New Year Macro Resolutions

I was wondering if we could pull together our collective opinions on macro to make a list of 10 resolutions for macro. For instance I think we can all agree on some variation on these three

1) That macro mechanics involve sufficent decision making in where and when they are used.

2) That macro mechanics have tension between abilities that use the same resource.

3) That macro mechanics promote and differentiate macro playstyles from micro playstyles.

4) That macro mechanics enhance economic depth in Starcraft 2.

5) That Beta not begin until macro gameplay is at least the same standard of quality as micro gameplay.

here's mine:

1. Macro is as essential as micro. But dodging a stack of units to maximize the control group's damage output while absorbing damage does not affect macro variables.

2. Macro is not about going back to one's base, rather a game variable locked to spacial limits, where player decision defines the form inherent to that decision with regards to the identifiable structure of a player's army, in terms of all which the player has the power to choose in their utility, observable at a given time along the progression of the game.

3. Macro management is an activity which defines the structure with which micromanagement can help optimize given the right circumstances.

(4. I will never talk like this again about macro.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GnaReffotsirk

2. Macro is not about going back to one's base, rather a game variable locked to spacial limits, where player decision defines the form inherent to that decision with regards to the identifiable structure of a player's army, in terms of all which the player has the power to choose in their utility, observable at a given time along the progression of the game.

---

Yah Im going to need a simpler explaination. I think we should keep these resolutions to one line long and clear so each other and Blizzard could understand them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

Yah Im going to need a simpler explaination. I think we should keep these resolutions to one line long and clear so each other and Blizzard could understand them.

---

I'm sure they will. In fact, I have reason to believe you're getting some kind of inspiration from this line. ;) Or if not, someone around here somewhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GnaReffotsirk

I'm sure they will. In fact, I have reason to believe you're getting some kind of inspiration from this line. ;) Or if not, someone around here somewhere.

---

How can I get inspiration if I dont understand what exactly its saying? From what I can make out I think your leaning towards a strategy vs tactics distinction rather than a macro vs micro distinction. Their related but not the same.

Okay. I'm sure though we've been through this before. On one side, I'm pointing to the fact that macro mechanics which pull you back to a specific location because you have to (in order to keep up, rather than because "you want to make choice A over B now") is just the same as having to manually order harvesters to harvest (assuming no expansions exists yet).

That's just one side. It's a resolution, so, that's what I thought best that would describe the things we've been talking a whole lot about lately. It fails at some areas, but I think it serves its purpose.

..or, maybe not. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GnaReffotsirk

Okay. I'm sure though we've been through this before. On one side, I'm pointing to the fact that macro mechanics which pull you back to a specific location because you have to (in order to keep up, rather than because "you want to make choice A over B now") is just the same as having to manually order harvesters to harvest (assuming no expansions exists yet).

---

I think having to "keep up" isnt a bad thing. You have to "keep up" in micro why shouldnt you have to "keep up" with your opponent in macro. For instance you have to "keep up" making workers and production buildings.



I have two more resolutions I am going to add if its ok with everyone


4) That macro mechanics enhance economic depth in Starcraft 2.

5) That Beta not begin until macro is at least the same standard of quality as micro.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

You have to "keep up" in micro why shouldnt you have to "keep up" with your opponent in macro.

---

SC1 was very macro-centered. A player with bad micro and good macro is going to be ranked a lot higher than a player with bad macro and good micro.

You talk like micro and macro in SC1 was 50/50, which is very far from reality.

Anyways, that depends on which race you have in mind. It's not the same a Zerg than a Terran.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Norfindel

Not that much.

---

What not that much?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

What not that much?

---

Sorry, post fixed to be understandable :)

Oh my statement had nothing to do with the "balance" of micro and macro. Frankly im not even sure how to quantify amount of macro vs amount of micro.



Anyway my original point was that "keeping up" is intriscally part of playing against an opponent. Its a competition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Norfindel

SC1 was very macro-centered. A player with bad micro and good macro is going to be ranked a lot higher than a player with bad macro and good micro.

