Worried Bout Macro in SC2 more than ever

When SC2 was announced, I was really really excited. Nowadays, I am still really hyped about SC2 and I can't wait, but I've been hearing more and more about the macro problem that people have been complaining about (especially after Blizzcon 08 and stuff). I keep hearing from progamers and people like "Tasteless" that if Blizzard wants SC2 to be as good of an e-sport as SC1, then they have to do something about MBS, and automining. After just thinking about it, I'm really starting to see their point. And I'm not even that hardcore of a gamer, but I really thing that just MBS and automining can make a huge difference.

In an interview with "Tasteless" (http://www.sk-gaming.com/content/18811-Tasteless_talks_BlizzCon_StarCraft_2_Korean_girls), he was saying how the game is a lot slower just because of these new interface changes. I`m starting to get worried...I`m wanting them to do away with MBS and automining and stuff. Because what everyone is saying seems to be true: if we put in MBS and automining, really the game will be a lot more micro than macro. I`m not worried at all now about the units and strategies anymore, because i know that progamers will be able to do amazing new strategies w/ these new units and everything, but with MBS and autominng, u will rarely EVER have to go back to your base.

The gas mechanics and anything else they add to increase macro just seem forced. It just seems weird that if you build a base to build units and you don't need to go back to your base to build more units because you have MBS or to manage your workers because you have automining. it just seems to lessen macro so much. I've read about how with MBS and automining, people can concentrate more on strategies and tactics, but really, w/ progamers, even without MBS and automining, some have pulled off some amazing strategies. That arguments is just dumb. With MBS and automining, becoming a progamer will just be so much easier because u wont need as much APM to even pull some of these strategies off because you don't have to worry bout going back to your base.

I know that Blizzard has to or more like they want to appeal to a WIDE variety of gamers, but i think they should worry more about the CURRENT Starcraft fan base before they worry bout attracting newcomers to Starcraft. Most current Starcraft players don't want MBS and automining. Ultimately it'll be these hardcore SC1 players (I'm not just talking bout progamers, gamers that played sc1 including me) that will keep the game going for years and years and make the game a success. Also i think even if they take out MBS and automining, it will only really deter a small small minority of people from playing SC2, because really, i don't think most newcomers would care or even know what MBS and automining is. Starcraft is a game of speed and micro and macro, if you put in MBS and automining, you ruin that formula and it wont be the successful game that sc1 is rite now.

I'm not saying i want them to stick completely to the classic Starcraft, I'm fine with new units and everything, but i think they should just take out MBS and automining, its two simple things that can easily lessen APM and macro. that way they don't have to force on us stuff just to make more macro.

i know this topic has been brought up a lot, but recently ive seen more stuff on it, and i have to say something haha..

Edit: Thanks to some posts, I think I was a ltitle harsh on MBS and automining. It's just that after seeing so many negative information from progamers, I had a bad impression of it. And because I really want Starcraft 2 to be the best game ever, I got "over worried" and posted this thread. I think as long as Blizzard thinks of a way to increase macro or keep macro as important in the game (ie mutant larvae, warp in, gas mechanic) then it should be fine for me.

 

Would you mean that if this keeps on going this way, in SC3 we will even not have anymore to manage the buildings and the economy, because all these things may become automated so much Blizzard focuses on micro-managed guerilla-style games?

We may just have to play our squads of units and that's it, the reinforcements and the upgrades and everything will be managed by the computer. The end of Starcraft to me: I quitted playing Warcraft so much I was piss#d off those players whose heroes are so well managed that they don't even need to creep or expand or whatever, just rush an altar, take for the zillionth time the same hero and attack the enemy base and harass the workers and the hero and that's it, another win for the sake of my new god that is my B.net profile...

 

Well I guess Blizzard probably won't let it go that far as to be like Warcraft 3...but SC2 has for sure less macro than SC1, which is till bad in my opinion, SC2 is supposed to be better in every way

 

I agree.

Sometimes I like to play every one of my marines, because my current personnal challenge is to try to win within a couple of minutes with just a bunch of guys, while some other times I like to try to cover the whole map with creep or to mass 135768746 fully upgraded Battlecruisers and spread da phearish domination over my nublol opponents.

I SC2 is going to make micro more important than macro, games will all turn out to be the same, with the same 2-3 general strats with always the same 4-6 units used in the same tired 5-7 maps and the game will just turn out to be a frags factory and nothing more, no more challenge, no more creativity etc, just channels infested by masses of kids lacking even the basics of dignity and respect, thinking they are kind of geniuses or something just because they have some good win-loss ratio in their profiles, and calling everybody around names etc.

