IMHO Macro>Scouting>Decision Making>Micro Reasoning: Macro is important because with good macro you will defeat players with almost any unit composition having a 20-100% advantage(over time) in MOST games up to mid/high diamond.
Scouting so you can avoid cheese, and get those easy wins 10-60% of your games can be cheese depending on your league. Scouting, also so you can know when to stop macroing and build units, or when your opponent is most vulnerable.
Decision making so you can counter and make good unit compositions/survive all-ins/cheese.(surviving all-ins in addition to macro and good scouting will get you to master league)
Micro after accomplishing all of this will take you to a professional level.
Why can macro take you to diamond? Because you will win MOST of your games due to running over your opponent with sheer force. Of course you will lose SOME of your games to cheese/well timed all-ins/heavy harassment. To get to diamond you only need to win maybe 52% of your games. To get into diamond quickly you need really good macro and really good scouting with some decent knowledge of unit compositions.
Also, a good mix of any of the above listed skills will take you to diamond, you just need a better combination of these skills then most other players. A good mix will take you far, because all of these skills are intertwined within the game of sc2. However, having decent scouting/decent macro, will take you farther then decent decision making/decent micro. What does your micro and decision making matter if your opponent has 2-4x as many units and knows when to attack you(scouting)?
I would like to see a masters league player try this challenge with a twist:
Throw all placement matches, but then win and lose 10-20 games with ~50% wins (on purpose). Then attempt to get to diamond through the same methods.
The reasoning behind this is that when you are placed, bnet is still not very sure of your rank, and so you can progress through the ranks much quicker. Had there been a larger sample of games, then we might find that it is more difficult to get into diamond.
I think the main problem is... most casual players want to do more than just make units and a-move. They don't feel like spending even a week learning to do this well. I'm not accusing or blaming... the funnest part of the game for me is the harassing of workers, small fights, and big battles that require micro. The thing casual players need to realize is, SC2 is a competitive game, so taking a few days to learn something critical will pay off a lot.
On February 01 2011 23:10 DFarce wrote: I would like to see a masters league player try this challenge with a twist:
Throw all placement matches, but then win and lose 10-20 games with ~50% wins (on purpose). Then attempt to get to diamond through the same methods.
The reasoning behind this is that when you are placed, bnet is still not very sure of your rank, and so you can progress through the ranks much quicker. Had there been a larger sample of games, then we might find that it is more difficult to get into diamond.
Just a thought.
I'm pretty sure the only thing that might change is that it takes a bit longer. However, once you always (or at least significantly more than 50% of the time) win against opponents from league X you will be matched against players from the next higher league. If you perform well, you will be promoted.
Looking at the OP, we see clear evidence that everything up to gold gets demolished by his style. Hence, at least plat will be reached in no time. It might be hard to get to diamond since overall skill slowly improves and so does the overall makro. However, one will always be able to beat players with significantly worse marko without thinking of unut compositions and micro at all. And this is the point to be taken home.
On February 01 2011 23:10 DFarce wrote: I would like to see a masters league player try this challenge with a twist:
Throw all placement matches, but then win and lose 10-20 games with ~50% wins (on purpose). Then attempt to get to diamond through the same methods.
The reasoning behind this is that when you are placed, bnet is still not very sure of your rank, and so you can progress through the ranks much quicker. Had there been a larger sample of games, then we might find that it is more difficult to get into diamond.
Just a thought.
with a 50% win ratio on purpose it would be pure luck if you get relegated directly into diamond in the first very fast reevaluation the bnet does in the first 20-30 games, cause it will throw any type of opponent at you depending on your very fast changing MMR from bronze and if you perform well up to diamond, but if you want to get relegated directly into diamond you need to especially win that games against the diamond opponents in that phase.
if you then randomly throw away games, it would be only luck if you make it or not.
On February 01 2011 23:10 DFarce wrote: I would like to see a masters league player try this challenge with a twist:
Throw all placement matches, but then win and lose 10-20 games with ~50% wins (on purpose). Then attempt to get to diamond through the same methods.
The reasoning behind this is that when you are placed, bnet is still not very sure of your rank, and so you can progress through the ranks much quicker. Had there been a larger sample of games, then we might find that it is more difficult to get into diamond.
