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.
There's a reason every looks down on low tier players, and just tell them to macro(and micro) better, and not worry about strategies as much. Multiple top tier players have shown that that you can basically do WHATEVER you want at low levels, and as long as your macro and mechanics are good, you will win most of the time regardless of unit composition. Players have 4 gated, 6 pooled, mass queened, mass marined, etc all the way to diamond and sometimes even masters, just by simply outproducing and out microing their opponents. Watch Destiny beat tanks, thors, High templar, etc, with queens, even vs people that were trying to stream snipe him, and knew what he was doing, and would still lose. That's why high level players say ignore strategies and unit compositions for right now.....because IT DOESN'T MATTER. If you're worrying about unit compositions while you have 3k minerals at 15 minutes into the game, you're worrying about the wrong thing. Having 4 less stalkers and having 3 more zealots and 2 more sentries instead just might possibly win you the game. Converting the 1500 minerals you have at the 10 minute mark to stalkers, and it wouldn't matter what composition you had, you're going to rofl-stomp your opponent.
TLDR: It's not that strategy is bad, but improving macro will generate far better results than improving unit composition and tactics.
You may think that strategy is something that you can use in the next game - but you are incorrect. For instance, lets say you lose to a "timing push", but it was found that your macro was poor. The reason you lost is not because your opponent had some magical composition or an immaculate timing; rather, you lost because you didn't execute well.
If you concentrate and apply that "strategy", it may actually be detrimental to your game because as a low-level player, you shouldn't be thinking about too many things. The only thoughts you should have is execution.
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.
On October 06 2011 20:48 Sm3agol wrote: There's a reason every looks down on low tier players, and just tell them to macro(and micro) better, and not worry about strategies as much. Multiple top tier players have shown that that you can basically do WHATEVER you want at low levels, and as long as your macro and mechanics are good, you will win most of the time regardless of unit composition. Players have 4 gated, 6 pooled, mass queened, mass marined, etc all the way to diamond and sometimes even masters, just by simply outproducing and out microing their opponents. Watch Destiny beat tanks, thors, High templar, etc, with queens, even vs people that were trying to stream snipe him, and knew what he was doing, and would still lose. That's why high level players say ignore strategies and unit compositions for right now.....because IT DOESN'T MATTER. If you're worrying about unit compositions while you have 3k minerals at 15 minutes into the game, you're worrying about the wrong thing. Having 4 less stalkers and having 3 more zealots and 2 more sentries instead just might possibly win you the game. Converting the 1500 minerals you have at the 10 minute mark to stalkers, and it wouldn't matter what composition you had, you're going to rofl-stomp your opponent.
TLDR: It's not that strategy is bad, but improving macro will generate far better results than improving unit composition and tactics.
Congratulations, you are one of those ppl the OP was talking about even though you were trying not to be.
These players are NOT dia/master + and he *already acknowledged this*, saying it's not something you can improve overnight, although of course they try to.
So in the CONTEXT that these players are forever striving to improve their macro, it seems entirely reasonable that they should be wanting to improve their strategical knowledge too. Especially as it's the strategical aspect that's more fun than "4eee 5c wzzzssee"
On October 06 2011 21:01 marvellosity wrote: So in the CONTEXT that these players are forever striving to improve their macro, it seems entirely reasonable that they should be wanting to improve their strategical knowledge too. Especially as it's the strategical aspect that's more fun than "4eee 5c wzzzssee"
Why focus on improving your strategical aspect when you can't even execute it at a decent level?
i'd say strategy does not matter even at diamond or master level. i'll give you a mondragon example.
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.
on the strategy side, if you can't even macro properly what strategy do you want to use? strategy in sc2 is under the assumption that you have good macro and can hit timings well. don't look at strategy until you don't miss a single inject / mule / chrono boost etc. you need macro to execute strategy.
i can say 'alright im gonna go mass hellions!' so go on a quick match with my herpderp macro, and then lose because i attacked with 10 hellions with 1000 gas and 2000 minerals in my bank because no other units were made in the process.
On October 06 2011 20:38 sfbaydave wrote: 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.
Correct. Sometimes you may lose because your strategy is poor against a certain thing. If you were to play the exact same game again at exactly the same skill, but using a better strategy, you might win. But if you macrod better you would win. It's also a rather pointless endeveour to puzzle out solutions for a strategy that might be causing you problems, when in fact that strategy might not even be workable in an environment where people are macroing better. It's wasted time. Working on your mechanics is NEVER wasted time.
Lower players often don't appreciate just how much difference macro makes. They think "yes, I KNOW I need to get better at macro, but...." without realising their armies could be TWICE as big, or more. You don't even need that many more units or workers to make a huge difference, eg close battles suddenly turn into easy victories, giving you map control etc etc.
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. [snip]
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...
You might be surprised at how quickly your mechanics can actually improve if you concentrate on it! Day9 did a good daily about this recently; pick ONE THING to try and improve, and work your ass off at that one thing. Think back to your laddering. Do you actually ever PRACTICE at anything? Have you ever played games where you've thought "ok, I am just going to concentrate on ALWAYS making SCVs", or "I am going to focus on ONLY making sure I am always keeping my gateways busy". Or are you just playing the game, and trying/hoping to win.
basically because strategy is useless when you can't execute them. Simple example: A silver player starts a thread on the forum saying he has so much trouble vs zerg players who masses roaches off one or two base and allins, and makes it impossible for him to expand. Now most master or higher player knows that you can easily ffe and still hold roach allins. But if the silver player's macro isn't up to pair, then that build wont work.
Most strategies we know of evolve around having near to perfect macro, or else you wont be able to hold some of the timing attacks the enemy can throw at you. How are we suppose to help you by teaching builds you can't execute? Or worse yet if you are executing the right build, but not doing it right.
Its either this, or when you come online and say "I'm having so much trouble vs collosus", our only answer that doesn't involve proper macro is "vikings"..and thats not very helpful either
Edit: and yes, you can change your macro nearly over night But you need to have the right mindset. Like the poster above said, practice spesific things. I for one spend a lot of time on "yabot" until my builds are millisecond-perfect up to the 10 minute mark.
another thing that is really kills my brain is that when I played the game and watched the replay and in some moment I was in 50 food lead and I just couldn't do something with op's army coz it was mass thors or pure mech so it's chosen units problem but not macro imho
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.
On October 06 2011 20:48 Sm3agol wrote: There's a reason every looks down on low tier players, and just tell them to macro(and micro) better, and not worry about strategies as much. Multiple top tier players have shown that that you can basically do WHATEVER you want at low levels, and as long as your macro and mechanics are good, you will win most of the time regardless of unit composition. Players have 4 gated, 6 pooled, mass queened, mass marined, etc all the way to diamond and sometimes even masters, just by simply outproducing and out microing their opponents. Watch Destiny beat tanks, thors, High templar, etc, with queens, even vs people that were trying to stream snipe him, and knew what he was doing, and would still lose. That's why high level players say ignore strategies and unit compositions for right now.....because IT DOESN'T MATTER. If you're worrying about unit compositions while you have 3k minerals at 15 minutes into the game, you're worrying about the wrong thing. Having 4 less stalkers and having 3 more zealots and 2 more sentries instead just might possibly win you the game. Converting the 1500 minerals you have at the 10 minute mark to stalkers, and it wouldn't matter what composition you had, you're going to rofl-stomp your opponent.
TLDR: It's not that strategy is bad, but improving macro will generate far better results than improving unit composition and tactics.
that's not so true. The only reason how destiny managed to win with mass queens is not because he could just macro better. It is because the other player doesn't take advantage of the fact that destiny is only making queens.
For example, mass queens would have lost to any terran that simply put one or two ghosts into their army.
your last statement is also arguable. ZvP shows it quite clearly that even if Zerg can have macro'd up 200 food, they can just lose to a 170 food protoss deathball if engaged in a bad position and just get stream roll'd
I'm just middle-ish to high diamond on EU, but I'll give my view on it:
What I've seen from Bronze and Silver players, the "just macro better" thing is essentially true. This does not only mean training your mechanics to a reasonable level but also grasping the basic idea behind Starcraft - the whole thing about "streamlining" your economy and production, so you don't fall behind. In Bronze and Silver, you can have a good strategy, but it doesn't work out if your enemy simple has double the units. Its as simple as that. Also, you can't apply many proper strategies at that level of play, because your enemy doesn't react and play accordingly. Strategies which seem to work in bronze/silver will not work in higher leages at all and vice versa. So strategic advice is very theoretical and doesn't apply to actual games at that level.
Around gold and platinum, things get more interesting but still people reach their limits quickly: Usually the one know knows how to play beyond 1-base while staying alive wins. That all the strategy you need, and it is achieved by proper macro and mechanics. If you don't lack units when the enemy attacks, you have a reasonable chance of surviving. If you survive and got better mechanics/more bases than your opponent, you'll win macro-wise.
Many lower-leage player confuse strategy with "suprises" and gimmicks. Going DTs is not a strategy. Just doing a drop is not a strategy. Going for a specific unit-composition is not a strategy. Having a game-plan and being able to adjust it on-the-fly comes much closer to strategy - and this relies on macro. Strategy has to do with possibilites of yourself, your enemy, adaption, timings and reactions, and all these become meaningless if the players don't macro properly.
If I gave a silver player strategic advice he might be able to apply it at some instances, but most of his games will still be decided by the question "who has more". At least if nobody does critical mistakes like suiciding an army - but thats not strategic either.
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.
I am not extremly high level (diamond). I will try to explain why macro better is the usual advice. Let's assume a silver league player wants to know from me how to play better and shows me a replay of him loosing to a certain strategy. Then I watch the replay and realize that by the time the important engagement happens he could have had 40 zerglings and a base more. Then I see little use say what would be a better strategy, because if he had these 40 lings he wouldn't have lost in the first place. So the reason why he lost might look to him as if it was strategy, but the real reason is that his macro was bad. He could stick to the same strategy in the same situation, execute it with better macro and win.
The reason that people say "Macro better /improve your macro" is because alot of players like Destiny and Day 9 where they do perfect macro and just mass 1 unit. I remember watching destiny just mass Roaches. Even though they have no anti air, he got to low masters by using just roaches by having good macro.
The fact is, you can progress by having good macro and for lower level players it is way better to spend your time learning the most important part of the game before you learn anything else.
On February 23 2011 08:56 Saracen wrote: As an addendum... In my opinion, the main reason this thread exists is to help you think for yourselves (and hopefully reduce the amount of [H] threads that litter the forums). After all, why ask others for help when you can help yourself? So, before you make a thread asking why you lost or what you could have done better, make sure you're doing everything you need to be doing first. You may think "only pros do everything consistently" or "I'm only in Gold league, I don't need to do every single thing" or "I may have done some things wrong, but my opponent did too!" This is a terrible mindset, especially in lower leagues, because that's where macro actually makes a huge difference. For the people who try to help you out, it's really frustrating to try to give advice on gameplay when you consistently see little things like getting supply blocked at 26 or not chronoing probes until you have 40 energy or not building enough barracks and then queuing 4 marines on each one. Each one of these "little things" adds up, especially in the early game, and could very well give you a disadvantage that's pretty much impossible to come back from.
On February 23 2011 08:56 Saracen wrote: As an addendum... In my opinion, the main reason this thread exists is to help you think for yourselves (and hopefully reduce the amount of [H] threads that litter the forums). After all, why ask others for help when you can help yourself? So, before you make a thread asking why you lost or what you could have done better, make sure you're doing everything you need to be doing first. You may think "only pros do everything consistently" or "I'm only in Gold league, I don't need to do every single thing" or "I may have done some things wrong, but my opponent did too!" This is a terrible mindset, especially in lower leagues, because that's where macro actually makes a huge difference. For the people who try to help you out, it's really frustrating to try to give advice on gameplay when you consistently see little things like getting supply blocked at 26 or not chronoing probes until you have 40 energy or not building enough barracks and then queuing 4 marines on each one. Each one of these "little things" adds up, especially in the early game, and could very well give you a disadvantage that's pretty much impossible to come back from.
Somewhat agreed! While Macro'ing properly is definitely important, there is more to the game than just macro. Even if both sides macro'd poorly, so long as the army counts are around equal during battle that is all that matters (or if one side was greatly ahead, and lost). It is usually clear when one player loses because of macro and while 'better macro' would have won an even game, there are many other things which would have also won the game. It might have been better troop positioning, it might have been better micro, it might have been better decision making like countering instead of attacking head on. So while the little things add up, in an even game there are more factors at work than just macro.
Also the "macro better" attitude isn't always the most useful attitude to have in the strategy forum. That could be applied to every single level and still be true!! It's an empty truth in this regard. So while the strategy forum can be used to get advice on how to macro better, there are also many other things that you could be learning from there - What unit composition beats what (this really is bronze information, and should be contained in liquipedia) - How to engage battles properly - How to make better decisions in game - How to gauge what your opponent is doing with minimal information
Things like refining a build order, having a build order (-.-; ), this is my awesome new build order please rate it!!!!! and whatnot are all examples of bad questions to ask in the strategy forum. Once infinity's guide is out that should help with this though!
no. better mechanics WILL still triumph at lower level. Mechanics are there so you can execute the strategy properly.
Example as Zerg:
If you miss your forget inject with your queen while 15hatching, you WILL lose to the 2 rax that has been constantly building marines + a few scvs. As a Zerg player, I've noticed the difference between my 'off' day and my good days comes down to pretty much me landing more injects etc. Just work on landing all your injects and keep producing units and a-move. If you're getting dropped, check whether you've injected, made a round of unit, and THEN worry about the harass. Play 10-15 games like that, and your brain will start remembering it.
If you don't believe me, watch Slayers_Dragon's stream sometimes when he gets new Bronze accounts. He beats players with pure scv's or ONLY marines against Banelings + infestors.
Yea what Plexa said, but one thing , "how do you practice making better decisions? " I think my decision making are good, but there's no metric to measure against.. =\
I don't think the OP is disputing that macro is the #1 way to get better. He's just saying it's not the ONLY THING in the game and he's right.
Say it's a PvT. As a Protoss you've decided to go mass stalkers against a marauder only army. Now, having 20 more stalkers due to good macro is of course going to be very important. But it might also be nice for people to explain that stalkers suck against marauders and he should try chargelots instead.
Grossly oversimplified example, but you get the point.
1) More units = more win - true 2) You make the right decisions (strategy) = also more likely to win - true
Every time a thread like this starts, there will be some condescending jerk who will post something like, "I started a new account and lost all my placement and landed in silver and got to diamond doing nothing but lings/marines/stalkers trollolol". While I usually *hate* the tone of these posts, they do demonstrate the point very well -- honestly, at low levels, you will be able to win 90% of your games if you just are able to build more stuff than your opponent.
For a long time I was stuck at Diamond level, even after knowing "what counters what" in different situations, making sure I was cheeseproof, knowing I was building the right "stuff", and relying on some good WC3-level micro. My opponent would come in with an overwhelming 1a army and crush me, and I blamed it on the game being "coin-flippy" or "not about skill". After watching the replays, I would see where I was missing chrono boosts (I was playing Random at the time), or missing SCV builds, or missing mule drops and losing to a timing attack. 15 minutes into the game I would have a beautifully composed and perfectly micro'd 130-140 food army, while my opponent is barrelling down my throat with 200/200.
For a full week, I decided I was going to make sure I was constantly building SCVs every game. No matter what. I didn't care if I ended up at 150 SCVs, I was going to have full worker saturation. And I had a lot of really dumb losses that week b/c I was so focused on SCVs that I didn't micro my units properly, or forgot to build my factory on time or what have you, but I didn't care -- I kept building SCVs.
Then I took another week and made sure that I never missed a single depot. Oddly enough, a week of full SCV production had trained me to never forget an SCV either -- so after 2 weeks of dumb losses, I was able to never get supply blocked and never forget an SCV.
The next week, I found out that with full SCV production and all my depots on time, I was able to support a LOT more production than before. Where before I would only be able to support maybe 3 rax and a starport, now I could support 6rax and 2ports at the same in-game time. So I had another week of making sure I would build my production buildings on time, and that they were constantly producing.
In the middle of that week, I hit Master League without really trying. Simply from building more stuff. That was 6 months ago, and I still use the same techniques to improve now -- that's why I'm sitting around 1300 Masters and still improving.
That's why we tell you to macro better -- your perfect compositions, your timings, they will only get you so far without a good, solid core of mechanics. I promise you, if you focus solely on your mechanics for a while, you will have some stupid losses for a while -- don't get frustrated over them, and just learn from them. Get used to being in the habit of producing workers, supply, and units. Over and over. Eventually, that will all become automatic, and *then* you can get to the flashy part where you perfectly micro and hit timings that will destroy your opponents. After all -- how can you hit perfect timings if your macro is so bad that it comes a full minute or two late?
I am myself one of the lower level players, and I can see this too..
Not that high level players are wrong: indeed if we had better macro, we would have won almost all of the games we lost (except maybe for some particular cases, like lack of detection against DT or totally wrong army composition, and so on..).
But what I think is that there's something those high level players are not considering (and I'm saying that from my lower level rank, so I admit I can be wrong on this): having better macro is something that every player must strive for, even good ones.. that's something which is always true.. something for which sometimes there's larger room for improvement, sometime there's less..
..but if my opponent is able to macro as good as me (and if it's not now, it WILL be, thanks to the match making system), then there are other things that are really important to consider, for example:
- scouting
- unit composition
- harassment/drops
- aggression
- engagement position
- micro
For example, I've lost may games I had better macro in, in multiple ways: by a-moving marines into tanks, by going hatch first against 6 pool, by mistakenly moving instead of a-moving, by forgetting detection, by having not enough antiar, by being too passive letting opponent tech safely, by engaging up ramps, by getting BCs when I did not have Viking superiority.. the list could go on.
Of course I don't lose too often in those ways (thank god!), but it happens, and I have to understand those things on my own. When we low rank players post replay here, we usually look for tips like those.. we take the macro inability for granted. And we KNOW it's the main reason we lost, but we see no reason why we can't at least try to improve in different fields..
In the end, 200 food pure colossi still lose to 100 food pure vikings
On October 06 2011 20:48 Sm3agol wrote: There's a reason every looks down on low tier players, and just tell them to macro(and micro) better, and not worry about strategies as much. Multiple top tier players have shown that that you can basically do WHATEVER you want at low levels, and as long as your macro and mechanics are good, you will win most of the time regardless of unit composition. Players have 4 gated, 6 pooled, mass queened, mass marined, etc all the way to diamond and sometimes even masters, just by simply outproducing and out microing their opponents. Watch Destiny beat tanks, thors, High templar, etc, with queens, even vs people that were trying to stream snipe him, and knew what he was doing, and would still lose. That's why high level players say ignore strategies and unit compositions for right now.....because IT DOESN'T MATTER.
Sure, strats and unit comps don't matter FOR THEM. Destiny does some cool things with queens because he's got the godly micro and macro to support it. But as the OP said, getting your own skills to that level ranges from difficult to impossible for anyone still in silver/gold. Whereas changing your unit comp or your build order or your general strat is MUCH MUCH easier. Its like in the Karate Kid where he's trying to catch the fly with the chopsticks. The "just macro better" people would tell him to practice for weeks and months until he can do it. Whereas if you offer strategy advice its more like telling them to use a bloody fly swatter instead.
I still think its good to point out appallingly bad macro, IE considerably worse than his opponent as a reason for losing. Sometimes they may not be aware of it. But at some point "improve your macro" hits diminishing returns and its more efficient to work on the higher parts of the Starcraft pyramid too.
Lastly I'd just like to wonder whether the diamond+ people giving advice are looking at these low leaguers with the idea that they're looking to get into diamond+ also, where "macro better then work on your strats more" would be good advice. But if they're just fairly casual 1-3 games a night types like myself, they probably just want to get promoted one league up and get a nice Top 8 Silver/Gold/Plat badge on their account.
I have been long time in the silver leauge myself, and the most helpfull advice for me was: Just play Macrogames. I know how tempting it is to try this new "cool" strat, that you heard about, or think after a lost game "if i just had build some more of that unit i would have won" or "i just had the wrong strat"...
But if you choose a "safe" macrobuild; like 3gate expo, 14 pool 14 gas, 3rax, play defensivly and then just take another base and dont try to end the game in 10 minutes you will get better and better. After the games just watch the replay and look at your money and workerproduction. if there is a moment when your money goes high -> just expand. Just play a lot of games and remember such small things, and you will get better and better.
I know you dont want to hear this but macro > micro&strategie.
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.
You would be incredibly surprised. If you can't improve dramatically overnight, it means you are not learning in the correct way. I literally learned how to constantly produce/never queue in A SINGLE GAME. I said "hm, I'm gonna try this macro stuff", I hotkeyed my production facilities, and did a rotation: 1,aad,2,ss,3,s,4,vv, I watched the replay and saw that I didn't miss a beat (on one base, without attacking or upgrading, obviously I had a lot to improve on). You CAN improve overnight, if you know what you're doing.
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.
Your knowledge of the game (unless I am learning this wrong as well) takes way longer to improve on than macro, and matters much less than macro, and unlike improving your macro, (contrary to what you said) it won't necessarily help you in the next game unless you are in a very similar situation next game, which could have been solved with better macro anyway.
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.
You shouldn't think of strategy as some sort of silver bullet. Strategy might help you "immediately" in your next ladder game, but only in that specific situation, whereas practicing macro will improve your overall game. Besides, you can find plenty of strategy in threads started on TL. If you can't find strategy that applies to your level, the answer is to get to the level of the strategy threads currently existing first.
I hear you, man. I do. I'm a platinum player who just falls apart on the macro front once the game goes past 10 minutes or so. But I really think you (and I) are shit out of luck. It would be nice if awesome strategic knowledge of the game could overcome bad mechanics, but this is a real-time strategy game, not a turn-based strategy game, so that cannot possibly be the case.
Let me give an extreme example to illustrate this. Suppose you keep losing to some kind of mass marine push. This becomes incredibly frustrating, every damn Terran you play just rolls into your base with 30 marines and kills you. GAH! You try different unit compositions to try and stop it, but nothing works. You always just die to 30 marines. Clearly there's a way to stop it, since pros aren't losing to mass marine pushes every game, but what is that way? Wait, we're all members of a community that would know those answers! Hooray! TL HELP ME HOW DO YOU STOP MASS MARINE? Now let's look at 3 possible answers you could receive:
(1) tech to colossi, get range, attack before he gets too many vikings, (2) get a few sentries, cut his army up into pieces and kill the small pieces with zealots/stalkers, (3) macro better.
NOW. The first of those options sounds pretty sexy. How do you kill mass low-heath units? Of course! With giant fucking laser beams designed to kill those units! Maybe you try this, and maybe it works. Hooray! The answer has been found! But no, no, you're wrong. In fact, your opponents making 30 marines are terrible, and they're pushing out at like the 11 minute mark. This gives you ample time to make those colossi, and by the time they get to your base they get rolled. But if they were playing better (i.e. macroing better), those marines would be knocking on your door at the 6:30 mark and your robo bay wouldn't even be done yet. So this "strategy" that looked good is really only working because your opponents suck ass. So let's look at the next option.
Suppose your opponents are playing a little better, there's no way you can sit tight and tech to ranged colossi, so you sit at the top of your ramp with some sentries and kill their army bit by bit (ha! a pun!) until your advantage becomes insurmountable. Proceed to win however you want, likely by A-moving their main. This FEELS like a better strategy, because not only does it not rely on your opponents sucking ass, it feels awesome when you pull off those forcefields and see yourself getting farther and farther ahead. You're happily getting a healthy mix of zealot/stalker/sentry in a nice 2:2:1 ratio like Liquipedia says, and you murder his push when it finally comes and you win shortly after. I'm just going to be making up numbers here, but suppose that push you held off came at the 8 minute mark, and you had about 45 supply, and he had about 55. Your sick forcefield micro can make up that gap (strategy! awesome!) and you win anyway. This sounds like what you were looking for. BUT let's look at the third hated "macro better" option and compare them.
If you had been just trying to macro better and paying less attention to your unit composition, by the 8 minute mark you could have been sitting on like 65 supply, and instead of waiting to defend his push, just A-moved his main and straight-up won. Huh. So how is this any different than the previous option? You still won, right? The point is this. If you and your opponents are equally bad, then you're absolutely right, good strategy WILL win you games. It's this feeling that makes it so annoying to hear better players say "just macro better", because you know you lose games based on strategy and strategy alone. But there's a "but" after that, and it's a big one. When we play a game like Starcraft, the goal is not to grind wins, it's to get better, and the way you do that is by playing and winning a lot. If you keep prioritizing strategy over mechanics, your "mass gateway beats mass marine" strategy will eventually stop working, no matter how good your game sense is. You'll keep winning for a while, fighting your way up the ladder, trouncing stronger and stronger opponents with your massive intellect. But eventually your opponents will just be BETTER than you. How can this be? Your strategies are great, your unit compositions are always perfect counters to theirs thanks to great scouting and exhaustive knowledge of how to respond. But despite all that, you still lose to these idiots. That's because they're "just macroing better". Sure, your units might be the perfect counter to his at the perfect time, but if they just have more stuff than you do, they can just A-move and crush you anyway. To add insult to injury, the strategies you crafted to dominate in the low leagues won't even be relevant anymore, since higher level players won't be doing the ridiculous shit silver players threw at you.
Anyway. To sum up, should you learn how to counter common cheeses/all-ins and practice micro? Sure, absolutely, that will prevent a lot of stupid losses and remain a useful skill no matter where you are on the ladder. So the remaining this you need to know are how to macro and good strategy. If you do them the other order, strategy first and macro as it comes to you, then you'll win for a while in the low leagues, and then get absolutely stomped on in the higher leagues as the slight edge you get from better strategy gets slowly eaten away and eventually reversed by stronger macro from your opponents. You end up having to relearn all your strategy anyway. But if you focus on macro first and strategy later, you should be able to cruise through the lower leagues by just being a better player than they are (on average, you'll still lose here and there to weird stuff, obviously), and then once you're up in the higher leagues you'll be on even footing with those scary opponents from the previous case, and THAT's where strategy comes in -- it tips the balance of "equally strong mechanics" towards the "smarter" player.
On October 06 2011 21:33 AlgoFlash wrote: Plexa is right.
But it's like: if you improve macro, you'll win say 80% more games. Working on the other aspects will only get you the last 20%.
Working on macro is more efficient but it's not all.
That's the core problem - if people ask for help around here, I assume that they do it because they want to win games.
And in 90% of the cases, getting rid of specific (!) macro-deficiencies will drasticly improve your win-rate. I think the problem is that too many advices are way too "general" - the simple "macro better" is stupid. But when someone points out "you always get supply-blocked in midgame because you only build one depot after another" then this is a specific macro-advice that can be as easily implemented as a strategic advice. Also, many low-level-players make huge mistakes in very different parts of their game. Some just stop producing workers at a random point too early but never get supply blocked. Others macro workers perfectly, but just can't spend their money. Others macro well, but just expand way too late because they don't feel safe enough. Others tend to forget to take their 3rd-xth gas or put workers on it regularly.
TL; DR: "macro better" is indeed a frustrating advice; but you should realize that most players lack in different macro-areas, so pointing these areas out will be more helpful than strategy-related suggestions. Especially on the bronze-gold levels.
He's playing at Silver/Gold Level and actually thinks he's not able to improve on his mechanics. Meaning he thinks he reached his limit and he's fine with it. Now he actually just wants to play with his limited mechanice against other people with limited mechanics. How does he beat them? Superior strategy.
Everything everyone was saying about mechanics being the most important is totally right. But if you set the mechanics on both sides as equal, what is left becomes more important.
It's probably not everyones Goal to get into masters as soon as possible, because probably not everyone is capable of it. What he says is that he still wants to be playing different strategies regardless.
This thought process, while technically being correct has a major flaw. Most of the time these players encounter some seemingly unbeatable strategy and come here to ask for help, it's not the strategy that beat them, so there is no counter strategy. Most of the time it's the opposing players superior macro, which can only be beaten by "macroing better" yourself.
the reason its not productive to analyze anything other than macro and overall mechanics at low levels is that all the timings and such are screwed up because of the low levels. we cant analyze why a timing push killed you or why your timing failed when both players floated 1k minerals and stayed on 1 base for 20 minutes. obviously you want to know the basic units that counter each other, but aside from that your time is best spent working on your macro and fixing the holes in your play. learning a timing push or analyzing pro replays isnt going to work when you dont have the same amount of units that are normally used in those situations.
On October 06 2011 20:38 sfbaydave wrote: 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.
You are of course right, if you have equally good macro with somebody then strategy is what will win or lose you a game. That said, having better macro would enable you to win a game just as much as having a better strategy would enable you to win a game.
So there is no reason to ever prioritise developing strategy over macro, there just isnt. Always ask when you post a replay 'how can I have more stuff?', not 'should I have made 16 zealots and 12 stalkers, or 12 zealots and 16 stalkers?'
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.
This is the part you got wrong. If you have more substantially more stuff, it doesn't matter what units you use. You can beat a mid game Terran marine/tank push with mass roach so long as you just have more stuff. In this case you're more likely to win with mass roach and good macro than a perfect proportion of mutas/ling/bane and 1500/500 in the bank.
Of course, after your opponent's macro also gets refined, you won't be able to do so anymore, at which point you have to refine your strategy.
well the advantage of a good macro is that you can hold up early aggression and have a lead in the mid game, if you haven't won until the lategame you will probably get roflstomped (assume the persons are at the same strength but the other persons other traits are more advanced and the other one only has the macro advantage). So basically people saying learn to macro, tell you to concentrate on that and you will easily make it into masters like they did. What they don't tell you, they will hit a straight wall there were they can't win no matter how good their macro is and then start to train the other things is really frustrating. So basically its up to you, can you deal with walls or not.
If you can concentrating on one thing is okay, as you get really strong players and if strong opponents make you play better i would guess its a good training bonus. But if you get discouraged easily macro only will get you into masters, but there will be your grave.
(its pretty funny that you can get into masters by only macroing ... though i made it into masters by only defending macro only players and win the lategame with ease, thought macro players should shine in the late game)
On the other hand i probably made it because i only play one game a day, so i get tons of points compared to my mmr for winning. I am always happy to see other players able to not only macro, as they don't use the standard currently hyped midgame push. (terran was a free win pre patch if i played protoss)
But terran players benefit the most from a good macro (base management), Zerg players the least imo. (my macro is horrible and zerg is by far my strongest race)
So my advice for fun games, is train macro, but also train micro and decision making a little (which is way harder), it will decrease the wall impact you will have in masters. But with a good macro you will have fun macro games, while if you only have a good decision making, you will turtle till the late game and rush over 80% of your opponent, which gets a bit yawnie. Especially if they allow you to cheese every game with cc nexus first or a tripple hatch before pool.
On October 06 2011 20:48 Sm3agol wrote: There's a reason every looks down on low tier players, and just tell them to macro(and micro) better, and not worry about strategies as much. Multiple top tier players have shown that that you can basically do WHATEVER you want at low levels, and as long as your macro and mechanics are good, you will win most of the time regardless of unit composition. Players have 4 gated, 6 pooled, mass queened, mass marined, etc all the way to diamond and sometimes even masters, just by simply outproducing and out microing their opponents. Watch Destiny beat tanks, thors, High templar, etc, with queens, even vs people that were trying to stream snipe him, and knew what he was doing, and would still lose. That's why high level players say ignore strategies and unit compositions for right now.....because IT DOESN'T MATTER. If you're worrying about unit compositions while you have 3k minerals at 15 minutes into the game, you're worrying about the wrong thing. Having 4 less stalkers and having 3 more zealots and 2 more sentries instead just might possibly win you the game. Converting the 1500 minerals you have at the 10 minute mark to stalkers, and it wouldn't matter what composition you had, you're going to rofl-stomp your opponent.
TLDR: It's not that strategy is bad, but improving macro will generate far better results than improving unit composition and tactics.
that's not so true. The only reason how destiny managed to win with mass queens is not because he could just macro better. It is because the other player doesn't take advantage of the fact that destiny is only making queens.
For example, mass queens would have lost to any terran that simply put one or two ghosts into their army.
your last statement is also arguable. ZvP shows it quite clearly that even if Zerg can have macro'd up 200 food, they can just lose to a 170 food protoss deathball if engaged in a bad position and just get stream roll'd
If your the Zerg and you outmacro your opponent at such a low level the other person with not have an army anywhere close to as big as yours. I troll on diamond and below accounts and do whatever I want. I shouldn't win with the strategies, but I just have so many more units.
On October 06 2011 21:33 AlgoFlash wrote: Plexa is right.
But it's like: if you improve macro, you'll win say 80% more games. Working on the other aspects will only get you the last 20%.
Working on macro is more efficient but it's not all.
That's the core problem - if people ask for help around here, I assume that they do it because they want to win games.
And in 90% of the cases, getting rid of specific (!) macro-deficiencies will drasticly improve your win-rate. I think the problem is that too many advices are way too "general" - the simple "macro better" is stupid. But when someone points out "you always get supply-blocked in midgame because you only build one depot after another" then this is a specific macro-advice that can be as easily implemented as a strategic advice. Also, many low-level-players make huge mistakes in very different parts of their game. Some just stop producing workers at a random point too early but never get supply blocked. Others macro workers perfectly, but just can't spend their money. Others macro well, but just expand way too late because they don't feel safe enough. Others tend to forget to take their 3rd-xth gas or put workers on it regularly.
TL; DR: "macro better" is indeed a frustrating advice; but you should realize that most players lack in different macro-areas, so pointing these areas out will be more helpful than strategy-related suggestions. Especially on the bronze-gold levels.
Eh? I don't agree. If people are posting reps here for advice they should have a) read this: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=195389 b) followed its advice c) posted a rep where yes better macro could have won the game, but lost the game because of another error
When players macro equally bad what puts the other players ahead is doing all the other things right. And if you only focus on macro, you'll run into someone with equal macro but with better overall play and lose. And in those cases people should be asking for help. Let's be real here, even at Masters level the advice "macro better" is true - vacuous advice isn't useful.
1. Learn all units, their characteristics (like is light/heavy/bio, etc) and the tech tree. 2. Pick ONE pro player that you like and steal ONE build+strategy for every matchup. Execute exactly those strategies every game. 3. Scout to know what the opponent is doing. 4. Macro. 5. Macro. 6. Macro. 7. Macro. 8. Macro. 9. Macro. ...
Since it should be obvious if you executed points 1, 2, 3, all you need to get to Masters is macro better (the proper reactions you'll learn while playing and comparing how you react to how the pro player reacts).
But I, somewhat, agree. Sometimes it would be helpful if someone would point exactly why your reaction to something was bad and what the correct response would be.
Edit: I play a very reactive style based on scouting, reacting and macroing. I don't know build orders (I only know build orders up to where both my expo and spawning pool and expo are up), nor timings very. Recently I played a bit in some online cups and I only focused on not getting supply blocked at all and not missing larvae injects and macroing on top of this. And I managed to go toe for full games with three Grandmasters this week only (took down two of them)...
when learning macro myself, I used marine/tank every game, same # of barracks, timings, etc, but the builds became more and more crisp as i improved macro, upgrades came faster, 2nd-3rd bases came faster, I didn't worry about how to counter a build that i lost to, i simply said "i didn't make enough marines/tanks and would chalk it up to lack of macro.
Now i macro decent, playing in masters, and am devoting all my attention to strategic play and builds, since I've got a base to allow me to win and improve fast. This is the way i think people should practice if they want to move up
When I lose a game I sometimes want to start a [H] thread and ask for help on some specific things (with some covered balance whines ). Then I watch the replay myself and either I just was outplayed or my macro/scouting just sucked. I understand why some lower league players think it is a stupid advice, but that still applies in every league and sometimes even pro level.
You can lookup some good openers ( for terran) but that's about it, I think from there on just adapt to what your opponent is doing , not just go with a strategy you thought of pre-game.
On October 06 2011 21:01 marvellosity wrote: So in the CONTEXT that these players are forever striving to improve their macro, it seems entirely reasonable that they should be wanting to improve their strategical knowledge too. Especially as it's the strategical aspect that's more fun than "4eee 5c wzzzssee"
Why focus on improving your strategical aspect when you can't even execute it at a decent level?
The OP is saying that having better macro and mechaniques etc does help and i agree with him when he says that every low level help thread is "macro better". You could just copy and paste the same generic "macro better" statement into every one of those threads but tbh it doesnt always help.
For example a friend of mine plays terran and likes to only make one type of unit each game, in one game he made alot of marines and then raged when banelings killed him. This is obviously an extreme example but "just macro better" isn't really going to help him when he does not have basic knowledge of the game or statigies beyond "mass unit X and A-move". In a situation like this (only less extreme) it could be more useful for suggestions about unit composition in addition to the usual "macro better" advice.
For a less extreme example, i play zerg, im working on my injects and creep spread, trying to keep my money low but i have alot of problems ending games which i have effectivly already won. I played 3 games in a row, after the first 15mins i had decided that i was so far ahead i would win the game, but in each case i could not simply end it despite being ahead and the games each lasted twice as long as they should have. "Macro better" would of course be good advice because if i was so far ahead then i could mass an army and just A move, but some other suggestions such as nydus, drops etc would have ended the game in many of the situations i found myself in. Also some advice about how to go 'All-In' would be helpful since i actually never do it.
TLDR: "Macro Better" is always valid but may lower level players have heard it soo many times and are working on it already, what they are asking for is something new, some tip to improve their play quicker since improving macro is had to judge and notice improvement
I totally agree with what plexa said. If you want information on good strategies to use and how to get a good overall gameplay sense, check out some of the earlier Day[9} dailies. The newbie tuesdays offer good information on macro as well as most of the other things that make the fundamentals of a good player.
Well, of course you have to macro better, but you also have to have the right strategy. And you can improve both at the same time since macro is more of muscle memory while strategy is just mostly memory. So it's not right to tell people just to macro better as it is both (1) very general and (2) half of what is needed to be done.
Yes, sometimes, people lose because they didn't macro well enough but sometimes they want to know how to deal with a certain composition more efficiently so that next time they see it, even if their macro still fails them, they'd at least have a better chance because they have a better composition against that.
I think some of you are missing the point. If you both players have bad macro and micro the player who actually has a good strategy and a written down buildorder lying on his desk instead of being completly lost on what to do will have a big advantage.
That said instead of doing the same 1 base builds which will get you wins its better in the long run to identify you biggest weakness and just work on that for 5-10 games. Also expanding early at specific timings and focusing on constant worker production and not getting supply blocked while using hotkeys can improve you macro and ability to hold allins pretty fast.
I know whats lower leagues players problem - you join a game without knowing a strategy to go for. If you want to get better at the game, find 3 build orders vs every race and just do it. When you know what you're doing, you aren't wasting time for thinking about what to do (thus lower apm) and you find yourself in comfortable spot due to designed game plan.
I think lower league players (bronze-gold) just have a HUGE misconception about the play at the mid levels (diamond to like mid masters or so). Yea there is some decision making and micro and multitasking that separates these players, but really the huge majority of the skill difference is just build orders and econ management.... macro. For a strategy to play out properly, you need near perfect execution and a very full understanding of the game for it to work. For example: making hellions is not a strat. Taking a gold base is not a strat. Making 6 barracks and hitting a huge stim medi timing is not a strat. BUT, if you make early hellions to secure the map, use your map control to secure the gold, use the gold to secure enough income to produce out of 6 rax and then hit a timing attack designed to deny your opponents third base while taking your natural, then you start having something that resembles a strat. Doing this is HARD AS SHIT. Only the best players execute strategies well. I really found have found that basically high diamond is the cut off point where you have enough basic understanding of the game to start trying to put together a strat.
idn, seems like you are misunderstanding the skill difference between bronze- mid masters, and misunderstanding exactly what a strat is. I believe unit comp falls under macro doesn't it? I really doubt anyone in the lower leagues is losing to an even half way decently executed strategy, so why would you discuss them?
I know its really boring (I've played hundred if not thousands of vs AI games just perfecting builds) but you really need good mechanics (or at least decent) before you can worry about strategy
Gold here. All the answers in this thread are great but I believe one critical thing is overlooked and it doesn't even apply only to SC2:
The more specific a question the more detailed an explanation can be given without losing the plot. If you ask what you did wrong in a match and your macro is not good then it will be pointed out since that IS actually the correct answer and was the overwhelming reason.
If you fail a test what is the answer you are given by the teacher? Simply you didn't study enough and that is the truth 95% of the time.
Not a perfect example but compare that with a thread worthy question that could sound like this: "At 12:54 in the replay we had basically the same value army. I knew I had to engage here since this was my only chance to have superior positioning. But I was wiped. I do not understand how I should flank the army in this position..." Then maybe throw in another example replay. Make some screenshots and ask for some tips on different maps. If someone then comes and says: "Macro More!" then that is not answering the question. Maybe we Golds don't really understand good positioning and we start to practice this while we still focus on macro (and know that we have to macro better) making the original question valid.
Hell my post count shows that if you use the search function there might never be a need to ask questions until you reach masters. Then if you do ask questions and you could find the answer if you tried then you will have to take the "Macro-better" pill.
I have improved greatly by really taking the generic macro-better advice to heart, reading the recommended threads sticky in the Strategy Forum and watching day 9. Peace.
It really seems like you guys are missing the OP's point. He realises that macro is probably the number one reason why people those. That said given two people of roughly equal macro ability, then strategy can have an effect.
I'm a platinum player (floating around rank 8 to 11), APM not very high, macro sometimes passable, sometimes really shitty.
Versus protoss I 1:1:1, and usually win, however if P does a different strategy, say 1 gate expands, i find it much much harder. Here strategy is having an effect on a relatively low level game.
Lets take another example, i am constantly practising 16 1,1 marine drop vs Z. It is a very tough build because if you slip at all your drop is delayed and they get mutas out. The main thing that kills me is if they econ 2 base baneling bust. To even get the build out on time my macro has to be very good, so any more isnt necessarily going to stop a baneling bust. What can do is a better understanding of scouting, how to tell hes going for a 2 base econ bust, etc. These things are not macro related.
Strategy is interesting, i like trying something different strategy wise even if its not executed perfectly.
On October 06 2011 20:48 Sm3agol wrote: Watch Destiny beat tanks, thors, High templar, etc, with queens, even vs people that were trying to stream snipe him, and knew what he was doing, and would still lose.
People often bring up Destiny's "experiment" in this context - "Destiny got to master's massing queens", etc - but I've seen those vods and Destiny actually did not reach very far with his mass queen macro build. In fact, I think he abandoned the notion in gold or even silver, taking back his own words about reaching plat or diamond through mass queens (i.e through macro only).
This post makes no sense. You're saying you don't like to be told to macro better when you alone state at the same time you would have won most of your games if you had. Well, it's pretty obvious then isn't it?
But instead of staying in that zone, you immediately jump to excuse mode and bombard yourself with the WHAT IF's. What if my opponent macroes just as good as I do? What if he microes better?
We can grab all those excuses and simplify them into this:
WHAT IF MY OPPONENT IS BETTER THAN I AM?
And the answer is:
A) You cry like 99% of ladder players, crumble under self-induced pressure and suck, learn nothing from the event, ragequit and uninstall sc2 B) You relax, try your best and take it easy when you lose. Sometimes, you will surprise yourself and win the match. Congratulations, you've learned and grown!
In any case...don't forget it's a game, and don't forget you have the power to actually IGNORE what you're being told. God, everyone is just so sensitive to everything these days. You guys would melt with scbw's legendary trashtalk on the USEast server.
There's a reason every looks down on low tier players, and just tell them to macro(and micro) better, and not worry about strategies as much. Multiple top tier players have shown that that you can basically do WHATEVER you want at low levels, and as long as your macro and mechanics are good, you will win most of the time regardless of unit composition. Players have 4 gated, 6 pooled, mass queened, mass marined, etc all the way to diamond and sometimes even masters, just by simply outproducing and out microing their opponents. Watch Destiny beat tanks, thors, High templar, etc, with queens, even vs people that were trying to stream snipe him, and knew what he was doing, and would still lose. That's why high level players say ignore strategies and unit compositions for right now.....because IT DOESN'T MATTER. If you're worrying about unit compositions while you have 3k minerals at 15 minutes into the game, you're worrying about the wrong thing. Having 4 less stalkers and having 3 more zealots and 2 more sentries instead just might possibly win you the game. Converting the 1500 minerals you have at the 10 minute mark to stalkers, and it wouldn't matter what composition you had, you're going to rofl-stomp your opponent.
i want to see a pro win vs fast DT playing zerg without a base trade and without getting any detection at all that's the things lower players have problems with, better macro wont help at all. Getting an overseer/spore crawler/infestor helps
The main stumbling block for the 'macro more' phrase is that most low level players might think it only means to make more units. But SC2 is geared towards macro play anyway so it's as good a line as 'get better at the game'.
I think people need to write down their definition of 'macro' and then look up what it really means. Kind of like the whole 'meta game' definition battle that went on a couple of weeks ago.
I guess you could say macro is getting to the tactic or strategy of your choice, Micro is executing said strategy once your macro has built it. You can't 'strategy' your opponent to death. You can Micro him to death, but at the low levels it'll help to macro him instead.
