|
Hello everyone.
I’d like to ask you for your input on a team games situation I’m having with a great friend of mine. My friend has played at least four times as many games as I have. Our problem comes from experience vs education. I’ve watched lots of pro games, Day [9], and spent many hours reading the Team Liquid forums for advice. My friend says “I’d rather be playing” (so I can’t send him links etc) and that’s fair enough.
But if we lose, my friend usually starts to criticize me in what feels like a pretty negative way. He’s silver, I’m bronze, and he feels a lot more experienced. In my opinion, we are both worse than terrible as I believe anybody below platinum has major macro flaws (He said recently “You sound like you think I’m crap!” after I refuted some advice I was being given). When I play I focus on not getting supply blocked, keeping my money low, keeping constant production, not missing injects (or using chronos, mules etc as I’m playing random to understand the races better). Whether I win or lose, if I miss some of these things (I often watch my replays to check) I consider it a loss.
I would happily accept constructive criticism (and have said this to him). Things like “You didn’t have a big enough army” don’t help me at all. I would much rather hear “What happened? Did you get supply blocked perhaps? Do you want to watch the replay together and see what we could both improve on?”
He loves the army value graph, but I don’t think much of it, as I engage in battles more. We played lots of 2v2 where he would tech straight to thors (not even building any marines) while I was supposed to defend with MM. If I couldn’t hold off a rush and we lost I got criticized. I was following a standard 3 Rax build from Liquipedia (he says he doesn’t need build orders, because he knows how to build what he wants. I said “I strongly disagree on this point, as a pro build will always be better”). I often got in trouble for teching if I researched stim. Of course, if we survived we often won with the counter mass thor all-in, and my army value would look crap compared to his.
If I have an army, I like to use it to attack expansions etc (and defend my teammates when I see them expand), but I’ll back off if it looks like suicide. In 4v4 or 3v3 I often top score because of my macro (seriously, I’m trying, and it’s low leagues). In custom 3v3 games I can often beat platinum and gold players, so I’m really confident in the advice I’ve read and the skills I’m practicing.
Our last game 2v2 on Scorched Haven we did a marine zergling attack at 6 minutes. We moved out at 6mins and my zerglings found a protoss with stalkers behind a wall-in, and a terran with marines behind a wall-in. After scouting this I backed off from each one, but my mate was saying “No no no where are you going?”. I was pretty sure I would lose all my zerglings for nothing, so I didn’t want to commit. He thought I could have taken down the terran wall. When we lost he told me he always has communication problems with me but no one else. Was I wrong to back off (can’t include the replay as he doesn’t want to be identified) if we had agreed to rush but I’m sure it’s suicide?
Here are two easy discussion points we disagree on:
1. We chat on skype during play. I say “If you want something from me, ping the map”. E.g. ping-“help”, ping-“pool army”, ping-“voids”, ping-“attack the expansion” etc. He says similar things to me (without the ping) and hates when I say “Where?” as from the minimap I sometimes can’t tell the difference between a minor annoyance and a major battle. I don’t want to go running to help if the attack is just a diversion to get me to move my army out of position. I also don’t want to stop my macroing (thinking about whether to join a battle interrupts my minimap-The Tap-money cycle). I feel the person in a given situation should decide if they need assistance, and then request it if needed. So, should I always click on the minimap and see what’s happening in my friend’s base etc at that point?
2. He asked “How many stalkers can you make by six minutes?” I replied “If I keep my money low, don’t get supply blocked, build an appropriate number of production facilities and never stop worker production, I will have the maximum number”. His answer was “No, I can have six, with more on the way. Can you?” I feel that perfecting macro results in the best army at any point, but he is convinced I should have a target number for number of units for any given time. I haven’t come across teamliquid.net posts saying this is important, but is it?
