Hi, I'm a random silver player. And I can assure you, %100, that improving your macro, is the way to win. Seriously. I don't have to worry about anything except: get lot's of bases and workers then get roach/hydra or mmm or stalker/zealot and go shit on his face. Then (if)when my army dies, I can rebuild it in a minute, and throw it at him again. I've never had to worry about unit comp. I tried to get a lot of ht's one time as toss, and my terran friend went mass ghost. When I saw his army, I was scared. He emp'd my entire force, and I quickly died. Then I produced another wave of zealots, walked over to his army and fucked him up.
Literally all the games I lose, are the ones where I get shaken up by early aggression, and start missing my larva injects and worker production or supply depots/pylons/overlords.
I'm going to have to go into this argument unbiased. I have been subjected to the "macro like a pro, play like a pro" mentality, and have played zerg for some time now due to that. However, I used to lose a LOT just because of strategy. I'd always had a maxed army by maybe... 13 minutes? And I simultaneously dropped their main and attacked their front while I rallied in more units.
It just stopped working. Straight-up deathballs slaughtered me. I had to re-evaluate my game. Was I doing something wrong? Apparently so, and I just couldn't find it.
Innovation. (This is going to be from Zerg p.o.v.) don't just say, "use roach/hydra/infestor in ZvZ, roach/infestor/corrupter in ZvP, or use ling/bling/muta in ZvT." Say, "get more fucking units with better upgrades, take the map, and overwhelm them enough that they call you a loser and tell you to get a life."
From that point, the entire thought-process shifts. It's not "just get x and y units," it's slowly molding a gameplan and a mentality.
For this style to work out, however, strong macro is important. I'd personally always work the kinks out in my macro/multitasking than clean up a strategy. I'm not saying I'm the best macro-er or whatever; I can admit I'm not that good, but I'm getting better.
On October 07 2011 08:48 whoopsome wrote: You can set up a punch perfectly but if it doesn't have the necessary force you wont knock anybody out.
Yup, but the same applies to every aspect of a punch.
You can put as much force as you can behind it, but without any speed, finesse, aim it may not do anything at all.
You can also perfectly aim a punch, but lack the force behind it to actually do something.
You can even put every force you have in it, aim it and fire it off quickly, but if the opponent is ready for it, it still might be a wasted punch in the end and you will perhaps end up with a fist in your face as a counter. (sorta say) xD
All in all, macro alone won't do much in any way (my opinion) and saying that it's clearly the basics of all other "skills" in the game is just a matter of opinion, once again.
If you still look at the comparison with throwing a punch, then there are enough martial arts out there that have a main focus on different aspects of a punch to make it do the damage you want. Wheter that is force, finesse, aim, speed etc., each of those aspects has the potentially hurt someone when looked at alone, but most likely work better when combined.
Now where one wants to lay their focus on is up to them to decide, not up to anyone else to decide for them. That's how I see it and one can apply this as much to Sc2 as to alot of other things that vary on alot of factors. ^ ^
I was saying that you can have a strategy or build that will win you the game but if you dont macro enough you wont.
On October 07 2011 08:48 whoopsome wrote: You can set up a punch perfectly but if it doesn't have the necessary force you wont knock anybody out.
Yup, but the same applies to every aspect of a punch.
You can put as much force as you can behind it, but without any speed, finesse, aim it may not do anything at all.
You can also perfectly aim a punch, but lack the force behind it to actually do something.
You can even put every force you have in it, aim it and fire it off quickly, but if the opponent is ready for it, it still might be a wasted punch in the end and you will perhaps end up with a fist in your face as a counter. (sorta say) xD
All in all, macro alone won't do much in any way (my opinion) and saying that it's clearly the basics of all other "skills" in the game is just a matter of opinion, once again.
If you still look at the comparison with throwing a punch, then there are enough martial arts out there that have a main focus on different aspects of a punch to make it do the damage you want. Wheter that is force, finesse, aim, speed etc., each of those aspects has the potentially hurt someone when looked at alone, but most likely work better when combined.
Now where one wants to lay their focus on is up to them to decide, not up to anyone else to decide for them. That's how I see it and one can apply this as much to Sc2 as to alot of other things that vary on alot of factors. ^ ^
I was saying that you can have a strategy or build that will win you the game but if you dont macro enough you wont.
