|
I am currently working on a guide that covers strategy rather then build orders and timings. I think this is important because there is not one 'said' build that you should do to 'counter' another one. I think that you get more from adaptive learning then being told how to execute the same tech path each match up.
If both players macro to their best, and get the max amount of units possible with the highest econ, never supply cap'd then the reason you lose is either by unit positioning or composition. To everyone out there that has problems with analyzing their own replays... keep the 'resources lost' tab open at all times. Watch engagements and determine off of the resources lost who came out ahead, if you should have engaged there, or what one thing could you have done to reduce your losses and increase theirs.
If they have lost more then you and they still have a bigger army then you know that having a constant unit production is your top priority next time. If you find yourself unable to afford a bigger army then seek a more economic route early on.
|
I'm plat and I know this is 100% true. 99% of players lower than masters macro terrible! So Macro better is the easiest way to get more wins. Great Builds and Scouting is fine, but doesn't do anything if your opponent is 50supply ahead.
|
On October 06 2011 21:06 ElusoryX wrote:
some time back, he was playing a ZvP on his stream. the protoss went voidrays while mondragon had roaches. his response? more roaches. and he won the game. your mind will tell you to build anti air but there's no need to, because even at that level, if your macro is crisp enough, you will be able to overcome strategy with macro. a lot of times when people win games are because they have a ton of shit.
... dude, all in with roaches to overpower him while defending with spores is a good strategy that can be utlized at high levels. It works because none of protoss air does fast damage to clean up roaches (non light armored units).
That's not outmacroing, that's actually a good strategy.
|
On October 07 2011 04:58 KingLori wrote:
I'm plat and I know this is 100% true. 99% of players lower than masters macro terrible! So Macro better is the easiest way to get more wins. Great Builds and Scouting is fine, but doesn't do anything if your opponent is 50supply ahead.
If you realize your build doesn't stop at 15 supply or so, you won't have that problem.
For example, whenever I watch a platinum and below zerg, they seem to open with very weird builds that makes no sense whatsoever ... yet, claim they are doing a 'standard' 14gas 14 pool (neglecting things like expanding, drones off gas, second queen ... no, they stop after getting ling speed and one queen, because that's 'the build'. The rest of the game ... they just ... do whatever.
I mean, as zerg, you have builds that go up to basically 65-70 supply before they diverge (3 hatch in response to forge expand in ZvP, 2 base roach ling all in @60 supply in ZvZ).
|
The way i see it macro is to starcraft what your swing is in golf. It doesnt matter how much game knowledge you have in golf (distances, club choice etc) because if your swing is bad the other knowledge wont effect your game. Same goes for starcraft. Yes your better off going for a good build, but if you cant execute it efficently (good macro) you will get rolled over by someone that just has more stuff. Im a gold leaguer if anyone wants to know. Written on my phone; hope it makes sense!
|
On October 07 2011 04:59 aebriol wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2011 21:06 ElusoryX wrote:
some time back, he was playing a ZvP on his stream. the protoss went voidrays while mondragon had roaches. his response? more roaches. and he won the game. your mind will tell you to build anti air but there's no need to, because even at that level, if your macro is crisp enough, you will be able to overcome strategy with macro. a lot of times when people win games are because they have a ton of shit. ... dude, all in with roaches to overpower him while defending with spores is a good strategy that can be utlized at high levels. It works because none of protoss air does fast damage to clean up roaches (non light armored units). That's not outmacroing, that's actually a good strategy.
Yeah, its being able to analyze what your opponent has and what your opponent is capable of and utilizing what you have most effectively. His roaches cannot attack air, however because the protoss has void rays, that means he is lacking in a ground army. thus there is nothing preventing him from walking over his opponent. Yes his army is getting attacked by void rays, but he knows that he has queens that can hold in his main, and at that point in time the most he can get out of those roaches is to sacrifice for buildings.
Someone asked me the other day (in a pvp matchup) what counters mass pheonix. His reaction was to mass stalkers and my advice was to mass zealots. Why? because they are more cost effective ( assuming that pheonix disable half your army) and you can mass more of them.  takes a pheonix longer to kill a lifted zealot, and with their limited energy they can't bench press forever.
|
Another problem that hasn't been really emphasized enough: if you focus too much on strategy vs bad opponents, your whole understanding of the game will suffer because your opponents are in fact terrible - this even holds true up to the highest level...how often have we seen stuff work in NA/EU tournaments that just wouldn't work in GSL?
