EPT"Queuing is Bad" vs. "Keep your Money Low" - Page 4
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
|
Scaryman
United States70 Posts
| ||
|
Invictus
Singapore2697 Posts
Queueing imo just gives you a FALSE sense of keeping your money low. After queuing to the maxed amount of units, you would realise that your money will shoot up regardless, and all the minerals/gas would start to pile up again. Just try to cultivate a good habit and don't queue if possible. Even day9 has stressed repeatedly on this when he was still commenting on the playing aspects of broodwar. Its not even a broodwar-starcraft 2 thing, it probably applies through out all RTS games out there. Queuing is generally frowned upon and it has been justified to do so. | ||
|
adwodon
United Kingdom592 Posts
Queing up a tonne of things is bad though and should be avoided. I often end up doing it a bit late game where I get distracted from my macro when im microing and have a crazy high income but thats why im not a pro player. Its definately a good habit to avoid queing, especially as a lower tier player, I think its one of the first steps towards improving macro. | ||
|
Lavitage
United States71 Posts
If you know one of those times is coming up - like if you're about to enter a big battle, or begin some micro intensive banshee harass - then queue. Why the hell not? The money you spend on queueing will eventually become units, whereas if you don't queue you'll just let it stockpile and do nothing. Whether you queue or not you'll keep accumulating money and end up with enough to make some new structures once you're done fighting, but if you queue you'll also have some extra dudes. | ||
|
EtherealDeath
United States8366 Posts
On December 15 2010 17:08 Holgerius wrote: Learn things properly from the begining IMO. Bad habits can be hard to get rid off. Everything you said about the lower leagues is true, and queueing would help you win games whereas trying to not queue will lose you many games. But, it's a damn bad habit and you should learn to improve so it helps you rather than bites you. | ||
|
andrewwiggin
Australia435 Posts
Everyone who thinks its about the minerals etc - you're missing the point. Imagine manually working through all the macro perfectly at all of its cycles. That means building at exactly the right time, building units and upgrades at exactly the right time. It's near impossible. Except, queuing lets you do EXACTLY that. When you queue, you're paying for the computer to use its perfect APM to make stuff for you exactly when other stuff is finished being made. That's the added value of queuing that everyone's so quick to be blind to. When you're 20 mins into a macro match, you'll understand what I mean. P.S - EVEN the pros queue. | ||
|
Sockpuppet
119 Posts
On December 15 2010 17:05 beef42 wrote: the thing is though, all the marines you got queued could be made into more barracks instead. Yep i know when i go late game against zerg i have such an abundance of minerals that i generally throw down 8-10 barracks so that i can replace my marine force which is constantly bein destroyd. | ||
|
bashalisk
102 Posts
| ||
|
HwangjaeTerran
Finland5967 Posts
How do you make a solid build when all your money is hidden? If you lose a trillion games due to shitty macro it's worth it so you can maybe sometime learn to time your production cycles and play the game like it's meant to. Only, and I mean the only instance I ever queue shit is when I have a million minerals & am making a transition to BCs so I rally a new cc to a geyser and tap S thrice. Taken that I cannot maynard any workers there any faster than that. Or maybe when I have a maxed army it's useful to queue every useful upgrade. | ||
|
Darthturtle
United States718 Posts
I'd recommend for a newer player to queue up no higher than the next single slot up. But for bronze and silver players who aren't completely on the ball just yet, they'll find that what they thought was just a second or two gap between each SCV or marine built will start turning into a 5-10 worker advantage or a 20 food army advantage, compared to their same play, but with no queueing. Queueing all the way to five will teach bad habits, of course, but so will not queuing. Everyone knows one base logic. You can pump out of four warps, three rax and upgrades, you can get this or that as zerg. Now say you're macroing out of three bases, you have a ton of money and no idea what you can afford because you've teched past the first ten minutes of the game. Your money is high, which brings about the illusion that you can actually afford more production buildings than you should technically be able to. Now later on, you get to plat or diamond and find that more and more often, you won't be able to produce out of as many structures that you used to be able to handle, simply because your mechanics are getting better. So what's the solution? Build less structures. Similarly, if you decided to queue, then as your mechanics get better, you'll simply queue less. TL;DR - As long as you're constantly improving, then both queueing and throwing down excess production structures are lower-league quick-fix solutions to help you pump more units out. I don't mind either, but the eventual goal is to get better and better at macro. | ||
|
imbecile
563 Posts
On December 15 2010 20:20 Kyuki wrote: How is this different from SC2? It's EXACTLY the same. If you are queing, you have missed productioncycles to begin with (since you can afford it), you have missed supply depots, you have missed making raxes etc. It's different because the actual process of macroing is different. You go through each building separately in SC1 and spread manually. In SC2 the spreading is done for you automatically. You can't start queuing until something is building everywhere already. In SC1 it happens all too easy. If you check your barracks late game and see and empty queue, you have lost more than when you see a full queue: production time that you cannot get back. If I see a queue longer than 4 (or 5 with reactor) , I know I need more barracks, and I can afford more barracks. Worst case is, I have to press cancel 3 times to get the money, but I never have lost any production time. Because building a barracks s not only an investment in resources, but also in time. And queue length is a good indicator for when it becomes worth it. If you already have 6 rax (or 3 with reactor), in the time you build one more, those six racks use 900 minerals to produce marines. | ||
|
HwangjaeTerran
Finland5967 Posts
