EPTHas BW turned into a macro game? - Page 2
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
I-Emerge
United States435 Posts
| ||
|
Purind
Canada3562 Posts
| ||
|
Knickknack
United States1187 Posts
You can obvisouly see which is better. The game played well always been mainly macro with smaller incidences of micro. Decision making and overall game plan is still the most important factor though. Like others have said maps play a role as does a general improvement of the players. People try to play the best way and they see this way as the best. Now i dont know what the game was like before, when macro was generally worse. Was it smaller armies and more frequent battles? What would you like to see it as now? What map alteratinos would help? | ||
|
EAGER-beaver
Canada2799 Posts
| ||
|
Starparty
Sweden1963 Posts
On January 23 2006 13:39 {88}iNcontroL wrote: The reason you think this is because of the huge influx (spelling?) of FE for p/t. Namely with maps like Luna this has become familiarized and common. From there i would contend that p's and t's try to do that on alot of the other maps and it works out ok (some not so much ie P on Rush Hour = they bitch about it being a z map cause they forgot how to play outside of FE). I dont think its become fully a macro game, nobody will go anywhere STILL solely on macro. You have to have control of the stuff you make. YES this game features more macro now that P/T's think they have to get an expo as fast as the zerg does. should we mapmakers start striving from getting out of the standard LT 8-8-6 pattern and create different expansion layouts? Would a map like that be accepted? | ||
|
ROOTheognis
United States4482 Posts
so boring | ||
|
Luhh
Sweden2974 Posts
Blizzard botched things a bit with balance when they made zerg units expensive, and cheap infrastructure and the need for sunkens for defense early rather than units, larva spawn rate considerations etc etc. Protoss and Terran are similar, but zerg has more considerations than the other races, which limits map creation.  That is why we always see these macro orientated main, natural, mineral only maps nowadays I'd say. Zerg basically needs to be altered to allow a change in the maps and game style I feel. Perhaps it was a mistake to go with reduced larva spawn rate, cheaper hatcheries and increased sunken defense. But, perhaps there's still someone out there who will discover another twist to the game to shake things up once again, but it doesn't seem likely right now. Changes today are pretty minor, and the largest was the Boxer rush TvZ that certainly didn't help zerg at all that already was struggling against T, though perhaps not on all skill levels. | ||
|
-_-
United States7081 Posts
| ||
|
EAGER-beaver
Canada2799 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On January 23 2006 13:34 Kaotu wrote: OK, this was inspired by 1) FA's reflective thread about zerg, and more importantly 2) watching some very new replays and some old, 'classic' replays. In your opinion, has BW become what so many people without a real grasp of the game have called it: a mass unit game? Has dependence on a stable economy replaced reliance on micro and timing? I'm debating it in my mind. It seems to me that thanks partly to nada but moreso to the oov generation of terran, predictable macro builds are becoming the norm. Of course on the pro level we can see variety, but then again, I would venture to say that on the pro level too macro fights have become significantly more common. Perhaps it is merely the games I have recently watched/played, but I am somewhat saddened by the rise of predictability across the board and the huge economy battles. Some people like it. How about you? Do you agree with my analysis? Do you like the rise of macro (if you agree that there has been such a rise?) Hm, it's just that things that used to work before don't work anymore because people are more well-rounded. There's still a LOT of timing/cheese tho, and AnyTime represents this even newer generation of players quite well.. (timing/strategy) Tho I guess that might be less evident in replays posted on sites and more so in actual tournaments of some importance :o Oh. And maps as everyone else said (they are the no.1 contributor, but I imagine that some of the older maps would be quite impossible in PvsT vs a terran of oov's caliber, yes?). | ||
|
FalliNinLove
Slovakia865 Posts
 I am zerg player and i cant complain. I like to fight T/P fast exp everygame... cos there is so many choices zerg can counter tham | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On January 23 2006 16:18 Starparty wrote: should we mapmakers start striving from getting out of the standard LT 8-8-6 pattern and create different expansion layouts? Would a map like that be accepted? Rpoint is 8-7-.. Uh second nat is 7 too? Or 8? In any case, the second nat gas is only 2500. | ||
