|
The economy is already going through some changes so I would be ok with experimenting with the macro mechanics. The game is still in beta and experimenting with ideas is what that is for.This could be an idea that is thrown out quickly or one that sticks around.
I would not mind weakening the current macro mechanics but increasing the options.
For Terran making the supply drop more appealing, perhaps combined with a weaker mule the supply drop could provide more supply.
For Protoss let the nexus use its energy as a shield battery in addition to chrono boost, maybe even remove photon overcharge for this.
For Zerg, the queen already has a good set of abilities, and managing injects and creep spread are unique mechanics that enable players to display their skill.
Further to this their could be more of an economy tech tree, for example upgrades that increase the movement speed or mining amount of workers just as their are upgrades for the attack and defence of units. Although this may be adding needless complexity and not actually benefit the game.
Everything should have very clear visuals so that it is easy to see when scouting.
I would rather see greater variety and options that allow players to distinguish themselves in different ways than to just remove things completely.
Also I would highly recommend reading the curious case of soO's macro mechanics in the general forum and featured news.
|
I would love to see this tested in the beta..
My main thoughts:
1. The first mule/inject/chrono are important in HOTS, but with the 12 worker start in LOTV removing the macro boosters would actually be something to consider.
2. Early All-ins would be a bit weaker for every race.
Z: directly limits the amount of units
P: slows down warpgate and probe production -> less money == less units
T: Less money == less marines
3. Without inject larva zergs must spend a bit more for macro harcheries, but I don't see this as a bad thing.. (we did something similar in broodwar) some minerals for constant larva production, for some supply and additional creep spread... I don't think anyone would miss larva inject after a while..
4. Protoss would be a bit slower, but that would be the only change. If this makes them too slow there would be buffs. I think protoss would change the least with this change. And easiest to fix if there are any real problems with this.. just lower the research times.
5. As for terran.. Well I feel like it would make the gameplay smoother as there wouldn't be spikes in the income.. if the production ends up being too costly with the missing mules, balancing would be just lowering the costs for some of the key units or something similar..
6. The game would be better. The thing is that if you aren't currently franctically doing your macro mechanic from the start you aren't playing your race well. I think we currently have three areas in our game:
micro - unit controll, positioning,
macro - economic decisions, production
"macro mechanic" - a random repeatitive task that you must do alongside with the actual game.
|
I recently played a few games vs a friend, masters vs high - on a custom map.
The custom map strips starcraft to its basic form, it only has gateways, barracks, and no macro mechanics.
Youd be surprised at the amount of strategy, skill and macro required to win games. It isnt about doing fancy micro or getting huge macro leads.
You have to focus on multi pronged attacks, positioning, denying expansions and keeping your workers safe much more.
Just because a medivac with speed unloads 8 stimmed marines that shred your mineral line in 2 seconds exists. Doesnt mean its good for the game.
Its not completely balanced by any means, but the point is - removing macro mechanics wont make the game dumbed down.
Small groups of zealots flanking in order to win fights, can be equally as micro intensive as drops from a warp prism. And even with basic units, you can guarantee that players like bomber would be at the top of a ladder.
|
|
|
I recently played a few games vs a friend, masters vs high - on a custom map.
The custom map strips starcraft to its basic form, it only has gateways, barracks, and no macro mechanics.
Youd be surprised at the amount of strategy, skill and macro required to win games. It isnt about doing fancy micro or getting huge macro leads.
You have to focus on multi pronged attacks, positioning, denying expansions and keeping your workers safe much more.
Just because a medivac with speed unloads 8 stimmed marines that shred your mineral line in 2 seconds exists. Doesnt mean its good for the game.
Its not completely balanced by any means, but the point is - removing macro mechanics wont make the game dumbed down.
Small groups of zealots flanking in order to win fights, can be equally as micro intensive as drops from a warp prism. And even with basic units, you can guarantee that players like bomber would be at the top of a ladder.
