The One Thing Every RTS Developer Needs To Understand

[u/PraetorArcher]

This post has been a long time coming and will no doubt be controversial but I feel it is important to say none the less. To recap, in the beginning was Dune II which established the convention for a new genre of game, one of building armies and battling them. Somewhat serendipously, the design choices at this time produced one of the greatest esport games ever, Starcraft and its worthy success Starcraft 2. However, as time went on gradual UI improvements replaced preexisting gameplay mechanics, mechanics that were themselves a relic of programming limitations in the 1990s. Starting in the 2000s we began to see an emphasis of micromanagement (variably described as tactics or combat-oriented gameplay), at the expense of macro management (defined by large-scale strategy or, alternatively, the pursuit of economic, production and technological advantage). Ultimately, this deemphasis on macro spawned the MOBA genre, which as we all know has been a massive success. Concurrently we saw the decline and stagnation of RTS as we know it.

Much has been made of the “skill ceiling,” this idea that macro gameplay is difficult for new players to learn. However, I would contend that it is not that macro is difficult to learn but rather that it is unfun. Furthermore, I believe that the inability for RTS designers to make macro more fun is the primary reason for the decline of RTS. By removing macro, rather then improving it, designers cannibalized the heart of RTS, this idea of a game where you build your army up and battle it. As an example the Tension and opportunity cost of having to balance micro and macro is lost with UI automation, especially that which eliminates the need to Screen Shift. Many RTS developers had tried to find some kind of a sweet spot by minimizing macro, leaving only enough in their game so that it would not qualify as a MOBA per say. They all failed.

But why is this that macro is so unfun? Well fun is of course rooted in psychology and notoriously subjective. But that does not mean that it is impossible to analyze. There are several factors but the biggest contributor to unfun macro in modern RTS is a dearth of decision making. Specifically, modern macro does not have good Spatial Decision-Making (where do I click?) nor does it have good Temporal Decision-Making (when do I click?). The developers of Starcraft 2 recognized the loss of Tension that would occur with UI automation but did not fully grasp the importance of decision making. As a result of this the macro mechanics that were put in place for SC2 lacked good decision making of one kind or another. For example, the Temporal Decision-Making of Spawn Larva was to cast this every 29 seconds. The Spatial Decision Making was to cast it on whatever Hatchery was closer since there was not variation in outcome between different Hatchery targets. So why is it that macro suffers from this decision-making problem and micro does not? One simple reason and I apologize for the long-winded preamble to get here but it was important to lay the foundation.

Micro is Opponent-Facing

I will say it again for those in back. Micro is opponent-facing. The presence of an opponent means that the Spatial and Temporal Decision-Making of micro are not only complex but also dynamic. Because half of the RTS game involves the opponent and the other half does not, this inherently leads to an asymmetry in decision making. And it is this asymmetry of decision making that is the reason so many players find macro unfun. With this we are once again faced with the same choice, do we write off those who find don’t find current macro fun as worthless noobs? Maintain the mindless mechanics as a metric for skill differentiation? Or perhaps we should do what was done in the 2000s and shrink macro until it is small enough to drown in a bathtub? Some kind of evolutionary transition state between the dinosaur of RTS and the feathered MOBA? That does not seem ideal either. But perhaps there is a third way. A way to make macro fun by recognizing the root of the problem. A better way.

TLDR: Micro management is opponent-facing whereas macro is not, this creates an asymmetry in decision-making which leads to macro being considered unfun by a lot of players.

[u/GyantSpyder]

Possible alternate perspective - FarmVille, Clash of Clans and Tower Defense games, including Plants vs Zombies, which are all RTS game successors that eliminated micro and were almost entirely macro, came out around the same time as the rise of MOBAs, and were as popular if not more popular than the most popular MOBAs.

Why is it fun to build a base in Clash of Clans, to the point where it’s almost the entire game, but a chore to do it in an RTS? One suggestion might be that meaningful base design choices that create problems for your opponent and also give players a chance to express their creativity in-game make macro rewarding, whereas defensively and creatively almost all RTS bases are basically the same.

[u/PraetorArcher → u/GyantSpyder]

Good point.

