|
On October 10 2011 08:14 darklight54321 wrote:
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.
Macro is always the answer 100% of the time. Top 6 Master Terran here, and I improved from a 1 baser to a player who loves to macro and doesn't miss a beat with SCVs. The idea is simple: Have more stuff than your opponent. And if you have much more stuff, even Micro becomes irrelevant.
Granted, I have build orders that permit me to macro safely and I parlay these build orders into strategies that utilize my high unit count (as a result of my macro) at certain timings. But it all comes down to macro, knowing how it benefits you (CONSULT resource collection rate in replays), and when to strike after reaping the benefits of your macro.
For any league, bronze -> master, macro is always the most important factor, with it having the highest importance in the lower leagues (as you can benefit with great returns very quickly if you make use of it. There will be diminishing returns with macro the further you go).
What this means is that if you learned to constantly produce SCVs, expand at a safe timing, have enough unit-producing buildings and constantly produce units at Bronze league, you would QUICKLY make your way to diamond league on this principle alone. Take it from me who placed in Gold and quickly learned the importance of this concept and am now top masters (I play GMs).. I have limited RTS experience and came late into Sc2
It's all about the Macro
|
On October 07 2011 03:14 TheYellowOne wrote:
I'm really fat and out of shape at like 350 pounds but i wanna be a good runner. I know I'm really fat and I have to lose some weight but are there maybe some better shoes I can wear so I can start running 5 minute miles before I try to lose my fat?
This is the best post ever.
|
On October 06 2011 21:01 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +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. Congratulations, you are one of those ppl the OP was talking about even though you were trying not to be. These players are NOT dia/master + and he *already acknowledged this*, saying it's not something you can improve overnight, although of course they try to. 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"
Except strats change completely once you learn to macro properly, so anything you learn to do while you're macroing wrong will really only hold you back.
|
On October 07 2011 03:14 TheYellowOne wrote:
I'm really fat and out of shape at like 350 pounds but i wanna be a good runner. I know I'm really fat and I have to lose some weight but are there maybe some better shoes I can wear so I can start running 5 minute miles before I try to lose my fat?
Oh my god this is the best analogy ever.
|
I think what bothers the OP is the "macro better" thing doesn't always come with supplementary advice. It's pretty frustrating to post "I'm not sure what I should have done against his composition/timing, can someone explain?" and hear "Well you would've won if you had better macro, so work on that." While that's true, it is something that is improved through practice or through learning material (Strategy section, Day9, etc.)
For example, if you do give the macro better advice, point out that
- At 8:30 you had a warp in but didn't do it until 9:18.
- You are floating 950 minerals/600 gas at 11 minutes.
- You had full chrono on your nexus for 1 minute.
- You weren't producing from your robo for almost 3 minutes.
I'm not, by any means, saying that macro isn't the key to winning in this game for the majority of players. If you have a higher income and less money in the bank than your opponent, you will win 90+% of those games. But that is not the only factor in EVERY game. Most, but not every.
For example, my friend recently bought the game and entered bronze about two weeks ago. Most of the games he wins, he wins through better macro, but the ones he loses, he usually loses through bad decisions. For example, I've seen him see an attack coming and panic and throw down a forge so that he can try to build cannons in time, and then end up missing a warp in that could've given him enough to hold. I've seen him get attacked by reapers and not know that he should anticipate where they will come from and chrono a stalker if necessary. I've seen him be ahead in a game by having 3 bases to 2 with less in the bank and higher income, but make an awkward tech switch to carriers because he didn't know what to do. I saw him get way ahead in a PvP but nearly lose because he went for dts even after seeing his opponent's forge and robo.
My point is, while improving your macro will get you wins more so than anything, it helps to have someone with a better understanding of the game tell you the proper response in a certain situation when you can't see it.
|
Actually, I would say that "macro better" can be a little misleading. What high level players are really saying is "execute better". Many lower level players think that their macro is "good enough" when it is far from the case. This is because they think that small mistakes make no difference but they are very mistaken.
