|
On October 08 2011 03:57 EnderSword wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2011 03:49 lvent wrote:On October 08 2011 03:11 Rabid Wookie wrote:On October 08 2011 02:57 lvent wrote:
Honestly, if I was playing against another plat person right now, and we had 2 coaches "training" us. My coach teaching me a build/timing attack/strat; my opponents coach teaching him proper "macro". I would be willing to wager that a well executed strategy would overwhelm the macro at the early levels. Yea that's great you got your optimal probe count/not floating insane amounts of minerals etc; but if you dont see or are properly prepared for what I am building you are done, especially at the lower levels. A properly executed strat is brutal. There is no "properly executed strat" in the lower leagues. They just don't have the mechanics for it even with coaching. Most Master's would have a hard time perfectly executing a strategy which is why they aren't proffessional players. If i mimic a build that has a timing attack at xx:xx time and pull it off with a variable of +/- 20secs at the lower leagues its deadly; the problem I come across with personally is transition out and moving on the the next phase, and thats where *me* personally needs to get better with my macro. And that is something I realize that my macro game needs to work on. My point I still stand by is if Pro A is teaching a bo/ta to student A while Pro B is working on perfecting the macro of student B, I say student A wins 70%+ of those games at > diamond. But that's a non-sensical comparison...if you exactly copy a build and timing attack hitting at a certain time, then you are copying Good Macro. What do you think a Timing push IS? It's using Macro to hit a critical number of units or tech that is able to strike an opponent at a moment they're unprepared for it. If your timing push was supposed to be 6 marines, 4 marauders and 3 Tanks... But your macro slips and you've got 4 marines, 3 maruaders and 2 tanks...you might lose. But if you've actually copied the timing build and have all those units...you copied the Good Macro too.
Fair enough, and is this not a valid way to learn/improve at the game? I see a ton of post in this thread saying focus on mechanics not strats, but if strats will help you improve why would you not practice them?
If I do ladder games and just focus on the build, win or lose if I felt i competently executed it, I am fine with myself. Sometimes I just play against players that are just flat out better than me currently. I watch the majority of my games and see what I missed, what I need to *try* and address; its a lot of work to get good in this game no doubt 
|
I think the logic is usually that by totally copying at low levels...you're not really "Learning" macro, you're just copying the macro in a precise order.
I see a lot of replays where a dude macros and builds perfectly until 60 supply, then launches his attack. And immediately his Macro disappears and he lets everything fall apart.
I guess I consider that just memorizing a precise build, and not knowing what you're really doing.
Yes it's ok to learn a build and practice it, you should...but what people are usually telling players is that 2 gate Robo vs. 3 Gate Stargate isn't WHY you win or lose...
It doesn't matter WHICH build you do, it matters how well you do it.
Very often people are saying things like 'I don't know how to deal with...Immortals" or something but when you watch the game, they could have had 8 more roaches out and the extra units would have simply made the composition irrelevant.
So the person thinks "Oh i should made more lings...or more hydras...or I coulda got an infestor out...."
But the reality is - No, you should have made More Anything at all.
|
On October 08 2011 04:29 EnderSword wrote:
So the person thinks "Oh i should made more lings...or more hydras...or I coulda got an infestor out...."
But the reality is - No, you should have made More Anything at all.
Not a that I'm anything special, but I'm currently trying to teach two of my friends who are some extra bronze players. They keep asking for input on unit comp and what strategy to use vrs what. And one is a 2 base zerg with 32 workers and 18 lings at 15 minutes. >_< What kind of input is there to offer other than as ender says. You just need to build more. Be faster. Don't miss you production cycles. Stop supply blocking yourself.
Macro is a large part of what holds me back, but just because I don't like hearing it doesn't mean it isn't true.
|
I had a very similar friend...he loved VoidRays, that's all he ever wants to make.
