|
Disclaimer: The views expressed below are that of mine and mine only; they are not meant to be expert advice or anything of that sort. Any remarks or comments made in this blog post that might appear offensive to anyone that reads it is purely unintentional.
Hell, it's about time really. After 3 years of being stuck in diamond, I had finally made the jump. It totally wasn't pretty, but I did it.
An epiphany: Macro isn't the problem
Let's face it, how many times have we, as lower league players, seen some Day9 daily about probes and pylons, SCVs and supply depots or some shit like that and hope to use that mentality to carry us to masters? Well it sure worked for me up to diamond. Hell, I 1-rax-expoed my way into diamond and played nothing but bio.
As I entered the higher echelons of diamond, however, I increasingly felt like that mentality/mindset of "macroing better" was becoming more and more poisonous. True fact: most masters/high diamond players already have a DECENT level of macro. Having the fabled benchmark of 50 SCVs by the 10 min mark isn't gonna make much of a difference against, say, 46-47 scvs, to be honest. Having 100 food bio army by 10 minutes isn't gonna do shit against a 90-food mech army. Simply thinking that it COULD HAVE BEEN basic macro issues that was hindering me from getting into masters was, I feel, a problem in itself.
Middle-of-the-road builds suck
Sometime late last year, I talked about having a new understanding of SC2. I talked about the need to cheese more often and becoming more unpredictable. Well, that was merely a half truth, as I had only so recently realized.
How many of you guys have gone for a 1-rax expo on a large 4-player map, scouted and by the time you reach your opponent's base realized that he had gone for a nexus first or CC first and then you start cursing "greedy mothafucker"? Well, that is the very reason why middle of the road builds suck. If you wanna play aggressive, go ahead, by all means, but don't even think about being "eco-aggressive" or anything like that, because such stuff never works. It's like trying to have your cake and eat it at the same time. If you want to be economical, go all-out on economy. If you want to be aggressive, go proxy some shit and pull some SCVs. Don't be a wuss and make 1 reaper and try to be "aggressive" with that because u know that will never ever work out.
When you're looking to BEAT your opponent, you're obviously looking to outplay him in some way, be it in skill or wit, and let's face it, all's fair in terms of love and war. There's a reason why this game is labelled a real-time STRATEGY game; being able to outwit and outsmart your opponent is absolutely crucial, especially between two closely matched players. That's the reason why players like goody with insanely low APM and who gets supply blocked all the time are pro-players and not us.
So after much effort, here I am, in masters, a vindication of my hard work.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MiTjBhZ.jpg)
I did it baby. I finally mothafucking did it. I always knew I could.
  
|
Congratulations! Feels good to know that all that hard work paid off. I am still working towards this myself. I have a long ways to go. Good job! :D
|
On April 14 2013 22:59 DenTenker wrote:
Congratulations! Feels good to know that all that hard work paid off. I am still working towards this myself. I have a long ways to go. Good job! :D
Thanks!  If such an untalented guy like myself can do it, so can you!
|
Congrats, when you only need a >50% winrate against strangers to advance then it makes sense to just 14 cc/proxy every game. My highest rank on ICCUP was from BBS and SC2 from 4 gating, though it gets old pretty fast.
|
Congrats!
I agree with you that middle-of-the-road builds are no good, but I think we have a different definition of middle-of-the-road. I think 1 rax gasless expand and CC first are essentially the same thing. My experience is more like, in TvZ for example, you could go fast expand into 2 base all in. Or you can go fast expand into fast third. Both are good. An all in can hit a strong timing and fast 3CC ensures great economy. However, what I see many people do (and lose for) is fast expand into like 3-5 rax and double ebay and reactor medivacs on 2 base and start pumping out bio before you even make your third. And what happens is, you're relying on such a weak timing that Z doesn't really have that hard a time defending.
Also, if you go a 2 base build vs. a 2 base zerg build like a roach all in, it's hard to find any advantage in defending it, because zerg takes his third before you and you can't move out with your intended timing.
Stuff like that I consider middle-of-the-road.
|
On April 14 2013 23:16 Scarecrow wrote:
Congrats, when you only need a >50% winrate against strangers to advance then it makes sense to just 14 cc/proxy every game. My highest rank on ICCUP was from BBS and SC2 from 4 gating, though it gets old pretty fast.
