|
Australia8532 Posts
On December 17 2010 06:55 adius wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2010 06:33 bkrow wrote: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)
Lol you can't get away from queuing by queuing? I did laugh but i completely understand what you are saying. Basically, my point was - while i try and improve a separate part of my game (outside of ensuring correct production structures for x amount of bases) i would rather queue than not queue. BUT i say this because "not queuing" is the next part of my game that i am going to work on - i can't do it all at once. I am definately not saying queuing is good - queuing is fucking terrible and i do my very best to never do it. It just comes with practice and now that i am focussing on that part of my game i barely queue anymore. A lot of strategy forum assumes perfect knowledge/pro like skills but at the end of the day it is a step by step process..
I hope that made sense.
|
I think it is better to build more production buildings than queue for a few reasons:
money queued is really just money tied up and you can't use it. It doesn't bring any benefits. As those that say they queue so that they have a buffer such that the buildings aren't idle. But the point others have been making are that your surplus will only increase, queuing will not help you bring down your surplus.
Some of the other argument against more production buildings is that with more production buildings, you don't have the economy to support them. But the thing is, you will only not be able to support all those new production buildings if you were macroing properly. Since you are banking up money, you weren't able to macro properly. It is better to build more production buildings as a buffer. In that you will be able to get an army up faster when you need reinforcement, and spend your money faster when your macro slips again.
The other point is for low levels, you shouldn't worry about micro! Work on macro first and get better at that before worrying about micro. Just a atk with your larger army, and focus on macro.
|
On December 16 2010 13:03 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2010 10:05 Rodregeus wrote:On December 15 2010 17:10 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:
I agree, queuing is good. for most players, because it yields you a faster army than not queuing, 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. :/ 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' 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.
Not really, because in my example the money is tied up and is no longer available for use, when it should be. In yours, they have simply ceased production all together. My example was much more related to the initial idea.
Considering yours neither queues, OR keeps money low. :/
Now I get some people are saying that during micro intensive battles to queue just before it. But it really doesn't take that much to simple hit a hot key, for your rax/gateway/hatch/whatever and build another round of units. Just run your army back for a while while you do it so they don't stand and die or something.
Not to mention, you should never have the minerals saved to queue everything up before a battle anyway, if you do you have problems elsewhere. Also the whole "don't learn bad habbits" jazz.
|
On December 17 2010 13:20 Rodregeus wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2010 13:03 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On December 16 2010 10:05 Rodregeus wrote:On December 15 2010 17:10 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:
I agree, queuing is good. for most players, because it yields you a faster army than not queuing, 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. :/ 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' 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. Not really, because in my example the money is tied up and is no longer available for use, when it should be. In yours, they have simply ceased production all together. My example was much more related to the initial idea. Considering yours neither queues, OR keeps money low. :/ Now I get some people are saying that during micro intensive battles to queue just before it. But it really doesn't take that much to simple hit a hot key, for your rax/gateway/hatch/whatever and build another round of units. Just run your army back for a while while you do it so they don't stand and die or something. Not to mention, you should never have the minerals saved to queue everything up before a battle anyway, if you do you have problems elsewhere. Also the whole "don't learn bad habbits" jazz.
that is very important.
OP talks about fixing this specific issue, but the root problem is that you're floating ressources already. that shouldn't happen unless you have something special planned (double planetary fortress rush?)
|
On December 16 2010 03:16 Pokebunny wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2010 01:33 Kyuki wrote:On December 16 2010 01:25 Pokebunny wrote:
I'm surprised there's so much negativity towards queueing. Those who argue that it is never good, may I ask what level you play(ed) at in SC2/BW? I find it quite beneficial at high level and never find it bottlenecking my play. I rarely queue more than one unit, but that one production round is often quite worth it. I'm 2k+ diamond, but I play way too little since I chopped my pointyfinger... I'd consider myself around 2500+. That's a friggin moot point though. I ask you instead, is it not better to try to play as optimally as possible to both explore new possibilities with the minerals/gas you ACTUALLY have rather than be stagnant in your skillprogression because you're into a rather bad habbits that lets you win games on the ladder, which is full of incompetent and undeveloped players at all levels? The skill is knowing when you need to queue. Disregarding it entirely is just handicapping yourself.
