|
On October 09 2011 19:33 Hawk2 wrote:
It doesn't matter what "strategy" or "micro tactic" you use when you're fighting 12 marines with your 8, which I see all too often in the lower level games, the most common reason low level players lose is because the opponent simply had more units.
It's annoying to hear over and over, but that's because it's important, and trust me, it IS something you can change and fix in one night, you just have to have it as a priority at ALL times.
Indeed, but that means you help them try to squeeze out 6 more marines by that time giving specific advice without even needing to use the word "macro."
|
On October 09 2011 19:43 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2011 19:33 Hawk2 wrote:
It doesn't matter what "strategy" or "micro tactic" you use when you're fighting 12 marines with your 8, which I see all too often in the lower level games, the most common reason low level players lose is because the opponent simply had more units.
It's annoying to hear over and over, but that's because it's important, and trust me, it IS something you can change and fix in one night, you just have to have it as a priority at ALL times. Indeed, but that means you help them try to squeeze out 6 more marines by that time giving specific advice without even needing to use the word "macro."
that specific advice would be what? maintain worker production. put buildings up at the right time. don't get supply blocked. maintain unit production without queuing.
sounds a lot like "macro better" to me
|
On October 06 2011 20:38 sfbaydave wrote:
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.
The only problem about saying we know to "work on macro" is that you can go into a game and be like I don't care if i win or lose I just want to macro better and never miss an inject or never miss a warp in cycle or never over que anything. I'm not going to care about banshee or drops or attacks I'm only going to focus on this until i can do this AND do something else at the same time. That is the proper way of looking at improving not which strategy can i use because something like only reapers is 100% viable in lower tier players strategies because the other player can't multi-task or will focus too much on that area and will have his/her macro slip. So the way I look at it is, have a different outlook on the game. You can play the game wrong and possibly win, but win less or learn to play the game right and lose a lot right now while you're improving but win a lot more down the line. So yes people can say just work on macro and there are ways to go into a game strictly thinking about improving "X" and its probably the best way to improve area "X" in the quickest speed.
Before being able to play any sport you need to know how to use the basic tools of the sport. You need to know how to pass and kick in soccer before you go and learn about strategies because those strategies assume that you know how to pass and kick.
|
In addition to what's already here about why macro is more important than unit comp, I would like to add in the fact that, for the most part, whenever there's a thread where someone posts a replay, usually the responses are quite specific about "You were supply blocked at 26 for a long time." or "You missed an inject for over a minute." or "You were queued 4 deep when you could have been building more production."
So when the first attack with the composition that the poster is usually worried about hits, both players are usually roughly equal in supply (which makes sense -- they're the same league, after all), and we've already seen and commented on so many ways to squeeze out more units that we can say "If you just macro better, you would have more than enough to crush that," -- meaning, if you listen to all of the advice we've already said about not missing probes, not missing injects, not getting supply blocked, not overqueueing, you can totally crush him with the units you are already have, just more of them. In most cases, there's really not more advice to give than that. Sure, there's times where people's unit compositions were just plain bad (he had 5 colossi and you were building medivacs and ghosts instead of vikings....you need to be more active about scouting and responding to what you see), but from what I've seen, people have been pretty good about pointing these things out.
Of course, posts without replays that start out with something like "I'm in silver, but I play at a gold level." already make us want to facepalm twice, then asking "How do I defeat a void ray/carrier/colossus/archon army?" without showing a replay will get the standard, "Macro harder and kill him before he gets all that." Generally the effort in the responses is directly related to the effort put into the OP.
|
On October 09 2011 19:41 aksfjh wrote:
This is an interesting topic. On one hand "Improve your macro!" is almost a required statement at all levels. But the statement has meaning on the same level as telling a painter he needs to paint better. Somebody is a student, asking you what they should draw for some contest, you're not going to suggest to them, "Well, that anti-smoking poster you made would win if you painted better." Instead, the reasonable thing would be to say something along the lines of, "I don't like the color used for the black lung disease. Try using fuchsia instead!"
The bottom line, if all you have to say is "work on your macro," then don't say anything. However, if your advice is along the lines of "don't queue up so many probes and you can get that gate down faster." That is much better advice.
That being said, if they're just getting rolled because of some unit comp, might as well steer them in the way of another strategy before talking about macro. If somebody is massing marines against colossi or HTs and you tell them to macro better, you're insane.