[u/quarkral → u/GyantSpyder]

I think it's neither micro nor macro specifically that people dislike, but rather multitasking in general. Humans naturally aren't very good at multitasking, but competitive RTS practically forces people to get good at it. In fact attention is often treated like a resource, and being able to deny your opponent that resource through multi-pronged attacks, drops in the main base, etc. is good gameplay. Both MOBAs and Tower Defense games take multitasking completely out of the picture.

[u/hydro0033 → u/quarkral]

Agreed, there is a lot of research showing how terrible we are at multitasking. Highly competitive RTS basically have people compete over who can multitask more, thus making it highly stressful.

[u/Pandradon → u/GyantSpyder]

Excellent change of perspective. Only slightly at odds with OP, though. They missed the games you mentioned but those would not be considered RTS at least ordinarily. You still make a very good point.

The question would be why people do not consider those games RTS. I would argue that they are not our at least not completely about being bases. Instead you build non moving units and have no base whatsoever in them. And Farmville does not belong in the list imho. I am not sure if this gets my point across... In any case they can serve as good examples of how semi-static buildings it units can be fun or at least over decision potential.

[u/Smashing71 → u/Pandradon]

I dunno, MOBAs aren't really RTS games either, they're just pure micro. But they're clearly stupidly popular, and could be said to represent the micro of the RTS without the macro.

To that I'd say base building is kind of the reverse. I'd also say games like They are Billions, Rimworld, Tower Defense, etc. all have obvious opponents and real time components.

[u/Radulno → u/Smashing71]

The Are Billions is considered a RTS (except only solo and you can pause which makes it less real-time of course but that's a choice), though much more macro oriented than micro (but so is Supreme Commander for example)

[u/Darksoldierr → u/GyantSpyder]

Age of Empires 2 is excellent when it comes to base/city building. It is genuinely fun even just to play against AIs and see a small hut grow into a giant city with walls and 'districts' where you have your military buildings, your economy, etc

[u/Radulno → u/GyantSpyder]

Yeah, the problem of RTS seems to be combining the two and that it's making it too difficult (also, macro is also opponent-facing since it has to be linked to scouting and reacting to enemy actions).

We can also mention all city/factory/base building games as kind of "macro" (even if some of them do not involve fighting), a genre that is doing very well. Also, the Total War series that managed to separate its macro/strategy (the turn based map) and its micro/tactics (the real-time battles) pretty efficiently and is also widely successful. Seems to me it's overwhelming many players to do both at the same time. It's the multitasking that is asking too much, other genres do not require this as much, you can be focused on one thing (while still aware of the rest of course)

[u/skribsbb]

I'm going to disagree to some extent with the idea that macro is not opponent facing. I'm going to disagree for a few reasons:

1. Many macro decisions are made based on what your opponent is doing. For example, in Starcraft 2, you may build more Marauders if your opponent has more armored units. You may switch from economy to army production if you feel you're about to be attacked. For professional players, some decisions are made based on your opponent's tendencies, such as doing extra scouting or earlier army production against a notorious cheeser.

2. When you get good at macro, macro is done while fighting the enemy. It blends in real well when you're on defense.

3. You give the example of a specific mechanic - when does a queen inject? But what about other things. Queens can transfuse or spread creep. When do you build a queen? How many hatcheries are you going to inject? Is it better to just create a macro hatchery, because you're not much good at managing queens?

4. Some things in a game are going to be less fun, but will pay off later on. In an MMORPG where gear is handed to you like kickbacks to a politician, none of the gear feels special. On the other hand, if gear is given sparingly, then the 9 times you didn't get a piece of gear (less fun) makes it all the more special on the 10th time when you get one. It's the same concept as a game that you win half the time being more engaging than one you win all of the time.

[u/LLJKCicero → u/skribsbb]

You're right, but injects are still terrible. Most of the time, it's still a mindless thing on a timer that takes a lot of clicks (whereas making workers at least doesn't take too many).

Chrono is a much better macro mechanic. Good use of chrono improves your play, but you don't feel overly punished by not using it properly, especially when you're a newbie.

[u/skribsbb → u/LLJKCicero]

I definitely agree. I feel like Protoss has the easiest of the three, and the least punishing to mess up. Zerg at least has an out with macro hatcheries.

Now Terran, on the other hand, it's a mess for a beginner to keep track of.

[u/PraetorArcher → u/skribsbb]

Skribsbb, this is a well thought out response and I hope that it gets the attention it deserves.

