|
On December 17 2010 02:30 1a2a3aPro wrote:
The fact that people advocate queuing is a sign that the quality of these forums is going to hell..
If you don't question rules, and don't ask why those are the rules, you don't need a forum in the first place, just a checklist.
If you don't understand why a rule is a rule, you won't know why to follow it, and you won't know when to not follow it.
Just being able to rattle down mantras doesn't mean you have an understanding of the game. It means you have a vocabulary, but no grammar to use it in a way that makes sense.
|
On December 16 2010 08:53 sas911 wrote:
..... not queueing is just asking a ridiculous amount out of every player who's in gold and under.
When you have a rax with a reactor and you're pumping marines, chances are, that you'll end up failing by forgetting to constantly produce. By queueing up, sure you lose minerals at that moment, but technically after that period of time is over, you have the minerals again. At least you're constantly producing units. When I'm playing protoss, I queue up probes. I'm too busy trying to determine tech paths, building units out of warp gates (well no queue there duh). I don't want to be like "oh shit i forgot to build probes, and now my economy is totally screwed". Sure I lose 100 minerals because I queued up 2 extra probes, but if I don't have the apm to support it, I shouldn't.
It's like microing. Some beginners put way too much value on that. Sure, you can squeeze out a few units here and there, and maybe it'll help you win battles. But if you're microing and your apm doesn't allow you to continue unit production, avoid supply caps, and continue teching, then you're better off a-moving and having a solid macro.
Actually, it's practically almost exactly like micro. Sure, everyone who gets good HAS to learn to micro, but in the end, if you just concentrate on micro in the beginning, you will be lacking in the other more fundamental and important areas. And in the end it's usually never the reason you lose.
The reason you lose is because you forgot to expand, didn't scout properly, didn't create any defense in time, made bad strategy decisions. You didn't lose because you built a gateway 10 seconds after, because you queued up 2 probes.
No. Being able to make units constantly without queueing is as fundamental as it gets. If you decide not to do things because you "don't have the APM" (very misleading phrase), your effective APM will not improve. APM is not levels in a role playing game, you do not play x games of starcraft and magically increase it from 40 to 100 or whatever.
Learning macro comes before strategy because there is no such strategy as "SuperGosu's No-unit timing push", and macro comes before micro because you cannot micro no units. The units have to be made, and then you can do things with them. I mean obviously you need some sort of basic plan because you have to figure out what production structures you're going to make and a very flexible, ballpark goal of when you want to expand, but beyond that you gotta realize that if you put Gary Kasparov against an average dedicated chess hobbyist but sporadically take random pieces from him throughout the game, he's not going to be able to strategize his way into a victory.
|
On December 16 2010 08:53 sas911 wrote:
..... not queueing is just asking a ridiculous amount out of every player who's in gold and under.
When you have a rax with a reactor and you're pumping marines, chances are, that you'll end up failing by forgetting to constantly produce. By queueing up, sure you lose minerals at that moment, but technically after that period of time is over, you have the minerals again. At least you're constantly producing units. When I'm playing protoss, I queue up probes. I'm too busy trying to determine tech paths, building units out of warp gates (well no queue there duh). I don't want to be like "oh shit i forgot to build probes, and now my economy is totally screwed". Sure I lose 100 minerals because I queued up 2 extra probes, but if I don't have the apm to support it, I shouldn't.
It's like microing. Some beginners put way too much value on that. Sure, you can squeeze out a few units here and there, and maybe it'll help you win battles. But if you're microing and your apm doesn't allow you to continue unit production, avoid supply caps, and continue teching, then you're better off a-moving and having a solid macro.
Actually, it's practically almost exactly like micro. Sure, everyone who gets good HAS to learn to micro, but in the end, if you just concentrate on micro in the beginning, you will be lacking in the other more fundamental and important areas. And in the end it's usually never the reason you lose.
