TLO on Macro Mechanics Text by Liquid`TLO Graphics by v1 Macro mechanics



I decided to write an article about this topic, because Starcraft is incredibly important to me, it is, in a very true sense, my life. I felt there are some points in public discussions about the game right now that aren't being addressed. In this article, I'll be explaining a way to learn and approach the game that is different to what is most commonly taught. This way is much closer to the way I learned RTS back when I was young. I'll also be talking about why a complex and oftentimes difficult game will be a beautiful one.





Play like yourself – not like a pro

First of all, I'd like to make a proposal. Try to treat StarCraft like a sandbox! There are so many ways to play this game and you can find your own niche or style. Only when you reach the highest level will you have to master every aspect of StarCraft!



It seems to me that far too often lower league players are tying themselves unnecessarily to the way progamers play. They see, learn and even get taught builds of progamers, without adjusting them to their own skill level. Let me give you an example of how you can change that and probably have a better personal experience with the game.



Let's say you're Zerg, you're on 3 bases and struggle with macroing. You tend to float minerals and gas like it's nobody's business and get frustrated after another loss with 2000 minerals unspent. Macro is hard! But it doesn't have to be, it's only that hard if you want to play ''perfectly'' but aren't yet capable of it. So how can you make it easier? Don't entirely copy progamers!



Progamers often have to cut corners and take conscious risks to get an edge in their matches. But for you it's perfectly fine to get a safety spore if you struggle with Dark Templar regularly. When trying really hard to micro your mutas or lings like Life does it's fine if you add extra hatcheries to spend your money more easily . Once you identify your weaknesses, try to overcompensate. Then, when you start losing matches because you overcompensated, that's when you can tune it down until you find your perfect balance.



The great thing about StarCraft2 and especially Legacy of the Void is that, up until a very high level, you can play the game the way you like. If you enjoy micro, just make sure you add more production than would be required. Get three more barracks than you would need if you kept up production constantly and start those four supply depots before you attack so you can keep your pressure up.



If you're obsessed with macro, try to come as close as possible to pro macro, but don't bother with fancy control groups. Make liberal use of the select all army key, focus your efforts towards scouting so you don't get caught off guard and if necessary make more base defense than you'd see in GSL or WCS.



The main goal is to keep your money low, but you don't need to be perfect. Try to make it as easy for yourself as possible instead of getting frustrated with the game. Progress can and should be gradual. If you can't quite 4gate yet because microing and macroing at the same time is difficult, make it a 6gate. It may be theoretically worse, but you might climb a whole league just because you're finally spending your money. You'll enjoy the game much more and eventually the 6gate will become a 5gate until you reach the goal to pull it off with 4. And not just that, because you're not being held back by that single aspect that keeps frustrating you, you'll also learn the whole game better. As you, yourself, simplify macro it doesn't tower over the rest of cool things StarCraft2 has to offer anymore. Scouting, micro and decision making will become more relevant to your games than hitting your warp-in cycle perfectly.





Time and Action Management

Lately there's a term going around in the community that I couldn't disagree with more: ''Mindless clicking'' which is most prominently referring to larva injecting. The idea is that it's a meaningless task for progamers that they're all capable of doing perfectly while at the same time posing a more difficult and even tedious task for casual players, denying them access to more fun parts of the game.



I think I addressed the problem non-progamers are facing in the previous segment above, so I'll focus on the professional level of play from here on.

No one has perfect injects. If you say that, you're simply wrong.

While under no pressure, high level players will not miss an inject. But it becomes an interesting mechanic as soon as multitasking comes into play. When you're under attack as Zerg, your enemy will be able to do more than just direct damage. If they manage to keep you stressed and if they manage to play faster than you, they'll also do the indirect damage of making you miss injects and interrupt your creep spread. That means that there's complex on-the-spot decision making going on.



What's better, do I inject and lose a drone because I didn't micro it, or do I try to save the drone and then inject with the risk that I might still lose it and then also have the later inject? It's not always that obvious.

The two most satisfying things in SC2 to me are outplaying your opponent with speed and countering speed with strategy.



Most importantly, there is one thing people need to be aware of in my opinion – the more mistakes pros make in their games, the more interesting the matches are. Right now, on the highest level, LotV seems so complex that you're bound to make mistakes and have to prioritize what to focus on. Because of that alone, decision making in SC2 has never felt as important as in Legacy of the Void to me.



The less mistakes pros are making, the more it'll be about producing the perfect unit composition and we'll be back to what made SC2 stale previously. The more room for mistakes exists, the more room there is to outplay your opponent. And not just that - when people aren't playing close to perfectly, more possibilities arise. Games have much better odds of taking unique turns instead of two players repeating the same standard scenarios again and again. When the game is complex, it's hard to predict for the players, casters and audience what exactly will happen - and that's exciting.



