Micro, micro, micro, that's all we've heard for the last few weeks. From the last episode of our beta cast to Nazgul's suggested fixes, we've been talking about it quite a bit as well. Now, just when you think you've heard it all, TL's SC2 Coverage Team is proud to bring you a cross section of micro talk from across the community.
If you've spent even a moment debating about this on IRC or raging over a passing comment in a strategy forum thread, then this is the article you've been waiting for. Join TL guest writer Chobopeon as he takes you on a tour of betaland and introduces you to the opinions of many of its top players. Is micro dead? Alive and kicking? Find out below.
Micro Revisited
By Chobopoen
A High Templar hits full energy, a Lurker burrows and a Marine stims. You take a quick breath as your heart starts to race. You were tired - it's 6 am, after all, and you almost didn't make it to this point - but now your eyes are wide open with the thought of the battle.
Then, in the space of a millisecond, the Scourge split perfectly, the Marine dodges the spines and the Dragoons, against their terrible pathing instinct, form the most perfect arc anyone has ever seen.
The screen is flaring with explosions and deaths and you're having a hard time not yelling and waking your neighbors. The live crowd in Korea doesn't have to worry about that and they're screaming as loudly as they can. The commentators are having a fit. You don't understand Korean but you're sure that they're not actually speaking any language - only yelling in excitement, technically inarticulate but getting their point of awe across beautifully with their volume.
That was fast and everyone knows it.
The physical requirements of StarCraft: Brood War are immense. It's made fans for life and has alienated more than its fair share of gamers. Brood War players brag about the speed of our professionals and our jaws drop when we see it in action. Speed is a defining characteristic of StarCraft and micro-management is the way it manifests itself in each and every game.
Too slow, sir. too slow.
For every fan, there is a critic with whom the severe toughness of the game does not fly. It's too hard, an exasperated stranger might say. Looking to them, a StarCraft loyalist can respond: "It is difficulties which give birth to miracles." And then the StarCraft player can smile, because how often do you get to quote archbishops when talking about a video game?
It does not take a whole lot of effort to find players of the opinion that StarCraft 2's micro-management mechanics are a bastardized version of the original. What one player calls "improved A.I.", another will call the "dumbing down" of StarCraft.
"With micro the way it is, the game isn’t going to be as good as it can be,” said Nazgul, the Dutch Protoss player. “That’s unfortunate for the future of e-sports. The future needs a game suitable for non-gamer viewers to be in awe over moves done by top players without understanding the strategy behind the builds.
"There is so little difference possible between two players when they’re attacking each other that the games just play out as build order vs. build order. Once you’re ahead it’s really hard to give away your advantage because even if your units get caught off guard they will still do the right thing in battle. Zergling surround and worker micro is something that was so important to the early game of Brood War, that decided games based on how you performed it. That element is completely gone now. If you have enough Zerglings you’ll just kill your opponent almost regardless of what he does.”
Louder, an American Protoss and the first MLG SC2 King of the Beta Hill from Team Evil Geniuses, called the micro "handicapped".
“The more I play it, the more it falls short.”
Inka, another American Protoss and member of Team EG, bluntly said that auto-micro was a joke. InControl said StarCraft 2 was an easier, dumbed down game.
"The people who think you have to be faster are either idiots or didn't play Brood War," said InControl, an American and a newly converted Protoss user. "This game is 100% an easier game that is dumbed down and made that way with purpose so more people can enjoy some success or at least feel like they can compete. This is an excellent short term business model and is unfortunately the general trend in modern video games. StarCraft 2 is gorgeous, fun, and rewards creativity. It is challenging and will have a high ceiling for skill, don't get me wrong. But it does fall short from SCBW in terms of competitive reward and ability. It just simply does."
CowGoMoo, consistently cited as one of the best Terrans in StarCraft 2, has his own opinion.
"I think the game requires a lot of micro and speed, but I don't think if it has as many "awe" moments as Brood War," he said. "For example, the Colossus can do a few cool things, but not as many as the Reaver. On the flip side the Stalker can potentially do more interesting things than a Goon, but the unit feels a bit weak right now preventing this from happening. Hopefully when players start to understand the game better and with some balance changes and tweaks we will start to see more micro tricks evolve."
CowGoMoo, famous for his fast Helion TvZ opening, thinks that micro may evolve with time.
To be sure, minds are very much split on this. Notable players such as Infernal and Day[9] land squarely in the opposing camp on the issue.
"I've heard a lot players state that it's easy and that there's these skill caps and speed caps," said Day[9], responding after hearing InkA's statements. "It's not so much that I don't quite agree with them, I actually think that statement is the opposite of true. It's actually very difficult, I'm having quite a bit of difficulty. As I'm playing this game, I'm thinking, 'God, you have to be fast to play this game'. There's actually more to do on my mental checklist.
"For instance, am I watching the mini-map? Am I checking for expansions? Am I macroing? Am I doing my build right? I cycle throguh that in my head and now I'm throwing in there, am I continuing to produce my Larvae properly? Am I Chrono Boosting on time? There's a lot of stuff going on. There are so many upgrades and abilities. In StarCraft 1, the units get into a battle and start whacking each other. In StarCraft 2, every single unit seems to have its own unique ability and I don't think there has been nearly enough experimentation.
"I need to be really focused to play it well. For people who are not in the beta and are worried about it, worry not. Tons of cool stuff can go on."
Aside from his personal experience, Day[9] points to the wide lack of experience characterizing every player and qualifying every criticism.
"For God's sake, the game has been out for a week and a half. I need to play this game for years before I formulate any strong opinion about its strengths and weaknesses unless, of course, there is some sort of game-changing ability that instantly shuts down all competitive play."
Infernal, the German Protoss, says that the game has completely surpassed his expectations.
"The micro is different for sure," said Infernal. "In some situations, I would agree on the A.I. being 'too smart' which can actually lead to dumb situations. But I really wouldn't go as far as a certain Dutch man [Ret] did to say that there's 'no micro at all'. In my opinion, that's quite nonsense because I actually enjoy a lot of those small things in StarCraft 2, such as my cute cuddle Sentry shields and microing my Collossi over cliffs."
