|
By which I mean, when advising lower level players, has "Macro >>>>>>>>> Everything Else" become an article of faith, a sentiment based perhaps on a truism but stretched to ridiculous extremes? Nearly every thread I see by a Silver or Gold player (like myself) asking for advice usually receives extremely pat answers, even if they included a replay (this wasn't the case with myself, I must point out, I've gotten some excellent feedback).
Almost every great SC:BW and SC2 "How to Improve" text hammers this in, and I think we may have gotten overinundated with it.
Let me make two clarifications right off the bat:
1. OBVIOUSLY, Macro is the most important skill for newbies to learn in SC2. You aren't going to 6pool your way to victory in anything above bronze or maybe silver, no matter how well you scoot your little zerglings around.
2. MY Macro, by the scale on which these things are measured here, is still horrendous though improving steadily.
I just wanted to point out that perhaps there is an overemphasis on how lower level players (defined as anything Plat or under, or at the very most Gold and under) should ignore everything else, get good Macro and A-move their way to victory till Diamond. I believe this is an exaggeration.
I never had the experience to talk about this before, though I suspected it, and perhaps I still don't but as I say, my Macro has been improving which allows me to notice it more now.
I lost the last couple games I played. In both, I was miles ahead of my opponent Macro wise. Huge Army differences. I still lost. Why?
In the first match, TvT on Jungle Basin, I kept running my vastly bigger bio army into his choke which had tanks. Yeah, I had tons of marauders but I just got killed by his superior concave, though I had much better Macro.
In the second match, against a zerg opponent, I ended up losing a match despite being on 2base v. 2base, despite defending against Muta harass, and despite having a bigger army for most of it because he went infestors vs. my bioball. He traded energy for units and eventually managed to tech up and kill me. There was nothing my bioball (despite the better macro) could do.
In the first match, I should have secured ALL the expansions and starved him out or dropped on him or something. In the second, I should have scouted better, made ghosts with cloak, and so on. My Macro was already better.
I have no problem losing a bunch of matches because I'm working on my Macro. I'm low level anyway; Even if I get demoted, I'm sure when I make my way back up I'll be stronger than ever. I do think, however, that this is the advice that should be given: That Macro mechanics, and getting a handle on them, is worthlosing a bunch of matches for. Not "If you have better Macro than your opponent, you can A move to victory. Forget everything else."
Better Macro wont save you if they hard counter your army, it wont save you if you don't defend against early cheese, it wont save you if your understanding of positioning is so bad you lose 2x the food supply of your opponent.
I feel a lot of lower level players have been frustrated by being told to work on their macro and getting steamrolled anyway. Would it not be more honest to say "you're going to suck and lose in the beginning no matter what, might as well improve your core game while you're at it?"
Indeed, is it not fair to assume that even lower level players can absorb other fundamentals- such as positioning, and scouting, and building proper counters- concurrently with Macro? At the moment there is little weight given to anything else when it comes to newbies.
Just my two cents. Let me know if anyone feels the same way, or if everyone disagrees 
 
|
I disagree. When you are learning a game you don't know almost anything about, you start off with learning the basics. Macro is the basic of the basics. Plus only focusing on macro will get you into diamond, it's just so important. Even at the highest levels people don't have perfect macro, so it's still a way to be above everyone else. Positioning, scouting, counters don't matter if you are anything lower than diamond. A lot of your arguments seem to be not really based on anything else than speculation. Give me a guest pass and tell me to only build stalkers and I'll get to mid diamond at the very least. Marines only would be an option, too.
Macro is just the most important and first thing you should be learning.
|
Well yes being braindead will not let you win even you have good macro.Is it really that hard to see what he has and not make something that dies terribly to it?
BUT if you just have more stuff than your opponent you can still win.If you have like 40+ supply more than your opponent a lot of times you can just 1a and win.
When people tell you to focus on macro they mean use very little micro not don't think.This is a strategy game after all and having a bad strategy is well...bad.With good macro you can reach at least mid diamond if you have decent builds and unit compositions.
|
@ Outlaw
Positioning, scouting, counters don't matter if you are anything lower than diamond. This is kind of what I'm talking about, no offense of course. I gave my examples simply because I had better Macro by far that game than my opponent, not because I had perfect or even solid macro. If you get void ray rushed and have perfectly Macroed Marauders, how does that help you? Or even if you had a few marines and were teching and had no idea how to micro your marines properly?
