EPTmade units + money not low = spend on infrastructure (tech/rax etc.)
"Queuing is Bad" vs. "Keep your Money Low" - Page 11
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
|
Grebliv
Iceland800 Posts
made units + money not low = spend on infrastructure (tech/rax etc.) | ||
|
Tofuicecream
United States8 Posts
| ||
|
Stropheum
United States1124 Posts
APM too low? no problem, I've got 3 rounds of unit production taken care of. If you slowly start working your way away from queuing, you'll find that first of all you'll get the hang of it, and second of all, your hand speed will increase drastically, along with your game sense and build timings. Seems like a sweet deal to me | ||
|
KevinIX
United States2472 Posts
| ||
|
gangstarr
United States68 Posts
[QUOTE]On December 16 2010 02:00 gangstarr wrote: Essentially, if you have 4 marines queued, you could have made one marine and also built a barracks. There should be no opportunity to queue, and if there is: build another unit producing structure.[/QUOTE]If you have infinite APM to spare maybe. Making a baracks with an SCV requires APM, you have to go back to your base and do that. Queuing up a unit requires less APM. And APM is a resource, you can only do so many things and sometimes microing a battle to come out on top, which can be done simultaneously with queuing, instead of going bac kto your base during that battle, is simply more optimal While my APM isn't that great, it sits somewhere around 100 without much spam. I am able to micro an army and also build unit producing structures pretty easily. Hotkeys make multitasking rather manageable, but if you are unable to multitask and build structures while producing units and microing an army, then by all means continue to queue. But you just admitted to having bad APM and the inability to play efficiently, hence your need to queue units. Side note: If your micro suffers while building unit producing structures you will at the very least be able to reproduce the units you lost with the buildings you created. | ||
|
imbecile
563 Posts
On December 16 2010 11:03 Erandorr wrote: The issue i have with your post is really simple : Of course your oppinion is valued as is everyone elses but your last sentence alone is so fucking stupid(no offence meant). Im not even talking about whether it is right or wrong but just the entitlement to talk in abolutes is really annoying at least to me. Stop it with that wishy washy. You think I'm wrong, and that's that. On December 16 2010 11:03 Erandorr wrote: Okay that is your point of view that could make an interesting discussion : Is it okay do do something wrong while working on something different of your game or do you always need to try playing perfectly because in the long run that may get you better results. That's exactly the point. Basic macro mechanics and builds can be trained against the computer. If you play on ladder, the first thing you need to learn is to watch your back at any time, because of all those bastards  Now the main argument everyone and you has against queuing is, that in an ideal world you will never have to queue and you will have an optimal economy, and you should aspire to that ideal to become better. In general a good advice, that's why that rule exists. My post was merely to point out, that sometimes you need to make exceptions to that rule, in order to cover other aspects of the game as well. My post was full of caveats, if you have read it. You make concessions in every aspect of the game: You lose units in battle, although in an ideal world with perfect control you never would. Yet, in a typical game, the majority of all units will die, even for the winner. No one gets all upset and ranty about this. You never have perfect information on your opponent, although in a perfect world you would. Yet, in a typical game you always will have to rely in indirect reasoning and guessing. No one seems to be particularly bothered by this. But when I say, that under certain very narrow circumstances it is ok to queue a little, and that it might help with developing and performing some other aspects of the game, all hell breaks lose. Of course I was kinda expecting that. Blind rule followers are always so easy to upset. That's why I made that post. A little trolling, and a little making people think and examine the reasons for that rule. In the end it's all just trade offs. Because battles and skirmishes are happening, because you have to balance the resources and what you need in a game, everyone will inevitably miss a step, because the result of not paying attention to a battle is almost always worse than missing a bit of production. Perfect macro you can have when you play without opponent. The question now is, how to deal with those excess resources, that inevitably will appear sooner or later (if you are good, later). One way can be to invest them into exess production ... but that will be idle capacity for most of the game, useless sunken cost. Only helps you to remax fast if you lose a lot and cover up later macro mishaps. Or you can invest it into attention capacity and force slip-ups and mistakes in in your opponent, make him lose more units, ground building etc. and and miss production, because he has to split his attention, and you don't. | ||
|
Reptilia
Chile913 Posts
| ||
|
nttea
Sweden4353 Posts
| ||
|
megagoten
318 Posts
stop microing and unqueue those units and go spend that extra ressource. | ||
