Is it wrong to want an simple game ?

[Perfecttear]

So like, what are you taling about peps?

[Nicol Bolas]

I think you mean people who swordfight. If I read your analogy swordfighters were microers.

Yes. And SC2's micro is just fine. The macro is what needs improving.

And as far as non-functional I dont get where your getting that. Spawn Larva seems very functional to me.

There is a difference between something that gives you something you like and functional gameplay. Functional gameplay isn't simply something that alleviates the player's needs or desires.

For example, take inventory limits. These are things that players supposedly hate. But this view is short-sighted. One of the problems with unlimited inventory is hoarding those rare, powerful items. You think about using one of them, but then you go, "Do I really, really need it right now? I might need it later." And then you reach the end of the game and have never used it. Inventory limits are a way to push the player to actually use their inventory.

It is functional gameplay.

Spawn Larva is not. Why? Because it does not do what they intended. That Browder quote that you love to repost at any excuse? That does not describe the results of Spawn Larva.

A highly skilled SC1 macro player was able to juggle producing from 4 separate bases, 10+ Gateways/Barracks/Factories/etc, and have the entire machine up and running 24/7. Compared to that herculean task, Spawn Larva is child's play. Any D+ player on ICCUP would be capable of keeping it up virtually all of the time. Any C player on ICCUP would be capable of doing this while microing extensively.

You cannot specialize in keeping such a simplistic macro mechanic operational. It cannot be used to differentiate playstyle; it simply does not involve enough skill. Therefore, it is not what Blizzard wanted. They thought it would help, but it is not nearly enough.

[Triceron]

Well if they could build in a counter to check how many times the macro mechanics were used, or a way to calculate all the resources gained through those macro mechanics, it may be more interesting to the e-sports audience. Zerg may be hard to track, but it could be as simple as tracking the amount of time the macro mechanics are used, thus we get to see literally how many times it's used in a given match, and we can associate that to the player's ability to keep on top of their macro.

[mr. peasant]

I'm thinking what's needed to create a viable macro mechanic is to introduce some sort time variation between uses. Back in SC1, what made maintaining high unit production difficult (aside from the interface) was that depending on what units are being produced, these tasks would require differing amounts of time to complete. Keeping track of all these different rates was part of what made the macro player diffrent from the micro player.

[Mothxal]

Yes. And SC2's micro is just fine. The macro is what needs improving.



There is a difference between something that gives you something you like and functional gameplay. Functional gameplay isn't simply something that alleviates the player's needs or desires.
..
Spawn Larva is not. Why? Because it does not do what they intended. That Browder quote that you love to repost at any excuse? That does not describe the results of Spawn Larva.

A highly skilled SC1 macro player was able to juggle producing from 4 separate bases, 10+ Gateways/Barracks/Factories/etc, and have the entire machine up and running 24/7. Compared to that herculean task, Spawn Larva is child's play. Any D+ player on ICCUP would be capable of keeping it up virtually all of the time. Any C player on ICCUP would be capable of doing this while microing extensively.

You cannot specialize in keeping such a simplistic macro mechanic operational. It cannot be used to differentiate playstyle; it simply does not involve enough skill. Therefore, it is not what Blizzard wanted. They thought it would help, but it is not nearly enough.

I'm not sure I agree, because I don't understand the difference between macro and micro players. Since high APM predicts being good at either of them, what's the point of adding more clicks to macro to differentiate between skill?

If Browder really wants that difference in playstyles then creating a more involved and complex economy and macro system does allow for differentiating playstyles I hope. -- since good micro in starcraft tends to equate to good macro there, but if macro involves more meaningful choices instead of clicks then there is a real difference.

edit: to be more clear, hopefully: it seems to be as if macro and micro are just the names for the two (overlapping) mechanical parts of starcraft, i.e. unit control and base control. It doesn't describe different playstyles however. - someone might like dropship-heavy, or create a lot of expansion, or have a timing-based strategy, or play aggressive early-game etc. - . I think it's preferrable to just talk about two possible issues: allow for various kinds of playstyles, and then: make both (mechanical) parts of the game meaningfully difficult, and preferrably through choice, not clicks

[Kimera757]

I'm not sure I agree, because I don't understand the difference between macro and micro players. Since high APM predicts being good at either of them, what's the point of adding more clicks to macro to differentiate between skill?

Because not every player has high APM.

Lower-skilled or lower-APM players can't do both simultaneously well, and have to choose. However, macro and micro aren't balanced with each other in SC1; while lower-skilled players often want to focus heavily on micro, this just increases their chances of losing. (The lack of AMM and a campaign that doesn't teach you how to play in multiplayer just makes the problem worse.)

Higher-skilled/APM players can screen-switch and act fast enough to macro effectively while controlling their troops effectively. Obviously there'll still be tendencies toward either micro or macro, but overall pros can do both.

If Browder really wants that difference in playstyles then creating a more involved and complex economy and macro system does allow for differentiating playstyles I hope.

I hope so too. Unfortunately there's no complex macro in the game, just APM spamming buttons, and the abilities are so powerful they could be unbalancing macro and therefore favoring macro play over micro play, instead of equalizing them.

since good micro in starcraft tends to equate to good macro there

I disagree on this.

but if macro involves more meaningful choices instead of clicks then there is a real difference.

But agree with this.

edit: to be more clear, hopefully: it seems to be as if macro and micro are just the names for the two (overlapping) mechanical parts of starcraft, i.e. unit control and base control. It doesn't describe different playstyles however.

I disagree with this. In SC1, a macro player might have an extra expansion, but spend less time controlling units (especially spellcasters), while a micro player might have one less expansion (or unfilled mineral clusters since they're not as efficient at ordering new workers to mine) but might spend more time controlling units (especially spellcasters, dragoon dancing, etc).

