|
On December 16 2010 01:45 Kyuki wrote:
Yes, but if they could they wouldnt. That's the entire argument.
BUT THEY CAN'T and that's the entire argument. If players that spend their entire goddamn lives can't do this magical fantasy world scenario of you deluded people then I'm sure that no one can. These people could theoretically just stare at their barracks for the entire game to have "perfect macro" but they don't because there are obviously more gain in investing a little money so they can do 10x more things in the game and the costs are obviously worth it.
|
On December 16 2010 01:45 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2010 01:39 telfire wrote: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. 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.
If you skip a production cycle to make barracks how is that queuing? You're not making any sense. If you're not producing any units, start them up, if you then have new units producing out of all your structures and you still have money (and assuming your UPS to income ratio is correct) then at that point you should build additional barracks because that money will NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER be able to be spent otherwise, period. You will get enough money while those guys are producing to be able to make more anyway. It is permanently lost unless you build some structure to spend it with.
|
Whoa, at first I thought it said "Queening is bad" and I thought there was some insightful math or theorycrafting about queens being a waste of resources since this is supposed to be a strategy thread, but then I read it again and saw that it basically was saying something that anyone who has ever played an rts would know.
Don't Queue. Profit.
Making the next set of units like 3 seconds before the current set finishes is fine, but anything more than that and you aren't playing efficiently.
|
On December 16 2010 01:52 darmousseh wrote:
Whoa, at first I thought it said "Queening is bad" and I thought there was some insightful math or theorycrafting about queens being a waste of resources since this is supposed to be a strategy thread, but then I read it again and saw that it basically was saying something that anyone who has ever played an rts would know.
Don't Queue. Profit.
Making the next set of units like 3 seconds before the current set finishes is fine, but anything more than that and you aren't playing efficiently.
No dude, he's trying to argue that queuing is good, that's what's so fucked up about it.
|
On December 16 2010 01:51 telfire wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2010 01:45 koreasilver wrote:On December 16 2010 01:39 telfire wrote: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. 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. If you skip a production cycle to make barracks how is that queuing? You're not making any sense. If you're not producing any units, queue them up, if you have new units producing out of all your structures and you still have money (and assuming your UPS to income ratio is correct) then at that point you should build additional barracks because that money will NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER be able to be spent otherwise, period. It is permanently lost unless you build some structure to spend it with.
What in the world are you talking about? I said if you mistakenly miss a production cycle and make barracks with the accumulated money. If you fucked up and missed a cycle and made additional production facilities because of the money that stacked up because of your fuck up.
Obviously you need to fucking make the right amount of production facilities according to your economy. The right amount and the right timing is all up to how much you've played and your experiences, and this is why you should not queue up at all in the earlygame (I haven't played or watched SC2 much so I don't know how much it should be for SC2). What I'm saying is that in the lategame AFTER you have the right amount of unit production facilities you should not make more facilities because your economy can't handle it. It would be absolutely superfluous and the gain that you gain from it isn't really gain. Having constant 6-8 production is better than missing a production cycle and making 2 more buildings. In the late game for not only this but other myriad of reasons. Gamers that spend their entire lives playing this game and have 300-500apm queue up slightly in the lategame or miss their cycles for a reason.
|
Essentially, if you have 4 marines queued, you could have made one marine and also built a barracks. There should be no opportunity to queue, and if there is: build another unit producing structure.
|
On December 16 2010 01:38 Kyuki wrote:
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. Since there are no players who do not slip on the entire planet, empirical evidence fails to show that this can stop you from slipping ever.
I purely see this as playing it safe and building in a margin of error for myself, it's like building a house an ordering only exactly how many bricks you calculated you needed for it. Sure, it's the most cost efficient way provided you never ever break a brick. But a good constructor will build in a margin of error for himself and order some bricks more, because he knows it's likely that he will make mistakes.
I build in a margin of error, you can't anticipate it all, it could happen that you're suddenly surprised by a very macro-intensive battle, and at that point I'm glad I queued up and didn't idle during that, which I would have if I didn't queue.
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) everyone is a bad player then, depending on what you feel is 'that long'.
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) Yeah, if you assume that you're going to be perfect from that moment on. But that'snot going to happen, you've had idle time in the past without queuing, and you're going to have idle time in the future again if you don't queue.
There will be a point in the future again where you get tied up and have idle time, and if you had queued then your baracks will produce faster at that point.
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. You're out of your mind. Even pros at various points have in the 1k minerals before being maxed in the late-game.