People used to be much worse when we started playing SC2, that's why many fans are nostalgic about matches from 2010 and 2011. The matches were more exciting because they weren't as perfect. A perfect match can be appreciated by people with extremely high understanding of the game, but a back and forth battle in which the victor isn't clear for a long time is exciting to everyone. More mistakes lead to a less obvious outcome of the result.



If pros have to deal with complicated macro and micro at the same time, they won't be able to look at everything happening at once, which will allow them to exploit gaps in their opponent's attention span and force them to make hard choices. That's also exactly what makes exciting comebacks possible, and better players will have more room to make up for a disadvantage if they manage to tear their opponent apart mechanically.



This will also help progamers to distinguish themselves more from amateurs as well as from each other. Highly mechanical players will be able to produce miracle plays but very strategic players will be able to counter it with better preparation and compositions. My hope is that pros will become more unique in their styles once more. It would be amazing if some players could be known as ''strategists'' or ''creative'' ( ) while others are ''multitasking mechanics''. That's only possible with a high enough mechanical skill ceiling though; else everyone will be more or less stylistically indistinguishable.





Play-style diversity

I want to argue that only when both macro and micro are difficult they have meaning.



Lately parts of the community are obsessing about the fact that if we make the design of macro easier, we'll see more amazing battles. Pros will be able to make cool plays all the time and the main culprit, why the game seems boring, is macro. However, I believe that if both players are able to focus mostly on the micro management of their units, we'll end up with less interesting posturing of units. Both players will have their guard up constantly which, in the end, due to defender's advantage, will discourage, not encourage engagements. When that happens, final composition and initial build orders play a bigger role than mechanics and strategy.



Only when macro and micro are relatively equal in importance magic happens. You should have a choice to prioritize one or the other. Either as a conscious decision on how you want to play in general, from match to match or even on engagement to engagement basis.



I know plenty of people who have atrocious macro but made it into masters based purely on micro and sneaky play. While others are great macro players but don't know how to do anything but 1a. They all made a conscious decision though, they decided to play the game the way they like.



With the current complex version LotV I strongly believe that there will be a lot of options for players to differenciate themselves from each other but also change it up from match to match. It's in our interest to promote that diversity, even if at times the difficulty can seem overwhelming.





Conclusion

If the game mechanics are too easy, there will less space for innovation and amazing come backs. Few cookie-cutter build orders will dominate. Players will have to follow a mainstream metagame more strictly and the sandbox will shrink significantly.



If you take away macro mechanics, or make macro easier in general, you take away the choice and freedom that players have to differentiate themselves. Ironically micro players, who are often said to benefit the most from LotV, will actually be the ones who suffer the most from that - when everyone can focus on micro, they won't be able to set themselves apart as much anymore.







