On October 16 2011 17:18 Monkeyballs25 wrote: Are there really many people who learn to play by just watching a set of same race pro replays and just copying them move for move? Sounds pretty hilarious.
... got me to masters.
Cool What league were you in when you started that learning technique and how long(in games or time) did it take?
Took a week to get to high diamond. I just learned the baneling bust build in beta.
Last build I copied exactly is Stephanos baneling bust build, it's really effective all in in ZvZ. Before that, it was NesTea's simplified way of dealing with forge expand.
The baneling bust adaptation entry amounts to, can you win with your lingbling? Yes. Make more lings and blings. No. Expand and tech.
Do you want to improve? Post some replays and I'll tell you what you do wrong ...
The point about Stephano's baneling bust build is that it is a more effective ZvZ build because it's faster than 14gas 14 pool but it doesn't leave you with spare resources to expand if it doesn't work out. It's not a build suited for a followup play, but it's not quite as all in as 6-10 pool buids. It's a way to win baneling wars vs someone that goes 14 gas 14 pool into baneling nest without expanding.
It would never work in ZvT and ZvP because if scouted, easy to deny with simcity.
The point is that you should copy exactly what pro's do. To the letter.
You just have to have several builds: - At least 1 for ZvZ (if just one, I recommend a variation of 15 hatch and just dealing with the losses against 6-10 pools). - At least 1 for ZvT with two variations: one vs fast expand (1 rax expand, rax factory expand), one vs 1 base builds. - At least 2 for ZvP (1 vs forge expand, 1 vs 1-3 gate, with knowing how to identify a 4 gate and defend it).
Now, if that's too problematic, you can just do 14 gas 14 pool 20 expand in all matchups and just live with ling speed. It's not as good an opening as having several different ones, but it's middle of the road effective vs everything.
And builds vs forge expand in ZvP easily go up to 70-80 supply, without having any major deviations until then.
Following exactly what the pros do with several different builds suited for the matchups will get you to master.
Following exactly what they do with one standard build without deviations or worrying about the matchups will get you to mid high diamond easy.
So you got to high diamond with a baneling bust build that...no longer works in 2 of 3 matchups? Or maybe I misunderstood. Anyway, not important. Most of your post is a tautological argument. "If you want to be really good, copy the things that really good people do, then you will be really good". Of course its true, but it doesn't mean its useful advice! The problem with the "just go with this one speedling expand build in all matchups" thing is that it stops at 20 food. Then you just...do stuff. Its like giving someone the first 4 moves in a chess opening and then saying "well just adapt to what the opponent is doing". You could write pages and pages of text on the different things you need to do after that, and people have done so many times in various guides.
What I'm getting at is that some builds basically encompass a whole game. Like 4gate, Destiny's 2base roach/ling all-in, and the 3rax SCV all-in. With *those* builds I can see the logic of "just copy this build perfectly and get to diamond". Then you have stuff like 3gate Expand, speedling expand and...whatever the Terran equivalent is. Sure you can copy the opener perfectly and have a nice economy if you survive any cheese or other pressure, but then the perfect roadmap is gone and you get into "scout to see what he's doing and react appropriately" aspect, when one build branches out in atleast half a dozen options.
Also my replays are dotted throughout this thread, you can get them from my profile posting history if you fancy taking a look.
Those build orders can reach 100 supply. You're either refusing to look past 20 supply, or you're watching all of the replays where they're forced to respond to voidrays denying their third, or dt's running into their main before their turrets finish or something. Find the games where the pro is left to their own for the first 10-15 minutes with minimal pressure and they'll lay out their build order, nice and plain. Even day9 covers these builds to great extent.
Also, the quote is semi-flawed. A well executed build order takes you to masters, but you need the mechanics behind it. As it's been re-stated over and over, work on specific parts of your play until they all culminate into near flawless macro whilst executing beyond the build. It'll immediately take you to mid-high masters. You aren't practicing the build; you're eliminating the variable of multiple builds to focus on mechanics exclusively.
A pro game where no one pressures the Zerg for 10-15 minutes? That might be difficult to find outside out of a ZvP FFE matchup. Same goes for my own games, probably even more so. So I'm basically learning -a buildorder for when I'm not pressured at all -a buildorder vs fast air -a buildorder vs a fast gateway push -a buildorder vs a fast lingbling push and so on and so forth. The 20 food cap is from the http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Speedling_Expand article. Obviously stuff happens after that 20 supply, but it doesn't seem to be set in stone or else they'd have put it in the article. Yes I can try to learn how to copy the pro response to every situation, but its nonsense still calling it "one build for all matchups without deviations" at that point.
And in your second paragraph you're just stating the obvious. Yes, if I have Masters level mechanics with "one" (IE one precisely defined opener with a multitude of strategic variations beyond that) build, I can get into Masters. Not surprising, since mechanics covers *everything other than the build order*.
"If you play like a Masters player you'll get into Masters". I think we're in agreement.
On October 16 2011 17:18 Monkeyballs25 wrote: Are there really many people who learn to play by just watching a set of same race pro replays and just copying them move for move? Sounds pretty hilarious.
... got me to masters.
Cool What league were you in when you started that learning technique and how long(in games or time) did it take?
Took a week to get to high diamond. I just learned the baneling bust build in beta.
