On August 02 2015 02:42 TurboMaN wrote: The Protoss offensive warpgate nerf is fine, but please don't make the macro mechanics even more easier. SC2 is a game of multitasking and it should stay like this.
If you don't need to do as much mindless clicking like mules/inject/chrono, there are many other things you can spend your multitasking ability with. Archon mode is already proof of that.
On August 02 2015 02:42 TurboMaN wrote: The Protoss offensive warpgate nerf is fine, but please don't make the macro mechanics even more easier. SC2 is a game of multitasking and it should stay like this.
If you don't need to do as much mindless clicking like mules/inject/chrono, there are many other things you can spend your multitasking ability with. Archon mode is already proof of that.
But then you don't have to make choices anymore. Some players (e.g. Fantasy, who is this to the extreme) generally elect to focus on army control and multitask over macro, which is a valid choice. Other players decide that controlling multiple armies isn't worth it. But with the direction that this stuff is going in, then everyone would play like Fantasy but not mess up their macro, which I think is a little silly.
So I might amend my earlier strong statement about "not removing macro mechanics"...
It is true brood war existed without these, except maybe microing workers was the equivalent, so maybe it could be a good change. But for fuck sake, give a better reason than, "well since its not apparent to the viewers we are thinking about doing away with them..."
Seriously, since when should that be the reason to change a MAJOR aspect of game play? Give me a better reason than that! about how it makes the game funner to play and better in general to play.
Also, this will completely change the balance of the game. So you consider this, but the very legit talks about economy don't get considered, because they would mess with balance?
On August 02 2015 04:49 ShambhalaWar wrote: But for fuck sake, give a better reason than, "well since its not apparent to the viewers we are thinking about doing away with them..."
Well, give a better reason not to change than, "it has been like this for a long time and it would be a MAJOR change, so it should not change."
On August 02 2015 04:49 ShambhalaWar wrote: Also, this will completely change the balance of the game. So you consider this, but the very legit talks about economy don't get considered, because they would mess with balance?
the talks about economy isn't "not being considered" because it would mess with balance, it's "not being considered" because their internal playtesting has shown no significant advantage to changing it.
Community resourcing model suggestion We also watched show matches, tried games ourselves, and we agree with the majority of you guys that it’s too similar to Heart of the Swarm. But we wanted to comment again on this because it’s still a topic discussed by some. Just to reiterate once more, we’re not looking to make minor tweaks in this area. We’re looking for a big change that will make sure that players will spread out their expansions at a much faster rate than they do in Heart of the Swarm. Currently, the resourcing model that we’re testing in the beta is doing a very good job of this.
No, don't remove mules, the game is becoming too easy!
That's the forums in a nutshell. I for one think Blizzard is in the perfect direction. The econ is already faster and these additional macro mechanics could just be gone!
On August 02 2015 04:49 ShambhalaWar wrote: Also, this will completely change the balance of the game. So you consider this, but the very legit talks about economy don't get considered, because they would mess with balance?
the talks about economy isn't "not being considered" because it would mess with balance, it's "not being considered" because their internal playtesting has shown no significant advantage to changing it.
Community resourcing model suggestion We also watched show matches, tried games ourselves, and we agree with the majority of you guys that it’s too similar to Heart of the Swarm. But we wanted to comment again on this because it’s still a topic discussed by some. Just to reiterate once more, we’re not looking to make minor tweaks in this area. We’re looking for a big change that will make sure that players will spread out their expansions at a much faster rate than they do in Heart of the Swarm. Currently, the resourcing model that we’re testing in the beta is doing a very good job of this.
I mean, I'm not buying that, and that's just me personally. Why not try dh with lotv starting workers?
I think they just don't want the rebalance headache. To me that answer just doesn't make much sense, those games clearly showed an advantage to expanding over turtle play. DH had impact on games and play style, but I'm not trying to advocate for the economy talk to start back up. Let's by all means move on.
Who know maybe removing macro mechanics could be good for the game, but I repeat. Please give a more thought out reason for it than viewing quality.
On August 02 2015 04:49 ShambhalaWar wrote: But for fuck sake, give a better reason than, "well since its not apparent to the viewers we are thinking about doing away with them..."
Well, give a better reason not to change than, "it has been like this for a long time and it would be a MAJOR change, so it should not change."
