|
This was inspired by a thread I checked out on gosugamers.net, which can be found here:
http://www.gosugamers.net/starcraft/thread/386867-who-s-tired-of-the-macro-age
In the thread, the OP basically states that they don't like macro-style play and favor more fast-paced, micro-oriented strategies. Future posts condemned macro maps and the current mindset of Professional StarCraft players.
I basically want to make the argument that not only are 'The Macro Era' and macro maps 'good' (and not in an objective sort of way), but they also support one of the most important aspects of StarCraft: race balance.
Let's say there is a map that favors one-base tech/harass style play over anything else. The map does not favor late-game economy style tactics. Doesn't that map naturally favor whatever race is strongest with a one-base economy (I'm assuming Terran)? Wouldn't Zerg be at a serious disadvantage since they typically need to fast expand and are arguably strongest with late game tech/large armies?
Similarly, doesn't micro-oriented play favor the race that can utilize it most advantageously (again I'm assuming Terran, because all units are ranged)? Does this not explain in part why Terran dominated the pro-scene for so long (or were Terran players just downright 'better' than the other races)?
I'm a Terran player so I'm certainly not trying to make some sort of whiney 'Terran is unfair' claim, however, I do think that StarCraft has become such an optimized and macro-oriented game because that style of play lends itself to the most efficient and balanced gameplay (which if you find 'boring' is your own damn problem) with equal-opportunity for all 3 races.
Comments and ideas are appreciated, as well as the 'it's all micro when you think about it' argument etc.
Thanks guys.
|
United States24812 Posts
I don't think that the evolution of starcraft to macro style of play (independent of changing maps; people playing lt when it came out played in a much less macro oriented manner than they did on lt years later) was for any reason other than improvements in the ability to win. Macro style players who are comfortable with the old-school style (because monsters today could get thrown off by more aggressive builds since they are a little too specialized) are better. Simple as that.
|
Kyrgyz Republic1462 Posts
If you take a look here and here you will find that there really wasn't any terran domination. Boxer, Nada and oov were only really dominant terrans, of them oov the only one untouchable in his prime, so I guess the balance argument is not really strong. Besides, oov was untouchable very much due to the fact that 3/3 200/200 terran army was overpowered until people started using arbiters/defilers efficiently.
I don't know, personally I like low-eco aggressive games much more than huge macro games. After all, macro is a strictly mechanical skill. Though impressive skill nevertheless, you can't be "creative" or "intelligent" or "cute" at macro.
|
starcraft is always evolving
they once played those low econ games
ok now we're over with that era
now we play macro style games and will be like that until something else comes up (if ever)
thats why elders complain about the kids of these ages...
|
Well in the early game terran units are by far greater than zergs. Look at RH3 for example. That open natural is really a killing zone for terran. zerg simply cannot do anything about the fact that terran can go waltzing around killing their nat gas, and causing all sorts of trouble. m&m really can have map control quite easily. Unless zerg is willing to sink a ton of money into creating a huge ling army, there is really nothing zerg can do cost effective wise to combat marines. So really terran will have an advantage vs zerg if these 'micro' maps are the only thing available. If zerg cannot have easy access to a natural expansion than zerg is going to have some serious problems against terran. the only way i could possibly see zerg hanging on in a game where there is no easily accessible nat, is to go for a two hatch stratagem. Even then, medic marines are just too good. You NEED lurkers, or enough gas to facilitate mass muta to be able to handle any type of bio play from terran.
However considering this 'micro' map, muta will be out of the question because of the simple fact that your gas income is going to be significantly limited. So two hatch lurkers might be your only option. However going lurkers, on one gas is going to be pathetic. You are going to have to pray and hope that terran doesn't kill your first lurkers. Otherwise they can simply run you over with 3 rax 1 base play.
Conversely, the same is true if the game is protoss vs zerg. Zerg has the advantage in this match up, simply because protoss is not going to be able to expand, and take a 2nd gas. There for nullifying any serious Templar, corsair, or reaver play. Zerg can easily control the map, and take expansions with speed lings, and speed hydra. The only thing protoss really would be able to do is go for zeals. Dragoons would be pointless, form the simple fact that 1 base gas could not support dragoons (and early game zerg crushes goons that don't have storm support.), and you are going to want the gas for upgrades- and possibly chons.