I know and if you read my post I was saying that it also works the other way around. You can have all the macro you want, but as long as you don't build the right units, don't have the right composition, don't engage right, not enough upgrades, don't time your attack right or your attack is expected (and countered already) then all your macro won't do you much good.
Yes it can still get you a victory, just as much as a punch with force alone can give you a knock-out, but chances are slim without anything else to improve it with. This applies to macro, without any other mechanics/skills to complement it with you will just meaninglessly mass units and punch forward with that, hoping it's force is enough to get a knock-out.
If you look at a other mechanic/skills, like micro, if you focus on that and use that to try and gain a victory you might get it, even though you get out-macro'ed simply because you used your units in a better way. But with micro alone you will often find yourself at a too much of a downside with not enough supply compared to your opponent. Just like with macro you find yourself with the wrong units, the wrong composition, the wrong positioning etc.
I can go on and on about this with pretty much every mechanic/skill of Sc2, with it alone you can achieve victory, but it's chance is pretty slim. To improve your skills you can focus on macro, but you can just as well focus on micro or on map awareness (scouting, positioning etc.), all of those things are something you can focus on to gain more skill. But none of them is in it's own the best way to get better.
I rather have someone punching me over and over with as much force as he/she can muster then someone who actually knows where and how to punch with little force behind them. That's my opinion and I go with this same mindset into Sc2, I rather have the knowledge and insight to know what to build or when to attack then maximising economy/army.
On October 07 2011 08:48 whoopsome wrote: You can set up a punch perfectly but if it doesn't have the necessary force you wont knock anybody out.
Yup, but the same applies to every aspect of a punch.
You can put as much force as you can behind it, but without any speed, finesse, aim it may not do anything at all.
You can also perfectly aim a punch, but lack the force behind it to actually do something.
You can even put every force you have in it, aim it and fire it off quickly, but if the opponent is ready for it, it still might be a wasted punch in the end and you will perhaps end up with a fist in your face as a counter. (sorta say) xD
All in all, macro alone won't do much in any way (my opinion) and saying that it's clearly the basics of all other "skills" in the game is just a matter of opinion, once again.
If you still look at the comparison with throwing a punch, then there are enough martial arts out there that have a main focus on different aspects of a punch to make it do the damage you want. Wheter that is force, finesse, aim, speed etc., each of those aspects has the potentially hurt someone when looked at alone, but most likely work better when combined.
Now where one wants to lay their focus on is up to them to decide, not up to anyone else to decide for them. That's how I see it and one can apply this as much to Sc2 as to alot of other things that vary on alot of factors. ^ ^
I was saying that you can have a strategy or build that will win you the game but if you dont macro enough you wont.
I know and if you read my post I was saying that it also works the other way around. You can have all the macro you want, but as long as you don't build the right units, don't have the right composition, don't engage right, not enough upgrades, don't time your attack right or your attack is expected (and countered already) then all your macro won't do you much good.
Yes it can still get you a victory, just as much as a punch with force alone can give you a knock-out, but chances are slim without anything else to improve it with. This applies to macro, without any other mechanics/skills to complement it with you will just meaninglessly mass units and punch forward with that, hoping it's force is enough to get a knock-out.
If you look at a other mechanic/skills, like micro, if you focus on that and use that to try and gain a victory you might get it, even though you get out-macro'ed simply because you used your units in a better way. But with micro alone you will often find yourself at a too much of a downside with not enough supply compared to your opponent. Just like with macro you find yourself with the wrong units, the wrong composition, the wrong positioning etc.
I can go on and on about this with pretty much every mechanic/skill of Sc2, with it alone you can achieve victory, but it's chance is pretty slim. To improve your skills you can focus on macro, but you can just as well focus on micro or on map awareness (scouting, positioning etc.), all of those things are something you can focus on to gain more skill. But none of them is in it's own the best way to get better.
I rather have someone punching me over and over with as much force as he/she can muster then someone who actually knows where and how to punch with little force behind them. That's my opinion and I go with this same mindset into Sc2, I rather have the knowledge and insight to know what to build or when to attack then maximising economy/army.
To each their own right? ^ ^
I think you read to much into it, good for ppl that dont understand those basis though so to put it simply.