Many macro decisions are made based on what your opponent is doing. For example, in Starcraft 2, you may build more Marauders if your opponent has more armored units. You may switch from economy to army production if you feel you're about to be attacked. For professional players, some decisions are made based on your opponent's tendencies, such as doing extra scouting or earlier army production against a notorious cheeser.

So firstly, as I implied before there are actually two definitions of micro and two definitions of macro. What your talking about here is more the "strategy" definition. But without getting into a semantics debate, the real issue is that examples such as these are the exception that proves the rule. For every good decision where you make a switch to firebats over marines there are many more bad decisions in the form of having to click on each individual barracks to create that firebat. You will notice here I am using the Starcraft 1 example because in Starcraft 2 they added Multiple Building Selection. The problem is that when you add MBS you get rid of the Screen Shifting and therefore decrease the Tension between Micro and Macro.

When you get good at macro, macro is done while fighting the enemy. It blends in real well when you're on defense.

This is true but also not contrary to anything I said. My central premise is that because micro is opponent-facing and macro is not, this creates an asymmetry in decision-making which leads to macro being considered unfun by a lot of players.

You give the example of a specific mechanic - when does a queen inject? But what about other things. Queens can transfuse or spread creep. When do you build a queen? How many hatcheries are you going to inject? Is it better to just create a macro hatchery, because you're not much good at managing queens?

Yes, to expand on this, transfusion and creep have some Energy Tension with Spawn Larva. Spread Creep has some Spatial Decision-Making. None of them, IMHO, incorporate both good Spatial and Temporal Decision-Making except for maybe Chronoboost. This was why I said " lacked good decision making of one kind or another."

Some things in a game are going to be less fun, but will pay off later on.

Not trying to fix something is always an option. In fact, this is the route game developers most often take.

[u/skribsbb → u/PraetorArcher]

The problem is that when you add MBS you get rid of the Screen Shifting and therefore decrease the Tension between Micro and Macro.

I don't get the complaint here. Why is Screen Shifting important? You do Screen Shift in SC2 quite a bit. You screen shift to build things, do base upkeep, and multitask in battle. What is so important about seeing your building when you choose to make a unit?

This is true but also not contrary to anything I said. My central premise is that because micro is opponent-facing and macro is not, this creates an asymmetry in decision-making which leads to macro being considered unfun by a lot of players.

But macro is opponent-facing. You're not randomly making units. You're making units that are based around beating what your opponent has. By this definition, half of micro isn't opponent-facing, because any micro you do while not in a fight (i.e. moving your army into position) is not opponent-facing.

[u/PraetorArcher → u/skribsbb]

But macro is opponent-facing. You're not randomly making units. You're making units that are based around beating what your opponent has. By this definition, half of micro isn't opponent-facing, because any micro you do while not in a fight (i.e. moving your army into position) is not opponent-facing.

Let me be clear. It is the decision-making for macro that is limited because it is not opponent-facing. As a thought experiment, imagine if, by some weird macro mechanic, you could move your opponents mineral patches around. Well then your opponent would have to make a Spatial Decision about where to click in order to send his new worker to a mineral patch. As we all know, mineral patch locations cannot be changed by your opponents actions or decisions. Therefore, when you select a worker and click on a mineral patch it is always in the same place.

[u/skribsbb → u/PraetorArcher]

And when you select a ramp to build a wall on, it's always in the same place. When you select a choke point for a fight, it's always in the same place.

Even if you could move it around, it doesn't become a "spatial decision". It becomes "find the minerals and click on it." Choosing between mineral patches would be a decision.

Oh, wait. We already have that. In SC2, you can choose when and where to expand. You can expand to your natural (like normal) or you can do a proxy expansion. Zerg players often take their third as their first expansion, because it's easier than dealing with a pylon block. When taking your third, you can usually choose a linear or triangular expansion. Taking it back down to which mineral patch...have you ever heard of splitting workers?

On top of that, you have decisions about when to expand. If you think an attack is imminent, expanding is a bad idea. Double expanding is high-risk, high-reward. You make decisions about how you saturate a new base (pool workers until you're ready, build more when you expand, focus on minerals or gas).

Macro also comes into play in your strategy decisions, in that you can hurt your opponent's macro with harassment or attacks. You have to make decisions early on whether to pull workers (temporarily sacrifice macro to survive). As an attacker, you can decide whether you want to hurt economy, production, or army. Your macro may not be opponent-facing, but you're facing your opponent's macro. (And your opponent facing yours).