This is extremely appealing to me... Now i want to try it out... You are trying this out in the beta correct? If so pm me your info so we can try this out...
|
Another positive thing is that removing macroboosters increases the impact of economic harass. An investment into tech such as an Oracle PvZ would be much more impactful if a zerg couldn't just build 12-14 drones easily on three bases while the Protosses economy lagged behind because of the tech investment. I feel like removing macroboosters would increase the impact of every other strategic decision. And it could also mean that you could die a lot easier as well.
|
On August 06 2015 23:56 TokO wrote:
Another positive thing is that removing macroboosters increases the impact of economic harass. An investment into tech such as an Oracle PvZ would be much more impactful if a zerg couldn't just build 12-14 drones easily on three bases while the Protosses economy lagged behind because of the tech investment. I feel like removing macroboosters would increase the impact of every other strategic decision. And it could also mean that you could die a lot easier as well.
And Terran wouldn't be able to "cheat" its eco income after losing all its SCVs 
|
Good post, I was very pleasantly surprised when Bliz posted they will experiment with removing macro mechanics, always thought these were untouchable. A few points to add:
1. Removing larva inject will also remove the larva banking mechanism, which will make zerg macro more difficult. In order to get to "perfect" macro, you will have to never let a single hatchery get to 3 larva, or you will lose larva generation. No larva bank also means no instant re-max. A maxed out zerg will have to be more active in trading armies or he would permanently lose larva, unlike current game where you can bank a ton of larva to use later. I think this makes zerg mechanics harder, not easier.
2. Larva inject is not the main time sink for zerg, creep spread is. Any decent player can inject larva quickly, but to spread creep when you have many tumors take way too much time, time you can otherwise spend on doing more exciting stuff like attacking the opponent. I would suggest making creep a lot easier to spread, but drastically reduce the speed boost. So that both sides can attack easier, Terran and Protoss wouldn't fear the creep as much, and Zerg would be more willing to attack off creep, both leads to more aggression and less turtle play.
3. Spending less time looking at your bases means you have more time to look at your army. I doubt a 400 APM pro will all of a sudden play at 200 APM because he no longer needs to drop mules... Pros will play just as fast as before, only they will have more (slightly) time to control their armies, which will widen the skill gap, not the other way around. If you watch a pro Zerg pfvod in BW, other than putting workers on minerals, his screen is almost always on his armies. Unit production is almost always done with hotkeys. You watch a pro Zerg pfvod in SC2, you see a lot more time spend looking at bases, at creeps, and much less on armies. Frankly speaking, more time to look at armies means more action packed game.
4. No mules means you have all the energy in the world for scans, making detection and scouting infinitely easier for Terrans, which would be a good thing. Blind build order losses are not exactly the best aspect of SC2. I hope all races get scouting buffs. Less luck = more skill.
5. Slower worker production means lower opportunity cost for not producing workers! In the current game cutting workers before peak saturation will set you very behind, usually makes you all-in, because your opponent will easily get 20 workers ahead and you can't catch up. Without macro mechanics, everyone will make workers slower, so the player who chose to cut workers for a short duration and make an earlier army wouldn't be game-losing behind in worker count. I believe this will encourage earlier timings, and less "turtle until peak saturation" play.
6. Slower pacing of the game gives player more time to act and react, which means more come back potential. The lower economy will make all-ins less powerful, we will see more pressure play instead of kill or die, and the defending player has better chance to recover afterwards.