No, skill is being aware of your macro enough that you're able to always keep your money low without resorting to things like queuing. Queuing shortcuts the entire process and only makes your money look low.
|
I agree that past early game, at anywhere but high Diamond or pro level play, it's probably a good idea to queue at least some of the time. Mid-game, when you've already powered to a good number of production buildings, and if your apm/macro isn't super refined, you're probably better off queueing up a couple rounds of units, at least when you're gonna attack or something. The main timing I'm thinking of is right after you take your third, assuming it's pretty normal timing and your main isn't totally mined out but is starting to get low. You don't want to power up enough buildings to spend all your income, because your income will drop off before long and you won't be able to support those new buildings for very long anyway.
The big thing is to *know* when you have a bunch of money in queued units, so you don't think you're too broke for an expansion or tech when you can actually afford it. Seeing someone delay their CC while a rax sits with 5 Marauders queued is painful.
|
No. If you can't keep your money low without queuing, make more production facilities. Maybe you only have the income to support 4 barracks, but with inconsistent production, build 5 or 6. Hopefully, as you get better you can just produce the optimal amount. This will result in more units actually on the field rather than waiting to start being poduced.
|
On December 17 2010 14:14 solistus wrote:
You don't want to power up enough buildings to spend all your income, because your income will drop off before long and you won't be able to support those new buildings for very long anyway.
that is the point, it doesn't matter if you wouldn't be able to support it for long. It is better to get that army out faster. Because if you run out of resources the amount of army you built is pretty much the same, minus the building cost. But you'll get that final army out that much faster.
|
For someone who isn't on top of their macro / tech at all times, I'd say never queue past 2 rounds of units. If your production facilities have one round building and one round queue'd, and you still have extra minerals, spend it on extra production facilities / expos.
|
I still have no one seen addressing the issue of dequeuing though. I just had a match that reminded me of this thread because I moved a probe to a location, dequeued a probe while it was traveling, gave the traveling probe the command to make a pylon, and then let it go back and requeue that probe that I dequeued afterwards.
This is basically how I work and how I solved the issue of queuing over time. I've simply trained a certain awareness for just how much I have tied up in queued resources at any point and dequeue it as I need. In fact, I'm sort of always trying to get my queues as full as I can get them with my resources because I can dequeue it anyway (which I do) and it makes the chance of idle production buildings that much smaller.
I don't see how using this technique is not optimal, I have all the money available that I need by just dequeuing and I don't have to go back to my base all the time, and seeing that I often bet a lot on spellcasters this is important to me.
|
On December 17 2010 15:32 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:
I still have no one seen addressing the issue of dequeuing though. I just had a match that reminded me of this thread because I moved a probe to a location, dequeued a probe while it was traveling, gave the traveling probe the command to make a pylon, and then let it go back and requeue that probe that I dequeued afterwards.
This is basically how I work and how I solved the issue of queuing over time. I've simply trained a certain awareness for just how much I have tied up in queued resources at any point and dequeue it as I need. In fact, I'm sort of always trying to get my queues as full as I can get them with my resources because I can dequeue it anyway (which I do) and it makes the chance of idle production buildings that much smaller.
I don't see how using this technique is not optimal, I have all the money available that I need by just dequeuing and I don't have to go back to my base all the time, and seeing that I often bet a lot on spellcasters this is important to me.
A couple points:
#1: If you really have enough presence of mind to keep track of what you have available for canceling in the queues, wouldn't that mental energy be far better spent keeping track of when you need to build the next round? Far simpler, and much more useful, and it's not like you have to go back to your base to add that next round.
#2: If you can afford to queue more than one extra round of units, you're doing it wrong anyway.
|
Honestly it really just flabbergasts me that there are people arguing that queuing can be good.
If you can actually afford to queue, then queuing is not actually going to help you keep consistent production, because the point of failure has already happened, your macro has *already* slipped, and you have too many resources. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to afford to queue units at all. Building extra production structures is pretty much always going to be better.
|
On December 17 2010 17:00 Skrag wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2010 15:32 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:
I still have no one seen addressing the issue of dequeuing though. I just had a match that reminded me of this thread because I moved a probe to a location, dequeued a probe while it was traveling, gave the traveling probe the command to make a pylon, and then let it go back and requeue that probe that I dequeued afterwards.
