|
On October 08 2011 18:13 Monkeyballs25 wrote:Let's throw a sample replay out here. http://www.sc2rep.com/replays/(P)Cheprus_vs_(Z)Tamerlane/14234If someone told me I lost this mainly because of bad macro, I'd be pretty annoyed unless they pointed to something very specific around when that attack comes in. Because that's my A game in terms of macro, and making incremental improvements to that performance seems far less feasible than just fixing the glaring tactical error.
I agree that you lost that game for reasons other than pure macro, if you define macro very narrowly to not include things like tech, unit composition timings and maintaining proper map vision. You had a bad unit composition to deal with what he was attacking with, you weren't properly defended at a common pressure timing, you had very poor map vision and missed that the pressure was coming, and then you handled the engagement badly. Your "glaring tactical error" (I assume you're referring to engaging with Zerglings against forcefield-defended Zealots instead of pulling back and waiting for a better angle and engaging with Spine support?) was just the frosting on the cake
But your point seems to be that if you submitted that replay and asked the forum what you should have done differently, you'd be told to macro better. That's just setting up a straw man: "If I had given you this replay you would have told me just to macro better, and that would have made me angry." You didn't submit that replay for advice, and if you had I disagree that we would have pointed to macro as the primary source of your loss.
I don't think that anyone is arguing that pure macro problems are the only problems in low-level play. It's just that they tend to be the most glaring problems in a great many games submitted with the question of how the player might have done better.
|
On October 08 2011 18:48 AmericanUmlaut wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2011 18:13 Monkeyballs25 wrote:Let's throw a sample replay out here. http://www.sc2rep.com/replays/(P)Cheprus_vs_(Z)Tamerlane/14234If someone told me I lost this mainly because of bad macro, I'd be pretty annoyed unless they pointed to something very specific around when that attack comes in. Because that's my A game in terms of macro, and making incremental improvements to that performance seems far less feasible than just fixing the glaring tactical error. I agree that you lost that game for reasons other than pure macro, if you define macro very narrowly to not include things like tech, unit composition timings and maintaining proper map vision. You had a bad unit composition to deal with what he was attacking with, you weren't properly defended at a common pressure timing, you had very poor map vision and missed that the pressure was coming, and then you handled the engagement badly. Your "glaring tactical error" (I assume you're referring to engaging with Zerglings against forcefield-defended Zealots instead of pulling back and waiting for a better angle and engaging with Spine support?) was just the frosting on the cake But your point seems to be that if you submitted that replay and asked the forum what you should have done differently, you'd be told to macro better. That's just setting up a straw man: "If I had given you this replay you would have told me just to macro better, and that would have made me angry." You didn't submit that replay for advice, and if you had I disagree that we would have pointed to macro as the primary source of your loss. I don't think that anyone is arguing that pure macro problems are the only problems in low-level play. It's just that they tend to be the most glaring problems in a great many games submitted with the question of how the player might have done better.
I agree, people rarely focus entirely on macro here on these forums. Except in these threads. Generally the replay advice given is quite comprehensive, like yours. It was just an example of a game where macro(as its commonly defined in this thread as constantly making workers and spending your money) wasn't close to the biggest problem.
-bad unit composition(not macro)
-insufficient defenses(mostly not macro, debateable)
-poor map vision(definitely not macro)
-poor engagement(absolutely positively not macro)
This is mostly directed at the "durr just make more stuff, don't worry about everything else" people.
There was actually a macro error there aswell. If I had built some more lings as the first lot were engaging, things might have gone ok as they'd be out defending my natural and not forcefielded inside my main.
|
Because strategy is moot. It's not just macro (though that's a, if not the, primary factor) it's other things, like holding Xel-Naga towers, scouting and reading scouting information and being able to put out a bit of pressure without over committing while still being able to macro at the same time.
You can know the perfect counter to a 1/1/1 all in. Except you execute it 5 minutes late because you missed 4 separate pylons and never chrono boosted once.