Saying 'Improve your macro!' is like saying 'Improve your basics!'. Telling a painter he needs to paint better would be equivalent to telling a guy asking about sc2 to 'play better'. Telling him to improve his macro is like telling a painter to go study the usage of basic geometrical forms and colors in an art form.
|
On October 09 2011 20:59 ArcticFox wrote:
Sure, there's times where people's unit compositions were just plain bad (he had 5 colossi and you were building medivacs and ghosts instead of vikings....you need to be more active about scouting and responding to what you see), but from what I've seen, people have been pretty good about pointing these things out.
Yeah that's all that I'm saying to the "only focus on macro" people in the thread here. If there's a major non-macro error like that then that should be addressed ahead of any minor macro weaknesses. And in real advice threads, that's what usually happens. So no big deal.
|
On October 09 2011 21:11 Monkeyballs25 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2011 20:59 ArcticFox wrote:
Sure, there's times where people's unit compositions were just plain bad (he had 5 colossi and you were building medivacs and ghosts instead of vikings....you need to be more active about scouting and responding to what you see), but from what I've seen, people have been pretty good about pointing these things out.
Yeah that's all that I'm saying to the "only focus on macro" people in the thread here. If there's a major non-macro error like that then that should be addressed ahead of any minor macro weaknesses. And in real advice threads, that's what usually happens. So no big deal.
Usually though, the macro mistakes are quite major, and the best thing for the player receiving the advice, is to actually fix his macro mistakes. That will help him so much more than knowing 'if you at some point get a similiar situation, do this'.
|
I think that if a player doesn't want to learn to macro better, they probably don't actually want to learn, and they won't learn. If they just want to mess around and have fun, then they can do that in team games with wonky unit comps and lots of random shit going on, and very little macro.
If a player wants to improve, they will take every mechanical error they make into account, and get as good with their mechanics and macro as they possibly can doing one build per matchup, and ignoring strategy all together.
Once a player has the mechanical part of the game figured out, they'll be able to think 100% about strategy as they play, and then they'll understand how their economy works, and figure out what units/timings/upgrades they can do economically, and then figure out what they need to do. That is where a player begins to learn strategy, and if they're just spoonfed "build x units at x time and attack". They'll win a ton of games cuz they're just building shit and attacking, then they'll hit someone building the counter to their shit and attacking, and then they'll think it's time to go into strategy, when in fact they aren't even playing the same game that mid-high level masters players are, none of the same timings apply, none of the build order losses apply, etc..
|
As a lowlevel gold player, I have to say that macro better is a very good tip. There are things such as unit engagements, scouting and trying to counter units of my opponent, but the best thing that has ever helped me in the majority of games is..
1. constant scv production for the first 10-14 minutes
2. constantly building things from the production facilities
2a. making sure that units are rallied to where i need them
3. making sure I have some sort of upgrades at what seems like the right time
4. fast expand builds that put me ahead against 1 base pressure
4a. knowing when to build extra production facilities to anticipate the new income from new bases
Just before I had to uninstall sc2 due to incoming uni exams, I was surprised that focusing on these 4 things snapped me out of a pretty long losing streak. I had noticed that there were times when I was on 3 bases and had lost to a 2base all-in timing attack. However I'm sure that I can hold this by just tightening up my tech routes rather than going mass low-tech units.
So yeah, macro better is a very important tip for us. But as low level players some form of investment is needed to learn how to do this.
|
On October 09 2011 21:31 antz0r wrote:1. constant scv production for the first 10-14 minutes If you have to ask when to stop. Don't stop making them.
2. constantly building things from the production facilities Make sure you don't over que in the que-able buildings
2a. making sure that units are rallied to where i need them
3. making sure I have some sort of upgrades at what seems like the right time Upgrades should finish when you need them. Aka Timings. Prioritizing an upgrade that you don't need before workers or production is probably not a good thing.
4. fast expand builds that put me ahead against 1 base pressure Figuring out how to expand quicker but safer is always better
4a. knowing when to build extra production facilities to anticipate the new income from new bases
Just going to expand on this. 
|
On October 09 2011 19:12 Dhalphir wrote:
A poor strategy executed well is still better than a good strategy executed badly. That is the core of the matter.
A poor strategy executed well will also win you more games reliably than a good strategy executed badly.
Hence, we come around to "focus on execution and macro, not the ins and outs of your strategy".
This is exactly it.
The Strategy component is irrelevant.