Like I said, look at Idra's queens, you can't queue them, and they have 40 energy at the end of a match at some points.
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. No, it doesn't fix that mistake no, but it negates future mistakes of the same kind..
Also, if you had queued up before that time, you wouldn't have had idle time the first time.
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. Yes, And the next time you would have idled because your macro slips, you'll be back at 50 again and you have produced that marine instead of idling the baracks. =/
The mistake will happen again, and again, and again, get used to it.
Kyuki
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. There is a difference between trying to play optimally, and basing your strategy on the assumption that you will play optimally.
Not queuing is making the assumption that in the future, your macro will never ever slip. I queue, because I know that my macro will slip at some point and I build a margin of error for that.
You realize the high templar is a gateway unit, right?. Which is effective against roaches? Or Thors?
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. If you don't use colossus at all in PvT you're depriving yourself of some oppertunity, hell, even if you never used archons or carriers at all in PvT you would, there is always a possible situation where these units are the optimal answer. Every unit can and should be used at some point.
That being said, my standard strat in PvT is 2gate / stargate (phoenix) -> fast templar tech. But I know that when Thors come out, or even a tank heavy army with marauders in the front stopping your zealots from reaching them, I'd better get some immortals out fast.
|
On December 16 2010 02:00 gangstarr wrote:
Essentially, if you have 4 marines queued, you could have made one marine and also built a barracks. There should be no opportunity to queue, and if there is: build another unit producing structure. If you have infinite APM to spare maybe. Making a baracks with an SCV requires APM, you have to go back to your base and do that. Queuing up a unit requires less APM. And APM is a resource, you can only do so many things and sometimes microing a battle to come out on top, which can be done simultaneously with queuing, instead of going bac kto your base during that battle, is simply more optimal.
|
On December 16 2010 01:56 koreasilver wrote:What in the world are you talking about? I said if you mistakenly miss a production cycle and make barracks with the accumulated money. If you fucked up and missed a cycle and made additional production facilities because of the money that stacked up because of your fuck up.
Obviously you need to fucking make the right amount of production facilities according to your economy. The right amount and the right timing is all up to how much you've played and your experiences, and this is why you should not queue up at all in the earlygame. What I'm saying is that in the lategame AFTER you have the right amount of unit production facilities you should not make more facilities because your economy can't handle it. It would be absolutely superfluous and the gain that you gain from it isn't really gain. Having constant 6-8 production is better than missing a production cycle and making 2 more buildings. In the late game for not only this but other myriad of reasons. Gamers that spend their entire lives playing this game and have 300-500apm queue up slightly in the lategame or miss their cycles for a reason.
[i]If you mistakenly miss a production cycle[i] then the money is gone. Period. You can make barracks with it if you want, if you can't produce out of them it doesn't matter at that point, the money is floated and worthless anyway. Or you can queue units which doesn't help you at all in any way. At least you can cover up your future mistakes with the extra racks.
If your economy can't handle it, then it can't handle queuing either. We're talking about the exact same amount of minerals that you lost because you forgot to use, and they go to waste either way.
You still don't get it. Queuing does NOTHING FOR YOU. The money on queued units IS STILL FLOATED. It is EXACTLY the same as being in the top right. Making extra money-spending buildings is the ONLY way to get any use at all out of that money, should you make the mistakes in the first place.
Yes, even at pro levels, they make mistakes. How do they fix it? By throwing down more gates, racks, or hatches. Like I said. They do not queue units.
|
If you constantly make units and never miss one, you're still going to start stockpiling money because you're constantly making new workers, thus increasing your income.
If you can research an upgrade with the excess money, great.
If you can make a new production building or expansion with the money, great.
If you can't afford a new upgrade and you're seconds away from an important fight? Queueing is the optimal move just because it's fast to physically do. You can't afford to make extra buildings, it takes too damn long to grab the workers and order them. All you have time for is mashing a few hotkeys until you're broke then it's time to micro.
In this case there is a difference between queueing and doing nothing, because once that first cycle of units finishes you can't count on having the time to hit your macro hotkeys. Best case scenario is you have a perfect timer in your head and know exactly when your first cycle of units finishes, but what if that time comes and you're aiming spells or dodging them or running away from a detector or something? Then you fucking regret not queueing.