You talk like micro and macro in SC1 was 50/50, which is very far from reality.

Anyways, that depends on which race you have in mind. It's not the same a Zerg than a Terran.

.

---

Actually I completely disagree with this. I think most people aren't capable of actually microing and macroing to their full potential in either, simply because there is just so much work involved with both. However, you can certainly out micro and macro player and come out on top in starcraft. There are several little tricks like your placement of spell caster type units, such as distance between them that cause different single cast results, or actual management of the units to get them to go where you want them. With better microing ability you can also take better advantage of choke points and poor pathing in the game. Another example of micro actually balancing the game with macro would be the muta stack. Muta stack in its entirety is micro and powerful enough to balance the races better.

I don't think zerg would at all be balanced in starcraft without stacking. Luckily, I think they did a little better job with unit balance in sc2.

My point is, good placement on units and attacks can give a significant advantage to a player. If they only focused on micro and expanding/teching enough to build some units, they could most likely stay in any game and have the chance to win.

In sc2, micro has also been hit heavily by the automation... but I dont think enough to actually harm the game play much... Casual players will love this game way more... I just hope the unit balance and strategic choices available can overcome any issues automation may have caused in the skill requirement aspect of the game.

I think the key to making micro and macro more balanced is not by giving players "more to do" but giving them "more options to do" and having these options "truly optional" and giving the players the opportunity to none, one or more than one if their skill would allow it.

That said, my 1st new years resolution for macro would be:

1. There should be a minimal amount of macro in the game and multiple options for players to increase macro productivity.

There are 4 parts to macro in my opinion.

1. Resource gathering
2. Unit Production
3. Tech Choices
4. Building Placement/Management

I think instead of just thinking up one macro mechanic per race, Blizzard should just think about giving more "layers" for each of the above. Not necessarily uniformly for each race. Zerg can have more unit production macro, Protoss Tech Choices (maybe even a teching macro mechanic) and Terrans already need more thought on building placement/management (I love how you can swap and mix buildings and addons now).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by don

I think the key to making micro and macro more balanced is not by giving players "more to do" but giving them "more options to do" and having these options "truly optional" and giving the players the opportunity to none, one or more than one if their skill would allow it.

That said, my 1st new years resolution for macro would be:

1. There should be a minimal amount of macro in the game and multiple options for players to increase macro productivity.

There are 4 parts to macro in my opinion.

1. Resource gathering
2. Unit Production
3. Tech Choices
4. Building Placement/Management

I think instead of just thinking up one macro mechanic per race, Blizzard should just think about giving more "layers" for each of the above. Not necessarily uniformly for each race. Zerg can have more unit production macro, Protoss Tech Choices (maybe even a teching macro mechanic) and Terrans already need more thought on building placement/management (I love how you can swap and mix buildings and addons now).

---

You forgot upgrading/researching... thats probably best in macro... it certainly isnt micro...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by don

I think the key to making micro and macro more balanced is not by giving players "more to do" but giving them "more options to do" and having these options "truly optional" and giving the players the opportunity to none, one or more than one if their skill would allow it.

That said, my 1st new years resolution for macro would be:

1. There should be a minimal amount of macro in the game and multiple options for players to increase macro productivity.

---

Define "minimal amount of macro in the game". I find it very hard to see how you could create macro playstyles by decreasing the amount of macro in the game (even more than its already been decreased). But Ill let you explain your side first.


Also you say everything must be "truly optional". I think "truly optional" is kind of a misnomer when talking about RTS games. To have a choice that has impact on the game one of the choices needs to be the best for the situation. If both choices are the same than making the choice is not really a choice.


TLDR: A choice is a choice because its asking you to choose the better answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

Define "minimal amount of macro in the game". I find it very hard to see how you could create macro playstyles by decreasing the amount of macro in the game (even more than its already been decreased). But Ill let you explain your side first.