Macro allows you to have all those things you talk about, units to micro upgrades for your build, mechanics for your strategy to work, i didnt say one should only focus on macroing. But if your macro isnt on top ur "wasting" time with your strategy. Ofc this can work the other way around but i think its clear where the priority lies.
Well, have you ever asked for help on the forums? From what i've seen, yes people give terrible advice, but generally besides the improve your macro tips, people do give you strategy tips. They'll tell you what you did wrong, how to improve, and what you should do. Of course there will be the trolls. Just don't feed the trolls. If they haven't watched the replay don't listen to what they say. simple as that.
But the "You must get better macro" does have it's point. Just watch Destiny's mass Queens to platinum series. Destiny doesn't scout, doesn't use strategy. He just uses his mechanics to have enough queens to roll his opponent. If you don't have good mechanics then you'll get rolled by people with way better mechanics even if they go something like mass queens. Of course you need to learn strategy, but should you learn strategy when you have 23 scv's on 2 bases and six raxes with 24 marines, 4 rauders and 3 medivacs at 18 minutes?
On October 07 2011 08:48 whoopsome wrote: You can set up a punch perfectly but if it doesn't have the necessary force you wont knock anybody out.
Yup, but the same applies to every aspect of a punch.
You can put as much force as you can behind it, but without any speed, finesse, aim it may not do anything at all.
You can also perfectly aim a punch, but lack the force behind it to actually do something.
You can even put every force you have in it, aim it and fire it off quickly, but if the opponent is ready for it, it still might be a wasted punch in the end and you will perhaps end up with a fist in your face as a counter. (sorta say) xD
All in all, macro alone won't do much in any way (my opinion) and saying that it's clearly the basics of all other "skills" in the game is just a matter of opinion, once again.
If you still look at the comparison with throwing a punch, then there are enough martial arts out there that have a main focus on different aspects of a punch to make it do the damage you want. Wheter that is force, finesse, aim, speed etc., each of those aspects has the potentially hurt someone when looked at alone, but most likely work better when combined.
Now where one wants to lay their focus on is up to them to decide, not up to anyone else to decide for them. That's how I see it and one can apply this as much to Sc2 as to alot of other things that vary on alot of factors. ^ ^
I was saying that you can have a strategy or build that will win you the game but if you dont macro enough you wont.
I know and if you read my post I was saying that it also works the other way around. You can have all the macro you want, but as long as you don't build the right units, don't have the right composition, don't engage right, not enough upgrades, don't time your attack right or your attack is expected (and countered already) then all your macro won't do you much good.
Yes it can still get you a victory, just as much as a punch with force alone can give you a knock-out, but chances are slim without anything else to improve it with. This applies to macro, without any other mechanics/skills to complement it with you will just meaninglessly mass units and punch forward with that, hoping it's force is enough to get a knock-out.
If you look at a other mechanic/skills, like micro, if you focus on that and use that to try and gain a victory you might get it, even though you get out-macro'ed simply because you used your units in a better way. But with micro alone you will often find yourself at a too much of a downside with not enough supply compared to your opponent. Just like with macro you find yourself with the wrong units, the wrong composition, the wrong positioning etc.
I can go on and on about this with pretty much every mechanic/skill of Sc2, with it alone you can achieve victory, but it's chance is pretty slim. To improve your skills you can focus on macro, but you can just as well focus on micro or on map awareness (scouting, positioning etc.), all of those things are something you can focus on to gain more skill. But none of them is in it's own the best way to get better.
I rather have someone punching me over and over with as much force as he/she can muster then someone who actually knows where and how to punch with little force behind them. That's my opinion and I go with this same mindset into Sc2, I rather have the knowledge and insight to know what to build or when to attack then maximising economy/army.
To each their own right? ^ ^
I think you read to much into it, good for ppl that dont understand those basis though so to put it simply.
Macro allows you to have all those things you talk about, units to micro upgrades for your build, mechanics for your strategy to work, i didnt say one should only focus on macroing. But if your macro isnt on top ur "wasting" time with your strategy. Ofc this can work the other way around but i think its clear where the priority lies.
Nope, not reading too much into it, I think you'r still misunderstanding the point I am trying to make here.
You'r right on one hand that macro gives you units to micro around, to position right, the ability to make the right units for a balanced army composition. But I am not here talking that one's macro skills is completely absent, without any macro whatsoever you wouldn't make any units after all. What I am talking here about is that one's focus to improve (at what league you'r at) doesn't has to first and foremost has to lie at macro.