High level gameplay tends to have a lot of little skirmishes and big standoffs that you can't afford to slip up on and let spiral out of control, so queue queue queue.
|
On December 16 2010 01:53 telfire wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2010 01:52 darmousseh wrote:
Whoa, at first I thought it said "Queening is bad" and I thought there was some insightful math or theorycrafting about queens being a waste of resources since this is supposed to be a strategy thread, but then I read it again and saw that it basically was saying something that anyone who has ever played an rts would know.
Don't Queue. Profit.
Making the next set of units like 3 seconds before the current set finishes is fine, but anything more than that and you aren't playing efficiently. No dude, he's trying to argue that queuing is good, that's what's so fucked up about it.
Nope. I'm trying to argue that queuing is better than not producing. Ideal is of course to only ever have one unit more in queue right when production is about to finish. But that ideal is unattainable even by pros, and it is better to approach it form the side of queuing, than to approach and improve towards it it from the side of not producing.
Because if you do the former, you only will have some temporarily unused resources. If you do the latter, you will have unused resources, and lost production cycles.
Better queue than not produce.
|
On December 16 2010 02:02 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:Which is effective against roaches? Or Thors? Show nested quote +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. If you don't use colossus at all in PvT you're depriving yourself of some oppertunity, hell, even if you never used archons or carriers at all in PvT you would, there is always a possible situation where these units are the optimal answer. Every unit can and should be used at some point. That being said, my standard strat in PvT is 2gate / stargate (phoenix) -> fast templar tech. But I know that when Thors come out, or even a tank heavy army with marauders in the front stopping your zealots from reaching them, I'd better get some immortals out fast.
Zealots with forcefield and stalker support are fine against roaches. When the hydras come out add storm and you're fine.
Thors are weak against groups of zealots.
Colossus are more of a liability the way I play because they are big "kill-me" signs walking all over the map... and vikings have 9 range...
I'm not saying that gateway-only is the only way to go, I'm just saying that it is a possible and very viable style of play. Look at HongUn vs. Rain game 1.
|
On December 16 2010 02:02 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:Show nested quote +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. Yes, And the next time you would have idled because your macro slips, you'll be back at 50 again and you have produced that marine instead of idling the baracks. =/ The mistake will happen again, and again, and again, get used to it.
WRONG. The next time you would have idled because your macro slips, you'll gain ANOTHER 50 and get higher and higher. Queing does NOT solve this. Your math is wrong, you have no logic, and you refuse to think about it the right way. There is a VERY GOOD REASON that EVERYONE in the RTS community KNOWS queuing is bad. IT IS. You can argue all day long, you'll still be wrong.
Not queuing is making the assumption that in the future, your macro will never ever slip. I queue, because I know that my macro will slip at some point and I build a margin of error for that.
NO!!!! Queing IS A WASTE OF MONEY. It is completely IRRELEVANT whether or not your macro is good! Queing is still a complete and utter waste of money! Every single unit that is queued is simply money in the top right, that's ALL it is. It doesn't help you AT ALL.
Queuing DOES NOT cover up your "future mistakes". It doesn't do that at all. You have no evidence or logic to suggest that it does. ALL OF THAT MONEY IS WASTED. The thing you should do if you expect yourself to have bad macro (and have come to the stupid, idiotic conclusion that you can't improve it) is BUILD MORE BUILDINGS so you can actually use that money. Queing doesn't cover ANYTHING up it only gives you a completely and utterly false sense of having good macro. It is every bit as bad as having lots of money in every single way, period.
|
On December 16 2010 02:09 imbecile wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2010 01:53 telfire wrote:On December 16 2010 01:52 darmousseh wrote:
Whoa, at first I thought it said "Queening is bad" and I thought there was some insightful math or theorycrafting about queens being a waste of resources since this is supposed to be a strategy thread, but then I read it again and saw that it basically was saying something that anyone who has ever played an rts would know.
Don't Queue. Profit.
Making the next set of units like 3 seconds before the current set finishes is fine, but anything more than that and you aren't playing efficiently. No dude, he's trying to argue that queuing is good, that's what's so fucked up about it. Nope. I'm trying to argue that queuing is better than not producing. Ideal is of course to only ever have one unit more in queue right when production is about to finish. But that ideal is unattainable even by pros, and it is better to approach it form the side of queuing, than to approach and improve towards it it from the side of not producing. Because if you do the former, you only will have some temporarily unused resources. If you do the latter, you will have unused resources, and lost production cycles. Better queue than not produce.
