|
This thread is inspired by and is hopefully an updated version of http://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/f7e8j/seriously_guys_if_youre_in_platinum_or_below_your/
which was a thread about how macro was all one needed to get diamond (the highest league at the time i think... maybe masters was fresh) this is my updated and Build Order oriented version. someone told me to put this in stratagy section and I can see the merit in that. This is in no way a bragging thread please do not misconstrue what i am doing here.
After todays homestory cup I have read a ton of stuff and heard a ton of people tell me that Goody has horrible macro and he shouldnt beat pros with one strat. I have also heard many many times before similar comments about sc2 in general. Comments like...
The all too famous "Macro better"
My mechanics are not good enough
My micro isn't good enough
My thoughts on sc2 are simple. It's more of a build order game then it is a macro/micro game. I think that while you need a certain level of macro skill, often times then not your avg player on ladder would do better having less of the right unit then more of the wrong ones. There are many pros you can watch without naming names that are actually very slow, its not just goody. Even many korean players in GSL even have terrible micro and i mean terrible and poor overall speed but they have just enough to play the game at a certain level.
Here is my proposition. I am going to play Z or P with the following rules.... and the goal of just a masters promotion
a) Under 50 apm
b) No complex successful a move style armys for example....
- If protoss is the race void ray collosi vs z is out of the question
- If zerg is the army no i guess ultra infestor broodlord? or broodlord corruptor infestor
c) If I am zerg i never spread creep or use superior inject methods such as....
- backspace shift v (too fast a method)
- keybinding queens (better then keybinding hatches)
d) no drops harassments or anything of any kind. If i am going to win its from beating someones army and then the following A move to victory
e) overall I will practice poor mechanics (aka at a lower speed) and micro with a focus on just making the right units while maintaining my apm cap
Think thats all I'll edit if needed
I'll let everyone decide what race I should play. Reconsidered a friends point about zerg BO and in a total 180 considering terran as my only option since yes its the most micro req race but its BO are by far the best at direct countering and in doing so will further prove my point
Games will be streamed and recorded at justin.tv/eosgreen. When I get my new mic I will most likely try to talk and explain what I am doing as a result of what I am seeing. I hope that if you dont even give a #$(# about what I am doing that if you maybe are looking to get into masters you can take what you see and learn from it.
To clarify I have been doing coaching lately for all races and the common problem they tell me is "my mechanics are too bad." My common response is as long as you know what to do you can go further then you are selling yourself. This along with many other topics and comments spured this experiment
To further clarify on my goals since it may seem a bit confusing. The goal of this is to prove that to get masters all you need is mild macro with proper unit choice and you can have bad mechanics and micro. For example. If i pick zerg and never use proper/fast inject methods (shift backspace method) and i go to each base click queen click inject this would be poor mechanics. If i never spread creep or used overlords to position for scouting this is bad mechanics. Hope this better helps, its just an up to date version of that thread made on reddit all that time ago but in todays metagame/highest league
Further further clarification is simply a sittuation like this....
Protoss A goes blind blink stalkers
Zerg B goes blind mutas
Protoss A auto wins because of strat
The account I will be using is Purple 492
Adding posts to bottom for easier reading. Read this if you have any questions ill post all answers here
+ Show Spoiler +Greenmachine - imo mechanics will still get you way farther
Response - i agree that mechanics takes a player the furthest BUT if we compare say mechanics and strat in such a way as....
in a scale from 1-10 1 being bad and 10 being good, my strat level can be only 5 to get masters while my mechanic level needs to be 8. i think its harder to be more mechanically sound because not everyone can be fast at video games. mechanics are generally viewed from the speed at which you operate. how fast you do this and that is good mechanics or bad mechanics. when we look at players who do not play often, they will say well i dont play enough to learn the proper mechanics to be masters or diamond or plat. they attribute the lack of play to lack of speed. my claim is that if you do not play a lot but you KNOW a lot then you dont need the mechanical skill that is derived from mass gaming or consistant gaming each day.
the theory is that someone with not a lot of playing time but can still read watch and learn will be able to succeed to a level of masters just like the guy who plays every day.
post - People have literally 6-pooled into Master League. I'm not 100% sure what this is attempting to prove. There are a lot of ways to win matches. You don't have to learn complicated strategies-- nor do you have to learn solid macro or micro. I think the biggest thing holding people back and the easiest thing to improve is macro
response - here is an example of where it doesnt matter what you do strat beats you.
its zvp and im going mutas. you blindly do a 2 base blink stalker build. i win. u cant do anything about it sorry i win
strat > everything else in this scenario.
lets say its zvz u go bane i go bane roach, i win strat > everything else
|
I dont see how lowering APM shows bad macro? I've seen people execute builds perfectly at 45apm.
If you wanna prove that you can win with strats instead of good macro. I suggest that you float minerals instead, maybe at least 400 unspent at 6mins and 100 more with every passing minute. that means youll have about 800 unspent at 10 mins, which sounds about right when I macro badly (lol).
If you can win consistently with timing attacks & mid game pushes then i would say you have proven bad macro but good strats work too. surviving to late game makes no sense because once maxed even good players will almost surely have to float resources.
Nonetheless, this is a very interesting experiment to prove/disprove common wisdom.
|
I just want to do an updated "macro better but do it with the right strats thread" similar to the topic i linked
but it would be bad mechanics to not have overlords spotting drops or any creep spread as well as slow injects. i imagine zerg would be the best race to display bad mechanics especially at lower apm which i think ppl have agreed time and time again when refering to thorzain who has like 80apm that "80 apm is all you need"
i also think that 50 apm is rather low maybe i need to lower it further. once i start gaming i will find out right?
|
Thorzain doesn't have 80 APM to begin with. And Korean pro players all have a reasonable speed.
And I don't understand the concept of purposefully being bad in one area of SC2's gameplay (speed of execution, multitasking, all that good jazz).
Do you just want to show that you can get in diamond (which is very low and bad in itself) while playing bad (basically), even though everyone else is bad at that level. Your experiment is to get to diamond while being worse than the average diamond guy mechanically?
That's rather short sighted. I like the "I'll show that you can be promoted by working purely on [something]" type of thread more.
"I can be promoted even though I'm bad and I force myself to stay that way" is not a very good mindset.
Regardless, good luck.
|
i almost feel like ^ u didnt read anything i said in the post... ANYTHING at all
the goal of this experiment is that knowledge, not multitasking and speed is the most important aspect of the game for any player in sc2. In broodwar often times a superior macro player beat a better micro player with brute force but in sc2 this is the opposite
|
On January 07 2012 13:27 ohokurwrong wrote:
i almost feel like ^ u didnt read anything i said in the post... ANYTHING at all
It wasn't very clear to me tbh. You're trying to show that decision making is better than mechanics or something?
