Walls and Anchors Need Nerfing.

The wiki you linked to is highly questionable considering there are definitions that most rts players would greatly disagree with and the page is not verified due to lack of citations.

Now on "Micromanagement (gameplay)" which is listed under "See also" on your link, we find this:

"There is sometimes confusion regarding the difference between micromanagement and macromanagement, normally abbreviated as 'micro' and 'macro' respectively. Macro generally refers to managing large quantities of tasks at the same time. For example, building units from various structures throughout the game while also building more structures, scouting, creating new bases, etc. This is different from micro, which is generally controlling small amounts of units and giving them very specific orders."

This is the definition that the majority of rts players know.

So in PA expanding your base(s) and constructing units is macromanagement, while controlling a small raiding squad would be considered micromanagement.

As you said, definitions are set in stone, and the one I provided holds far more weight than the one you linked to.

I didn't hyperlink (link) anything, would you like me to provide a definition of that word seeing as you seem to use it without knowing what it means. I quoted a wikipedia this is true.

Furthermore the quote I used had a citation (Leadership Education IV: Principals of Management (1999))
where as yours did not.

Mass ignorance a fact does not make.

The word macro that most rts players as you claim use is actually just slang for another form of micromanagement. That being the micromanagement of ones economy and production as opposed to combat.

If you want to continue calling it macro, go ahead, doesn't make you correct.

But the other definition is much more widely accepted, with yours being the minority. Because the other is the majority that implies that it is correct. It's like how things that would seemingly be worthless, are worth a lot, because everyone agrees it's worth a lot.

You are attempting to use the laws of supply and demand (the fact that the value of good's and services are based upon the price people are willing to pay for said good and services) as reasoning to justify the use of Argumentum ad populum (many people say it is, so it is).

Don't do that, it's barbarous.

Seems the forums link automaticly, as I got to the page you quoted from.

And thank you for bringing up the one citation that was there, because tell me what relevance that has to macro and micromanagement in RTS games.

The point of a citation is so people can look up where the presented information has been taken from, and looking up "Leadership Education IV: Principals of Management" (it is actually misspelled even, should be principles) gives a very quick answer to just how valid that quote of yours is.

There is a difference between management in organisations and management in an RTS game, and currently you, much like the quote you linked, are applying definitions made for management in organisations to management in RTS games.

Of course there is a difference, that doesn't mean that already existing definitions for words can be ignored. Clearly somewhere along the line someone wanted to differentiate unit micro and base micro and came upon the genius idea of calling it macro-management. Which as I'm sure that person was aghast to learn, both already exists and has a completely different meaning.

Woopsie.

Regardless this conversation is horribly off topic, and I shall no longer be partaking in it. Au Revior.

You seem to completely miss the part where a word can mean multiple things depending on context, e.g. if its management for an organisation or an RTS game.

I recommend looking up the word "deck" as an example, should shed some light on that for you.

I am aware of the existence of words with multiple meanings.

If you could link me to an 'official' definition of the word's micromange/micromanagement/micro and macro/macromanage/macromanagement that confirms your alternative definition. I will accept it.

Wikipedia and Urban dictionary do not count, please cite actual definitions from undisputable online or paper dictionaries created by genuine experts of literacy.

Now onto the matter at hands, walls and anchors are okay.

Actually that burden falls on you, when the general consensus is the definition I presented you it is your job to disprove that, the only thing you have presented to support your definition is a wiki link and as you yourself said wikipedia does not count.

edit: about half the thread is about this so I think it beneficial to make sure everyone is on the same terms in regards to it during the discussion.

If your loosing units to walls, you are not using the right tactics

Actually the burden of proof falls on the person asserting a claim, the claim being that micro and macro have an alternative definition to the one in the dictionary. It's no one's job to disprove your claim, you must prove it. General consensus has no relevance, lot's of people believe things that aren't true.

I don't have to give any citations that disprove your definition. That's not how the burden of proof works.

You just told me why the burden of proof is on you, you are claiming your definition to be correct, but I have yet to see any credible proof of that.

You also asked me earlier to link an official definition of several variations of macro and micro, but the thing is these are such new words that the oxford dictionary doesn't even have several of them in any definition.

Infact most of the dictionaries I have checked don't have the word "macromanagement" in them.

What I can do is use the oxford dictionary's definition of "macro" which is: single instruction that expands automatically into a set of instructions to perform a particular task.

Selecting a few vehicle factories and telling them to build tanks would be a single instruction expanding into a set of instructions, I click once for a tank and the result is multiple tanks.

I could also grab a fabricator and drag up a circle for metal extractors over the entire planet, turning my one metal extractor click and drag into covering an entire planet in metal extractors.

Also I can select all my factories and bind them to 1, and from now on when I click 1 I immediatly select all factories.

These are examples of macro in PA that fall under the oxford definition of macro.


Now with this said I am actually very curious as to the sources you have for your definition and eagerly await them.

No the dictionary has the definition for micro and macro, up until this post you have blatantly ignored it instead treating the starcraft slang as good as a definition in a dictionary, I challenged that assertion. The claim isn't that starcraft terminology is wrong it's whether or not it's right.