What I am saying is that Sc2 has alot of skills/mechanics/aspects one can focus on and each person can decide for themselves what they want to focus on. So if a low placed league person comes to the forums and asks for help on his play, sure you can tell him to improve macro and how. And if he/she does just that he/she will most likely improve, no doubt.
Buuut, what if he/she wants to focus on micro to improve his/her skills? What if he/she wants to focus on positioning? Timing attacks? One can focus on all those things to improve their skills just as much one can focus on macro to improve their skills and it's up the player to decide what to do, not up to anyone else to dictate how he/she should improve "because I am a higher league player and I say so" or because "this is my view on Sc2 just like thousands other people, so you better see it the same way".
Simply put, as I have said in my first post in here, if a player asks for help on something and he/she doesn't want to hear "macro better", why not look at the other aspects of his/her game and comment on that to help him/her out? Is it really that bad for a silver player to improve his/her army positioning or his/her micro first? Really?
And if macro, after improving other aspects, proves to be a hurddle to overcome to keep getting better then he/she will turn to that aspect of the game. But in no way should anyone here "dictate" anyone else that macro is the way to go if you want to improve, because that isn't up for them to decide for a fellow player.
Just said that you shouldnt only focus on macro, but do you think those players you talk about loses to bad strategy or bad macro? micro and all that is the cherry on top not saying you should ignore it but where is priority? u should have good macro so you dont have to struggle or do things the wrong way. one should always think about the play how you microed mechanic etc by watching reps and train the WHOLE game, im sry getting tired cant write good or more
On October 07 2011 10:00 Gnight wrote: Buuut, what if he/she wants to focus on micro to improve his/her skills? What if he/she wants to focus on positioning? Timing attacks? One can focus on all those things to improve their skills just as much one can focus on macro to improve their skills and it's up the player to decide what to do, not up to anyone else to dictate how he/she should improve "because I am a higher league player and I say so" or because "this is my view on Sc2 just like thousands other people, so you better see it the same way".
You can't practice positioning, micro and timing attacks correctly if you don't have good macro. You may learn to micro two units perfectly, but that skill is irrelevant when you are handling more than two units (read: figure of speech). Same with positioning. You can practice timing attacks, but that is irrelevant too if you miss the timing window when those timing attacks are useful because you macroed poorly. Every skill you develop with poor macro becomes useless when you correct your macro deficiencies.
What you seem to forgot with this post is that while learning a new unit composition might be more fun it is also a lot less usefull.
The new unit composition is only usefull in that very same situation whereas learning how to macro will be usefull in all situations.
On top of that it is quite likely that if you macroed better you could have beaten the fight that you lost earlier because you would have had more units.
I think the reason people focus so much on Macro is because of the yield you can get from it.
Having 50 of the 'wrong' unit, still tends to beat 25 of the 'right' unit.
I just made in this past month a YouTube channel looking only at Bronze, Silver and Gold level games, and pointing out issues players are having...and after doing, I think about 25 games now and in the vast majority of cases, it's the Macro issues that make the difference, not strategic or unit counter type issues.
This is one I did recently, really trying to focus only on the player's Macro and pointing out specifically why it is the Macro that is making the big difference, and not the unit types or Micro that determine the outcome of the game.
Basically the idea is if you put a diamond player in a gold League game...and made him do a non-sense strategy...he'd usually still win, because he'd have so many of those units.
It's like watching TL Attack, and telling a player to make only Vikings and Medivacs....and watch him still win. It's a dumb strategy, but if you make enough and macro better, you could still win.
When someone posts a replay looking for help, I do look them over, and I do give details on what I see in all categories... but I do find about 80% of that advice, particularly the more important advice is always 'You're not making workers here', 'You're not making units', 'You're not producing as you attack' and 'You're not expanding/teching'
Yes there's other things you can improve, but nothing is so high yield as Macro.
- Learning/improving macro/mechanics is boring and robotic
Bad players rather 'have fun' than to actually improve, so they attempt to argue their way out of doing the 'work' to improve.
Agreed.
Let's say it's a ZvT. You open 14 hatch, but your macro slips. It's now 8 minutes into the game, you have a baneling nest but only 4 banelings with 8 lings, your spire just started, and you're floating 800/200 with both of your queens at 75 energy.