But what you describe is kinda ridiculous. Not spreading creep as Zerg? Not doing drops for the sake of...not doing drops? It's also decision making, and you don't need to be that fast to shift drop banes in a mineral line anyway. And you will try to maintain the cap on your APM? How does that work exactly? You'll force yourself to stare blankly at your screen if you feel like doing something useful instead?
Edit: Ok, but my problem actually is that you'll compare yourself (platinum if I understood well) to other platinum and diamond, which have already generally bad mechanics. I guess you would need to set your goals higher for it to make sense. Like beating high master players with 50 APM or something. I can bet that even if you force yourself, the poor guys in front of you won't have higher APM than you anyway, which renders your experiment utterly pointless.
Edit2: Ok sorry I don't know how I infered that you were platinum. You could precise your original level of play, that would be useful.
|
no what....... the point is simply mechanics do not matter as much to the avg person as ppl say it does. Game know how will get you further then anything else. By lowering my apm to below 50 i hope to make speed never the reason i win a game. i want to never win because i was faster then my opponent. if 50 is too high ill lower it. by doing this exp i hope to find the minimum EAPM a person needs to have with the best possibly scouting someone can do to get masters
|
On January 07 2012 13:37 ohokurwrong wrote:
no what....... im masters but my point is that you do not need good mechanics to get masters just make units, the right units
Ok, that's fine then. Will you force yourself or do you already have low APM?
|
no my EAPM is actually rather high. as well as multitasking. im actually a huge advocate of BW rather then sc2. i think sc2 is easy physically to play and it turns me off a bit. so for me to be such a huge advocate of high speeds and good multitasking i find it fitting that im attempting to prove that the thing i cherish about RTS is not even a factor in the current "most popular rts"
|
Instead of using ridiculous rules such as "no drops, no proper lategame unit composition, no apm over 50", you could play the game using only the mouse to limit your apm. You could aim a webcam at your keyboard / mousehand to show that you're not putting forth a whole lot a physical exertion into your games.
I wouldn't disregard using Terran in this experiment if I were you. By stating that you don't believe you can pull Terran into masters without high handspeed / good multitasking, it kind of...I dunno, contradicts this entire thing?
|
wow zenith at least read what he is saying to respond
|
Ok, I understand now, but you could precise all that in the OP.
I still think it's pointless, that's like if I proved that I can get into masters by always missing my forcefields or missing shit on the minimap.
At this point I almost hope that it's a veiled "Protoss OP" thread, to conclude that you tried with Zerg and it seems impossible to play slow and still win at a decent level, whereas you succeed easily with Protoss with glorious a-moves and no multitasking 30 APM. Would make the whole thing at least funny.
Good luck.
|
On January 07 2012 13:52 Ooshmagoosh wrote:
Instead of using ridiculous rules such as "no drops, no proper lategame unit composition, no apm over 50", you could play the game using only the mouse to limit your apm. You could aim a webcam at your keyboard / mousehand to show that you're not putting forth a whole lot a physical exertion into your games.
I wouldn't disregard using Terran in this experiment if I were you, also...
i like that actually. the thing about no drops is, not only do i not want to tax my own apm but i dont want to EVER mess with my opponent. i want to beat them when they are macroing to the best of their ability. drops might stress or beat a low level player
the idea is basically what you are saying. im looking to omit the physical labor part of it so maybe thats what i gota do. ONLY use mouse. tho id kinda have to then be fast and now how do you measure the speed that way?
its most def in line with my thought process.
|
On January 07 2012 13:09 silverstyle wrote:
I dont see how lowering APM shows bad macro? I've seen people execute builds perfectly at 45apm.
If you wanna prove that you can win with strats instead of good macro. I suggest that you float minerals instead, maybe at least 400 unspent at 6mins and 100 more with every passing minute. that means youll have about 800 unspent at 10 mins, which sounds about right when I macro badly (lol).
If you can win consistently with timing attacks & mid game pushes then i would say you have proven bad macro but good strats work too. surviving to late game makes no sense because once maxed even good players will almost surely have to float resources.
Nonetheless, this is a very interesting experiment to prove/disprove common wisdom.
this. low apm is not bad macro, macro is not multitask. it seems you are arguing that strategy is more important than multitask, rather than macro. people don't give advice to lower league players saying multitask better, they say macro better. This thread makes 0 sense to me. You are saying with hardly any multitasking you could still macro decently and win the game that way? yes I agree.
it seems like you're suggesting say when hydras arent a good idea for your composition an army of 30 roaches and 20 zerglings is stronger than an army of 30 roaches, 20 zerglings and 10 hydras. this is just not true.
when i say you i meant OP
|
On January 07 2012 14:03 ThePianoDentist wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 13:09 silverstyle wrote:
I dont see how lowering APM shows bad macro? I've seen people execute builds perfectly at 45apm.
If you wanna prove that you can win with strats instead of good macro. I suggest that you float minerals instead, maybe at least 400 unspent at 6mins and 100 more with every passing minute. that means youll have about 800 unspent at 10 mins, which sounds about right when I macro badly (lol).
If you can win consistently with timing attacks & mid game pushes then i would say you have proven bad macro but good strats work too. surviving to late game makes no sense because once maxed even good players will almost surely have to float resources.
Nonetheless, this is a very interesting experiment to prove/disprove common wisdom. this. low apm is not bad macro, macro is not multitask. it seems you are arguing that strategy is more important than multitask, rather than macro. people don't give advice to lower league players saying multitask better, they say macro better. This thread makes 0 sense to me. You are saying with hardly any multitasking you could still macro decently and win the game that way? yes I agree.
like i said its a modified version of that thread, which is about just macroing to win. i took it a step further and simply say that with decent macro but bad mechanics and low apm, as long as you choose the proper units you can get masters league which is much harder then diamond was when that guide whats written
mechanics are things like creep spread overlord positioning and queen injects for zergs. if i use a bad inject method never overlord scout and never spread creep i would call that having bad mechanics. agree?
i think good macro is not as important as good strats/builds. many times in sc2 the right build just is too much to handle no matter how bad the macro/mechanics are. an example is FFE. if i determine he is doing an 8min voidray zel timing to kill my 3rd and i defend it without any losses thats an example of a perfect build counter that will put me ahead
|
On January 07 2012 14:06 ohokurwrong wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 14:03 ThePianoDentist wrote:On January 07 2012 13:09 silverstyle wrote:
I dont see how lowering APM shows bad macro? I've seen people execute builds perfectly at 45apm.
If you wanna prove that you can win with strats instead of good macro. I suggest that you float minerals instead, maybe at least 400 unspent at 6mins and 100 more with every passing minute. that means youll have about 800 unspent at 10 mins, which sounds about right when I macro badly (lol).
If you can win consistently with timing attacks & mid game pushes then i would say you have proven bad macro but good strats work too. surviving to late game makes no sense because once maxed even good players will almost surely have to float resources.