Meaning: if you manage to get from silver to plat just by working on your strategy, you have to realize that your opponents have bad execution themselves. Maybe you didn't understand the strategy properly at all and just won because your opponents responded awfully.
This is yet another aspect why I'm strongly in favour of the macro-based advices. It is actually nearly impossible to develop a good feeling for the more sophisticated strategy related timings on the lower levels, simply because your opponents won't "test" your strategies as good players would do. Then you reach platinum or diamond and some of your strategies suddenly won't work anymore because they weren't good strategies to begin with...
Of course you need some sort of general game plan for each match-up. But, say, for PvT if you are able to follow the gamplan of doing a simple 2 gate robo expand into colossus into third base into templars while upgrading and researching stuff...this really is all you need to know until diamond. Of course you can start doing, for example, a double forge build way earlier, but your terran opponents will be too bad to really "test" your ability of holding off certain timings anyways. So why bother? If you get your macro in order, this will continue to serve you well at all times, in each match-up, under all circumstances.
|
Macro and decisions got me out of low tier play. Focusing on those two things specifically. Decisions being when to attack, when to scout, where and how to position my army. I can have a ton lings and hydras and a few storms can take quick care of them if they are positioned wrong, no matter my macro. However the number one thing to work was macro.
|
This is becoming too much of Macro vs Strategy, and most people don't even clarify what they mean by Strategy. Part of the problem I see in this thread is that people don't indicate what Strategy is, so nobody even knows what these posts are about.
Strategy in my view encompasses Engagement (which includes Micro), Positioning, Build Orders, Unit Composition, Responses, Sim City and other aspects of the game.
I see Macro as Production Efficiency, proper allocation of resources, Expansion timing and Supply control.
This is my viewpoint on what Strategy and Macro is, and I think it's hard to argue that Strategy is not important until you reach higher leagues. This is part of the basic knowledge of game play that people tend to forget to mention to others, and it is equally important area to work on. I think it's something that people in the higher leagues tend to take for granted and forget.
|
On October 07 2011 05:28 Eps wrote:
This is becoming too much of Macro vs Strategy, and most people don't even clarify what they mean by Strategy. Part of the problem I see in this thread is that people don't indicate what Strategy is, so nobody even knows what these posts are about.
Strategy in my view encompasses Engagement (which includes Micro), Positioning, Build Orders, Unit Composition, Responses, Sim City and other aspects of the game.
I see Macro as Production Efficiency, proper allocation of resources, Expansion timing and Supply control.
This is my viewpoint on what Strategy and Macro is, and I think it's hard to argue that Strategy is not important until you reach higher leagues. This is part of the basic knowledge of game play that people tend to forget to mention to others, and it is equally important area to work on. I think it's something that people in the higher leagues tend to take for granted and forget.
Bolded parts are tactics, not strategy.
|
On October 06 2011 20:38 sfbaydave wrote:
Everyone thats reads anything on these forums understand the basics of the game. We all realize, especially at the lower levels that macro is the fundamental aspect in any game that determines the winner or loser. Whenever I see a thread from a lower level players asking for advice..its always the same response, "Dude, forget the replay....work on your macro!!!"
But the frustrating part is sometimes we lose because of wrong STRATEGY. I know this sounds silly to the higher level players out there...."How can you use strategy when u miss injects, are supply blocked, etc." But it does happen....and when it does, we come here asking for advice. But, sometime its hard to get advice, as soon it becomes known, that we are silver/gold players.
Another frustrating part is that us lower level guys know we need to work on our macro but its not something you can change overnight. Working on never missing an inject, macroing during a big battle, never being supply blocked are things that even diamond/masters players work on. Having perfect macro is something that some people may never even be able to achieve. We just might be too slow or our multitasking may never be at a great level.
But what what we can improve quickly on is our knowledge of the game. We may not have time to spend playing 10-15 games everyday but do have time to read up and ask how to counter a certain build I see. And it will help us immediately in our next ladder game.