Also you say everything must be "truly optional". I think "truly optional" is kind of a misnomer when talking about RTS games. To have a choice that has impact on the game one of the choices needs to be the best for the situation. If both choices are the same than making the choice is not really a choice.


TLDR: A choice is a choice because its asking you to choose the better answer.

---

I think what he is saying is he wants more choices rather than more busy work. Basically APM sinks = Bad, and Strategic choices = good.

In other words, he wants less *Click here every X amount of times* and more *You can do this, or this, or this during a particular situation* and you make that choice once for that one situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Santrega

I think what he is saying is he wants more choices rather than more busy work. Basically APM sinks = Bad, and Strategic choices = good.

In other words, he wants less *Click here every X amount of times* and more *You can do this, or this, or this during a particular situation* and you make that choice once for that one situation.

---

See theres a key distinction. Its not a question of having less macro. Its about having more and better macro. You can have good macro mechanics that are click intensive ie warp-in (or my Remote Mining MULE proposal).

This is part of making the macro mechanics the same level of quality as the micro mechanics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

See theres a key distinction. You can have good macro mechanics that are click intensive ie warp-in (or my Remote Mining MULE proposal). You dont need to have "minimal macro". You can have allot of good macro.

This is part of making the macro mechanics the same level of quality as the micro mechanics.

---

However, warp-in doesn't require you to make repetitive actions for the same result. Obviously if you want 5 units in 5 different places you are wanting to make 5 different actions with similar results, but not the same.

Its not like clicking an scv and telling it to mine... Strategic placement of a unit does count as a decision and is substantially more so than repetitively carrying out an action with an identical result every time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by don

I think the key to making micro and macro more balanced is not by giving players "more to do" but giving them "more options to do" and having these options "truly optional" and giving the players the opportunity to none, one or more than one if their skill would allow it.

That said, my 1st new years resolution for macro would be:

1. There should be a minimal amount of macro in the game and multiple options for players to increase macro productivity.

There are 4 parts to macro in my opinion.

1. Resource gathering
2. Unit Production
3. Tech Choices
4. Building Placement/Management

I think instead of just thinking up one macro mechanic per race, Blizzard should just think about giving more "layers" for each of the above. Not necessarily uniformly for each race. Zerg can have more unit production macro, Protoss Tech Choices (maybe even a teching macro mechanic) and Terrans already need more thought on building placement/management (I love how you can swap and mix buildings and addons now).

---

Options are really just illusions. The best option for any given situation will ultimately be figured out, and those who stick to the program will win, and those who don't will not. This happens in every game Blizzard makes. There is always a "best way". It's inevitable.

True, but you won't always have control over which situation you're going to be in, so you'll still have to think about what to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Santrega

You forgot upgrading/researching... thats probably best in macro... it certainly isnt micro...

---

I meant it to be included in 3. Tech Choices. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

Define "minimal amount of macro in the game". I find it very hard to see how you could create macro playstyles by decreasing the amount of macro in the game (even more than its already been decreased). But Ill let you explain your side first.
answer.

---

Well what I meant about minimal is the state the game was in before macro mechanics went in. I meant "minimal macro in Starcraft terms".

Macro went down from SC1 to pre-macro mechanics SC2 and we are trying to bring it back to SC1 levels correct?

Well, my statement means that whatever mechanic/s that get put into the game should be optional. That if a player does not use it an allows his game to dip in the macro part, that player must be able to compensate in other parts of the game (micro, mindgames, etc) and that if possible there be more than one macro mechanic that brings macro skill to SC1 levels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Operatoring

Options are really just illusions. The best option for any given situation will ultimately be figured out, and those who stick to the program will win, and those who don't will not. This happens in every game Blizzard makes. There is always a "best way". It's inevitable.

---

Well, its not like SC2 = Tetris right? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MattII

True, but you won't always have control over which situation you're going to be in, so you'll still have to think about what to do.