7, Larva inject creates a ridiculous phenomenon where Zerg explodes on unit count in the early to mid game, but in the late game that unit count gets reduced when you trade low supply inefficient units for high supply more efficient units, resulting in immobile Zerg deathballs, which should never exist... Without larva inject, Zerg wouldn't have early - mid game numerical explosion, which means each individual Zerg unit can be buffed stronger to compensate for the lower numbers, which means in the late game they wouldn't be complete trash. I would like to see a design where instead of shrinking your army count in hive tech into fewer high supply deathball units, we can see hive Zerg with the fastest production and largest army size.
|
I just want to acknowledge that this is one of the best written and most thoughtful posts I have ever seen on this website. It spawned positive discussion, was not belligerent or confrontational, and was backed up with cogent references to personal experience. (while maybe not with hard data - which could potentially strengthen your argument.) You changed my opinion on this issue. Hats off to you, sir - If everyone on the internet thought like this, the world would be a better place.
|
Good post, thanks.
The arguments I've seen in favor of keeping the current macro boosters has been pretty flawed, to say the least.
|
This thread is a monumental achievement in the Starcraft community, hell, maybe even the entire net. The thoughts and ideas presented in this thread go far beyond what I ever imagined was possible. I applaud your efforts, you are a literal based god OP.
|
Thank you for the great OP. I felt TL strat's article was pretty weaksauce with this being strongsauce. I'm a bit disappointed that they didn't find writers with opposite view of current macro mechanics being good, but it's great that you stepped up.
While I'm losing an edge that wins me a ton of games (good injects) i wouldnt mind NOT doing that silly task every xx seconds and rather focus on other stuff. It's true what some have said when it comes to introducing new players to the game. "Yeah, and you need to have a queen inject all the time on all hatches, and until you can reach 80 food without skipping a beat it's no point in us playing".
It's not a good sell, but it's quite truthful. Not to mention that I personally find mules to be terrible design.
|
On August 05 2015 03:28 G3n wrote:
Hi there guys, Since the new blizzard feedback update there has been lots of discussion about changing the macro, and there´s been people who have been very vocal about keeping it the way it is, there's even a really in depth study on the front page about it!
The thing is, I don't think many players have actually played Starcraft 2 WITHOUT the macro "crutches".
I have done it a lot, so I thought it would be a good idea to share the differences I've encountered, share some new insights, and debunk some myths about it.
First things first, I have been playing SC2 for years and it´s been quite some time since I got my beta invite for LOTV, however, my experience with crutchless SC2 mostly focus with HOTS, so bear that in mind.
So,to get to the point, I was playing HOTS a lot, but it got stale after a while, so I turned to mods to spice it up a little, one such mod was one that removed macro crutches and left everything else untouched.
What do I mean by macro crutches? well, injects, chrono, and mules.
Everything else was exactly the same only the crutches were removed.
I found this mod rather amusing so I played it until I got my LOTV invite.
Without further ado, I will point out the differences and details I found about the macro mechanics of SC2 :
Differences :
-The pacing changes-
As is to be expected, with the removal of macro crutches the pacing changed, but not quite in the way you would expect.
Games didn't turn out slower, timings and build times were mostly unaffected, rather, engagements in the early game became scrappier and with less units. You could make a lot of things work with good control. Things like losing a worker or even a unit tended to hurt a lot, so you mostly tried to save both.
The Mid-game is where the game usually picked up into something that resembled the usual SC2 pacing.
The main difference was the abundance and diversity of higher tech units,accompanied by lower tech units and meat shields, but not as many as you would usually see.
Micro is still a big part of the fights, but your macro dictates the pace of the game since you have to expand more and get more production facilities, the managing of more expansions and buildings than usual starts getting in the way of your micro and your micro in the way of your macro, but up to this point it's not that much harder than the usual macro mechanics.
The Late Game is where the game gets completely insane.
I regret to say that I didn't manage to get many games that lasted this long so I don´t have that much to say except that that if you make it this far the game goes nuts and it gets pretty hard to manage everything.
You have so many bases, so many production facilities,so many different unit types spread just about everywhere, so many different places to defend and attack, both players are already fielding their best units and upgrades.
It gets pretty chaotic, especially with bases and buildings that are pretty far away from each other, and especially with all the fighting going on.
So it starts out Slower and it ends up Faster, why? well, logic would dictate that the current macro mechanics should give a faster game all game no? the reason for this isn't readily apparent until you understand...