I have no doubt Macro is the most important and first thing. I'm saying that these other things are also fundamentals of the game. Banshee harass, which a lot of players like doing, is not really a fundamental part of the game for comparisons sake. But positioning, scouting and counters apply in every MU and can absolutely be key to victory. How is that not "fundamental"?
And I dont doubt you could stalkers-only to Mid Diamond but I have a feeling that if that's true, you have have a good sense of things like upgrades, positioning, timing and so on. None of which come under "Macro".
@ Nafta
This is a strategy game after all and having a bad strategy is well...bad....With good macro you can reach at least mid diamond if you have decent builds and unit compositions.
I agree with you. Good Macro + good builds + good unit composition. Good builds require timing (generally, builds have a point at which you should push or expand or something) and good composition requires good scouting as well as macro and tech switches.
|
I've recently convinced my IRL friends to start StarCrafting, and they struggling in the lower leagues, one of my friends had a 40% winrate in bronze, until we played a game, and I just told him to build more probes. He advanced to silver, I told him a build order (4gate ololol), and he's now >50% winrate against Golds. He has never really played a RST game except Dota, which... isn't. But Dota got some micro and positioning, and I think that those skills helps him a lot in his games.
I agree that macro is the most important thing to learn when you're new, but the "forget everything but..." part is where I disagree. I believe that counters are very important, and positioning can win you several games.
If you macro good, but only build marines, and you don't know Foxer micro, you will die to a decently executed SlingBling, because the one with the blings will not need close to as much macro as you to break even in the battles.
I'd say focus (almost) only on macro(BO, workers, multitasking, but you need a composition that does well against anything.) until you are gold, then mix in counters and micro, then improve everything steadily.
+ Day[9] newbie tuesday. >>>> macro
|
What your saying is true but things like positioning and unit composition cant be taught, its basically learnt from experience and thinking about where you should put your units and what units to make. but if you watch a lot of pro gamer replays and try to understand why the player is doing what he is doing you can learn a lot about positioning/unit composition.
The only reason people point out macro so much is because it sticks out like a sore thumb in most lower level games I'm sure if you showed people those games you were talking about they could tell you how you got screwed over even though you were ahead in macro.
|
From what i read you attacked into sieged tanks with a better concave, no matter how many units you have if half of them cant fire your army advantage is negated, i think that one was a positioning/decision making fail
|
"ignore everything but macro" is kind of an ironic statement considering macro pretty much is everything.
The lesson it's supposed to teach you is a mechanical understanding of what you have to do to succeed, and a much broader perspective of the game on a whole.
Most of the time when people watch vods etc they are so focused on the action that the majority of the game eludes them, like what got them to that point of action. It absolutely teaches you fundamental skills.
Your anecdotes are actually evidence of that if they are truly fair recollections of the games. You lost and can easily identify why, dumb attacks or bad unit compositions. Those things are so easy to fix compared to trying to identify that your economy sucks, your unit production sucks, etc. There aren't immediately obvious reasons why those things suck
|
The advice I would give every newbie is to look at your losses and just look at your production buildings. And write down how long you are not making units. Compare that with if you did make units constantly how many units would you have vs the opponent? And work up from there to analyse your losses.
The best way to improve is to play someone who is clearly better then you for beginners in customs.
For higher skilled it will be slightly different. They can improve by playing equal skilled players at minimum compared to higher skilled for beginners.
After that you can check your losses on macro / positioning / timing etc.
This is the best way to pick out your flaws.
The normal way the majority of people improve is by experience.
They play alot and win/lose alot of games on ladder and they gradually improve each mechanic learning what to do and what not to do.
This is when you don't have practice partners where you should be massing ladder games. The experience is the same as when you would do the 1st method I described (the custom games) albeit the custom way is more efficient in doing so.