Old days.
I don't feel like much to live again personnaly.

I want a game where it is possible to win very different ways, and no game where morons can rule the online space because there is no actual balance within the units and no originality in the game mechanics. SC1 remained the best RTS for years because it brought something really new, original and still fitting perfectly with a generic science-fiction universe and providing (quite) balanced different factions.

 

First of all, jamvng guy, you cant start a post and throw contractions around like if everyone will understand you. MBS means multiple building selection, and yes, that will decrease the apm needed... and that's bad because.. ????
That has nothing to do with macro managment at all, noob, that's just clicking fast or hotkeying hatcheries and do 1h 2h 3h... do you really think that will screw up the game? instead of 1h 2h 3h 4h 5h just click 1h? I know I should be aggressive on these posts, but you'r just taking somebody else's opinion and posting it up like if you knew what you were talking about, that annoys me so much.

I though you were gonna talk about the editable user interfaces, that will enable people to use some kind of star coach within the actual game. I dont get how a couple less of clicking per game will drastically ruin the game and end the world.

The game will still be, as the developpers said, big masses of units agains big masses of units, in theory.
The game will still have the same (and more) units, with countless strategies to go for, teching or rushing any kind of unit you want, and this will be even better than in sc1 due to the ammount of units.
If the game DOES gets flooded by the same kind of strategies (kinda like what happened with sc1 at a certain point) patches will come out, expansions will come out, and if that problem sustains, like in for example nowadays half of Useast players uses the same build order, THAT will be the diference between pro players and newblets without actual skills.

For me, macro is being able to be at all places, not only clicking 1h with a waypoint set, but being able to scout, attack, and manage huge masses of units at the same time.

 

I agree with Lombar that SC2 will be more macro based.
With the addition of the "gold" minerals (if they still have that), faster harvesting (I've seen how little time the SCV took to take a mineral piece compared to SC1), as well as the ability to reopen a depleted vespene gas field you ought to assume that it will be quicker pace which leaves little room for early game micro.

I like the MBS and I've dreamed of the day that SC1 would have it since I started playing because I saw it in WC3. SC2's MBS will eliminate redundant micro (selecting buildingA and press M for marines, then repeating for 3 more baracks), instead you can just select them all and be done with.

I think SC2 will be far more appealing with macro, instead of harrassing a little base all day, you control your entire army/scouts with finesse and micro with your support unit. I don't think a little kid with no skills can psionic storm dozens of enemy units or trap them in a stasis field at good timing.

 

Hey thanks for answering this post (even if its harshly haha). I want to point out that I`m not trying to make arguments, its just that lately I've been hearing a lot of complaints about sc2 from people like progamers, or shoutcasters like `Tasteless`about this issue, and I was getting worried.

I agree with all your points. I guess it`s just that in in Starcraft 1, one of the things that separated really top gamers or progamers from people who didn't play the game as seriously or just for fun is that you have to do both macro AND micro. I`m not saying that it`s easy to micro units, like I said before, i`m not worried bout the micro part of the game as I'm pretty sure that we will be able to do a lot of new strategies with the new units and proper micro. But wat made the game hard to master was that, not only did you have to be good at micro, but you had to manage your base all at the same time while microing your units. I have to say that I dont find it `boring`managing your base like that, cuz you get a sense of accomplishment when you are able to micro your units and kill your opponent all while still producing units and stuff. I guess thats why i`m a little worried, cuz it`ll be easier now to do that becuz of MBS and automining. Again, please feel free to comment, i`m dont want to make an argument, I`m just expressing my opinion. Don`t forget i want SC2 to be successful too!

on a side note, given Blizzard`s reputation, I know that they will this through and satisfy both the progamers, amateur gamers and newcomers to the game. so that it is easy to learn but as hard to master as SC1 was.

 

e are huge blocks of text. Please use smaller paragraphs.

Just so you know:

1) Blizzard is a business. They want $. To get $, they must satisfy the larger number of gamers.
2) Blizzard does market research, as most companies do. Blizzard thinks that most people want more micro. It certainly intends this.

From Q&A Batch 16

3) Blizzard made WoW. It makes so much continual amounts of money due to the large number of casual gamers, who greatly outnumber progamers.

Could you be more specific about how it is slower? It is different, that's not necessarily the same thing as "slower".

What is your opinion? You're talking here, not Tasteless. Why do you want to get rid of MBS and automining?

Please explain to me how taking away something that makes the game more fun for some people (that would be MBS) make the game less fun for you? (You don't have to use it.)