I am not trying to be one of those silver guys who say, "but I play up to a diamond level..." Most of us know why we are in the level we are. We know our MACRO SUCKS but that doesnt mean we can't use strategy. Strategy wouldnt matter if I'm playing a much better player but in ladder were are evenly matched.
So, please take it easy on us lower level guys and help us out. Remember most everyone was where are at some point.
my opinion on the matter
+ Show Spoiler +Theres nothing wrong with being in the gold or silver league or whaterver. So what you macro sucks lol just have fun with the game. Someone will always be below master.. its not possible to have everyone be in GM and master league.
|
On October 07 2011 05:28 Eps wrote:
This is becoming too much of Macro vs Strategy, and most people don't even clarify what they mean by Strategy. Part of the problem I see in this thread is that people don't indicate what Strategy is, so nobody even knows what these posts are about.
Strategy in my view encompasses Engagement (which includes Micro), Positioning, Build Orders, Unit Composition, Responses, Sim City and other aspects of the game.
I see Macro as Production Efficiency, proper allocation of resources, Expansion timing and Supply control.
This is my viewpoint on what Strategy and Macro is, and I think it's hard to argue that Strategy is not important until you reach higher leagues. This is part of the basic knowledge of game play that people tend to forget to mention to others, and it is equally important area to work on. I think it's something that people in the higher leagues tend to take for granted and forget.
Allocation of resources includes Build Orders and Unit Composition.
A more correct break down of everything is more along the lines of
Macro- making workers, making buildings, making units.
Strategy- in what order you make workers, buildings, units, expos, and doing those in the correct order for the match. Scouting is often required to know what a good strategy is.
Game sense- Overall knowlage of how the match is going and what your opponenent is doing, knowing when and where to scout, when to transition your build, when to attack, when to harrass, and when to defend.
Micro- controlling units to optimize their effectiveness
Tactics- How you set up your buildings and units, how you engage, how to position your army to threaten, and how to force expected reactions from your opponents.
EDIT:
Macro is center stage in all of those because if you aren't producing it doesn't matter how great you can do the rest.
|
On October 07 2011 05:02 aebriol wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2011 04:58 KingLori wrote:
I'm plat and I know this is 100% true. 99% of players lower than masters macro terrible! So Macro better is the easiest way to get more wins. Great Builds and Scouting is fine, but doesn't do anything if your opponent is 50supply ahead. If you realize your build doesn't stop at 15 supply or so, you won't have that problem. For example, whenever I watch a platinum and below zerg, they seem to open with very weird builds that makes no sense whatsoever ... yet, claim they are doing a 'standard' 14gas 14 pool (neglecting things like expanding, drones off gas, second queen ... no, they stop after getting ling speed and one queen, because that's 'the build'. The rest of the game ... they just ... do whatever. I mean, as zerg, you have builds that go up to basically 65-70 supply before they diverge (3 hatch in response to forge expand in ZvP, 2 base roach ling all in @60 supply in ZvZ).
...so what? It's not like that you are playing GMs in Plat :p You're opponents are also bad, so Macro ftw. If you have solid Macro you don't need a real defined build. You can just win with Bio-Only/Gateway only in every matchup.
|
On October 07 2011 05:11 sleepingdog wrote:
Another problem that hasn't been really emphasized enough: if you focus too much on strategy vs bad opponents, your whole understanding of the game will suffer because your opponents are in fact terrible - this even holds true up to the highest level...how often have we seen stuff work in NA/EU tournaments that just wouldn't work in GSL?
Meaning: if you manage to get from silver to plat just by working on your strategy, you have to realize that your opponents have bad execution themselves. Maybe you didn't understand the strategy properly at all and just won because your opponents responded awfully.
This is yet another aspect why I'm strongly in favour of the macro-based advices. It is actually nearly impossible to develop a good feeling for the more sophisticated strategy related timings on the lower levels, simply because your opponents won't "test" your strategies as good players would do. Then you reach platinum or diamond and some of your strategies suddenly won't work anymore because they weren't good strategies to begin with...
