New Macro = Good!?

On August 05 2015 03:55 BisuDagger wrote:
Thanks for this well written post. I wanted to address something that may be misinterpreted by people who share my opinion.


I state in my previous arguments and to use your speech that it would "dumb down and require less skill" to macro specifically. I do not believe removing the abilities reduces skill as a whole and skill attention would just shift to other things. The question I continue to pose: "What macro mechanics are left?"

Remove inject,chrono,mule and list remaining macro:
1. Queue workers (1ctrl grp + hotkey)
2. Queue Units(1ctrl grp per building type + hotkey)
3. Build buildings
4. Expand
5. Static Defense
6. Upgrades

This is a short list I'm sure or maybe it is just enough stuff to make macro a thing. I would love to see people add to this list above and point out what I'm over looking.

Micro List for fun: While the same number of main points, each point branches deeply.
1. Army Control
2. Hotkeys
3. Abilities
4. Scouting
5. Drops
6. Harass

On August 05 2015 04:54 Qwyn wrote:
If Blizzard is going to test removing macro mechanics, then I would like them to be COMPLETELY removed. Please, please do not keep queens in the game with autocast. That is so against the spirit of StarCraft it makes me sick. Just increase the rate of larva spawning by a few seconds.

On August 05 2015 04:43 IntoTheheart wrote:

I'm not entirely sure about that, the creep tumours and early-game defense would still be useful to have, no?

On August 05 2015 05:50 StatixEx wrote:
so what we are saying is to get rid of zergs ability to create 40 units at once. So pound for pound the zerg army comp is weaker, the other races can still produce 40 at a time, lets not forget those 50mineral marines now, shielded blinkable units.. yep gg zerg, basically the race would have to allin or time attacks because its already hard late game to keep up with the macro of the other 2. the only reason z hold on at all is the ability to macro out more units.

sounds daft to me, just give us a model, lets try it. lotv to me is becoming a game of gimmicks so far, not seeing much going on it seems to be just make shit, send it in, if u hold u win if not ur dead

On August 05 2015 06:26 Clonester wrote:
Killing the 3 based machro mechanics, chrono, mule/scan/depo and inject would be the last death note in a long list of things I dont like at LotV. But I must say I see HotS as balanced as never before, producing some of the best games ever while having decent amount of variation in pros winning and losing.

Starcraft II was allways all about dat macro, if I wanted to see insane micro, i watched Warcraft III (what I still due up to this day). Seeing players like Bomber beiing 20 supplys ahead against his Terran opponent at the same minute mark just because of his macro mechanics, was allways pleasent to watch. Removing any of the macro mechanics without giving a new one, will feel wrong. It is not only about apm demanding stuff and mechanical skill, that is important, having a very strong macro and being able to outproduce your enemy just because you do it better, looks fantastic for me. And when your enemy then still can keep up because of his better fights, GG 5 Stars.

As Starcraft II has infinite control groups, the whole section of army control has left the skill arena. Okay, still people think hat high templars should autostay behind better units, but hey, silver plays cant use 2 seperate controlgroups. And with this designchoice there had to be another field, where players could use exelent mechanical skill to take an advandage. Every RTS from Blizzard had different areas where you could get advantages: Hero advantage, upgrade advantage, item advantage, economy advantage, composition advantage but also mechanical advantage due to the need of micro as also the limited controlgroups. And hey position advantage and so on are also there.
Brood War had other advantage: Micro advantage, Macro advantage, controll advantage, eco advantage, composition advantage, upgrade advantage and more.
And SC II? There is not much, but still some micro advantage, there is the large field of macro advantage and then upgrades (which are pretty much in macro in all 3 games?), composition advantage and fighting advantage. If you cut the macro advantage, you can gain with strong mechanics out of the game or reduce it, there arent so much fields left.
But RTS are allways not about only 2-3 fighting grounds, you fight for advantage in every stage everywhere. Cutting one out of the game will lead to a game where the individual games will be one like the other, with a clear way to victory. But RTS has no clear way to victory like CS (win 16 rounds) and thus reducing one of the ways that might lead to victory, will seriously hurt the game.

