|
On October 14 2011 06:53 Miggypops wrote:
Sorry dude but its just macro.
You see the counters in this game are only 20% to 40% effective. That means if you got a smaller army by this amount I will rolf stomp you, dont matter what I have. So focus on your macro and dont worry about strategy yo.
I think this only works reasonably well with a robust army composition choice, stuff like roaches, marines and stalkers. I mean you could try to macrostomp someone with no-micro mass reaper, DT or mutalisk strat but stuff like that is hard countered much more effectively. Or to give more realistic examples, in a pure macro situation
Roach/hydra trumps muta/ling/bling
MMM trumps marine/tank
Stalker/Colossus trumps..erm...that other composition with High Templar and other stuff.
If you're gonna focus on macro, you might as well pick a strat that still works well with little else. 1 base strats are better for similar reasons, they're less reliant on scouting and reacting.
|
On October 14 2011 07:17 Monkeyballs25 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2011 06:53 Miggypops wrote:
Sorry dude but its just macro.
You see the counters in this game are only 20% to 40% effective. That means if you got a smaller army by this amount I will rolf stomp you, dont matter what I have. So focus on your macro and dont worry about strategy yo. I think this only works reasonably well with a robust army composition choice, stuff like roaches, marines and stalkers. I mean you could try to macrostomp someone with no-micro mass reaper, DT or mutalisk strat but stuff like that is hard countered much more effectively. Or to give more realistic examples, in a pure macro situation Roach/hydra trumps muta/ling/bling MMM trumps marine/tank Stalker/Colossus trumps..erm...that other composition with High Templar and other stuff. If you're gonna focus on macro, you might as well pick a strat that still works well with little else. 1 base strats are better for similar reasons, they're less reliant on scouting and reacting.
This is also because the "frail" unit compositions usually have a very specific and micro-reliant purpose. For example, muta ling works because with proper muta control, you can contain a player in their base while you drone super hard to the point where you'll need hardly any more for the rest of the game, allowing you to gear up into super macro mode later on. Whereas roach hydra is just kind of a beefy army right from the get-go.
So yes your logic is sound, but people who have poor macro usually don't have the multitasking to execute these more advanced builds, and therefore only have that much more reason to not attempt them with their current level of execution.
|
I bet if IdrA posted a replay of him losing people would say "macro better".
|
Doesn't matter if you don't like the advice, it's still the best advice you can get
|
Blind, raw macro will get you to diamond.
Masters.
|
If you look at all of the bronze league players, you see that they would get like 50 supply at the 15 min mark. If they actually macro, then they would probably get into gold because they would have a major supply lead against their opponent, and maybe they would get better.
But then again, half of the bronze league are just smurfs, so it really doesn't matter in the first place.
|
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"
Well said. The problem with your line of thinking however is that you make it sound like strategy is something that is as easy as deciding what units to make. Although that is the general sense of strategy from your viewpoint, by varying what you make you vary your mineral/ gas distribution, and slow down improving macro because your changing too many variables. I would say choose 1 unit composition that is fairly solid against everything, 1 build that is ok against everything, and just drill with those only forcusing on pumping units, using your money, making probes ect. Trust me wheni say that you will improve a lot faster if you only worry about 1 thing at a time. Once you have mastered that one thing, then move on to the next most pressing matter. I hope this made sense, and pm me if you would like to discuss it further. Or you can just post on this thread.
|
What if I drastically, drastically out-macro my opponent, but attack at the wrong angle, or didn't wait until my upgrades finish, or didn't accurately scout?
Everyone keeps bringing up "pro" players proving that macro will win in the lower leagues. This is maybe because even if these people only made stalkers, they knew when to attack, when to pull back, and where to strike so as to maximize efficiency. They have the proper game sense to back up their incredible macroeconomic ability; they know what to do with their shit after making their shit.
Why can't this issue be case-specific? If I lost because of macro, then I lost because of macro, but if I clearly lost because I didn't attack at this time, or I attacked at the wrong angle, then don't give me "macro better". Higher-level players already have game sense; they won't understand that macro is sometimes not enough.
|
On October 14 2011 12:54 holyhalo5 wrote:
What if I drastically, drastically out-macro my opponent, but attack at the wrong angle, or didn't wait until my upgrades finish, or didn't accurately scout?
