• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 13:37
CEST 19:37
KST 02:37
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
RSL Season 1 - Final Week6[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0
Community News
Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed17Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll8Team TLMC #5 - Submission extension3Firefly given lifetime ban by ESIC following match-fixing investigation17$25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced7
StarCraft 2
General
Heaven's Balance Suggestions (roast me) The Memories We Share - Facing the Final(?) GSL Who will win EWC 2025? Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread
Tourneys
Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond) FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series $5,100+ SEL Season 2 Championship (SC: Evo)
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame Mutation # 479 Worn Out Welcome
Brood War
General
BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Flash Announces (and Retracts) Hiatus From ASL Soulkey Muta Micro Map? BW General Discussion [ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall
Tourneys
2025 ACS Season 2 Qualifier CSL Xiamen International Invitational [Megathread] Daily Proleagues Cosmonarchy Pro Showmatches
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Path of Exile Nintendo Switch Thread CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project The PlayStation 5
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine US Politics Mega-thread The Games Industry And ATVI Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
[Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion Movie Discussion! Anime Discussion Thread [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 762 users

The future of RTS games - Page 58

Forum Index > SC2 General
Post a Reply
Prev 1 56 57 58 59 60 81 Next
Keep "my game is better than yours"-slapfights out of this. If the discussion devolves into simple bashing, this thread will be closed.
DoubleReed
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United States4130 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-06-13 17:48:27
June 13 2014 17:47 GMT
#1141
On June 13 2014 21:56 The_Red_Viper wrote:
Can somebody pls link to the right time where they say this about micro?


Here at "What is Grey Goo?"

Grey Goo is a real-time strategy game (RTS for short) with roots in classic strategy mechanics. Utilizing traditional base building as its core, the game aims to reinvent the modern standard of RTS gaming by placing emphasis on tactics over micro-management. By freeing players from having to issue hundreds of orders in a match, each decision is made more valuable and can mean the difference between victory and defeat.


From what I'm seeing this is just referring to micromanaging your base and workers. Like you don't need to grab three dudes and put them in a geyser. You don't need to inject larva/spread creep every 40 seconds. That's all micromanagement. It's little details that you're managing. That's what micromanagement actually means. "Micro" and "Macro" is more like slang or jargon.

If you look at the gameplay, it looks like there's plenty of individual unit movement and chokes and positioning, so that's mostly what I'm basing it on. The macro looks like it's almost like a menu system or something.
BisuDagger
Profile Blog Joined October 2009
Bisutopia19231 Posts
June 13 2014 18:37 GMT
#1142
On June 14 2014 01:52 TMG26 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 13 2014 12:25 BisuDagger wrote:
Has anyone argued that RTS games have UMS maps that are incredibly fun to play? MOBA's have a few maps at most and limited game modes.

...and for reference I'm still talking RTS style UMS such as fastest map possible, starbow, macro/micro, monobattle, etc.


Have you seen Dota2 mods? There's even footman frenzy in development for dota. That UMS argument is totally irrelevant. It depends on the game not on the genre.

I mentioned rts style mods. Footman frenzy is clearly not a take on the moba genre. If there are dota 2 mods were you can play an rts style map then that would invalidate my argument for buying rts games with editors.
ModeratorFormer Afreeca Starleague Caster: http://afreeca.tv/ASL2ENG2
Thieving Magpie
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States6752 Posts
June 13 2014 22:31 GMT
#1143
On June 14 2014 02:39 Cheren wrote:
The essence of casual accessibility in RTS is defender's advantage.

Don't believe me? MOBAs are RTS with defender's advantage turned up to 11. Dota has high ground advantage, towers, and towers on the high ground combining both advantages. LoL has super-powered towers or turrets or whatever.

BW obviously had high ground advantage, and on pretty much every popular BW map the main was elevated to turn that into defender's advantage. WC3 didn't always have elevated mains, but your base and/or workers could always assist you in defense, whether it was militia, burrows, NE buildings, or ghouls. AoE I haven't played much of, but I believe you could send your workers into your main base to turn it into essentially a Planetary Fortress.

Now you might say, but Photon Overcharge and Force Fields suck, and they're defender's advantage! True, but one, FF is also an offensive spell, and two, both are bandaid fixes for one of Protoss' macro mechanics, warp gate, only giving an advantage to an offensive Protoss. This is as opposed to mules and injects which benefit both offensive and defensive players.

Want to make SC2 more casual friendly? Add some sort of high ground advantage that's not vision related (doesn't have to be an RNG miss chance) and remove warp gate. (add another protoss mechanic or buff chrono boost)


Protoss have an early planetary fortress, Terrans have almost free defensive structures, and zerg creep is terrain advantage. What you're asking for is already in SC2.
Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?
Thieving Magpie
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States6752 Posts
June 13 2014 22:36 GMT
#1144
On June 13 2014 22:28 Big J wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 13 2014 21:30 Hider wrote:
On June 13 2014 12:59 DoubleReed wrote:
On June 13 2014 12:44 Hider wrote:
On June 13 2014 12:07 DoubleReed wrote:
I think when they say "micro-management" they're referring to macro, not micro. Like micromanaging your base and workers (because I don't think there are worker/harvester units). It's just a poor choice of words. In the videos and such it looks like you're dealing with plenty of positioning and unit control.

But yea. "Micro-management" =/= Micro.


Well, when they can't get the basic terms straight, I really doubt they can make a decent game at all. I really have no hope at all for this game. The artillery game has a bit more potenital, though I am very dissapointed that they didn't respond to my comments about micro. Seems like they haven't really studied yet which variables to tweak on in order to create micro interactions. That's a bit dissapointing when they already are 1 year into the project.


Well now you're just being silly. Micro-management is like a real word. You're allowed to use real words to describe your game.

I'm a bit skeptical of the game, because I can't really understand how scouting and harassment make any sense, but it looks pretty cool. There's no need to be silly.


Eh what are you talking about? If they don't know the difference between micro and macro and they are responsible for developing an RTS, I don't have very high hopes for them.


Well, the term micromanagment originates from managing a firms details and could very well be understood as "how you manage your economy". I'm not familiar how and whether the term is being used outside of starcraft in the RTS world. But knowing the term before starcraft, it did indeed not make too much sense in the beginning that you would call things like the queuing of singular units macromanagment, when it is actually just managing details.
Nevertheless, since Starcraft is the one and only real big RTS games currently, it would make senae to use the same words in the same sense


By definition, micromanagement is controlling/microing small scale things while macromanagement is controlling/microing large scale things.

In business, macromanagement is when your boss sends your team a memo telling you the release date is ______. Micromanagment is when he fucking calls the individual engineer and tells him how to code.

The same is true in an RTS.

Micromanagement is telling each barracks it needs to make a unit. Macromanagement is when you decide you can afford X barracks on Y expansions.
Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?
DoubleReed
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United States4130 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-06-13 22:55:29
June 13 2014 22:52 GMT
#1145
On June 14 2014 07:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 13 2014 22:28 Big J wrote:
On June 13 2014 21:30 Hider wrote:
On June 13 2014 12:59 DoubleReed wrote:
On June 13 2014 12:44 Hider wrote:
On June 13 2014 12:07 DoubleReed wrote:
I think when they say "micro-management" they're referring to macro, not micro. Like micromanaging your base and workers (because I don't think there are worker/harvester units). It's just a poor choice of words. In the videos and such it looks like you're dealing with plenty of positioning and unit control.

But yea. "Micro-management" =/= Micro.


Well, when they can't get the basic terms straight, I really doubt they can make a decent game at all. I really have no hope at all for this game. The artillery game has a bit more potenital, though I am very dissapointed that they didn't respond to my comments about micro. Seems like they haven't really studied yet which variables to tweak on in order to create micro interactions. That's a bit dissapointing when they already are 1 year into the project.


Well now you're just being silly. Micro-management is like a real word. You're allowed to use real words to describe your game.

I'm a bit skeptical of the game, because I can't really understand how scouting and harassment make any sense, but it looks pretty cool. There's no need to be silly.


Eh what are you talking about? If they don't know the difference between micro and macro and they are responsible for developing an RTS, I don't have very high hopes for them.


Well, the term micromanagment originates from managing a firms details and could very well be understood as "how you manage your economy". I'm not familiar how and whether the term is being used outside of starcraft in the RTS world. But knowing the term before starcraft, it did indeed not make too much sense in the beginning that you would call things like the queuing of singular units macromanagment, when it is actually just managing details.
Nevertheless, since Starcraft is the one and only real big RTS games currently, it would make senae to use the same words in the same sense


By definition, micromanagement is controlling/microing small scale things while macromanagement is controlling/microing large scale things.