-The reason for the current mechanics-
Some people believe the current mechanics are there to increase the skill level required, or as an APM sink, but the real reason is actually quite simple.
The reason for the current mechanics is easy to explain :
To make SC2 bigger and better!
You see, the reasoning for these mechanics was to make the things everyone loved about starcraft more prominent in the sequel, more action packed and exciting.
Having things like injects chrono and mules meant more money to spend earlier, more units to be produced faster and more tech to be delivered earlier in the game, this would have given us a bombastic action packed sequel :
The game starts earlier because you get resources faster!
More units means more fights!
Faster upgrades open a world of possibilities!
A faster game will give the more skilled players more chances to really shine!
This would have worked marvelously... if only we had played the game as blizzard intended us to.
-The current macro mechanics reward spamming and turtling-
This is one of the things you wouldn't normally notice, but once you start playing the game without the crutches become really obvious.
Have you ever wondered why marine marauder medivac is so prevalent? why mutabling works on every match up? why gateway units seem so weak? why a player on 3 bases can drag out the game so easily against an opponent with a lot more bases?
It's mostly because the current macro mechanics reward such play, and as soon as we, the players, found out we started abusing it as creatively as we could.
For the most part the current macro crutches reward the spamming of cheap fast units to be produced with little inconvenience, things like drones probes and mules to make more money, and things like zerglings roaches mutas, marines,marauders,medivacs, etc, to be mass produced and thrown at the enemy.
The combination of mules + reactors, and spawn larva+ the classic zerg macromechanics causes this fllood of cheap low tier units to be very easy to make while also making the fielding of higher tier units a lot harder.
The thing is this makes the game seem wonkier/more imbalanced than it actually is.
For example, gateway units aren't actually weak, but protoss has no proper mechanic to spam units(since chrono is more economic and tech driven),and their units aren't really cheap, so they are always overwhelmed by the amount of enemy units from the other two races.
This isn't to say protoss can't spam, but it is a lot harder for protoss and that puts gateway units at a disadvantage.
This isn't exclusive to protoss, any unit from any of the three races is at a disadvantage against more spammable units.
And it isn't something easy to see either, if you make 15 marines at a time you might think it's because your macro is pretty good, but if you see 10 zealots being warped at your third it seems gimmicky, and it makes it seem like protoss as a race is faulty.
Most of the units in the game on their interactions with other units and each other have some pretty solid math, it's the current macro mechanics that throw that math into dis-balance by always giving the cheaper faster more spammable units the advantage.
Just to drive the point home, "teching" was trying to out maneuver cheaper more numerous units with less of more advanced units,
for example going for a fast tank or in an extreme case opening with a tank(an un-sieged one at it because the upgrade was separate) and hold back zerglings/ dragoons with good control until you could get more.
This will get you killed every time in SC2 because the spammable units have the advantage, no matter how good the control, you will get overwhelmed.
The current crutches also promote turtling.
Mules let you have a lot of money very quickly without having to expand,inject and chrono boost also do this to a much lesser extent, and chrono has the added appeal of not having your tech fall behind because you're not expanding, you can always just boost out the upgrades and tech you would otherwise be missing out or getting late. Inject larva doesn't help turtling very much but instead makes saturating bases almost immediate.
And the reality is that there is no reason not to, there is no reason not to chrono or mule or inject, and since there is no reason not to, there is also no reason not to turtle and not to deathball.
Mix this up with defenders advantage and the aforementioned spamming, and turtle play just ends up coming naturally.
-Removing the crutches-
All in all removing the macro crutches seem to promote more unit variety, more engagements, and focus more on control and management.
It also helps with problems like death balls and turtling, while at the same time rewarding expansions and multiple actions around the map.
This were the things I noticed it when I was playing it, and I think the guys at blizzard came to the same conclusions while testing something similar internally.