Bad Strategy + Good Execution (macro, prep of build) > Good Strategy + Bad Execution
At lower levels, learn to macro. The rest will follow over time.
|
Let's put it this way as the OP mentions chances are the opponent you are being matched up against in the lower levels is about your skill level. Well why are they about your skill level? Probably because they can't macro either. Yes if you focus on nothing but macro you may have one ore two horrible losses but your wins will be so numerous that you won't keep getting matched against said opponents. If your opponent has horrible macro and starts going for a mass thor build and you see this you could go for lots of marauders and not macro or you could realize that even if you turned your trust fund of 2k minerals into hellions you would beat his 1 factory mass thor.
Say you lose to a random strategy that involves voidrays which for the sake of this example is not something commonly seen in lower levels and you say well what other composition could I have gone. But then you throw the suggested compositions into your hat of strategies and now your macro slips more because now you have to scout more to find out what they are doing. Now you see another build/composition that is also not common that you want help against and you take more strategy suggestions and your macro slips even more. But if you had just durning the banshee problem had converted the 2k/1k trust fund you had into roaches and just fucking attacked you would of won and roaches can't even attack voidrays.
Even if there is that one situation out of like 10 or 20 that a strategy suggestion could help you.. I promise you it is much better just not work on strat and get the macro down it is much better to work on macro now while you are in the lower leagues then to wait and try and get it down when you get to diamond (even platinum) because that is when macro is becoming less of an issue for your opponents so if you focused on strat the whole time you were in bronze-gold you will have alot of problems in plat and up.
I learned this the hard way in BW. Me and my best friend would always play tvp, he would get a whole bunch of zealots and I would go for firebat medic marine. I would crush him everytime then he started playing working on his macro and he started beating me with zealots then time progresses he started to work on strategy and started going for faster dragoons now I really could handle it. Then I started asking around at how I beat ranged goons so I started watching replays of players like flash then I'm like Ooo all the good terran players go mech so I attempted to too (off of 13 scv's). Good strategy does not mean shit if you have poor macro.
|
On October 10 2011 06:17 terranghost wrote:
Say you lose to a random strategy that involves voidrays which for the sake of this example is not something commonly seen in lower levels and you say well what other composition could I have gone. But then you throw the suggested compositions into your hat of strategies and now your macro slips more because now you have to scout more to find out what they are doing. Now you see another build/composition that is also not common that you want help against and you take more strategy suggestions and your macro slips even more. But if you had just durning the banshee problem had converted the 2k/1k trust fund you had into roaches and just fucking attacked you would of won and roaches can't even attack voidrays.
You can't completely ignore scouting unless you're doing some sort of aggressive early attacking play, because then you get to scout with your first attack 7RR style. After all there's not a massive window where your roaches can kill all his base before his voids kill all of your roaches.Not that I think that's bad advice, I absolutely love the idea of one build and unit comp that works perfectly for each matchup. I've got a rough build that works out that way for ZvZ, still trying to settle on ones for the other two matchups. I suppose ling/roach should work in the vast majority of situations in ZvP, and just try to end the game with superior macro and an all-in before you need other tech to deal with voids or colossi. I've seen some talk about a mass ling approach for ZvT, but I can't imagine that works against full mech.
|
You "lower level players that hate 'macro better'" may need to realize that you think you lost due to strategy, but most likely you lost due to macro.
|
On October 06 2011 20:38 sfbaydave wrote:
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.
Pretty much everything I think needs to be said can be said in response to this paragraph.
Bumping along in silver/gold as I am, what gets me killed almost all the time is not an inability to spend larvae, take expansions, keep my money low, or keep up with injections.
It is my inability to prioritize spending larvae, taking expansions, keeping my money low and keeping up with injections that fucks me over, time and time again.
My game knowledge is pretty solid - not good, but easily sufficient to know how to deal with the strategies I encounter. In other words, I'm where you think you want to be. And I'm still in silver/gold.
What will help you in your next ladder game is shifting your priorities.
|
On October 10 2011 07:28 Umpteen wrote:
What will help you in your next ladder game is shifting your priorities.
Actually, if you just learned a really solid build from a pro, practiced it until you could copy it perfectly for the first 6 or 7 minutes, you would pretty much instantly go to diamond.
Simply because you would be so far ahead from the early game that you in 90% of games wouldn't be able to fuck it up later on unless you tried.
A lot of lower level players get the wrong advice.
They think that doing a really horrible build but 'hitting injects and keeping money low' is actually good.