That's what the casual gamers (the majority) want. For most people, micro is more fun than macro.

Personally I'm sick of having the most fun tactics almost always being the worst tactics (or, conversely, the most boring tactic being the "best" tactic).

Yeah, I agree. The new gas mechanic is lame.

The good news is Blizzard came up with some good macro-techniques as well as the lame ones. Mutant larvae are, in my opinion, the best one. For a time/going back to your base cost (yes, that's a cost for most people!), you can create extra larvae, and you can transform them into new units with a time discount. (At WWI 2008, they could transform in only 2 or 3 seconds!)

Things you can do with mutant larvae: You can respond to an enemy attack or your scouting on their base with very quick counters. For the time you spend in your base, you are getting a powerful reward.

This is a lot better motivator for players to learn to macromanage than "I have to go back to my base and skip that exciting battle".

You know what the best part about mutant larvae are? If you don't like going back to your base, you don't have to! You'll probably lose against a more skilled player, but it's still your choice. Games should not take away player choice. StarCraft I does not give that choice. The only choice you have is "go back to your base and make units" period.

True, but most gamers aren't progamers, and want to be able to pull off a strategy more complicated than "mass units x and y" without setting themself up for a loss when playing against an equally skilled player.

As for progamers, we've yet to see one who is a "master" of StarCraft II. Even the Sonkie vs Yellow match, in which two progamers faced off, involved people who had only played StarCraft II for a few hours and weren't even familiar with the tech tree. So until that happens, no one really knows if progamers are going to be able to pull off awesome strategies that would have been nearly impossible to pull off in StarCraft I.

Also, some people who watch lots of StarCraft games are getting bored with macro-style. They may be happier with newer, micro-heavier games.

Gaming is more about APM. Your attention will still be split, just with things that are more interesting (to many gamers) than heavy macro. And even macro players will have options such as mutant larvae to not only make the game more interesting to them, but give them an advantage that lesser skilled players won't be able to master. (MBS easy, mutant larvae not so easy, in short.)

Speak for yourself. Neither of us actually has proof of this, but I doubt Blizzard would be going with a micro-heavy route if people didn't like micro. And I think you're just plain wrong about most fans not wanting MBS and automining (as shown in some admittedly dodgy battle.net polls).

You can make polls here, right?

Considering the massive success of WoW, which is geared towards casual gamers, I can hardly see that happening.

Many new RTSes are going with very low macro. They're not doing this just to be "different" from StarCraft, as that's bad business. (If you see a company doing something good, copy it!)

They do their own market research and come to the conclusions that even good games have weak points. If a game's weak point is "many people find the early game boring" and "many people don't like heavy macro" then it's in the company's best interest to solve those problems.

I think you have a poor opinion of what gamers know. If most gamers never played any RTS in the past few years and weren't aware of MBS, they certainly became aware of it after reading so many forum posts bringing it up.

Thing is, if most people are wanting to move more towards micro, you still have to give them what they want. That's the difference between a game that sells 5 million copies (and has 2 million hard core b.net fans) and a game that sells 10 million copies (and has 3 million hard core b.net fans), to use imaginary numbers. I'd rather have the more players in both categories. StarCraft II is an experiment. It may even be unsuccessful. However, Blizzard has never shied away from trying anything new.

What is your opinion of mutant larvae? Do you think that is "forced"? Can you see the strategic properties of quickly transforming units into whatever you want quickly (eg responding to an enemy attack or your scouting on their base with counters)?

Okay.

 

I know double-posting is frowned upon here, but the last post exceeded the character limit.

Insert Warcraft III joke here.

Post Script: A lot of people compare e-sports to, well, physical sports.

An example is soccer. You're not allowed to touch the ball with your hands in soccer. Does this make it more fun? Probably. Why do people accept that rule, even though it makes it harder? Because kicking the ball is fun!

Do people watch professional soccer players who are more skilled than they ever will be? Of course. And many of these same people will go out with a few friends and enjoy a few fun games of soccer. They won't impose unfun restrictions in an attempt to make the game harder. Most soccer players aren't pro athletes, will never be pro athletes, and aren't interested in being pro athletes, they're just interested in having fun. Making the rules harder to try to make all these people turn into pro athletes isn't going to result in a great experience for them.

The other example is StarCraft I. You're not allowed to select multiple buildings in StarCraft I. Does this make it more fun? Probably not, and certainly not for a lot of people. Why is this? Because for a lot of people (not all, maybe not even most, but for a lot of people) going back to your base and making units is less fun than directing units in combat. Why do people accept that rule? Because the technology was either unavailable or unused back in 1998. That excuse isn't available anymore.