Of course you need some sort of general game plan for each match-up. But, say, for PvT if you are able to follow the gamplan of doing a simple 2 gate robo expand into colossus into third base into templars while upgrading and researching stuff...this really is all you need to know until diamond. Of course you can start doing, for example, a double forge build way earlier, but your terran opponents will be too bad to really "test" your ability of holding off certain timings anyways. So why bother? If you get your macro in order, this will continue to serve you well at all times, in each match-up, under all circumstances.
Now, I dissagree. You will only vs bad opponents if you yourself are bad. Matchmaking puts you up against people of your equivalent skill level. Improving your strategy and performance is never a bad thing.
"Maybe you didn't understand the strategy properly at all and just won because your opponents responded awfully."
This bring up another point, when you are looking at it from a strategic standpoint you should always be 'adapting' thus you understand that worked in that particular match-up but not necessarily every other one, and the more you reveal, the better mechanics you will have later on.
"because your opponents are in fact terrible - this even holds true up to the highest level...how often have we seen stuff work in NA/EU tournaments that just wouldn't work in GSL?"
... mechanics. How often do you hear 'his units are way out of position, had those zealots been in front and stalkers in back this engagement would completely turn around.' or 'he is not focus firing with that immortal its auto attacking marines'. And you prove my point when I say that if both players macro perfectly it comes down the engagements,
That being said, I also agree that macro is the most important. After reading what the OP posted though it seemed the focus was on giving strategic advice, something you do not quite grasp from the standard 'improve your macro' advice... 'make sure you constantly inject, watch supply count, constant worker production' etc.
|
But the frustrating part is sometimes we lose because of wrong STRATEGY. I know this sounds silly to the higher level players out there...."How can you use strategy when u miss injects, are supply blocked, etc." But it does happen....and when it does, we come here asking for advice. But, sometime its hard to get advice, as soon it becomes known, that we are silver/gold players.
The only advice you need is MACRO BETTER. You will win, regardless of the wrong strategy, if you:
1- scout
2- react accordingly
3- macro.
You can 1a every battle, if you do those 3 steps, you can easily be diamond or masters. The issue of strategy is that at that level... there is no strategy. The execution, timings, and all out game play follow no set rules, no guidelines. They're loosely hung ideas, that are not coherently put together. Like a one base dark templar stalker immortal army. Something stupid that shouldn't go together.
But, back to the leveling. When I level names for friends (I don't know why they want it), I do a 2 rax FE, or 1 rax FE (expand AT my natural by 25 supply any build), scout, and react accordingly. I put myself in bad situations and just make more units, and win through easy macro. I force the other player to do something they don't want to do, or lose out in a macro battle. If you, and another player do the same build, same timings, but he doesn't miss depots, and gets gas at the right times, and you engage and he has +1, stim, shields, and 2 medics, and all you have is stim and shields, you just lost from worse macro. He executed his build better, and it was crisper, and tighter. Less down time, more production.
Doing a shit strategy against shit only makes you get wins. I used to do a 1-1-1 marine hellion BF drop into cloakshee -> marine tank all in push after all that. I beat quite a few GM zergs last season, for being a casual nobody who plays high every day. They learn to stop that strat, and there I go losing to mid masters zergs who just make lings. Strategy can be a good way to get wins, but it's a crutch. You need to get rid of that crutch by learning to macro better, then scout and react accordingly to the impeding threat.
Sure, you can get good with strategy, and bad macro. You then have NOTHING to fall back on if said strategy is straight up scouted or stopped. You're a one trick pony. When you ask what you did wrong, the answer is always macro, macro better. Not just getting all 4 gas because they're there, getting them for a REASON. Non stop scv production, and supply depot production go hand in hand to giving you a leg to stand on to macro better, and become better.
Basically, yes, other factors will make you win games. Winning does not mean you are getting better. By people saying macro better, they're telling YOU that YOU need to look at YOUR game and disect where you forget supplys, where you stopped making workers, where you stopped making units, where you qued up units. Having 3 barracks with 4 marauders each qued doesn't mean your macroing well. It means you AREN'T, and you need to cancel 3 at each, and make 2-3 more barracks.