Haha definitely. I just did mostly funky stuff that had a really high chance of working out (think CC-first on large 4-player maps like I mentioned and mass mass reapers on maps with lots of cliff leading into the main). Gonna have to start learning some legit build orders pretty soon though 
|
Congrats! Well done
I think you bring up a good point about how middle-of-the-road strategies are generally not as helpful to use on ladder as extremes on either side of the spectrum (fast aggression or greedy economy), as most players can't really turn a safer-but-disadvantageous build into a victory unless they severely outplay their opponent.
|
If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that if you want to go for a big economic lead by say going three command centers you should do that, rather than going for two, building up a force, and taking your third when you can?
I feel like it depends on what you define as extreme. Because some of those extreme decisions are probably going to be hard countered by your opponent some of the time. Like if he decides to do fast, early aggression vs your early triple expand, basically don't you just lose the game?
Or if you go for a very early rush, but he sets up a decent early defense after sensing something was up, and after successfully fending off your one-base attack he's two bases ahead? It just seems like it doesn't make much sense. Clearly some middle of the road builds can beat extreme, early aggression and put one player ahead of the other if I'm thinking about this right.
Besides all this, doesn't it make the game really coinflippy? It sounds like you're saying you should commit to something even though you don't know what your opponent is up to. You're basically gambling every game instead of using intelligence gathering techniques to determine whether 3 early command centers is safe. I kind of dislike that...when I see Demuslim play all of his decisions are very safe. But he beats stephano on a semi-regular basis if you watch his stream...he simply tries his best to understand what he can get away with - what's the maximum amount of greed that won't fall to some roach all-in off of two (or three?) bases.
I'm worried that the answer to these questions is that scouting is extremely difficult and imperfect, and coinflip "strategy" is actually, on average, the best way to play. But then again when I see Demuslim play I feel like there is a safe standard way to play that allows you to do extremely well. I guess I'd have to hear from GM terrans to see whether what you say is actually true  .
|
|
|
I strongly disagree with OP on middle-of-the-road builds - those are typically my builds of choice and it has served me very well. Anecdotal evidence aside, I think middle-of-the-road builds are the best way to actually improve at the game. If you play hard-economic builds you're going to win games versus opponents who are better overall at the game than you are, but their build was simply not cut out for punishing you for your greedy opening; or maybe they are better overall at the game than you but you're exploiting the (unknowable) fact that your opponent isn't aware they can punish you - you'll win games but are you getting better?
Middle-of-the-road builds on the other hand also always can get you into the midgame, where you can practice multitasking, counters, heavy macro, heavy micro - so maybe you don't get to the midgame with the most ideal scenario, perhaps you're a little behind, or even instead of being ahead, but you're much more likely to get a good game where you can practice. The longer a game goes the more opportunities there are to punish your opponent and gain incremental advantages.
|
Wow! Nice philosophical insight into your mindset and how to approch this game.
I don't play anymore, but this attitude can be translated to just about any game where outwitting your opponent is a factor(i.e every multiplayer game, I guess).
Congrats! Well deserved!
|
Nice. Now go play KR and have everything you know smashed.
But yeah totally high five baby ><
http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=405979
Also stuck in diamond for 3 years.
+ Show Spoiler +Now get a mod to ban you for your blog post and we'll be best buddies
Fuck it, WCS still on ads so I'll share with you what I learned after HoTS released, ESPECIALLY since you are also terran
This is from three plus years of experience, all the way from going BFH (pre nerf) marauder banshee in TvP and pure bio in TvZ in 2010 when everyone said it was shit.
Really, in the end for terran, long macro games that are played passively is what got me stuck in diamond for so long.
It got to the point where I used the EXACT same opener in all three matchups - 1 rax FE into double CC and 6 rax either pure marine for tvz and tvt or mixing marauders in for TvP and going for heavy aggression about 10 minutes in. I found that this became terrible as I started to hit those players past mid-dia KR into masters who either as Zerg - make ~20 zerglings RIGHT as speed finishes and flat out rapes the entire nat regardless of bunker, or as Protoss - play even more greedier and benefit much harder from this, or as Terran who simply does a less greedier build and flat out kills you at a timing.
