|
On December 16 2010 01:00 telfire wrote:
Queing isn't spending your money. It doesn't help you AT ALL. You might as well have just kept the money in the bank, you are absolutely wrong in saying it's better to queue than have high money. The two are one in the exact same.
Something I briefly mentioned above ... All this only applies if you macro perfectly all the time. Which is impossible. Just as impossible as microing perfectly all the time and never losing units. But for some strange reason losing units, even dozens of marines at once, is less frowned upon than queuing a few ...
It's all tradeoffs ...
|
On December 16 2010 01:06 imbecile wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2010 01:00 telfire wrote:
Queing isn't spending your money. It doesn't help you AT ALL. You might as well have just kept the money in the bank, you are absolutely wrong in saying it's better to queue than have high money. The two are one in the exact same. Something I briefly mentioned above ... All this only applies if you macro perfectly all the time. Which is impossible. Just as impossible as microing perfectly all the time and never losing units. But for some strange reason losing units, even dozens of marines at once, is less frowned upon than queuing a few ... It's all tradeoffs ...
Switch to protoss for a bit.
Use only warpgate units.
You WILL NOT be able to queue.
Fight your way back up to your current ranking.
Then switch back to terran.
Gasp at your improvement.
edit: could also do this with zerg, but zerg is harder to switch to as it's the race with the most different mechanics.
|
On December 16 2010 01:05 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:
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.
Dude no. It's not good at all. It never helps you at all. It is strictly a waste of money to queue. There is no argument to the contrary. Your argument is completely and utterly nonsensical. THERE IS ZERO BENEFIT TO IT. It hurts you very bad.
If you can't constantly produce units, and you really want a short-term solution that will teach you very very bad habits, then a better option is to make more unit producing structures so you can spend your money faster. Queuing is completely pointless, stupid, and dumb. No one here and pointed out a SINGLE benefit it can have over any other purpose you could use that money for. That's because there are none.
Queuing is bad, period. It is EXACTLY THE SAME as not spending your money in every single way.
And no one has "perfect" macro but if you are gaining more than like a few hundred extra minerals then your macro IS BAD, not "imperfect". Doesn't make you a bad person, we all start somewhere, but stop making excuses for poor play.
|
On December 16 2010 01:00 imbecile wrote:
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.
And what does that prove? It definitely does not prove that queueing is better than either of these responses to your previous bad macro (we assume that if you have spare money to queue, your macro must have slipped already). You basically agreed that the responses everyone here is trying to suggest to you may get you some good return on investment, but they have their risks.
Queueing is never going to give you a return on your investment, it is only going to hide your money. The only situation when it may give you some benefit is if you slip again, which you should not plan for if you try to improve. If you just want to win then even then additional production facilities are going to cover it as well in addition to all the other benefits they give.
|
This thread is proof that people don't read. Thanks for all your insightful posts about how queuing is just hiding your money, wow we sure didn't know that.
This thread is about how it's better to queue than it is to float at lower levels of play. Seriously, did you guys read the OP at all?
|
And how is it different? If you que, you're bad and you wont improve. If you play this game you'd want to atleast improve somewhat, and if you dont then whatever, why make a topic?
|
On December 16 2010 01:15 dcberkeley wrote:
This thread is proof that people don't read. Thanks for all your insightful posts about how queuing is just hiding your money, wow we sure didn't know that.
This thread is about how it's better to queue than it is to float at lower levels of play. Seriously, did you guys read the OP at all?