Nonetheless, this is a very interesting experiment to prove/disprove common wisdom. this. low apm is not bad macro, macro is not multitask. it seems you are arguing that strategy is more important than multitask, rather than macro. people don't give advice to lower league players saying multitask better, they say macro better. This thread makes 0 sense to me. You are saying with hardly any multitasking you could still macro decently and win the game that way? yes I agree. like i said its a modified version of that thread, which is about just macroing to win. i took it a step further and simply say that with decent macro but bad mechanics and low apm, as long as you choose the proper units you can get masters league which is much harder then diamond was when that guide whats written mechanics are things like creep spread overlord positioning and queen injects for zergs. if i use a bad inject method never overlord scout and never spread creep i would call that having bad mechanics. agree?
maybe its just confusion with wording, maybe you used macro instead of mechanics in OP a couple of times, I don't know?
but I agree with this post from you.
|
Goody exists, why would you need to bother with this?
|
On January 07 2012 14:14 ThePianoDentist wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 14:06 ohokurwrong wrote:On January 07 2012 14:03 ThePianoDentist wrote:On January 07 2012 13:09 silverstyle wrote:
I dont see how lowering APM shows bad macro? I've seen people execute builds perfectly at 45apm.
If you wanna prove that you can win with strats instead of good macro. I suggest that you float minerals instead, maybe at least 400 unspent at 6mins and 100 more with every passing minute. that means youll have about 800 unspent at 10 mins, which sounds about right when I macro badly (lol).
If you can win consistently with timing attacks & mid game pushes then i would say you have proven bad macro but good strats work too. surviving to late game makes no sense because once maxed even good players will almost surely have to float resources.
Nonetheless, this is a very interesting experiment to prove/disprove common wisdom. this. low apm is not bad macro, macro is not multitask. it seems you are arguing that strategy is more important than multitask, rather than macro. people don't give advice to lower league players saying multitask better, they say macro better. This thread makes 0 sense to me. You are saying with hardly any multitasking you could still macro decently and win the game that way? yes I agree. like i said its a modified version of that thread, which is about just macroing to win. i took it a step further and simply say that with decent macro but bad mechanics and low apm, as long as you choose the proper units you can get masters league which is much harder then diamond was when that guide whats written mechanics are things like creep spread overlord positioning and queen injects for zergs. if i use a bad inject method never overlord scout and never spread creep i would call that having bad mechanics. agree? maybe its just confusion with wording, maybe you used macro instead of mechanics in OP a couple of times, I don't know? but I agree with this post from you.
well i am sorry if my wording was confusing 
|
Ok, please.
what is the point of this?
Just macro as best as you can, you can't possibly argue that SPECIFICALLY MACROING WORSE will in any way benefit you at all. Cant you do strategy while having good mechanics wtf?
|
point is some ppl have bad macro or strat or mechanics and my point is that knowledge is the most important skill in sc2
i had to of said this many times...
|
This is such a stupid thing to say, I am in mid masters based on mechanics and very little strategy. Explain?
|
Wouldn't it make more sense to give a bronze player a very detailed and strong strategy, make sure he understands it perfectly. Then see how he does in game?
Bad mechanics + Amazing strategy = A
Amazing mechanics + Bad strategy = B
You think A>B?
We can talk extremes like Grandmaster/Bronze Mechanics and Strategy.
And imo mechanics will still get you way farther
Kind of unrelated tho, a whole lot of sc2 is memory so apm won't show it. People's macro stinks because they forget to go back and spend their money while distracted, not because they don't do it fast enough.
|
so you have good enough mechanics to trump your lack of strat. i think tho that when you compare someone like goody or thorzain who are FACT not as fast as other pros but they still win? well clearly strat is very very important in sc2. now someone like mvp will multitask ppl to death but for your avg player who wants to get into masters, doing the right thing often times trumps doing more things.
its just a theory/experiment that strat as your defining quality can get masters. no one need be upset
and i disagree whole heartedly with the whole "ppl are capable but jsut forget" thats not true i know for a fact that there is a limit to someones multitasking. if you honestly think that everyone can multitask but the only thing that is stopping them is to remember to do it then i think we best stop the debate right here...
as to giving a low level player strat a vs method b and seeing what trumps each other, i have coached many many players and proper builds and awareness of timings has got them from silver to plat and diamond to masters within a week or 2. you can go ask them if you would like they post in my coaching thread
i agree that mechanics takes a player the furthest BUT if we compare say mechanics and strat in such a way as....
in a scale from 1-10 1 being bad and 10 being good, my strat level can be only 5 to get masters while my mechanic level needs to be 8. i think its harder to be more mechanically sound because not everyone can be fast at video games. mechanics are generally viewed from the speed at which you operate. how fast you do this and that is good mechanics or bad mechanics. when we look at players who do not play often, they will say well i dont play enough to learn the proper mechanics to be masters or diamond or plat. they attribute the lack of play to lack of speed. my claim is that if you do not play a lot but you KNOW a lot then you dont need the mechanical skill that is derived from mass gaming or consistant gaming each day.
the theory is that someone with not a lot of playing time but can still read watch and learn will be able to succeed to a level of masters just like the guy who plays every day.
|
What Korean player has sub 150 apm? I'm legitimately curious. Polt is one of the slowest I know of and he still gets well over 200 APM (and he is REALLY efficient with his APM as well) as far as I can tell. As for the whole "goody beats pros lolololol" - he plays the least apm requiring strategy in the whole game for a reason. He beats players because of superior decision making IN SPITE of his bad macro, and that's because his understanding of what he needs to do is REALLY good - his mechanics hold him back from winning anything huge. As for the "it doesn't require good mechanics durr durr durr," MVP was an A-teamer and his mechanics are FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR from perfect, they're definitely a level above basically everyone else in SC2, but they're still nowhere near perfect. If you have sub 400-500 APM you can't really complain about there not being enough stuff to do mechanically.
I also think your test is quite flawed, as I could probably out macro half of the platinum/diamond leaguers with sub 50 apm. With that being said I brought 2 accounts into diamond only macroing (1 with random and 1 with toss) so unless you get into masters with your "bad mechanics" test I don't think you can safely say that macro < decision making, and even then it's really hard as you aren't using quantitative measurements, your decision making could be 10/10 and my macro could be 7/10 which is why my macro didn't carry me to masters, and it's really hard to really tell. Good luck nonetheless, but I don't think it'll prove much.
|
I think you might be missing some of the meta-game going on with Grubby and other SC2 pros. Pro's expect people to have solid APM, solid mechanics, and great strategies. Grubby just came in with a really well prepared build today and took some pro's off guard who came looking to play late game.
Keep in mind: there's a good reason that Goody hasn't won a lot of big name games (yeah he took a match off ret today, but what notable tournaments has he done well in or won?)