I got him from Bronze to Gold...not by telling him to knock it off with the dumb VoidRays builds...but just telling him how to do it better and get more of them out faster.
|
everyone said what you've asked, we plats are bad at macro , you know the what the basic timing of things happening and know what generally do. find one thing your struggling with and get that perfect, then add another thing to the list.
|
I think the "macro better" thing is proven to be 100% true when stephano destroyed top eu gm players with nothing but lings and upgrades.
|
I am a brand new Starcraft player, and I can tell all of you fellow low level players arguing with people much more accomplished than you that they are correct, and you are wrong. Listen to the words of people who walked your path not too long ago. They know what they are talking about
Army composition(apart from the obvious air vs no antiair) does not matter one single bit at the lower levels. It may seem like you are losing to army compositions. Without going into a long post where the points made will be glossed over for some anecdotal evidence of the contrary, consider the following:
Next time you feel like you are going to lose a game because you feel your strategy was weak, take a look at your money. Take a look at your worker count. Do you have lots of money(the most likely scenario)? If not, Do you have 10 probes at your main and 6 at your nat and it's 15 minutes into the game? These 2 things are going to be 9/10 times the reason you lost
It comes down to your goals as a player. Are you playing to get better, or do you want to feel like a badass by putting tanks on the high ground and luring a group of kings into your brilliant trap? If it's the former, you need to embrace the boring part of the game, it's a prerequisite to actually playing the game. It's akin to saying you want to win a street fighter tournament without practicing execution. Untill you're proficient with what is actually required to be good at the game, you aren't even playing the same game as your competition
On the other hand, if you are cool with just taking Starcraft super casually, and not caring about doing video game chores that's totally fine too, it's a video game at the end of the day and you SHOULD do what you have fun with. But if that's the case dont come to TL and complain about how it's not your macro that is losing you games, because that's exactly what it is. And especially don't get offended and berate people for giving you the best advice you could hear
|
While it's 100% true that macro macro macro is #1, Collosus w/ +3 attack and a zealot/stalker meat shield will crush even a hefty supply disadvantage if the opponent doesn't have a way to touch the collosi.
|
On October 08 2011 05:25 Harbinger631 wrote:
While it's 100% true that macro macro macro is #1, Collosus w/ +3 attack and a zealot/stalker meat shield will crush even a hefty supply disadvantage if the opponent doesn't have a way to touch the collosi.
If you're ahead of him in macro, there's no reason he should reach that.
|
Oke, my last attempt to get some sense into this topic.
First off, we are going off-topic here, really. I blame myself for doing it too, so don't see me judging all of you and acting all high, because I most likely have done way too much of it as well in this thread. ^ ^
Now, the OP didn't want a whole discussion about what macro is nor did he ask wheter macro > other mechanics/skills or it's the other way around (at least, I do believe he didn't want to go for that).
For that matter, there's no 100% proof out there that macro is the main thing in the game to improve upon then other mechanics at low levels, anyone who claims such a thing bases that claim on own experiences/view with/of Sc2 or uses that of others and not on actual solid proof. Unless a big test will be pulled of with lower league players (controlled groups, envoriment etc. etc.), it will stay a opinion/view for each person to form for themselves and never become a outright fact, that simple.
Now what the OP is saying, according to me, is that he is sick of "macro better advice" and just wonders why it's so hard to get other advice aside that when you'r in a low league on these forums. What most people here are saying in response to that is..... "macro better = the way to go, period." Clearly anyone who looks at this knows how pointless saying such a thing is in response to the OP, no matter how detailed you put this "macro better" response. (if not then, well, I don't know, don't respond at all would be my advice I guess)
So instead of saying such things over and over in other words, why not actually adress the problem the OP is putting forth. As I have said several times before and I will just copy paste it again.
On October 07 2011 19:38 Gnight wrote:
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, do note (because I feel like it will be overlooked) that I underlined certain words for a reason. ^ ^
|
Hmm I think there is a disparity between my personal definition of macro (and may also of others) with the macro that many lower level players are defining.
I define "macro better" as
1) First and foremost, building additional production builds at the right times and keeping money low
2) While doing the above, also build units/structures to deal with unscouted bs coming at me (this could be knowing that a dt expand usually hits around 6:30-7:10 depending on how hardcore they do it, and having a spore up). Basically, macro also refers to generic builds, not anything targeted or specific.
#2 seems to not be part of macro for lower level players. But I don't really consider detection and shit to be part of a "build" in many cases as much as it is a necessity to prevent having to dice roll.
|
but there is nothing aside from macro to work on. It's the foundation of strategy. If someone tells you to build 3 sentries instead of 3 stalkers and your win rate increases by a game a night, what is that doing other than padding your ego? Sure you might increase your win% by .06 in the short term, but in the long term you are deluding yourself into thinking you're getting better when you are not.
