StarCraft II really needs to put way more weight on strategy and tactics. Right now it’s way too mechanics-heavy. The young guys with naturally fast reactions and high APM basically own the entire scene. Even if your thinking is sharper and your builds are more creative, the mechanical gap alone tanks your execution, and you still lose. Meanwhile, the kids with fast reflexes just get whatever they want. Strategy and tactical design barely seem to matter anymore.
Now, don’t get me wrong — mechanics obviously matter. High APM isn’t just about raw talent; it takes a ton of grinding to get there. But the weighting is just way too lopsided now. This game has been out for 15 years. Almost everyone knows the unit counters and the meta builds inside and out. So when everyone understands the game at the same level, mechanics become pretty much the only deciding factor. The outcome is basically predetermined from the loading screen. That’s boring.
In same-MMR matchups right now, precision mechanics and APM decide at least 80% of games. The other 20% is everything else. Can the balance team do something about that? Bring mechanics —the hand stuff—down to like 50-60%, and let strategy and tactical thinking — the brain stuff — make up 30-40%. Then maybe 10% for luck and other factors.
The benefits would be huge. It would let the big-brain-but-slow-hands players actually enjoy the game. It would be way friendlier to older players, or the exhausted 9-to-5 office workers who just wanna play a few games after work. It would make pro matches more unpredictable and exciting. And the community would produce way more interesting content like — pro match analysis, strategy breakdowns and new design, new creative build order guides, that kind of stuff.
I think this could be a new direction for future SC2 changes, instead of always hyper-focusing on unit stats or damage numbers. I know it’s just my personal suggestion and probably won’t get noticed. And I know the forums will still be full of contrarians trying to argue with me. I’m used to it.
APM is how you execute tactics in an RTS with unit control (it's called "micro" and "managing multiple groups of units" - potentially in multiple engagements which is strategy, and for maintaining map awareness which is also strategy). This is done simultaneously with macroing - which is where you decide which units you will make (strategy) and allows you to actually make them by choosing when to make structures in what order (strategy) and when to take expansions in what places (strategy).
If you want to execute tactics with micro without worrying about the strategic macro elements, try a MOBA game.
If you want strategy and tactics without tactical micro, you might try an auto-battler like Team Fight Tactics or Mechabellum.
If you want to play a competitive RTS that has a high skill ceiling for both micro and macro, you can't get around the fact that higher APM unlocks higher capacity to execute tactics and strategy, micro and macro. The best you can do is make better decisions with use of your own APM that could close the gap with someone who has higher APM but is making worse decisions in utilizing it.
The reality is that there are many facets of tactics and strategy in a competitive RTS, and they are all done in real time, and so it takes a high amount of mechanical skill to execute them well at high levels. To reduce the mechanical skill ceiling is to also reduce the elements of tactics of strategy in the game.
Don't want to worry about the clicks for map awareness? Ok, you can see everything happening on the map now, and that part of strategy is removed.
Don't care about the clicks for making workers while managing your army and unit production? Ok, town hall structures do the mining automatically - and you no longer have worker harassment as a strategic tool to damage an opponent that has a larger clumped up army than you, encourage them to split that deathball to defend so you can actually take it on in smaller pieces, or potentially overtake them in production so you can soon have the larger army.
Don't care about the clicks for microing to minimize splash damage? Ok, splash damage is removed, now all races just mass blobs of the most DPS-dense units available to them and a-move them into each other, so no need for tactical micro.
Reducing mechanical requirements does not automatically increase strategical variaty, it might even reduce it. There are games out there more suited to you. Relic RTS's, Total War, 8v8 Forged Alliance Forever or any of the other TA/SupCom clones.
I believe if you are too slow it is most likely you do not know what to do in the first place. It is okay to play casually but do not think if a game becomes more casual that you suddenly become any better.
Though the big question is what would you like changed? The most extreme version of what you are asking for would be a custom map called Direct Strike. How close to this would you like to get? Let us hear your version of a game that still can be called Starcraft.
On October 15 2026 00:55 Ravomat wrote: Reducing mechanical requirements does not automatically increase strategical variaty, it might even reduce it. There are games out there more suited to you. Relic RTS's, Total War, 8v8 Forged Alliance Forever or any of the other TA/SupCom clones. .
Great points. You can always just live with the fact that whatever limited playing time you have limits your skill level. The game can still be lots of fun.
I have been in Masters 3 times with 2 races over dozens of seasons and I'd argue I have more fun, playing the game a lot less, than the vast majority of GMs and high Masters players.
