EPT
but im sure it felt good to let that little pet peeve out. gg glMacro and Micro =/= Strategy, Tactics, and Economy - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
AllSalesFinal
United States211 Posts
but im sure it felt good to let that little pet peeve out. gg gl | ||
|
Toxi78
966 Posts
if you have a good micro, guess what your strategy/economy management/tactic is going to head towards ? something that involves micro for both players, wether you name it "agressive style" or "micro gameplay" or whatever wont change a damn thing in what they do and what the people understand when they hear this term. namely 1 or 2 base play with a well found timing in which superior micro is going to triumph : just before the enemy has storm, a position in which you can drop and attack, an early all-in, or just producing units that have a higher skill cap to use, for example bio, and more potential (imo) instead of static mech with terran. then again i could just post about the very core of the original post " and just make you realize that what you name "tactics" (???) is called "microing units" and what you call "economics" is called "macro" (just by how you define those terms) and "strategy" is called "decision making", and if you really listened to streams, you would often listen casters/ invited players emphasazing these 3 aspects of the game. thanks mister dictionnary, but we already had words for these things. | ||
|
Ponyo
United States1231 Posts
| ||
|
GagnarTheUnruly
United States655 Posts
Macro(management) involves producing workers and army units, making buildings, and researching upgrades. Micro(management) involves control of units and abilities Macro and micro require different skills, and players have different strengths at and proclivity towards both aspects of play. Players who excel at macro will try to force games into later game situations so that they can gain an advantage via their macro skills. Players that excel at micro will try to force situations where they can gain an advantage through micro play. Also, macro and micro both require strategy and tactics to execute, so which classification scheme you want to use (strategy/tactics/economy vs macro/micro) depends on how well it applies to the player you're classifying. So it's totally appropriate to refer to players as micro- or macro-oriented players, because they will rely on strategies and tactics that will take advantage of their strengths. Not everybody fits well into these categories, but there are plenty of people who do so it's a useful way of describing the playstyles of many players. | ||
|
KarboZ
United States37 Posts
If you don't like a commentator don't listen to them. | ||
|
TheWahbinator
United States131 Posts
And complaining about commentators, never seen that before. | ||
|
Louuster
Canada2869 Posts
This simply means that Boxer's play is centered on strategies that require heavy micro (drops, harrassment, etc..) while oov's play was focused on securing expansions and crushing his opponents by having more production. | ||
|
latan
740 Posts
| ||
|
GagnarTheUnruly
United States655 Posts
On February 25 2011 04:20 Louuster wrote: Slayers_Boxer is a micro player, while iloveoov was a macro player. That doesnt mean that Boxer only 1 bases, or that oov cant micro units. Couldnt think of an example in sc2, as I wanted 2 successful players of the same race to avoid race comparisons (aka Idra is a macro player but being zerg in the current state of sc2 he almost has to be). This simply means that Boxer's play is centered on strategies that require heavy micro (drops, harrassment, etc..) while oov's play was focused on securing expansions and crushing his opponents by having more production. Jinro vs MarineKing -- both are excellent all-around players, but they have different styles and tend to take the game in different direction. Jinro wins with cost-efficiency and tank positioning, Marineking wins with drop harrass and army splitting. Jinro is a macro player and Marineking is a micro player, and both become deadlier as the match progresses but for different reasons. | ||
|
SCbiff
110 Posts
This isn't unique in domains of communication. Language IS mutable (often to my chagrin), and this is one way it's mutated here. I honestly don't know why this bothers so many people, it's not like it's a complete butchery of the term. You know, like when (tons of) people think "sarcasm" means "funny" | ||
|
Arisen
United States2382 Posts
First, you say that you never hear of players described as a micro player, and if you pay attention to starcraft, there are plenty of these players. Probably most famous of all is the "micro-monster" fauxer, or MarineKingPrime. He's not known for his macro styling, he's known for his unit control. There are several of these players out there, QXC, Axslav (though I'm very impressed with his decision making as well) or just about any warcraft 3 player, etc. Next is your assumption that macro and micro have nothing to do with strategy, which is wrong. A players macro is intrinsically linked with his strategy. Far to many people believe strategy is just what a player decides to do. Rather, what strategy really is, is what a player can afford. You can't just arbitrarily say "I'm going for ultras!". A huge part in the strategy of a player going for ultras is economy. You can't support ultras of one or two base (well, not many of them). A player who wants to go ultras is going to be planning out how he can arrange key components to secure the bases he needs with the amount of drones he needs to support ultralisk production. The same rings true across all races with all strategies. A player going for a rush is arranging the level of economy he wants before cutting worker production to throw allot of units at their opponent. A player who is 4 gating, for example, in the hopes of ending a game early is going to be cutting worker production so he has the exact level of economy he needs to support 4 gateways. A crucial part of strategy is being able to look at your replays and figure out that I have X amount of gas and Y amount of minerals at this point, I don't need so much gas for awhile, therefore I will pull workers off gas and as a result will get that extra expansion, or those 5 or so extra units for that push. Take players like Best from BW for example. He was amazing at squeaking out all these little economic advantages that resulted in him having like twice as many units as his opponents. He had some of the best macromanagement anyone had seen. Can you really argue that those little economic advantages weren't a crucial part of his strategy? Take a look at Flash's signature dual armory build. http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Flash_Build Everything is on a razor's edge economically to be able to afford things just in time. Everything was planned out ahead of time so that he could get seige mode just in time to hold early pushes, and Goliaths just in time to hold off shuttle harass. As a result flash has a huge economy and can support this huge timing doom push. His macromechanics are what got him there. Similarly, you cannot say that micromanagement isn't tied inexorably to some stratagies. Take MarineKingPrimes TvZ. He makes marines. Lots and lots of marines. Now without his superb marine splitting micro, what would happen if he did this? The zerg player would make banelings and win every time. Because of his micromechanics, he can use this strategy. There are several examples through starcraft of this as well. Mutalisk openings, hold lurkers, etc. All in all, I can see why you think what you do, but I believe the views are just wrong. So many people can't recognize strategy for what it really is, which is one factor that limits people's success in a game like starcraft. | ||
| ||