Last build I copied exactly is Stephanos baneling bust build, it's really effective all in in ZvZ. Before that, it was NesTea's simplified way of dealing with forge expand.
The baneling bust adaptation entry amounts to, can you win with your lingbling? Yes. Make more lings and blings. No. Expand and tech.
Do you want to improve? Post some replays and I'll tell you what you do wrong ...
The point about Stephano's baneling bust build is that it is a more effective ZvZ build because it's faster than 14gas 14 pool but it doesn't leave you with spare resources to expand if it doesn't work out. It's not a build suited for a followup play, but it's not quite as all in as 6-10 pool buids. It's a way to win baneling wars vs someone that goes 14 gas 14 pool into baneling nest without expanding.
It would never work in ZvT and ZvP because if scouted, easy to deny with simcity.
The point is that you should copy exactly what pro's do. To the letter.
You just have to have several builds: - At least 1 for ZvZ (if just one, I recommend a variation of 15 hatch and just dealing with the losses against 6-10 pools). - At least 1 for ZvT with two variations: one vs fast expand (1 rax expand, rax factory expand), one vs 1 base builds. - At least 2 for ZvP (1 vs forge expand, 1 vs 1-3 gate, with knowing how to identify a 4 gate and defend it).
Now, if that's too problematic, you can just do 14 gas 14 pool 20 expand in all matchups and just live with ling speed. It's not as good an opening as having several different ones, but it's middle of the road effective vs everything.
And builds vs forge expand in ZvP easily go up to 70-80 supply, without having any major deviations until then.
Following exactly what the pros do with several different builds suited for the matchups will get you to master.
Following exactly what they do with one standard build without deviations or worrying about the matchups will get you to mid high diamond easy.
So you got to high diamond with a baneling bust build that...no longer works in 2 of 3 matchups? Or maybe I misunderstood. Anyway, not important. Most of your post is a tautological argument. "If you want to be really good, copy the things that really good people do, then you will be really good". Of course its true, but it doesn't mean its useful advice! The problem with the "just go with this one speedling expand build in all matchups" thing is that it stops at 20 food. Then you just...do stuff. Its like giving someone the first 4 moves in a chess opening and then saying "well just adapt to what the opponent is doing". You could write pages and pages of text on the different things you need to do after that, and people have done so many times in various guides.
What I'm getting at is that some builds basically encompass a whole game. Like 4gate, Destiny's 2base roach/ling all-in, and the 3rax SCV all-in. With *those* builds I can see the logic of "just copy this build perfectly and get to diamond". Then you have stuff like 3gate Expand, speedling expand and...whatever the Terran equivalent is. Sure you can copy the opener perfectly and have a nice economy if you survive any cheese or other pressure, but then the perfect roadmap is gone and you get into "scout to see what he's doing and react appropriately" aspect, when one build branches out in atleast half a dozen options.
Also my replays are dotted throughout this thread, you can get them from my profile posting history if you fancy taking a look.
Those build orders can reach 100 supply. You're either refusing to look past 20 supply, or you're watching all of the replays where they're forced to respond to voidrays denying their third, or dt's running into their main before their turrets finish or something. Find the games where the pro is left to their own for the first 10-15 minutes with minimal pressure and they'll lay out their build order, nice and plain. Even day9 covers these builds to great extent.
Also, the quote is semi-flawed. A well executed build order takes you to masters, but you need the mechanics behind it. As it's been re-stated over and over, work on specific parts of your play until they all culminate into near flawless macro whilst executing beyond the build. It'll immediately take you to mid-high masters. You aren't practicing the build; you're eliminating the variable of multiple builds to focus on mechanics exclusively.
A pro game where no one pressures the Zerg for 10-15 minutes? That might be difficult to find outside out of a ZvP FFE matchup. Same goes for my own games, probably even more so. So I'm basically learning -a buildorder for when I'm not pressured at all -a buildorder vs fast air -a buildorder vs a fast gateway push -a buildorder vs a fast lingbling push and so on and so forth. The 20 food cap is from the http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Speedling_Expand article. Obviously stuff happens after that 20 supply, but it doesn't seem to be set in stone or else they'd have put it in the article. Yes I can try to learn how to copy the pro response to every situation, but its nonsense still calling it "one build for all matchups without deviations" at that point.
And in your second paragraph you're just stating the obvious. Yes, if I have Masters level mechanics with "one" (IE one precisely defined opener with a multitude of strategic variations beyond that) build, I can get into Masters. Not surprising, since mechanics covers *everything other than the build order*.
"If you play like a Masters player you'll get into Masters". I think we're in agreement.
No, I never suggested learning a build order based around non-pressure. I also didn't imply the protoss on the other side does absolutely nothing. A void ray could waltz into the third, be deflected by two queens. A few phoenixes go into the main to be deflected by a spore crawler. You understand the idea, he takes no damage. Absolutely no pressure, the zerg is allowed to do as he pleases.
I also never said to look at the 20 food build order on liquipedia. Day9 describes it pretty well. It's not as simple as a 'mid-game plan,' but every high level strategy revolves on reaching a place, and a build order optimizes getting there. The 20 speedling expand is just a part of it. If given the right conditions a pro would take a hatch first, delay speed, take a fast third, spread creep to all of these bases whilst droning up to 70 with minimal units. They're also timing the tech to finish as they take their fourth/reach their maximum drone count to max out as quickly as possible with the most possible upgrades to abuse their economic advantage as swiftly as possible.