This is basically how I work and how I solved the issue of queuing over time. I've simply trained a certain awareness for just how much I have tied up in queued resources at any point and dequeue it as I need. In fact, I'm sort of always trying to get my queues as full as I can get them with my resources because I can dequeue it anyway (which I do) and it makes the chance of idle production buildings that much smaller.
I don't see how using this technique is not optimal, I have all the money available that I need by just dequeuing and I don't have to go back to my base all the time, and seeing that I often bet a lot on spellcasters this is important to me. A couple points: #1: If you really have enough presence of mind to keep track of what you have available for canceling in the queues, wouldn't that mental energy be far better spent keeping track of when you need to build the next round? Far simpler, and much more useful, and it's not like you have to go back to your base to add that next round. No, because you can't go back to reproduce stuff when you're in battle, well, you can, but it will hamper your micro. I don't know about you, but I usually place buildings when I'm not in battle unless I really have to. I usually build them when I told my army to move to my enemy.
#2: If you can afford to queue more than one extra round of units, you're doing it wrong anyway. That's ridiculous, in the late or mid game it's perfectly acceptable to have 300/200 minerals free at some point or one extra colossus.
Also, even if it were wrong, it's not an argument against queuing. This silly argument is often repeated, 'Well, if you let it come that far, you were doing it wrong already', well yeah, obviously, so what? people make mistakes. The very reason that I queue is because I recognise from myself that I make mistakes and queuing provides a buffer for me to make those mistakes.
It's quite acceptable to have 400 minerals and 300 gas floating in mid to late game anyway, you lose it after the next warpgate cooldown. While many people store that money simply in their bank, I store it in my queues and dequeue it when I need it because if I store it in my queue it provides a buffer in unit production when I'm tied up.
|
On December 17 2010 15:32 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:
I still have no one seen addressing the issue of dequeuing though. I just had a match that reminded me of this thread because I moved a probe to a location, dequeued a probe while it was traveling, gave the traveling probe the command to make a pylon, and then let it go back and requeue that probe that I dequeued afterwards.
This is basically how I work and how I solved the issue of queuing over time. I've simply trained a certain awareness for just how much I have tied up in queued resources at any point and dequeue it as I need. In fact, I'm sort of always trying to get my queues as full as I can get them with my resources because I can dequeue it anyway (which I do) and it makes the chance of idle production buildings that much smaller.
I don't see how using this technique is not optimal, I have all the money available that I need by just dequeuing and I don't have to go back to my base all the time, and seeing that I often bet a lot on spellcasters this is important to me.
I am not sure if you are capable of grasping the basic concept of keeping your money low if you did not grasp it by now. So you can dequeue and free your resources? People here told you that money in the queue is the same as floating money, so what does that prove? You still have floating money that could have been spent on something useful. You dequeue and spend the money on actual production, good, you just got closer to keeping your money low! But all that time when your money was tied up in queued units is already lost. You could have spent that money on something actually helping you on the field of battle, making your army bigger. Having a smaller army is not optimal.
You have the money available, but you do not spend it. This is why it is not optimal. Seriously, it feels like people are trolling here on purpose.
|
On December 17 2010 18:28 malthias wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2010 15:32 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:
I still have no one seen addressing the issue of dequeuing though. I just had a match that reminded me of this thread because I moved a probe to a location, dequeued a probe while it was traveling, gave the traveling probe the command to make a pylon, and then let it go back and requeue that probe that I dequeued afterwards.
This is basically how I work and how I solved the issue of queuing over time. I've simply trained a certain awareness for just how much I have tied up in queued resources at any point and dequeue it as I need. In fact, I'm sort of always trying to get my queues as full as I can get them with my resources because I can dequeue it anyway (which I do) and it makes the chance of idle production buildings that much smaller.