It isn't better. It's the exact same. People are talking about other things to do with excess minerals caused by poor play, because both floating and queuing are purely, irredeemably bad.
|
On December 16 2010 01:07 farseerdk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2010 01:06 imbecile wrote:On December 16 2010 01:00 telfire wrote:
Queing isn't spending your money. It doesn't help you AT ALL. You might as well have just kept the money in the bank, you are absolutely wrong in saying it's better to queue than have high money. The two are one in the exact same. Something I briefly mentioned above ... All this only applies if you macro perfectly all the time. Which is impossible. Just as impossible as microing perfectly all the time and never losing units. But for some strange reason losing units, even dozens of marines at once, is less frowned upon than queuing a few ... It's all tradeoffs ... Switch to protoss for a bit. Use only warpgate units. You WILL NOT be able to queue. Fight your way back up to your current ranking. Then switch back to terran. Gasp at your improvement. edit: could also do this with zerg, but zerg is harder to switch to as it's the race with the most different mechanics. Yeah, if you've fought yourself back with only gateway units... let's take on them roach-hydra and MMMG balls with only gateway units. I'm sure you're a lot better if you're able to do this yeah.
Also, there's a 10 second less cooldown on warp gates, now, do you think blizzard did this to make warp gates that much better to gateways besides already being able to re-enforce all over the map. Or is this because blizzard expects players to have an average 10 second idle time on them when they can't queue or use hotkeys to spam units?
On December 16 2010 01:09 telfire wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2010 01:05 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:
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.
Dude no. It's not good at all. It never helps you at all. It is strictly a waste of money to queue. There is no argument to the contrary. Your argument is completely and utterly nonsensical. THERE IS ZERO BENEFIT TO IT. It hurts you very bad. You never have idling production facilities? Gee, zero benefit.
If you can't constantly produce units Then you're human.
and you really want a short-term solution that will teach you very very bad habits, then a better option is to make more unit producing structures so you can spend your money faster. And why is that a better solution?
Queuing is completely pointless, stupid, and dumb. No one here and pointed out a SINGLE benefit it can have over any other purpose you could use that money for. That's because there are none. Everyone pointed out that you have no idling production facilities anymore.
Queuing is bad, period. It is EXACTLY THE SAME as not spending your money in every single way. Again, it's not about dumping money, it's about making a one time investment at some point to ensure that you will not have idling production facilities for the rest of the match.
Just remember that if you queue up 8 marines, that's 400 minerals, you don't lose 400 minerals each time, you only lose it once because you keep running ahead. You invest 400 minerals (which you can guaranteed always get back if you so need, you just have to invest it again then) to never ever have idling production facilities. It's a bargain. You make a 400 mineral deposit to be guaranteed to never have idle production facilities. And you can get those 400 minerals back if you cancel, but you have to re-deposit it to get that guarantee.
And no one has "perfect" macro but if you are gaining more than like a few hundred extra minerals then your macro IS BAD, not "imperfect". Doesn't make you a bad person, we all start somewhere, but stop making excuses for poor play. How am I making 'excuses'? I'm saying that we all have this problem and that we can't deny or avoid it. You're acting as if it doesn't exist and you can supposedly train yourself to have perfect macro.
Basically, there are two ways to get your production facilities always running:
1: Jumping back at the right time each time, having a perfect internal clock.
2: Queuing up some stuff.
The first thing is maybe the most ideal thing if you can reach it, but you will never be able to reach it. And you have idle time when you slip on this one only slightly in mechanics.
It's like making only one phoenix against 80 mutalisks and saying 'Making more phoenix is just an excuse for bad micro and a bad habit', yeah, you only need one phoenix to take on 80 mutalisks with perfect play and assuming you're not going to make mistakes, the rest is wasted resources that can be used on something else. But you just can't expect yourself to have such perfect micro.
|
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.
|
There is no correct way to play bad, never ever queue damn it
|
I actually don't think queuing up a second unit is really that bad at all from the midgame -> lategame. There's a problem in people who are bad at macro making TOO MANY production facilities too, which I see way too often in other players like making 6rax off of one base or something. You end up spending money on these facilities that can only be used for like 2-3 cycles due to your money build up but afterwards you'll never be able to use them until your macro slips again. Obviously you should never queue up units in the early game but once it hits past the midgame phase then queuing up to the second cycle isn't that big of a deal and it's actually not a bad idea to do so.
|
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?
|
On December 16 2010 01:13 malthias wrote:
... (we assume that if you have spare money to queue, your macro must have slipped already) ...
