|
On October 07 2011 10:22 hkf wrote:
The last ten pages boils down to this
- Learning/improving strategy is fun and dynamic
- 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.
Players that want to actually improve listen to the advice of players better than them, and work on their macro/mechanics, despite how boring it is.
/thread.
I got decently far with my conscious effort mostly being on strategy. Sure, I also focused a lot on basic macro stuff like not missing pylons, having close to optimal builds, etc. etc., but before I worked on any of that specifically I tried a lot of different strategical ideas.
Of course if you want to be the next flash you need to spend hours and hours drilling macro, but if you're silver level and you seriously think you want to be flash you're delusional. So what's the point in telling someone to only focus on macro if it's not enjoyable? Someone who is a beginner at anything will not ever accomplish much if they don't enjoy it, whereas even someone with poor habits can become quite good at something they enjoy.
|
I remember seeing a Master player ladder an account from bronze to diamond by making stalkers and stalkers only, never harassing or scouting (besides initial probe scout), expanding at standard timings, getting upgrades at standard timings, never putting any pressure on his opponent, and a-clicking his opponent's base when he was at 200/200.
Seriously just macro, if you want a strategy, make pure stalkers.
|
On October 07 2011 11:40 iSTime wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2011 10:22 hkf wrote:
The last ten pages boils down to this
- Learning/improving strategy is fun and dynamic
- 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.
Players that want to actually improve listen to the advice of players better than them, and work on their macro/mechanics, despite how boring it is.
/thread. I got decently far with my conscious effort mostly being on strategy. Sure, I also focused a lot on basic macro stuff like not missing pylons, having close to optimal builds, etc. etc., but before I worked on any of that specifically I tried a lot of different strategical ideas. Of course if you want to be the next flash you need to spend hours and hours drilling macro, but if you're silver level and you seriously think you want to be flash you're delusional. So what's the point in telling someone to only focus on macro if it's not enjoyable? Someone who is a beginner at anything will not ever accomplish much if they don't enjoy it, whereas even someone with poor habits can become quite good at something they enjoy.
Because in general whenever I see sub-Masters people post about strategy help it is always about a very specific instance in a very specific game where they want to know exactly what they should have had in this very specific instance in this very specific game. They disregard 20 minutes of play lead lead up to the event and think that despite being down the entire game they could have won the engagement with this mythical combination of units that apparently can be spewed from asshole to battlefield. It is very rarely "Proper response to FFE on Tal'Darim Alter" it is always "What did I do wrong?" and they include a single replay and ask how they could have won the game. Assuming that all the horrible decisions, macro mistakes and sweeping RTS decisions they failed upon leading up to a decisive engagement are meaningless. Instead of getting into a Bronze level theorycrafting war with someone it is always easier to just say "Your resources are at 2000/750 and supply at 120 at 20 minutes. Fix that." I've honestly never had a valid discussion with a lower level player that didn't end up into a massive pissing contest about who can theorycraft themselves out of any situation.
|
On October 07 2011 11:40 iSTime wrote:
I got decently far with my conscious effort mostly being on strategy. Sure, I also focused a lot on basic macro stuff like not missing pylons, having close to optimal builds, etc. etc., but before I worked on any of that specifically I tried a lot of different strategical ideas.
Of course if you want to be the next flash you need to spend hours and hours drilling macro, but if you're silver level and you seriously think you want to be flash you're delusional. So what's the point in telling someone to only focus on macro if it's not enjoyable? Someone who is a beginner at anything will not ever accomplish much if they don't enjoy it, whereas even someone with poor habits can become quite good at something they enjoy.
A fair post, maybe the take home message that its not useful to assume that a [H] is posted out of a desire to get sustainably better. Maybe the correct response is to direct them to a thread of 'fun easy builds'. But then liquipedia has that so I'm not sure if its really a gap.
|
I'm a masters player and I can 1v2 a silver and a platinum level player making pure lings and queens.
Also, I remember playing broodwar back in the day when I just started and could win a game or two by doing a lurker drop in the main, but it didn't matter because even if I could get into the main and destroy their worker line I would still lose a lot because my macro was awful.
So if you're going to be asking about strategies to help you win games, you can't get any advice from a masters level player, because anything they tell you will require you to play at close to the same level in order to get it done.
|
On October 07 2011 11:40 tuestresfat wrote:
I remember seeing a Master player ladder an account from bronze to diamond by making stalkers and stalkers only, never harassing or scouting (besides initial probe scout), expanding at standard timings, getting upgrades at standard timings, never putting any pressure on his opponent, and a-clicking his opponent's base when he was at 200/200.
Seriously just macro, if you want a strategy, make pure stalkers.