If you have perfect mechanics, you don't need a build order. Build orders are a result of perfect macro. You can literally do anything you want if you macro everything correctly, and then turn around and make a build order based on what you made because that is exactly what a build order is. The product of a refined timing behind perfect macro.
If you actually want to learn how to macro without being spoon-fed, find a pro whos style you like. Find 5-10 replays of them executing the same build, or attempting to reach the same mid-game state. Example: 3 bases, 76 drones, +2 attack with infestors and roaches. It won't be the same because he obviously has to deviate a little to deflect different timings but he's ultimately going for the same build. Take away whats similar and you have a build order. People don't list these as build orders because if you did them blindly at a high level you would die the vast majority of games if you don't scout/adapt. It's something you learn through experience and time.
Alternatively, you can work on your mechanics until they're dead perfect, and work on your timings instead, which will take you to GM. It's literally as easy as asking yourself, 'what do i want?' Then practicing until you get to that point. With perfect mechanics, of course.
tl;dr perfect macro/mechanics makes everything easier
On October 16 2011 21:26 Monkeyballs25 wrote: Most of your post is a tautological argument. "If you want to be really good, copy the things that really good people do, then you will be really good". Of course its true, but it doesn't mean its useful advice!
I give up on you. ... Read that again. Of course it's true - but it's not useful advice? What the fuck is wrong with that advice if it's true? It's a 100% proven tried and true way to get really good. And it's not useful? And I did write up what you did wrong in one of your replays in this thread, apparently, you didn't follow the advice there. To me it really, really simple: If you want to get better, don't bother thinking. Don't bother strategizing. Don't bother with anything like that. Download a replay from a pro. Note exactly what they are doing for the first 6 minutes of the game in each matchup. Practice vs computer until you can do the same thing within 5 in game seconds margin. Profit and get to diamond. At least. It really really is that simple. If you are gold and below, you are just having a really, really bad opening. You are doing stuff wrong at the start. Really wrong. It's fact. How to fix that? Copy from someone who knows what they are doing ... It takes you a couple of hours to learn to copy a build ... I don't understand why you don't just do that. You will get so much better almost instantly ... Oh, and the baneling bust off 14 gas 14 pool? It still works to diamond most of the time ... it's just that what I meant by the latest build I copied, was a different specific variation that is quite effective even at higher levels on some specific maps. Edit: if by 'not useful' meaning 'not something I want to do' then write that. It's the most effective, fastest way for you to improve your game.
Its a bit of both, I guess. After an hour of practice on YABOT I still wasn't close to your numbers, with *massive* timing errors on most aspects of it. I'd estimate 1 or 2 weeks of practice at 1 hour a day *might* let me execute it to your given standard in a zero pressure environment, a rare thing in a real game. Hell, I tried it vs Very Hard AI a couple times and lost to 2 gate zealot every time. And I ended up with a headache I normally only get studying for work related exams or under heavy stress in the office. So you can file that under "not something I want to do" based on the cost vs reward. What I meant by it being "not useful" generally is that its self-evident to say emulating what good players do will make you a good player. I doubt anyone would argue against that. But copying what good players do is something well above what most people are capable of without massive amounts of work, and as a good player yourself you maybe don't realise that. Its -knowing what to do -being able to access that knowledge *quickly* and -being able to *execute* that knowledge quickly and without errors that seems trivial to many posters here but certainly not to me. All I've done is tried to make the "stuff I need to do" list as short as possible, which makes it easier to recall quickly. And making sure none of the stuff I need to do needs quick and precise execution. Hence, mass roach/hydra all day erryday.
On October 16 2011 17:18 Monkeyballs25 wrote: Are there really many people who learn to play by just watching a set of same race pro replays and just copying them move for move? Sounds pretty hilarious.
... got me to masters.
Cool What league were you in when you started that learning technique and how long(in games or time) did it take?
Took a week to get to high diamond. I just learned the baneling bust build in beta.
Last build I copied exactly is Stephanos baneling bust build, it's really effective all in in ZvZ. Before that, it was NesTea's simplified way of dealing with forge expand.
The baneling bust adaptation entry amounts to, can you win with your lingbling? Yes. Make more lings and blings. No. Expand and tech.
Do you want to improve? Post some replays and I'll tell you what you do wrong ...
The point about Stephano's baneling bust build is that it is a more effective ZvZ build because it's faster than 14gas 14 pool but it doesn't leave you with spare resources to expand if it doesn't work out. It's not a build suited for a followup play, but it's not quite as all in as 6-10 pool buids. It's a way to win baneling wars vs someone that goes 14 gas 14 pool into baneling nest without expanding.
It would never work in ZvT and ZvP because if scouted, easy to deny with simcity.
The point is that you should copy exactly what pro's do. To the letter.
You just have to have several builds: - At least 1 for ZvZ (if just one, I recommend a variation of 15 hatch and just dealing with the losses against 6-10 pools). - At least 1 for ZvT with two variations: one vs fast expand (1 rax expand, rax factory expand), one vs 1 base builds. - At least 2 for ZvP (1 vs forge expand, 1 vs 1-3 gate, with knowing how to identify a 4 gate and defend it).
