EPT[D] Why us lower level players hate "macro better" - Page 34
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
|
JohnnySC
Canada19 Posts
| ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25553 Posts
On October 21 2011 04:57 JohnnySC wrote: :O I are a master. I get the whole telling people to macro better stuff, but strat is really important in early game vs those 1base all ins. I assume the majority of players can keep their resources low before the 5minute mark, and that is when a lot of all ins hit. I prefer the word counter, instead of strategy though because you'll encounter a lot of the same scenarios ie. cannon rush/2g/6-10p/2rax scv pull ect. There is no "macro better" in those types of situations. I think it actually comes down to macroing less. Generally, if you do see an all in coming, Stop all worker production and focus on making units only, create static defense, make a wall to stall time, or counter them for a base trade. Sorry if my points are broad but I think if you search a little on the strategy forum you'll see much more in depth BO counters that help you win (if not, survive) vs 5-6min all ins. Things like knowing when to make units and how many to make are also part of macro. Stopping a well-executed all-in requires good macro on your part, as well-- I've seen Master league players post replays here where they lose. I watch and I see as they have their macro fall apart, and bank 1k minerals in a TvP against VR all-in. Regardless of strategy, these players could have hundreds of minerals more worth of marines and bunkers, which would make all the difference-- but instead they have bad macro. If your macro slips and your money climbs while your opponent all-ins you, you will lose. If you don't make army and don't make statics because you're making too many drones or whatever, that is a failure of your macro. Macro better doesn't mean "be risky and greedy and expand too much then lose to an all in"... producing army is also part of it. | ||
|
Qntc.YuMe
United States792 Posts
For example, i dont see a point for lower level players to get 3+ bases if they cant even spend 1k resource off 1-2 base. I say the strategy of expanding is so you get more income so you can do MANY things. If you cant sped that income, whats the point of having it? Its not a bank where you get interest. | ||
|
Monkeyballs25
531 Posts
On October 21 2011 05:33 DreamRaider wrote: i dont understand the OP. You shouldntfor prioritizing macro over the strategies to learn. Macro is what backs up the strategy otherwise it will be useless. For example, i dont see a point for lower level players to get 3+ bases if they cant even spend 1k resource off 1-2 base. I say the strategy of expanding is so you get more income so you can do MANY things. If you cant sped that income, whats the point of having it? Its not a bank where you get interest. I think there's a confusion of terminology here. There's "macro builds" where you focus on expanding early and getting a better economy sooner and bigger army later on. And there's "macro better" which just means spending resources efficiently. This thread focuses on the latter. And I agree, the natural progression is learning how to macro perfectly off one base, then 2base and so on. Provided they are using *any* sort of sensible build order, they can go pretty far. | ||
|
JohnnySC
Canada19 Posts
On October 21 2011 05:26 Blazinghand wrote: Things like knowing when to make units and how many to make are also part of macro. Stopping a well-executed all-in requires good macro on your part, as well-- I've seen Master league players post replays here where they lose. I watch and I see as they have their macro fall apart, and bank 1k minerals in a TvP against VR all-in. Regardless of strategy, these players could have hundreds of minerals more worth of marines and bunkers, which would make all the difference-- but instead they have bad macro. If your macro slips and your money climbs while your opponent all-ins you, you will lose. If you don't make army and don't make statics because you're making too many drones or whatever, that is a failure of your macro. Macro better doesn't mean "be risky and greedy and expand too much then lose to an all in"... producing army is also part of it. =( you miss the largest point. The builds are not going to be well executed, no offence, but they (including the OP) have acknowledged the fact that their macro is poor and want strategy/counters. Master league is irrelevant in this thread and rushes below 5mins will pretty much not include anything above tier 1 units. And it would be extremely unlikely to be able to float 1k 5mins into the game even if it was mouse only =/ (hopefully I don`t offend anyone that does) Things like making a cannon in your mineral line/full wall +cannon/dropping a 2nd gate and cutting probes vs a proxy 2gate are all viable options to stop the all in, and are more strategy than actual macro and put you well ahead of your opponent. I`m not sure if combatex`s name is frowned upon in here but he is a prime example of one of those people that rely on strategy and floats 4-6k mid/late game and manages to win. His Vods are extremely informative too. | ||