In business, macromanagement is when your boss sends your team a memo telling you the release date is ______. Micromanagment is when he fucking calls the individual engineer and tells him how to code.

The same is true in an RTS.

Micromanagement is telling each barracks it needs to make a unit. Macromanagement is when you decide you can afford X barracks on Y expansions.


Well generally in Starcraft jargon "micro" refers to unit/army control while "macro" refers to economy/base control. Both of those would be micromanaging in colloquial speak.

A more textbook example of micromanagement is something like the Civilization series, where you can adjust every little thing about your cities. You can tweak and adjust citizens and where people are farming or whatever.

If anything, in Starcraft we don't really talk about "Macromanagement" except maybe when we refer to somebody's overarching strategy. But when a person says "that dude has better macro than me" that's just referring to his economy/base control.
Thieving Magpie
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States6752 Posts
June 13 2014 23:11 GMT
#1146
On June 14 2014 07:52 DoubleReed wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 14 2014 07:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On June 13 2014 22:28 Big J wrote:
On June 13 2014 21:30 Hider wrote:
On June 13 2014 12:59 DoubleReed wrote:
On June 13 2014 12:44 Hider wrote:
On June 13 2014 12:07 DoubleReed wrote:
I think when they say "micro-management" they're referring to macro, not micro. Like micromanaging your base and workers (because I don't think there are worker/harvester units). It's just a poor choice of words. In the videos and such it looks like you're dealing with plenty of positioning and unit control.

But yea. "Micro-management" =/= Micro.


Well, when they can't get the basic terms straight, I really doubt they can make a decent game at all. I really have no hope at all for this game. The artillery game has a bit more potenital, though I am very dissapointed that they didn't respond to my comments about micro. Seems like they haven't really studied yet which variables to tweak on in order to create micro interactions. That's a bit dissapointing when they already are 1 year into the project.


Well now you're just being silly. Micro-management is like a real word. You're allowed to use real words to describe your game.

I'm a bit skeptical of the game, because I can't really understand how scouting and harassment make any sense, but it looks pretty cool. There's no need to be silly.


Eh what are you talking about? If they don't know the difference between micro and macro and they are responsible for developing an RTS, I don't have very high hopes for them.


Well, the term micromanagment originates from managing a firms details and could very well be understood as "how you manage your economy". I'm not familiar how and whether the term is being used outside of starcraft in the RTS world. But knowing the term before starcraft, it did indeed not make too much sense in the beginning that you would call things like the queuing of singular units macromanagment, when it is actually just managing details.
Nevertheless, since Starcraft is the one and only real big RTS games currently, it would make senae to use the same words in the same sense


By definition, micromanagement is controlling/microing small scale things while macromanagement is controlling/microing large scale things.

In business, macromanagement is when your boss sends your team a memo telling you the release date is ______. Micromanagment is when he fucking calls the individual engineer and tells him how to code.

The same is true in an RTS.

Micromanagement is telling each barracks it needs to make a unit. Macromanagement is when you decide you can afford X barracks on Y expansions.


Well generally in Starcraft jargon "micro" refers to unit/army control while "macro" refers to economy/base control. Both of those would be micromanaging in colloquial speak.

A more textbook example of micromanagement is something like the Civilization series, where you can adjust every little thing about your cities. You can tweak and adjust citizens and where people are farming or whatever.

If anything, in Starcraft we don't really talk about "Macromanagement" except maybe when we refer to somebody's overarching strategy. But when a person says "that dude has better macro than me" that's just referring to his economy/base control.


I never realized this... I always thought "macro better" meant that the overall process and build was efficient and that the only way to macro well was with good enough micro to actually get all the pieces moving.

I never realized people meant how often the clicked buildings...
Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?
Hider
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
Denmark9376 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-06-14 00:43:49
June 13 2014 23:21 GMT
#1147
On June 14 2014 08:11 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 14 2014 07:52 DoubleReed wrote:
On June 14 2014 07:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On June 13 2014 22:28 Big J wrote:
On June 13 2014 21:30 Hider wrote:
On June 13 2014 12:59 DoubleReed wrote:
On June 13 2014 12:44 Hider wrote:
On June 13 2014 12:07 DoubleReed wrote:
I think when they say "micro-management" they're referring to macro, not micro. Like micromanaging your base and workers (because I don't think there are worker/harvester units). It's just a poor choice of words. In the videos and such it looks like you're dealing with plenty of positioning and unit control.

But yea. "Micro-management" =/= Micro.


Well, when they can't get the basic terms straight, I really doubt they can make a decent game at all. I really have no hope at all for this game. The artillery game has a bit more potenital, though I am very dissapointed that they didn't respond to my comments about micro. Seems like they haven't really studied yet which variables to tweak on in order to create micro interactions. That's a bit dissapointing when they already are 1 year into the project.


Well now you're just being silly. Micro-management is like a real word. You're allowed to use real words to describe your game.

I'm a bit skeptical of the game, because I can't really understand how scouting and harassment make any sense, but it looks pretty cool. There's no need to be silly.


Eh what are you talking about? If they don't know the difference between micro and macro and they are responsible for developing an RTS, I don't have very high hopes for them.


Well, the term micromanagment originates from managing a firms details and could very well be understood as "how you manage your economy". I'm not familiar how and whether the term is being used outside of starcraft in the RTS world. But knowing the term before starcraft, it did indeed not make too much sense in the beginning that you would call things like the queuing of singular units macromanagment, when it is actually just managing details.
Nevertheless, since Starcraft is the one and only real big RTS games currently, it would make senae to use the same words in the same sense


By definition, micromanagement is controlling/microing small scale things while macromanagement is controlling/microing large scale things.

In business, macromanagement is when your boss sends your team a memo telling you the release date is ______. Micromanagment is when he fucking calls the individual engineer and tells him how to code.

The same is true in an RTS.

Micromanagement is telling each barracks it needs to make a unit. Macromanagement is when you decide you can afford X barracks on Y expansions.


Well generally in Starcraft jargon "micro" refers to unit/army control while "macro" refers to economy/base control. Both of those would be micromanaging in colloquial speak.

A more textbook example of micromanagement is something like the Civilization series, where you can adjust every little thing about your cities. You can tweak and adjust citizens and where people are farming or whatever.

If anything, in Starcraft we don't really talk about "Macromanagement" except maybe when we refer to somebody's overarching strategy. But when a person says "that dude has better macro than me" that's just referring to his economy/base control.


I never realized this... I always thought "macro better" meant that the overall process and build was efficient and that the only way to macro well was with good enough micro to actually get all the pieces moving.

I never realized people meant how often the clicked buildings...


People never meant micro when they talked about clicking on buildings. It's just the Goo-team which has misinterpreted common terminology.
DoubleReed
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United States4130 Posts
June 13 2014 23:32 GMT
#1148
On June 14 2014 08:11 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 14 2014 07:52 DoubleReed wrote:
On June 14 2014 07:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On June 13 2014 22:28 Big J wrote:
On June 13 2014 21:30 Hider wrote:
On June 13 2014 12:59 DoubleReed wrote:
On June 13 2014 12:44 Hider wrote:
On June 13 2014 12:07 DoubleReed wrote:
I think when they say "micro-management" they're referring to macro, not micro. Like micromanaging your base and workers (because I don't think there are worker/harvester units). It's just a poor choice of words. In the videos and such it looks like you're dealing with plenty of positioning and unit control.

But yea. "Micro-management" =/= Micro.


Well, when they can't get the basic terms straight, I really doubt they can make a decent game at all. I really have no hope at all for this game. The artillery game has a bit more potenital, though I am very dissapointed that they didn't respond to my comments about micro. Seems like they haven't really studied yet which variables to tweak on in order to create micro interactions. That's a bit dissapointing when they already are 1 year into the project.


Well now you're just being silly. Micro-management is like a real word. You're allowed to use real words to describe your game.

I'm a bit skeptical of the game, because I can't really understand how scouting and harassment make any sense, but it looks pretty cool. There's no need to be silly.


Eh what are you talking about? If they don't know the difference between micro and macro and they are responsible for developing an RTS, I don't have very high hopes for them.


Well, the term micromanagment originates from managing a firms details and could very well be understood as "how you manage your economy". I'm not familiar how and whether the term is being used outside of starcraft in the RTS world. But knowing the term before starcraft, it did indeed not make too much sense in the beginning that you would call things like the queuing of singular units macromanagment, when it is actually just managing details.
Nevertheless, since Starcraft is the one and only real big RTS games currently, it would make senae to use the same words in the same sense


By definition, micromanagement is controlling/microing small scale things while macromanagement is controlling/microing large scale things.