For instance, if someone is "only" 10% behind in terms of mechanics - this is actually a HUGE difference. But to a low level player, they only cursorily look at it and think that it's not a "big deal".
I once advised a gold-level player to 10 supply, 12 rax, 13 rax, 15 OC, 16 depot (this was pre-1.4). His response was that "I do that". However, when I looked at the replay, the SCV pulled to make the 12 rax was so late that it was more like 13 rax! These "small" mistakes accumulate over time and this is HUGE.
However, many high level players already take this "execution matters" for granted, without stressing how important it is. Macro better is misleading - maybe high level players should say "execution matters!"
|
This thread has been a real eye opener for me. I've plateaued in the top 4(ish) of my bronze league and was wondering why. I have quite superior knowledge of initial builds and of unit compositions and counters. I keep my minerals/gas way low. I EMP the heck out of the Protoss and snipe Brood Lords with my Vikings. I always get upgrades, often from double ebay/armory. And though my micro isn't amazing, I'm always producing units when fighting such that even if I the engagement goes bad, I have an army waiting for me. (And if the engagement is going well, I rally the new units to my Terran deathball of choice for the final push.) But again, this thread had made me realize one VERY CRITICAL point - I do all of this off of 2-base, and often get crushed because my opponents are way ahead in base count. I suppose I win only if I push early or if I turtle against someone with crappier macro than I. Thanks TeamLiquid! I'm going to not get scared to expand to 3, and when my main is mined, I'll take a 4th. If 90ish SCVs is the magic(ish) number, I'll shoot for that.
TLDR: Fantastic peripheral knowledge only got me to high bronze b/c I was too shy to macro beyond 2 base.
|
On October 10 2011 08:42 Bonkarooni wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2011 21:01 marvellosity wrote: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. Congratulations, you are one of those ppl the OP was talking about even though you were trying not to be. These players are NOT dia/master + and he *already acknowledged this*, saying it's not something you can improve overnight, although of course they try to. 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" Except strats change completely once you learn to macro properly, so anything you learn to do while you're macroing wrong will really only hold you back.
I can't think of any strat that would work well with bad macro, and not work *even better* with good macro. Perhaps you could name one? While there's plenty of strats that only work well with good macro, if they rely on hitting a good timing.
I really do like the concept of a one size fits all build/strategy for low level zergies so that they can just focus on executing that perfectly in terms of macro. As soon as I figure out what the vT and vP ones are I'll let you know.
|
I recently switched to Terran, so I am still getting used to dealing with early pressure, when trying to macro. I've found it easier to go a safer build, rather than all-out CC first (ok, I don't generally CC first). The idea being that the macro will kick in eventually anyway. But yeah, learning to survive the early game is something that is needed as well as just hitting those SCV's and depots.
|
You can always macro better but that doesn't mean you can't improve something else at the same time.
|
My problem with people telling me to macro better is that it's not fun. what's fun is doing drops, sneaky pushes, tech switches, etc. People telling me to stop floating minerals is a boring solution to my problems, regardless of how much more useful it is as far as advice goes.
|
On October 10 2011 14:09 sfadam wrote:
This thread has been a real eye opener for me. I've plateaued in the top 4(ish) of my bronze league and was wondering why. I have quite superior knowledge of initial builds and of unit compositions and counters. I keep my minerals/gas way low. I EMP the heck out of the Protoss and snipe Brood Lords with my Vikings. I always get upgrades, often from double ebay/armory. And though my micro isn't amazing, I'm always producing units when fighting such that even if I the engagement goes bad, I have an army waiting for me. (And if the engagement is going well, I rally the new units to my Terran deathball of choice for the final push.) But again, this thread had made me realize one VERY CRITICAL point - I do all of this off of 2-base, and often get crushed because my opponents are way ahead in base count. I suppose I win only if I push early or if I turtle against someone with crappier macro than I. Thanks TeamLiquid! I'm going to not get scared to expand to 3, and when my main is mined, I'll take a 4th. If 90ish SCVs is the magic(ish) number, I'll shoot for that.