And it needs to be stressed why this ideal is unattainable. It's not because people are imperfect or bad or whatever, it's because there are situations where you literally CAN'T FUCKING MACRO AT ALL if you want to avoid a disastrous army loss.
|
On December 16 2010 02:05 telfire wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2010 01:56 koreasilver wrote:What in the world are you talking about? I said if you mistakenly miss a production cycle and make barracks with the accumulated money. If you fucked up and missed a cycle and made additional production facilities because of the money that stacked up because of your fuck up.
Obviously you need to fucking make the right amount of production facilities according to your economy. The right amount and the right timing is all up to how much you've played and your experiences, and this is why you should not queue up at all in the earlygame. What I'm saying is that in the lategame AFTER you have the right amount of unit production facilities you should not make more facilities because your economy can't handle it. It would be absolutely superfluous and the gain that you gain from it isn't really gain. Having constant 6-8 production is better than missing a production cycle and making 2 more buildings. In the late game for not only this but other myriad of reasons. Gamers that spend their entire lives playing this game and have 300-500apm queue up slightly in the lategame or miss their cycles for a reason. [i]If you mistakenly miss a production cycle[i] then the money is gone. Period. You can make barracks with it if you want, if you can't produce out of them it doesn't matter at that point, the money is floated and worthless anyway. Or you can queue units which doesn't help you at all in any way. At least you can cover up your future mistakes with the extra racks. If your economy can't handle it, then it can't handle queuing either. We're talking about the exact same amount of minerals that you lost because you forgot to use, and they go to waste either way. You still don't get it. Queuing does NOTHING FOR YOU. The money on queued units IS STILL FLOATED. It is EXACTLY the same as being in the top right. Making extra money-spending buildings is the ONLY way to get any use at all out of that money, should you make the mistakes in the first place. Yes, even at pro levels, they make mistakes. How do they fix it? By throwing down more gates, racks, or hatches. Like I said. They do not queue units.
If you miss a production cycle then the money just floats. It's not gone, it's there. Now, the reason why queuing can work with your economy while making more rax beyond the point of economic stability, 6 for 2base for example, is because if you queue a cycle extra it's 300 minerals and it gives you the benefit of completely constant unit production. If you miss a cycle and make extra rax there's a sunk cost of 150 minerals and for every cycle it's an additional 50 minerals (not to mention, you missed a cycle). Making extra rax like this can't work because it will eat away at the slight surplus minerals that you actually kinda need in the lategame much faster. The reason why queuing is better than not queuing if you cannot macro perfectly in the lategame (hint: no one can) is because it still allows constant unit production while also giving you the ability to focus on the myriad of other things that are going to be happening at that point of the game.
Macro is important but at this point of the game queuing can be desirable because there are so many other things you must do. There's also a reason why progamers don't put down too many more facilities even when their money stocks up too. If you go past the optimal point then it actually becomes detrimental. Having constant unit production is more important than just having a temporary spurt of units from extra production facilities that you will be unable to power.
I'm just going to have to say that anyone that thinks queuing is bad in the lategame after all the facilities have been laid down is extremely delusional and/or thinks that macro alone is the important factor in the lategame.
|
On December 16 2010 02:09 imbecile wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2010 01:53 telfire wrote:On December 16 2010 01:52 darmousseh wrote:
Whoa, at first I thought it said "Queening is bad" and I thought there was some insightful math or theorycrafting about queens being a waste of resources since this is supposed to be a strategy thread, but then I read it again and saw that it basically was saying something that anyone who has ever played an rts would know.
Don't Queue. Profit.
Making the next set of units like 3 seconds before the current set finishes is fine, but anything more than that and you aren't playing efficiently. No dude, he's trying to argue that queuing is good, that's what's so fucked up about it. Nope. I'm trying to argue that queuing is better than not producing. Ideal is of course to only ever have one unit more in queue right when production is about to finish. But that ideal is unattainable even by pros, and it is better to approach it form the side of queuing, than to approach and improve towards it it from the side of not producing. Because if you do the former, you only will have some temporarily unused resources. If you do the latter, you will have unused resources, and lost production cycles. Better queue than not produce.
Ok, I guess I can agree that queueing is extremely marginally better than not producing. But building extra structures to spend the money with is vastly superior in every way. And you're grossly exaggerating the difficulty of constantly producing units. It is very doable and is done by a lot of players. There ARE people with very nearly perfect Macro, and the game is pretty new, within a few years there will be plenty of people with perfect mechanics. It's not unachievable in this game (it was probably in SC1). And if you see a game where IdrA is not harassed at all then there WON'T be any energy on his queens.
|
Perfect macro = 4 gateways per base
Sub perfect macro? make 5 or 6. Don't queue. I think that's the bottom line.
|
On December 16 2010 02:16 koreasilver wrote:I'm just going to have to say that anyone that thinks queuing is bad in the lategame after all the facilities have been laid down is extremely delusional and/or thinks that macro alone is the important factor in the lategame.