The reason you lose is because you forgot to expand, didn't scout properly, didn't create any defense in time, made bad strategy decisions. You didn't lose because you built a gateway 10 seconds after, because you queued up 2 probes.
this is just wrong. if a gold and under players told me this i would just say 'stick with ONE tech plan'.players who are GOLD and under would most likely struggle with the 'very hard AI', therefore in your example of playing protoss, you should say 'ok i can't think about tech patterns and macro up at the same time, so how about i just make nothing but gateway units'. practice that, your macro will become better.
your apm WILL go up if you practice like this because your fingers will just naturally retain muscle memory and you will be doing things like its second nature.
building a gateway 10 seconds late, getting every other probe out 4 seconds late adds up, especially because these things are the ones that ALLOW you to build units. if you start fucking up on a very fundamental level, then your problems will magnify themselves dramatically in the actual game (in fact much moreso than micro).
edit: the only time it is acceptable to queue is when there is NOTHING else you can be doing with your money, because inevitably you will build some resource 'glut' that occurs naturally due to unit travel time to unexpected actions (buildings getting destroyed etc...) in which case yes it is smart to queue
queueing also does not give you good 'macro'. in fact just the opposite, macro embodies MORE than just spending your money it mainly just means making good economic decisions throughout the game. q'ing just gives you the illusion that your money is low.
|
I tend to do the opposite to what is suggested in this thread. I will always make more production facilities than I can sustain. Especially as protoss.
When you're not a top level player, you can throw away 150 minerals in seconds with bad micro. I prefer to spend most of my APM making sure my micro is good enough, and then I can miss a few macro timings (e.g. while i'm microing) and I still spend all my money when I come back to my base.
For example, a game I played recently I was on 3 bases and had produced 24 warp gates. I have no idea how many warp gates 3 bases can sustain but it certainly isn't 24 of them. When i started my attack, I had 0 money as I could easily produce more than my production capabilities. While I was attacking, I wasn't macroing at all. Lots of sentries, lots of blinking stalkers to micro around. By the time my attack finished, I had destroyed his army, but hadn't really got much backup. I had around 2000 minerals + gas by the time i went back to macro. This was instantly spent again...
I knew my opponent couldn't produce so fast, so at that point I just kept A moving my units. Always had about 6 warp gates free off of cooldown, but it was just so easy to overwhelm him. Money always stayed at 0 while macroing.
Queuing is a bad idea, but can sometimes be useful to queue up a max of 2 units per building (if they are cheap units). You can often claw back the bad macro with some solid micro as long as you're only talking about a couple of units.
|
On December 17 2010 03:36 AcidReniX wrote:
I tend to do the opposite to what is suggested in this thread. I will always make more production facilities than I can sustain. Especially as protoss.
When you're not a top level player, you can throw away 150 minerals in seconds with bad micro. I prefer to spend most of my APM making sure my micro is good enough, and then I can miss a few macro timings (e.g. while i'm microing) and I still spend all my money when I come back to my base.
For example, a game I played recently I was on 3 bases and had produced 24 warp gates. I have no idea how many warp gates 3 bases can sustain but it certainly isn't 24 of them. When i started my attack, I had 0 money as I could easily produce more than my production capabilities. While I was attacking, I wasn't macroing at all. Lots of sentries, lots of blinking stalkers to micro around. By the time my attack finished, I had destroyed his army, but hadn't really got much backup. I had around 2000 minerals + gas by the time i went back to macro. This was instantly spent again...
I knew my opponent couldn't produce so fast, so at that point I just kept A moving my units. Always had about 6 warp gates free off of cooldown, but it was just so easy to overwhelm him. Money always stayed at 0 while macroing.
Queuing is a bad idea, but can sometimes be useful to queue up a max of 2 units per building (if they are cheap units). You can often claw back the bad macro with some solid micro as long as you're only talking about a couple of units.
its really quite easy to figure as protoss. basically a tech structure is equivalent to two gateways, so one base can support four gateways at max production/saturation or 2 gate/robo or 2 gate/star. so you just multiply this.
in the late game its useful to have more structures though (if your getting near max level food) to reinforce better.
|
|
|
On December 17 2010 03:00 imbecile wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2010 02:30 1a2a3aPro wrote:
The fact that people advocate queuing is a sign that the quality of these forums is going to hell..