You can know the perfect number of roaches/lings needed to stop a four-gate, except you didn't know it was coming because you don't scout or don't know what the scouting information actually tells you. Or, on the reverse side, you can try to 4-gate but it comes late because you missed 3 chrono boosts, or were supply blocked when warpgates finished.
You can know the perfect way to stop a two-base 7-8gate as zerg, except you missed so many larvae injects you don't have enough units or money to ever stop it.
Strategies are based upon competent play. X counters Y because both players do their respective strategy well. What's the point of a timing push when it comes 5 minutes late? Sure, you can argue that if both players macro poorly maybe the opponent will be roughly 5 minutes behind too but...
Executing a strategy 5 minutes late against someone also 5 minutes late is going to win against some builds, lose against some builds, and always be bad. Executing a strategy on time against someone 5 minutes behind is almost always going to get you a win, regardless of the builds you used.
To put it simply: If you can't macro properly, you can't execute ANY strategy properly. It will never be done properly, so what it does and doesn't counter is moot. Trust me, you can play guessing games with people in team-games and fairly accurately guess 1v1 ranks of your random teammates. As a general rule, the platinum and diamond 1v1-ers tend to macro decently, but have little to no idea of what they're actually doing. It's the people who are trying to do something specific but failing terribly, that are the silver level players.
|
On October 08 2011 18:13 Monkeyballs25 wrote:Let's throw a sample replay out here. http://www.sc2rep.com/replays/(P)Cheprus_vs_(Z)Tamerlane/14234If someone told me I lost this mainly because of bad macro, I'd be pretty annoyed unless they pointed to something very specific around when that attack comes in. Because that's my A game in terms of macro, and making incremental improvements to that performance seems far less feasible than just fixing the glaring tactical error.
You did wrong decision randomly attacking in stronger army. It has totally nothing to do with your strategy. Btw you attacked right before +1 kicking in. It costed you the game.
Like a month before I played with my friend platinum account with Terran(my main race is Zerg). I have played very few games with other races before and i wrecked platinum / diamond players apart. How? I was just making a lot of stuff, waiting for their attacks and doing some harass. I dont know any terran timmings or build orders, only unit compositions which I should aim for. Btw in 12 or 13 games that account become Diamond. (I lost only one game from ~20)
|
The problem is that you cannot really execute any strategies at that level, therefor you cannot draw any conclusions from your games afterwards, because, for example, one game you will get supply blocked 5 times, the next game 10 times <10min, while using the same gameplan in both games.
I don't understand why you're not satisfied with the fact that there is a simple and very efficient way to win any game in your league, "macro better". Most lower level players always think they lose the games cos of a "wrong build" or bad micro or whatever; if you can distance yourself from that mindset and just make more stuff, you will improve much faster.
|
On October 08 2011 19:48 Lennox wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2011 18:13 Monkeyballs25 wrote:Let's throw a sample replay out here. http://www.sc2rep.com/replays/(P)Cheprus_vs_(Z)Tamerlane/14234If someone told me I lost this mainly because of bad macro, I'd be pretty annoyed unless they pointed to something very specific around when that attack comes in. Because that's my A game in terms of macro, and making incremental improvements to that performance seems far less feasible than just fixing the glaring tactical error. You did wrong decision randomly attacking in stronger army. It has totally nothing to do with your strategy. Btw you attacked right before +1 kicking in. It costed you the game.
Exactly! Like I said, one big tactical error was far more damaging than any macro problem that I could see.
|
On October 08 2011 19:56 alepov wrote:
I don't understand why you're not satisfied with the fact that there is a simple and very efficient way to win any game in your league, "macro better". Most lower level players always think they lose the games cos of a "wrong build" or bad micro or whatever; if you can distance yourself from that mindset and just make more stuff, you will improve much faster.
Ok, watch the replay I posted a few posts above. If you really think "macro better" was the best solution there, I don't know what to say.
|
I love how sc2 has split the game into macro and strategy
and then pretends they are totally seperate.