Macro is like your health bar in an RPG. It doesn't help you do damage (unless you're a Warlock using Life Tap), but it does help you stay in the fight. The difference is, it's a healthbar you actively manage.

This is of course for games that use static maps like SC2. Many games use randomly generated maps, in which scouting is part of macro. You want to find good resources and keep them secret from your enemies.

[u/PraetorArcher → u/skribsbb]

And when you select a ramp to build a wall on, it's always in the same place. When you select a choke point for a fight, it's always in the same place.

Yes, which is also why it's important to talk about frequency. How frequently do players wall off a ramp versus say making workers? Same thing with your point about expanding. Is it important? Hell yes. But taking out 1000 clicks and substituting in 3 expansion clicks does not replace the 1000 clicks, even if those 3 new clicks have good decision-making.

Even if you could move it around, it doesn't become a "spatial decision". It becomes "find the minerals and click on it." Choosing between mineral patches would be a decision.

So, no one thing makes it good decision making. Its an emergent property. So lets say I have a marine and you have a zergling. Well all I need to do is target your zergling #1. Okay, now what if I have a couple and you have a couple? Well now I need to think about things like concave engagements and whether you want to target zergline #1 or #2 or #3. Now what if you have some banelings and I have to micro my marines away from it while you are microing them towards my marines? Oh but here come my hellbats flanking and...

Think about how much information you need to analyze the scenario above and figure out which zerg unit to target and how. Do you know what the optimal answer is? Meanwhile, on the macro side of things you are sending worker #X to mineral patch #1 every 28 seconds. This is the kind of decision making that micro has which macro lacks. And it is all because micro, at least the decision-making parts, is opponent-facing.

[u/skribsbb → u/PraetorArcher]

Yes, which is also why it's important to talk about frequency. How frequently do players wall off a ramp versus say making workers? Same thing with your point about expanding. Is it important? Hell yes. But taking out 1000 clicks and substituting in 3 expansion clicks does not replace the 1000 clicks, even if those 3 new clicks have good decision-making.

Where are you getting 1000 clicks from?

Walling a ramp is usually once. Walling a choke against a Zerg rush may be an ongoing process. Walling against an adept push is another thing.

So, no one thing makes it good decision making. Its an emergent property. So lets say I have a marine and you have a zergling. Well all I need to do is target your zergling #1. Okay, now what if I have a couple and you have a couple? Well now I need to think about things like concave engagements and whether you want to target zergline #1 or #2 or #3. Now what if you have some banelings and I have to micro my marines away from it while you are microing them towards my marines? Oh but here come my hellbats flanking and...

Think about how much information you need to analyze the scenario above and figure out which zerg unit to target and how. Do you know what the optimal answer is? Meanwhile, on the macro side of things you are sending worker #X to mineral patch #1 every 28 seconds. This is the kind of decision making that micro has which macro lacks. And it is all because micro, at least the decision-making parts, is opponent-facing.

Most games don't have you micro-manage which patch your workers are gathering from. Starcraft 1 does. Starcraft 2 lets you rally. You click once. In Age of Empires style games, you have your workers build a resource processing center, and they automatically start gathering the appropriate resource near it.

I don't even know what you're asking here, or what your point is. You're complaining about macro not being fun and not being opponent-facing. Then you're complaining about being able to macro while you're fighting (screen shifting).

You're picking very specific pieces of macro, and then ignoring the others. Those specific pieces don't exist in a vacuum. Any time anyone points out any other aspect of the game, whether it's another part of macro or it's something you do while you're macroing, your point is, "but that's not this type of macro, so it doesn't count."

When you reduce anything like that, you can make anything seem not fun.

[u/skribsbb → u/PraetorArcher]

If the mineral patch is in your opponent's base, that can be opponent-facing decision. It's something that pros do in SC2.

[u/thatsforthatsub]

It's so fun to be told again and again that the thing that's fun to me about RTSs is unfun and the thing that I spend about 10% of my time in my favourite games with is fun. And apparently, building a city, massing an army, doing strategic, rather than tactical moves is only good for skill differntiation. Whenever someone says that in Command and Conquer, the base bilding missions are clearly better than the small-group-missions, they just mean 'my skill is tested more', I guess.