Pretty sure a terran player that knows how to make marauders and stim can win with 50 food less in units
That's why scouting (and reacting) is important at bronze level too.
|
On October 07 2011 11:53 aznhockeyboy16 wrote:
So if you're going to be asking about strategies to help you win games, you can't get any advice from a masters level player, because anything they tell you will require you to play at close to the same level in order to get it done.
If a lowbie asks a masters level player, "What do I do against mass Stalker" or "How many Turrets should I use for Muta defense", the answers aren't directly related to macro nor do they require masters level play to put into practice.
|
Disclaimer: I only read the first page of comments so I might be just restating someone else.
Sup,
High Diamond here (imo im going on masters but w/e)
Here are a few points that players make about low tier players:
1. Macro is the most important aspect of the game.
2. Learning anything other then macro is a waste of time.
3. Strategy and unit composition doesn't matter until diamond/master.
Here is what I think:
Some low tier players have limited time. It is a more efficient use of playing time if player x is trying to improve multiple aspects of their game, as opposed to solely macro. (For example, 70% of time is spent macroing, 15% thinking about unit composition, 10% thinking about overall strategy of your game and 5% microing.)
It would be extremely helpful to lower tier players if us diamond+ players gave more information then less about a particular scenario that the lower tier player is having trouble with. This gives the lower tier player the answer while only knowing part of the question.
For example:
Question: In PvZ why does the protoss usually open with 4-5 sentries + 1zlot, THEN make attacking units?
(Simple) Answer: Because sentries are great units for defending using Force Fields early on against possible roach/ling pressure on your expansion. Also if the sentries survive to the mid game, they will have alot more energy as opposed to JUST building them AT the mid game.
^ We cannot expect the lower tier players to immediately incorporate ALL of this type of knowledge into their game play, but it gives them a general idea that there is a bunch more going on in the game then just, Blob A vs Blob B, Blob A wins because it is bigger.
tl:dr More advice given to lower players is better then less or none at all.
MultiSniper
|
hi,
low platinum protoss from NA server here.
I agree its not fun to macro at the start specially when you're new to the game. you want to try out almost all units in your race, imitate what this pro player did and so on. however if you really want to get better and I'm assuming you do, you will try and improve your macro.
take my instance for example. during Season 1 I was bronze (see my profile if you like srael.805) this was the time when I was new in the game and trying out lots of stuff all at the same time. a friend later on introduced me to the Day 9 dailies and I watched an episode where a protoss expands and plays macro games. I thought to myself to try that and just make pure gateway units and make colossus when I remember to. at first it was shit really. I was having a hard time continuing to make probes, expanding and massing army but later on I noticed that I started winning because I had a much bigger army than my enemy.
Come season 2 I got promoted to silver and kept doing one strategy per match up regardless of what they are doing. I lose sometimes to something I didn't expect but majority of the time I still won again because of a much bigger army. I then get promoted to gold and later on to platinum and I'm still doing the same thing.
i ask most people i know playing SC2 regardless of league and they know that macro is the way to go. you may ignore it but if you do most likely you won't improve drastically. having a great strategy up your sleeve which catches your enemy by surprise is good yes but having a solid macro based strategy will still prove worthwhile and much more helpful for you.
TL;DR;
I got promoted from bronze to platinum doing the same thing per match-up and most of the time when I win I win because my army is way bigger because of a better macro.
PS.
i still suck i know but what i know is if i still improve on my macro i can later on be a much better player and I can start copying the builds of the pros with much more ease. 
|
What low level players don't realize is that mechanics and strategy go hand in hand. You can't have one without the other, so it's useless practicing "strategy" without the mechanics to support it.
You see that amazing build that has the first 15m mapped out with perfect responses? You want to know how it's done?
With 200+ APM and near perfect multitask.
You can't execute relevant strategy without mechanics. If your mechanics are only good enough to not be overwhelmed by the 5m mark, then that's about as far as your strategies can go. Start working on getting perfect mechanics to the 8m mark, and now you can do 2x as many strategies, but you still can't play mid/late game. Now get your 12m, and then 15m, and then 20m executions down.
Strategy IS execution.
|
Here's the other problem too that I don't think has really been talked about yet.
Most of the time the cause of the loss is macro. Everybody understands that marauders are going to crush stalkers, and that if you're making stalkers and he makes marauders you're going to lose. This isn't the reason for the posts low level players make posts asking about help with certain strategies.
Low level players need to realize that I can't tell you to make zealots and to try this or that because chances are you probably already know that.
The solution 99% of the time is usually bad macro, for everybody who plays no matter what the level of play. I've played games where I've lost because of bad control, but I know why I lost and I'm sure a low level player will realize that having his army on move instead of attack move is the reason he lost. I've played games where it's been a build order/scouting loss where I've been stuck with marines trying to kill an early 2 colli push but again it's really obvious why I lost.
