|
|
|
theres B rank players with like 150 apm, it has nothing to do with.
Basically solid mechanics will get you to C- and even C (i know because thats all i have and lack tons of knowledge of the game itself ;P).
If you're macro and build orders are solid you shouldnt have too much trouble getting to C. That said that's assuming its atleast half way thru the season, atm half the people you're playing at D+ are much, much higher skilled than normal D+ players.
|
Listen to saome Day[9] audios. Maybe they could help you.
The ones about winning when having an advantage, designing BOs and practicing vs. lesser skilled players may prove to be especially useful. ;]
|
On September 23 2009 16:38 JMave wrote:
My APM average is around 250, which I feel is sufficient to carry me through to at least a C rank(I doubt that I spam in my games).
Post a replay or 7 to prove it.
Unless you have terrible builds, spam is probably the reason why you can't get above D+. More likely, it is a combination of the two.
|
Watch your own replays when you lose, and figure out what you did wrong.
Take out 1 or 2 things that you will do better next time.
This should help you improve.
and 250 APM is sufficient (savior has like 220?)
|
like others have said, your apm doesn't matter. eapm is the better indicator, but it's not perfect. im assuming your race is toss, I'd say that the difference between a D+ and C- toss is about 90 eapm D+ to 110 eapm C-. that's just approximate though. for terran it's probably like 100 eapm to 120 eapm and zerg somewhere in the middle.
|
Germany2762 Posts
apm has nothing to do you with your actual skill level. you can suck with 250 apm and can get to A with 130... i rather think you lack in mechanics or in the general understanding of the game.
|
On September 23 2009 17:21 jhNz wrote:
apm has nothing to do you with your actual skill level. you can suck with 250 apm and can get to A with 130... i rather think you lack in mechanics or in the general understanding of the game.
you won't get to A with 130 apm, lol
|
On September 23 2009 17:24 lazz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2009 17:21 jhNz wrote:
apm has nothing to do you with your actual skill level. you can suck with 250 apm and can get to A with 130... i rather think you lack in mechanics or in the general understanding of the game. you won't get to A with 130 apm, lol
Maybe A- with 150 apm if you play toss O_O
|
Germany2762 Posts
On September 23 2009 17:24 lazz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2009 17:21 jhNz wrote:
apm has nothing to do you with your actual skill level. you can suck with 250 apm and can get to A with 130... i rather think you lack in mechanics or in the general understanding of the game. you won't get to A with 130 apm, lol
but you don't need much more.
even though i don't care about apm i know that ahzz was A- with 140-150 and his main race is zerg.
|
There is no proven correlation between APM and skill. If there was there wouldn't be 300 APM player stuck on D/C level and there wouldn't be any A players with 125 APM.
APM is however an indication how well the player knows the next step in his plan or buildorder, but just because he can execute it fast doesn't mean what he is doing is the correct thing. Even with high APM he can do something really fucked up strategy wise, only difference between him and a slower APM player is that he fucks up faster.
|
Zurich15364 Posts
To get back to the OP: As Protoss, first work on your openings. See that you get clean and solid openings that set you up well for the mid game. Don't even care about all-ins that much, first get your standard game in order. The couple of seconds you lose between gw and core matter more than any cute probe micro scouting tricks.
Secondly, proceed into making a lot of units. Seriously, D+ is like 95% macro. Your comparetively high APM gives you the physical ability, use it.
Only after you have solid openings and good midgame macro you should worry about scouting all-ins or bad decision making or game sense. If you want to get better there is no point in dealing with that earlier. Until then just eat the losses from all-ins and see that you play the standard games correctly.
|
On September 23 2009 16:44 maybenexttime wrote:
Listen to saome Day[9] audios. Maybe they could help you.
|
do you watch progaming vods?
if not, start doing it right now. with 250 (spamless) apm you can get anywhere with a proper knowledge of the game. also start analyzing your replays. i wouldnt promise but i think it would be rather safe to say if youre doing those 2 steps youll be c+ in 2 months.
btw:
On September 23 2009 17:15 lazz wrote:
like others have said, your apm doesn't matter. eapm is the better indicator, but it's not perfect. im assuming your race is toss, I'd say that the difference between a D+ and C- toss is about 90 eapm D+ to 110 eapm C-. that's just approximate though. for terran it's probably like 100 eapm to 120 eapm and zerg somewhere in the middle.
this is just so wrong. i can get with my 150 apm max and my 120 apm lazymode to C+ easily.
theres absolutely no correlation in between apm and skill or rank level. especially on the lower ranks you can win by pretty much everything. if its vastly higher apm than your opponent or more experience or whatever.
On September 23 2009 18:23 zatic wrote:
Secondly, proceed into making a lot of units. Seriously, D+ is like 95% macro. Your comparetively high APM gives you the physical ability, use it.
i dont wanna fight but i think its the complete opposite. when im playing from D upwards i find myself in a situation where the higher i get, the more macro takes up in my play. (lets say D 50% macro; D+ 60%; C- 70% and so on)
maybe thats just me (im relying 90% on my strategy and gamesense because i really dont have another choice with 120-150 apm)
|
APM is however an indication how well the player knows the next step in his plan or buildorder, but just because he can execute it fast doesn't mean what he is doing is the correct thing. Even with high APM he can do something really fucked up strategy wise, only difference between him and a slower APM player is that he fucks up faster.
Dark Pleasure
Definitely not. At least not the way you worded it. I do understand what you mean though 
|
Heya guys. Thanks for the replies. It seems that my mid-game play is really the thing that pulls me down a whole lot.
I am able to harass a zerg in PvZ from putting down his hatchery at his nat and still get my build timings right but when it comes to the mid-game. my play becomes increasingly weak.
Let's not get this thread into a strategy post but if the main gap is due to macro and mechanics, how can I improve on those?
|
On September 23 2009 16:38 JMave wrote:
Hi guys. I've been loafing at D+ ever since I started getting into SC 2 years ago and I've been stuck there ever since. Apart from the occasional cheesy games that I play, I find myself being unable to surpass the D+ ranks.
My APM average is around 250, which I feel is sufficient to carry me through to at least a C rank(I doubt that I spam in my games).
I was wondering what is the skill gap between a D+ and a C- player. Proper mechanics and a higher level of game sense to scout all-ins and know what is coming is my guess but I've been at this for too long and I need some help.
I'm B- with 105 APM.
APM means nothing on these ranks.
With 250 APM you can easily get A rank.
And i think you spam because, even when i try to spam and have high APM but still play well i cant get over 180.
250 is not possible without spam. otherwise you would be progamer already(they spam too) or like 60% of ur clicks are complete useless because ur not skilled.
Once i tried to play well with low APM. I tried not to spam i single click, without playing worse.
It was a C+ game. I had 67 APM vs 232 APM and i easily won.
See i don't want to offend you or w/e, but don't even think about ur APM on this skill lvl.
It means really nothing. You can be C- with 70 APM. Just try to avoid ur mistakes and play better.
Thats all for the APM part.
|
On September 23 2009 18:34 [DUF]MethodMan wrote:btw: Show nested quote +On September 23 2009 17:15 lazz wrote:
like others have said, your apm doesn't matter. eapm is the better indicator, but it's not perfect. im assuming your race is toss, I'd say that the difference between a D+ and C- toss is about 90 eapm D+ to 110 eapm C-. that's just approximate though. for terran it's probably like 100 eapm to 120 eapm and zerg somewhere in the middle. this is just so wrong. i can get with my 150 apm max and my 120 apm lazymode to C+ easily. theres absolutely no correlation in between apm and skill or rank level. especially on the lower ranks you can win by pretty much everything. if its vastly higher apm than your opponent or more experience or whatever.)
learn to read please. i said eapm. effective actions per minute. apm without spamming and redundancy.
|
Zurich15364 Posts
On September 23 2009 18:34 [DUF]MethodMan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2009 18:23 zatic wrote:
Secondly, proceed into making a lot of units. Seriously, D+ is like 95% macro. Your comparetively high APM gives you the physical ability, use it.
i dont wanna fight but i think its the complete opposite. when im playing from D upwards i find myself in a situation where the higher i get, the more macro takes up in my play. (lets say D 50% macro; D+ 60%; C- 70% and so on) maybe thats just me (im relying 90% on my strategy and gamesense because i really dont have another choice with 120-150 apm)
This is exactly what I am saying. If he wants to get better he needs to macro better (the arbitrary 95% were supposed to mean 95% of his time spend on getting better should go towards improving macro).