I say all of that to say this: trying to completely ignore mechanics because you saw a mediocre player have mediocre success isn't really proving anything. At best, your proving that it is possible to be mediocre and master league. Which I don't think anyone disputes. Pro's hate practice on NA for a reason: it's mediocre.
|
there are slower koreans and i dont want to turn this into a flame fest.
there are some SERIOUS offenders of bad micro and multitasking it would shock you
i think the thread i am deriving this from has a lot of validity as does the interest level of a player who might have very poor multitask to see that he doesnt need to be gifted in the speed department to win games
i think people are overcomplicating this. im simply saying lol, that a high level of understanding of sc2 is all someone needs to get masters. i would love to quote people saying they cannot get masters because they do not have the time to get good at mechanics but i would not start a flame fest...
and not only am i not missing ANY metagame (ask any of my students...) but im not even talking about pros in this scenario. in what world is a pro player completely horrid at an aspect of sc2 (maybe july zergs zvz) but really no pro is completely worthless at one thing. they are at least above avg at all aspects and then very gifted in others to compensate.
if you have a better way of me testing strat vs mechanics then please tell me. as of now i can only slow down my gameplay and try and let decision making carry my way through
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 Posts
People have literally 6-pooled into Master League. I'm not 100% sure what this is attempting to prove. There are a lot of ways to win matches. You don't have to learn complicated strategies-- nor do you have to learn solid macro or micro. I think the biggest thing holding people back and the easiest thing to improve is macro. If you want to take the hard route, that's fine by me, and I wish you the best of luck in your improvement.
I'll take the easy way and work on keeping my money low.
|
On January 07 2012 14:43 ohokurwrong wrote:
if you have a better way of me testing strat vs mechanics then please tell me. as of now i can only slow down my gameplay and try and let decision making carry my way through
-Make your mouse sensitivity 1/4th of what it is at now (your mouse speed/accuracy is part of mechanics)
-Stay below 50 average apm
-You are allowed to spread creep/drop but must do so under the above parameters (these are part of strategy and the above parameters should be sufficient in limiting yourself)
APM should be sc2gears apm not sc2 replay apm. The sc2 gears one is your APM pre-patch where redundant actions ARE counted. Id suggest putting the sc2 gears set to "SC2 time" not "real time"
Just a suggestion
|
On January 07 2012 14:57 Blazinghand wrote:
People have literally 6-pooled into Master League. I'm not 100% sure what this is attempting to prove. There are a lot of ways to win matches. You don't have to learn complicated strategies-- nor do you have to learn solid macro or micro. I think the biggest thing holding people back and the easiest thing to improve is macro. If you want to take the hard route, that's fine by me, and I wish you the best of luck in your improvement.
I'll take the easy way and work on keeping my money low.
er im not actually improving by doing this... im already masters
and you contradicted yourself "you dont need solid macro or micro you just need macro" ????
here is an example of where it doesnt matter what you do strat beats you.
its zvp and im going mutas. you blindly do a 2 base blink stalker build. i win. u cant do anything about it sorry i win
strat > everything else in this scenario.
lets say its zvz u go bane i go bane roach, i win strat > everything else
get the picture?
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 Posts
On January 07 2012 15:02 ohokurwrong wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 14:57 Blazinghand wrote:
People have literally 6-pooled into Master League. I'm not 100% sure what this is attempting to prove. There are a lot of ways to win matches. You don't have to learn complicated strategies-- nor do you have to learn solid macro or micro. I think the biggest thing holding people back and the easiest thing to improve is macro. If you want to take the hard route, that's fine by me, and I wish you the best of luck in your improvement.
I'll take the easy way and work on keeping my money low. er im not actually improving by doing this... im already masters and you contradicted yourself "you dont need solid macro or micro you just need macro" ???? here is an example of where it doesnt matter what you do strat beats you. its zvp and im going mutas. you blindly do a 2 base blink stalker build. i win. u cant do anything about it sorry i win strat > everything else in this scenario. lets say its zvz u go bane i go bane roach, i win strat > everything else get the picture?
._.
You don't NEED any particular skill to get into master league. Micro or Macro or strategy-- you can be bad at any of these, as long as you're good enough at one of it. Please read more slowly.
|
On January 07 2012 15:11 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 15:02 ohokurwrong wrote:On January 07 2012 14:57 Blazinghand wrote:
People have literally 6-pooled into Master League. I'm not 100% sure what this is attempting to prove. There are a lot of ways to win matches. You don't have to learn complicated strategies-- nor do you have to learn solid macro or micro. I think the biggest thing holding people back and the easiest thing to improve is macro. If you want to take the hard route, that's fine by me, and I wish you the best of luck in your improvement.
I'll take the easy way and work on keeping my money low. er im not actually improving by doing this... im already masters and you contradicted yourself "you dont need solid macro or micro you just need macro" ???? here is an example of where it doesnt matter what you do strat beats you. its zvp and im going mutas. you blindly do a 2 base blink stalker build. i win. u cant do anything about it sorry i win strat > everything else in this scenario. lets say its zvz u go bane i go bane roach, i win strat > everything else get the picture? ._. You don't NEED any particular skill to get into master league. Micro or Macro or strategy-- you can be bad at any of these, as long as you're good enough at one of it. Please read more slowly.
I go mass marines every game. My money is almost always 0. I only make 5 things the whole game - SCV, Marine, Barracks, supply depots, CC. My macro rocks woohoo! Guess I should be in masters right? NOPE! IM IN FUCKING GOLD. WHY MOMMA WHY????!??!?! SOME GUY ON TEAMLIQUID SAYS I ONLY NEED MACRO TO GET INTO MASTERS!!!!! EVERYONE SAYS MY STRAT SUCKS AND I DUNNO HOW TO SPLIT MARINES AND I DUNNO TIMINGS AND I DONT KNOW WHAT TANKS AND MEDIVACS DOES BUT I THOUGHT ONLY MACRO WAS IMPORTANT???? SO WHY DO I KEEP LOSING TO MASS BANELINGS AND MASS COLOSSI WHY WHY WHY IM SO SAD!!!
User was warned for this post
|
On January 07 2012 15:29 Clazziquai10 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 15:11 Blazinghand wrote:On January 07 2012 15:02 ohokurwrong wrote:On January 07 2012 14:57 Blazinghand wrote:
People have literally 6-pooled into Master League. I'm not 100% sure what this is attempting to prove. There are a lot of ways to win matches. You don't have to learn complicated strategies-- nor do you have to learn solid macro or micro. I think the biggest thing holding people back and the easiest thing to improve is macro. If you want to take the hard route, that's fine by me, and I wish you the best of luck in your improvement.