Telling you to forget to game and unit you lost to because there are SO many flaws leading up to the actual engagements, that if you had scouted, reacted, and macroed your way into a lead, you would win the exact same engagement because you simply had more units, and a better economy.
|
On October 07 2011 06:08 iAmJeffReY wrote:Show nested quote +But the frustrating part is sometimes we lose because of wrong STRATEGY. I know this sounds silly to the higher level players out there...."How can you use strategy when u miss injects, are supply blocked, etc." But it does happen....and when it does, we come here asking for advice. But, sometime its hard to get advice, as soon it becomes known, that we are silver/gold players.
The only advice you need is MACRO BETTER. You will win, regardless of the wrong strategy, if you: 1- scout 2- react accordingly 3- macro.
One of your two statements is in direct contradiction to the other. Either macro is all you need to win, or it isn't. Its really the same old thing I see over and over.
"All you need to do is macro. Oh, except for scouting. And reacting properly. And whatever else you feel like throwing in there".
|
On October 07 2011 06:12 Monkeyballs25 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2011 06:08 iAmJeffReY wrote:But the frustrating part is sometimes we lose because of wrong STRATEGY. I know this sounds silly to the higher level players out there...."How can you use strategy when u miss injects, are supply blocked, etc." But it does happen....and when it does, we come here asking for advice. But, sometime its hard to get advice, as soon it becomes known, that we are silver/gold players.
The only advice you need is MACRO BETTER. You will win, regardless of the wrong strategy, if you: 1- scout 2- react accordingly 3- macro. One of your two statements is in direct contradiction to the other. Either macro is all you need to win, or it isn't. Its really the same old thing I see over and over. "All you need to do is macro. Oh, except for scouting. And reacting properly. And whatever else you feel like throwing in there".
...Is it not a part of macroing? What's the point of making units if you don't know what to make. I couple scouting, and reaction into macro in my mind. If I say I macroed well in a game, it's not because I kept my money low. It's because I scouted well, macroed well, and had the right army for the right battle.
|
Look man, I hate hearing "macro better!" too. But the fact is..... that's the answer. Yes, there are games where if you chose a different strategy you would have won. But that's only true on select occasions. If you work on macroing/multitasking better then strategy won't matter in the lower leagues. There's a reason why pro players can play against gold/platinum players, do the most ridiculous strategies, and win handily.
Focusing on strategy with below average macro ability means that you have completely given up on getting better. If you somehow perfect your strategic play with shitty macro you might get bumped up one league, but then you'll start to get pooped on and you won't even know why. Macro is the answer unfortunately.
No, I'm not some masters player up on my high horse. I've been in platinum for a couple of months and I know I won't move up until I put the time in to improve my macro.
|
On October 07 2011 06:14 iAmJeffReY wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2011 06:12 Monkeyballs25 wrote:On October 07 2011 06:08 iAmJeffReY wrote:But the frustrating part is sometimes we lose because of wrong STRATEGY. I know this sounds silly to the higher level players out there...."How can you use strategy when u miss injects, are supply blocked, etc." But it does happen....and when it does, we come here asking for advice. But, sometime its hard to get advice, as soon it becomes known, that we are silver/gold players.
The only advice you need is MACRO BETTER. You will win, regardless of the wrong strategy, if you: 1- scout 2- react accordingly 3- macro. One of your two statements is in direct contradiction to the other. Either macro is all you need to win, or it isn't. Its really the same old thing I see over and over. "All you need to do is macro. Oh, except for scouting. And reacting properly. And whatever else you feel like throwing in there". ...Is it not a part of macroing? What's the point of making units if you don't know what to make. I couple scouting, and reaction into macro in my mind. If I say I macroed well in a game, it's not because I kept my money low. It's because I scouted well, macroed well, and had the right army for the right battle.
Macro is building Workers, Buildings, and Units. When you macro well you keep your money down because you're constantly producing from the optimal amount of bases and structures for that point in the game or the whole game. That is all macro is, not what you build or when.
|
being fast is not everything like people might think, honestly if people say late game is the only skill of the game and having extrem macro is the way to play the game is just dumb.
Watching a build being exectuted with not a milisecond wasted followed by a very entertaining mid game (10-17min mark)
and this is extremly rare, only koreans can do perfekt builds while every NA/EU player just slacks like shit doing some funky random building, missing supply with 1-5seconds just trying to spend there time building a 3base play to start there lategame fight wich is boring as shit to watch and a huge waste of time as a player aswell
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