TLDR: Fantastic peripheral knowledge only got me to high bronze b/c I was too shy to macro beyond 2 base.
I don't think this thread has been an eye opener for you at all, lol.
"I need to move from awesome 2 base macro to awesome 3+ base macro" is, uh, not ever a problem in bronze.
If you cannot at least make low diamond, it's almost definitely because you are not yet able to competently manage a single base.
|
On October 06 2011 20:38 sfbaydave wrote:
So, please take it easy on us lower level guys and help us out. Remember most everyone was where are at some point.
Here, I will give serious strategic insight. I swear I am not trolling you. Your strategy should be to either destroy their economy or make yours stronger. That is the whole point of the game in a nutshell. That is it. You want strategic advice? Go for the expansions that your opponent has while taking your own. "but that is essentially the same thing as saying 'Just macro'". And? what did you think the point of this game was?
I would say 90% of strategies revolves around killing the opponent's economy and furthering your own. But I'll tell you what, I'll always take the easy win and just beat opponents by macroing my ass off, let them worry about all the strategies and have the lesser macro and just flat out lose.
There is a reason people say "just macro better", we don't say it to be dicks and not give you a legitimate answer. It is that simple. Improve macro, get masters league EASY.
|
lol at the idiots in this thread, "macro better" is the most useless advice possible.You think every game you lose is because of macro? You can objectively outmacro your opponent and still lose for many different reasons. Why would a casual player need perfect macro when he plays in silver league? Other factors can easily make the difference there.
I'm not a lower league player myself but I realize not everyone has RTS-experience, a lot of time to play games undisturbed or decent hardware to name a few things. As long as you have fun playing the game its all good you dont have to practice like crazy if you cant or dont want to.
If you dont care enough to help someone who isnt very serious about the game then dont comment in their threads but thinking that saying "lol your macro sux d00d" is the only and most helpful thing you could have possibly said is borderline retarded.
|
On October 10 2011 20:37 secretary bird wrote:Why would a casual player need perfect macro when he plays in silver league?
I am experiencing an incredible, almost magnetic attraction between my face and my palm.
|
|
|
On October 10 2011 07:08 Monkeyballs25 wrote:Show nested quote +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 can ignore scouting completely. You just have to prioritize a standard sort of play over scouting. Scout for his position early on. Bring worker back and do marine marauder medivac, or do zealot stalker colosus, or do roach hydra corrupter. Because all three if you're just out macroing your opponent is basically just a click or t a click and then you're just back to macroing. Not watching fight not focusing his important units becuase if you're just better than your opponent at macroing and the base sort of aspect of the game you'll do an attack and take an expansion and probably still trade roughly even for your opponent. You just have to make sure you're quing properly and rallying proper or injecting the whole time the fight is going and rallying more quick units to the fight, or warping in and making sure you're sending them into the battle but doing everything in your power to prioritize sitting there and watching the fight at all. If you're 20 or 30 food ahead of your opponent and your upgrades are better all you need is just some sort of a click armie. No micro no spells nothing. I've played games with people i've helped out where i just made marine marauder medivac and sent them in he had storm and chargelots hand he blanketed all of my units in one set of poor storms and i just sat in them macroing no micro no nothing. if i ran out of the storms i would have lost less but the attack secured me a base because my basic mechanics are better than his.
You say you have to scout to see cheese but I think of that as being something that is 100% backwards. Sure you have to eventually learn how and what to scout for but if you go into a game saying I want to work on macro period, and then you're scouting him but your basic mechanics won't let you focus in on what you initially set your goal as and you miss a larve inject or you stop making workers or you didn't put the building down where/when it should have been then you're not focusing on what you originally intended. If you go into a game and you say I want to focus on macro. You're basically saying I don't care if I win or lose this game because it will be a win to ME if I macro'd really good. If you get cheesed you're playing for the longer game because you want to win the longer the game goes on you're trying to make yourself make mistakes so you can fix them where as the person with the cheese is just going to cheese and then get to a point where his/her cheese doesn't work and then they're fucked.