I think the OP might have been saying that improving macro is like, permanently implied, and that lesser players might actually wanna know if, in the context of the actual game, they could have tried a different opening perhaps, or NOT have attempted some kind of push that they did, or even just something fun and new to try.
It's frustrating to hear the same advice over and over, and even if it is important, sometimes the less-skilled want to hear something else.
There's a reason every looks down on low tier players, and just tell them to macro(and micro) better, and not worry about strategies as much. Multiple top tier players have shown that that you can basically do WHATEVER you want at low levels, and as long as your macro and mechanics are good, you will win most of the time regardless of unit composition. Players have 4 gated, 6 pooled, mass queened, mass marined, etc all the way to diamond and sometimes even masters, just by simply outproducing and out microing their opponents. Watch Destiny beat tanks, thors, High templar, etc, with queens, even vs people that were trying to stream snipe him, and knew what he was doing, and would still lose. That's why high level players say ignore strategies and unit compositions for right now.....because IT DOESN'T MATTER. If you're worrying about unit compositions while you have 3k minerals at 15 minutes into the game, you're worrying about the wrong thing. Having 4 less stalkers and having 3 more zealots and 2 more sentries instead just might possibly win you the game. Converting the 1500 minerals you have at the 10 minute mark to stalkers, and it wouldn't matter what composition you had, you're going to rofl-stomp your opponent.
i want to see a pro win vs fast DT playing zerg without a base trade and without getting any detection at all that's the things lower players have problems with, better macro wont help at all. Getting an overseer/spore crawler/infestor helps
Obviously there are holes in just saying macro better. Bringing up cloaked units isn't actually proving you point too well though... almost everyone who plays Zerg should have detection built into their build to fend of 2 port banshee and DT openings. All I did to go from bronze to diamond in two months was know basic army compositions, watch vods of pros, try to keep my money as low as possible and strive to become better by playing X amount of games per day.
I would say the biggest reason for jumping up so fast was due to focusing on my macro above all else and learning tidbits of strategy and timings along the way. Also when I say macro, I mean not getting supply blocked, constantly producing workers, expanding at the correct times, and keeping your money low.
I think macro should always be the #1 priority at the start while eventually deliberately practicing micro and reading strategy from liquipedia (listening to some casters can also help your game knowlege of certain matchups).
Either way, this is a game of economics first and foremost, if you can't gain money quick enough and spend it quick enough without worrying about micro, scouting, strategy, etc, then just think of how much harder it becomes after adding all that other stuff into your mental to do list.
EDIT: By the way, my macro (while multitasking) still blows and is still the main thing holding me back from being master level player.
I actually kind of agree with the guys that wrote this post. I am high plat toss player, and i am working on my macro a lot currently, knowing that it is very important aspect of the game. I consider myself to have a pretty good macro, not master level yet, but i can keep my mineral low pretty much all game long except if i am like on 5 bases super late game. (of course i try to produce what is the best against what my opponent is doing)
BUT, high plat and low diamond players are all cheesing me. I swear it'S worse than bronze league, every game (8 in a row now) i got either, 2 gate, cannon rushed, 6 pool, roach ling all ined( i usually dont have a probleme with that but still...), 11 pool, 1-1-1.
Now yes i know, scouting, scouting, scouting. But my point is you need to be able to defend those kind of things ( and i consider myself realy bad at doing so xD ) even if you are in diamond/plat/gold league. It'S not something that can be solved with macro atleast not in my opinnion.
my point is - even if you could have had 5 more mutalisks with better macro, a-click into upgraded archons will still kill them and lose you the game. Same goes for mass ling bling into a wall of forcefields, corruptors against void rays in equal numbers etc if you don't know how to sim city and place forcefields, you can FFE and have perfect macro and still lose every single time vs any allin/push
there are so many points where you need additional experience/knowledge or you will simply lose. Pros playing with only one unit does prove nothing, they still have excellent scouting, really good micro, they know what to expect when etc take that away from them and they suddenly suck as well, even with good macro
First of all, im not sure this thread fits in the TL strategy section. I dont see how youre talking about any sort of strategy in the op.
Secondly, i think that you are failing to remember that ever master/gm was once a noob bronze player too. When we say "macro better", it's not that we dont understant your situation. It's because we understand your situation that we say that. Macro better IS the best advice we can give to ppl who are not amazing at multitasking and who havent mastered all the game mechanics yet.
Thirdly, macroing does not simply imply making probes and pylons and keeping your money low. Macroing implies building units when youre not looking at your base (being able to stare at ur main and make units all day long is pretty useless). It also implies knowing the optimal amount of buildings for x number of bases and y number of probes. Macroing implies knowing the righ time to build this and the right time to build that. Say your strat is doig a two base timing push while taking your third for example. If you cant macro, your timing push will be too weak or too late. Even when all-in ing you need to know how to macro to some extent. The only all-ins that dont include macro per say woul be 2 rax scv all in, canon rush, 6 pool, proxy two gate.
On October 06 2011 23:02 AimlessAmoeba wrote: It's frustrating to hear the same advice over and over, and even if it is important, sometimes the less-skilled want to hear something else.
This is just the mentality that is holding them back. Practicing mechanics deliberately is hard work, but it is fundamental to the game.
It's like a would-be pitcher wanting to learn how to throw curve balls when he can't even reach the plate half of the time. It would be utterly irresponsible for anyone to teach how to throw a curve before the student can accurately throw the ball on a mark every single time.
Likewise, it is wrong to try to talk about the specifics of a matchup to a player who habitually floats 1000 minerals. You focus all his energy and focus on fixing that before you would even consider looking at anything else.
Fundamentals are fundamental, and the difference between pros and amateur is not the flashy stuff, but rock-solid fundamentals. If someone resents hearing that they have weak fundamentals, it betrays quite a bit of their attitude and mentality regarding the game.
On October 06 2011 23:19 Cirqueenflex wrote: my point is - even if you could have had 5 more mutalisks with better macro, a-click into upgraded archons will still kill them and lose you the game. Same goes for mass ling bling into a wall of forcefields, corruptors against void rays in equal numbers etc if you don't know how to sim city and place forcefields, you can FFE and have perfect macro and still lose every single time vs any allin/push
there are so many points where you need additional experience/knowledge or you will simply lose. Pros playing with only one unit does prove nothing, they still have excellent scouting, really good micro, they know what to expect when etc take that away from them and they suddenly suck as well, even with good macro
You are still missing the point, no one said to macro and just a-move. Mutalisks are a horrible example to use too, because in ZvP mutas are used no in direct confrontations whatsoever (not until you HAVE to). They are used to poke and prod their base and keep them stuck at home. I think anyone can make up the examples you are trying to say. What if I make 30 more lings against only zealot archon and a move...macro wouldn't help me here.
The matter at hand is that low level players still 1 base carrier rush or do random builds that are bad. I've watched a ton of replays of bronze to gold level players building nonsensical units and don't have the ability to know what the go-to army compositions are in each match up. Most people who are looking to develop at a faster rate are going to find out the army compositions before playing a single game and are going to try to play pro styles while learning to macro as well as possible.
Plexa got it right. Why not say micro better if we're just trying to help them win? It's been shown by various pros that you can also cheese your way to GM or even GSL code S. "Macro better" is just an elitist way of saying "derp, you're bad" unless it's actually the only reason the game was lost.
i love macro better cause thats why whenever i have a problem i know theres little i gain by looking for things to help me i just play more and get better
I disagree that telling someone in silver league that he has bad macro is the only/best advice you can give because its simply not helping at all to tell them something they already know but cant fix easily.
Sometimes its the only thing you can say because if you didnt make any big blunders except that you were floating 2k / 1k and your opponent wasnt, that is the reason you lost.
Or if you have a replay of a game where everything is normal until you a-move infestors into siegetanks and ask what your mistake was of course you will get 10 people telling you your micro sucks , not very helpful but its to be expected if you ask the wrong questions.
But other than that its basically like saying get back to me when you have diamond mechanics until then just mass zealots or something who cares.
There's a reason every looks down on low tier players, and just tell them to macro(and micro) better, and not worry about strategies as much. Multiple top tier players have shown that that you can basically do WHATEVER you want at low levels, and as long as your macro and mechanics are good, you will win most of the time regardless of unit composition. Players have 4 gated, 6 pooled, mass queened, mass marined, etc all the way to diamond and sometimes even masters, just by simply outproducing and out microing their opponents. Watch Destiny beat tanks, thors, High templar, etc, with queens, even vs people that were trying to stream snipe him, and knew what he was doing, and would still lose. That's why high level players say ignore strategies and unit compositions for right now.....because IT DOESN'T MATTER. If you're worrying about unit compositions while you have 3k minerals at 15 minutes into the game, you're worrying about the wrong thing. Having 4 less stalkers and having 3 more zealots and 2 more sentries instead just might possibly win you the game. Converting the 1500 minerals you have at the 10 minute mark to stalkers, and it wouldn't matter what composition you had, you're going to rofl-stomp your opponent.
i want to see a pro win vs fast DT playing zerg without a base trade and without getting any detection at all that's the things lower players have problems with, better macro wont help at all. Getting an overseer/spore crawler/infestor helps
Obviously there are holes in just saying macro better. Bringing up cloaked units isn't actually proving you point too well though... almost everyone who plays Zerg should have detection built into their build to fend of 2 port banshee and DT openings. All I did to go from bronze to diamond in two months was know basic army compositions, watch vods of pros, try to keep my money as low as possible and strive to become better by playing X amount of games per day.
I would say the biggest reason for jumping up so fast was due to focusing on my macro above all else and learning tidbits of strategy and timings along the way. Also when I say macro, I mean not getting supply blocked, constantly producing workers, expanding at the correct times, and keeping your money low.
I think macro should always be the #1 priority at the start while eventually deliberately practicing micro and reading strategy from liquipedia (listening to some casters can also help your game knowlege of certain matchups).
Either way, this is a game of economics first and foremost, if you can't gain money quick enough and spend it quick enough without worrying about micro, scouting, strategy, etc, then just think of how much harder it becomes after adding all that other stuff into your mental to do list.
EDIT: By the way, my macro (while multitasking) still blows and is still the main thing holding me back from being master level player.
But the thing is that these lower level players as zerg don't know to have detection. They don't necessarily know the right army compositions. I totally agree that this is a game of economics, but you need to be able to focus those mechanics in the right direction.
"Macro Properly" also encompasses the unit mix that you're creating.
Any properly executed macro build has a target composition to acquire, as well as properly timed (in the case of Zerg, which I play) scouting, lair/evo chamber timing (for detection and tier 2), upgrade timing, and hive timing.
So when Silver Player A asks "what could I have done better" after losing to tank/marine with 5 roaches, 3 banelings and 25 zerglings at 9 minutes. And Masters Player B responds "macro better", it's a very vague response and is not helpful to the Silver Player at all. The proper response would be something like "You missed your 3rd inject on both your queens, and you're floating 1000 minerals, but you're only on one gas. You need to take a second gas earlier, and don't miss those 2 injects, you could have easily won that game if you'd had 10 more banelings and 34 zerglings that those missed injects cost you."
You might also see a game where Silver Player C loses to tank/marine at 15 minutes, because all he has is 20 roaches. "Macro better" is not going to help him in this case, because he's making the wrong unit to deal with tank marine. In this case, you're helping him macro better if you tell him the standard ZvT unit composition, and that is "Muta/ling/bling" or one of the "Infestor/Ling/upgrade" compositions out there. Direct him to a Mutabling build, and remind him not to miss injects/overlords.
Tl;Dr "Macro Better" doesn't help if the unit composition is incorrect. You can help a player "macro better" when you tell them what build they SHOULD have chosen, and also point out the supply blocks, late buildings, and missed injects/mules/chronoboosts.
I agree with OP and I get mad when people ignore their posts and say to macro better. You don't just ignore important parts of the game and work on one thing blindly. Making your macro better will always make you better, but somethings there are more important things. Some player could be waiting until the 20 minute mark to attack every game and you could be telling him to macro better without looking.
The whole "macro better" comment is really just a straight up "don't post until you're diamond". At bronze to gold level, "macro better" really means "be better at the game". I doubt you'll find anyone asking for help by saying "I just lost this bronze league game, do you think I should be better?"
Surely, if people respond to a help thread saying "well your decision making and unit composition were spot on, but he simply outplayed you", then great, tell the OP to be better. I just don't think that the advice for struggling bronze league players is "get out of bronze league".
As a lower level player myself, I find that working on macro can be daunting when you don't have an overlying strategy in mind. It helps to have an idea of what you want to do going in to a game. Learning some openings and builds really helped my macro a lot. When things are timed out and you follow a build, you are required to build pylon/depot/overlord at certain times. This sort of timing helped me tons to remember to get pylons and probes and such (although I still slip pretty easily )
I think the reason that lower-league players get frustrated with the phrase "Macro better" is two things:
1. They don't understand what it means
and 2. They are looking for a magic bullet to fix their problems
A lot of people who try to get better at things look for easy solutions. "Macro better" doesn't sound like an easy solution to them. It sounds like it takes a lot of work (and it does).
I'm just a Bronze noob and I know that I need to "Macro better" but that doesn't mean that it isn't frustrating to be told "Well if you had 30 more food worth of army, it wouldn't have mattered that you a-moved your army into a siege line" when I am struggling just to get the army that I had at that point.
So that's probably what is causing a lot of frustration, at least from my perspective.
I do agree that "Macro better" is the solution 85-90% of the time (barring obvious counters like making a 200/200 food Phoenix army, which is a ridiculous example anyway).
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 started in Bronze in season 1 and 2 (not many games season 1) and am in Platinum now, only because I switched to Zerg BECAUSE i was following a plan and executing it over and over and over and working on my macro. (spanishiwa)
Many lower-leage player confuse strategy with "suprises" and gimmicks. Going DTs is not a strategy. Just doing a drop is not a strategy. Going for a specific unit-composition is not a strategy. Having a game-plan and being able to adjust it on-the-fly comes much closer to strategy - and this relies on macro. Strategy has to do with possibilites of yourself, your enemy, adaption, timings and reactions, and all these become meaningless if the players don't macro properly.
I would generally agree with this but a lot of strategery relies on macro until a certain point and then micro. Can anyone else remember BFH opening into 8marine + BFH drop? + Show Spoiler +
this was a joke, sorry
You shouldn't think of strategy as some sort of silver bullet. Strategy might help you "immediately" in your next ladder game, but only in that specific situation, whereas practicing macro will improve your overall game. Besides, you can find plenty of strategy in threads started on TL. If you can't find strategy that applies to your level, the answer is to get to the level of the strategy threads currently existing first.
If you look at strategy as dependent on macro, strategy will never help you with your next ladder game, but it will help you with games 50 down the road.
Now for my content <3
For a strategy to play out properly, you need near perfect execution and a very full understanding of the game for it to work.
This is why I would recommend builds like a 4gate, a 3rax, or a 7RR in early leagues. Not because they're cheesy and they get you wins, but because they help you understand what you can get away with. A bad analogy is when i was playing SQUADRON TOWER DEFENSE and just did one thing and figured out what i could do to optimize the "build." The same concept goes for Starcraft II proper. You learn how to execute a build, and if you macro it well, you will understand the basic components of macro and places where you can get away with extra or where you need to do less of a specific thing. But you're not only learning the specific build when you're doing these- you're learning your race's macro mechanics, as to optimize it you must use them to the fullest extent of their abilities.
extra stuff that fits in, but isn't as directly relevant + Show Spoiler +
As only a plat myself, I know my macro needs work, which is why the first game I play when I log in every day is a macro drill. My fastest max time is 11:10 but I'm sure it can be faster if a better player were playing. Macro is the foundation to everything in Starcraft. Don't think that it doesn't matter, that strategies are good or whatever. Strats are dependent on macro-oriented execution. Having a lot of silver-level friends who say their macro is good always makes me cringe. I say to them every time- I don't have good macro, and I'm two leagues above you. If I don't, then you don't. Whenever I watch the reps, I get after them for telling me that a) their injects were good when each queen has 75 energy b) they spent their money well when they're floating a few k minerals c) play smoothly when they constantly get supply blocked.
Poll: What is most important for lower level players to work on (bronze-gold
Macro (34)
97%
"strategy" (read silver bullet) (1)
3%
Micro (0)
0%
Other, please define <3 (0)
0%
35 total votes
Your vote: What is most important for lower level players to work on (bronze-gold
i think its different for all the races. i play terran and the first thing i notice when i watch lower level terran players is that their builds are usually bad. you can macro all you want but you need a good build and a good plan to really have any effectiveness. I think for terran builds are extremely important more so than the other races a bit. only because of tech labs, reactors, bunkers and stuff. you need to be precise with what your doing. I once saw a platinum player open two rax with reactors against protoss with only one marine out , then just died to the first zealot stalker poke.
i think for zerg its ok to tell lower level players to just macro better. often i would play a lower level zerg and find that he made too many lings to start or put down way too many spine crawlers and then was behind the rest of the game. In that way it makes sense to just say "work on your macro".
There's a reason every looks down on low tier players, and just tell them to macro(and micro) better, and not worry about strategies as much. Multiple top tier players have shown that that you can basically do WHATEVER you want at low levels, and as long as your macro and mechanics are good, you will win most of the time regardless of unit composition. Players have 4 gated, 6 pooled, mass queened, mass marined, etc all the way to diamond and sometimes even masters, just by simply outproducing and out microing their opponents. Watch Destiny beat tanks, thors, High templar, etc, with queens, even vs people that were trying to stream snipe him, and knew what he was doing, and would still lose. That's why high level players say ignore strategies and unit compositions for right now.....because IT DOESN'T MATTER. If you're worrying about unit compositions while you have 3k minerals at 15 minutes into the game, you're worrying about the wrong thing. Having 4 less stalkers and having 3 more zealots and 2 more sentries instead just might possibly win you the game. Converting the 1500 minerals you have at the 10 minute mark to stalkers, and it wouldn't matter what composition you had, you're going to rofl-stomp your opponent.
i want to see a pro win vs fast DT playing zerg without a base trade and without getting any detection at all that's the things lower players have problems with, better macro wont help at all. Getting an overseer/spore crawler/infestor helps
Obviously there are holes in just saying macro better. Bringing up cloaked units isn't actually proving you point too well though... almost everyone who plays Zerg should have detection built into their build to fend of 2 port banshee and DT openings. All I did to go from bronze to diamond in two months was know basic army compositions, watch vods of pros, try to keep my money as low as possible and strive to become better by playing X amount of games per day.
I would say the biggest reason for jumping up so fast was due to focusing on my macro above all else and learning tidbits of strategy and timings along the way. Also when I say macro, I mean not getting supply blocked, constantly producing workers, expanding at the correct times, and keeping your money low.
I think macro should always be the #1 priority at the start while eventually deliberately practicing micro and reading strategy from liquipedia (listening to some casters can also help your game knowlege of certain matchups).
Either way, this is a game of economics first and foremost, if you can't gain money quick enough and spend it quick enough without worrying about micro, scouting, strategy, etc, then just think of how much harder it becomes after adding all that other stuff into your mental to do list.
EDIT: By the way, my macro (while multitasking) still blows and is still the main thing holding me back from being master level player.
But the thing is that these lower level players as zerg don't know to have detection. They don't necessarily know the right army compositions. I totally agree that this is a game of economics, but you need to be able to focus those mechanics in the right direction.
But that is an easy fix. It is called working detection into your build. We can nitpick losing a game because of no detection or because of lack of scouting too. Overall, the main problem is the fact that people don't build enough workers, get supply blocked and can't spend their money due to not enough production facilities.
Having a basic understanding of gameflow and gameplay helps, being able to read up about strategies on liquipedia and get a good build for each matchup and macroing your ass off is going to work more than learning how to perfectly blink micro etc.
Lower-level players see "macro better" as a cop-out, but it is THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF THE ENTIRE GAME.
EVERYBODY can macro better, and it should always be THE thing you're working on ALWAYS.
The problem as a low-level player is that you have no baseline so you can't tweak small things. Well, get one!
When my low-level friends ask me how to get better at Starcraft, I don't tell them to macro better. I suggest they play 20-30 games, then get me 2 or 3 replays of game's they lost and we'll pick out 1 or 2 things to work on like "making sure I never get supply blocked". You work on that one detail for literally 3 days until you have fixed it, then you move on to the next small detail. This is how you "macro better" in the long term.
Those small things are part of the "macro better" cop-out, but it's what makes the whole game.
Doing cool marine-splits is neat and all, but it doesn't really mean anything if you have 4 marines and your opponent has 24 zerglings.
On October 07 2011 00:27 RedMosquito wrote: i think its different for all the races. i play terran and the first thing i notice when i watch lower level terran players is that their builds are usually bad. you can macro all you want but you need a good build and a good plan to really have any effectiveness. I think for terran builds are extremely important more so than the other races a bit. only because of tech labs, reactors, bunkers and stuff. you need to be precise with what your doing. I once saw a platinum player open two rax with reactors against protoss with only one marine out , then just died to the first zealot stalker poke.
i think for zerg its ok to tell lower level players to just macro better. often i would play a lower level zerg and find that he made too many lings to start or put down way too many spine crawlers and then was behind the rest of the game. In that way it makes sense to just say "work on your macro".
Well you could tell the first player that he needs a bunker if he wants a fast reactor and using 2 reactors early isnt a very good choice. The Zergs need to make less static defense or dont make too many lings early because they dont help against 1 base terran as he has a wallin. Pretty easy things to fix in both cases, I dont see the big difference. That would probably help out more than saying "your macro is bad" I would think.
I'm a low level player and while I definitely agree "macro better" is always something that needs to be done, it's not necessarily the only reason a person lost. For example, I may lose because I failed to scout a roach ling all-in in response to my FFE. I didn't lose because my macro sucked; I lost because I played greedy by building only 1 cannon and didn't scout. Plenty of low level games end with copied timing attacks that while are much weaker compared to the real deal can still win games against the right strategy. What if I lose to a 2 rax when I do a 1 gate FE? Even at the highest level, this is essentially a build order loss; the 2 rax is going to do enough damage to eventually win the game if not winning right then and there. Protoss not having a robo when his opponent went cloaked banshee is another instant build order loss. Of course, Protoss should've scouted the marine count and assumed tech, but this is scouting and game knowledge, not macro. I've also played people with simply superior micro. In the typical 1 zealot, 1 stalker battle, I once lost both of my units and he kept both of his; this ended up costing me the game. Are you really going to say if my macro was better, I would've won that despite having 5 stalkers at 5:45 after losing my first 2 units?
Yes, in the end, all low level games are lost due to macro, or rather, inferior mechanics. However, there are still things that low level players can be told such that they won't lose in the same way again. Otherwise, we might as well only allow masters level players and higher to ask for help and have a notice to all low level players saying to "work on your mechanics."
hm, difficult topic... I can understand that lower league players think like that, but here is why I think that it is important that you learn to macro better, before you ask "what strategy should I use in this scenario": Every strategy that works is viable in Starcraft, but a lot of times you will find people asking things like: "I'm playing baneling/muta but I can't stop 2base marine/tank pushes. Should I play something else?" Well, no. Muta/bling is capable of holding marine/tank pushes, you simply have to macro better, so you have more stuff overall. Or: "how to engage with a 6gate" and then the replay shows that the protoss player could easily win, but is always late on his warp ins and the 6gate is 2mins too late...
Every time I help someone who is a lower league I do tell them to know the popular strats that people try to copy and play at their level. However, you have to realize that the lower you are in the league ladder, the more economy and macro become a staple of how well you are going to do. While I agree that macro can not be something improved overnight, it is something that should be one, if not the, main focuses (foci?) that you improve on the most.
I do agree that macro isn't the only thing that causes a lower league player to lose and there are tips that can be taught to lower league players to help improve their game that don't involve macro. Like "set up your units here to block potential early reapers" or "if they siege up here, you can take this route to flank" or whatever. Again, I agree that sometimes macro won't save you if your opponent goes DTs really quickly and you are caught completely unprepared due to lack of scouting or whatever. However, macro is still should be the top thing you work on.
I say that because many times I am given a replay from a lower league player asking how they can beat X strategy. A lot of the time after watching the game it's clear that more units could of been there and could have won them the game. The easiest improvements to make, in my opinion, when I watch my own play is when I realize that I can have a certain number more of a certain unit when my opponents push comes if I just refined my macro a little bit or I could have more of something if I just of kept my worker production up. The times that you lose to a strategy straight up are usually strategies like cloak banshee, DTs, RR and things of that sort. On the contrary though people will ask "I can't beat chargelot archon here's my replay." and only to find out that chargelot archon isn't the problem, but it's the fact that you only have this many workers when you should have this so you only have 2/3 of the units you should or you don't have enough production to support your income so you're floating resources that could be spent into army/tech. Again, I know you can not improve those things overnight but there is little advice you can give players who have bad macro but want to focus more on micro, unit compositions and more "fun" aspects of the game. I guess I could tell you how you can deal with his chargelot archon army the best way possible with your current army comp and army amount but to me that doesn't really get the main point across in which lower league players need to learn which is macro. I always constantly bug lower league players to work on macro because if they don't hear it enough or understand the importance then they never contribute it to a loss but rather things like micro. Not saying you can't lose a lower league game because of micro but it has been shown time and time and time again that solid macro alone can get you to diamond/masters on NA.
Yes you can work on your slam dunk if you'd like but not many people will want to play with you if you can't dribble or pass the basketball well.
People used to hate on SC:BW because it was "90% robot clicking and 10% REAL STRATEGY."
Well, 99% of real strategy is being able to do the strategy in itself. It doesn't matter if you've been learning Jiu Jitsu for 15 years if you can't lift up your arms to fight, right? That's what macro is the first step of: the ability to move.
In the translated words of NaDa: "APM is a measure of how quickly you can paint your picture on the canvas of the map." (In this case APM is synonymous with Macro... seeing as it was Broodwar and you needed 150 apm to be even slightly competent at macro on 3+ bases)
Often times I see friends in lower leagues pull off INSANE tactics that should by all rights be game ending. Crippling blows like killing a dozen pylons with a single marauder drop... and then I see them get splattered because the other player simply builds the pylons back up and rolls them... because they have minerals banked or got supply blocked a half dozen times.
If you can't lift a finger, how can you try to feint a punch -> parry -> counter?
When someone tells you to macro better they're telling you to learn how to move. And it's damn hard teaching someone how to move xD
There's a reason every looks down on low tier players, and just tell them to macro(and micro) better, and not worry about strategies as much. Multiple top tier players have shown that that you can basically do WHATEVER you want at low levels, and as long as your macro and mechanics are good, you will win most of the time regardless of unit composition. Players have 4 gated, 6 pooled, mass queened, mass marined, etc all the way to diamond and sometimes even masters, just by simply outproducing and out microing their opponents. Watch Destiny beat tanks, thors, High templar, etc, with queens, even vs people that were trying to stream snipe him, and knew what he was doing, and would still lose. That's why high level players say ignore strategies and unit compositions for right now.....because IT DOESN'T MATTER. If you're worrying about unit compositions while you have 3k minerals at 15 minutes into the game, you're worrying about the wrong thing. Having 4 less stalkers and having 3 more zealots and 2 more sentries instead just might possibly win you the game. Converting the 1500 minerals you have at the 10 minute mark to stalkers, and it wouldn't matter what composition you had, you're going to rofl-stomp your opponent.
i want to see a pro win vs fast DT playing zerg without a base trade and without getting any detection at all that's the things lower players have problems with, better macro wont help at all. Getting an overseer/spore crawler/infestor helps
There is a big issue with your post - you are using a very specific issue to try and support your point. And if a lower level player worries about detection / cheese and "strategies" to counter them, then that can be holding them back.
The advice I give to low level players if they lose to something specific is to just shrug it off. This is because trying to do something fancy to counter it (instead of macroing better) leads to worse results in the long run.
Thus, the advice "macro better" applies in all cases.
What it comes down to... any "fun" strategy that you want to do in bronze league up to grand masters has to have a foundation in macro .... there's no logic in making them mutually exclusive.. Whatever cool strategy you are trying to pull off simply wont work if you are supply blocked and it makes no difference what league you are in or if the opponent has the "same level" macro as you (which makes almost no sense to begin with )
If you really have the attitude that you find clicking 4sdddd is soo boring then this simply is not the game for you . Nothing wrong with that of course but you are never going to enjoy the game if you don't have a passion for the basic mechanics of solid strategy.
Macro is the most important thing for lower level players to work on, but to tell them that they shouldn't even ask questions on strategy is not helpful at all. Watching a master's level player win vs low level players with dumb strategies DOES NOT prove that only macro is needed. It simply shows that a player that is 100 times better than another player can win through mechanics.
But remember that the opposing player has bad macro too. If it is a ZvT and the Zerg has 1500 minerals at 8 minutes in the game and loses to a 1 base marine marauder medivac all in, you don't say LOL MACRO BETTER NOOOB ONLY MACRO IS IMPORTANT UNTIL GRANDMASTER LEVEL!!! You look at the replay and see that Terran was floating 2000 minerals and that clearly Zerg was not being bested mechanically. However you do see the Zerg making slow lings and roaches to try and win, and you realise why he lost. Then, you tell the Zerg to go mass sling bling and crush the force.
I think the way to approach the "macro better" is to add on the one additional requirement: scout.
Most low level players that can't figure out why "macro better" wins are the players who play the game solely looking in their main, then move out with a 200/200 army.
If you try to reactively macro (defend your main, make workers, do not get supply blocked, make units - AND scout) you will have reached the mythical plateau of "macroing into diamond+"
The real concept here is that while you're making units, scout what is going on. You can never leave your base, make as many units on 3 base as you want, and move out if you've scouted their army and countered appropriately- and you will crush a player that could not macro the same. Tactics aside, if they can't make as many units, you will destroy them.
When a player reaches this level, they are considered to have figured out the concept of macro, and then they start working on the little things like cute harass techniques, better micro, two-base all ins, etc. edit; These are all done once they have figured out the ability to, as day9 put it best, "always be making more stuff."
If you addend the words "and scout" to macro better you will actually see why the concept of out-macroing wins you games nearly all the time.
In silver and gold league, the macro of both players is imperfect, else neither of them would be in silver or gold league. One could assume that both players have about equal macro. (If a gold player would play against a diamond player, things would be differently of course).
This would be the case where strategy and build order start to kick in. If in a TvP the terran 1-1-1 all-ins since he has seen this on some tournament. He would most likely not have the same execution of Puma for example. He would have less marines, get supply blocked etcetera.
Thus it can be stopped, even if the protoss in question has imperfect macro. The thing is, if he does not know how to stop it, he can't.
And YES one solution is to macro better, but this cannot be done overnight. If the other solution would be: get an extra sentry out instead of a stalker, use guardian shield instead of forcefields, delay the attack with a few stalkers, etc could be. Then he can hold off the 1-1-1 all in, of course, always work on improving a macro. But this he probably already knows...
Frustrating to hear yes, but the answer usually isnt gonna be a build that just straight up counters ur opponent unless ur losing to something gimicky. That being said, I have always been an advocate of "improving based on your level" meaning perfect 1 base play first then perfect 2 base play, dont do the fast expanding if ur not comfortable cause its detrimental to your play if u cannon have the drone/worker micro and or reads on your opponent to comfortably use it right. Also been as a zerg a huge advocate of the macro hatches which teach you to inject better plus are functionally good anyways.
When they tell you macro better its just not just 'macro' but mechanics generals. In the end, strategies/builds are a simple matter of remembering when to put down certain builds, it is Mechanics that you need to execute those strategy and win with them.
.: At lower levels I still say mechanics > strategy. I think destiny at some point did a special experiment, trying to beat bronze/silver players with just pure queens. For a strategy that's about as dumb as it gets but with decent mechanics, it still works vs people with no mechanics.
On October 06 2011 20:48 Sm3agol wrote: There's a reason every looks down on low tier players, and just tell them to macro(and micro) better, and not worry about strategies as much. Multiple top tier players have shown that that you can basically do WHATEVER you want at low levels, and as long as your macro and mechanics are good, you will win most of the time regardless of unit composition. Players have 4 gated, 6 pooled, mass queened, mass marined, etc all the way to diamond and sometimes even masters, just by simply outproducing and out microing their opponents. Watch Destiny beat tanks, thors, High templar, etc, with queens, even vs people that were trying to stream snipe him, and knew what he was doing, and would still lose. That's why high level players say ignore strategies and unit compositions for right now.....because IT DOESN'T MATTER. If you're worrying about unit compositions while you have 3k minerals at 15 minutes into the game, you're worrying about the wrong thing. Having 4 less stalkers and having 3 more zealots and 2 more sentries instead just might possibly win you the game. Converting the 1500 minerals you have at the 10 minute mark to stalkers, and it wouldn't matter what composition you had, you're going to rofl-stomp your opponent.
TLDR: It's not that strategy is bad, but improving macro will generate far better results than improving unit composition and tactics.
Congratulations, you are one of those ppl the OP was talking about even though you were trying not to be.
These players are NOT dia/master + and he *already acknowledged this*, saying it's not something you can improve overnight, although of course they try to.
So in the CONTEXT that these players are forever striving to improve their macro, it seems entirely reasonable that they should be wanting to improve their strategical knowledge too. Especially as it's the strategical aspect that's more fun than "4eee 5c wzzzssee"
It's pointless to be concerned with strategic decisions when neither you nor your opponent are properly executing on their strategy decisions. Strategy doesn't matter if you can't execute, it doesn't start to matter at all until the players start to execute fairly well.
We're not saying strategy doesn't matter at all, but it's the only response to a low level player who comes to the strategy forums to ask "why did I lose?" or "how could I have won?". In general, the answer is "Have more stuff by spending your money." Do they like to hear it? Apparently not, but it's the only reasonable answer.
Timings, for example, don't exist at low levels, because the crisp execution of play from both players required to have one player be strong consistently while the other is consistently weak doesn't exist. Instead, at low levels, the strategy is almost entirely guessing because people play badly, and make bad decisions, and execute poorly. For example, in masters, if you scout your opponent going fast double gas after one rax, you can be 95% sure he's doing a tech build, but at low levels, it's possible that he's just going bio and is going to have a lot of extra gas floating around because he's bad.
I'm a Master league Protoss (high Master at that) and all I do is just make sure I'm always producing out of my Gateways (basically using them as efficiently as possible, even before warp gate is done) and attack when I think I have enough units to do damage. I expand when my minerals allow it, and tech depending on what I see 99% of the time going the same composition in ever matchup.
Guess what? It's all in the macro bro. Don't ever make something a production facility if you aren't going to be using it and make sure to always use what you have whenever it can be possibly making something. Also learn to just attack when you have a decent amount of units and do some kind of harass if you ever think you are slightly behind (for example, warp prism harass a zerg mineral line). You also need to develop the very important skill of knowing when micro is more important than macro. This is something that come with experience, and although at my level I normally prioritize keeping units alive, mainly because I am quick enough to have it barely hurt my macro, do the opposite at low level play as that is the only way you will learn. Obviously always want to try and save large groups of units.
Another big tip... NEVER commit to an attack that can be too risky. Poking with your army and killing a few things here and there is always great, but you need to pull back if you think that you are pressing your luck. Try you absolute best to keep as many units alive as you can when you attack and do not be afraid to pull back to save some. Once again, try your best not to all-in (all-in plays are really bad in my opinion), and pull back when you begin pressing your luck. Attack to gain an advantage, not to completely destroy your enemy... unless of course you gain such an overwhelming advantage that it would be stupid not to just end it..
I know that it sounds too simple, but all you really need to do to get into Master league is just use your production facilities efficiently and spend your money. There is this common misconception that it takes a lot of skill to get into Master league when in reality anyone can get in as long as they just build things and attack.
I get annoyed when people talk about macro. In my view macro is only a piece of your mechanics and a low level player needs to improve his mechanics, not only his macro. You shouldn't be worrying about the minimum you can do to improve but the maximum potential.
Improving mechanics isn't just about playing, it's also about removing bad habits and doing this efficiently
On October 07 2011 00:08 Nemireck wrote: "Macro Properly" also encompasses the unit mix that you're creating. <snip> Tl;Dr "Macro Better" doesn't help if the unit composition is incorrect. You can help a player "macro better" when you tell them what build they SHOULD have chosen, and also point out the supply blocks, late buildings, and missed injects/mules/chronoboosts.
I kinda agree with this, although many people earlier in the thread have disassociated good macro from unit mixes. I'm inclined to agree with them, its a Knowledge(what X counters his Y) and Information(is he building Y or Z this game) issue. But if you are going to give macro advice, specifics are always better.
The question is why should you use a bad strategy just because you have bad mechanics.
If you use a good strategy you cant execute it well at first but when you practice it, it will be effective and you might get wins right away because your opponents arent great either and maybe use a terrible strategy
Also someone said Destiny didnt get very far with mass queens and mass queens with good transfuses and creep spread ( which is easy with a ton of queens ) arent even that bad because how many silver players will feedback and EMP them and stuff.
I had a very long discussion about this with a few lower level friends. I finally figured out how to make it make sense. You have to address the issue of "What is Strategy?"
Strategy is the applied use of macro, micro, timing, and scouting in a decision making structure.
Macro is the most basic element in that equation. Several examples centered around a marine tank push opening vs Zerg in TvZ. 1) Push hits at 10:00 with 4 Tanks and 17 Marines. 2) Push hits at 10:00 with 2 Tanks and 10 Marines. 3) Push hits at 8:30 with 2 Tanks and 8 Marines. 4) Push hits at 8:30 with 3 Tanks and 13 Marines.
There is problems with 3 of these.
1 - Fairly good macro, you are hitting at the wrong timing though. You are going to have to deal with mutas that will be available for counters and/or to pick of tanks. If the Zerg has worse macro than you he will lose even if he already has mutas out.
2 - Bad macro and you are hitting at the wrong timing. You are going to most likely lose your army then be at a huge disadvantage.
3 - Bad macro but correct timing. The battle's result are completely out of you hands in this situation. Its up to the Zerg. If the Zerg macro'd correctly he will automatically win even if he made the wrong units. If he has subpar micro and the correct units it will be a reset situatuion where its even and comes down to who "plays better." If he is awful at macro he will crumple to the fact that this timing is a very good one.
4 - Good macro combined with perfect timing. This is the first example where strategy happened. You hit with the largest force of the correct units at a timing that enemy is teching to mutas. You have the units needed to win the battle even if he macro'd perfectly and are hitting at a time that allows you a nice bit of time to hurt him. The only true counter to you doing this is for the Zerg to not do a 2 base muta strategy or to do something that messes up your build or push (clever counter attack).
Most Gold - Plat players are doing examples 2 and 3. Diamonds are doing number 1 and Masters number 4.
Read the examples and then read the bullet points on each. It is clear that Strategy is actually only important in the 4th example. In every other example the Timing or the Macro was off and the deciding factor became which player had better macro.
TL;DR = There is no Strategy without macro. Strategy is applied macro.
I'm gonna have to side with plexa on this one. It is true that macro is the most important aspect that a low level player should focus on, but he still needs a general sense of strategy, like what works and what doesn't work, to play out the game.
With my own example, when I first switched to sc2, my first 1-2 zvp games I just massed pure hydra because i did it in bw, and I was out macroing my opponent by a ton due to superior macro mechanics developed from years of playing zerg, but my hydra army was getting shredded by collossi/sentry/stalker even when I was 50 food ahead. Of course, having played for so many years, I adjusted instantly and tried other units, and started winning easily because of better macro, but a low level player who haven't played bw have no experience in this game, they may not be able to adjust their game play after 1-2 games, so they come here to ask for help. And although hydra vs collossi is an extreme example, a silver player who doesn't know collossi > hydra and instead focuses only on producing more hydra (macro) is gonna run into a wall. Again, extreme example.
I think what lower level players need to do is 1. get a general sense of how the game should be played out, not specific build orders, but a generic understanding of how this game should be played.
2. macro, macro, macro
3. when you hit high masters, start deviating from your generic build and try specific build orders, powered by your already developed macro habits.
Few days ago I read another help thread, a zerg asking about how to deal with collossi, when the true problem was that the zerg player tried to do too many things at the same time, he was getting many drones, getting a fast third, and trying to attack the protoss to deny P's third expansion with a silly small army. I told him that he should not be attacking when he's making drones, cuz obviously if you are making drones you are not making units, resulting in a weaker army. If he wants to get many drones, he should wait for his econ to kick in, out produce his opponent, then attack. This is a simple strategic advice that can improve his game right away. Now that said, at his level the most important thing to focus on is still macro, but that doesn't mean other advices won't help.
Edit: I think when people say strategy doesn't matter, they are talking about specific build orders, unit counters, and timing pushes, and they are correct, those things should not be focused on until high masters at least in my opinion. And from what I'm seeing on TL threads, those are the typical questions that lower level players love to ask, "how do I deal with collossi?", and it can be frustrating for a higher level player to give advice when the lower level player is supply blocked half the time. However, knowing what questions to ask comes from experience that lower level players don't have. "how do I deal with collossi?" rarely means collossi is the actual problem, it could be that the player just don't know how to play zerg in general, such as attacking with a small army while he is making a ton of drones, losing all the units to a superior enemy army and then have nothing to defend his new expansion.
On October 07 2011 01:56 Whitewing wrote: Timings, for example, don't exist at low levels, because the crisp execution of play from both players required to have one player be strong consistently while the other is consistently weak doesn't exist. Instead, at low levels, the strategy is almost entirely guessing because people play badly, and make bad decisions, and execute poorly. For example, in masters, if you scout your opponent going fast double gas after one rax, you can be 95% sure he's doing a tech build, but at low levels, it's possible that he's just going bio and is going to have a lot of extra gas floating around because he's bad.
Timings always exist. I believe you are talking about preplanned timing attacks used to kill a certain strategy. These might not work if they are extremely insular . You still have your own timings. Like attacking or pressuring just after upgrades finish instead of before etc. Timings aren't some set in stone thing.
It will always be a good thing to learn about timings regardless of your level. It's just another layer of understanding you can apply to your game.
On October 07 2011 00:15 LawGambit wrote: A lot of people who try to get better at things look for easy solutions. "Macro better" doesn't sound like an easy solution to them. It sounds like it takes a lot of work (and it does).
I think that's valid. Advice like "practice your build a few dozen times in YABOT till you can execute it flawlessly" is great for an aspiring Masters player, but absolutely lousy for a fairly casual few games a night after work player. Because like you said, that's work and not fun. Whereas advice like "when a protoss goes blinkstalker colossus, make sure to have 3 corruptors for every colossi and then try and use your roachling force to protect them from the stalkers" is much easily to incorporate in your next game.
I feel somewhat compelled to post because I love to macro :D
I played BW for years hitting C+, and after I bought SC2 about 8 months ago I went on something like a 30-5 rampage up to gold league from bronze with zerg in my first 2 days of playing... without making queens so no larva inject because I didn't know at the time. I then went on another xx-x win/loss ratio rampage to high plat in another few days with Terran, and for most of those games I manually ordered each SCV to mine as they finished, and hotkey'ed individual barracks so I could 6a7a8a9a0a and "macro better".
This is not a disguised brag post because my point is that, having had ZERO game knowledge (playing from a MASSIVE disadvantage every game having no queens, didn't even know about MBS or automining), I managed to win more than 85% of my games from purely marco'ing somewhat properly. You honestly cannot even begin to compare the value of macro to strategy.
Up until mid-platinum, there was NO timing to speak of, and strategy/unit composition plays a very tiny part. Basically every game I would just decide to myself on a unit composition that I want to build and do it. Once I massed up what I thought was a good amount of units, I just A-moved into their base and:
- 60% of the times I just killed them outright because I had way more shit. - 25% of the times they built too much static defense/pulled workers to hold ramp/etc., in which case I'd just expand again and kill them with air about 5 minutes later. -15 % of the times I'd have an inferior army due to a combination of unit quantity and composition and fail the attack.
An analogy to getting better at SC2 is becoming a better fighter; you can spend all day watching fighting videos, identifying fighting styles and developing counter styles, analyzing the best moves/actions to perform when in a certain situation - you can do that all day, everyday, 16hr/day, but you're still going to get destroyed by someone 2x bigger and faster than you, 99% of the time.
I got my roommate into SC2 and here's his story. He had zero RTS experiences, and was failing hard in the bronze leagues for the first few weeks. Then reading week came, and he wanted to really improve so he asked for my help, asking me to look over his play, identify weaknesses, etc. I didn't do any of the things he asked; instead, I told him to create a single player match, wrote down a simple ~8 minute marine/tank push build order, and told him to execute it. He couldn't, not even coming close to 1/3 of the "normal" number of units he should have had at the 8 minute mark. However he wasn't discouraged, I explained how useful, albeit terribly boring this training exercise was and he sat down, for the next few days, spending more than half his free time everyday just practice the build order. Unsurprisingly, the first online match he played, he dominated. In fact, he continued to dominate all the way into platinum league with such a simple yet effective build order at lower levels. From bronze to plat in a week with no previous RTS experience, all because he spent his time doing the right things; he was power leveling, if you will.
TLDR: For bronze/silver leaguers: why spend 20 hours watching, understanding and imitating a strategy, why you can't even execute it at 10% efficiency? If you had spent those 20 hours executing a single all-purpose build order playing in single player against a computer, you would most likely be two leagues higher than you are now.
On October 07 2011 02:11 vaderseven wrote: I had a very long discussion about this with a few lower level friends. I finally figured out how to make it make sense. You have to address the issue of "What is Strategy?"
