|
On January 24 2011 13:56 Tomo009 wrote:
I dunno, he didn't play many games and was playing high leaguers pretty quickly. Also, I want to see him try again as zerg. As zerg, you must adapt or you will die, at any level. You would have to have ridiculously good macro to beat for example a deathball protoss or biomech terran. As with no micro, you will get crushed in one battle and lose it all.
Obviously this is an inefficient way to play any race but i garuntee you just going 200/200 roaches will fare better than 200/200 stalkers or 200/200 marauders
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 Posts
On January 25 2011 03:34 emythrel wrote:
I do believe that learning to macro will help you improve faster and you will get promoted eventually, but a plat/diamond/master level player will always be able to beat a silver/gold player because they are better, so its not a fair test.
"becuase they are better"? Better at what? MACRO. This guy literally didn't micro, and didn't use some sort of timing attack, or tech, or unit countering. All he did was macro, specifically to disprove this sort of assertion. Was he better at... A-moving? No, diamond level players can beat silver players just by being better AT MACRO. That's the point of this... it's an undeniable demonstration of that assertion. The guy put up a couple cannons, got a detector, and macroed like a fiend. This is how you win games.
|
I can't believe this is still being discussed.
Sc2 is about making units and multitasking. To get ti top diamond really all you need is the ability to make units efficiently, and know what works well with what. Making probes, expanding, build orders are all just means to an end.
At the higher levels it is more about multitasking, who can do more with the units they have.
Granted, if you have excellent multitasking, you can play at a higher level than you should if your macro is shoddy, but imo that will not get you into masters unless you have the right amount of units.
All strategies are jus means to an end. The end being having more shit than him.
|
On January 25 2011 03:44 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2011 03:34 emythrel wrote:
I do believe that learning to macro will help you improve faster and you will get promoted eventually, but a plat/diamond/master level player will always be able to beat a silver/gold player because they are better, so its not a fair test. "becuase they are better"? Better at what? MACRO. This guy literally didn't micro, and didn't use some sort of timing attack, or tech, or unit countering. All he did was macro, specifically to disprove this sort of assertion. Was he better at... A-moving? No, diamond level players can beat silver players just by being better AT MACRO. That's the point of this... it's an undeniable demonstration of that assertion. The guy put up a couple cannons, got a detector, and macroed like a fiend. This is how you win games.
Apparently it IS deniable, based on half the responses in this thread. I think it actually shows that it's not macro ability stopping people from progressing to diamond and beyond, it's attitude toward learning how to get better. If you can't help yourself even when everything is put on a plate for you - you're not going to get better.
Jeez, if I was gold or below and I read this thread I'd be copying the exact idea of ignoring everything but macro - copying the exact order and quantity of production buildings from the replays and practicing it until I was diamond, not whining that it's not a valid demonstration and there's nothing wrong with my macro..
|
On January 25 2011 03:11 teamsolid wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2011 02:58 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:
These things are what I find somewhat displeasing with StarCraft, until the highest level, it's still just a game of who is best at not forgetting to constantly produce probes.
I'd love it if unit production and inject larva could be put to autocast and the game be more of a game of decisions instead of a game of remembering to press e,s, or d every 17 gameseconds. This is of course less the case with Zerg.
I'd also like it better if you didn't want to constantly produce workers but there was some optimum to periodically pause at before you got an expo up. I'd rather have like that max saturation occured at 15-18 workers or something, that would really make it advanrageous to know when to temporary quit producing workers.
But yeah, the truth of this game is that just fielding the largest army, not knowing counters, not micro, not scouting, not knowing the opponents race and knowing when you can expect a cloaked banshee to arrive does make the game. Of course, if both players have relatively even macro, these things do come into play.
Though, this is only the case of ladder, if you know your opponent's history and you know he goes mass stalker all the time, a nice DT rush or mass immortals stops that adequately. Unless your definition of "highest level" is low diamond, you have no clue what you're talking about. Also, if someone actively practices their macro, they can reach that level in about a week or two. It's not rocket science. Nope, mid diamond really. When you get promoted to diamond, you end up in mid-diamond. As the OP showed, you can get to diamond on macro alone.
