| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
Falling
Canada11340 Posts
However, I also got an answer to my problem (dealing with drops.) Furthermore, it's not the end all and be all as the last few games I've been 30-50 supply ahead with tons of gateways, engaged attack and transitioned into losing the entire game. Clearly, something else is going on there. So macro better is often what needs to be said even if it's unwanted, but some effort should be given to actually answer the question. (I simultaneously was given some good advice on sim city.) | ||
|
Beren
United States514 Posts
On October 06 2011 21:06 uraza wrote: Why focus on improving your strategical aspect when you can't even execute it at a decent level? I think this is very important point. It seems these individuals that are told to macro better want to do some extremely technical build that involved a lot of micro instead of just making alot of shit. Of course you will lose to a lot of build that you need to know what they are doing (bad scouting, sometimes) if you just focused on building units and kept your money resonable low you would be fine. Its just so hard to tell someone to do a specific strat when that strat is only viable if the individuals get the correct amount of unit out at the right time. Its just pointless to get into a debate about strat in those cases. Also if these silver/gold people really understand and have a decent understanding of the game they should be able to look at what they were doing and go... I had 2k/1k when I died. Its pretty clear if i had unit instead of 2/1k banked then I would have been fine. So there is no point to make a thread asking "WHAT DO I DO VS THIS UNIT COMP" | ||
|
TurtlePerson2
United States218 Posts
If you truly want to learn golf, then you start by learning to hit the ball straight, then you worry about the strategy of playing each hole. | ||
|
Sablar
Sweden880 Posts
It's not like just playing makes you (much) better at the game. You need to focus on things and care about making it better in order to do it, and focus = ignoring irrelevant stuff. With that in mind focusing on macro is simply better than focusing on scouting and builds, and trying to focus on everything at once just doesn't work. Why macro is more relevant seems to be covered. So making a post with "what is wrong with my strategy?" just proves a focus on the wrong things. This is all under the assumption that you want to climb the ladder and get better. If strategies are what is fun then it's completely different but it just becomes naive and hard to ignore what was really important. | ||
|
Beren
United States514 Posts
On October 07 2011 06:33 Falling wrote: I'm going to fall in the middle on this. I definitely know the frustration of being told to macro better. I once prefaced a thread saying I was working on macro and will continue to be working on macro, but I had a specific problem. Fortunately, I got my answer, but I got a lot of fix your macro, tighten up your build order. I was rather frustrated, but I choked it down and took both advice. Turns out they were right, my macro was absolutely lacking and my build orders were not very tight. However, I also got an answer to my problem (dealing with drops.) Furthermore, it's not the end all and be all as the last few games I've been 30-50 supply ahead with tons of gateways, engaged attack and transitioned into losing the entire game. Clearly, something else is going on there. So macro better is often what needs to be said even if it's unwanted, but some effort should be given to actually answer the question. (I simultaneously was given some good advice on sim city.) If its a specific question about how do I deal with drops or other various parts of the game that aren't about the entire game in general I think a specific answer is necessary. But if they are asking "How did I beat this?" more than likely the answer is macro assuming not mid masters/gm | ||
|
DanceSC
United States751 Posts
On October 07 2011 06:39 Sablar wrote: I'm sure it's been said but "learning strategies" means focusing on learning things that are irrelevant instead of learning to macro well. It's not like just playing makes you (much) better at the game. You need to focus on things and care about making it better in order to do it, and focus = ignoring irrelevant stuff. With that in mind focusing on macro is simply better than focusing on scouting and builds, and trying to focus on everything at once just doesn't work. Why macro is more relevant seems to be covered. So making a post with "what is wrong with my strategy?" just proves a focus on the wrong things. This is all under the assumption that you want to climb the ladder and get better. If strategies are what is fun then it's completely different but it just becomes naive and hard to ignore what was really important. ![[image loading]](http://ctrlaltdesign.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/micro-macro-balance-white_design.png) Sc2 is not just about macro. Like someone mentioned earlier in this thread 'You can get to diamond off of macro alone' If you were paying attention to the topic of this tread it is 'why us lower level players hate 'macro better' If you want to give advice they are looking for other then 'inject more, constantly build workers, *insert standard macro advice here*' then it would be more revolved around their army engagements, how they chose to handle certain situations and etc. He is basically saying I am sick of hearing the same thing, try something helpful that everyone 'doesn't repeat... | ||
|
aebriol
Norway2066 Posts
