EPT[D] Why us lower level players hate "macro better" - Page 12
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
|
GotTheLife
91 Posts
| ||
|
hobbidude
Canada171 Posts
resoucres as efficiently as possible you will still win. And despite what Malhavoc said about sometimes strategy does count; quoting him "200 food pure colossi still lose to 100 food pure viking" - even this is completely false. I have personally played games where it was litterly a 200 food immortal army against a 100 void ray army and dispite the opponent having the "correct strategy" the immortals still demolished him and cost him a loss. | ||
|
tuestresfat
2555 Posts
On October 07 2011 12:00 101toss wrote: 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. My argument - you can use a terrible strategy and get to diamond level off good mechanics, allow me to reference this guy doing it making only stalkers. Your argument - the strategy you used in your example is easily countered in bronze. Can you please read... The strategy is, as you said, fucking terrible. YET HE GOT TO DIAMOND. WONDER WHAT THAT MEANS. | ||
|
weishime
65 Posts
Personally I suck at keeping up with injects and using larva while I am trying to harass with mutalisks or dealing with an attack from the enemy. It partially comes from lacking the muscle memory to cycle through hatch,larva,build thing but in the case of injects not feeling comfortable using backspace inject. Instead after a battle I generally backspace then select queen with mouse which takes more time due to just panicking. This is a difficult problem as it requires a conscious effort while playing to override the bad habit. Practicing this while in a ladder game is hard because I want to win and against the computer is too boring. Finding practice partners to play the say 20+ games in a row is difficult as well :/ at best I can get a couple of games a night around ladder games which seems to revert any developing muscle memory. I also had a big issue getting supply blocked but that was fixed after watching a video of Destiny teaching where he mentioned putting an overlord on the end of every round of larva. This is a simple solution and makes sense when Destiny mentioned as you are getting into making anything else rather than zerglings that they cost 2 food anyway. This kind of thing where a point is made and then a simple solution is given is much more constructive than simply saying don't get supply blocked and I feel a similar kind of thing could be done when pointing out someone's minerals are too high. | ||
|
CatNzHat
United States1599 Posts
Just pick one build for each matchup, preferably a 2 base timing push, and exectute that build as well as you can, then compare it to the pro rep you stole it from, see where it differs, and get as good as you can at executing that build, once you can execute to near perfection, you should be masters and have some idea of what strategy is and what you're doing wrong and why. | ||
|
tuestresfat
2555 Posts
http://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/f7e8j/seriously_guys_if_youre_in_platinum_or_below_your/ He made stalkers and stalkers only. Only probe scouted, nothing further. Did not pressure his opponent until max. Literally a-click micro. Strategy is irrelevant in lower leagues because neither you nor your opponent can execute said strategies effectively for it to matter. | ||
|
Shebuha
Canada1335 Posts
Example: Game plan - get a safe expansion with detection, get a strong army with upgrades, take a 3rd base at 150 food or when safe and win using a big push. BO - 3gate expo --> forge --> robo --> colossus --> 3rd base --> 200/200 push and win What will I work on these next 10 games? - scouting with hallucinated phoenix. If you lay out what you're going to do in this sort of manner you can see how things affect each other and how the game is going to go becomes clear. If you say YOUR gameplan, you can find a build that suites it. And if your game plan is to take a 3rd base when safe or at 150 food, then working on scouting with hallucinated phoenix will improve your 3rd base timing gigantically. A lot of people go into ladder to just mass games, win and 'work on macro', but it's way too hard to just 'work on macro', because macroing is ton of work to get good at, but you if you just choose 1 thing like, "This game I will constantly build probes and spend all of my extra chrono that I don't use on robo/upgrades on probes." OMG after like 2-5 games a day for like 1-2 week you will never ever forget to build and chrono probes. Then you can move onto something like, "Now I will work on scouting every 60 seconds with hallucinated phoenix (and paying attention to them while they're scouting) while building and chronoing probes." and after another 1 week or whatever you will be able to do 2 things that players in Masters still suck shit at. Obviously you can still work on your timings for making shit and whatever, but put your extra focus you might normally spend on nothing, or attacking for no fucking reason on something really relevant to a low level player. Damnit... I hope that made sense. <3 | ||
