|
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?
The skill is knowing when you need to queue. Disregarding it entirely is just handicapping yourself.
|
In the early game you know. But this is a bad habbit aswell even with top players. It's not like it doesnt limit them, since they will have tried most avalible options, but it norrows your sight on what is possible to do with your money and it gets to be a habbit.
I do this too, and I try to relearn, hard as fuck.
On December 16 2010 02:47 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2010 02:42 darmousseh wrote:
Essentially what this post is about is this.
I have a problem, I am unable to do X effectively, so lately I've been doing Y even though i know i'm not supposed to. Most people tell me that not doing X is bad, but I am not good enough to do X so i've been doing Y. Is doing Y so bad? (Replace X and Y with anything you want)
If you are having a problem keeping money low, then freaking work on fixing that problem. That's the only way to get better.
Let me give you some examples of X and Y.
X = scouting
Y = not scouting
X = keeping money low
Y = queueing units
X = Saving money
Y = Using a credit card
X = Practicing
Y = Cheating
X = Learning to play
Y = Whining about balance/Trying to justify bad ideas.
No, it's not about that, it's about knowing that you will never, ever, be able to have perfect macro and never skip a production cycle if you don't queue up, and building a buffer for yourself by making a small deposit at one point to give yourself a margin. Yeah, not queuing up and having spot on macro and mechanics even in the face of pressure and 3-pronged attacks is the idea situation, but also unatainable, I play it safe, I know that there will be a time, especially in hectic mid-game that I will slip, so I queue because I anticipate that I will be making errors. Sure, I could train to never make errors again, but it's an unrealistic goal.
You are delusional, and It's been stated why so many times in this thread so I wont do it again.
You can continue to be a bad player, there is no need for you to justify why You are queing here and try to convince other players to be bad.
This thread is running circles...
|
I agree to a certain degree with the OP and Silmakuoppaanikinko, queueing can sometimes be usefull. Ideally, you don't want to queue any unit at all, no matter what, so your money keeps flowing to your army in one way or the other, I think most of the posts on this thread have pointed that out.
Queueing gives you one important advantage though, and that is the oportunity to focus on something that needs you inmediate attention. If you're aware that you won't be able to Micro your army and Macro at the same time, queueing alows you to put Macro aside for a little while. That's as far as I can agree with the OP.
But there's something that should be pointed out. If you're spending your money the way you should, it's unlikely that you'll be able to queue units, and while it's not easy to keep tabs on your production buildings at the same time you're harassing or launching a frontal attack, it's something that needs to be done
|
The OP statement basically does not at all apply to Protoss or Zerg. This thread should have been directed at Terran only.
For the first 5 minutes of the game, Protoss can't possibly have enough resources to queue units. If they do, then they're going to hurt themselves because they should have been making something else, like an expansion or extra gateway or tech structure. After that, once Warp Gates are researched, there is no way of queuing units. Robotics Facility and Stargate units are too expensive to realistically queue, and Protoss, being a major macro-based race, should always be building, researching, or expanding any time they are not making units. Queuing expensive units just ruins this. It is also acceptable for Protoss to have a minor mineral/gas float in between warp-ins, since they will be making 6+ units at a time in the mid-late game.
Zerg, simply put, does not have any structure that can actually queue units, with the exception of the Queen being produced at the Hatchery.
|
Eh, I STILL queue at times as toss... but ONLY on a nexus, and ONLY after I chrono it. I don't want to waste any CB time, so I figure the 50 banked minerals is a smaller opportunity cost than the possibility that I may forget to build another probe after the first finishes.
the rule is, double tap probes on chrono'd nexus. (at least my rule)
|
Queueing does not keep your money low. It just moves it to a production structure that's already building something else. That money still hasn't been spent and for all intents and purposes isn't being spent until the unit starts getting made.
If you queue when your money starts getting high, you're wasting resources that are better spent expanding, making additional production structure, or just keeping up with other base stuff (pylons/probes/etc).
+ Show Spoiler +I queue probes 2 at a time. And I feel bad for it.
|
On December 16 2010 03:15 Jtn wrote:
I feel like a lot of people are missing the point that the OP's trying to make. Yeah, queuing units is BAD, but at low levels it's better to queue units than forgetting to make them.
As for the argument that it's a bad habit and queuing units will only take you to gold or something, I'm pretty sure people are smart enough to learn not to queue units eventually. I mean, give them some credit, lol.