On October 15 2026 00:55 Ravomat wrote: Reducing mechanical requirements does not automatically increase strategical variaty, it might even reduce it. There are games out there more suited to you. Relic RTS's, Total War, 8v8 Forged Alliance Forever or any of the other TA/SupCom clones.
I believe if you are too slow it is most likely you do not know what to do in the first place. It is okay to play casually but do not think if a game becomes more casual that you suddenly become any better.
Though the big question is what would you like changed? The most extreme version of what you are asking for would be a custom map called Direct Strike. How close to this would you like to get? Let us hear your version of a game that still can be called Starcraft.
no, I play this game over 10 years, and I know almost every tatics and strategy in this game, but no mattater how much I tried, my apm is stil maintain to the same level, this is hardly change due to human biological nature, but low apm does not mean I dont have a deeper understanding of this game and it is so unfair that my mmr is limited only by this unchangeable reason.
On October 15 2026 00:55 Ravomat wrote: Reducing mechanical requirements does not automatically increase strategical variaty, it might even reduce it. There are games out there more suited to you. Relic RTS's, Total War, 8v8 Forged Alliance Forever or any of the other TA/SupCom clones.
I believe if you are too slow it is most likely you do not know what to do in the first place. It is okay to play casually but do not think if a game becomes more casual that you suddenly become any better.
Though the big question is what would you like changed? The most extreme version of what you are asking for would be a custom map called Direct Strike. How close to this would you like to get? Let us hear your version of a game that still can be called Starcraft.
no, I play this game over 10 years, and I know almost every tatics and strategy in this game, but no mattater how much I tried, my apm is stil maintain to the same level, this is hardly change due to human biological nature, but low apm does not mean I dont have a deeper understanding of this game and it is so unfair that my mmr is limited only by this unchangeable reason.
"I'm much better than my MMR reflects but I'm limited by the biological fact that my APM are too low" is definetly an argument I haven't seen before and I really thought I heard every cope before in the RTS space...
Knowledge is part of the deal, but so is executing it. It doesn't matter if you know every football rule by heart if you can't kick the ball straight. Or to keep it in the Esports realm: All the SC2 knowledge in the world will not make you a good shoutcaster if you can't be entertaining. Then you can complain about the biological fact that your voice might not be as pleasant or that you are not as easily exictable as others, but it won't change the fact that people don't find you entertaining if you don't work around that.
On October 15 2026 00:55 Ravomat wrote: Reducing mechanical requirements does not automatically increase strategical variaty, it might even reduce it. There are games out there more suited to you. Relic RTS's, Total War, 8v8 Forged Alliance Forever or any of the other TA/SupCom clones.
I believe if you are too slow it is most likely you do not know what to do in the first place. It is okay to play casually but do not think if a game becomes more casual that you suddenly become any better.
Though the big question is what would you like changed? The most extreme version of what you are asking for would be a custom map called Direct Strike. How close to this would you like to get? Let us hear your version of a game that still can be called Starcraft.
no, I play this game over 10 years, and I know almost every tatics and strategy in this game, but no mattater how much I tried, my apm is stil maintain to the same level, this is hardly change due to human biological nature, but low apm does not mean I dont have a deeper understanding of this game and it is so unfair that my mmr is limited only by this unchangeable reason.
I knew this was what this is all about as soon as I read the first sentence of your original post. Another guy telling himself he's a hidden strategic genius but because of his poor mechanics he just can't show it. This isn't a new cope, there have been lots of guys like this in the past. Maybe you should try chess, with your mastermind IQ you should do really well there.
I think most people knows the what strategy they should use and when to use it. For example, I know I should be dropping here here and here while I attack the front.
Everyone knows what they need to do to win but most can’t execute it (which is how it should be, it should only be rewarded to people who can mechanically and control their units correctly)
On October 15 2026 00:55 Ravomat wrote: Reducing mechanical requirements does not automatically increase strategical variaty, it might even reduce it. There are games out there more suited to you. Relic RTS's, Total War, 8v8 Forged Alliance Forever or any of the other TA/SupCom clones.
I believe if you are too slow it is most likely you do not know what to do in the first place. It is okay to play casually but do not think if a game becomes more casual that you suddenly become any better.
Though the big question is what would you like changed? The most extreme version of what you are asking for would be a custom map called Direct Strike. How close to this would you like to get? Let us hear your version of a game that still can be called Starcraft.
no, I play this game over 10 years, and I know almost every tatics and strategy in this game, but no mattater how much I tried, my apm is stil maintain to the same level, this is hardly change due to human biological nature, but low apm does not mean I dont have a deeper understanding of this game and it is so unfair that my mmr is limited only by this unchangeable reason.