You personally can get away with spending 50% of your ingame on macro on D because everyone has terrible macro. The higher you get, the more important it is to have solid macro. Consequently, to get better than everyone he should improve his macro and worry about anything else later.
Edit: I stress this becuase I hear this so often from Protoss players. They worry about all kinds of all-ins and scoutingand, no offense OP, about delaying the Zerg nat and all that shit on D-level. When all they should be worrying about is a clean opening and good midgame macro. What's the point of scouting or "reading" every move of your opponent if you can't outproduce them? Work on that once you are actually able to produce the units to take advantage of the information you scouted.
|
Norway28779 Posts
haha if you have 250 apm at d+ ranks then you spam. there's no doubt about that.
|
I suggest you to slow down and concentrate on strategy and macro more.
|
On September 23 2009 16:38 JMave wrote:
Hi guys. I've been loafing at D+ ever since I started getting into SC 2 years ago and I've been stuck there ever since. Apart from the occasional cheesy games that I play, I find myself being unable to surpass the D+ ranks.
My APM average is around 250, which I feel is sufficient to carry me through to at least a C rank(I doubt that I spam in my games).
I was wondering what is the skill gap between a D+ and a C- player. Proper mechanics and a higher level of game sense to scout all-ins and know what is coming is my guess but I've been at this for too long and I need some help.
I've just managed to drag myself out of D+ this season, and there isn't any real secret. Just basics.
1) Practiced builds. Pick one standardish build for each matchup and play it every time. You'll run away with a lead over players who don't execute theirs well.
2) Macro. D+ players are sloppy, and often the one that makes more stuff is the one that's going to win.
3) Safe play. Be being greedy, you're probably going to lose a lot of games, and the gains are pretty minimal at this level. Don't play reckless.
A rep would be helpful here.
|
Sounds more of an issue with strategies to me, while your mechanics might be good, there must be something you're doing wrong, I played Zerg for about a month and I had a brief guest appearance at C- last season...
|
Ok. I'll be going to play 5 games right now and I'll post a rep of each game and just to see what you guys think.
|
Okay well, my apm isn't exactly at 250 but it ranges from 200-250 most times. Just to clear things up.
|
On September 23 2009 18:29 Day[9] wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2009 16:44 maybenexttime wrote:
Listen to saome Day[9] audios. Maybe they could help you.
gAhhahahhA best quote ever
|
On September 23 2009 19:07 lazz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2009 18:34 [DUF]MethodMan wrote:btw: On September 23 2009 17:15 lazz wrote:
like others have said, your apm doesn't matter. eapm is the better indicator, but it's not perfect. im assuming your race is toss, I'd say that the difference between a D+ and C- toss is about 90 eapm D+ to 110 eapm C-. that's just approximate though. for terran it's probably like 100 eapm to 120 eapm and zerg somewhere in the middle. this is just so wrong. i can get with my 150 apm max and my 120 apm lazymode to C+ easily. theres absolutely no correlation in between apm and skill or rank level. especially on the lower ranks you can win by pretty much everything. if its vastly higher apm than your opponent or more experience or whatever.) learn to read please. i said eapm. effective actions per minute. apm without spamming and redundancy.
i just checked and my eapm is around 100-120. so by your logic i should be at C-. seriously, apm doesnt matter shit as long as youre a) protoss and b) not trying to get over b-.
edit: maybe the OP should switch to T because hes obviously a much more mechanically oriented player than strategically. learn 2 bos per matchup and how to execute. with 200-250apm it should carry you above D+ easily.
|
I don't know how the hell a D+ guy gets 250 apm because apm usually is related with experience. If you're not playing very flimsy 250 apm takes years to build up, that's why people use it as skill measurement. Of course it's wrong in a lot of cases, but if you're really that fast (while knowing what to do) you could just harass while macroing up to win every game at D+ level. But to me it sounds like you don't really know what to do (you built your apm up way too fast) and struggle because of lack of experience.
And to the people talking about good players lowering their apm on purpose to prove that it doesn't matter - It doesn't prove anything...
|
On September 23 2009 20:13 Shauni wrote:
I don't know how the hell a D+ guy gets 250 apm because apm usually is related with experience. If you're not playing very flimsy 250 apm takes years to build up, that's why people use it as skill measurement. Of course it's wrong in a lot of cases, but if you're really that fast (while knowing what to do) you could just harass while macroing up to win every game at D+ level. But to me it sounds like you don't really know what to do (you built your apm up way too fast) and struggle because of lack of experience.
And to the people talking about good players lowering their apm on purpose to prove that it doesn't matter - It doesn't prove anything...
I think it has to do with the fact that players want to get good really quickly, and while they can't improve mechanics, game sense, macro, or micro really quickly, they can get their APM really high in only a week or two.
Starcraft is a really difficult game, and everybody wants to get really good, really quickly. Nobody wants to take the time and effort to slowly learn to play the game through experience, so they hope that by increasing just their numbers to progamer level, they can therefore be as good as progamers at the game.
That's my two cents. D:
|
|
|
On September 23 2009 19:57 [DUF]MethodMan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2009 19:07 lazz wrote:On September 23 2009 18:34 [DUF]MethodMan wrote:btw: On September 23 2009 17:15 lazz wrote:
like others have said, your apm doesn't matter. eapm is the better indicator, but it's not perfect. im assuming your race is toss, I'd say that the difference between a D+ and C- toss is about 90 eapm D+ to 110 eapm C-. that's just approximate though. for terran it's probably like 100 eapm to 120 eapm and zerg somewhere in the middle. this is just so wrong. i can get with my 150 apm max and my 120 apm lazymode to C+ easily. theres absolutely no correlation in between apm and skill or rank level. especially on the lower ranks you can win by pretty much everything. if its vastly higher apm than your opponent or more experience or whatever.) learn to read please. i said eapm. effective actions per minute. apm without spamming and redundancy. i just checked and my eapm is around 100-120. so by your logic i should be at C-. seriously, apm doesnt matter shit as long as youre a) protoss and b) not trying to get over b-. edit: maybe the OP should switch to T because hes obviously a much more mechanically oriented player than strategically. learn 2 bos per matchup and how to execute. with 200-250apm it should carry you above D+ easily.
if you get 120 eapm as toss there's no doubt in my mind you'll be able to pump out a C-
edit:
i watched the second one. that was painful. you canceled not only 1 cannon, but a gateway as well. those 100 minerals are critical in the first few minutes to get your nexus up.
imo you should go back to single player and learn your build order..
just watched the PvP as well. first off your build order, again, was really sloppy. you went 2 gate, which happened to be a good thing cos your opponent ended up going 3 gate all-in, however your gas was way way too fucking early. you can't tech, pump probes and pump 2 gates that early in the game all at the same time. if youre going 2 gate before core, delay your gas, instead put it up about 20 seconds before you put up your core. and if you want to play standard pvp go 1 gate zealot before core, it's over all a much safer build than 2 gate before core.
like i said you're making really basic mistakes, you should get your hands on a few pro replays of each protoss match up and basically just carbon copy a pro build order in single player until you get it right. then go back to iccup and let you rown style develop after that. GL man
|
Watching the second game:
You have 1000 minerals and 500 gas before 8 minutes. Either throw down a bunch of gates while using gas on templar, or try to take an expasion.
