PTE Build 76412-pte now live (updated with new build 12/16/14)

SC2 is very a high standard, not that I don't want to see PA become the next RTS eSport, quite the contrary, but the game needs time to be polished and, eventually, to become popular enough. Uber has put and is putting quite a lot of effort in the competitive 1v1 side of it so, if the right decisions are made about balance, unit diversity, map pool (i.e. stratagic depth in general) I don't see why PA couldn't be a valid candidate for the next big competitive RTS. I mean, it has so many unique features that are not found in classic RTS like SC2: spherical maps (and other topologies as some in this forum have shown how the new system editor allows for very intrincate shapes), no max unit count, single win-condition, distinct unit (commander), extra tactical layer (orbital)... that it might as well fill a niche that has very small overlap with classic RTS. I think it is also worth noting that the game is quite well-adjusted for multiplayer and in particular potential competitive 2v2 shared armies would provide a level of coordination between teammates that is very rarely found in other team games (I cannot think of any, except for the announced SC2 lotv new feature).

So my whole point is that I wouldn't underestimate PA's potential as a competitive game once is sufficiently updated and polished.

This one should be fixed next pte build.

Fighters somewhat but honestly not much else. I don't understand why peoplet think the micro potential is a bad thing. It gives room for people to become better. Rather than 'Bah this player microed his dox and it beat me, we should take it out of the game so I can win by showing less skill.' Not that I'm saying that's what you said or mean but idk why anyone would be in favor of reducing the skill cap. So they can take games from players that they didn't deserve?

@Yaegz
The difference between micro and macro is not how you are portraying it.

You cannot judge the quality of the macro in PA by its current multiplanet balance, which is currently freaking awful. Micro is practised instinct - build orders, dodging bombers, etc. Macro is where you send your units, where you build proxy bases, when you tech up, if at all.

Adding more micro will make the problem worse by adding more stupid moves that must be memorized by players to do well.

I agree with what you say about the skill cap - it is lower than it used to be. The way I see it, we should be focused on lowering the skill FLOOR, or lowering the Zaphod limit. I can remember when nobody really cared about who was at the top of the ladder because the top 20-25 were all able to beat one another. The balance back then allowed for that. And it was great fun, because those of us in that bracket could play 15-20 different players and they would all present a challenge. In my book, a challenging game is a fun game.

I understand where you are coming from, yaegz, but we need to fix the most pressing issues weighing down the game's balance before we talk about how useful macro or micro are.

Well I don't view micro techniques as 'stupid moves' I find micro very rewarding and also fun to watch. Macro is boring to watch for new players but that moment of 'these bombers are going to annihilate these dox. But look at the splits!' is a highly entertaining one. I know the difference between micro and macro but my main point was that making dox less microable will not make the game more fun.

What should separate these players is how they handle t2 in relation to t1, how they handle expansion over multiple planets, how they handle the orbital layer, how the handle navy, how they handle all these things depending on the planet type or what their opponent does.
Don't go into "being better at dancing dox is what makes you a good player". That's what SC2 is for. SC2 is a great game I have played myself quite a bit as well and SC2 is a great implementation for that. PA should be different, as it will never be as good at "and now dance your units to win" as SC2 is. Instead PA should, and I think it does, aim at judging a player's skill by how they can manage the complex management of armies over t1, t2, air, navy, orbital and preferably on multiple planets with very distinct terrain. This should require a lot of knowledge from a player (what build is best to start with, depending on the planet and whatever other factors, what do I do if I scout xyz from my opponent, etc) as well as a high speed (manage more bases than my opponent without doing mistakes gives an advantage)

The current PA is having a bunch of balance issues as well as a bunch of UI issues (orbital UI :S) that prevent it from working like that, but instead of falling back to "let's dance dox in 1vs1" the changes to PA should aim to making the other parts of the game more complex, so complex that you cannot plan out a little build to spam dox and air with tanks later on.

Ofc this does not mean that dancing dox or other units won't be able to make the little extra difference if you face an opponent who is very similar to yourself in everything else. Currently however the main issue of the skill cap is not the fact that there is not enough unit dancing, but rather that the whole economy, expansion & unitcomposition part of the game is indeed way too easy. As you say, learning a good way to spam units basically can be done within a few weeks if one just blindly accepts what the current top 3 do as "the best". That's the issue here.

EDIT:
I can see that from an observers point of view a dancing dox is quite fun to watch. However I tend to think that watching how players wage war across multiple places with huge armies is also fun. Surely it's more demanding on viewer and caster, but that's just how the TA-kind of RTS work. There is a reason why starcraft became as big in esports while TA did not: startcraft is much easier to watch, even if you have no clue what the game is about.
PA surely should try to be viewer-friendly as well, but there need to be limits to that or we will end with a bad SC2 clone, which PA definitely should not be.

I personally have some enjoyment of micro as well, however I dislike studder stepping dox, as it takes no skill, anyone can studder step.

I agree with pretty much everything you said. And by saying macro is easy I also mean that it takes under 20% of my time during a game because it is meant to be streamlined and user friendly. Eventually macro requires no thought once a player has achieved unconscious mastery and then the player needs something to separate himself from other players who have mastered macro. This leaves 80% of my time going towards micro so I want to make sure there is something useful I can do with that larger portion of any game.

