Talk:Micromanagement (gameplay)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article is on a subject of High priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
This article was previously selected for Gaming Collaboration of the week.
VG To-do:

I believe the " Basic principles of micromangement " got a bit long and confusing, please clean it up!

Also add to the Micromangement in popular culture, i think it needs to be changed a bit. //Jeppe 30 june 2006

Contents

[edit] Someone set us up the POV

I believe this is the English wikipedia, not the internet slang wikipedia.

Bah. All Internet slang is in a language. No other languages exist besides English. Only English is a real language. QED. Internet slang is English. --Maru (talk) 08:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Turn-Based and Domestic Game Micromanagement

I think this article should have sections in micromanagement on turn-based games like Civilization IV and non-war based Real-Time games like Sim City or Caesar 3, as these type of game feature vastly different definitions of micromanagement. (Indeed, the original Civ predates all RTS games.

As the article stands, there is too much bias towards RTS games despite the fact that they are only one part of the micromanagement genre. The Kinslayer 12:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Updated with facts

I reworked a bit of this article. The orginal one described micro as a large scope management (macro) and it had information not related to micro.

[edit] Poor quality

This article sucks. It's loaded with poor spelling and it looks like the contributors made the same effort they'd make to a Counter-Strike forum post. It NEEDS work. --Victor 02:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed the spelling and removed some of the more seemingly useless external links. I don't know enough on this subject to be able to accurately assess alot of the rest of it. 68.39.174.238 03:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homeworld as an example

The original Homeworld game required a ton of micromanagement, and its sequel, Homeworld 2, took steps towards eliminating/reducing the problem. This would be a good example for use in the article. --Rodzilla (talk) 10:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Only if sources can be found to support that. I still think the article still has an insufferable bias towards RTS at the expense of numerous other types of micromanagement such as those found in games like Civ, Caesar, Transport Tycoon and other business games. The type of micromanagment required there is completely different from the type required in a real-time war game. The Kinslayer 14:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Another good example is The Settlers and The Settlers 2, where the whole game has been built around the principles of micromanagement, making small changes to achieve big results, or big disasters for that matter! The Kinslayer 12:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I hope nobody minds that I am making a few necessary cleanup edits. I hope they are helpful.--Clyde (talk) 03:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Right Idea?

This entire article discusses micromanagement as if it is a good thing. I play computer games and I think that micromanagement uses up valuable time that could be spent on larger movements and controls. Perhaps we should add the bad stuff about micromanagement as well?

Captain panda Mussolini ha sempre tarche Quis ut Dues 02:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Depends on the game whether it's good or bad though. Some games don't need any, some need a little, some inadvertantly need too much, and some have the whole point of the game being to micromanage. The Kinslayer 09:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we could make categories for RTS micromanagment, turn-based micromanagement, and good and bad of each. This way more knowledge about it goes through.

Captain panda Mussolini ha sempre tarche Quis ut Dues 03:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a fine idea, but it is hard enough to find stuff for this article. I did my best to cleanup the article when it was more tags than words, and during that time I found how little real references there are. If you can add anything useful it would help.--Clyde (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Macromanagement?

Why does macromanagement redirect here? It's never mentioned, and it's not the same thing. --ZxqamF 22:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remove "stub" tag?

I suggest removing the "stub" tag. I'm sure the article is not complete, but it covers some key points: the distinction between economic and tactical micro; the controversy about micro, especially in RTS, with examples and citations. Philcha 19:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and done. --VPeric 19:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References need to be updated.

I've noticed that the purepwnage episode 2 link is out of date the updated link should be "http://www.purepwnage.com/episodes/s1/2/index.html", but I'll be damned if I know how to work this wiki-contraption to fix it myself.

[edit] How to eliminate micromanagement completely while making the game still interesting?

I realised this could be possible via allowing the player to provide units that manage themselves, ie. move the huge amount of micromanagement into management units that work under player's command. What other thoughts would you have. I really hate all sorts of micromanagement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.140.255.108 (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent update

Ham Pastrami's recent update makes some interesting points:

  • The intro is now a little more generalised, which is good. I might edit it to see if I can simplifiy the English, but I like the ideas.
  • The distinction between "twitch-based" and "policy-based" micromanagement is a good one. For example policy-based micro is a significant PITA element in Master of Orion (original 1993 game). Unfortunately the way Ham Pastrami presents it removed the old distinction between tactical and economic micro, which was also valid and is the one that I've seen discussed most often on forums. While typing this it's struck me that the article also needs to deal with a few more things - thanks for widening my horizons, Ham Pastrami!

I have a preliminary idea on how to structure this lot:

  • Combat micro - sometimes a good thing, sometimes a bad thing, and player's attitudes differ a lot. Also need to be broadened to include e.g. TBS (e.g SE IV, SE V)- the previous and current versions of the article focus on RTS combat:
    • twitch-based - Starcraft with its APM and powerful "spellcasters" is a good example. I don't know whether "twitch-based" is the best summary term, I understand it but I'm more familiar with "clickfest". So it would be good if others can help us work out which are the most recognisable labels.
    • policy-based. For example in Total Annihilation you can set how aggressive your units are (2 mechanisms: aggression level of selected units and / or of new units produced at a selected factory: "shootall" switch); generally you want combat units be aggressive, but there are sneaky tactics that require your units to attack only when you give a specific order.
  • Economic micro - this is the kind that gamers most often dislike:
    • Policy-based, e.g. Master of Orion (original 1993 game) involves a lot of fiddling; Sword of the Stars requires less fiddling, but IMO you still need to check colonies every few turns until they're fully developed.
    • Build queues, e.g. Civ series, Master of Orion II
    • Resource-gathering units, e.g. ore trucks in the CC&C / Red Alert series, villagers in Warcraft, Age of Empires and their offshoots. You need to keep them busy, make sure they're collecting the right resources and keep them out of trouble.

But that only covers the games with which I'm most familiar. It would be good if others can add games that have significantly different mechanisms, with links to good descriptions. Philcha (talk) 10:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the best thing would be to simply split up these descriptive sections into genres: RTS micro, 4X micro, etc. That way it's pretty clear how micromanagement is interpreted and perceived in these games. I fear we might already be treading too far into WP:OR. The main reason I changed the structure of these sections was because the original structure seemed to deal solely with RTS, implicitly if not explicitly. I felt it was necessary to introduce a discussion of sim-style micromanagement in the article. My initial approach might not have been the best, I freely admit that. Ham Pastrami (talk) 21:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think OR is a problem. The section "Controversy about micromanagement in games" has enough refs. I can provide plenty of refs for TBS games as a result of working on 4X. For RTS, it's easy to find comparisons of Total Annihilation vs Starcraft
And for wargames in general my impression from what I've read is that economic micro is what gets the most complaints; in fact I've seen reviews of Galactic Civilizations and Master of Orion (and other recent TBS) that complain about the lack of hands-on control of combat (Gal Civ provides none;MOO 3 provides mechanisms but they're ineffective).
I agree the previous version of Micromanagement (gameplay) was excessively based on TBS and RTS. If you can contribute knowledge of sims / FPS / RPG that would be great.
The reason for the current lack of refs and narrow coverage of genres is that at the time I was only interested in producing enough text to support what 4X says about micro. If you're interested I'd be happy to work with you to get Micromanagement (gameplay) to something like the standard of 4X. Philcha (talk) 05:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Philcha's notes

Philcha (talk) 23:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)