In business, macromanagement is when your boss sends your team a memo telling you the release date is ______. Micromanagment is when he fucking calls the individual engineer and tells him how to code.

The same is true in an RTS.

Micromanagement is telling each barracks it needs to make a unit. Macromanagement is when you decide you can afford X barracks on Y expansions.


Well generally in Starcraft jargon "micro" refers to unit/army control while "macro" refers to economy/base control. Both of those would be micromanaging in colloquial speak.

A more textbook example of micromanagement is something like the Civilization series, where you can adjust every little thing about your cities. You can tweak and adjust citizens and where people are farming or whatever.

If anything, in Starcraft we don't really talk about "Macromanagement" except maybe when we refer to somebody's overarching strategy. But when a person says "that dude has better macro than me" that's just referring to his economy/base control.


I never realized this... I always thought "macro better" meant that the overall process and build was efficient and that the only way to macro well was with good enough micro to actually get all the pieces moving.

I never realized people meant how often the clicked buildings...


I hardly think you can refer to base control as "clicking on buildings"...

I mean making your build efficient requires a great deal of timing, speed, and mechanics.

Besides, most people just use hotkeys for buildings. Who clicks on buildings?
Thieving Magpie
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States6752 Posts
June 13 2014 23:55 GMT
#1149
On June 14 2014 08:32 DoubleReed wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 14 2014 08:11 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On June 14 2014 07:52 DoubleReed wrote:
On June 14 2014 07:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On June 13 2014 22:28 Big J wrote:
On June 13 2014 21:30 Hider wrote:
On June 13 2014 12:59 DoubleReed wrote:
On June 13 2014 12:44 Hider wrote:
On June 13 2014 12:07 DoubleReed wrote:
I think when they say "micro-management" they're referring to macro, not micro. Like micromanaging your base and workers (because I don't think there are worker/harvester units). It's just a poor choice of words. In the videos and such it looks like you're dealing with plenty of positioning and unit control.

But yea. "Micro-management" =/= Micro.


Well, when they can't get the basic terms straight, I really doubt they can make a decent game at all. I really have no hope at all for this game. The artillery game has a bit more potenital, though I am very dissapointed that they didn't respond to my comments about micro. Seems like they haven't really studied yet which variables to tweak on in order to create micro interactions. That's a bit dissapointing when they already are 1 year into the project.


Well now you're just being silly. Micro-management is like a real word. You're allowed to use real words to describe your game.

I'm a bit skeptical of the game, because I can't really understand how scouting and harassment make any sense, but it looks pretty cool. There's no need to be silly.


Eh what are you talking about? If they don't know the difference between micro and macro and they are responsible for developing an RTS, I don't have very high hopes for them.


Well, the term micromanagment originates from managing a firms details and could very well be understood as "how you manage your economy". I'm not familiar how and whether the term is being used outside of starcraft in the RTS world. But knowing the term before starcraft, it did indeed not make too much sense in the beginning that you would call things like the queuing of singular units macromanagment, when it is actually just managing details.
Nevertheless, since Starcraft is the one and only real big RTS games currently, it would make senae to use the same words in the same sense


By definition, micromanagement is controlling/microing small scale things while macromanagement is controlling/microing large scale things.

In business, macromanagement is when your boss sends your team a memo telling you the release date is ______. Micromanagment is when he fucking calls the individual engineer and tells him how to code.

The same is true in an RTS.

Micromanagement is telling each barracks it needs to make a unit. Macromanagement is when you decide you can afford X barracks on Y expansions.


Well generally in Starcraft jargon "micro" refers to unit/army control while "macro" refers to economy/base control. Both of those would be micromanaging in colloquial speak.

A more textbook example of micromanagement is something like the Civilization series, where you can adjust every little thing about your cities. You can tweak and adjust citizens and where people are farming or whatever.

If anything, in Starcraft we don't really talk about "Macromanagement" except maybe when we refer to somebody's overarching strategy. But when a person says "that dude has better macro than me" that's just referring to his economy/base control.


I never realized this... I always thought "macro better" meant that the overall process and build was efficient and that the only way to macro well was with good enough micro to actually get all the pieces moving.

I never realized people meant how often the clicked buildings...


I hardly think you can refer to base control as "clicking on buildings"...

I mean making your build efficient requires a great deal of timing, speed, and mechanics.

Besides, most people just use hotkeys for buildings. Who clicks on buildings?


And most people use hotkeys instead of reselecting their army everytime.

I just always thought hitting hotkeys to get pixels on the screen to do what you wanted was micro, and macro was the overall direction all that clicking was heading toward.

A "micro" player, in my mind, was someone who was very good at performing starcraft. A "macro" player was someone who would direct all that micro towards a cohesive goal.
Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?
Xiphos
Profile Blog Joined July 2009
Canada7507 Posts
June 14 2014 00:14 GMT
#1150
On June 14 2014 08:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 14 2014 08:32 DoubleReed wrote:
On June 14 2014 08:11 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On June 14 2014 07:52 DoubleReed wrote:
On June 14 2014 07:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On June 13 2014 22:28 Big J wrote:
On June 13 2014 21:30 Hider wrote:
On June 13 2014 12:59 DoubleReed wrote:
On June 13 2014 12:44 Hider wrote:
On June 13 2014 12:07 DoubleReed wrote:
I think when they say "micro-management" they're referring to macro, not micro. Like micromanaging your base and workers (because I don't think there are worker/harvester units). It's just a poor choice of words. In the videos and such it looks like you're dealing with plenty of positioning and unit control.

But yea. "Micro-management" =/= Micro.


Well, when they can't get the basic terms straight, I really doubt they can make a decent game at all. I really have no hope at all for this game. The artillery game has a bit more potenital, though I am very dissapointed that they didn't respond to my comments about micro. Seems like they haven't really studied yet which variables to tweak on in order to create micro interactions. That's a bit dissapointing when they already are 1 year into the project.


Well now you're just being silly. Micro-management is like a real word. You're allowed to use real words to describe your game.

I'm a bit skeptical of the game, because I can't really understand how scouting and harassment make any sense, but it looks pretty cool. There's no need to be silly.


Eh what are you talking about? If they don't know the difference between micro and macro and they are responsible for developing an RTS, I don't have very high hopes for them.


Well, the term micromanagment originates from managing a firms details and could very well be understood as "how you manage your economy". I'm not familiar how and whether the term is being used outside of starcraft in the RTS world. But knowing the term before starcraft, it did indeed not make too much sense in the beginning that you would call things like the queuing of singular units macromanagment, when it is actually just managing details.
Nevertheless, since Starcraft is the one and only real big RTS games currently, it would make senae to use the same words in the same sense


By definition, micromanagement is controlling/microing small scale things while macromanagement is controlling/microing large scale things.

In business, macromanagement is when your boss sends your team a memo telling you the release date is ______. Micromanagment is when he fucking calls the individual engineer and tells him how to code.

The same is true in an RTS.

Micromanagement is telling each barracks it needs to make a unit. Macromanagement is when you decide you can afford X barracks on Y expansions.


Well generally in Starcraft jargon "micro" refers to unit/army control while "macro" refers to economy/base control. Both of those would be micromanaging in colloquial speak.

A more textbook example of micromanagement is something like the Civilization series, where you can adjust every little thing about your cities. You can tweak and adjust citizens and where people are farming or whatever.

If anything, in Starcraft we don't really talk about "Macromanagement" except maybe when we refer to somebody's overarching strategy. But when a person says "that dude has better macro than me" that's just referring to his economy/base control.


I never realized this... I always thought "macro better" meant that the overall process and build was efficient and that the only way to macro well was with good enough micro to actually get all the pieces moving.

I never realized people meant how often the clicked buildings...


I hardly think you can refer to base control as "clicking on buildings"...

I mean making your build efficient requires a great deal of timing, speed, and mechanics.

Besides, most people just use hotkeys for buildings. Who clicks on buildings?


And most people use hotkeys instead of reselecting their army everytime.

I just always thought hitting hotkeys to get pixels on the screen to do what you wanted was micro, and macro was the overall direction all that clicking was heading toward.

A "micro" player, in my mind, was someone who was very good at performing starcraft. A "macro" player was someone who would direct all that micro towards a cohesive goal.


Micro = How to USE the troop efficiently.

Macro = How to MANAGE your economy so you can PRODUCE the most units from the highest tech possible.