No, I'm afraid YOU are the one deluding yourself. YOU are the crazy one with an outlandish opinion who is going against the well-known fact that queueing is bad. Therefore YOU are the one who has to prove your point. You have failed to do so, and you're completely ignoring all the sound reasons why queueing is bad. YOU are the delusional one. Think about that possibility for a moment.
I don't know what else I can say beyond what I've said. If you still don't get it, I don't know how to help you. I hope someday you realize how bad this is for your game, it's a bad habit and it doesn't even help you in the short term.
|
On December 16 2010 02:14 telfire wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2010 02:02 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote: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. Yes, And the next time you would have idled because your macro slips, you'll be back at 50 again and you have produced that marine instead of idling the baracks. =/ The mistake will happen again, and again, and again, get used to it. WRONG. The next time you would have idled because your macro slips, you'll gain ANOTHER 50 and get higher and higher. Queing does NOT solve this. Your math is wrong, you have no logic, and you refuse to think about it the right way. There is a VERY GOOD REASON that EVERYONE in the RTS community KNOWS queuing is bad. IT IS. You can argue all day long, you'll still be wrong. Show nested quote +Not queuing is making the assumption that in the future, your macro will never ever slip. I queue, because I know that my macro will slip at some point and I build a margin of error for that. NO!!!! Queing IS A WASTE OF MONEY. It is completely IRRELEVANT whether or not your macro is good! Queing is still a complete and utter waste of money! Every single unit that is queued is simply money in the top right, that's ALL it is. It doesn't help you AT ALL. Queuing DOES NOT cover up your "future mistakes". It doesn't do that at all. You have no evidence or logic to suggest that it does. ALL OF THAT MONEY IS WASTED. The thing you should do if you expect yourself to have bad macro (and have come to the stupid, idiotic conclusion that you can't improve it) is BUILD MORE BUILDINGS so you can actually use that money. Queing doesn't cover ANYTHING up it only gives you a completely and utterly false sense of having good macro. It is every bit as bad as having lots of money in every single way, period. Okay, I see what the problem is (besides the misuse of upper-case).
You know that it does not get higher when you queued it right? That's the entire point we're making? If you queued up 2 marines, and your macro slips a while, you've made a buffer for yourself. So you will keep producing as usual even though you forgot it for a while because you were tied up.
That's the point of queuing up, it stops your facilities from idling in the future, or at least makes it a tonne less likely, because you've built a buffer.
Ok, I guess I can agree that queueing is extremely marginally better than not producing. But building extra structures to spend the money with is vastly superior in every way. And you're grossly exaggerating the difficulty of constantly producing units. It is very doable and is done by a lot of players. There ARE people with very nearly perfect Macro, and the game is pretty new, within a few years there will be plenty of people with perfect mechanics. It's not unachievable in this game (it was probably in SC1). And if you see a game where IdrA is not harassed at all then there WON'T be any energy on his queens. Yeah, duh, if no one attacks me and just lets me be, my macro would be spot on too, the part where it slips is where you're forcefielding and storming while putting your colossus back and forth to hold on to your gold expo.
Putting pressure is not only to directly destroy, but also to divide attention.
|
For me, personally, I'd much rather spend the money that I'd be using on those queued marines for another Barracks or a factory or something. I agree that, when you first start out with Starcraft and you're learning the basics and mechanics of the game, queuing looks nice and easy to do - you can train an army while spending all of your time looking at the battle going on between you and your opponent's troops.
However, if I try to consciously avoid queuing, I force myself to make my timing on things better; I force myself to be like "oh, hey, I need to start up another batch of marines!" It's kind of like how, with experience, you just feel that you need to make another SCV - you've gotten the timing down and you just know what you need to do and when you need to do it.
Not to mention that queuing your units is about as useful as not spending your money for the same exact reason: you have money just sitting there not being used. The only thing queuing would help with is for really new players who just don't have very good timing, and even then, if they work at it and force themselves to improve on their timing, they'll get better at it. Learning the timing of things is one of the most useful things I've learned to do in this game. It especially helps when you're in a battle and you need to macro in the middle of it. I don't need to constantly switch between my army and my barracks and my starports and my command centers because I have a pretty good feel of when the units are going to finish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
