|
qxc's thoughts: The Removal of Macro Mechanics
August 24th, 2015 14:46 GMT
<link href='http://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Open+Sans:300italic,400italic,400,700' rel='stylesheet' type='text/css'><style>#article {background: #fbffe2; font-size: 1.1em; padding-bottom: 50px; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif;} #article .header{background: url(http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/lichter/TL_Strat/qxc/qxcmindbanner.jpg); height: 150px; padding-top: 150px; padding-right: 50px;} #article .text {padding: 0 6%; padding: 0 -o-calc(10% - 24px); padding: 0 -webkit-calc(10% - 24px); padding: 0 calc(10% - 24px); color: #000;} #article .intq{font-weight: bold;} #article .inta {border-left: 2px solid #b2bed4; padding-left: 30px; margin-left: 50px;} #article .inta:hover {border-left: 2px solid #586d92;} #article h1 {font-size: 3em; color: #FFF; text-align: right; margin-bottom: 0;} #article h2 {font-size: 2em; color: #FFF; text-align: right; font-weight: 300; margin: 0; font-style: italic;} #article .pfooter{font-size: .8em; text-transform: uppercase; text-align: center; padding:30px 0 0 0; border-top: 1px solid #ded8b8;} #article a:link, #article a:visited {color: #1f9fae;} #article a:hover {color: #876e18}</style><img src="http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/lichter/TL_Strat/qxc/qxcmindbanner.jpg" style="width:100%;" /><div id="article"><div class="text">
Everything in this article is my opinion unless otherwise stated. As a progamer for several years now, I have a wealth of personal experience and observations to draw upon. That said, sometimes I have to speculate.
What Changed:
In the last few days a new LoTV patch was released. Source: here. MULEs and chronoboost were removed from the game while larva inject was reduced by 50% (generates 2 larva instead of 4), but can be set to auto-cast. There are some other changes in the patch but in this article I’ll be focusing on the macro mechanic changes.
You won’t be seeing this anymore.
General Implications:
The simplest implication is that the economy in each game gets going a bit slower than before. Each race will have less overall income at any given point in the game and their economy will not spike as quickly. From a strategic standpoint, harass and worker killing type builds are stronger as workers are slightly harder to replace now and thus more valuable. No build order has survived fully intact, but most builds are similar. For Terran, we can support fewer production structures for a given base count and have a lower ratio of minerals to gas. While the economies increase a bit slower than before, the game doesn’t feel slower. There is just a heavier emphasis on harass and smaller squad movements rather than just big army on army fights.
As Terran:
As the patch is quite new, I’ll keep my commentary to a Terran perspective. I haven’t had enough time to see how things are going on the Protoss/Zerg sides. There are 2 huge differences with this patch. The first is that early build orders do not involve an orbital command at the normal time and the second orbital comes much later than pre-patch. Unless you can actually use the supply drop you’re better off just producing scvs and the early extra scans are not useful. The balance between scan and supply drop is pretty interesting in the mid game and having more scans than usual is refreshing. Any builds that would abuse Terran’s lack of detection are substantially weaker after the patch. Banshees are basically gone from TvT and the threat of dark templar is pretty light. The lack of a need for extra orbitals also means you can pf your 3rd in almost every matchup and situation. This is a very welcome change as the game has become even more harass oriented.
When playing mech, you won’t notice much of a change in terms of your overall production. Gas has always been the limiting factor for mech so the removal of mules only helps keep the 2 resources more in balance. You’ll no longer easily bank several thousand minerals when playing mech to spend on turrets and extra orbitals. Of course, late game mass orbitals is also gone. Sometimes you’ll add 1 or 2 for more consistent scanning but without mule you can no longer do the heavy orbital economies of old.
When playing bio, you will have to adjust everything you used to do in terms of production structures, gas and expansion timings. As bio is a very mineral heavy unit composition, you can support far less production for any given base count. In addition, if you take the gases for every base you have, you will bank a lot of gas. Bio in TvT now requires even more expanding to increase mineral income to cope with your production requirements or to add some gas heavy units to supplement the basic bio medivac ball. The problem is that terran doesn’t really have accessible gas dumps like the other 2 races making the second option substantially harder. Nothing particularly useful comes out of the barracks that takes a lot of gas relative to its mineral cost. Adding extra factories/starports to dump your gas kind of defeats the purpose because usually at that point you’re so low on money that it’s unreasonable to add additional production anyway. Liberators are the best option right now as a second reactor’d starport offers a lot of production and they are 1:1 ratio of minerals to gas. As an aside, I’m really hoping for a mid/late game upgrade for the reaper to increase their viability past the early game.
My Thoughts:
Some say that Blizzard is making the game too easy and removing too much emphasis from macro. Others say that there will be no difference watching Life macro vs some lesser korean or foreign zerg. Another common argument for macro mechanics is that they are a necessary part of Starcraft as they are an interesting and defining element of the game. There are a number of balance complaints regarding macro mechanics, specifically from the terran perspective but this article is more focused on the philosophy of the changes as balance can be tweaked here and there in the future.