I decided to write an article about this topic, because Starcraft is incredibly important to me, it is, in a very true sense, my life. I felt there are some points in public discussions about the game right now that aren't being addressed. In this article, I'll be explaining a way to learn and approach the game that is different to what is most commonly taught. This way is much closer to the way I learned RTS back when I was young. I'll also be talking about why a complex and oftentimes difficult game will be a beautiful one.First of all, I'd like to make a proposal. Try to treat StarCraft like a sandbox! There are so many ways to play this game and you can find your own niche or style. Only when you reach the highest level will you have to master every aspect of StarCraft!It seems to me that far too often lower league players are tying themselves unnecessarily to the way progamers play. They see, learn and even get taught builds of progamers, without adjusting them to their own skill level. Let me give you an example of how you can change that and probably have a better personal experience with the game.Let's say you're Zerg, you're on 3 bases and struggle with macroing. You tend to float minerals and gas like it's nobody's business and get frustrated after another loss with 2000 minerals unspent. Macro is hard! But it doesn't have to be, it's only that hard if you want to play ''perfectly'' but aren't yet capable of it. So how can you make it easier? Don't entirely copy progamers!Progamers often have to cut corners and take conscious risks to get an edge in their matches. But for you it's perfectly fine to get a safety spore if you struggle with Dark Templar regularly. When trying really hard to micro your mutas or lings like Life does it's fine if you add extra hatcheries to spend your money more easily . Once you identify your weaknesses, try to overcompensate. Then, when you start losing matches because you overcompensated, that's when you can tune it down until you find your perfect balance.The great thing about StarCraft2 and especially Legacy of the Void is that, up until a very high level, you can play the game the way you like. If you enjoy micro, just make sure you add more production than would be required. Get three more barracks than you would need if you kept up production constantly and start those four supply depots before you attack so you can keep your pressure up.If you're obsessed with macro, try to come as close as possible to pro macro, but don't bother with fancy control groups. Make liberal use of the select all army key, focus your efforts towards scouting so you don't get caught off guard and if necessary make more base defense than you'd see in GSL or WCS.The main goal is to keep your money low, but you don't need to be perfect. Try to make it as easy for yourself as possible instead of getting frustrated with the game. Progress can and should be gradual. If you can't quite 4gate yet because microing and macroing at the same time is difficult, make it a 6gate. It may be theoretically worse, but you might climb a whole league just because you're finally spending your money. You'll enjoy the game much more and eventually the 6gate will become a 5gate until you reach the goal to pull it off with 4. And not just that, because you're not being held back by that single aspect that keeps frustrating you, you'll also learn the whole game better. As you, yourself, simplify macro it doesn't tower over the rest of cool things StarCraft2 has to offer anymore. Scouting, micro and decision making will become more relevant to your games than hitting your warp-in cycle perfectly.Lately there's a term going around in the community that I couldn't disagree with more: ''Mindless clicking'' which is most prominently referring to larva injecting. The idea is that it's a meaningless task for progamers that they're all capable of doing perfectly while at the same time posing a more difficult and even tedious task for casual players, denying them access to more fun parts of the game.I think I addressed the problem non-progamers are facing in the previous segment above, so I'll focus on the professional level of play from here on.No one has perfect injects. If you say that, you're simply wrong.While under no pressure, high level players will not miss an inject. But it becomes an interesting mechanic as soon as multitasking comes into play. When you're under attack as Zerg, your enemy will be able to do more than just direct damage. If they manage to keep you stressed and if they manage to play faster than you, they'll also do the indirect damage of making you miss injects and interrupt your creep spread. That means that there's complex on-the-spot decision making going on.What's better, do I inject and lose a drone because I didn't micro it, or do I try to save the drone and then inject with the risk that I might still lose it and then also have the later inject? It's not always that obvious.The two most satisfying things in SC2 to me are outplaying your opponent with speed and countering speed with strategy.Most importantly, there is one thing people need to be aware of in my opinion – the more mistakes pros make in their games, the more interesting the matches are. Right now, on the highest level, LotV seems so complex that you're bound to make mistakes and have to prioritize what to focus on. Because of that alone, decision making in SC2 has never felt as important as in Legacy of the Void to me.The less mistakes pros are making, the more it'll be about producing the perfect unit composition and we'll be back to what made SC2 stale previously. The more room for mistakes exists, the more room there is to outplay your opponent. And not just that - when people aren't playing close to perfectly, more possibilities arise. Games have much better odds of taking unique turns instead of two players repeating the same standard scenarios again and again. When the game is complex, it's hard to predict for the players, casters and audience what exactly will happen - and that's exciting.People used to be much worse when we started playing SC2, that's why many fans are nostalgic about matches from 2010 and 2011. The matches were more exciting because they weren't as perfect. A perfect match can be appreciated by people with extremely high understanding of the game, but a back and forth battle in which the victor isn't clear for a long time is exciting to everyone. More mistakes lead to a less obvious outcome of the result.If pros have to deal with complicated macro and micro at the same time, they won't be able to look at everything happening at once, which will allow them to exploit gaps in their opponent's attention span and force them to make hard choices. That's also exactly what makes exciting comebacks possible, and better players will have more room to make up for a disadvantage if they manage to tear their opponent apart mechanically.This will also help progamers to distinguish themselves more from amateurs as well as from each other. Highly mechanical players will be able to produce miracle plays but very strategic players will be able to counter it with better preparation and compositions. My hope is that pros will become more unique in their styles once more. It would be amazing if some players could be known as ''strategists'' or ''creative'' () while others are ''multitasking mechanics''. That's only possible with a high enough mechanical skill ceiling though; else everyone will be more or less stylistically indistinguishable.I want to argue that only when both macro and micro are difficult they have meaning.Lately parts of the community are obsessing about the fact that if we make the design of macro easier, we'll see more amazing battles. Pros will be able to make cool plays all the time and the main culprit, why the game seems boring, is macro. However, I believe that if both players are able to focus mostly on the micro management of their units, we'll end up with less interesting posturing of units. Both players will have their guard up constantly which, in the end, due to defender's advantage, will discourage, not encourage engagements. When that happens, final composition and initial build orders play a bigger role than mechanics and strategy.Only when macro and micro are relatively equal in importance magic happens. You should have a choice to prioritize one or the other. Either as a conscious decision on how you want to play in general, from match to match or even on engagement to engagement basis.I know plenty of people who have atrocious macro but made it into masters based purely on micro and sneaky play. While others are great macro players but don't know how to do anything but 1a. They all made a conscious decision though, they decided to play the game the way they like.With the current complex version LotV I strongly believe that there will be a lot of options for players to differenciate themselves from each other but also change it up from match to match. It's in our interest to promote that diversity, even if at times the difficulty can seem overwhelming.If the game mechanics are too easy, there will less space for innovation and amazing come backs. Few cookie-cutter build orders will dominate. Players will have to follow a mainstream metagame more strictly and the sandbox will shrink significantly.If you take away macro mechanics, or make macro easier in general, you take away the choice and freedom that players have to differentiate themselves. Ironically micro players, who are often said to benefit the most from LotV, will actually be the ones who suffer the most from that - when everyone can focus on micro, they won't be able to set themselves apart as much anymore. Team Liquid alea iacta est