A huge part of macro is managing income vs production buildings whilst producing units.
This leads into a build order and a unit composition yet is part of macro.
That is why good macro wins games ... you end up with a balanced and large army.
IE your ability to macro at max is determined by thinghs like gas timings, when you got your rax down etc
The division is only a conceptual one.
|
On October 06 2011 20:48 Sm3agol wrote:
There's a reason every looks down on low tier players, and just tell them to macro(and micro) better, and not worry about strategies as much. Multiple top tier players have shown that that you can basically do WHATEVER you want at low levels, and as long as your macro and mechanics are good, you will win most of the time regardless of unit composition. Players have 4 gated, 6 pooled, mass queened, mass marined, etc all the way to diamond and sometimes even masters, just by simply outproducing and out microing their opponents. Watch Destiny beat tanks, thors, High templar, etc, with queens, even vs people that were trying to stream snipe him, and knew what he was doing, and would still lose. That's why high level players say ignore strategies and unit compositions for right now.....because IT DOESN'T MATTER. If you're worrying about unit compositions while you have 3k minerals at 15 minutes into the game, you're worrying about the wrong thing. Having 4 less stalkers and having 3 more zealots and 2 more sentries instead just might possibly win you the game. Converting the 1500 minerals you have at the 10 minute mark to stalkers, and it wouldn't matter what composition you had, you're going to rofl-stomp your opponent.
TLDR: It's not that strategy is bad, but improving macro will generate far better results than improving unit composition and tactics.
Yep. 100% correct and I agree with absolutely everything. If you hopped on Dragon or Rainbows stream recently (they've been leveling up accounts on eu recently) you can see how they stomp lower leaguers (rainbow went only ghosts against a master zerg and won~~) and things like mass nukes and mass, whatever really, works.
|
On October 08 2011 20:01 Monkeyballs25 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2011 19:48 Lennox wrote:On October 08 2011 18:13 Monkeyballs25 wrote:Let's throw a sample replay out here. http://www.sc2rep.com/replays/(P)Cheprus_vs_(Z)Tamerlane/14234If someone told me I lost this mainly because of bad macro, I'd be pretty annoyed unless they pointed to something very specific around when that attack comes in. Because that's my A game in terms of macro, and making incremental improvements to that performance seems far less feasible than just fixing the glaring tactical error. You did wrong decision randomly attacking in stronger army. It has totally nothing to do with your strategy. Btw you attacked right before +1 kicking in. It costed you the game. Exactly! Like I said, one big tactical error was far more damaging than any macro problem that I could see.
I just want to fix your sentence:
Exactly! Like I said, one big DECISION MAKING error was far more damaging than any macro problem that I could see.
On the spot decision making has nothing to do with your tactic, strategy or game plan.
There are few different aspects of playing StarCraft2:
Macro - making additional supply, making unit, using your race macro mechanic, etc.
Micro - controlling your units.
APM - being able to do some simple macro/micro mechanic really fast.
Multitasking - being able to do a lot of different macro/micro mechanics in limited amount of time.
Decision Making - being able to choose correct thing to do.
Unit composition - how your army should look like at different timmings.
Build order - how you are going to reach your "perfect" unit composition.
Strategy - pre-game plan, what timmings you are going to abuse in your opponent play and the ways how you are going to get lead in the game, how you are going to react to different opponent unit compositions.
ofc there few more.
What wins the games in different leagues between two same rank players:
Bronze/Silver/Gold - well choosed strategy
Platinum/Diamond - well choosed strategy and your macro mechanics
Low Masters - well choosed strategy and your micro/macro mechanics
Mid Masters - well choosed strategy, macro/micro mechanics and decision making.
Top Masters/Low GM - pretty much combination of everything.
Top GM/Pro Games - combination of everything + some luck.
On high levels well choosed strategy is called build order win. Why it is so rare in top gm/pro games compared with silver guys? Because they have other game aspects to back it up if their build order is inferior.
|
There are few different aspects of playing StarCraft2:
Macro - making additional supply, making unit, using your race macro mechanic, etc.