If you don't understand why a rule is a rule, you won't know why to follow it, and you won't know when to not follow it.
Yes, but this particular rule follows from a pretty basic fundamental idea. Commonly held beliefs are commonly held because of good reasons.
The situation you describe is that you have extra resources. you can spend this on:
1) upgrades or units. Lets say you can't, because all your buildings are currently busy.
2) queueing upgrades or units.
3) building tech/production building or expanding
4) not building anything and let your money build up
if you spend your money first on queueing and then building, pretty much the only result is that your building comes out later, since queueing doesn't actually make your units come out earlier.
Plus, if you build a production facility, that helps keep your resources lower in the future.
So your choices are between (all choices assuming you're still building units without queueing):
queuing more units >> units come out same time, your next building is slower
building a structure >> units come out same time, your next building is faster
saving up resources >> units come out same time, your next building does not exist
Basically your OP says that choice 1 is better than choice 3. Do you see the problem now?
Footnote: [building a structure] doesn't mean "oh, i have extra minerals, i should build 6 barracks on one base" if you already have a suitable number of production facilities, you should be building an expansion (or perhaps defense if you think you're about to get attacked, since if you have a lot of resources, you're probably behind in army count)
|
TL;DR
Having a full que of units is the same as not using your minerals. For example if you are toss and you fill a gateway full of zealots you're not using 400 minerals for the amount of time it would take to get all those zealots out.
In starcraft and most rts games you first need to secure enough income and then you need to use the money generated to build up an army, keeping your money low just to keep your money low is not good.
|
Another way to look at it is that there's actually no decision of whether or not to queue. It's a mythical scenario.
You're imagining a situation where you're about to go into some kind of intense battle and you can either queue up units and keep producing automatically while you micro furiously to gain an advantage in the battle, or you can try to macro during the battle and stand a high chance of either misclicking your units or making the wrong thing from your buildings or failing to make anything, or getting supply blocked.
This situation doesn't exist. After you start units building out of all your structures and make supply if you need to, you're out of money. You can't actually queue because you have no money to do so. If you're not very good at hotkeys and the rhythm of making stuff, your money might build up during the battle or after the battle if you supply block yourself.
At this point, you have the choice to queue up some guys if you want to. Suppose you were at 800 minerals after the battle, then you started guys building and got down to 400, and then you queued up guys and now you're at 0. Ok, so your money is down. 20 seconds later, your first round of guys finishes. Congratulations, you're at 400 minerals again, and all your structures are busy! You actually did NOTHING to alleviate your mineral floating problem, and if you were building workers on one or more non-saturated bases, it's actually worse now, you're probably at 450 or something.
I agree with AcidRain that if you need to 5gate on one base or 8-9gate on two bases to catch up on production, do it! However, if you find that you need to make something crazy like four more gates all at once to have any hope of getting your money down (and you're not at max supply), it's actually reasonable to just surrender, because anything that happens past that point is Bizarro Starcraft and the things that you can and can't do are not going to bear much resemblance to the situations that arise in a game where you're macroing smoothly. Sure you might win if your opponent screws up even more than you did, but mostly the rest of the game is going to be a waste of everyone's time in terms of learning anything or getting better.
|
On December 17 2010 03:41 dreamsmasher wrote:
its really quite easy to figure as protoss. basically a tech structure is equivalent to two gateways, so one base can support four gateways at max production/saturation or 2 gate/robo or 2 gate/star. so you just multiply this. This is completely nonsense. And even if this were true, it would be screwed from the moment the phoenix build time and observer cost will be buffed in 1.2.0.. and it means that it wasn't true before the zealot build time nerf.