purakushi Profile Joined August 2012 United States 3259 Posts Last Edited: 2015-10-03 14:15:43 #2



Blizzard already said that they have narrowed down their decision to



I am all for more meaningful yet difficult macro, so in that way I wish there was a change. Thanks for the article.Blizzard already said that they have narrowed down their decision to "keeping the current ones in the beta vs. reverting back to Heart of the Swarm" , so macromechanics are here to stay in some form or another, at least for when LotV ships.I am all for more meaningful yet difficult macro, so in that way I wish there was a change. June 2010 - August 2017: waiting for the return of Starcraft

TheDwf Profile Joined November 2011 France 19747 Posts #3 Words of wisdom

NyxNax Profile Joined March 2014 United States 226 Posts Last Edited: 2015-10-03 14:17:52 #4 Very nice TLO <3

Jaedrik Profile Joined June 2015 113 Posts Last Edited: 2015-10-03 14:34:41 #5 I think he's very off on the "play any way you want" philosophy.

If one wants to win, they better have their macro booster use down to spades.

Macro, in general, is far more important in this game at most levels of play, so, no there really isn't a depth of playstyle diversity as he claims.

How I wish it were, but, alas...



Edit: However, I do agree that micro in this game is shallow in itself, but he suggests other things need to be hard so that pros make mistakes in the relatively simple system because their attention is focused elsewhere.

Instead, I say make micro deep itself, rather than make other things complex to add mistakes.



This goes further against his "more difficult = better," because we should carefully distinguish between difficulty created by depth, and difficulty created by complexity. Sometimes, it's hard to distinguish, but I'd say his prognosis / rhetoric leans too far to the complexity side instead of the depth side.

Teoita Profile Blog Joined January 2011 Italy 11901 Posts Last Edited: 2015-10-03 14:26:35 #6 Only when macro and micro are relatively equal in importance magic happens. You should have a choice to prioritize one or the other. Either as a conscious decision on how you want to play in general, from match to match or even on engagement to engagement basis.



I know plenty of people who have atrocious macro but made it into masters based purely on micro and sneaky play. While others are great macro players but don't know how to do anything but 1a. They all made a conscious decision though, they decided to play the game the way they like.



Loved the article, especially this part. In fact, that's why zerg in wol/hots is boring imo there isn't a decision to make, inject always takes priority.



Loved the article, especially this part. In fact, that's why zerg in wol/hots is boring imothere isn't a decision to make, inject always takes priority. On October 03 2015 23:22 Jaedrik wrote:

I think he's very off on the "play any way you want" philosophy.

If one wants to win, they better have their macro booster use down to spades.

Macro, in general, is far more important in this game at most levels of play, so, no there really isn't a depth of playstyle diversity.

How I wish it were, but, alas...



Not at all. If you are playing to have fun you really can have meh macro (including stuff like bad builds and/or timings) and still make it to master Not at all. If you are playing to have fun you really can have meh macro (including stuff like bad builds and/or timings) and still make it to master Moderator Protoss all-ins are like a wok. You can throw whatever you want in there and it will turn out alright.

Telon Petrides Profile Joined September 2013 Canada 58 Posts #7 I like the article, both the advice for the non pros, and the balance of macro and micro. Nice work TLO.

Incognoto Profile Blog Joined May 2010 France 10199 Posts #8 I can see a lot of sense being made here;



I like to over-compensate myself when I feel like my macro is off. Better to do that than to float resources. ^^



Good stuff! eso-community.net | Age of Empires 3 Community Forum ! | maru lover forever | I LIVE IN USA NOW http://i.imgur.com/EZPrgbW.png

Musicus Profile Joined August 2011 Germany 23393 Posts #9 Couldn't agree more, macro has to be hard for Starcraft to be amazing!



I think the fact that you can reach Diamond or Master without any real micro, if you just focus on macro, is fascinating and an important factor of Starcraft.