It's horrible.
|
high masters here
when people say "macro better" what they are really saying is "get better mechanics"
good macro cannot be done without good mechanics.
but the thing is, for some people mechanics come easy, come hard, or not at all. so in reality, if your a low league and you wanna be masters sorry but you probably just dont have the mechanics for it. you will never be pro, stop worrying about it and just play for fun and lose 50% of the time like everyone else.
i probably as well dont have pro level mechanics. so i too will never be pro. i just play for fun and lose 50% of the time like everyone else. sure i try my hardest to win but i will face people with superior mechanics and get stomped and i dont let it bother me.
you low level players might not like "macro better", but the truth is you wouldnt like to hear "you suck and you will never not suck"... but thats the truth, and even high master players realize they will never be pro and we "suck" compared to pros but i dont care i play for fun
|
this thread is hilarious lol
essentially all these posts are why us higher level players say macro better 
|
On October 09 2011 21:04 noBode wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2011 19:41 aksfjh wrote:
This is an interesting topic. On one hand "Improve your macro!" is almost a required statement at all levels. But the statement has meaning on the same level as telling a painter he needs to paint better. Somebody is a student, asking you what they should draw for some contest, you're not going to suggest to them, "Well, that anti-smoking poster you made would win if you painted better." Instead, the reasonable thing would be to say something along the lines of, "I don't like the color used for the black lung disease. Try using fuchsia instead!"
The bottom line, if all you have to say is "work on your macro," then don't say anything. However, if your advice is along the lines of "don't queue up so many probes and you can get that gate down faster." That is much better advice.
That being said, if they're just getting rolled because of some unit comp, might as well steer them in the way of another strategy before talking about macro. If somebody is massing marines against colossi or HTs and you tell them to macro better, you're insane. Saying 'Improve your macro!' is like saying 'Improve your basics!'. Telling a painter he needs to paint better would be equivalent to telling a guy asking about sc2 to 'play better'. Telling him to improve his macro is like telling a painter to go study the usage of basic geometrical forms and colors in an art form.
Uhm, do you know anything about art? Painters have basics too in terms of their coloring, technique, and shading. It's not that ridiculous for painters to "improve your basics," unless the painter obviously has amazing basics. If they are an amateur, then improving those basics is a good way to get going and improve quickly, rather than trying to focus on the other aspects of art.
I think the analogy actually works, but if anything it goes against what you're arguing.
|
As a gold/plat member i'm simply going to say this is my idea of league differences. I'm excluding builds, because i believe builds naturally evolve as your level of play goes up (Like terran going from 3 rack expand to 3 rack stim timing expo). "macro better" is used as anything from probe production to expand to production building timings to decision making in macro skills.
My macro up to two base, is definantly diamond level. I custom against diamonds and my one base and two base games generally is not a macro issue. Yet i almost always lose. There are MANY things that distinguish a gold from a silver, and a platinum from a gold (not including freshly placed players). generally here is what i've noticed
A bronze-silver player struggles to use one base efficiently, this is indeed the stage where macro is ALWAYS the answer. No matter what, macro better is correct 99% of the time.
A high silver/low gold player have trouble with using two bases efficiently, whether in regard to expanding or just in use. At this point, macro is 90% of the answer, but there is that 10% of "Well, if you see this do this, or this is when you counter, or this is how you prevent this".
A high gold/low Platinum can now use two bases efficiently and can generall get a good timing on the third expo, and does not have a huge deficit in probe production compared to the lower leagues. They also generally know when to cut probes for certain strategems whether offensive or defensive (timing attacks). Their main issue is macroing in the wrong direction (ie, knowing whether they can be greedy or not) and 3 saturated base mineral control. At this point Macro Better is the answer, depending on what strategy and gamelength, between 60-80% of the time.
High plat/low diamond is relatively the same to above paragraph, except their mechanics are slightly better or their decision making improves. This level is where APM starts to show in macro/mechanics as they continue to play. Macro better is 40-60% the answer.
High diamond/low masters is where the "macro better" stops being a Go To answer, and the minor things that players in above paragraphs haven't learned yet really starts coming into effect. This being said, macro is still important and can be improved. 20% can macro be commented on in general.
Mid Masters is the same as above, but either more experience or better mechanics. Say 10-15% of the tim.
High masters to Grandmasters is where you cant say "macro better" at all. Because below 10% each 1% is the difference between a non pro, a unnsuccesful pro, a Code B level, Code A level, and Code S level macro skill, but macro does not mean much, because if a person trades that 1% of macro with an extra 2% or so of micro, they can still come out on top.
One great example of this is Inori, the guy isn't really a player but a player coach. His macro skill is nowhere near the same level as the other goes in the IPL tourney, but his knowledge and execution balances out his 3-4% macro skill deficit.
tl;dr When people look at leagues, they can't automatically think "macro better" they need to think about how Macro effects that particular level and how to improve on it, not just a blithe improve macro comment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