An RTS game requires decision making skills to formulate an overall strategy of how to win the game in terms of BOTH economic management and the ability to utilize the produced units appropriately.

I`ve said it and I`ll say it again. The reason why RTS isn`t as "popular" as MOBAs is simply because in MOBAs, you can "show" off more no only to ONE person a la competitive SC playing but you get to show off to NINE players across the board. A secondary reason is that in RTS, every single loss is more or less attributed to your OWN MISTAKES whereas in MOBAs, everybody is "designated" for one specific role and thus the stress level is much more divided across the team.

However, this isn't to say that MOBAs ain't difficult in any means, it just have a whole different level of skillset. MOBAs are much about "informational complexity" over "mechanical complexity", you have to memorize more informations of over 100 units.

In order to bring MOBAs' level of audience back to RTS, you have to have more team games, more role-based game such as Team Melee of BW games. And also you need to have the "achievement" oriented design of MOBAs for micro-transaction items.

RTS as a whole genre CAN definitely achieve MOBAs' current popularity (BW has done it, WC has done it) with a few tweaks there and there that frankly doesn't even take much programming to implement. However such "innovative tweaks" and I put quotations there because MOBAs have already done them and we will be more or less mimicking their product won't come from SC2's developers or not even from Blizzard at all. We just have to be patient for one company to have enough "courage and audacity".
2014 - ᕙ( •̀ل͜•́) ϡ Raise your bows brood warriors! ᕙ( •̀ل͜•́) ϡ
ETisME
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
12387 Posts
June 14 2014 01:11 GMT
#1151
http://www.mweb.co.za/games/ViewNewsArticle/tabid/2549/Article/11329/League-of-Legends-vs-Dota-2-A-comparison-of-titanic-proportions.aspx

what's the peak viewership/concurrent players stats etc for BW?

The moba scene is huge enough to have two of the biggest esport games ever to be successful, still growing in every aspect and consistently.
This is called macro environment.
其疾如风,其徐如林,侵掠如火,不动如山,难知如阴,动如雷震。
Xiphos
Profile Blog Joined July 2009
Canada7507 Posts
June 14 2014 01:40 GMT
#1152
On June 14 2014 10:11 ETisME wrote:
http://www.mweb.co.za/games/ViewNewsArticle/tabid/2549/Article/11329/League-of-Legends-vs-Dota-2-A-comparison-of-titanic-proportions.aspx

what's the peak viewership/concurrent players stats etc for BW?

The moba scene is huge enough to have two of the biggest esport games ever to be successful, still growing in every aspect and consistently.
This is called macro environment.


Congratz to them!

Now do you have any idea on how to re-establish RTS games as the number 1 professionally played video game?

We should all confluence together to bring out marketing ideas, design ideas, and community involvement idea to compete in this industry.
2014 - ᕙ( •̀ل͜•́) ϡ Raise your bows brood warriors! ᕙ( •̀ل͜•́) ϡ
ETisME
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
12387 Posts
June 14 2014 01:59 GMT
#1153
On June 14 2014 10:40 Xiphos wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 14 2014 10:11 ETisME wrote:
http://www.mweb.co.za/games/ViewNewsArticle/tabid/2549/Article/11329/League-of-Legends-vs-Dota-2-A-comparison-of-titanic-proportions.aspx

what's the peak viewership/concurrent players stats etc for BW?

The moba scene is huge enough to have two of the biggest esport games ever to be successful, still growing in every aspect and consistently.
This is called macro environment.


Congratz to them!

Now do you have any idea on how to re-establish RTS games as the number 1 professionally played video game?

We should all confluence together to bring out marketing ideas, design ideas, and community involvement idea to compete in this industry.

any reason why we need to re-establish it as number 1 professionally played video game?
Do you see FPS scene all freaking out because they are not number 1 professionally played video game?
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-10-12-this-is-how-big-league-of-legends-is
I don't see the comments people are crying "shit my game is not top game any more and we need to go back to be number 1 again"

You might be somehow convinced that the RTS scene could be as big as MOBA scene or the amount of audience it had X years ago, I would suggest you to reconsider that.
Companies and publisher studies the market size and clearly they aren't as optimistic as you are.
其疾如风,其徐如林,侵掠如火,不动如山,难知如阴,动如雷震。
Xiphos
Profile Blog Joined July 2009
Canada7507 Posts
June 14 2014 02:04 GMT
#1154
On June 14 2014 10:59 ETisME wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 14 2014 10:40 Xiphos wrote:
On June 14 2014 10:11 ETisME wrote:
http://www.mweb.co.za/games/ViewNewsArticle/tabid/2549/Article/11329/League-of-Legends-vs-Dota-2-A-comparison-of-titanic-proportions.aspx

what's the peak viewership/concurrent players stats etc for BW?

The moba scene is huge enough to have two of the biggest esport games ever to be successful, still growing in every aspect and consistently.
This is called macro environment.


Congratz to them!

Now do you have any idea on how to re-establish RTS games as the number 1 professionally played video game?

We should all confluence together to bring out marketing ideas, design ideas, and community involvement idea to compete in this industry.

any reason why we need to re-establish it as number 1 professionally played video game?
Do you see FPS scene all freaking out because they are not number 1 professionally played video game?
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-10-12-this-is-how-big-league-of-legends-is
I don't see the comments people are crying "shit my game is not top game any more and we need to go back to be number 1 again"

You might be somehow convinced that the RTS scene could be as big as MOBA scene or the amount of audience it had X years ago, I would suggest you to reconsider that.
Companies and publisher studies the market size and clearly they aren't as optimistic as you are.


The market change, it is time to adopt along with it.

As long as you adopt properly to the situation with better/more appropriate selling models, game modes/features, there is no reason why RTS can't be the number 1 professionally played video game anymore.

See this is why we need to improve ourselves, we won't ever improve our believe genre with such defeatist attitude. So the RTS community shouldn't just sit around idly thinking about the dire situation of this moment but rather what could be done in the future to improve the circumstance.
2014 - ᕙ( •̀ل͜•́) ϡ Raise your bows brood warriors! ᕙ( •̀ل͜•́) ϡ
ETisME
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
12387 Posts
June 14 2014 02:24 GMT
#1155
On June 14 2014 11:04 Xiphos wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 14 2014 10:59 ETisME wrote:
On June 14 2014 10:40 Xiphos wrote:
On June 14 2014 10:11 ETisME wrote:
http://www.mweb.co.za/games/ViewNewsArticle/tabid/2549/Article/11329/League-of-Legends-vs-Dota-2-A-comparison-of-titanic-proportions.aspx

what's the peak viewership/concurrent players stats etc for BW?

The moba scene is huge enough to have two of the biggest esport games ever to be successful, still growing in every aspect and consistently.
This is called macro environment.


Congratz to them!

Now do you have any idea on how to re-establish RTS games as the number 1 professionally played video game?

We should all confluence together to bring out marketing ideas, design ideas, and community involvement idea to compete in this industry.

any reason why we need to re-establish it as number 1 professionally played video game?
Do you see FPS scene all freaking out because they are not number 1 professionally played video game?
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-10-12-this-is-how-big-league-of-legends-is
I don't see the comments people are crying "shit my game is not top game any more and we need to go back to be number 1 again"

You might be somehow convinced that the RTS scene could be as big as MOBA scene or the amount of audience it had X years ago, I would suggest you to reconsider that.
Companies and publisher studies the market size and clearly they aren't as optimistic as you are.


The market change, it is time to adopt along with it.

As long as you adopt properly to the situation with better/more appropriate selling models, game modes/features, there is no reason why RTS can't be the number 1 professionally played video game anymore.

See this is why we need to improve ourselves, we won't ever improve our believe genre with such defeatist attitude. So the RTS community shouldn't just sit around idly thinking about the dire situation of this moment but rather what could be done in the future to improve the circumstance.

There is a big difference between improving to make RTS a bigger genre again and number 1 professionally played video game.

The biggest reason why RTS can't be a "number 1 professionally played video game" again is because the current MOBA is what the market trend is liking.

Adapting doesn't mean RTS scene will achieve the same success.
Adapting doesn't mean RTS has to sacrifice its identity to grab some markets from MOBA.

Even MOBA has plenty of rooms for adapting and companies are searching for other ways to explore the market segments such as blizzard HOTS.

Instead of having unrealistic expectation and over simplified mindset, we should be focusing on improving the games.
Not to achieve number 1 whatever.
That is some idiotic pride because no one cares if it is "number 1 professionally played video game" if the game is not fun; not enjoyable to watch; low viewership..