It really isn't this easy and clear cut, it also depends on what the unit mix you're going after is. If you go zealot + stalker from 4gate alone on two gas, you will simply stockpile gas that can be used to tech to dark shrine or high templar or what-not. 3gate allows for faster tech. 2gate stargate is also reasonably techy, if you go 3gate stargate you can tech less well. A base can support 3gate and 2 stargates depending on what you warp in and what the unit composition is.
These rules are very rough approximates, ultimately, you can't math it out, it depends on so many factors including the map you play and your opponent, if you wall of you lose more mining time and all that, you have to do this on feeling in the end.
|
On December 17 2010 03:00 imbecile wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2010 02:30 1a2a3aPro wrote:
The fact that people advocate queuing is a sign that the quality of these forums is going to hell..
If you don't question rules, and don't ask why those are the rules, you don't need a forum in the first place, just a checklist. If you don't understand why a rule is a rule, you won't know why to follow it, and you won't know when to not follow it. Just being able to rattle down mantras doesn't mean you have an understanding of the game. It means you have a vocabulary, but no grammar to use it in a way that makes sense.
You question something then when presented with solid reasoning why the rule is better than your questions you dismiss that and continue along with your argument. It's bad , deal with it.
|
On December 17 2010 06:22 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2010 03:41 dreamsmasher wrote:
its really quite easy to figure as protoss. basically a tech structure is equivalent to two gateways, so one base can support four gateways at max production/saturation or 2 gate/robo or 2 gate/star. so you just multiply this. This is completely nonsense. And even if this were true, it would be screwed from the moment the phoenix build time and observer cost will be buffed in 1.2.0.. and it means that it wasn't true before the zealot build time nerf. It really isn't this easy and clear cut, it also depends on what the unit mix you're going after is. If you go zealot + stalker from 4gate alone on two gas, you will simply stockpile gas that can be used to tech to dark shrine or high templar or what-not. 3gate allows for faster tech. 2gate stargate is also reasonably techy, if you go 3gate stargate you can tech less well. A base can support 3gate and 2 stargates depending on what you warp in and what the unit composition is. These rules are very rough approximates, ultimately, you can't math it out, it depends on so many factors including the map you play and your opponent, if you wall of you lose more mining time and all that, you have to do this on feeling in the end.
i didnt say what units you are producing, just the basic structures you can get, of course depending on how you got your gas/minerals, you can change this, but the guy was asking about how many you can support off of one base and how to go about figuring that out.
you can definitely math it out, you can make a lot of decent decisions (until probably mid diamond) purely from an economic perspective. in fact you can win a large % of your games up until that level just making the unit that makes the most sense to make depending on your level of money.
|
Australia8532 Posts
On December 17 2010 03:30 dreamsmasher wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2010 08:53 sas911 wrote:
..... not queueing is just asking a ridiculous amount out of every player who's in gold and under.
When you have a rax with a reactor and you're pumping marines, chances are, that you'll end up failing by forgetting to constantly produce. By queueing up, sure you lose minerals at that moment, but technically after that period of time is over, you have the minerals again. At least you're constantly producing units. When I'm playing protoss, I queue up probes. I'm too busy trying to determine tech paths, building units out of warp gates (well no queue there duh). I don't want to be like "oh shit i forgot to build probes, and now my economy is totally screwed". Sure I lose 100 minerals because I queued up 2 extra probes, but if I don't have the apm to support it, I shouldn't.
It's like microing. Some beginners put way too much value on that. Sure, you can squeeze out a few units here and there, and maybe it'll help you win battles. But if you're microing and your apm doesn't allow you to continue unit production, avoid supply caps, and continue teching, then you're better off a-moving and having a solid macro.
Actually, it's practically almost exactly like micro. Sure, everyone who gets good HAS to learn to micro, but in the end, if you just concentrate on micro in the beginning, you will be lacking in the other more fundamental and important areas. And in the end it's usually never the reason you lose.