20 minutes in, and you're still on 2 gas against 4. You've floated a lot of minerals that could have been poured into expo/cannons, gates, mass zeals. The only reason the game lasted this long is Zerg had over 5k mins and 2k gas sitting in the bank.
By the end, you haven't gotten off 2 bases and Zerg has 6. Poor macro killed you that game.
|
Zurich15364 Posts
Moved to Strategy. Please edit in replays to your original post.
On September 23 2009 20:31 Dfgj wrote:
The only reason the game lasted this long is Zerg had over 5k mins and 2k gas sitting in the bank.
By the end, you haven't gotten off 2 bases and Zerg has 6. Poor macro killed you that game.
|
Hi again. I have uploaded the third game. This is a game where I won. It was PvP. I think my opponent knew nuts about PvP. No offense but he went for a really early second gate right before his core, making me think it was a 2 gate zeal attack when it wasn't. I teched up more and I won that game.
If you were wondering why I'm uploading games that I win, its because I'm just trying to show some consistent results to determine what I lack in game, whether mechanical or if my actions are actually spam.
|
Third game thoughts:
You cut probes pretty early. Make your pylons earlier and keep probe/goon production up.
Your build isn't very good. You made an extremely early robo, but by 7~ minutes you had 1 reaver/shuttle and about 7 goons, with under 60 supply. You can have 10g/2z and 2 reavers in a shuttle pushing out at 8 minutes. Given that you weren't really maximizing 2 gates, a third was unnecessary.
Overall: refine your BO and macro as much as possible.
|
On September 23 2009 21:13 Dfgj wrote:
Third game thoughts:
You cut probes pretty early. Make your pylons earlier and keep probe/goon production up.
Your build isn't very good. You made an extremely early robo, but by 7~ minutes you had 1 reaver/shuttle and about 7 goons, with under 60 supply. You can have 10g/2z and 2 reavers in a shuttle pushing out at 8 minutes. Given that you weren't really maximizing 2 gates, a third was unnecessary.
Overall: refine your BO and macro as much as possible.
I adapted this build from Bisu in the IEF tournament game 3. I always saw him go this build so I followed him. Isn't the build correct? Or am I wrong?
|
On September 23 2009 21:37 JMave wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2009 21:13 Dfgj wrote:
Third game thoughts:
You cut probes pretty early. Make your pylons earlier and keep probe/goon production up.
Your build isn't very good. You made an extremely early robo, but by 7~ minutes you had 1 reaver/shuttle and about 7 goons, with under 60 supply. You can have 10g/2z and 2 reavers in a shuttle pushing out at 8 minutes. Given that you weren't really maximizing 2 gates, a third was unnecessary.
Overall: refine your BO and macro as much as possible.
I adapted this build from Bisu in the IEF tournament game 3. I always saw him go this build so I followed him. Isn't the build correct? Or am I wrong?
I could be wrong, but it seemed you had less units than you could have had.
|
Chill said something like this last night on his stream before he logged off.
"Lower level players focus too much on finesse when the most important thing into becoming a better player is learning how to just make a lot of shit."
|
Just learn some basic bo's for the 3 mu's, and practice them only. That should be enough to get u to C
|
Germany2762 Posts
On September 23 2009 21:37 JMave wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2009 21:13 Dfgj wrote:
Third game thoughts:
You cut probes pretty early. Make your pylons earlier and keep probe/goon production up.
Your build isn't very good. You made an extremely early robo, but by 7~ minutes you had 1 reaver/shuttle and about 7 goons, with under 60 supply. You can have 10g/2z and 2 reavers in a shuttle pushing out at 8 minutes. Given that you weren't really maximizing 2 gates, a third was unnecessary.
Overall: refine your BO and macro as much as possible.
I adapted this build from Bisu in the IEF tournament game 3. I always saw him go this build so I followed him. Isn't the build correct? Or am I wrong?
in my opinion copying build orders from pros is the wrong way to become any better. it's like learning a song by heart to play it on the piano without knowing the instrument. you can learn which keys you have to push in a which order that the you hear the song. the song might sound good but as soon someone comes over and says "hey play a different song" you're screwed. because you learned to play the song and not to play the instrument. start learning the instrument instead. this applies to broodwar as well. if you only copy a bo you might snatch some wins with it. but as soon as something goes a different way than the bo is useful for, you lose.
i haven't watched the rep though. this is just a reply to this quote.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On September 23 2009 22:46 koreasilver wrote:
Chill said something like this last night on his stream before he logged off.
"Lower level players focus too much on finesse when the most important thing into becoming a better player is learning how to just make a lot of shit."
So true
|
On September 23 2009 22:46 koreasilver wrote:
Chill said something like this last night on his stream before he logged off.
"Lower level players focus too much on finesse when the most important thing into becoming a better player is learning how to just make a lot of shit."
I wish he (and a lot of other streamers) would make use of the on-demand part and have livestream record their stuff! :o
|
In both the reps you uploaded you have around 40% redundancy according to bwrepinfo which is actually pretty high, which means you do spam. Try playing a bit slower but more efficiently, not only will you be able to perform the same tasks, but you will also have more time to focus on decision making and thus having a more solid gameplay overall.
|
Good advice. Don't worry about apm. If you know what your doing through experience then you will want to do those things faster aka supplys, production buildings, macro, and your apm will naturally rise. You have to try to outdo your opponent though you cant just chill on a plateau.
|
On September 23 2009 23:08 jhNz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2009 21:37 JMave wrote:On September 23 2009 21:13 Dfgj wrote:
Third game thoughts:
You cut probes pretty early. Make your pylons earlier and keep probe/goon production up.
Your build isn't very good. You made an extremely early robo, but by 7~ minutes you had 1 reaver/shuttle and about 7 goons, with under 60 supply. You can have 10g/2z and 2 reavers in a shuttle pushing out at 8 minutes. Given that you weren't really maximizing 2 gates, a third was unnecessary.
Overall: refine your BO and macro as much as possible.
I adapted this build from Bisu in the IEF tournament game 3. I always saw him go this build so I followed him. Isn't the build correct? Or am I wrong? in my opinion copying build orders from pros is the wrong way to become any better. it's like learning a song by heart to play it on the piano without knowing the instrument. you can learn which keys you have to push in a which order that the you hear the song. the song might sound good but as soon someone comes over and says "hey play a different song" you're screwed. because you learned to play the song and not to play the instrument. start learning the instrument instead. this applies to broodwar as well. if you only copy a bo you might snatch some wins with it. but as soon as something goes a different way than the bo is useful for, you lose. i haven't watched the rep though. this is just a reply to this quote.
What are you trying to say with this post? Don't use a build order and just wing it based on feel? This is absolutely dreadful advice. One of the easiest ways to see and feel real improvement in your game is to find a solid build order that goes all the way up until your first push or so and working on that. Starcraft is a solved game and there is a reason the standard builds are the standard. Learn them well because they develop your understanding of the game and are adaptable to nearly every situation you'll encounter.
|
|
|
Germany2762 Posts
On September 23 2009 23:36 Tropics wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2009 23:08 jhNz wrote:On September 23 2009 21:37 JMave wrote:On September 23 2009 21:13 Dfgj wrote:
Third game thoughts:
You cut probes pretty early. Make your pylons earlier and keep probe/goon production up.
Your build isn't very good. You made an extremely early robo, but by 7~ minutes you had 1 reaver/shuttle and about 7 goons, with under 60 supply. You can have 10g/2z and 2 reavers in a shuttle pushing out at 8 minutes. Given that you weren't really maximizing 2 gates, a third was unnecessary.
Overall: refine your BO and macro as much as possible.