Let alone you first even need to show there is still a huge market waiting in the RTS scene for business to explore, after SC2 is taken in consideration.
The unhappy RTS community , such as yourself, is not big enough for the business to dig into for the untapped audience

For there to be even a consideration of what the ideal modern RTS is, there must exist a big enough demand for it.

Otherwise it's just a brunch of people listing out XYZ would make a perfect RTS and how everyone surely will like it and crying out why there is no company developing a new RTS game with all this list, or why the new RTS is not doing as well as it should etc.
其疾如风,其徐如林,侵掠如火,不动如山,难知如阴,动如雷震。
Xiphos
Profile Blog Joined July 2009
Canada7507 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-06-14 02:58:13
June 14 2014 02:55 GMT
#1156
On June 14 2014 11:24 ETisME wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 14 2014 11:04 Xiphos wrote:
On June 14 2014 10:59 ETisME wrote:
On June 14 2014 10:40 Xiphos wrote:
On June 14 2014 10:11 ETisME wrote:
http://www.mweb.co.za/games/ViewNewsArticle/tabid/2549/Article/11329/League-of-Legends-vs-Dota-2-A-comparison-of-titanic-proportions.aspx

what's the peak viewership/concurrent players stats etc for BW?

The moba scene is huge enough to have two of the biggest esport games ever to be successful, still growing in every aspect and consistently.
This is called macro environment.


Congratz to them!

Now do you have any idea on how to re-establish RTS games as the number 1 professionally played video game?

We should all confluence together to bring out marketing ideas, design ideas, and community involvement idea to compete in this industry.

any reason why we need to re-establish it as number 1 professionally played video game?
Do you see FPS scene all freaking out because they are not number 1 professionally played video game?
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-10-12-this-is-how-big-league-of-legends-is
I don't see the comments people are crying "shit my game is not top game any more and we need to go back to be number 1 again"

You might be somehow convinced that the RTS scene could be as big as MOBA scene or the amount of audience it had X years ago, I would suggest you to reconsider that.
Companies and publisher studies the market size and clearly they aren't as optimistic as you are.


The market change, it is time to adopt along with it.

As long as you adopt properly to the situation with better/more appropriate selling models, game modes/features, there is no reason why RTS can't be the number 1 professionally played video game anymore.

See this is why we need to improve ourselves, we won't ever improve our believe genre with such defeatist attitude. So the RTS community shouldn't just sit around idly thinking about the dire situation of this moment but rather what could be done in the future to improve the circumstance.

There is a big difference between improving to make RTS a bigger genre again and number 1 professionally played video game.

The biggest reason why RTS can't be a "number 1 professionally played video game" again is because the current MOBA is what the market trend is liking.

Adapting doesn't mean RTS scene will achieve the same success.
Adapting doesn't mean RTS has to sacrifice its identity to grab some markets from MOBA.

Even MOBA has plenty of rooms for adapting and companies are searching for other ways to explore the market segments such as blizzard HOTS.

Instead of having unrealistic expectation and over simplified mindset, we should be focusing on improving the games.
Not to achieve number 1 whatever.
That is some idiotic pride because no one cares if it is "number 1 professionally played video game" if the game is not fun; not enjoyable to watch; low viewership..

Let alone you first even need to show there is still a huge market waiting in the RTS scene for business to explore, after SC2 is taken in consideration.
The unhappy RTS community , such as yourself, is not big enough for the business to dig into for the untapped audience

For there to be even a consideration of what the ideal modern RTS is, there must exist a big enough demand for it.

Otherwise it's just a brunch of people listing out XYZ would make a perfect RTS and how everyone surely will like it and crying out why there is no company developing a new RTS game with all this list, or why the new RTS is not doing as well as it should etc.


Okay that's a contradictory statement. By improving the game = more fun = more viewership = climbing the ladder.

So yeah that isn't detracting from what was aforementioned in the post.

We should really look for what the MOBA companies did right in terms of managing their professional scene.

For instance, Valve didn't get involved nearly as much as Blizzard did with all their WCSs. Valve only hosted the International, which is now btw sponsored majorly by the fans.

What Valve and Riot did in their game that attracted a huge audience in the first place have ofc something to do with how the game is designed to maximized the "fun factor" and it clearly showed that how the current SC2 scene is organized competitively, it isn't as "social" as what Riot and Valve did and thus handicapping the RTS viewership.

The key is to figure what Valve + Riot did right in their approach in their game and imitate their overall strategies in order to formulate a strong foundation so that military commander simulation games can become the number one professionally played video game again.

It isn't to make the "perfect RTS" game but rather listing up features and ideas learned from Riot and Valve in order to make the "next best thing". So we need to apply the formula from MOBA companies to real time military commander simulation games.
2014 - ᕙ( •̀ل͜•́) ϡ Raise your bows brood warriors! ᕙ( •̀ل͜•́) ϡ
ETisME
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
12387 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-06-14 03:41:57
June 14 2014 03:33 GMT
#1157
On June 14 2014 11:55 Xiphos wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 14 2014 11:24 ETisME wrote:
On June 14 2014 11:04 Xiphos wrote:
On June 14 2014 10:59 ETisME wrote:
On June 14 2014 10:40 Xiphos wrote:
On June 14 2014 10:11 ETisME wrote:
http://www.mweb.co.za/games/ViewNewsArticle/tabid/2549/Article/11329/League-of-Legends-vs-Dota-2-A-comparison-of-titanic-proportions.aspx

what's the peak viewership/concurrent players stats etc for BW?

The moba scene is huge enough to have two of the biggest esport games ever to be successful, still growing in every aspect and consistently.
This is called macro environment.


Congratz to them!

Now do you have any idea on how to re-establish RTS games as the number 1 professionally played video game?

We should all confluence together to bring out marketing ideas, design ideas, and community involvement idea to compete in this industry.

any reason why we need to re-establish it as number 1 professionally played video game?
Do you see FPS scene all freaking out because they are not number 1 professionally played video game?
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-10-12-this-is-how-big-league-of-legends-is
I don't see the comments people are crying "shit my game is not top game any more and we need to go back to be number 1 again"

You might be somehow convinced that the RTS scene could be as big as MOBA scene or the amount of audience it had X years ago, I would suggest you to reconsider that.
Companies and publisher studies the market size and clearly they aren't as optimistic as you are.


The market change, it is time to adopt along with it.

As long as you adopt properly to the situation with better/more appropriate selling models, game modes/features, there is no reason why RTS can't be the number 1 professionally played video game anymore.

See this is why we need to improve ourselves, we won't ever improve our believe genre with such defeatist attitude. So the RTS community shouldn't just sit around idly thinking about the dire situation of this moment but rather what could be done in the future to improve the circumstance.

There is a big difference between improving to make RTS a bigger genre again and number 1 professionally played video game.

The biggest reason why RTS can't be a "number 1 professionally played video game" again is because the current MOBA is what the market trend is liking.

Adapting doesn't mean RTS scene will achieve the same success.
Adapting doesn't mean RTS has to sacrifice its identity to grab some markets from MOBA.

Even MOBA has plenty of rooms for adapting and companies are searching for other ways to explore the market segments such as blizzard HOTS.

Instead of having unrealistic expectation and over simplified mindset, we should be focusing on improving the games.
Not to achieve number 1 whatever.
That is some idiotic pride because no one cares if it is "number 1 professionally played video game" if the game is not fun; not enjoyable to watch; low viewership..

Let alone you first even need to show there is still a huge market waiting in the RTS scene for business to explore, after SC2 is taken in consideration.
The unhappy RTS community , such as yourself, is not big enough for the business to dig into for the untapped audience

For there to be even a consideration of what the ideal modern RTS is, there must exist a big enough demand for it.

Otherwise it's just a brunch of people listing out XYZ would make a perfect RTS and how everyone surely will like it and crying out why there is no company developing a new RTS game with all this list, or why the new RTS is not doing as well as it should etc.


Okay that's a contradictory statement. By improving the game = more fun = more viewership = climbing the ladder.

So yeah that isn't detracting from what was aforementioned in the post.

We should really look for what the MOBA companies did right in terms of managing their professional scene.

For instance, Valve didn't get involved nearly as much as Blizzard did with all their WCSs. Valve only hosted the International, which is now btw sponsored majorly by the fans.

What Valve and Riot did in their game that attracted a huge audience in the first place have ofc something to do with how the game is designed to maximized the "fun factor" and it clearly showed that how the current SC2 scene is organized competitively, it isn't as "social" as what Riot and Valve did and thus handicapping the RTS viewership.