On the other hand you can also get Master with cannon rushes/early pools/proxy raxes. The fact that both ways exist make this game so amazing.



Autoinjects on zerg would've destroyed the race imo, so glad it's gone! Maru and Serral are probably top 5.

Jaedrik Profile Joined June 2015 113 Posts Last Edited: 2015-10-03 14:39:47 #10 On October 03 2015 23:22 Teoita wrote:

Show nested quote +

Only when macro and micro are relatively equal in importance magic happens. You should have a choice to prioritize one or the other. Either as a conscious decision on how you want to play in general, from match to match or even on engagement to engagement basis.



I know plenty of people who have atrocious macro but made it into masters based purely on micro and sneaky play. While others are great macro players but don't know how to do anything but 1a. They all made a conscious decision though, they decided to play the game the way they like.



Loved the article, especially this part. In fact, that's why zerg in wol/hots is boring imo there isn't a decision to make, inject always takes priority.



Show nested quote +

On October 03 2015 23:22 Jaedrik wrote:

I think he's very off on the "play any way you want" philosophy.

If one wants to win, they better have their macro booster use down to spades.

Macro, in general, is far more important in this game at most levels of play, so, no there really isn't a depth of playstyle diversity.

How I wish it were, but, alas...



Not at all. If you are playing to have fun you really can have meh macro (including stuff like bad builds and/or timings) and still make it to master Loved the article, especially this part. In fact, that's why zerg in wol/hots is boring imothere isn't a decision to make, inject always takes priority.Not at all. If you are playing to have fun you really can have meh macro (including stuff like bad builds and/or timings) and still make it to master

I guess there isn't really a way to prove it, so I'll just disagree again. Macro boosters still make macro the more important skill, but I'm hopeful about their weakening. I guess there isn't really a way to prove it, so I'll just disagree again. Macro boosters still make macro the more important skill, but I'm hopeful about their weakening.

Avocado4 Profile Joined October 2015 1 Post Last Edited: 2015-10-03 14:34:07 #11 The great thing about StarCraft2 and especially Legacy of the Void is, that up until a very high level, you can play the game the way you like.

You have some rogue commas in there. Rewrite it to say "The great thing about StarCraft2, and especially Legacy of the Void, is that you can play the game the way you like up until a very high level".

You have some rogue commas in there. Rewrite it to say "The great thing about StarCraft2, and especially Legacy of the Void, is that you can play the game the way you like up until a very high level". Both players will have their guard up constantly which, in the end, due to defender's advantage, will discourage, not encourage engagements.

It's superfluous to say that it will "not encourage" after you have already said that it "will discourage". Rewrite as "Both players will have their guard up constantly, which will discourage engagements due to defender's advantage".



Glad I could help. It's superfluous to say that it will "not encourage" after you have already said that it "will discourage". Rewrite as "Both players will have their guard up constantly, which will discourage engagements due to defender's advantage".Glad I could help.

Teoita Profile Blog Joined January 2011 Italy 11901 Posts #12 On October 03 2015 23:30 Jaedrik wrote:

Show nested quote +

On October 03 2015 23:22 Teoita wrote:

Only when macro and micro are relatively equal in importance magic happens. You should have a choice to prioritize one or the other. Either as a conscious decision on how you want to play in general, from match to match or even on engagement to engagement basis.



I know plenty of people who have atrocious macro but made it into masters based purely on micro and sneaky play. While others are great macro players but don't know how to do anything but 1a. They all made a conscious decision though, they decided to play the game the way they like.



Loved the article, especially this part. In fact, that's why zerg in wol/hots is boring imo there isn't a decision to make, inject always takes priority.



On October 03 2015 23:22 Jaedrik wrote:

I think he's very off on the "play any way you want" philosophy.

If one wants to win, they better have their macro booster use down to spades.

Macro, in general, is far more important in this game at most levels of play, so, no there really isn't a depth of playstyle diversity.

How I wish it were, but, alas...



Not at all. If you are playing to have fun you really can have meh macro (including stuff like bad builds and/or timings) and still make it to master Loved the article, especially this part. In fact, that's why zerg in wol/hots is boring imothere isn't a decision to make, inject always takes priority.Not at all. If you are playing to have fun you really can have meh macro (including stuff like bad builds and/or timings) and still make it to master

I guess there isn't really a way to prove it, so I'll just disagree still. Macro boosters still make macro the more important skill, but I'm hopeful about their weakening. From your other response, I see you're talking about LotV, and you'd agree with me if it was WoL / HotS.I guess there isn't really a way to prove it, so I'll just disagree still. Macro boosters still make macro the more important skill, but I'm hopeful about their weakening.