Micro - controlling your units.
APM - being able to do some simple macro/micro mechanic really fast.
Multitasking - being able to do a lot of different macro/micro mechanics in limited amount of time.
Decision Making - being able to choose correct thing to do.
Unit composition - how your army should look like at different timmings.
Build order - how you are going to reach your "perfect" unit composition.
Strategy - pre-game plan, what timmings you are going to abuse in your opponent play and the ways how you are going to get lead in the game, how you are going to react to different opponent unit compositions.
ofc there few more.
What wins the games in different leagues between two same rank players:
Bronze/Silver/Gold - well choosed strategy
Platinum/Diamond - well choosed strategy and your macro mechanics
Low Masters - well choosed strategy and your micro/macro mechanics
Mid Masters - well choosed strategy, macro/micro mechanics and decision making.
Top Masters/Low GM - pretty much combination of everything.
Top GM/Pro Games - combination of everything + some luck.
On high levels well choosed strategy is called build order win. Why it is so rare in top gm/pro games compared with silver guys? Because they have other game aspects to back it up if their build order is inferior.
I disagree strongly. if you do 1-1-1 against me in a TvP, but you only have upwards of 10-15 marines, a tank and your scv's, and even if I don't do the correct response (delay you with forcefields on your ramp, immortals->) but if I have units off of 6 gates and continously made them, I win.
|
I think the main reason that higher level players tell lower level players to "macro better" is because what the lower level players are generally asking for are counters to certain builds/styles. for example, if they play a super economic protss and lose as zerg they go onto the forums and ask for help. The answer that the diamond/master player might give could be "go for a roach ling all in" as with diamond execution or above this hard counters the protoss build, but with silver level mechanics it doesn't as it arrives too late.
What i'm trying to say is the silver level player wants a build they can execute, which can counter what the opponent is doing, this means that they want an easy to execute build that can beat a poorly executed fast expand in this case.
The danger of this is since the silver player learns all these builds off the forums that only work at silver level they are actually seriously stunting any ability they have to ever improve above silver, as as soon as they get into gold none of their strats work and they have to totally relearn the game.
What i'm trying to say is that the strategies your asking for only really work if you can "macro better" and higher level players dont want to give advice that will only help you until you get out of silver and then will start to hinder you. If you want to improve you should really just try and improve maro first and then strategy once you are at the level where you can keep your resources below 500/600 the entire game, as before tat any strategy you learn will be bad, and as you get used to bad strategies it becomes rally hard to forget this "bad" knowledge in order to improve.
tl;dr, good players dont give strategies to silver level players as at silver you cant execute a crisp high level strategy anyway, if the only strategies you can properly execute into the lategame would be ones like having 3 hatches on two base to help with macro, then as soon as you get decent macro, all the builds ingrained in your head will be disadvantages.
|
On October 08 2011 21:33 Spuick wrote:Show nested quote + There are few different aspects of playing StarCraft2:
Macro - making additional supply, making unit, using your race macro mechanic, etc.
Micro - controlling your units.
APM - being able to do some simple macro/micro mechanic really fast.
Multitasking - being able to do a lot of different macro/micro mechanics in limited amount of time.
Decision Making - being able to choose correct thing to do.
Unit composition - how your army should look like at different timmings.
Build order - how you are going to reach your "perfect" unit composition.
Strategy - pre-game plan, what timmings you are going to abuse in your opponent play and the ways how you are going to get lead in the game, how you are going to react to different opponent unit compositions.
ofc there few more.
What wins the games in different leagues between two same rank players:
Bronze/Silver/Gold - well choosed strategy
Platinum/Diamond - well choosed strategy and your macro mechanics
Low Masters - well choosed strategy and your micro/macro mechanics
Mid Masters - well choosed strategy, macro/micro mechanics and decision making.
Top Masters/Low GM - pretty much combination of everything.