I guess i really am not understanding the whole micro maps kind of thing. can you basically not get your natural expansion? Or what? I think that talking about late game is really quite pointless because late game is the culmination of the game. Every game is different are really there is no clear way to show what late game race is best.
Swarm ultra ling plagu/ sauron style <> Mass Sci Vessles and M&M / 200/200 tanks/golies/vults <> Carriers or chon speadzeals, rever, Dchon, arbiter? You decide. I have seen everything. there is the grate game of savior on peaks, where his late game zerg gets pooped on by chon, dchon, and revers. while on the other hand, you have savior vs iloveoov on RoV. Swarm and mass ultra = gg vs a shit ton of tanks ext. On the other hand, you have late game PvT with mass recall, and of course stork style 2 base carrier. Don't forget terrans TvP with your 200/200 3/3/3 army push that just mealts everything ext.
So really i think that by the time late game comes around, you really cannot tell what race is better. I can't at least. I just have seen everything go every witch way.
|
The pre-macro era was actually the opposite of what you're assuming--Zerg typically dominated the scene (Z>P, especially so before bisu's style became popular, and Terrans plain sucked). I also just want to mention that Terran did not dominate the pro-scene for a long time, especially not so before iloveoov's macro 'revolution'. In fact, Terran was considered the underdog race until Boxer came along.
I'm not saying you're wrong; I would agree with you that in theory, Terran should be the strongest race in a map that favors one-base play, but that's not quite the way it played out.
|
On April 19 2009 10:37 Random() wrote:
After all, macro is a strictly mechanical skill. Though impressive skill nevertheless, you can't be "creative" or "intelligent" or "cute" at macro.
I think playing a macro game requires a lot of intelligence actually. Macro games (particularly TvP) seem to have a lot to do with knowing about timing, when and where to expand, how to outfox and outposition the opponent's army, knowing what tech they are going, deciding whether to defend or counter an attack, knowing how to best damage your opponent's economy etc. Basically all the things people find 'boring' about macro games (the parts where there isn't fighting) because they don't understand the more complex reactions and counteractions that take place outside of battles.
Creativity also comes into play with things like hidden expansions and strange mid-game 'pushes' (biomech TvP, Queens w/ ensnare ZvT etc.) which I don't think fall into the category of early-game micro strats.
|
Micro is also a mechanical skill, I don't understand people that think only macro is mechanics or something.
Besides, ZvT has taken a much more aggressive turn in the past year with the return of 2hatch builds.
|
Kyrgyz Republic1462 Posts
On April 19 2009 10:54 KP_CollectoR wrote:
I think playing a macro game requires a lot of intelligence actually. Macro games (particularly TvP) seem to have a lot to do with knowing about timing, when and where to expand, how to outfox and outposition the opponent's army, knowing what tech they are going, deciding whether to defend or counter an attack, knowing how to best damage your opponent's economy etc.
Well, I understand macro to be the "building" part of the game, as in expanding and unit production. All the other things you mentioned are positioning, scouting, harrass etc. Obviously doing all that stuff requires much more than just mechanical skill.
But I don't think there is much creativity in the macro itself. As in, there is a certain optimal way of spending resources to maximize income/unit production that is discovered through practice and repetition, and if you want to play a macro game you stick to this known way as much as your opponent permits.
Unless your opponent is successful in considerably damaging you, then the player who sticks to the more optimal way of developing his economy (having only just enough units to defend) wins due to the number of units he is going to have in the mid-late game, and I beleive that is exactly why macro play is stronger than aggressive play these days.
Creativity also comes into play with things like hidden expansions and strange mid-game 'pushes' (biomech TvP, Queens w/ ensnare ZvT etc.) which I don't think fall into the category of early-game micro strats.
Yep, and I would not put this into "macro play" category. What I think is a pure "macro game" is a game where both players are content not to engage in a large-scale warfare and are building up each on his side of the map. Then, they start clashing 200/200 armies to fight for the remaining expansions in the contested areas. Neither of them is hiding anything, both of them know exactly what the other is doing, and the loser is usually the one who makes a positioning mistake.
|
United States47024 Posts
On April 19 2009 11:23 Random() wrote:
Yep, and I would not put this into "macro play" category. What I think is a pure "macro game" is a game where both players are content not to engage in a large-scale warfare and are building up each on his side of the map. Then, they start clashing 200/200 armies to fight for the remaining expansions in the contested areas. Neither of them is hiding anything, both of them know exactly what the other is doing, and the loser is usually the one who makes a positioning mistake.