The German Protoss is playing Ret in Team Liquid's first ever StarCraft 2 Liquibition. He says he that concern about the micro mechanics is not totally invalid.
"The auto-surround can be a pain for sure but it's only really bad if you're outmassed anyway. It's not like 16 Zerglings are going to win against six Zealots just because they auto-surround. From an observer's point of view, I think it's really hard to compare because StarCraft was 2D and StarCraft 2 is 3D. Obviously 2D is a lot 'easier' to follow as an observer but given how much of a fan base WarCraft 3 has - a game even more shiny and colorful - I really think it doesn't matter that much. It's just about us getting used to it. Time will tell, but personally, I can follow fights really well after I got used to StarCraft 2.
"The one thing I've really got to complain about is stacking. If you're Protoss and have a few Colossi, your army will literally be one ball that can be hit by one single spell in a fight, like EMP. It's kind of hard to select units if like 6 Colossi are on top of them. However, I have to admit, I don't know how to solve that kind of problem, maybe just make the units spread a little more.
"I'm quite sure that StarCraft 2 won't do for the West what StarCraft 1 did for Korea but it'll bring progaming outside of Korea to another level, that's quite sure in my opinion."
I asked Infernal if the sequel would be able to elicit the same shortness of breath, the same screams from live audiences and the same excitement from everyone with two eyes on the game.
"I can already imagine Koreans screaming. 'AHHHHHH FORCE FIELDU' or 'AHHHHH GUUUARDIAN SHIELDUUUU'. I think there's enough things included to make the audience scream."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpuv7VPb2rA Could we see this in SC2? Infernal says yes.
Before he left, he ended with a qualifier that had become a common conclusion amongst those that I interviewed for this piece: "I just think it's too early to tell yet."
Although that can't be disputed - it is too early to come to concrete conclusions quite yet - it is not too early to throw ideas around. In many ways, the longevity of StarCraft 2 may depend on it. The ability of the game to captivate an unfamiliar audience at least as well as StarCraft was able to do would ensure years and years of loyalty from a dynamic group of eyes and hands, watching and playing.
"I think StarCraft has awesome e-sports potential," said Liquid`Drone, a Norwegian random player. "We are going to see so much diversity in terms of unit groups that have different abilities that the potential for stunningly great non-replicable micro is awesome.
"The problem, however, is that I am not sure that the action will be as immediately understandable to observers. I'm afraid this is going to be more like Counter-Strike, where observing for the uninitiated is boring as hell because you don't understand the subtleties without having played a lot and big battles just end up having way too many details in them for a casual observer to understand them all.
"In StarCraft 1, everyone understands that if Hydralisks get stormed, they die. They understand that Reaver Scarabs blow everything up, they understand that Stasis makes units unable to move or do anything. A casual observer won't understand exactly how the Gravitation Shield works, how Fungal Growth works and even Psi-Storm doesn't immediately kill like it does in Brood War. So I think for actual players of the game, StarCraft 2 can become StarCraft 1's equal in terms of entertainment. But there might just be too much flashiness on the screen for it to hit a non-playing audience."
Blizzard is investing more and more money into e-sports, going so far as to employ a dedicated team in an attempt blaze a trail in the arena. Sponsors are hoping that more and more eyes are put on competitive games and, further down the road, more asses are put in the seats of live events. The future of competitive gaming is not necessarily relegated to a few niche websites and, relatively speaking, a handful of fans.
In all seriousness, hopefulness and pragmatism, the future of e-sports may be in arenas, board rooms and living rooms and not quarantined to bedrooms and computer rooms. If StarCraft 2 can drop jaws to the floor instead of locking jaws, it can be the game that goes further than any other to reach that uncharted territory. We can be the players who reach the greatest heights, the ones for whom a million necks crane, a million eyes focus and strain. But not if Blizzard is holding our hands while we ascend. Or are they only benignly pointing the way up? Time will tell.
Well that's that, but before you go, remember to tune in later today to watch Team Liquid's 1st SC2 Liquibition matchup! Chances are, it's going to be pretty awesome.
Thanks for the writeup, I know it's a complicated issue and one that takes years of thought (not to mention, you know the game actually being RELEASED). I kinda wish more pros would have reactions like Day9 instead of just completely bashing SC2 when they aren't even using a lot of the mechanics/units yet.
Nice writeup, although I think at the level of play the SC community has reached there is too much "it's too early to tell". The way the game looks and feels just isn't likely to change much even as the game matures from what I can tell.
There is always going to be a trade-off between competitive and casual players. Casual players will complain if the execution is too demanding. Competitive players will complain the game is boring and lacks depth if the game is not demanding enough. By now it's very clear that Blizzard caters first to this casual group of players (this is where the bulk of their sales go, after all), but for both competitive players and fans of competitive Starcraft I think there is significant cause to worry.
The game cannot survive as a successful e-sport without the physical requirement of the game (as at least seen through micro), period. Every great sport has a physical and psychological battle that goes on between players and coaches. The less demanding the physical aspect of Starcraft becomes, the less fun it will become to play at the competitive level we're used to, and certainly the less fun it's going to be to watch besides from strictly a strategical view.
The only way I can see the current trend reverse to save pro-gaming as we know it is if Blizzard recognizes this problem and works with pro-gamers to make even system-wide mechanic/interface/AI changes with promoting competitive play the highest priority, although I can't imagine that happening at this point. Starcraft I turned "real time strategy" into so much more than just decision making in real time, it would be a shame to see that end.
i think the illusion of micro (from a spectators viewpoint) is more visible in sc1 due to its lower graphics and gameplay. units stop harding, pause longer, accelerate longer - or at least it looks that way. in sc2, things are more precise and smoother, so it flows from movement to attack in one few swoop and its sometimes hard to distinguish when its doing something different (aka micro)
On March 13 2010 15:21 Seku wrote: Nice writeup, although I think at the level of play the SC community has reached there is too much "it's too early to tell". The way the game looks and feels just isn't likely to change much even as the game matures from what I can tell.