|
Silmakuoppaanikinko
799 Posts
On December 16 2010 10:05 Rodregeus wrote: That is pretty much a straw man. It would be like me saying 'Yeah, this guy made one zealot the entire match, if he queued he would have 5'Ok I disagree entirely. Queuing won't get a faster army at all. If anything it do the exact opposite. Not this is a fairly extreme example but here is the build order of someone i got matched against last night. This is 100% what they did. Though, to be fair, it was their placements, and they had clearly never played an RTS before, and had 0 wins in 1's through to 4's :/ Built 2 probes Assimilator on 8 1 probe in gas Pylon on 8 Gateway on 8 Queued 5 zealots immediately. You can't honestly tell me that queueing those zealots was in any way good for this guy. Yeah his build was terrible and he stopped making probes at....8 but if he didn't queue he could have made another gateway and 5 probs. :/ Of course I didn't mean it like that. And queuing will get you a faster army than not queuing for most players, because it stops idle time. Let's face it, most people will just get idle time if they don't queue. That's the thing you avoid by queuing. | ||
|
Erandorr
2283 Posts
On December 16 2010 12:07 imbecile wrote: Stop it with that wishy washy. You think I'm wrong, and that's that. That's exactly the point. Basic macro mechanics and builds can be trained against the computer. If you play on ladder, the first thing you need to learn is to watch your back at any time, because of all those bastards Now the main argument everyone and you has against queuing is, that in an ideal world you will never have to queue and you will have an optimal economy, and you should aspire to that ideal to become better. In general a good advice, that's why that rule exists. My post was merely to point out, that sometimes you need to make exceptions to that rule, in order to cover other aspects of the game as well. My post was full of caveats, if you have read it. You make concessions in every aspect of the game: You lose units in battle, although in an ideal world with perfect control you never would. Yet, in a typical game, the majority of all units will die, even for the winner. No one gets all upset and ranty about this. You never have perfect information on your opponent, although in a perfect world you would. Yet, in a typical game you always will have to rely in indirect reasoning and guessing. No one seems to be particularly bothered by this. But when I say, that under certain very narrow circumstances it is ok to queue a little, and that it might help with developing and performing some other aspects of the game, all hell breaks lose. Of course I was kinda expecting that. Blind rule followers are always so easy to upset. That's why I made that post. A little trolling, and a little making people think and examine the reasons for that rule. In the end it's all just trade offs. Because battles and skirmishes are happening, because you have to balance the resources and what you need in a game, everyone will inevitably miss a step, because the result of not paying attention to a battle is almost always worse than missing a bit of production. Perfect macro you can have when you play without opponent. The question now is, how to deal with those excess resources, that inevitably will appear sooner or later (if you are good, later). Okay this sounds far better than what you said in your OP =) I am absolutly fine with how you formultaed it now but you started a 11 page discussion that could have been easily avoided if you had said what you wrote know instead of at the beginning . But I for example pride myself for .. well kind of okay macro and i learned that by following these seemingly stupid rules even when it meant losing a game. I did this because i realized that i honestly should not care too much about a loss when it teaches me more than a win with bad habits might. But again that for me is a point worth discussing, so why not create a thread with that interesting question instead of " a little trolling" ? | ||
|
Silmakuoppaanikinko
799 Posts
On December 16 2010 18:13 Erandorr wrote: I said at the first page 'I think you guys are misreading his point', and many others followed that said the same, enough people understood it that actually read the post rather that stumbling on the sentence 'queuing is good' and then not reading on any more.Okay this sounds far better than what you said in your OP =) I am absolutly fine with how you formultaed it now but you started a 11 page discussion that could have been easily avoided if you had said what you wrote know instead of at the beginning I and others have also already explained that while indeed not queuing up and being on top of it is the ideal situation, it's not realistic to expect yourself to be able to do that. What's more, not queuing up is done before being on top of it. So you basically base your decision on the assumption that you're not going to fail or make errors in the future, kind of risky. It's basically walking into battle with the exact number of high templar you need with perfect micro, because any extra high templar is surely a waste of money? But I'd rather have a couple extra because I like to account for my own failures and I know that it's quite possible that I miss a storm. This is also the reason that I queue, I know that in the future there will be a time that I will make an error. This doesn't mean that I don't try to maintain my probe queue to be at 3 probes (depending on the phase of the game.), but it means that if I don't meet this goal, I have something to fall back on, sure, it cost me 100 minerals which I could have spent on a zealot at that point. But I find playing it safe and having the assurance that my probe production will probably never stop worth more than a single zealot. And in the end it will pay me those 100 minerals back. | ||