I'll take the easy way and work on keeping my money low. er im not actually improving by doing this... im already masters and you contradicted yourself "you dont need solid macro or micro you just need macro" ???? here is an example of where it doesnt matter what you do strat beats you. its zvp and im going mutas. you blindly do a 2 base blink stalker build. i win. u cant do anything about it sorry i win strat > everything else in this scenario. lets say its zvz u go bane i go bane roach, i win strat > everything else get the picture? ._. You don't NEED any particular skill to get into master league. Micro or Macro or strategy-- you can be bad at any of these, as long as you're good enough at one of it. Please read more slowly. I go mass marines every game. My money is almost always 0. I only make 5 things the whole game - SCV, Marine, Barracks, supply depots, CC. My macro rocks woohoo! Guess I should be in masters right? NOPE! IM IN FUCKING GOLD. WHY MOMMA WHY????!??!?! SOME GUY ON TEAMLIQUID SAYS I ONLY NEED MACRO TO GET INTO MASTERS!!!!! EVERYONE SAYS MY STRAT SUCKS AND I DUNNO HOW TO SPLIT MARINES AND I DUNNO TIMINGS AND I DONT KNOW WHAT TANKS AND MEDIVACS DOES BUT I THOUGHT ONLY MACRO WAS IMPORTANT???? SO WHY DO I KEEP LOSING TO MASS BANELINGS AND MASS COLOSSI WHY WHY WHY IM SO SAD!!!
Ive beaten lots of diamond players with mass queens and Im only mid-high masters. I dont believe you are macroing well enough if you're gold making marines 
|
Gl playing zerg with a 50 APM cap. I'm still in silver, with an 125 APM, according to sc2gears.
|
On January 07 2012 15:29 Clazziquai10 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 15:11 Blazinghand wrote:On January 07 2012 15:02 ohokurwrong wrote:On January 07 2012 14:57 Blazinghand wrote:
People have literally 6-pooled into Master League. I'm not 100% sure what this is attempting to prove. There are a lot of ways to win matches. You don't have to learn complicated strategies-- nor do you have to learn solid macro or micro. I think the biggest thing holding people back and the easiest thing to improve is macro. If you want to take the hard route, that's fine by me, and I wish you the best of luck in your improvement.
I'll take the easy way and work on keeping my money low. er im not actually improving by doing this... im already masters and you contradicted yourself "you dont need solid macro or micro you just need macro" ???? here is an example of where it doesnt matter what you do strat beats you. its zvp and im going mutas. you blindly do a 2 base blink stalker build. i win. u cant do anything about it sorry i win strat > everything else in this scenario. lets say its zvz u go bane i go bane roach, i win strat > everything else get the picture? ._. You don't NEED any particular skill to get into master league. Micro or Macro or strategy-- you can be bad at any of these, as long as you're good enough at one of it. Please read more slowly. I go mass marines every game. My money is almost always 0. I only make 5 things the whole game - SCV, Marine, Barracks, supply depots, CC. My macro rocks woohoo! Guess I should be in masters right? NOPE! IM IN FUCKING GOLD. WHY MOMMA WHY????!??!?! SOME GUY ON TEAMLIQUID SAYS I ONLY NEED MACRO TO GET INTO MASTERS!!!!! EVERYONE SAYS MY STRAT SUCKS AND I DUNNO HOW TO SPLIT MARINES AND I DUNNO TIMINGS AND I DONT KNOW WHAT TANKS AND MEDIVACS DOES BUT I THOUGHT ONLY MACRO WAS IMPORTANT???? SO WHY DO I KEEP LOSING TO MASS BANELINGS AND MASS COLOSSI WHY WHY WHY IM SO SAD!!! User was warned for this post
technically macro includes those units that you are not making. its not much of a troll
|
On January 07 2012 15:37 TheGreenMachine wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 15:29 Clazziquai10 wrote:On January 07 2012 15:11 Blazinghand wrote:On January 07 2012 15:02 ohokurwrong wrote:On January 07 2012 14:57 Blazinghand wrote:
People have literally 6-pooled into Master League. I'm not 100% sure what this is attempting to prove. There are a lot of ways to win matches. You don't have to learn complicated strategies-- nor do you have to learn solid macro or micro. I think the biggest thing holding people back and the easiest thing to improve is macro. If you want to take the hard route, that's fine by me, and I wish you the best of luck in your improvement.
I'll take the easy way and work on keeping my money low. er im not actually improving by doing this... im already masters and you contradicted yourself "you dont need solid macro or micro you just need macro" ???? here is an example of where it doesnt matter what you do strat beats you. its zvp and im going mutas. you blindly do a 2 base blink stalker build. i win. u cant do anything about it sorry i win strat > everything else in this scenario. lets say its zvz u go bane i go bane roach, i win strat > everything else get the picture? ._. You don't NEED any particular skill to get into master league. Micro or Macro or strategy-- you can be bad at any of these, as long as you're good enough at one of it. Please read more slowly. I go mass marines every game. My money is almost always 0. I only make 5 things the whole game - SCV, Marine, Barracks, supply depots, CC. My macro rocks woohoo! Guess I should be in masters right? NOPE! IM IN FUCKING GOLD. WHY MOMMA WHY????!??!?! SOME GUY ON TEAMLIQUID SAYS I ONLY NEED MACRO TO GET INTO MASTERS!!!!! EVERYONE SAYS MY STRAT SUCKS AND I DUNNO HOW TO SPLIT MARINES AND I DUNNO TIMINGS AND I DONT KNOW WHAT TANKS AND MEDIVACS DOES BUT I THOUGHT ONLY MACRO WAS IMPORTANT???? SO WHY DO I KEEP LOSING TO MASS BANELINGS AND MASS COLOSSI WHY WHY WHY IM SO SAD!!! Ive beaten lots of diamond players with mass queens and Im only mid-high masters. I dont believe you are macroing well enough if you're gold making marines
Just kidding with my post - im actually diamond. Just wanting to say that macro isnt everything. I'm actually pretty sure mass queens per se wont get you far though - and if u do win with with mass queens im assuming transfuse is involved - so micro would be needed as well???  Just saying
|
Code S builds and bronze mechanics > Code S mechanics and bronze builds
my 2 cent
|
Well, don't builds require mechanics to pull off?
I mean, if you have a *PERFECTED* build, don't you need the *PERFECT* mechanics to execute that build?
EDIT: Also, ThorZaIN once said on his stream that other pro-gamers have higher APM than him because he only clicks on the terrain once to move/a-move, others repeatedly click the same location for move/a-move.
|
On January 07 2012 15:55 JagerGard wrote:
Well, don't builds require mechanics to pull off?
I mean, if you have a *PERFECTED* build, don't you need the *PERFECT* mechanics to execute that build?
EDIT: Also, ThorZaIN once said on his stream that other pro-gamers have higher APM than him because he only clicks on the terrain once to move/a-move, others repeatedly click the same location for move/a-move.
im simply saying that a blink stalker build for example hard counters mutas on a map lets say taldarim alter
u cant super pro mechanics your way outa this. there are plenty of other counters
stephano style countered by blue flame and marines
roaches vs banes
1 rax fe vs immortal or void ray plus 3 gate
roach rush vs helion expo. these are all counters some of which yield better results then others but the points still true. in sc2 some strats are good enough to carry you through a match by itself
hopefully i can do similar things every game
|
Ok, so you'll get to masters...and? Getting to masters is pretty easy, it doesn't prove anything. Someone with better mechanics is always going to be a better player on average than someone with poor mechanics. That's not to say that strategy and knowing timings is useless, as it is of course not and a good player can get caught off gaurd by weird stuff all the time (especially if you're zerg). I put this to you...