I finally got around and realized that none of my macro and so called "safe" builds were going to work, and it was either switch or get left out. The reasoning was this - no matter how greedy I play, if I, as a terran, cannot constantly dictate how the matchup is going to play out, I WILL lose. I WILL lose to the much more cost effective army of Protoss, the controlling style of Terran, or the completely TD games that zerg will give you. Microing well simply doesnt matter at a level when the terrans have very, very strong micro+macro, and the protosses and zerg are able to control their army to counter the terran bio army.
In the TvP apartment, it was especially depressing. For Zerg it became a simple hellion banshee opener into bio into everything + the kitchen sink style while maintaining constant pressure, for terran it was a simple heavy marine into marine tank or bio tank depending on the opponents style....but that got boring and extremely frustrating (mass marine vs mass marine fights are ridiculously tense and unrewarding), so I just allin with my build now.
TvP? Back in WoL it was becoming more and more apparent that mmmvg simply didnt cut it anymore and was rather pointless to do when it only relies on the opponent making heavy, consecutive control mistakes. But at least that was still playable if you manage to keep up aggression. Now in HotS, protoss with good army control and multitasking ability are beginning to use all sorts of pressure openers or allins with their new units, otherwise play super safe with their new units and go into an even more hardcore mid-late game style. Hoping for MKP and Bomber to come up with something new to copy off was even more depressing as their style havent changed at all, and in fact felt like it was taking a step back.
|
On April 15 2013 02:47 Salv wrote:
I strongly disagree with OP on middle-of-the-road builds - those are typically my builds of choice and it has served me very well. Anecdotal evidence aside, I think middle-of-the-road builds are the best way to actually improve at the game. If you play hard-economic builds you're going to win games versus opponents who are better overall at the game than you are, but their build was simply not cut out for punishing you for your greedy opening; or maybe they are better overall at the game than you but you're exploiting the (unknowable) fact that your opponent isn't aware they can punish you - you'll win games but are you getting better?
Middle-of-the-road builds on the other hand also always can get you into the midgame, where you can practice multitasking, counters, heavy macro, heavy micro - so maybe you don't get to the midgame with the most ideal scenario, perhaps you're a little behind, or even instead of being ahead, but you're much more likely to get a good game where you can practice. The longer a game goes the more opportunities there are to punish your opponent and gain incremental advantages.
I agree with you to a certain extent. But I think the OP, from what I can tell, has come around to seeing winning as the measure of skill, not some intangible qualities . If you go for a heavy eco build and overrun your opponent in the mid-game since they were unable to punish you early doesn't that make you the better player? If you make some play early on, whether it's expanding or aggression, that earns you an advantage going into the midgame why isn't that the same as playing to earn an advantage in the mid/late game? If you always play middle-of-the-road styles and play equal or at a disadvantage in the midgame, sure that's great practice, but what happens when you play people who are way better than you at that stage of the game? You lose when you could have won at a different time, but does that make them better and you worse as a player? I know what you're saying about self improvement and that generally being able to play better at the later stages of the game is considered harder and thus a better metric of player skill, I am just offering the counter argument that winning is the point, and so winning by any means makes you the best player. I'm mostly playing devils advocate and not trying to just throw your words back at you, I think the discussion on whether winning, one's mid/lategame abilities, or some other quality is the true metric of skill.
Personally I subscribe to the on-the-fence area of the two arguments. I prefer to play "standard", safe, middle-of-the-road builds as they help to define what is possible at the extremes of build types, and of the matchup itself. However, knowing how to cheese aggressively or economically is important as it is simply a way to win, but shouldn't be abused to the point of hindering your own understanding of the game, thereby slowing your improvement as a player. If I go for a 2 base timing/all-in, I want it to be a decision made because I feel I can win with it in this specific situation (using knowledge gained from playing "standard" and using my own wit and understanding to overcome my opponent) rather than an amateur's aggressive attack with no understanding behind it.
