EPTQueueing bad: When you have 800 minerals sitting in the bank and just double up all your production buildings. Get a tech building. Get an expo. Get an upgrade. Queueing teaches bad habits and makes you forget to do stuff like that.
"Queuing is Bad" vs. "Keep your Money Low" - Page 5
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
|
Forsaken
United States43 Posts
Queueing bad: When you have 800 minerals sitting in the bank and just double up all your production buildings. Get a tech building. Get an expo. Get an upgrade. Queueing teaches bad habits and makes you forget to do stuff like that. | ||
|
sleepingdog
Austria6145 Posts
On December 15 2010 21:03 Scaryman wrote: bad habits are hard to break. Cutting corners now just means more work later. This. If you start playing tennis without proper technique, you'll have a hard time learning it "for real". If you get used to queueing stuff, then you might even "damage" your muscle-memory, because you will at some point start pressing the hotkeys automaticly. At this point you are in trouble, because you hate to actively pay attention to NOT queue, to "unlearn" the bad stuff. It's the same with ppl playing with bad hotkey settings (99% is "what makes you feel good" but 1% is just plain stupid). Also your whole gamesense would be off, you would never get rich, but still get overwhelmed by better opponents. How the hell are you supposed to improve your play from those games, you would never know if you lost due to tactical mistakes or due to bad macro. For newbs yes, it might give them more wins if they queue up at first. But that's the same with 4-gating, what gives you easy wins doesn't necessarily help you improve your game. | ||
|
Forsaken
United States43 Posts
You've already saved the money and gotten behind but you don't get the benifits that sacrafice should be giving you. Might as well make a spare CC or get an upgrade if you've massed the money since it's wasted either way in a practical sense. | ||
|
imbecile
563 Posts
On December 15 2010 22:03 Kyuki wrote: MONEY SPENT ON QUEING SHOULD'VE BEEN MONEY ALREADY INVESTED INTO ARMY/TECH/EXP -> QUEING IS BAD. Except when you couldn't have spent it, because shit was happening, which happens all the time in a match. Yes, economy is important, arguably even the most important thing in the game. But it's not the only important thing in the game. The argument is kinda a red herring. Because when you play a game, you already know how many producing structures you need per base, you don't go into the game without a plan. And until you have what you want in buildings, you won't start queuing anyway, because hey, a building is missing. Actually it's the opposite: if you have all the buildings you want, and the money is still high, it means you have missed production cycles. If you then start building more producing structures, that might still help you to win in the short run, but this is a bad workaround to to cover up for bad macro and not knowing what you are doing. Only if you approach 200 food and the money starts piling you should build more unit producing structure than you can support on your bases. Before that, every unit producing structure you have more, eats into your army. Constantly tapping and checking is the nervous habit that becomes necessary, if you don't know what you are doing, or are still trying to figure out what to do. Just like people that don't know how to tie their shoelaces always have to check on their shoes. | ||
|
Kyuki
Sweden1867 Posts
You're saying that it's a good idea to que up BEFORE the battle because during the battle when you need to focus on micro and position, you wont miss a macro beat because the computer is doing it for you, and that is impossible unless you have excess minerals already and that is a indicator that your macro has slipped (or was just bad due to queing(?)...) even before the point you start to que up. There is a ton of shit that can happen in a game of SC2 that makes your money go high, usually it's something like harass, unless you're just bad, and making more production facilities to catch up in supply or getting more upgrades or more tech, right now, can be the difference between a won and a lost game if the money is already banked. If you just que up in belief that your money will drop eventually because "I have X SCVs and Y Production facilities on Z Bases and that is the only thing I can support!", you will loose to timing pushes. Weather you put excessive minerals/gas into more production or tech/upgrades/Expansions, it will always be better than queing. The game is not streamlined either. You dont suddenly have full saturation on a new base when you make it, and you dont have all the facilities that you can support when it's up etc, and how you actually get to a point in the game can vary alot. If you just strictly keep to what you mathematically think is correct and neglect the ordering things need to be done in and consider whatever happens to you DURING the game you will just always be a none adaptive player that will be put behind very easily by your opponent. The only bad coverup/workaround for bad macro is queing. If you had bad macro during a game you had bad macro during that game. Nothing will change that fact. You can only look at the problem and fix it in a new game. What you do in the game that you are in, is to adapt and SPEND THE BLOODY MONEY. If you loose with 3k in the bank, you know that those money never got spent and could've been made into whatever, regardless if you think that it would've panned out 5 minutes later. | ||
