Hey I think you made a point, but I assume most viewers wont really care if they say econ or macro, tactics or micro. I get what you are trying to say, but I don't think it'll ever be a big deal.

but im sure it felt good to let that little pet peeve out. gg gl

Toxi78

966 Posts

February 24 2011 17:54 GMT

#22

ok so you want me to post what i think ?
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

February 24 2011 18:10 GMT

#23

Another reason is because they have been explaining it this way for as long as they have been casting. To change now, would just be confusing for some and possibly make the match they are casting less interesting.

GagnarTheUnruly

United States655 Posts

February 24 2011 18:21 GMT

#24

Macro and micro are words with specific, widely agreed-upon meanings.

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

February 24 2011 18:21 GMT

#25

This is Starcraft2 we are talking about here, a video game. Why obsess over the people that play it or the way people commentate it? Nothing in Starcraft is going to be "mutually exclusive" concerning the strategy of a pro SC2 player. Macro and micro woks perfectly fine.. its quite hard to focus on continued producing and creation of structures during intense moments where the position of your army is important. Some players feel they are faster and building an army and getting to a high tech really fast with a strong economy, others feel most confident in their management of all units and may feel most comfortable being the aggressor. Micro/Macro works fine; until people start taking classes and studying proper starcraft 2 terminology there doesnt really need to be any dispute.

If you don't like a commentator don't listen to them.

TheWahbinator

United States131 Posts

February 24 2011 18:56 GMT

#26

I think you're trying to impose a strict constriction on the definition of those terms for no real good reason. Sure, build orders may not be considered either of those, but some of those words can be used to describe styles of micro/macro, and in general I think it's up to the listener to distinguish between such terms (like someone else said, taking the words out of context changes the meaning)

And complaining about commentators, never seen that before.

Louuster

Canada2869 Posts

February 24 2011 19:20 GMT

#27

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.

latan

740 Posts

February 24 2011 19:28 GMT

#28

in my sc days macro meant a different thing. it simply meant control of big groups of units as oposed to single ones.

GagnarTheUnruly

United States655 Posts

February 24 2011 19:37 GMT

#29

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

February 24 2011 19:45 GMT

#30

I don't know what profession your work in - you allude to something language-based, so I'll assume you are familiar with a colloquialism? Macroing, in sc2 = "concentrating more time building units, buildings, upgrades etc". Strictly speaking, macro(economic) is not the correct term for this, or more specifically, that's not what macroeconomics means. But in the context of SC2, that is how it's used. Of course it doesn't mean you never "micro" any more than saying Michael Jordan was an "offensively-minded" player meant he didn't play defense. He did, and was well recognized for it.

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

February 24 2011 20:47 GMT

#31

I disagree on a few points.

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.