I adapted this build from Bisu in the IEF tournament game 3. I always saw him go this build so I followed him. Isn't the build correct? Or am I wrong? in my opinion copying build orders from pros is the wrong way to become any better. it's like learning a song by heart to play it on the piano without knowing the instrument. you can learn which keys you have to push in a which order that the you hear the song. the song might sound good but as soon someone comes over and says "hey play a different song" you're screwed. because you learned to play the song and not to play the instrument. start learning the instrument instead. this applies to broodwar as well. if you only copy a bo you might snatch some wins with it. but as soon as something goes a different way than the bo is useful for, you lose. i haven't watched the rep though. this is just a reply to this quote. What are you trying to say with this post? Don't use a build order and just wing it based on feel? This is absolutely dreadful advice. One of the easiest ways to see and feel real improvement in your game is to find a solid build order that goes all the way up until your first push or so and working on that. Starcraft is a solved game and there is a reason the standard builds are the standard. Learn them well because they develop your understanding of the game and are adaptable to nearly every situation you'll encounter.
i don't want to say that BOs are bad and you're completely right with your post
i just say that it is wrong to copy builds without thinking about them. you have to understand why you are doing certain elements of a build. why am i producing this zealot at this specific time, what is the purpose of it? a lot of players - especially new ones - just read the BO, do exactly what it says but they have no idea why they're doing it. and this leads to what i'm saying in the last sentence of my post. if the opponent plays something non-standard they lose because they know the bo without understanding it really.
i agree with you though. it is important to have a good build. but at some point the bo itself wont win you games (i'm not talking about zvz or pvp ^^)
|
On September 23 2009 23:30 kemoryan wrote:
In both the reps you uploaded you have around 40% redundancy according to bwrepinfo which is actually pretty high, which means you do spam. Try playing a bit slower but more efficiently, not only will you be able to perform the same tasks, but you will also have more time to focus on decision making and thus having a more solid gameplay overall.
Hmm okay. I'll try to tone down on the speed. I guess its just a complete habit that I spam so much till its like in me and I don't even notice that its spam.
For most part of PvZ, I usually feel lost when things go mid game.
I have some questions that I would want to ask.
Firstly if I scout a 12 hatch by zerg, do I cut probes and get my nex up asap? By the time I scout a 12 hatch on a 2 player map, I would have around 12 supply with my second probe at nat getting ready to plant the forge. Or is it more worth while to get like 14 supply then plant the nex?
After the early game phase when my nat eco and tech have kicked in, what is my next vital objective? This is assuming that everything went standard, no all-ins.
What is the timing that I need to get my third? I usually have immense difficulty securing my third early due to either mutas or an attack at it.
Overall, I just find my play really messy. I get lost when I play so often. Damn.
|
Macro, don't EVER get supply cockblocked, refine build orders and learn to harass constantly using your APM if it's legit APM and not spam.
As simple as it looks, these will get you to C- ez
|
On September 24 2009 00:11 JMave wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2009 23:30 kemoryan wrote:
In both the reps you uploaded you have around 40% redundancy according to bwrepinfo which is actually pretty high, which means you do spam. Try playing a bit slower but more efficiently, not only will you be able to perform the same tasks, but you will also have more time to focus on decision making and thus having a more solid gameplay overall. Hmm okay. I'll try to tone down on the speed. I guess its just a complete habit that I spam so much till its like in me and I don't even notice that its spam. For most part of PvZ, I usually feel lost when things go mid game. I have some questions that I would want to ask. Firstly if I scout a 12 hatch by zerg, do I cut probes and get my nex up asap? By the time I scout a 12 hatch on a 2 player map, I would have around 12 supply with my second probe at nat getting ready to plant the forge. Or is it more worth while to get like 14 supply then plant the nex? After the early game phase when my nat eco and tech have kicked in, what is my next vital objective? This is assuming that everything went standard, no all-ins. What is the timing that I need to get my third? I usually have immense difficulty securing my third early due to either mutas or an attack at it. Overall, I just find my play really messy. I get lost when I play so often. Damn.
Again, D+/C- opinions here so maybe not the best, but I'll mention what I try to do at least:
If you scout 12 hatch and don't have the forge down, nex asap (I believe 13 nex 13 forge would be appropriate). I'm really not sure here though, as I tend to forge earlier in case of cheese.
The midgame depends on your build. From what I saw in your second replay, you weren't doing any form of early speedlots or sair heavy build, so your main priority is to mass up. Get storm and templar, upgrades (leg speed, goon range etc), use the extra minerals left over to add gates. You'll want to get a robotics fairly soon as well, as lurkers are not your friends (and destination lurker contains can really be painful). This is also where you can start harassing with more corsairs and templar drops.
If you want to play as safe as possible, use your army to secure your third while cannons are going up. You can aim to take your third as your gates kick in, so that you have enough units/storms to hold off midgame hydra play. In your rep, you moved out blindly and just ended up losing your army, basically handing over map control and the chance to expo.
I'd really appreciate it if someone with more experience replied though, since I'm also interested to get more definitive answers.
|
to answer the op question, D+ to C- is supposed to be one of the easiest gaps to cross, and i agree with that. C- to C on the other hand is much much harder. The reasoning comes down to the win/loss system of iccup. you lose 50 points for a loss at the D levels and 75 points for a loss at the C levels. So, for example, the amount of wins you have to get from D to D+ is about the same as from D+ to C-. The amount of wins you need from C- to C though is significantly higher, creating a larger skill gap.
I dont really know the technicalities of it all, but most people agree that D+, C+, and basically all the +'s are easier to get to the -'s than it is for the D-, C-, B- players to get to the regular ranks.
|
Well, to defend his APM and spamming and whatnot, I play at 200-220 apm and I have about 50% redundancy- but I just feel comfortable playing that way. I think of it as having the raw resources so when i get better and start to multitask better I will have already have the apm to do it, i just will have to change which actions I do. My 2 cents on APM.
|
Well while we're on this (and assuming most of TL has already done so) what would the skill gape between D and D+ be? I'm a terran starting a new season on ICCUP and have played only 40 games with a 35% winratio and have read through (and practised) stylish's and artosis's vods. I've been told to allow 200 games to breach the gap to D+. Any thoughts? my apm runs from about 150-170 with eapm ~100-110 but my basics are probably whats costing me games right now.
|
On September 23 2009 19:16 Liquid`Drone wrote:
haha if you have 250 apm at d+ ranks then you spam. there's no doubt about that.
Ez... iCCuP has a file called repinfo i believe, and it will tell you your redundancy and aom not counting the first 2 minutes since that is all spam anyway. As for skill, I am currently at C- and last season didnt have enough time to hit C but my apm are considerably less than yours, mechanics first then the speed will add on after you learn your builds it will become second nature.
|
I reached C- last season with APM of ~98 
Since your physical seems good enough, I'd recommend just playing a lot of games to develop better game sense and to perfect build orders.
|
Calgary25996 Posts
The skill gap from D+ to C- involves making a lot of workers and making a lot of units. That's it. Until around C you should just focus on making a lot of units.
To clarify:
Gamesense? No.
Timing? No.
Unit composition? No.
Unit control? No.
Making a lot of shit (not even necessarily the best shit for a situation)? Yes.
|
On September 24 2009 00:25 Dfgj wrote:
If you scout 12 hatch and don't have the forge down, nex asap (I believe 13 nex 13 forge would be appropriate). I'm really not sure here though, as I tend to forge earlier in case of cheese.
The midgame depends on your build. From what I saw in your second replay, you weren't doing any form of early speedlots or sair heavy build, so your main priority is to mass up. Get storm and templar, upgrades (leg speed, goon range etc), use the extra minerals left over to add gates. You'll want to get a robotics fairly soon as well, as lurkers are not your friends (and destination lurker contains can really be painful). This is also where you can start harassing with more corsairs and templar drops.
If you want to play as safe as possible, use your army to secure your third while cannons are going up. You can aim to take your third as your gates kick in, so that you have enough units/storms to hold off midgame hydra play. In your rep, you moved out blindly and just ended up losing your army, basically handing over map control and the chance to expo.