Anyway, I really respect this community and their opinions, so what are your thought on my situation? If I’m wrong I welcome hearing it from high level players, but I feel that advice from lower leagues is often flawed. If lower level players disagree with this post it might help me understand why my friend gets so frustrated with me. So, if you don’t mind, could you state your league with any replies?
I just want to save my love for both Starcraft and my friend (we’ve been buddies for 15 years but I don’t want to take insults from him, and he hates me saying “Stop talking to me like that. You’re being rude!” Outside of Starcraft he one of the nicest people I’ve ever known.
|
That's a huge post so I'm not going to get into a detailed answer to all of your points.
In my opinion, though, at your skill level you will benefit way more from experience than what you call "education". The limiting factor in your play at that level is mechanics/macro, which can only be improved considerably with practice.
|
Wall of text I'm gonna take a shot at this:
On July 11 2011 22:14 Vigga wrote:
2. He asked “How many stalkers can you make by six minutes?” I replied “If I keep my money low, don’t get supply blocked, build an appropriate number of production facilities and never stop worker production, I will have the maximum number”. His answer was “No, I can have six, with more on the way. Can you?” I feel that perfecting macro results in the best army at any point, but he is convinced I should have a target number for number of units for any given time. I haven’t come across teamliquid.net posts saying this is important, but is it?
This is a big problem with 2v2 and team games in general. You're both right and both wrong. he wants to do a timing push, that may require cutting probes and or production facilities. If he wants to do this you should probably be ready to do the same push because its better if you both go all in than if 1 does and the other macros. On the other hand you want a macro game which is something tough for both of you. I would say that you should both practice 4 gating perfectly, its a great way to practice micro and macro in a short game setting, and then moving on to other builds.
|
You're bronze, he's silver, you both suck(no offense) and yes he is garbage(infact tell him i said that and tell him if he'd like to prove otherwise my name is FromShouri.939 and ill make him my sc2 bitch all night long ^^). have him play against someone....like me who will completely and utterly savagely open his eyes. Things like that don't work in 2v2 because you both are inexperienced. It isn't "education vs experience" its simply you two are different people playing two different styles that don't go well together.
The point of a pro build in 2v2 is to be used usually in conjunction with another pro build to hit certain timings. If only one of you does this and the other just kinda freestyles and builds what ever you will lose, like a lot. You can't at that level just magically make up some builds that will meet his timings because his timings are random and not concrete. Also you both are going to different extremes, you need more game experience, and he needs a lot more "education" instead of you both just mindlessly continuing on the same road you're on.
|
At your level, its better to play then to listen to anything but the the very fundamentals of day[9]. Back to Basics, and Guide to mechanics. Don't watch anything else.
Watching pro games is worthless to you except for enjoyment. There are levels of strategy and subtle differences that you can't even see atm.
So right now your friend is more correct, in that experience is better.
When you get to plat, then you should be watching more day[9] stuff. When you get to diamond, then you should start analyzing pro games.
Also, people who watch education videos tend to want to macro, those who just play tend to want to rush.
Both are good.
|
you might wanna point out to him that if you're bronze and he's silver, whichever way you look at it, it's the blind leading the blind.
at your level it makes a lot of sense to learn some build orders (read openers) and then just go with it until you can perform the fundamentals. game knowledge doesn't matter if you can't perform it. moreover, high level maneuvers are useless for you since you'll never find a spot to perform them -- this is particularly true since your opponents will also lack fundamentals and you'll mostly be fighting against gimmicky builds like cloaked banshees or macro builds followed by attack-move
anyway, protip: scores are pretty much nonsense because they fail to account for the plot of the game. if you lose a bunch of scvs or something in a perfectly reasonable fashion then have a low score, that doesn't mean you played poorly. the most reliable indicator is supply difference. if you're consistently behind the other players in the game in supply, particularly players of your race who are using a similar unit composition, and there hasn't been any harassment etc. to damage your economy then you should work on your macro.