Just a thought.
But still, macro is all you need to get to Diamond. I didn't know a thing about RTS before playing SC2, heck the first match I played on bnet I had like... 3 Marines at the 7 minute mark .
But once I understood the importance of macro I started to get better. I always did a 2Gate Robo in every matchup, wich helped me to focus on only macro. I didn't know about unit compositions, or micro, or counters, I just focused on getting more units, and I won lots of games like that.
Obviously I can't win with just macro anymore, but I need good macro to win.
On February 01 2011 23:10 DFarce wrote: I would like to see a masters league player try this challenge with a twist:
Throw all placement matches, but then win and lose 10-20 games with ~50% wins (on purpose). Then attempt to get to diamond through the same methods.
The reasoning behind this is that when you are placed, bnet is still not very sure of your rank, and so you can progress through the ranks much quicker. Had there been a larger sample of games, then we might find that it is more difficult to get into diamond.
Just a thought.
But still, macro is all you need to get to Diamond. I didn't know a thing about RTS before playing SC2, heck the first match I played on bnet I had like... 3 Marines at the 7 minute mark .
But once I understood the importance of macro I started to get better. I always did a 2Gate Robo in every matchup, wich helped me to focus on only macro. I didn't know about unit compositions, or micro, or counters, I just focused on getting more units, and I won lots of games like that.
Obviously I can't win with just macro anymore, but I need good macro to win.
Macro (And scouting) is probably everything until you reach diamond. Then you realize you can over macro. I didn't realize it until I started actually counting how many drones I had at each base at a given time (usually when say the toss would attack). You figure out well then, anything above 23 drones against a 4 gate will probably lose. If I drone up to 50+ drones against a FE 6 gate build then I die. And I learned certain things like it's perfectly fine to be behind in drone count (or even) against certain builds for prolonged periods of time, on the contrary you will probably die to pushes in certain cases where you're ahead in worker count.
On February 01 2011 23:10 DFarce wrote: I would like to see a masters league player try this challenge with a twist:
Throw all placement matches, but then win and lose 10-20 games with ~50% wins (on purpose). Then attempt to get to diamond through the same methods.
The reasoning behind this is that when you are placed, bnet is still not very sure of your rank, and so you can progress through the ranks much quicker. Had there been a larger sample of games, then we might find that it is more difficult to get into diamond.
Just a thought.
But still, macro is all you need to get to Diamond. I didn't know a thing about RTS before playing SC2, heck the first match I played on bnet I had like... 3 Marines at the 7 minute mark .
But once I understood the importance of macro I started to get better. I always did a 2Gate Robo in every matchup, wich helped me to focus on only macro. I didn't know about unit compositions, or micro, or counters, I just focused on getting more units, and I won lots of games like that.
Obviously I can't win with just macro anymore, but I need good macro to win.
If you can sustain that nice ratio you'll end up top 200 =)
Thanks, but it might take me a while before I reach that point. Since I was focusing mostly on Macro I neglected develompent on other areas, which is now hurting my play. Specially, I found my multitasking cappability to be really low, and my APM is proof of it (I have between 60~90 APM).
Improving macro is really important, it really is, but it shouldn't be done at the expenseof all the other habilities required in Starcraft. Imbecile said it best:
On January 28 2011 11:52 imbecile wrote: Concentrating on macro may yield the fastest and strongest initial results. But it also just means that the wall you will hit is just that much harder and higher.
I'm glad someone actually put this to the test. I'm book marking it so I can show my friends that want to learn how to play better.
I actually had a bronze player say something along these lines to me: "Man, I'm so sick of being in bronze. My macro is good and my MICRO IS AWESOME! I need to be in Diamond so people will at least respect me as a player. Will you play my account for me to get me out of bronze?"
I obviously said no, and that his macro was badand his micro was subpar. The REASON his macro was so bad is because he thought his super-pro-baller-status 'micro' would make up for him only having 1 zealot and 4 stalkers against 8 marines 10 marauders. And the entire time he was doing this 'gosu micro' he wasn't macroing.
/sigh
People need to learn to recognize their own mistakes and analyze their own replays. It all becomes so apparent why you lost if you just put a little effort into figuring it out.