You will develop a better game sense naturally as you work on macro. Just like you can't build a house without a foundation you can't build strategies without macro. You will fond that "having more shit at all times and faster" is a bonus that applies universally to all aspects of your game
|
Macro
Macromanagement - The creation of units, buildings, upgrades, and expansions. Also see micro.
Micro
Micromanagement - The control of units to maximize their effectiveness. Also see macro.
This is the definition of macro via the Liquipedia site.
Seems to be a struggle for people to understand what Macro is when it's an essential part of the game.
|
On October 06 2011 21:06 uraza wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2011 21:01 marvellosity wrote:
So in the CONTEXT that these players are forever striving to improve their macro, it seems entirely reasonable that they should be wanting to improve their strategical knowledge too. Especially as it's the strategical aspect that's more fun than "4eee 5c wzzzssee" Why focus on improving your strategical aspect when you can't even execute it at a decent level?
This. This x10000
|
On October 08 2011 05:46 foger wrote:
but there is nothing aside from macro to work on. It's the foundation of strategy. If someone tells you to build 3 sentries instead of 3 stalkers and your win rate increases by a game a night, what is that doing other than padding your ego? Sure you might increase your win% by .06 in the short term, but in the long term you are deluding yourself into thinking you're getting better when you are not.
You will develop a better game sense naturally as you work on macro. Just like you can't build a house without a foundation you can't build strategies without macro. You will fond that "having more shit at all times and faster" is a bonus that applies universally to all aspects of your game
And this explains it even better. Macro is the foundation of all skills in the game. Well said.
|
Anyone telling you to "Macro Better" only cares about Leagues and MMR. You'll improve as a player, but only in that you're getting a 50/50 rating against opponents of gradually increasing skill. At best, you'll win half of your games because your A-Move army was better than theirs. The assumption is that every player wants to be a Diamond-Grand Masters play, and they tell you to ignore everything else in favour of that long term goal, regardless of what you actually want from the game.
For the people that play 5 games a week, in a good week, that advice is utterly useless. Some people expect to sit in their current league for a good long while, and are interested in enjoying each individual game as much as possible. Sometimes this involves trying out different build orders, sometimes it's about watching your army melting your opponent's, and sometimes it's being able to hold that 6-pool or 4-gate.
Whatever the case is, brushing everything aside with a broad brush of "get better macro" is blatantly ignorant of a huge percentage of the player base.
|
A topic like this popped up in the blog section. Here is a copy and paste of on of my reply's:
A lot of times I get the feeling that TL caters more to masters/gm than lower leagues. Advice like "macro and you'll hit diamond in no time" with little else flies around so much it makes you feel like no one cares. I'm sorry to pick on one of your responders (because I don't think his heart is in the wrong place) but... Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 23:00 Darkdeath3 wrote:
3. I know you probally have heard it a lot and probally hate to hear it but...
M A C R O
i will watch replays of low league players and they always have questions like how do i deal with this or how do i hold this and when you check their resources they will have well over 1000/1000 banked. I cant say for sure if that macro will hold some of the rushs you were talking about but i do know that better macro wont hurt. This does almost nothing to help a lower league player. "Macro" is a loaded term. The community as a whole needs to be more specific (i.e. constantly making workers, not getting supply capped, building units before, during, and after a battle, adding unit producing structures when you have the workers to afford it, expanding, splitting your work force for optimal mining between multiple bases, etc.).
Overall, you need to be more specific. Enumerate which macro element needs most improvement and go from there.
Personally, I've hit a point (high plat) where I'm losing a good number of games because of missed injects. The losses have generated mindfulness towards this macro mechanic and has greatly improved.
Still, the OP makes a valid point with strategy. SC2 is a strategy game and your game plan needs to follow the strategy's theme. I can't tell you the number of games where a strategy I hadn't seen took me by surprise and killed me. Poor decision-making can lose a game even if you're macro was awesome and your opponent's macro sucked. Therefore, including one or two decision-making tips along with the whole "improve your macro" mantra would be invaluable help.
|
Even in high masters I've had games where I have a "superior" build but lose anyway because my macro slips. I can't improve from that any way other than macroing better since strategically I made the right choices, amplify that fault in macro to the level of the lower brackets and the macro is really all that matters.
|
Reading through this thread was incredibly frustrating. It's like 10 people pointing out that strategy's useless if you've got no mechanics and macro, and then 1 person complaining about how that's not what they want to hear, then repeat. TL I've noticed is actually really good at babying players. We'll humor you and tell you, oh, you need to harass more, and oh, you should get this upgrade earlier. But the truth is, the real advice is always the same: Your macro sucks. Your mechanics suck.