Macro is: - Building workers. - Have the right saturation of workers shared among all bases (not 24 + 8, but 16 + 16 mining minerals). - Building units. - Not queuing units or workers. - Keeping your production facilities constantly producing, unless you are switching tech. - Not getting supply blocked. - Getting the right tech structures (with addons for terrans) at the right time. - Have the buildings placed in an optimal manner, which varies for each race and for each matchup. - Getting the right amount of tech structures to support the economy your number of bases support. - Spend your money. - Expand at the right time. - Making sure that your gas and mineral income balance what you intend to do. Don't save 2k minerals and have 0 gas ... - No matter what you are chosing to make, be it pure marine, or pure hellion / raven, get the right upgrades for the units. - Keeping energy on queens, nexus, command centers correct (ie: doesn't have to be 0, but if you are letting it build for no reason, you are doing something wrong). All of that is macro. And it requires a lot of multitasking to get right, as well as a very solid well thought out plan concerning what you want to do. So when you see someone say ... 'why isn't my 4 gate working' ... and he is doing it wrong, so that it has less units, and comes 30 seconds late, and he lets it be scouted by a ling because he isn't watching his ramp ... Macro isn't done right if you are saying 'but I am spending all my money and my queens energy is low' - yet you build 15 drones for the first 12 minutes of the game and wonder why you are in bronze ... but your creep spread is doing fine ! | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25550 Posts
On October 07 2011 06:02 DanceSC wrote: 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. Well, that's a fair point, but I'd like to note that it's possible to modify your strategy to beat an opponent, but in the process actually make your strategy worse if you're at a low level. For example: when I was down in silver league, I realized that I was having trouble going marine/tank against zerg because if I waited to long he'd make mutalisks and I'd lose. So instead of mining gas and getting an orbital command, I'd make 2 more rax (for a total of 4) on one base, get up to about 30ish marines then attack-move my marines into the zerg base and hope he didn't have banelings yet. Since zerg players were really bad in silver league, this worked really well-- almost nobody had the macro to get banelings out in time (or the strategy or game sense). Against any reasonably quick player, this attack would lose, and I didn't have the mechanics to kite or focus fire or split or anything. This attack wasn't even fast enough to be cheesy-- it was just terrible. It was strategically better than marine/tank or a fast expand, since at the silver league, no zerg could stop it. However, at a high level it would be worthless, and using this strategy ultimately hindered my long-term development as a starcraft player. So, I'd say you can certainly make strategies that will win more, but that doesn't mean they're better-- they're just more effective against bad opponents. | ||
|
Amui
Canada10567 Posts
Watching the pro's play will teach you how to play against good opponents, with crisp timings and transitions, but I'd have to say diamond and down, your opponents aren't good AT ALL. That's where macro and a bit of game sense comes in. When you scout your opponent with an MM ball, you make colossus and start upgrading. When your opponent has 10+ mutalisks, consider throwing down a few extra turrets or making 1-2 thors. There is a thread somewhere detailing what a slightly bigger army can do. Basically, when different armies of the same composition clash, there's a relationship that's somewhat like pythagoras. Army A has 10 marines, Army B has 8 marines. If they fight, on average Army A will have 6 marines left over(squares and such). You could have the best micro in the world, but the fact of the matter is that 10 marines beats 8 marines, and it isn't a linear relationship. Watching what the pro's do will teach you how to respond. If the other guy is doing something unorthodox, make STUFF, and kill him anyways. | ||
|
Monkeyballs25
531 Posts
NO! Read the bloody thread, its full of people saying that good macro is just building lots of workers and ANY units you feel like, within reason. Scouting is not macro. Choosing a unit composition is not macro. If you think macro is just "everything else that isn't micro" then "macro better" is even MORE terrible advice to give, as its far to generic to be in any way useful. | ||
|
Gnight
77 Posts
On October 07 2011 06:14 iAmJeffReY wrote: ...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. No it isn't a part of macro, the fact that you put it under macro is just plain silly. Just like it has been said, you have contradicted yourself pretty badly here and your reply only shows that you, in my eyes, don't have thought any of your words through and have a rather small insight of all the Sc2 gameplay aspects. Let's see, you list scouting.... With that comes the simple question, when do I scout? How do I scout? With what do I scout? And where do I scout? All those questions may seem simple and rather pointless to ask oneself, but they do play a huge factor wheter one actually makes a usefull scouting run or not. Which in turn one comes to your second point. You scouted some tech or strat the opponent is, according to your scouting, going to use. Now you say, react properly to it, you'r right, that's pretty important. But with this comes, what