This is a rather gross oversimplification. You're ignoring all the non-mechanical factors that go into that last "positioning mistake" among which are the things that the OP mentioned:
Macro games (particularly TvP) seem to have a lot to do with knowing about timing, when and where to expand, how to outfox and outposition the opponent's army, knowing what tech they are going, deciding whether to defend or counter an attack, knowing how to best damage your opponent's economy etc.
These aren't "macro" per se, but they still interact crucially during the end-phase of the game where large armies are clashing. It's hardly just about who's making more units in the right ratios faster.
|
Kyrgyz Republic1462 Posts
On April 19 2009 11:22 koreasilver wrote:
Micro is also a mechanical skill, I don't understand people that think only macro is mechanics or something.
I beleive it's because you need to constantly re-evaluate the situation and make extremely quick (reactive) decisions in order to position your troops in the most efficient way. You don't have to make as many decisions in your macro, most of the time you are just cycling through the production facilities and order more or less the same units over and over.
|
United States2186 Posts
On April 19 2009 10:37 Random() wrote:If you take a look here and here you will find that there really wasn't any terran domination. Boxer, Nada and oov were only really dominant terrans, of them oov the only one untouchable in his prime, so I guess the balance argument is not really strong. Besides, oov was untouchable very much due to the fact that 3/3 200/200 terran army was overpowered until people started using arbiters/defilers efficiently. I don't know, personally I like low-eco aggressive games much more than huge macro games. After all, macro is a strictly mechanical skill. Though impressive skill nevertheless, you can't be "creative" or "intelligent" or "cute" at macro.
Wow you're really impressive. You managed to get almost everything you said wrong.
Terran domination? Terrans before savior came had around 50% more titles than Protoss + Zerg combined.
oov was untouchable because he was the smartest player to play this game and he understood it so much better than everyone else. He started losing because people caught up in understanding (most notably Savior) and he lost motivation after 2006.
Macro just about mechanical skill? Sorry to burst the bubble but the really top players (iloveoov, savior, flash) are all about outsmarting their opponents to gain an advantage with hidden expos, off beat timings, and pushing boundaries. Mechanics has an equal amount in both styles; you have your Boxers and your rAs in micro just like iloveoov/savior/flash in macro. But those are the exceptions
There was domination because Boxer/iloveoov understood the game at such a different level and their innovations made it easy for Terran players to copy and do much better than Zerg/Protoss counterparts. Nada's mental consistency and insane mechanics were also a large part in why they got so many titles. But basically Terran dominated because they had a strategic monopoly, that's all there is to it (definitely has nothing to do with maps or 'ranged' units lolol).
|
Kyrgyz Republic1462 Posts
On April 19 2009 11:29 TheYango wrote:
These aren't "macro" per se, but they still interact crucially during the end-phase of the game where large armies are clashing. It's hardly just about who's making more units in the right ratios faster.
These things are always present in the game, whether you have 2 hatcheries or 20. I think they are irrelevant to macro.
|
Kyrgyz Republic1462 Posts
On April 19 2009 11:38 Ver wrote:
Wow you're really impressive. You managed to get almost everything you said wrong.
Terran domination? Terrans before savior came had around 50% more titles than Protoss + Zerg combined.
oov was untouchable because he was the smartest player to play this game and he understood it so much better than everyone else. He started losing because people caught up in understanding (most notably Savior) and he lost motivation after 2006.
So? That is what I was trying to say. It was the players who dominated, not a race. Besides boxer, oov, and nada, how many terrans were "dominating"?
Macro just about mechanical skill? Sorry to burst the bubble but the really top players (iloveoov, savior, flash) are all about outsmarting their opponents to gain an advantage with hidden expos, off beat timings, and pushing boundaries. Mechanics has an equal amount in both styles; you have your Boxers and your rAs in micro just like iloveoov/savior/flash in macro. But those are the exceptions
If you insist that timing or hiding an expo is macro, then I agree. But I consider it a separate skill.
|
T.O.P.
