the highest mineral intake. The player could increase one at the expence of the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

I said it as a reference to WC3. Out of curiosity do you know how they got the idea for WC3? It started as an experiment with Starcraft to make it micro focused.

---

No I didn't know that, but that's pretty interesting actually, but I think because different the races are in StarCraft, that even if they mine the same armies wont be the same because of how different Econ, armies, expansions, micro, and macro is played. Having it so all the races can get resources the same, but the execution is different is what helps keeps StarCraft so balanced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trace wm

Why isn't the old way of taking and holding expansions enough for resource macro (along with the perceived gas shortage with the two geyser system)? Just because they added in auto-mining doesn't mean they need to add in something else resource related.

---

Because some hardcore fans bitched about it.

For them, the manic switching from base to combat to base to combat is exciting. However, newer fans and casual gamers tend to prefer engaging in combat rather than just watching it.

The reports from Teamliquid seem to indicate that the new macro is boring and often overpowered, and in theory might force players to do nothing but spam the macro abilities (just like SCI forced you to spam "select worker and right click it on resources" every time you heard one being produced).

I don't know how valid this fear is; for lower-skilled players, they might prefer to do the things that are fun instead and never use the macro abilities. We won't really know until beta, which I really hope has an AMM.

(The beta for DoW II had one, and I doubt Blizzard would drop the ball on this.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trace wm

So you're saying with the minor auto-mining tweak the very fundamentals of Brood War change?

---

It does. Not necessarily in a bad way, but it does, because (without macro abilities) players would focus more time on micromanagement and less time on spamming "select worker and right click on resources"*, which takes up a huge amount of time. (According to Dustin Browder in some interview when speaking of challenges, he says you're supposed to make one worker every 20 seconds, so that's leaving combat three times a minute!) This means mid-level players could micromanage more skillfully, something only higher-skilled players can do in StarCraft I (those that can split attention better). This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but the higher-skilled players want something to take up that extra attention. Blizzard has to find a compromise so lower-skilled players aren't overwhelmed doing boring spamming.

*This really needs an acronym. Any takers?