is the oponent exactly doing? What do I need to do to counter that, which tech and/or units? How far do I go into this tech/units making? Overreacting, underreacting, countering wrong, reading the opponent wrong when you scouted, all of those things can easily lose you the game even if your supply is 50 higher then the opponent. Mass lings won't beat sieged up tanks backed up my marines, no freaking way you will win that with just a move, even though your macro was.... better? Then you come with macro, yup, indeed, very, very important. But how many people on TL forums actually say how a lower level player should have macro'ed? In which places/moments their macro slipped off and that costed them, perhaps not solely, the game? On top of this comes engagement, positioning, timing. When to attack, where to attack, how to attack are all just as important as sheer macro'ing, because macro'ing only goes that far. Almost everyone here acts as if macro'ing has no roof, no limit, no borders, but it clearly has. A player can only do that much with macro and macro alone will not get you to masters, in no way it will. Now one will probably say that all those things matter so little in the lower leagues, because as long as one has a 20-30 supply lead then you will win regardless, because you macro'ed better then the opponent. Yeah, you should know (no matter which league you'r in) how easily it's to lose that advantage by a bad engagement, bad positioning, bad composition against the opponents army. I can keep that list going on all the things that can make a player lose their advantage and over 90% of that list consists of.... everything besides macro. Further more, anyone who puts forth that certain Grandmasters players have proved that they could go through lower level leagues with the weirdest build ever just because of their sheer macro capabilities is clearly not looking at the whole picture. Here you'r comparing the macro skills of a GM with, let's say a gold player. Of course a GM will go through that league with macro alone, because of the sheer difference in skill level of the two, but do note that micro can easily do the same for that GM in the lower level leagues. And a GM (or master etc.) will have a game sense, insight and knowledge that most likely tops that of a gold league player coming from experience, training etc., which one can't just turn off and often will use without second thought in any game. On top of that comes the fact that using gimmicky builds is not always "bad", using something that is out of the ordinary can easily surprise a opponent completely and leave them wondering on how to counter it in such a short notice. In lower level leagues this plays a big role seeing so many people are pushing them to "macro better, macro better, macro better", they hear it everywhere, that I am not surprised to see them at a complete loss which units to mass or where/when/how to attack to win against such a gimmicky build. I am not saying here that macro isn't important, nor that it won't bring you in higher leagues if you train it. Buuut, alot of people here act as if it's the sole skill one has to train to get good, which is just ridicilous in every sense possible. Also, when one reaches higher leagues with just massing up your macro skill, you will eventually run into a brick wall of other skilled players which your over-trained macro will not be able to handle on it's own. At that point those players start to look at the other things, micro, build orders, strategies, counters, positioning, timings etc. etc. And starts training those things, right? But if one does it the other way around and get's into a higher league by, for example, always countering with the right unit composition and engagement, people right away say it's pointless because your macro is not up to par with the league you end up in and that skill is no longer usefull. How far is your head up in your ass to claim such a stupid thing? At that point the player looks at why he/she hit a brick wall, sees that in this case it's his/her macro and starts training that. And somehow this.... is worse then having your macro up and the rest of the "skills" needed to play at a good level down? In both cases you will need to improve yourself, just in other sections and seeing the macro part (according to alot of people) is soooooo easy to improve (apparently), I don't see why it matters if you do it first or later. Learning the hardest parts of the game first works for some people, perhaps not the easiest path, but in the end it will take you exactly to the same place as when train your macro. So is it really that bad to give other advice then "macro better like this......"? No, one can easily give more advice then just that, but often enough I see people not doing this, mostly because they don't find they lower level league players worth too much of their time to really put forth a more detailed advice/insight in what they could do to improve their gameplay (aside the "macro better" advice). Imagine, instead of just pointing the macro mistakes out, if you would also give out tips, pointers, critics about the rest of their gameplay. Wouldn't that be more helpfull to that player? I mean this aside the detailed "macro better" advice, giving out more advice, tips and such is "never" (they say never say never, hence the " ") going to hurt that player or make them worse, it will only help them out just that much more. Or are we all just big pricks that refuse to help a fellow Sc2 player to our utmost capabilities and knowledge because they are just that, a lower league player? Because