I knew this was what this is all about as soon as I read the first sentence of your original post. Another guy telling himself he's a hidden strategic genius but because of his poor mechanics he just can't show it. This isn't a new cope, there have been lots of guys like this in the past. Maybe you should try chess, with your mastermind IQ you should do really well there.
I've heard it in variations of balance-whine or "I just don't have the time", but "biology is getting in the way" is specifically new to me
On October 15 2026 00:55 Ravomat wrote: Reducing mechanical requirements does not automatically increase strategical variaty, it might even reduce it. There are games out there more suited to you. Relic RTS's, Total War, 8v8 Forged Alliance Forever or any of the other TA/SupCom clones.
I believe if you are too slow it is most likely you do not know what to do in the first place. It is okay to play casually but do not think if a game becomes more casual that you suddenly become any better.
Though the big question is what would you like changed? The most extreme version of what you are asking for would be a custom map called Direct Strike. How close to this would you like to get? Let us hear your version of a game that still can be called Starcraft.
no, I play this game over 10 years, and I know almost every tatics and strategy in this game, but no mattater how much I tried, my apm is stil maintain to the same level, this is hardly change due to human biological nature, but low apm does not mean I dont have a deeper understanding of this game and it is so unfair that my mmr is limited only by this unchangeable reason.
I knew this was what this is all about as soon as I read the first sentence of your original post. Another guy telling himself he's a hidden strategic genius but because of his poor mechanics he just can't show it. This isn't a new cope, there have been lots of guys like this in the past. Maybe you should try chess, with your mastermind IQ you should do really well there.
I've heard it in variations of balance-whine or "I just don't have the time", but "biology is getting in the way" is specifically new to me
Maybe he has an unrecoverable injury or is missing an arm entirely.
On October 15 2026 00:55 Ravomat wrote: Reducing mechanical requirements does not automatically increase strategical variaty, it might even reduce it. There are games out there more suited to you. Relic RTS's, Total War, 8v8 Forged Alliance Forever or any of the other TA/SupCom clones.
I believe if you are too slow it is most likely you do not know what to do in the first place. It is okay to play casually but do not think if a game becomes more casual that you suddenly become any better.
Though the big question is what would you like changed? The most extreme version of what you are asking for would be a custom map called Direct Strike. How close to this would you like to get? Let us hear your version of a game that still can be called Starcraft.
no, I play this game over 10 years, and I know almost every tatics and strategy in this game, but no mattater how much I tried, my apm is stil maintain to the same level, this is hardly change due to human biological nature, but low apm does not mean I dont have a deeper understanding of this game and it is so unfair that my mmr is limited only by this unchangeable reason.
I knew this was what this is all about as soon as I read the first sentence of your original post. Another guy telling himself he's a hidden strategic genius but because of his poor mechanics he just can't show it. This isn't a new cope, there have been lots of guys like this in the past. Maybe you should try chess, with your mastermind IQ you should do really well there.
I've heard it in variations of balance-whine or "I just don't have the time", but "biology is getting in the way" is specifically new to me
Maybe he has an unrecoverable injury or is missing an arm entirely.
Your reply reminded me of this blind super smash dude:
StarCraft II really needs to put way more weight on strategy and tactics. Right now it’s way too mechanics-heavy. The young guys with naturally fast reactions and high APM basically own the entire scene. Even if your thinking is sharper and your builds are more creative, the mechanical gap alone tanks your execution, and you still lose. Meanwhile, the kids with fast reflexes just get whatever they want. Strategy and tactical design barely seem to matter anymore.
Now, don’t get me wrong — mechanics obviously matter. High APM isn’t just about raw talent; it takes a ton of grinding to get there. But the weighting is just way too lopsided now. This game has been out for 15 years. Almost everyone knows the unit counters and the meta builds inside and out. So when everyone understands the game at the same level, mechanics become pretty much the only deciding factor. The outcome is basically predetermined from the loading screen. That’s boring.
In same-MMR matchups right now, precision mechanics and APM decide at least 80% of games. The other 20% is everything else. Can the balance team do something about that? Bring mechanics —the hand stuff—down to like 50-60%, and let strategy and tactical thinking — the brain stuff — make up 30-40%. Then maybe 10% for luck and other factors.
The benefits would be huge. It would let the big-brain-but-slow-hands players actually enjoy the game. It would be way friendlier to older players, or the exhausted 9-to-5 office workers who just wanna play a few games after work. It would make pro matches more unpredictable and exciting. And the community would produce way more interesting content like — pro match analysis, strategy breakdowns and new design, new creative build order guides, that kind of stuff.