Everyone keeps bringing up "pro" players proving that macro will win in the lower leagues. This is maybe because even if these people only made stalkers, they knew when to attack, when to pull back, and where to strike so as to maximize efficiency. They have the proper game sense to back up their incredible macroeconomic ability; they know what to do with their shit after making their shit.
Why can't this issue be case-specific? If I lost because of macro, then I lost because of macro, but if I clearly lost because I didn't attack at this time, or I attacked at the wrong angle, then don't give me "macro better". Higher-level players already have game sense; they won't understand that macro is sometimes not enough.
The person who massed stalkers actually made a point not to micro or care about engagements at al.l They just A-moved to their opponents base once they hit 200 supply.
|
I'm pretty sure Huk or someone was streaming on a friend's smurf account that was in Bronze league, and they literally made nothing but drones the entire game and won... Macro wins in lower leagues
|
Not to be a backseat moderator, but can we please have this damn thread locked? It's worthless, stupid, and just the same point being reiterated and reinforces again and again and again and again and again and again.
|
On October 14 2011 11:39 Belial88 wrote:Masters.
I am sceptical. Mass blink stalker guy didn't even get into diamond. I'm happy to be proved wrong if I get to see some fun replays though 
|
On October 14 2011 12:54 holyhalo5 wrote:
What if I drastically, drastically out-macro my opponent, but attack at the wrong angle, or didn't wait until my upgrades finish, or didn't accurately scout?
Everyone keeps bringing up "pro" players proving that macro will win in the lower leagues. This is maybe because even if these people only made stalkers, they knew when to attack, when to pull back, and where to strike so as to maximize efficiency. They have the proper game sense to back up their incredible macroeconomic ability; they know what to do with their shit after making their shit.
Why can't this issue be case-specific? If I lost because of macro, then I lost because of macro, but if I clearly lost because I didn't attack at this time, or I attacked at the wrong angle, then don't give me "macro better". Higher-level players already have game sense; they won't understand that macro is sometimes not enough.
Check out the replays I posted earlier in the thread where I'm picking up a majority of wins against silver and gold players. I'm only scouting to check where his base(s) are. Mostly only attacking when I'm maxed. I attack at *terrible* angles, up ramps against siege tanks and so on with absolutely no unit micro. Hell I'm not even watching the battles most of the time. And most people would agree roach/hydra isn't the best unit comp vs Terran. And my harass defence is amateurish at best.
I'm not saying I've a chance of getting into diamond with this approach, but it feels like a good place to start. Even if I hit a wall around high gold/low plat, *then* I can start adding in fancy schmancy stuff like "maybe I should make *some* lings against his immortal/stalker army" or "maybe I should go *around* the siege tank line" and stuff. But atm it feels irrelevant when I could just figure out ways to safely get to 200/200 roach hydra faster.
And yeah, cheese and early rush defence is definitely a caveat I'd add to the "just focus on macro" advice. But I find its not nearly as complicated as tech switching or lategame lingblingmuta micro and the like.
|
On October 14 2011 16:27 Monkeyballs25 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2011 11:39 Belial88 wrote:Blind, raw macro will get you to diamond. Masters. I am sceptical. Mass blink stalker guy didn't even get into diamond. I'm happy to be proved wrong if I get to see some fun replays though
It really depends on how you define 'pure macro'.
Some kind of artificial limits, or can you just execute some thought out plan beforehand with an absolute minimum of scouting (ie, just placing stuff at expansions to see when they are taken).
I mean, going ling bling roach vs Terran, roach ling vs zerg, roach hydra vs protoss, I am confident I can win roughly 50% of my matches at #20 masters level with an absolute minimum of micro (everything on one hotkey, A move).
But that includes having a unit composition that defaults to decent vs the most normal stuff the opposing players make, and that's made for A-moving.
Can't do the same with muta ling for example.
|
On October 14 2011 12:54 holyhalo5 wrote:
What if I drastically, drastically out-macro my opponent, but attack at the wrong angle, or didn't wait until my upgrades finish, or didn't accurately scout?