Nop im talking about wol and hots. I'm not saying to remove macro boosters, just that a) for zerg specifically it's too important imo (doesn't mean it has to be automated, in fact automated injects are terrible and b) while macro is important, especially below the pro level you can make up for it with better micro and decision making, up to a certain extent. Nop im talking about wol and hots. I'm not saying to remove macro boosters, just that a) for zerg specifically it's too important imo (doesn't mean it has to be automated, in fact automated injects are terrible and b) while macro is important, especially below the pro level you can make up for it with better micro and decision making, up to a certain extent. Moderator Protoss all-ins are like a wok. You can throw whatever you want in there and it will turn out alright.

FeyFey Profile Joined September 2010 Germany 10106 Posts #13 I just wish the macro wouldn't be so much more impactful then the micro. Chosing to do more macro seems to always be the right answer. But they are not very far away from each other.



Really like this article, really spot on despite my feelings.

HaRuHi Profile Blog Joined November 2010 1219 Posts #14



Great article, agree with most of it, slight oversight here though: On October 03 2015 23:09 Liquid`TLO wrote:

That's only possible with a high enough mechanical skill ceiling though; else everyone will be more or less stylistically indistinguishable.





The current macro is hard, but too simple. A different economy model to break a three base cap would allow for way more playstyles than a high mechanical skill ceiling ever could, and we could get both into Sc2. The current macro is hard, but too simple. A different economy model to break a three base cap would allow for way more playstyles than a high mechanical skill ceiling ever could, and we could get both into Sc2.

Liquid`Jinro Profile Blog Joined September 2002 Sweden 33702 Posts #15 On October 03 2015 23:22 Jaedrik wrote:

I think he's very off on the "play any way you want" philosophy.

If one wants to win, they better have their macro booster use down to spades.

Macro, in general, is far more important in this game at most levels of play, so, no there really isn't a depth of playstyle diversity as he claims.

How I wish it were, but, alas...



Edit: However, I do agree that micro in this game is shallow in itself, but he suggests other things need to be hard so that pros make mistakes in the relatively simple system because their attention is focused elsewhere.

Instead, I say make micro deep itself, rather than make other things complex to add mistakes.



This goes further against his "more difficult = better," because we should carefully distinguish between difficulty created by depth, and difficulty created by complexity. Sometimes, it's hard to distinguish, but I'd say his prognosis / rhetoric leans too far to the complexity side instead of the depth side.

I think people in general underestimate how far you can get with unconventional play as long as you UNDERSTAND your strategy.



You can have someone perform a superficially professional looking build, but if he copied it from a vod and has no clue why some choices were made from what cues, then it will be a more frustrating and probably less effective build than if you made something your own and really understood it inside out (of course learning a pro build inside out is great too).

I think people in general underestimate how far you can get with unconventional play as long as you UNDERSTAND your strategy.You can have someone perform a superficially professional looking build, but if he copied it from a vod and has no clue why some choices were made from what cues, then it will be a more frustrating and probably less effective build than if you made something your own and really understood it inside out (of course learning a pro build inside out is great too). Moderator tell the guy that interplanatar interaction is pivotal to terrans variety of optionitudals in the pre-midgame preperatories as well as the protosstinal deterriggation of elite zergling strikes - Stimey n | Formerly FrozenArbiter

Faefae Profile Joined June 2014 2202 Posts #16 Yeah I think I agree with everything in your post dario ForGG. 29/11/2014

ProMeTheus112 Profile Joined December 2009 France 1590 Posts #17 I really like your "Play like yourself, not like a pro" part of the article!

SetGuitarsToKill Profile Blog Joined December 2013 Canada 28391 Posts #18 Macro mechanics, especially inject, just aren't fun to use. That's the problem. TLO looks at this from the pro level and that's fine, he's a pro, but the vast majority of players are not pro and are playing for fun. I'm not sure how we can change this, but a change to make it feel less like a "do this repetitive task every 30 seconds" mechanic would be welcome. We already have unit building macro that sort of functions as that, but that at least feels more natural and like there's decision making involved. Macro mechanics like inject feel very "tacked on" if you will. Community News "As long as you have a warp prism you can't be bad at harassment" - Maru | @SetGuitars2Kill

Jaedrik Profile Joined June 2015 113 Posts Last Edited: 2015-10-03 15:24:06 #19 On October 03 2015 23:34 Teoita wrote:

Show nested quote +

On October 03 2015 23:30 Jaedrik wrote:

On October 03 2015 23:22 Teoita wrote:

Only when macro and micro are relatively equal in importance magic happens. You should have a choice to prioritize one or the other. Either as a conscious decision on how you want to play in general, from match to match or even on engagement to engagement basis.