Top GM/Pro Games - combination of everything + some luck.
On high levels well choosed strategy is called build order win. Why it is so rare in top gm/pro games compared with silver guys? Because they have other game aspects to back it up if their build order is inferior. I disagree strongly. if you do 1-1-1 against me in a TvP, but you only have upwards of 10-15 marines, a tank and your scv's, and even if I don't do the correct response (delay you with forcefields on your ramp, immortals->) but if I have units off of 6 gates and continously made them, I win.
Perhaps, too bad that you don't know if it's a 1-1-1 if you don't scout properly, heck even with a proper scouting run you still need to know what a 1-1-1 is to know what to do. Unless you always go 6 gate in every match-up against T, you might not even have 6 gates to have produced units from when the 1-1-1 arrives... Even if that 1-1-1 doesn't has the strenght as it should have because of decent macro (and not good), then it can still outright kill you, because you failed to react properly against it in other aspects then macro.
Just being up 20 supply isn't a automatic win in any sense no matter what league you are in, if you believe it's then you clearly are lucky to never ever have been outplayed in other area's in any of your games (counter-attacks, reinforcement blocks, picked apart by harrass, better micro control in the battlefield, better positioning etc. etc.). What you do with that extra supply (and what it consists of) is just as important in my eyes then having that extra supply.
On October 08 2011 21:51 killerdog wrote:
I think the main reason that higher level players tell lower level players to "macro better" is because what the lower level players are generally asking for are counters to certain builds/styles. for example, if they play a super economic protss and lose as zerg they go onto the forums and ask for help. The answer that the diamond/master player might give could be "go for a roach ling all in" as with diamond execution or above this hard counters the protoss build, but with silver level mechanics it doesn't as it arrives too late.
What i'm trying to say is the silver level player wants a build they can execute, which can counter what the opponent is doing, this means that they want an easy to execute build that can beat a poorly executed fast expand in this case.
The danger of this is since the silver player learns all these builds off the forums that only work at silver level they are actually seriously stunting any ability they have to ever improve above silver, as as soon as they get into gold none of their strats work and they have to totally relearn the game.
What i'm trying to say is that the strategies your asking for only really work if you can "macro better" and higher level players dont want to give advice that will only help you until you get out of silver and then will start to hinder you. If you want to improve you should really just try and improve maro first and then strategy once you are at the level where you can keep your resources below 500/600 the entire game, as before tat any strategy you learn will be bad, and as you get used to bad strategies it becomes rally hard to forget this "bad" knowledge in order to improve.
tl;dr, good players dont give strategies to silver level players as at silver you cant execute a crisp high level strategy anyway, if the only strategies you can properly execute into the lategame would be ones like having 3 hatches on two base to help with macro, then as soon as you get decent macro, all the builds ingrained in your head will be disadvantages.
Too bad strategy and macro doesn't make up every thing in Sc2.
If you give out advice to a silver player what army composition is good against a mech army of Terran, then surely that information won't be useless in Grandmaster league? Or is somehow the counter to mech different at higher level leagues?
Perhaps you give out advice on how to position one's army better, bottling in a tight area, flanking etc. etc. Surely such advice can be used beyond Silver league or do Master league players play a different RTS game?
Or you tell them how one can harrass properly with certain units (mutalisks, drops etc. etc.), of course nobody in higher leagues ever drops or uses mutalisks to harrass worker lines/productions......
Really, macro is a advice to give out to people (no matter there league) that can (and most likely will) help them in later stages as well, but not the sole advice one can give out that can (and most likely will) help them in later stages.