On October 07 2011 19:38 Gnight wrote:
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.
If a player wants to get better, he needs to do what he needs to get better. If he just wants to have fun or theorycraft, he should be content with bronze.
This is not a matter of opinion. It's not different for everyone. It's concrete fact. If you want to be better, you need to get better.
Just because building production facilities at the right time or hitting injects or remembering to get detection isn't flashy or exciting doesn't give any weight to the argument that people just have a difference of opinion in regards to playing better, and that that's okay. You need to do those things, and if you don't want to do them, you need to get used to the fact that you will not succeed.
This is like complaining, "I don't want to be concerned about building supply depots. It's just not part of my playstyle."
Then your playstyle is losing. There is no other advice to give.
On October 08 2011 06:12 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Anyone telling you to "Macro Better" only cares about Leagues and MMR. You'll improve as a player, but only in that you're getting a 50/50 rating against opponents of gradually increasing skill. At best, you'll win half of your games because your A-Move army was better than theirs. The assumption is that every player wants to be a Diamond-Grand Masters play, and they tell you to ignore everything else in favour of that long term goal, regardless of what you actually want from the game.
For the people that play 5 games a week, in a good week, that advice is utterly useless. Some people expect to sit in their current league for a good long while, and are interested in enjoying each individual game as much as possible. Sometimes this involves trying out different build orders, sometimes it's about watching your army melting your opponent's, and sometimes it's being able to hold that 6-pool or 4-gate.
Whatever the case is, brushing everything aside with a broad brush of "get better macro" is blatantly ignorant of a huge percentage of the player base.
Well you see, usually when people ask for advice, one assumes it's because they're trying to get better. We're not here to tell you how to have more fun.
|
On October 08 2011 06:17 .Aar wrote:Reading through this thread was incredibly frustrating. It's like 10 people pointing out that strategy's useless if you've got no mechanics and macro, and then 1 person complaining about how that's not what they want to hear. TL I've noticed is actually really good at babying players. We'll humor you and tell you, oh, you need to harass more, and oh, you should get this upgrade earlier. But the truth is, the real advice is always the same: Your macro sucks. Your mechanics suck. Show nested quote +On October 07 2011 19:38 Gnight wrote:
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. If a player wants to get better, he needs to do what he needs to get better. If he just wants to have fun or theorycraft, he should be content with bronze. This is not a matter of opinion. It's not different for everyone. It's concrete fact. If you want to be better, you need to get better. Just because building production facilities at the right time or hitting injects or remembering to get detection isn't flashy or exciting doesn't give any weight to the argument that people just have a difference of opinion in regards to playing better. You need to do those things, and if you don't want to do them, you need to get used to the fact that you will not succeed.
Read my full post.... really, please. If you are going to reply to anything, then don't just pluck one part from my post and ignore the rest in it. >.<
I never ever put forward that macro isn't important, that macro doesn't play a important role or anything alike. Nor have I ever put forward anything that deserves this response from you: "If a player wants to get better, he needs to do what he needs to get better. If he just wants to have fun or theorycraft, he should be content with bronze.
This is not a matter of opinion. It's not different for everyone. It's concrete fact. If you want to be better, you need to get better." this as a reply. If you read through my whole post you know why I (note the I, not saying it's a fact) regard it as a opinion/view. Clearly you failed to catch that in my post and just skipped over my words, picked out the part you could critize here and replyed on that (at least that's how you make it seem in my eyes, once again a opinion).
What I am concluding is that people can put forward other advice aside "macro better" that can help a lower league player improve. Even if macro is really the main thing one should work on, it still doesn't hurt to work on your micro, your game knowledge, scouting skills, map awareness etc. etc. You'r saying that if people want to improve they need to do things that will actually improve them. I agree, really I do, because that's plain logic. But there are more things then macro that can help, to what extent/size that is, is a other matter.
Next time, read my whole post before replying, thanks. ^ ^
Ps, once again, underlined things to look out for. >.<
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