Having better mechanics never hurt. I can outplay somone with my better mechanics and overcome bad composition. Now, if someone is playing with the same mechanical skill as I am and is using a better strategy, of course he wins, that's the point of a strategy game. It's a hell of a lot easier to improve your strategy than improve your mechanics, which is why people (CORRECTLY) tell people in lower leagues to work on their mechanics. Please don't confuse players who are trying to learn in the most efficient way possible.
|
On January 07 2012 16:02 ohokurwrong wrote:
im simply saying that a blink stalker build for example hard counters mutas on a map lets say taldarim alter
u cant super pro mechanics your way outa this. there are plenty of other counters
No they don't. Once again, please don't confuse people who are trying to learn. Every fucking protoss gets blink and plenty of people still rape them with mutas. Starcraft is not an A>B type of game, there are a ton of interactions going on all around the game. All this thread serves to do is mislead someone trying to get better.
|
There are 3 things in SC2 that make up a player's skill.
Macro, Micro, and Strategy
You can be really good in any of these three and easily break into masters or just be mediocre in all 3. A Pro is well rounded in all 3 but as players like Boxer have shown you can be specialized in one of them (Boxer is well known for amazing micro).
|
I disagree - I was dicking around over spring break in around high diamond/low masters (and even vs some mid masters) and I won all my games through superior macro and terrible unit choice. I won a large majority of my TvTs, TvZs, and TvPs going pure reaper (and if they get air I would get ghosts). I played "standard" up until 8 minutes, mind you. Also played my ZvZs, ZvTs, ZvPs going pure Zerglings and queens for antiair. Would demolish Protoss masters players that even managed to get 200/200 deathballs because I could amass 80 spines and just counter attack their mains when they moved out. In PvZ and PvT I would go pure immortals, and archons if they got air (I just proxy gated PvP T_T).
|
at this point everyone is just stating facts that are all true but in the end it doesnt matter
im attempting to see if garbage mechanics coupled with good strat can lead someone into masters league. why are people so upset about it. if im wrong i will fail.
i think that lesser levels of strat beat equal levels of macro
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 Posts
Garbage strat with garbage macro but good micro can make do-- 3 rax allin, VR allin / 4gate / various allins-- you don't need to be able to macro off 3 bases, tech and double upgrade and drop to win games. You don't even need some amazing strats.
You just need an all-in.
There are clearly several ways to get into Master League, some of which can be done somewhat easily if you are willing to put in the time and effort.
@OP: people will discuss this if you make a thread... I think it's reasonable for people to do so. Did you really expect people not to have a lively discussion? I think making a thread invites it :D
|
its not a debate about how to get into masters league... i think people are missing the point. the point is macro gets masters
micro gets masters
strat imo is something you only need to do to get masters. this is a test to prove that people who claim "i dont have to time to get good at macro or work on my mechanics so thats why im in silver or plat" are full of $)#@ because as long as they understand the game they can still do it
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 Posts
I disagree. I think that learning strategies and timings, game sense, scouting, compositions, counter units, and strategies in general are hard. I think getting an understanding of the game is hard.
I think learning how to macro is substantially easier and takes less time-- nothing complicated there. Just build orders, rules to follow, and a simple composition like ling/bane/muta or stalker/colossus.
|
Like people said, getting into masters' isn't that much of an accomplishment, what's the point? of course you can get to masters with good strategy and subpar mechanics, you can get to masters doing pretty bad stuff (eg, 6 pool, scv all ins, etc)
|
On January 07 2012 13:01 ohokurwrong wrote:
For example. If i pick zerg and never use proper/fast inject methods (shift backspace method) and i go to each base click queen click inject this would be poor mechanics.
By your standard, here is a list of Zergs that have poor mechanics:
Nestea, Losira, DRG, July, Zenio, Leenock, pretty much any Zerg that has ever accomplished anything in the GSL. None of them hotkey Queens or use backspace, they all hotkey hatcheries individually, and some don't even use a hotkey for all the hatcheries and manage all of them individually at all times.
|
Heh, masters terran here... (unranked now since I haven't played in a season).
My APM around the "APM-nerf" was around 70-80 and that was when I made serious attempts at increasing it past the 45-55 range. "Macro better" is very good advice because even though my APM sucks, at least I could execute my build to around the 70-80 supply almost perfectly.
|
some ppl are incapable of being fast. and no one said getting masters was hard. i also never said i would 6 pool or cheese... im going to attempt at a very low APM to get masters by attempting to HARD COUNTER builds based on the limited scouting info zerg has
|
OP actually has a very good point which he is attempting to reveal, which is the inability to take an inferior army and still win by outplaying your opponent. This was one of the most fundamentally important aspects of Broodwar, that while you can make the wrong units, you just have to work a little harder to make them as effective as the right ones. In SC2 if you make the wrong units you almost guaranteed cannot win.
|
See this is the problem I really see here.
You cannot dismiss micro and mechanics from strat. You mentioned how a roach-bane > ling-bane, but banelings are not auto attack units, they explode when attacking. If the ling-bane can out micro roach-bane, he wins. Just telling someone to get a solid strat and not being micro them well or even have a good apm, is not the proper approach.
I'm all in lower league people focusing on their macro well, but think of it like this. Without macro you cannot micro to victory and without micro you cannot macro to vicotry. They're interconnected. You don't have to be perfect in either, but you have to have balance between the two.
FYI: a protoss deathball completely overturns what you are trying to do because that requires micro to have any chance to beat.
FYI x2: 4g vs 4g goes to better microer.
|
On January 07 2012 16:56 EternaLLegacy wrote:
OP actually has a very good point which he is attempting to reveal, which is the inability to take an inferior army and still win by outplaying your opponent. This was one of the most fundamentally important aspects of Broodwar, that while you can make the wrong units, you just have to work a little harder to make them as effective as the right ones. In SC2 if you make the wrong units you almost guaranteed cannot win.
finally... someone gets it. er u might be person number 3
|
I think this idea of getting into diamond just by macro is true eleven months ago, but probably does not hold true now. A gold player today in my opinion has the mechanics of a low diamond back in around december last year.
|
except micro has 0 to do with this...
|
On January 07 2012 17:31 ohokurwrong wrote:
except micro has 0 to do with this...