I like major changes, but lets make them in the spirit of better gameplay for the person that is actually playing the game. That is my gripe.
F the viewer. I like to watch the game as well (viewer here), but that's a discussion for overlays and casting mods. If the game isn't fun as hell to play, nobody will be playing it.
A good number of pros have sited they just lost passion/enjoyment of the game. I personally stopped playing because I didn't enjoy it the way I used to. Wings of liberty was fun as hell, HOTS was just kinda good/meh. Then all of a sudden winning became really important and losing felt absolutely terrible. So I said to myself, "Why am I putting myself through this hell that was supposed to be fun and enjoyable?"
I just made an account in TeamLiquid and this is my first write even though I have been reading TL for 1.5 years. I just wanted to say that I have lost almost all hope In David Kim and LOTV. It seems like the Dev Team and specially DK does not give a damn about whatever complaints and issues the community comes up with. This may be wrong but after seeing all the feedback that is being provided and watching David Kims reaction to it im really beginning to question if he is the man that can make Starcraft great again (even though I think its great right already). Since the Beta started I have seen no effort from Blizzard in order to make changes that really make the game more enjoyable and fun to play. In my opinion, this approach of making sc2 more action packed and fast paced is not what we need, a lot of HOTS players simply are not willing to play with the current LOTV econ system, potential new ones wont play the game because its even more difficult which is a synonim for non-entertaining, non-entertaining meaning dead game.
Furthermore, I feel like the only thing Blizzard is actually achieving with all these changes is dividing the whole sc2 community in two or more parts. Right now TL is like a long angry rant where users just fight each other trying to impose their view on things. And even though I like Drama I think it has reached the point where its just unbearable. Im getting tired of LOTV, im getting tired of this Beta and im getting tired of sc2 if Blizzard does not start working towards a good, well balanced and fun game to play and watch.
As a final thought, I really think that Blizzard does not know how big is exactly the number of people that are disagreeing with them and I think its time for them to really start working with the community (more than they are doing now). I wish they did some kind of referendum in which they can put their changes to the test and see how people want Starcraft to be. Sorry for the long writeup and for the grammar errors. English is not my native language.
Yes, I see that youve read TL alot. This should be a template at this point. You covered all the usual stuff:
"i lost all hope!" "fire david kim!" "they dont listen to us!!!" "sorry for my english"
On August 02 2015 02:42 TurboMaN wrote: The Protoss offensive warpgate nerf is fine, but please don't make the macro mechanics even more easier. SC2 is a game of multitasking and it should stay like this.
If you don't need to do as much mindless clicking like mules/inject/chrono, there are many other things you can spend your multitasking ability with. Archon mode is already proof of that.
But then you don't have to make choices anymore. Some players (e.g. Fantasy, who is this to the extreme) generally elect to focus on army control and multitask over macro, which is a valid choice. Other players decide that controlling multiple armies isn't worth it. But with the direction that this stuff is going in, then everyone would play like Fantasy but not mess up their macro, which I think is a little silly.
But don't you agree that it's way more interesting to watch Fantasy dropping Vultures in 3 places at once, rather than massing a single big army to attack at one place?
On August 02 2015 04:49 ShambhalaWar wrote: Also, this will completely change the balance of the game. So you consider this, but the very legit talks about economy don't get considered, because they would mess with balance?
the talks about economy isn't "not being considered" because it would mess with balance, it's "not being considered" because their internal playtesting has shown no significant advantage to changing it.
Community resourcing model suggestion We also watched show matches, tried games ourselves, and we agree with the majority of you guys that it’s too similar to Heart of the Swarm. But we wanted to comment again on this because it’s still a topic discussed by some. Just to reiterate once more, we’re not looking to make minor tweaks in this area. We’re looking for a big change that will make sure that players will spread out their expansions at a much faster rate than they do in Heart of the Swarm. Currently, the resourcing model that we’re testing in the beta is doing a very good job of this.
I mean, I'm not buying that, and that's just me personally. Why not try dh with lotv starting workers?
I think they just don't want the rebalance headache. To me that answer just doesn't make much sense, those games clearly showed an advantage to expanding over turtle play. DH had impact on games and play style, but I'm not trying to advocate for the economy talk to start back up. Let's by all means move on.