|
anfionn
Ireland28 Posts
I have many times reviewed replays and said, christ, 3 marauders 2 marines queued, that is a frikking command centre. and often queueing loses games, in that instead of expanding your production facilities to match your income, you queue, so end up fighting 6 rax off 3 rax (in terms of production capacity) However, I always queue one extra scv. i.e. 1 building and one queued after, as otherwise I need to skip to my command centre every 17 seconds, exactly. With that 50 mineral investment, I can have my 25ish scvs at 7 minutes, withoug it I end up with 19. I mean really am I to skip back to my cc every 17 seconds exactly? | ||
|
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
| ||
|
gr8ape
Canada302 Posts
| ||
|
GoldenH
1115 Posts
If you find yourself queueing, build another building, and don't worry about idle buildings, worry about money. If you're queued it means you couldn't spend all your money fast enough.. so why spend your money even slower? If you have more than 400 resources, why not just throw down a CC, THEN queue up??? I don't worry if my money is high sometimes, I just make sure that I get to 0 resources at some point after 100 food, and that's always a good time to push because my army is as big as it could be at this time, so if my opponent has any stored up money (and he probably does) I have the advantage. If you actually expand when you attack, like you should, then any extra buildings just would have been built earlier than you needed them, but its okay, because you are at least keeping your money low. | ||
|
Kryptix
United States138 Posts
T on 4-5 base has enough income that with any bit of micro, I can't be bothered with more than 15-20 production structures total, and I always prefer to reinforce in almost every situation with marine medivac and tank/hellion after my initial force breaks theirs. This is because 12 rax pumping marines can out reinforce almost anyone and lets me keep pressure up after trading armies. At that point I'd rather micro the marines and just keep them coming rather than worry about whether they could be coming out a couple more at a time... I know that logically 20 rax would be even better but to keep 20 rax pumping you've already won... | ||
|
AzurewinD
United States569 Posts
If you get all this nailed down, you might be not be terribly good early on, but it will inevitably pay dividends later on (read: reaching RO4 in GSL). The reason why people are in the lower leagues is usually BECAUSE of poor macro. Why someone would want to compound the issue by ignoring one of the most important rules of macro improvement in favor of faux satisfaction of another is initially beyond me. I can see the argument of focusing on one thing at a time. I can get behind that as long as the immediate next step is to put both together in symphony. But if you're playing 50 some odd games with macro via queuing units, you're stepping into bad-habits-becoming-second-nature territory IMO. But alas, everyone is different. I just prefer the route of doing things right from the beginning even if that means having a few missteps here and there. Okay this sounds far better than what you said in your OP =) I'll echo this sentiment. I think people got the wrong impression based on the OP that the argument wasn't being backed up by sufficient reasoning. I'd invite everyone to read your post above on this page to get a 100% better idea of what you're saying. | ||
|
1a2a3aPro
Canada227 Posts
Don't queue. I don't care if you're worried about idling structures. If you're queuing to spend your money then you should be adding on more unit producing structures and producing better instead, not hiding your money away and not producing properly. There is no excuse for queuing. Even a bronze player can go "shit my money's really high" and toss down 4-5 more barracks instead of pressing 5 dadadadadaaaa or something. Just don't do it, it's a terrible habbit. Small edit: Though I feel you should micro very minimally until your macro is very good (say low diamond), if you DO feel you're going to get involved heavily in a battle add rax/factories and queue a little bit before battle so your money IS being spent, but in the majority of cases, queueing is a big no-no, and even above I don't care how slow your hands are you can press your hotkey and make units. Even here, only queue minimally. For me, it would be making one more set of units around when my units are half done, then going and doing some marine-split or heavy kitting vs banelings, or something similar that's very demanding, but for 95% of the game you should be starting your next unit at 85-90%+ the current units completion, no sooner. | ||
|
Kryptix
United States138 Posts
Then again having 10 rax go up in one of my thirds or fourths has saved me before when my opponent on less bases thinks he just won a base trade and I come in with 50 marines a couple of minutes later to mop up. | ||
| ||