|
farseerdk
Canada504 Posts
But beyond that, queuing is bad. I play protoss and generally do not use robotics units in any MU (except observers), so I CAN'T queue... warpgates just don't work that way. And heck, it's made me a lot better by forcing me not to queue. | ||
|
imbecile
563 Posts
On December 15 2010 23:51 Kyuki wrote: Oh god... You keep insisting on your logic, when it falls flat on the fact that You cannot have excessive minerals to put into Queing if you macro perfectly. That's the same as insisting that you can't lose units, if you micro perfectly. On December 15 2010 23:51 Kyuki wrote: You're saying that it's a good idea to que up BEFORE the battle because during the battle when you need to focus on micro and position, you wont miss a macro beat because the computer is doing it for you, and that is impossible unless you have excess minerals already and that is a indicator that your macro has slipped (or was just bad due to queing(?)...) even before the point you start to que up. Because unit structures or supply depots never get destroyed, or you never needed to buy gas heavy stuff in reaction to something your opponent did. You never can spend both resource types equally well unless you are also willing to have idle structures, or constantly shift workers between gas and minerals with perfect foresight. On December 15 2010 23:51 Kyuki wrote: Weather you put excessive minerals/gas into more production or tech/upgrades/Expansions, it will always be better than queing. That's money that you never can get back if something, say, unpredictable happens, and then you have idle useless buildings that don't do anything. Queues can always be canceled. A queued unit is only idle until the preceding unit is built. An excess building is idle most the time for the rest of thegame. Building excess production structures is the same as expecting and counting on to continue to macro badly. | ||
|
malthias
25 Posts
Queueing in late game is as bad as it is in early and mid game, you are just hiding your money. Arguing that it is harder to macro properly with more going on is only ok if you feel that you do not need to improve any more and the sloppy late game you are playing is fine. In any other case, optimised spending is better than hiding your money by queueing units. Yes, real game is always different than theory. Yes, the pros get behind on macro as well. This does not make queueing good. It is always better to invest the piled up money in new tech, more unit producing facilities or more bases than it is to hide it by queueing. In the first scenario you are trying to catch up and win the game by not doing more macro mistakes. In the second scenario you are taking a defeated stance and just accepting that your macro is bad. In other words, you are not trying to improve it. | ||
|
farseerdk
Canada504 Posts
| ||
|
imbecile
563 Posts
On December 16 2010 00:14 malthias wrote: In the first scenario you are trying to catch up and win the game by not doing more macro mistakes. In the second scenario you are taking a defeated stance and just accepting that your macro is bad. See above. An excess production facility means you are counting on having more bad macro for the rest of the game, because either it's idle, which is bad, or you can feed it, which means you have let your money run high. | ||
|
malthias
25 Posts
Queueing units in contrast is just going to hide your money and if your macro slips again you are just going to hide even more money by making the queue bigger (yes - you can still slip even if you queue, supply block being a simple example). Again, it is always better to build more bases, unit producing structures or tech than it is to queue. This is a fact that SC1 has proven over the 12 years of its existence and SC2 is proving all the time. | ||
|
imbecile
563 Posts
On December 16 2010 00:22 farseerdk wrote: If you want to be able to be more reactionary, you should be building additional hatcheries (saving larva) or additional warpgates. Then you can let your money run a bit high and instantly spend it when you decide what units you need. This is better than queuing colossus or whatever. That's comparing apples and oranges. Because warpgates and larva are not queued sequences, but parallel. You need to let your money run high a little, and also have a few excess facilites to use it to best effect in reaction to what is happening, or to get all the units at once once a tech structure finishes. You can decide whether you need a sentry or a zealot or a templar in the next 5 seconds at a specific location at the map. You can save up money and gas, make drones for as long as your minerals exceed your gas and then build 10 mutas at once. With marines all you know is, you wanna have a lot of marines in the next few minutes. | ||