See I disagree. If I wanted to learn, and what better way to get a lesson on how to improve than LOSE in a real bad way, I would vote that Queueing is worse than not having enough shit.
------------------------
(as terrrrrrran)
Scenario A: You are queueing. 2 Base with 2 TechLabRax/1Star. You are queued to like... 3 or 4? You lose a fight because you didnt have enough shit because you thought your money was low so you didnt add enough production buildings. You might see the problem, but its not as obvious.
OR
Scenario B: You are not queueing. 2 Base with 2TechLabRax/1Star. You notice your money is stupid high. You make more buildings to spend the money, rather than queue. You make more units from the new buildings to spend the money. Problem solved, sort of.
OR
Scenario B2: You are not queueing. 2 Base with 2TechLabRax/1Star. You notice your money is stupid high. You lose a fight because you didn't have enough shit. You again notice your money is stupid high. You immediately know why you lost the fight ("FFS i could have had 2k more minerals worth of army!"), and where to improve.
That's how i see it. Harder to mechanically fix the issue at first, but you at least KNOW the issue, rather than wondering shit like "Was it my comp/Was it my race/Was I just outplayed?"
|
On December 16 2010 02:45 Cyber_Cheese wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2010 02:42 darmousseh wrote:
Essentially what this post is about is this.
I have a problem, I am unable to do X effectively, so lately I've been doing Y even though i know i'm not supposed to. Most people tell me that not doing X is bad, but I am not good enough to do X so i've been doing Y. Is doing Y so bad? (Replace X and Y with anything you want)
If you are having a problem keeping money low, then freaking work on fixing that problem. That's the only way to get better.
Let me give you some examples of X and Y.
X = scouting
Y = not scouting
X = keeping money low
Y = queueing units
X = Saving money
Y = Using a credit card
X = Practicing
Y = Cheating
X = Learning to play
Y = Whining about balance/Trying to justify bad ideas.
i can apply this format to some of my real life friends and just about anything they do, awesome
You can apply it a ton of different things. People do this in life in general. They think that since they can't ever be perfect at something that they shouldn't try and give up and do something less optimal instead. It is important to recognize your limits yes, but unless you try to surpass your previous ability, you will never know if it was possible.
I think my favorite recognition of this is found in two of my favorite animes/mangas.
1. Naruto. Naruto's goal is to be the best ninja ever. Even though people around him tell him he can't he never gives up on his goal. My favorite part is in one of the very early episodes when he tells konohamaru that "There are no shortcuts, only hard work".
2. Hiakru No Go. In the game of Go, these players try to play a move called the "hand of god" or the perfect move. Though they might never achieve it, it doesn't stop them from trying.
Tricks and suboptimal strategies can only get you so far until you reach a point you can't surpass. Eventually to improve, you have to relearn the game and break all of your bad habits which means you will get worse for a period of time, but in the end, you will be a much better player.
If anyone here wants to really learn strategy, pick up a book called "How you reassess your chess". Even though it is a way of understanding how to improve your chess abilities, the lessons it provides apply to all games from sc2 to soccer. He doesn't just provide a method of improving your chess, but provides a way for you to understand and critique your own play and to look at things objectively without letting your frustrations get in the way. One of the most important things he emphasizes is to stop playing the game wrong. He tells the story of a kid who played a hyper agressive style of chess and was able to get to 1900 in a short time, but then got stuck. His tricks and strategies weren't effective. He was playing suboptimally. It was becuase he didn't truly understand the game. He got lessons from the author and totally changed the way he thought about the game and thought about strategy games in general. Initally he got worse, but in like 4 months he was able to start improving past the point where he was before. The earlier you can learn to play the game correctly (instead of gimmicky or suboptimally) the less relearning you have to do later. Although IdrA knows that he has a tough time defending against early terran pressure isn't going to stop him from trying to play optimally. Sometimes people criticize him for this, but he's really trying to learn the game. In the end, these players who rely heavily on a single gimmicky or suboptimal strategy will fall behind when their strategies are no longer effective.
|
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.
First of all it's different for different classes. What I need to do in the endgame as toss is to add more warpgates, so I can dump a big chunk of money into army, not turn them into gateways just so I can que.
Zerg is completly different in the regard you just have to push your button once for 1 sec during battle and you're done with it.