|
Shebuha
Canada1335 Posts
On October 07 2011 15:50 tuestresfat wrote: Here is a link of someone using a pretty bad strategy and getting to Diamond. http://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/f7e8j/seriously_guys_if_youre_in_platinum_or_below_your/ He made stalkers and stalkers only. Only probe scouted, nothing further. Did not pressure his opponent until max. Literally a-click micro. Strategy is irrelevant in lower leagues because neither you nor your opponent can execute said strategies effectively for it to matter. YEAH YEAH!!!! This is how I got to Diamond as Zerg (I've since switched to Protoss) I basically watched Idra and was like, "He makes ling/bling/muta and expands and harasses terran icandodat" And then I became a shittier version of Idra with 6 bases, 80 drones, 60 lings, 40 banelings, 30 mutas, 4k/2k and the A button. What's up tank lines? | ||
|
DandyConeJellos
United States6 Posts
| ||
|
Gnight
77 Posts
On October 07 2011 10:24 LagT_T wrote: 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. Sorry, but I feel there's where you are wrong on, you'r making it too black and white, nothing can be of use at a good level without macro being at a good level as well is pretty much what you are saying here. You shouldn't compare one's macro skills of their league up the macro skills of players in a league he/she wants to be and set them next to timings/build order execution times that pro players can pull off. If I look at two silver players playing each other, then each of those two players has their own strenghts and weaknesses right off the bat. Perhaps one of them has a better macro, but the other a better micro, then each of those two players can use their strenght to their advantage and pull themselves a win. Regardless wheter this is macro or micro, because both aspects play a important part into the game. Now you talk about the amount of units one has with poor macro, but compared to a macro skill of a same level league player, the difference in supply won't be that big even if that player has a stronger macro, seeing they around the same skill level. Look at the Grandmasters, pro tourneys, each pro player has strenghts and weaknesses. You don't hear everyone labeling every pro player with a amazing macro play, no you see people labeling certain players with godlike micro, others have that sick macro play, some are insane good with timing attacks. All of those things can pull you to victory at that high level, so why not at low level? After all, your skill may be less, but the opponents skill level is too. Alot of people see macro as the basis of all other skills/aspects of the game, I simply see macro as a option to be the basis. In the end it's up to the player themselves to decide what they want their strenght/basis to be, if that isn't macro then so be it. We can keep on saying "macro better, macro better, because I think that is the basis to everything else", but that doesn't make it right in the other persons eyes. And this is about just that. Someone wants some advice and why not deliver the advice he/she is seeking? Instead we are just throwing the same old advice over and over against their heads, because so many people believe that their view of the game (macro in this case) is the right one, because so many people share that view. Sorry, but that is just plain wrong to think and believe in my eyes. No matter how many people believe in something, that alone doesn't make it a fact, simple as that. You got your view, I get mine and someone else got theirs, why can't we all just leave it at that and support them in their view instead of forcing our views upon them? On October 07 2011 10:24 LagT_T wrote: 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. Once again, that's your view, doesn't make it a fact. Learning positionings isn't just about learning one situation out of your head and that's it. It's so much more then just that, just like macro is so much more then just building workers. I feel like alot of people are misjudging the fact that macro isn't the only broad aspect of a game, there is so much more it when I say to learn about positioning. If one learns how and when to flank with various of units against various of other units, then is that really only usefull in 1 situation? Really? Same goes for tank positioning, collossi positioning, broodlord positioning, caster posititioning. You can say all you want, but lower level league players lose just as easily because of poor positioning then of poor macro, this simply because the opponent they are facing skill level is around theirs, that includes the macro. You can train macro to pull ahead over your opponents, but just as well learn about better positioning and simply outplay your opponent with better engagement, even though he has that small supply advantage. The better macro won't pull you 50 supply ahead at those leagues, so almost never you will face such a huge army that positioning doesn't even matter and if you'r macro is really that good to almost always put you 50 