---

Plus, a "bad choice" is only a bad choice if it is exploited by your enemy.
Say a guy decides to mass banelings in an island expansion. He freaking makes 100 supply worth of them. Its a "stupid strategy" right? But his enemy never scouted it. He suddenly upgrades overlords and drops them all in a very decisive place. He could win right? And its a fun way to win if I may add. When I say options, I mean "fun options" not only strategic choices.

"The Best Way" is reserved for SC2 world champ imo. What im proposing is that there be lots and lots of "Semi-Best Ways".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Operatoring

Options are really just illusions. The best option for any given situation will ultimately be figured out, and those who stick to the program will win, and those who don't will not. This happens in every game Blizzard makes. There is always a "best way". It's inevitable.

---

That depends on the number of options and their viability. If you have more than 1 reasonable path to go for the same situation, you can still choose. The more units that are usable in a matchup, the better this could get.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by don

Well what I meant about minimal is the state the game was in before macro mechanics went in. I meant "minimal macro in Starcraft terms".

Macro went down from SC1 to pre-macro mechanics SC2 and we are trying to bring it back to SC1 levels correct?

Well, my statement means that whatever mechanic/s that get put into the game should be optional. That if a player does not use it an allows his game to dip in the macro part, that player must be able to compensate in other parts of the game (micro, mindgames, etc) and that if possible there be more than one macro mechanic that brings macro skill to SC1 levels.

---

What do you mean by optional? Are making workers optional? Are making marines optional? Are making production buildings optional?

I agree that having multiple macro mechanics is superior to just one macro mechanic. However the macro mechanics shouldn't be optional like say getting DTs is optional.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

What do you mean by optional? Are making workers optional? Are making marines optional? Are making production buildings optional?

I agree that having multiple macro mechanics is superior to just one macro mechanic. However the macro mechanics shouldn't be optional like say getting DTs is optional.

---

I think we are not on the same page.

When I talk about macro process below, i refer to all things macro related like harvesting, building units, building buildings, decision making from scout info, teching etc. When I talk about micro process, i mean putting units in groups, arranging units, maximizing low health units, drops etc.

Lets say, that an SC2 1v1 game progresses as follows:

5 macro processes early game, 10 mid game and then 20+ end game.
Micro would then be 2 processes in scouting, 10 in a medium battle, 30 in battles in multiple locations and 50+ at full food and multiple scattered skirmishes.

Lets say, a newb player can manage 20 processes at a time. And say, a word class player can manage 50+.

When I say "optional" I mean that there should be a minimum of 5~10 macro processes a player has to maintain and is required for decent play and then you have the "option" to use macro mechanics and bump up the macro processes you have to manage to 10~15. And if you are world class, you 20~25.

But then a player with 5 macro, 20 micro should be a roughly the same as a player with 10 macro and 15 micro. As opposed to a scenario where macro mechanics are so effective that it is no longer "optional" and each player would have to manage that 10 macro always.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

What do you mean by optional? Are making workers optional? Are making marines optional? Are making production buildings optional?

I agree that having multiple macro mechanics is superior to just one macro mechanic. However the macro mechanics shouldn't be optional like say getting DTs is optional.

---

Why not? They're supposed to be a boost, to allow macro players to show their skill, and to raise the skill level for players that can reach the skill ceiling without them. If the mechanics can make that possible, i don't see how it would pay for the lower skilled players to use them.

Terran players get MULEs basically for free with their Comsat, and MULEs are more forgiving to use, while Protoss and Zerg must invest resources to get them. So, for begginers, MULEs are probably much more attractive to use than the other two macro mechanics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by don

When I say "optional" I mean that there should be a minimum of 5~10 macro processes a player has to maintain and is required for decent play and then you have the "option" to use macro mechanics and bump up the macro processes you have to manage to 10~15. And if you are world class, you 20~25.

But then a player with 5 macro, 20 micro should be a roughly the same as a player with 10 macro and 15 micro. As opposed to a scenario where macro mechanics are so effective that it is no longer "optional" and each player would have to manage that 10 macro always.