Also realize I am used to a very high level of play which is not reachable by the vast majority of players so some of my points may not make sense to someone who has not been involved with RTSes as long as I have or is as familiar with professional level RTS gaming.

That is more of a flaw in the current balance (build air, build tanks. build more air) than something fundamental. I have no problem with micro though. As macro gets harder micro naturally becomes both harder and less important, but good players can still get an advantage by knowing when to micro.

If macro is taking that little time during a game, then you aren't playing a large game that requires it.

Mind, the balance at high levels of play requires one to excdssively micro, but it shouldn't be that way. Most of your time should be spent monitoring your armies and outmaneuvering your enemy, not dancing your units to victory.

Well what I wanted to say is PA should strive to switch up that 20-80 between macro and micro. You should have to spent at least 80% of your time doing larger scale stuff as well as economy management because there is so much large scale and economy stuff to manage, as I explained t2, navy, orbital, multiple bases, etc. That is why I ask so much for more expansion play, as it massively increases the possibilities of stuff you can do and should do, increasing the skill cap without having sc2-type "now split your dox"-stuff.
Unit micro should be the little bonus on top, but reaching perfect macro (includes large scale army control stuff) play alone should be very hard. (but ofc easy to get into for new players)

I've played quite a lot of FA and Sc2 as well, being quite competitive especially in FA. I think I know what you are talking about

I guess the key that everyone is 'dancing' about is scalability.
Everyone is probably for an opportunity to improve their skills and demonstrate them through the metaphorical head through the wall punching.

But no-one wants to have to drop everything and use ability 1-2 by unit 2 on planet 3, ability 4 on unit 1 on planet 1, ability 5 on unit 7 on planet 10.

Anything that can be done on one planet can be done on 20. If it's okay with everyone, I don't want to worry about micro details beyond "attack" and "retreat" and "split force"

granted though, control groups for locations and units can only improve gameplay. But I think we have them already.

I do understand what you are saying, but as I said before, he has a point, in sc2 you can reach master by only out macro your opponent aswell. But the difference between master and grandmaster is the micro, those big plays we see in which the Casters seem to have an orgasm everytime they happen, that only happens in grandmaster. Every master is on top of macro, above that what matters is micro because everyone has the same level of "macro skill", lets call it that.

I think what Yeagz is trying to say is that micro is important to the Uber skill guys, dont leave micro out of it. Even in low level play it will happen the same that happens in sc2, you have huge micro and no macro? you lose.
In sc2 if you have no macro you are completly fucked up ofc you can just send 1 marine and your 14 scv's and win xDDD. That is the balance in all RTS. Macro is always more important than micro, buuuuut, and a huge buuuut: Micro as I said in my early posts has to be there for the high level players, thats the difference right? Macro? everybody can learn builds and push times, but micro is something that you will never master, someone that has talent to micro units should be rewarded.

Then my immediate follow up question is, what ideas can you think of to raise the micro skill ceiling?

I'd prefer it if the dox weren't touched, I don't use a lot of dox micro right now as I'm usually busy controlling my air but its nice to have it available as an option.

Why would you want that?

Go play a game of the community uberbalance with some friends. Play it on a large, multiplanet map. Tell me how much time you have to micro. I bet its fairly low

Look at what SC2 does? have a bazillion different units with active abilities.

That is a mistake I think heavy SC2 players tend to make when looking at PA, it's especially easy to make in the current balance of PA which kinda hides a lot of the depth of the "macro" part it should have, but actually PA should not have simplistic builds and push times you can easily learn by heart. The games should regularly be long and complex enough to make it mindblowing hard to actually memorize it all that exactly.
Obviously for that we need what I explained above.
Explained in another way, you can actually turn around this argument: Everybody can learn to micro. It's just a mechanical skill that requires a lot of practice. Not much different from perfect macro play. It just happens that macro in Sc2 is easier than micro in SC2, so people reach the macro top more easily and then are put into the very top by really good micro.
In PA the micro part should be the easier, with players having to work a lot more on their macro play.

My main issue with dox micro is the stutter step. I'm ok with bomb-dodging, but having a group of dox survive another group of dox because they dodged all the bullets is REALLY annoying to deal with. Honestly, most of the other micro in the game is enjoyable, but it's just the f****ing stutter-step that gets me.

People forget so easily:

To Mered4, I personally don't want much more micro, for exactly the reasons I've stated, and you've repeated.
But for the sake of people who want more micro, my question is what ideas would people come up with.
Also I play vanilla PA, no game changing mods.

However, for Cola_Colin, PA is not SC2. For precisely the reasons Mered has reiterated, I don't want a bazillion different units+ abilities over 20 odd planets.

So back to my original question, with a caveat. What ideas can people come up with, to increase the skill ceiling on micromanagement, 'without' breaking scalability over 10-20 planets?

I'm sorry, bro, but I've played large planet games. You have your hands SO FULL managing those planets and their economies, much less their battles, that you won't have time for micro on a small scale. Only in large team games can I see that happening. Even then, you'd need a significantly downsized system to get the micro.