In SC2, assuming the macro mechanics don't change, a macro player might spend time spamming the macro mechanic buttons, while a micro player might spend more time controlling units (especially spellcasters). A problem crops up because the micro player is no longer limited to screen-switch and redirect workers due to automine (a non-boring change); instead, the macro player is required to spam the macro mechanics (boring for many players)... and still might get too huge a boost out of it.

I don't think the game needs to be "meaningfully difficult", it needs to be "meaningfully thoughtful".

[Norfindel]

Once again thats not why there adding macro mechanics.

I know why they are adding them. I also know that everything they tried to do about it had "less than desirable results".

After all this time, i think it's fair to say that they won't be able to accomplish this in an interesting way without modifying something more radical. Casting something all the time on the same spot won't work, at least for people that wants interesting gameplay.

They're designing mechanics that mimic sending a worker to minerals, for God's sake! They're less annoying, but they're not really going to fix anything this way. A part of the community will think "ok, all races are stupid and don't know how a timer works", and the other part will think "this is too easy to do".

They want to differentiate a micro player from a macro player, and macro is easier because of MBS and Rally-mine? Well, micro has got smartcasting, and healt bars, and nobody is complainig about micro being too easy, right?

With micro, there's a direct player-vs-player confrontation, so it's your limit vs the enemy, it's a very dynamic situation, so the player's attention is better put there most of the time. With macro, there isn't the same level of dynamics, so every player would choose to remote-macro while taking full attention to the battle. It's the very nature of macro an micro what shifts the attention to micro. The enemy cannot modify your macro by any other means that attacking your base, but your micro and that of the enemy is constantly changing during any battle.

I think that one way to raise the macro ceiling, is to allow the player to expand faster, by modifying the relative cost of the main buildings vs units. That's very difficult to do for the Zerg, however, without changing something at their core, but i would gladly accept a radical change there, if that allows Blizzard to solve the problem in an elegant way.

So, if you want to macro, you need to build more bases, and get more supply faster, while the microer would likely not go that crazy about building all the time, and will try to stop you from expanding. Building stuff requires a lot of attention, so you cannot micro as effectively.

[MaybeNextTime]

edit: didn't notice DS already explained that.

[ArcherofAiur]

Spawn Larva is not. Why? Because it does not do what they intended. That Browder quote that you love to repost at any excuse? That does not describe the results of Spawn Larva.

A highly skilled SC1 macro player was able to juggle producing from 4 separate bases, 10+ Gateways/Barracks/Factories/etc, and have the entire machine up and running 24/7. Compared to that herculean task, Spawn Larva is child's play. Any D+ player on ICCUP would be capable of keeping it up virtually all of the time. Any C player on ICCUP would be capable of doing this while microing extensively.

You cannot specialize in keeping such a simplistic macro mechanic operational. It cannot be used to differentiate playstyle; it simply does not involve enough skill. Therefore, it is not what Blizzard wanted. They thought it would help, but it is not nearly enough.

As others have explained you cant say "oh high apm players can do both" Everyone can do both to some degree. Thats whats confusing people who dont understand the difference between a macro player and a micro player. Players can both micro and macro. The question is which they emphasis. Thats why i refer to it as "micro-oriented" and "macro-oriented".

Now on to the question of pros being able to do both well. Yes thats true. Thats why there pros. But not everyone is a pro. It is a gradient of skill level. Well see when beta comes around just how skillful you must be to keep all your hatcherys always fully pumped. Further more I find it astounding that you can predict what each level ICCUP player will and will not be able to do. Amazing considering we are not even in beta

[Nicol Bolas]

Casting something all the time on the same spot won't work, at least for people that wants interesting gameplay.

The really silly part is that the current mechanics won't even work for the people who were fine with SC1 macro. They simply doesn't absorb enough APM or player attention. So they are fit for neither kind of player.

micro has got smartcasting, and healt bars

Small point: health bars are for the observer, not the player.

I think that one way to raise the macro ceiling, is to allow the player to expand faster, by modifying the relative cost of the main buildings vs units.

One problem there is that one of the strengths of micro focus is harassment and expansion denial. So you're trying to expand macro into a direction that is directly opposed by a micro-focused player.

Thats whats confusing people who dont understand the difference between a macro player and a micro player. Players can both micro and macro. The question is which they emphasis. Thats why i refer to it as "micro-oriented" and "macro-oriented".

The reason that there are these orientations is because there is always more of both that you could be doing. The macro player necessarily sacrifices some micro compared to someone who's playing with a fairly balanced split. The micro player necessarily sacrifices some macro.

These sacrifices are made because there is more macro and micro than the baseline balanced player will obtain.

And that's the problem with SC2's macro mechanics: the macro baseline is much, much lower than SC1's. And the macro mechanics don't do much for that baseline.

Further more I find it astounding that you can predict what each level ICCUP player will and will not be able to do. Amazing considering we are not even in beta

It's not hard to compare numbers. SBS requires an order of magnitude more actions than any of the macro mechanics, per unit time. One 30-second cycle of the macro mechanics is equivalent to 8-15 actions (depending on units produced) for someone operating under SBS.

There simply isn't as much. They don't take as long as SBS unit production; they don't require as many actions; and they don't even happen at irregular intervals (unit production is based on unit build times). All of these show that SBS unit production is much more difficult than the current batch of macro mechanics.

My specific predictions may be off, but my point still stands: these macro mechanics do not provide the sheer quantity of macro that SC1 had. And thus, they do not constitute sufficient macro to allow for a macro-focused playstyle.