Who know maybe removing macro mechanics could be good for the game, but I repeat. Please give a more thought out reason for it than viewing quality.
viewing quality is not the primary justification, as explained by blizzard themselves, observe:
Game Difficulty Discussion As many of us on the team expected, this proved to be a tough topic. We knew going in there would be clear disagreements, as we’ve been seeing in many places—including individual pro feedback—that the majority of the Korean community disagrees with our goals for Void, while many outside of Korea strongly agree with our direction.
As many of you already know, these are the main goals that our team has for Legacy of the Void: More action, less down time. More micro on both sides in engagements. New ways to show off skill. Make the game more difficult for pros. Make the game more approachable to regular players through new features such as Archon Mode and Allied Commanders.
This was easily the biggest topic for the members of the Korean community at this event, and after many discussions with lots of different groups of people, we came out of the conversation with some new angles to potentially approach what we’re doing: Instead of just making the game more difficult for pros across the board, we wanted to also take some passes at exactly where we want the game to be more difficult and where we want to make the game easier. With this line of thought, and when discussing specific areas of focus, we came out with some key takeaways:
Approaching Void’s difficulty isn’t as simple as just saying things like “every unit add and change needs to make the game easier” or “every unit add has to have clear micro/hardcore add to make the game way more difficult to master.” It really depends on a case-by-case basis. For example: New Terran/Zerg units are a bit easier to use than Protoss because Protoss is currently the slightly easier race to master.
We will explore internally if there are areas of the game require a lot of skill, but don’t show off well, and consider whether these can be simplified. For example: Creep tumor spreading well is super-easy to spot and notice as the opponent playing against it. However, with spawn larva, it’s very difficult to know if a player is doing well.
...We will explore internally if there are areas of the game require a lot of skill, but don’t show off well, and consider whether these can be simplified. For example: Creep tumor spreading well is super-easy to spot and notice as the opponent playing against it. However, with spawn larva, it’s very difficult to know if a player is doing well.
...Creep tumor spreading well is super-easy to spot and notice as the opponent playing against it...
Macro Mechanics Macro mechanics are something we’ve absolutely seen the community discuss in the past. With Legacy of the Void becoming more difficult to play due to our main goals - more action, micro on both sides during engagements, less downtime, etc. - we have been exploring areas that we can make easier. For these, we’re trying to locate areas that are difficult to manage but aren’t really easily noticeable. For example, as a player doing larva inject, it’s somewhat difficult for me to tell how well I’m doing in a given game. Further, my opponent really has no idea how well I’m doing it either. In esports matches, this is also something that viewers can’t tell either. Because macro mechanics are an area that’s difficult to do, and not many people can really tell how well someone is doing it, we’ve been exploring potentially cutting them or making them less important.
...For these, we’re trying to locate areas that are difficult to manage but aren’t really easily noticeable. For example, as a player doing larva inject, it’s somewhat difficult for me to tell how well I’m doing in a given game. Further, my opponent really has no idea how well I’m doing it either. In esports matches, this is also something that viewers can’t tell either. Because macro mechanics are an area that’s difficult to do, and not many people can really tell how well someone is doing it...
...For example, as a player doing larva inject, it’s somewhat difficult for me to tell how well I’m doing in a given game. Further, my opponent really has no idea how well I’m doing it either. In esports matches, this is also something that viewers can’t tell either...
...as a player...it's somewhat dificult for me to tell...my opponent really has no idea...this is also something that viewers can't tell either...
their justifications talk about things that are practically invisible for everyone (they do use softer words when describing it from the players own perspective and I would agree that I can have a decent idea of how well I am injecting by checking the energy on my queens.) and in fact the only time they mention viewers is to further emphasize their already established point that there are mechanics that don't adequately telegraph the fact that a player was skillfull, thereby causing losses that are highly confusing until you look at the replay. such confusion has been identified as a bad thing and I would agree that such confusion is a bad thing.
these changes are intended as primarily for the players benefit, the fact that its beneficial for viewers is a happy coincidence.
Love it. Once upon a time, I liked the idea of the macro mechanics, but I realised over time how much they made it like doing a tedious, boring job rather than playing a game. Clicks for the sake of clicks. I like player mechanics playing a decent part in the game, but prefer the idea of good mechanics being there for optimising how you do things, not a necessity to play the game at an above appallingly-bad level. I always felt it was be a big turn-off for newer players that they have to keep doing such things to have a chance of competing and that an ickle bronzie putting no effort into strategy but just getting the tedious extra macro mechanics roll over a newer bronzie who might want to play a real-time STRATEGY game.