Now, if that's too problematic, you can just do 14 gas 14 pool 20 expand in all matchups and just live with ling speed. It's not as good an opening as having several different ones, but it's middle of the road effective vs everything.
And builds vs forge expand in ZvP easily go up to 70-80 supply, without having any major deviations until then.
Following exactly what the pros do with several different builds suited for the matchups will get you to master.
Following exactly what they do with one standard build without deviations or worrying about the matchups will get you to mid high diamond easy.
So you got to high diamond with a baneling bust build that...no longer works in 2 of 3 matchups? Or maybe I misunderstood. Anyway, not important. Most of your post is a tautological argument. "If you want to be really good, copy the things that really good people do, then you will be really good". Of course its true, but it doesn't mean its useful advice! The problem with the "just go with this one speedling expand build in all matchups" thing is that it stops at 20 food. Then you just...do stuff. Its like giving someone the first 4 moves in a chess opening and then saying "well just adapt to what the opponent is doing". You could write pages and pages of text on the different things you need to do after that, and people have done so many times in various guides.
What I'm getting at is that some builds basically encompass a whole game. Like 4gate, Destiny's 2base roach/ling all-in, and the 3rax SCV all-in. With *those* builds I can see the logic of "just copy this build perfectly and get to diamond". Then you have stuff like 3gate Expand, speedling expand and...whatever the Terran equivalent is. Sure you can copy the opener perfectly and have a nice economy if you survive any cheese or other pressure, but then the perfect roadmap is gone and you get into "scout to see what he's doing and react appropriately" aspect, when one build branches out in atleast half a dozen options.
Also my replays are dotted throughout this thread, you can get them from my profile posting history if you fancy taking a look.
Those build orders can reach 100 supply. You're either refusing to look past 20 supply, or you're watching all of the replays where they're forced to respond to voidrays denying their third, or dt's running into their main before their turrets finish or something. Find the games where the pro is left to their own for the first 10-15 minutes with minimal pressure and they'll lay out their build order, nice and plain. Even day9 covers these builds to great extent.
Also, the quote is semi-flawed. A well executed build order takes you to masters, but you need the mechanics behind it. As it's been re-stated over and over, work on specific parts of your play until they all culminate into near flawless macro whilst executing beyond the build. It'll immediately take you to mid-high masters. You aren't practicing the build; you're eliminating the variable of multiple builds to focus on mechanics exclusively.
A pro game where no one pressures the Zerg for 10-15 minutes? That might be difficult to find outside out of a ZvP FFE matchup. Same goes for my own games, probably even more so. So I'm basically learning -a buildorder for when I'm not pressured at all -a buildorder vs fast air -a buildorder vs a fast gateway push -a buildorder vs a fast lingbling push and so on and so forth. The 20 food cap is from the http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Speedling_Expand article. Obviously stuff happens after that 20 supply, but it doesn't seem to be set in stone or else they'd have put it in the article. Yes I can try to learn how to copy the pro response to every situation, but its nonsense still calling it "one build for all matchups without deviations" at that point.
And in your second paragraph you're just stating the obvious. Yes, if I have Masters level mechanics with "one" (IE one precisely defined opener with a multitude of strategic variations beyond that) build, I can get into Masters. Not surprising, since mechanics covers *everything other than the build order*.
"If you play like a Masters player you'll get into Masters". I think we're in agreement.
No, I never suggested learning a build order based around non-pressure. I also didn't imply the protoss on the other side does absolutely nothing. A void ray could waltz into the third, be deflected by two queens. A few phoenixes go into the main to be deflected by a spore crawler. You understand the idea, he takes no damage. Absolutely no pressure, the zerg is allowed to do as he pleases.
<snip>
tl;dr perfect macro/mechanics makes everything easier
There's the thing though. Does he always have 2 queens at his third and a spore at his main as part of his standard build, or is he building them in response to scouting? If its standard, then sure I guess I could eventually learn to do that perfectly. If they're small deviations in response to scouting, then well that'd be a lot harder to keep in my head I think I just get a bit annoyed by some of the responses here because they make getting to Diamond/Masters seem easy when they mean its simple. IE copying a pro build is simple, you just download the replay, watch it and write down the timings, and try to copy it. Its not *easy* because "try to copy it" would take me an ungodly amount of time and headaches. So I apologise for my earlier frustration, "copy the pro" is good advice generally but not something useful for me.
On October 16 2011 23:19 Monkeyballs25 wrote: Hell, I tried it vs Very Hard AI a couple times and lost to 2 gate zealot every time.
You aren't doing what I said.
Here's what you do: - 0 pressure. - Custom game vs very easy AI - Just do the first 6 minutes or so. - Over and over.
After 10 repetitions, you should be able to do it exactly like a pro. Or near enough. It's not THAT hard. There's no real multitasking, that's later in the game.
... just follow instructions you write down in notepad or wherever.
On October 16 2011 21:26 Monkeyballs25 wrote: Most of your post is a tautological argument. "If you want to be really good, copy the things that really good people do, then you will be really good". Of course its true, but it doesn't mean its useful advice!