I'd really appreciate it if someone with more experience replied though, since I'm also interested to get more definitive answers.
There's absolutely no reason to forge first when you scout a12 hatch. Doing so doesn't make you any safer from Zerglings.
|
On September 24 2009 02:50 JFKWT wrote:
Well while we're on this (and assuming most of TL has already done so) what would the skill gape between D and D+ be? I'm a terran starting a new season on ICCUP and have played only 40 games with a 35% winratio and have read through (and practised) stylish's and artosis's vods. I've been told to allow 200 games to breach the gap to D+. Any thoughts? my apm runs from about 150-170 with eapm ~100-110 but my basics are probably whats costing me games right now.
to me:
I beat a lot of D+ with that apm/eapm. Find a build and memorize it. Then just macro.
|
On September 24 2009 04:19 Chill wrote:
The skill gap from D+ to C- involves making a lot of workers and making a lot of units. That's it. Until around C you should just focus on making a lot of units.
To clarify:
Gamesense? No.
Timing? No.
Unit composition? No.
Unit control? No.
Making a lot of shit (not even necessarily the best shit for a situation)? Yes.
That sounds a clear and good advise. No need to read 1000 different guides, just (Fast expand and) make units...?
|
Calgary25996 Posts
Yes.
Your first priority is making workers. Your second priority is making units and infrastructure (depots, barracks, gateways, pylons, overlords, hatcheries, etc).
For example, I play a lot of people at C- on ICCup who have really nice probe harass. Except I know they are missing probes left and right because of it. That isn't a good trade off. It's similar to the guy who spends a minute getting that last hit on the overlord being defending by a hydralisk. While he was flying in and out he probably missed 5 workers and a round of production. That's dumb. Make worker and unit production your priorities.
|
On September 24 2009 04:59 Chill wrote:
Yes.
Your first priority is making workers. Your second priority is making units and infrastructure (depots, barracks, gateways, pylons, overlords, hatcheries, etc).
For example, I play a lot of people at C- on ICCup who have really nice probe harass. Except I know they are missing probes left and right because of it. That isn't a good trade off. It's similar to the guy who spends a minute getting that last hit on the overlord being defending by a hydralisk. While he was flying in and out he probably missed 5 workers and a round of production. That's dumb. Make worker and unit production your priorities.
Hi Chill. So with all that macro, does being able to secure expansions also play a key? Since you'll need the resources to expand and not just macro alone.
|
Personally I've found the skill-gap from D+ to C- to be pretty harsh. I'm not sure what the guy a few pots above me was talking about (edit ok now a lot of posts above me): you lose 50 points for a D+/D+ loss and 75 for a C-/C- loss (going MOTW stats here.) You win 130 in each case (I think--I've never actually won a C-/C-). Therefore, you must win 27.7(repeating of course)% of your games to maintain D+ and ~36.6% of your games to maintain C-.
I also think one of the biggest issues around playing at the D/D+ level is the fact that a really large portion of the people you play against are smurfs so the whole "just build more units" strategy doesn't feel particularly satisfying even if it might technically "work." I mean, I go home after work tonight and play a bunch of ZvT on Destination and just blindly 3 hatch no scout and assume MM as I work towards mutas I'm going to lose at least a third of the games to someone of higher rank practicing his vulture runbys. I may do slightly better against the "true D+" Terrans as I will be better at macro since I'm just not going to worry about scouting/responding to nonstandard play but it feels really bad to put up no fight at all against the wraith/vulture/proxy/sair dt/etc. Also smurf protoss will storm the crap out of your massive army with bad unit composition so you stop just doing stuff like massing hydra because it's no fun to get completely owned.
This mental state probably ends up costing me some games since there are no doubt games I could win with mass units that I lose because I have been trained that doing that doesn't work (by all the smurfs--and it's not like I'm taking games off them anyway) but I'm not sure if I would be playing "better" for it.
|
On September 24 2009 04:59 Chill wrote:
Yes.
Your first priority is making workers. Your second priority is making units and infrastructure (depots, barracks, gateways, pylons, overlords, hatcheries, etc).
For example, I play a lot of people at C- on ICCup who have really nice probe harass. Except I know they are missing probes left and right because of it. That isn't a good trade off. It's similar to the guy who spends a minute getting that last hit on the overlord being defending by a hydralisk. While he was flying in and out he probably missed 5 workers and a round of production. That's dumb. Make worker and unit production your priorities.
Oh man, this reminds me of a Protoss I played a while ago. It turned out his entire gameplan was pretty much probe harassment. He went around and did cute stuff; he first stole my gas, then placed a (failed, lol) manner pylon, and then he ran around and harassed my SCV's building shit. I did a very bad (got supply blocked etc) improvised MnM + Tank push build (first time I ever had my gas stolen, so I didn't think about faster CC + Bunker), and when I pushed out he had like 3-4 Zealots outside my main. Wtf? Was that his follow up to gas steal? I proceeded to push all the way to his main without encountering any more units until I noticed something blurry; two DT's. Since I had a really fast Acad and therefore Comsat already, it was a piece of cake to deal with. Then he left the game without gg. Wtf? I figured that he would be way ahead due to my really failed BO. So I watched the replay, and it turned out he cut probe production pretty much after his first pylon and focused almost entirely on harassing with his probe. Such a bad game.
|
Apm thread in disguise lol
|
On September 24 2009 04:19 Chill wrote:
The skill gap from D+ to C- involves making a lot of workers and making a lot of units. That's it. Until around C you should just focus on making a lot of units.
To clarify:
Gamesense? No.
Timing? No.
Unit composition? No.
Unit control? No.
Making a lot of shit (not even necessarily the best shit for a situation)? Yes.
It might work as P but no way as Z or T lol
|
On September 24 2009 05:27 iD.NicKy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2009 04:19 Chill wrote:
The skill gap from D+ to C- involves making a lot of workers and making a lot of units. That's it. Until around C you should just focus on making a lot of units.
To clarify:
Gamesense? No.
Timing? No.
Unit composition? No.
Unit control? No.
Making a lot of shit (not even necessarily the best shit for a situation)? Yes. It might work as P but no way as Z or T lol
Yeah. You'll never kill off a Zerg with Lurkers if you have extremely fail MnM micro, for instance, despite having way superior macro. I talk from experience.
|
Considering 80% of the players from D to C+ will attempt to cheese, just play safe and macro, easy wins up to B-. Then its like 95% cheese from B- to B+ but alot more difficult to stop 
Basically, your knowledge and experience to the game(you said u played 2 years right?) should be more then sufficient to counter or predict what your opponent is going to do. And if ur apm is really 250 like you say then i find it hard to beleive you cant reach C-, unless its spam like every1 else has been saying.
|
Calgary25996 Posts
On September 24 2009 05:27 iD.NicKy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2009 04:19 Chill wrote:
The skill gap from D+ to C- involves making a lot of workers and making a lot of units. That's it. Until around C you should just focus on making a lot of units.
To clarify:
Gamesense? No.
Timing? No.
Unit composition? No.
Unit control? No.
Making a lot of shit (not even necessarily the best shit for a situation)? Yes. It might work as P but no way as Z or T lol
Why not?
|
Maybe try playing with 1 hand? That should force you to concentrate more on build order and strategy then anything else, atleast thats what it does for me. Ive won quite a few C/C+ games with 1 handed 120 apm with build order + strategy alone.
Idk, ive notice other players with high apm stuck at D+/C- level and its usually the lack of build orders and strategy. They tend to beleive the faster they are the quicker their macro will be. From midgame to lategame thats true but early game to midgame, its all build order. You need to get ur buildorders down and let ur macro and apm build up naturally, dont force it.
|
Calgary25996 Posts
On September 24 2009 06:03 LonGGone wrote:
Maybe try playing with 1 hand?