That said, I think the idea of keeping the crutches but making them easier to use is a bad idea,the problem with these crutches is not that they are hard to use, is that they make the game itself tumble in confusion about its own rules.
-Mythbusting-
-"Without the current macro mechanics the game will be dumbed down, and will require less skill!"
False.
The game isn't really any easier without the crutches and the skill requirements remain unchanged, the main change of the game is in the pacing.
-"I want the game to be more like broodwar and changing the macro mechanics is a step backward!"
Neither broodwar nor starcraft had any macro crutches, play the game if you don't believe me.
-"Macro will now be too easy. This will affect the higher levels of play!"
Not true, macro didn't get easier, you will have to build a lot of production facilities and extra town halls very regularly to get more resources and units only instead of doing it with a spell you do it with your workers.
In average the APM used is just about the same in both instances, and in the later stages of the game it actually becomes harder.
-"Macro mechanics aren't the problem, the problem is that protoss is badly designed/zerg is OP/terran imba"
As stated before, the math on most of the units is pretty solid, its the crutches that thrust this math into disarray most of the time,I think settling the macro issues will settle a lot of balance issues.
-"Changing the pace of the game will make it more boring!"
It's only the beginning stages of the game that are somewhat slower, as the game goes on it actually gets faster. In LOTV this may very well be an intentional side effect.
-Conclusions/ TL;DR-
It's a wild idea, but blizz might be on the ball with this one.
The current macro mechanics are fun and we've grown to love them,and the ways they positively affect the game are easy to see, but the many ways they negatively affect the game aren't until you actually get rid of them.
As I see it, as far as macro crutches go, cutting them would be better than keeping them, and keeping them would be better than making them easier, for making it easier might actually emphasize the problems with them rather than alleviate them.
It may also make the game more accessible, not in the sense that it will be easier to play, but in the sense the logic will be more sound and less "thats just how it is". It makes sense the more numerous units have the advantage, And it does make sense the stronger units can get overwhelmed by the lesser units, it just doesn't make sense that they always get rolled over without much resistance.
It's up to the player to find the situations in which each of his units excels and how to make the most of their control"I could have made it work if...", rather than "i can't go that unit, I'll get rolled over, it's just the way it is" Little bits of thought trains like that, that will make the game more accessible since the logic behind the matches will always be more sound, therefore less confusing to players.
Overall, I recommend trying the game out without the macro crutches,it really spices thing up.
And I would like for blizz to try it out in LOTV if only for a while, just so other players can see just how much depth removing this one thing, it actually adds.
Mod doesn't exist. Galaxy scripting doesn't function to spawn larvae at irregular intervals. Balance is horrific without the mechanisms of chronoboost. This is all just a lie.
Also, it seems like you have a hard time with basic mechanics as you didn't even get an invite until buying the beta. How can you compare something you cannot do? No replays. No support. Waste of time.
|
|
|
WOW... this post... you might be on to something really big here.
It got me thinking, and while I have little to come with in terms of whether
this or that change in the macro mechanics is better, I do in terms of why this might be important.
So lets start at the beginning, I never really liked how zerg played in SC2 compared to BW,
there was always something off and OP's part with
"So it starts out Slower and it ends up Faster" really hit home because I
often thought about it as the game was too fast and too slow somehow at the same time.
In addition the only time it felt really great was when I tried to play some quick 2
base infestor/muta techbuilds which also involved cutting some injects for faster tech.
(On the other hand they were not good in terms of winning)
I just put this off, I probably just liked the design of zerg in BW better, but this post
got me thinking there was something more to it.
So this comes down to what are the fundamentals that make starcraft starcraft and not another
RTS and to me there are two things that do just this.
The fist one is the obvious when the macro mechanics is concerned the difficult mechanics.
If we make a comparison to chess the main limiting factor
is that you can only move one piece every turn and the decision of which one to move becomes a large strategic choice.