2 tanks and 12 marines walk into your nat, siege up, and slowly you.
Your strategy, ling/bling/muta is fine. What if, however, you had 8 banelings and 24 lings extra - which you could have had. You would have rolled that push. You lost because you didn't macro hard enough.
But if you're bronze, you may look at that game and say your strategy was wrong - you shouldn't have opened hatch first, you should have gotten hooks instead of a spire, you should have blah blah blah. No, you should've just macro'd better.
People aren't trying to say that "with good macro you'll beat build order losses." They're trying to say that many holes in your game will "magically" disappear when you macro correctly.
Just to add another voice to this debate - I agree that certain build orders/strategies can help a low level player immediately improve their win ratio. Learning all-ins is an example of this.
I began in Bronze after release, and worked my way to Diamond over the six months following. So obviously my mechanics and macro started out very low. When I struggled with matchups (particularly TvZ) I would just learn to 2-port banshee which was ezpz all the way through gold and plat etc. But my play completely collapsed when I reached diamond+ players since my macro still sucked. So I had to go back to basics, lose lots, and re-learn the game.
so tl:dr - you can improve your win rate with strategies, get better over night, but its pretty much a waste of time. And no I don't believe there is anyone out there who can't make it to diamond without practice and improving macro
There's no argument. OP is right. A lot of strategy forum responders are goddamn lazy, and it's always easy to view a rep, declare that somebody had over 1000 minerals, and be like "MACRO MOAR!1!!". It's sloppy and crap.
On October 07 2011 10:53 Crosswind wrote: There's no argument. OP is right. A lot of strategy forum responders are goddamn lazy, and it's always easy to view a rep, declare that somebody had over 1000 minerals, and be like "MACRO MOAR!1!!". It's sloppy and crap.
-Cross
It's easy to point out because it's usually right.
It's like how in Hockey, players want to learn shooting all the time, but a lot of coaching them is improving their skating. It's boring to learn, but if the other player is skating 50% faster than you, it doesn't matter how well you pass or shoot.
When its pointed out you've got 1000 minerals and 700 gas, we're usually saying 'You'd have won if you had 12 more Units right now'
Whats the point of learning unit composition if your opponent is equally bad at macro? You'll still win, and think it was due to your 'strategy' when in fact it was just because you macroed slightly better. So you gain a bit more MMR and then come crashing back to earth and complain about ladder anxiety
On October 06 2011 21:26 me_viet wrote: no. better mechanics WILL still triumph at lower level. Mechanics are there so you can execute the strategy properly.
Big fat duh.
But when a player is asking about strategy and you're too lazy to tell him anything but the above standard straight line, don't talk anymore. You're not responsive.
A: How do I do proper pullups? B: Just get stronger, lol, if you're strong enough you can do any number ezpz
On October 06 2011 21:26 me_viet wrote: no. better mechanics WILL still triumph at lower level. Mechanics are there so you can execute the strategy properly.
Big fat duh.
But when a player is asking about strategy and you're too lazy to tell him anything but the above standard straight line, don't talk anymore. You're not responsive.
A: How do I do proper pullups? B: Just get stronger, lol, if you're strong enough you can do any number ezpz
You all sound like that.
I disagree - a better analogy is a triathlon. A guy comes along asking for advice to help get his time under xyz, and expecting to learn about his technique to transition from the swim to the bike. Experienced people just say "bro, you weigh 200 kg, your fitness is whats holding you back, train more rather than worrying about losing 30 seconds on a transition"
Its not the nicest advice, but its the correct advice if they want to improve
edit: I also think its sadly ironic that newer players looking for quick-fix advice to help them improve in the short term is annoyed that the advice they receive is 'lazy'
I agree with what the OP said in that lower league players can also be concerned about strategy aswell and I am a masters player. Also to people who use the example of destiny doing the mass queen strat to get to platnum saying that you dont need strategy you just need macro ability arent quite right becasue what i see this proves is that destiny is a GM player and he was losing to platnum players (which he was towards the end of the expirement) because he was using a bad strategy.
So this obviously proves that strategy is an important part of the game and it would definatly help lower players to be using solid strategys instead of just working on macro and mechanics while going for really stupid strategys because then you could have GM level mechanics but be losing to guys in plat.
EPT