[edit] Also, fuck yeah OP! Congratulations!
|
On April 15 2013 02:47 Salv wrote:
I strongly disagree with OP on middle-of-the-road builds - those are typically my builds of choice and it has served me very well. Anecdotal evidence aside, I think middle-of-the-road builds are the best way to actually improve at the game. If you play hard-economic builds you're going to win games versus opponents who are better overall at the game than you are, but their build was simply not cut out for punishing you for your greedy opening; or maybe they are better overall at the game than you but you're exploiting the (unknowable) fact that your opponent isn't aware they can punish you - you'll win games but are you getting better?
Middle-of-the-road builds on the other hand also always can get you into the midgame, where you can practice multitasking, counters, heavy macro, heavy micro - so maybe you don't get to the midgame with the most ideal scenario, perhaps you're a little behind, or even instead of being ahead, but you're much more likely to get a good game where you can practice. The longer a game goes the more opportunities there are to punish your opponent and gain incremental advantages.
Agree with you completely. All the way until a certain level that is...Middle of the road build simply became inconsistent with the new units all the races received. 1 rax FE is becoming highly unreliable once you hit a high enough level where players begin to exploit that.
Please note that OP is terran.
OP is beginning to realize that, and I really hope he will begin playing on KR.
Personally I would never discourage anyone for going through those builds, as they are extremely good at teaching you the game, but they simply stop working to certain level. Its like recommending a completely new player to practice 3 rax stim rush on every single matchup. Its very, very good at introducing the entire race for the player, but it simply doesnt work consistently at a higher level.
|
On April 15 2013 04:06 Kommatiazo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2013 02:47 Salv wrote:
I strongly disagree with OP on middle-of-the-road builds - those are typically my builds of choice and it has served me very well. Anecdotal evidence aside, I think middle-of-the-road builds are the best way to actually improve at the game. If you play hard-economic builds you're going to win games versus opponents who are better overall at the game than you are, but their build was simply not cut out for punishing you for your greedy opening; or maybe they are better overall at the game than you but you're exploiting the (unknowable) fact that your opponent isn't aware they can punish you - you'll win games but are you getting better?
Middle-of-the-road builds on the other hand also always can get you into the midgame, where you can practice multitasking, counters, heavy macro, heavy micro - so maybe you don't get to the midgame with the most ideal scenario, perhaps you're a little behind, or even instead of being ahead, but you're much more likely to get a good game where you can practice. The longer a game goes the more opportunities there are to punish your opponent and gain incremental advantages. I agree with you to a certain extent. But I think the OP, from what I can tell, has come around to seeing winning as the measure of skill, not some intangible qualities . If you go for a heavy eco build and overrun your opponent in the mid-game since they were unable to punish you early doesn't that make you the better player? If you make some play early on, whether it's expanding or aggression, that earns you an advantage going into the midgame why isn't that the same as playing to earn an advantage in the mid/late game?
I don't think if you win a game that means you're necessarily the better player, 'better' players lose all the time to less skilled players, there's a factor of luck among other things that decide a game of Starcraft. I, personally, would describe Starcraft skill as the sum of a lot of different things such as micro, macro, multitasking, strategy, etc. Take a cannon rush for example, if you became moderately proficient at cannon rushing in PvP, you would probably beat almost every other protoss in the lower leagues, but you'll eventually get to a point where you play people who know to scout around their base and what to respond with - then you're fucked, you've ridden one build as far as it will take you without letting any other skills develop and now you're against people that outclass you in every area. There's a difference between earning an advantage and being given an advantage.
On April 15 2013 04:06 Kommatiazo wrote: If you always play middle-of-the-road styles and play equal or at a disadvantage in the midgame, sure that's great practice, but what happens when you play people who are way better than you at that stage of the game? You lose when you could have won at a different time, but does that make them better and you worse as a player? I know what you're saying about self improvement and that generally being able to play better at the later stages of the game is considered harder and thus a better metric of player skill, I am just offering the counter argument that winning is the point, and so winning by any means makes you the best player. I'm mostly playing devils advocate and not trying to just throw your words back at you, I think the discussion on whether winning, one's mid/lategame abilities, or some other quality is the true metric of skill.