Strategy is the applied use of macro, micro, timing, and scouting in a decision making structure.
Macro is the most basic element in that equation. Several examples centered around a marine tank push opening vs Zerg in TvZ. 1) Push hits at 10:00 with 4 Tanks and 17 Marines. 2) Push hits at 10:00 with 2 Tanks and 10 Marines. 3) Push hits at 8:30 with 2 Tanks and 8 Marines. 4) Push hits at 8:30 with 3 Tanks and 13 Marines.
There is problems with 3 of these.
1 - Fairly good macro, you are hitting at the wrong timing though. You are going to have to deal with mutas that will be available for counters and/or to pick of tanks. If the Zerg has worse macro than you he will lose even if he already has mutas out.
2 - Bad macro and you are hitting at the wrong timing. You are going to most likely lose your army then be at a huge disadvantage.
3 - Bad macro but correct timing. The battle's result are completely out of you hands in this situation. Its up to the Zerg. If the Zerg macro'd correctly he will automatically win even if he made the wrong units. If he has subpar micro and the correct units it will be a reset situatuion where its even and comes down to who "plays better." If he is awful at macro he will crumple to the fact that this timing is a very good one.
4 - Good macro combined with perfect timing. This is the first example where strategy happened. You hit with the largest force of the correct units at a timing that enemy is teching to mutas. You have the units needed to win the battle even if he macro'd perfectly and are hitting at a time that allows you a nice bit of time to hurt him. The only true counter to you doing this is for the Zerg to not do a 2 base muta strategy or to do something that messes up your build or push (clever counter attack).
Most Gold - Plat players are doing examples 2 and 3. Diamonds are doing number 1 and Masters number 4.
Read the examples and then read the bullet points on each. It is clear that Strategy is actually only important in the 4th example. In every other example the Timing or the Macro was off and the deciding factor became which player had better macro.
TL;DR = There is no Strategy without macro. Strategy is applied macro.
QFT
There are many things you can improve on if you are low level. Basic things like Macro, Micro, and execution. Strategy is not one of those things. As stated in the post I quoted, you can't learn anything strategy-wise from the result of a game where at least one of the players didn't macro well.
To elaborate on having good macro mechanics another way, lets say two players execute a 2 base Ghost push in a TvP. One is a Gold league player, the other a Master league player. Lets just say that both players want to push out at ~9:30.
For the Gold league player at ~9:30, he has: stim, combat shield, and concussive shells, 24 SCV's, 15 marines, 6 marauders, one ghost, and his expansion Command Center is about %50 done.
For the Master league player, at ~9:30 he has: stim, concussive shells, while combat shield is ~%80 done (and will be done by the time he reaches the Protoss base), 37 SCV's, 17 marines, 8 marauders, 2 ghosts, and his Command Center has been done for almost 5 minutes.
Also for the Master league player, the Barracks producing marines has a reactor while the Gold league player does not have the addon.
If the Gold league player say wanted to push out with the same number of units, his push is no longer at 9:30, but around 11:00.
Edit:^^vaderseven explains this idea very well.
This data was taken from actual replays of people in those leagues
TLDR: For bronze/silver leaguers: why spend 20 hours watching, understanding and imitating a strategy, why you can't even execute it at 10% efficiency? If you had spent those 20 hours executing a single all-purpose build order playing in single player against a computer, you would most likely be two leagues higher than you are now.
You're really overestimating the amount of time they spend on watching strats and underestimating their general macro efficiency. A gold level 4gate or 4rax mass marine push might hit 10-20 seconds later and with 1 or 2 less units, but it'll still be plenty difficult to hold off. And Zerg don't *have* an all-purpose build order to practice apart from cheese plays.
Edit : Also one nice thing I like when getting advice, is when I'm given info that lets me seperate "your strat is fine, just macro better so you have more stuffs" and "that's a bad strat, you'll probably lose unless you have WAAAY better macro".
I'm really fat and out of shape at like 350 pounds but i wanna be a good runner. I know I'm really fat and I have to lose some weight but are there maybe some better shoes I can wear so I can start running 5 minute miles before I try to lose my fat?
When your macro is bad there are too many variables present. You can't just try to pull information and put it towards understanding the game. Good macro is the only way you can make educated decisions on what is a good and bad strategy.
On October 07 2011 03:14 TheYellowOne wrote: I'm really fat and out of shape at like 350 pounds but i wanna be a good runner. I know I'm really fat and I have to lose some weight but are there maybe some better shoes I can wear so I can start running 5 minute miles before I try to lose my fat?
And if the fat guy just wants to lose a bit of weight and go for a jog now and then would you just tell him to "gtfo fatty, no shoes for you?". Your analogy is stupid. If he wants to lose weight *anyway* then having better shoes WILL STILL HELP.
I'm high diamond and I gotta agree with the OP. Whenever I see someone give low level players the blanket advice "macro better" it makes me pull my hair out. It's like telling any athlete who asks for advice on how to improve their play "well, you just need to train harder". It's a non-specific "no shit" statement that is meaningless because it applies equally to everyone irregardless of skill level.
Sure, hypothetical joey bronze could get all the way to diamond/masters making just Marines, as long as he had solid macro. But he doesn't have solid macro. Obviously he's working on that, but he wants to know what else he can do to improve. Like for example, discovering that Marauders are pretty good in TvP. That's the kind of advice most low level players come looking for. They're looking for specific advice, not fortune cookie wisdom.
Also the "macro better" attitude isn't always the most useful attitude to have in the strategy forum. That could be applied to every single level and still be true!! It's an empty truth in this regard. So while the strategy forum can be used to get advice on how to macro better, there are also many other things that you could be learning from there - What unit composition beats what (this really is bronze information, and should be contained in liquipedia) - How to engage battles properly - How to make better decisions in game - How to gauge what your opponent is doing with minimal information
Things like refining a build order, having a build order (-.-; ), this is my awesome new build order please rate it!!!!! and whatnot are all examples of bad questions to ask in the strategy forum. Once infinity's guide is out that should help with this though!
^Paraphrasing the quote but This.
Macro isn't the only aspect of a RTS game. For players in the lower league that do not have a well developed game sense, many of them may even fail to know what to do. By game sense I mean army compositions, engagement tactics, positioning and scouting. Sim city is also an important skill to have for all races.
My example, I watched a lower league (I think Silver or Gold) Terran player start off a game with this build. 10 supply 10 refinery 11 barracks I have to note that this person was not doing any sort of fast Reaper or Banshee build that required gas. It was a normal Marine-Tank composition. Compared to the standard 15OC opener, they're putting themselves behind economically and unit count right from the start.
Build orders I believe fall in the category of Strategy and game sense, just generally knowing what to do. There's nothing wrong with someone asking how to learn certain builds orders, unit strategies and engagement tactics early on and refining them as they go a long.
All this emphasis on Macro understates the importance of other aspects of SCII - Micro in particular. A-Move some Stimmed Marines in to an equal cost Baneling ball. What's likely to happen? Split and control your Marines and the results can differ drastically. Players don't suddenly gain engagement tactics right when they hit Diamond/Masters, it's something they have to work on continually. It's something that should be told to lower-leagues as well so they learn and improve that aspect of the game.
On October 06 2011 21:33 AlgoFlash wrote: Plexa is right.
But it's like: if you improve macro, you'll win say 80% more games. Working on the other aspects will only get you the last 20%.
Working on macro is more efficient but it's not all.
That's the core problem - if people ask for help around here, I assume that they do it because they want to win games.
And in 90% of the cases, getting rid of specific (!) macro-deficiencies will drasticly improve your win-rate. I think the problem is that too many advices are way too "general" - the simple "macro better" is stupid. But when someone points out "you always get supply-blocked in midgame because you only build one depot after another" then this is a specific macro-advice that can be as easily implemented as a strategic advice. Also, many low-level-players make huge mistakes in very different parts of their game. Some just stop producing workers at a random point too early but never get supply blocked. Others macro workers perfectly, but just can't spend their money. Others macro well, but just expand way too late because they don't feel safe enough. Others tend to forget to take their 3rd-xth gas or put workers on it regularly.
TL; DR: "macro better" is indeed a frustrating advice; but you should realize that most players lack in different macro-areas, so pointing these areas out will be more helpful than strategy-related suggestions. Especially on the bronze-gold levels.
Eh? I don't agree. If people are posting reps here for advice they should have a) read this: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=195389 b) followed its advice c) posted a rep where yes better macro could have won the game, but lost the game because of another error
When players macro equally bad what puts the other players ahead is doing all the other things right. And if you only focus on macro, you'll run into someone with equal macro but with better overall play and lose. And in those cases people should be asking for help. Let's be real here, even at Masters level the advice "macro better" is true - vacuous advice isn't useful.
Maybe I didn't express myself clearly enough...so I'll give it another try
When somebody is in bronze-gold league then he MUST have some rather obvious macro-flaws. What I definitely agree is that those general "macro better" advices I bad. But if this player fails to accurately identify what his macro flaw that is holding him back is, then focussing on strategy-related aspects would be the wrong approach, imo.
Say, someone has platinum-ish macro, but makes ONE terrible macro-mistake that is the reason why he regularly loses games. Helping the player identify this exact mistake is the best approach, in my opinion. If he has reached platinum/diamond, then yes, thinking about strategy starts making sense. But on the low levels, I don't quite get why you wouldn't want to fix the painful, huge macro-flaws that are the reason why you are in bronze-gold first before moving on to more sophisticated topics.
On October 07 2011 03:23 Eps wrote: Players don't suddenly gain engagement tactics right when they hit Diamond/Masters, it's something they have to work on continually. It's something that should be told to lower-leagues as well so they learn and improve that aspect of the game.
This is something I disagree in particular. Countless brain-research has shown that we learn way better when we focus on improving one thing at a time. Nobody learns playing the piano by just...playing the piece again and again, trying to play it as perfectly as possible. No, you start with one hand and study it piece by piece. If you have troubles with a certain passage, you focus on that passage only until you have it down. This holds true for each and every area of practice. You can't practice everything at once - even if it sounds good on paper, our brain simply doesn't work that way, you have to approach it step by step to achieve the best result. This is exactly why people like day9 tell the new players to play, say, 20 games where they should only try to keep their money low...then 20 games where they should try to not get supply-blocked etc.
sorry i disagree most of the time that its about magic unit composition win or build order at the lower level. its usually about better macro, mechanics, and game sense that dictates the victory of the game. For example, in PvP both players do 4 gate... its not about some "magic" build order but rather how well u executed it. There is a clear difference between a master level player executing 4 gate while a bronze doing a 4 gate BECAUSE the master level player can macro/micro better.
By increasing the effectiveness of your execution, the build that you are performing gets stronger and stronger to the point where you can decide (as the OP suggest) "the right strategy and such". Its usually pointless UNLESS you understand if you can macro and execute very well behind it or the effectiveness of that "very good strategy" will be utter crap.
TLDR: For bronze/silver leaguers: why spend 20 hours watching, understanding and imitating a strategy, why you can't even execute it at 10% efficiency? If you had spent those 20 hours executing a single all-purpose build order playing in single player against a computer, you would most likely be two leagues higher than you are now.
You're really overestimating the amount of time they spend on watching strats and underestimating their general macro efficiency. A gold level 4gate or 4rax mass marine push might hit 10-20 seconds later and with 1 or 2 less units, but it'll still be plenty difficult to hold off. And Zerg don't *have* an all-purpose build order to practice apart from cheese plays.
Edit : Also one nice thing I like when getting advice, is when I'm given info that lets me seperate "your strat is fine, just macro better so you have more stuffs" and "that's a bad strat, you'll probably lose unless you have WAAAY better macro".
We might have to find the middle ground here, although it's not terribly important anyway.
I know because I'm currently smurfing the plat. ranks doing retarded builds for fun. Against 4 gate, generally plat. level players will have the correct build order, but the 4 gate hits way slower than just 10-20 seconds (usually ~30 secs or later than the a well-executed 4 gate cutting probes at ~20 supply), or they hit at the right timing with zealot/stalker + 4 warped stalkers, but can't even produce the next round because they only have ~15 probes mining. It just seems ridiculous to me that perfect early game macro requires VERY little APM, yet even platinum or sometimes even diamond players (who have played hundreds if not thousands of games) fail their macro early on; it's always the small things, such as chrono boosting a few secs too early, getting a gas a few secs too late, stopping worker production for a few secs, etc. that adds up and snowballs into a weaker mid-game.
Also, although debatable, surely a decent "all-purpose" opener for zergs would be 15 gas 14 pool into an expansion off speedlings? Of course it's ideal to hatch first zvt, but that's just 1 more slightly varied build order that a zerg player needs to learn. Once the natural is up, it's just OL sacrificial scout, then defending as needed with the ultimate goal of droning to ~50 on 2 bases, then pumping a unit composition of choice to pressure/kill while taking a third. In fact, zerg is probably the easiest race for improvement with the proper training because the mindset of the zerg player is pretty much the same in every matchup.
@HardMacro Fair enough, I'm underestimating the macro differences between the leagues and you've got way more experience in both areas. And yeah 15 gas 14 pool sounds good in theory. But even the two things you mentioned off-hand -defending as needed and -pumping a unit composition of choice to pressure/kill Those are both MASSIVE aspects of the game for me that I've made loads of mistakes in. For example against Protoss. If they 4gate you probably need to cut drones in the mid 20s. If they FFE you probably need to drone to 50+. And unless you outmatch the opponent greatly in other areas then making the wrong choice will get you killed. Unit compositions also seem to vary tremendously across matchups.
I don't have a problem with people who don't want to work on their macro because they find strategy fun, the problem is those people who then make a post on a website like this asking how to get to platinum/diamond/master and then blatantly ignoring the advice which is actually guaranteed to get them up there. If you don't want to improve your macro you don't have to, but then don't ask for advice on how to get to higher leagues....
What you are saying is basically if you had $100 and asked how you could get $2900 more to get a car, everyone would say get a job, and you are saying "But that's boring I want to make money on the stock market and investing instead".
On October 07 2011 03:23 Eps wrote: Players don't suddenly gain engagement tactics right when they hit Diamond/Masters, it's something they have to work on continually. It's something that should be told to lower-leagues as well so they learn and improve that aspect of the game.
This is something I disagree in particular. Countless brain-research has shown that we learn way better when we focus on improving one thing at a time. Nobody learns playing the piano by just...playing the piece again and again, trying to play it as perfectly as possible. No, you start with one hand and study it piece by piece. If you have troubles with a certain passage, you focus on that passage only until you have it down. This holds true for each and every area of practice. You can't practice everything at once - even if it sounds good on paper, our brain simply doesn't work that way, you have to approach it step by step to achieve the best result. This is exactly why people like day9 tell the new players to play, say, 20 games where they should only try to keep their money low...then 20 games where they should try to not get supply-blocked etc.
This may be true on some level, but the problem with the advice I see given is "work on Macro skills and do not care about other aspects of the game until you're Diamond/Masters. Then begin to look at Macro, Engagement, Builds and Strategies". It's as if the mentality of a lot of the players that the only thing that matters is Macro on the lower leagues and don't touch the other aspects of the game until you refined your Macro skills.
I also dislike the examples of X-Pro player got into Diamond just Macroing and using X unit. They already have developed strategies, engagement techniques and know when to pull back and not overextend themselves. You can't compare a developed Pro-player's skill set to your regular bronze-plat level player that is still working on these categories.
Don't just work on macro. Macro is something you get better at by playing, it's tough to just practice macroing. Also, don't cheese every game. Find a build with a timing push that is not all in, refine the hell out of it, and keep winning. As soon as this timing push begins to stop killing your opponents outright, you'll be able to focus more on transitioning and macroing hard.
i think that instead of people telling lower level players "macro better", they should stop being so condescending and give better advice. like, "oh, your creep spread wasnt very good" or, "you were floating too many minerals, try getting upgrades sooner" or "you stopped producing workers at x time, try making more workers next time". you need to be more specific.
strategy<then macro. but when someone says "macro better", it means dick to a lower level player. you wouldnt have a coach tell his basketball players "oh, just practice everything a lot more". the coach would find the largest weakness in a player and then point it out, and then give him a suggestion on how to improve it.
to the OP, theres a way to learn to macro better by finding a flaw(missing larvae, no creep spread, not using chronoboost or mules enough), and then working on correcting that flaw until you can do whatever it is consistently. Day9 did videos about that recently, and thats probably the best way to steadily improve your macro.
I think what it boils down to is that the strategies that work is formulated on the assumption of timings, that the opponent and player micros decently, that both parties have a clear concept of how and where to engage etc...
This obviously goes out the window when all of this is 'flawed'. What SHOULD work (for a pro) might not work at all for a nub like me. For example, countering muta play with infestors is something I find REALLY difficult, but Catz can routinely shut down all harassement with a few infestors. What is a working strat for him just blows for me, since I can't even micro the infestors properly, nor multitask good enough.
Having said that though, just churning out roaches until I die is just plain boring, so I try to mix it up a bit regardless. That's fine, but I don't really expect anyone to be able to help me with the finer details until I got the macro issues down properly (no supply blocks, creep spread + injects).
It's the same with anything, really... if you ask a world renowned violinist on how to play a certain classic piece when you've just started, I'm sure he would say something like "stop playing it like a f-ing banjo, and practice your scales". Might not be fun, but true, IF you want to get better as quickly as possible...
@DoctorFunk Macro is something you wont get better at fast enough to keep getting better on ladder. Its not hard to practice macro. Load up a game with you only on a map and see how fast you can hit max, without supply block and without missing SCVs/Probes until like 80 and always using your larvae/production facilities AS SOON AS they're available.
Macro is the easiest to practice, because its the lowest level of foundation for play in SC2, like any other RTS.
Also,
As soon as this timing push begins to stop killing your opponents outright, you'll be able to focus more on transitioning and macroing hard.
theres no way to know how to transition and macro hard unless you have the foundation of macro-oriented play or at least practicing your macro.
I taught a bronze friend of mine a macro drill, he instantly jumped a league. My winrate against P went north of 45% (which was well above where it was D: ) when I learned it.
Simple solution: phrase your question as "what counters the following strategy?" rather than "what did I do wrong?" when you provide a replay.
Higher level players will inevitably note your macro (it's something we look for because bad macro is huge) but, people will answer your question. Sure, it'll be convoluted with advice you don't want...but...it'll be answered nonetheless.
When I give advise it's normally in the realm of work on your macro and mechanics. While you're correct in that telling someone to Macro better isn't 100% the right answer it is often times the correct answer. There is plenty of information out there to help people understand the basic strategy of the game, X unit composition is a good idea against Y, there is no shortage of that information available so when someone posts why did I lose this and it's a blatant terrible unit composition against their opponents not only is that so very clear but for the amount of time they spent asking for help they could have looked up the answer themselves.
Mechanics and Macro are completely intertwined and generally will grow at about the same rate. Strategy can't be optimalized without solid mechanics/macro. Game sense ("Star Sense") is only learned via experience. Having good mechanics and macro are required to use effective strategies. Beyond as I said earlier blatant poor unit composition choices or lack of detection strategy doesn't really come into play until your mechanics are solid.
You can literally make a relatively short list of things that lower league players did wrong and just copy and paste it into each new topic asking why they lost and it will apply 99% of the time reguardless of what actually happened in the game. That is most of the reason why people just say to "Macro Better".
If a bronze level Terran asked me how to deal with cloaked Banshee's the proper pro level player answer is Scout, is their a possibility of Banshee's? Yes then Either save up a scan or two and rely on micro until they can get a Viking/Raven out or start an Engineering Bay and rely on micro to hold off the Banshee's unless they're really commiting to them and then put down Turrets.
That is the correct response but it's entirely reliant on game sense, micro, and macro to be effective as optimal means cutting as many corners in your build as possible. So do you just tell them to blindly put up Turrets if they see Gas when they scout, what if they don't scout, know the right time to scout, know what information to glean from scouting so you just tell them to always build an Engineering Bay and Turrets early on which can and will hurt them in any game someone's not going Banshee's against them. Now answering their question correctly isn't as easy as you'd think based on the bad level of play. Working on their macro though will help against the Banshee's letting them have more money to put up defenses or more units to defend so sometimes that is the only answer worth giving. Sure there are exceptions and even when macro is the problem people could actually tell them where their macro is failing and what the flaws in their strategy, but the strategies they're doing are rarely the problem and when they are it's often a very easy answer at that level such as don't go mass Hydra's agaisnt mass Collossi/Tank/Infestor.
On October 07 2011 04:20 Amaterasu1234 wrote: Simple solution: phrase your question as "what counters the following strategy?" rather than "what did I do wrong?" when you provide a replay.
Higher level players will inevitably note your macro (it's something we look for because bad macro is huge) but, people will answer your question. Sure, it'll be convoluted with advice you don't want...but...it'll be answered nonetheless.
yea, usually i've found when lower league players ask for help, they just want to know how to win in that one specific instance, and not improve in general, which is why "macro" pisses them off.
Here is my 5 cents on the matter. i feel like, that although everyone can "improve their macro" there is still a great idea behind what OP is saying. By not focusing on "LET ME MACRO BETTER" you start out, by getting some build. Lets say, its a timing attack. That is fine, because it may fail for you 10 times, and then you get that phenomenal game were everything went as planned, all buildings landed at the right times, you warp prism 10 gated that noob to pieces, it doesnt matter, because what really matters is, that he is improving his macro by doing this kind of stuff. people in diamond and masters, like myself are often fine in those situations, and would never fail our macro unless it was super micro intensive early game or some shit, But by copying a build, you start to see were the flaws are, and therefor strategy is a really good way to learn Macro. This is the reason i went from bronze to diamond in a month, with no RTS experience ever. the only point i have left to make is; Although a timing attack is a good strategy to learn, make sure not to just learn an all in. make it a good timing attack, that you can expand behind.
I found the "macro better" advice really helpful when SC2 first came out. Although I had a basic idea I used to stop at 2 workers per mineral field not thinking that keeping up the worker production helps more than someone may think. You can still try differant strategies out while focusing on macroing to keep it fun but I have found for me the fastest way to improve as a player is to focus on your economy management.
On October 07 2011 04:34 Rabid Wookie wrote: When I give advise it's normally in the realm of work on your macro and mechanics. While you're correct in that telling someone to Macro better isn't 100% the right answer it is often times the correct answer. There is plenty of information out there to help people understand the basic strategy of the game, X unit composition is a good idea against Y, there is no shortage of that information available so when someone posts why did I lose this and it's a blatant terrible unit composition against their opponents not only is that so very clear but for the amount of time they spent asking for help they could have looked up the answer themselves.
Mechanics and Macro are completely intertwined and generally will grow at about the same rate. Strategy can't be optimalized without solid mechanics/macro. Game sense ("Star Sense") is only learned via experience. Having good mechanics and macro are required to use effective strategies. Beyond as I said earlier blatant poor unit composition choices or lack of detection strategy doesn't really come into play until your mechanics are solid.
You can literally make a relatively short list of things that lower league players did wrong and just copy and paste it into each new topic asking why they lost and it will apply 99% of the time reguardless of what actually happened in the game. That is most of the reason why people just say to "Macro Better".
If a bronze level Terran asked me how to deal with cloaked Banshee's the proper pro level player answer is Scout, is their a possibility of Banshee's? Yes then Either save up a scan or two and rely on micro until they can get a Viking/Raven out or start an Engineering Bay and rely on micro to hold off the Banshee's unless they're really commiting to them and then put down Turrets.
That is the correct response but it's entirely reliant on game sense, micro, and macro to be effective as optimal means cutting as many corners in your build as possible. So do you just tell them to blindly put up Turrets if they see Gas when they scout, what if they don't scout, know the right time to scout, know what information to glean from scouting so you just tell them to always build an Engineering Bay and Turrets early on which can and will hurt them in any game someone's not going Banshee's against them. Now answering their question correctly isn't as easy as you'd think based on the bad level of play. Working on their macro though will help against the Banshee's letting them have more money to put up defenses or more units to defend so sometimes that is the only answer worth giving. Sure there are exceptions and even when macro is the problem people could actually tell them where their macro is failing and what the flaws in their strategy, but the strategies they're doing are rarely the problem and when they are it's often a very easy answer at that level such as don't go mass Hydra's agaisnt mass Collossi/Tank/Infestor.
and this is exactly what the OP is talking about. "macro better" doesnt mean shit to anyone. people need to point out specific things for the person seeking help to work on.
when my band writes a song, we dont just play it over and over until we think it sounds good, we work on one piece at a time until the whole thing comes together>
macro better is the shittiest answer that anyone can have. even pros can macro better but no one says that. they say things like, "oh his creep spread wasnt that great" or "man he overdroned!". no caster just says, "god that Huk, he wouldve won that if he just macroed better!"
when you tell someone to macro better, they dont know what to work on. if people gave specifics, then threads like this wouldnt happen.
[im not flaming you or anything, you just happened to give a great example of what pisses everyone off]
The way you improve macro and mechanics is to play like a robot not thinking about strategy at all. Higher level players tell lower level players to improve their macro before anything else because it's the easiest and safest way to improve your game.
Balance and metagame will make strategies change a ton, but if you have good fundamentals no balance or metagame shift will detract from your good macro. If you want to improve at this game and you're below diamond, the first place to look is your mechanics. If you really want to improve, you'll spend time specifically working on your mechanics instead of going on forums and looking for a new cute strategy to carry you through the lower leagues.
Mechanics are the skeleton of your play, unless you have good mechanics, no amount of strategy will ever give you a strong win. Doing high level strategical analysis on sub diamond level mechanics is like trying to hang a painting on the wall drunk. No matter how straight and level you think you got the painting while you were intoxicated, you'll come back later to find that all the data you used to level the painting is invalid because your perceptions were skewed.
I have to agree with the higher tier players. I am silver player with no RTS experience from before, but i am progressing much faster than alot of people who play more than me because i simple focus on macro. I can't tell how many times I see in the replay me having lost even thousands of resources more an still be in a food lead simply, because I expo when i push and remember to make more workers than my enemy.
I feel like the true advantage I have is that i have a plan for mid-game so my macro doesn't fall apart as bad as my opponents so at the 17-23 min mark i usually just destroy them because i have more and better upgraded stuff.
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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".
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.
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
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. And by focusing just on that, my macro improved substantially.
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.)
On October 06 2011 21:01 marvellosity wrote: So in the CONTEXT that these players are forever striving to improve their macro, it seems entirely reasonable that they should be wanting to improve their strategical knowledge too. Especially as it's the strategical aspect that's more fun than "4eee 5c wzzzssee"
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"
If someone comes to TL to ask for advice it's because they think that they're serious about improving. If they're truly serious about improving, then they would focus on their macro.
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.
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.
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
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.
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...
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 !
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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..........
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'
I actually think a lot of us diamond + players undervalue the skill level of lower league players (gold league for instance). They arent retardely stupid. Sure there macro and mechanics aren't good, but they will continue to improve that for every game they play. When they ask for strategy help, and receive solid help they will learn in more efficient way than if they had to figure out everything them selves. Sure they could do that, and sure they could get to masters by just massing 1 unit and having perfect macro, but you dont get perfect macro overnight, and you simply learn in a more efficient way if they are getting strategy coaching in the correct way.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?"
I think the big reason people always just to "Macro better" is because that was the big realization that improved their play.
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.
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
I spent at least a month i remember of just PURE macro training when i was in diamond i lost a pretty decent amount of games and then eventually i learned to macro/micro at roughly the same time or near each other so in the end its just practice, practice, practice your right it wont happen over night its something you have to work on. There is playing starcraft and then there's playing starcraft choose which one you want to do
Honestly, "just macro better" does not mean "abandon everything for macro. Do the worst possible strategies but with good macro instead" if you lose by strategy, I'm assuming you're talking about allins. Of course you will lose if you go Command center first against 6pool or something silly like that. Maybe you're also talking about builds being countered by others, such as going mutas vs 6gate timing.Whatever the case is, I wouldn't worry about game knowledge at this point. Common sense and your own game sense can pull you through until everyone macros to peak capacity.
You shouldn't be getting worried over having lots of game knowledge without playing well enough for it to matter. It's a bad habit of a lower level player to claim they have incredible game knowledge through watching hours of GSL, and say if they had 100 more apm to support macro they could be in high masters easily. No, at gold league, one base allins are probably the best way to play because it is easiest to macro off of one base and because cheese is hard to stop.
Focus on macro, but just use your common sense. You don't need to learn how to counter certain unit compositions/builds from other people. Just do what you think can deal with it, and macro well doing it.
Lower league players hate hearing it because they don't want to put in the time to learn it. It's not the flashy or fun part of SC2, so it has the least appeal. They'd rather do a ghost rush with nukes against a Zerg or something. They are probably people who have never had to train for anything in their life and don't understand the concept of basics/fundamentals and how they are the foundation on which you build everything else. If they have trained for a sport or activity, then they are simply ignoring the correlation between that and SC2.
Lower league players hate hearing macro better because it's a broad concept and requires a lot of discipline and practice to learn, and there's no way to learn it other than experience with critical thinking. There's no "just do this" answer, there's no step by step plan, and there isn't anyone else standing over them to push them to learn it. The ones that are self-driven aren't in those leagues having trouble; they've already learned macro to a reasonable degree and are still practicing getting better at it.
On October 07 2011 07:57 tehemperorer wrote: Lower league players hate hearing it because they don't want to put in the time to learn it. It's not the flashy or fun part of SC2, so it has the least appeal. They'd rather do a ghost rush with nukes against a Zerg or something. They are probably people who have never had to train for anything in their life and don't understand the concept of basics/fundamentals and how they are the foundation on which you build everything else. If they have trained for a sport or activity, then they are simply ignoring the correlation between that and SC2.
Lower league players hate hearing macro better because it's a broad concept and requires a lot of discipline and practice to learn, and there's no way to learn it other than experience with critical thinking. There's no "just do this" answer, there's no step by step plan, and there isn't anyone else standing over them to push them to learn it. The ones that are self-driven aren't in those leagues having trouble; they've already learned macro to a reasonable degree and are still practicing getting better at it.
players hate hearing "macro better" because it IS a broad concept. lower players oftern need to work on macro overal, but they dont know what that entails. they post replays to see what they could do better and "macro better" to them means that they should do EVERYTHING better, which is just too overwhelming and unspecific. INSTEAD of saying "macro better" over and over, people should actually watch the replays and be more specific. "you overdroned; you stop producing drones while you engage; your injects suck; you get supply blocked constantly." these are the things that players want to hear when they ask for help, because it gives them something to concentrate on specifically.
you mention he correlation between sports and SC2. would a coach simply tell his player "oh, you just need to do all of the basics better" and not ive him specific things to work on? fuck no, the coach is going to tell the player specific things to focus on next time, and the player will gradually accomplish all of the little things, one at a time. THIS is where the correlation between sports and SC2 stops, because most people in forums says anything but 'do all of the basics better, but were not going to try and point out anything in particular. just do everything better all at once"
On October 07 2011 08:03 Soulriser wrote:THIS is where the correlation between sports and SC2 stops, because no one in forums says anything but 'do all of the basics better, but were not going to try and point out anything in particular. just do everything better all at once"
I feel that I must strongly object to your blatant and reckless mischaracterization of my posting history. Whenever a Terran player posts a replay in the Terran Help Me Thread, I generate a detailed analysis of what he could have done better, including specific macro advice like "have a worker building a depot at all times, and when he becomes idle, you will know it's time to make a new depot" and micro advice for dealing with battles. All this is packaged in 10-15 minute videos in which I provide a detailed verbal analysis of the replay.
It's probably fair to say that some forum posters are unhelpful. It might even be fair to say that many, or perhaps even most forum posters are unhelpful. It is both thoroughly false entirely unacceptable to say that all forum posters are unhelpful, though. I am not alone; there are many hard-working forumgoers who tirelessly analyze replays and provide advice to people in the strategy section and help threads, and it is an insult to all of us and all our hard work when you make posts like this.
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?
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.
and
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.
Oh right, I don't play at high masters MMR pulling quite a few GMs for a casual gamer. I don't know what macro is... lol crack me up. You know not everyone uses the same definitions. Trust me, I have game sense. I barely even play, and can still hold my own against high masters. So, let's try a new 'you have no gamesense' line, k?
Macro to me involves scouting. What's the point of making units, if you don't make the right ones. I can never miss a depot, and never que a marine... but if he goes collsai vs my marines I'm fucked.
You want to get better? Scout, react, and macro.
Learn it.
edit
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?
Or, you have a good basis to stand on, and can then go onto the next steps of getting better. I got to mid masters EASILY with just good solid macro. My micro is garbage. I have good timings, and good macro, coupled with proper scouting. Very simple combination. The fact people like you come in, and say someone like me is silly, and has no game sense because I include other things under a VAST umbrella that is macro, is hilarious.
On October 07 2011 08:03 Soulriser wrote:THIS is where the correlation between sports and SC2 stops, because no one in forums says anything but 'do all of the basics better, but were not going to try and point out anything in particular. just do everything better all at once"
I feel that I must strongly object to your blatant and reckless mischaracterization of my posting history. Whenever a Terran player posts a replay in the Terran Help Me Thread, I generate a detailed analysis of what he could have done better, including specific macro advice like "have a worker building a depot at all times, and when he becomes idle, you will know it's time to make a new depot" and micro advice for dealing with battles. All this is packaged in 10-15 minute videos in which I provide a detailed verbal analysis of the replay.
It's probably fair to say that some forum posters are unhelpful. It might even be fair to say that many, or perhaps even most forum posters are unhelpful. It is both thoroughly false entirely unacceptable to say that all forum posters are unhelpful, though. I am not alone; there are many hard-working forumgoers who tirelessly analyze replays and provide advice to people in the strategy section and help threads, and it is an insult to all of us and all our hard work when you make posts like this.
im sorry, i dont believe i quoted you? also, thank you for disregarding the rest of my post that included my main argument. it often accomplishes very little when people have selective hearing/reading when they try and comeback with something.
second, this entire thread is about how the majority of people just get "macro better". you said yourself, just now, "It might even be fair to say that many, or perhaps even most forum posters are unhelpful" would you like me to change the term"no one" to "few and far between"? the term 'no one' was used generally, just like 'macro better'. if i was like you i wouldve posted specific names and explained how certain posts were helpful and not helpful.
you=/=every other poster in the forum. my point is it would do people a lot more good if a lot more people said more then "macro better"
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.
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.
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
I would say that expand at right time and getting the right tech are not part of macro but a part of decision making.
Same with your zerg's comment, it is also about decision making rather than macro. Whenever the opponent push out, it could be just killing some creep tumors, faking a pressure, going for a timing push or even just an all-in. Lower league players tend to get more units to feel safer so that they can drone up a bit more later, higher league players know whether it is a real push, or just a fake pressure (or at least they know better), they also know around how much units are needed to defend against it, thus able to drone a bit more.
I am a low league player and i know i have to macro better. That's why i don't come to the forums asking for advice when i know I miss supply depots, workers, production cycles, I tunnel vision when I attack, float resources, etc. Everyone knows what macro better means, but people just want easy solutions....
On October 07 2011 08:03 Soulriser wrote:THIS is where the correlation between sports and SC2 stops, because no one in forums says anything but 'do all of the basics better, but were not going to try and point out anything in particular. just do everything better all at once"
I feel that I must strongly object to your blatant and reckless mischaracterization of my posting history. Whenever a Terran player posts a replay in the Terran Help Me Thread, I generate a detailed analysis of what he could have done better, including specific macro advice like "have a worker building a depot at all times, and when he becomes idle, you will know it's time to make a new depot" and micro advice for dealing with battles. All this is packaged in 10-15 minute videos in which I provide a detailed verbal analysis of the replay.
It's probably fair to say that some forum posters are unhelpful. It might even be fair to say that many, or perhaps even most forum posters are unhelpful. It is both thoroughly false entirely unacceptable to say that all forum posters are unhelpful, though. I am not alone; there are many hard-working forumgoers who tirelessly analyze replays and provide advice to people in the strategy section and help threads, and it is an insult to all of us and all our hard work when you make posts like this.
im sorry, i dont believe i quoted you? also, thank you for disregarding the rest of my post that included my main argument. it often accomplishes very little when people have selective hearing/reading when they try and comeback with something.
second, this entire thread is about how the majority of people just get "macro better". you said yourself, just now, "It might even be fair to say that many, or perhaps even most forum posters are unhelpful" would you like me to change the term"no one" to "few and far between"? the term 'no one' was used generally, just like 'macro better'. if i was like you i wouldve posted specific names and explained how certain posts were helpful and not helpful.
you=/=every other poster in the forum. my point is it would do people a lot more good if a lot more people said more then "macro better"
I understand that you meant to say "many posters don't provide useful information" and as I said, that's fair to say. It's entirely reasonable to request that people try to be more helpful in the advice they give-- especially if many people give subpar advice. In fact, I'd consider such a request to be actively striving to improve the quality of the TL.net forums, and I welcome such earnest discussion of posting habits.
The part where you say that, and I quote:
no one in forums says anything but 'do all of the basics better, but were not going to try and point out anything in particular. just do everything better all at once"
you specifically attack me and every other poster who's out there trying to make things better. Some of us put in hours every day to try to help people and really do take a solid look at people's replays and threads. To cast us aside like we're not helping, even only verbally (since it appears you now concede that some people ARE in fact helpful) is actually harming the community. It discourages people from asking for help and demoralizes those of us who try hard to provide it.
So yes, I would like you to change the term to "few and far between" because helpful posters do exist. Your point is ENTIRELY valid insofar as people should be more helpful. However, to include hyperbolic and incorrect language not only undermines your point, it undermines the validity of the efforts of myself and many other helpful posters.
Thank you for understanding. I think we're on the same side here, but I can't not stand up for myself in this sort of situation.
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?
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.
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.
Oh right, I don't play at high masters MMR pulling quite a few GMs for a casual gamer. I don't know what macro is... lol crack me up. You know not everyone uses the same definitions. Trust me, I have game sense. I barely even play, and can still hold my own against high masters. So, let's try a new 'you have no gamesense' line, k?
Macro to me involves scouting. What's the point of making units, if you don't make the right ones. I can never miss a depot, and never que a marine... but if he goes collsai vs my marines I'm fucked.
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?
Or, you have a good basis to stand on, and can then go onto the next steps of getting better. I got to mid masters EASILY with just good solid macro. My micro is garbage. I have good timings, and good macro, coupled with proper scouting. Very simple combination. The fact people like you come in, and say someone like me is silly, and has no game sense because I include other things under a VAST umbrella that is macro, is hilarious.
First off, I find it silly, that doesn't make it a fact. And as I have put at the bottom of my post, you can think of anything I have put forth anyway you like, so I just *shrug* at the fact you find it hilarious.
Now onto what you said, you are using your rank as a way to make your opinion more worthwhile then mine? (without you even knowing what my rank/league is) Really?
Further more macro doesn't involve alot of things you put forth "in my eyes". Perhaps you need to learn how to read, but that does mean that I see macro as something else. I never claimed the fact that you didn't knew what macro is, but clearly see it completely different then my view of macro (and most likely alot of people's view on macro).
Here I feel you'r pretty much saying all needed skills to actually improve your overall game is a part of macro in your eyes (timings, scouting, counters, rightly performed attacks) which in turn gives you the oppurtunity to claim that with a good macro you will do well no matter what, because you put pretty much all aspects under the term "macro" In this same manner I can say that macro is just a part of a build order with the right adjustments here and there to counter the opponent. With this, disorted view, I can claim that with just perfect build orders you will become better and better and that it's the only thing you will have to train.
See where this is leading?
If not then I will not even attempt to continue this discussion with you as it will obviously go towards nothing good.
Ps, don't hate the player, hate the game. This also applies in a discussion, don't hate me for putting forth my opinion where I even apologise if in any way I have offended/insulted anyone. ^ ^
I think for low level players or rather new players they need to learn the fundementals like what kills what. If Terran goes Marauder only, something should immediatly pop in your head about what you should do. Should you continue massing out stalkers ? NO! Zealots and immortals. When all that is in place you need to learn how to scout your opponent all the time. Most bronze, silver people i watch, they fight blindfolded. They just sit in theyre bases and massing out some units without looking at theyre enemy.
RTS games are like chess in realtime while seeing everyones move all the time. When you get to this point then macro is important. You cant win with extreme macro if you are having the wrong units and failed timings. Im not an expert, just platinum and i struggle with macro to get further. Lost 2 games today where i look at my minerals and it says 1500-2000 minerals. Imagine that converted to an amy and i would have won.
Starcraft 2 is probably the most advanced and difficult multiplayer game ever, thats why is so fun to watch streams of really good players. We all know what it takes ........
On October 07 2011 08:12 Leargle wrote: "How can I lose weight?" "Go to the gym."
"How can I improve at SC?" "Macro better."
This...the only way to truly improve is to get out there and work hard...you can try fancy diets and pills and something minor might improve but you're not going to get thin until you get up and work hard.
On October 07 2011 08:03 Soulriser wrote:THIS is where the correlation between sports and SC2 stops, because no one in forums says anything but 'do all of the basics better, but were not going to try and point out anything in particular. just do everything better all at once"
I feel that I must strongly object to your blatant and reckless mischaracterization of my posting history. Whenever a Terran player posts a replay in the Terran Help Me Thread, I generate a detailed analysis of what he could have done better, including specific macro advice like "have a worker building a depot at all times, and when he becomes idle, you will know it's time to make a new depot" and micro advice for dealing with battles. All this is packaged in 10-15 minute videos in which I provide a detailed verbal analysis of the replay.
It's probably fair to say that some forum posters are unhelpful. It might even be fair to say that many, or perhaps even most forum posters are unhelpful. It is both thoroughly false entirely unacceptable to say that all forum posters are unhelpful, though. I am not alone; there are many hard-working forumgoers who tirelessly analyze replays and provide advice to people in the strategy section and help threads, and it is an insult to all of us and all our hard work when you make posts like this.
im sorry, i dont believe i quoted you? also, thank you for disregarding the rest of my post that included my main argument. it often accomplishes very little when people have selective hearing/reading when they try and comeback with something.
second, this entire thread is about how the majority of people just get "macro better". you said yourself, just now, "It might even be fair to say that many, or perhaps even most forum posters are unhelpful" would you like me to change the term"no one" to "few and far between"? the term 'no one' was used generally, just like 'macro better'. if i was like you i wouldve posted specific names and explained how certain posts were helpful and not helpful.
you=/=every other poster in the forum. my point is it would do people a lot more good if a lot more people said more then "macro better"
I understand that you meant to say "many posters don't provide useful information" and as I said, that's fair to say. It's entirely reasonable to request that people try to be more helpful in the advice they give-- especially if many people give subpar advice. In fact, I'd consider such a request to be actively striving to improve the quality of the TL.net forums, and I welcome such earnest discussion of posting habits.
no one in forums says anything but 'do all of the basics better, but were not going to try and point out anything in particular. just do everything better all at once"
you specifically attack me and every other poster who's out there trying to make things better. Some of us put in hours every day to try to help people and really do take a solid look at people's replays and threads. To cast us aside like we're not helping, even only verbally (since it appears you now concede that some people ARE in fact helpful) is actually harming the community. It discourages people from asking for help and demoralizes those of us who try hard to provide it.
So yes, I would like you to change the term to "few and far between" because helpful posters do exist. Your point is ENTIRELY valid insofar as people should be more helpful. To include hyperbolic and incorrect language not only undermines your point, but undermines the validity of the efforts of myself and many other helpful posters.
Thank you for understanding. I think we're on the same side here, but I can't not stand up for myself in this sort of situation.
i agree. and i am not attacking you or anyone specifically. threads like this wouldnt exist if more people gave useful advice instead of defaulting to 'macro better'. im supporting the OP in saying that 'macro better" doesnt help anyone if they dont know that macro means, or what to focus on specifically. THAT is the point ive been making for 9 pages: that vague advice gets vague, and generally bad, results from people who follow it. i am not an english major. next time i will compose a 120 measure string quartet piece in order to emphasize my point. yes, we are on the same side. and again, if you look through even just this thread, you see much more "macro better" then actual solid advice
On October 07 2011 08:12 Leargle wrote: "How can I lose weight?" "Go to the gym."
"How can I improve at SC?" "Macro better."
This...the only way to truly improve is to get out there and work hard...you can try fancy diets and pills and something minor might improve but you're not going to get thin until you get up and work hard.
thats correct, to a point. i see people in the gym all the time, and their form is fucking horrible. having bad form is the quickest way to injure yourself or other people. You also get faster results if you have correct form.
you should really think about changing this to:
"How can I lose weight?" "Go to the gym, and do X type of workout, have a spotter, learn the correct form for lifts before you try and go heavy on them, or youll hurt yourself, etc."
"How can I improve at SC?" "Macro better; macro consists of x, y, z. You should work on X first, and once you ahve X down, work on Y, then on Z, etc."
As a low level (Gold) player, I can say that while I find that macro'ing better lets me win more, it's not worth it if the game is just about practicing a routine, and never becomes about anything else.