Yeah, good point. Micro is a part of good mechanics, int he same way as macro, so this should be taken into the experiment
|
im attempting to display BAD mechanics and ONLY good strat/BO
|
On January 07 2012 17:45 ohokurwrong wrote:
im attempting to display BAD mechanics and ONLY good strat/BO
Oh okay
|
The rules you've established seem a little cumbersome and might get in the way of the point you're trying to make. What about making clear macro sacrifices in order to get better scouting info. Stuff like scouting on 9, aggressive overlord scouting or rushing OL speed would let you get a good picture of the opponent's plan. If you constantly trade minerals for scouting info, you're putting yourself at a macro disadvantage against someone doing a blind timing attack. You won't have quite as much stuff as you could have, but hopefully it'll be the right stuff.
|
i just dont ever want my speed to help me. i never want anything to do anything positive BUT the right build order. obviously i have to play the game and not just think at the screen the right build so 50 apm is a speed anyone can get but not a speed thats really any good
|
A good strategy can break you ones but you won't be able to do anything about superior mechanics in a short period of time.
|
How are you proving you can do well with just strategy using this method? You can easily macro properly <50 APM, so unless you're going to float minerals on purpose all your going to show is that macro+good unit comps can get you into masters, which is pretty obviously true. When I played terran at diamond I would be around 40 APM and never be above 1k minerals.
|
this who idea is rather ridiculous considering one could argue high hand speed and proper multitasking is just efficient strategy being carried out quickly. Thats to say quick knowledge and deduction. To purposely gimp yourself like this to prove a point that you need to understand unit composition is a bit silly. Also at some point, im guessing around mid-diamond, you'll start facing opponents who play just as smart as you, except 50% faster. At which point you'll have to play faster to beat them.
Idk I dont understand what you're trying to prove.
|
but my point is simply that in sc2 you dont need to be fast you just need to be doing the right BO
if you say "i dont understand the point of this" you cant read or didnt read. the point is to prove sc2 is more build order wins then anything else
|
people have done the same thing with mechanics. Just because you do one aspect of the game well and ignore other facets of good play to the point where you get masters doesn't mean you've proven anything. but hey have fun, let us know how it goes
|
Your title that SC2 strat > mechanics does not make a whole lot of sense. There is very little doubt in my mind that it is possible to posses sufficiently superior strategy with apm less than 50 to get into masters. Given the current level of play of masters and below it is obvious to me that you will be able to do this. However, doing so will not prove that SC2 strat > mechanics. It proves that the level of strategic thinking possessed by players on the ladder leaves a lot to be desired. I believe we are astronomically far away from figuring this game out. Speaking hypothetically, if you were a strategic genius and started innovating better strategies at a blistering rate, posted your findings thereby spreading the new way of doing things that approximated the "proper" way to play, then everyone would adopt the new way. At that point mechanics > strategy because there is no more room for superior strategy. Advantages gained from strategy innovation are short lived because people adapt and it becomes about your mechanics again. This is why pros focus on mechanics. It is a long term approach to improvement. On top of that, Blizzard is constantly patching the game and releasing two new expansions. This can render the superior strategy you have developed useless. Improving mechanics develop skills that generally apply to any meta game.
In conclusion SC2 strat > mechanics when other player's strategy sucks. When your own strategy and your opponent's strategy has no deficiencies, mechanics are the only thing that matter.
|
when both sides are aware of the strats it theoretically makes sense. but explain to me this. can you beat a counter. by counter i mean if im zerg and i make mutas and he blindly does 2 base blink i lose the game. now how does mechanics beat this? answer is you cannot. if you are playing a zvz and he walls off with 4 lings you cannot tell what tech he is going. he goes banes u do speedling expo. you lose the game nothing you can do. yes you can add spines and make wall offs but thats not really what were talking about. were talking about how in sc2 units are so important that you CANNOT get around the fact that counters are more then just counters they are game ending hard counters
in sc2 the scouting and "tells" are so subtle and not always obvious. Idra can be quoted complaining about ppl just countering what hes doing and him not haveing a single shot at turning the game around. if you are countered in sc2 there is virtually nothing you can do to hold them off in time to change techs. its impossible. futhermore good mechanics take faster apm then 50 which is the other half of this. i cannot use any speed i may have to just overcome someone via making things faster then them even if they are the wrong things
|
i think it´s well known that you can get easily into master league by doing certain strats for which you dont have to be fast or good at macro or anything else. but at the same time you can get into master by simply having good mechanics while you can do rather "stupid" tactics like mass queen or what ever.
so... i dunno how this should prove that strategy > mechanics.
|
I don't follow what you mean by "can you beat a counter". If you lose to blind 2 base blink then your strategy sucked. I don't understand the point of your ZvZ example. I feel like your not understanding what I was saying. Pros strive to play reactively for a reason.
|
i know this. if i can use a strat that has a high success rate against a certain style and then repeat this for all the styles with the aim of 2 base countering them and i refine it, and make it fluent then it will most certainly prove this to be the case
if you are aware of how zvz works, the safest build is most likely a speedling expo with fast double queen. its safe from banes and roaches and it not bad on economics. but to know that you gota wall off with the queens for example is when your first 2 lings gets in and scouts his tech. if he makes 4 lings and walls top of ramp similar to BW well you just have to guess. hope you guess right because if you are on a map like xelnaga well you cannot hold a 1 base all in that easily. this is a map BO win that is hard to deal with sometimes aka the biggest problem in sc2
again i actually think terran might be the race i gota play. changed my tune on this via a PM i got. it makes sense i was hoping to avoid terran as i feel terran BO are very very nice and can hit timings that are very powerful and not hard to get to
|
On January 07 2012 19:19 MarcusRife wrote:
I don't follow what you mean by "can you beat a counter". If you lose to blind 2 base blink then your strategy sucked. I don't understand the point of your ZvZ example. I feel like your not understanding what I was saying. Pros strive to play reactively for a reason.
absolutely. i mean you cant counter a strat or rather do a better strat than your opponent when he plays safe and reacts to your build.
|
If your theory holds true, why is it that every pro player who switched from Brood War or Wc3 instantly (like 1-2 weeks) got close to the same skill level in sc2. Owning players with 2000 games played after 100 games of sc2?
And this argument that GSL players have bad Micro/Macro, just look at a replay featuring a PRO player vs a non-pro. The difference in reaction time and micro is insane. Pro player attacks, -> the non pro player takes 3 seconds to react to it. If that happened in GSL the casters would be wondering if the player is drunk or afk.
Just look at a marine battle early game between say MVP vs KEEN or a non-korean. MVP will 90% of the time move his marines in position 0.5 sec faster every time.
And btw, Goody has way better macro/mouse control than anyone below GM, there is no Master League player in America/Europe with better macro than Goody.
When Goody has 4 tanks in que on a factory a caster will joke about how bad his macro is during battles. Anyone outside GM wouldn't even que tanks at that point, and instead float 1000 minerals.
|
um no... i dont think i have fought any masters in the top 8 that float mins. so....
you proved my point lol. that the strats in sc2 are so easy that you dont need much skill just knowledge. you proved MY point with taht statement lordawesome... i hope you know that...
i dare YOU to show me a single Wc3 player that switched over to BW and was able to play in korea. show me a sc2 player here thats never played broodwar and teach them every strat then have them fight even a C iccup player and watch him get mirked. everyone knows sc2 is easy when compared to the physical ability needed in BW. thats why strat > everything else in sc2
i mean really explain to me how someone who is not a pro but is in GM is on the same level as a pro. its because the gap that they mechanically have isnt as bad since the strats are so easy to pull off
|
This thread is just Sc2 hate in disguise...
|
are you commentating on your stream?