When were many of the micro tricks that define today's quality StarCraft play discovered? When did we first see rine splitting around lurkers or muta micro? Not for years after BW was released. So I say to you: it's too early to tell.
Great read. I was lucky enough to get into SC2 beta, and I've been telling everybody who asks my opinion on it that 'it is a different game all together that still feels like Starcraft.'
Aside from Micro, what I think is more pressing for new players and people is the concept of hard counters to units. Sometimes all the micro that is needed is a few EMPs; the right army composition handles the rest.
I think it's funny that less than a year ago, the consensus was that macro was going to suck in sc2/be too easy and that the game was going to become a complete micro game like wc3, and that now that teh beta is actually out, we find that macro is actually harder and more interesting that would have been thought possible with MBS and automine, and that it's the micro side of the game that is struggling. Hopefully we can see some cool stuff from the community and possibly blizzard if necessary.
On March 13 2010 15:21 Seku wrote: Nice writeup, although I think at the level of play the SC community has reached there is too much "it's too early to tell". The way the game looks and feels just isn't likely to change much even as the game matures from what I can tell.
When were many of the micro tricks that define today's quality StarCraft play discovered? When did we first see rine splitting around lurkers or muta micro? Not for years after BW was released. So I say to you: it's too early to tell.
I don't usually fall for trolls but, the problem with sc2 is the game engine. When you want something done, it does it with sparkles and rainbows, in sc1, its with blood and tears
On March 13 2010 15:21 Seku wrote: Nice writeup, although I think at the level of play the SC community has reached there is too much "it's too early to tell". The way the game looks and feels just isn't likely to change much even as the game matures from what I can tell.
When were many of the micro tricks that define today's quality StarCraft play discovered? When did we first see rine splitting around lurkers or muta micro? Not for years after BW was released. So I say to you: it's too early to tell.
Yea but thats because Starcraft I had no predecessor of ingenuity/micro in RTS. I think we can safely say it's every person's dream to be the guy who "found" a key micro mechanic to be abused.
On March 13 2010 16:09 Yammiez wrote: Great read. I was lucky enough to get into SC2 beta, and I've been telling everybody who asks my opinion on it that 'it is a different game all together that still feels like Starcraft.'
Aside from Micro, what I think is more pressing for new players and people is the concept of hard counters to units. Sometimes all the micro that is needed is a few EMPs; the right army composition handles the rest.
i know what you mean man, attack move while spamming spells is pretty much all you do, maybe a little position and flanking at most.
On March 13 2010 15:21 Seku wrote: Nice writeup, although I think at the level of play the SC community has reached there is too much "it's too early to tell". The way the game looks and feels just isn't likely to change much even as the game matures from what I can tell.
When were many of the micro tricks that define today's quality StarCraft play discovered? When did we first see rine splitting around lurkers or muta micro? Not for years after BW was released. So I say to you: it's too early to tell.
I don't usually fall for trolls but, the problem with sc2 is the game engine. When you want something done, it does it with sparkles and rainbows, in sc1, its with blood and tears
On March 13 2010 15:21 Seku wrote: Nice writeup, although I think at the level of play the SC community has reached there is too much "it's too early to tell". The way the game looks and feels just isn't likely to change much even as the game matures from what I can tell.
When were many of the micro tricks that define today's quality StarCraft play discovered? When did we first see rine splitting around lurkers or muta micro? Not for years after BW was released. So I say to you: it's too early to tell.
I don't usually fall for trolls but, the problem with sc2 is the game engine. When you want something done, it does it with sparkles and rainbows, in sc1, its with blood and tears
It's interesting that you would call someone pointing to historical precedent a troll. Guess you're not a big fan of facts, are you?
Still, I think SC2 has potential for carving out its own niche in South Korea even if the mechanic stays and works the same as all others above have stated- this is because we Koreans love psychological and mental battle shit.
The problem of non-initiated is also going to be solved if the commentator is experienced enough to provide at minimum basic reasoning behind player's each actions, which is actually done quite frequently even in the SC1 scene.
From watching games, i can see a lot of the points that are brought up by the different interviewees in this article. I think for one, that multi-tasking is going to be the bread and butter of sc2. I think from a playability standpoint, macro and micro is easy to one button spam, but on the other hand, if you want to get the 'most' out of it, you have to forgo the assist tools like mbs and 1 hotkey select.
Mass quantities of one unit probably will not win in high level matches. Players must choose a good unit mix at the right timing to execute their attack. More units in the mix with different abilities/attributes means to maximize its potential, you have to manually activate them, whether it's to create a wide zergling spread, or keep your collossus behind your zealot wall. Further more, to get that mixed army, you would have to have researched in a variety of ways, not all of them overlapping each other. That makes for a lot of base management, before you ever get to cloning your psi storms, or blink dancing your stalkers. This leads me to the belief that the core skill in sc2 will be multi-tasking.
Now multi-tasking is not the same as macro or micro as we know it in BW. BW gameplay is clear, even to the only mildly initiated. If the big picture is for sc2 to be mainstream and have longevity, it must be entertaining to watch as well as play. As it is, players are furiously clicking away, but to the observer, for the most part, you see two armies A-moving toward each other, with the occasional harass or skirmish. This may be due to the lack of experience everyone has, not knowing how to maximize their armies. However, this is not as interesting to the observer, even though crisp graphics and lots of explosions fill the screen.
If the viewer experience continues as is, it will be up to the people in the media: journalists, casters, writers, etc. to educate the viewership about the nature of the game and the skill level that is required to be at the top. Hopefully though, the continued experience and knowledge of the game will grow and those flashes of brilliance will start showing up. After all, it wasn't until years of 'practice' did BW become what it is today.
I totally agree with what Nazgul and Ret are saying about micro. The micro seems to be so insignificant that its seems to all boil down to strategy and build order. Sure you can pull off some basic micro like attack and move back or the reaper's jump pack ability and the stalker's blink or even dropping and lifting your siege tank like a reaver. But all those things just don't change the tide of the game like micro in SC1.
A game can depend on a person's muta micro for god sakes, a game could come down to a defiler and some lurkers and heck a game could come down to a handful of marines against a bunch of lurkers and still be able to win because of MICRO.