---

Again there is this very fuzzy definition of optional and maintain. Is choosing to get high templar "optional"? Once you get the High Templar is casting psi storm with them "optional" or something you have to maintain?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Norfindel

Terran players get MULEs basically for free with their Comsat, and MULEs are more forgiving to use, while Protoss and Zerg must invest resources to get them. So, for begginers, MULEs are probably much more attractive to use than the other two macro mechanics.

---

Free here is a matter of perspective. Macro energy is a resource like any other. Imagine if you had a third resource. We will call it "Oil". Now each race gets a building or unit that generates oil over time (OC, Obelisk, queen). Then you spend "Oil" on the macro mechanics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

Again there is this very fuzzy definition of optional and maintain. Is choosing to get high templar "optional"? Once you get the High Templar is casting psi storm with them "optional" or something you have to maintain?

---

You confuse option and necessity. Something optional is just that, something that is not absolutely necessary for the achievement of victory. How necessary something is (High Templar in your case) depends on what your enemy is doing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eligor

You confuse option and necessity. Something optional is just that, something that is not absolutely necessary for the achievement of victory. How necessary something is (High Templar in your case) depends on what your enemy is doing.

---

I get what your saying but apply it to the examples I gave and youll see its allot trickier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

I get what your saying but apply it to the examples I gave and youll see its allot trickier.

---

Actually the only things that are not optional in StarCraft are: producing workers, gathering resources, building production buildings, producing fighting units (unless of course you employ the SCV rush, but it's neither particularly fun nor particularly interesting). Everything else is specifics (and hard prequisites of the "build building y to produce unit x" type).

As for macro mechanics... They definitely shoudn't be as specifically situational as Dark Templar... I'd love to see a suggestion for a simple mechanic that would allow a considerable margin for misuse and mistakes, something in the use of which the player must exercise his judgment and take risks (even if that doesn't seem to be what Blizzard is shooting for, otherwise they'd have ditched Proton Charge long ago). Maybe something defense oriented? What about a Pylon ability that when activated would make the psi field of that specific Pylon deadly for all the units in it (yours as well as the enemy's)? Furthermore, that ability, instead of being energy based would instead put a considerable drain on your resources for the period of its activity (something like eating 10 or 20 minerals per second). Not only would it give one more potential task during base defense, but would also require great care in using it and involve making strategically important decisions in the matter of seconds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eligor

I'd love to see a suggestion for a simple mechanic that would allow a considerable margin for misuse and mistakes, something in the use of which a player must exercise his judgment and take risks.

---

http://sclegacy.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2021

;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

Again there is this very fuzzy definition of optional and maintain. Is choosing to get high templar "optional"? Once you get the High Templar is casting psi storm with them "optional" or something you have to maintain?

---

Well, casting it would be optional. But any battles the HT is involved in has to be maintained so that the outcome is you win the battle. Be it that you casted that psi storm or not.

I'm treating APM/skill/attention as a resource that each player has to allocate and therefore has to choose where/when it is used. I define using this resource as game "maintenance". In that idea, there would be mechanics in the game that a player is "required" to put APM/S/A into and mechanics that are "optional" meaning you can use that or you can use another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by don

Well, casting it would be optional. But any battles the HT is involved in has to be maintained so that the outcome is you win the battle. Be it that you casted that psi storm or not.

I'm treating APM/skill/attention as a resource that each player has to allocate and therefore has to choose where/when it is used. I define using this resource as game "maintenance". In that idea, there would be mechanics in the game that a player is "required" to put APM/S/A into and mechanics that are "optional" meaning you can use that or you can use another.

---

But thats always been the case. In Starcraft you have 50 things to do and time to do 3.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

But thats always been the case. In Starcraft you have 50 things to do and time to do 3.

---

But there were some things that had to be done. Like order newly made workers to harvest. Newb or Pro, you had to. Now, you don't have to do it.