If you want to get better throw everything else you know about starcraft out the window, grab a build or a type of play from a pro korean or pro forigner that you like one for each matchup, and work on little things until you can do the build just as good as them. Starting with macroing and stealing the building placements and the amount of production and the timings off of them whilst you focus on smaller more simpler things ONE AT A TIME until you can do them to your satisfaction.
|
On October 10 2011 20:40 AmericanUmlaut wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2011 20:37 secretary bird wrote:Why would a casual player need perfect macro when he plays in silver league?
I am experiencing an incredible, almost magnetic attraction between my face and my palm.
Thats because you dont understand. Yes if he would practice more and his macro was better he would beat most of his current opponents and get promoted eventually. The fact remains that the players he faces have shitty macro as well so other things can and do make the difference between winning and losing on his level. I hope that wasnt too hard to comprehend for you.
|
On October 10 2011 20:59 D u o wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2011 07:08 Monkeyballs25 wrote: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 can ignore scouting completely. You just have to prioritize a standard sort of play over scouting. Scout for his position early on. Bring worker back and do marine marauder medivac, or do zealot stalker colosus, or do roach hydra corrupter. Because all three if you're just out macroing your opponent is basically just a click or t a click and then you're just back to macroing. Not watching fight not focusing his important units becuase if you're just better than your opponent at macroing and the base sort of aspect of the game you'll do an attack and take an expansion and probably still trade roughly even for your opponent.
Did you actually read my post or just the first line? I already said I play zerg, so let's look at roach/hydra/corruptor as the "standard play" you suggest. Then you suggest studying and copying a pro build. So two points come up immediately
-I don't know *anyone* who goes roach/hydra/corruptor against Terran since maybe season 1. If you can find someone who does, please let me know. Maybe its common against Protoss still but I doubt it.
-All the pro Zergs I do watch rely heavily on scouting, and tend to build nothing but drones until absolutely necessary. So either I ignore scouting and still make lots of drones and then proceed to DIE. Or I ignore your advice and learn to scout like they do and make the drones/army decision. Or go for a "make drones then blindly make army and do an early attack that at worst will collide with his early attack" approach.
I get that you play two races that can make all purpose deathballs while also building their economy. But you don't seem very knowledgeable about the zerg equivalent, if one exists. In fact yours is probably the perfect example of a bad "macro better" kind of post that you really should avoid making entirely.
|
On October 10 2011 21:20 secretary bird wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2011 20:40 AmericanUmlaut wrote:On October 10 2011 20:37 secretary bird wrote:Why would a casual player need perfect macro when he plays in silver league?
I am experiencing an incredible, almost magnetic attraction between my face and my palm. Thats because you dont understand. Yes if he would practice more and his macro was better he would beat most of his current opponents and get promoted eventually. The fact remains that the players he faces have shitty macro as well so other things can and do make the difference between winning and losing on his level. I hope that wasnt too hard to comprehend for you.
I didn't understand, you're right. I thought the whole premise of this discussion was people who want to get better at Starcraft and are asking stronger players for advice. If you don't want to get better, you wouldn't be posting in the Strategy Forum and no one would be telling you how you could get better.
And then you come along and basically say "but why would a casual player need to get better if he's not good?"
And then words fail me, and my forehead and both palms experience a sudden explosion of pain. Because... well... that sounds kind of dumb.
And then you post more! If he got better macro, he'd get better, and he'd win! Sweet. I totally agree. But he wants a way to beat his current opponents, but not get better (because he just wants to stay in Silver). Also, we have to stick to ways to improve in the game that don't involve playing the game, because our hypothetical student doesn't want to practice but we still need to help him get better. Even though he, again, doesn't care about getting better as long as he can just win more. And we should steer away from big, easy fixes to his overall play and find detailed, nitty gritty fixes to very specific situations, because our goal in the Strategy Forum is to help you get a 1% advantage over an equally skilled opponent, and if we try to help you get a 73% advantage instead, we are douchey douchey douchebags.
And now I understand! Thank you for the clarification! This thread has been a total eye-opener to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