You mentioned the "balance" between macro and micro. I think you also need to take into account the balance of fun. Each part of the game should be as fun as another part of the game. Until Blizzard makes macromanagement as fun as micro, Blizzard will have to create a new balance.

 

Hhey Kimera Thanks for all that insight haha. To tell you the truth, lots of what i said was because iIjust heard a lot of negative things bout MBS and automine recently, so i wasn't really thinking. i guess i would be happy as long as Blizzard finds another way to keep macro relevant or equal to micro.

I like that quote you used from Karune that they want to allow the player to decide between more macro or more micro. i guess if they succeed in doing that they will satisify everyone. I think one of the beauties of SC1 was that there was such variety, you could have a macro intensive game or a fast micro game, and as long as SC2 has that "magic" then it will be successful.

As for the mutant larvae concept, i think its a good concept. i like what you said that people still have the choice not to do it, but there's a real reward to choose to macro and do this. if Blizzard can continue to come up w/ ideas like that they it would be great!

I don't think we have to choose between macro and micro or which to concentrate on in SC2, if blizz can make it that they put BOTH in the game but allow the PLAYER to choose which to concentrate on, that would be the BEST. that way you can still play the game with just good micro or macro, but to be really good and to "MASTER" the game you would have to have both.

 

I think the big key here is to give players the options of either playing a heavy micro or macro based game. And then the players will just have to adapt their style of play to beat all opponents. SC1 was great but offered little choice in this regard.

Personally in that clicking multiple buildings at one time and using them was there, I'd probably never use it. Cause I'm quick at selecting the building I want and telling it to do what I want it to do before moving to the next. And the "ping" in the minimap to say work in building done directs me to the general area and I can remember which building it was.

So just cause I don't like something doesn't make it bad. I think this multiple building clicking or hotkeying should be there for those who like it. But easily enough not used if chosen to as well.

I think SC2 should be about choice. We have all these new ideas and mechanics. We (As in Blizzard and many people here) love them. But if you want to play the old SC 1 ways. Sure go ahead. That's how I would do it. Not force everyone to play the new ways. Because I'm sure most players will be playing the game like SC1 and over time slowly let their game evolve to include whatever new strategies they feel will improve their game.

And lastly, sure the casual gamers is where the market is these days. But the difference between a great game and a masterpiece is that the professionals, the programmers, and the casual gamers are all accounted for. There's something in there for everyone.

Bizzard has to think of the Blizzcons and the pro tournaments. They generate a lot of cash for Blizzard. They also have to think of Joe public. They equal massive numbers of sales for the game. So more revenue again. And if they ace SC2 and lightning does in deed strike the same place twice then they are set for life probably as one of the best game developers ever. And if they screw it then they've lost a lot of credibility. And a lot of fans/sales. Bad news.

I can just see the reviews once SC2 is released. Pulling the game to pieces nitpicking at every tiniest detail of the game. As we all are now. Which so goes against the current trend of games to day. Which is so what is the game isn't perfect, but if it's damn fun and so addictive then it's a winner.

To me that's the No.1 thing most games should be. Fun. I just hope Blizzard keep this in mind.

 

There's this unfortunate myth that StarCraft was perfect. It wasn't perfect. It was simply the best game made. There's a difference.

I personally do not believe there was such variety. You could play a macro-intensive game in StarCraft I (just like Blizzard is trying to make available for StarCraft II) but macro-intensive was strategically superior to micro-intensive, so there wasn't as much choice as people say. (This doesn't mean you couldn't win with micro play so much as you were disadvantaged, so you see fewer progamers going with micro-style.) Watching macro-style, especially with all those screen changes (from the exciting battle to the less exciting macro) is just less interesting as well.

I like hockey, and being a Canadian, am nuts about it. I can still admit that hockey isn't a perfect game. The gameplay got stale, as in too defensive. There was even a strike recently, partly because the league wanted to change the rules to "freshen" up the game, and the players weren't happy about it (would old records be outdated, etc).

The rules were changed after the strike, and for at least a year people who were watching hockey said the new game was much better, which of course showed that hockey wasn't a perfect "p-sport". (I'll say p-sport for physical sport.)

Hell yes.

That's what I want to. I think that's what everyone wants.

 

That was not totally right.

I think good micro players are better players than macro players early games, and then macro players becomes better the more the game is going on. It also depends on the map you play, some maps are dedicated to *cough* big games, while in some others you can bother and dominate your opponent within a couple of minutes.

