Your playstyle

[n00bonicPlague]

I guess technically mine is macro. I like getting large, well-armed, well-armored armies to just wipe everything out in one massive blitz.

[Perfecttear]

So you're saying that walling yourself in in your base and waiting ten minutes ( Flash style), before your first push, is more exciting than atacking and harasing the enemy from the very start ?
Oh well to everybody it's own.
But it seams that agresive fast paced games are more popular and exciting for the observers and fans than macro ones, as i observed. Nobody likes to watch somebody just building his base for ten minutes in a void.
But i do agree tha macro is also apm heavy

[Gradius]

I like getting large, well-armed, well-armored armies to just wipe everything out in one massive blitz.

Indeed. Who doesn't enjoy systematically clearing the minimap of enemy dots?

So you're saying that walling yourself in in your base and waiting ten minutes ( Flash style), before your first push, is more exciting than atacking and harasing the enemy from the very start ?
Oh well to everybody it's own.

With that attitude, why not just go play team micro arena and skip the melee game itself?

I have no interest in harassing the enemy, but in completely decimating him. As far as I'm concerned, micro is just foreplay. And micro won't save you when my horde of units descends on your base.

[ArcherofAiur]

So you're saying that walling yourself in in your base and waiting ten minutes ( Flash style), before your first push, is more exciting than atacking and harasing the enemy from the very start ?
Oh well to everybody it's own.
But it seams that agresive fast paced games are more popular and exciting for the observers and fans than macro ones, as i observed. Nobody likes to watch somebody just building his base for ten minutes in a void.
But i do agree tha macro is also apm heavy

I disagree I think fans like large battles more. Actually no I take it back. I think fans enjoy both macro and micro playstyles. Especially when they are pitted against each other.

[n00bonicPlague]

I think one is just as exciting as the other, but for different reasons. The micro playstyle brings excitement to the "near-sighted" observer, who is looking at what is happening now. The macro playstyle brings excitement to the "far-sighted" observer, who is looking at what will happen in the future. Sure, it may be extremely exciting to see Player X constantly pumping out forces in order to harass Player Y, but one cannot deny that knowing in a matter of moments Player Y is gonna drop several nukes on and sling a monstrous force at Player X is pretty nail-biting in and of itself.

[Perfecttear]

Well everybody loves big battles , but i'm just saying that the first half of the game can be boring if everybody is just macroing, and there is no harasing.

What is team micro arena?
And Gradius you wouldn't have any resources for your big army(if you would even survive that long ), when my perfect harasing would start


It's been many years since i played sc1( Sc vanila, never played broodwar), but i still remember now, how ridicously easy, it was to win with the zerg with mass rush . Probaly 95% of all the sc games i ever played, were less than 3 minutes long So it's not my fault if i never experienced any macro or lategame to apreciate it, could be since i was so good , or the game was so unbalanced

[ArcherofAiur]

Perfecttear I think your talking more about turtleing than macroing.

[Perfecttear]

Perfecttear I think your talking more about turtleing than macroing.

There is a difference ?
So by "your" definition, how do you distinguishe a macro player from an micro one?

[n00bonicPlague]

Yeah — turtling is a type of macro playstyle, but it isn't the only one.

Also, just because you are better at one doesn't mean you suck at the other.

[ArcherofAiur]

iloveoov is a macro-oriented player. Boxer is a micro-oriented player.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kw4M1D8FmE