So if they don't completely remove the *needless* mechanics, I always hoped they would have a menu option for "autocast of abilities ON/OFF by default", checked by default for newbies because we can all uncheck it easily enough. I also think that (if we're not removing it completely), they could make the auto-casting of larva injects slightly delayed (5-10 second longer than optimal?), so that 1 - there is incentive to uncheck it, but not too strong, so that lower/slower/newer players have far less reason to bother, but better players have some reward for putting the actions into it 2 - It occurs to me that with such a delay, players can potentially have enough time to decide to grab queens for other purposes before the autocast inject kicks in (spreading creep instead if they want, for example) if they think of it in time, while still being able to rely on autocast for the next 'round' of energy.
I'd also be in favour of the same sort of "autocast by default ON/OFF" for creep tumours, where there is a significant delay on the autocast, say 45-60 seconds? That would also help beginners to have better than appalling creep-spread to go on with while they focus on other parts of their play. It would also mean that professional players who really slack on their creep spread would be amusing to see, because we'd know that they're doing an even worse job than the delayed autocast. XD
On August 01 2015 04:25 purakushi wrote: I hate this focus on action just for action sake. Removing macro mechanics does not mean that players will attack more. Macro for above average players is already too easy.
The game needs new blood to keep it going and it should appeal to people who want a strategy game. A lot of people just want to unwind with their game and the game does not encourage complete newbies to try ladder for more than a couple of games (of brutal defeat).
On August 02 2015 02:42 TurboMaN wrote: The Protoss offensive warpgate nerf is fine, but please don't make the macro mechanics even more easier. SC2 is a game of multitasking and it should stay like this.
If you don't need to do as much mindless clicking like mules/inject/chrono, there are many other things you can spend your multitasking ability with. Archon mode is already proof of that.
But then you don't have to make choices anymore. Some players (e.g. Fantasy, who is this to the extreme) generally elect to focus on army control and multitask over macro, which is a valid choice. Other players decide that controlling multiple armies isn't worth it. But with the direction that this stuff is going in, then everyone would play like Fantasy but not mess up their macro, which I think is a little silly.
But don't you agree that it's way more interesting to watch Fantasy dropping Vultures in 3 places at once, rather than massing a single big army to attack at one place?
No I dont agree.
And the reason why watching BeSt was amazing is because of macro.
I think its interesting to note that they are taking ONE variable out of macro they aren't removing macro..... BW didn't have this metric and I'm pretty sure there is a few people on this forum that kinda liked BW LOL I think them exploring this is very interesting and who knows what this will do for the game because it will free up not just "clicking" but it will give mroe time for micro because you won't have to go back to your base... and chrono won't ez mode ups lol
Edit:Also you have to realize that this will now give everyone more options as far as macro and when to get certain things... its a really interesting thought....
On August 02 2015 04:49 ShambhalaWar wrote: Also, this will completely change the balance of the game. So you consider this, but the very legit talks about economy don't get considered, because they would mess with balance?
the talks about economy isn't "not being considered" because it would mess with balance, it's "not being considered" because their internal playtesting has shown no significant advantage to changing it.
Community resourcing model suggestion We also watched show matches, tried games ourselves, and we agree with the majority of you guys that it’s too similar to Heart of the Swarm. But we wanted to comment again on this because it’s still a topic discussed by some. Just to reiterate once more, we’re not looking to make minor tweaks in this area. We’re looking for a big change that will make sure that players will spread out their expansions at a much faster rate than they do in Heart of the Swarm. Currently, the resourcing model that we’re testing in the beta is doing a very good job of this.
I mean, I'm not buying that, and that's just me personally. Why not try dh with lotv starting workers?
I think they just don't want the rebalance headache. To me that answer just doesn't make much sense, those games clearly showed an advantage to expanding over turtle play. DH had impact on games and play style, but I'm not trying to advocate for the economy talk to start back up. Let's by all means move on.
Who know maybe removing macro mechanics could be good for the game, but I repeat. Please give a more thought out reason for it than viewing quality.
viewing quality is not the primary justification, as explained by blizzard themselves, observe:
Game Difficulty Discussion As many of us on the team expected, this proved to be a tough topic. We knew going in there would be clear disagreements, as we’ve been seeing in many places—including individual pro feedback—that the majority of the Korean community disagrees with our goals for Void, while many outside of Korea strongly agree with our direction.