Macro is a big part of Starcraft and always has been. There’s no denying that macro is one of the most defining aspects of Starcraft. That said, Starcraft has so much more to offer than pure macro. The problem is that macro is the gateway to the rest of the game. Without good macro, you can’t experience a substantial part of what Starcraft offers. Micro, strategic decisions, tech switches and mind games all take a back seat to just ‘produce as much stuff as possible’ until you get close to optimal macro. High level macro impresses me in the same way that high level DDR impresses me. It shows a high level of expertise and a great deal of time invested but it does not show me any spark of brilliance. I want Starcraft to be a game that is more about strategy, micro, map control and positioning rather than about performing the same repetitive actions perfectly in order to eke out the biggest army possible. The interesting part of macro in Starcraft is the decision of what to make, not the execution of actually making it. By reducing the physical and mental requirements of macroing, players will have more time to focus on the more interesting parts of Starcraft. That said, removing macro mechanics does not make macro trivial, nor does it impact a player’s ability to make interesting decisions regarding their tech path and unit composition. While the difference in the number of units Life and a lesser Zerg player may decrease with this patch, macroing perfectly while doing all the other tasks on the map is not trivial and differences will still show. In addition, a player like Life will be able to demonstrate his skill by his tech choices and ability to hit sharp timings while multi tasking and controlling the map.
Some arguments have arisen that Blizzard should have done this change in baby steps. They want macro mechanics to be toned back but not removed all together. That way they would still have an impact if players are good enough to use them but not be as significant for those who can’t. I’m not interested in this ‘solution’ in the slightest. Macro mechanics take away from Starcraft by creating an additional barrier between the player and the core of the game which lie in player interaction and conflict. Starcraft has been a game about macro, but macro is not where Starcraft shines. Starcraft’s greatest strengths have always lied in interesting unit design and unique races.
Summary:
The most interesting parts of Starcraft have to do with unit design, map control and micro. Without good macro, players cannot really experience those other aspects. By reducing the macro requirements, Starcraft can become a game that’s less about producing as much stuff as possible and more focused on the more compelling parts of the game at all skill levels. Newer players will have less to worry about in terms of production so they can focus on the more interesting parts of Starcraft while more skilled players will be able to expand their army movements and multitasking. In addition, the increase in multitasking and army movements will help improve the overall viewer experience as there’s more conflict and interaction between the players during the game. Although the balance involved in their removal might not be there yet, there’s still plenty of time to tweak the numbers. Overall, the removal of macro mechanics helps push Starcraft to be a game more about army positioning, strategy, micro and more rather than a game that’s more focused on who can make the most stuff.
Everything stated here is my opinion unless noted and/or cited otherwise. As a progamer for several years now, I have a wealth of personal experience and observations to draw upon. With that said, I sometimes have to speculate due to lack of studies/concrete facts. It’s important to note that this patch is only days old.
Previous installments:
Archon Mode
On Preparation and Build Orders
The Disruptor in Review
Liberator in Review
On SC2's Social Features
Re-thinking the Ladder
The Adept
<div class="pfooter"><b>Writer:</b> qxc
<b>Editors:</b> DarkLordOlli
</div></div></div>
|
Russian Federation66 Posts
|
"Newer players will have less to worry about in terms of production so they can focus on the more interesting parts of Starcraft while more skilled players will be able to expand their army movements and multitasking."
I think that's true for Zerg players. As a Protoss player who played a lot of games since the macro patch, I feel that the macro is as hard as before. That said, I still can't make my mind about this patch. Too much pros and cons.
|
I DO want Starcraft to be a game about "who can make more stuff".
This is what Starcraft is to me. If I wanted more micro I could be playing Warcraft 3.
|
Thank you, another great post!
|
I wonder if we'll see an airless mech style for tvt as now that scans can be used more often, sky superiority doesn't seem so important.
|
Now all we need is a respected and eloquent pro supporting the "making more stuff should be viable" side
|
There is already a game where you don't have to focus on macro and can put all your attention on unit movement and strategy.
It's called LoL.
Why do so many people want to turn sc2 into LoL instead of playing the original?
|
"I want Starcraft to be a game that is more about strategy, micro, map control and positioning rather than about performing the same repetitive actions perfectly in order to eke out the biggest army possible."
you got it, mister.
|
SoCal8907 Posts
well said, qxc. i couldn't agree more.
|
I usually side with Qxc on a lot of stuff, but not here. Macro is interesting. I still remember how impressed I was back when Bomber was tearing up Code A with pure macro alone, producing 15 marines at once, absolutely overwhelming everyone. I still remember Parting's "1-gate into 3 Nexus into 8 gate zealot archon" build from WoL, where he just ran everyone over. Producing stuff is cool, and interesting to me.
Another point that Qxc kinda eluded is the question of the skill floor. Yes, Life will still be able to shine by doing things high masters zergs can only dream of doing. Nonetheless, "easier" macro still means there is one less differentiating factor between players. In a game that is already quite volatile at the highest level, with only a few repeat champions, is this really a good thing ? And ok for the difference between Life and low GM players, but what about the difference between soO and Hyun for example ? soO's strength lies in his pristine injects, so this patch will hit him hard. I think we can all agree that right now, soO is the better player when compared to Hyun. Will this still be the case in LotV ?