I give up on you. ... Read that again. Of course it's true - but it's not useful advice? What the fuck is wrong with that advice if it's true? It's a 100% proven tried and true way to get really good. And it's not useful? And I did write up what you did wrong in one of your replays in this thread, apparently, you didn't follow the advice there. To me it really, really simple: If you want to get better, don't bother thinking. Don't bother strategizing. Don't bother with anything like that. Download a replay from a pro. Note exactly what they are doing for the first 6 minutes of the game in each matchup. Practice vs computer until you can do the same thing within 5 in game seconds margin. Profit and get to diamond. At least. It really really is that simple. If you are gold and below, you are just having a really, really bad opening. You are doing stuff wrong at the start. Really wrong. It's fact. How to fix that? Copy from someone who knows what they are doing ... It takes you a couple of hours to learn to copy a build ... I don't understand why you don't just do that. You will get so much better almost instantly ... Oh, and the baneling bust off 14 gas 14 pool? It still works to diamond most of the time ... it's just that what I meant by the latest build I copied, was a different specific variation that is quite effective even at higher levels on some specific maps. Edit: if by 'not useful' meaning 'not something I want to do' then write that. It's the most effective, fastest way for you to improve your game.
Its a bit of both, I guess. After an hour of practice on YABOT I still wasn't close to your numbers, with *massive* timing errors on most aspects of it. I'd estimate 1 or 2 weeks of practice at 1 hour a day *might* let me execute it to your given standard in a zero pressure environment, a rare thing in a real game. Hell, I tried it vs Very Hard AI a couple times and lost to 2 gate zealot every time.
Seems to me like you did try to put in some effort to emulate a pro's build, but maybe you need to improve some basics which could be mechanics related.
Are you using groups and hotkeys properly? Cycling through your buildings constantly? What larvae inject method are you using?
If you truly tried for an hour doing nothing but YABOT, you should be able to easily get the first 5 mins down pretty accurately within an hour IMO. That's actually repeating the same thing 10 times...
I'm pretty sure there are some articles talking about this and also many Day[9]'s dailies concerning this: E.g.
On October 16 2011 23:19 Monkeyballs25 wrote: Hell, I tried it vs Very Hard AI a couple times and lost to 2 gate zealot every time.
You aren't doing what I said.
Here's what you do: - 0 pressure. - Custom game vs very easy AI - Just do the first 6 minutes or so. - Over and over.
After 10 repetitions, you should be able to do it exactly like a pro. Or near enough. It's not THAT hard.
I did, I used YABOT with the no aggression from the AI option. And *I still couldn't do it correctly even after an hour*. Do you understand how different our starting positions are now?
On October 16 2011 23:19 Monkeyballs25 wrote: Hell, I tried it vs Very Hard AI a couple times and lost to 2 gate zealot every time.
You aren't doing what I said.
Here's what you do: - 0 pressure. - Custom game vs very easy AI - Just do the first 6 minutes or so. - Over and over.
After 10 repetitions, you should be able to do it exactly like a pro. Or near enough. It's not THAT hard.
I did, I used YABOT with the no aggression from the AI option. And *I still couldn't do it correctly even after an hour*. Do you understand how different our starting positions are now?
Would you mind just uploading one of those replays?
On October 16 2011 23:19 Monkeyballs25 wrote: Hell, I tried it vs Very Hard AI a couple times and lost to 2 gate zealot every time.
You aren't doing what I said.
Here's what you do: - 0 pressure. - Custom game vs very easy AI - Just do the first 6 minutes or so. - Over and over.
After 10 repetitions, you should be able to do it exactly like a pro. Or near enough. It's not THAT hard.
I did, I used YABOT with the no aggression from the AI option. And *I still couldn't do it correctly even after an hour*. Do you understand how different our starting positions are now?
Would you mind just uploading one of those replays?
Sure if you don't mind waiting till I'm back on my own computer, and if they're still saved Probably another 6 hours or so.
I would compare "just macro better [in starcraft]" to "just study harder [for tests at school]".
Being both in silver league and a high school student, both of these statements would seem to be common knowledge, or useless advice to give to me. I know that I need to macro better in order to win my games, just like how I know I need to study harder in order to do well on tests. However, these two statements reflect the best way excel at starcraft/school.
Giving advice on strategy however, is fairly situational and not always applicable in many scenarios. For example, I could say that I need to know when I need to counter-attack in order to win games, just like how someone could say that I need to understand chemical bonding, and only chemical bonding, for the next unit test. Both of these are useful advice, but only in certain situations. What would happen if there was no way I could counter-attack in my games, because the opponent kept the pressure on me? What if there wasn't a question on bonding in my chemistry test? I just wasted a lot of time practicing something that wasn't useful for my game/test.
Macro, and "just study harder" however, will be always useful, no matter what the situation. They may both sound like repetitive tasks, but they are the most efficient and best way to do well. I could have just macro'd better than my opponent, and won that game. And I could have just studied more/harder for my chemistry test, and got an A. Without that basic foundation of macroing/studying, there is no way that you do the other complex things, simply because you aren't prepared enough.
On October 16 2011 23:57 tpcstld wrote: I would compare "just macro better [in starcraft]" to "just study harder [for tests at school]".