As many of you already know, these are the main goals that our team has for Legacy of the Void: More action, less down time. More micro on both sides in engagements. New ways to show off skill. Make the game more difficult for pros. Make the game more approachable to regular players through new features such as Archon Mode and Allied Commanders.
This was easily the biggest topic for the members of the Korean community at this event, and after many discussions with lots of different groups of people, we came out of the conversation with some new angles to potentially approach what we’re doing: Instead of just making the game more difficult for pros across the board, we wanted to also take some passes at exactly where we want the game to be more difficult and where we want to make the game easier. With this line of thought, and when discussing specific areas of focus, we came out with some key takeaways:
Approaching Void’s difficulty isn’t as simple as just saying things like “every unit add and change needs to make the game easier” or “every unit add has to have clear micro/hardcore add to make the game way more difficult to master.” It really depends on a case-by-case basis. For example: New Terran/Zerg units are a bit easier to use than Protoss because Protoss is currently the slightly easier race to master.
We will explore internally if there are areas of the game require a lot of skill, but don’t show off well, and consider whether these can be simplified. For example: Creep tumor spreading well is super-easy to spot and notice as the opponent playing against it. However, with spawn larva, it’s very difficult to know if a player is doing well.
...We will explore internally if there are areas of the game require a lot of skill, but don’t show off well, and consider whether these can be simplified. For example: Creep tumor spreading well is super-easy to spot and notice as the opponent playing against it. However, with spawn larva, it’s very difficult to know if a player is doing well.
...Creep tumor spreading well is super-easy to spot and notice as the opponent playing against it...
Macro Mechanics Macro mechanics are something we’ve absolutely seen the community discuss in the past. With Legacy of the Void becoming more difficult to play due to our main goals - more action, micro on both sides during engagements, less downtime, etc. - we have been exploring areas that we can make easier. For these, we’re trying to locate areas that are difficult to manage but aren’t really easily noticeable. For example, as a player doing larva inject, it’s somewhat difficult for me to tell how well I’m doing in a given game. Further, my opponent really has no idea how well I’m doing it either. In esports matches, this is also something that viewers can’t tell either. Because macro mechanics are an area that’s difficult to do, and not many people can really tell how well someone is doing it, we’ve been exploring potentially cutting them or making them less important.
...For these, we’re trying to locate areas that are difficult to manage but aren’t really easily noticeable. For example, as a player doing larva inject, it’s somewhat difficult for me to tell how well I’m doing in a given game. Further, my opponent really has no idea how well I’m doing it either. In esports matches, this is also something that viewers can’t tell either. Because macro mechanics are an area that’s difficult to do, and not many people can really tell how well someone is doing it...
...For example, as a player doing larva inject, it’s somewhat difficult for me to tell how well I’m doing in a given game. Further, my opponent really has no idea how well I’m doing it either. In esports matches, this is also something that viewers can’t tell either...
...as a player...it's somewhat dificult for me to tell...my opponent really has no idea...this is also something that viewers can't tell either...
their justifications talk about things that are practically invisible for everyone (they do use softer words when describing it from the players own perspective and I would agree that I can have a decent idea of how well I am injecting by checking the energy on my queens.) and in fact the only time they mention viewers is to further emphasize their already established point that there are mechanics that don't adequately telegraph the fact that a player was skillfull, thereby causing losses that are highly confusing until you look at the replay. such confusion has been identified as a bad thing and I would agree that such confusion is a bad thing.
these changes are intended as primarily for the players benefit, the fact that its beneficial for viewers is a happy coincidence.
I see the point you are trying to make, I suppose I didn't see this distinction before. Thank you for pointing it out.
It still strikes me as strange that the answer is cutting or diminishing the mechanic rather than making it more visible, which probably wouldn't be that hard. Again, if the biggest problem with the mechanics is that you can't visibly measure the other person's progress in game, is that really a big problem?
Please tell me how removing this is going to make the game richer and more fun to play?
Removing it just makes macro less difficult, does that make it easier for me to measure the progress of an opponent? What does this accomplish from blizzards perspective?