I think that is a good deal, a good balance I would say, given the terminology used in this topic: personnally I remain really frustrated of Warcraft III, where well-played heroes can dominate whole armies and bases, I remember a game where I sent 60-80 food of headhunters against 3 level 5-7 orc heroes, who were escorted by just a bunch of casters, and this has been the slaughter, I did not managed them much (there were mostly sent to slow him, I was busy at this time expanding, and had plenty of cash), but they did not kill anything. Not a single f#ck#ng caster at least. I then realised later that this guy actually didn't train a single combat unit, he just leveled up like hell his heroes and massed casters to support them, and there was nothing I could do later against that. I controlled half of the map while he just had two bases (bases... well, just small gatherings of buildings I would say), and that's it, bye baby, he then ruined my bases and my armies and my heroes like if he had all cheats enabled. This is too much for me, 3 heroes who look like to be invulnerable. I can understand they are heroes, but hey...
Anyway, in Starcraft I think I will have more fun, because in late games the domination will gently switch from the players who master the units, the abilities and the tactics to the ones who master the map, the economy and the strategy. And I think there will be few units as well who will be dedicated to mass damage, ie to deal with armies, and that will make that micro-players will all the same still be able to express their skills in the late games. They will just play whole groups instead of just packs of units, and use specific abilities instead of others.

 

It's not that macro is "fun" to watch, but with less macro, there may be less of a skill ceiling. There will be less differentiating between a top progamer and a less experienced progamer, etc. Gamers won't have to devote as much time to macro. The game will require less "skill" to master.

But like said before, this can be solved if Blizz can find new ways to put macro in the game that makes it beneficial, but not necessary so that the game will be fun for newcomers and veterans alike. Then there also continue to be a high skill ceiling and the motto: "A minute to learn, A lifetime to master" hold true.

 

What is a "programmer"? you've talked about em so much, i dont think you mean the guys who make the game

I just think games evolve.
All these players who keeps complainting about the changes are afraid of they what might find, as in that famous quote, better evil known that good unknown (it goes something like that in spanish).

The game might just suck. But it also be so much better and enjoyable than the first one.
On Sc1 A lot of players were getting frustrated cuase of this huge skill ceiling and they just quitted gaming (or maybe moving to ums, that's not the point tho).
If they though the sky ceiling is not that big, even if that werent true, they would keep on playing for a longer time, giving blizzard even more money... consider they put adds on bnet, whos cost is probably calculated by the ammount of people which periodicaly enters the site.

 

i agree, but i dont just think its the macro. from what it looks like, it seems that the game will be easyer for the beginners, but you wont get as much from training and practice. as of right now, sc2 kind of seems like a RTS where u just build units and attack. no skill, no practice, nothing more than that. as for auto mining, if u watch it in the videos, a good split will still be faster, because what happens is that u move all the guys to 1 mineral patch, that wait for about a second, THEN they split.

i think he means progamer not programmer xD

 

GupLup[E]: "as of right now, sc2 kind of seems like a RTS where u just build units and attack."

That would defeat the purpose of a higher-micro game. And some StarCraft I games could be described as "you just build units and attack".

I only got to play StarCraft II once (well, nine times) at BlizzCon 2007, but I was certainly not just "throwing units at the enemy". I could do that in Warcraft I if I felt like it. Of course, some players may have done so, but again, they may have been doing the exact same thing in StarCraft I.

jamvng: "But like said before, this can be solved if Blizz can find new ways to put macro in the game that makes it beneficial, but not necessary so that the game will be fun for newcomers and veterans alike. Then there also continue to be a high skill ceiling and the motto: "A minute to learn, A lifetime to master" hold true."

It's nice to see that people don't hyperventilate when they discuss things rationally. This is a far better board than, say, teamliquid.

 

well what I was saying was based on what the videos showed. I only watched 1 accual sc2 game where saviour played hwasin. he got like 20 ultras, sent em in and that was it.

 

You should watch the Savior vs Yellow match, that was completely different.

 

Yes the Savior vs Yellow match was pretty good. It showed that SC2 can indeed be an e-sport. In that match, you can pretty much see that there are a lot of micro opportunities. There is better pathing, so that may decrease micro a TINY bit, but I think with the new units there is room for a lot of micro.

Macro on the other hand is harder to see in the match. I'm curious to see how much APM Yellow needed, or if his APM in SC2 matched his APM in SC1. Also I wonder how he felt about that match and if he feels that SC2 can indeed be as successful of an e-sport as SC1 with that first exhibition match.