Macro is important because with good macro you will defeat players with almost any unit composition having a 20-100% advantage(over time) in MOST games up to mid/high diamond.
Scouting so you can avoid cheese, and get those easy wins 10-60% of your games can be cheese depending on your league.
0-100% of statistics are completely random and arbitrary. I am between the ages of 0-92. The USA has between 11 and 86 states. We are on the 1st 2nd or 3rd expansion of Starcraft 2.
Macro is the fundamental of this game, because it is resource-focused. Without money, you cannot do anything.
I like the experiment because it shows that macro-oriented can bring you up. But it's not the end-all. Macro in this game can benefit any strategy, because if you manage resource spending better than your opponent, you could easily have more stuff. But, you still have to be smart about spending money. Buying a Twilight Council, then warping in a round of units, then realizing that you have extra money so you spend it on Blink, but then don't really utilize it, is stupid. The BASICS of macro is spending money, but to actually have good macro is not just to have low money, but to have spent the money on things that get shit done in the game you are playing. Those early lings not scouting? Get them on watchtowers and use any leftovers to destroy rocks at an expo or something. Have extra Zealots or some extra minerals, and maybe Chrono Boost about 15 minutes in? Warp in a round of Zealots and send them expo raiding, then Chrono up your Gateways to replace them, then think about expanding or if you drove the opponent's army away from a key point of defense, strike it or catch the force off guard.
Even all-ins would be better with good macro.
It's just how the game works. But macro itself is more than just spending money, it's how you spend money and how quickly you spend it. Sure dropping 4 gates when you have 1.2k minerals is a good idea, but maybe next game consider dropping those 4 gates earlier, or at least some of those 4 gates earlier to start increasing production capacity.
Of course at lower levels, such as Gold, Bronze, or Silver, having great macro above all else can win you games because you can just have more shit. But when people can keep up with having as much shit as you, then you need to start trying to keep your shit coming while doing other things, because macro alone rarely differentiates a player unless one player is ridiculously better.
If you need people to tell you these things then you don't understand macro well enough anyway. When someone tells you to macro better, they should be more specific, because there are a lot of aspects to macro. While you can generalize them into resources, supply, and production, each of those also has more nuances that need to be considered. Such as, when to get supply started so that production can smoothly go along but you don't choke your minerals, timing expansions, timing gas, managing gas with minerals, worker production, and of course defending your economy is important and making sure that when it gets stopped you can start it up ASAP.
You know, someone needs to write a macro guide, something in-depth that actually explains macro on a more fundamental level so people can stop just saying "macro better."
Also, not all cheesers are born equal. If the cheesers were competent they wouldn't be in a lower league. If anything, the "more cheese in bronze" statement means that cheesers stay in bronze because they don't focus enough on fundamentals to actually get better.
That's kinda where the "you can't straight macro as zerg because of cheese and timing attacks" argument falls apart for me, because you're assuming the cheese is of the highest level, when in reality it'll probably be poorly-executed and very late.
I'm a platinum Zerg; the system matches me against 1500-2500 diamonds whenever I go on a little (2-3 game) win streak, then I lose a few, etc. The VAST majority of my losses are from bad macro; I lose with enough money to have had enough troops to have wrecked my opponents deathballs on a regular basis.
I'm confident that if I could macro a lot better and make in-game decisions a bit better I would roll a lot of opponents at my level. However, I must say that thus far I find it hard to actually accomplish the desired improvement at macro It's seems very natural to want to watch where the action is occurring, and less natural to ignore the battle to build more drones!
Well since zerg macro includes.drone timings and such lately I have been finding it hard to manage this properly. Usually its just little things like making a round of drones instead of lings. When I lose a game from things like this it makes me mad as I know what went wrong, how it went wrong and what to change next time. As such it should be easy for a diamond player to macro his way into diamond as the player must as a.general rule of thumb have more usefull experience.
Heh ... I find I often know the result (3000 minerals, no base) is not ideal but even after watching the replay I'm not always not quite sure when I should have built a macro hatch, expanded, or built troops rather than drones.
On February 02 2011 07:51 formthehead wrote: Also, not all cheesers are born equal. If the cheesers were competent they wouldn't be in a lower league. If anything, the "more cheese in bronze" statement means that cheesers stay in bronze because they don't focus enough on fundamentals to actually get better.