You're right though that it could be better to tell beginners that they'll keep losing for a while so it's better to improve their core basics. Obviously the majority will neglect this advice anyways as telling this to someone is demotivating and people like sweet words of encouragement rather than hard true facts.
|
In the first match, TvT on Jungle Basin, I kept running my vastly bigger bio army into his choke which had tanks. Yeah, I had tons of marauders but I just got killed by his superior concave, though I had much better Macro.
That's bad decision making period - Focusing on micro isn't going to solve your problems there..
Better Macro wont save you if they hard counter your army, it wont save you if you don't defend against early cheese, it wont save you if your understanding of positioning is so bad you lose 2x the food supply of your opponent.
Hard counter your army? Eh, i think people put too much emphasis on unit composition imo, ESPECIALLY lower players.. Just make a ton of shit and you can do wonders with a large force..Yes banelings "hard counter" marines (unless your Foxer) but who cares? If you continue to stream in tons of marines, he is wasting gas to killl your marine only force...
There is a reason people advice people to focus on macro - it's because it works.
And I dont doubt you could stalkers-only to Mid Diamond but I have a feeling that if that's true, you have have a good sense of things like upgrades, positioning, timing and so on. None of which come under "Macro".
Oh, yes you can, you can go stalkers only to mid diamond easily. Because once you focus on on thing and one thing only, you can do it so much better. And most lower level players are surprised on how much shit they can actually afford to make. Also, upgrades has everything to do with Macro...
Also, if you feel you have grasped the macro part, then thats when you move onto positioning, scouting and all that good shit...But if you don't have any units...what good will any of that do for you?
|
Well aside from build order, macro should be one of the biggest things you need to focus on. I feel like it's the foundation that you build everything upon. For example: you play x amount of games where you focus solely on macro. Then after those x games, you get used to macroing and rarely miss a macro cycle. Then from there, you start to incorporate other things like army management/movement between macro cycles, and you keep building things on. Eventually, you will get used to macroing while doing other stuff.
|
On November 06 2010 21:45 floor exercise wrote:
Your anecdotes are actually evidence of that if they are truly fair recollections of the games. You lost and can easily identify why, dumb attacks or bad unit compositions. Those things are so easy to fix compared to trying to identify that your economy sucks, your unit production sucks, etc. There aren't immediately obvious reasons why those things suck
Quoted for truth. In any competitive activity (sport) it's always easier to spot a decision related mistake compared to a fundamental technical flaw. Thats why you always focus on training fundamentals first (in this case macro) before you move on to the more "exciting" stuff. Losing a few games before you get your fundamentals up to a decent level should be expected.
After your fundamentals become solid what you get is the opportunity to constantly find yourself in advantages positions that allow you to dictate the game based on your decision, and more opportunity to make game breaking decisions = faster learning of decision making.
This is in contrast to when you don't specifically focus on fundamentals, you pretty much try to learn "everything" at the same time, which is too much for the brain to handle/absorb, which in turn makes learning less efficient.
This of course applies to the learning stages of the game, at a world class professional level (referring to tournament players who consistently place near the top, diamond league is no where near professional) solid fundamentals are taken for granted and thats why the pros place more emphasis on decision making.
|
Real life is like an RPG. In order maximize your potential you gotta know where to allocate your stat points.
You gotta max out your macro skill at lower levels in order to have a high skill cap ^^
|
build orders and macro are their biggest fault in general. Pro bw players spend 80% of their time macroing. Now in sc2 it's way easier but the top top top players aren't doing it perfectly at all (usually not even that close).
In bronze silver gold people usually don't have any good build orders or transitions yes but the thing is you can do whatever the hell and make mid+ diamond with no clue about anything if you macro decently.
I have yet to see a silver replay where the macro is not an issue, even if it happens to be that players strongest part and their other stuff is even worse.
The other part you talk about is mostly gamesense which is basically aquired by playing, now in the future in your tvt where a similar situation might come up you'll be less inclined to make the same bad decision of running into his choke, you learn that mostly by experience and this one in particular is applicable to a ton of situations, your mass army needs space, aoe armys want you to choke up and such.
...
Counters are usually overrated alot, all the matchups will end up having some fixed compositions anyways and it's control/macro/decision making that matters, not making immortals to counter the marauders in a certain situation because they're a counter, that'll be mostly automatic.
