note: literally (and yes, LITERALLY literally) everyone is theorycrafting right now what the proposed macromechanics removals are gonna do i.e make the game easier, harder, more skillfull, less skillfull, and stuff like that. Which is why I support going through with these changes just so we can test them.
(I also LOVED WC3, I played it way more than I played BW, so if bias shows, I'm sorry D
WarCraft 3 was so much more different than SC2 than just being more spell oriented and less "macro" oriented. SC2 is in NO danger of being more WarCraft 3 like. If anything the direction LotV is taking in the grander scheme of things seems to be on a totally different direction, with the game being faster paced and less deathbally, two things that WC3 (and to a more extreme extent, MOBAs) go against.
I'm not against removing mechanics, I'm all for making them more meaningful, in which case I think WC3 is great at, but WC3 lacked the stress and multitasking that Starcraft had, having faster hands in WC3 didn't help much more than knowing the right micro decisions to make in battles, when you can take a battle, which creeps you can take on, what units to make etc. In Starcraft we don't punish players for having bigger armies, so macro takes a bigger focus as both players are simultaneously trying to outproduce, outstrategize, and outmicro their opponents. WC3 was more strategic than SC2 in the same way Artosis says SC2 is more strategic than BW. I want to see the trademark SC2 multitasking, speed, and awareness while having the depth of unit interactions and positioning that WC3 had.
The main argument I'm seeing is that this will reduce the chance for players to differentiate their macro skill. I call bullshit, worker management becomes even more important because of the LotV economy AND the macromechanic removals, and with more apm for harassment you can shake up your opponent's macro more easily (and conversely, more apm to defend, which can shake up your opponent's macro since he's the one harassing).