Do not do this.
|
On September 24 2009 00:05 jhNz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2009 23:36 Tropics wrote:On September 23 2009 23:08 jhNz wrote:On September 23 2009 21:37 JMave wrote:On September 23 2009 21:13 Dfgj wrote:
Third game thoughts:
You cut probes pretty early. Make your pylons earlier and keep probe/goon production up.
Your build isn't very good. You made an extremely early robo, but by 7~ minutes you had 1 reaver/shuttle and about 7 goons, with under 60 supply. You can have 10g/2z and 2 reavers in a shuttle pushing out at 8 minutes. Given that you weren't really maximizing 2 gates, a third was unnecessary.
Overall: refine your BO and macro as much as possible.
I adapted this build from Bisu in the IEF tournament game 3. I always saw him go this build so I followed him. Isn't the build correct? Or am I wrong? in my opinion copying build orders from pros is the wrong way to become any better. it's like learning a song by heart to play it on the piano without knowing the instrument. you can learn which keys you have to push in a which order that the you hear the song. the song might sound good but as soon someone comes over and says "hey play a different song" you're screwed. because you learned to play the song and not to play the instrument. start learning the instrument instead. this applies to broodwar as well. if you only copy a bo you might snatch some wins with it. but as soon as something goes a different way than the bo is useful for, you lose. i haven't watched the rep though. this is just a reply to this quote. What are you trying to say with this post? Don't use a build order and just wing it based on feel? This is absolutely dreadful advice. One of the easiest ways to see and feel real improvement in your game is to find a solid build order that goes all the way up until your first push or so and working on that. Starcraft is a solved game and there is a reason the standard builds are the standard. Learn them well because they develop your understanding of the game and are adaptable to nearly every situation you'll encounter. i don't want to say that BOs are bad and you're completely right with your post i just say that it is wrong to copy builds without thinking about them. you have to understand why you are doing certain elements of a build. why am i producing this zealot at this specific time, what is the purpose of it? a lot of players - especially new ones - just read the BO, do exactly what it says but they have no idea why they're doing it. and this leads to what i'm saying in the last sentence of my post. if the opponent plays something non-standard they lose because they know the bo without understanding it really. i agree with you though. it is important to have a good build. but at some point the bo itself wont win you games (i'm not talking about zvz or pvp ^^)
I understand what your'e saying but I disagree with your conclusion.
By trying to carbon copy a build order, the player will immediately find himself in D+/C- situations and start to understand the game at a competitive level. For example, protoss fast expands and the zerg only makes a few zerglings and then powers drones while expanding. The build order says to make more zerglings at a certain supply. The player doesn't know why, but does it anyway. Suddenly three zealots show up to poke around and he realizes what the zerglings are there for. Or he makes a spire for scourge and then starts getting hydra tech. Suddenly a corsair shows up and he realizes what the four scourge are for.
Starcraft isn't that hard to figure out (on a basic level), since many years of study have already gone into finding the most effective and versatile openings. If you handicap yourself by trying to invent your own ways of playing, all you're doing is lengthening your learning curve.
|
Calgary25996 Posts
I think a more likely outcome is the person continues to make those zerglings whether they are necessary or not. If the person plays more freely and dies to the 3 zealots a few times, hes more likely to adapt back and forth.
|
|
|
On September 24 2009 05:52 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2009 05:27 iD.NicKy wrote:On September 24 2009 04:19 Chill wrote:
The skill gap from D+ to C- involves making a lot of workers and making a lot of units. That's it. Until around C you should just focus on making a lot of units.
To clarify:
Gamesense? No.
Timing? No.
Unit composition? No.
Unit control? No.
Making a lot of shit (not even necessarily the best shit for a situation)? Yes. It might work as P but no way as Z or T lol Why not?
I heard an example of macroing mnm and trying to kill a zerg who has lurkers. Well if you macro heavy you have a lot of vessels. Problem solved. Though for ZvP I'm not sure because couldn't a toss just rape any combo with storms unless you go lurk/ling into ultra/ling?
|
On September 24 2009 06:36 Chill wrote:
I think a more likely outcome is the person continues to make those zerglings whether they are necessary or not. If the person plays more freely and dies to the 3 zealots a few times, hes more likely to adapt back and forth.
Yeah, you're probably right. I don't have as much experience with other people learning the game as you probably do, although I would expect most people to figure these things out eventually when they get the build order down well enough to hold their own and either start experimenting with it or trying new ones.
I think the greater evil is that when newer players play freely, they tend to play very inefficiently... how many times have you seen D players make two gateways and then only use one of them because they're teching up?
|
You guys have any tips on securing expos on destination or any map in general for PvZ? I'm having a great time trying to get those expos.. which are the things that always cost me the game.
|
On September 24 2009 06:39 zergnewb wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2009 05:52 Chill wrote:On September 24 2009 05:27 iD.NicKy wrote:On September 24 2009 04:19 Chill wrote:
The skill gap from D+ to C- involves making a lot of workers and making a lot of units. That's it. Until around C you should just focus on making a lot of units.
To clarify:
Gamesense? No.
Timing? No.
Unit composition? No.
Unit control? No.
Making a lot of shit (not even necessarily the best shit for a situation)? Yes. It might work as P but no way as Z or T lol Why not? I heard an example of macroing mnm and trying to kill a zerg who has lurkers. Well if you macro heavy you have a lot of vessels. Problem solved. Though for ZvP I'm not sure because couldn't a toss just rape any combo with storms unless you go lurk/ling into ultra/ling?
Most low level toss can't storm very well. Either way, if your macro is much better than his they won't matter anyway.
|
Regarding the winning percentages; wouldn't you be D if you won 50% of your games against D players, D+ if you won 50% against D+ players...etc. etc?
The thing is; with a 50% winning percentage, inflation is created. Someone can get to...ie C- simply by mass gaming at the D+ level, providing they win 50% of their games against D+ players and at least 35% against C- players. However, this doesn't mean that they're actually C-.
I've been told to allow 200 games to breach the gap to D+. Any thoughts?
Personally, I think this is pretty stupid. If you need 200 games to breach D+, then you are obviously not at a D+ level. You will have something like a 30% win rate against D players, which means that when you actually get up to the D+ level, you will get rolled like crazy.
I don't discourage mass-gaming, the more that you practice, the better you'll be. However, the part that really pisses me off is when people tell me they're C- with like, a 100-300 record, since that was reached through mass gaming through the D+ ranks.
|
On September 24 2009 06:44 Neverborn wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2009 06:36 Chill wrote:
I think a more likely outcome is the person continues to make those zerglings whether they are necessary or not. If the person plays more freely and dies to the 3 zealots a few times, hes more likely to adapt back and forth. Yeah, you're probably right. I don't have as much experience with other people learning the game as you probably do, although I would expect most people to figure these things out eventually when they get the build order down well enough to hold their own and either start experimenting with it or trying new ones. I think the greater evil is that when newer players play freely, they tend to play very inefficiently... how many times have you seen D players make two gateways and then only use one of them because they're teching up?
That may be the result of someone following a 2gate build order and then not knowing what to do from there.
It's important to know that in BO execution at progamer level, the game is MAPPED out. What that means is, the BO has a series of branches that can deviate based on scouting information and enemy BO. Proper adaptation comes from losing to a certain build enough times and learning the timing windows for when an opponent is weak during a certain matchup, at a certain point in the build.
One player once told me to know build orders up to about 20 supply and then fluctuate from there. That's the stance I personally agree with for lower level players like myself. For me, there's no point in memorizing builds up to 120 supply when I don't even know the timing windows for when I am vulnerable, what builds can destroy me, and how the map and spawn points can affect the efficacy and timings of the build.
Though I think, above all else, the best way to improve at Starcraft at ALL levels is this:
1) Play the game
2) Watch your own replays, especially when you lose
3) Show the replay to someone who is significantly better than you (or at least as good as you) and try to figure out what you did wrong.