so far, in all the time of my lurking, in my eyes it really seems like alot (a estimation I would say, easily above 70%) of the people on the TL forums are just like this. (not meaning to be offensive, but this is perhaps also a reason why topics and critics about "macro better" comes from the lower league players) Anyways, I suggest that when one asks for help, why not help them as much as you can and not help them as much as you feel like he/she should need. Because his/her needs are for him/her to decide, not for you and helping more then needed isn't a bad thing. ^ ^ Wheter one agrees with what I say here or not is up to you. But do know that I had no intention here to offend or insult anyone directly, just putting forth my view/opinion on this matter as a whole. If I did offend/insult anyone, then with this my deepest apologies for that. It may not have been writing that well seeing I am watching IPL3 right now and typed this in between, so my apologies for that as well. Also, on a sidenote. Even if a player builds 1 worker a minute they shouldn't be looked down upon in any way because of this, you can perhaps say they aren't good players in your eyes. But that doesn't give you the right to look down upon such a player, because their skills aren't up to par with yours in Sc2 doesn't make them a worse fellow human being then you, nor does that makes you a better human being. What does make you a lowlife (in my eyes) is looking down upon other people without a good reason for doing so.......... | ||
|
ETisME
12351 Posts
On October 07 2011 06:55 Amui wrote: When I started the game, I read up 9 pylon 12 gate 14 gas and that was it. Just building up from there got me placed into platinum. Watching the pro's play will teach you how to play against good opponents, with crisp timings and transitions, but I'd have to say diamond and down, your opponents aren't good AT ALL. That's where macro and a bit of game sense comes in. When you scout your opponent with an MM ball, you make colossus and start upgrading. When your opponent has 10+ mutalisks, consider throwing down a few extra turrets or making 1-2 thors. There is a thread somewhere detailing what a slightly bigger army can do. Basically, when different armies of the same composition clash, there's a relationship that's somewhat like pythagoras. Army A has 10 marines, Army B has 8 marines. If they fight, on average Army A will have 6 marines left over(squares and such). You could have the best micro in the world, but the fact of the matter is that 10 marines beats 8 marines, and it isn't a linear relationship. Watching what the pro's do will teach you how to respond. If the other guy is doing something unorthodox, make STUFF, and kill him anyways. with bad build order, you can end up having a smaller army than your opponent. Another is expansion timing, without any game sense and you just expand blindly, you will lose that expansion or if you are slow in expanding, you will be behind. Again, whether to put down a production buildings or what to put down or would it be better to put down an expo, all these are related to macro yet most higher league players here tend to think as long as you keep making workers, units etc, your macro is better. Some very good example is protoss, I off race as toss and whenever I do, I can keep my resources really low because their units are expensive, but I never harass, I don't know how and when to get my 3rd. Either I win if I get my 3rd up or I lose if I didn't. | ||
|
Sablar
Sweden880 Posts
On October 07 2011 06:44 DanceSC wrote: Sc2 is not just about macro. Like someone mentioned earlier in this thread 'You can get to diamond off of macro alone' If you were paying attention to the topic of this tread it is 'why us lower level players hate 'macro better' If you want to give advice they are looking for other then 'inject more, constantly build workers, *insert standard macro advice here*' then it would be more revolved around their army engagements, how they chose to handle certain situations and etc. He is basically saying I am sick of hearing the same thing, try something helpful that everyone 'doesn't repeat... Ok. Cheesing every game and getting good at that cheese is also a way of winning that isn't really macro-oriented. But that is pretty much it. It doesn't matter if someone is sick of always hearing the same thing, if that thing is the correct advice. If someone is unable to tell what is important themselves and also unable to listen to advice from better players then that is the problem, not the strategy. The question should then be "how can I learn how to get good at a game?" instead of "why do I always get the same advice?" but apparently not. I'm not saying macro is 100% of the game but it's a lot more than half. With enough units out and enough income you should win even with poor army composition etc. Also I think even people in bronze are aware of obvious things like which units are good vs what, that running into a bunch of sieged tanks is a bad idea etc, and that knowledge is enough. But macro better is a bit unspecific advice I guess. Needs to be more focus on things like "build overlords" until that works out and then next thing etc. Things like "it can be a good idea to retreat there" would have been an issue if the opponent hadn't been bad and more units would have just won the game anyway. | ||
|
DanceSC
United States751 Posts