The key is to figure what Valve + Riot did right in their approach in their game and imitate their overall strategies in order to formulate a strong foundation so that military commander simulation games can become the number one professionally played video game again.

It isn't to make the "perfect RTS" game but rather listing up features and ideas learned from Riot and Valve in order to make the "next best thing". So we need to apply the formula from MOBA companies to real time military commander simulation games.

Of cause that sentence is contradicting, because it is meant to show your goal is completely irrelevant.

Why would you aim to be number 1 whatever when the RTS scene is small enough as it is? Isn't the main purpose is to make the game fun and attract players if there is any more players to attract.

Look at all your arguments again, everything is based upon how to make it being a number 1 professionally played video game.
It makes no difference whether it is number 2 or 3 or even 50.
It's about maximizing the RTS market and the RTS market is smaller than the MOBA one currently for certain.

the public forum and public chat are horrible in LoL, you can search about it.
The social factor all comes with the huge player base.

Your post is proving my point exactly.
You are blaming on the RTS viewership/scene on companies decisions and how it makes RTS scene smaller than what it should be.
You are just listing XYZ.
You are already blaming it on other factors.

If this was in FPS genre, BF4 for example which wasn't very liked, people went back to BF3 or another FPS all together, and that is because there is a demand for it.
Or diablo 3 vanilla, people went to torchlight and path of exile.
其疾如风,其徐如林,侵掠如火,不动如山,难知如阴,动如雷震。
Xiphos
Profile Blog Joined July 2009
Canada7507 Posts
June 14 2014 04:15 GMT
#1158
On June 14 2014 12:33 ETisME wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 14 2014 11:55 Xiphos wrote:
On June 14 2014 11:24 ETisME wrote:
On June 14 2014 11:04 Xiphos wrote:
On June 14 2014 10:59 ETisME wrote:
On June 14 2014 10:40 Xiphos wrote:
On June 14 2014 10:11 ETisME wrote:
http://www.mweb.co.za/games/ViewNewsArticle/tabid/2549/Article/11329/League-of-Legends-vs-Dota-2-A-comparison-of-titanic-proportions.aspx

what's the peak viewership/concurrent players stats etc for BW?

The moba scene is huge enough to have two of the biggest esport games ever to be successful, still growing in every aspect and consistently.
This is called macro environment.


Congratz to them!

Now do you have any idea on how to re-establish RTS games as the number 1 professionally played video game?

We should all confluence together to bring out marketing ideas, design ideas, and community involvement idea to compete in this industry.

any reason why we need to re-establish it as number 1 professionally played video game?
Do you see FPS scene all freaking out because they are not number 1 professionally played video game?
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-10-12-this-is-how-big-league-of-legends-is
I don't see the comments people are crying "shit my game is not top game any more and we need to go back to be number 1 again"

You might be somehow convinced that the RTS scene could be as big as MOBA scene or the amount of audience it had X years ago, I would suggest you to reconsider that.
Companies and publisher studies the market size and clearly they aren't as optimistic as you are.


The market change, it is time to adopt along with it.

As long as you adopt properly to the situation with better/more appropriate selling models, game modes/features, there is no reason why RTS can't be the number 1 professionally played video game anymore.

See this is why we need to improve ourselves, we won't ever improve our believe genre with such defeatist attitude. So the RTS community shouldn't just sit around idly thinking about the dire situation of this moment but rather what could be done in the future to improve the circumstance.

There is a big difference between improving to make RTS a bigger genre again and number 1 professionally played video game.

The biggest reason why RTS can't be a "number 1 professionally played video game" again is because the current MOBA is what the market trend is liking.

Adapting doesn't mean RTS scene will achieve the same success.
Adapting doesn't mean RTS has to sacrifice its identity to grab some markets from MOBA.

Even MOBA has plenty of rooms for adapting and companies are searching for other ways to explore the market segments such as blizzard HOTS.

Instead of having unrealistic expectation and over simplified mindset, we should be focusing on improving the games.
Not to achieve number 1 whatever.
That is some idiotic pride because no one cares if it is "number 1 professionally played video game" if the game is not fun; not enjoyable to watch; low viewership..

Let alone you first even need to show there is still a huge market waiting in the RTS scene for business to explore, after SC2 is taken in consideration.
The unhappy RTS community , such as yourself, is not big enough for the business to dig into for the untapped audience

For there to be even a consideration of what the ideal modern RTS is, there must exist a big enough demand for it.

Otherwise it's just a brunch of people listing out XYZ would make a perfect RTS and how everyone surely will like it and crying out why there is no company developing a new RTS game with all this list, or why the new RTS is not doing as well as it should etc.


Okay that's a contradictory statement. By improving the game = more fun = more viewership = climbing the ladder.

So yeah that isn't detracting from what was aforementioned in the post.

We should really look for what the MOBA companies did right in terms of managing their professional scene.

For instance, Valve didn't get involved nearly as much as Blizzard did with all their WCSs. Valve only hosted the International, which is now btw sponsored majorly by the fans.

What Valve and Riot did in their game that attracted a huge audience in the first place have ofc something to do with how the game is designed to maximized the "fun factor" and it clearly showed that how the current SC2 scene is organized competitively, it isn't as "social" as what Riot and Valve did and thus handicapping the RTS viewership.

The key is to figure what Valve + Riot did right in their approach in their game and imitate their overall strategies in order to formulate a strong foundation so that military commander simulation games can become the number one professionally played video game again.

It isn't to make the "perfect RTS" game but rather listing up features and ideas learned from Riot and Valve in order to make the "next best thing". So we need to apply the formula from MOBA companies to real time military commander simulation games.

Of cause that sentence is contradicting, because it is meant to show your goal is completely irrelevant.

Why would you aim to be number 1 whatever when the RTS scene is small enough as it is? Isn't the main purpose is to make the game fun and attract players if there is any more players to attract.

Look at all your arguments again, everything is based upon how to make it being a number 1 professionally played video game.
It makes no difference whether it is number 2 or 3 or even 50.
It's about maximizing the RTS market and the RTS market is smaller than the MOBA one currently for certain.

the public forum and public chat are horrible in LoL, you can search about it.
The social factor all comes with the huge player base.

Your post is proving my point exactly.
You are blaming on the RTS viewership/scene on companies decisions and how it makes RTS scene smaller than what it should be.
You are just listing XYZ.
You are already blaming it on other factors.

If this was in FPS genre, BF4 for example which wasn't very liked, people went back to BF3 or another FPS all together, and that is because there is a demand for it.
Or diablo 3 vanilla, people went to torchlight and path of exile.


Ofc a big factor on the decrease in RTS viewership/scene is attributed on Blizzard's planning process.

Btw, I have never ceased blaming SC2's design department as that should be public knowledge. Just because I didn't delve into it doesn't mean that I don't advocate for it.

However SC2's marketing department, PR manager and Blizzard's "esport team" could definitely improve on game's other aspect to make it more social and promote more team-based game from the beginning instead of strictly focusing on the 1 vs 1 competitive scene. That's a mistake that can be fixed with LotV promotional changes.

You haven't refuted my point on what Valve is doing right to promote their game via compendium, via the observers and both valve + riot providing more incentive so that the players would enjoy flaunting those fluffs to their friends.

Blizzard ain't doing any of that. Its akin to blaming someone that lift more weights than ya because his gym routine is better than ya.

You are acting that listing X, Y, and Z methods/ways of improving real time military commander simulation games' presence in the professional video gaming industry to be the most absolute abhorrent conduct while it should be utterly what we should explore and analyse.

So this should be a combination of "how the game is designed to maximized the "fun factor" (which I've previously mentioned) and company's planning process to elevate the game for long-term spotlight.
2014 - ᕙ( •̀ل͜•́) ϡ Raise your bows brood warriors! ᕙ( •̀ل͜•́) ϡ
ETisME
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
12387 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-06-14 04:48:12
June 14 2014 04:47 GMT
#1159
On June 14 2014 13:15 Xiphos wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 14 2014 12:33 ETisME wrote:
On June 14 2014 11:55 Xiphos wrote:
On June 14 2014 11:24 ETisME wrote:
On June 14 2014 11:04 Xiphos wrote:
On June 14 2014 10:59 ETisME wrote:
On June 14 2014 10:40 Xiphos wrote:
On June 14 2014 10:11 ETisME wrote:
http://www.mweb.co.za/games/ViewNewsArticle/tabid/2549/Article/11329/League-of-Legends-vs-Dota-2-A-comparison-of-titanic-proportions.aspx

what's the peak viewership/concurrent players stats etc for BW?