I think, ultimately, that's why Koreans are better than non Koreans. They have such a solid network, and when you put a bunch of dedicated gamers in the same room, playing the same game for 8+ hours a day, these players can give advice to one another and learn from each others' strengths and weaknesses.
We simply do not have that level of communication between players internationally. Even though we have clans like EG and ToT, the clan members all live very far from each other and they can't talk to each other directly and REALLY THOROUGHLY discuss their games in fine detail, the way that I imagine progamers do it.
|
On September 24 2009 09:35 ArcticxWolf wrote:
The thing is; with a 50% winning percentage, inflation is created. Someone can get to...ie C- simply by mass gaming at the D+ level, providing they win 50% of their games against D+ players and at least 35% against C- players. However, this doesn't mean that they're actually C-.
what, so just because some guy has balls and doesn't give a shit about his record he's not C-? sorry, but if someone's rank is C- then their rank is C-. infact I'd favor someone with a shitty record over someone with a positive record simply because i know that they play straight up and they don't smurf/have ego problems.
|
"High apm doesn't mean you're a good player
But a good player has high apm"
|
Dominican Republic825 Posts
On September 24 2009 05:25 Strayline wrote:
Personally I've found the skill-gap from D+ to C- to be pretty harsh. I'm not sure what the guy a few pots above me was talking about (edit ok now a lot of posts above me): you lose 50 points for a D+/D+ loss and 75 for a C-/C- loss (going MOTW stats here.) You win 130 in each case (I think--I've never actually won a C-/C-). Therefore, you must win 27.7(repeating of course)% of your games to maintain D+ and ~36.6% of your games to maintain C-.
I also think one of the biggest issues around playing at the D/D+ level is the fact that a really large portion of the people you play against are smurfs so the whole "just build more units" strategy doesn't feel particularly satisfying even if it might technically "work." I mean, I go home after work tonight and play a bunch of ZvT on Destination and just blindly 3 hatch no scout and assume MM as I work towards mutas I'm going to lose at least a third of the games to someone of higher rank practicing his vulture runbys. I may do slightly better against the "true D+" Terrans as I will be better at macro since I'm just not going to worry about scouting/responding to nonstandard play but it feels really bad to put up no fight at all against the wraith/vulture/proxy/sair dt/etc. Also smurf protoss will storm the crap out of your massive army with bad unit composition so you stop just doing stuff like massing hydra because it's no fun to get completely owned.
This mental state probably ends up costing me some games since there are no doubt games I could win with mass units that I lose because I have been trained that doing that doesn't work (by all the smurfs--and it's not like I'm taking games off them anyway) but I'm not sure if I would be playing "better" for it.
you are totally right
|
On September 24 2009 06:47 JMave wrote:
You guys have any tips on securing expos on destination or any map in general for PvZ? I'm having a great time trying to get those expos.. which are the things that always cost me the game.
Do it while pressuring the Zerg. make pylon->nexus->cannonsor send your army to defend the new expansion til you can get the cannons up if pressuring isn't ideal
|
On September 24 2009 12:51 CLeVeRaSeVeR wrote:
"High apm doesn't mean you're a good player
But a good player has high apm"
So what do you consider a good player? I'm by no way a great player but I'm good enough to know what I can achieve. I play under 150apm normally and thats considered low
|
Just keep at it, I'm sure you can reach C-, it's just a matter of time and patience. APM helps a ton, but as everyone else in this thread said, at D+ rank macro is often what makes the win.
Even if you may lose, don't get frustrated, remember that you make better maps, make more blog posts on TL, and can cook better than your opponents do!
|
Easy tip:
To get to D+ to C-, concentrate on every game and try to do it with perfection, sometimes the will to win and perseverance helps you on a lot of games, dont be lazy, do little things like sending scvs to look for 3rd, microing a single vulture, doing little drops, even though it has no damage it can also cause the opponent some APM on they're part thus giving the possibility of them forgetting other things too. It also helps to have 2 iccup accounts, if you feel like playing your best and want to show your A-game and you feel that your mentally and physically prepared at that point then play on your main account. If you need to practice and need to have some warm up games first, play on your practice account. Another advice is that, after i lose 2 games in a row on my main account and i feel like sucking, i stop playing or continue playing on my practice account.
Don't play for the sake of playing, prepare for every game, you need to step up if you really want to get to go to the next level. At least thats the mindset i've used getting from c- to c in which i've been struggling for a long time. And now im currently standing at mid C level, trying to apply this little mental strategy of mine.
Hope this helps.. goodluck!
|
by the way could the singaporeans add my iccup =p its JFKWT.
this is embarrassing but i havent been able to pass 1300 points -_-"" 1st season on iccup here
|
On September 23 2009 18:29 Day[9] wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2009 16:44 maybenexttime wrote:
Listen to saome Day[9] audios. Maybe they could help you.
)))
|
On September 24 2009 15:46 Not_Computer wrote:
Just keep at it, I'm sure you can reach C-, it's just a matter of time and patience. APM helps a ton, but as everyone else in this thread said, at D+ rank macro is often what makes the win.
Even if you may lose, don't get frustrated, remember that you make better maps, make more blog posts on TL, and can cook better than your opponents do!
Lol. You still remembered those haha.
Anyway, I find that my gameplay has increased tremendously just purely macroing. I find that with my apm, I'm now able to play more smoothly as I have things to do with the extra apm that I used to do with spam.
Thanks for help guys
|
"My APM average is around 250, which I feel is sufficient to carry me through to at least a C rank(I doubt that I spam in my games)."
APM doens't do anything. Just because you have 250 apm, doesn't mean you're "sufficient" enough for a C rank. n00b. practice build orders instead of practicing how to spam APM. wow
even your views are messed up. you truly are a n00b. you deserve to stay at d.
|
Lol someone got locked
goodness, the macro problem is so bad that even when i make a defensive push i get totally owned by toss, and the most i store is about 400-500 mins which is enough for a production round...
ok i take that back, i just found out that i took on a protoss with 150 eapm, so clearly that was a smurf or a much better player starting a new season...
|
On September 24 2009 06:03 LonGGone wrote:Idk, ive notice other players with high apm stuck at D+/C- level and its usually the lack of build orders and strategy. They tend to beleive the faster they are the quicker their macro will be. From midgame to lategame thats true but early game to midgame, its all build order. You need to get ur buildorders down and let ur macro and apm build up naturally, dont force it.
Yeah, I totally agree with that, I dont iCCup, but build orders are what mess me up.
|
On September 24 2009 23:26 Nal_rAwr wrote:
"My APM average is around 250, which I feel is sufficient to carry me through to at least a C rank(I doubt that I spam in my games)."
APM doens't do anything. Just because you have 250 apm, doesn't mean you're "sufficient" enough for a C rank. n00b. practice build orders instead of practicing how to spam APM. wow
even your views are messed up. you truly are a n00b. you deserve to stay at d.
Whoa, die.
|
On September 24 2009 05:27 iD.NicKy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2009 04:19 Chill wrote:
The skill gap from D+ to C- involves making a lot of workers and making a lot of units. That's it. Until around C you should just focus on making a lot of units.
To clarify:
Gamesense? No.
Timing? No.
Unit composition? No.
Unit control? No.
Making a lot of shit (not even necessarily the best shit for a situation)? Yes. It might work as P but no way as Z or T lol
As a T I've found this to be completely true up to the C+ level, against zergs I constantly lose marines to lurkers due to shitty control or whatever, but I just keep spamming marines and medics on my horribly placed 69890 barracks and have a billion workers, against protoss it's even easier because you have less units to queue(normally).
