Examining the Macro Mechanics

[ArcherofAiur]

No comments on what I said?

Im actually waiting to hear others thoughts on what you said. You picked up on what I consider to be one of the most important parts of the article: What should macro look like? Should players have to come back to thier base to create their army?

Is base-centered gameplay (focusing on maximizing unit production instead of battlefield micro) good? Should base-centered gameplay be a viable option in SC2?

[Krikkitone]

I think base-centered gameplay should be an equally viable option to non-base centered gameplay.

Now I think some attention Must be paid to most battles in the field at specific times..., but some minimal attention to the base is required (at least some attention to the units that you are rallying from your base onto the field)...also at specific times, primarily in 'setup' of the base and expansion of new bases.

The 'inbetween time' when you aren't engaged in highly threatening combat or in the middle of setting up a base, should be time that can be spent
EITHER
in the base juggling economic bonuses, having your army a-move around...
OR
moving your army+scouts in detail while reinforcements can be produced remotely...

Both should have varying degrees of success.

generally I'd agree with Kimera... a 'minimal macro' game should be a viable option, as should a 'minimal micro'.

The macro that should be 'required', ie even in minimal form should be
1. Setting up:... should not be remote.. when expanding production capacity, teching or expanding for new resources, placing defenses that should be required to focus on the location.. these are/should be one time things.
2. Utilizing that prodution capacity/tech/resources for new units should be more remotely controlable, because they are more readily replaced, less permanent, and mobile.. the key is the 'authorization' of spending resources on it, any other details are to temporary to require attention to.

[unentschieden]

My biggest issue is that Archer only Reviews the latest Macro mechanics ignoring the "old" additions (Adaptable addons + salvage, Nydus worm+creep drop, Warp-in +Phase Prisms) and then only compares the new ones to each other. It doesn´t make sense to seperate them like that, Karune mentioned that they are fine with PC being "simple" since Warp-in is complex.

[ArcherofAiur]

My biggest issue is that Archer only Reviews the latest Macro mechanics ignoring the "old" additions (Adaptable addons + salvage, Nydus worm+creep drop, Warp-in +Phase Prisms) and then only compares the new ones to each other. It doesn´t make sense to seperate them like that, Karune mentioned that they are fine with PC being "simple" since Warp-in is complex.

It depends where you draw the line for what is and isnt macro. I did however compare the new macro mechanics to the old gas mechanics and to Warp-In in the Redundant Targeting section.

Addons are worth mentioning in relation to Redundant Targeting. In Starcraft 1 players had to click to tell a barracks where to place the addon. This was Redundant Targeting. In Starcraft 2 you can hit a hotkey and it will just build it on the side. No targeting is nessisary.






By the way did anyone get the ExaMINING the Macro Mechanics joke? hahahahaha

[Gradius]

What do you guys think of the little discussion on here about this article: http://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/co...cro_mechanics/

[ArcherofAiur]

What do you guys think of the little discussion on here about this article: http://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/co...cro_mechanics/

And to defend my e-cred I am once again forced to register for the newest vogue online trend...

[Norfindel]

No comments on what I said?

I agree with you. The macro mechanics are supposed to be something the expert players can use to show their expertise, but they have some problems. The biggest two probably are:

• That using them should noticeably impact a pro-gamer's micro, otherwise they would be able to use macro and micro with high effectivity, and then, would make no difference. Currently, i think they won't impact their micro much, if at all.
• They seems to be boring like hell.

Full macro should impact micro a lot, full micro should impact macro a lot.

Full macro = macro mechanics + build units like crazy, normal micro.

Full micro = constant attention to micro, "remote" macro.

Neither of them should be OP, and neither going 50/50. Good luck balancing that.

[ArcherofAiur]

[*]That using them should noticeably impact a pro-gamer's micro, otherwise they would be able to use macro and micro with high effectivity, and then, would make no difference. Currently, i think they won't impact their micro much, if at all

I think its curious that some people complain about the macro mechanics give too much advantage to players who just macro and other people complain that better players will just micro and macro.

[Norfindel]

I think its curious that some people complain about the macro mechanics give too much advantage to players who just macro and other people complain that better players will just micro and macro.

To me, it's a matter of what was the problem they supposedly attempted to solve. They said that their ex-pro-gamer felt it was too easy to macro. So, all pro-gamers can macro the same, no distinction.

A solution to that, is to design some mechanic that makes "micro" pro-gamers different than "macro" pro-gamers. Making a mechanic that has low, or no impact on micro wouldn't solve the problem. Also, they shouldn't give too much of a boost, if you really want to make the two styles possible.

At mid or low skill level, i see no reason why a player centered on micro would use the macro mechanics at all. Aren't them supposed to be something for great macroers to show their expertise?

[ArcherofAiur]

To me, it's a matter of what was the problem they supposedly attempted to solve. They said that their ex-pro-gamer felt it was too easy to macro. So, all pro-gamers can macro the same, no distinction.

A solution to that, is to design some mechanic that makes "micro" pro-gamers different than "macro" pro-gamers. Making a mechanic that has low, or no impact on micro wouldn't solve the problem. Also, they shouldn't give too much of a boost, if you really want to make the two styles possible.

At mid or low skill level, i see no reason why a player centered on micro would use the macro mechanics at all. Aren't them supposed to be something for great macroers to show their expertise?

I think one of the biggest things is they feel base management is too automated. They want to player to have to come back to the base to create their army.