Everyone keeps bringing up "pro" players proving that macro will win in the lower leagues. This is maybe because even if these people only made stalkers, they knew when to attack, when to pull back, and where to strike so as to maximize efficiency. They have the proper game sense to back up their incredible macroeconomic ability; they know what to do with their shit after making their shit.
Why can't this issue be case-specific? If I lost because of macro, then I lost because of macro, but if I clearly lost because I didn't attack at this time, or I attacked at the wrong angle, then don't give me "macro better". Higher-level players already have game sense; they won't understand that macro is sometimes not enough.
For the record, whilst I agree with the point that "just macro" isn't that helpful and that theres other aspects that might be helpful too; but I can't agree with "game sense" being as important as you make it seem.
Case in point: game I played last night. PvP. My opponent FFEd (against Protoss...what?). So I opened one-gate expand into three gateways and a robo. Then another three gateways, bay and another robo. Finally adding on a twilight council to start work on blink. Then I moved out off two bases with my six gates and two robos with my first colossus on the way; bringing a probe for forward pylons.
I'd sent an observer to my opponent after my robo bay but hadn't scouted for ages in-between, just focussed on macroing up. I basically marched my army up a slope that was protected by a wall off with cannons, a pair of colossi and my opponent's army...and I trashed him. Because it turned out his saturation was worse than mine and his production capability off two bases consisted of two gateways and two robos building colossi.
I had more stuff than him, I a-moved, I won.
|
On October 14 2011 19:28 Lightspeaker wrote:
I had more stuff than him, I a-moved, I won.
I'm pretty sure this is SC2 in a nutshell for 80% of the playerbase.
Of course, there's a bit of denial going on. People don't want to believe they are bad, and they don't want to believe the game is so one-dimensional in certain aspects. So I think the biggest obstacle on the way of improvement is acknowledging these things.
However I can understand low leaguers, kinda being one of them. You want to have fun, so you want to try out clever and creative strategies, do impressive tactical maneuvers, outsmart your opponent ... and lo and behold, you can have that! You do not need to keep focusing on polishing the dry boring macro, you can basically do whatever you want, have as much fun as you can and enjoy the game immensely, as long as you are fine with the fact that you will probably not improve and your league icon will be pretty static. But some people kinda want to have their cake and eat it too - they want to improve their gameplay by widening their strategy arsenal and avoid all that boring stuff about getting your macro game up. Sorry, nope. Macro = more stuff, more stuff=more wins, more wins=shiny league icon.
TL;DR - strategy tips can seem fun and entertaining, but realistically they are pointless and in plenty of scenarios just plain wrong because there's no way of telling what works in what league. And better macro would trump it anyways.
|
On October 14 2011 11:39 Belial88 wrote:Masters.
Masters NA, Diamond EU.
|
On October 14 2011 20:40 Slyce wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2011 11:39 Belial88 wrote:Blind, raw macro will get you to diamond. Masters. Masters NA, Diamond EU.
What's with that btw? Is there a big population of...erm...starcraftically challenged people in the US propping up everyone else's rankings or something?
|
On October 14 2011 21:52 Monkeyballs25 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2011 20:40 Slyce wrote:On October 14 2011 11:39 Belial88 wrote:Blind, raw macro will get you to diamond. Masters. Masters NA, Diamond EU. What's with that btw? Is there a big population of...erm...starcraftically challenged people in the US propping up everyone else's rankings or something?
I think it is just due to proportions actually.
The ladder is done on percentages and there are just more NA accounts therefore the skill level needed to get into Master League is a bit lower.
I think, I could be wrong but I got friends who have accounts on NA and they say it is a bit easier to climb up the ladder.
|
On October 14 2011 16:27 Monkeyballs25 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2011 11:39 Belial88 wrote:Blind, raw macro will get you to diamond. Masters. I am sceptical. Mass blink stalker guy didn't even get into diamond. I'm happy to be proved wrong if I get to see some fun replays though
You can easily get to masters by going blink stalkers every single game in every matchup, steal a build from a pro for each matchup, hammer it out a few hundred times, and soon you will see how much better a well executed horrible strategy is than a poorly executed good strategy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