I don't see how this could be any different for a zerg player, while watching ret's streams he's doing little micro things here and there but during that time he's got this massive ass force just waiting for him at his rally and he's able to just attack move everything because he has so much shit. Obviously that's somewhat out of context since Ret is incredibly good, but the point is a zerg player focusing solely on macroing units and not the little awesome looking moves that good zergs are doing at the same time, they can do extremely well. Hopefully that makes some sense.
|
Trinidad/Tobago1177 Posts
Have you seen the recent reps of Stork where his apm is sometimes below 200 if you watch it in Chaos ? Stork is nowhere under olympic rank. Its all about decent mechanics (stork can 5d6d7d8d9d0d with the BeSt of them =p) and his knowledge of the game and timing is exceptional.
|
On September 23 2009 16:43 Ftrunkz wrote:
theres B rank players with like 150 apm, it has nothing to do with.
THANK YOU. I get so sick of people assuming APM = skill
|
Its okey to spam... it helps you to speed up thought process and reaction time
|
On September 24 2009 06:14 Chill wrote:Do not do this.
this made me lol during my perfectly quiet geography class. thank you.
|
also you apm noobs are having a hard time distinguishing CORRELATION from CAUSATION
like shauni said, apm is a good general way to judge a players skill because there does exist a CORRELATION between a skilled player and his apm
now, it is not a CAUSATION situation because merely because you have high apm, wont make you good, and vice versa
case in point. LZ. great player, plays at what, 9 apm?
|
On September 24 2009 23:26 Nal_rAwr wrote:
"My APM average is around 250, which I feel is sufficient to carry me through to at least a C rank(I doubt that I spam in my games)."
APM doens't do anything. Just because you have 250 apm, doesn't mean you're "sufficient" enough for a C rank. n00b. practice build orders instead of practicing how to spam APM. wow
even your views are messed up. you truly are a n00b. you deserve to stay at d.
Lol, sup. Funny how most people are talking about the APM rather than giving advice on how to improve. That's truly weird IMO.
|
On September 25 2009 04:41 mOnion wrote:
also you apm noobs are having a hard time distinguishing CORRELATION from CAUSATION
like shauni said, apm is a good general way to judge a players skill because there does exist a CORRELATION between a skilled player and his apm
now, it is not a CAUSATION situation because merely because you have high apm, wont make you good, and vice versa
case in point. LZ. great player, plays at what, 9 apm?
Louder has about 180 APM and he's A- at least.
I also know a B- Terran that has 180 APM.
Even playing Terran, you do not need 300 APM to hit the B- level.
|
On September 24 2009 05:52 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2009 05:27 iD.NicKy wrote:On September 24 2009 04:19 Chill wrote:
The skill gap from D+ to C- involves making a lot of workers and making a lot of units. That's it. Until around C you should just focus on making a lot of units.
To clarify:
Gamesense? No.
Timing? No.
Unit composition? No.
Unit control? No.
Making a lot of shit (not even necessarily the best shit for a situation)? Yes. It might work as P but no way as Z or T lol Why not?
Because T or Z units just die without micro where P units can rollover. [ at this level ]
in my opinion, unmicroed P units > Z units > T units
|
On September 25 2009 07:12 iD.NicKy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2009 05:52 Chill wrote:On September 24 2009 05:27 iD.NicKy wrote:On September 24 2009 04:19 Chill wrote:
The skill gap from D+ to C- involves making a lot of workers and making a lot of units. That's it. Until around C you should just focus on making a lot of units.
To clarify:
Gamesense? No.
Timing? No.
Unit composition? No.
Unit control? No.
Making a lot of shit (not even necessarily the best shit for a situation)? Yes. It might work as P but no way as Z or T lol Why not? Because T or Z units just die without micro where P units can rollover. [ at this level ] in my opinion, unmicroed P units > Z units > T units
agree completely
|
On September 25 2009 07:12 iD.NicKy wrote:
Because T or Z units just die without micro where P units can rollover. [ at this level ]
in my opinion, unmicroed P units > Z units > T units
Define Micro. As soon as a T decides he wants to hold a position and sieges up his tanks, all the A-move in the world is not going to get a Protoss through without vastly larger numbers. It takes dropship play, good spread and most likely catching some of the tanks unsieged. After that battle started, that T just ran his vultures around while the P was working his ass off to kill those tanks. And that is assuming a semi open location. Assuming you have to cross a bridge or some other choke it becomes ever harder for the P while the T basically does the same thing as before.
I'm not saying T is easy or anything close to that really but to blanket statement that unmicroed P units > unmicroed T units is kind of misleading.
|
dude u spam lol unless you can look at bwrepinfo and see 250 apm and 180 eapm maybe 35% redundancy u most likely spam
|
On September 24 2009 11:20 lazz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2009 09:35 ArcticxWolf wrote:
The thing is; with a 50% winning percentage, inflation is created. Someone can get to...ie C- simply by mass gaming at the D+ level, providing they win 50% of their games against D+ players and at least 35% against C- players. However, this doesn't mean that they're actually C-.
what, so just because some guy has balls and doesn't give a shit about his record he's not C-? sorry, but if someone's rank is C- then their rank is C-. infact I'd favor someone with a shitty record over someone with a positive record simply because i know that they play straight up and they don't smurf/have ego problems.
No, I'm saying that he's not competing at an even level with the other C- players.
And it's not a matter of smurfing or having ego problems, but a positive record generally means that you are at least a solid [insert rank here] player, and might possibly a low [rank+1] player. However, if you're struggling to win against players of the same level as you, it might be better to go one rank lower to have an easier time because you get better faster against players who are similar in rank to you.
What I mean by having a winning record of ~ 50% is that you should at least be able to compete with the other C- players, and even though your rank shows you as C- or whatever, if you're having a hard time winning against the other C- players, then you should consider yourself as ie solid D+ rather than tell people that you're C-.
For example, as zerg, I have a positive record against D players, but I only win something like 25-30% of my D+ games. I don't consider myself a D+ zerg, although I reached the rank. Even though I'm something like 10-9 against D's, and have a 2000 rating, I feel as though I just get overwhelmed a lot of the time.
EDIT:
I don't discourage mass-gaming, the more that you practice, the better you'll be. However, the part that really pisses me off is when people tell me they're C- with like, a 100-300 record, since that was reached through mass gaming through the D+ ranks.
This is kinda what I mean. I don't discourage playing a lot of games [and losing a lot], but if you lose a LOT against C- players, but won about 50/50 against D+ players to get to C-, then you should be solid D+, and not C-.
|
On September 24 2009 06:14 Chill wrote:Do not do this.
Hahaha. WHY NOT??
|
You'd be suprised at how much ur focused on build order and macro with 1 hand play then 2hand. Obviously i only do this when playing around but sadly even won C+ games with it. Good practice for having quick mouse skills maybe? Idk, regardless, its fun stuff if your extremely bored -_-
|
Answering the question :
The skill gap from D+ to C- isn't big at all, mainly you have to scout the all in's and cheeses and have decent mechanics.
I'm about C- level so I know that for a fact, that's all it takes. When in the higher levels its more perfect mechanics, micro, and game sense.
On September 25 2009 07:12 iD.NicKy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2009 05:52 Chill wrote:On September 24 2009 05:27 iD.NicKy wrote:On September 24 2009 04:19 Chill wrote:
The skill gap from D+ to C- involves making a lot of workers and making a lot of units. That's it. Until around C you should just focus on making a lot of units.
To clarify:
Gamesense? No.
Timing? No.
Unit composition? No.
Unit control? No.
Making a lot of shit (not even necessarily the best shit for a situation)? Yes. It might work as P but no way as Z or T lol Why not? Because T or Z units just die without micro where P units can rollover. [ at this level ] in my opinion, unmicroed P units > Z units > T units
Not true at all.
For a Terran all you have to do is plant mines, spread your tanks, and make turrets/supply depots for a bit of blockage, at the D- - C- level of course. But as a Protoss if you just 1a2a3a4a you're army will clump up, die to splash damage instantly. You need to make sure the stupid zealots don't go in a straight line and that you spread your Goons so 3 of them don't die too one tank -_-
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
