That's exactly the kind of things I talked about by the game being easier technically, this way the game isn't about who has the better APM, but who can position his units better, choose the right targets etc etc.
Now if you wanna see some good micro, do yourself a favor and watch the series of GSL games between KyrixZenith and Foxer, it shows you how important Micro is in this game.

Now, macro is easy to learn, but it really is hard to master, knowing exactly how many probes you need, knowing exactly what's the right build-order counter to what BO, never forgetting to expand at the right time, having just enough unit building that you won't waste to many minerals, and won't have too many spare ones, knowing when to upgrade, what to upgrade, knowing all the different timings.

It really seems like you're just angry about Blizzard (and it's justified, don't get me wrong), and ignore SC2 potential as a competitive game (and you really shouldn't).

So the last Blizzard game you actually purchased you admit to being addicted to (WoW). Must have found it to be pretty awesome then. The only other Blizzard game that's been released in the last 600 years is SC2 which you admit to not owning. What exactly are you ranting about? You feel disconnected from a game you don't own? You feel disconnected from Blizzard because that make games that are so addictive that you feel like a drug addict while playing them? What's the last Blizzard game you bought that you didn't like?

Wow LOLOL

Blizzard has fallen? Blizzard isn't anything like they used to be?!?!

I'm not even going to argue with this insanity.

Blizzard games are head and shoulders above what they used to be. WoW is the most played MMO of all time. Devs FEAR making MMO because of having to compete with WoW. Many even resort to a completely free model JUST to have a chance at taking some market from WoW.

SC2 is probably the best game I've played this gen. It's the only game I've played almost every single day. DOTA, Arena, Income wars...and an AMAZING online matching system. It's really bar none the best matching system out. Easily find a game within seconds. Click on a DOTA game, and it probably is full in seconds.

And the map system. OMFG, how did I live before the bnet2 map system. No more editing maps to give yourself an advantage and call it the same thing. No more downloading thousands of variations of the same maps simply because people edited them in some form or another. Just perfect. That's what it is.

Diablo 3 looks fantastic. I simply cannot understand where you guys are coming from. Actually, scratch that. I know where you're coming from. YOU'VE CHANGED. Diablo 2 and 1 any anything else they've made have taken so many hours out of your time that you do not want to invest in another. That is the problem. You don't LIKE those genres. But guess what? There are millions of people who will buy those games because the gameplay is far advanced of other devs capabilities. And people will buy...because they aren't jaded like you all seem to be.

first of all, boost,mule,and queen are MICRO not macro. Macro is what units do you build. Macro is overall strategy. Micro is focus firing, active battling, training units, using abilities etc etc. 

second of all, you said "was in platinum". Right? What are you now?

And I'm in upper gold, and it's pretty stiff competition here.

FYI: If you were platinum at release then that doesn't say much. It takes many months before all the ranks get accurate population density. Also, placing platinum right out of the placement matches also says nothing.

No, boost, mule and queen are macro because they are all economy, and have nothing to do with unit control during battles, they are also things that you need to constantly remember to do.

When I finished my placement matches I was in gold with 3-2 ratio, now, I am still in platinum, after I got to 1st in my division three weeks ago i've quit playing because there are other games i'd like to play and I rather watch Pro gamers play the game than play myself.

I like how you seem to diss my skills, especially based on how you seem to have no understandings of the basic concepts of micro and macro.

That is completely wrong. You have no credibility in my book.

Bolded: That is what I was going to say!!!

Rofl. Dude. ECONOMY AS A WHOLE is macro. As in "HOW MANY gatherers", "WHEN to GAS", "WHEN to EXPAND"

"1,1", "E", "right-click minerals". That's called micro dude. Clicking anything is micro.

Micro is control, macro is strategy.

AND LOLOL QUEEN IS ECONOMY! Rofl, just gtfo man. 

ACtually....what is your SN?

I'm willing to agree that in a few years and maybe when they get the expansions out (I bet you they will be around $60 in which case Blizzard can suck it if it happens) this will be a very nice competative game but as it is right now I can't agree. It has potetial to be better, or it has potential to stay as it is now which I feel is more dumbed down than BW.

Do you know what TeamLiquid is?

Do you know who day [9] is?

Do think all of these guys are wrong, and you are right?

yep and I disagree with them and husky and any other commentators on the subject.

However, I will concede that they are very close to being macro. But macro in every sense of the word is overall strategy. It's looking at the enemy base, deciding the most appropriate route to beating that person, and focusing on the most efficient way to get there. It involves economy, which buildings to create, what units, where to place them etc..

Micro is any time you manage a unit or building beyond its normal function. The idea is that in the game there is a basic functional result of things. You build units and those fight. There are two ways to improve your odds at winning.

From the natural function of fighting and dying in an evenly matched combat;

1) manage them in a way that improves their combat ability.

2) build units that "counter" the enemy's units.

That is micro vs macro.

In the same respect, the HQs function is to receive minerals. Without paying attention to it, that is what it will do. The two ways to improve it would be:

1) manage the scvs so that each of them is working on a different patch; using a mule (ability) to collect faster, the sc2 nydus canal gather

2) building more scvs.

However, I will agree to disagree should you choose. I would still like to know your sc2 id so we could play a match or something.

And also, I will agree with you that vlad is wrong. :P.

@Vlad, the problem with sc1 is that micro was enough to win the game. You didn't need macro. Macro is more important in sc2, which I think is good. But there is still a lot of micro'ing, it's just not as overpowered anymore.

But you see, I was talking about what is called micro and macro, not what I define, or what you define, of course that in your opinion I will be wrong about defining these terms, because you treat them differently than any other... person in this world :P

I won't argue about semantics though, you can keep calling strategy macro, and I will call control on the macro level macro, with unit control on the micro level micro.

And anyway, i'm RageBot, 988, i'm on the EU server though.