That's kinda where the "you can't straight macro as zerg because of cheese and timing attacks" argument falls apart for me, because you're assuming the cheese is of the highest level, when in reality it'll probably be poorly-executed and very late.
This should be added to the OP IMO. I've been joining alot of xel naga caverns obs custom games recently so I can watch people go at it while I do homework. It is amusing to see 2 bronze players go at it. Where one bronze will for example cannon in terran for example. And the terran will be trapped in his own base not wanting to move out But if you look at the terran he will only have 1 rax producing marauders qued up all the way have both vespene geysers and 1000 minerals 500 gas in his trustfund. So against this cheese say all the resources were marauders the bronze level cannon rush would be broken out of so easy but instead the player who looses too the cheese will just Rage in chat or Rage out of the game. On a side note they are also to wary of the unit counters list occasionally you will see bronze player who you can tell has been working on their macro and the fight will be say 12 roaches vs 1 immortal in the center of the map and the roach player won't even try to engage and will just run away.
I have already pulled out my guest pass and as soon as I know I have the opportunity to play straight (ie most likely spring break) I will do the same thing as zerg. Just to prove to my zerg buddies that it can be done. I however I am debating on the mix of units that I should go every game.. Do you think roach hydra or muta ling would be easier for someone in bronze to macro? + Show Spoiler +
After I showed my zerg friend this thread (he's a friend in RL) he said "Obviously this only works because toss are horribly broken and I can never beat a good force field placement with a baneling bust or 7RR. Lings need an upgrade so they can fly."
On February 02 2011 07:51 formthehead wrote: Also, not all cheesers are born equal. If the cheesers were competent they wouldn't be in a lower league. If anything, the "more cheese in bronze" statement means that cheesers stay in bronze because they don't focus enough on fundamentals to actually get better.
That's kinda where the "you can't straight macro as zerg because of cheese and timing attacks" argument falls apart for me, because you're assuming the cheese is of the highest level, when in reality it'll probably be poorly-executed and very late.
This should be added to the OP IMO. I've been joining alot of xel naga caverns obs custom games recently so I can watch people go at it while I do homework. It is amusing to see 2 bronze players go at it. Where one bronze will for example cannon in terran for example. And the terran will be trapped in his own base not wanting to move out But if you look at the terran he will only have 1 rax producing marauders qued up all the way have both vespene geysers and 1000 minerals 500 gas in his trustfund. So against this cheese say all the resources were marauders the bronze level cannon rush would be broken out of so easy but instead the player who looses too the cheese will just Rage in chat or Rage out of the game. On a side note they are also to wary of the unit counters list occasionally you will see bronze player who you can tell has been working on their macro and the fight will be say 12 roaches vs 1 immortal in the center of the map and the roach player won't even try to engage and will just run away.
I have already pulled out my guest pass and as soon as I know I have the opportunity to play straight (ie most likely spring break) I will do the same thing as zerg. Just to prove to my zerg buddies that it can be done. I however I am debating on the mix of units that I should go every game.. Do you think roach hydra or muta ling would be easier for someone in bronze to macro? + Show Spoiler +
After I showed my zerg friend this thread (he's a friend in RL) he said "Obviously this only works because toss are horribly broken and I can never beat a good force field placement with a baneling bust or 7RR. Lings need an upgrade so they can fly."
Speedling into roach-hydra seems best, with muta-ling you're too dependant on harassment.
On February 02 2011 07:50 RageOverdose wrote: You know, someone needs to write a macro guide, something in-depth that actually explains macro on a more fundamental level so people can stop just saying "macro better."
Nobody needs to write it, Day9 already put it out in his mental checklist for macro; 1.Are you making probes? 2.Is your supply near the cap? 3.Are you keeping your money low? 4.Are you building units?
And for game awareness; 5.Watch the minimap. 6.What is your opponent doing/what does he have? (also includes you making the proper responsive unit composition, aswell as scouting possible expansions which you can attack). 7.Have a plan (unit upgrades, drop timings, builds, expanding etc)
Repeating that mantra in my head throughout a game gave me some pretty immediate and awesome results, have to say.
EPT
. 
It's seems very natural to want to watch where the action is occurring, and less natural to ignore the battle to build more drones!