Yes, playing sc2 is hard. Yes, it is true that macro actually prevents a lot of people to see the beauty and subtle intricacies of starcraft, because producing more stuff is enough. However, that is the game I love, and I wouldn't want it any different.
Last point: even if I'm globally against this change, there is one upside to it. The reduced pace. This is definitely a good thing IMHO, and if macro mechanics were re-instated, I'd like Blizz to try and keep this slowed pace somehow.
|
On August 24 2015 23:55 myRZeth wrote:
I DO want Starcraft to be a game about "who can make more stuff".
This is what Starcraft is to me. If I wanted more micro I could be playing Warcraft 3.
Macro mechanics or no there are always other areas to invest your actions. If you're outpacing your opponent and straining their multitasking it's likely they will still be making macro mistakes. If you have confidence in your macro, it will still apply completely without these "turbo" mechanics.
But since it seems you're not interested in propelling your macro via microing pressure, the future of SC2 might just not be for you.
|
I think it's a shame that Protoss has so little options, where Zerg can atleast spread creep, and Terran can scan and use supply calldown.
Overall though i love the thought of these usless clicks gone. It's also great that harassing workers is really strong once more. I fear that the harassment options for all races are quite strong though, which might make maps more defensive.
In regards to terran gas, builds can adapt, perhaps you can secure a really fast 3rd base early on by gaining map control with bio. Or maybe something entirely else is viable now. Don't forget that just because bio has been a staple in PvT thus far, doesn't mean it has to stay that way. Numbers can be tuned.
|
On August 24 2015 23:55 myRZeth wrote:
I DO want Starcraft to be a game about "who can make more stuff".
This is what Starcraft is to me. If I wanted more micro I could be playing Warcraft 3.
As a SCBW fan, I never cared for Warcraft 3 and I never thought that SCBW was about making the most stuff. The notion would be preposterous. Making a lot of stuff is a tool that you use to get the real shit done. It's a means to an end and not a goal of its own. I think that this change by Blizzard is (finally) a small step in the right direction.
You can still make a lot of stuff, obviously. Now see if you can keep it alive.
|
On August 25 2015 00:10 Charoisaur wrote:
There is already a game where you don't have to focus on macro and can put all your attention on unit movement and strategy.
It's called LoL.
Why do so many people want to turn sc2 into LoL instead of playing the original?
I don't understand this kind of mentality. Dropping the macro mechanics =/= dropping macro. You still have to focus on making the right units, finding an economically balanced yet effective army composition, planning expansions, defending them, and reacting to the macro of your enemy.
LoL doesn't have much micro either.
|
8748 Posts
I want Starcraft to be a game that is more about strategy, micro, map control and positioning rather than about performing the same repetitive actions perfectly in order to eke out the biggest army possible.
Since HotS is already the kind of StarCraft game you want, isn't your argument more appropriately used against a change that would make macro in LotV more important, not in defense of a change that makes macro in LotV less important?
In other words, HotS macro already doesn't cross the threshold that you deem dangerous. LotV is not getting closer to the threshold with these changes but rather farther away from it. So why bring up the danger of crossing the threshold at all?
|
The problem with SC2's macro mechanics is that they rewarded certain races more than others. Protoss simply required less skill and offered less reward than Zerg. It was in asymmetry in gameplay that I don't think any person benefited that much from. It was always harder to inject Than chrono. It would have been one thing if they were different but equally deep mechanics, and offered similar benefits, but thatt turned out not to be the case.
|
Can't say I agree with qxc. It sounds like he's under the impression that those were a huge distraction and they really never were. I don't see how freeing up a few seconds in a match is going to make anything super interesting go on.
Also those mechanics could be argued that they INCREASE macro potential for newbs. Now we'll just have a bunch of people who forget to make workers and get behind anyway.
|
I'm mostly afraid of how much easier some races become compared to others because of the change. Injects were a huge part of what zergs had to keep track of, and it was more punishing than MULE/chronoboost, but for a good reason. Zerg doesn't have to manage infrastructure almost at all. Zerg doesn't have to micro as intensively in most cases. I feel like the removal hardly made protoss or terran any easier to play (not a bad thing) but trivialized big parts of zerg.
|
Marcro Mechanics Removal is a good change 
On August 25 2015 00:36 gillon wrote:
I'm mostly afraid of how much easier some races become compared to others because of the change. Injects were a huge part of what zergs had to keep track of, and it was more punishing than MULE/chronoboost, but for a good reason. Zerg doesn't have to manage infrastructure almost at all. Zerg doesn't have to micro as intensively in most cases. I feel like the removal hardly made protoss or terran any easier to play (not a bad thing) but trivialized big parts of zerg.
LBM requires alot of micro, defending drops to.
If you are so afraid of Zergs getting good because its easier, it means that you dont have faith in your skill so you want a handicap for the other person.
Shame.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Sc4uMEM_p24/maxresdefault.jpg)