Leave it up to that Silver league player to decide wheter he/she wants to work on macro or something else, don't force it upon them because you believe that is the way to improve. Everyone is different, everyone plays different, accept that, live with it and leave it at that people!
|
@killerdog
You've left me a bit confused. First you say a roach-ling all in works against an FE protoss at diamond level, then you say it won't work in gold and so this information should be withheld. By all means say "roach-ling all in works well but you need to do it quickly or you'll lose to X" and then talk about the macro improvements needed to do that. But not mentioning the correct reponse at all just seems useless.
|
I think the biggest problem with "Macro better!" is that it is really a generic non-answer given by people that, imo, would probably suck at teaching this game to someone. Especially since "Macro better!" is the extent most of the "advice" most of the people using it.
Now, I'm not saying lower level players don't have to work on their macro, I -know- I have to make myself more time and work on my macro (Silly RL =(). Hell, I'll even admit "macro better" would be what is required for these people, if it was actually advice.
Here's the main problems with "macro better", and how I most often see it used:
"Macro" is never defined. And if it is defined, it will be redefined to make it the "master answer to all your problems" again. (I think someone in this thread even used "oh that, that's a part of macro too")
They don't suggest drills for macro.
They don't give telltale early signs that your macro might be slipping.
They don't give tips on what to do if you actually spot telltale signs.
They don't suggest a solid/safe build for these players, or give benchmarks on what they should hit by when so they can actually see where they're at.
Hell, most of the people spouting "Macro better!" don't even give links to where said beginners can FIND that sort of information.
|
On October 08 2011 18:13 Monkeyballs25 wrote:Let's throw a sample replay out here. http://www.sc2rep.com/replays/(P)Cheprus_vs_(Z)Tamerlane/14234If someone told me I lost this mainly because of bad macro, I'd be pretty annoyed unless they pointed to something very specific around when that attack comes in. Because that's my A game in terms of macro, and making incremental improvements to that performance seems far less feasible than just fixing the glaring tactical error.
You have a really bad opening.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At 6:10 for you
32 / 36 supply.
26 drones
2 queens
3 zergling
0 creep tumors
4 overlords
1 overlord making
Started +1 attack
Enough gas to start ling speed (but not started yet).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At 6:10 (for me)
44 / 52 supply. 37.5% more than you.
31 drones (5 more drones)
1 creep tumor (you have none, so you can't put the spines in the proper place later on, I can)
4 lings (same as you)
6 overlords. (you are making one, I already have that finished, and another one).
14 lings making (halfway done)
+1 attack and zergling speed started (same tech as you).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For this example I used a 13 pool. I did not 'cheat' to make a big point by going 15 hatch or something, and I used a very uneconomic opening.
The reason for that is that vs protoss, going 11 pool like you did, isn't safe vs anything that 13 pool isn't - and it's main purpose is actually to make 6 lings and pressure the opponent if you think they are going forge expand ... which you didn't. So I assume, you went for this opening just to be safe.
Yes, I can look at your replay and point out some slight mistakes, but in reality - your problem is that you just doesn't have a good opening.
This is exactly what people say when they say macro better. When the fight comes, guess what, you would have won the fight if your army was 50%-100% larger - which it would have been, with better macro.
Replay file:
http://www.mediafire.com/?zu14c5x57t600jo
Now you engage at 8:00 with 30 lings ... do you think you would have won the fight with 50-60 lings? You are still on less drones than I had at 6:10. So the theory here is that ... macroing better is more important than the small stuff (like engaging 3 seconds before +1 attack finish, out of range of your spines).
|
I don't think one example/test replay is a telling sign. Yes, it is sometimes not helpful to just say macro better. But it is sometimes also not helpful to tell the person to just go for this strategy or that strategy.
Why? Because if he's not macro-ing up to par then he might not be able to execute a certain strategy and still lose. Or sometimes it could be that you are executing the right one and wondering why it didn't work. On the flip side. If he's not executing the right strategy but is macro-ing up great, he may still lose and wonder why.
In short, there is no one thing that's the problem. It's a case to case basis. That is why we post replays.
We shouldn't take it too hard when people say we should macro better because if we don't we might not be able to execute the right strategy anyway. But at the same time, we shouldn't just say macro better because that is fairly vague. Instead, we have to point out what is lacking in terms of macro then subsequently suggest to what strategy to use.
|
Well I'm diamond and I consider it still as a crappy league (Masters or GTFO attitudes are terribly annoying) so I guess I could weigh in somewhat into this discussion.