Starcraft on the other hand we are limited by our APM and multitasking in terms of what we can do and that
means that in a competitive setting it is not only the strategic choices that we make but as much a mechanical feat.
In addition Starcraft actually comes back to the strategic choice by giving us too much to do so even the best have to
make choices and we get for example macro players that focuses on the economy and micro players that focuses on unit control.
On the other hand while this is an important component in what makes starcraft what it is,
I think it is focused on far to much and in particular one misses what I think is actually the thing that makes
Starcraft an economy-focused game.
There is another thing that limits players an it is the economic intake itself. Even if you have a perfect player,
there is only so much minerals they can accumulate in a given time and there is the choice in what to spend it on.
Now you might think I sound silly, most RTS have this, but the point is not that they have it, but how the economy
influences these decisions. At first there is always the choice between investing in army etc. and
investment into more economy later compared to games where influencing economy and base building are
limited either by design or they economy was just making some peons in the first few
minutes and then mainly ignore it later.
On the other hand it is neither a focus on maximising economic output and just sitting back in the
base and making the perfect army but in the interesting point that lies in between these, the one of timings.
Where the possibility of cutting down on economy to do attacks and harassment force the opponent to
respond with defences or to take the economic damage, but on the other hand it is not game
deciding in the way that one can just stop improving the economy and expect to win by making units.
On the other hand one can sit back and improve the economy and to build a good army but one cant simply head for the best
it will either leave you low on defences so you can be overwhelmed or not have the fighting
power to head out on the map and claim the resources required for the perfect army and your opponent will contain and starve you.
So when one can play defensively and economic-focused one have to make an army that isn't the best possible but one that corresponds
to a compromise between an army capable taking the necessary economic resources
and what will correspond to a perfect composition.
Also the infrastructure influences decisions, if the opponent makes unit A the natural
response might be to make B as it is extremely good against A. On he other hand this might be
difficult given the production facilities and the economic/technological state of the game and thus the better decision
might be to build C although it is only decent against A.
As a final example, Lets take the BW zerg I spoke about earlier,at least one ting I miss about it was the
special economic situation made by the lack of queens. As hatcheries was expensive and only
gave limited means of production it was difficult to produce large amount of drones without becoming vulnerable to attacks.
On the other hand zerg was mobile, the hatcheries can take new bases and finally
there was only 1 gas with double amount per trip compared top SC2 so it took very few drones to get a good gas income.
Thus zerg often made a lot of expansions and used a lot of higher tech units such as mutalisks lurkers, defilers and
also made swift techswitches to catch the opponent offguard. And it was not from this being
the best unit compositions it was jut a consequence of zergs unique economic situation that lends
itself to this playstyle being good.
While all might not agree with me concerning these two as the important components of starcraft,
some issues often raised, the problem of either 200/200 tutlefest or the mass units
all-ins means we at least have to look at the economic pacing to which the macro mechanics contribute a lot.
In addition, the economic pacing have gone remarkably unnoticed,
while there have been some recent activity but not really in terms of pacing,
mostly trying to create similar marginal mining effects at
BW but this focuses more with just economy rather than its interaction with the rest of the game
or maxed out 3 base scenarios which we preferably would like to avoid in the first
place by changing pacing. But I cant blame them, analysing how a changed economic pacing
affects builds army composition etc. is a much more difficult question and is much more suited to
play-testing as it involves the interactions between the economy and the rest of the game.
But blizzard on the other hand has been very poor, there have been a lot of changes to a vast
array of things in attempt to improve the game but economic pacing has been strangely absent.
There have been one thing, the gold bases but they tended to make things worse otherwise
it has been really fix with the 8 (5/trip) minerals 2 gas(4/trip) set-up
and macro mechanics has also remained mostly unchanged.
This could be contrasted with BW which have not received balance patches since 2001 but has changed
drastically from a lower econ game to the one we know today. But the thing that have changed are the maps, and with them the
economic pacing. As the extreme example the early blizzard ones have as few as 6-7 mineral patches
and quite often no gas at expansion (or no natural expansion at all) and any BW player today
would think it is ridiculous (and very inbalanced) to play on these maps.
