That's ridiculous, even you must have felt weird writing it. If it reduces micro for most players, some players, or even few players using a particular play style, then it is in part a micromanagement change, especially if the devs intend it to be so. It will reduce play options, thus changing my play style to include fewer micro actions. Objectively speaking, my micromanagement will be reduced. It's in part a micro-reducing patch for me.
Um, not really? Since it doesn't reduce micro, and is a balance change? Once again, a reduction in micromanagement is something which allows the player the same amount of control with less clicks. For example, being able to set the focuses from the planet list view is a reduction in MM (which there's no sign of in this update). Being able to flag planets for automatic colonization, that'd reduce MM. Being able to tell ships to bulk-disband using the same interface that allows you to tell them to bulk-upgrade, that'd reduce MM. None of these are in 1.4.
If they made Starbases suck so much that no-one used them, is THAT a micro reduction? By your logic, yes, because some people aren't engaging in SB micro anymore, and therefore the total amount of micro being performed in the world has been reduced. But by actual sane logic used by sane people, it's a balance change that happens to result in a some people doing stuff less. That's not reducing micro; not really. Min-maxers are still going to be microing like crazy with focuses, because they're exactly the same thing as the wheel. It just has 4 set points to pick from rather than hundreds. I still get to visit every world in turn to change production. Merely because the power of micromanagement has been nerfed does not mean that there is less micromanagement to be done. It just means fewer people will bother.
This cuts both ways. Even though no-one in their right mind actually used them, governors in 1.3 were an MM reduction. No-one was doing less micro, because they sucked, but the option was there if you chose to take it. There is way, way, way, WAY more MM reduction from the new military boost project - this allows planets to upgrade themselves at a sensible rate and then automatically flip to military spending when they're done. That's automatically doing something we previously had to do manually. That's good. That is basically the definition of reducing micro. Notice how it is in no way related to swapping the wheel for focuses.
No, he clearly wasn't listening, nor you, at least not with both ears. The initial impetus, for those of us who watch every dev stream, was figuring what to do about the micro complaints regarding the wheel. The change knocked out two birds with one stone. Naselus took the conclusion and inferred the inference, a logical fallacy.
This is all moot. The change balances the game. It also reduces the micro potential for most of us. So it does both. What is the reason for trying to convince others it only does one thing? I think I know the answer. Naselus is upset that he will not be able to do 100% specialization in vanilla because the devs decided to choose an implementation that changes how he wants to play the game. Too bad so sad. So by trying to convince everyone it is not an improvement to the micro, he is trying to garner support from people to throw a fit with him so he can feel justified. That is my guess as to what he is doing, and I will not oblige. Naselus has had some great posts and ideas on these forums, but I can't join him on this crusade.
The new changes are going to make the game more fun for me, and I was one of the min-maxers changing planet wheels on every turn.
Saying 'it's an objective reduction in micromanagement because fewer people will do it' could be construed as a bandwagon fallacy. Using the change it will make to your own play style to justify the statement is an anecdotal fallacy. However, stating that something which doesn't objectively reduce the amount of micro in the game doesn't reduce micro is not a fallacy.
Anyway, I was listening with both ears, thank you. Since I was also reading with both eyes as well, however, I noted how the idea it was a micro reduction was dropped fairly quickly, since anyone who actually thought it through would come to the conclusions above. Brad fairly rapidly stopped referring to it as such and started talking about 'the spirit of the game' and balance (very wisely, since it actually does well on these counts). It is a balance change. And, as I already said in the post above, it's actually a rather good one (because by far the best way to rally up a forum rage about a change is to repeatedly praise how good this is for the balance of the game, as I did in EVERY SINGLE ONE of my posts above. Clearly, I was seething with inner rage).
Viewed as a balance change, it's ideal - it makes the economy balance properly, which is long overdue. It fulfills pretty much everything I outlined in my first post on the 1.4 preliminary discussion last month, in terms of reducing output to sensible levels. You could achieve more or less the same thing just by nerfing population output to 0.3 per pop, which would be a damn sight quicker and wouldn't require engineering time, or by reducing the output bonuses on buildings (which is how I went about it) which also avoids using proper engineers but take a lot longer. But hey, whatever works. But really, since I almost always play modded, and since I only use 3 different wheel settings anyway, it makes no difference to me at all. None. Not a sausage. I'll be using the same number of wheel positions; I'll visit planets just as often; I'll still be placing all the buildings. I'm just going to mod the focuses to give 100% of whatever (which you may have noticed was one of my questions asked at the dev stream, but you maybe you weren't using both ears that time), and then it all works exactly the same as it does presently from my point of view. I have nothing to be upset about. The main thing I was worried they would do for 1.4 (remove the wheel and FORCE governor use on us) is not occurring. I'm quite happy to have focuses.
So no, I'm not attempting to rile up some mighty horde of outraged micro-ers. I'm just pointing out that this is, in no way, an objective reduction in micromanagement. As I said before, it might be a subjective reduction - some players might micro less because of it - but so is the above example of nerfing SBs into the floor so no-one uses them. Objectively, there's just as much micro, it's just many players aren't bothering to do it anymore.
If you tried following my argument, rather than attempting to second-guess my motives for making it, then you might see my point. And my point is, this a good change from a balance point of view, and an extremely poor change from an MM reduction point of view, so don't look at it from an MM point of view. I'd kind of hoped that was obvious from the multiple posts I made above that basically say exactly that.