I was actually getting a little turned off by starcraft recently, but then played the most engaging game I have ever been in. Sure, I was thinking about macro, and trying to improve on it, but what really clicked in my head during the game was more about scouting and map presence; realizing that my opponent had turtled hard, and could only really come at me with Banshees/was only going to come at me with Banshees, I decided to take a few bases and put up some defense to get a resource advantage on him, and in the end I won (with admittedly less than stellar play against a less than stellar opponent). It's moments like those, moments of problem solving, that keep me playing starcraft, and keep making it rewarding. Telling someone to macro more can be like telling them to turn off their brain, and why would someone want to do that?
It's hard to keep trying to play starcraft if you don't take pleasure in it, and just plain winning is not always the best motivator. Good strategy is founded on good macro, but learning some game sense at the same time makes playing much more rewarding.
So here's my perspective as a very low level player (bronze league, only started playing online about 2 weeks ago). At first I felt just like the OP. I was frustrated when looking for advice and hearing "Just learn to macro better." I thought "I know I need to build a steady supply of workers, avoid supply blocks, keep resources low, ect, ect. That doesn't help me." But when I actually started focusing on just making lots of shit, I started to do better.
More importantly, I've found that some of the other stuff is starting to come to me, without even consciously focusing on it. For instance, I used to try to do all kinds of harass with zealots and would always get stomped because my macro would slip so badly due to divided attention. So finally I was like, "screw it, I'll just focus on staying home and keeping my macro up." Well as I did that and macroing got easier and easier as it took less conscious thought to do so, I suddenly found my self able to send out that pair of zealots to poke around. And, most importantly, it was coming from my own sense of where I was at and what I could afford to send, ect. I wasn't sending out some zealots and a stalker because that's what HuK does, I sent them because it felt right. So I learn the strategic ideas from others, but the actual implementation of that strategy develops more organically.
So long story short, I get the frustration, and I will agree that the mantra of "just macro better" isn't very helpful to a low level player. But at the same time, you can't ignore that improving macro is what you need to do 90% of the time as a low level player.
On October 07 2011 08:48 whoopsome wrote: You can set up a punch perfectly but if it doesn't have the necessary force you wont knock anybody out.
Yup, but the same applies to every aspect of a punch.
You can put as much force as you can behind it, but without any speed, finesse, aim it may not do anything at all.
You can also perfectly aim a punch, but lack the force behind it to actually do something.
You can even put every force you have in it, aim it and fire it off quickly, but if the opponent is ready for it, it still might be a wasted punch in the end and you will perhaps end up with a fist in your face as a counter. (sorta say) xD
All in all, macro alone won't do much in any way (my opinion) and saying that it's clearly the basics of all other "skills" in the game is just a matter of opinion, once again.
If you still look at the comparison with throwing a punch, then there are enough martial arts out there that have a main focus on different aspects of a punch to make it do the damage you want. Wheter that is force, finesse, aim, speed etc., each of those aspects has the potentially hurt someone when looked at alone, but most likely work better when combined.
Now where one wants to lay their focus on is up to them to decide, not up to anyone else to decide for them. That's how I see it and one can apply this as much to Sc2 as to alot of other things that vary on alot of factors. ^ ^
Hi, I'm a random silver player. And I can assure you, %100, that improving your macro, is the way to win. Seriously. I don't have to worry about anything except: get lot's of bases and workers then get roach/hydra or mmm or stalker/zealot and go shit on his face. Then (if)when my army dies, I can rebuild it in a minute, and throw it at him again. I've never had to worry about unit comp. I tried to get a lot of ht's one time as toss, and my terran friend went mass ghost. When I saw his army, I was scared. He emp'd my entire force, and I quickly died. Then I produced another wave of zealots, walked over to his army and fucked him up.
Literally all the games I lose, are the ones where I get shaken up by early aggression, and start missing my larva injects and worker production or supply depots/pylons/overlords.
I'm going to have to go into this argument unbiased. I have been subjected to the "macro like a pro, play like a pro" mentality, and have played zerg for some time now due to that. However, I used to lose a LOT just because of strategy. I'd always had a maxed army by maybe... 13 minutes? And I simultaneously dropped their main and attacked their front while I rallied in more units.
It just stopped working. Straight-up deathballs slaughtered me. I had to re-evaluate my game. Was I doing something wrong? Apparently so, and I just couldn't find it.
Innovation. (This is going to be from Zerg p.o.v.) don't just say, "use roach/hydra/infestor in ZvZ, roach/infestor/corrupter in ZvP, or use ling/bling/muta in ZvT." Say, "get more fucking units with better upgrades, take the map, and overwhelm them enough that they call you a loser and tell you to get a life."
From that point, the entire thought-process shifts. It's not "just get x and y units," it's slowly molding a gameplan and a mentality.
For this style to work out, however, strong macro is important. I'd personally always work the kinks out in my macro/multitasking than clean up a strategy. I'm not saying I'm the best macro-er or whatever; I can admit I'm not that good, but I'm getting better.
On October 07 2011 08:48 whoopsome wrote: You can set up a punch perfectly but if it doesn't have the necessary force you wont knock anybody out.
Yup, but the same applies to every aspect of a punch.
You can put as much force as you can behind it, but without any speed, finesse, aim it may not do anything at all.
You can also perfectly aim a punch, but lack the force behind it to actually do something.
You can even put every force you have in it, aim it and fire it off quickly, but if the opponent is ready for it, it still might be a wasted punch in the end and you will perhaps end up with a fist in your face as a counter. (sorta say) xD
All in all, macro alone won't do much in any way (my opinion) and saying that it's clearly the basics of all other "skills" in the game is just a matter of opinion, once again.
If you still look at the comparison with throwing a punch, then there are enough martial arts out there that have a main focus on different aspects of a punch to make it do the damage you want. Wheter that is force, finesse, aim, speed etc., each of those aspects has the potentially hurt someone when looked at alone, but most likely work better when combined.
Now where one wants to lay their focus on is up to them to decide, not up to anyone else to decide for them. That's how I see it and one can apply this as much to Sc2 as to alot of other things that vary on alot of factors. ^ ^
I was saying that you can have a strategy or build that will win you the game but if you dont macro enough you wont.
On October 07 2011 08:48 whoopsome wrote: You can set up a punch perfectly but if it doesn't have the necessary force you wont knock anybody out.
Yup, but the same applies to every aspect of a punch.
You can put as much force as you can behind it, but without any speed, finesse, aim it may not do anything at all.
You can also perfectly aim a punch, but lack the force behind it to actually do something.
You can even put every force you have in it, aim it and fire it off quickly, but if the opponent is ready for it, it still might be a wasted punch in the end and you will perhaps end up with a fist in your face as a counter. (sorta say) xD
All in all, macro alone won't do much in any way (my opinion) and saying that it's clearly the basics of all other "skills" in the game is just a matter of opinion, once again.
If you still look at the comparison with throwing a punch, then there are enough martial arts out there that have a main focus on different aspects of a punch to make it do the damage you want. Wheter that is force, finesse, aim, speed etc., each of those aspects has the potentially hurt someone when looked at alone, but most likely work better when combined.
Now where one wants to lay their focus on is up to them to decide, not up to anyone else to decide for them. That's how I see it and one can apply this as much to Sc2 as to alot of other things that vary on alot of factors. ^ ^
I was saying that you can have a strategy or build that will win you the game but if you dont macro enough you wont.
I know and if you read my post I was saying that it also works the other way around. You can have all the macro you want, but as long as you don't build the right units, don't have the right composition, don't engage right, not enough upgrades, don't time your attack right or your attack is expected (and countered already) then all your macro won't do you much good.
Yes it can still get you a victory, just as much as a punch with force alone can give you a knock-out, but chances are slim without anything else to improve it with. This applies to macro, without any other mechanics/skills to complement it with you will just meaninglessly mass units and punch forward with that, hoping it's force is enough to get a knock-out.
If you look at a other mechanic/skills, like micro, if you focus on that and use that to try and gain a victory you might get it, even though you get out-macro'ed simply because you used your units in a better way. But with micro alone you will often find yourself at a too much of a downside with not enough supply compared to your opponent. Just like with macro you find yourself with the wrong units, the wrong composition, the wrong positioning etc.
I can go on and on about this with pretty much every mechanic/skill of Sc2, with it alone you can achieve victory, but it's chance is pretty slim. To improve your skills you can focus on macro, but you can just as well focus on micro or on map awareness (scouting, positioning etc.), all of those things are something you can focus on to gain more skill. But none of them is in it's own the best way to get better.
I rather have someone punching me over and over with as much force as he/she can muster then someone who actually knows where and how to punch with little force behind them. That's my opinion and I go with this same mindset into Sc2, I rather have the knowledge and insight to know what to build or when to attack then maximising economy/army.
On October 07 2011 08:48 whoopsome wrote: You can set up a punch perfectly but if it doesn't have the necessary force you wont knock anybody out.
Yup, but the same applies to every aspect of a punch.
You can put as much force as you can behind it, but without any speed, finesse, aim it may not do anything at all.
You can also perfectly aim a punch, but lack the force behind it to actually do something.
You can even put every force you have in it, aim it and fire it off quickly, but if the opponent is ready for it, it still might be a wasted punch in the end and you will perhaps end up with a fist in your face as a counter. (sorta say) xD
All in all, macro alone won't do much in any way (my opinion) and saying that it's clearly the basics of all other "skills" in the game is just a matter of opinion, once again.
If you still look at the comparison with throwing a punch, then there are enough martial arts out there that have a main focus on different aspects of a punch to make it do the damage you want. Wheter that is force, finesse, aim, speed etc., each of those aspects has the potentially hurt someone when looked at alone, but most likely work better when combined.
Now where one wants to lay their focus on is up to them to decide, not up to anyone else to decide for them. That's how I see it and one can apply this as much to Sc2 as to alot of other things that vary on alot of factors. ^ ^
I was saying that you can have a strategy or build that will win you the game but if you dont macro enough you wont.
I know and if you read my post I was saying that it also works the other way around. You can have all the macro you want, but as long as you don't build the right units, don't have the right composition, don't engage right, not enough upgrades, don't time your attack right or your attack is expected (and countered already) then all your macro won't do you much good.
Yes it can still get you a victory, just as much as a punch with force alone can give you a knock-out, but chances are slim without anything else to improve it with. This applies to macro, without any other mechanics/skills to complement it with you will just meaninglessly mass units and punch forward with that, hoping it's force is enough to get a knock-out.
If you look at a other mechanic/skills, like micro, if you focus on that and use that to try and gain a victory you might get it, even though you get out-macro'ed simply because you used your units in a better way. But with micro alone you will often find yourself at a too much of a downside with not enough supply compared to your opponent. Just like with macro you find yourself with the wrong units, the wrong composition, the wrong positioning etc.
I can go on and on about this with pretty much every mechanic/skill of Sc2, with it alone you can achieve victory, but it's chance is pretty slim. To improve your skills you can focus on macro, but you can just as well focus on micro or on map awareness (scouting, positioning etc.), all of those things are something you can focus on to gain more skill. But none of them is in it's own the best way to get better.
I rather have someone punching me over and over with as much force as he/she can muster then someone who actually knows where and how to punch with little force behind them. That's my opinion and I go with this same mindset into Sc2, I rather have the knowledge and insight to know what to build or when to attack then maximising economy/army.
To each their own right? ^ ^
I think you read to much into it, good for ppl that dont understand those basis though so to put it simply.
Macro allows you to have all those things you talk about, units to micro upgrades for your build, mechanics for your strategy to work, i didnt say one should only focus on macroing. But if your macro isnt on top ur "wasting" time with your strategy. Ofc this can work the other way around but i think its clear where the priority lies.
Well, have you ever asked for help on the forums? From what i've seen, yes people give terrible advice, but generally besides the improve your macro tips, people do give you strategy tips. They'll tell you what you did wrong, how to improve, and what you should do. Of course there will be the trolls. Just don't feed the trolls. If they haven't watched the replay don't listen to what they say. simple as that.
But the "You must get better macro" does have it's point. Just watch Destiny's mass Queens to platinum series. Destiny doesn't scout, doesn't use strategy. He just uses his mechanics to have enough queens to roll his opponent. If you don't have good mechanics then you'll get rolled by people with way better mechanics even if they go something like mass queens. Of course you need to learn strategy, but should you learn strategy when you have 23 scv's on 2 bases and six raxes with 24 marines, 4 rauders and 3 medivacs at 18 minutes?
On October 07 2011 08:48 whoopsome wrote: You can set up a punch perfectly but if it doesn't have the necessary force you wont knock anybody out.
Yup, but the same applies to every aspect of a punch.
You can put as much force as you can behind it, but without any speed, finesse, aim it may not do anything at all.
You can also perfectly aim a punch, but lack the force behind it to actually do something.
You can even put every force you have in it, aim it and fire it off quickly, but if the opponent is ready for it, it still might be a wasted punch in the end and you will perhaps end up with a fist in your face as a counter. (sorta say) xD
All in all, macro alone won't do much in any way (my opinion) and saying that it's clearly the basics of all other "skills" in the game is just a matter of opinion, once again.
If you still look at the comparison with throwing a punch, then there are enough martial arts out there that have a main focus on different aspects of a punch to make it do the damage you want. Wheter that is force, finesse, aim, speed etc., each of those aspects has the potentially hurt someone when looked at alone, but most likely work better when combined.
Now where one wants to lay their focus on is up to them to decide, not up to anyone else to decide for them. That's how I see it and one can apply this as much to Sc2 as to alot of other things that vary on alot of factors. ^ ^
I was saying that you can have a strategy or build that will win you the game but if you dont macro enough you wont.
I know and if you read my post I was saying that it also works the other way around. You can have all the macro you want, but as long as you don't build the right units, don't have the right composition, don't engage right, not enough upgrades, don't time your attack right or your attack is expected (and countered already) then all your macro won't do you much good.
Yes it can still get you a victory, just as much as a punch with force alone can give you a knock-out, but chances are slim without anything else to improve it with. This applies to macro, without any other mechanics/skills to complement it with you will just meaninglessly mass units and punch forward with that, hoping it's force is enough to get a knock-out.
If you look at a other mechanic/skills, like micro, if you focus on that and use that to try and gain a victory you might get it, even though you get out-macro'ed simply because you used your units in a better way. But with micro alone you will often find yourself at a too much of a downside with not enough supply compared to your opponent. Just like with macro you find yourself with the wrong units, the wrong composition, the wrong positioning etc.
I can go on and on about this with pretty much every mechanic/skill of Sc2, with it alone you can achieve victory, but it's chance is pretty slim. To improve your skills you can focus on macro, but you can just as well focus on micro or on map awareness (scouting, positioning etc.), all of those things are something you can focus on to gain more skill. But none of them is in it's own the best way to get better.
I rather have someone punching me over and over with as much force as he/she can muster then someone who actually knows where and how to punch with little force behind them. That's my opinion and I go with this same mindset into Sc2, I rather have the knowledge and insight to know what to build or when to attack then maximising economy/army.
To each their own right? ^ ^
I think you read to much into it, good for ppl that dont understand those basis though so to put it simply.
Macro allows you to have all those things you talk about, units to micro upgrades for your build, mechanics for your strategy to work, i didnt say one should only focus on macroing. But if your macro isnt on top ur "wasting" time with your strategy. Ofc this can work the other way around but i think its clear where the priority lies.
Nope, not reading too much into it, I think you'r still misunderstanding the point I am trying to make here.
You'r right on one hand that macro gives you units to micro around, to position right, the ability to make the right units for a balanced army composition. But I am not here talking that one's macro skills is completely absent, without any macro whatsoever you wouldn't make any units after all. What I am talking here about is that one's focus to improve (at what league you'r at) doesn't has to first and foremost has to lie at macro.
What I am saying is that Sc2 has alot of skills/mechanics/aspects one can focus on and each person can decide for themselves what they want to focus on. So if a low placed league person comes to the forums and asks for help on his play, sure you can tell him to improve macro and how. And if he/she does just that he/she will most likely improve, no doubt.
Buuut, what if he/she wants to focus on micro to improve his/her skills? What if he/she wants to focus on positioning? Timing attacks? One can focus on all those things to improve their skills just as much one can focus on macro to improve their skills and it's up the player to decide what to do, not up to anyone else to dictate how he/she should improve "because I am a higher league player and I say so" or because "this is my view on Sc2 just like thousands other people, so you better see it the same way".
Simply put, as I have said in my first post in here, if a player asks for help on something and he/she doesn't want to hear "macro better", why not look at the other aspects of his/her game and comment on that to help him/her out? Is it really that bad for a silver player to improve his/her army positioning or his/her micro first? Really?
And if macro, after improving other aspects, proves to be a hurddle to overcome to keep getting better then he/she will turn to that aspect of the game. But in no way should anyone here "dictate" anyone else that macro is the way to go if you want to improve, because that isn't up for them to decide for a fellow player.
Just said that you shouldnt only focus on macro, but do you think those players you talk about loses to bad strategy or bad macro? micro and all that is the cherry on top not saying you should ignore it but where is priority? u should have good macro so you dont have to struggle or do things the wrong way. one should always think about the play how you microed mechanic etc by watching reps and train the WHOLE game, im sry getting tired cant write good or more
On October 07 2011 10:00 Gnight wrote: Buuut, what if he/she wants to focus on micro to improve his/her skills? What if he/she wants to focus on positioning? Timing attacks? One can focus on all those things to improve their skills just as much one can focus on macro to improve their skills and it's up the player to decide what to do, not up to anyone else to dictate how he/she should improve "because I am a higher league player and I say so" or because "this is my view on Sc2 just like thousands other people, so you better see it the same way".
You can't practice positioning, micro and timing attacks correctly if you don't have good macro. You may learn to micro two units perfectly, but that skill is irrelevant when you are handling more than two units (read: figure of speech). Same with positioning. You can practice timing attacks, but that is irrelevant too if you miss the timing window when those timing attacks are useful because you macroed poorly. Every skill you develop with poor macro becomes useless when you correct your macro deficiencies.
What you seem to forgot with this post is that while learning a new unit composition might be more fun it is also a lot less usefull.
The new unit composition is only usefull in that very same situation whereas learning how to macro will be usefull in all situations.
On top of that it is quite likely that if you macroed better you could have beaten the fight that you lost earlier because you would have had more units.
I think the reason people focus so much on Macro is because of the yield you can get from it.
Having 50 of the 'wrong' unit, still tends to beat 25 of the 'right' unit.
I just made in this past month a YouTube channel looking only at Bronze, Silver and Gold level games, and pointing out issues players are having...and after doing, I think about 25 games now and in the vast majority of cases, it's the Macro issues that make the difference, not strategic or unit counter type issues.
This is one I did recently, really trying to focus only on the player's Macro and pointing out specifically why it is the Macro that is making the big difference, and not the unit types or Micro that determine the outcome of the game.
Basically the idea is if you put a diamond player in a gold League game...and made him do a non-sense strategy...he'd usually still win, because he'd have so many of those units.
It's like watching TL Attack, and telling a player to make only Vikings and Medivacs....and watch him still win. It's a dumb strategy, but if you make enough and macro better, you could still win.
When someone posts a replay looking for help, I do look them over, and I do give details on what I see in all categories... but I do find about 80% of that advice, particularly the more important advice is always 'You're not making workers here', 'You're not making units', 'You're not producing as you attack' and 'You're not expanding/teching'
Yes there's other things you can improve, but nothing is so high yield as Macro.
- Learning/improving macro/mechanics is boring and robotic
Bad players rather 'have fun' than to actually improve, so they attempt to argue their way out of doing the 'work' to improve.
Agreed.
Let's say it's a ZvT. You open 14 hatch, but your macro slips. It's now 8 minutes into the game, you have a baneling nest but only 4 banelings with 8 lings, your spire just started, and you're floating 800/200 with both of your queens at 75 energy.
2 tanks and 12 marines walk into your nat, siege up, and slowly you.
Your strategy, ling/bling/muta is fine. What if, however, you had 8 banelings and 24 lings extra - which you could have had. You would have rolled that push. You lost because you didn't macro hard enough.
But if you're bronze, you may look at that game and say your strategy was wrong - you shouldn't have opened hatch first, you should have gotten hooks instead of a spire, you should have blah blah blah. No, you should've just macro'd better.
People aren't trying to say that "with good macro you'll beat build order losses." They're trying to say that many holes in your game will "magically" disappear when you macro correctly.
Just to add another voice to this debate - I agree that certain build orders/strategies can help a low level player immediately improve their win ratio. Learning all-ins is an example of this.
I began in Bronze after release, and worked my way to Diamond over the six months following. So obviously my mechanics and macro started out very low. When I struggled with matchups (particularly TvZ) I would just learn to 2-port banshee which was ezpz all the way through gold and plat etc. But my play completely collapsed when I reached diamond+ players since my macro still sucked. So I had to go back to basics, lose lots, and re-learn the game.
so tl:dr - you can improve your win rate with strategies, get better over night, but its pretty much a waste of time. And no I don't believe there is anyone out there who can't make it to diamond without practice and improving macro
There's no argument. OP is right. A lot of strategy forum responders are goddamn lazy, and it's always easy to view a rep, declare that somebody had over 1000 minerals, and be like "MACRO MOAR!1!!". It's sloppy and crap.
On October 07 2011 10:53 Crosswind wrote: There's no argument. OP is right. A lot of strategy forum responders are goddamn lazy, and it's always easy to view a rep, declare that somebody had over 1000 minerals, and be like "MACRO MOAR!1!!". It's sloppy and crap.
-Cross
It's easy to point out because it's usually right.
It's like how in Hockey, players want to learn shooting all the time, but a lot of coaching them is improving their skating. It's boring to learn, but if the other player is skating 50% faster than you, it doesn't matter how well you pass or shoot.
When its pointed out you've got 1000 minerals and 700 gas, we're usually saying 'You'd have won if you had 12 more Units right now'
Whats the point of learning unit composition if your opponent is equally bad at macro? You'll still win, and think it was due to your 'strategy' when in fact it was just because you macroed slightly better. So you gain a bit more MMR and then come crashing back to earth and complain about ladder anxiety
On October 06 2011 21:26 me_viet wrote: no. better mechanics WILL still triumph at lower level. Mechanics are there so you can execute the strategy properly.
Big fat duh.
But when a player is asking about strategy and you're too lazy to tell him anything but the above standard straight line, don't talk anymore. You're not responsive.
A: How do I do proper pullups? B: Just get stronger, lol, if you're strong enough you can do any number ezpz
On October 06 2011 21:26 me_viet wrote: no. better mechanics WILL still triumph at lower level. Mechanics are there so you can execute the strategy properly.
Big fat duh.
But when a player is asking about strategy and you're too lazy to tell him anything but the above standard straight line, don't talk anymore. You're not responsive.
A: How do I do proper pullups? B: Just get stronger, lol, if you're strong enough you can do any number ezpz
You all sound like that.
I disagree - a better analogy is a triathlon. A guy comes along asking for advice to help get his time under xyz, and expecting to learn about his technique to transition from the swim to the bike. Experienced people just say "bro, you weigh 200 kg, your fitness is whats holding you back, train more rather than worrying about losing 30 seconds on a transition"
Its not the nicest advice, but its the correct advice if they want to improve
edit: I also think its sadly ironic that newer players looking for quick-fix advice to help them improve in the short term is annoyed that the advice they receive is 'lazy'
I agree with what the OP said in that lower league players can also be concerned about strategy aswell and I am a masters player. Also to people who use the example of destiny doing the mass queen strat to get to platnum saying that you dont need strategy you just need macro ability arent quite right becasue what i see this proves is that destiny is a GM player and he was losing to platnum players (which he was towards the end of the expirement) because he was using a bad strategy.
So this obviously proves that strategy is an important part of the game and it would definatly help lower players to be using solid strategys instead of just working on macro and mechanics while going for really stupid strategys because then you could have GM level mechanics but be losing to guys in plat.
On October 07 2011 10:22 hkf wrote: The last ten pages boils down to this
- Learning/improving strategy is fun and dynamic
- Learning/improving macro/mechanics is boring and robotic
Bad players rather 'have fun' than to actually improve, so they attempt to argue their way out of doing the 'work' to improve.
Players that want to actually improve listen to the advice of players better than them, and work on their macro/mechanics, despite how boring it is.
/thread.
I got decently far with my conscious effort mostly being on strategy. Sure, I also focused a lot on basic macro stuff like not missing pylons, having close to optimal builds, etc. etc., but before I worked on any of that specifically I tried a lot of different strategical ideas.
Of course if you want to be the next flash you need to spend hours and hours drilling macro, but if you're silver level and you seriously think you want to be flash you're delusional. So what's the point in telling someone to only focus on macro if it's not enjoyable? Someone who is a beginner at anything will not ever accomplish much if they don't enjoy it, whereas even someone with poor habits can become quite good at something they enjoy.
I remember seeing a Master player ladder an account from bronze to diamond by making stalkers and stalkers only, never harassing or scouting (besides initial probe scout), expanding at standard timings, getting upgrades at standard timings, never putting any pressure on his opponent, and a-clicking his opponent's base when he was at 200/200.
Seriously just macro, if you want a strategy, make pure stalkers.
On October 07 2011 10:22 hkf wrote: The last ten pages boils down to this
- Learning/improving strategy is fun and dynamic
- Learning/improving macro/mechanics is boring and robotic
Bad players rather 'have fun' than to actually improve, so they attempt to argue their way out of doing the 'work' to improve.
Players that want to actually improve listen to the advice of players better than them, and work on their macro/mechanics, despite how boring it is.
/thread.
I got decently far with my conscious effort mostly being on strategy. Sure, I also focused a lot on basic macro stuff like not missing pylons, having close to optimal builds, etc. etc., but before I worked on any of that specifically I tried a lot of different strategical ideas.
Of course if you want to be the next flash you need to spend hours and hours drilling macro, but if you're silver level and you seriously think you want to be flash you're delusional. So what's the point in telling someone to only focus on macro if it's not enjoyable? Someone who is a beginner at anything will not ever accomplish much if they don't enjoy it, whereas even someone with poor habits can become quite good at something they enjoy.
Because in general whenever I see sub-Masters people post about strategy help it is always about a very specific instance in a very specific game where they want to know exactly what they should have had in this very specific instance in this very specific game. They disregard 20 minutes of play lead lead up to the event and think that despite being down the entire game they could have won the engagement with this mythical combination of units that apparently can be spewed from asshole to battlefield. It is very rarely "Proper response to FFE on Tal'Darim Alter" it is always "What did I do wrong?" and they include a single replay and ask how they could have won the game. Assuming that all the horrible decisions, macro mistakes and sweeping RTS decisions they failed upon leading up to a decisive engagement are meaningless. Instead of getting into a Bronze level theorycrafting war with someone it is always easier to just say "Your resources are at 2000/750 and supply at 120 at 20 minutes. Fix that." I've honestly never had a valid discussion with a lower level player that didn't end up into a massive pissing contest about who can theorycraft themselves out of any situation.
On October 07 2011 11:40 iSTime wrote: I got decently far with my conscious effort mostly being on strategy. Sure, I also focused a lot on basic macro stuff like not missing pylons, having close to optimal builds, etc. etc., but before I worked on any of that specifically I tried a lot of different strategical ideas.
Of course if you want to be the next flash you need to spend hours and hours drilling macro, but if you're silver level and you seriously think you want to be flash you're delusional. So what's the point in telling someone to only focus on macro if it's not enjoyable? Someone who is a beginner at anything will not ever accomplish much if they don't enjoy it, whereas even someone with poor habits can become quite good at something they enjoy.
A fair post, maybe the take home message that its not useful to assume that a [H] is posted out of a desire to get sustainably better. Maybe the correct response is to direct them to a thread of 'fun easy builds'. But then liquipedia has that so I'm not sure if its really a gap.
I'm a masters player and I can 1v2 a silver and a platinum level player making pure lings and queens.
Also, I remember playing broodwar back in the day when I just started and could win a game or two by doing a lurker drop in the main, but it didn't matter because even if I could get into the main and destroy their worker line I would still lose a lot because my macro was awful.
So if you're going to be asking about strategies to help you win games, you can't get any advice from a masters level player, because anything they tell you will require you to play at close to the same level in order to get it done.
On October 07 2011 11:40 tuestresfat wrote: I remember seeing a Master player ladder an account from bronze to diamond by making stalkers and stalkers only, never harassing or scouting (besides initial probe scout), expanding at standard timings, getting upgrades at standard timings, never putting any pressure on his opponent, and a-clicking his opponent's base when he was at 200/200.
Seriously just macro, if you want a strategy, make pure stalkers.
Pretty sure a terran player that knows how to make marauders and stim can win with 50 food less in units
That's why scouting (and reacting) is important at bronze level too.
On October 07 2011 11:53 aznhockeyboy16 wrote: So if you're going to be asking about strategies to help you win games, you can't get any advice from a masters level player, because anything they tell you will require you to play at close to the same level in order to get it done.
If a lowbie asks a masters level player, "What do I do against mass Stalker" or "How many Turrets should I use for Muta defense", the answers aren't directly related to macro nor do they require masters level play to put into practice.
Disclaimer: I only read the first page of comments so I might be just restating someone else.
Sup,
High Diamond here (imo im going on masters but w/e)
Here are a few points that players make about low tier players: 1. Macro is the most important aspect of the game. 2. Learning anything other then macro is a waste of time. 3. Strategy and unit composition doesn't matter until diamond/master.
Here is what I think: Some low tier players have limited time. It is a more efficient use of playing time if player x is trying to improve multiple aspects of their game, as opposed to solely macro. (For example, 70% of time is spent macroing, 15% thinking about unit composition, 10% thinking about overall strategy of your game and 5% microing.)
It would be extremely helpful to lower tier players if us diamond+ players gave more information then less about a particular scenario that the lower tier player is having trouble with. This gives the lower tier player the answer while only knowing part of the question. For example: Question: In PvZ why does the protoss usually open with 4-5 sentries + 1zlot, THEN make attacking units?
(Simple) Answer: Because sentries are great units for defending using Force Fields early on against possible roach/ling pressure on your expansion. Also if the sentries survive to the mid game, they will have alot more energy as opposed to JUST building them AT the mid game.
^ We cannot expect the lower tier players to immediately incorporate ALL of this type of knowledge into their game play, but it gives them a general idea that there is a bunch more going on in the game then just, Blob A vs Blob B, Blob A wins because it is bigger.
tl:dr More advice given to lower players is better then less or none at all.
I agree its not fun to macro at the start specially when you're new to the game. you want to try out almost all units in your race, imitate what this pro player did and so on. however if you really want to get better and I'm assuming you do, you will try and improve your macro.
take my instance for example. during Season 1 I was bronze (see my profile if you like srael.805) this was the time when I was new in the game and trying out lots of stuff all at the same time. a friend later on introduced me to the Day 9 dailies and I watched an episode where a protoss expands and plays macro games. I thought to myself to try that and just make pure gateway units and make colossus when I remember to. at first it was shit really. I was having a hard time continuing to make probes, expanding and massing army but later on I noticed that I started winning because I had a much bigger army than my enemy.
Come season 2 I got promoted to silver and kept doing one strategy per match up regardless of what they are doing. I lose sometimes to something I didn't expect but majority of the time I still won again because of a much bigger army. I then get promoted to gold and later on to platinum and I'm still doing the same thing.
i ask most people i know playing SC2 regardless of league and they know that macro is the way to go. you may ignore it but if you do most likely you won't improve drastically. having a great strategy up your sleeve which catches your enemy by surprise is good yes but having a solid macro based strategy will still prove worthwhile and much more helpful for you.
TL;DR; I got promoted from bronze to platinum doing the same thing per match-up and most of the time when I win I win because my army is way bigger because of a better macro.
PS. i still suck i know but what i know is if i still improve on my macro i can later on be a much better player and I can start copying the builds of the pros with much more ease.
What low level players don't realize is that mechanics and strategy go hand in hand. You can't have one without the other, so it's useless practicing "strategy" without the mechanics to support it.
You see that amazing build that has the first 15m mapped out with perfect responses? You want to know how it's done?
With 200+ APM and near perfect multitask.
You can't execute relevant strategy without mechanics. If your mechanics are only good enough to not be overwhelmed by the 5m mark, then that's about as far as your strategies can go. Start working on getting perfect mechanics to the 8m mark, and now you can do 2x as many strategies, but you still can't play mid/late game. Now get your 12m, and then 15m, and then 20m executions down.
Here's the other problem too that I don't think has really been talked about yet.
Most of the time the cause of the loss is macro. Everybody understands that marauders are going to crush stalkers, and that if you're making stalkers and he makes marauders you're going to lose. This isn't the reason for the posts low level players make posts asking about help with certain strategies.
Low level players need to realize that I can't tell you to make zealots and to try this or that because chances are you probably already know that.
The solution 99% of the time is usually bad macro, for everybody who plays no matter what the level of play. I've played games where I've lost because of bad control, but I know why I lost and I'm sure a low level player will realize that having his army on move instead of attack move is the reason he lost. I've played games where it's been a build order/scouting loss where I've been stuck with marines trying to kill an early 2 colli push but again it's really obvious why I lost.
When things get super frustrating and a certain build is killing you so much you want to make a post here on TL about it you have to understand that it's almost always a macro problem or else you would already know the solution.
Sorry I stopped reading at about page four so I don't know if this has already been said.
I think in the trailer for StarNation there is an interview with QXC where he talks about the perceived difficulty of the game and how everyone likes to say they have good macro just that their scouting or positioning or harassing or whatever is weak and that's why they lose. His response was that if you can't perfectly macro WHILE attacking and WHILE harassing, you actually aren't perfect at macro. If you think you can macro "pefectly" then do what you are doing now and add a simultaneous drop while you macro until that's perfect too. Basically for people that think hey have "perfect" or even "pretty good" macro, that is only when they are tunnel visioned and only focusing on their base. I'm not really sure where I'm trying to do with this, but I think it's in response to people that are trying to argue that while hey know their macro holds them back, their macro is "good enough" to get promoted, if only they could strategize better with what they have. The fact is, your macro is not good and if you actually had perfect macro, you probably could win with only marines and multiple drops everywhere, or with muta/ling using perfect and simultaneous counters and backstabs.
As a plat player myself I realize that it is easy to underestimate how good you can actually be at macro and so I fall into the trap of thinking my macro is actually pretty close to perfect since there's not much more I can improve on. When in reality my macro only seems good because I don't ever try to stress my macro multitasking, knowing that if I do, my money will build up and make me feel bad.
If a low level player actually wants a good strategy they should just watch a pro game and copy their build, if they are zerg maybe watch 20 replays of 1 zerg doing a similar build over and over to note adjustments. If you lose watch your replay and try to figure out what you could have done. Often times it's if I had more income and better injects I could have just made 50 lings and crushed that, but I didn't have enough bases or good enough injects.
If the player really wants to improve they need to get their macro and micro to the point where they can execute a strategy that they see in a match. Even at high masters I sometimes don't hit one inject soon enough and the lack of income from those 4 drones being delayed by 8 seconds snowballs and I die to a midgame timing that a pro wouldnt have micro or not.
I will, for the final time, tell you why nearly all of these responses are shitty. "MACRO BETTER" is a vague term that could mean any number of things. If you give the response 'macro better" then you're giving a shitty response. Something like "you floating too many minerals, expand more or make more units" isn't a completely useless answer, and it gives the OP something to focus on next game.
Yes, macro and mechanics are extremely important. And yes, macro is generally the reason why people lose, especially at lower levels. But if someone asks what they did wrong overall, don't give them a vague, bullshit answer. Point out something specific that they can work on, ffs. Simply stating 'macro better' shows you're too lazy to analyze a replay and actually give useful advice on what the OP could do to improve.
So to everyone saying 'macro better", you are almost right. Instead of saying macro better, why don't you try saying a specific part of the macro that needs fixing: such as drone production, scouting, floating minerals, missing injects/mule/CBs. I'm pretty sure it would help out a lot more then simply saying "macro better hurr durr".
I'm a masters terran player. From my experience, you can get into masters but pure macro. The only strategy you need is common sense, such as making vikings to kill collosi
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.
God people like you just don't understand...
BECAUSE you DON'T macro properly or have NOT worked out your strategy in practice you lose. If you 15 hatched and got 6pooled don't come to these forums asking why you lost.
FUNDAMENTALLY macro is top priority in low leagues, BASICALLY its made up of Being able to spend money Getting to 3 saturated bases asap Not getting supply capped
At a higher level macro is also the ability to multitask. WHICH MEANS Being able to spend money WHILE getting to 3 saturated bases while not getting supply capped WHILE SCOUTING. Which means you should LEARN to macro, that way when it comes down to the nitty-gritty you've scouted your opponent, COUNTERED what they are going by CHANGING your strategy SLIGHTLY to benefit you.
Like lets say you are terran and your opponent is zerg and you open reactor hellion into mech. If your opponent opens roaches and you SCOUT it, you should be able to EXPLOIT his strategy by UNDERSTANDING his weaknesses NOT blaming you chose the wrong strategy.
So you people need to stop complaining that macro isn't the only answer and that you are generally just bad and can't take blame for your losses. The only reason you lose is because of you, the only reason you win is because of you. Learn to take advantage of strategies your opponent does instead of look at how to defend the exploits your opponent does to you.
People are retarded sometimes. This topic is the sole reason why the strategy forum is sadly almost worthless for helping low level players to improve. I am someone who started with zero previous rts experience, and very little innate "skill" (slow hands, tendency to tunnelvision etc etc). And worked my way all the way up from the bottom to masters league. I love this game, spend as much time watching streams/tourneys as playing and my thoughts are kind of as follow. (Besides just the disgust at the elitist dribble in this thread from people who there is no way they are all even Masters players)
1) You don't just tell someone to improve their macro. Its worthless. Anybody remotely serious about improving knows from the bottom of their soul that they need to do this. Its not that its bad or wrong advice, its just not HELPFUL advice.
2) Looking at replays and providing specific individual advice on where to improve macro is on the other hand extremely helpful.
3) The matchmaking system is good. People play against their own level of opponents. This is important. Generally speaking macro does not cause you to lose games. Yes, I said that. It is undeniably true that for most players better macro would cause them to win games. But the macro is not what lost them the game because most likely their opponent macroed similarly. And with equally "bad" macro, often times games are actually lost for strategic reasons.
4) So telling people not to worry at all about strategy is silly, the two go hand in hand. Unit control and strategy lose you games in lower brackets. Macro wins you games. You need to improve both.
5) Finally and most importantly, the only way I know to develop better macro is to play a lot and watch/analyze your play. Having others do this is also helpful. But there is basically nothing a forum is going to do to help you with your macro. On the other hand, forums can be very helpful regarding strategy. So why not help lower players with what you can? Point out their macro needs improving, but don't bash them over the head with it, and try to give helpful strategic advice as well.
I will never ever ever be a pro, but my word to encouragement to lower league players who honestly want to improve is just play a lot, and with the right mindset. (Trying to improve) This is what builds macro, not forum rants about it being the most important thing (duh). It took me about 800 wins, so over 1500 games and a year of time before I got into Master's league; and you know what? I was not actually any better than the day before when I was in lowly diamond. GL all.
Watch professional Sc2. While that may not truly prepare you for defending the bronze/silver level ultra cheeses, it'll give you a great backbone for builds. I SUCK at Terran (I play Random), but by watching pro players play terran I understand what I'm SUPPOSED to do, even if I cannot do it yet. After that, it's just practice, experience, and perseverance.
I beat a Protoss the other day with one Banshee and some micro. Mechanics really, really matter.
Nah ... most of the time it´s "macro better and u would have won", but if you playing at a lower level most of the time the macro of your opponent also sucks so it´s an even game. And in this even game where both peoples macro isn´t that awsome the strategy part determinates the winner. Theoretical you win if you would have macroed better and had like 15 units more in the fight, but it´s not the case. The player who asks for an advise want´s an advise in the particular situation, not about his overall game. So back to the bad, but even macro game. "You cant have timings with bad macro"... Yes you can. According to the piont both players macro sucks timeing are possible in some point that they are simply taking place later in the game than at high level. But the opponent also dosen´t have that much stuff, cause it´s later than the timing normaly occours, but due to his macrofails he isn´t far beyond the other player who executes the "delayed" timing, so it evens out. So if you have the supirior strategy in an macrowise even game, strategy matters, also in lower leagues!
Another problem is that there are no good benchmarks for this game. Leagues are great for casual players and maybe for most people to grasp, but they are not good for, or meant to represent skill.
Master league in SC2 is everything from D to B ICCUP (D- being the lower leagues). There is a tremendous different of skill from D to B, whereas at the lower leagues, it's mostly the same approximate level of incompetence.
But of course giving everyone a D- rating would be extremely discouraging.
Macro is the #1 most important thing to work on. Just watch a pro game and see WHAT they build, and then do your best to just get a ton of units. This is the best way to improve imo, don't get into the hardcore strategy stuff until you can actually macro well enough. I went from bronze in may to diamond just trying to macro better.
I think there's also a little confusion in the lower leagues as to what "macro" is. Macro is not just the contant worker production that i think lower leagues are focussing on as the definition of "macro" while it should include general unit production, not supply blocking, and etc as well as being economicly "efficient" ; producing the most with the least. Macro applies to an economy including just not in the sc2 sense. Think about it - if everyone if the world just got paid constantly but no one bought anything, the economy fails. In sc even if you produce less workers and have a lower income than your opponent but you macro better in the fashion you use as much resoucres as efficiently as possible you will still win.
And despite what Malhavoc said about sometimes strategy does count; quoting him "200 food pure colossi still lose to 100 food pure viking" - even this is completely false. I have personally played games where it was litterly a 200 food immortal army against a 100 void ray army and dispite the opponent having the "correct strategy" the immortals still demolished him and cost him a loss.
On October 07 2011 11:40 tuestresfat wrote: I remember seeing a Master player ladder an account from bronze to diamond by making stalkers and stalkers only, never harassing or scouting (besides initial probe scout), expanding at standard timings, getting upgrades at standard timings, never putting any pressure on his opponent, and a-clicking his opponent's base when he was at 200/200.
Seriously just macro, if you want a strategy, make pure stalkers.
Pretty sure a terran player that knows how to make marauders and stim can win with 50 food less in units
That's why scouting (and reacting) is important at bronze level too.
My argument - you can use a terrible strategy and get to diamond level off good mechanics, allow me to reference this guy doing it making only stalkers.
Your argument - the strategy you used in your example is easily countered in bronze.
Can you please read... The strategy is, as you said, fucking terrible. YET HE GOT TO DIAMOND. WONDER WHAT THAT MEANS.
Just plat and agree with Soulriser. To say simply "macro better" is far too general. There are multiple points into making macro better whether it is floating too many minerals at certain points which could be fixed in different ways, handling of larva inject/chrono/mules, keeping macro while attacking or defending, optimizing timings (taking drones off gas after getting 100 for speed), losing focus in later game etc. The solutions for these problems vary and might require the player to be told something a little more that "macro better".
Personally I suck at keeping up with injects and using larva while I am trying to harass with mutalisks or dealing with an attack from the enemy. It partially comes from lacking the muscle memory to cycle through hatch,larva,build thing but in the case of injects not feeling comfortable using backspace inject. Instead after a battle I generally backspace then select queen with mouse which takes more time due to just panicking. This is a difficult problem as it requires a conscious effort while playing to override the bad habit. Practicing this while in a ladder game is hard because I want to win and against the computer is too boring. Finding practice partners to play the say 20+ games in a row is difficult as well :/ at best I can get a couple of games a night around ladder games which seems to revert any developing muscle memory.
I also had a big issue getting supply blocked but that was fixed after watching a video of Destiny teaching where he mentioned putting an overlord on the end of every round of larva. This is a simple solution and makes sense when Destiny mentioned as you are getting into making anything else rather than zerglings that they cost 2 food anyway. This kind of thing where a point is made and then a simple solution is given is much more constructive than simply saying don't get supply blocked and I feel a similar kind of thing could be done when pointing out someone's minerals are too high.
In pretty much any situation in a platinum level game, both players will have fairly horrible mechanics and strategy, but the strat part doesn't even get a chance to come into play, because everything relies on your opponent not making units and attack moving at you, as no matter what happens, if you're not efficiently using your resources/production, you won't have enough units to defend an attack of low tier versatile units (gateway attacks, bio attacks, ling bane roach, etc..).
Just pick one build for each matchup, preferably a 2 base timing push, and exectute that build as well as you can, then compare it to the pro rep you stole it from, see where it differs, and get as good as you can at executing that build, once you can execute to near perfection, you should be masters and have some idea of what strategy is and what you're doing wrong and why.
Macro is a GIGANTIC part of getting better. Obviously if you run your entire army into 20 tanks and lose everything you will lose, but you really do need to just focus on improving GRADUALLY on macro. I mean, don't ignore all strategy like some people may say to do, just have a build order you got from a pro who is hella awesome or you admire, have a general goal of when to win or how to win, and pick something to get better at each game/day/week/whatever.
Example: Game plan - get a safe expansion with detection, get a strong army with upgrades, take a 3rd base at 150 food or when safe and win using a big push. BO - 3gate expo --> forge --> robo --> colossus --> 3rd base --> 200/200 push and win What will I work on these next 10 games? - scouting with hallucinated phoenix.
If you lay out what you're going to do in this sort of manner you can see how things affect each other and how the game is going to go becomes clear. If you say YOUR gameplan, you can find a build that suites it. And if your game plan is to take a 3rd base when safe or at 150 food, then working on scouting with hallucinated phoenix will improve your 3rd base timing gigantically.