So it seems that there is plenty of reason to try out changes in the economic pacing
as in removing macro mechanics and map changes such as changing gas/minerals mining.
As I brought up the single gas I might say some things on this, while the
maxed 3-base situations was a bit of point I am trying to make, it is easy to analyse and it directly
gives 9 free workers which is almost half of an base which might favour more expansions.
In terms of pacing how it will affect games is difficult to tell but the smaller
mineral investment probably brings more tech-openings and later on makes a stronger
connection between number of bases and gas intake as mentioned above
(this is not at all a sneaky attempt to bring back the BW style zerg, I promise) It is
mostly to try to bring up some variety and testing in terms of map-making which also have been absent.
While on the subject of BW although all the changes here changes the game to be BW-like
it is not because of some belief that making the game like BW will fix things, I
believe that the key to finding a good change (if that is even possible, it might just be that
it is other things causing problems) is to just try different things,
but since the two games are quite similar we probably have a better chance of finding good things in what
works for BW than at some other random point.
There are two final things I would like to say, first of to those who thinks how changes it affects the balance,
I would like to remind them that a change in the economic pacing might change up a lot in the game in
quite unexpected ways and that probably includes balance. But because of this, if changing economic pace is
the way to solve problems with the game the way to do it have to be to try out different things until
these problems are solved and then begin the act of balancing the game. Finally to those who still are concerned
with mechanics, these have been on the focus during almost the entire SC2 but these things alone does
not make a good game and this is mostly to try to raise awareness of mostly forgotten
point which both may be very important and may solve several of the issues with SC2.
When it comes to the economic pacing my point is to encourage people to try to change something
that seems to be taken as some unchangeable default, there is nothing that says macro mechanics are bad (or good for those on the opposite side)by
default and whatever turns out to be a good pacing may very well include them although not in their current form.
|
I really like the single gas and fewer workers that BW/starbow have.
|
I hope we get to try Lotv beta without any mules/injects/chrono, it will be very interesting  After reading the first post im very excited!
|
This makes me wonder if (and swallow your anger for a second here to think) 1 supply roaches could come back if we cut macro mechanics. I'm not saying 2 armor roaches, because fuuuuck that, but with cut macro mechanics the larva would again become a limiting factor, and one supply roaches always felt more zergy to me. Just a thought. I'm guessing there's a few similar nerfs to toss and Terran that could similarly be undone. (Like removing some of the band aids for warp ins that were applied over the years like increasing pylon radius back to what it was).
|
Everyone pretending that macro mechanics are bad because of some strange analogs they create for actual sports clearly hasn't actually played or watched a lot of sports. Almost every single sport requires a very high level of fitness (much like a very high level macro) to even compete at a high level. And people practice basic mechanical skills in isolation (keepy-uppies anyone?) but it works anyway. In fact, good soccer youth programs focus almost entirely on mechanics and forget formations, tactics, etc. for a very long time. If what the OP says is true then that's actually great news but pretending that every other game or sport doesn't require a very high level of mechanics of some sort to improve is ridiculous.
|
On August 10 2015 11:08 PinheadXXXXXX wrote:
Everyone pretending that macro mechanics are bad because of some strange analogs they create for actual sports clearly hasn't actually played or watched a lot of sports. Almost every single sport requires a very high level of fitness (much like a very high level macro) to even compete at a high level. And people practice basic mechanical skills in isolation (keepy-uppies anyone?) but it works anyway. In fact, good soccer youth programs focus almost entirely on mechanics and forget formations, tactics, etc. for a very long time. If what the OP says is true then that's actually great news but pretending that every other game or sport doesn't require a very high level of mechanics of some sort to improve is ridiculous.
I think most sports analogies were made in the defense of macro mechanics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