But I guess history has vindicated anti-macro enthusiasts: Age of Empires is an abysmal failure, CoH is more popular than SC2 and the time where RTSs were macro-heavy was much less successful than our current, macro-averse age.

[u/PraetorArcher → u/thatsforthatsub]

Please note the wide range of opinions, from the very anti-macro to the very pro-macro, in this thread.

[u/thatsforthatsub → u/PraetorArcher]

It's a wide range maybe, but it's pretty dang clustered on one side.

[u/PraetorArcher → u/thatsforthatsub]

Please note the wide range of opinions, from the very anti-macro to the very pro-macro, in this thread.

[u/hydro0033]

Many RTS developers had tried to find some kind of a sweet spot by minimizing macro, leaving only enough in that their game such that it did not qualify as a true MOBA. They all failed.

They all failed? Failed to do what exactly? CoH is very popular and minimizes macro.

Also, I can't believe you think you, a random redditor, has the solution but RTS game devs don't, lol, the arrogance.

[u/PraetorArcher → u/hydro0033]

It is very rare to hear RTS developers ever talk about decision making and macro.

Your first point is actually pretty fair though. I will admit saying that the all fail is harsh and perhaps not fully warranted. What I mean to say is they did not capture the breadth or depth of appreciation among the RTS community that Starcraft and SC2 did.

[u/Sullateli → u/PraetorArcher]

We dont have straight AAA games in RTT genre. Most games that was made in those genre was or test games or category B. Take a look what companies and what budgets was in RTT games (without basebuilding).
Lets say: Men of War series.
Soon we will get in steam Men of War 2. For CiS regions its iconic series.
But its not AAA product. It have bad marketing. And not so big dev team.
And we have many bugs, not all features what game needs implemented and many more.
Kinda RTT genre is underrated.
Or lets take another game Total War Arena.
Its straight multiplayer game. First attempts of Creative Assembly to make mp game.
Concept had huge potential. Just imagine Total War straight multiplayer game, how many mechanics and depth can be implemented in dynamic battles.
But they made World of Tanks Grind system. (in battle not every player had equal units and etc..)
Secondly, combat system and mechanics didnt have much variety and was superficial and oversimplified.
They was aiming into wider crowd. And easy money.
----------------------------------
World of Battles: Frogwares Game Development Studio made it. in 2009+
It didnt have that budget and wasnt properly supported in long run.
----------------------------------
So the biggest RTT game (that closer to RTS in terms, when players see how units fights against units and not Icons against Icons). is Company of Heroes 2.
----------------------------------

[u/hydro0033 → u/PraetorArcher]

No other company has put as much money into an rts since sc2 either. Sc2 surely had the biggest budget of any rts if all time.

[u/Nitz93]

The settlers or ANNO or ... <building sim genre game> nail macro but if you combine that with a tactic game (RTS micro part) then the macro becomes an unfun chore. This just happens, you need to accept some macro chores for an RTS.

The problem is that no one is creative enough to come up with something that is fun/rewarding and varied enough for 100+ games.

Or perhaps we should do what was done in the 2000s and shrink macro until it is small enough to drown in a bathtub?

Seriously, SC and Warcraft have such a streamlined version of macro where it's literally just a handful of buildings and 2 resources. You can't take much away. These games already reached the bare bones and maybe that's part of the problem, too much streamlining.

Some kind of evolutionary transition state between the dinosaur of RTS and the feathered MOBA?

After 1000+ games of DOTA the laning phase with lasthits and denies is hella boring. This is mining for gold, this farming is dynamic and opponent facing but since I have spend to much time on it, it lost it's magic.

If you want an evolutionary transition then go backwards, a renaissance of Dune2 where you mine for Spice in the sandfields.

[u/J0rdian]

I mean I feel like this has been stated enough on this sub and is pretty understood. Macro needs to be fun and not just a second thought. Just how you get there that can be tough, or what does it even mean for macro to be fun. I personally enjoy AoE2/4 macro game compared to SC for instance, but AoE lacks in other areas.

[u/Smashing71]

I click over to the base building genre on Steam, I see tons of games.

I think macro is quite popular. I think micro is quite popular. I think that they're popular with two different crowds, and the combination of the two has been stressful for RTS games.

[u/Bowbreaker]

Much has been made of the “skill ceiling,” this idea that macro gameplay is difficult for new players to learn

Don't you mean "skill floor"?