Id love to hear your strategic reasoning
|
Some of the comments in this thread will give you brain cancer 
I would caution lower level players who are looking to improve to still work on mechanics. It's 1000% easier to improve your strategy after you have good mechanics then to improve your mechanics and you'll never be a good player without good mechanics.
|
On January 07 2012 19:27 prOxi.FighT wrote:
This thread is just Sc2 hate in disguise...
lol it can most def be taken as that. im a bit disgusted that a person who i am actually 3 times faster then can make the same army as me. the making of armys is too easy in sc2. then controlling them... 1 keybind protoss can get masters. thats a joke. there are pros that use 1 keybind that are in code S. also a joke
i love sc2. i wish it was a game where speed matters more
yes ill commentate when mic gets here soon. might do it on old crappy mic after homestory cup tomorrow when i start this. it makes me sound more high pitched...
|
On January 07 2012 19:30 Arisen wrote:Some of the comments in this thread will give you brain cancer I would caution lower level players who are looking to improve to still work on mechanics. It's 1000% easier to improve your strategy after you have good mechanics then to improve your mechanics and you'll never be a good player without good mechanics.
im also not disputing this. im just ATTEMPTING to make a point about how sc2s game is balanced/played is all
you know its possible im wrong? i might str8 fail. i might also come up with some pretty interesting builds. i already came up with a few during beta that were promptly copied and labeled but i wont drop names of the pro who stole my one true love, my z build
|
This thread is just Sc2 hate in disguise...
I think you are right. It is starting to sound like a complaint about game design. Perhaps ohokurwrong is an Idra smurf.
|
I'm not sure there are enough decisions left to improve upon once you're at a certain level. I think masters and above is pretty much all mechanics because conceptual decision making should all be mature by then.
|
I don´t like the topic at all. Sure Strategy and Builds are the big part of the game, but it´s verry complex and you need good experience in the game to work/use this part if you are a newer player. Imagine if you want to learn poker. Your first thing is to learn the rules and the how you can win. You would neither say to a newer poker player,, Look at your opponents face and if he looks like this, do this etc. " Why working on the hard things, while your basic stuff isn´t an a decent level?" You don´t really need perfect Macro, but you should be able to spend all your Ressources even after a big battle where you automatically have 1l Minerals if you don´t have the multitasking. You can easily get to Diamond by just good Macro and this is easy to learn. Also while practicing your Macro your apm imrpvoes itself automatically. Multitasking, Micro and Strategy are big parts of the game but why should you learn the hardest things first without a good basic setup.
|
strat > mechanic at lower levels, becuz most of the ppl have shitty defence against certain strats, but once u reach the higher levels, mechanic > strat.
|
I honestly don't get the point of this. I agree that strategy is really important, and that you can win SC2 without fast apm.
But i still don't get the point. Oh well guess you can do whatever makes you happy
|
I think you're looking at this from a skewed perspective, and are only pointing out the obvious: the lower leagues are bad and will die to a lot of shit.
If you only want to get to the middle of masters, learning macro only up to the level of executing an all-in every matchup will work, but it won't make you a better player. This should be obvious to anyone, as should the fact that if you want to improve your mechanics, that is going to take a lot of time and effort, but ultimately be more rewarding. I've re-read your post, and all I can gather is that you're trying to prove that you can blaze through lower leagues by executing a strat or an all-in because people are bad, which is just stupidly obvious to anyone who has played sc2. It's true, you don't NEED to have the crispest mechanics to get through lower leagues, so I don't see what's so special about what you're doing.
|
On January 07 2012 19:26 ohokurwrong wrote:
um no... i dont think i have fought any masters in the top 8 that float mins. so....
I just google'd GSL, and on 140 supply both Losira and Nestea is floating over 1200 minerals in the GSL final, losira even floating 400 gas and 1400 minerals at 140 supply at one point. This is during battle/harass ofc, very few can keep their money low then.
you proved my point lol. that the strats in sc2 are so easy that you dont need much skill just knowledge. you proved MY point with taht statement lordawesome... i hope you know that...
Dude, just wow, So strategy is easy, knowledge is hard (so according to you, you get "sc2 knowledge" from having played wc3/bw?, and how do you define skill, is that micro/apm or strategy? or this "knowledge" that according to you is different from "strategy"? So basically strategy is so easy that anyone can do it, yet the difference between koreans and non-koreans is that koreans have better strategy? how does that make sense, and yes you said in topic that strategy is more important than apm, as such strategy should be what defines a top level korean from others, yet it is so easy that anyone can do it with no experience in sc2? ..?
i dare YOU to show me a single Wc3 player that switched over to BW and was able to play in korea.
I did not make this statement? Where did I alude to this? Why should I prove a false statement that YOU came up with?
show me a sc2 player here thats never played broodwar and teach them every strat then have them fight even a C iccup player and watch him get mirked. everyone knows sc2 is easy when compared to the physical ability needed in BW. thats why strat > everything else in sc2
Do you seriously think that Moon/check/polt (wc3/sc2 players) would have ANY problem roflstomping a random C player? Honestly? And how would I be able to prove this to you? Please make an argument that isn't based on a scenario that never occured, and never will. Am i supposed to go and ask Naniwa to practice some Brood War so he can then play some C player, is that what i actually need to do to disprove your point here?
i mean really explain to me how someone who is not a pro but is in GM is on the same level as a pro
I did not say that a all GM players are just as good as Idra or some other top level GM/ or PRO, but I did explain what the difference is:
"Just look at a marine battle early game between say MVP vs KEEN or a non-korean. MVP will 90% of the time move his marines in position 0.5 sec faster every time."
That is the difference between a low GM and high GM. So why do you ask me to explain something again that I clearly explained right there already.
. its because the gap that they mechanically have isnt as bad since the strats are so easy to pull off
And sc2 doesn't require any skill? You seem to confuse build-order losses with strategy, thats like saying there is no skill in Poker beacause there is an element of luck. There is an element of luck in sc2 as well, but that doesn't mean there is a lower amount of skill involved, just that the skill gap has to be bigger for the better player to have a 90% win rate. Wc3 had a much lower luck factor than BW, this does not make wc3 more difficult than either BW or sc2. Win rates are rather low in brood war as well. (Flash losing practice game vs oldboy woot???)
And don't just randomly point out that BW requires more skill than sc2, we all know this is true, and this is not being argued anywhere anyway.
So basically, try to be more coherent and logical in your arguementation without straw-mans if you are interested in having a serious debate on a subject, wich I presume is the intention here?
|
There is a big part of luck in the game, but the higher your skill get´s the less luck is involed.
|
If strat < mechanics it would only show how limited the game is.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
You have no fucking idea what you're talking about. I'm closing this on the grounds that you're an idiot. You can reopen this thread when you've achieved this "feat".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