When things get super frustrating and a certain build is killing you so much you want to make a post here on TL about it you have to understand that it's almost always a macro problem or else you would already know the solution.
|
Sorry I stopped reading at about page four so I don't know if this has already been said.
I think in the trailer for StarNation there is an interview with QXC where he talks about the perceived difficulty of the game and how everyone likes to say they have good macro just that their scouting or positioning or harassing or whatever is weak and that's why they lose. His response was that if you can't perfectly macro WHILE attacking and WHILE harassing, you actually aren't perfect at macro. If you think you can macro "pefectly" then do what you are doing now and add a simultaneous drop while you macro until that's perfect too. Basically for people that think hey have "perfect" or even "pretty good" macro, that is only when they are tunnel visioned and only focusing on their base. I'm not really sure where I'm trying to do with this, but I think it's in response to people that are trying to argue that while hey know their macro holds them back, their macro is "good enough" to get promoted, if only they could strategize better with what they have. The fact is, your macro is not good and if you actually had perfect macro, you probably could win with only marines and multiple drops everywhere, or with muta/ling using perfect and simultaneous counters and backstabs.
As a plat player myself I realize that it is easy to underestimate how good you can actually be at macro and so I fall into the trap of thinking my macro is actually pretty close to perfect since there's not much more I can improve on. When in reality my macro only seems good because I don't ever try to stress my macro multitasking, knowing that if I do, my money will build up and make me feel bad.
|
If a low level player actually wants a good strategy they should just watch a pro game and copy their build, if they are zerg maybe watch 20 replays of 1 zerg doing a similar build over and over to note adjustments. If you lose watch your replay and try to figure out what you could have done. Often times it's if I had more income and better injects I could have just made 50 lings and crushed that, but I didn't have enough bases or good enough injects.
If the player really wants to improve they need to get their macro and micro to the point where they can execute a strategy that they see in a match. Even at high masters I sometimes don't hit one inject soon enough and the lack of income from those 4 drones being delayed by 8 seconds snowballs and I die to a midgame timing that a pro wouldnt have micro or not.
|
I will, for the final time, tell you why nearly all of these responses are shitty. "MACRO BETTER" is a vague term that could mean any number of things. If you give the response 'macro better" then you're giving a shitty response. Something like "you floating too many minerals, expand more or make more units" isn't a completely useless answer, and it gives the OP something to focus on next game.
Yes, macro and mechanics are extremely important. And yes, macro is generally the reason why people lose, especially at lower levels. But if someone asks what they did wrong overall, don't give them a vague, bullshit answer. Point out something specific that they can work on, ffs. Simply stating 'macro better' shows you're too lazy to analyze a replay and actually give useful advice on what the OP could do to improve.
So to everyone saying 'macro better", you are almost right. Instead of saying macro better, why don't you try saying a specific part of the macro that needs fixing: such as drone production, scouting, floating minerals, missing injects/mule/CBs. I'm pretty sure it would help out a lot more then simply saying "macro better hurr durr".
|
I'm a masters terran player. From my experience, you can get into masters but pure macro. The only strategy you need is common sense, such as making vikings to kill collosi
|
On October 06 2011 20:38 sfbaydave wrote:
Everyone thats reads anything on these forums understand the basics of the game. We all realize, especially at the lower levels that macro is the fundamental aspect in any game that determines the winner or loser. Whenever I see a thread from a lower level players asking for advice..its always the same response, "Dude, forget the replay....work on your macro!!!"
But the frustrating part is sometimes we lose because of wrong STRATEGY. I know this sounds silly to the higher level players out there...."How can you use strategy when u miss injects, are supply blocked, etc." But it does happen....and when it does, we come here asking for advice. But, sometime its hard to get advice, as soon it becomes known, that we are silver/gold players.
Another frustrating part is that us lower level guys know we need to work on our macro but its not something you can change overnight. Working on never missing an inject, macroing during a big battle, never being supply blocked are things that even diamond/masters players work on. Having perfect macro is something that some people may never even be able to achieve. We just might be too slow or our multitasking may never be at a great level.
But what what we can improve quickly on is our knowledge of the game. We may not have time to spend playing 10-15 games everyday but do have time to read up and ask how to counter a certain build I see. And it will help us immediately in our next ladder game.
I am not trying to be one of those silver guys who say, "but I play up to a diamond level..." Most of us know why we are in the level we are. We know our MACRO SUCKS but that doesnt mean we can't use strategy. Strategy wouldnt matter if I'm playing a much better player but in ladder were are evenly matched.
So, please take it easy on us lower level guys and help us out. Remember most everyone was where are at some point.
God people like you just don't understand...
BECAUSE you DON'T macro properly or have NOT worked out your strategy in practice you lose. If you 15 hatched and got 6pooled don't come to these forums asking why you lost.