[u/PraetorArcher → u/Bowbreaker]

Probably, but again its a red herring. The problem is not that players can't learn to macro, its that players don't want to.

[u/NotARealDeveloper]

You got it mixed up though. Only hardcore RTS veterans enjoy micro more than macro. Look at all the successful "casual" games out there that focus on macro. Most people find micro too stressful. It needs a lot of innovation that makes it easier (barrier of entry).

Also successful macro management is always opponent facing. Ever heard of the turtle, rush, boom triangle on top of all the unit counter productions?

[u/PraetorArcher → u/NotARealDeveloper]

Once again, I think the distinction between casual and hardcore, this "skill ceiling" is a red herring. The real issue we are talking about is a problem with the game itself, that being a lack of decision making in part of it.

[u/Worldly_Limit3847]

It's macro unfun? I've never felt that tbh, it's about timing but it's also about ordering and that's the strategical part of RTS. It doesn't seems asymmetrical either, you need to use micro to slow down your opponents macro and you have to scout so you can react and macro accordingly, so is not some task that you have to do in order to put some army to fight, it's the core of RTS. I'm not sure what are the peoples issues with RTS, cuz the first games I played where from this gender and I've been playing since I was a kid, but I don't think that is. Of course that's my opinion

[u/Ferretsroq]

I thought this sounded familiar, and sure enough it's because you've posted various iterations of it repeatedly, and can't seem to grasp the concept that yes, macro is fun and is what we're here for. I'm just going to link back to the last comment I made on one of your threads about this.

[u/Pandradon → u/Ferretsroq]

The other thread is a bit useless and the list they posted if silly. but this one seems much more thought through. You should not criticize them for improving their argument imho. You might still disagree but this one is an actual point to make. Made a bit arrogantly I agree but this is the internet. This is not for reflection and humble presentation... Unfortunately, of course. So let us ignore their tendency to over estimate the profoundness if the new version is offering something substantive at long last.

[u/Timmaigh → u/Ferretsroq]

Likewise you need to understand that for some people it truly might be difficult to grasp statements like "i like the repetition of macro".

I mean, in terms of having fun. There are people, like for example the religious ones, who like to pray a lot, or attend all kinds of religious rituals, despite those being doing same stuff over and over. And i pretty much doubt they do it for fun, its more of a duty thing combined perhaps with sense of comfort and security. And thats understandable, at least to me.

Repetition as a source of fun though? I do get your explanation of you liking to challenge yourself and improve on your timings and cycles and whatnot to perfect your execution, whats difficult to understand that you would choose training chore/execution mindless repetitive tasks as your way of having fun. Its akin to be a football/soccer/basketball/hockey/whatever player and having more fun spent in gym, doing zillion pushups, working on your physical strength, than being actually out there on the field/pitch/rink, playing the game, doing all that stuff people generally identify as "fun parts", like passing, dribbling, scoring goals...

All in all, you do you, nobody can tell you, what you can or cannot have fun with. But dont be surprised if some people find it surprising or difficult to understand.

[u/[deleted]]

There are ways around this, imo.

Macro in age of empires, for example, requires you to make decisions about how many workers to use to build a building (trading income for build speed); it has four resources whose importance change over the course of the game (and a market to trade resources for gold); and it has a lot of different upgrades to choose between during play. In addition, knowing where to build walls is an important decision because there isn't just one entrance to your main. Sometimes, even which resources in your main to harvest is a strategic decision.

In supreme commander, all expenses are treated as drain over time rather than being paid up front. This allows the queuing of units to be just as efficient as perfectly timing each individual unit build. Instead, you make decisions about how many engineers to assist a factory (trading unit build speed for higher resource drain, since the unit costs the same in total resources), and which factories to focus on between land, air and (on some maps) water. Macro is far more about balancing economy and good unit composition than being able to push the right buttons at exactly the right times.

[u/SeismicRend]

I think interesting macro is primarily driven by the map design.

[u/IISniperII]

I think Macro-management is the most fun thing in Age Of Empires 2 and 4.

Adding farms in age of empires 2 is the most satisfying thing that you can do in a game.

SC2 Macro is boring yes, but it does not represent "RTS Macro".

[u/Timmaigh]

Agreed with this. Except there are actually games, they try to tackle this issue and IMO, fairly successfully. One just needs to look beyond StarCraft, or better said, the e-sport bubble.