I don't see how using this technique is not optimal, I have all the money available that I need by just dequeuing and I don't have to go back to my base all the time, and seeing that I often bet a lot on spellcasters this is important to me. I am not sure if you are capable of grasping the basic concept of keeping your money low if you did not grasp it by now. So you can dequeue and free your resources? People here told you that money in the queue is the same as floating money, so what does that prove? You still have floating money that could have been spent on something useful. You dequeue and spend the money on actual production, good, you just got closer to keeping your money low! But all that time when your money was tied up in queued units is already lost. You could have spent that money on something actually helping you on the field of battle, making your army bigger. Having a smaller army is not optimal. You have the money available, but you do not spend it. This is why it is not optimal. Seriously, it feels like people are trolling here on purpose. Sigh, for the thousandth time, it's not about keeping my money low.
It's about building a buffer for myself to keep unit production going when I'm tied up.
And on what should I spend that 400 anyway? A couple of extra gateways I can't fund? I'd rather use it as a buffer to ensure that I am producing non stop.
|
On December 17 2010 18:35 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:
Sigh, for the thousandth time, it's not about keeping my money low.
It's about building a buffer for myself to keep unit production going when I'm tied up.
And on what should I spend that 400 anyway? A couple of extra gateways I can't fund? I'd rather use it as a buffer to ensure that I am producing non stop.
400 is one barracks and 5 marines. This is 5 additional marines on the field, instead of 8 marines in the queue. Yes, you are buying yourself an error buffer if you queue, but for the thousandth time (using your words), additional production buildings give you that buffer as well in addition to the ability to catch up (or minimise losses in other words) and all the other benefits already mentioned before.
Yes, you are 150 behind because you are unable to use the additional barracks once you build your 5 marines (unless you expand, which means you can still get even more return on that investment in the future), but if you queue you are 400 behind in terms of your army value. Is that now clear?
|
On December 17 2010 18:57 malthias wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2010 18:35 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:
Sigh, for the thousandth time, it's not about keeping my money low.
It's about building a buffer for myself to keep unit production going when I'm tied up.
And on what should I spend that 400 anyway? A couple of extra gateways I can't fund? I'd rather use it as a buffer to ensure that I am producing non stop.
400 is one barracks and 5 marines. This is 5 additional marines on the field, instead of 8 marines in the queue. Yes, you are buying yourself an error buffer if you queue, but for the thousandth time (using your words), additional production buildings give you that buffer as well in addition to the ability to catch up (or minimise losses in other words) and all the other benefits already mentioned before. But that's the point, it doesn't give me that buffer. I know that in the future I will lag once again on keeping with my production, and then again. Those 400 minerals give me 5 extra marines one time. Always having 400 minerals stuck in my queue gives me infallible production capabilities for the rest of the match.
It's a one-time deposit that you make (and that you can reclaim if you really need to) to always have continual production, and I know that I will not have it without it. And I doubt many here have it without it if even people like Idra don't have it 100%.
Yes, you are 150 behind because you are unable to use the additional barracks once you build your 5 marines (unless you expand, which means you can still get even more return on that investment in the future), but if you queue you are 400 behind in terms of your army value. Is that now clear? Yes, that's clear, but I happily pay that investment to have guaranteed continuous marine production for the rest of the match.
Also, 400 isn't that much at the state of the game that you're doing this. Random target acquisition in A-move will cost you five marines or more.
But yeah, when I'm saving for a FE, I'm saving that money in my queue, I know how much I've queued up so it's simple maths to know when I have it. I'm saving it in my queue for the simple reason that say that he suddenly attacks and I'm completely tied up in microing around in my base. I can devote all my attention to my micro because I know that unit production will go on as usual.
|
pros do that under pressure as well :p no worries.
Just don't make a habit of queing
|
On December 17 2010 19:35 evanthebouncy! wrote:
pros do that under pressure as well :p no worries.
Just don't make a habit of queing Maybe, but I'm not a pro and I know it's quite likely that I'll forget production in such a tense situation, just when I need it the most.
I mean, the chance is like 30-40% I guess that I would lapse production in such a situation, but even if it didn't happen, I am still putting valuable time and effort into that when I am micro-ing workers and stuff back and forth.
|
If you're actively trying to get better, and want to see improvement: Don't queue. If you want to just play the game for fun and enjoyment, and don't want the speediest root to being a better player: Queue.
That's pretty much the summation of the arguments presented. You're all welcome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