supply ahead over a opponent then you are clearly already in a wrong league. So don't say one's positioning is useless compared to the sheer number of units the macro player has in a engagement, because even that doesn't so much apply here seeing their skill level (once again) are around the same level. On October 07 2011 10:30 Wroshe wrote: 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. Read the above reply, pretty much the same applies to what you are saying. In the end you all see macro as the basis of pretty much all other aspects of the game, I don't and so far I have played Sc2 happily, improved and without any heavy focus on macro, that skill pulled along as I focused on other things I more enjoyed focusing on and used to pull me a win. Like army compositioning, scouting at the right times to get the right info to completely counter the opponents army with mine, I "shrugged" at the supply disadvantage and simply won, because I was able to look beyond just "macro better" and focus on other aspects to win me the game. Even so, this all isn't even about how you see the game and how I see the game. This topic is about getting advice and if a player asks for advice on how to get better, being the friendly, helpfull bunch we are, we should hand them such advice, right? Now here comes the issue the OP is putting forth. He is sorta sick, just like 90% of all other low level league players to hear "macro better". Now I know alot of people will just say "yes, but it's the best advice to improve and that is what they are lacking", well perhaps that is right, that's for everyone different though in my eyes. But more importantly, why not give those people other advice aside their macro they can practice on? Really, there is no harm for you to do such a thing, in fact you are helping them. You aren't giving out false advice or anything, you are just pointing out other things aside macro that one can practice to improve their overall gameplay. Because a better micro will always come in handy, a better insight in what kind of army composition one has to have is never wrong to have, knowing better how, where and when to engage with your army will not make you a worse player. So instead of acting all high on our horses and pulling the "macro" view out of our asses and pushing it in their faces like alot of people keep doing, why not actually help them beyond that if that's what they want? Ps, Kornholi0, there was no need to "yell" at the Op for putting forth his view/opinion, don't hate anyone personally for voicing out his/her opinion at any given point actually. We are, well should be, all grown up enough to hold a healthy discussion I do believe. | ||
|
Sablar
Sweden880 Posts
On October 07 2011 07:30 DanceSC wrote: Don't assume that when someone doesn't say 'macro better' then imply you cheese more. That is ridiculous, if you want to argue about it then lets take this to private messaging. I got to diamond / masters off of 2g robo and adapting to what my opponent was doing, my build order ended after the first stalker came out and from there it was 100% mechanics. The question was 'how can I improve' and what is being implied is -> "I am sick of hearing 'macro better' how about some constructive advice, should I have engaged the army at this time? was this a good decision? when is it a good time to take my third?" You don't really make sense. I never said that "not saying macro better = cheese more". Just that better macro or cheese is the two most important things if you want to win games, not strategy. 100% mechanics from your side seems like you got further by macro, so I will assume you agree with me. But then you apparently don't because it's better to know when to take a 3rd base and other info like that. If you don't have workers in your first two and got money saved up it just doesn't matter. Just because an advice is boring (still) doesn't mean that it isn't the best advice. At least for the purpose of winning. Like previously mentioned for the purpose of having fun you could think of strategy. | ||
|
Tsenister
United Kingdom112 Posts
You'll be surprised that half over half the pointless clicking and scrolling lower level players do instead of making sure that they are just building out of all their structures/ queen injecting. | ||
|
Carnagath
230 Posts
| ||
|
Monkeyballs25
531 Posts
| ||
|
secretary bird
447 Posts
On October 07 2011 15:11 Atreides wrote: 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. I totally agree. If you re just going to say "macro better" you might as well shut up. And all those people saying you lose 99% of the time because of your macro that is just bullshit. Have you never lost games where your supply, upgrades, economy and production was better than your opponents? I hardly ever lose because I got outmacroed, just doesnt happen because of MMR. Of course if you can train your mechanics hard every day you can outmacro your current opponents but you wont be able to do that against the players you face then. And what does someone getting to diamond with just stalkers proof? Nothing except that his real level is better than diamond and maybe that mass blink stalkers are pretty damn good. I mean you can get to diamond by winning 4 games total, 6 pooling, proxy gating. Just getting to diamond doesnt mean anything only if you can win with all kinds of builds consistently in diamond than that is your skill-level. | ||