All this "reduce mechanical demanding macro" leads to a gimmick Starcraft, where victory or lose will depend on the use of gimmick abilitys at the right time at the right place. And seriously I dont want to see a gimmick RTS, where every unit becomes a glas cannon dota hero just to entertain with "INSANE MICRO" which is literaly pushing 1 button and one right click for a ability that takes the win.

I am sick of this "game to hard, macro to demanding, usless skill gap in APM". But I can stick with hots, I am fine. Even Starbow has macro mechanics that are mechanical demanding and they work fine there. So when nobody plays HotS anymore and the players got their Gimmick of the Void, I can swap over to Starbow.

On August 05 2015 04:54 Qwyn wrote:
If Blizzard is going to test removing macro mechanics, then I would like them to be COMPLETELY removed. Please, please do not keep queens in the game with autocast. That is so against the spirit of StarCraft it makes me sick. Just increase the rate of larva spawning by a few seconds.

On August 05 2015 07:04 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:

You do it the same way as in BW, with macro hatches! (or potential future larva upgrades)

Terran can't pull the boys because what's he going to mine with

Protoss can't all-in as fast because his upgrades take longer

On August 05 2015 14:59 CursOr wrote:
Why in gods name would call Macro Mechanics "crutches"? That's just plain wrong. A crutch is something that helps you. It assists you where you lack.

The macro mechanics in this game are an obstacle. They are put in intentionally to make up for all the things that SC2 does for you automatically. The MBS, the unlimited selection, the automining. All of the things that were originally contended to make this game too simple.

So, they artificially inserted these mechanics as obstacles to "perfect play". If all you had to do was take bases, and use hotkeys to make units, and go back every 1 minute or so to make buildings... we are really going to loose what differentiates a high grand master player from a pro gamer. They aren't changing pathing so the deathball isn't going anywhere, don't think we are going to see a bunch of smaller engagements around the map if people don't have to inject.

It's an obstacle not a crutch, even a dumbed down obstacle compared with brood war. How can OP talk about "going back to playing brood war, it doesn't have any crutches" ... yeah it doesn't have crutches, it has more obstacles. You have to click each worker 2X to make it mine. You have to select buildings one at a time. And you can only hotkey 12 units at a time. The Macro Mechanics are artificial obstacles to make up for the nearly fully automated game that is SC2.

ugh

On August 05 2015 15:17 CursOr wrote:
Well when we are all playing hello kitty island and there is 1 big gold league because you'll be able to beat flash with a good roach timing, I certainly hope that you do not miss esports.



complexity is what makes the game interesting to watch. these people are doing things I cant. look this guy has perfected this, he can shoot 80% 3 pointers, or he can pitch a no hitter or he can throw 60 yards downfield into zone coverage, OR he can cover the map in creep and not miss an inject for 20 minutes against Flash.

On August 05 2015 22:37 Sogetsu wrote:
Man, reading this sort of threads warm my heart. Ok, I can accept the change, and we can test it, but when you put it like that instead saying "Because casuals wants to play" like most people on NA is doing.

On August 06 2015 02:26 Little-Chimp wrote:
I think you dismissed the making the game easier point too swiftly in your Mythbusters section. Making 4-5 more hatches a game is in no way a mechanic substitute for injects every 40 seconds. It's objectively easier. Sc2 already has great players losing stupid games more often than brood war because of simplified mechanics. This could amplify that effect even more (zerg specifically). You just said no its not easier, but who were you playing against, what's your rank, what testing conditions etc. More info is needed.

You say brood war never had these crutches but brood war also didn't have MBS, had no automine, and had control groups of 12. These difficult mechanics meant that a guy like sea would not drop a single game to foreigners.

I actually dislike the macro mechanics in concept as they're clearly an APM sink, but I'd like to see it get replaced by something suitable, I really don't want this game to become micro wars where your average NA GM can take games off code s players.