I would argue that you are using that definition of macro incorrectly whereas you should be looking to see how they would count as micro under it's definition. The fact that you are issuing instructions to single units, or groups of units means you micromanaging. The fact that there isn't very much you need to tell them to do and they are generally self-sufficient means the level of micromanagement is very low but that doesn't equal macromanagement or prevent those instructions from being micromanagement.

But what if that word was literally created to mean that? Someone in Starcraft came up with it let's say. Then it cannot be wrong as it was created to mean as such. This is like fighting over the meaning of any other slang terms created.

It's all semantics.

"The word macro that most rts players as you claim use is actually just slang for another form of micromanagement. That being the micromanagement of ones economy and production as opposed to combat." - Post 42.

Yes. What you two have been saying equates to a Londoner saying "Those ain't stairs mate, their apples and pears." This is of course, incorrect. Something having a slang equivalent is just that, equivalent. It's not a replacement or correction for the proper terminology and is by it's very definition improper.

Like I said before, call it whatever you want just don't presume to correct me when I use the correct terminology.

And for the love of all that is precious in this world can we stop with the off topic spam. If you want to continue this discussion create a thread for it.

I have not ignored the definition for macro nor micro in the dictionary, you are the one who appear to be interpreting it incorrectly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_strategy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromanagement_(gameplay)
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/748044/the-big-picture-on-macro-and-micro-9-2-2010
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Macro

These are some of the first things you get when looking for macro and micro in relation to games.

These sources all share the same interpretation of the definitions of micro and macro in the oxford dictionary in relation to RTS games.

YOUR definition however I can't find anywhere apart from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macromanagement which you quoted in support of your arguement.

These sites, and what I am telling you is not using a different definition, we are using the same definition as the oxford dictionary has, but we interpret it different from you.

2nd section of your post captures the problem perfectly, you would argue I am using the definition incorrectly, whereas the vast majority within the RTS community, me included, think you are attempting to apply it incorrectly.

In my examples there was micromanagement, but there was also macromanagement, you can't remove the macro tag from actions just because it contains elements of micromanagement.

Micromanagement and macromanagement are mutually exclusive. It wasn't my definition, it was a opinion on the misuse of words, and not even my own.

And no I would argue you are using the definition to inappropriately validate a slang that was invented with no consideration to the meaning of the original word. You said yourself that the majority believe that macro equals eco and production in an rts and give the very small number of fish that adhere to that of the original definition as examples whilst ignoring the a sea of contradictions. (Most eco/production "macro" does not meet the one instruction multiple results criterion you just created.)

'micro' is Micro, and 'macro' is Micro. This is a fact.

What I am saying is that macromanagement is everything governing your economy in the game, which is what the majority also believes, that is not to say people won't mix up and state something that is micro as macro, but they still mostly have a general correct idea of what macro entail.

You have the free will to argue that I am inappropriately using it all you want but logically you have no basis to argue it as I am remaining within the definition of the word and since that is set in stone it is not up for you to personally debate.

And what you quoted you called "evidence" to "prove him wrong", you had not presented any other definition at that point, nor did you say it was an opinion on the misuse of words, you called it evidence.

An opinion is not evidence per definition, so in that case you were unarguably wrong in regards to correcting the person you quoted it to.

I choose option 5, so here is my explanation:
I recently had a realisation about the anchor. It is clearly a orbital defense building, yet it is way stronger in anti-air then anti-orbital. While the damage is okay I guess, the range is just too low to controll much orbital space. An umbrealla controls at least 10 times the orbital space at a fraction of the cost.

And the reason for that is - orbital invasions.
The average obrital invasion spends maybe one second in orbital space and 10-20 seconds in air-space. Invasions are best defended agaisnt in Air space, not orbital space.
Hence anchors have to have AA weapons to properly counter those.
A side effect is that it can be used to provie AA cover for a invasion beachhead, even though it is not mobile (and thus not designed for offensive use).

So before they can change the anchor's AA abilities, they have to do something about Astreyus invasions zipping through orbital space and loligagging in airspace (so the anchor no logner needs strong AA/Anti ground weapons).

You should perhaps examine the other dozens posts preceding that before opening your mouth. Where in I was corrected for using the term micro to describe something that in someone else's opinion was not. This opinion was based off the slang they know and not on the terminology they don't hence the lengthy debate afterwards.

And as I quite 'clearly stated' giving a handful of examples where your 'macro' might actually count as Macro, doesn't eliminate the thousands of examples where it inherently does not. Like in every other rts which doesn't use nifty features like area build, infinite queues, intelligent ai. etc etc etc etc.

e.g. "What I am saying is that macromanagement is everything governing your economy in the game, which is what the majority also believes" Building a single mex, does not fit in with the definition of macro "Single instruction -> multiple instructions" but does with that slanginisation right there.

My point my good man, is that the majority of 'macro' commands are in fact not Macro at all, and to address them as such without acknowledging this fact is blatantly stupid. To know you are wrong but not care, that is freedom.