Terran however is another thing, and I'm deffo not saying you should disregard queing, you should try your hardest to avoid it!
|
On December 16 2010 03:08 darmousseh wrote:
Imagine if a baseball player said "If I swing at the ball, i might hit a pop fly, so I'm just not going to swing". Getting on base 100% of the time might be an unrealistic goal, but ti doesn't stop them from trying. Yes, macro can slip in the middle of battle, but that doesn't mean you should play sub optimally during that time. If anything, it should encourage you to multitask better. I simply see it as weighing the risk and gains.
The risk of queuing is not having money, around 400 minerals at max, when you really need it fast enough because you have to press a few extra hotkeys to cancel stuff.
The gain is never having idle production structures. It's simply assesing the chances. My estimate is that the pros of it outweigh the cons.
Sure, it's possible I lose a match because my money was tied up and I couldn't dequeue fast enough, but I reckon it's a lot more likely that I lose a match because of idle production facilities.
My spending isn't that good in late game, like most people, sure, in the opening when you're working mechanically and can still plan somewhat you don't queue and neither do youy have the money for it. But once you're both on four bases and it becomes a battle of sniping expansions and probes, doing two pronged attacks, I don't even really want to use any rules of how many production facilities I would need because calculating that would really cost me more time than I need paying attention to the drops and attacks.
|
On December 16 2010 03:17 Kyuki wrote:
You are delusional, and It's been stated why so many times in this thread so I wont do it again.
You can continue to be a bad player, there is no need for you to justify why You are queing here and try to convince other players to be bad.
This thread is running circles... Okay, answer me honestly, do you ever have idle production facilities?
|
On December 15 2010 17:10 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:(Though to be honest, after winning two games with 160+ probes, I think I might need to cut down a bit.)
Replay or it didn't happen.
No, really. You won with 10 zealots, 4 stalkers and a colossus? I don't care if you can rebuild them all instantly, your opponents were terrible.
|
If low level players just want to win the game they're in then yes they probably should queue, like you say it's better than having idle buildings. However if they want to not suck at the game they need to try and get into the habit of both not queueing and generally macroing properly.
|
On December 15 2010 17:08 Holgerius wrote:
Learn things properly from the begining IMO. Bad habits can be hard to get rid off.
This is very true, just learn it the proper way from the get go and as you get better you will notice that you get better with spending you money. if you que up several units that money is not being used at all i think its better to just put down more buildings or expand when the money is high and try to keep queing to a minimum
|
On December 16 2010 03:51 Polatrite wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2010 17:10 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:(Though to be honest, after winning two games with 160+ probes, I think I might need to cut down a bit.) Replay or it didn't happen. No, really. You won with 10 zealots, 4 stalkers and a colossus? I don't care if you can rebuild them all instantly, your opponents were terrible. They were dry, and they were not that good, it was a custom match.
I was playing like I always did, but these guys never heard of 'killing workers' it seems, so I was just doing my usual stuff of always keeping to make probes until I realized that my maxed army was really small. But at that point it didn't really matter, they were completely dry and for some reason with 10k banked I still was spamming nexus and probes all over the place because that's all I know and I didn't adapt to the fact that no one was killing my workers.
|
On December 16 2010 03:15 Jtn wrote:
I feel like a lot of people are missing the point that the OP's trying to make. Yeah, queuing units is BAD, but at low levels it's better to queue units than forgetting to make them.
As for the argument that it's a bad habit and queuing units will only take you to gold or something, I'm pretty sure people are smart enough to learn not to queue units eventually. I mean, give them some credit, lol.
It's not about how smart you are. It's about being human. We are creatures of habit. If you start queuing now, not only will you not gain ANYTHING from it, but you will reinforce a terrible habit and I don't give a shit how smart you are, it WILL make it difficult to kick the habit.
|
On December 15 2010 17:38 acidfreak wrote:
Queing gives you the ilusion that you are spending your money when in fact you are not.
/thread
User was warned for this post
pretty much cosign with this. but i'll agree that at lower level, it doesn't hurt to queue up 2 or 3 infantry because they do build relatively quickly. however, queuing stuff like carriers, thors, expensive and slow-building units can really bite you in the ass and delay big things like expos or another unit producing structure
|
On December 15 2010 17:08 Holgerius wrote:
Learn things properly from the begining IMO. Bad habits can be hard to get rid off.
+1
|
How can one improve if you've already given up trying? Then again, OP did specify that queue-stacking is viable in the low-level play, which I'm inclined to agree. Not the best groundwork for future potential, but certainly an effective solution for players looking for an easy way out.
|
I disagree 100% its teaching them to do it the wrong way and because of this they will suffer because of the habit they have created when they were in the lower leagues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