I think you dismissed the making the game easier point too swiftly in your Mythbusters section. Making 4-5 more hatches a game is in no way a mechanic substitute for injects every 40 seconds. It's objectively easier. Sc2 already has great players losing stupid games more often than brood war because of simplified mechanics. This could amplify that effect even more (zerg specifically). You just said no its not easier, but who were you playing against, what's your rank, what testing conditions etc. More info is needed.

You say brood war never had these crutches but brood war also didn't have MBS, had no automine, and had control groups of 12. These difficult mechanics meant that a guy like sea would not drop a single game to foreigners.

I actually dislike the macro mechanics in concept as they're clearly an APM sink, but I'd like to see it get replaced by something suitable, I really don't want this game to become micro wars where your average NA GM can take games off code s players.

But that's the issue. I want foreigners to be able to make up their lack of mechanics against Koreans by thinking outside the box. Basically my ideal version of SC2 would have CatZ being one of the strongest NA/LA players.

And then instead of having just players who can click fast and have a way to deal with the holes in their strats, Code S would actually be filled with people who have a deeper understanding of the game, Koreans or not.

On August 06 2015 03:25 jpg06051992 wrote:
Koreans win and Code S is filled with Koreans because they do have a deeper understanding of the game.

I disagree with this big time, foreigners should not be able to make up for their lack of mechanics by making the macro mechanics of the game more friendly or more noob.

The better player should win, the people that practice more should win, if I ever see CatZ take down Innovation or Life because of how noob they made the mechanics that's the day I stop watching Starcraft, foreigners suck, it was the same in BW.

On that note, they should tone down the macro boosters big time to allow smaller scale engagements in the mid game more prevalent/rewarding.

"And then instead of having just players who can click fast and have a way to deal with the holes in their strats, Code S would actually be filled with people who have a deeper understanding of the game, Koreans or not."

Koreans win and Code S is filled with Koreans because they do have a deeper understanding of the game. Foreigners shouldn't be coddled so they can beat people who train 10 times harder to compete on a 10 times more difficult competition level.

On August 06 2015 03:30 jpg06051992 wrote:


Rofl, Koreans are also humans that make tactical/macro errors -____-

On August 06 2015 03:35 Little-Chimp wrote:


Sports teams run drills and cardio practices non stop, unless conditioning is at least similar, the team with better "mechanics" will always win. This is a horrible example. Starcraft isn't even a team game god damn.

On August 06 2015 03:35 jpg06051992 wrote:


Sorry but I don't think it's an opinion to say that that is crap at worst and delusional at best. SC2 isn't even as mechanically dominated as BW was it is way more strategy based, take a B level Korean against CatZ and see the better decision making.

That's like saying they should make Baseball easier to play that way minor league players can compete with the majors because all the majors do is rely on their superior mechanics to get to the top.

On August 06 2015 03:41 jpg06051992 wrote:


Ok I see what your saying, but it's just wrong man, your talking like these players with God like mechanics just have those mechanics compared to the poor foreigners that are making all of the right moves but not fast enough.

I'm not trying to be an elitist here man but those players with god like mechanics trained way harder then any foreign player besides Snute maybe to get them that way.

Notice how Snute trains non stop in Korea and therefore he is able to at least semi go toe to toe with Koreans? Yea, so do you want to punish people like him that trained hard to get Korean level mechanics so the rest of the crappy foreigners can "have a chance" so to speak?

O__o

On August 06 2015 03:25 jpg06051992 wrote:


I disagree with this big time, foreigners should not be able to make up for their lack of mechanics by making the macro mechanics of the game more friendly or more noob.

The better player should win, the people that practice more should win, if I ever see CatZ take down Innovation or Life because of how noob they made the mechanics that's the day I stop watching Starcraft, foreigners suck, it was the same in BW.

On that note, they should tone down the macro boosters big time to allow smaller scale engagements in the mid game more prevalent/rewarding.