|
dhe95
United States1213 Posts
On October 21 2011 04:57 JohnnySC wrote: :O I are a master. I get the whole telling people to macro better stuff, but strat is really important in early game vs those 1base all ins. I assume the majority of players can keep their resources low before the 5minute mark, and that is when a lot of all ins hit. I prefer the word counter, instead of strategy though because you'll encounter a lot of the same scenarios ie. cannon rush/2g/6-10p/2rax scv pull ect. There is no "macro better" in those types of situations. I think it actually comes down to macroing less. Generally, if you do see an all in coming, stop all worker production and focus on making units only, create static defense, make a wall to stall time, or counter them for a base trade. Sorry if my points are broad but I think if you search a little on the strategy forum you'll see much more in depth BO counters that help you win (if not, survive) vs 5-6min all ins. a lot of people will have a weak early game (ex. forgetting scvs) leading to low income leading to an impression of good macro when in reality they don't have good macro. so therefore many people even at plat/diamond levels need to make more scvs and yes, macro better. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25553 Posts
On October 21 2011 07:10 JohnnySC wrote: Things like making a cannon in your mineral line/full wall +cannon/dropping a 2nd gate and cutting probes vs a proxy 2gate are all viable options to stop the all in, and are more strategy than actual macro and put you well ahead of your opponent. I`m not sure if combatex`s name is frowned upon in here but he is a prime example of one of those people that rely on strategy and floats 4-6k mid/late game and manages to win. His Vods are extremely informative too. You can stop a proxy 2gate from a player like ******** with just 1 gate if your mechanics are up to par. Just ask HuK: He does ALL the right macro stuff here-- he has constant zealot production, doesn't get supply blocked, chronos his zealots and his stalkers. Yes, he also does amazing probe drill-- but that's just stalling for time-- AND HE HAS THE PROBES TO DRILL WITH. Players in lower leagues will be cutting probes, getting supply blocked, and missing timings even as early as a minute or so into the game. You need solid macro early on in order to fight cheese. It's also worth noting that Macro includes things like decisionmaking. Also, you don't get cheesed every game on the ladder-- it's fairly rare. Also, cheese will be poorly executed. We're just running around in circles again. Also, don't mention that guy. Seriously. | ||
|
DarQraven
Netherlands553 Posts
On October 21 2011 07:28 Blazinghand wrote: You can stop a proxy 2gate from a player like ******** with just 1 gate if your mechanics are up to par. Just ask HuK: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyKYoQgiYHs He does ALL the right macro stuff here-- he has constant zealot production, doesn't get supply blocked, chronos his zealots and his stalkers. Yes, he also does amazing probe drill-- but that's just stalling for time-- AND HE HAS THE PROBES TO DRILL WITH. Players in lower leagues will be cutting probes, getting supply blocked, and missing timings even as early as a minute or so into the game. You need solid macro early on in order to fight cheese. It's also worth noting that Macro includes things like decisionmaking. Also, you don't get cheesed every game on the ladder-- it's fairly rare. Also, cheese will be poorly executed. We're just running around in circles again. Also, don't mention that guy. Seriously. We're running in circles again because people like to include *every single aspect of SC2 play* except the base build in "macro". Sometimes even the build itself. When you define macro as broad as that, your argument becomes about as compelling as "well, the only thing you have to do to get better is to play better!". Shit like that is useless advice. -- Guys, let me present an unthinkable scenario: A player that just wants to win more games within his league, not necessarily steam on through to masters. Can you imagine that? A player that doesn't give a damn about whether or not he could have twice the army he has now, because his opponent won't have it either? A player that faces a lot of banshee rushes in his ladder games and wants to know a surefire way to beat it? A player that, perhaps, mainly plays some TF2 or Battlefield, and slacks off with some SC2 on the side? However unlikely the existence of such a player is, it is possible that this player just wants to play games without putting in extended hours of macro practice. They want to know how to beat that weird Terran all-in so they stop losing to it all the time. Believe it or not, completely outclassing their opponent is not a viable option here. The self-centered attitude TL usually displays where "everyone is exactly like me and plays to become pro, only I'm better" is one surefire way to piss this player off and ensure he'll never come back here again. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25553 Posts