For some players macro really is the first step they should take when trying to improve themselves. Obviously there's many other things, but macro is literally the biggest step. There's a whole world of a difference if you're macroing better, you simply have more room to do stuff. From a Zerg perspective if you constant hit those injects AND spend your larvae, the 3-5 extra drones you produce early game go A LONG WAY. And good macro is like stupidly important to stop obnoxious timing pushes, its not just you scouting it out and knowing that it's coming. You also need to have a good economy beforehand so that you can easily begin producing units once the push comes around, otherwise you'll be left crippled after defending the push.
There's more to macro then may think, it's not just making money and spending it fast as possible. You also have to work in good economy timing, be it gas or your 3rd, 4th, or 5th expo.
But hey macro isn't everything. I remember one time on the ladder I ran into a toss player twice. He did the exact same build and I had the wrong unit composition the first time and and the right one the second time. He was basically bad at macro, late expo, late third, late push- he was unintentionally all-in by having his third so late (non-existent) so I knew I just had to prepare for one huge battle. I got to 200/200 quick, everything upgraded like 13 - 14 min in the game and attacked because he wouldn't leave his base. Guess what mother fucker I fucking lost- I had better fucking macro and I knew what he was doing, but the wrong mother fucking units bitch. So in the next game I made different units and hit the same timing a minute quicker and FUCKING ROLLED THE SON OF A BITCH. (I've got the "Threw it on the ground" song playing hehe)
Macro ain't everything boys, it isn't everything- but if your macro is bad then that should be your main focus to improve. Mother fuckers.
|
On October 08 2011 18:13 Monkeyballs25 wrote:Let's throw a sample replay out here. http://www.sc2rep.com/replays/(P)Cheprus_vs_(Z)Tamerlane/14234If someone told me I lost this mainly because of bad macro, I'd be pretty annoyed unless they pointed to something very specific around when that attack comes in. Because that's my A game in terms of macro, and making incremental improvements to that performance seems far less feasible than just fixing the glaring tactical error.
It might be your A game but you macro is lacking and that's why you lost the game.
Your building pool to early not building workers when you got the minerals not pulling drones off gas not transfering drones to your natural that costs and it's called bad macro.
It's a very weird attack which you can beat with mass lings and proper macro
Fact is it's a very poor attack and you just need to focus on your macro to beat it. Flanking him from behind with lings, trying to force a retreat is also possible and forceing him to waste his forcefield is good.
But the fact is more stuff is just the best way to fix it, and than focus on the more advanced things when macro is at a decent level..
|
On October 08 2011 22:27 aebriol wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2011 18:13 Monkeyballs25 wrote:Let's throw a sample replay out here. http://www.sc2rep.com/replays/(P)Cheprus_vs_(Z)Tamerlane/14234If someone told me I lost this mainly because of bad macro, I'd be pretty annoyed unless they pointed to something very specific around when that attack comes in. Because that's my A game in terms of macro, and making incremental improvements to that performance seems far less feasible than just fixing the glaring tactical error. You have a really bad opening. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- At 6:10 for you 32 / 36 supply. 26 drones 2 queens 3 zergling 0 creep tumors 4 overlords 1 overlord making Started +1 attack Enough gas to start ling speed (but not started yet). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- At 6:10 (for me) 44 / 52 supply. 37.5% more than you. 31 drones (5 more drones) 1 creep tumor (you have none, so you can't put the spines in the proper place later on, I can) 4 lings (same as you) 6 overlords. (you are making one, I already have that finished, and another one). 14 lings making (halfway done) +1 attack and zergling speed started (same tech as you). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <snip>
Wow, now if you're going to critique macro that's a good way to do it
I didn't know 11 pool was just for early pressure, I'll have a look at your replay and see where I could get those extra units.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