"And then instead of having just players who can click fast and have a way to deal with the holes in their strats, Code S would actually be filled with people who have a deeper understanding of the game, Koreans or not."

Koreans win and Code S is filled with Koreans because they do have a deeper understanding of the game. Foreigners shouldn't be coddled so they can beat people who train 10 times harder to compete on a 10 times more difficult competition level.

False. Today was a prime example of a Code S Korean failing big time with their strategic decision: Game 3 Bomber vs Trust.

On August 06 2015 04:01 jpg06051992 wrote:
Right, except nothing in SC is rigged for anything but the better player to win, frankly man your example is just terrible lol

Even if that was the case, if there was a player that was naturally talented or worked hard enough to use that advantage, should the game be toned down so the lesser players can compete? Or should Lebron James just be better then your average basketball player?

It's like your saying the Koreans are better because they are Koreans and have awesome mechanics and that's just not fair to the poor foreigners who don't train all day everyday to be excellent at the game.

On August 06 2015 04:01 jpg06051992 wrote:


Right, except nothing in SC is rigged for anything but the better player to win, frankly man your example is just terrible lol

Even if that was the case, if there was a player that was naturally talented or worked hard enough to use that advantage, should the game be toned down so the lesser players can compete? Or should Lebron James just be better then your average basketball player?

It's like your saying the Koreans are better because they are Koreans and have awesome mechanics and that's just not fair to the poor foreigners who don't train all day everyday to be excellent at the game.

On August 06 2015 04:03 TokO wrote:
I think you guys are missing Sentinel's point (and then making a bunch of analogies irrelevant to the argument). He's never arguing for having worse players be able to beat better players. Instead, what he means is that strategic preparation and decisions should have a greater impact on the game than it has now. The way it is now is that to a great extent, you can be very successful just by having very good mechanics. This is in general caused by context-free energy based macrobooster mechanics, which makes SC2 a game of who can use these mechanics most efficiently. Because you need to employ them, there is no strategic choice involved. Macroboosters marginalises strategy because windows of vulnerability caused by your strategic choice tend to be smaller, the better you employ those mechanics. That's why Triple CC was so prevalent for a long period of time.

In contrast to context-free energy macrobooster mechanics, the choice between expanding your infrastructure, economy or army is always a strategic choice. There is always a tradeoff.

Mechanics will be a differentiating factor regardless, changing or removing macrobooster mechanics won't change that in any way. But this also means that it's not necessary to hold on to macroboosters in order to "save" mechanics.

On August 06 2015 04:07 jpg06051992 wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +

If what you were saying is true in any way shape or form, then Jaedong would be a Code S level player because of his godly mechanics.

Strategic decisions have a massive impact on the outcome because the macro boosters marginalize who truly has better macro then the other guy, thats why macro in BW was a total 50% of the skill set because it was so difficult compared to the strategy which was extremely well mapped out and usually the better mechanics almost always won.

Notice how JD isn't an S class Korean? Because mechanics already play a way diminished role in SC2 compared to BW and strategy IS paramount.

Yes, I do agree that the macro boosters in the game are kind of a needless APM sink that could be better spent on micro as I previously stated.

I completely understand what you are saying and none of my analogies are irrelevant to the argument at all, if anything the other dudes is or he's just failing to convey his idea in the same manner you did.

Yes, there is a reason why I said that macroboosters were marginalising strategy. I never said that mechanics were the only factor in determining who was the better player. I haven't followed Jaedong closely, but I don't tend to see or hear about his mechanics being very godly in SC2.

Also, yes BW skill was determined by a larger proportion of mechanics, but that doesn't mean macroboosters are a good idea. I'm only arguing that macroboosters are unnecessary.

On August 06 2015 04:45 Pirfiktshon wrote:
Believe it or not I completely agree that macroboosters are unnecessary but I feel like there should be something in its place not necessarily macro boosters but something that adds difficulty that helps define the mechanically sound + strategically powerful players... for instance Polt is crazy good strategists arguably one of the best but his mechanics are lacking I don't think he should be GSL Code S Champion 3 years running because he is an amazing strategist...