I know plenty of people who have atrocious macro but made it into masters based purely on micro and sneaky play. While others are great macro players but don't know how to do anything but 1a. They all made a conscious decision though, they decided to play the game the way they like.



Loved the article, especially this part. In fact, that's why zerg in wol/hots is boring imo there isn't a decision to make, inject always takes priority.



On October 03 2015 23:22 Jaedrik wrote:

I think he's very off on the "play any way you want" philosophy.

If one wants to win, they better have their macro booster use down to spades.

Macro, in general, is far more important in this game at most levels of play, so, no there really isn't a depth of playstyle diversity.

How I wish it were, but, alas...



Not at all. If you are playing to have fun you really can have meh macro (including stuff like bad builds and/or timings) and still make it to master Loved the article, especially this part. In fact, that's why zerg in wol/hots is boring imothere isn't a decision to make, inject always takes priority.Not at all. If you are playing to have fun you really can have meh macro (including stuff like bad builds and/or timings) and still make it to master

I guess there isn't really a way to prove it, so I'll just disagree still. Macro boosters still make macro the more important skill, but I'm hopeful about their weakening. From your other response, I see you're talking about LotV, and you'd agree with me if it was WoL / HotS.I guess there isn't really a way to prove it, so I'll just disagree still. Macro boosters still make macro the more important skill, but I'm hopeful about their weakening.



Nop im talking about wol and hots. I'm not saying to remove macro boosters, just that a) for zerg specifically it's too important imo (doesn't mean it has to be automated, in fact automated injects are terrible and b) while macro is important, especially below the pro level you can make up for it with better micro and decision making, up to a certain extent. Nop im talking about wol and hots. I'm not saying to remove macro boosters, just that a) for zerg specifically it's too important imo (doesn't mean it has to be automated, in fact automated injects are terrible and b) while macro is important, especially below the pro level you can make up for it with better micro and decision making, up to a certain extent.

On October 03 2015 23:37 Liquid`Jinro wrote:

Show nested quote +

On October 03 2015 23:22 Jaedrik wrote:

I think he's very off on the "play any way you want" philosophy.

If one wants to win, they better have their macro booster use down to spades.

Macro, in general, is far more important in this game at most levels of play, so, no there really isn't a depth of playstyle diversity as he claims.

How I wish it were, but, alas...



Edit: However, I do agree that micro in this game is shallow in itself, but he suggests other things need to be hard so that pros make mistakes in the relatively simple system because their attention is focused elsewhere.

Instead, I say make micro deep itself, rather than make other things complex to add mistakes.



This goes further against his "more difficult = better," because we should carefully distinguish between difficulty created by depth, and difficulty created by complexity. Sometimes, it's hard to distinguish, but I'd say his prognosis / rhetoric leans too far to the complexity side instead of the depth side.

I think people in general underestimate how far you can get with unconventional play as long as you UNDERSTAND your strategy.



You can have someone perform a superficially professional looking build, but if he copied it from a vod and has no clue why some choices were made from what cues, then it will be a more frustrating and probably less effective build than if you made something your own and really understood it inside out (of course learning a pro build inside out is great too).

I think people in general underestimate how far you can get with unconventional play as long as you UNDERSTAND your strategy.You can have someone perform a superficially professional looking build, but if he copied it from a vod and has no clue why some choices were made from what cues, then it will be a more frustrating and probably less effective build than if you made something your own and really understood it inside out (of course learning a pro build inside out is great too).

Likewise, the lack of their presence can be explained by a lack of depth too: there really aren't as many viable unconventional strategies. I'd like to remove complexity from macro and add depth to micro, which would shore this up magnificently.

It's probably a combination of the two.



Edit to get around the first page curse :O



On October 03 2015 23:48 Teoita wrote:

Show nested quote +

On October 03 2015 23:46 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:

Macro mechanics, especially inject, just aren't fun to use. That's the problem. TLO looks at this from the pro level and that's fine, he's a pro, but the vast majority of players are not pro and are playing for fun. I'm not sure how we can change this, but a change to make it feel less like a "do this repetitive task every 30 seconds" mechanic would be welcome. We already have unit building macro that sort of functions as that, but that at least feels more natural and like there's decision making involved. Macro mechanics like inject feel very "tacked on" if you will.



That's entirely subjective, and you're generalizing. I love lining my build up perfectly because i used chronoboosts just right. I can see why you'd think something like inject isn't fun if your mindset is "i must play this game to improve and the only way to do that is to macro perfectly" though.



Show nested quote +

Likewise, the lack of their presence can be explained by a lack of depth too: there really aren't as many viable unconventional strategies as you say.