I'm not arguing you'll win more if you play middle-of-the-road, I am saying that you'll improve in all facets of your game faster than if you played very aggressively or very greedily. Ideally, you will improve to the point where even if you have a slight disadvantage heading into mid-game, you're simply a better player and will win, then when you get to the high levels of competition, then worry about just trying to win - that's the best strategy in my opinion if you're trying to get to the highest levels.
On April 15 2013 04:06 Kommatiazo wrote:Personally I subscribe to the on-the-fence area of the two arguments. I prefer to play "standard", safe, middle-of-the-road builds as they help to define what is possible at the extremes of build types, and of the matchup itself. However, knowing how to cheese aggressively or economically is important as it is simply a way to win, but shouldn't be abused to the point of hindering your own understanding of the game, thereby slowing your improvement as a player. If I go for a 2 base timing/all-in, I want it to be a decision made because I feel I can win with it in this specific situation (using knowledge gained from playing "standard" and using my own wit and understanding to overcome my opponent) rather than an amateur's aggressive attack with no understanding behind it.
I think you're right, being able to cheese or play super greedy is important, especially in tournaments and 'best of' series, but until you're at the point where that shit matters, I think you're much better off just playing middle-of-the-road type plays on the ladder and improving all areas of your game.
|
Personally, I feel like I can outmacro people in my league.
That's why I go for middle-of-the-road builds - if they play aggressive, my macro is good enough to hold it off. If they play greedy, my macro is good enough to catch up. At least, that's what I would like to believe...
In truth though, my macro is shit.
|
Yeah I actually agree! I feel inspired to make a graph (just assume strategy is apart of micro); perhaps I'm channeling my inner baller.
This graph expresses how I feel about what needs to be utilized to climb the ladder. As a player gets towards the lower end of Master's league something interesting happens. If this player finds it difficult to continue to improve their macro, assuming their micro is very shoddy, improving micro may be a time efficient manner of climbing a little higher up the skill ranking.
Right now I play random, and most of my wins consist of me macroing in a much superior way. Last night I analyzed some of my replays, and I'd actually be ahead of almost every opponent in terms of worker and army supplies just because I have better mechanics. I'm trying to say there's great room for improvement in macro in Master's league, and although micro is important to start learning too at that point, macro I still feel is moreso until you're nearing GM league.
|
On April 15 2013 06:36 CecilSunkure wrote:Yeah I actually agree! I feel inspired to make a graph (just assume strategy is apart of micro); perhaps I'm channeling my inner baller. This graph expresses how I feel about what needs to be utilized to climb the ladder. As a player gets towards the lower end of Master's league something interesting happens. If this player finds it difficult to continue to improve their macro, assuming their micro is very shoddy, improving micro may be a time efficient manner of climbing a little higher up the skill ranking. Right now I play random, and most of my wins consist of me macroing in a much superior way. Last night I analyzed some of my replays, and I'd actually be ahead of almost every opponent in terms of worker and army supplies just because I have better mechanics. I'm trying to say there's great room for improvement in macro in Master's league, and although micro is important to start learning too at that point, macro I still feel is moreso until you're nearing GM league.
To add onto this, I have yet to really see a masters player have decent macro during times of pressure/stress like multipronged harass - you even see in foreigner pro streams that they will be supply blocked, they will reach 1k minerals every so often - these are things that can be improved and make a significant difference.
|
On April 14 2013 23:09 Clazziquai10 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 22:59 DenTenker wrote:
Congratulations! Feels good to know that all that hard work paid off. I am still working towards this myself. I have a long ways to go. Good job! :D Thanks! If such an untalented guy like myself can do it, so can you!
Haha. :D Thanks!
|
what OP says is the truth if you only keep working on a certain aspect all the goddamn time, you will never improve or only very slowly.
I experienced this when i did outdated builds on ladder and kept losing, even though my exceution was ver good. Then i read up on what was currently hot and i was climbing up nicely.
The biggest step of getting higher is knowledge. You have to understand more and more about the game.
Getting 5 more SCVs by midgame won't make a difference if you do the wrong decisions or don't know how to engage your opponent or where your units should be at any time^^
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/h9WQXZe.png)