On January 25 2011 03:24 snazbaz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2011 02:58 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:
These things are what I find somewhat displeasing with StarCraft, until the highest level, it's still just a game of who is best at not forgetting to constantly produce probes.
I'd love it if unit production and inject larva could be put to autocast and the game be more of a game of decisions instead of a game of remembering to press e,s, or d every 17 gameseconds. This is of course less the case with Zerg.
I'd also like it better if you didn't want to constantly produce workers but there was some optimum to periodically pause at before you got an expo up. I'd rather have like that max saturation occured at 15-18 workers or something, that would really make it advanrageous to know when to temporary quit producing workers.
But yeah, the truth of this game is that just fielding the largest army, not knowing counters, not micro, not scouting, not knowing the opponents race and knowing when you can expect a cloaked banshee to arrive does make the game. Of course, if both players have relatively even macro, these things do come into play.
Though, this is only the case of ladder, if you know your opponent's history and you know he goes mass stalker all the time, a nice DT rush or mass immortals stops that adequately. It sounds like what you want is a turn-based strategy game, of which there are many quality games about. SC2 is not one of them though! Nah, not really, I some-what dislike turn based strategy games because most all work with a map-hack anyway, I also enjoy the multitasking aspect of SC2.
True that SC is far from perfect for me, The StarCraft-style RTS is still as far as it goes really. My ideal game would lie some-what between Commandos and SC2, focussing on small-scale battles, multitasking, micro and decisions above all. Not about mechanical frivolries.
The point about SC2 is that there are things we all know we should do, like constantly be making workers, and doing it really is a pretty boring excercize, but being able to do it is what separates an experienced player from a low level player alone. From mid-diamond up though all these things I want some-what are there again as everyone then knows how to constantly create workers so scouting, countering, diversions and all that play a significant factor again, so I can't complain that much really, at least it makes the match at my level of play, which isn't world class, but experienced play nonetheless.
Or actually, in low level chess, the match is decided by who makes the least blunders too any-way. :')
|
OP is correct. I got into diamond with pure macro only and 1A atks even though I did not hotkey back in the days :lol: (even using RANDOM all the way). However problems arises when you are in diamond, your micro sucks. Just had no unit control at all.
In the end my friend helped me improve my micro skills and guess how he did it. We played 2v2 against insane Comps (both protoss) on the typhoon maps. I would go Zerg and the partner would go as terran. Mass speedlings and mass reapers... and harass one side each (zergling takes the main path to their base and reapers use their cliff mobility to go the other side when you see their protoss army force... Just run away because no way either of you can beat it head on and when they follow u, ur partner rams up their backside and when they go back for them u ram up their backside). Basically what you learn from this is to reinforce your units while expanding.... Forced me to hotkey for quicker reaction and tada it gave me the basis of macroing and microing at the same time...
|
it's not that simple, if you macro too hard you will die to a timing push or cheese even at lower levels (as Zerg).
Most T/P at lower levels play "build some probes/SCV, pump basic units, maybe get an upgrade and A-move at a fixed time inbetween 7 and 14 minutes. An overdroning Z easily dies to that. Best way as Zerg for lower level play is to build some basic army around 7 and then start droning. A macro hatch to make up for sloppy injects is useful, too.
Basically I identified these player types in lower levels:
- weak or no macro play while trying to pull of fancy micro :-). However a timing push can hit you if you do not build an army somewhat preemptive.
- macro only, likely to die to any kind of attack beyond 6 lings
- turtle players being busy to defend their 1-2 bases (while you take the map). They start "harrass" 14'00 minutes in the game (uh). Once they are mined out, they wait for your attack ..