A lot of people go into ladder to just mass games, win and 'work on macro', but it's way too hard to just 'work on macro', because macroing is ton of work to get good at, but you if you just choose 1 thing like, "This game I will constantly build probes and spend all of my extra chrono that I don't use on robo/upgrades on probes." OMG after like 2-5 games a day for like 1-2 week you will never ever forget to build and chrono probes.
Then you can move onto something like, "Now I will work on scouting every 60 seconds with hallucinated phoenix (and paying attention to them while they're scouting) while building and chronoing probes." and after another 1 week or whatever you will be able to do 2 things that players in Masters still suck shit at.
Obviously you can still work on your timings for making shit and whatever, but put your extra focus you might normally spend on nothing, or attacking for no fucking reason on something really relevant to a low level player.
On October 07 2011 10:00 Gnight wrote: Buuut, what if he/she wants to focus on micro to improve his/her skills? What if he/she wants to focus on positioning? Timing attacks? One can focus on all those things to improve their skills just as much one can focus on macro to improve their skills and it's up the player to decide what to do, not up to anyone else to dictate how he/she should improve "because I am a higher league player and I say so" or because "this is my view on Sc2 just like thousands other people, so you better see it the same way".
You can't practice positioning, micro and timing attacks correctly if you don't have good macro. You may learn to micro two units perfectly, but that skill is irrelevant when you are handling more than two units (read: figure of speech). Same with positioning. You can practice timing attacks, but that is irrelevant too if you miss the timing window when those timing attacks are useful because you macroed poorly. Every skill you develop with poor macro becomes useless when you correct your macro deficiencies.
Sorry, but I feel there's where you are wrong on, you'r making it too black and white, nothing can be of use at a good level without macro being at a good level as well is pretty much what you are saying here. You shouldn't compare one's macro skills of their league up the macro skills of players in a league he/she wants to be and set them next to timings/build order execution times that pro players can pull off.
If I look at two silver players playing each other, then each of those two players has their own strenghts and weaknesses right off the bat. Perhaps one of them has a better macro, but the other a better micro, then each of those two players can use their strenght to their advantage and pull themselves a win. Regardless wheter this is macro or micro, because both aspects play a important part into the game.
Now you talk about the amount of units one has with poor macro, but compared to a macro skill of a same level league player, the difference in supply won't be that big even if that player has a stronger macro, seeing they around the same skill level. Look at the Grandmasters, pro tourneys, each pro player has strenghts and weaknesses. You don't hear everyone labeling every pro player with a amazing macro play, no you see people labeling certain players with godlike micro, others have that sick macro play, some are insane good with timing attacks. All of those things can pull you to victory at that high level, so why not at low level? After all, your skill may be less, but the opponents skill level is too.
Alot of people see macro as the basis of all other skills/aspects of the game, I simply see macro as a option to be the basis. In the end it's up to the player themselves to decide what they want their strenght/basis to be, if that isn't macro then so be it. We can keep on saying "macro better, macro better, because I think that is the basis to everything else", but that doesn't make it right in the other persons eyes.
And this is about just that. Someone wants some advice and why not deliver the advice he/she is seeking? Instead we are just throwing the same old advice over and over against their heads, because so many people believe that their view of the game (macro in this case) is the right one, because so many people share that view. Sorry, but that is just plain wrong to think and believe in my eyes. No matter how many people believe in something, that alone doesn't make it a fact, simple as that.
You got your view, I get mine and someone else got theirs, why can't we all just leave it at that and support them in their view instead of forcing our views upon them?
On October 07 2011 10:00 Gnight wrote: Buuut, what if he/she wants to focus on micro to improve his/her skills? What if he/she wants to focus on positioning? Timing attacks? One can focus on all those things to improve their skills just as much one can focus on macro to improve their skills and it's up the player to decide what to do, not up to anyone else to dictate how he/she should improve "because I am a higher league player and I say so" or because "this is my view on Sc2 just like thousands other people, so you better see it the same way".
You can't practice positioning, micro and timing attacks correctly if you don't have good macro. You may learn to micro two units perfectly, but that skill is irrelevant when you are handling more than two units (read: figure of speech). Same with positioning. You can practice timing attacks, but that is irrelevant too if you miss the timing window when those timing attacks are useful because you macroed poorly. Every skill you develop with poor macro becomes useless when you correct your macro deficiencies.
Once again, that's your view, doesn't make it a fact. Learning positionings isn't just about learning one situation out of your head and that's it. It's so much more then just that, just like macro is so much more then just building workers. I feel like alot of people are misjudging the fact that macro isn't the only broad aspect of a game, there is so much more it when I say to learn about positioning.
If one learns how and when to flank with various of units against various of other units, then is that really only usefull in 1 situation? Really? Same goes for tank positioning, collossi positioning, broodlord positioning, caster posititioning. You can say all you want, but lower level league players lose just as easily because of poor positioning then of poor macro, this simply because the opponent they are facing skill level is around theirs, that includes the macro. You can train macro to pull ahead over your opponents, but just as well learn about better positioning and simply outplay your opponent with better engagement, even though he has that small supply advantage.
The better macro won't pull you 50 supply ahead at those leagues, so almost never you will face such a huge army that positioning doesn't even matter and if you'r macro is really that good to almost always put you 50 supply ahead over a opponent then you are clearly already in a wrong league. So don't say one's positioning is useless compared to the sheer number of units the macro player has in a engagement, because even that doesn't so much apply here seeing their skill level (once again) are around the same level.
On October 07 2011 10:30 Wroshe wrote: What you seem to forgot with this post is that while learning a new unit composition might be more fun it is also a lot less usefull.
The new unit composition is only usefull in that very same situation whereas learning how to macro will be usefull in all situations.
On top of that it is quite likely that if you macroed better you could have beaten the fight that you lost earlier because you would have had more units.
Read the above reply, pretty much the same applies to what you are saying. In the end you all see macro as the basis of pretty much all other aspects of the game, I don't and so far I have played Sc2 happily, improved and without any heavy focus on macro, that skill pulled along as I focused on other things I more enjoyed focusing on and used to pull me a win. Like army compositioning, scouting at the right times to get the right info to completely counter the opponents army with mine, I "shrugged" at the supply disadvantage and simply won, because I was able to look beyond just "macro better" and focus on other aspects to win me the game.
Even so, this all isn't even about how you see the game and how I see the game. This topic is about getting advice and if a player asks for advice on how to get better, being the friendly, helpfull bunch we are, we should hand them such advice, right?
Now here comes the issue the OP is putting forth. He is sorta sick, just like 90% of all other low level league players to hear "macro better". Now I know alot of people will just say "yes, but it's the best advice to improve and that is what they are lacking", well perhaps that is right, that's for everyone different though in my eyes. But more importantly, why not give those people other advice aside their macro they can practice on? Really, there is no harm for you to do such a thing, in fact you are helping them.
You aren't giving out false advice or anything, you are just pointing out other things aside macro that one can practice to improve their overall gameplay. Because a better micro will always come in handy, a better insight in what kind of army composition one has to have is never wrong to have, knowing better how, where and when to engage with your army will not make you a worse player. So instead of acting all high on our horses and pulling the "macro" view out of our asses and pushing it in their faces like alot of people keep doing, why not actually help them beyond that if that's what they want?
Ps, Kornholi0, there was no need to "yell" at the Op for putting forth his view/opinion, don't hate anyone personally for voicing out his/her opinion at any given point actually. We are, well should be, all grown up enough to hold a healthy discussion I do believe.
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.
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.
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?"
You don't really make sense. I never said that "not saying macro better = cheese more". Just that better macro or cheese is the two most important things if you want to win games, not strategy.
100% mechanics from your side seems like you got further by macro, so I will assume you agree with me. But then you apparently don't because it's better to know when to take a 3rd base and other info like that. If you don't have workers in your first two and got money saved up it just doesn't matter. Just because an advice is boring (still) doesn't mean that it isn't the best advice. At least for the purpose of winning. Like previously mentioned for the purpose of having fun you could think of strategy.
Everytime I watch my lower level friends play. I send them my replays on how I do things. Not because I'm "better" than them strategically or what not they are all very clever people. I'll guarantee that if you post your replays to your OP and have people watch them you'll see that you slip up somewhere along the line in terms of macro 100% of the time. Watch other higher level replays and you'll see they'll just have "more stuff".
You'll be surprised that half over half the pointless clicking and scrolling lower level players do instead of making sure that they are just building out of all their structures/ queen injecting.
I think it depends on the server you play on. NA Gold and EU Gold are very different, and season 1 Gold and season 3 Gold also. People get better all the time. The typical high gold EU player can cheese very effectively and also knows a couple of builds for his race and can execute them quite well, so "macro better" is really not as great as it sounds. I have replays against high gold Protoss players whose 7 gate timings, compared to those of pro players, only come about 30 game seconds later and with slightly worse forcefields. They will still kill you if your positioning and micro are not good, or if you have no idea they are coming. Builds that are not too skill intensive are extremely deadly in the mid leagues. So I think you need to improve on everything by a little bit and slowly.
To be fair I've always gotten good advice covering all aspects of the game when I post my replays here, and the "just macro better" people don't seem very common outside of threads like this one.
On October 07 2011 15:11 Atreides wrote: People are retarded sometimes. This topic is the sole reason why the strategy forum is sadly almost worthless for helping low level players to improve. I am someone who started with zero previous rts experience, and very little innate "skill" (slow hands, tendency to tunnelvision etc etc). And worked my way all the way up from the bottom to masters league. I love this game, spend as much time watching streams/tourneys as playing and my thoughts are kind of as follow. (Besides just the disgust at the elitist dribble in this thread from people who there is no way they are all even Masters players)
1) You don't just tell someone to improve their macro. Its worthless. Anybody remotely serious about improving knows from the bottom of their soul that they need to do this. Its not that its bad or wrong advice, its just not HELPFUL advice.
2) Looking at replays and providing specific individual advice on where to improve macro is on the other hand extremely helpful.
3) The matchmaking system is good. People play against their own level of opponents. This is important. Generally speaking macro does not cause you to lose games. Yes, I said that. It is undeniably true that for most players better macro would cause them to win games. But the macro is not what lost them the game because most likely their opponent macroed similarly. And with equally "bad" macro, often times games are actually lost for strategic reasons.
4) So telling people not to worry at all about strategy is silly, the two go hand in hand. Unit control and strategy lose you games in lower brackets. Macro wins you games. You need to improve both.
5) Finally and most importantly, the only way I know to develop better macro is to play a lot and watch/analyze your play. Having others do this is also helpful. But there is basically nothing a forum is going to do to help you with your macro. On the other hand, forums can be very helpful regarding strategy. So why not help lower players with what you can? Point out their macro needs improving, but don't bash them over the head with it, and try to give helpful strategic advice as well.
I will never ever ever be a pro, but my word to encouragement to lower league players who honestly want to improve is just play a lot, and with the right mindset. (Trying to improve) This is what builds macro, not forum rants about it being the most important thing (duh). It took me about 800 wins, so over 1500 games and a year of time before I got into Master's league; and you know what? I was not actually any better than the day before when I was in lowly diamond. GL all.
I totally agree.
If you re just going to say "macro better" you might as well shut up.
And all those people saying you lose 99% of the time because of your macro that is just bullshit. Have you never lost games where your supply, upgrades, economy and production was better than your opponents? I hardly ever lose because I got outmacroed, just doesnt happen because of MMR.
Of course if you can train your mechanics hard every day you can outmacro your current opponents but you wont be able to do that against the players you face then.
And what does someone getting to diamond with just stalkers proof? Nothing except that his real level is better than diamond and maybe that mass blink stalkers are pretty damn good.
I mean you can get to diamond by winning 4 games total, 6 pooling, proxy gating. Just getting to diamond doesnt mean anything only if you can win with all kinds of builds consistently in diamond than that is your skill-level.
I think perhaps there's another reason that this 'macro better' statement is associated with these frustrations for lower league players, that has been somewhat enumerated on already.
Whenever a more skilled player tells someone they need to macro better, or that macro will solve %90 of your problems sub-diamond, whether in a generalized statement or not, a lot of times these people don't mind helping you out, some actually enjoy helping out, but they are also assuming from their own experiences that you,
A. genuinely want to improve (I mean, you did make a [H]thread for it, yes?) and that B. because you want to improve, you will do the necessary work/research on this topic on your own.
This second part is really incredibly important because the only way to improve in Starcraft is by proactively doing or looking for what is necessary in order to improve. Too often people today err on the side of laziness, and it's become easy to be flippant with better players who seem to be looking down on them when they just say 'macro better'. These players have to realize that we can't help you improve (unless were in a coaching position where we can help your directly) we can point you in the right direction or give you advice, but you have to put in the time and do the work for yourself, and that's why improving is hard.
..I'm trying to free your mind, Neo. But I can only show you the door. You're the one that has to walk through it.
As an example, If I wanted to improve my macro, or didn't know what macro entailed, I used the search function and did a very quick search on TL for macro based topics, or improvement topics and I came across a plethora of them. Below are a few:
I personally have quite an issue with the "macro better" issue too. Its quite valid but i was doing some sc2 gears analasys of my play. Every single game (yes i checked the replays and its every loss) ive lost to zerg since the patch has been an early roach ling all in. I could have come to the forums to ask for help but odds are id have got a "macro better response". When frankly "understanding" my scouting better in that situation would have got me better results. Especially because i tend to not do too many "standard" plays (i have a mindset of "i wonder if this would work").
It's amazing to see what some people consider what. Macro incorporating build orders, scouting, and reactions that's just wrong. Macro is building workers, units, and buildings. Your strategy is in what order and which you build. Tactics are how you engage, where to build, so on. Game sense is scouting and knowing when to do what. Micro is controlling units for full effectiveness.
You absolutely can not do anything in Starcraft 2 without macro supporting it. First and foremost for people that want to improve is to work on their macro. Second is their overall strategy, build order, and game plan for the match up. Third is how to position your units. I guarantee if you work on your short comings in that order the rest of the game will fall into place but you need macro more than anything else by far.
Show me a great micro player who has terrible macro that can beat someone who has great macro but terrible micro it just wont happen don't care who it is. Now show me a great micro player with just barely not as good of macro against a great macro player who isn't as good at micro and suddenly it's a different story.
For another example a bronze zerg player asks why he lost to a marine tank push the answer is probably a very long list of things both players did wrong in their macro. Now a platinum Terran asks why he lost to Chargelot, Blink Stalker, Collossi, High Templar death ball, still probably a lot of factors, I'm sure macro played a role, probably positioning, when they got what, so on but here still without crisp macro the rest of the answers are only situational and wont help the player get better beyond playing against that build.
You're right in saying that 'macro better' isn't helpful advice. If someone is looking at your replay then they really ought to point out specifically what you did badly. But if you're like me and are in bronze > plat then just pick a thing and work specifically on that. It doesn't matter if you win or lose, really.
This week I decided to just focus on making probes and reminding myself to make probes and just disregard who I'm playing on ladder, or what league they're in or anything like that. Funny thing is that it made a massive difference to everything. Suddenly I had an extra 3000 minerals that I had no idea what to do with - in other words it opened up up a whole bunch of strategies I could now do because I have that extra money. So what I'm saying is that strategy and macro aren't exclusive. They actually rely on each other quite a lot. So I guess I'd suggest just picking out one single thing and focusing on that for 20 games.
Nobody is going to care about your gold league win/loss record and if they do then they're a moron anyway. So just focus on improving or having fun or both.
I agree with OP. And I've just realized that being a high level Starcraft 2 player doesnt nessecarily mean you are very bright... Reading some of the comments here make you afraid of the dark...
Anyway... The reason the OP is correct is that there are different variables that determine how good of a player you are. Improving on any of these will make you a better player.
Thus:
Given that all players in Silver League macro just as bad/good. Its quite obvious that being good at the strategy part will de facto make you better than a player who is not good at the strategy part.
Given that all players in Silver League macro just as bad/good. Its quite obvious that being good at the strategy part will de facto make you better than a player who is not good at the strategy part.
If you are never interested in moving past Silver League, then you can approach the game with this attitude.
Given that all players in Silver League macro just as bad/good. Its quite obvious that being good at the strategy part will de facto make you better than a player who is not good at the strategy part.
If you are never interested in moving past Silver League, then you can approach the game with this attitude.
Look, this sort of stuff is just not helpful. So a player dies a lot to cloak banshee openings in TvT. It doesn't matter that his opponent macro terrible, if he dies because a cloak banshee shows up when he has no scan and kills everything. So you tell him, "Look man, if your scv sees gas first in tvt you should do a safe build like 1-1-1 yourself" and "6:20 is a good time to scan your opponents base, if you see a starport with techlab reseaching cloak, you can get a raven first out of your port and be safe." This is the stuff people need to hear, I have a younger brother who is not good at this game and yes; they need to be reminded to scout, told what to scout, what it means, and what a response is. (this is often complicated by their oponents in lower leagues doing things that make no sense lol, but there is not so much you can do about that. Teach them how to play against good people, not bad people)
Telling them, "just macro better" is the most worthless thing. They know they macro bad, but unless you look at a replay and tell them specicific points macro advice will not be useful. ie. "you missed your third depot and it delayed your raven by 20 secs." "You could have had 4 more scv at the 6 min mark if you produce constantly" "You got your gas to late (or early) for what you were trying to do"
One line "macro better and it will solve your problems" should be at least warning worthy imo. (of course.... there are those bronze league players who make such retarded posts that there literally is no other answer )
But really, you have to play games to improve your macro. You will never be able to do that if you get repeatedly build order stomped game after game and most importantly it adds nothing to the forum and helps no one.
So a player dies a lot to cloak banshee openings in TvT. It doesn't matter that his opponent macro terrible, if he dies because a cloak banshee shows up when he has no scan and kills everything.
Yeah this is true, but can't you just learn to execute a really safe build and then focus on improving whatever thing that you want to improve at? I get what you mean, though. Macro just by itself won't win games, but a safe build with good macro should get people up into higher leagues.
So a player dies a lot to cloak banshee openings in TvT. It doesn't matter that his opponent macro terrible, if he dies because a cloak banshee shows up when he has no scan and kills everything.
Yeah this is true, but can't you just learn to execute a really safe build and then focus on improving whatever thing that you want to improve at? I get what you mean, though. Macro just by itself won't win games, but a safe build with good macro should get people up into higher leagues.
Yeah, but executing any safe build still require adjusting to your opponent. ie. 1-1-1 in TvT or 2gateRobo in PvT, there are so many decisions that a decent player makes based upon the specific game.
I've emphasized this ridiculously, but I never said straight up improving your macro is not the most important thing to advance your play. It obviously is, nobody should really argue that. It is just the least helpful thing to tell someone.
The "macro better" answer is thrown around a lot... I think there are some situations where this is definitely 100% the best advice... Say they lose a huge colossus stalker ball game because they took expansions 5 min later than opponent every time, or floated way more minerals. Sure neither player was perfect but what matters is that they lost because their opponent "simply had more." macro better is good advice here.
What if it's a game where they lose to the aforementioned banshee? "scout better" is the better advice.
How about where their macro was similar to opponent and nobody got owned by a timing, but they mismicroed and lost 5 infestors infront of their army? Macro better doesn't help that at all.
Yeah you can win if you just "macro better and have more" but the same can be said for micro, or having better "strategy" in timings, scouting and response.
Yeah a pro can win just massing queens but that same guy can also just drone rush and win with micro just the same...
It's so true though. I recall jumping up 3 leagues by macro alone.
Even now my unit control is still terrible; I lose every single battle despite often having double the food. And my overall strategy has as many holes as swiss cheese.
But I still win half my games because it doesn't matter how many units I lose when I can re-max my army before my opponent gets close to my 4 bases.
Macro isn't the be all and end all of sc2 but when you have low apm it is the only way to ascend to the higher leagues.
Having read every post in this blasted thread <3 I think I've figured out the underlying issue here, apart from everybody thats partaken (myself included) having an Oedipal complex.
BUT REALLY
I think the issue is lack of discipline. Low level players play for funsies, not to actually play the game. The players that stick with it and improve over time or in spurts, however it works for those individuals, do have that discipline. Koreans have better discipline in training, which is why they are on top. Foreigners that undergo that kind of intensive training get better. They just do. When I did martial arts, my instructor had me do the same movement/pattern over and over and over. It was boring as hell, but I got really good at it. It built discipline. People in general, however, don't seem to share the discipline to be able to get good at stuff that isn't inherently fun. I have a friend thats this way, and is now realizing that that isn't viable, like at all. Needless to say when he applies that to SC2, he gets better. Whenever you're in doubt about whether or not you can do something, just know that if you have the discipline to prepare for it or just to do it, then you can likely do it or do it better.
There's just a huge amount much stuff to learn for a new RTS player, even stuff that seems ridiculously basic to experienced players. I know when I started I didn't know a thing at all - didn't even know what half the protoss units were, didn't know anything about macro or micro, had no idea about cloakied banshees or expanding or anything. From no RTS background I can say that there is so, so much stuff to learn.
I guess telling a bronze player to always make workers and to learn a really standard build is at least a decent place to start. The first Day9 newbie tuesday must seem really basic to most people here but it was a revelation to me. But yeah, saying 'macro better' with no further explanation is really a terrible reply to a low level player asking for help. Not really sure how good players should go about helping out newer players, though.
For sure I think that being focused on improvement, disciplined and not getting upset about losses is the attitude to take towards it.
On October 07 2011 22:46 Atreides wrote: I've emphasized this ridiculously, but I never said straight up improving your macro is not the most important thing to advance your play. It obviously is, nobody should really argue that. It is just the least helpful thing to tell someone.
I think this is a good point. "Macro better" is both the most important thing you can do to improve and the least helpful thing you can hear.
Also I think that the attitude of "Strategy doesn't matter until masters, just macro better", while not necessarily an invalid point, really sucks the fun out of the game. Some people don't have dreams of being a GM, they just want to know how to handle a specific situation they've encountered, and to tell them "just macro better" is pretty condescending IMO.
For me, the most exciting game play is when you pull off a great strategy or narrowly survive a push by thinking on your feet or get a great drop off. Turtling for 15 minutes and attack-moving into your opponents base with a 20+ supply lead isn't as fun IMO.
TBH, I have only been playing SC2 for about 6 months now.
For a month now I have still been trying to work on my 2 rax pressure into FE MMM against Protoss. I must admit, trying to keep up the macro in this build is REALLY hard!
What I mean by this, is having the same amout of units by the time I pressure at a given time as say QXC does.... this is not an easy feat considering you don't want to delay the FE and you always have to remember to get concussive shells and stim. Also just other small things like swapping the reactor on the factory to the starport.
It seems easy when you think "macro." Simply put IMO, it's fucking hard considering;
1. I don't want to lose all my units when I just want to "pressure" 2. I'm trying to expand, build a factory... addons + starport when pressuring.
Not to mention, I have no idea before the match what is going to come my way and how I'm meant to adapt to what my opponent is going to throw at me. PLus at the very start I'm trying to kill that damn probe thats trying to kill my rax building scv.
I always compare what I do in this build as to how well pros do it when they do the build. Guess what..... I still can't execute it as well as they do in the "Macro department." Not to mention I haven't even gotten to the part where I myself have enough time to "micro" effectively.
I'm a lower league player, and for the most part... in the past few days, since I've started comparing my BO's to the pros BO's (like matching up in game time as to what I have in unit count as to what they have in unit count), I've just started realising really just how BAD my macro is.
I also fully understand how a BO is useless if you can't macro it effectively for starters..... let alone execute it well with micro....
Guess what, all this.... and I'm still yet to get to the part where I need to react apprpriately as to what I scout in their base.
Although I try hard, I still can't get at least 60 scv's before 15 minutes due to all the multi-tasking I have to do.
I think the biggest problem with players around my level is that they try to execute too many builds and/or cheeses and when they lose they'll post on TL asking what they did wrong. IMO, it's just the fact they haven't practiced the build enough for it to become second nature maximising the greatest amount of units at a specified time whilst trying to also get xyz.... Hence, what I'm saying.... BAD MACRO!
I always laugh when someones says they do such xyz build and I spectate it, and really it looks like dogshit because they macroed the build like crap. They might have a 5 win streak off it, but as soon as they lose, they think..."hmmmm I need to know another build." They don't realise they still could have won that lose if their macro was simply better.
In my situation, I will know my macro is good with a certain build when I can get the same amount of army, workers and buildings being produced at the same game time as a pro. If I'm still losing at that point, I will then look at how I can improve my micro for that build, how I could react more better to what I scout ect.
Sorry if much of this dosen't make sense... but I'm well into my beers atm! peace xoxoxoxo
If you were posting on some other forum, then I would treat you as I do my newbie friends when playing 2v2 with them: give some quick band-aid advice such as "siege your tanks on the high ground", or "if you see him on one base get observers". However you are posting on TL, which makes me feel that you aim to be a gosu of gosus and so I feel the compelling urge to tell you to
Given that all players in Silver League macro just as bad/good. Its quite obvious that being good at the strategy part will de facto make you better than a player who is not good at the strategy part.
If you are never interested in moving past Silver League, then you can approach the game with this attitude.
Look, this sort of stuff is just not helpful. So a player dies a lot to cloak banshee openings in TvT. It doesn't matter that his opponent macro terrible, if he dies because a cloak banshee shows up when he has no scan and kills everything. So you tell him, "Look man, if your scv sees gas first in tvt you should do a safe build like 1-1-1 yourself" and "6:20 is a good time to scan your opponents base, if you see a starport with techlab reseaching cloak, you can get a raven first out of your port and be safe." This is the stuff people need to hear, I have a younger brother who is not good at this game and yes; they need to be reminded to scout, told what to scout, what it means, and what a response is. (this is often complicated by their oponents in lower leagues doing things that make no sense lol, but there is not so much you can do about that. Teach them how to play against good people, not bad people)
Telling them, "just macro better" is the most worthless thing. They know they macro bad, but unless you look at a replay and tell them specicific points macro advice will not be useful. ie. "you missed your third depot and it delayed your raven by 20 secs." "You could have had 4 more scv at the 6 min mark if you produce constantly" "You got your gas to late (or early) for what you were trying to do"
One line "macro better and it will solve your problems" should be at least warning worthy imo. (of course.... there are those bronze league players who make such retarded posts that there literally is no other answer )
But really, you have to play games to improve your macro. You will never be able to do that if you get repeatedly build order stomped game after game and most importantly it adds nothing to the forum and helps no one.
The problem is that if you spend a bunch of time learning "silver league" strategies, then you are wasting your time because the timings are going to be nothing close to what you'll need to learn anyway. If you are dying to cloaked Banshees all the time, you don't need to come on to Team liquid, you just need to build an engineering bay, thats not a "strategy" thats just, build an engineering bay in TvT until you can figure out the timings better. To me "strategy" means, should what unit composition should I be working towards, when should I take my second and third bases, which bases on the map should I take for the style I'm playing, etc. Those are things that are way less important than just building a lot of stuff, and if you are losing to the occasional simple thing like cloaked banshees, that isn't a "strategy" problem, you just aren't paying attention.
I think that information management (scouting, denying scouting, reacting) and general mechanics are far and away the most important skills to have, assuming of course a working knowledge of the game. I guess the priorities might shift upward with league as builds become more refined and 'standard.'
Strategy, which you complain is why you lose, is how you beat people who have similar macro to you, macro will always crush any strategy executed by a player with worse macro.
Macro > Micro
please note that the macro is inductive to the point in the game, before 8 mins, almost all players have near perfect macro, so strategy and scouting are your key to winning this part of the game. this is the point in the game where silver players can play at a diamond level, but when the macro gap widens, the player with better macro will win.
There are games that you lose actually because of strategy in the lower level, it's true - but the portion of those games are so tiny compared to the number of those games you lose simply because of getting outmacroed. You'll eventually need the strategy and intelligence, but that could wait a little bit. I believe that's why you're given 'macro better' type of advices every time.
On October 08 2011 00:57 KimJongChill wrote: I think that information management (scouting, denying scouting, reacting) and general mechanics are far and away the most important skills to have, assuming of course a working knowledge of the game. I guess the priorities might shift upward with league as builds become more refined and 'standard.'
personally i think that if your macro is bad you can scout all you want, you will only forsee your own demise.
Given that all players in Silver League macro just as bad/good. Its quite obvious that being good at the strategy part will de facto make you better than a player who is not good at the strategy part.
If you are never interested in moving past Silver League, then you can approach the game with this attitude.
Look, this sort of stuff is just not helpful. So a player dies a lot to cloak banshee openings in TvT. It doesn't matter that his opponent macro terrible, if he dies because a cloak banshee shows up when he has no scan and kills everything. So you tell him, "Look man, if your scv sees gas first in tvt you should do a safe build like 1-1-1 yourself" and "6:20 is a good time to scan your opponents base, if you see a starport with techlab reseaching cloak, you can get a raven first out of your port and be safe." This is the stuff people need to hear, I have a younger brother who is not good at this game and yes; they need to be reminded to scout, told what to scout, what it means, and what a response is. (this is often complicated by their oponents in lower leagues doing things that make no sense lol, but there is not so much you can do about that. Teach them how to play against good people, not bad people)
Telling them, "just macro better" is the most worthless thing. They know they macro bad, but unless you look at a replay and tell them specicific points macro advice will not be useful. ie. "you missed your third depot and it delayed your raven by 20 secs." "You could have had 4 more scv at the 6 min mark if you produce constantly" "You got your gas to late (or early) for what you were trying to do"
One line "macro better and it will solve your problems" should be at least warning worthy imo. (of course.... there are those bronze league players who make such retarded posts that there literally is no other answer )
But really, you have to play games to improve your macro. You will never be able to do that if you get repeatedly build order stomped game after game and most importantly it adds nothing to the forum and helps no one.
The problem is that if you spend a bunch of time learning "silver league" strategies, then you are wasting your time because the timings are going to be nothing close to what you'll need to learn anyway. If you are dying to cloaked Banshees all the time, you don't need to come on to Team liquid, you just need to build an engineering bay, thats not a "strategy" thats just, build an engineering bay in TvT until you can figure out the timings better. To me "strategy" means, should what unit composition should I be working towards, when should I take my second and third bases, which bases on the map should I take for the style I'm playing, etc. Those are things that are way less important than just building a lot of stuff, and if you are losing to the occasional simple thing like cloaked banshees, that isn't a "strategy" problem, you just aren't paying attention.
Well, yeah you can classify that as whatever. But it certainly isn't a macro problem. And I definitely think its better for a silver league player to try and do a "real" build rather than just "build an engineering bay blindly". That seems like the stupidest most counterproductive thing, how the hell are they going to "figure out timings better" with that? That is PRECISELY the point.... You don't figure out timings better by focusing on continuous worker production either.
You start out your post by saying "don't learn silver league strategies" then you bash my post that recommended teaching legitimate strategies. Then you reccomend a silver league strategy. Yeah....
Given that all players in Silver League macro just as bad/good. Its quite obvious that being good at the strategy part will de facto make you better than a player who is not good at the strategy part.
If you are never interested in moving past Silver League, then you can approach the game with this attitude.
Look, this sort of stuff is just not helpful. So a player dies a lot to cloak banshee openings in TvT. It doesn't matter that his opponent macro terrible, if he dies because a cloak banshee shows up when he has no scan and kills everything. So you tell him, "Look man, if your scv sees gas first in tvt you should do a safe build like 1-1-1 yourself" and "6:20 is a good time to scan your opponents base, if you see a starport with techlab reseaching cloak, you can get a raven first out of your port and be safe." This is the stuff people need to hear, I have a younger brother who is not good at this game and yes; they need to be reminded to scout, told what to scout, what it means, and what a response is. (this is often complicated by their oponents in lower leagues doing things that make no sense lol, but there is not so much you can do about that. Teach them how to play against good people, not bad people)
Telling them, "just macro better" is the most worthless thing. They know they macro bad, but unless you look at a replay and tell them specicific points macro advice will not be useful. ie. "you missed your third depot and it delayed your raven by 20 secs." "You could have had 4 more scv at the 6 min mark if you produce constantly" "You got your gas to late (or early) for what you were trying to do"
One line "macro better and it will solve your problems" should be at least warning worthy imo. (of course.... there are those bronze league players who make such retarded posts that there literally is no other answer )
But really, you have to play games to improve your macro. You will never be able to do that if you get repeatedly build order stomped game after game and most importantly it adds nothing to the forum and helps no one.
The problem is that if you spend a bunch of time learning "silver league" strategies, then you are wasting your time because the timings are going to be nothing close to what you'll need to learn anyway. If you are dying to cloaked Banshees all the time, you don't need to come on to Team liquid, you just need to build an engineering bay, thats not a "strategy" thats just, build an engineering bay in TvT until you can figure out the timings better. To me "strategy" means, should what unit composition should I be working towards, when should I take my second and third bases, which bases on the map should I take for the style I'm playing, etc. Those are things that are way less important than just building a lot of stuff, and if you are losing to the occasional simple thing like cloaked banshees, that isn't a "strategy" problem, you just aren't paying attention.
Well, yeah you can classify that as whatever. But it certainly isn't a macro problem. And I definitely think its better for a silver league player to try and do a "real" build rather than just "build an engineering bay blindly". That seems like the stupidest most counterproductive thing, how the hell are they going to "figure out timings better" with that? That is PRECISELY the point.... You don't figure out timings better by focusing on continuous worker production either.
You start out your post by saying "don't learn silver league strategies" then you bash my post that recommended teaching legitimate strategies. Then you reccomend a silver league strategy. Yeah....
Banshee's are a terrible example really. To properly hold off Banshee's requires good game sense, macro, and micro. There is no real answer to people who don't have the skill required other than to build static defense/detection until their mechanics are better.
The problem here is that all the low level players who think that macro won't save them because "oh, I'll have 4 extra scvs, so what?" don't realize that the difference is more like having 100 supply at 10mins as opposed to 40 supply.
Yes, knowing how to recognize build is important, as is doing a build that is not completely terrible, but the bottom line is that most low level players I watch have maybe 25% of what they COULD have, if they were only executing/macroing correctly.
You start out your post by saying "don't learn silver league strategies" then you bash my post that recommended teaching legitimate strategies. Then you reccomend a silver league strategy. Yeah....
My point is that the solution to that isn't a "strategy" solution at all. Strategy is way too big a term for figuring out how not to lose to something really specific. The answer isn't that you need to overhaul your strategy to stop losing to certain pushes or unit compositions. If you are going 3 barracks, going 3 barracks and adding an engineer bay isn't a strategy change. If you suddenly have enough cloaked banshees in your base to outright lose the game, this isn't a strategy problem, this is a you weren't paying attention problem.
To take it out of the banshees context though, often times someone will lose at 20 minutes to a huge push of stuff, and their stuff will lose to it, and you know what, MOST of those losses are macro better type losses. Yeah, you could scout and switch your tech and try to hard counter their units or something, but that isn't solving the REAL problem, which is that you got supply blocked 10 times, had idle command centers instead of building scvs, and so forth.
So yes, IN THAT PARTICULAR GAME you might have been able to win it by doing something else like tech switching, but that isn't really the point if you want to improve your chances of winning FUTURE games. And that is what people are really asking about when it comes down to it.
To the myriad of posters now responding "Macro better is bad advice because it is vague/inspecific" - Its allowed to be because it is simple stuff, and has been cataloged in dozens and dozens of threads in the strategy forums.
Its not unreasonable at all for posters to respond with 'macro better' when in most cases the OP hasn't bothered to search for simple, easy to practice steps to improve.
edit: and maybe said players just want to have fun and don't want to practice. Thats fair enough, and no one should dare tell them thats wrong. But isn't it a bit rich to come on a forum and ask for help to improve when you don't actually want to improve? Do you want people to just teach you to improve your 6 pool?
You start out your post by saying "don't learn silver league strategies" then you bash my post that recommended teaching legitimate strategies. Then you reccomend a silver league strategy. Yeah....
My point is that the solution to that isn't a "strategy" solution at all. Strategy is way too big a term for figuring out how not to lose to something really specific. The answer isn't that you need to overhaul your strategy to stop losing to certain pushes or unit compositions. If you are going 3 barracks, going 3 barracks and adding an engineer bay isn't a strategy change. If you suddenly have enough cloaked banshees in your base to outright lose the game, this isn't a strategy problem, this is a you weren't paying attention problem.
To take it out of the banshees context though, often times someone will lose at 20 minutes to a huge push of stuff, and their stuff will lose to it, and you know what, MOST of those losses are macro better type losses. Yeah, you could scout and switch your tech and try to hard counter their units or something, but that isn't solving the REAL problem, which is that you got supply blocked 10 times, had idle command centers instead of building scvs, and so forth.
So yes, IN THAT PARTICULAR GAME you might have been able to win it by doing something else like tech switching, but that isn't really the point if you want to improve your chances of winning FUTURE games. And that is what people are really asking about when it comes down to it.
Look, anybody who 20 mins into the game loses an a-move battle because they have 30 less supply and then asks about it on the forums deserves to be told "macro better". You are right, there is no other legitimate response. At the same time, its not actually going to help them because anyone actually willing to try and macro better would allready be aware of it. However they are a tool and thus deserve it. In general, those sorts of threads are just deleted. (rightfully). The only time they aren't deleted is when there is a replay, at which point you can give them something useful. ie "you should focus on not getting supply blocked, you missed depots here here and here". or w/e. Specific advice. Which is back to my ENTIRE POINT of there pretty much is never a point to just telling someone "macro better". I literally said it in every post I made in this thread I think, its allways true obviously, its just not helpful.
As to your definition of what counts as strategy, I don't really care. Its not the point. Call it what you want, its not macro. Helpful advice as to timings/scouting\whatever is the most that someone who wants to improve can really get out of a forum.
I agree with the OP in some regards. I'll try to use a metaphor here to describe why 'macro more!' is the usual advice:
If you want to play hockey in the NHL, it's assumed you will be a good skater. In fact ice hockey, by definition, requires you to be able to do it! All pro hockey players are excellent skaters; some are better, but they are all good. In our example here, skating will represent 'macro'.
Now, if you wanted to be in the NHL, and all you ever practiced was your wrist shot in your driveway, you would find yourself in a hard spot. Sure, you can hit the top corner every single time, but if you can't do it while skating, then the NHL is not where you will end up. The wrist shot, in this scenario, describes 'strategy'.
If you can't skate (macro), then it doesn't matter how accurate your wrist shot (strategy) is.
On October 08 2011 00:48 targ wrote: Well, my reasoning goes like this: If you were posting on some other forum, then I would treat you as I do my newbie friends when playing 2v2 with them: give some quick band-aid advice such as "siege your tanks on the high ground", or "if you see him on one base get observers". However you are posting on TL, which makes me feel that you aim to be a gosu of gosus and so I feel the compelling urge to tell you to MACRO HARDER.
Is TL really seen as a particularly elite place? I just use it for replay advice because its not full of trolls like the SC2 official forums.
I Think while 'Macro Better' is usually the best advice....It's important to show and tell people what you actually MEAN by 'Macro better, citing specific examples from their games.
I used to try and respond to people's replays with those lists people do, like:
4:20 - You stopped making probes here 5:45 - your warp gate finished but you're supply blocked 6:36 - You forgot to put 3 guys on your 2nd gas etc...
Now I do little videos, trying to point out to people exactly where and when these mistakes are happening, try to find out Why they're happening, and suggest fixes for it.
I do little stuff like this for people:
In this one, I focus a lot on no only the fact that his macro slips, but I show when it happens and why its happening (In this case, being distracted by fights and his own army movements) I also then discuss things like transitioning
In this one:
I'm pointing out how his economy got way beyond his ability to produce units due to not building enough facilities and forgetting production cycles etc... but also include things on how and when to attack, and the idea of being aware how far along in a game you are.
In almost every video or analysis I've done for anyone, 'Macro Better' is like 95% of the time the thing that won or lost then that game. However I think that's not very useful unless you're showing people how, when and why its slipping.
I know for myself, someone going over a replay and saying I just never made enough gateways really improved my game. If i had like 6-8 Gates, and was floating money, I'd just try to add more tech to spend it. Finally someone said 'Just add like 8 more Gates' so I started doing that and winning games on sheer reinforcement power with weaker units.
In each league I've been in, and I started in Bronze, there was a little 'revelation' type thing that I saw, that as soon as I realized it, I'd just go on a win streak and get promoted. And as a Random player, I found the realizations were always something macro oriented that applied to all 3 races.
So it really is 'Macro Better' but just saying that is like teaching someone to juggle by saying 'Throw the balls, then catch them' you have to point out how to do it and where they're going wrong.
Ok, the first sentence of the second paragraph of the OP was all I read, and that's all I need to.
While I appreciate the sentiment behind this mass queen thing, Did he ever actually get anywhere with it? Last I heard from it he never actually did get out of Bronze doing this. I think Mass Marine or Mass Stalker might be viable, in fact I know they are, but I think Mass Queen was just too silly to actually function.
You start out your post by saying "don't learn silver league strategies" then you bash my post that recommended teaching legitimate strategies. Then you reccomend a silver league strategy. Yeah....
My point is that the solution to that isn't a "strategy" solution at all. Strategy is way too big a term for figuring out how not to lose to something really specific. The answer isn't that you need to overhaul your strategy to stop losing to certain pushes or unit compositions. If you are going 3 barracks, going 3 barracks and adding an engineer bay isn't a strategy change. If you suddenly have enough cloaked banshees in your base to outright lose the game, this isn't a strategy problem, this is a you weren't paying attention problem.
To take it out of the banshees context though, often times someone will lose at 20 minutes to a huge push of stuff, and their stuff will lose to it, and you know what, MOST of those losses are macro better type losses. Yeah, you could scout and switch your tech and try to hard counter their units or something, but that isn't solving the REAL problem, which is that you got supply blocked 10 times, had idle command centers instead of building scvs, and so forth.
So yes, IN THAT PARTICULAR GAME you might have been able to win it by doing something else like tech switching, but that isn't really the point if you want to improve your chances of winning FUTURE games. And that is what people are really asking about when it comes down to it.
Look, anybody who 20 mins into the game loses an a-move battle because they have 30 less supply and then asks about it on the forums deserves to be told "macro better". You are right, there is no other legitimate response. At the same time, its not actually going to help them because anyone actually willing to try and macro better would allready be aware of it. However they are a tool and thus deserve it. In general, those sorts of threads are just deleted. (rightfully). The only time they aren't deleted is when there is a replay, at which point you can give them something useful. ie "you should focus on not getting supply blocked, you missed depots here here and here". or w/e. Specific advice. Which is back to my ENTIRE POINT of there pretty much is never a point to just telling someone "macro better". I literally said it in every post I made in this thread I think, its allways true obviously, its just not helpful.
As to your definition of what counts as strategy, I don't really care. Its not the point. Call it what you want, its not macro. Helpful advice as to timings/scouting\whatever is the most that someone who wants to improve can really get out of a forum.
There are many examples of threads where people are asking about dealing with a specific composition when the core issue they run in to is their macro. Now, if I'm asking how to not die from a cannon rush or not die to 2 port banshee rushes and someone responds with "just macro better" then I think that's a legit complaint. However, I haven't seen that with great frequency unless the opposing players' build was legitimately bad ( e.g. 3 port banshee on 1 base ). It's an example of trying to use a specific case of Y to disprove that the general case X is valid ( it doesn't ).
On the other side, I think there's a lot of danger in the stuff you're saying. If I'm playing in whatever low league and someone says "Scan at 6:20 for banshees" then what does that do for me? There's no value in that statement because there's no guarantee that the starport is to a point where you can know it's banshees or not. If the starport is not quite finished, you scan, and you're like "OH, this is banshee!" and it's a reactor hellion drop then that player could be hosed. The problem is that specific timings don't work at lower levels. I've accidentally done this with friends of mine that play zerg at lower levels - they ask me questions, I give them sensible ( to me ) answers, and they don't win a single game because of it.
There's a fundamental issue with giving advice in that advice is both contextual and carries implicit instructions that aren't always intuitive. I don't really give a lot of advice on the strategy forums because it takes a ton of time to really give a good answer to someone without being confusing.
To take an example in BW, I used to get annihilated by lurkers in PvZ. I had asked someone once who was pretty good, C-/C on iccup, and they said "Get an observer out and move with that". I still lost because that's an over-simplification of the solution. What you really want is to get a composition of units sufficient to mow down lurkers without taking excessive losses and get an observer out on 2 base to secure your 3rd or perform a timing attack to hopefully break the Zerg. Of course, I still constantly died to lurker contain after lurker contain in the meantime because I just never put the pieces together. At some point, I watched some cast someone did where they talked about delaying the observer until you had the unit count to pressure Z ( I think they were promoting zealot charge or something ) and suddenly I understood what he meant!
The core issue is that giving advice is hard and receiving advice isn't very easy either. I think both sides should be understanding of the inherent communication problems ( i.e. an answer that's just "BUILD MOAR STUFF" is just as useless as someone getting pissed because they're told their macro is bad ).
To tie in to the OP, I think he makes a legitimate point. People should avoid posting generic "You had too little stuff" type of responses because those are completely impossible and too obtuse for a player at that level to understand. On the flip side, if you get a response like that, the poster should request specific help in a courteous and reasonable way. This way someone else not that poster can more easily post some specific comment, such as "You should have 60 drones on 3 base at the 8 minute mark against a FFE before you build units".
