Less micro and more macro. - Command & Conquer

Subject:
Micro management is fine, but only up to a certain degree in RTS games.

Description:
Here's the thing. If I'm playing an RTS game, I'm expecting grand-scheme control of units without worrying about their ammo, reload times, health and such to a great detail. But hey, that's just me.

And for this reason, I'd like to propose an idea where you could in fact research combat algorithms that could help your troops to operate better without your attention (however, it obviously does cost you research or whatever system could be in place from other benefits!).

And not to mention, there could be a whole faction dedicated to this ideology.

Positive Effect:
A plausibly interesting new faction / game mechanism that would open the game up for a certain audience.

Negative Effect:
Honestly, I don't find too much of negative effects here on the consumers end, but obviously, it's always added cost to design, implement and balance features like these.

Some vet players might get bit upset perhaps that such faction exists and is more friendly for people who aren't micro management gods?

Me being a Starcraft II: HOTS masters player, I really despise that idea, before you jump on me being elitist because I actually want this game to succeed, blizzard games were incredibly successful on an esports standpoint due to the amount that micro actually helped you achieve victory.

I will use a multiplier example for the reason of having good micro. Basically in starcraft for example, the mutalisk, if you were to just let them sit there and fight a bunch of stuff on the ground, then they would have a X1 multiplier of their effectiveness, but if you are REALLY good, you can dart in an out, clump them up so no single one is targeted, bounce between bases and snipe off workers which gives them a whopping X9 multiplier of effectiveness because you could pull that off. What I really dont want to see is a game of only hard counters because then the games are completely unexciting, stale and dry.

Basically I don't want to see what CNC4 did and same with end of nations, it is just a **** game of hard counters VS hard counters, so essentially mass one unit to beat other massed unit. It becomes boring and stale, but back to your question of micro or macro, I think it is important that there is BOTH.

Starcraft II for example is actually a highly macro intensive game but also highly micro intensive, people just don't seem to think that because the first thing that pops into peoples heads when they think starcraft is koreans going flat out with their 300+ APM and insane multitasking when in reality you actually only need 100 to be really good. Just have SOLID MACRO!

So in summary, I don't like the idea, the last thing I want to see is another watered down RTS that over simplifies mechanics because some newbies cant take the time to get their head around it.

ALSO I should mention why micro is good to have is because then there are these games where they are back and forth back and forth, lots of stuff going on, coming back from bad positions etc. THat is why sc2 was exciting. Micro makes the possibility for come backs which is what I want to see in an RTS

Command & Conquer

Game Feature Less micro and more macro.

Comment