The reason you lose is because you forgot to expand, didn't scout properly, didn't create any defense in time, made bad strategy decisions. You didn't lose because you built a gateway 10 seconds after, because you queued up 2 probes. this is just wrong. if a gold and under players told me this i would just say 'stick with ONE tech plan'.players who are GOLD and under would most likely struggle with the 'very hard AI',
I think that is a pretty brave statement haha.. I agree mostly with the argument against queuing - money in the queue is the same as money in the bank; neither of which help you. I struggle to macro during big battles while i am microing units. So before i engage i try queue up barracks to reinforce my army. This isn't ideal but it is because my mechanics aren't where they need to be - as i have gotten better at the game i have started to do this less and "tap" my production building hotkey mid battle just to check up on things.
It is that sort of progression that is not so terrible - but if you start queuing units from the beginning and that becomes a habit then that is when it is bad.. I think a lot of people are getting stuck on the title of the thread rather than reading the actual content. Queuing units is bad - true, no doubt about it. But if your mechanics can't support the alternative queuing units is less bad than not macroing at all (as long as you are willing to improve and get away from queuing)
|
On December 17 2010 06:33 bkrow wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2010 03:30 dreamsmasher wrote:On December 16 2010 08:53 sas911 wrote:
..... not queueing is just asking a ridiculous amount out of every player who's in gold and under.
When you have a rax with a reactor and you're pumping marines, chances are, that you'll end up failing by forgetting to constantly produce. By queueing up, sure you lose minerals at that moment, but technically after that period of time is over, you have the minerals again. At least you're constantly producing units. When I'm playing protoss, I queue up probes. I'm too busy trying to determine tech paths, building units out of warp gates (well no queue there duh). I don't want to be like "oh shit i forgot to build probes, and now my economy is totally screwed". Sure I lose 100 minerals because I queued up 2 extra probes, but if I don't have the apm to support it, I shouldn't.
It's like microing. Some beginners put way too much value on that. Sure, you can squeeze out a few units here and there, and maybe it'll help you win battles. But if you're microing and your apm doesn't allow you to continue unit production, avoid supply caps, and continue teching, then you're better off a-moving and having a solid macro.
Actually, it's practically almost exactly like micro. Sure, everyone who gets good HAS to learn to micro, but in the end, if you just concentrate on micro in the beginning, you will be lacking in the other more fundamental and important areas. And in the end it's usually never the reason you lose.
The reason you lose is because you forgot to expand, didn't scout properly, didn't create any defense in time, made bad strategy decisions. You didn't lose because you built a gateway 10 seconds after, because you queued up 2 probes. this is just wrong. if a gold and under players told me this i would just say 'stick with ONE tech plan'.players who are GOLD and under would most likely struggle with the 'very hard AI', I think that is a pretty brave statement haha.. I agree mostly with the argument against queuing - money in the queue is the same as money in the bank; neither of which help you. I struggle to macro during big battles while i am microing units. So before i engage i try queue up barracks to reinforce my army. This isn't ideal but it is because my mechanics aren't where they need to be - as i have gotten better at the game i have started to do this less and "tap" my production building hotkey mid battle just to check up on things. It is that sort of progression that is not so terrible - but if you start queuing units from the beginning and that becomes a habit then that is when it is bad.. I think a lot of people are getting stuck on the title of the thread rather than reading the actual content. Queuing units is bad - true, no doubt about it. But if your mechanics can't support the alternative queuing units is less bad than not macroing at all (as long as you are willing to improve and get away from queuing)
then you should just work on your mechanics. i've been helping my roommate get better at sc2, who had very little RTS/competitive gaming experience at all, with my instructing him on what to do every step of the way, and he's made a lot of progress simply by using the same build order every time.
you can solve problems like the ones you are describing by just practicing other ways of macroing, for example using shift queuing for movement across a map and watching the minimap so that you can macro maximum time while attacking. when you hear the sound 'your units are under attack', press spacebar and take a look at what's happening, if its a battle you know you will win outright just keep on macroing, if its a close situation then look at your army.
and i really can't imagine someone with just absolutely horrid APM, if you have like 50-70 apm, then you have enough apm to do macro up pretty well without completely ignoring all of your units.
i think that level of apm is pretty reasonable for anyone who can type 50 wpm (which is pretty slow tbh)
|
On December 17 2010 06:33 bkrow wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2010 03:30 dreamsmasher wrote:On December 16 2010 08:53 sas911 wrote:
..... not queueing is just asking a ridiculous amount out of every player who's in gold and under.