The moba scene is huge enough to have two of the biggest esport games ever to be successful, still growing in every aspect and consistently.
This is called macro environment.


Congratz to them!

Now do you have any idea on how to re-establish RTS games as the number 1 professionally played video game?

We should all confluence together to bring out marketing ideas, design ideas, and community involvement idea to compete in this industry.

any reason why we need to re-establish it as number 1 professionally played video game?
Do you see FPS scene all freaking out because they are not number 1 professionally played video game?
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-10-12-this-is-how-big-league-of-legends-is
I don't see the comments people are crying "shit my game is not top game any more and we need to go back to be number 1 again"

You might be somehow convinced that the RTS scene could be as big as MOBA scene or the amount of audience it had X years ago, I would suggest you to reconsider that.
Companies and publisher studies the market size and clearly they aren't as optimistic as you are.


The market change, it is time to adopt along with it.

As long as you adopt properly to the situation with better/more appropriate selling models, game modes/features, there is no reason why RTS can't be the number 1 professionally played video game anymore.

See this is why we need to improve ourselves, we won't ever improve our believe genre with such defeatist attitude. So the RTS community shouldn't just sit around idly thinking about the dire situation of this moment but rather what could be done in the future to improve the circumstance.

There is a big difference between improving to make RTS a bigger genre again and number 1 professionally played video game.

The biggest reason why RTS can't be a "number 1 professionally played video game" again is because the current MOBA is what the market trend is liking.

Adapting doesn't mean RTS scene will achieve the same success.
Adapting doesn't mean RTS has to sacrifice its identity to grab some markets from MOBA.

Even MOBA has plenty of rooms for adapting and companies are searching for other ways to explore the market segments such as blizzard HOTS.

Instead of having unrealistic expectation and over simplified mindset, we should be focusing on improving the games.
Not to achieve number 1 whatever.
That is some idiotic pride because no one cares if it is "number 1 professionally played video game" if the game is not fun; not enjoyable to watch; low viewership..

Let alone you first even need to show there is still a huge market waiting in the RTS scene for business to explore, after SC2 is taken in consideration.
The unhappy RTS community , such as yourself, is not big enough for the business to dig into for the untapped audience

For there to be even a consideration of what the ideal modern RTS is, there must exist a big enough demand for it.

Otherwise it's just a brunch of people listing out XYZ would make a perfect RTS and how everyone surely will like it and crying out why there is no company developing a new RTS game with all this list, or why the new RTS is not doing as well as it should etc.


Okay that's a contradictory statement. By improving the game = more fun = more viewership = climbing the ladder.

So yeah that isn't detracting from what was aforementioned in the post.

We should really look for what the MOBA companies did right in terms of managing their professional scene.

For instance, Valve didn't get involved nearly as much as Blizzard did with all their WCSs. Valve only hosted the International, which is now btw sponsored majorly by the fans.

What Valve and Riot did in their game that attracted a huge audience in the first place have ofc something to do with how the game is designed to maximized the "fun factor" and it clearly showed that how the current SC2 scene is organized competitively, it isn't as "social" as what Riot and Valve did and thus handicapping the RTS viewership.

The key is to figure what Valve + Riot did right in their approach in their game and imitate their overall strategies in order to formulate a strong foundation so that military commander simulation games can become the number one professionally played video game again.

It isn't to make the "perfect RTS" game but rather listing up features and ideas learned from Riot and Valve in order to make the "next best thing". So we need to apply the formula from MOBA companies to real time military commander simulation games.

Of cause that sentence is contradicting, because it is meant to show your goal is completely irrelevant.

Why would you aim to be number 1 whatever when the RTS scene is small enough as it is? Isn't the main purpose is to make the game fun and attract players if there is any more players to attract.

Look at all your arguments again, everything is based upon how to make it being a number 1 professionally played video game.
It makes no difference whether it is number 2 or 3 or even 50.
It's about maximizing the RTS market and the RTS market is smaller than the MOBA one currently for certain.

the public forum and public chat are horrible in LoL, you can search about it.
The social factor all comes with the huge player base.

Your post is proving my point exactly.
You are blaming on the RTS viewership/scene on companies decisions and how it makes RTS scene smaller than what it should be.
You are just listing XYZ.
You are already blaming it on other factors.

If this was in FPS genre, BF4 for example which wasn't very liked, people went back to BF3 or another FPS all together, and that is because there is a demand for it.
Or diablo 3 vanilla, people went to torchlight and path of exile.


Ofc a big factor on the decrease in RTS viewership/scene is attributed on Blizzard's planning process.

Btw, I have never ceased blaming SC2's design department as that should be public knowledge. Just because I didn't delve into it doesn't mean that I don't advocate for it.

However SC2's marketing department, PR manager and Blizzard's "esport team" could definitely improve on game's other aspect to make it more social and promote more team-based game from the beginning instead of strictly focusing on the 1 vs 1 competitive scene. That's a mistake that can be fixed with LotV promotional changes.

You haven't refuted my point on what Valve is doing right to promote their game via compendium, via the observers and both valve + riot providing more incentive so that the players would enjoy flaunting those fluffs to their friends.

Blizzard ain't doing any of that. Its akin to blaming someone that lift more weights than ya because his gym routine is better than ya.

You are acting that listing X, Y, and Z methods/ways of improving real time military commander simulation games' presence in the professional video gaming industry to be the most absolute abhorrent conduct while it should be utterly what we should explore and analyse.

So this should be a combination of "how the game is designed to maximized the "fun factor" (which I've previously mentioned) and company's planning process to elevate the game for long-term spotlight.

Those points about increasing social, bragging skins and items aren't going to boost the RTS by millions of players to the point that it can reach MOBA level.
It's not just Valve that does these right, Riot also has limited edition skins and Season league special rewards as well.

The business model compared to SC2 is vastly different.
Dota and LoL are both earning their profit via sales on these items.
SC2 is not.

You can have a look at HOTS, it certain shows Blizzard is fine with adding skins if there is room for profit.
It's a business decision not to do it and Blizzard as a huge cooperation certainly has done their research before doing and not doing anything.

Did you see a huge increase in ladder numbers after the custom decal patch is up?

Are you going to blame the lack of developer and new RTS games on Blizzard and SC2?

You can always find more X Y Z points to complain about.
the execution, the degree of all the XYZs can all be complained about and you can still go on adding X1Y1Z1 points and argue RTS scene should be bigger.

but at the end, it makes no difference.
Starcraft 2 is still one of the few successful game in the genre in recent decades.
其疾如风,其徐如林,侵掠如火,不动如山,难知如阴,动如雷震。
Xiphos
Profile Blog Joined July 2009
Canada7507 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-06-14 12:18:37
June 14 2014 12:16 GMT
#1160
On June 14 2014 13:47 ETisME wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 14 2014 13:15 Xiphos wrote:
On June 14 2014 12:33 ETisME wrote:
On June 14 2014 11:55 Xiphos wrote:
On June 14 2014 11:24 ETisME wrote:
On June 14 2014 11:04 Xiphos wrote:
On June 14 2014 10:59 ETisME wrote:
On June 14 2014 10:40 Xiphos wrote:
On June 14 2014 10:11 ETisME wrote:
http://www.mweb.co.za/games/ViewNewsArticle/tabid/2549/Article/11329/League-of-Legends-vs-Dota-2-A-comparison-of-titanic-proportions.aspx

what's the peak viewership/concurrent players stats etc for BW?

The moba scene is huge enough to have two of the biggest esport games ever to be successful, still growing in every aspect and consistently.
This is called macro environment.


Congratz to them!

Now do you have any idea on how to re-establish RTS games as the number 1 professionally played video game?

We should all confluence together to bring out marketing ideas, design ideas, and community involvement idea to compete in this industry.

any reason why we need to re-establish it as number 1 professionally played video game?
Do you see FPS scene all freaking out because they are not number 1 professionally played video game?
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-10-12-this-is-how-big-league-of-legends-is
I don't see the comments people are crying "shit my game is not top game any more and we need to go back to be number 1 again"

You might be somehow convinced that the RTS scene could be as big as MOBA scene or the amount of audience it had X years ago, I would suggest you to reconsider that.
Companies and publisher studies the market size and clearly they aren't as optimistic as you are.


The market change, it is time to adopt along with it.

As long as you adopt properly to the situation with better/more appropriate selling models, game modes/features, there is no reason why RTS can't be the number 1 professionally played video game anymore.

See this is why we need to improve ourselves, we won't ever improve our believe genre with such defeatist attitude. So the RTS community shouldn't just sit around idly thinking about the dire situation of this moment but rather what could be done in the future to improve the circumstance.