There's a pyramid of important things to know floating around somewhere, and its generally pretty accurate. Macro is the most important, but if you 1a your army into fortified sieged choke, it doesn't matter if you have double the army.
The main reason "macro better" is convenient "advice" for higher level players to fall back on is because the game's strategy is completely different at lower levels. For example, in PvP while I was high Platinum and low-Diamond, I always did a Void Ray build - and this was pre-patch-1.4 - and I had great success with it. At that level, the 4-gates I had to hold off were either not macroed crisply enough or not microed well enough to actually bust a Zealot / Void Ray defense - the strategic advice of a higher-up would simply be not to go with Void Rays because it would get busted, but at my level that simply wasn't true. Once the attack was held I had tech and my opponent didn't and this was a strategic advantage I could push through to a victory.
The tool set I had available to me was completely alien to the "always always 4-gate, then go 1-base twilight or robo if the game didn't end on the spot" metagame that Masters and higher level play was locked into - they couldn't give me strategic advice for how to hold better or how to follow it up even if they wanted to.
IMO us lower level players can work on our strategies even as we work to get the basics down. However, we have to do that portion on our own or with each other - players substantially higher than us simply don't know how strategy actually works out down here.
While I appreciate the sentiment behind this mass queen thing, Did he ever actually get anywhere with it? Last I heard from it he never actually did get out of Bronze doing this. I think Mass Marine or Mass Stalker might be viable, in fact I know they are, but I think Mass Queen was just too silly to actually function.
A redditor did mass stalker, and climbed all the way up the ladder. Search around for "macrostomping".
Destiny only dropped 2 games out of like 30 (I'm guessing, haven't watched the vids for a while), and was facing golds and platinums by the end of it. Don't know why he wasn't promoted.
Just watching the videos should be proof enough, though. He keeps his money low, makes queens, and wins. That's fucking stupid, no-one should make queens and win; demonstrating strategy has nothing to do with winning in the lower leagues.
None of these posters simply said macro better. They gave micro tips, scouting info, strategical help, and TONS more. Your entire post is simply misleading and incorrect.
If you have a specific question about strategy you're unsure of, ask it or search for it and I'm sure TL would help you.
I actually read through all 14 pages... Boredom I guess.
the TLDR (as I understand it) for others: While there is strategy at lower levels, and you can be a better player by learning strategy, or tactics; the best advice if you want to have a solid foundation for being a better player is indeed to macro better, because when you have solid macro, mastering certain strategies or tactics will be infinitely better than mastering a certain strategy, or certain tactics while having horrible macro.
I think the big problem isn’t really the fact you’re not trying to focus on MACRO.. it’s that you may not know the best way to do it.. Having macro doesn’t mean sit in your base and mass up units as quickly as possible.. it’s more or less spending the resources you have at ALL times unless intentionally saving them for something.. like when your spire pops and you want to build 10-11 muta’s.
Watch a recent replay and follow your vision.. How much time do you spend looking at your base? If the majority of the game is just you looking at your base.. that's a critical problem IMO. Also bring up your production tab and watch what gets produced during an engagement and during harassment. Are you building anything? Or worse yet did you leave the battle to go build units and not even watch what happens? Can’t micro if you are looking in your base….
Here’s my solution.. Control group all of your hatches to one number If you play P or T then control group your nexus/command center to one number and your unit producing buildings to another
When I was in silver I’d watch my replays and my opponents never had these things control grouped. NEVER. They would select each hatchery independently and produce a worker. And Terrans are worse even as they would click each barracks/factory… This sort of forces you to go to your base constantly to produce units.
If you stay active around the map and in or around your enemy’s base the scouting information you gain will often win you games.. you will spot a drop before it reaches your base.. or you will see dark shrines/tech labs on starports... Army compositions… know when they try to expand….etc In order to stay that active you need to produce units while you poke around.. that’s where the control groups come in…
While strategy is important and knowing what counters what is good knowledge to have.. I’m pretty sure if you’re on team liquid you know these things already. If you’re Protoss and your enemy is Terran.. you poke up his ramp and you see a fast techlab right as the game’s starting.. how do you counter that? I bet you know the answer… but I also bet you decide right at that point to go straight for the counter and don’t scout again… and then he shows up in your base with a banshee and you have no obs.. because you got a voidray instead of a robobay.
Now if you spent the whole time poking around with your probe and watching the outsides of his base you would have more info and be more prepared for what’s coming your way. But in order to effectively do that you need to be able to do that as well as build units while not looking at your base. Don’t just rally your probe to patrol outside his base.. because we both know you’re not watching it.
Honestly, if I was playing against another plat person right now, and we had 2 coaches "training" us. My coach teaching me a build/timing attack/strat; my opponents coach teaching him proper "macro". I would be willing to wager that a well executed strategy would overwhelm the macro at the early levels. Yea that's great you got your optimal probe count/not floating insane amounts of minerals etc; but if you dont see or are properly prepared for what I am building you are done, especially at the lower levels. A properly executed strat is brutal.
On October 08 2011 02:57 lvent wrote: Honestly, if I was playing against another plat person right now, and we had 2 coaches "training" us. My coach teaching me a build/timing attack/strat; my opponents coach teaching him proper "macro". I would be willing to wager that a well executed strategy would overwhelm the macro at the early levels. Yea that's great you got your optimal probe count/not floating insane amounts of minerals etc; but if you dont see or are properly prepared for what I am building you are done, especially at the lower levels. A properly executed strat is brutal.
A 'Properly executed strat' already implies good Macro.
If you do a good strategy, but just don't have enough units, or do it slow, you are going to lose to just having your opponent have way more stuff than you.
On October 08 2011 02:57 lvent wrote: Honestly, if I was playing against another plat person right now, and we had 2 coaches "training" us. My coach teaching me a build/timing attack/strat; my opponents coach teaching him proper "macro". I would be willing to wager that a well executed strategy would overwhelm the macro at the early levels. Yea that's great you got your optimal probe count/not floating insane amounts of minerals etc; but if you dont see or are properly prepared for what I am building you are done, especially at the lower levels. A properly executed strat is brutal.
Your "properly executed strategy" has good macro built in, thats what people don't seem to understand.
On October 08 2011 02:57 lvent wrote: Honestly, if I was playing against another plat person right now, and we had 2 coaches "training" us. My coach teaching me a build/timing attack/strat; my opponents coach teaching him proper "macro". I would be willing to wager that a well executed strategy would overwhelm the macro at the early levels. Yea that's great you got your optimal probe count/not floating insane amounts of minerals etc; but if you dont see or are properly prepared for what I am building you are done, especially at the lower levels. A properly executed strat is brutal.
There is no "properly executed strat" in the lower leagues. They just don't have the mechanics for it even with coaching. Most Master's would have a hard time perfectly executing a strategy which is why they aren't proffessional players.
On October 08 2011 02:57 lvent wrote: Honestly, if I was playing against another plat person right now, and we had 2 coaches "training" us. My coach teaching me a build/timing attack/strat; my opponents coach teaching him proper "macro". I would be willing to wager that a well executed strategy would overwhelm the macro at the early levels. Yea that's great you got your optimal probe count/not floating insane amounts of minerals etc; but if you dont see or are properly prepared for what I am building you are done, especially at the lower levels. A properly executed strat is brutal.
There is no "properly executed strat" in the lower leagues. They just don't have the mechanics for it even with coaching. Most Master's would have a hard time perfectly executing a strategy which is why they aren't proffessional players.
If i mimic a build that has a timing attack at xx:xx time and pull it off with a variable of +/- 20secs at the lower leagues its deadly; the problem I come across with personally is transition out and moving on the the next phase, and thats where *me* personally needs to get better with my macro. And that is something I realize that my macro game needs to work on.
My point I still stand by is if Pro A is teaching a bo/ta to student A while Pro B is working on perfecting the macro of student B, I say student A wins 70%+ of those games at > diamond.
On October 08 2011 02:57 lvent wrote: Honestly, if I was playing against another plat person right now, and we had 2 coaches "training" us. My coach teaching me a build/timing attack/strat; my opponents coach teaching him proper "macro". I would be willing to wager that a well executed strategy would overwhelm the macro at the early levels. Yea that's great you got your optimal probe count/not floating insane amounts of minerals etc; but if you dont see or are properly prepared for what I am building you are done, especially at the lower levels. A properly executed strat is brutal.
A 'Properly executed strat' already implies good Macro.
If you do a good strategy, but just don't have enough units, or do it slow, you are going to lose to just having your opponent have way more stuff than you.
And I feel that you can have good macro early game, its the later game stages where I personally get stung some games. I think the problem is newer people(myself included) need a baseline of where to start. I dont think there is anything wrong with focusing on specific bo/ta's to get comfortable with and use those as launching pads for further developing their games.
Other people insist that its wrong; i just disagree with that notion.
On October 08 2011 02:57 lvent wrote: Honestly, if I was playing against another plat person right now, and we had 2 coaches "training" us. My coach teaching me a build/timing attack/strat; my opponents coach teaching him proper "macro". I would be willing to wager that a well executed strategy would overwhelm the macro at the early levels. Yea that's great you got your optimal probe count/not floating insane amounts of minerals etc; but if you dont see or are properly prepared for what I am building you are done, especially at the lower levels. A properly executed strat is brutal.
There is no "properly executed strat" in the lower leagues. They just don't have the mechanics for it even with coaching. Most Master's would have a hard time perfectly executing a strategy which is why they aren't proffessional players.
If i mimic a build that has a timing attack at xx:xx time and pull it off with a variable of +/- 20secs at the lower leagues its deadly; the problem I come across with personally is transition out and moving on the the next phase, and thats where *me* personally needs to get better with my macro. And that is something I realize that my macro game needs to work on.
My point I still stand by is if Pro A is teaching a bo/ta to student A while Pro B is working on perfecting the macro of student B, I say student A wins 70%+ of those games at > diamond.
But that's a non-sensical comparison...if you exactly copy a build and timing attack hitting at a certain time, then you are copying Good Macro.
What do you think a Timing push IS? It's using Macro to hit a critical number of units or tech that is able to strike an opponent at a moment they're unprepared for it.
If your timing push was supposed to be 6 marines, 4 marauders and 3 Tanks... But your macro slips and you've got 4 marines, 3 maruaders and 2 tanks...you might lose.
But if you've actually copied the timing build and have all those units...you copied the Good Macro too.
On October 08 2011 02:57 lvent wrote: Honestly, if I was playing against another plat person right now, and we had 2 coaches "training" us. My coach teaching me a build/timing attack/strat; my opponents coach teaching him proper "macro". I would be willing to wager that a well executed strategy would overwhelm the macro at the early levels. Yea that's great you got your optimal probe count/not floating insane amounts of minerals etc; but if you dont see or are properly prepared for what I am building you are done, especially at the lower levels. A properly executed strat is brutal.
There is no "properly executed strat" in the lower leagues. They just don't have the mechanics for it even with coaching. Most Master's would have a hard time perfectly executing a strategy which is why they aren't proffessional players.
If i mimic a build that has a timing attack at xx:xx time and pull it off with a variable of +/- 20secs at the lower leagues its deadly; the problem I come across with personally is transition out and moving on the the next phase, and thats where *me* personally needs to get better with my macro. And that is something I realize that my macro game needs to work on.
My point I still stand by is if Pro A is teaching a bo/ta to student A while Pro B is working on perfecting the macro of student B, I say student A wins 70%+ of those games at > diamond.
But that's a non-sensical comparison...if you exactly copy a build and timing attack hitting at a certain time, then you are copying Good Macro.
What do you think a Timing push IS? It's using Macro to hit a critical number of units or tech that is able to strike an opponent at a moment they're unprepared for it.
If your timing push was supposed to be 6 marines, 4 marauders and 3 Tanks... But your macro slips and you've got 4 marines, 3 maruaders and 2 tanks...you might lose.
But if you've actually copied the timing build and have all those units...you copied the Good Macro too.
Fair enough, and is this not a valid way to learn/improve at the game? I see a ton of post in this thread saying focus on mechanics not strats, but if strats will help you improve why would you not practice them?
If I do ladder games and just focus on the build, win or lose if I felt i competently executed it, I am fine with myself. Sometimes I just play against players that are just flat out better than me currently. I watch the majority of my games and see what I missed, what I need to *try* and address; its a lot of work to get good in this game no doubt
I think the logic is usually that by totally copying at low levels...you're not really "Learning" macro, you're just copying the macro in a precise order.
I see a lot of replays where a dude macros and builds perfectly until 60 supply, then launches his attack. And immediately his Macro disappears and he lets everything fall apart.
I guess I consider that just memorizing a precise build, and not knowing what you're really doing.
Yes it's ok to learn a build and practice it, you should...but what people are usually telling players is that 2 gate Robo vs. 3 Gate Stargate isn't WHY you win or lose... It doesn't matter WHICH build you do, it matters how well you do it.
Very often people are saying things like 'I don't know how to deal with...Immortals" or something but when you watch the game, they could have had 8 more roaches out and the extra units would have simply made the composition irrelevant. So the person thinks "Oh i should made more lings...or more hydras...or I coulda got an infestor out...." But the reality is - No, you should have made More Anything at all.
So the person thinks "Oh i should made more lings...or more hydras...or I coulda got an infestor out...." But the reality is - No, you should have made More Anything at all.
Not a that I'm anything special, but I'm currently trying to teach two of my friends who are some extra bronze players. They keep asking for input on unit comp and what strategy to use vrs what. And one is a 2 base zerg with 32 workers and 18 lings at 15 minutes. >_< What kind of input is there to offer other than as ender says. You just need to build more. Be faster. Don't miss you production cycles. Stop supply blocking yourself.
Macro is a large part of what holds me back, but just because I don't like hearing it doesn't mean it isn't true.
I had a very similar friend...he loved VoidRays, that's all he ever wants to make.
I got him from Bronze to Gold...not by telling him to knock it off with the dumb VoidRays builds...but just telling him how to do it better and get more of them out faster.
everyone said what you've asked, we plats are bad at macro , you know the what the basic timing of things happening and know what generally do. find one thing your struggling with and get that perfect, then add another thing to the list.
I am a brand new Starcraft player, and I can tell all of you fellow low level players arguing with people much more accomplished than you that they are correct, and you are wrong. Listen to the words of people who walked your path not too long ago. They know what they are talking about
Army composition(apart from the obvious air vs no antiair) does not matter one single bit at the lower levels. It may seem like you are losing to army compositions. Without going into a long post where the points made will be glossed over for some anecdotal evidence of the contrary, consider the following:
Next time you feel like you are going to lose a game because you feel your strategy was weak, take a look at your money. Take a look at your worker count. Do you have lots of money(the most likely scenario)? If not, Do you have 10 probes at your main and 6 at your nat and it's 15 minutes into the game? These 2 things are going to be 9/10 times the reason you lost
It comes down to your goals as a player. Are you playing to get better, or do you want to feel like a badass by putting tanks on the high ground and luring a group of kings into your brilliant trap? If it's the former, you need to embrace the boring part of the game, it's a prerequisite to actually playing the game. It's akin to saying you want to win a street fighter tournament without practicing execution. Untill you're proficient with what is actually required to be good at the game, you aren't even playing the same game as your competition
On the other hand, if you are cool with just taking Starcraft super casually, and not caring about doing video game chores that's totally fine too, it's a video game at the end of the day and you SHOULD do what you have fun with. But if that's the case dont come to TL and complain about how it's not your macro that is losing you games, because that's exactly what it is. And especially don't get offended and berate people for giving you the best advice you could hear
While it's 100% true that macro macro macro is #1, Collosus w/ +3 attack and a zealot/stalker meat shield will crush even a hefty supply disadvantage if the opponent doesn't have a way to touch the collosi.
On October 08 2011 05:25 Harbinger631 wrote: While it's 100% true that macro macro macro is #1, Collosus w/ +3 attack and a zealot/stalker meat shield will crush even a hefty supply disadvantage if the opponent doesn't have a way to touch the collosi.
If you're ahead of him in macro, there's no reason he should reach that.
Oke, my last attempt to get some sense into this topic.
First off, we are going off-topic here, really. I blame myself for doing it too, so don't see me judging all of you and acting all high, because I most likely have done way too much of it as well in this thread. ^ ^
Now, the OP didn't want a whole discussion about what macro is nor did he ask wheter macro > other mechanics/skills or it's the other way around (at least, I do believe he didn't want to go for that). For that matter, there's no 100% proof out there that macro is the main thing in the game to improve upon then other mechanics at low levels, anyone who claims such a thing bases that claim on own experiences/view with/of Sc2 or uses that of others and not on actual solid proof. Unless a big test will be pulled of with lower league players (controlled groups, envoriment etc. etc.), it will stay a opinion/view for each person to form for themselves and never become a outright fact, that simple.
Now what the OP is saying, according to me, is that he is sick of "macro better advice" and just wonders why it's so hard to get other advice aside that when you'r in a low league on these forums. What most people here are saying in response to that is..... "macro better = the way to go, period." Clearly anyone who looks at this knows how pointless saying such a thing is in response to the OP, no matter how detailed you put this "macro better" response. (if not then, well, I don't know, don't respond at all would be my advice I guess)
So instead of saying such things over and over in other words, why not actually adress the problem the OP is putting forth. As I have said several times before and I will just copy paste it again.
On October 07 2011 19:38 Gnight wrote: Even so, this all isn't even about how you see the game and how I see the game. This topic is about getting advice and if a player asks for advice on how to get better, being the friendly, helpfull bunch we are, we should hand them such advice, right?
Now here comes the issue the OP is putting forth. He is sorta sick, just like 90% of all other low level league players to hear "macro better". Now I know alot of people will just say "yes, but it's the best advice to improve and that is what they are lacking", well perhaps that is right, that's for everyone different though in my eyes. But more importantly, why not give those people other advice aside their macro they can practice on? Really, there is no harm for you to do such a thing, in fact you are helping them.
You aren't giving out false advice or anything, you are just pointing out other things aside macro that one can practice to improve their overall gameplay. Because a better micro will always come in handy, a better insight in what kind of army composition one has to have is never wrong to have, knowing better how, where and when to engage with your army will not make you a worse player. So instead of acting all high on our horses and pulling the "macro" view out of our asses and pushing it in their faces like alot of people keep doing, why not actually help them beyond that if that's what they want?
Ps, do note (because I feel like it will be overlooked) that I underlined certain words for a reason. ^ ^
Hmm I think there is a disparity between my personal definition of macro (and may also of others) with the macro that many lower level players are defining.
I define "macro better" as
1) First and foremost, building additional production builds at the right times and keeping money low 2) While doing the above, also build units/structures to deal with unscouted bs coming at me (this could be knowing that a dt expand usually hits around 6:30-7:10 depending on how hardcore they do it, and having a spore up). Basically, macro also refers to generic builds, not anything targeted or specific.
#2 seems to not be part of macro for lower level players. But I don't really consider detection and shit to be part of a "build" in many cases as much as it is a necessity to prevent having to dice roll.
but there is nothing aside from macro to work on. It's the foundation of strategy. If someone tells you to build 3 sentries instead of 3 stalkers and your win rate increases by a game a night, what is that doing other than padding your ego? Sure you might increase your win% by .06 in the short term, but in the long term you are deluding yourself into thinking you're getting better when you are not.
You will develop a better game sense naturally as you work on macro. Just like you can't build a house without a foundation you can't build strategies without macro. You will fond that "having more shit at all times and faster" is a bonus that applies universally to all aspects of your game
On October 06 2011 21:01 marvellosity wrote: So in the CONTEXT that these players are forever striving to improve their macro, it seems entirely reasonable that they should be wanting to improve their strategical knowledge too. Especially as it's the strategical aspect that's more fun than "4eee 5c wzzzssee"
Why focus on improving your strategical aspect when you can't even execute it at a decent level?
On October 08 2011 05:46 foger wrote: but there is nothing aside from macro to work on. It's the foundation of strategy. If someone tells you to build 3 sentries instead of 3 stalkers and your win rate increases by a game a night, what is that doing other than padding your ego? Sure you might increase your win% by .06 in the short term, but in the long term you are deluding yourself into thinking you're getting better when you are not.
You will develop a better game sense naturally as you work on macro. Just like you can't build a house without a foundation you can't build strategies without macro. You will fond that "having more shit at all times and faster" is a bonus that applies universally to all aspects of your game
And this explains it even better. Macro is the foundation of all skills in the game. Well said.
Anyone telling you to "Macro Better" only cares about Leagues and MMR. You'll improve as a player, but only in that you're getting a 50/50 rating against opponents of gradually increasing skill. At best, you'll win half of your games because your A-Move army was better than theirs. The assumption is that every player wants to be a Diamond-Grand Masters play, and they tell you to ignore everything else in favour of that long term goal, regardless of what you actually want from the game.
For the people that play 5 games a week, in a good week, that advice is utterly useless. Some people expect to sit in their current league for a good long while, and are interested in enjoying each individual game as much as possible. Sometimes this involves trying out different build orders, sometimes it's about watching your army melting your opponent's, and sometimes it's being able to hold that 6-pool or 4-gate.
Whatever the case is, brushing everything aside with a broad brush of "get better macro" is blatantly ignorant of a huge percentage of the player base.
A topic like this popped up in the blog section. Here is a copy and paste of on of my reply's:
A lot of times I get the feeling that TL caters more to masters/gm than lower leagues. Advice like "macro and you'll hit diamond in no time" with little else flies around so much it makes you feel like no one cares. I'm sorry to pick on one of your responders (because I don't think his heart is in the wrong place) but...
On September 09 2011 23:00 Darkdeath3 wrote: 3. I know you probally have heard it a lot and probally hate to hear it but... M A C R O i will watch replays of low league players and they always have questions like how do i deal with this or how do i hold this and when you check their resources they will have well over 1000/1000 banked. I cant say for sure if that macro will hold some of the rushs you were talking about but i do know that better macro wont hurt.
This does almost nothing to help a lower league player. "Macro" is a loaded term. The community as a whole needs to be more specific (i.e. constantly making workers, not getting supply capped, building units before, during, and after a battle, adding unit producing structures when you have the workers to afford it, expanding, splitting your work force for optimal mining between multiple bases, etc.).
Overall, you need to be more specific. Enumerate which macro element needs most improvement and go from there.
Personally, I've hit a point (high plat) where I'm losing a good number of games because of missed injects. The losses have generated mindfulness towards this macro mechanic and has greatly improved.
Still, the OP makes a valid point with strategy. SC2 is a strategy game and your game plan needs to follow the strategy's theme. I can't tell you the number of games where a strategy I hadn't seen took me by surprise and killed me. Poor decision-making can lose a game even if you're macro was awesome and your opponent's macro sucked. Therefore, including one or two decision-making tips along with the whole "improve your macro" mantra would be invaluable help.
Even in high masters I've had games where I have a "superior" build but lose anyway because my macro slips. I can't improve from that any way other than macroing better since strategically I made the right choices, amplify that fault in macro to the level of the lower brackets and the macro is really all that matters.
Reading through this thread was incredibly frustrating. It's like 10 people pointing out that strategy's useless if you've got no mechanics and macro, and then 1 person complaining about how that's not what they want to hear, then repeat. TL I've noticed is actually really good at babying players. We'll humor you and tell you, oh, you need to harass more, and oh, you should get this upgrade earlier. But the truth is, the real advice is always the same: Your macro sucks. Your mechanics suck.
On October 07 2011 19:38 Gnight wrote: Now here comes the issue the OP is putting forth. He is sorta sick, just like 90% of all other low level league players to hear "macro better". Now I know alot of people will just say "yes, but it's the best advice to improve and that is what they are lacking", well perhaps that is right, that's for everyone different though in my eyes.
If a player wants to get better, he needs to do what he needs to get better. If he just wants to have fun or theorycraft, he should be content with bronze.
This is not a matter of opinion. It's not different for everyone. It's concrete fact. If you want to be better, you need to get better.
Just because building production facilities at the right time or hitting injects or remembering to get detection isn't flashy or exciting doesn't give any weight to the argument that people just have a difference of opinion in regards to playing better, and that that's okay. You need to do those things, and if you don't want to do them, you need to get used to the fact that you will not succeed.
This is like complaining, "I don't want to be concerned about building supply depots. It's just not part of my playstyle."
Then your playstyle is losing. There is no other advice to give.
On October 08 2011 06:12 WolfintheSheep wrote: Anyone telling you to "Macro Better" only cares about Leagues and MMR. You'll improve as a player, but only in that you're getting a 50/50 rating against opponents of gradually increasing skill. At best, you'll win half of your games because your A-Move army was better than theirs. The assumption is that every player wants to be a Diamond-Grand Masters play, and they tell you to ignore everything else in favour of that long term goal, regardless of what you actually want from the game.
For the people that play 5 games a week, in a good week, that advice is utterly useless. Some people expect to sit in their current league for a good long while, and are interested in enjoying each individual game as much as possible. Sometimes this involves trying out different build orders, sometimes it's about watching your army melting your opponent's, and sometimes it's being able to hold that 6-pool or 4-gate.
Whatever the case is, brushing everything aside with a broad brush of "get better macro" is blatantly ignorant of a huge percentage of the player base.
Well you see, usually when people ask for advice, one assumes it's because they're trying to get better. We're not here to tell you how to have more fun.
On October 08 2011 06:17 .Aar wrote: Reading through this thread was incredibly frustrating. It's like 10 people pointing out that strategy's useless if you've got no mechanics and macro, and then 1 person complaining about how that's not what they want to hear. TL I've noticed is actually really good at babying players. We'll humor you and tell you, oh, you need to harass more, and oh, you should get this upgrade earlier. But the truth is, the real advice is always the same: Your macro sucks. Your mechanics suck.
On October 07 2011 19:38 Gnight wrote: Now here comes the issue the OP is putting forth. He is sorta sick, just like 90% of all other low level league players to hear "macro better". Now I know alot of people will just say "yes, but it's the best advice to improve and that is what they are lacking", well perhaps that is right, that's for everyone different though in my eyes.
If a player wants to get better, he needs to do what he needs to get better. If he just wants to have fun or theorycraft, he should be content with bronze.
This is not a matter of opinion. It's not different for everyone. It's concrete fact. If you want to be better, you need to get better.
Just because building production facilities at the right time or hitting injects or remembering to get detection isn't flashy or exciting doesn't give any weight to the argument that people just have a difference of opinion in regards to playing better. You need to do those things, and if you don't want to do them, you need to get used to the fact that you will not succeed.
Read my full post.... really, please. If you are going to reply to anything, then don't just pluck one part from my post and ignore the rest in it. >.<
I never ever put forward that macro isn't important, that macro doesn't play a important role or anything alike. Nor have I ever put forward anything that deserves this response from you: "If a player wants to get better, he needs to do what he needs to get better. If he just wants to have fun or theorycraft, he should be content with bronze.
This is not a matter of opinion. It's not different for everyone. It's concrete fact. If you want to be better, you need to get better." this as a reply. If you read through my whole post you know why I (note the I, not saying it's a fact) regard it as a opinion/view. Clearly you failed to catch that in my post and just skipped over my words, picked out the part you could critize here and replyed on that (at least that's how you make it seem in my eyes, once again a opinion).
What I am concluding is that people can put forward other advice aside "macro better" that can help a lower league player improve. Even if macro is really the main thing one should work on, it still doesn't hurt to work on your micro, your game knowledge, scouting skills, map awareness etc. etc. You'r saying that if people want to improve they need to do things that will actually improve them. I agree, really I do, because that's plain logic. But there are more things then macro that can help, to what extent/size that is, is a other matter.
Next time, read my whole post before replying, thanks. ^ ^
Ps, once again, underlined things to look out for. >.<
On October 08 2011 06:17 .Aar wrote: Well you see, usually when people ask for advice, one assumes it's because they're trying to get better. We're not here to tell you how to have more fun.
No, they're telling you how they'd have more fun, and you're blatantly ignoring them. Hence why your "advice" is absolutely nothing of the sort.
On October 08 2011 06:17 .Aar wrote: Reading through this thread was incredibly frustrating. It's like 10 people pointing out that strategy's useless if you've got no mechanics and macro, and then 1 person complaining about how that's not what they want to hear. TL I've noticed is actually really good at babying players. We'll humor you and tell you, oh, you need to harass more, and oh, you should get this upgrade earlier. But the truth is, the real advice is always the same: Your macro sucks. Your mechanics suck.
On October 07 2011 19:38 Gnight wrote: Now here comes the issue the OP is putting forth. He is sorta sick, just like 90% of all other low level league players to hear "macro better". Now I know alot of people will just say "yes, but it's the best advice to improve and that is what they are lacking", well perhaps that is right, that's for everyone different though in my eyes.
If a player wants to get better, he needs to do what he needs to get better. If he just wants to have fun or theorycraft, he should be content with bronze.
This is not a matter of opinion. It's not different for everyone. It's concrete fact. If you want to be better, you need to get better.
Just because building production facilities at the right time or hitting injects or remembering to get detection isn't flashy or exciting doesn't give any weight to the argument that people just have a difference of opinion in regards to playing better. You need to do those things, and if you don't want to do them, you need to get used to the fact that you will not succeed.
Read my full post.... really, please. If you are going to reply to anything, then don't just pluck one part from my post and ignore the rest in it. >.<
I never ever put forward that macro isn't important, that macro doesn't play a important role or anything alike. Nor have I ever put forward anything forward that deserves this "If a player wants to get better, he needs to do what he needs to get better. If he just wants to have fun or theorycraft, he should be content with bronze.
This is not a matter of opinion. It's not different for everyone. It's concrete fact. If you want to be better, you need to get better." this as a reply. If you read through my whole post you know why I (not the I, not saying it's a fact) regard it as a opinion/view. Clearly you failed to do such a thing and just skipped over my words and picked out the part you could critize here (at least that's how you make it seem in my eyes, once again a opinion).
What I am concluding is that people can put forward other advice aside "macro better" that can help a lower league player improve. Even if macro is really the main thing one should work on, it still doesn't hurt to work on your micro, your game knowledge, scouting skills, map awareness etc. etc. You'r saying that if people want to improve they need to do things that will actually improve them. I agree, really I do, because that's plain logic. But there are more things then macro that can help, to what extent/size that is, is a other matter.
Next time, read my whole post before replying, thanks. ^ ^
I read your entire post. You have been making one singular point.
I will say this for the last time. We are not here to have fun. We are here to play better. Because to us, that is fun.
Imagine you're trying to learn to dance. You see people doing windmills, air chairs, headspins. And you think to yourself, wow, I want to do that. You have it in your head a vague idea that "balance" will help you.
But wait! Your spine's broken. Too bad. Balance isn't going to solve shit.
Putting forth other advice is nothing more than coddling. You could be MarineKingPrime times two and you will still lose if you have six marines and your opponent waltzes into your base with eight mutalisks.
What you're trying to say as far as I can tell is this: helping players get better in extraneous facets will help them overall. I am flat out disagreeing with you, and telling you that helping players get better in extraneous facets will help them only in regards to those extraneous facets. Learning to micro Marines against Banelings will improve nothing but your micro with Marines against Banelings. Your game sense, your mechanics, your strategizing will be left completely untouched.
On October 08 2011 06:17 .Aar wrote: Well you see, usually when people ask for advice, one assumes it's because they're trying to get better. We're not here to tell you how to have more fun.
No, they're telling you how they'd have more fun, and you're blatantly ignoring them. Hence why your "advice" is absolutely nothing of the sort.
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here. Are you trying to say that I'm somehow making a mistake by disregarding how people have fun?
Shit, you can take tequila shots and play SC with your feet if that's your thing. Don't crawl over here and ask why you're losing games, because yes, we will "blatantly" ignore your preferences. Because they're irrelevant. If you ask how to win, we're going to tell you how to win. Not give little side tips about how to make it a more enjoyable experience.
Guys, this is really simple and not at all controversial. If you want to get better, you need to do what it takes to get better. If you want to just have fun, you need to accept that that doesn't always mean the same thing as getting better.
On October 08 2011 06:17 .Aar wrote: Well you see, usually when people ask for advice, one assumes it's because they're trying to get better. We're not here to tell you how to have more fun.
No, they're telling you how they'd have more fun, and you're blatantly ignoring them. Hence why your "advice" is absolutely nothing of the sort.
This whole conversation is really confusing to me. The whole context of this conversation is that there are low level players who post replays in the Strategy section of TL asking for advice, and that those players almost universally are told that the most important thing they could have done to improve their results is to improve their macro.
A player whose goal is not to get better but simply to enjoy the game doesn't need Strategy Forum advice. He just needs to accept that he will always lose one half of his games no matter what he does, and do whatever he finds entertaining. A player whose goal is to improve should not complain when Strategy Forum vets look at the replay and note that lousy mechanics explain 90% of the loss.
A player whose goal is just to learn which units do well against which other units can do a forum search, spend half an hour on a unit tester map, or check Liquipedia - unit counters are a solved problem. But in most cases, that's not the question presented to the forum. Even the bronziest of the bronze understands that Colossi are good against Marines and Immortals are good against Tanks. A Strategy Forum question, though, is almost always in the form of "how could I have won this game?" If you are floating 3000 minerals when the deciding battle comes, don't complain if the posters don't explain how proper use of Marine patrol micro could have let you trade armies more efficiently.
I don't think anyone on TL is opposed to the concept of people playing SC2 just for the hell of it and having a good time. In fact, I think that's utterly awesome! But this asking for advice on how to win games and then complaining that the advice isn't the right flavor of advice really rubs me the wrong way. If you already know what you want to hear, just write yourself a PM.
On October 08 2011 06:17 .Aar wrote: Reading through this thread was incredibly frustrating. It's like 10 people pointing out that strategy's useless if you've got no mechanics and macro, and then 1 person complaining about how that's not what they want to hear. TL I've noticed is actually really good at babying players. We'll humor you and tell you, oh, you need to harass more, and oh, you should get this upgrade earlier. But the truth is, the real advice is always the same: Your macro sucks. Your mechanics suck.
On October 07 2011 19:38 Gnight wrote: Now here comes the issue the OP is putting forth. He is sorta sick, just like 90% of all other low level league players to hear "macro better". Now I know alot of people will just say "yes, but it's the best advice to improve and that is what they are lacking", well perhaps that is right, that's for everyone different though in my eyes.
If a player wants to get better, he needs to do what he needs to get better. If he just wants to have fun or theorycraft, he should be content with bronze.
This is not a matter of opinion. It's not different for everyone. It's concrete fact. If you want to be better, you need to get better.
Just because building production facilities at the right time or hitting injects or remembering to get detection isn't flashy or exciting doesn't give any weight to the argument that people just have a difference of opinion in regards to playing better. You need to do those things, and if you don't want to do them, you need to get used to the fact that you will not succeed.
Read my full post.... really, please. If you are going to reply to anything, then don't just pluck one part from my post and ignore the rest in it. >.<
I never ever put forward that macro isn't important, that macro doesn't play a important role or anything alike. Nor have I ever put forward anything forward that deserves this "If a player wants to get better, he needs to do what he needs to get better. If he just wants to have fun or theorycraft, he should be content with bronze.
This is not a matter of opinion. It's not different for everyone. It's concrete fact. If you want to be better, you need to get better." this as a reply. If you read through my whole post you know why I (not the I, not saying it's a fact) regard it as a opinion/view. Clearly you failed to do such a thing and just skipped over my words and picked out the part you could critize here (at least that's how you make it seem in my eyes, once again a opinion).
What I am concluding is that people can put forward other advice aside "macro better" that can help a lower league player improve. Even if macro is really the main thing one should work on, it still doesn't hurt to work on your micro, your game knowledge, scouting skills, map awareness etc. etc. You'r saying that if people want to improve they need to do things that will actually improve them. I agree, really I do, because that's plain logic. But there are more things then macro that can help, to what extent/size that is, is a other matter.
Next time, read my whole post before replying, thanks. ^ ^
I read your entire post. It was just as fluffy and pointless as this was.
I will say this for the last time. We are not here to have fun. We are here to play better. Because to us, that is fun.
Imagine you're trying to learn to dance. You see people doing windmills, air chairs, headspins. And you think to yourself, wow, I want to do that. You have it in your head a vague idea that "balance" will help you.
But wait! Your spine's broken. Too bad. Balance isn't going to solve shit.
Putting forth other advice is nothing more than coddling. You could be MarineKingPrime times two and you will still lose if you have six marines and your opponent waltzes into your base with eight mutalisks.
What you're trying to say as far as I can tell is this: helping players get better in extraneous facets will help them overall. I am flat out disagreeing with you, and telling you that helping players get better in extraneous facets will help them only in regards to those extraneous facets. Learning to micro Marines against Banelings will improve nothing but your micro with Marines against Banelings. Your game sense, your mechanics, your strategizing will be left completely untouched.
What I am saying is that there is no harm to point out, give out other advice aside macro. I don't see any issue in you pointing to a bronze league player that he should continue to build workers till he is fully saturated, anything but. But does it harm to point out to him that his positioning can also be improved if he did "this" and "that"?
And before you go again saying that such advice will only help in certain situations then you clearly are mistaken because of the fact that tank positioning is something that is usefull from bronze to grandmasters league (you can apply this to alot of other units that are similiar to the tank, require positioning to get the full potentional out of them). Scouting properly is usefull from bronze to grandmaster league. Micro'ing properly is usefull from bronze to grandmaster league.
Unless you want to claim that none of those things are usefull to have when you are in higher leagues, improving those things (aside improving macro alone) will actually also improve your overall gameplay. If you manage to train yourself to make 20 more units by the 10minute mark, surely it will help you out big time, improve your play and get you (most likely) in higher leagues. But if you manage to train yourself to properly use a army instead of simply a-moving in every time (just a example) you attack (a.k.a. engagement) then it will help out your overal gameplay as well, do you agree with that?
Because that is the point I am trying to make here, Sc2 consists of so many things and macro is only one part of it, perhaps a big one, but still only a part of it. Improving the other parts will not make you a worse player and if a person wants other advice then "macro better", then why not give that advice out as well? That way that person has the detailed "macro better" advice and other advice, tips, pointers, critics that he can work on. At that point it's up to that player to decide what he wants to work on, his macro or the other mechanics. Or do you want to make that choice for other people?
Ps, I did also point out I never claimed that improving your micro will improve your overall gameplay more then when one improves their macro. Pointed that out (underlined it) in that post you said you read so carefully. So don't go there either please.
On October 08 2011 06:44 AmericanUmlaut wrote: A player whose goal is not to get better but simply to enjoy the game doesn't need Strategy Forum advice. He just needs to accept that he will always lose one half of his games no matter what he does, and do whatever he finds entertaining. A player whose goal is to improve should not complain when Strategy Forum vets look at the replay and note that lousy mechanics explain 90% of the loss.
Every player wants to be a "better player", in some way, shape or form. The problem is that using a blanket form of advice like "Macro better" only applies to a very select group of people who play a ton of games, and are okay treating their SC2 experience like a statistics experiment.
For the player that plays a few hundred games per month, "practice more" and "macro better" works out fine, because they're actually in a position to develop their game sense on their own.
For the player that plays a few dozen (or less) games a month, you're basically giving them a 5 year plan on how to improve, and purposefully withholding information because of some misguided notion that it's "to make them a better player".
The problem with trying to give strategy advice to a player who has horrible macro is that it won't help them win games, and they won't have any context a to what you're talking about.
On October 08 2011 06:44 AmericanUmlaut wrote: A player whose goal is not to get better but simply to enjoy the game doesn't need Strategy Forum advice. He just needs to accept that he will always lose one half of his games no matter what he does, and do whatever he finds entertaining. A player whose goal is to improve should not complain when Strategy Forum vets look at the replay and note that lousy mechanics explain 90% of the loss.
Every player wants to be a "better player", in some way, shape or form. The problem is that using a blanket form of advice like "Macro better" only applies to a very select group of people who play a ton of games, and are okay treating their SC2 experience like a statistics experiment.
For the player that plays a few hundred games per month, "practice more" and "macro better" works out fine, because they're actually in a position to develop their game sense on their own.
For the player that plays a few dozen (or less) games a month, you're basically giving them a 5 year plan on how to improve, and purposefully withholding information because of some misguided notion that it's "to make them a better player".
Request for information: "How could I have won this game?" Analysis: "You were floating 3000 minerals." Response to request for information: "You could have won this game by building 60 more Marines."
How is that witholding information? Why do you think that providing situational tactical advice instead of generally applicable advice is giving a player a faster route to improvement? And how is improving one's play in a military game by learning to produce a larger military treating your experience like a statistics experiment?
We aren't "witholding information" that could make a player better when we say to change their play so they have 60 Marines instead of a trust fund. We're giving much more practical advice than if we tried to analyse the positional weaknesses of their play. Sure, if your army was standing a little to the left, it might have increased its DPS by a few percent. If your army had been twice as big, though, it could have stood wherever the fuck it wanted.
On October 08 2011 06:44 AmericanUmlaut wrote: A player whose goal is not to get better but simply to enjoy the game doesn't need Strategy Forum advice. He just needs to accept that he will always lose one half of his games no matter what he does, and do whatever he finds entertaining. A player whose goal is to improve should not complain when Strategy Forum vets look at the replay and note that lousy mechanics explain 90% of the loss.
Every player wants to be a "better player", in some way, shape or form. The problem is that using a blanket form of advice like "Macro better" only applies to a very select group of people who play a ton of games, and are okay treating their SC2 experience like a statistics experiment.
For the player that plays a few hundred games per month, "practice more" and "macro better" works out fine, because they're actually in a position to develop their game sense on their own.
For the player that plays a few dozen (or less) games a month, you're basically giving them a 5 year plan on how to improve, and purposefully withholding information because of some misguided notion that it's "to make them a better player".
So, you're saying instead of a "macro better" response, it should be "play more" ? Fact is, if someone's macro is so terrible, giving advice about a particular engagement will be counterproductive, as that might lead the player to focus on army positioning and make macro even worse.
On October 08 2011 07:20 AmericanUmlaut wrote: Sure, if your army was standing a little to the left, it might have increased its DPS by a few percent. If your army had been twice as big, though, it could have stood wherever the fuck it wanted.
You made me laugh and express the same opinion as I have at the same time. I like you.
On October 08 2011 06:12 WolfintheSheep wrote: Anyone telling you to "Macro Better" only cares about Leagues and MMR. You'll improve as a player, but only in that you're getting a 50/50 rating against opponents of gradually increasing skill. At best, you'll win half of your games because your A-Move army was better than theirs. The assumption is that every player wants to be a Diamond-Grand Masters play, and they tell you to ignore everything else in favour of that long term goal, regardless of what you actually want from the game.
For the people that play 5 games a week, in a good week, that advice is utterly useless. Some people expect to sit in their current league for a good long while, and are interested in enjoying each individual game as much as possible. Sometimes this involves trying out different build orders, sometimes it's about watching your army melting your opponent's, and sometimes it's being able to hold that 6-pool or 4-gate.
Whatever the case is, brushing everything aside with a broad brush of "get better macro" is blatantly ignorant of a huge percentage of the player base.
I find you hard to take seriously when you call us ignorant and full of assumptions when your whole first paragraph is based on false accusations that are entirely unfounded.
On October 08 2011 06:12 WolfintheSheep wrote: Anyone telling you to "Macro Better" only cares about Leagues and MMR. You'll improve as a player, but only in that you're getting a 50/50 rating against opponents of gradually increasing skill. At best, you'll win half of your games because your A-Move army was better than theirs. The assumption is that every player wants to be a Diamond-Grand Masters play, and they tell you to ignore everything else in favour of that long term goal, regardless of what you actually want from the game.
How did you deduce that "macro better" arguments are from people who only care about Leagues and MMR? I think the Macro Better argument applies to both people who want to play well for one game AND also to people who want to get better progressively. Just because of the fact that macroing improves after prolonged training does not mean you can try to macro better for the duration of one game. ------------------------
Of your 50/50 rating statement, which outcome do you think would be better: A)A player improving on macro wins 50% of his games but loses the other 50% to micro B)A player not improving on macro wins 50% of his games BECAUSE of micro, but loses the other 50% to macro.
I can tell you it will not be possible to even start meeting opponents of gradually increasing skill on the ladder if you don't even know how to execute mechanics correctly. Whereas other players are playing with better macro then you, how would you ever overcome this hurdle if you don't increase your performance of mechanics as well? ---------------------
Half of your games only? Where'd you get those statistics?
I think you underestimate the difference between an army count of a player who has decent macro and an army count of a player who has exceptional macro.
Sure, there are situations where tactics can be applied into, like EMPing a protoss army before fully engaging, or engaging above the ramp instead of below. But there are also situations where you'll lose because your macro fell apart; say you were doing a 4-gate push but forgot to warp in one cycle of stalkers and zealots in your forward pylon. The point is I do not doubt that people can find much more macro situations much like the one I just said previously than they can find micro situations. There is only so much you can do tactics-wise to gain an advantage on your opponent, and once those requirements are fulfilled, you're left with macro. ---------------
And last but not least, you assume that the posters in this thread are trying to push the player who needs help into Masters-Grandmasters when that is not at all their goal. Much like my criticism (three sections above) of your first statement, just because someone tells you to macro better does not mean we are trying to make you get better progressively.