When you have a rax with a reactor and you're pumping marines, chances are, that you'll end up failing by forgetting to constantly produce. By queueing up, sure you lose minerals at that moment, but technically after that period of time is over, you have the minerals again. At least you're constantly producing units. When I'm playing protoss, I queue up probes. I'm too busy trying to determine tech paths, building units out of warp gates (well no queue there duh). I don't want to be like "oh shit i forgot to build probes, and now my economy is totally screwed". Sure I lose 100 minerals because I queued up 2 extra probes, but if I don't have the apm to support it, I shouldn't.
It's like microing. Some beginners put way too much value on that. Sure, you can squeeze out a few units here and there, and maybe it'll help you win battles. But if you're microing and your apm doesn't allow you to continue unit production, avoid supply caps, and continue teching, then you're better off a-moving and having a solid macro.
Actually, it's practically almost exactly like micro. Sure, everyone who gets good HAS to learn to micro, but in the end, if you just concentrate on micro in the beginning, you will be lacking in the other more fundamental and important areas. And in the end it's usually never the reason you lose.
The reason you lose is because you forgot to expand, didn't scout properly, didn't create any defense in time, made bad strategy decisions. You didn't lose because you built a gateway 10 seconds after, because you queued up 2 probes. this is just wrong. if a gold and under players told me this i would just say 'stick with ONE tech plan'.players who are GOLD and under would most likely struggle with the 'very hard AI', But if your mechanics can't support the alternative queuing units is less bad than not macroing at all (as long as you are willing to improve and get away from queuing)
You still haven't addressed the option of simply making more production structures. Also, you can't get away from queueing by queueing, it's like saying it's okay for an alchoholic to drink as long as they're willing to change at some nebulous point in the future (ok that's an extreme example but I can't think of a better one)
|
On December 16 2010 11:03 Erandorr wrote:Show nested quote +So: "Keep your Money Low" is more important than "Queuing is Bad". There, I said it. 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. The only statement in your whole post that is woth discussing is this It is easier to learn slowing down on the queuing later than to not having a big enough army.`? 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. All the rest of your post can be answered like this ( at least i think it can please correct me if im wrong ) The only time you should be banking any money is when you are maxed , and in that case build more structures to assure a quick reinforcement when a part of your army dies. In any other situation queuing is an indicator that you dont have enough structures to keep your money low . Okay that is the theory part of it . While playing , of course you will miss some cycles , even idras queens have more than 70 energy at the end of a game . Then of course you might have the right amount of structures and a lot of money but that is only because your macro is not perfect and that is something you need to work on. In those cases , will making a similar mistake again (queuing- actually keeping your money high) be okay or should you try to spend the money differently , upgrades for example, or another expansion, because queuing wont get you an army any quicker, unless you forget to produce units again and again But consider this : if you queue all the time how the fuck will you ever learn to tab into your production structures and eventually have good macro? you wont ever train that mechanic that is so vital for any good player And honestly if you argue like that , dont you think it might be better to ask: what is more important : keeping your money low or is it in some circucumstances okay to queue ? /rant God that felt good =)
<3
Anyway. Make more unit production buildings, and expos, money better spent. imo
|
Developing bad habits to win at low levels isn't worth it. Sure you may win, but once you reach a high level you're going to have to learn to keep your money low anyway. It's almost like a waste of time.