- one trick pony/cheese players (fast muta, roach, banshee, void, mmm, dt push).
|
On January 25 2011 03:27 Malloy wrote:
I have to admit that macro will definitely get you to gold or low platinum...but if you rise in gold or platinum, people at the high end are really good...I'm currently a 2200 gold player, 4th in my division...and I'm, playing against 1-10 platinum players and macro isn't their problem, nor is it mine. I have recently switched form an agressive style to a more macro oriented style...and it has helped me win slightly more games...but where I am and the people I play...mass stalkers will certainly not win you the game.
When you first join a league, you're likely playing the lower-end of the league. A really low diamond player is not as good as me...I've played them before.
Disagree. I'm at 2.8k masters zerg right now and I STILL get supply blocked and then I spam vvvvvvv a hundred times or my minerals float over a thousand for missing injects. my point is that your macro can ALWAYS improve. Macro is still my problem imo. I don't try infestor micro or stuff. I just try to outmacro them.
|
On January 25 2011 04:35 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:
it's not that simple, if you macro too hard you will die to a timing push or cheese even at lower levels (as Zerg).
You will lose to cheese but not every single bloody game is cheesing... you will still get to diamond even with people cheesing you.
|
I started out in Beta, and after some games and practice, plus some good build order, I broke into Diamond league. now, after release, and a slight 2week hiatus, I find myself demoted into plat simply because I realized my problem is not macroing efficiently. getting supply blocked, and forgetting to continue to produce workers. I started playing this way last night on ladder, and against plat and gold players, literally, the only way I would lose would be because I forgot an obs for DTs, or ridiculous late game hard counters (stalkers don't fare well versus mass roach/hydra, tank/marauder, coollosi/immortal) Still, looking at the replays, I hit 200/200 about 50 food before my opponents (exception zerg). Even still, with total focus on macro, I always had enough units to hold off 4gate allins, 2rax, 4rax, ling allins, muta harass, 3gate robo, all sorts of timing push/allins.
After just one night, I have a new respect for not only Pros, and their immaculate and impeccable macro, but also Starcraft:Brood War and Starcraft 2. Really, after this experience, nobody but the highest .5% really have any say in so called "balance" because they are the only ones with equally perfect macro with which you can actually compare strength of strategies and reactions. They are the closest we have to perfect in terms of a scientific test pool, this due to their macro being (mostly) equal, whereas, anyone below (including probably up to mid-diamond) have such a valley between where their macro is and where it could be.
|
Challenge accepted. I will do nothing but macro and build stalkers and see what happens.
|
Eeryck has a really good thread on "what does 'just macro better' really mean? Cliff notes: it means several things at once: never getting supply blocked, always making workers, always making units from structures, and keeping money low.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=182518
As a high bronze player (but mostly facing silver/gold players so just waiting on that promotion), there are still lots of players with bad macro, especially past the 2nd base. You can win lots of games just by having more stuff, taking map control, etc., but not all. The most common "good macro" players at low levels who are best able to spend their money and produce units are people doing hardcore one-base attacks (I refuse to call something "all-in" unless it involves bringing the workers to the fight). Not something like the 4-gate rush, but somewhere in the 7-10 minute range they push off of one-base with a slew of units roaches/3rax/gateway+immortal push. In fact if you're trying to have "good macro" the next thing to learn is how to avoid losing to these pushes which usually hit before your expansion has kicked in.
|
Has anyone else problems downloading the replay pack? I just can't get it to work.
|
I've been trying to read through this thread to the end and just couldn't quite make it. All these people trying to argue over specifics and talk about how they don't want to be a boring macro bot are completely missing the point.
No, massing 1 unit and a-moving at maxed is not good strategy and is not the "correct" way to play. No, macro is not the most interesting thing to think about/watch. No, micro/scouting/unit composition are not worthless in comparison.
All of this is besides the point. The point, which has been explicitly stated before this but I'll state again, is that macro is what allows these other elements of strategy to come into play.