Hong Kong4685 Posts
On April 19 2009 10:54 KP_CollectoR wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2009 10:37 Random() wrote:
After all, macro is a strictly mechanical skill. Though impressive skill nevertheless, you can't be "creative" or "intelligent" or "cute" at macro. I think playing a macro game requires a lot of intelligence actually. Macro games (particularly TvP) seem to have a lot to do with knowing about timing, when and where to expand, how to outfox and outposition the opponent's army, knowing what tech they are going, deciding whether to defend or counter an attack, knowing how to best damage your opponent's economy etc. Basically all the things people find 'boring' about macro games (the parts where there isn't fighting) because they don't understand the more complex reactions and counteractions that take place outside of battles. Creativity also comes into play with things like hidden expansions and strange mid-game 'pushes' (biomech TvP, Queens w/ ensnare ZvT etc.) which I don't think fall into the category of early-game micro strats.
I agree with you. People who don't know the game very well don't like macro battles because they think it's very mechanical. But I think that macro takes a lot of skill. They say Flash has the best macro in the world. It's not because other pro-gamers can't keep their minerals down, it's because he takes his expansions the moment he deems that he is safe to do so. Flash has great timing, he'll attack his opponent at the time where his opponent has the least units.
The games I hate most now are the 2 hatch muta builds. It seems like these modern pro-gamers like luxury and yellow prefer to micro their way to victory instead of relying on their brain to outplay their opponents.
|
The return of 2hatch builds was important as Zerg plays against Terran became way too obvious and predictable. There had to be a change from the same 3hatch muta that was being used in every single ZvT game.
|
Macro oriented play is simply an extension of the win conditions of the game. There's a reason why 1-base is generally considered cheesy/all-in most of the time. It's because after a while of 1-base, players have learned to counter everything. When you can't out-tech or out-muscle an opponent without going all in and flipping a coin to see the result, what do you do? You macro. 1-base goes to 2-base. 2 base strats evolve, players learn. Then 2-base goes to 3 base. When you hit around 3 working bases, the game works out so that you can now get pretty much full tech and max out. That's roughly where we are today.
The OP of that thread isn't making his living off of winning, so he can have fun playing low-econ all he wants. But if you don't want to stake your salary on some lottery, you will take an expo and compound your advantage/play catch-up. If you successfully take your expo, you suddenly have more stuff to work with. Benefit > costs when you already know how to counter most non-expansionary plays.
About the whole "boring" factor, what he says is pretty much true. It IS more boring, especially from a spectator's view, because taking expos is a passive way to gain the lead. The way FE builds work are much more subtle and people who aren't as into the game (especially those who don't play at all) are going to be turned away at the subtle nuances like "omg! he has overlord speed already! i need to prepare.." It's nowhere near as dramatic as "omg! ee han timing drone drill 24 speedling ramp break!" This is bad for a spectator sport, but is nowhere near as bad as he makes it out to be. From his post, it definitely seems like he has no idea how uttering exciting, tho subtle, that lone marine at the ramp and the scout scv at the beginning of a TvZ FE is defending against 5 years of low-econ play. Walking the thin line between almost dying but still getting your expo, and just dying can be just as exciting as an all-in rush, just not visually.
So I guess in a way he's right, but he's definitely not seeing the whole picture at all. There's still a such thing as cheesy all-in play after getting your FE on.
|
I still see people micro these days. If you don't count controlling large armies as micro, you're an idiot.
+ Show Spoiler +
Look at the "boring" TvT of Canata and Pure. They massed BC's, at that point, there isn't anything left to macro. They each got a 200/200 army. All they need to do is micro their asses off. All they do is wait for an opening to launch an EMP, clone Yamato. But in the end, their microfest turned into nothing because no one wants to attack and lose because of the defender's advantage.
For me, I would love to see a progamer controlling large armies than controlling 4 hydralisks against 4 zealots. Newbies like us can do that somehow but, we can't control those large armies efficiently as they do. That's what I find entertaining, a nice flank with LurkerLing, DS and a gosu scourge micro while T is splitting his MnM forces and dodging scourge while irradiating defilers. Won't you call that magnificent thing micro?
|
According to idra muta micro broke low econ maps for ZvT, T just didn't have enough resources to have the turrets and rines required to defend
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