Enough ranting though. I think what blizzard needs to do is change the AI to make it so that units don't clump up together except when they go through choke points. Knowing blizzard and their stubborness with not wanting to change anything major once its beta, this probably won't happen.
I swear though that when the map editor comes out I hope that we can make a much better game with it and maybe change the AI configurations and add, modify or remove units for competitive play.
When I first started playing beta, I was definitely more on the "micro is dead" side. I couldn't get over just how good AI pathing was. I would A-move an army in and look for straggling units, but then, I realized that my units didn't need my help at all really. I just had to make sure my melee units or short range units, were in front of my long range units really. It came to the point where I was actually afraid to micro because I felt that it would actually just hurt my army's dps in comparison to the opponent. I really don't like just how good the game was at arranging my army than I would most of the time.
Now, I'm leaning a little bit more to the middle, but still on the "micro needs improvement" side. I can see moments where micro is key to the success of winning the fight. However, this was still more on a large scale of army position when engaging rather than micro during the fight (outside of a few situations like roach burrow battles). It still needs some work overall.
About the "OMG" moments in SC1, I completely agree. I think it will be much more difficult to reproduce these moments. I know it's early, but the more I think about it, it just doesn't seem as plausible compared to SC1. I think a major problem to this is smart-casting. It's just too easy to throw casts around. Suddenly, every player is a regular Jaedong, Flash, or Bisu using the devastating damages/effects that SC1 had with storm, plague, swarm, irradiate. Incorporating the natural AI pathing of bunching up as balls, this would be even more devstating. But Blizzard's way to compensate for this is to weaken a lot of these magic effects. Psionic storm, the infestor's fungal growth, etc. are all empty shells of their former versions. They are overall weaker and aren't as devastating to cast.
Even the Raven's Hunter Missile, as devastating as it may be, is not difficult to dodge as it's very slow to reach it's opponent. Think reaver scarab but you can outrun it. I'll be thinking more along the lines of "how did he not dodge that" rather than "wow! did you see that hunter missile??!"
Something that really bugs me in this game as well is how static (or at least less static than before) defense buildings just get steamed rolled by special units that deal MORE damage to buildings. Is this really necessary? No units in SC1 had a special design that dealt more damage to buildings. I can kinda understand why Blizzard would implement this. They want to give players the option to mow down buildings with these units in mind, but this is just another interpretation of a hard counter. I often find myself with spine crawlers defending my natural just get TORN down by marauders faster than a pack of marines sitting on top of a bunch of hold lurkers (ok, maybe not that fast).
Why does this happen exactly? How I look at this situation is that I can either make buildings that are designed to specifically defend, but get destroyed by T1 Terran units that are necessary in early game pushes anyways, or... just build more units that can actually go on the offensive and maybe not get wrecked as hard. Maybe I'm just bitter that it's impossible to throw up crawlers in time the instant the opponent makes a movement. At least let me be able to first make it a creep colony first so I can cut down on morphing time when the opponent actually does move out!
And I just realized that my last two paragraphs had nothing to do with micro, but I don't care!
On March 13 2010 15:21 Seku wrote: Nice writeup, although I think at the level of play the SC community has reached there is too much "it's too early to tell". The way the game looks and feels just isn't likely to change much even as the game matures from what I can tell.
When were many of the micro tricks that define today's quality StarCraft play discovered? When did we first see rine splitting around lurkers or muta micro? Not for years after BW was released. So I say to you: it's too early to tell.
I mentioned the level of play of the community because the situation now cannot be directly related to the growth of SC1 at all.
This community now full of knowledgeable players, combined with a much "smarter" system that allows a player to rely on the AI much more heavily (directly removing not only necessity, but effectiveness of difficult execution) cannot possibly hold the potential SC1 did in it's early days. Any hidden potential it still holds will surely be trivial compared to what we saw in SC1, due to the limits of the SC2 system itself.
On March 13 2010 17:40 cerebralz wrote:
If the viewer experience continues as is, it will be up to the people in the media: journalists, casters, writers, etc. to educate the viewership about the nature of the game and the skill level that is required to be at the top. Hopefully though, the continued experience and knowledge of the game will grow and those flashes of brilliance will start showing up. After all, it wasn't until years of 'practice' did BW become what it is today.
I think the real issue here isn't that the viewers can't or won't be able to clearly see the skill level at the top, or the flashes of brilliance from those players - but simply that matches will be so heavily dependent on a player's strategy rather than execution of it, the level of brilliance we saw in SC1 will simply no longer exist. The constant mental and physical strain in SC1 allows the potential to make game changing moves in ways you will never see with a much smarter AI.
For example, dropping someone's main while attacking their force. If both player's macro is easier and both player's units are smart enough not to suffer hard for taking some attention from them, the result will come down so heavily to the strategy (unit mix, position, timing based on their build) compared to the execution that we ALSO see in SC1, so much of the pressure on the player and excitement all around is lost, it's no longer SC..
So, is it just me, or are many beta players choosing not to micro when in fact additional micro could extend their army's potential? It's only been a few weeks, so people are just trying for the basics, but I assume in the future that they will have their army grouped into several groups.
Sure there are some AI issues, but I think for the most part, people aren't bothering to micro that much yet.
On March 13 2010 15:21 Seku wrote: Nice writeup, although I think at the level of play the SC community has reached there is too much "it's too early to tell". The way the game looks and feels just isn't likely to change much even as the game matures from what I can tell.
When were many of the micro tricks that define today's quality StarCraft play discovered? When did we first see rine splitting around lurkers or muta micro? Not for years after BW was released. So I say to you: it's too early to tell.
I mentioned the level of play of the community because the situation now cannot be directly related to the growth of SC1 at all.
This community now full of knowledgeable players, combined with a much "smarter" system that allows a player to rely on the AI much more heavily (directly removing not only necessity, but effectiveness of difficult execution) cannot possibly hold the potential SC1 did in it's early days. Any hidden potential it still holds will surely be trivial compared to what we saw in SC1, due to the limits of the SC2 system itself.