|
Silmakuoppaanikinko
799 Posts
On December 15 2010 23:51 Kyuki wrote: Do you macro perfectly?Oh god... You keep insisting on your logic, when it falls flat on the fact that You cannot have excessive minerals to put into Queing if you macro perfectly. Who macros perfectly? Hell, even IdrA's queen has 25-40 energy at the end of a match, no one macros perfectly. I bet Idra would dream he could queue inject larva up. On December 16 2010 00:35 malthias wrote: No, it's not to dump minerals away, it's to take no chances and eliminate the possibility that they might be idling.Queueing units in contrast is just going to hide your money and if your macro slips again you are just going to hide even more money by making the queue bigger (yes - you can still slip even if you queue, supply block being a simple example). When your money is high enough to allow for you to queue, you've either not built enough facilities, or you've had them idling at some point, the latter is far more likely and it happens if you don't queue, and you want to stop them from happening. Also, the combo 'queueing up but establishing mental awareness for yourself to cancel right away if you need to' is far more powerful than 'establishing a mental clock to keep going back every right unit of time', you sometimes end up in a nasty micro situation and simply can't do the latter. For myself, I queue and often end up doing things like sending a probe out on 10 minerals, while it travels dequeue a zealot, build a gateway when it gets there and have 170 minerals, and a moment later requeue the zealot. This is because I've trained an awareness of knowing how much I've queued up in 'virtual money', it's a deposit I can always claim back, and it stops me from having idle production structures. | ||
|
Azzur
Australia6259 Posts
I also think that in the endgame, when the armies approach 200/200, it is also nice to have some reserve money in case of emergencies. Thus, queuing may be appropriate there. However, in the early game, I would say that queuing would not be ideal, and it'll be better for people to get good habits learnt as early as possible even if it initially leads to worser results. In summation: My opinion is that the "badness" of queuing diminishes as the game progresses and in some cases, it may be the better solution instead of building more structures. Also, since no one can macro perfectly, it will be better to queue as well. | ||
|
malthias
25 Posts
On December 16 2010 00:36 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote: No, it's not to dump minerals away, it's to take no chances and eliminate the possibility that they might be idling. Exactly as I said before - you are investing money to cover your anticipated bad macro rather than trying to improve your macro and investing your money in something that can actually give you an advantage in the game. | ||
|
farseerdk
Canada504 Posts
On December 16 2010 00:49 Azzur wrote: In my opinion, not queuing at all may not be the optimal way of playing. This is because no one macros absolutely perfectly and having those units constantly building whilst in the middle of a big battle may be beneficial. I also think that in the endgame, when the armies approach 200/200, it is also nice to have some reserve money in case of emergencies. Thus, queuing may be appropriate there. However, in the early game, I would say that queuing would not be ideal, and it'll be better for people to get good habits learnt as early as possible even if it initially leads to worser results. In summation: My opinion is that the "badness" of queuing diminishes as the game progresses and in some cases, it may be the better solution instead of building more structures. Also, since no one can macro perfectly, it will be better to queue as well. Do you know why terran late game is weaker than protoss or zerg? Because their replacement rate is crappy. Protoss can just spam warpgates while banking on a 200/200 army. The armies fight, and Terran needs to cue. Protoss? w,z,z,z,z,z,z,t,t,t,t,t,s,s,s,s,s Zerg? <hatchery hotkey>, s,h,h,h,h,h,h,r,r,r,r,r,r,r,r,r,r,r,r,r,z,z,z,z If your money is running high in a 200/200 situation (as it should), you should be increasing the number of production facilities you have, even beyond the point where you could support them purely on income. This is even more important for terran because their untis have longer build times (ok except marines lol) | ||
|
telfire
United States415 Posts