That's a correct assumption, and I don't argue with that. The point is, it's inevitable at every level of the game. Happens less at the higher levels, but still happens. And just building more unit producing structures is not always the right response, because until that kicks in takes the time and resources to build that production facility + the resources and time to build 2-3 cycles. If that facility later stays idle for that long, it was a bad investment, period. And if you are losing units faster than you can produce them, then the problem might not only lay with your lack of production facilities, but also with where you chose to pay your attention.
|
No it wasnt, it was probably a investment that kept you alive and helped you learn to adapt. Something to bring on to the next game where you try not to slip your macro up again.
|
And why is that a better solution?
Because making extra unit-producing structures has at least some tangible benefit. You get to make more units and actually spend your money. With queuing there is zero benefit whatsoever.
Everyone pointed out that you have no idling production facilities anymore.
What? I never said I was perfect, nor did anyone. Accusing us of being imperfect or even bad, regardless of whether it's true or not, does not help your argument.
Again, it's not about dumping money, it's about making a one time investment at some point to ensure that you will not have idling production facilities for the rest of the match.
If you have idling structures for that long you're a bad player, period. There's no way out of it, there's nothing that fixes it. It's bad bad bad. No ifs ands or buts. You simply are a bad player and you should work on the things that make you a bad player, not trying to find some secret technique that covers up your badness. (Yes I'm a bad player too that doesn't change anything I said)
How am I making 'excuses'? I'm saying that we all have this problem and that we can't deny or avoid it. You're acting as if it doesn't exist and you can supposedly train yourself to have perfect macro.
We do not "all" have this problem. And your solution does not fix the problem in any way. You are completely ignoring the fact that queing does not help you at all. It does not give you an extra unit, it does not spend your money any faster. It does NOTHING for you. If you are in a position where you are even ABLE to queue, then the mistake was already made, and no matter how much you queue you will NEVER cover it up because you already missed the time where you were supposed to be making units. The barracks doesn't move faster because you queue in any way. To get ANYTHING out of that banked money at ALL, you have to make another unit-producing structure (that you would not normally be able to afford)
Basically, there are two ways to get your production facilities always running:
1: Jumping back at the right time each time, having a perfect internal clock.
2: Queuing up some stuff.
The first thing is maybe the most ideal thing if you can reach it, but you will never be able to reach it. And you have idle time when you slip on this one only slightly in mechanics.
You're wrong. Pros reach it all the time and yes it takes practice, but that's how you play this game. Maybe not 100% of the time but close enough that they don't have extra minerals to queue with.
The fact that people are imperfect DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT. You keep reiterating the same meaningless things. It doesn't change the fact that YOU ALREADY FORGOT TO MAKE UNITS IF YOU CAN QUEUE. You already made the mistake. Queing doesn't fix it or help it in any way. It gives you an illusion of spending money when really you already forgot to spend your money, that's why you were able to queue in the first place. That money is in the bank permanently until you find a REAL way to spend it, not an imaginary one that only really delays your money further.
Think about it. I have 50 minerals and a Barracks. I forget to make a marine. Now I have 100 minerals by the time I start my first marine. I queue a second marine because I read some dumbass giving stupid advice on TeamLiquid, and guess what? By the time the first marine's done I'm at 100 minerals again! That 50 IS STILL FLOATING AND COMPLETELY UNUSED.
It's like making only one phoenix against 80 mutalisks and saying 'Making more phoenix is just an excuse for bad micro and a bad habit', yeah, you only need one phoenix to take on 80 mutalisks with perfect play and assuming you're not going to make mistakes, the rest is wasted resources that can be used on something else. But you just can't expect yourself to have such perfect micro.
No, because if you did that you would die while you were trying to micro the pheonix even if your micro was perfect. You are wrong to say that one pheonix can take out 80 mutalisks, it's not true because you will die in the mean time, and besides it's a completely different situation. Not to mention you are talking about a level of micro that is completely unachievable by humans, whereas spending your money is very very possible. But what you are saying is that "imagining in your head that you spent your minerals is far better than actually facing the truth that you forgot to spend your minerals" because what you are suggesting has no benefits, and instead of realizing this or trying to come up with some sort of benefit, you just keep insulting everyone by saying it's impossible that they macro perfectly. No shit sherlock, that is irrelevant though.