I disagree. The AI allows players to rely on it more, but doesn't force them to. And if anything, the SC1 system was more limited than the SC2 system, so by your logic SC2 has more potential. Regardless, it'll be the competition that forces players to work around the system and get better and better and develop great micro. It may happen somewhat more quickly than BW, but not so quickly that we can declare micro dead after two weeks of beta lol
On March 13 2010 19:03 0neder wrote: So, is it just me, or are many beta players choosing not to micro when in fact additional micro could extend their army's potential? It's only been a few weeks, so people are just trying for the basics, but I assume in the future that they will have their army grouped into several groups.
Sure there are some AI issues, but I think for the most part, people aren't bothering to micro that much yet.
I agree. A lot of folks sum up micro as attack move, but actually in quite a few games I'm seeing quite a bit more than attack move.
Maybe Blizz could just add another 'mode' of a game, where a simplified AI would be used, that'd require more micro and disallow builders to auto mine after their production, etc.
On March 13 2010 20:17 freestalker wrote: Maybe Blizz could just add another 'mode' of a game, where a simplified AI would be used, that'd require more micro and disallow builders to auto mine after their production, etc.
Automine is perfectly fine, as is MBS.
What i'd like to see is units getting a bit bigger, so that they don't clump up as hard.
But then again, with enough micro you could actually do that personally.
Yes as many stated micro in SC2 is not even 1/10 of what BW has but ok we can maybe see some improvments in the future. What bugs me is that unit on ground clumps so much and there is no way to use flanks and positional play because of 3D and possibly maps been too badly made.
Is it me or i think map to unit ratio is extremly bad in SC2? ... From my point of view it looks that the maps are extremly small like 64x64 maps in BW or the units are ridiculosly big. If the maps are normal like 128x128 then this is a big problem... and the maps are generally bad made everything on the maps i see is tunnels that dont encourage strategic play like flanks surround and positional play.I wanna see more open spaces like BW instead platforms with tunnels that looks like the battles are run underground.
Think they should build the maps bigger because the units seem too big but hey i might be wrong because i have never played beta just watched few vods. I wanna see some opinions from beta players on this issue
I think that the people saying there is no micro are really saying "I'm still getting to grips with all of the available build orders and how the units fare against their counters and all the various new hotkeys and macro mechanics so I don't yet have the time to think about and properly control my units to maximum effect". Once all of that starts to become second nature then people are going to have the necessary space within their play to get more 'hands on' with the units and that's when we'll start to see the true skill demands that the game will place upon us.
I mean there's all this talk of dumbing the ai back down again so that we have to grapple and fight with horrible pathing and so on to demonstrate who has the most awesome mechanics, but why can't we grapple and fight with the current ai which is trying to be too smart? It won't always move and attack in the way we want it to so surely correcting that behaviour will end up just as important at the top levels of play?
On March 13 2010 22:47 Bane_ wrote: I mean there's all this talk of dumbing the ai back down again so that we have to grapple and fight with horrible pathing and so on to demonstrate who has the most awesome mechanics, but why can't we grapple and fight with the current ai which is trying to be too smart? It won't always move and attack in the way we want it to so surely correcting that behaviour will end up just as important at the top levels of play?
This is probably one of the best articles I've read on an eSports community site... not to mention a good variety of opinions.
I have to agree with those that say it's just too early to tell. There are just too many games that have taken YEARS to evolve and I find it hard to believe SC2 is any different. I know from a newbie player perspective, I continue to watch replays and see "new" ideas, strats, harass attempts that I hadn't seen or thought of previously... it seems like there is a huge amount of possibility and only time will tell.
I don't have a beta key, I'm just a spectator, but I've seen a Lot of games in TL streams, and I don't think that micro is dead. Micro is in this game and it is the player's job to exploit it.
Of course A-moving a blob of units will work if nobody knows how to micro. But the fact is that most people don't even try to find the micro tricks, they just wait for some pro player to develop it, and then proceed to copy the playstyle. And this is Not going to happen in the beta. Some people also just try to copy BW micro into SC2, and don't try anything new. This won't work 100% for obvious reasons.
There is some documentation on micro tricks in the forums already, but you'll have to dig a bit to find those. i.e. Z can exploit the fact that units need to turn around to attack to kill zealots with a small number of speedlings without taking damage, waypoints can be used to cast simultaneous spells from some units, patrol can be used to spread units apart, HSM has its own share of neat tricks to be exploited (targeting your own unit, targeting a dead unit, (MULESM bombing lol) ), MULE and Roach bombs, broodlords and lauch speed upgraded carriers can be microed to take full advantage of their "charged" attack bursts, while staying at a safe distance, banelings are a complete waste against anti-baneling micro, unless they are very well microed themselves, etc.. This is only the very very tip of the iceberg. I also believe that some things need to be changed (the high ground advantage problem, unit walls impossible vs a few units, Stalkers too weak overall...) but I'm not disappointed with the micro in the game. So far when I watch streams, situations keep presenting themselves where the player could have done a simple micro and he doesn't (like T putting an idle Factory to use, either for scout or building addons; or a Z building a creep path when going hydras)
So far I've hardly seen people trying micro ideas in the streams. All we have is "opponent has build this, so I'll build this" or "I have an advantage so I'll do this tech/expand". So I can't take "micro is dead" comments to be credible.
There was so much of the endgame in BW that didn't evolve till YEARS after it came out. Dark Swarm usage? It just shocked people when it started being used because there was still mystery to the game then. I'm sure everyone knows all to well what Mutalisk stacking did as well. Even the Vulture went back and forth between usage and obscurity. Finally, it ends up being considered one of the strongest units in BW because of the amount of multi-tasking required to pretty much dominate a map with them.
Hopefully there are little surprises like these waiting for us in SC2. The sad thing is, no matter how many tweeks they make and what we say, we won't know this till years later.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. To those who long for more intense and complicated micro-management, Blizzard already has a great game for you: Warcraft III.