FUNDAMENTALLY macro is top priority in low leagues, BASICALLY its made up of
Being able to spend money
Getting to 3 saturated bases asap
Not getting supply capped
At a higher level macro is also the ability to multitask.
WHICH MEANS
Being able to spend money WHILE getting to 3 saturated bases while not getting supply capped WHILE SCOUTING. Which means you should LEARN to macro, that way when it comes down to the nitty-gritty you've scouted your opponent, COUNTERED what they are going by CHANGING your strategy SLIGHTLY to benefit you.
Like lets say you are terran and your opponent is zerg and you open reactor hellion into mech.
If your opponent opens roaches and you SCOUT it, you should be able to EXPLOIT his strategy by UNDERSTANDING his weaknesses NOT blaming you chose the wrong strategy.
So you people need to stop complaining that macro isn't the only answer and that you are generally just bad and can't take blame for your losses. The only reason you lose is because of you, the only reason you win is because of you. Learn to take advantage of strategies your opponent does instead of look at how to defend the exploits your opponent does to you.
END OF DISCUSSION FOREVER!
|
People are retarded sometimes. This topic is the sole reason why the strategy forum is sadly almost worthless for helping low level players to improve. I am someone who started with zero previous rts experience, and very little innate "skill" (slow hands, tendency to tunnelvision etc etc). And worked my way all the way up from the bottom to masters league. I love this game, spend as much time watching streams/tourneys as playing and my thoughts are kind of as follow. (Besides just the disgust at the elitist dribble in this thread from people who there is no way they are all even Masters players)
1) You don't just tell someone to improve their macro. Its worthless. Anybody remotely serious about improving knows from the bottom of their soul that they need to do this. Its not that its bad or wrong advice, its just not HELPFUL advice.
2) Looking at replays and providing specific individual advice on where to improve macro is on the other hand extremely helpful.
3) The matchmaking system is good. People play against their own level of opponents. This is important. Generally speaking macro does not cause you to lose games. Yes, I said that. It is undeniably true that for most players better macro would cause them to win games. But the macro is not what lost them the game because most likely their opponent macroed similarly. And with equally "bad" macro, often times games are actually lost for strategic reasons.
4) So telling people not to worry at all about strategy is silly, the two go hand in hand. Unit control and strategy lose you games in lower brackets. Macro wins you games. You need to improve both.
5) Finally and most importantly, the only way I know to develop better macro is to play a lot and watch/analyze your play. Having others do this is also helpful. But there is basically nothing a forum is going to do to help you with your macro. On the other hand, forums can be very helpful regarding strategy. So why not help lower players with what you can? Point out their macro needs improving, but don't bash them over the head with it, and try to give helpful strategic advice as well.
I will never ever ever be a pro, but my word to encouragement to lower league players who honestly want to improve is just play a lot, and with the right mindset. (Trying to improve) This is what builds macro, not forum rants about it being the most important thing (duh). It took me about 800 wins, so over 1500 games and a year of time before I got into Master's league; and you know what? I was not actually any better than the day before when I was in lowly diamond. GL all.
|
Watch professional Sc2. While that may not truly prepare you for defending the bronze/silver level ultra cheeses, it'll give you a great backbone for builds. I SUCK at Terran (I play Random), but by watching pro players play terran I understand what I'm SUPPOSED to do, even if I cannot do it yet. After that, it's just practice, experience, and perseverance.
I beat a Protoss the other day with one Banshee and some micro. Mechanics really, really matter.
|
Nah ... most of the time it´s "macro better and u would have won", but if you playing at a lower level most of the time the macro of your opponent also sucks so it´s an even game. And in this even game where both peoples macro isn´t that awsome the strategy part determinates the winner. Theoretical you win if you would have macroed better and had like 15 units more in the fight, but it´s not the case. The player who asks for an advise want´s an advise in the particular situation, not about his overall game.
So back to the bad, but even macro game. "You cant have timings with bad macro"... Yes you can. According to the piont both players macro sucks timeing are possible in some point that they are simply taking place later in the game than at high level. But the opponent also dosen´t have that much stuff, cause it´s later than the timing normaly occours, but due to his macrofails he isn´t far beyond the other player who executes the "delayed" timing, so it evens out.
So if you have the supirior strategy in an macrowise even game, strategy matters, also in lower leagues!
|
Another problem is that there are no good benchmarks for this game. Leagues are great for casual players and maybe for most people to grasp, but they are not good for, or meant to represent skill.
Master league in SC2 is everything from D to B ICCUP (D- being the lower leagues). There is a tremendous different of skill from D to B, whereas at the lower leagues, it's mostly the same approximate level of incompetence.
But of course giving everyone a D- rating would be extremely discouraging.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