On October 08 2011 06:12 WolfintheSheep wrote: For the people that play 5 games a week, in a good week, that advice is utterly useless. Some people expect to sit in their current league for a good long while, and are interested in enjoying each individual game as much as possible. Sometimes this involves trying out different build orders, sometimes it's about watching your army melting your opponent's, and sometimes it's being able to hold that 6-pool or 4-gate.
How is that advice utterly useless? I believe very much that someone who practices macro would improve better than some person who knows small tricks-of-the-trade that let him save maybe a couple of units in a 200/200 battle. -------------------------------
What is more enjoyable: A) having an equal or higher macro-level than someone else and beating them through the use of micro, or B)having a lower macro-level than someone else and they beat you solely because you never had enough units to trade armies effectively?
I know I do not enjoy the feeling that someone else beat me because I failed to acknowledge one crucial aspect of the game. Who am I to think that I, in my skill level, should be able to beat someone else (through micro) with the same skill level as me even though I have 1/4th less of an army that he has? ------------------------
And to end this, I think I should pull out a baller analogy. Hell, it's not relevant, but maybe you can make out some similarities to it.
Say you start talking to a girl in the mall. The mall is Battle.net and the girl is the game between your opponent. You remember those pick-up lines that your friends told you to use, which they guarantee should work all the time. Those pick-up lines are micro. So you start off with a little bit of ice-breaking and general talk. The general talk is macro. So after you started off with the general talk you move onto the pick up lines. But shit your pick-up lines could only do so much. Now the girl is looking at you in disgust (which means your micro failed) and you're trying to come back from your loss. Whatever you did before the girl looked in disgust was your build order that you copied from TL Wiki. You only knew how to talk until the pickup lines that your friends guaranteed would work, and now you're in a situation you don't know how to get back from it. (because your macro sucks so bad). And she walks away and you are alone now.
Imagine that that whole story was not about a girl, but about a starcraft match.
I think the best way to put it is that higher level players can tell you how to work through a strategy, what timings there are, and what you need to do, but in most cases the strategies and transitions, or whatever are with the assumption of good macro and all those strategies become useless if you don't have crisp enough macro to keep up with what you should have.
It might seem impersonal or uncaring but in the end you need the mechanics and the macro to carry out the strategies. If a player really wants to actually get better in the long term, and not just win a few games now, then they should dedicate a week or two to perfecting their macro as much as possible. Yeah you're gonna lose a lot of games at first, but after a few hours of just forcing yourself to pump out units with minimal strategic thinking, you'll start noticing huge gains. Anyone in the lower leagues claiming they want to get better should be doing this.
I have a friend who started playing when sc2 came out. I had played bw and had decent mechanics by early sc2 standards. He played a ton of 1v1s and was only in bronze. We started playing a ton of team games together. He didn't play a 1v1 for like a month, just 3v3s or 4v4s depending on how many of us were on. The rest of us were plat- masters level and generally carried him, but since all he did was focus on making a ton of units to help us, after a month when he went back to 1v1s he immediately shot up to diamond and started playing masters players very soon after that.
Once he learned to macro better he became so much better. On the flip side my friend who didn't practice macroing and did all the flavor of the week stats got demoted to gold and is stuck there since he just tries to improve his strategy.
Macroing and mechanics are far far more important and have a much larger role in the game. Strategies are really easy to fix. Mechanics are not. And if you intend to get better its gonna take some hard work. Get the mechanics then build strategies once you have good enough macro.
TLDR: Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach him to fish, feed him for life.
Say you start talking to a girl in the mall. The mall is Battle.net and the girl is the game between your opponent. You remember those pick-up lines that your friends told you to use, which they guarantee should work all the time. Those pick-up lines are micro. So you start off with a little bit of ice-breaking and general talk. The general talk is macro. So after you started off with the general talk you move onto the pick up lines. But shit your pick-up lines could only do so much. Now the girl is looking at you in disgust (which means your micro failed) and you're trying to come back from your loss. Whatever you did before the girl looked in disgust was your build order that you copied from TL Wiki. You only knew how to talk until the pickup lines that your friends guaranteed would work, and now you're in a situation you don't know how to get back from it. (because your macro sucks so bad). And she walks away and you are alone now.
Imagine that that whole story was not about a girl, but about a starcraft match.
First of all i'm going to say i haven't read everyone's posts. I ended season 2 in silver league, im currently at the top of my platinum division by following the concept of macro better. Sure everyone likes the flashy marine splitting etc stuff. Thats what i tried in my first couple of games (placement/etc.) Sure some games i won because my macro was not as bad as theirs. Then i discovered TL, read some threads, basically read - macro better.
So from the beginning of Season 3 i took a different approach, i just focused on my economy & production. Simply put, get a 200/200 army and a-move your opponent, dont even watch the battle, just continue making units, getting upgrades, taking expansions etc. Look at the minimap 30seconds later - almost always i beat their army in the engagement. I watched the replays to figure out why - during the battle my opponents were constantly trying to micro little things, like blinking some stalkers, landing snipes/emps/fungals etc. Since they had this mindset that they wanted to micro and that with good micro they can easily beat a bigger army they tried engaging my 200/200 3/3 army with their 150/200 1/1 armies.
I also read some arguments about strategy - you do not need specific strategy, just something very basic - get AA if they have etc. Strategy plays a minimal role in lower level play - as long as you make semi-intelligent decisions - like not massing collosi when you obvious see they have a lot of vikings, etc. That's as far as strategy goes. Any strategy higher than that, such as build orders, expansion timings is irrelevant at low tiers - just make workers + make units + get tech + get upgrades --> get 200/200 --> 1a their base. Then remake army -> repeat. This is irregardless of race too, almost probably easiest with protoss - which is basically, just warpin stuff nonstop + chronoboost upgrades.
I don't see anything wrong with telling lower level players that they should improve certain aspects of their game that don't involve macro. When a bronze player posts a replay and asks why he or she lost, it's easy to just tell the OP that their macro was lacking. And to be frank, that's almost always the reason OP lost. But you'll have to assume that their opponent's macro was also lacking on a similar level, so strategy could definitely have come into play there at multiple points in the game, and if OP had done something a little differently the game could have swung the other way.
Thinking about strategy and theory-crafting is just as fun as playing the game; even if it's extremely flawed (which it probably is the lower you go), it's all a learning experience. Discovering that a certain strategy you spent hours thinking about just doesn't cut it in the higher leagues is a part of the evolution in your own SC2 experience, and replacing it with newer builds can be part of what makes you a better player in the end. I remember opening sky terran in TvP when I was in platinum and thinking the strategy was invincible until I hit better players.
On the other hand, lower level players should never talk about balance, which is something I'm sick of. Actually anyone not high masters shouldn't be talking about it unless it's glaringly obvious, and as of patch 1.4 I think most of these big imbalances have been fixed.
Macroing better is the ultimate way to improve though, and it's what I'm still working on a year after I bought the game.
Let's throw a sample replay out here. http://www.sc2rep.com/replays/(P)Cheprus_vs_(Z)Tamerlane/14234 If someone told me I lost this mainly because of bad macro, I'd be pretty annoyed unless they pointed to something very specific around when that attack comes in. Because that's my A game in terms of macro, and making incremental improvements to that performance seems far less feasible than just fixing the glaring tactical error.
On October 06 2011 20:48 Sm3agol wrote: There's a reason every looks down on low tier players, and just tell them to macro(and micro) better, and not worry about strategies as much. Multiple top tier players have shown that that you can basically do WHATEVER you want at low levels, and as long as your macro and mechanics are good, you will win most of the time regardless of unit composition. Players have 4 gated, 6 pooled, mass queened, mass marined, etc all the way to diamond and sometimes even masters, just by simply outproducing and out microing their opponents. Watch Destiny beat tanks, thors, High templar, etc, with queens, even vs people that were trying to stream snipe him, and knew what he was doing, and would still lose. That's why high level players say ignore strategies and unit compositions for right now.....because IT DOESN'T MATTER. If you're worrying about unit compositions while you have 3k minerals at 15 minutes into the game, you're worrying about the wrong thing. Having 4 less stalkers and having 3 more zealots and 2 more sentries instead just might possibly win you the game. Converting the 1500 minerals you have at the 10 minute mark to stalkers, and it wouldn't matter what composition you had, you're going to rofl-stomp your opponent.
TLDR: It's not that strategy is bad, but improving macro will generate far better results than improving unit composition and tactics.
That's generally true, but not very helpful. You pretty much summed up everything he already knew instead of strategizing like he asked for.
Being good at Starcraft 2 is a combination of a bunch of things and each player can focus on any one of those things or try to get a little better.
Macro (not getting supply blocked, always producing workers and units, not forgetting upgrades) Micro (A+moving with entire army, zealots in front guardian shield basic forcefield type stuff) Strategy (I copied a good player's build, did I lose because I did his build wrong? should I have changed something after scouting?)
The people who improve the fastest are those that can figure out whats most important to improve upon or the easiest one thing that will improve your game.
If you are mad that we are telling you to not get supply blocked, build more barracks, or constantly check on your production then you are being close minded about getting better. Because the sum of those things is the quickest way for you to get better.
On October 08 2011 18:13 Monkeyballs25 wrote: Let's throw a sample replay out here. http://www.sc2rep.com/replays/(P)Cheprus_vs_(Z)Tamerlane/14234 If someone told me I lost this mainly because of bad macro, I'd be pretty annoyed unless they pointed to something very specific around when that attack comes in. Because that's my A game in terms of macro, and making incremental improvements to that performance seems far less feasible than just fixing the glaring tactical error.
I agree that you lost that game for reasons other than pure macro, if you define macro very narrowly to not include things like tech, unit composition timings and maintaining proper map vision. You had a bad unit composition to deal with what he was attacking with, you weren't properly defended at a common pressure timing, you had very poor map vision and missed that the pressure was coming, and then you handled the engagement badly. Your "glaring tactical error" (I assume you're referring to engaging with Zerglings against forcefield-defended Zealots instead of pulling back and waiting for a better angle and engaging with Spine support?) was just the frosting on the cake
But your point seems to be that if you submitted that replay and asked the forum what you should have done differently, you'd be told to macro better. That's just setting up a straw man: "If I had given you this replay you would have told me just to macro better, and that would have made me angry." You didn't submit that replay for advice, and if you had I disagree that we would have pointed to macro as the primary source of your loss.
I don't think that anyone is arguing that pure macro problems are the only problems in low-level play. It's just that they tend to be the most glaring problems in a great many games submitted with the question of how the player might have done better.
On October 08 2011 18:13 Monkeyballs25 wrote: Let's throw a sample replay out here. http://www.sc2rep.com/replays/(P)Cheprus_vs_(Z)Tamerlane/14234 If someone told me I lost this mainly because of bad macro, I'd be pretty annoyed unless they pointed to something very specific around when that attack comes in. Because that's my A game in terms of macro, and making incremental improvements to that performance seems far less feasible than just fixing the glaring tactical error.
I agree that you lost that game for reasons other than pure macro, if you define macro very narrowly to not include things like tech, unit composition timings and maintaining proper map vision. You had a bad unit composition to deal with what he was attacking with, you weren't properly defended at a common pressure timing, you had very poor map vision and missed that the pressure was coming, and then you handled the engagement badly. Your "glaring tactical error" (I assume you're referring to engaging with Zerglings against forcefield-defended Zealots instead of pulling back and waiting for a better angle and engaging with Spine support?) was just the frosting on the cake
But your point seems to be that if you submitted that replay and asked the forum what you should have done differently, you'd be told to macro better. That's just setting up a straw man: "If I had given you this replay you would have told me just to macro better, and that would have made me angry." You didn't submit that replay for advice, and if you had I disagree that we would have pointed to macro as the primary source of your loss.
I don't think that anyone is arguing that pure macro problems are the only problems in low-level play. It's just that they tend to be the most glaring problems in a great many games submitted with the question of how the player might have done better.
I agree, people rarely focus entirely on macro here on these forums. Except in these threads. Generally the replay advice given is quite comprehensive, like yours. It was just an example of a game where macro(as its commonly defined in this thread as constantly making workers and spending your money) wasn't close to the biggest problem. -bad unit composition(not macro) -insufficient defenses(mostly not macro, debateable) -poor map vision(definitely not macro) -poor engagement(absolutely positively not macro) This is mostly directed at the "durr just make more stuff, don't worry about everything else" people. There was actually a macro error there aswell. If I had built some more lings as the first lot were engaging, things might have gone ok as they'd be out defending my natural and not forcefielded inside my main.
Because strategy is moot. It's not just macro (though that's a, if not the, primary factor) it's other things, like holding Xel-Naga towers, scouting and reading scouting information and being able to put out a bit of pressure without over committing while still being able to macro at the same time.
You can know the perfect counter to a 1/1/1 all in. Except you execute it 5 minutes late because you missed 4 separate pylons and never chrono boosted once.
You can know the perfect number of roaches/lings needed to stop a four-gate, except you didn't know it was coming because you don't scout or don't know what the scouting information actually tells you. Or, on the reverse side, you can try to 4-gate but it comes late because you missed 3 chrono boosts, or were supply blocked when warpgates finished.
You can know the perfect way to stop a two-base 7-8gate as zerg, except you missed so many larvae injects you don't have enough units or money to ever stop it.
Strategies are based upon competent play. X counters Y because both players do their respective strategy well. What's the point of a timing push when it comes 5 minutes late? Sure, you can argue that if both players macro poorly maybe the opponent will be roughly 5 minutes behind too but...
Executing a strategy 5 minutes late against someone also 5 minutes late is going to win against some builds, lose against some builds, and always be bad. Executing a strategy on time against someone 5 minutes behind is almost always going to get you a win, regardless of the builds you used.
To put it simply: If you can't macro properly, you can't execute ANY strategy properly. It will never be done properly, so what it does and doesn't counter is moot. Trust me, you can play guessing games with people in team-games and fairly accurately guess 1v1 ranks of your random teammates. As a general rule, the platinum and diamond 1v1-ers tend to macro decently, but have little to no idea of what they're actually doing. It's the people who are trying to do something specific but failing terribly, that are the silver level players.
On October 08 2011 18:13 Monkeyballs25 wrote: Let's throw a sample replay out here. http://www.sc2rep.com/replays/(P)Cheprus_vs_(Z)Tamerlane/14234 If someone told me I lost this mainly because of bad macro, I'd be pretty annoyed unless they pointed to something very specific around when that attack comes in. Because that's my A game in terms of macro, and making incremental improvements to that performance seems far less feasible than just fixing the glaring tactical error.
You did wrong decision randomly attacking in stronger army. It has totally nothing to do with your strategy. Btw you attacked right before +1 kicking in. It costed you the game.
Like a month before I played with my friend platinum account with Terran(my main race is Zerg). I have played very few games with other races before and i wrecked platinum / diamond players apart. How? I was just making a lot of stuff, waiting for their attacks and doing some harass. I dont know any terran timmings or build orders, only unit compositions which I should aim for. Btw in 12 or 13 games that account become Diamond. (I lost only one game from ~20)
The problem is that you cannot really execute any strategies at that level, therefor you cannot draw any conclusions from your games afterwards, because, for example, one game you will get supply blocked 5 times, the next game 10 times <10min, while using the same gameplan in both games.
I don't understand why you're not satisfied with the fact that there is a simple and very efficient way to win any game in your league, "macro better". Most lower level players always think they lose the games cos of a "wrong build" or bad micro or whatever; if you can distance yourself from that mindset and just make more stuff, you will improve much faster.
On October 08 2011 18:13 Monkeyballs25 wrote: Let's throw a sample replay out here. http://www.sc2rep.com/replays/(P)Cheprus_vs_(Z)Tamerlane/14234 If someone told me I lost this mainly because of bad macro, I'd be pretty annoyed unless they pointed to something very specific around when that attack comes in. Because that's my A game in terms of macro, and making incremental improvements to that performance seems far less feasible than just fixing the glaring tactical error.
You did wrong decision randomly attacking in stronger army. It has totally nothing to do with your strategy. Btw you attacked right before +1 kicking in. It costed you the game.
Exactly! Like I said, one big tactical error was far more damaging than any macro problem that I could see.
On October 08 2011 19:56 alepov wrote: I don't understand why you're not satisfied with the fact that there is a simple and very efficient way to win any game in your league, "macro better". Most lower level players always think they lose the games cos of a "wrong build" or bad micro or whatever; if you can distance yourself from that mindset and just make more stuff, you will improve much faster.
Ok, watch the replay I posted a few posts above. If you really think "macro better" was the best solution there, I don't know what to say.
I love how sc2 has split the game into macro and strategy
and then pretends they are totally seperate.
A huge part of macro is managing income vs production buildings whilst producing units. This leads into a build order and a unit composition yet is part of macro.
That is why good macro wins games ... you end up with a balanced and large army.
IE your ability to macro at max is determined by thinghs like gas timings, when you got your rax down etc
On October 06 2011 20:48 Sm3agol wrote: There's a reason every looks down on low tier players, and just tell them to macro(and micro) better, and not worry about strategies as much. Multiple top tier players have shown that that you can basically do WHATEVER you want at low levels, and as long as your macro and mechanics are good, you will win most of the time regardless of unit composition. Players have 4 gated, 6 pooled, mass queened, mass marined, etc all the way to diamond and sometimes even masters, just by simply outproducing and out microing their opponents. Watch Destiny beat tanks, thors, High templar, etc, with queens, even vs people that were trying to stream snipe him, and knew what he was doing, and would still lose. That's why high level players say ignore strategies and unit compositions for right now.....because IT DOESN'T MATTER. If you're worrying about unit compositions while you have 3k minerals at 15 minutes into the game, you're worrying about the wrong thing. Having 4 less stalkers and having 3 more zealots and 2 more sentries instead just might possibly win you the game. Converting the 1500 minerals you have at the 10 minute mark to stalkers, and it wouldn't matter what composition you had, you're going to rofl-stomp your opponent.
TLDR: It's not that strategy is bad, but improving macro will generate far better results than improving unit composition and tactics.
Yep. 100% correct and I agree with absolutely everything. If you hopped on Dragon or Rainbows stream recently (they've been leveling up accounts on eu recently) you can see how they stomp lower leaguers (rainbow went only ghosts against a master zerg and won~~) and things like mass nukes and mass, whatever really, works.
On October 08 2011 18:13 Monkeyballs25 wrote: Let's throw a sample replay out here. http://www.sc2rep.com/replays/(P)Cheprus_vs_(Z)Tamerlane/14234 If someone told me I lost this mainly because of bad macro, I'd be pretty annoyed unless they pointed to something very specific around when that attack comes in. Because that's my A game in terms of macro, and making incremental improvements to that performance seems far less feasible than just fixing the glaring tactical error.
You did wrong decision randomly attacking in stronger army. It has totally nothing to do with your strategy. Btw you attacked right before +1 kicking in. It costed you the game.
Exactly! Like I said, one big tactical error was far more damaging than any macro problem that I could see.
I just want to fix your sentence: Exactly! Like I said, one big DECISION MAKING error was far more damaging than any macro problem that I could see.
On the spot decision making has nothing to do with your tactic, strategy or game plan.
There are few different aspects of playing StarCraft2: Macro - making additional supply, making unit, using your race macro mechanic, etc. Micro - controlling your units. APM - being able to do some simple macro/micro mechanic really fast. Multitasking - being able to do a lot of different macro/micro mechanics in limited amount of time. Decision Making - being able to choose correct thing to do. Unit composition - how your army should look like at different timmings. Build order - how you are going to reach your "perfect" unit composition. Strategy - pre-game plan, what timmings you are going to abuse in your opponent play and the ways how you are going to get lead in the game, how you are going to react to different opponent unit compositions. ofc there few more.
What wins the games in different leagues between two same rank players: Bronze/Silver/Gold - well choosed strategy Platinum/Diamond - well choosed strategy and your macro mechanics Low Masters - well choosed strategy and your micro/macro mechanics Mid Masters - well choosed strategy, macro/micro mechanics and decision making. Top Masters/Low GM - pretty much combination of everything. Top GM/Pro Games - combination of everything + some luck.
On high levels well choosed strategy is called build order win. Why it is so rare in top gm/pro games compared with silver guys? Because they have other game aspects to back it up if their build order is inferior.
There are few different aspects of playing StarCraft2: Macro - making additional supply, making unit, using your race macro mechanic, etc. Micro - controlling your units. APM - being able to do some simple macro/micro mechanic really fast. Multitasking - being able to do a lot of different macro/micro mechanics in limited amount of time. Decision Making - being able to choose correct thing to do. Unit composition - how your army should look like at different timmings. Build order - how you are going to reach your "perfect" unit composition. Strategy - pre-game plan, what timmings you are going to abuse in your opponent play and the ways how you are going to get lead in the game, how you are going to react to different opponent unit compositions. ofc there few more.
What wins the games in different leagues between two same rank players: Bronze/Silver/Gold - well choosed strategy Platinum/Diamond - well choosed strategy and your macro mechanics Low Masters - well choosed strategy and your micro/macro mechanics Mid Masters - well choosed strategy, macro/micro mechanics and decision making. Top Masters/Low GM - pretty much combination of everything. Top GM/Pro Games - combination of everything + some luck.
On high levels well choosed strategy is called build order win. Why it is so rare in top gm/pro games compared with silver guys? Because they have other game aspects to back it up if their build order is inferior.
I disagree strongly. if you do 1-1-1 against me in a TvP, but you only have upwards of 10-15 marines, a tank and your scv's, and even if I don't do the correct response (delay you with forcefields on your ramp, immortals->) but if I have units off of 6 gates and continously made them, I win.
I think the main reason that higher level players tell lower level players to "macro better" is because what the lower level players are generally asking for are counters to certain builds/styles. for example, if they play a super economic protss and lose as zerg they go onto the forums and ask for help. The answer that the diamond/master player might give could be "go for a roach ling all in" as with diamond execution or above this hard counters the protoss build, but with silver level mechanics it doesn't as it arrives too late.
What i'm trying to say is the silver level player wants a build they can execute, which can counter what the opponent is doing, this means that they want an easy to execute build that can beat a poorly executed fast expand in this case.
The danger of this is since the silver player learns all these builds off the forums that only work at silver level they are actually seriously stunting any ability they have to ever improve above silver, as as soon as they get into gold none of their strats work and they have to totally relearn the game.
What i'm trying to say is that the strategies your asking for only really work if you can "macro better" and higher level players dont want to give advice that will only help you until you get out of silver and then will start to hinder you. If you want to improve you should really just try and improve maro first and then strategy once you are at the level where you can keep your resources below 500/600 the entire game, as before tat any strategy you learn will be bad, and as you get used to bad strategies it becomes rally hard to forget this "bad" knowledge in order to improve.
tl;dr, good players dont give strategies to silver level players as at silver you cant execute a crisp high level strategy anyway, if the only strategies you can properly execute into the lategame would be ones like having 3 hatches on two base to help with macro, then as soon as you get decent macro, all the builds ingrained in your head will be disadvantages.
There are few different aspects of playing StarCraft2: Macro - making additional supply, making unit, using your race macro mechanic, etc. Micro - controlling your units. APM - being able to do some simple macro/micro mechanic really fast. Multitasking - being able to do a lot of different macro/micro mechanics in limited amount of time. Decision Making - being able to choose correct thing to do. Unit composition - how your army should look like at different timmings. Build order - how you are going to reach your "perfect" unit composition. Strategy - pre-game plan, what timmings you are going to abuse in your opponent play and the ways how you are going to get lead in the game, how you are going to react to different opponent unit compositions. ofc there few more.
What wins the games in different leagues between two same rank players: Bronze/Silver/Gold - well choosed strategy Platinum/Diamond - well choosed strategy and your macro mechanics Low Masters - well choosed strategy and your micro/macro mechanics Mid Masters - well choosed strategy, macro/micro mechanics and decision making. Top Masters/Low GM - pretty much combination of everything. Top GM/Pro Games - combination of everything + some luck.
On high levels well choosed strategy is called build order win. Why it is so rare in top gm/pro games compared with silver guys? Because they have other game aspects to back it up if their build order is inferior.
I disagree strongly. if you do 1-1-1 against me in a TvP, but you only have upwards of 10-15 marines, a tank and your scv's, and even if I don't do the correct response (delay you with forcefields on your ramp, immortals->) but if I have units off of 6 gates and continously made them, I win.
Perhaps, too bad that you don't know if it's a 1-1-1 if you don't scout properly, heck even with a proper scouting run you still need to know what a 1-1-1 is to know what to do. Unless you always go 6 gate in every match-up against T, you might not even have 6 gates to have produced units from when the 1-1-1 arrives... Even if that 1-1-1 doesn't has the strenght as it should have because of decent macro (and not good), then it can still outright kill you, because you failed to react properly against it in other aspects then macro.
Just being up 20 supply isn't a automatic win in any sense no matter what league you are in, if you believe it's then you clearly are lucky to never ever have been outplayed in other area's in any of your games (counter-attacks, reinforcement blocks, picked apart by harrass, better micro control in the battlefield, better positioning etc. etc.). What you do with that extra supply (and what it consists of) is just as important in my eyes then having that extra supply.
On October 08 2011 21:51 killerdog wrote: I think the main reason that higher level players tell lower level players to "macro better" is because what the lower level players are generally asking for are counters to certain builds/styles. for example, if they play a super economic protss and lose as zerg they go onto the forums and ask for help. The answer that the diamond/master player might give could be "go for a roach ling all in" as with diamond execution or above this hard counters the protoss build, but with silver level mechanics it doesn't as it arrives too late.
What i'm trying to say is the silver level player wants a build they can execute, which can counter what the opponent is doing, this means that they want an easy to execute build that can beat a poorly executed fast expand in this case.
The danger of this is since the silver player learns all these builds off the forums that only work at silver level they are actually seriously stunting any ability they have to ever improve above silver, as as soon as they get into gold none of their strats work and they have to totally relearn the game.
What i'm trying to say is that the strategies your asking for only really work if you can "macro better" and higher level players dont want to give advice that will only help you until you get out of silver and then will start to hinder you. If you want to improve you should really just try and improve maro first and then strategy once you are at the level where you can keep your resources below 500/600 the entire game, as before tat any strategy you learn will be bad, and as you get used to bad strategies it becomes rally hard to forget this "bad" knowledge in order to improve.
tl;dr, good players dont give strategies to silver level players as at silver you cant execute a crisp high level strategy anyway, if the only strategies you can properly execute into the lategame would be ones like having 3 hatches on two base to help with macro, then as soon as you get decent macro, all the builds ingrained in your head will be disadvantages.
Too bad strategy and macro doesn't make up every thing in Sc2. If you give out advice to a silver player what army composition is good against a mech army of Terran, then surely that information won't be useless in Grandmaster league? Or is somehow the counter to mech different at higher level leagues? Perhaps you give out advice on how to position one's army better, bottling in a tight area, flanking etc. etc. Surely such advice can be used beyond Silver league or do Master league players play a different RTS game? Or you tell them how one can harrass properly with certain units (mutalisks, drops etc. etc.), of course nobody in higher leagues ever drops or uses mutalisks to harrass worker lines/productions......
Really, macro is a advice to give out to people (no matter there league) that can (and most likely will) help them in later stages as well, but not the sole advice one can give out that can (and most likely will) help them in later stages. Leave it up to that Silver league player to decide wheter he/she wants to work on macro or something else, don't force it upon them because you believe that is the way to improve. Everyone is different, everyone plays different, accept that, live with it and leave it at that people!
@killerdog You've left me a bit confused. First you say a roach-ling all in works against an FE protoss at diamond level, then you say it won't work in gold and so this information should be withheld. By all means say "roach-ling all in works well but you need to do it quickly or you'll lose to X" and then talk about the macro improvements needed to do that. But not mentioning the correct reponse at all just seems useless.
I think the biggest problem with "Macro better!" is that it is really a generic non-answer given by people that, imo, would probably suck at teaching this game to someone. Especially since "Macro better!" is the extent most of the "advice" most of the people using it.
Now, I'm not saying lower level players don't have to work on their macro, I -know- I have to make myself more time and work on my macro (Silly RL =(). Hell, I'll even admit "macro better" would be what is required for these people, if it was actually advice.
Here's the main problems with "macro better", and how I most often see it used: "Macro" is never defined. And if it is defined, it will be redefined to make it the "master answer to all your problems" again. (I think someone in this thread even used "oh that, that's a part of macro too") They don't suggest drills for macro. They don't give telltale early signs that your macro might be slipping. They don't give tips on what to do if you actually spot telltale signs. They don't suggest a solid/safe build for these players, or give benchmarks on what they should hit by when so they can actually see where they're at.
Hell, most of the people spouting "Macro better!" don't even give links to where said beginners can FIND that sort of information.
On October 08 2011 18:13 Monkeyballs25 wrote: Let's throw a sample replay out here. http://www.sc2rep.com/replays/(P)Cheprus_vs_(Z)Tamerlane/14234 If someone told me I lost this mainly because of bad macro, I'd be pretty annoyed unless they pointed to something very specific around when that attack comes in. Because that's my A game in terms of macro, and making incremental improvements to that performance seems far less feasible than just fixing the glaring tactical error.
You have a really bad opening. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- At 6:10 for you
32 / 36 supply. 26 drones 2 queens 3 zergling 0 creep tumors 4 overlords 1 overlord making Started +1 attack Enough gas to start ling speed (but not started yet). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- At 6:10 (for me)
44 / 52 supply. 37.5% more than you. 31 drones (5 more drones) 1 creep tumor (you have none, so you can't put the spines in the proper place later on, I can) 4 lings (same as you) 6 overlords. (you are making one, I already have that finished, and another one). 14 lings making (halfway done) +1 attack and zergling speed started (same tech as you). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For this example I used a 13 pool. I did not 'cheat' to make a big point by going 15 hatch or something, and I used a very uneconomic opening.
The reason for that is that vs protoss, going 11 pool like you did, isn't safe vs anything that 13 pool isn't - and it's main purpose is actually to make 6 lings and pressure the opponent if you think they are going forge expand ... which you didn't. So I assume, you went for this opening just to be safe.
Yes, I can look at your replay and point out some slight mistakes, but in reality - your problem is that you just doesn't have a good opening.
This is exactly what people say when they say macro better. When the fight comes, guess what, you would have won the fight if your army was 50%-100% larger - which it would have been, with better macro.
Now you engage at 8:00 with 30 lings ... do you think you would have won the fight with 50-60 lings? You are still on less drones than I had at 6:10. So the theory here is that ... macroing better is more important than the small stuff (like engaging 3 seconds before +1 attack finish, out of range of your spines).
I don't think one example/test replay is a telling sign. Yes, it is sometimes not helpful to just say macro better. But it is sometimes also not helpful to tell the person to just go for this strategy or that strategy.
Why? Because if he's not macro-ing up to par then he might not be able to execute a certain strategy and still lose. Or sometimes it could be that you are executing the right one and wondering why it didn't work. On the flip side. If he's not executing the right strategy but is macro-ing up great, he may still lose and wonder why.
In short, there is no one thing that's the problem. It's a case to case basis. That is why we post replays.
We shouldn't take it too hard when people say we should macro better because if we don't we might not be able to execute the right strategy anyway. But at the same time, we shouldn't just say macro better because that is fairly vague. Instead, we have to point out what is lacking in terms of macro then subsequently suggest to what strategy to use.
Well I'm diamond and I consider it still as a crappy league (Masters or GTFO attitudes are terribly annoying) so I guess I could weigh in somewhat into this discussion.
For some players macro really is the first step they should take when trying to improve themselves. Obviously there's many other things, but macro is literally the biggest step. There's a whole world of a difference if you're macroing better, you simply have more room to do stuff. From a Zerg perspective if you constant hit those injects AND spend your larvae, the 3-5 extra drones you produce early game go A LONG WAY. And good macro is like stupidly important to stop obnoxious timing pushes, its not just you scouting it out and knowing that it's coming. You also need to have a good economy beforehand so that you can easily begin producing units once the push comes around, otherwise you'll be left crippled after defending the push.
There's more to macro then may think, it's not just making money and spending it fast as possible. You also have to work in good economy timing, be it gas or your 3rd, 4th, or 5th expo.
But hey macro isn't everything. I remember one time on the ladder I ran into a toss player twice. He did the exact same build and I had the wrong unit composition the first time and and the right one the second time. He was basically bad at macro, late expo, late third, late push- he was unintentionally all-in by having his third so late (non-existent) so I knew I just had to prepare for one huge battle. I got to 200/200 quick, everything upgraded like 13 - 14 min in the game and attacked because he wouldn't leave his base. Guess what mother fucker I fucking lost- I had better fucking macro and I knew what he was doing, but the wrong mother fucking units bitch. So in the next game I made different units and hit the same timing a minute quicker and FUCKING ROLLED THE SON OF A BITCH. (I've got the "Threw it on the ground" song playing hehe)
Macro ain't everything boys, it isn't everything- but if your macro is bad then that should be your main focus to improve. Mother fuckers.
On October 08 2011 18:13 Monkeyballs25 wrote: Let's throw a sample replay out here. http://www.sc2rep.com/replays/(P)Cheprus_vs_(Z)Tamerlane/14234 If someone told me I lost this mainly because of bad macro, I'd be pretty annoyed unless they pointed to something very specific around when that attack comes in. Because that's my A game in terms of macro, and making incremental improvements to that performance seems far less feasible than just fixing the glaring tactical error.
It might be your A game but you macro is lacking and that's why you lost the game.
Your building pool to early not building workers when you got the minerals not pulling drones off gas not transfering drones to your natural that costs and it's called bad macro.
It's a very weird attack which you can beat with mass lings and proper macro
Fact is it's a very poor attack and you just need to focus on your macro to beat it. Flanking him from behind with lings, trying to force a retreat is also possible and forceing him to waste his forcefield is good. But the fact is more stuff is just the best way to fix it, and than focus on the more advanced things when macro is at a decent level..
On October 08 2011 18:13 Monkeyballs25 wrote: Let's throw a sample replay out here. http://www.sc2rep.com/replays/(P)Cheprus_vs_(Z)Tamerlane/14234 If someone told me I lost this mainly because of bad macro, I'd be pretty annoyed unless they pointed to something very specific around when that attack comes in. Because that's my A game in terms of macro, and making incremental improvements to that performance seems far less feasible than just fixing the glaring tactical error.
You have a really bad opening. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- At 6:10 for you
32 / 36 supply. 26 drones 2 queens 3 zergling 0 creep tumors 4 overlords 1 overlord making Started +1 attack Enough gas to start ling speed (but not started yet). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- At 6:10 (for me)
44 / 52 supply. 37.5% more than you. 31 drones (5 more drones) 1 creep tumor (you have none, so you can't put the spines in the proper place later on, I can) 4 lings (same as you) 6 overlords. (you are making one, I already have that finished, and another one). 14 lings making (halfway done) +1 attack and zergling speed started (same tech as you). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<snip>
Wow, now if you're going to critique macro that's a good way to do it I didn't know 11 pool was just for early pressure, I'll have a look at your replay and see where I could get those extra units.
You can't generalize everything. I've seen many replays where the answer to "why did I lose" was some tactical error (unit composition, scouting, positioning, etc). However more often than not I see people post losing replays where they were clearly outclassed by a better player. Sure you could point to tactical errors in those situations but it's better if the losing player comes to terms with the fact that they sucked and needed to play better overall instead of looking for a quick fix solution
Well I didn't read all the 17 pages so some guys might have pointed the below mentioned stuffs but I will try to help you:
First of all under macro you can understand much. Not only your mass attacking units. Its also about: - constant worker production -expanding whenever you can ( you will learn this by the time, basically you need to feel when you should expand and when you shouldn't). Also when you expand try to deny your opponents expand this will lead you to a better economy. -Army
Now lets take it by easy steps :
Constant worker production: Ok. You choose a strategy and you read on TL that you have to constantly create workers in order to have a good economy. But WATCH OUT! Maybe your strategy is all-in or you have around 50-60 workers and your still on 2 base and you dont wish to attack. Now take a look at your army. Is it good enough ? While spending 100 minerals every 5 seconds were you able to get a good army ? Also in early game, you know that your opponent is attacking and you need to drop down 1-2 bunkers or warp in some units. Is it good to continue creating workers ? Are you able to defend this push without creating more army ?
Expanding
So you start the game, what do you scout ? No gas absolutely ? This clearly will indicate a FE in any case (except for 6,7 pool but this is not the case). Now its time to make a decision, do you take the risk and do an All-in so while your opponent is spending 300-400 minerals on an expand you get some army and basically win by nothing just the simple fact that you have more units. IF you fail and he defends well hes has the advantage and mostly its a GG on higher levels. If you dont want to go all in, just expand. Think about it. Your opponent Fast expanded he has nothing what can kill you ! So you expand. Expand, transfer a few workers and start producing workers from both CC/Nexus/Hatch. Now scout, try to scout hes army, poke him here and there. When you scout you will see whats hes army composition etc. Make another decision. Is your army composition good vs him or not really ? If its good again its time to think. Attack, finnish him or you are really confident and you will expand so you can start denying hes expand when he starts it so you are ahead of him. And so on. What I would like to explain is that don't just expand because you saw pro games where in 7th minute they already have a full expo runnin, or you just have to much money banked by mistake. Learn the build orders of other races aswell so you are more prepared for everything.
SCOUTING
What i see as a main problem at lower leagues is SCOUTING. Ofcourse below Platinum its not that important because you can scout a 4 gate but simply because the player's aren't that good there is a possibility that he won't even attack you because he has no idea what is a 4gate. And so on. But scouting is really important, you need to know when basic pushes/tech switches happen @ different races, so you can start finding them out.
So basically here are another few things what are important in lower levels:
- Unit counters! (Against colossus - Viking, Corruptor) -Fighting against splash damage units (F.E. Spreading your bio army against colossus, attacking in concave) -NOT fighting on choke points and try not doing fights in small places where you can block your army or get surrounded - vs Zerg. Dont just A move in hes base, send a unit way in front of your army and check hes army, clean the creep
Its not all about MACRO just as you said, you might have 30 bio units and your opponent 4-5 gateway units and 4 colossus but you will still loose. Thats why you dont attack ! Harass your opponent, try to snipe everything you can, hes workers, tech buildings, addons.
I'm just a High Diamond player so I'm not that good to, but I didn't had any experience in RTS games so I started in Bronze aswell and got to Diamond in about 4 months but im stuck here for more then half a years so I know why you are getting frustrated.
Also whenever you watch a pro match, try not just watching the fights, listen to the shoutcasters, try to understand the mindset of the game etc.
If I can help you with any other things, please let me know, and good luck have fun!
On October 08 2011 22:48 Monkeyballs25 wrote: Wow, now if you're going to critique macro that's a good way to do it I didn't know 11 pool was just for early pressure, I'll have a look at your replay and see where I could get those extra units.
I oversimplified somewhat.
11 pool 18 hatch is a reactionary build that relies heavily on scouting, chosing the exact right thing to do, out of tons of options. It's also quite technical (overlord, extractor trick, waiting on several supplies (11, 18) for a while because you can't afford to just build stuff as you need them.
It's therefore - my opinion - a really bad build to learn when you are in the lower leagues, since you won't know what to do most of the time - and you'll accidentally just do stuff that's halfway okay.
If you want to focus on one build, 14 gas 14 pool is good. However, with 14 gas 14 pool, it's not well suited for +1 attack speedlings without heavily changing it (because it's based off pulling drones off gas when pool finish, get ling speed, and then getting more drones with the extra minerals. If you leave the drones on gas and get an evo chamber, you won't be able to afford the 2nd queen and enough drones early enough.
13 pool is just safe ... I used to often do 15 pool against protoss, but then you are not safe against the 3 pylon block on ramp so I just switched to 13, it's roughly the same.
It's really bad against Zerg and Terran though, so don't use it in those matchups.
So if you want 1 build to focus on in all matchups, I think 14 gas 14 pool is the best one. Alternatively 15 hatch, but that relies on being decent at micro when defending cheeses.
Well Destiny got to like Plat/Diamond just going mass queens every game. Refining your macro, regardless of your strategy, could win you a whole lot of games.
I am currently in bronze and ever since i started concentrating on my macro more i've won virtually every one of my games, even without strategy, just throwing my units at the enemy until they died. So I believe that their right about macro being the main thing. And to the guy who said the thing about 200 food colossi losing to 100 food viking, this points out the need for scouting as no one would mass colossi if the the enemy massed vikings.
Cause they are new at the game and the late game is a weakness for them or maybe their computers cant handle 200/200 army battles. So just let them play around with one base builds until they find something they like.
The main problem about learning strategy in the lower levels is that later on that exact strategy becomes obsolete and will actually hinder you. an example would be how do I stop this and this timing push when it comes at this and this time.
the main problem is that gold league players dont have proper macro so if they execute a certain strategy it may hit a timing it is not supposed to hit (2,5 minutes later but somehow it lines up with you making mutas, thus being slightly weaker in ground army). everyone will tell you that the proper strategy is to make more ground units and wait with your mutas, however later on you will notice that this exact same push is actually supposed to hit long before you have mutas therefore making the "Strategy" you learned completely obsolete. so the strategy that may work in your next game, will not work at all in the game you will play 100 games from now.
While if you just work on your macro and don't care about any strategy, that macro will carry you through every league upto masters, because the basic concept of macro never changes.
Macroing is better in alot of sense..... for example i dont really see any point of a low level player taking 4+ bases with insane economy when he cant even spend all his money off 2 base. The whole idea of expanding is to get a higher income of resource yet whats the point when they are not even using that income?
Just imagine for abit how much units u can pump out by spending everything. In the lower level, you can practically win sheer force despite strategy. Sure you can know strategies but without macro, you cant execute that strategy to its full potential....
The fact is, focusing on strategy too much can actually impede your macro. If you are making too many strategic decisions in-game, at the plat/lower level, this will draw focus away from macro fundamentals.
Also the more variety is in your build/composition, the more technical the macro itself becomes, as well as the micro, which will further distract from the most important aspect of the game; SVC-Depot-MaRine-repeat ad-infinitum
I think the OP is discussing something different than what most people think he is.
It seems more like "specific instance" vs "general explanation."
For example, why do you go on a strategy forum? To learn more. The OP means that most low-level players want to know "Why did I lose here?" rather than "What can I do to win more often?"
I think this makes a lot of sense, as if you've ever tried to teach someone something, it just makes more sense to say, "just do X and Y, and you'll be fine." But that's not really that helpful, believe me, I've tried that for people to tutor in Calculus and Physics AB, because they don't even understand what that even means. Why would they ask for help, if they just understood "Oh, macro better? Let's do that then! Thanks guys!"
So if you want 1 build to focus on in all matchups, I think 14 gas 14 pool is the best one. Alternatively 15 hatch, but that relies on being decent at micro when defending cheeses.
I do actually 15 hatch against Terran, they're rarely able to do much against it in Silver. And I generally stick to roach play against Zerg because I'm just hopeless with ling bling.
Running through YABOT a few times has reminded me how soul crushingly frustrating and difficult that whole process is. I'll work on it a bit more now and then just to see if I can get anywhere close to your results, especially since you did go through all the effort in analysing my replay and posting your own. But its just...I can't see myself doing that on a regular basis anywhere near the level it'd take to get diamond+ macro and not just quitting the game in absolute frustration.
In order to win at this game, you need to be able to macro efficiently and well before you should ever consider worrying about a unit comp or build order.
Day9 has said this how many fucking times?
It just sounds like you want some fast track to being a good player, sorry that doesn't exist is a game based on skill. Either you put in the time, and learn how to be a better player, or you become comfortable with your current level of play.
Haphazardly posting some QQ thread on TL isn't going to make you better at macro-ing, or build orders, or Starcraft at all. It simply shows that you don't have the gumption to get better.
In my opinion low level players who don't know basic build orders or army composition (like how to 3gate expand in PvZ etc.) should not be asking for help in the strategy forum, as these things are VERY easy to find with about 15 seconds of searching, and I will not want to reply to any thread asking what they did wrong where anything like that was a problem, other that to say what their macro mistakes are.
However if somebody posts a replay where they basically had the right idea of the basic way the matchup works (again, very easy to find this out with some basic research) but they had some macro mistakes as well as some mistakes in positioning their army, scouting incorrectly or at the wrong times, defending when they should sacrifice a base and counter attack etc. Then I will give my opinion on all of those things as well as their macro mistakes.
On October 08 2011 22:48 Monkeyballs25 wrote: Wow, now if you're going to critique macro that's a good way to do it I didn't know 11 pool was just for early pressure, I'll have a look at your replay and see where I could get those extra units.
I oversimplified somewhat.
11 pool 18 hatch is a reactionary build that relies heavily on scouting, chosing the exact right thing to do, out of tons of options. It's also quite technical (overlord, extractor trick, waiting on several supplies (11, 18) for a while because you can't afford to just build stuff as you need them.
It's therefore - my opinion - a really bad build to learn when you are in the lower leagues, since you won't know what to do most of the time - and you'll accidentally just do stuff that's halfway okay.
Reactionary? Its the same thing every time unless you only want 1 set of lings then u dont do 2nd extractor trick. 10/10 extractor trick, 11/10 overlord, 11/10 pool, drone to 15, extractor trick as pool finishes, queen+2x lings, 19 hatch, overlord, overlord. Then just drone.
Its somewhat complicated but learning an early game build order perfectly is one of the most important things in starcraft and against lower level protoss this build is perfect for denying cheese and getting ahead in economy.