As a new years resolution, I don't want the macro mechanics to be as required as ordering workers to harvest back in SC1. I want to be able to completely skip the macro mechanics if I want to and still play a decent game (Of course in the Pro level where they have much more APM to move around, it would be different).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by don

But there were some things that had to be done. Like order newly made workers to harvest. Newb or Pro, you had to. Now, you don't have to do it.

As a new years resolution, I don't want the macro mechanics to be as required as ordering workers to harvest back in SC1. I want to be able to completely skip the macro mechanics if I want to and still play a decent game (Of course in the Pro level where they have much more APM to move around, it would be different).

---

But you still have to make new workers. The macro mechanic of making workers still exists and you will lose if you skip it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

But you still have to make new workers. The macro mechanic of making workers still exists and you will lose if you skip it.

---

He's obviously talking about the new macro mechanics: SL, MULEs, and PC.

Lets say the macro mechanics make your macro 20% better and micro mechanics make your micro 20% better. You still "have to" do both. Its just a question of what gameplay style are you going to focus on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

Lets say the macro mechanics make your macro 20% better and micro mechanics make your micro 20% better. You still "have to" do both. Its just a question of what gameplay style are you going to focus on.

---

Only that not everyone wants to be forced to cast something again and again inside their bases, because while the "micro mechanics" (i assume you mean stuff like smartcasting) are UI improvements, the macro mechanics are spells designed just to eat APMs, which purposedly bypass UI design good-practices.

The question is: What players would need to use the macro mechanics (SL, MULEs, PC) or lose the game? The progamers? Everyone?

I would assume micro mechanics means the new spells on units that previously weren't available. SC2 early game now has stalker blink, nullifier spells, roach burrow (healing bonus) and reapers with D8. Smart unit grouping makes it easier to select unit types and cast spells while selecting different units (ala War3) making it easier to micro.

I don't particularly prefer the current macro mechanics as an APM sink for an income increase, but I regard it as a nice incentive for macro players. To be honest it's not a crazy hard mechanic that micro players would easily disregard.

I would prefer if Macro Mechanics were part of the HUD rather than on buildings. I know a part of the mechanic is to be attentive to Macro buildings, but if it's meant to be an APM sink, why not just have it as a part of the player's HUD? Think of it like the 'idle worker' button that selects your macro building, that also lists available resource and cooldown timers.

I'm still speaking from the perspective of a micro player, and I hate the idea of babysitting Macro buildings to make use of Macro abilities. It doesn't hurt to display Macro information the way raw resources are shown without requiring you to select your Command building.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Norfindel

Only that not everyone wants to be forced to cast something again and again inside their bases, because while the "micro mechanics" (i assume you mean stuff like smartcasting) are UI improvements, the macro mechanics are spells designed just to eat APMs, which purposedly bypass UI design good-practices.

The question is: What players would need to use the macro mechanics (SL, MULEs, PC) or lose the game? The progamers? Everyone?

---

The whole idea is to differentiate macro and micro gameplay. So yes if they are successful and thier are macro gamestyles then there will also be micro gamestyles and their will be styles inbetween. Now that doesnt mean your going to be able to not do any macro just like a macro player wont be able to get away without doing any micro.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

The whole idea is to differentiate macro and micro gameplay. So yes if they are successful and thier are macro gamestyles then there will also be micro gamestyles and their will be styles inbetween. Now that doesnt mean your going to be able to not do any macro just like a macro player wont be able to get away without doing any micro.

---

But "not using a macro mechanic" =/= "not doing any macro".
If both players have "the same skill" (but not at pro-gamer level), one is using macro mechanics (so, neglecting some micro), and the other isn't using them, both should have the same chances of winning.

If both players needs to use the macro mechanics, where's the distinction between playing styles?

The macro mechanics are a boost to existing mechanics. You obviously cannot win without building workers, or warriors, or making buildings, or getting resources, but the macro mechanics are a boost to resource gathering, not resource gathering itself.

.