Being both in silver league and a high school student, both of these statements would seem to be common knowledge, or useless advice to give to me. I know that I need to macro better in order to win my games, just like how I know I need to study harder in order to do well on tests. However, these two statements reflect the best way excel at starcraft/school.
Giving advice on strategy however, is fairly situational and not always applicable in many scenarios. For example, I could say that I need to know when I need to counter-attack in order to win games, just like how someone could say that I need to understand chemical bonding, and only chemical bonding, for the next unit test. Both of these are useful advice, but only in certain situations. What would happen if there was no way I could counter-attack in my games, because the opponent kept the pressure on me? What if there wasn't a question on bonding in my chemistry test? I just wasted a lot of time practicing something that wasn't useful for my game/test.
Macro, and "just study harder" however, will be always useful, no matter what the situation. They may both sound like repetitive tasks, but they are the most efficient and best way to do well. I could have just macro'd better than my opponent, and won that game. And I could have just studied more/harder for my chemistry test, and got an A. Without that basic foundation of macroing/studying, there is no way that you do the other complex things, simply because you aren't prepared enough.
While true in some regards, studying harder for a test is only applicable to that specific test. Learning how to macro will help you in ALL future games. Like other people pointed out, it's more analogous to working on your technique in a sport.
On October 16 2011 23:19 Monkeyballs25 wrote: Hell, I tried it vs Very Hard AI a couple times and lost to 2 gate zealot every time.
You aren't doing what I said.
Here's what you do: - 0 pressure. - Custom game vs very easy AI - Just do the first 6 minutes or so. - Over and over.
After 10 repetitions, you should be able to do it exactly like a pro. Or near enough. It's not THAT hard.
I did, I used YABOT with the no aggression from the AI option. And *I still couldn't do it correctly even after an hour*. Do you understand how different our starting positions are now?
Would you mind just uploading one of those replays?
Sure if you don't mind waiting till I'm back on my own computer, and if they're still saved Probably another 6 hours or so.
That's okay. I can probably tell you what your problem is with the build just by following the camera movement. Just curious as to where it gets confusing for you.
On October 16 2011 17:26 aebriol wrote: [quote] ... got me to masters.
Cool What league were you in when you started that learning technique and how long(in games or time) did it take?
Took a week to get to high diamond. I just learned the baneling bust build in beta.
Last build I copied exactly is Stephanos baneling bust build, it's really effective all in in ZvZ. Before that, it was NesTea's simplified way of dealing with forge expand.
The baneling bust adaptation entry amounts to, can you win with your lingbling? Yes. Make more lings and blings. No. Expand and tech.
Do you want to improve? Post some replays and I'll tell you what you do wrong ...
The point about Stephano's baneling bust build is that it is a more effective ZvZ build because it's faster than 14gas 14 pool but it doesn't leave you with spare resources to expand if it doesn't work out. It's not a build suited for a followup play, but it's not quite as all in as 6-10 pool buids. It's a way to win baneling wars vs someone that goes 14 gas 14 pool into baneling nest without expanding.
It would never work in ZvT and ZvP because if scouted, easy to deny with simcity.
The point is that you should copy exactly what pro's do. To the letter.
You just have to have several builds: - At least 1 for ZvZ (if just one, I recommend a variation of 15 hatch and just dealing with the losses against 6-10 pools). - At least 1 for ZvT with two variations: one vs fast expand (1 rax expand, rax factory expand), one vs 1 base builds. - At least 2 for ZvP (1 vs forge expand, 1 vs 1-3 gate, with knowing how to identify a 4 gate and defend it).
Now, if that's too problematic, you can just do 14 gas 14 pool 20 expand in all matchups and just live with ling speed. It's not as good an opening as having several different ones, but it's middle of the road effective vs everything.
And builds vs forge expand in ZvP easily go up to 70-80 supply, without having any major deviations until then.
Following exactly what the pros do with several different builds suited for the matchups will get you to master.
Following exactly what they do with one standard build without deviations or worrying about the matchups will get you to mid high diamond easy.
So you got to high diamond with a baneling bust build that...no longer works in 2 of 3 matchups? Or maybe I misunderstood. Anyway, not important. Most of your post is a tautological argument. "If you want to be really good, copy the things that really good people do, then you will be really good". Of course its true, but it doesn't mean its useful advice! The problem with the "just go with this one speedling expand build in all matchups" thing is that it stops at 20 food. Then you just...do stuff. Its like giving someone the first 4 moves in a chess opening and then saying "well just adapt to what the opponent is doing". You could write pages and pages of text on the different things you need to do after that, and people have done so many times in various guides.
What I'm getting at is that some builds basically encompass a whole game. Like 4gate, Destiny's 2base roach/ling all-in, and the 3rax SCV all-in. With *those* builds I can see the logic of "just copy this build perfectly and get to diamond". Then you have stuff like 3gate Expand, speedling expand and...whatever the Terran equivalent is. Sure you can copy the opener perfectly and have a nice economy if you survive any cheese or other pressure, but then the perfect roadmap is gone and you get into "scout to see what he's doing and react appropriately" aspect, when one build branches out in atleast half a dozen options.
Also my replays are dotted throughout this thread, you can get them from my profile posting history if you fancy taking a look.