On December 16 2010 00:55 farseerdk wrote: Do you know why terran late game is weaker than protoss or zerg? Because their replacement rate is crappy. Protoss can just spam warpgates while banking on a 200/200 army. The armies fight, and Terran needs to cue. Protoss? w,z,z,z,z,z,z,t,t,t,t,t,s,s,s,s,s Zerg? <hatchery hotkey>, s,h,h,h,h,h,h,r,r,r,r,r,r,r,r,r,r,r,r,r,z,z,z,z If your money is running high in a 200/200 situation (as it should), you should be increasing the number of production facilities you have, even beyond the point where you could support them purely on income. This is even more important for terran because their untis have longer build times (ok except marines lol) Terran have just as many unit producing structure as Protoss most of the time. Protoss units have just as long a cooldown as yours do production time, it is just different, not superior. Same with Zerg -- getting the larva takes time, and making the unit still takes time, only difference is we can stockpile larva. If they were able to save that many larva you could have made that many units by then. A hatch and a Queen is quite significantly less production than a CC and 3 barracks. Not to mention the obvious fact that a 200/200 T army smashes the shit out of Z's. Stop making excuses for the poor macro of most Terrans right now. They can reinforce almost as well (and if they could reinforce exactly as well they'd be even more OP than they are, that is Zerg's ONLY strength in the entire game) | ||
|
Lavitage
United States71 Posts
On December 16 2010 00:53 malthias wrote: Exactly as I said before - you are investing money to cover your anticipated bad macro rather than trying to improve your macro and investing your money in something that can actually give you an advantage in the game. What you're not getting is that there are times when stopping to macro at all - even for a couple seconds of hotkey mashing - will COST YOU THE GAME. An important improvement to your game is to develop a sense of when those situations are coming, then suck it up and queue. Call it "bad macro" all you want, but it's something you have to live with when tasks that are more important than macro come up and require your complete attention. | ||
|
imbecile
563 Posts
On December 16 2010 00:35 malthias wrote: No. Having more production facilities means you can either play a more reactionary game, making your arsenal of available tactics bigger, and it means that you can use them once you get more income or once you pile some money after getting to 200/200 and then exchange your armies. If your macro slips again, yes, you can use them to catch up as well, but it is not the reason for building them. Queueing units in contrast is just going to hide your money and if your macro slips again you are just going to hide even more money by making the queue bigger (yes - you can still slip even if you queue, supply block being a simple example). Again, it is always better to build more bases, unit producing structures or tech than it is to queue. This is a fact that SC1 has proven over the 12 years of its existence and SC2 is proving all the time. Once you are maxed, yes, you need excess production capacity to remax quickly. But even there there is a point where it becomes too much, and it starts eating into your army. Because being able to rebuild 50 marines in one cycle is not much good if you can't afford a second cycle ... Before max it is just more pronounced, because every rax you build beyond supported by your income, is army you can't build if your income drops or can't rise for whatever reason, like containment, being mined out, not being able to expand, being harassed ... Yes, more bases and more income are always better. But those don't come neither free no easy. You have to fight for them and earn them, and then you need to wait a little and invest until the returns kick in. It's the same with production facilities and tech, just on a smaller scale. | ||
|
Silmakuoppaanikinko
799 Posts
On December 16 2010 00:53 malthias wrote: Well, newsflash, no one has perfect macro and anticipating imperfect (what you call bad) macro and spending money on that is simply realism.Exactly as I said before - you are investing money to cover your anticipated bad macro rather than trying to improve your macro and investing your money in something that can actually give you an advantage in the game. If you're not willing to temporarily spend some money as an investment because you don't expect your macro to slip at some point or you expect to one day become so godlike that you won't ever have idling production structures again, that's called overconfidence. The amount of excess money you have is directly caused by idling production buildings, and thus the amount of units you can queue at any time, the problem solves itself basically. Not anticipating that your macro is 'bad' and unwilling to invest some money (that you can reclaim at any time anyway) to cover that up is just a bad game decision, expect to make faults, because you will make faults. Inject larva can't be queued, and even people like Idra with the best mechanics on the planet end up having accumulated enough energy on them at the end of a game to do a double injection cycle in the end. | ||
| ||