|
Deleted User 135096
3624 Posts
Whenever a more skilled player tells someone they need to macro better, or that macro will solve %90 of your problems sub-diamond, whether in a generalized statement or not, a lot of times these people don't mind helping you out, some actually enjoy helping out, but they are also assuming from their own experiences that you, A. genuinely want to improve (I mean, you did make a [H]thread for it, yes?) and that B. because you want to improve, you will do the necessary work/research on this topic on your own. This second part is really incredibly important because the only way to improve in Starcraft is by proactively doing or looking for what is necessary in order to improve. Too often people today err on the side of laziness, and it's become easy to be flippant with better players who seem to be looking down on them when they just say 'macro better'. These players have to realize that we can't help you improve (unless were in a coaching position where we can help your directly) we can point you in the right direction or give you advice, but you have to put in the time and do the work for yourself, and that's why improving is hard. ..I'm trying to free your mind, Neo. But I can only show you the door. You're the one that has to walk through it. As an example, If I wanted to improve my macro, or didn't know what macro entailed, I used the search function and did a very quick search on TL for macro based topics, or improvement topics and I came across a plethora of them. Below are a few: [spoiler=use the search function  ]Cecil's Improvement Guide http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=208343http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=195389 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=192233 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=266019 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=191745 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=235523 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=216550 [/spoiler] | ||
|
Archybaldie
United Kingdom818 Posts
| ||
|
Rabid Wookie
United States68 Posts
You absolutely can not do anything in Starcraft 2 without macro supporting it. First and foremost for people that want to improve is to work on their macro. Second is their overall strategy, build order, and game plan for the match up. Third is how to position your units. I guarantee if you work on your short comings in that order the rest of the game will fall into place but you need macro more than anything else by far. Show me a great micro player who has terrible macro that can beat someone who has great macro but terrible micro it just wont happen don't care who it is. Now show me a great micro player with just barely not as good of macro against a great macro player who isn't as good at micro and suddenly it's a different story. For another example a bronze zerg player asks why he lost to a marine tank push the answer is probably a very long list of things both players did wrong in their macro. Now a platinum Terran asks why he lost to Chargelot, Blink Stalker, Collossi, High Templar death ball, still probably a lot of factors, I'm sure macro played a role, probably positioning, when they got what, so on but here still without crisp macro the rest of the answers are only situational and wont help the player get better beyond playing against that build. | ||
|
LaduxB
Australia9 Posts
This week I decided to just focus on making probes and reminding myself to make probes and just disregard who I'm playing on ladder, or what league they're in or anything like that. Funny thing is that it made a massive difference to everything. Suddenly I had an extra 3000 minerals that I had no idea what to do with - in other words it opened up up a whole bunch of strategies I could now do because I have that extra money. So what I'm saying is that strategy and macro aren't exclusive. They actually rely on each other quite a lot. So I guess I'd suggest just picking out one single thing and focusing on that for 20 games. Nobody is going to care about your gold league win/loss record and if they do then they're a moron anyway. So just focus on improving or having fun or both. | ||
|
Freud
Sweden54 Posts
Anyway... The reason the OP is correct is that there are different variables that determine how good of a player you are. Improving on any of these will make you a better player. Thus: Given that all players in Silver League macro just as bad/good. Its quite obvious that being good at the strategy part will de facto make you better than a player who is not good at the strategy part. | ||
| ||
![[image loading]](http://ctrlaltdesign.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/micro-macro-balance-white_design.png)