I think this could be a new direction for future SC2 changes, instead of always hyper-focusing on unit stats or damage numbers. I know it’s just my personal suggestion and probably won’t get noticed. And I know the forums will still be full of contrarians trying to argue with me. I’m used to it.
It probably isn't as obvious to you but little strategy deviations happen all the time. Maps change, metas shift, players make their own strategies based around their own skillset and/or knowledge. Even someone like Serral gets taken by surprise once in a blue moon.
I'd wager that the strategy and understanding is costing you even more than mechanics. Also you're glossing over the key fact that your mechanics determine the strategy options to begin with. I'd want to do triple pronged banshee harass every game when I get Terran. Unfortunately that's really fucking hard so I have to settle for two.
I distinctly remember giving MaximusBlack live lessons early on in the game. When I'd point out that the game is over before the first fighting units are even complete he'd go no way then I'd hop in the next game to play it out and prove my point. Is knowing what you need to build mechanics or strategy? If I can kill infinite zealots with a single stalker is that a mechanical gap or is my opponent's strategy bad?
Everything in the game has finite possibilities, especially early on. In the current day only a newer player or someone willfully ignorant would not understand a basic flow chart for this. It's similar to when people would incorrectly assume the 8 workers would bring more diversity and strategy, when it's the complete opposite. The builds just become even more restricted, obvious, and exact in their timings. This results in lesser knowledged players getting turbo astro gapped without even being able to identify what or if they did anything wrong, even in a replay.
I'm genuinely curious what type of fantasy scenario you have in your head in regards to how you want a "strategical advantage" to play out, and moreso how it would apply to anyone other than those who don't know any better. [eg. where little timmy didn't scout or even know what unit to make (knowledge), or one guy massing paper when the other guy is making scissors.] But sincerely, I want to hear what you have envisioned.
The dynamic you're seeking doesn't exist in any rts game outside of the bottom rungs of the ladder. If you're seeking that type of interaction I'd recommend looking to turn based games or auto-battlers to scratch that type of itch.
Quite odd that for such an alleged big issue you were unable to provide even one concrete solution in your post.
The issue with StarCraft isn't that microcontrol should be removed — it's that strategy needs to be added. Take PvT: Terrans go barracks, factory, starport every single game. As a result, if the Protoss transitions into Colossi, the Terran doesn't need to build anything new — he already has a starport with a reactor for medivacs by default and just starts producing Vikings.
In PvZ, the Oracle combines the functions of scouting, harassment, and defense, which also reduces the diversity of strategies.
Zerg, meanwhile, relies too heavily on queens and builds them by default against any build.
And these are just the most glaring examples. But even if at least these things were fixed, the game would become more diverse and interesting.
On October 15 2026 21:27 Glorfindelio wrote: There's this thing in sports that kind of correlates--it's called athleticism and it also kinda matters.
it's not so different, is it? You see it all the time. Most of the guys in sports are incredibly gifted athletes first, and then are coached on the nuances.
Athleticism is actually the commodity - strategy can be taught. I forget where I heard this, but an example is - You can teach someone to read a defense. You can't teach someone to jump over 4 guys and dunk the ball.
On October 15 2026 17:13 BlackEyed wrote: The issue with StarCraft isn't that microcontrol should be removed — it's that strategy needs to be added. Take PvT: Terrans go barracks, factory, starport every single game. As a result, if the Protoss transitions into Colossi, the Terran doesn't need to build anything new — he already has a starport with a reactor for medivacs by default and just starts producing Vikings.
In PvZ, the Oracle combines the functions of scouting, harassment, and defense, which also reduces the diversity of strategies.
Zerg, meanwhile, relies too heavily on queens and builds them by default against any build.
And these are just the most glaring examples. But even if at least these things were fixed, the game would become more diverse and interesting.
What's the preference, though?
You describe Terran always building racks/fac/starport as though it's a bad thing - and that's fine, but it's unclear if your point is that a race having access to all its units is bad for strategy, or good for strategy.
Then the other two seem to be "Toss gets too much out of oracles" and "zerg gets too much out of queens" which is also fair enough but makes me confused on what you want to see. Do you want Queens nerfed and zerg unit answers buffed so we see tech switches in response to tech switches? That sounds reasonable but also exactly what you were complaining about Terran being able to do, if I understood correctly.
On October 15 2026 17:13 BlackEyed wrote: In PvZ, the Oracle combines the functions of scouting, harassment, and defense, which also reduces the diversity of strategies.
Zerg, meanwhile, relies too heavily on queens and builds them by default against any build.
And these are just the most glaring examples. But even if at least these things were fixed, the game would become more diverse and interesting.
I agree. The early game in PvZ is so frustrating, and it doesn’t get any better in the late game.
EPT