People play bio a lot vs Z now, it's about pressuring and micro, T generally has to do damage and pressure or the other races have superior macro or army by default (zerg unit spam, mass droning, toss doomball), luckily T has the pressuring options available so you have to learn to use them, poke back and forth and strike fear into your opponents heart.
Get good BO(s)
macro well
micro enough but not too much
remember to macro at all times
learn when to fight and when not to
and you're good to go
|
"Ignore strategy and only work on massing shit" is extreme, but a lot of low level players fall into the trap of watching a battle and saying "hey, my zealots died to roaches, maybe I need an immortal" or something like that, when the real answer is "hey I have 12 probes and he has 40 drones"
Lower level players with no experience in SC may not think in terms of economy and their ability to sustain superior production. They'll look at "I have 8 zealots and a void ray and I lost to 8 roaches and 3 queens" not being able to see the fundamental reasons why they lost
|
macro is by far the most important, and if you want to get to a decent level you should focus on your macro. Do i mean ingore everything else? absoulutly not but macro should be 90%+ of your focus. You can easily get to mid diamond with good macro + A-move. I am about 1600 diamond and I 2v1 my roomate (bronze leauge) and his friend (silver leauge) by building nothing but stalkers. The difference between solid macro and bad macro is such a bigger gap between good micro and bad micro.
|
Think of it like this:
You're at, say, silver level.
How good can you expect your opponent's micro to be? Can he beat 20 zerglings with 5 marines on open ground? Even Boxer can't do that.
If you have 20 zerglings for every 5 marines he's got, that's macro. You win without having to micro.
Yes, you need a basic understanding of counters and builds and scouting, but unless you're consciously trying to make the worst possible unit, it will be hard to lose with good macro.
Think about it like this: most noobs have an understanding that hellions > marines. It's true. Everyone knows it. Knowing it more won't help you.
I estimate that in terms of skill level, most noobs are like this:
Strategy: 50%
Micro: 50%
Macro: 20%
When 100% is optimal. Since your play is roughly the multiplication of each aspect of your play, improving your macro will drastically improve the level of your play.
|
Thanks all, there were some fantastic responses here. I especially liked the below:
On November 06 2010 21:45 floor exercise wrote:
Your anecdotes are actually evidence of that if they are truly fair recollections of the games. You lost and can easily identify why, dumb attacks or bad unit compositions. Those things are so easy to fix compared to trying to identify that your economy sucks, your unit production sucks, etc. There aren't immediately obvious reasons why those things suck
YES. I have never argued in my OP that Macro was not the most important thing, just that it wasn't the only thing, and that n00bs like me might have had an easier time dealing with losses if someone had just told us:
"Look, son, this game is hard as hell and focusing just on your macro is going to lose you a ton of games when someone rushes you with something weird but then when you start to work your way back up, you'll suck less than everyone around you."
I can't remember who said it but I also liked the analogy to sports, on how its easier to correct for bad decisions rather than fundamental flaws.
I have to confess, this isn't a game where I have natural talent (I have it in other games/sports but not RTS's at all and its the first i've played competitively). For people who are just that good at RTS's, and especially people who played BW, I dont think you realize just how hard this game is for the layman who doesn't have tons of time to practice (like myself). And, because you could beat Silver and Gold players with your eyes shut (I beat Silver usually, Gold about 50%) I don't think you realize thats its very easy even in those leagues to get out-timed, out positioned, out whatevered even when you have better Macro than your opponent.
That said, I think its much more helpful for people better at this game to be honest with us newbies and tell us how badly we'll get our ass kicked, but we should at least practice the fundamentals to have a solid foundation to build on later. I feel part of the problem is how terrible the practice league is (rocks and slow-motion? Really Blizzard? We're newbies, not brain dead.)
|
You need to walk before you learn how to run.
You need to learn how the pieces move in chess before you study opening theory.
etc.
|
So you're saying that strategy/game sense is more important than macro? That is probaly true, but it's not something you can easily teach. You can teach macro, to an extent, but how do you teach strategy effectively without the game experience?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
