Is it wrong to want an simple game ?

[DemolitionSquid]

Players enjoyed "creeping" because it was conflict and micro. The same reasons people fight army to army. Trying to classify creeping as different from the PvP combat is bullshit.

[Nicol Bolas]

I'm glad SC is not a pure micro game like WC3 (to people that want sc2 to be micro focused, and don't know what that really means...)

Right. Because a micro-focused game absolutely must include things like Creeping, heroes, and so forth. It couldn't possibly work in any other way. After all, there are only so many micro ideas and mechanics, and WC3 exhausted all of them.

Seriously people, expand your imaginations beyond what one game does. See into the possibilities of what may be, or you limit yourself to only what is.

I enjoyed creepign AND winning. Same with macroing. I enjoyed the macro AND the winning from macroing. Just like people enjoy the micro AND the winning from microing.

People enjoy crappy things all the time. If they didn't, the summer movie experience would be far better than it is. There are two kinds of people who watch bad movies. The "professional" bad movie watcher, who knows they're bad and watches them to poke fun at them. And the "unforutnate masses", who truly and sincerely thinks these movies are pretty good. These are people who have somehow developed tastes that enjoy cliche characters, predictable plot, bland dialog, crappy cinematography, and so forth.

So my question is this: what is it about the macro that you enjoy?

[ArcherofAiur]

People enjoy crappy things all the time. If they didn't, the summer movie experience would be far better than it is. There are two kinds of people who watch bad movies. The "professional" bad movie watcher, who knows they're bad and watches them to poke fun at them. And the "unforutnate masses", who truly and sincerely thinks these movies are pretty good. These are people who have somehow developed tastes that enjoy cliche characters, predictable plot, bland dialog, crappy cinematography, and so forth.

Bad analogy is bad.

And before I tell you what I enjoy about macro I want to hear what you enjoy about micro. I know exactly what kind of trick your going to try and pull and by you explaining your enjoyment of micro I can prevent you from pulling it.

[Gradius]

Right. Because a micro-focused game absolutely must include things like Creeping, heroes, and so forth. It couldn't possibly work in any other way. After all, there are only so many micro ideas and mechanics, and WC3 exhausted all of them.

How many RTS games out there had the "revolutionary" idea of cutting out the boring resource gathering and skipping to the fun micro? I bet there's alot, but it's too bad that the last time I played any of these, they didn't hold my attention any longer than a few weeks.

StarCraft II should have macro in it, because that's part of SC1's "formula". It helps provide the structure for the game. If you'd like to push the game in a totally different direction, why not wait until WarCraft 4's development to exhaust all the possible micro ideas and get rid of all the boring macro? I bet it's because it's an idea that only sounds good in theory.

So my question is this: what is it about the macro that you enjoy?

1) Fast queuing, selecting and gathering makes me feel hardcore.
2) The fun build-up to amassing a large army which will decimate my opponent's base is because of macro.

[Nicol Bolas]

I want to hear what you enjoy about micro.

Direct competition. The desire for which is coded into our very DNA, evolved after billions of years of struggle in an impersonal world of harsh competition.

That being said, I don't much enjoy micro myself either. I'm a Johnny. I like coming up with new builds and executing different strategies. I don't like the inevitable devolution of competitive play into a set few functioning builds, thus rendering the game a battle of execution rather than innovation.

How many RTS games out there had the "revolutionary" idea of cutting out the boring resource gathering and skipping to the fun micro? I bet there's alot, but it's too bad that the last time I played any of these, they didn't hold my attention any longer than a few weeks.

I wasn't making a value judgment as to whether a micro-focused game is as good as SC1, or any similar thing. I was pointing out the simple and obvious fact that micro-focused doesn't mean "like WC3." There are many ways of making a game focused on micro, and they don't have to lead to things like Creeping and such.

Now, that being said I do think that it is very possible for a micro-focused game to have as much depth as SC1. However, in order to create such a game, developers must first realize that they lost depth when they took out macro, and therefore must put more depth back in to micro. That there was something important that went out along with the boring busywork. Until that realization is gained and fully understood, all you will see is what we have now.

StarCraft II should have macro in it, because that's part of SC1's "formula". It helps provide the structure for the game. If you'd like to push the game in a totally different direction, why not wait until WarCraft 4's development to exhaust all the possible micro ideas and get rid of all the boring macro?

So you're saying that you can't possibly get rid of boring macro and add non-boring macro? That macro must be boring by definition?

Why do so many people believe that macro must be repetitive and mindless?

1) Fast queuing, selecting and gathering makes me feel hardcore.

So doing the same thing over and over, selecting and queuing things, all to make a number go up makes you feel "hardcore".

My opinion on this sort of thing is this. Keeping up with macro is certainly an accomplishment. But so is bench-pressing 200 pounds. Anyone who spends enough time and effort at it can eventually do both. So I don't find it particularly interesting gameplay.

2) The fun build-up to amassing a large army which will decimate my opponent's base is because of macro.

IE: anticipating the results.

[SaharaDrac]

So many harbingers of doom without any solid basis or experience to back it up.

I absolutely, 100% guarantee that there will still be "macro players" and "micro players" competing at the highest levels of SC2. There will be division of playstyles. No question. If you think otherwise, you're exaggerating things in your head.

[DemolitionSquid]

So many harbingers of doom without any solid basis or experience to back it up.

I absolutely, 100% guarantee that there will still be "macro players" and "micro players" competing at the highest levels of SC2. There will be division of playstyles. No question. If you think otherwise, you're exaggerating things in your head.

Who said there wouldn't be?

What Nicol and I have stated is that these mechanics do more harm to macro, and macro players, than good.

[MaybeNextTime]

Nicol Bolas, I'm curious, do you like coming up with innovative strategies only during the stages where it's relatively very easy (first year or two) or in general?

Because I don't really understand your "devolution of competitive play" complaint - you can still innovate in BW, it's just much harder nowadays. But wouldn't that make it much more rewarding?


I think Blizzard got their reasoning behind the mechanics right, but the execution is not necessarily the best, They can do much better than that.

Mechanics like Warp-in are an example of an ideal macro mechanic. We just need more mechanics that let you outmass your opponent in one way or another (more resources vs. faster production).

[SaharaDrac]

Who said there wouldn't be?

What Nicol and I have stated is that these mechanics do more harm to macro, and macro players, than good.

I think a good macro player is still going to have a huge macro advantage even with the mechanics. I just think the bar is going to be raised for everyone. If a good Macro player was a 10 in SCBW and an average player an 8, I think in SC2 your average player will be a 10 and your good players will become 12's.

[DemolitionSquid]

Mechanics like Warp-in are an example of an ideal macro mechanic. We just need more mechanics that let you outmass your opponent in one way or another (more resources vs. faster production).

No.

What we need is more mechanics with a tradeoff. Mechanics which can fail. Mechanics that require both skill AND strategy to use.

I think a good macro player is still going to have a huge macro advantage even with the mechanics. I just think the bar is going to be raised for everyone. If a good Macro player was a 10 in SCBW and an average player an 8, I think in SC2 your average player will be a 10 and your good players will become 12's.

That is the opposite of what I meant. The macro mechanics will cause more harm than good because they're TOO SIMPLE and TOO POWERFUL. Its not an issue of a player being good regardless of how bad/weak the mechanics are. Its an issue of a player being good and then being given even more power.