You are not being mindless or boring by learning how to macro well. You are allowing yourself to execute strategies. Do you want to do a timing attack? Well, then the whole idea is to have as much stuff as you possibly can at that timing, so macro well. Do you want to get that awesome high tech unit that lets you be fancy with spells as early as possible? Then macro well so you can survive early attacks until you get that tech unit.
It can feel boring watching replays and just constantly looking at your nexus for probe production and supply to see if you are pylon blocked and gateways to see if they are idle. It can also be extremely boring winning games by just a-moving over your opponent's smaller army. However, the idea is the improve your macro to the level where these other elements can actually be utilized.
|
On January 25 2011 03:51 snazbaz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2011 03:44 Blazinghand wrote:On January 25 2011 03:34 emythrel wrote:
I do believe that learning to macro will help you improve faster and you will get promoted eventually, but a plat/diamond/master level player will always be able to beat a silver/gold player because they are better, so its not a fair test. "becuase they are better"? Better at what? MACRO. This guy literally didn't micro, and didn't use some sort of timing attack, or tech, or unit countering. All he did was macro, specifically to disprove this sort of assertion. Was he better at... A-moving? No, diamond level players can beat silver players just by being better AT MACRO. That's the point of this... it's an undeniable demonstration of that assertion. The guy put up a couple cannons, got a detector, and macroed like a fiend. This is how you win games. Apparently it IS deniable, based on half the responses in this thread. I think it actually shows that it's not macro ability stopping people from progressing to diamond and beyond, it's attitude toward learning how to get better. If you can't help yourself even when everything is put on a plate for you - you're not going to get better. Jeez, if I was gold or below and I read this thread I'd be copying the exact idea of ignoring everything but macro - copying the exact order and quantity of production buildings from the replays and practicing it until I was diamond, not whining that it's not a valid demonstration and there's nothing wrong with my macro..
I think this post got to the real issue in this thread.
|
Funny how all the people saying macro alone will get you into diamond are actually in diamond or masters. Everyone who says it won't or its not as important/strong as others make it out to be is prefacing their argument by saying they're platinum or lower. And realistically people like to overmicro while usually there isnt much micro do be done in a battle once you cast your spells. Stop staring at the battle and build more units.
So listen to the diamond/masters people and focus on macro. I was stuck in platinum for a while before i decided to do absolutely minimal micro and put 95% of my focus on macro. Two days later i got promoted to diamond. Once you learn to make a ton of units and keep expanding while you counter your opponent's army comp, micro and other things come naturally as you gradually get higher apm.
|
I'm definitely winning a lot more by playing somewhat defsively and macroing like crazy, while also scouting the opponent's unit composition and making sure to challenge them any time they get +1 bases on me.
Having said that, the most important element to this for me has been working out some general stable build orders, scouting diligence, etc that would allow me to survive. I needed to be able to able to recognize when my opponent is doing something super aggressive ( or as people like to say all-iny) and know whether I need to change up what I am doing to respond.
The OP on the reddit thread is currently in gold according to sc2ranks, i'd imagine if he just did a few more things to scout/counter what the opponent is doing he could easily make it to platinum/diamond, but I seriously doubt he can do it just spamming stalkers and a-moving even if his macro is phenomenal.
I'd love to be proven wrong though. 
|
On January 24 2011 14:03 Nobu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2011 13:56 Tomo009 wrote:
I dunno, he didn't play many games and was playing high leaguers pretty quickly. Also, I want to see him try again as zerg. As zerg, you must adapt or you will die, at any level. You would have to have ridiculously good macro to beat for example a deathball protoss or biomech terran. As with no micro, you will get crushed in one battle and lose it all.