Those build orders can reach 100 supply. You're either refusing to look past 20 supply, or you're watching all of the replays where they're forced to respond to voidrays denying their third, or dt's running into their main before their turrets finish or something. Find the games where the pro is left to their own for the first 10-15 minutes with minimal pressure and they'll lay out their build order, nice and plain. Even day9 covers these builds to great extent.
Also, the quote is semi-flawed. A well executed build order takes you to masters, but you need the mechanics behind it. As it's been re-stated over and over, work on specific parts of your play until they all culminate into near flawless macro whilst executing beyond the build. It'll immediately take you to mid-high masters. You aren't practicing the build; you're eliminating the variable of multiple builds to focus on mechanics exclusively.
A pro game where no one pressures the Zerg for 10-15 minutes? That might be difficult to find outside out of a ZvP FFE matchup. Same goes for my own games, probably even more so. So I'm basically learning -a buildorder for when I'm not pressured at all -a buildorder vs fast air -a buildorder vs a fast gateway push -a buildorder vs a fast lingbling push and so on and so forth. The 20 food cap is from the http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Speedling_Expand article. Obviously stuff happens after that 20 supply, but it doesn't seem to be set in stone or else they'd have put it in the article. Yes I can try to learn how to copy the pro response to every situation, but its nonsense still calling it "one build for all matchups without deviations" at that point.
And in your second paragraph you're just stating the obvious. Yes, if I have Masters level mechanics with "one" (IE one precisely defined opener with a multitude of strategic variations beyond that) build, I can get into Masters. Not surprising, since mechanics covers *everything other than the build order*.
"If you play like a Masters player you'll get into Masters". I think we're in agreement.
No, I never suggested learning a build order based around non-pressure. I also didn't imply the protoss on the other side does absolutely nothing. A void ray could waltz into the third, be deflected by two queens. A few phoenixes go into the main to be deflected by a spore crawler. You understand the idea, he takes no damage. Absolutely no pressure, the zerg is allowed to do as he pleases.
<snip>
tl;dr perfect macro/mechanics makes everything easier
There's the thing though. Does he always have 2 queens at his third and a spore at his main as part of his standard build, or is he building them in response to scouting? If its standard, then sure I guess I could eventually learn to do that perfectly. If they're small deviations in response to scouting, then well that'd be a lot harder to keep in my head I think I just get a bit annoyed by some of the responses here because they make getting to Diamond/Masters seem easy when they mean its simple. IE copying a pro build is simple, you just download the replay, watch it and write down the timings, and try to copy it. Its not *easy* because "try to copy it" would take me an ungodly amount of time and headaches. So I apologise for my earlier frustration, "copy the pro" is good advice generally but not something useful for me.
It really, really depends. Often they don't scout it at all, but their timings are so solid they made 2 extra queens to spread creep/inject the third, and an evolution chamber to start an upgrade. Only when they see a stargate/voidrays will they even start spore crawlers.
There is more to the game than macro even if it's the biggest part. Stop scolding people for wanting to be complete players.
Macro has huge spread of meaning between different players on different levels. To alot of TL posters macro seem to be building workers, supply & units. Which is a pretty narrowminded view.
Just to name a few other things. Building placement like walloffs, makarax, proxies, inbase CC, zealot funnels etc. Production facility ratios & powering. When to get upgrades, take your X't gas, take harvesters off gas & cut scvs or units. When to take expos, harvester balancing & where to spend "macro energy".
Alot of people say macro better just to look smart and it's pretty condecending. They might aswell say stop sucking noob.
I have lost plenty of games where my macro was far superior to my opponents. However my almost non existing micro, tactics & complete inability to retreat. Was a far bigger decider of the game result.
If I posted a replay I bet alot of people would say macro better even though I macro atleast a full league above my micro and multitasking. Just to sound smart regurgitating what some good player once told them. Maybe they're just scared facing another 6 pool/2gate/proxy rax hero with übermicro in their precious master league ;-)
Without reading 30 pages, not macroing IS a large reason why lower level players lose a lot of games.
For example, you're doing a mid-game push. You lose your entire army, then he just counters with what he has left and you lose.
If you knew how to macro, you would have a decent amount of units at home already because you were macroing the entire fight, and you will be able to defend your base or expansion/whatever with those units and possibly come back and win.
On October 16 2011 21:23 DarQraven wrote: Gotta love this thread, TL league elitism in a nutshell.
"Guys, we know we need to macro better. But when we ask for strategy help, could you actually try to answer the question?" 30-page responses: "You need to macro better. Also, you don't know what you're talking about."
And this is the community that lauds itself as "helpful, mature and welcoming". Well done, TL, well done.
The thing is, we're right.
I'm in Silver, and even I know (and accept) that it's not how I position my fucking zerglings, it's because I suck dick at being under 1000 minerals, and having more than one base.
A lot of the people herping in this thread, saying they need strategy, or whatever, just remind me of this one time I called a fat girl "fat by hippo's standards", and she "proved" she wasn't by doing a starjump.
If you want a "strategy", how about this: Pick a unit, make it.
As Zerg, mass roaches on 2 base, then push. As Terran, make marines. As Protoss, make gateway units and collosi.
Easypeasy.
EDIT: And while I remember, can we PLEASE have this thread locked? Nothing new is ever being said.