|
Day[9]
United States7366 Posts
that's part of the reason why its so common but once you get higher up and start playing w/ people who realize more interesting dynamics of the game, you realize how many people oftentimes favor extremely aggressive play. I encounter just as many 1 base Protoss/Terran players in the A PGT range as i do fast expoers, yet at the lower levels its almost exclusively fast expoing/cheesing Terrans. Again, just easier to win when you fast expo | ||
|
tKd_
United States2916 Posts
| ||
|
Day[9]
United States7366 Posts
i think i'll write an extended essay on this, as to why i think the answer is a solid "no, BW isn't a macro game," despite the fact that it seems like BW has developed into a macro game. : ] | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28738 Posts
the problem is just that you end up being far less consistent, because as a micro player, one slight fuckup might get you raped. while if you macro and you accidentially press 4sj instead of 4sh a couple times during a game it really won't kill you. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
We can generally see macro as maintaining maximum productive efficiency, while strat determines the shape of this curve. | ||
|
[X]Ken_D
United States4650 Posts
 | ||
|
Guybrush
Spain4744 Posts
I have to agree with Day[9]s post on that it is EASIER to learn and play macro style, and it doesnt require that much of you as including harrass in your game, and that's the reason you'll encounter such players in about every level. As soon as you reach the very top tier players however you'll see the players focusing more on harrass yet still they're able to uphold the usual macro. The timing part is also an important thing, but to me that goes under macro. Decisions go under strategy however, but it wont help you to make the right decisions if your timing and macro is off. I dont feel BW has become a macro game. The lower level of players have discovered that it's easier to play this way and just make more units than your opponent, but if you look at how the best players play you'll see that fundamental things such as macro/timing/micro are there, while it's the decisions and strategies that seal the outcome of the game. An example is Oovs recent game against JJu at Rush Hour, where Oov was 90% sure his opponent would drop him, and adapted perfectly to that. Would JJu have enough to stop Oovs push if he hadnt wasted those units ? Maybe, most likely not though since he got hurt early on by Oovs M&M killing drones and his gas. Did JJu adjust his gameplan to doing a drop after that happened because he thought his chances were slim to stop Oovs push straight up ? Most likely since those drones WILL hurt later in the game, but Oov read his thoughts, and figured he'd only have to wait for that counterattack before attacking himself. This wouldnt have been the case if it werent for that HARRASS that oov did though. If Oov woulda just sat in his base waiting for his 10 tanks to be done I dont think JJu would have done what he did. Some players have their gameplan ready before the game though and will do it no matter what the opponent does. Nada even said he does this in an interview. JJu vs Nada a couple of weeks ago showed another example on decisionmaking being important as JJu hurt Nada early on and forced Nada to lift his CC. Nada tried to continue playing normal, but I think he knew JJu would take the time to get the adventage and outmacro him. However I noticed JJu made some STRANGE decisions and actually LOST some battles which WOULD most likely have cost him the game if it werent for Nada being set back early and this is imo the difference between good and great players. A player like GoRush would probably avoid any contact before his 3 defilers were finished, ultra cavern being down and 8 scourges ready along with one and a half group with lurkers + 3 groups of lings before attacking. SAFING it in(i.e Gorushs game vs Nada in KT-KTF groups@Luna in 2004 I think) This is my thoughts on how BW has evolved. Macro is where it's been for a while. At it's peak. The decisions and strategy is still evolving, and as someone mentioned Anytime being an example on that. Harrass is always going to be evolving, but I can understand players not willing to rely on it because a missclick can be so fatal. | ||
|
decafchicken
United States20141 Posts
On January 23 2006 16:34 EAGER-beaver wrote: Zergs can play just fine without a natural. Just goes to show how every "pro" map has warped our view of this game by introducing constants: ramps and naturals you can defend with a fast expo no prob. 2 base zvt is soooooo much easier than 1 base | ||
| ||
