Examining the Macro Mechanics

[Kimera757]

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.

And a bunch of players don't want to do that. Those views have to be taken into account as well.

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.

It's not contradictory. The players who are just using macro are the medium-skilled players (since, generally, lower-skilled players avoid it due to boredom). If a player has enough skill to use macro and micro simultaneously, they can still be getting too much advantage from the macro (meaning there's a core imbalance in the game mechanics).

[ArcherofAiur]

And a bunch of players don't want to do that. Those views have to be taken into account as well.



It's not contradictory. The players who are just using macro are the medium-skilled players (since, generally, lower-skilled players avoid it due to boredom). If a player has enough skill to use macro and micro simultaneously, they can still be getting too much advantage from the macro (meaning there's a core imbalance in the game mechanics).

Whats wrong with that

Low level players: micro oriented (with some macro)

Medium level players: macro oriented (with some micro)

High level players: Micro and Macro

[Kimera757]

Whats wrong with that

Low level players: micro oriented (with some macro)

Medium level players: macro oriented (with some micro)

High level players: Micro and Macro

If you have two medium-skilled players facing each other, and one decides to focus on macro, and the other on micro, there's a problem if the micro-player keeps losing.

If you have a low-skilled player trying to get medium-skilled, but they get discouraged because their micro-style never wins, then there's a problem.

This is why micro needs to be balanced with macro.

Those "rules of thumb" I gave above are by no means hard and fast, nor are they "the secret to playing StarCraft". Low-skilled players do not necessarily focus on micro, they just tend to; much of that is from the campaign's gameplay, and that may become irrelevant, depending on how good the tutorials are. Players will no longer be given advice like "don't watch your battles" if micro and macro become balanced with one another. (Of course, that might not ever happen.)

[ArcherofAiur]

If you have two medium-skilled players facing each other, and one decides to focus on macro, and the other on micro, there's a problem if the micro-player keeps losing.

If hes losing repeatedly they are not equally skilled.

[Kimera757]

If hes losing repeatedly they are not equally skilled.

No I disagree. Two players can be equally skilled, but one can keep losing due to an imbalance in game mechanics.

For instance, in a game like C&C, if GDI is more powerful than Nod, then if two people of equal skill, one playing GDI and one playing Nod face each other, and the Nod player keeps losing, the problem is the imbalance between the two factions, not an imbalance between the two players.

[ArcherofAiur]

No I disagree. Two players can be equally skilled, but one can keep losing due to an imbalance in game mechanics.

For instance, in a game like C&C, if GDI is more powerful than Nod, then if two people of equal skill, one playing GDI and one playing Nod face each other, and the Nod player keeps losing, the problem is the imbalance between the two factions, not an imbalance between the two players.

So your taking an unbalanced game and then saying its unbalanced....

I think the real issue here is that you dont consider macro to be skilled play.

[Kimera757]

So your taking an unbalanced game and then saying its unbalanced....

And StarCraft I is not perfectly balanced. It rewards time spent on macro more heavily than time spent on micro (this is why some people call it a 70% macro game), and this is doubly important since some players (especially newer ones) consider macro to be less interesting. It's a big barrier for them.

If macro and micro were equally balanced, that wouldn't be much of an issue. Even if Blizzard wasn't able to make macro interesting for them, if you had two players of approximately equal skill, with one spending x time on micro and one spending x time on macro, they'd win an equal number of games.

I think the real issue here is that you dont consider macro to be skilled play.

No, I consider the reward too high for the time spent, and am worried the reward for the StarCraft II macro mechanics is too high for the time and resources spent (compared to micro).

Obviously you can't just have a game without some sort of macro mechanic. Otherwise you get Warcraft III-redux, and this is bad for all those gamers who love screen-switching macro. However, reports of the hundreds of minerals you can get per MULE (man, I hope those figures are exaggerated; I've also heard figures as low as 15) cause me to wonder if Blizzard is swinging the balance too far towards the "70% macro" of StarCraft I.

(And of course, nothing about the recent discussion addresses the lack of decision-making for macro.)

[n00bonicPlague]

As an informative article, I think it was rather good. I had an immediate issue or two with a few things. It should be noted that MULEs technically can be cast with the minimap and it's only that one cannot target mineral patches with the minimap (which prevents the MULEs from automatically starting to mine). The other thing was the energy tension part. I feel that that section should've been broadened to include all types of resource tension. One of the things that makes the entire economy balanced as a whole is the large competition for minerals, gas, and supply. Energy is not the only resource that receives tension.

Overall though, good job.

[Norfindel]

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.

Nothing about production is currently automatic, but i understand what you mean: task switching.

For most players, i think it's reasonable task-switching to return to the base to get supply, and build other structures, scout, etc. If there is a problem, it will be with the higher skilled players. The lower skilled players won't ever be macroing perfectly, but they will macro better than in BW, something that will make the game more fun for them.

That's why i think that the macro mechanics should be aimed at the higher skilled players, or make something that will scale well with skill.

[Asfastasican]

I'm a little suprised about how everyone is so focused on the new macros mechanics instead of looking at the big picture. Has anybody taken into account whether or not Starcraft 2's micro and gameplay is just faster than SC1's? Is there a consensus that all pro SC1 players will be bored while playing SC2?

It's a well written article, but all it does is explain what the macro mechanics are and what "redundant targetting" may or may not be. It doesn't touch upon the other facets of SC2 gameplay and the drag it may have on a player's own mental resources and the time demand on his or her APM.

Units move faster in SC2 imo. They all move more fluidly and from what I saw at Blizzcon, they require just as much (if not more) control and attention than in SC1. I honestly think the addition of smart casting would make for a better article than a debate on the automation of macro economy mechanics. The fact that you can fire off single spells from a group of spell casters without worrying about reselecting units and pushing more buttons means that a good portion of APM is just lost. Does anyone else feel that smart casting is more dangerous to lowering the skill ceiling than macro mechanics, or is just me?

I personally think that SC2 is faster paced overall after playing it for myself, even with the new UI and other additions. I know I'm nowhere near as good as a progamer, but it just felt faster and provided more interesting unit and building construction choices than SC1 could at this point.