So all in all I think the game should have a healthy balance of the two and not specifically skewed in one direction or the other so the more balanced the game is of the two the better of a game it will be though I would like to see that skill ceiling higher than it is currently so there is definitive difference between players... or let's say more so than now

On August 06 2015 04:45 Pirfiktshon wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +

Believe it or not I completely agree that macroboosters are unnecessary but I feel like there should be something in its place not necessarily macro boosters but something that adds difficulty that helps define the mechanically sound + strategically powerful players... for instance Polt is crazy good strategists arguably one of the best but his mechanics are lacking I don't think he should be GSL Code S Champion 3 years running because he is an amazing strategist...

So all in all I think the game should have a healthy balance of the two and not specifically skewed in one direction or the other so the more balanced the game is of the two the better of a game it will be though I would like to see that skill ceiling higher than it is currently so there is definitive difference between players... or let's say more so than now

On August 06 2015 04:54 jpg06051992 wrote:
^ I like both of your posts and perhaps I misunderstood a tad, for the record Sentinel came off alot better, I apologize for the uh, aggression.

I'm just passionate about the skill cap of this game remaining high, compared to MOBAS this is really the last game on Earth that is 100% skill based in a high skill cap design <3

On August 06 2015 05:10 TokO wrote:
OP in this thread already laid out a lot of good developments that would come from not having macroboosters, many of which would increase mechanical difficulty. For example, more expanding would mean more points of defense and attacks and hence more multitasking. There's a million ways to substitute macroboosters that would make the game better, but we already know that Blizzard would have a hard time accepting most of them.

On August 06 2015 15:07 BrokenSegment wrote:

Removing macroboosters alone will not cause more expanding, because of the practical worker cap. One of the community economy models would have to be used.

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.

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.

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

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.

On August 10 2015 12:51 TokO wrote:


I think most sports analogies were made in the defense of macro mechanics.

On August 06 2015 04:04 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:

It would actually be like increasing each dimension of the court by 2. So twice as long from end to end, baskets are twice as high off the ground, etc. It would be a different game and disadvantage the players who are more reliant on height/layups, while advantaging the players who shoot from farther away since they're used to the distance and now the basket is bigger. It doesn't mean your average joe is being coddled, it's testing different aspects of your play at the expense of others.

On August 10 2015 13:33 PinheadXXXXXX wrote:

A lot of people said some situations were like giving basketball teams extra points if their players could jump a certain height, or things along these lines.

On August 10 2015 23:31 Temeter wrote:

That comparision doesn't make any sense, tho. Starcraft doesn't reward points for good macro, just as jumping higher doesn't get you points in basketball. The addional units you produce are the reward, which tend to be quite helpful at winning a match.

Compared, removing macro mechanics is more like prohibiting basketball players from jumping over a certain hight.

On August 10 2015 23:58 sh1RoKen wrote:

Starcraft 2 is a Strategy game. It should be like a chess. It is very easy to move figures, but only a very good player make it look like a sport. We are competing here with our minds!
It's not like a basketball or football at all! Your opponent's mind should be the only thing that makes game hard for you. You should not be stopped from achieving an advantage by some activities which are not against your opponent. Right now it's more like "My skill in playing vs computer is better than your skill playing vs computer".

Current mechanic in sport metaphor: "If you want to castle you king, you must walk 50 meters on your hands before".

On August 11 2015 00:02 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:

I'd argue it's a bit of both. StarCraft is a real-time strategy game, so the faster you can do things, the more of an advantage you have. APM is an important part of the game. That being said, I agree with you that macro mechanics that are there for the sake of APM are ridiculous. How you spend your APM should be more of a strategic choice, not a necessity like it is now.