Liberator is Tempest-class cost and supply at this kind of power. Them being spammable so quickly is like a miniWarpgate for them where their production burst is not proportional to their power. They get to be Collossus and a Corsair rolled into a 150/150/2. Protoss doesn't have the DPS per Cost of the Viking at a safe range to stop the Terran Collossus. It's also just air and not both ground and air, so can't rush with ground units either. And MMW are way better Stalkers.
Lurkers need Protoss counterplay. Perhaps they need some weakness if they want to do stupid damage? Like supply inefficiency, or AoE nerf. Or more unconventional unique weaknesses: Attack the nearest unit and ignores priority. Or if FFs had HP (and priority) they could be great decoys and Zerg would have to baby sit their Lurkers to maximize their DPS like Stop command. Especially if they get a less punishing Larva Inject.
Let us revisit free units, as in, Broodlord and Swarm Host. They tend to produce deathball creep more often than not. I think they should cost minerals, but then you can be creative about the units produced instead of faux projectiles. Interceptors get to be their own thing and Reaver-shot-now-Disruptor gets to be its own fer realz unit.
Now that Immortals have interesting lockon animation/micro, it would be cool to design an offensive ability around that, a rapid fire attack rate as an active or passive would fit well (per Magpie). Or maybe the Immortal gets a cannon blast that's great at eating armored units and pushing them back. KB is a tough sell in SC (Reaper) but across-the-ground KB would look better.
On August 01 2015 04:31 Charoisaur wrote: One of the most disappointing community updates as of late. Protoss is widely regarded as a defensive "deathball" race so they make it weaker offensively and stronger defensively. makes sense. Also the alt control group feature is terrible, I thought they wanted players to be able to differentiate themselves through their skill and not make the mechanics even more easy than they are now. Finally they want to tone down/remove the races unique macro mechanics making the races more similar and reducing the required mechanical skill even further. At this point it wouldn't surprise me if LotV will be a huge failure and kill sc2 as a competitive eSports.
They have to address offensive Warp Ins if Protoss is ever going to be able to be buffed in a way that allows Gateway units to stand on their own.
Offensive Warp Ins are a balance nightmare, it removes all defender's advantage and trying to keep them around is how we ended up with Bandaid bullshit like Photon Overcharge.
PO is just simple in its implementation. Terran has the bunker dynamic and Terran takes some interesting penalty. Zerg get Queens.
On August 01 2015 15:34 trifecta wrote: From a spectator perspective, as long as Blizzard improves unit vs unit and army vs army interaction, I could care less about removing macro mechanics. It's ironic that adding multiple building selection and waypointing, auto mine, unlimited unit selection etc was hailed as 'modern ui > old limitations' by sc2 boosters, but now removing chrono/mule/inject is a bridge too far- sc2 folk may get to experience what it's like to be streamlined and obsolesced. In my mind sc2 macro mechanics never successfully replaced the mechanical and strategic counterbalance that it served as in bw. What sc2 has always lacked, and can benefit most from, is truly entertaining unit/army interaction.
I would go with something closer to Option 1 with macro. We don't need to remove different styles of play enabled by these macro mechanics, just a tweaking to a more engaging dynamic or, at the very least, slow down the APM intensiveness of them. or make them less impactful or punishing. However, the focus on the macro mechanics themselves is incomplete. Maynarding, building placement, unit production and more vulnerable points are also contributing to the base treadmill feeling. There isn't an easy answer to that.
Pylons should get their 7 range back. A relic of the warpin high ground days.
We'll have to see how the new Warping does.
HTs Feedback and Ghost EMP are probably too instant and little counterplay. HTs could be more microable too.
I don't feel like there's anything to be gained by discussing APM or mechanics or 'clicking' in this thread. It's already been done to death for years.
If we ignore the mechanical aspects of the change, and David's dubious reasons for implementing them, are people generally in favor of weakening the racial macro abilities?
On August 02 2015 00:55 [PkF] Wire wrote: That enthusiam around removing macro mechanics leaves me mesmerized. Do people really think that just removing those will make the game suddenly as popular as LoL and wipe out every flaw of the current LotV build ? There are far more important issues to deal with.
This is a really bizzare argument. If it's a good change, why the hell not implement it? That's like saying oh well changing ravager stats won't make SC2 a huge esport so why bother making the change. Are you really trying to claim that macro mechanics aren't a big part of the game? I don't get this post at all.
EPT
I like winning by being better at doing macro mechanics!