On October 21 2011 07:53 DarQraven wrote: We're running in circles again because people like to include *every single aspect of SC2 play* except the base build in "macro". Sometimes even the build itself. When you define macro as broad as that, your argument becomes about as compelling as "well, the only thing you have to do to get better is to play better!". Shit like that is useless advice. I never said that. In fact, if you've seen any of my posts in the strategy forum, I give advice on all manner of a person's play, and I usually spend upwards of half an hour per replay making a video, talking him through the game, and offering advice on all aspects of play, including macro, micro, decisionmaking, and scouting. That does not stop macro from being the most important thing in the game, though, especially for lower league players. In fact, I think I should note-- despite what you claim, a build order is part of your macromanagement. If your macro is bad, you literally will not be able to follow a build order because you're missing scvs, missing timings, forgetting buildings, not constantly producing, getting supply blocked, etc. I don't see how you could possibly separate "Build Order" from "Macro"... On October 21 2011 07:53 DarQraven wrote: Guys, let me present an unthinkable scenario: A player that just wants to win more games within his league, not necessarily steam on through to masters. Can you imagine that? A player that doesn't give a damn about whether or not he could have twice the army he has now, because his opponent won't have it either? A player that faces a lot of banshee rushes in his ladder games and wants to know a surefire way to beat it? A player that, perhaps, mainly plays some TF2 or Battlefield, and slacks off with some SC2 on the side? However unlikely the existence of such a player is, it is possible that this player just wants to play games without putting in extended hours of macro practice. They want to know how to beat that weird Terran all-in so they stop losing to it all the time. Believe it or not, completely outclassing their opponent is not a viable option here. On a time-spent/benefit basis, practicing your build order and macro will cause you to improve more rapidly and dramatically than practicing micro, compositions, or tricky shenanigans, and it will require less effort, too. A guy could spend an hour practicing stutter stepping, but that won't let him micro his marines against a banshee better than spending an hour practicing a basic build order and having twice as many marines to begin with, and a turret in each mineral line. On the other hand, I'd offer both advice to a player; i'd say "well, in this replay you're floating 1k minerals, which is why you don't have enough marines. I'd build an extra barracks and focus on producing marines so that that money is units instead. Also, here's how best to micro your marines to fight this banshee." I don't see why you have to choose between offering one type of advice or the other. Macro's clearly far more important and will give you much more mileage for your effort, but if you want to learn strats, build orders, and micro tricks and invest time into that instead, I won't stop you-- it's just not the most efficient way to spend your time. EDIT: On October 21 2011 07:53 DarQraven wrote: The self-centered attitude TL usually displays where "everyone is exactly like me and plays to become pro, only I'm better" is one surefire way to piss this player off and ensure he'll never come back here again. Man, what is this even about? Are you just making up straw men here to hate on me? I'm trying to offer some legitimate advice as to why player should focus on their macro and how it's a useful skill, and suddenly... i'm some guy who's pissing people off? Look. Let me point you towards what I do for the community: Here's my latest replay advice post: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=251694¤tpage=50#986 I'm probably one of the most active strat forum posters (most of my 2k posts are from sc2 strat). And yet here you are badmouthing my brethren. Let's relax, step back, and realize we're both cool dudes who would get along well IRL. We should respect each other. I think we agree on a lot of stuff. | ||
| ||