On August 11 2015 00:12 sh1RoKen wrote:

You can spend your APM on 1000 different things but macro. You can attack multiple locations. You can outmicro your opponents. You can drop, run-in and attack meanwhile defending from all of these. But these actions are fun to watch!!! These actions are direct actions against your opponent. And who is better at those actions wins the game.

And it would be 10 times more interesting game for everyone if we will not have to spend 60-80% of our AMP on handling our own buildings, production, expanding, macro merchanics and supply.

On August 10 2015 23:58 sh1RoKen wrote:

Starcraft 2 is a Strategy game. It should be like a chess. It is very easy to move figures, but only a very good player make it look like a sport. We are competing here with our minds!
It's not like a basketball or football at all! Your opponent's mind should be the only thing that makes game hard for you. You should not be stopped from achieving an advantage by some activities which are not against your opponent. Right now it's more like "My skill in playing vs computer is better than your skill playing vs computer".

Current mechanic in sport metaphor: "If you want to castle you king, you must walk 50 meters on your hands before".

On August 11 2015 00:18 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:

Macro is still crucial. Instead of microing your 5 marines, you can macro, lose the 5, but then you'll have 10 marines which you can attack with. Or you can focus on micro and keep the 5 alive. That's a strategic decision where macro is involved. You can macro different things - do I build 10 marines, or do I tech up and get him with hellions or banshees?

Chrono has some strategic value (what do I chrono, units or upgrades?) but it must always be used, so it can be removed for balance purposes. MULEs have less (save some energy for scan, save more if there's DT's, otherwise, always drop mules), and injects have none at all. You always have to inject and there's no good reason not to.

The reward of high APM is that you can produce more units due to good macro, keep your army alive due to good micro, or do both with really high APM and dominate your opponent. It's a skill that can gradually be learned, but there shouldn't be obstacles in the way with mechanics like inject.

On August 11 2015 00:33 sh1RoKen wrote:


All of that is true. Macro is the ability to take an advantage from doing indirect actions against your opponent.

But it is just not fun to watch and play with this.

So Starcraft isn't fun? Because that's always been a central element of Starcraft 2, and Broodwar was actually even more macro-heavy.

Challenging macro is a base the game is build upon. And a lot of that macro doesn't evolve decisions. Following an uninterrupted build order, buildings workers or units is purely 'busywork' too. Compare Dawn of War or Grey Goo, where you can actually toggle constant production.

On August 11 2015 00:48 Pirfiktshon wrote:


Which is actually the reason I don't play those specific games LOL I think Macro is a beautiful thing and I don't think them removing the macro abilities is necessarily a bad thing atleast at this moment in time. We will have to see how it works like DK said at gamescon....

Personally I think we are at a turning point where if we don't test it now we will never know because I don't think they will make a giant test like this like even 2 months from now being so close to release date...

On August 11 2015 01:39 Sogetsu wrote:
It doesn't matter right now... David Kim is gonna cut them in the next patch so we can TEST IT and see ourselves how the game goes without them

I can't wait to try it instead theorycrafting the whole wee about it.

On August 11 2015 00:58 Temeter wrote:

I honestly got doubts they can even test enough the remaining 2 to 4 months. This would completely throw over the current balance and how the races work at their core. Zerg are build around larva, terran buildorders around Orbitals, and protoss tech/economy around chronoboost. Might recreate an early WoL situation.

On August 11 2015 01:57 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:

Considering their original intent was to create a sort of "SC2.5" with radical changes like 12 workers, new economy, mechanics that destroy existing staples like ravager shot destroying force fields or changing the warp gate mechanic, I think the loss of macro might be right in line with these changes. Obviously there will have to be new balancing accordingly, but it won't be game-breaking.

Considering their original intent was to create a sort of "SC2.5" with radical changes like 12 workers, new economy, mechanics that destroy existing staples like ravager shot destroying force fields or changing the warp gate mechanic, I think the loss of macro might be right in line with these changes. Obviously there will have to be new balancing accordingly, but it won't be game-breaking

On August 10 2015 09:55 TheDougler wrote:
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).