I prefer the chaos and carnage of battle between masses of disposable units, only a very few of which are casting spells. Heck, I wouldn't mind if Starcraft units were even MORE automated (I'm thinking of auto-retreat, or patrol + disengage instead of default patrol-attack, or set target priority before the fight) so you could maintain multiple fronts and increase the population cap without needing to micro every front on a larger battlefield. You would still be rewarded if you could micro multiple fronts, but the macro game would be more exciting for the rest of us without YoungHo Lee micro.
Ehm I'm not a very good SC player. I can't really name the build orders I see on pro-games until they tell me and although I appreciated Micro right from the start, even when I was just being introduced to competitive BW and watched Pimpest Plays and Boxer Tributes, sometimes some of the Micro escaped me. I didn't quite understand some of the amazing stuff I was seeing.
For example, for the untrained eye the Boxer Lockdown looks hella impressive compared to say... A beautiful Rine-Split against some Lurkers. Now that I know better sniping mines with Goons, kitting Zealots with Vultures and splitting Marines are more impressive that simply cloning a bunch of Lockdowns on a group of Sieged Tanks.
SC2 has made me go HOLY SH- a couple of times already because even thou you are not impressed by the auto-surround or some sick Muta Sniping the abilities the units have are pretty cool to look at and even someone that hasn't played SC2 (like me) can say "Woah! That thing that looks like a Zerg Reaver just hit those Marines spot on! Holy crap! Are those Thors attacking their own units!!!?"
So yes while Micro "Tricks" are not present in SC2 you still have to Micro pretty well and to those that say that it is worst for the spectator... I'm afraid that is not the case, since I am the personification of a "spectator" and I can tell you SC2 looks much more interesting and appealing than what SC:BW looked like a couple of years back when I started to follow it.
And hey if you can achieve 300 APM and put it to good use in DotA and HoN you certainly will be able to do the same in SC2. Rest assured we will still be amazed by the mechanical prowess of the Pros.
well, i dont want to sound like an asshole but i feel this article was more of a compilation of already stated (and posted) ideas/threads and as such is more of a summary with a creative introduction than an informative piece. I was hoping for some new insights, theorycrafting or actual demonstrations that showed possibilities for micro in this new game, and i don't think it's unreasonable to reach such a conclusion based off the title of this thread. so yah, kinda disappointed.
it is for sure to early to say anything about the game. But my impression is that blizzard tried to built a structure around a game that has not been properly created
On March 13 2010 15:21 Seku wrote: Nice writeup, although I think at the level of play the SC community has reached there is too much "it's too early to tell". The way the game looks and feels just isn't likely to change much even as the game matures from what I can tell.
When were many of the micro tricks that define today's quality StarCraft play discovered? When did we first see rine splitting around lurkers or muta micro? Not for years after BW was released. So I say to you: it's too early to tell.
I don't usually fall for trolls but, the problem with sc2 is the game engine. When you want something done, it does it with sparkles and rainbows, in sc1, its with blood and tears
It's interesting that you would call someone pointing to historical precedent a troll. Guess you're not a big fan of facts, are you?
I'm not on either side here in terms of the point jodogohoo was trying to make (I don't have an opinion). But for the record, it is blatantly not the case that a post which contains no provably untrue statements cannot be a troll post. Concluding that "it's too early to tell" is going to annoy anyone who thinks the evidence he cited isn't sufficient. Whether he was trolling is then hard to tell, since it just comes down to whether he made the post to argue or to annoy people, which only he knows.
If I go into some thread for Bisu fans and say that he's been losing a large percentage of his games lately and I think he's on the way out as a top progamer, I'm not saying anything specifically untrue, but I'd guess most people would think I was trolling anyway.
On March 13 2010 15:21 Seku wrote: Nice writeup, although I think at the level of play the SC community has reached there is too much "it's too early to tell". The way the game looks and feels just isn't likely to change much even as the game matures from what I can tell.
When were many of the micro tricks that define today's quality StarCraft play discovered? When did we first see rine splitting around lurkers or muta micro? Not for years after BW was released. So I say to you: it's too early to tell.
This is true, but only up to a point. It won't take years to see if SC2 delivers on the micro side of things -- players are coming into the game with a wealth of knowledge built up from years of SCBW, compounded by their experience with other RTS games. And they're actively looking for these bits and pieces of micro, as evinced by threads like "Tricks, Tips, Tactics", Queue-attacking: the new pro-level micro?", etc.
Also, like it or not, people will judge the game as is when it's released. If someone has a complaint, simply responding "come back in ten years, it'll be great" is a pretty limited argument.
On March 13 2010 15:21 Seku wrote: Nice writeup, although I think at the level of play the SC community has reached there is too much "it's too early to tell". The way the game looks and feels just isn't likely to change much even as the game matures from what I can tell.
When were many of the micro tricks that define today's quality StarCraft play discovered? When did we first see rine splitting around lurkers or muta micro? Not for years after BW was released. So I say to you: it's too early to tell.
I don't usually fall for trolls but, the problem with sc2 is the game engine. When you want something done, it does it with sparkles and rainbows, in sc1, its with blood and tears
It's interesting that you would call someone pointing to historical precedent a troll. Guess you're not a big fan of facts, are you?
I'm not on either side here in terms of the point jodogohoo was trying to make (I don't have an opinion). But for the record, it is blatantly not the case that a post which contains no provably untrue statements cannot be a troll post. Concluding that "it's too early to tell" is going to annoy anyone who thinks the evidence he cited isn't sufficient. Whether he was trolling is then hard to tell, since it just comes down to whether he made the post to argue or to annoy people, which only he knows.
If I go into some thread for Bisu fans and say that he's been losing a large percentage of his games lately and I think he's on the way out as a top progamer, I'm not saying anything specifically untrue, but I'd guess most people would think I was trolling anyway.
True, "it is blatantly not the case that a post which contains no provably untrue statements cannot be a troll post," but if said post is an observation on precedent made from the stand point of common sense, it's hard to see how it could be considered trolling. By your logic, jodogohoo could be trolling because the sentiment that SC2 micro doesn't lend itself to competition isn't "provably untrue" as yet, and considering I don't think a couple weeks of beta is sufficient evidence to support his assertion he could be posting to annoy people.