"Viable" is a horribly defined word though. You can't easily compare ladder Bo1 play between two amateurs with modern tournament play between pros, which is the standard that people look at to define something as "viable". Plenty of wierd shit that works on ladder would be shut down horribly in a tournament by watching a replay or two, but that doesn't mean it will hold back someone's "improvement" (another term that is defined pretty badly). That's entirely subjective, and you're generalizing. I love lining my build up perfectly because i used chronoboosts just right. I can see why you'd think something like inject isn't fun if your mindset is "i must play this game to improve and the only way to do that is to macro perfectly" though."Viable" is a horribly defined word though. You can't easily compare ladder Bo1 play between two amateurs with modern tournament play between pros, which is the standard that people look at to define something as "viable". Plenty of wierd shit that works on ladder would be shut down horribly in a tournament by watching a replay or two, but that doesn't mean it will hold back someone's "improvement" (another term that is defined pretty badly).

Viable is relative to skill level, but is objective. That is, there are definitely strategies that will more often secure victory at certain skill levels. What I'm saying, again, is that there could be many more viable strategies at most or all levels of play if macro wasn't so gosh dang important and complex, and micro had more depth.



But I don't get what you mean about improvement. There are such things as skill development and mastery, and intuitiveness directly impacts these things. Both are made harder if things are unintuitive.



Edit 50000: You don't fall into the "vast majority" that the other gentleman talked about, sir, that's all there really is to that.

Fun isn't just subjective, it's normative. Normally, complexity that doesn't add 'enough' (the subjective element) depth is not fun for people. For most people, it isn't enough.

There's nothing whatsoever wrong with his generalization. It's an accurate one methinks. Likewise, the lack of their presence can be explained by a lack of depth too: there really aren't as many viable unconventional strategies. I'd like to remove complexity from macro and add depth to micro, which would shore this up magnificently.It's probably a combination of the two.Edit to get around the first page curse :OViable is relative to skill level, but is objective. That is, there are definitely strategies that will more often secure victory at certain skill levels. What I'm saying, again, is that there could be many more viable strategies at most or all levels of play if macro wasn't so gosh dang important and complex, and micro had more depth.But I don't get what you mean about improvement. There are such things as skill development and mastery, and intuitiveness directly impacts these things. Both are made harder if things are unintuitive.Edit 50000: You don't fall into the "vast majority" that the other gentleman talked about, sir, that's all there really is to that.Fun isn't just subjective, it's normative. Normally, complexity that doesn't add 'enough' (the subjective element) depth is not fun for people. For most people, it isn't enough.There's nothing whatsoever wrong with his generalization. It's an accurate one methinks.

Teoita Profile Blog Joined January 2011 Italy 11901 Posts Last Edited: 2015-10-03 14:52:00 #20 On October 03 2015 23:46 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:

Macro mechanics, especially inject, just aren't fun to use. That's the problem. TLO looks at this from the pro level and that's fine, he's a pro, but the vast majority of players are not pro and are playing for fun. I'm not sure how we can change this, but a change to make it feel less like a "do this repetitive task every 30 seconds" mechanic would be welcome. We already have unit building macro that sort of functions as that, but that at least feels more natural and like there's decision making involved. Macro mechanics like inject feel very "tacked on" if you will.



That's entirely subjective, and you're generalizing. I love lining my build up perfectly because i used chronoboosts just right. I can see why you'd think something like inject isn't fun if your mindset is "i must play this game to improve and the only way to do that is to macro perfectly" though.



That's entirely subjective, and you're generalizing. I love lining my build up perfectly because i used chronoboosts just right. I can see why you'd think something like inject isn't fun if your mindset is "i must play this game to improve and the only way to do that is to macro perfectly" though. Likewise, the lack of their presence can be explained by a lack of depth too: there really aren't as many viable unconventional strategies as you say.



"Viable" is a horribly defined word though. You can't easily compare ladder Bo1 play between two amateurs with modern tournament play between pros, which is the standard that people look at to define something as "viable". Plenty of wierd shit that works on ladder would be shut down horribly in a tournament by watching a replay or two, but that doesn't mean it will hold back someone's "improvement" (another term that is defined pretty badly). "Viable" is a horribly defined word though. You can't easily compare ladder Bo1 play between two amateurs with modern tournament play between pros, which is the standard that people look at to define something as "viable". Plenty of wierd shit that works on ladder would be shut down horribly in a tournament by watching a replay or two, but that doesn't mean it will hold back someone's "improvement" (another term that is defined pretty badly). Moderator Protoss all-ins are like a wok. You can throw whatever you want in there and it will turn out alright.

1 2 3 4 5 8 9 10 Next All