On October 07 2011 07:12 ETisME wrote: with bad build order, you can end up having a smaller army than your opponent. Another is expansion timing, without any game sense and you just expand blindly, you will lose that expansion or if you are slow in expanding, you will be behind. Again, whether to put down a production buildings or what to put down or would it be better to put down an expo, all these are related to macro yet most higher league players here tend to think as long as you keep making workers, units etc, your macro is better. Some very good example is protoss, I off race as toss and whenever I do, I can keep my resources really low because their units are expensive, but I never harass, I don't know how and when to get my 3rd. Either I win if I get my 3rd up or I lose if I didn't. By your definition what is a 'better build order'. A build that takes you past the 30 worker count regardless of what you scout? this >> "When I started the game, I read up 9 pylon 12 gate 14 gas and that was it. Just building up from there got me placed into platinum. " is perfect. Hes adapting, reacting, building up from what he has and perfecting it. If you want to find your timing attacks, throw away the rules for a second and experiment. Some builds only provide windows at the 6min mark or 10 min mark or 16 min mark, do they tell you this? No, most of the time it is 'play defensive until you deathball, then attack click and hope to win' | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9366 Posts
Of course the incorrect way of helping lower league players is to teach them builds that are gimmicky or aren't univerisal. However teaching a terran player how he should position siege tanks in relevance to what his opp unit compositions and how to scout efficiently, and what factors should decide certain strategic moves will learn him to improve in a more efficient way. | ||
|
aebriol
Norway2066 Posts
On October 07 2011 07:12 ETisME wrote: Again, whether to put down a production buildings or what to put down or would it be better to put down an expo, all these are related to macro yet most higher league players here tend to think as long as you keep making workers, units etc, your macro is better. Post above I wrote: + Show Spoiler + Macro is: - Building workers. - Have the right saturation of workers shared among all bases (not 24 + 8, but 16 + 16 mining minerals). - Building units. - Not queuing units or workers. - Keeping your production facilities constantly producing, unless you are switching tech. - Not getting supply blocked. - Getting the right tech structures (with addons for terrans) at the right time. - Have the buildings placed in an optimal manner, which varies for each race and for each matchup. - Getting the right amount of tech structures to support the economy your number of bases support. - Spend your money. - Expand at the right time. - Making sure that your gas and mineral income balance what you intend to do. Don't save 2k minerals and have 0 gas ... - No matter what you are chosing to make, be it pure marine, or pure hellion / raven, get the right upgrades for the units. - Keeping energy on queens, nexus, command centers correct (ie: doesn't have to be 0, but if you are letting it build for no reason, you are doing something wrong). Feel free to more stuff that you think is macro. This was just my example in a post above of what I mean when I say macro. I tend to divide the game into three parts: Macro, Micro and scouting / reacting. A lot of people say 'make more workers' simply because it's true for Terran and Protoss ... as long you never get supply blocked, and continue to make workers and expand when you are fully saturated, you WILL reach high plat / diamond without any problem, simply because you are better than other people. For Zerg it's not harder, just slightly different ... but it's the same problem. Lower lvl zergs just don't make enough workers ... The reason why this is the advice people get though ... is quite simple. It works. + Show Spoiler + For myself, currently #30 in masters league EU with some bonus pool, the vast majority of the games I lose, I lose because of bad macro. I can identify a LOT of things I keep doing wrong in the replays when I lose that's simple macro mistakes. Not long ago I fixed two of them, and instantly moved up quite a bit ... and my APM is really low, so it's not like I am microing well either | ||
|
DanceSC
United States751 Posts
On October 07 2011 07:22 Sablar wrote: Ok. Cheesing every game and getting good at that cheese is also a way of winning that isn't really macro-oriented. But that is pretty much it. It doesn't matter if someone is sick of always hearing the same thing, if that thing is the correct advice. If someone is unable to tell what is important themselves and also unable to listen to advice from better players then that is the problem, not the strategy. The question should then be "how can I learn how to get good at a game?" instead of "why do I always get the same advice?" but apparently not. I'm not saying macro is 100% of the game but it's a lot more than half. With enough units out and enough income you should win even with poor army composition etc. Also I think even people in bronze are aware of obvious things like which units are good vs what, that running into a bunch of sieged tanks is a bad idea etc, and that knowledge is enough. But macro better is a bit unspecific advice I guess. Needs to be more focus on things like "build overlords" until that works out and then next thing etc. Things like "it can be a good idea to retreat there" would have been an issue if the opponent hadn't been bad and more units would have just won the game anyway. Don't assume that when someone doesn't say 'macro better' then imply you cheese more. That is ridiculous, if you want to argue about it then lets take this to private messaging. I got to diamond / masters off of 2g robo and adapting to what my opponent was doing, my build order ended after the first stalker came out and from there it was 100% mechanics. The question was 'how can I improve' and what is being implied is -> "I am sick of hearing 'macro better' how about some constructive advice, should I have engaged the army at this time? was this a good decision? when is it a good time to take my third?" | ||