On December 15 2010 21:16 andrewwiggin wrote: LOL. Everyone who thinks its about the minerals etc - you're missing the point. Imagine manually working through all the macro perfectly at all of its cycles. That means building at exactly the right time, building units and upgrades at exactly the right time. It's near impossible. Except, queuing lets you do EXACTLY that. When you queue, you're paying for the computer to use its perfect APM to make stuff for you exactly when other stuff is finished being made. P.S - EVEN the pros queue. You are as wrong as you can get, I've seen pros queueing shit & that is the most disgusting thing I've ever seen. Please note that it's okay to throw stuff in the queue like 5 seconds before things popout so you can actually profit from the "computer APM". Why is it okay to queue 5 seconds before and not 30 seconds before? You can probably start producing from all your facilities & know how much money is left over to build new stuff/research and actually hit timings. If you use the money to research, build at that point you can't keep producing from everywhere(=often times bad !) so the money is going in your units anyway whereas instead of queuing 30 seconds before you can tech/build then(30seconds before) and have money for a production cycle ready as your units popout. That's the added value of queuing that everyone's so quick to be blind to. When you're 20 mins into a macro match, you'll understand what I mean. I don't think that getting stuff out at perfect time is important to anyone but zerg, and zerg can't queue. If you are 20 mins into a macro game and have money, I think it's better to use the money to expand or build more production. Getting 15 marines out per cycle a minute from now is better than getting 12 out at the perfect time. | ||
|
kingdoop
United States24 Posts
It's so easy to produce out of 6 barracks by queuing. What's an extra 300 minerals or so when I am on 3 bases. Even if I build the extra 2 barracks, what's the point if im not using them all the time? Personally it seems smarter to keep your army high, than worry about queueing. Once your apm increases you won't need to queue as much because you are managing the game better. | ||
|
Panoptic
United Kingdom515 Posts
@andrewwiggin: You're just plain wrong...there's plenty of pro's, and plenty of people on this forum who are completely capable of keeping up on macro throughout an entire game without queueing to a detremental degree....and if they didn't rely on their good macro & their ability to build units on time instead of queueing they would be far worse players. Plain and simple. | ||
|
Numy
South Africa35471 Posts
On December 15 2010 21:50 Panoptic wrote: I disagree. It's much better to lose your first 300 games and develop a really good habit, than winning a bunch, but never progressing too far because you got too reliant on queueing. As a rule, I would try to never build more than 2 marines at a time in the same rax. Queueing shit like thors and collossi...big nono. That's the big issue. People focus too much on winning now and too little on improving. Queuing is bad. It's that simple. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
I'd seen Bisu vs Canata before Day9, but during one of his dailies he pointed the viewers to this VOD. In it, Bisu just macros and destroys Canata. Back then, with a poorer macro mechanic game-side, you had to save a screen location because you couldn't control group multiple buildings. Bisu still managed to produce like a madman though. IMO this shows the power of proper macro. Notice how fast Bisu expands. Notice how he never has units queued. Notice how he actually neglects to micro in favor of producing more units. Notice how he owns. | ||
|
Forsaken
United States43 Posts
| ||
|
Kyuki
Sweden1867 Posts
On December 15 2010 21:37 imbecile wrote: It's different because the actual process of macroing is different. You go through each building separately in SC1 and spread manually. In SC2 the spreading is done for you automatically. You can't start queuing until something is building everywhere already. In SC1 it happens all too easy. If you check your barracks late game and see and empty queue, you have lost more than when you see a full queue: production time that you cannot get back. If I see a queue longer than 4 (or 5 with reactor) , I know I need more barracks, and I can afford more barracks. Worst case is, I have to press cancel 3 times to get the money, but I never have lost any production time. Because building a barracks s not only an investment in resources, but also in time. And queue length is a good indicator for when it becomes worth it. If you already have 6 rax (or 3 with reactor), in the time you build one more, those six racks use 900 minerals to produce marines. No no, you dont understand. What you're saying is this: "If you're bad at SC1 queing up can screw you over more than in SC2, due to how you will always build out of each building" Which is true ofc, but that doesnt change the fact that when you sit on too much money and que shit on your barracks, be it SC1 or SC2, you are either A) Not spending your money when you should've throughout the game or B) have too few production facilities. Meaning, if you fuck up and QUE before you have started to produce out of all your buildings in SC1, but still have had good macro up to the point that you atleast can spend the money on units and facilities, you get punished. Yes SC1 is harder. Under the same circumstances in SC2, you would not have a idle barracks = No queing because you cant (Unless you've qued up too many SCVs..). But you would still be out of money and you would not have qued. Conclusion is rather: If you have enough money to que weather it is in SC1 or SC2, and do it, you've been doing something wrong. Everyone here who says that they que up when it's alot of stuff going on during battles should look at why they CAN que at all to begin with... Spending 900 minerals and having 900 to put into qued units is bad because you had bad macro to begin with. Those minerals should've been spent already. MONEY SPENT ON QUEING SHOULD'VE BEEN MONEY ALREADY INVESTED INTO ARMY/TECH/EXP -> QUEING IS BAD. | ||
|
Forsaken
United States43 Posts
It just teaches bad habits in general, and TBH if you have money to dump really making random expos, getting upgrades etc is a better use even if they don't work out then just queueing up 30 units in 3 rax. You've already massed the money and got behind, might as well try to make it into a positive. | ||
|
kingdoop
United States24 Posts
| ||
| ||