Bottom line: Try not to miss a production cycle, but if you do end up with a lot of money (and as you continuously point out this is the case for most players), the ONLY way you can ever spend that money is by making additional structures with which to spend it. Queuing is purely an illusion, as your income will still flow while the queued units produce, you are still floating all of that money and it is exactly the same in every possible way as just having it in the top right.
|
On December 16 2010 00:36 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:Show nested quote +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. Do 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.
wawa What? People dont seem to grasp this. It has absolutly no meaning saying that "no one can play perfect". You would ALWAYS want to strive to do exactly that, to ATLEAST play as optimally as possible, and you will move away from that if you que. You will even miss opportunities to expand and tech during certain timings because you think think that you spend your money properly. This will not allow you to improve as fast as you could.
To become a better player, you should try to not que. How can this be hard to grasp? This specially applies to lower level players.
Someone said something about how a micro mistake can cost you a game:
Sure not doing micro in a certain situation in favor of macroing as good as possible can loose you games, especially at the very top level, but that's EXACTLY the point. That's where you can improve. If you macro better and eventually micro better and thusly make less mistakes than your opponent, you will eventually have a very high win%.
There's always room for improvements, even for top players.
|
On December 16 2010 01:24 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2010 01:07 farseerdk wrote:On December 16 2010 01:06 imbecile wrote:On December 16 2010 01:00 telfire wrote:
Queing isn't spending your money. It doesn't help you AT ALL. You might as well have just kept the money in the bank, you are absolutely wrong in saying it's better to queue than have high money. The two are one in the exact same. Something I briefly mentioned above ... All this only applies if you macro perfectly all the time. Which is impossible. Just as impossible as microing perfectly all the time and never losing units. But for some strange reason losing units, even dozens of marines at once, is less frowned upon than queuing a few ... It's all tradeoffs ... Switch to protoss for a bit. Use only warpgate units. You WILL NOT be able to queue. Fight your way back up to your current ranking. Then switch back to terran. Gasp at your improvement. edit: could also do this with zerg, but zerg is harder to switch to as it's the race with the most different mechanics. Yeah, if you've fought yourself back with only gateway units... let's take on them roach-hydra and MMMG balls with only gateway units. I'm sure you're a lot better if you're able to do this yeah.
You realize the high templar is a gateway unit, right?.
In any case, I don't use colossus at all in pvt and only about 30% of the time in pvz. If you think gateway units are bad then your knowledge of this game really needs improvement.
|
On December 16 2010 01:33 Kyuki wrote:Show nested quote +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?
To use a BW example, even the best macro progamers queue up units in the latter portions of the game. You have enough income to do so, and in the lategame where there is an extreme amount of multitasking it's better to have constant automatic unit production so that you may have time to pay attention to a multitude of other things. Queuing up one cycle of 6-8 rax is only 300-400 minerals which is really nothing if you haven't been prevented from expanding when you need to. I would actually argue that not queuing when you can without detriments is actually a bad habit when tons of progamers with 300-500apm queue up or miss production cycles once the game starts to get hectic.
|
Yes, but if they could they wouldnt. That's the entire argument.
|
On December 16 2010 01:39 telfire wrote:Because making extra unit-producing structures has at least some tangible benefit. You get to make more units and actually spend your money. With queuing there is zero benefit whatsoever.
In the lategame having constant unit production is better than making superfluous production facilities that will only see use when your macro slips to hell. An entire cycle of 6-8 rax is 300-400 minerals. If you mistakenly miss a production cycle and make two rax and that's an entire cycles worth of marines that could have just existed on the field if you had queued. Those additional two rax have a sunk cost of 300 minerals and for them to be in use you have to use 100 more minerals every cycle and you'll run out of surplus minerals to power them quickly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
