As much as I appreciate this post, this again is one of these posts appealing to the idea of how the game 'feels 'to play. The problem with doing so is that making decisions on how a game feels to play is completely based on subjective feelings on the state of the game. This is not to say this post doesn't have worth while content that doesn't need to be discussed, but it does not have solid justifications for it's assertions.

Right now I think the macro mechanics 'feel' great, it has promoted smaller skirmishes which allow for more interesting games.

Other people might 'feel' that the macro changes were horrible and it doesn't feel as fast to play the game because the screen isn't jumping around.

Both are justified in their feelings, but the problem here is that neither have provided a justifiable reasoning to support their feelings.

For example, many people complain that LotV abilities run rampant and this is bad for the game because it is less skillful, requires less mirco, is less interesting, etc.. But to make these assertions you must define the difference between unit ability micro and unit control micro, and almost no one has done this (with a few exceptions) whilst using solid reasoning and not appealing to feelings.

Blink Micro is one of the most impactful micro in the game, and this is based around an ability. Why couldn't people be known for their corrosive bile play, or disruprtor play?

I don't see any backing evidence to the posts assertion that the meta game will become stale; however I have no reason that it would otherwise, other than the fact that more units seemingly have provided more options to counter more unit comps.

I would argue that why can't we both have interesting abilities and good unit control? These don't seem to mutually exclusive, but I digress.

The point is that if we want to actually have constructive feed back for the game then appealing to feelings and emotions is exactly not what you want to do.