There is a big difference between improving to make RTS a bigger genre again and number 1 professionally played video game.

The biggest reason why RTS can't be a "number 1 professionally played video game" again is because the current MOBA is what the market trend is liking.

Adapting doesn't mean RTS scene will achieve the same success.
Adapting doesn't mean RTS has to sacrifice its identity to grab some markets from MOBA.

Even MOBA has plenty of rooms for adapting and companies are searching for other ways to explore the market segments such as blizzard HOTS.

Instead of having unrealistic expectation and over simplified mindset, we should be focusing on improving the games.
Not to achieve number 1 whatever.
That is some idiotic pride because no one cares if it is "number 1 professionally played video game" if the game is not fun; not enjoyable to watch; low viewership..

Let alone you first even need to show there is still a huge market waiting in the RTS scene for business to explore, after SC2 is taken in consideration.
The unhappy RTS community , such as yourself, is not big enough for the business to dig into for the untapped audience

For there to be even a consideration of what the ideal modern RTS is, there must exist a big enough demand for it.

Otherwise it's just a brunch of people listing out XYZ would make a perfect RTS and how everyone surely will like it and crying out why there is no company developing a new RTS game with all this list, or why the new RTS is not doing as well as it should etc.


Okay that's a contradictory statement. By improving the game = more fun = more viewership = climbing the ladder.

So yeah that isn't detracting from what was aforementioned in the post.

We should really look for what the MOBA companies did right in terms of managing their professional scene.

For instance, Valve didn't get involved nearly as much as Blizzard did with all their WCSs. Valve only hosted the International, which is now btw sponsored majorly by the fans.

What Valve and Riot did in their game that attracted a huge audience in the first place have ofc something to do with how the game is designed to maximized the "fun factor" and it clearly showed that how the current SC2 scene is organized competitively, it isn't as "social" as what Riot and Valve did and thus handicapping the RTS viewership.

The key is to figure what Valve + Riot did right in their approach in their game and imitate their overall strategies in order to formulate a strong foundation so that military commander simulation games can become the number one professionally played video game again.

It isn't to make the "perfect RTS" game but rather listing up features and ideas learned from Riot and Valve in order to make the "next best thing". So we need to apply the formula from MOBA companies to real time military commander simulation games.

Of cause that sentence is contradicting, because it is meant to show your goal is completely irrelevant.

Why would you aim to be number 1 whatever when the RTS scene is small enough as it is? Isn't the main purpose is to make the game fun and attract players if there is any more players to attract.

Look at all your arguments again, everything is based upon how to make it being a number 1 professionally played video game.
It makes no difference whether it is number 2 or 3 or even 50.
It's about maximizing the RTS market and the RTS market is smaller than the MOBA one currently for certain.

the public forum and public chat are horrible in LoL, you can search about it.
The social factor all comes with the huge player base.

Your post is proving my point exactly.
You are blaming on the RTS viewership/scene on companies decisions and how it makes RTS scene smaller than what it should be.
You are just listing XYZ.
You are already blaming it on other factors.

If this was in FPS genre, BF4 for example which wasn't very liked, people went back to BF3 or another FPS all together, and that is because there is a demand for it.
Or diablo 3 vanilla, people went to torchlight and path of exile.


Ofc a big factor on the decrease in RTS viewership/scene is attributed on Blizzard's planning process.

Btw, I have never ceased blaming SC2's design department as that should be public knowledge. Just because I didn't delve into it doesn't mean that I don't advocate for it.

However SC2's marketing department, PR manager and Blizzard's "esport team" could definitely improve on game's other aspect to make it more social and promote more team-based game from the beginning instead of strictly focusing on the 1 vs 1 competitive scene. That's a mistake that can be fixed with LotV promotional changes.

You haven't refuted my point on what Valve is doing right to promote their game via compendium, via the observers and both valve + riot providing more incentive so that the players would enjoy flaunting those fluffs to their friends.

Blizzard ain't doing any of that. Its akin to blaming someone that lift more weights than ya because his gym routine is better than ya.

You are acting that listing X, Y, and Z methods/ways of improving real time military commander simulation games' presence in the professional video gaming industry to be the most absolute abhorrent conduct while it should be utterly what we should explore and analyse.

So this should be a combination of "how the game is designed to maximized the "fun factor" (which I've previously mentioned) and company's planning process to elevate the game for long-term spotlight.

Those points about increasing social, bragging skins and items aren't going to boost the RTS by millions of players to the point that it can reach MOBA level.
It's not just Valve that does these right, Riot also has limited edition skins and Season league special rewards as well.

The business model compared to SC2 is vastly different.
Dota and LoL are both earning their profit via sales on these items.
SC2 is not.

You can have a look at HOTS, it certain shows Blizzard is fine with adding skins if there is room for profit.
It's a business decision not to do it and Blizzard as a huge cooperation certainly has done their research before doing and not doing anything.

Did you see a huge increase in ladder numbers after the custom decal patch is up?

Are you going to blame the lack of developer and new RTS games on Blizzard and SC2?

You can always find more X Y Z points to complain about.
the execution, the degree of all the XYZs can all be complained about and you can still go on adding X1Y1Z1 points and argue RTS scene should be bigger.

but at the end, it makes no difference.
Starcraft 2 is still one of the few successful game in the genre in recent decades.


First of all, http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/closed-threads/401911-new-unit-skins-in-hots-via-leveling is definitely NOT micro transaction. I'm talking about designing your unit and selling the models via store like DotA2 workshop. So Blizzard haven't follow that model.

Its time to adapt. Maybe give those who purchased the game some "virtual currency", make SC2 now free to play and add in the micro transaction model. The old buy to play model isn't working and Blizzard failed to evolve in that department with SC2. But they are learning to improve with Heroes of the Storm and Hearthstone.

And we all know that it has been proven a (more) successful model w/ micro transaction, the compendium and the fact that LoL and DotA2 are both based on team games. There should be absolute no reasons for Blizzard to not introduce these features. And its even BETTER in SC because our age tend to be higher than LoL's players so ourselves can actually afford these skins w/ bothering our parents/guardian.

Yeah SC2 is a successful game in its own right but can it be even be MORE successful? Absolutely. So why aren't Blizzard putting in more effort to make it so?

Maybe instead of focusing their money in WCS (which btw actually hampered more grassroot tournament than it did good), they should put in more resources in actual game developing. That seems to be work wonders for DotA2.

So yeah there can definitely be more improvement from the dev's side for SC2 to gain more popularity.
2014 - ᕙ( •̀ل͜•́) ϡ Raise your bows brood warriors! ᕙ( •̀ل͜•́) ϡ
Prev 1 56 57 58 59 60 81 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
RotterdaM Event
17:00
$100 Stream Ruble
RotterdaM602
Liquipedia
CSO Contender
17:00
#43
Liquipedia
PSISTORM Gaming Misc
15:55
FSL Team League: PTB vs RR
Freeedom21
Liquipedia
Epic.LAN
12:00
Epic.LAN 45 Playoffs Stage
Liquipedia
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
RotterdaM 602
Hui .320
StarCraft: Brood War
Mini 744
Larva 670
firebathero 314
Aegong 89
Hyun 88
TY 71
Noble 18
GoRush 18
yabsab 10
Stormgate
TKL 86
Dota 2
Gorgc7446
qojqva2785
monkeys_forever99
Counter-Strike
fl0m1889
Stewie2K884
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor442
Other Games
Beastyqt630
Lowko177
KnowMe149
Skadoodle148
Trikslyr75
ArmadaUGS65
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick2183
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 19 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• LUISG 72
• printf 27
• Adnapsc2 18
• Migwel
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• sooper7s
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
StarCraft: Brood War
• blackmanpl 21
• HerbMon 19
• 80smullet 10
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• masondota2508
League of Legends
• Nemesis4393
Other Games
• imaqtpie682
Upcoming Events
Sparkling Tuna Cup
16h 23m
Online Event
22h 23m
Esports World Cup
2 days
ByuN vs Astrea
Lambo vs HeRoMaRinE
Clem vs TBD
Solar vs Zoun
SHIN vs Reynor
Maru vs TriGGeR
herO vs Lancer
Cure vs ShoWTimE
Esports World Cup
3 days
Esports World Cup
4 days
Esports World Cup
5 days
CranKy Ducklings
6 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Xiamen Invitational: ShowMatche
RSL Revival: Season 1
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

BSL 2v2 Season 3
Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
CSL Xiamen Invitational
2025 ACS Season 2
Championship of Russia 2025
Underdog Cup #2
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.