the answer to your questions is mostly that your friend doesn't have any grasp of strategy and you're painting yourself to be a saint. the answers are pretty obvious (such as if there's an impenetrable defense and we're thinking about attacking it, should we attack?) it's pretty obvious that a thor rush in 2v2 is terrible, and if your friend doesn't understand why that's the case then there's not much hope.decisions.
|
Q1: yes always look to your allies base when it is under attack (if you multitasking is not good enough then just practice)
Q2: you right about that for the most part (except you are making a very calculated rush like 5 roach rush or 2 colossus all in for 1v1)
i dont know too much about 2v2 though since i mostly play 1v1 trying to get GM but im master in 2v2 as well (only like 15 games though  )
|
Well, pretty much as Mattchew says, you are both right and wrong.
Were you playing 1v1 and losing to your friend, then I would tell you to just keep at what you are doing, eventually your mechanics and ability to execute what you know is correct will reach a point where you'll win almost every time.
However, competitive 2v2 is different -- many builds are based more upon big masses of lower tier units, being able to rush or hold off one (for example, the Nice. Hellingon build with a TZ team). And yeah, as far as that wallin vs marines and stalkers goes, I'm pretty sure you were right to back off there.
Just keep working and improving! Remember, you cannot approach 2v2 the exact same way as 1v1 though some ideas do transfer over. It becomes a matter of which type of player you want to focus on being -- though personally I think that 1v1 skill translates over better to things in general.
|
Sounds like you don't have a good match with your 2v2 partner. I suggest taking a break from 2v2, test your abilities and 1v1, and improve your overall macro there. Your friend might think he's pretty fancy with his homemade build orders, but you're right in saying that pro strategies tend to be much better, so once you have these a lot better you can kick his butt and maybe then he'll listen.
With that being said, 2v2 is an interesting "anything goes" environment. Strategies that would probably never work in 1v1 may become your staple. If you watch Day9, then you've probably heard him say that you can't play 2v2 with a 1v1 mindset. Even if your friend's build is ridiculous, why not run with it or make suggestions of your own? The idea is to have fun, and if your friend is too competitive to let that shine (or only has fun when winning) then perhaps it's time for some new partners.
I'm glad you've spent hours learning about the game, watching vods, and reading strategy, but your macro will never improve without practice. Time to start putting the theory to practice!
|
United Kingdom10823 Posts
I think that the question is fundamentally weird, because to me it sounds like the two sides to you argument need to acknowledge the other to get to where you want to be. That is to say, its great that you have so much education, but you need to put that education to practice. On the flip side, your friend has good experience, but he needs some education in a not-terrible build in 2v2
End of the day, 2v2 is a game of extremes, but you need a synergy at the start oft he game to reach the extreme. You both have to pretty much do the same sort of set-up at the start, then switch it up afterwards. You can't have one person going low-tier and one going for tech at the start, you both either tech fast or go for low-tech, because either way you look at it, you'll lose to one of the extremes. Either you'll get killed by 2 low-tech teams, or later in the game you'll lose because the opposing team has more tech than you. So you need to get that straight at the start. Ask Protech when he streams. His games are either low tech or high tech at the start, and if the game continues, THEN you start going for an army that works well together
Also, as a side note, your friend sounds ignorant. Zerglings attacking a wall-in is a terrible idea, especially considering he has marines who could just shoot the wall so you can get in.
|
Thanks for all the replies everyone. I really appreciate it.
I'm trying to play a few games every day, and definitely want to focus more on 1v1 so I can see more easily what my mistakes are (as team games can be influenced by unusually good or unusually bad players, and have a very different playstyle).
I think one of my problems is that I play pretty well unless I get distracted over Skype. My friend wants more communication, but I play better with less.
I've started sending friend requests to people who play well on my team in 4v4. That's working well and I'm enjoying games more. It kind of feels silly for me to play so competitively at such a low level. I'd rather play well and lose than play badly and win, if that makes sense.
Might just tell my mate I won't play 2v2 until I'm at least gold 1v1 or something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