On March 13 2010 15:21 Seku wrote: Nice writeup, although I think at the level of play the SC community has reached there is too much "it's too early to tell". The way the game looks and feels just isn't likely to change much even as the game matures from what I can tell.
When were many of the micro tricks that define today's quality StarCraft play discovered? When did we first see rine splitting around lurkers or muta micro? Not for years after BW was released. So I say to you: it's too early to tell.
This is true, but only up to a point. It won't take years to see if SC2 delivers on the micro side of things -- players are coming into the game with a wealth of knowledge built up from years of SCBW, compounded by their experience with other RTS games. And they're actively looking for these bits and pieces of micro, as evinced by threads like "Tricks, Tips, Tactics", Queue-attacking: the new pro-level micro?", etc.
Also, like it or not, people will judge the game as is when it's released. If someone has a complaint, simply responding "come back in ten years, it'll be great," is a pretty limited argument.
It may not take as long for competitive SC2 to reach the level that competitive BW has, in fact it probably won't, but it'll certainly take longer than a couple weeks of beta.
And of course people are free to judge whatever they want whenever they want, but if it seems premature I'm going to tell them I think so, like it or not. Neither is my argument "come back in ten years," it's that BW competitive play as we know it took a decade to evolve and we're only two weeks into beta, so be patient.
I'm sensing some pessimism from a few of the players who dominated the first week of beta. I don't want to assume too much, but just from hearing some of these players rage on their livestreams, I think there's some resentment that other players are starting to catch up.
I remember participating in War3 beta - the game was entirely different from early beta to release, and it changed even more in the first few months after release. Just relax - the game will come together with time.
ive seen so many encounters where if the losing player had behaved more strategically, not sent all their units in at once, move key units into key positions and targeted higher priority units manually, they would've won despite a macro disadvantage, and i found myself yelling at my monitor - "you idiot!" etc etc etc... in situations like this i have to think that micro isn't dead, people just aren't using it. hotkeys still exist, guys. you don't HAVE to send your entire army in as one ball. it just isn't worth it to stretch yourself that far yet because the macro still isn't ironed out and you can still win with much simpler strategies and battles.
seriously, if the community can take a broken as hell game like sc1 at release and turn it into what it is today, you don't think they'll find a way to evolve this? blizzard doesn't fuck around. if you've got mad APM, use it to do something the other player can't. micro tactics aren't going to invent themselves.
On March 14 2010 05:31 Doc Daneeka wrote: seriously, if the community can take a broken as hell game like sc1 at release and turn it into what it is today, you don't think they'll find a way to evolve this? blizzard doesn't fuck around. if you've got mad APM, use it to do something the other player can't. micro tactics aren't going to invent themselves.
Nobody is saying micro doesn't exist at all in SC2 or that we know how to control all of the units to be their most effective- only that the lowered necessity, difficulty, and effectiveness of micro compared to SC1 makes it so much less fun to execute and watch that "micro" as we knew it is dead.
I feel like they can EASILY fix the whole excitement aspect if they release new units during the next two expansions that are game changers such as the LURKER did for BW.
I don't see how Starcraft Broodwar was more watchable for non-playing audience than Starcraft 2 is. Without history in Rts you simply will not get it. And even if you played your Age of Empires, C&C etc. on Saturdays it's still impossible to get the depth of Starcraft. To really be able to enjoy watching a replay or tournamentstream you must have played the game before.
You aren't really suggesting that hydras should die to one storm again, so uninformed observers can understand whats happening in the game, are you? Uninformed in this case is equal to uninterested. If you haven't played Starcraft, there is no point in watching starcraft. (except you are korean...but they will play it anyways!). Making the game "visually understandable" by strengthening interactions such as psystorm on hydras may help the observers but you will not change the motivation of non-players to look at a 20min game they don't understand. The adjustments may even damage the playexperience. Gameplay has to be king after all.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love a bigger Esport community, Starcraft 2 Channels in television and a spread variety of huge tournaments throughout europe and america. But this discussion is a step in the wrong direction imo. If you feel unchallenged by Starcraft 2 and hate the way your units cluster up, start spreading them with the apm you doubtedly don't need right now. Instead of questioning the "observability" and micromanagement potential of a brand new game, we should start taking our own playstyle to the limits and define the "observability" ourselves!
I have faith in general about the watchability of the game for a couple of reasons, but most notably because starcraft has such a wealth of highly skilled and entertaining shoutcasters who understand the game and are passionate about sharing it with others. Case in point, everyone should watch this game from husky. In my mind, one of the most entertaining games of this beta to watch so far. Not because play was entirely the best/crisp/good mechanics/sound strategy. It's because there is a LOT of things going on and there is a definite ebb and flow to the game. Things that would not be nearly as well experienced if it weren't for the skill of the caster.
On March 13 2010 15:21 Seku wrote: Nice writeup, although I think at the level of play the SC community has reached there is too much "it's too early to tell". The way the game looks and feels just isn't likely to change much even as the game matures from what I can tell.
When were many of the micro tricks that define today's quality StarCraft play discovered? When did we first see rine splitting around lurkers or muta micro? Not for years after BW was released. So I say to you: it's too early to tell.
I didn't read past page 1 of the replies.
I'd just like to point out that the transition from SSBM->Brawl for the smash community involved a similar worry.
SSBM's metagame developed around a clunky game engine that was discovered to have interesting properties that led to all competitive players learning basic "glitches" in order to properly maneuver their character. Brawl's modern engine simplified and streamlined a lot of the accidental "design flaws" from the previous game, and while there was a trial period where plenty of people were saying we should wait and see, the game really didn't change much from initial understandings. Having already undergone the discovery process with a previous game, the diehard players ripped through the modern dumbed down remake and "figured out" the game in a relatively short time. (Personal opinion: I gave brawl a lot of time, but it really seems to me to be inferior to melee, not that I bother to play either anymore).
A similar thing can be said of SC2. It's basically impossible for any of us to discover amazing micro tricks that blizzard didn't intend on putting there as it's a modern game with all of the technological and software engineering advances we've made. Likewise the community is well developed and while SC2 has lots of new toys to deal with, the game will be sorted out much faster than bw was. (Although every new expansion will screw with you when you feel you've got everything figured out, which should be fun).