On October 06 2011 20:57 DropTester wrote: If you are evenly matched that's when improving your macro would lead you to winning the game as opposed to losing.
You can basically do whatever you want at low levels as long as you macro better, unit compositions don't affect much, other than say not building anti air when your opponent goes air. In general though improving your macro will be much more beneficial. At low levels it is very rare that a loss due to strategy couldn't have been a win if you had better macro.
[I cite this as an example but I'm essentially responding to all posters]
IMO (dia z and p) you cannot single out macro or strategy for improvement, both are generally equal (sure 10k unspent is worse than 2 too many mutas and mass ling v storm is worse than 500 unspent, but....) so both sides of this argument are wrong, as usual the middle path is the way to go (and no I'm not buddhist)
For example I recently went back to 1v1 (do mostly 2v2s) and I'd forgotten how badly hydra do v collo, so I went mass hydra, was up 40 supply and 2 bases on toss (30% better macro unspent wise) but got stomped: the problem was strat not macro. You might argue for lower lvl players this is no the case, but I disagree: IMO macro is hard to improve: either you realllly concentrate on sc2 ie forget hw/work/sleep/sports or it takes a couple seasons at least, whereas strat takes a couple games at least to improve (althought the payoff may not be as big). I argue that strat as OP said should receive more thought because strat is ezily fixable and macro improves over time in any case (i started in bronze and now i'm in dia w/out ever specifically practicing macro)
to respond to the quote i picked: " At low levels it is very rare that a loss due to strategy couldn't have been a win if you had better macro." one could also say " At low levels it is very rare that a loss due to strategy couldn't have been a win if you had better strategy"..... obviously so that person's argument is really no argument at all.
tl;dr: improving is never black and white, follow the middle path: leaning towards strat as your actual focus, because macro improves with experience in rts w/ or w/out conscious effort
I'm low level gamer (Bronze). I have to admit that macro is simply the very first thing to work on. From my experience and so far, I had to do tons of games aginst AI to work on my macro. It still sucks big balls but I made imporvements. Second time, "I have to admit that macro si the VERY first thing to work on". IMHO, macro is that you walk towards your opponent's base but still monitor supply, mineral/gas, buildings etc even when you engaged in battle. This is simply the VERY VERY first thing to work on. I realised, the other things comes naturally later. When I realised monitoring minerals and gas is jey, I suddenly figurted out I knew which unit I should go for, next.
IMHO, Strategy comes naturally later when your macroing becomes routine.
On October 16 2011 23:19 Monkeyballs25 wrote: Hell, I tried it vs Very Hard AI a couple times and lost to 2 gate zealot every time.
You aren't doing what I said.
Here's what you do: - 0 pressure. - Custom game vs very easy AI - Just do the first 6 minutes or so. - Over and over.
After 10 repetitions, you should be able to do it exactly like a pro. Or near enough. It's not THAT hard.
I did, I used YABOT with the no aggression from the AI option. And *I still couldn't do it correctly even after an hour*. Do you understand how different our starting positions are now?
Would you mind just uploading one of those replays?
Sure if you don't mind waiting till I'm back on my own computer, and if they're still saved Probably another 6 hours or so.
That's okay. I can probably tell you what your problem is with the build just by following the camera movement. Just curious as to where it gets confusing for you.
K those should be all the practicing sessions, with some downtime fiddling with the YABOT UI. Don't spend too much time trying to analyse it though please I've basically moved on from that style of practice as its literally too much of a headache for me, I'll just stick to the more generalised roach/hydra macro approach as seen in my other replays in the thread. They're just posted there as you seemed doubtful as to why I'd be struggling to copy stuff.
On October 16 2011 23:19 Monkeyballs25 wrote: Hell, I tried it vs Very Hard AI a couple times and lost to 2 gate zealot every time.
You aren't doing what I said.
Here's what you do: - 0 pressure. - Custom game vs very easy AI - Just do the first 6 minutes or so. - Over and over.
After 10 repetitions, you should be able to do it exactly like a pro. Or near enough. It's not THAT hard.
I did, I used YABOT with the no aggression from the AI option. And *I still couldn't do it correctly even after an hour*. Do you understand how different our starting positions are now?
Would you mind just uploading one of those replays?
Sure if you don't mind waiting till I'm back on my own computer, and if they're still saved Probably another 6 hours or so.
That's okay. I can probably tell you what your problem is with the build just by following the camera movement. Just curious as to where it gets confusing for you.
K those should be all the practicing sessions, with some downtime fiddling with the YABOT UI. Don't spend too much time trying to analyse it though please I've basically moved on from that style of practice as its literally too much of a headache for me, I'll just stick to the more generalised roach/hydra macro approach as seen in my other replays in the thread. They're just posted there as you seemed doubtful as to why I'd be struggling to copy stuff.
You just have one simple problem. You don't understand the purpose of rally points.
The only thing you did wrong was, when your 2nd queen pops, you set the rally point of your main hatchery for drones to a mineral patch at your expansion.
That's the timing that works out pretty good for having around 16 drones on minerals in main. And you don't have to bother with remembering to transfer the right amount of workers or such things.
That said, I never do the +1 melee attack mass ling style, because I consider it inferior to roaches with +1 range attack myself, but changing the rally point will give you a much better economy regardless of what style you are going for.
EPT
