The scouting problem

Now I understand your stance. I agree. But I think that micro should be removed that is largely unnecessary (e.g. making doxen dodge shots, enforcing escort behaviours strictly.)

Actually the opposite in this game, unlike your beloved starcraft. In this game, the point is to have another wave coming in right behind it. That's how you win. Macro style. More map control, more bases, more eco, more army.

Couldn't agree more you will be an opponent that I will be afraid to fight in the battlefield

Sure if your playing on large planets or just turteling in a FFA you dont need to care about what your opponents doing. (I would still be scouting to look for a way to take people out before they turtle and make a boring game)

In a 1v1 the average game time is about 20ish mins with combat happening from 8mins (or earlier), so just because your proffered way of playing does not find scouting relative please don't dismiss it for those of us that wish to play the game more compatibility.

I would love to cast that game, but I have a feeling there would be a line and if there is a contaminator it would not count towards the ladder.

What about large planets? Then both players have to scout longer than on a small planet. But most importantly, the players are really far away. So you don't need to know where they are right away. Focus on economic expansion and use many of the tools to reduce the micro management so it's not really a big deal that you're setting waypoints.

This is just plain wrong. You clearly dont understand ladders. Because i managed to hit #1 first that means i am #1 until someone beats me? Your logic is inherently flawed.

Same comment right back at you.

A ladder gives a rating which predicts the result of a given pairing. A person with equal rating will draw against their opponent, a person with a higher rating will win proportionately more games, a person with a lower rating will win proportionally less games; all things being proportionate to the difference between the two rankings.

The ultimate flaw in a ladder system is that at any one time it can't be assumed to be accurate, until all the pairings have been made a sufficient number of times.



Basically, it's a sort algorithm.

Until you have compared every single possible pairing, you can't actually be certain that it is correct.

This issue has been identified by mathematicians as one of the flaws inherent to the ladder system. The fact that not enough of the correct pairings/too many incorrect pairings will skew the results of the ladder.

Until #1 and #2 have actually been compared, you can't assume that the ladder system is correct. That's why it's called a ladder. You compare a bottom rung to a higher rung, and if the bottom rung is actually higher than the higher rung, the ladder is incorrect and the system self-corrects.

actually, you can acurately guarantee that player x is better than player y even if they dont play. Thats why rating systems work. The only reason this system has a problem is because of a lack of automated matchmaking pairing people of equal skill together. The ladder is not flawed, it is lacking.

Sorry, but everyone who thinks that starcraft is a micro type of game is dead wrong.
Starcraft is indeed a game where macro is more imoportant than micro. Everyone who says otherwise has no clue what they're talking about. It might be that micro in starcraft is more important than in PA. But that really depends on which type of league you're playing in. I know that because I was im the grandmaster league of starcraft, so I have some experience in that matter.

Your first goal is to macro perfectly, so you want to manage your ressources as good as possible, and then you spend the rest of your time to micro your units. PA is the same.

Just because people have trouble finding the time to micro their units without neglecting their economy, doesn't mean that Uber shoulf make it easier for them. Because they're bad. And the players at the highest level of play, the competitive scene, doesn't have that problem. And even if they do doesn't mean that this game should be made easier.

So casualizing this game, just because some people aren't good enough to micro and macro at the sam time, would be a very bad step imo and could possibly ruin this game for attempting progamers. Because being able to macro and micro at the same time is what makes the difference between descent players and good players.

No, you can't.

When player X and player Y play, the rating system predicts a certain result. If that result is different to the expectation, the rating system self-updates. The rating system doesn't guarantee that player X is better than player Y. It suggests that that's the case.

The rating system has to be assumed incorrect for it to self-update. Otherwise it wouldn't adjust itself, it would adjust the outcome of the match. So no, you can never guarantee that player X is better than player Y. That's the point of the rating system.


The system is perfectly fine for everything but the top 10%. Once you're in the very top rankings, the only way to guarantee that you're actually better is to play one another.

Which is why in Chess, there is a tournament explicitly for the world championship, and the only way to become world champion is to win that tournament. The ELO ranking becomes coincidental at that point.

We don't use Starcrafts definition of micro and macro on this forum. In Starcraft, micro means managing your army and fighting units while macro means managing the production and economy.

We use these these definitions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromanagement_(gameplay)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macromanagement

How does that disagree with anything I said?
If you have two players who manage their economy equally well, but one of them finds the additional time to micro his units, like dodging shots with doxes, leading units around stationary defenses to avoid them, using the uber cannon with his commander and stuff, while the other player doesn't, then the player who does more micro should be rewarded, should be considered the better player and deserves to win the game.

Like I said, it's what defines the really good players apart from the rest.

No, that's what defines those with good muscle memory, twitchy reflexes and high APM.

That has nothing to do with strategy.

I don't think that should be the determining factor in PA. Dodging shots is boring micromanagement IMO which I'd rather have automated or avoided by the game mechanics.
Avoiding defense seems more like higher level management rather than micromanagement. If you know the position of those defenses you can just queue up some commands to avoid them which I don't really consider micromanagement.
Even when you could micromanage stuff to get an advantage it might be better to perform higher level of management like coordinating air and land forces.

Edit:Fixed

Thanks for ignoring half of what I said nano...
Ofc strategy and macro makes up most of this game. And it should. But saying that micro is utterly unimportant is just not true. It can give you the edge in many situations and ignoring it completely should not be rewarded.

Just because micro is not strategy, doesn't mean that it's completely neglectable, or that it should be.

I disagree. Micro is not a focus of this game and should be lessened in importance to near triviality in my opinion.
The only exception is the Commander.

Also, I didn't ignore anything of what you posted, I thought it was 100% incorrect. ' Good ' players should not be defined by how fast they can click a series of buttons.

Did I ever say that micro is the focus of this game? Where did I say that?

And just because you might have trouble finding time to macro and micro at the same time, doesn't mean that good players do.

What you're talking about is taking away to carefully maneuver your units to flank enemy armies, create balls of death of fighters to punish players who just use patrol circles for fighters around their base, and much more.

This would casualize this game to extreme measures and would allow everyone with some sense of how to manage their economy to be considered a "good" player.

No, please just no.

I guess its a lost cause. Iam waiting for good mods.

That's not micro.
@Godde - StormingKiwi didn't say that. Somehow that became misquoted

Ofc, that's micro...

Micro is giving your units a very detailed set of orders, and that's exactly what this is.