That being said, I'm quite in love with SC2, and I want nothing less than for there to be a worldwide competitive scene that is strong and loyal. It's an amazing game already, and I'm optimistic as to where it's headed.
One other thing, it really is too early to tell. Honestly, even the top players are nowhere near bw level of proficiency. There's all kinds of bad decisions and (in some cases) plain laziness when it comes to figuring out "what is the best option". It reminds me of when a lot of top American Odyssey Block Constructed magictg players said the format was just a coin flip when objective analysis of who was actually winning and how often and with what kind of decks just didn't agree with their complaints.
Micro is a big issue. Big concern is wholly justified. We need to make sure that we investigate thoroughly before we put on our "the sky is falling" t-shirts.
Agree with the Brawl comparison, with 10 years BW experience beta testers have a amassed a wealth of knowledge and experience and are ready to test the limits of the game. It's like when SF4 came out people who had played fighting games for years upon years simply raped and figured out most combos in a very short period of time. Cutesy glitches will undoubtly come out over time but the majority of gameplay will stay the same.
sorry for posting this here but how much micro do u think it takes to do this ...
i am just disgusted of knowing mutas have range of 3 & how they r supposed to protect the expansion & in the meantime to avoid that imba HSM
so much micro is required for the terran player to drop these 2 missiles ... in the meantime the zerg player has to literaly sweat blood in order to avoid those missiles .
I think the reason the game is so macro intensive is simply a matter of how much some of the units cost in relation to how much supply is being taken up.
For example, you need 2 vespene geysers with 3 workers on each to equal one vespene geyser in the original SC. Early game this translates into a slow tech process and a less harassment orientated early game.
Not to mention the fact that units cost more gas and minerals, yet come in slower than the original game. Most units also require more supply. Whats with that?
On March 13 2010 15:21 Seku wrote: Nice writeup, although I think at the level of play the SC community has reached there is too much "it's too early to tell". The way the game looks and feels just isn't likely to change much even as the game matures from what I can tell.
When were many of the micro tricks that define today's quality StarCraft play discovered? When did we first see rine splitting around lurkers or muta micro? Not for years after BW was released. So I say to you: it's too early to tell.
A similar thing can be said of SC2. It's basically impossible for any of us to discover amazing micro tricks that blizzard didn't intend on putting there as it's a modern game with all of the technological and software engineering advances we've made. Likewise the community is well developed and while SC2 has lots of new toys to deal with, the game will be sorted out much faster than bw was. (Although every new expansion will screw with you when you feel you've got everything figured out, which should be fun).
I'm just going to quote Bane_, because he put into words my feelings about this better than I could:
On March 13 2010 22:47 Bane_ wrote: I mean there's all this talk of dumbing the ai back down again so that we have to grapple and fight with horrible pathing and so on to demonstrate who has the most awesome mechanics, but why can't we grapple and fight with the current ai which is trying to be too smart? It won't always move and attack in the way we want it to so surely correcting that behaviour will end up just as important at the top levels of play?
On March 13 2010 16:16 LaughingTulkas wrote: I think it's funny that less than a year ago, the consensus was that macro was going to suck in sc2/be too easy and that the game was going to become a complete micro game like wc3, and that now that teh beta is actually out, we find that macro is actually harder and more interesting that would have been thought possible with MBS and automine, and that it's the micro side of the game that is struggling. Hopefully we can see some cool stuff from the community and possibly blizzard if necessary.
SC2 isn't Brawl. Brawl was made specifically for the purpose of neutering competitive play because Sakurai hates competition.
The game I worked on, Smash Bros., is a fighting game, but keeping in mind such reasoning, I set out to make sure the game did not over-emphasize the notions of victory and defeat. I won't go into too much detail, but the game was built so that if a player is strong in combat, just doing the same thing over and over again won't guarantee they'll always win over their opponents. There is a mechanism of accidents occurring, balanced so that the game's progress and results falter easily. Whether you win or lose, you enjoy a hearty laugh, and move on to the next round. I think this makes quite a good game.
It’s not like I think that serious competition is not interesting. It’s good to have equals fighting intensely. Yet, I understand quite well the feelings of children who just enjoy hitting a motionless opponent in things like a training mode.
I don't watch sports much and I don't find them particularly exciting. Whichever player or team wins, I always end up thinking "well done, everyone!" I'm not really cheering for or supporting any one team. If there was something like the World Cup going on, I'd be inclined to cheer for Japan and would be excited, but if the opponent was putting his heart into it, I'd feel that both were the same.
When Japan lost in the '98 World Cup, the TV announcers were saying things like "Japan was defeated!" and "Japan was weak!" If you look more closely, you find many factors that could have contributed to the result. But I personally wondered, "doesn't this just mean that the other team fought well?" That's why I designed Smash Bros., which I was working on at the time, with the intent that the loser will applaud the winner.
In other words, at least you don't have the devs actively neutering your chances of playing competitively (lol tripping)
Solution: I think the best way to accommodate newbs is to integrate a high-tech match making system into battle.net that takes them into consideration. That way casual players can fight players of their caliber. This system should be relatively fail-proof so as to prevent pros from exploiting it and raping lowbies. This way casual players can play at their own pace in matches which pairs them against players in their skill groups.
This will allow Blizzard to direct their attention to the real starcraft fans and not lose sight of their needs (which imo trumps the casual player's needs tenfold).
Bring back the same level of difficulty as SC1. And do justice to starcraft.
On March 16 2010 08:06 Love.Zelduck wrote: One other thing, it really is too early to tell. Honestly, even the top players are nowhere near bw level of proficiency. There's all kinds of bad decisions and (in some cases) plain laziness when it comes to figuring out "what is the best option". It reminds me of when a lot of top American Odyssey Block Constructed magictg players said the format was just a coin flip when objective analysis of who was actually winning and how often and with what kind of decks just didn't agree with their complaints.
Haha. How many people actually understand that example really? ;D
At times the sc2 arguments remind me of arguments about "results based" testing. I wish everyone played magic; it would make arguing about design much easier.