|
scudst0rm
Canada1149 Posts
Most of us watch alot more than we play. From watching we learn alot about the matchups; what unit compositions are good, how to engage, how to micro, when to expand, how to deal with cheeses etc... The big thing you don't see is the pro player tapping 4 and 5 to make sure hes constantly producing and building supply depots. Then we watch day9 stress pylons and probes, and you start playing with that focus, the next thing you know your in diamond. All of the other stuff we kind of take for granted because we've been watching pro matches for so long and we go around believing all you need to get into diamond is macro. | ||
|
Squigly
United Kingdom629 Posts
On October 06 2011 21:15 RudePlague wrote: The whole macro better thing is true, but still stupid for lower players. In all reality, people want to play the game and enjoy themselves. You can't just "macro like pro" all of a sudden and jump up a massive level in your play. Yes a player could sit down and grind out a hundred (or probably much more) games on YABOT/Coach AI/Macro or Die until they have perfect macro, but it's not really fun and few players could pull that off. I've tried getting a friend who is new to the game to do that and he just won't because it's not fun. It's unrealistic for someone who is bronze/silver to get good enough at macro to get to plat/diamond on pure macro alone. Yes a pro/semi-pro player could get to a pretty high level on pure macro but a bad player can't suddenly play like them so it's a moot point. I'd also say that a pro player could virtually micro themselves up to a pretty high level. I remember one MC PvP where he had a mirror build to his opponent to the second while they both 4 gated. After the engagement he had like 4 stalkers more than his opponent and rofl stomped him with superior micro. A pro with high level micro could beat low level players who had vastly superior armies, just think of the ridiculous supply/resource levels you can overcome in something like Darglein's Micro Trainer. If someone like Puma or MMA made only 3 medivacs filled with stimmed marines, then did nothing until their opponent was on 3 base with a large army, they'd probably easily beat everyone they played until masters with superior multitasking. My point: Put a player with pro level anything in Bronze and he'll rofl stomp until platinum or higher. I concede that Macro is more important however. The other problem is that "macro only" works only if you are significantly better than your opponent. If, for example, a bronze player could develop say gold level macro, he'd probably still not be able to pull off pure stalker vs bronze MMM whereas a masters level player could. If the guy with gold level macro looks at the game and goes "oh, I should get colossi" he's going to rofl stomp his opponent, using some strategy will win the game where superior macro wasn't enough. To take an analogy I've seen someone use before on here, if you train beginner football (soccer) teams to play each other and one learns tactics only and the other learn how to pass/shoot and be fit the team who learnt the basics (the equivalent of macro in sc2) not the tactics will win. However, a team with average fundamentals but good tactics will be able to beat a team with better fundamentals/skill and no tactics. An extreme example would be a team with good fundamentals ending up with no one defending because they have no tactics. A real world example would be something like Greece winning Euro 2004 despite not having any superstar players. TLDR: While top level players can beat scrubs with macro only, a low level player can't just "macro like a pro". While they should focus on macro they should also think about what they're building to some extent to succeed more quickly. " If someone like Puma or MMA made only 3 medivacs filled with stimmed marines, then did nothing until their opponent was on 3 base with a large army, they'd probably easily beat everyone they played until masters with superior multitasking. " Just to be sure it was seen lol. Im sure any diamond player would have no problem winning. With 1 hand. I know its been said a lot, but knowing a straetgy is useless if you cant execute it. The FFE is a great example. If your macro is awful, you will lsoe if you try and FFE against a decent Z. Always. Its like playing golf, and trying to learn how to put a draw with backspin on the ball before you can even swing a club | ||
|
DreamChaser
1649 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Rain Dota 2 13108Sea  4382EffOrt  1155Horang2 913Stork 558firebathero 466Mini 440Snow 370Sea.KH 96sSak 91[ Show more ] League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games singsing2102 B2W.Neo1673 Fuzer  962crisheroes457 hiko428 Lowko302 ArmadaUGS172 XaKoH  158QueenE53 Liquid`VortiX31 KnowMe30 |
|
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
WardiTV Invitational
WardiTV Invitational
PiGosaur Monday
GSL Code S
Rogue vs GuMiho
Maru vs Solar
Online Event
Replay Cast
GSL Code S
herO vs Zoun
Classic vs Bunny
The PondCast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