Of course macro is the main skill that will increase one's rank, but simply saying "only macro and you will be in diamond" is plain wrong. I'm in gold now, playing sivelr-platinum level players and there are a lot of timing pushes and aggressive plays that I just wouldn't be able to handle at all if I didn't scout and react. As a master league Zerg, i can tell you that macroing hard will get you definetly into diamond even as zerg. Protoss deathballs are deathballs because they can reach to that point without losing the game before or letting you get 5 bases, in bronze-plat, you can get to 200/200 before they get to that point (can't tell you how much faster i can max than people from that league, but if you macro correctly you can get like 3-10 minutes faster depending on how bad is the other player). Just to note, i was given a new account like 3 months ago, and i went 15-0 only doing muta/ling every game, in any mu, so trust the people that tell you to macro, because it actually work, and is the fastest way to get to diamond/master. OP thanks for sharing this, even day9 talked about doing just stalkers and seing ow far he could get, but i think he didnt have the time to do it
I can back this up as well.
Pretty much the only reason I'm in diamond is because I learned how to macro passably (hit injects on time for most of the early game if harassment isn't too severe, I don't typically get supply blocked until over 80 food or so and I drone like a MFer).
Learning when it's safe to expand as Zerg is pretty key, as well. I remember way back in the day when Fruitdealer won GSL 1, everybody was freaking out about drone timings and learning that it was actually safe to drone earlier and longer than most people thought. Day[9] was also (over)quoted saying that the best way to lose as Zerg is to get caught with your pants down overdroning.
Well, I adapted that philosophy to my expanding. I started expanding earlier and earlier just as an experiment (like pushing the envelope on droning to see how many drones I could get away with). I really surprised myself how safe it was to expand much earlier than I was original comfortable with.
I'd advise a lot of Zergs struggling with macro in platinum to play with expansion timings a bit. Obviously, if he's one-basing you there's no issue with 2-basing him until you've killed his aggression, but if you're wondering how to get the 200/200 army long before your opponents, try taking your 3rd much earlier than you usually would. You'll be surprised!
EDIT: Obviously, by expanding I meant taking your 3rd, not your nat. Just clarifying.
|
On January 25 2011 03:51 snazbaz wrote:
Jeez, if I was gold or below and I read this thread I'd be copying the exact idea of ignoring everything but macro - copying the exact order and quantity of production buildings from the replays and practicing it until I was diamond, not whining that it's not a valid demonstration and there's nothing wrong with my macro..
I'm a 2400/#5 gold Z. I've played over 700 1v1s starting as a complete multiplayer RTS noob (i.e. no more exploiting predictable AI), so if nothing else I've seen a lot. Like most people at my level, I need to improve macro. It's not so much being unable to do it as not being sure exactly what I want to do. I'm pretty good at losing because I have too many drones, but that's still losing and clearly is still a failure, even if it's failing with the right overall mindset.
I haven't watched his replays, but it seems to me that the thought process would be thus: Always have a probe building on every nexus. If a mineral line is saturated, expand and maynard extra workers. Always have a stalker building; if you have resources for more stalkers than you can build, add a gateway. Always be building pylons so you never get supply blocked while you pump stalkers. Throw in a few cannons for detection/basic defense if you have leftover mins after the first three priorities are covered. Mass your stalkers where they can access all of your bases, hold off any pressure that comes while you're massing and once you're maxed attack.
So as Z, how would you proceed in an equally simple manner? If you max capacity on drones, you'll have no army and 6 undefended bases. If you pump roaches (T1 the analog to stalkers), you're at risk of being impotent to stop air attacks. Hydras come too late to help much if you get attacked off one base (which still happens in 95% of my games). I don't see the Z version of "massing a safe-against-any-kind-of-attack unit faster than the opponent", but it seems like there should be some way to compensate. If the answer is "you just have to know how to do it right" then the idea of "macro into diamond" doesn't apply to Z, right? It would be "be a diamond-level Z, nerf your account, then diamond-macro your way back to diamond".
Don't get me wrong -- I love the experiment and I'm just trying to figure out an equivalent "macro cheese" to practice myself. I'm interested to hear what better Z (or vZ) players would suggest for one.
|
it will work in ZVZ......Mass roach or mass muta/ling isn't any harder than mass stalker.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