|
On December 17 2010 09:23 ibreakurface wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2010 11:03 Erandorr wrote:So: "Keep your Money Low" is more important than "Queuing is Bad". There, I said it. 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. The only statement in your whole post that is woth discussing is this It is easier to learn slowing down on the queuing later than to not having a big enough army.`? 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. All the rest of your post can be answered like this ( at least i think it can please correct me if im wrong ) The only time you should be banking any money is when you are maxed , and in that case build more structures to assure a quick reinforcement when a part of your army dies. In any other situation queuing is an indicator that you dont have enough structures to keep your money low . Okay that is the theory part of it . While playing , of course you will miss some cycles , even idras queens have more than 70 energy at the end of a game . Then of course you might have the right amount of structures and a lot of money but that is only because your macro is not perfect and that is something you need to work on. In those cases , will making a similar mistake again (queuing- actually keeping your money high) be okay or should you try to spend the money differently , upgrades for example, or another expansion, because queuing wont get you an army any quicker, unless you forget to produce units again and again But consider this : if you queue all the time how the fuck will you ever learn to tab into your production structures and eventually have good macro? you wont ever train that mechanic that is so vital for any good player And honestly if you argue like that , dont you think it might be better to ask: what is more important : keeping your money low or is it in some circucumstances okay to queue ? /rant God that felt good =) <3 Anyway. Make more unit production buildings, and expos, money better spent. imo
Basically what he is saying is that.
Ok, I'm going to play bad. Queueing units is bad and so is having high money. I'm not good at macroing, but I don't want to work on that right now, I would rather work on some other thing, therefore I am going to queue units to keep my money low. Even Idra needs to work on his macro, no one is perfect. But is idra going to skip making queens because his macro isn't perfect? Absolutely not. Is idra going to make 3 extra production hatches? No way. Even if idra knew that he would have more units if he made an extra production hatch, he realizes that doing so will prohibit him from advancing and learning.
In chess, it's a bad idea to move your queen out early (in general), but there are some players in the lower levels who know some great tricks with queens so they put them out as fast as possible and win games. When they lose, they complain it was because their opponent tricked them or that he played perfectly, etc, but the reason he can't advance is because he plays bad and doesn't know how to play without using his queen.
Even if you CAN win games more often by queueing, it is a terrible terrible idea. It is much easier when watching a replay to look at your mineral count and say "wow i should have made more production buildings" then try to figure out you were queueing too much. If you get into the habit of queueing, it's hard to break. So you have an option 1. Queue your units and win games until you are gold/platinum and then practice for 5-6 weeks to relearn to not queue units 2. Not queue units and slowly learn how many production buildings you can constantly produce out of at any given time. It might take you 2-3 weeks longer to get to diamond, but in the end you won't get frustrated when you don't understand why you are losing since you are playing the game correctly.
|
On December 16 2010 08:53 sas911 wrote:
I'm too busy trying to determine tech paths
Determining tech paths should probably take you all of 0.2 seconds. But really, it's something that shouldn't take up any time at all. You can't be playing very well if you're pausing mid game to just think about these things...they should be passive thought processes that occur over the entirety of the game.
You didn't lose because you built a gateway 10 seconds after, because you queued up 2 probes.
No actually. Early game a 10 second late gateway/rax/hatch can definitely lose you the game. If not it can delay a push and make it much less effective...so...yes...it does matter!
Really though, I don't understand this thread. If it's clear that not queueing is 'optimal' and you want to be the best player possible, then you bloody well shouldn't queue. Aim for a ridiculously high ideal and you'll improve much more than if you set your sights low. How can you argue against this?
People who whine about not being able to micro and macro at the same time and in turn try to justify queueing...probably haven't seen 350+ apm brood war players busting their friekin balls trying to be the best they can be.
|
The only time queuing isn't actively detrimental is when you know absolutely that there is no upcoming use for those minerals before the queued unit will begin. The most obvious example is your 9th worker - you'll hit 50 minerals long before your 8th worker finishes, but there is absolutely nothing else you can possibly do with it, so the 0.0001s you save from the queue comes at no cost.
I don't think its as bad as "if you queue a unit you have lost those minerals forever" - I often realize I've queued something and need the money and just cancel the queued unit - the only loss is some time, which is significant, but not as significant as resources I can never get back.
Then again, I play Protoss, so like the only thing I even queue is probes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