On October 08 2011 22:48 Monkeyballs25 wrote: Wow, now if you're going to critique macro that's a good way to do it I didn't know 11 pool was just for early pressure, I'll have a look at your replay and see where I could get those extra units.
I oversimplified somewhat.
11 pool 18 hatch is a reactionary build that relies heavily on scouting, chosing the exact right thing to do, out of tons of options. It's also quite technical (overlord, extractor trick, waiting on several supplies (11, 18) for a while because you can't afford to just build stuff as you need them.
It's therefore - my opinion - a really bad build to learn when you are in the lower leagues, since you won't know what to do most of the time - and you'll accidentally just do stuff that's halfway okay.
Reactionary? Its the same thing every time unless you only want 1 set of lings then u dont do 2nd extractor trick. 10/10 extractor trick, 11/10 overlord, 11/10 pool, drone to 15, extractor trick as pool finishes, queen+2x lings, 19 hatch, overlord, overlord. Then just drone.
It is a really bad build UNLESS you decide to pressure with it.
Which is why you really shouldn't use it unless you know how to pressure with it when it's useful.
On October 08 2011 22:48 Monkeyballs25 wrote: Wow, now if you're going to critique macro that's a good way to do it I didn't know 11 pool was just for early pressure, I'll have a look at your replay and see where I could get those extra units.
I oversimplified somewhat.
11 pool 18 hatch is a reactionary build that relies heavily on scouting, chosing the exact right thing to do, out of tons of options. It's also quite technical (overlord, extractor trick, waiting on several supplies (11, 18) for a while because you can't afford to just build stuff as you need them.
It's therefore - my opinion - a really bad build to learn when you are in the lower leagues, since you won't know what to do most of the time - and you'll accidentally just do stuff that's halfway okay.
Reactionary? Its the same thing every time unless you only want 1 set of lings then u dont do 2nd extractor trick. 10/10 extractor trick, 11/10 overlord, 11/10 pool, drone to 15, extractor trick as pool finishes, queen+2x lings, 19 hatch, overlord, overlord. Then just drone.
It is a really bad build UNLESS you decide to pressure with it.
Which is why you really shouldn't use it unless you know how to pressure with it when it's useful.
If by pressure you mean go attack with the first 4 lings sure they are there to be used.
If you mean make more lings then why did you 11 overpool in the first place? Making more than 2 sets of lings will completely ruin your econ advantage and those lings will probably be too late to do any damage.
Also if you do a drone scout you sacrifice a big part of your econ advantage because you have exactly enough to use the first spawn larva and afford a queen on time.
This is a post on the first page but I'm gonna reply to it anyway.
On October 06 2011 21:15 RudePlague wrote: 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.
If they're not aiming to get better, then they shouldn't be asking for advice.
Going from Bronze to Diamond takes two things: Good Macro, and a good build order. It can't really get any more clear cut than that.
Do this and many of you low players who say they have good macro will be suprised.
Cool micro is great but when someone is just building way more stuff than you they will kill you. Macro looks a lot less cool than epic micro but it's way more important. Macro= Big Micro=Small and they have that effect on the game.
Building the right unit compo is a part of macro :/. Scouting is totally useless if you don't adjust to what your fighting against.
People say work on your macro because it is terrible. That is the reason you are underneath diamond nothing else. You might lose one game due to strats entirely but you lose/win most of them based off of macro. A nifty timing push is gonna be shit because your behind on building everything.
When I watch replays I see players floating a couple K of mins and Gas with 10 workers idling and they claim they have good macro I lost because x is OP and i need a strat to beat it. I just cry a bit and shake my head. I stopped watching low level replays ages ago. I can't stand seeing that idle worker button it physically bugs me and seeing 10 just kills my ocd :/.
I worked my way up from the bottom of bronze in beta with 0/5 as my placement to top 10 masters. Macro is what did this not fancy little tricks. You gotta learn to walk-->run-->parkour
On October 06 2011 21:15 RudePlague wrote: 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.
If they're not aiming to get better, then they shouldn't be asking for advice.
Going from Bronze to Diamond takes two things: Good Macro, and a good build order. It can't really get any more clear cut than that.
Also, a good map to practice macro, build order, multitasking all those great mechanics things is "multitasking OBSERVERS". Create the game on battlenet NA server (i dont know if its on other servers).
Theres difficulties ranging from very easy to insane. Very easy can be difficult for people up to platinum and insane is tough for high-master or grandmaster players.
IMO its a fun way to get good mechanics which typically results in better macro ^^
Honestly, i 100% agree that "macro better" is a valid response. But I HATE it when i see someone asking for tactical advice and see that. I don't see why people can't say "ok, first, macro was a bit off. But also, you attacked just before your upgrades were finished. If you would have waited 10 secs and then attacked you would have done a lot more damage. But mainly focus on your macro, as it's the most important thing at lower leagues."
Everyone's happy. The low leaguers got some sound advice, AS WELL AS being told they need to improve their macro a lot.
I don't see why I can't learn about the game AND improve my macro, just because your too single minded to think that "He's bronze league. He should macro better. this GM league macro'd perfectly and just massed stalkers to Diamond league, so therefore this bronze leaguer should do too."
On October 09 2011 05:36 TheGreenMachine wrote: Also if you do a drone scout you sacrifice a big part of your econ advantage because you have exactly enough to use the first spawn larva and afford a queen on time.
11 pool 18 hatch: 49 / 52 supply. 349 minerals. 3 drones making. 1 hatch 55% done with inject. 1 hatch 30% done with inject.
14 pool 15 hatch. 549 minerals. 48 / 52 supply. 3 drones making. 1 hatch 100% done with inject (it just popped, I didn't have time to make drones) 1 hatch 95% done with inject.
That's my testing.
Both examples no extractor taken, no gas mined, gotten 16 drones in main before rallying all drones to expansion, make 4 lings (assumption: you make lings blindly when pool finish, but you got your hatch down without having to kill a pylon.
Making nothing but drones, overlords, 4 lings, 2 queens. At 6:00 neither example have an overlord making.
The point is, 11 pool puts you behind 200 minerals and half a production cycle compared to something like 14 pool 15 hatch (which isn't even among the most economical openings).
Now compare it to something like 15 hatch 15 pool. This puts you behind some in larvae but ...
15 hatch 15 pool 850 minerals. 44 / 52 supply 2 drones making. 1 hatchery 100% done with inject (just popped, no time to make drones) 1 hatchery 95% done with inject.
This basically gives me 300 more minerals in the first 6 minutes, but 4 less larvae. However, I could spend them on a macro hatchery or 2 extra queens ...
So my basic point is that 11 pool 18 hatch is a NOT a good economic opening. It costs you a fair bit of minerals compared to most other viable openings.
But really, don't take my word for it ... just copy all the best zergs in the world, and note what openings they are using. There's a reason for it.
Well can you really assume you get the hatches down right on time? Even the 14 pool 15 hatch is often denied forcing you to do a queen instead of hatch. This is against protoss who often scout on 9 pylon as opposed to terrans who scout later and make hatch first easy to put down most of the time.
I feel like the reason people don't use 11 overpool at a high level is because you can abuse it with early aggression and set the zerg behind since every larva they get needs to be a drone.
On October 09 2011 07:33 TheGreenMachine wrote: Well can you really assume you get the hatches down right on time? Even the 14 pool 15 hatch is often denied forcing you to do a queen instead of hatch. This is against protoss who often scout on 9 pylon as opposed to terrans who scout later and make hatch first easy to put down most of the time.
I feel like the reason people don't use 11 overpool at a high level is because you can abuse it with early aggression and set the zerg behind since every larva they get needs to be a drone.
Uhm, the reason people don't use 11 overpool is because it's not a good opening. It's not economically viable. And if you are blocked, you might as well GG.
You can never assume you get the hatch down on time ... but with 11 / 18 you are putting it down 30 seconds after 14 / 15, so that doesn't really help ...
But hey, it IS safer vs cheese, and it allows you lings out 25-30 seconds earlier for scouting, so I mean, it's a trade off ... I can't see it as worth it in any way though. I tend to think I would be far better off with 1 extra earlier queen to spread creep / defend vs air, or just get faster tech and gas.
Macro is very important and every player struggling in the lower leagues should work on it.
However, even in low leagues like gold and platinum, players will consistently macro perfectly to about ~25-30 supply. If you are frequently getting supply blocked or missing drone production in that early stage of the game, you're playing at a *very* low level. And even in that early period, when consistent macro is a given, there are many ways for a player to lose the game or get far behind. A few examples:
* Terran bunker play. There was a period in which getting bunkered was pretty much standard TvZ. I lost almost all of my TvZs in the early game because I didn't know how to react this. I would scout the bunker and pull drones, but I couldn't make them attack the SCV - I didn't realize that they wouldn't auto-follow it once ordered to attack. I kept trying to A-click on the building SCV and missing it because it moved behind a building. My winrate in TvZ was about 20% because of this, and it had nothing to do with my macro. * Reacting to a 2-gate from protoss. Early on, I did not know protoss build orders, which meant I didn't know that I needed to react differently to a 2-gate opening than a gate-core opening. I lost a lot of games by having some zealots show up in my base when I only had 2 zerglings. This wasn't because of my macro; I just didn't know that I shouldn't be building so many drones. * Holding a 2-rax SCV all-in. Again, it's pretty easy to not be floating money or missing drones by the time this hits, but even if you made non-stop lings after your pool popped, you will still lose this every time if you don't know how to engage it properly. If you're running your lings into the SCVs, you will die. If you're not pulling drones, you will die. If you don't have both drones and zerglings go in in synch, you will die. This is all execution, not macro. * All of early-game ZvZ. It's incredibly easy to lose quickly in the early game even if you are remembering to hit injects and build drones simply because you built a few drones too many, or ran your ling ball into a baneling. In fact, figuring out when to drone in early game ZvZ is an incredibly challenging, punitive, tightrope-walking affair. For a while I actually started winning more games when I stopped droning and just produced non-stop lings.
All of these are very common openings at a low level (some of them are common at a high level as well).
Which leads to another point. For Protoss and Terran, good macro is more or less mechanical. Unless you're hitting a specific timing, you should be building workers non-stop until late in the game, and dropping MULEs/chrono boosting regularly. But for Zerg, good macro is reactive. There is a mechanical element to it (hitting larva injects, spreading creep, dropping hatches at the correct period), but there is also a strategic element to it. To know when to drone, you need to know what your opponent is doing, and when it is safe to drone.
So for a Zerg to be told to macro better is particularly frustrating, because it's basically equivalent to saying "play better." Macroing properly as Zerg is fundamentally intertwined with understanding the game state. If you play in the dark and constantly think your opponent could kill you, you'll wind up under-droned, regardless of how good your mechanics are. When you understand your opponent's timings and how to play safely, then you'll drone better as well.
That's not to say that low-level Zerg don't have mechanical issues as well. I still miss injects and float money sometimes. That definitely needs to be improved and it constitutes a huge portion of how good you are. But there are major stumbling blocks that can occur before the point where a macro advantage kicks in, and players don't need to wait until Masters to stop losing to these things every time.
People who say "all you need is macro" are simply looking at how poor lower-level macro is, without realizing how many *other* things they do better than lower-level players as well. Things like scouting, reacting to enemy build orders, and army engagement. All of those things are *huge* and will lose you games even if you're out-macroing your opponent.
Yes, but how? I guess people just wanna hear a little more than the words "macro better and you'll win!". They wanna be told how to macro better. (Maybe ask for examples of some things you should focus on?)
You need macro but everyone wants a shortcut to being the best... Make an extra effort to learn & practice. It is the only way you are going to get better. shitty deal but thems the breaks.
On February 23 2011 08:56 Saracen wrote: As an addendum... In my opinion, the main reason this thread exists is to help you think for yourselves (and hopefully reduce the amount of [H] threads that litter the forums). After all, why ask others for help when you can help yourself? So, before you make a thread asking why you lost or what you could have done better, make sure you're doing everything you need to be doing first. You may think "only pros do everything consistently" or "I'm only in Gold league, I don't need to do every single thing" or "I may have done some things wrong, but my opponent did too!" This is a terrible mindset, especially in lower leagues, because that's where macro actually makes a huge difference. For the people who try to help you out, it's really frustrating to try to give advice on gameplay when you consistently see little things like getting supply blocked at 26 or not chronoing probes until you have 40 energy or not building enough barracks and then queuing 4 marines on each one. Each one of these "little things" adds up, especially in the early game, and could very well give you a disadvantage that's pretty much impossible to come back from.
On February 23 2011 08:56 Saracen wrote: As an addendum... In my opinion, the main reason this thread exists is to help you think for yourselves (and hopefully reduce the amount of [H] threads that litter the forums). After all, why ask others for help when you can help yourself? So, before you make a thread asking why you lost or what you could have done better, make sure you're doing everything you need to be doing first. You may think "only pros do everything consistently" or "I'm only in Gold league, I don't need to do every single thing" or "I may have done some things wrong, but my opponent did too!" This is a terrible mindset, especially in lower leagues, because that's where macro actually makes a huge difference. For the people who try to help you out, it's really frustrating to try to give advice on gameplay when you consistently see little things like getting supply blocked at 26 or not chronoing probes until you have 40 energy or not building enough barracks and then queuing 4 marines on each one. Each one of these "little things" adds up, especially in the early game, and could very well give you a disadvantage that's pretty much impossible to come back from.
Somewhat agreed! While Macro'ing properly is definitely important, there is more to the game than just macro. Even if both sides macro'd poorly, so long as the army counts are around equal during battle that is all that matters (or if one side was greatly ahead, and lost). It is usually clear when one player loses because of macro and while 'better macro' would have won an even game, there are many other things which would have also won the game. It might have been better troop positioning, it might have been better micro, it might have been better decision making like countering instead of attacking head on. So while the little things add up, in an even game there are more factors at work than just macro.
Also the "macro better" attitude isn't always the most useful attitude to have in the strategy forum. That could be applied to every single level and still be true!! It's an empty truth in this regard. So while the strategy forum can be used to get advice on how to macro better, there are also many other things that you could be learning from there - What unit composition beats what (this really is bronze information, and should be contained in liquipedia) - How to engage battles properly - How to make better decisions in game - How to gauge what your opponent is doing with minimal information
Things like refining a build order, having a build order (-.-; ), this is my awesome new build order please rate it!!!!! and whatnot are all examples of bad questions to ask in the strategy forum. Once infinity's guide is out that should help with this though!
I'll just leave these here.
Yep. I completely agree with these posts. If you are the type of person who looks for solutions and desires to improve yourself, you will move up the ladder quickly.
Keep playing and when something goes wrong, consult your own replays and ask yourself: Why did I lose? What could I have done better? What did my opponent do that won him/her the game?
It's really that simple to move up. Take it from someone with limited RTS experience, came in late to SC2 in November and is now top 6 master.
ask any great NA/EU/SEA player what separates him from the top koreans right now and what will you hear? --mechanics and decision making.
decision making is derived from experience. experience comes from playing more and taking it more seriously; no one can give you any advice to change your attitude on that (besides "play morelol")
so then we're left with just mechanics. think of playing a game of starcraft like it is a piece of art you're putting together. think of mechanics as your ability to create that piece of art. how are you going to paint a masterpiece if you suck at painting?
On October 09 2011 13:18 Alejandrisha wrote: You hate hearing it because your macro is bad.
ask any good player what separates them from the top koreans right now and what will you hear? --mechanics and decision making.
decision making is derived from experience. experience comes from playing more and taking it more seriously; no one can give you any advice to change your attitude on that (besides "play morelol")
so then we're left with just mechanics. think of playing a game of starcraft like it is a piece of art you're putting together. think of mechanics as your ability to create that piece of art. how are you going to paint a masterpiece if you suck at painting?
Here's the reason why high level players keep telling everyone to focus on their macro: it's one of the hardest parts of SC2 to get right. Anyone can spend a few hours on custom maps and improve their micro significantly. However improving your macro is much more difficult. You have to train not just your fingers but your brain to remember to constantly be thinking not just of the immediate battle or engagement, but of the status of every worker, every building back in your base. It takes many many games to get to a high level.
You can't learn to macro properly before you learn other skills - it is impossible.
You cant macro properly without a game plan, and game plan = strategy
any good player knows that when they don't have a clear focus their macro turns to slop
hence, low levels players also need a strategy and a focus, otherwise their not going to know what to make, so they wont be able to macro
hence anyone telling low level players they only need macro, and not to think about anything else, is wrong. You might as well tell them they should first practicie using their keyboard without looking and learn to press every button perfectly and quickly like flash before they worry about strategy. It going to take YEARS.
anyone who advocates only macro is the key to improvement fail to understand that lower players lack the micro, macro and knowledge to be able to use any units effectively no matter how many they make.
An artist wouldn't learn to use his paint brush by repeatedly literally painting dog shit until he can use his brush properly. All skills are learned together and rely on eachother for maximum improvement.
i think giving crappy players simple strategies to execute is far more effective then simply telling them to macro better, as at least they will have some focus. It also makes the game more interesting for them and gives them a clear goal. Macro comes with practice. You can't build it without building anything else.
On October 09 2011 13:32 Hectic wrote: You can't learn to macro properly before you learn other skills - it is impossible.
You cant macro properly without a game plan, and game plan = strategy
any good player knows that when they don't have a clear focus their macro turns to slop
hence, low levels players also need a strategy and a focus, otherwise their not going to know what to make, so they wont be able to macro
hence anyone telling low level players they only need macro, and not to think about anything else, is wrong.
anyone who advocates only macro is the key to improvement fail to understand that lower players lack the micro, macro and knowledge to be able to use any units effectively no matter how many they make.
An artist wouldn't learn to use his paint brush by repeatedly literally painting dog shit until he can use his brush properly. All skills are learned together and rely on eachother for maximum improvement.
i think giving crappy players simple strategies to execute is far more effective then simply telling them to macro better, as at least they will have some focus. It also makes the game more interesting for them and gives them a clear goal. Macro comes with practice. You can't build it without building anything else.
They don't need to post help threads to learn simple strategies, there is liquipedia and a million guide threads for that.
On October 09 2011 13:32 Hectic wrote: You can't learn to macro properly before you learn other skills - it is impossible.
You cant macro properly without a game plan, and game plan = strategy
any good player knows that when they don't have a clear focus their macro turns to slop
hence, low levels players also need a strategy and a focus, otherwise their not going to know what to make, so they wont be able to macro
hence anyone telling low level players they only need macro, and not to think about anything else, is wrong.
anyone who advocates only macro is the key to improvement fail to understand that lower players lack the micro, macro and knowledge to be able to use any units effectively no matter how many they make.
An artist wouldn't learn to use his paint brush by repeatedly literally painting dog shit until he can use his brush properly. All skills are learned together and rely on eachother for maximum improvement.
i think giving crappy players simple strategies to execute is far more effective then simply telling them to macro better, as at least they will have some focus. It also makes the game more interesting for them and gives them a clear goal. Macro comes with practice. You can't build it without building anything else.
i just think that ignoring macro flaws in low level players does anything to help them. a shitty build with good execution and efficient spending trumps a good build that misses a pylon or two. basically you are saying that every new player needs to be coddled and coached rather than having the ability to try to model the timings/builds of professional players and learning macro by running dry runs to smooth out execution. you need to do your homework before you attempt to learn the nuances and concept of "strategy" in lecture
On October 09 2011 13:32 Hectic wrote: You can't learn to macro properly before you learn other skills - it is impossible.
You cant macro properly without a game plan, and game plan = strategy
any good player knows that when they don't have a clear focus their macro turns to slop
hence, low levels players also need a strategy and a focus, otherwise their not going to know what to make, so they wont be able to macro
hence anyone telling low level players they only need macro, and not to think about anything else, is wrong. You might as well tell them they should first practicie using their keyboard without looking and learn to press every button perfectly and quickly like flash before they worry about strategy. It going to take YEARS.
anyone who advocates only macro is the key to improvement fail to understand that lower players lack the micro, macro and knowledge to be able to use any units effectively no matter how many they make.
An artist wouldn't learn to use his paint brush by repeatedly literally painting dog shit until he can use his brush properly. All skills are learned together and rely on eachother for maximum improvement.
i think giving crappy players simple strategies to execute is far more effective then simply telling them to macro better, as at least they will have some focus. It also makes the game more interesting for them and gives them a clear goal. Macro comes with practice. You can't build it without building anything else.
i wouldn't use the term "strategy" here. if you can't grasp the entire breadth of a "strategy" then why make attempts at it when you have no idea what you are doing. use the term "build" instead; if they improve their ability to execute the build, then they have improved implicitly in their macro, and they are getting better.
for example: in ZVZ i might advise my crappy friend to try and use a defensive opening build order, while they aim for a 2 base roach push with +1 attack and speed to finish the game
that is the strategy, and now they know what the hell they are trying to achieve, and now they can practice it, even if it's not the best strategy.
Now they can work on, or find a build order to achieve this strategy, and improve their macro att he same time
if i didnt give them this focus, or they didnt find their own focus, they wouldnt know what to practice and hence there would be no opportunity to refine 'macro'.
im arguing this, because i have helped several players go from 0 RTS experience to daimond level player, and i know for a fact that only telling someone to make their macro better makes them feel shitty and unmotivated because they still don't have a game plan.
8 or so months ago koreans were constantly cheesing each other out in gsl and people were praising their macro. This happened (except for possibly Artosis). Strategy matters at all levels. Boxer won tournaments with bunker rushes sometimes, while using inferior macro to players such as Nada at slightly later dates. Pro-level players have been improving their macro as this game gets older.
Lower leagues are often similarily lagging behind chronologically to current top level macro and games are decided on strategy. "Macro better." is of course the best and theoretically simplist way of answering many low-level questions. But often when players are asking for advice it is so they can increase their understanding by using the TL community that contains people strategically ahead of them. They can't use that forum to improve their mechanics, they are using the forum to increase knowledge, ideally. Obviously only practice can increase mechanics.
On October 09 2011 13:48 Hectic wrote: No, i don't mean build oerder, i mean strategy.
for example: in ZVZ i might advise my crappy friend to try and use a defensive opening build order, while they aim for a 2 base roach push with +1 attack and speed to finish the game
that is the strategy, and now they know what the hell they are trying to achieve, and now they can practice it, even if it's not the best strategy.
Now they can work on, or find a build order to achieve this strategy, and improve their macro att he same time
if i didnt give them this focus, or they didnt find their own focus, they wouldnt know what to practice and hence there would be no opportunity to refine 'macro'.
still more effective to give him a build order and what he should have at time x in the early game. if you give a low level player guidance that ignores his poor macro (coddling), you find yourself saying: look, it's ok that you are supply capped by your 2nd overlord and are floating 400 mins because of it, but use those 400 minerals to make this just because you have the money now.
no sense in trying to get him out of a situation he only found himself in because he has bad macro. you don't tell your 12 year old son that he should avoid trial if he's found with 10 pounds of heroine on him ten years down the road. you raise him not to have 10 pounds of heroine on him.
but still, the two go together, I think we are both arguing the same thing, i'm just pointing out that the player need to have direction as well as working on macro
you cant have one without the other. thats all i'm trying to say. Of course you want to them to work on the macro as well, but it cannot be the ONLY focus.
On October 09 2011 14:01 Hectic wrote: but still, the two go together, I think we are both arguing the same thing, i'm just pointing out that the player need to have direction as well as working on macro
you cant have one without the other. thats all i'm trying to say. Of course you want to them to work on the macro as well, but it cannot be the ONLY focus.
i'll concede that giving him a general "goal" to work towards in a game is important, but the goal is largely driven by the build. and you can just as easily draw a straight line between the execution of the build and how much success he will have it, and the execution is driven by mechanics.
On October 09 2011 13:48 Hectic wrote: No, i don't mean build oerder, i mean strategy.
for example: in ZVZ i might advise my crappy friend to try and use a defensive opening build order, while they aim for a 2 base roach push with +1 attack and speed to finish the game
that is the strategy, and now they know what the hell they are trying to achieve, and now they can practice it, even if it's not the best strategy.
Now they can work on, or find a build order to achieve this strategy, and improve their macro att he same time
if i didnt give them this focus, or they didnt find their own focus, they wouldnt know what to practice and hence there would be no opportunity to refine 'macro'.
still more effective to give him a build order and what he should have at time x in the early game. if you give a low level player guidance that ignores his poor macro (coddling), you find yourself saying: look, it's ok that you are supply capped by your 2nd overlord and are floating 400 mins because of it, but use those 400 minerals to make this just because you have the money now.
no sense in trying to get him out of a situation he only found himself in because he has bad macro. you don't tell your 12 year old son that he should avoid trial if he's found with 10 pounds of heroine on him ten years down the road. you raise him not to have 10 pounds of heroine on him.
Yes the heroine ref was awesome, but no one ever acknowledges my posts cause im still sub-3-digits. It's depressing and I feel like I might need some heroine.
Or maybe I just need to macro better. But heroine seems like the easier choice.
Haven't read all of the thread, but enough to know what it was about atleast for the first 6-7 pages. Sorry if the tone changed since then. Anyway, I'm a silver-league zerg and have gotten the "just macro better" tip alot of times, and while it's rather unspecific it is true, to a point. Most games I focus on alot of various aspects and thus my macro end up slipping a bit, but now and then I focus more on injects and less on what to actually build.
Recently played a ZvP-game vs a top-gold protoss where according to sc2gears, I had 81% inject spawning ratio (avg gap 6.6sec) which I would consider quite good, esp since I see even pros letting queens get energy here and there when there are other things that take up their focus and it dropped a bit due to 2 queens dying to zealot-drops.
This was a 24min game, and I ended up on 5 bases with queens at 4 of them. My army consisted of mass-upgraded roaches, and I mostly just a-moved since I was focusing on macro. With the way I played, I just barely managed to win even though I was constantly hugely ahead in supply and I constantly denied his third (killed it off 3 times and had it cancelled another 3).
Now, granted I had full mapcontrol and was handling my injects well and a huge economy compared to my opponent, the game was too close. With a proper gameplan other than "macro macro macro" I most likely would've won alot faster, and with more ease. Hell, I even ended up losing one of the engagement due to FF's just before my burrow movement finished but due to the superior macro I had 200/200 again by the time he reached my natural.
Anyway the point I wanted to make was that yes, "work on your macro" is correct advice to give. But it's also very unspecific and lackluster, and if people ask for help there is for sure things you people with more knowledge can point out that they can use *while* working on improving their macro. For me, besides letting my macro slip most games at various times, bad scouting past 6-7min mark and failing to have a proper gameplan in ZvP (other than "deny third, keep colossi count low") and ZvZ (other than out-expand him) one of my major problems currently is that I'm bad at analyzing replays of losses and see where I went wrong except when there's the obvious glaring mistakes. I'm sure most others that post questions have similar things that could be pointed out to them so that advice could be "work on your injects, and at making sure you scout your opponent past the x min mark, and also do blabla" rather than just "work on your macro". Just my 2cp.
On October 09 2011 14:11 Darth Caedus wrote: Yes the heroine ref was awesome, but no one ever acknowledges my posts cause im still sub-3-digits. It's depressing and I feel like I might need some heroine.
Or maybe I just need to macro better. But heroine seems like the easier choice.
don't worry. we are all but actors on a stage. this thread will most likely fall into the archives of the internet only to be replaced in a few months with a different name by a different person. also actors do a lot of drugs.
On October 09 2011 14:15 Vond wrote: Haven't read all of the thread, but enough to know what it was about atleast for the first 6-7 pages. Sorry if the tone changed since then. Anyway, I'm a silver-league zerg and have gotten the "just macro better" tip alot of times, and while it's rather unspecific it is true, to a point. Most games I focus on alot of various aspects and thus my macro end up slipping a bit, but now and then I focus more on injects and less on what to actually build.
Recently played a ZvP-game vs a top-gold protoss where according to sc2gears, I had 81% inject spawning ratio (avg gap 6.6sec) which I would consider quite good, esp since I see even pros letting queens get energy here and there when there are other things that take up their focus and it dropped a bit due to 2 queens dying to zealot-drops.
This was a 24min game, and I ended up on 5 bases with queens at 4 of them. My army consisted of mass-upgraded roaches, and I mostly just a-moved since I was focusing on macro. With the way I played, I just barely managed to win even though I was constantly hugely ahead in supply and I constantly denied his third (killed it off 3 times and had it cancelled another 3).
Now, granted I had full mapcontrol and was handling my injects well and a huge economy compared to my opponent, the game was too close. With a proper gameplan other than "macro macro macro" I most likely would've won alot faster, and with more ease. Hell, I even ended up losing one of the engagement due to FF's just before my burrow movement finished but due to the superior macro I had 200/200 again by the time he reached my natural.
Anyway the point I wanted to make was that yes, "work on your macro" is correct advice to give. But it's also very unspecific and lackluster, and if people ask for help there is for sure things you people with more knowledge can point out that they can use *while* working on improving their macro. For me, besides letting my macro slip most games at various times, bad scouting past 6-7min mark and failing to have a proper gameplan in ZvP (other than "deny third, keep colossi count low") and ZvZ (other than out-expand him) one of my major problems currently is that I'm bad at analyzing replays of losses and see where I went wrong except when there's the obvious glaring mistakes. I'm sure most others that post questions have similar things that could be pointed out to them so that advice could be "work on your injects, and at making sure you scout your opponent past the x min mark, and also do blabla" rather than just "work on your macro". Just my 2cp.
If your macro is that good and you lack strategy I suggest you move to the NA server, that could greatly improve your win rate.
On October 09 2011 14:11 Darth Caedus wrote: Yes the heroine ref was awesome, but no one ever acknowledges my posts cause im still sub-3-digits. It's depressing and I feel like I might need some heroine.
Or maybe I just need to macro better. But heroine seems like the easier choice.
don't worry. we are all but actors on a stage. this thread will most likely fall into the archives of the internet only to be replaced in a few months with a different name by a different person. also actors do a lot of drugs.
Thank you. Thank you.
I may or may not regret these post in the morning. I'm gonna go with: may, but it was worth it.
On October 09 2011 14:15 Vond wrote: Haven't read all of the thread, but enough to know what it was about atleast for the first 6-7 pages. Sorry if the tone changed since then. Anyway, I'm a silver-league zerg and have gotten the "just macro better" tip alot of times, and while it's rather unspecific it is true, to a point. Most games I focus on alot of various aspects and thus my macro end up slipping a bit, but now and then I focus more on injects and less on what to actually build.
Recently played a ZvP-game vs a top-gold protoss where according to sc2gears, I had 81% inject spawning ratio (avg gap 6.6sec) which I would consider quite good, esp since I see even pros letting queens get energy here and there when there are other things that take up their focus and it dropped a bit due to 2 queens dying to zealot-drops.
This was a 24min game, and I ended up on 5 bases with queens at 4 of them. My army consisted of mass-upgraded roaches, and I mostly just a-moved since I was focusing on macro. With the way I played, I just barely managed to win even though I was constantly hugely ahead in supply and I constantly denied his third (killed it off 3 times and had it cancelled another 3).
Now, granted I had full mapcontrol and was handling my injects well and a huge economy compared to my opponent, the game was too close. With a proper gameplan other than "macro macro macro" I most likely would've won alot faster, and with more ease. Hell, I even ended up losing one of the engagement due to FF's just before my burrow movement finished but due to the superior macro I had 200/200 again by the time he reached my natural.
Anyway the point I wanted to make was that yes, "work on your macro" is correct advice to give. But it's also very unspecific and lackluster, and if people ask for help there is for sure things you people with more knowledge can point out that they can use *while* working on improving their macro. For me, besides letting my macro slip most games at various times, bad scouting past 6-7min mark and failing to have a proper gameplan in ZvP (other than "deny third, keep colossi count low") and ZvZ (other than out-expand him) one of my major problems currently is that I'm bad at analyzing replays of losses and see where I went wrong except when there's the obvious glaring mistakes. I'm sure most others that post questions have similar things that could be pointed out to them so that advice could be "work on your injects, and at making sure you scout your opponent past the x min mark, and also do blabla" rather than just "work on your macro". Just my 2cp.
The thing is macro and mechanics are suggested because they are the fundamentals of everything else. You said that with proper gameplan and other things, you would win faster and easier -- that is definitely true. Only working on your mechanics isn't supposed to be winning you all the games since working on your fundamentals is not the way you play optimally. To achieve a high winrate, you are supposed to utilize multiple elements combined together such as game planning and decision making.
When people say that the lower-level players should work on their macro, that is so that when you can achieve that, you can work on other things much easier since you don't have to consciously macro all the time. If, as you said, you are able to macro relatively efficiently, then now you can start slowly working on other aspect of the game you found lacking in you play and incorporate those without having to worry about so many things at once. It is much more efficient to work on one aspect at a time, and that why macro is the fundamental people are always advised to learn.
The thing is, people seem to think that when they are given the advice to macro better, that if they macro perfectly without caring about other things, they would win all or most of their games, which is not true. With proper macro in the lower leagues, you would be able to win more than you lose, and can rise among the ranks. Whether this process is a fast or slow one depend on a lot other things which are just variance of the system. However, with proper mechanics, when you rise to the higher level, you will be able to look at other aspects of your gameplay and improve upon those much quicker and more efficient since you have the proper basis to be able to adapt for any shift in skills or even the metagame.
So, yes, macro and mechanics only might now win you a lot of games easily, but like every other things in the world, you start from the basics and gradually improve until you'll be able to freely incorporate more advanced stuff. But, who knows, perhaps some people have natural talents and might be able to learn faster by learning other things first. For most people, though, starting from the basics will probably be faster although a bit less fun and interesting. Anyway, that's my opinion on the subject.
IMO newbs who want to get better at the game need to find some simple 1base build, for example 7rr, bane/sling, 4gate, dt drop -> prism/warpgate allin, rine/scv rush, 3rax allin, and just do that over and over again until they can execute cleanly without ever thinking about it.
Once they're able to do the build crisply they can start working on better micro in the battles, maintaining macro while fighting, expanding, even transitioning into new techs. At that point it's maybe, MAYBE time to start looking into what compositions are good against what, how to counter x build, etc etc.
Drives me insane people telling nubs to try macro builds like 1rax expo and then tell them to work on their macro. How the funk are they supposed to focus on macroing well when their brains are engaged trying to figure out what units to build and where to put their armies and how to defend vs drops and how to scout the enemy and blaarrghrghrghgrhrghrgh GG!?!?!??!
Previous post is good advice. The misconception that you can't learn macro off 1 base builds(P, T; 2 base for zerg) is pretty stupid. You have to start somewhere. And believe me, CLEANLY and CRISPLY macroing to 50 food off 1 base, is a good place to start and more than most sub diamond players can do. The key is encouraging them to actually take an expansion (even delayed). At lower levels you can expand off a build that would be all-in as fuck in a tourney and not be behind.
But yeah, cleanly macroing the first 6 mins of the game is the most important part, its just something better players take for granted.
There is nothing with 3-raxing (or 1-1-1 just don't pull scv) or 4-gating (or 3-gate robo) every game in bronze-silver-gold to build mechanics. Because it does.
On October 09 2011 13:48 Hectic wrote: No, i don't mean build oerder, i mean strategy.
for example: in ZVZ i might advise my crappy friend to try and use a defensive opening build order, while they aim for a 2 base roach push with +1 attack and speed to finish the game
that is the strategy, and now they know what the hell they are trying to achieve, and now they can practice it, even if it's not the best strategy.
Now they can work on, or find a build order to achieve this strategy, and improve their macro att he same time
if i didnt give them this focus, or they didnt find their own focus, they wouldnt know what to practice and hence there would be no opportunity to refine 'macro'.
im arguing this, because i have helped several players go from 0 RTS experience to daimond level player, and i know for a fact that only telling someone to make their macro better makes them feel shitty and unmotivated because they still don't have a game plan.
The way to improve your league is to Macro, whether you like it or not. On a basic level, if you have more workers mining on more bases, more unit-producing structures and constant production, you will simply have more shit than your opponent. More units > less units (micro becomes irrelevant).
Micro is just making your units more cost efficient so that if your army is roughly the same size as your opponent (not just in supply, but in mineral and gas cost), you come out on top with adroit micro. However, micro is not needed at lower levels. Mainly, just masters -> GM.
This leaves us with Strategy or the idea of an overarching plan. Having some objective is important (ie, a timing push with stim or a roach/ling push), but the real value at lower levels is not trying to follow some cut and dried "strategy" that you "learned" from some stream (Where your timing will be way off from the pro's timing), but instead in LEARNING why this strategy exists. ie. How is it that pros can pull of this timing? Examining how pros *Macro and set up the infrastructure to produce X amount of units at time Y.
The only other strategic point is the idea of Tactics. Tactics are the small, short term strategic moves that lead to an advantage. Maybe you use use multi pronged harass, mutas to pick off scvs, and then sending lings to another location. Or dropping zealots from a warp prism in the main and hitting the natural with your main force. Tactics are important, but not at all at low levels.
tl;dr So the conclusion is simple and remains what everyone else has said. Learn to macro to move up from lower leagues. Top 6 Master Terran here..
Exhibit A for why you lower level players need to shut up and listen to the better players. They are better for a reason.
This is Destiny casting a bronze league game. Forget his commentary.
Look at what the players are doing.
Zerg opens with a pool/gas into an expand.
Protoss goes 4gate.
However, look at how poorly they execute both builds.
The Protoss is queueing probes, meaning his gate goes down later than it could. He nearly misses making his second pylon in time because he has three probes queued. His cybernetics core goes down and he has FOUR probes queued up. He makes a pylon when he is at 29/42 supply, for no reason, instead of spending the money on another warpin.
The Zerg! He goes for a pool-gas expand build. Doesn't put any guys on gas for 30seconds or more. Goes for the hatchery far too early instead of getting his queen first. By 10 minutes into the game and with less than 30 drones in total, the Zerg is floating nearly 1000 minerals and gas. He also has a bunch of energy on both queens because he hasn't been injecting.
The STRATEGY of each player was fine! Protoss planned to go 4gate, Zerg wanted to gas/pool expand and then went roaches upon suspecting 4gate.
4gate is a great opening on close position spawn games! Gas pool expands are a great opening against Protoss in general, and roach is a good response to a suspected or scouted 4gate. The spine crawler was a good decision!
Neither player needs to change anything about their strategy. They just need to execute their strategies properly instead of sucking at it.
The STRATEGY of each player was fine! Protoss planned to go 4gate, Zerg wanted to gas/pool expand and then went roaches upon suspecting 4gate. 4gate is a great opening on close position spawn games! Gas pool expands are a great opening against Protoss in general, and roach is a good response to a suspected or scouted 4gate. The spine crawler was a good decision! Neither player needs to change anything about their strategy. They just need to execute their strategies properly instead of sucking at it.
This is good! You've critiqued their respective strategies and found that there's nothing fundamentally wrong there. So all that's left is macro criticism. And I don't think anyone in this thread has claimed that low leaguers don't often have good strats. But when you post a replay its nice to get the distinction between -your strat was good, if you execute it a little better you could win And -your strat was terrible. If you switch to this better strat *and* improve your macro a bit, you would have won. Most TL threads boil down to one of those two. But what some people in this thread, and *only* in this thread seem to be recommending is -your strat was terrible. But if you had macro three of four leagues ahead of your opponent you would have won anyway. Neglecting to mention the months or *years* of effort that could take to achieve, by which point they might not even be playing the game still.
Oky let me explain to you why it is pointless to focus on anything else until you have decent macro and decent unit control. This morning i dropped a lil bit to more on the ladder and i played this game vs a 1.3k point guy on master. Its a rep of me winning so pleas don't flame to much on that but the point i want to make is the following. http://www.gamereplays.org/starcraft2/replays.php?game=33&show=details&id=236227 This guy executes a strategy exactly how a bronzy would, he goes for the spine at front on ovy creep + nydus in the back of my base but he does it of 2 base instead of rushing it of 1, due to that fact i should ( theoretically at least) not be able to scout it. Now if someone did this strat to me of 1 base it would require a significant response from me but fact is that this low on the ladder ppl don't actually execute this kind of strategies ( even cheeses ) that require very good unit control and timing and thus they will do something silly to make it work better for them ( like doing it semi all in with more units of 2 base like this guy did ). Now if i was in say low master, i would have likely lost to this just as a plat or diamond player would loss to a platinum/diamond player if he/she was doing what my opponent did.
Pleas note that what i do ( 4 tech structure + late wg ) is basically what this guy would want me to do, not have units, yet i am able to hold and be ahead, not cuz i countered what he did, not cuz i had a great tactic as follow up just cuz i am "close" ( did some mistakes cuz i am totally shit after being on a losse streak ) to my macro "cap" of 2 bases as toss. If a low master/diamond player was playing instead of me he would have lost, not due to his tactic BUT due to the fact that his dt would have been out few secs later, his stalker wouldn't be out as fast, he wouldn't pull probes as quick, he wouldn't know how much he can tech while under that preasure and would get his colossus bay or even his 3rd to late, he might not be so confident in sending that war prism to snipe...etc While my opponent on 2 base tho he was doing a horrible build played a horrible build almost perfectly since the horrible build is easy to play almost perfectly. In more then 90% of the cases when a low level player losses to an opponent that "crushed him" is cuz the opponent did something really easy ( say 4 rax marauder with stim or w/e ppl do in silver/gold league nowadays ) and the other guy did something around the line of a 1 gate expand, the problem is not that the 1 gate expand can't defend that 1 base all in the problem is that player 1 is macroing and microing almost perfectly of 1 base with 1 type of units while player 2 is not with 2 base and 3 types of units, and thus the only advice you can get is 1 use an easier build til you macro/micro is better or 2 strive to micro/macro better. That is why, and i believe most would agree, it is pointless to give an advice to someone bellow diamond or so, since his opponent most likely just had better macro or an easier build and thats why he won thus it is almost impossible to give a "strategy" advice to someone who won't be able to use the strategy well enough to do what the strategy is intended to do and a 5 secs mistakes makes a godly strategy a terrible one ( see 4 gate in pvp before the wg timing nerf, it was the best if you had it right away but if you missed a crono and waited 7 sec more of the warp in 100 and 1 defensvie build would just shit on it since they had an immortal or enough units up to hold it without sweating.
On October 09 2011 19:12 Dhalphir wrote: A poor strategy executed well is still better than a good strategy executed badly. That is the core of the matter.
Yeah ...
Whenever I want to help a Zerg platinum and below, 90% of the time, I point out flaws in their opening builds. Simply because if they fix that, they will just have enough stuff to survive later on.
Exception being if it's a 200 / 200 battle after both player have left each other alone because they couldn't be bothered to attack.
It doesn't matter what "strategy" or "micro tactic" you use when you're fighting 12 marines with your 8, which I see all too often in the lower level games, the most common reason low level players lose is because the opponent simply had more units.
It's annoying to hear over and over, but that's because it's important, and trust me, it IS something you can change and fix in one night, you just have to have it as a priority at ALL times.
This is an interesting topic. On one hand "Improve your macro!" is almost a required statement at all levels. But the statement has meaning on the same level as telling a painter he needs to paint better. Somebody is a student, asking you what they should draw for some contest, you're not going to suggest to them, "Well, that anti-smoking poster you made would win if you painted better." Instead, the reasonable thing would be to say something along the lines of, "I don't like the color used for the black lung disease. Try using fuchsia instead!"
The bottom line, if all you have to say is "work on your macro," then don't say anything. However, if your advice is along the lines of "don't queue up so many probes and you can get that gate down faster." That is much better advice.
That being said, if they're just getting rolled because of some unit comp, might as well steer them in the way of another strategy before talking about macro. If somebody is massing marines against colossi or HTs and you tell them to macro better, you're insane.
On October 09 2011 19:33 Hawk2 wrote: It doesn't matter what "strategy" or "micro tactic" you use when you're fighting 12 marines with your 8, which I see all too often in the lower level games, the most common reason low level players lose is because the opponent simply had more units.
It's annoying to hear over and over, but that's because it's important, and trust me, it IS something you can change and fix in one night, you just have to have it as a priority at ALL times.
Indeed, but that means you help them try to squeeze out 6 more marines by that time giving specific advice without even needing to use the word "macro."
On October 09 2011 19:33 Hawk2 wrote: It doesn't matter what "strategy" or "micro tactic" you use when you're fighting 12 marines with your 8, which I see all too often in the lower level games, the most common reason low level players lose is because the opponent simply had more units.
It's annoying to hear over and over, but that's because it's important, and trust me, it IS something you can change and fix in one night, you just have to have it as a priority at ALL times.
Indeed, but that means you help them try to squeeze out 6 more marines by that time giving specific advice without even needing to use the word "macro."
that specific advice would be what? maintain worker production. put buildings up at the right time. don't get supply blocked. maintain unit production without queuing.
On October 06 2011 20:38 sfbaydave wrote: 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.
The only problem about saying we know to "work on macro" is that you can go into a game and be like I don't care if i win or lose I just want to macro better and never miss an inject or never miss a warp in cycle or never over que anything. I'm not going to care about banshee or drops or attacks I'm only going to focus on this until i can do this AND do something else at the same time. That is the proper way of looking at improving not which strategy can i use because something like only reapers is 100% viable in lower tier players strategies because the other player can't multi-task or will focus too much on that area and will have his/her macro slip. So the way I look at it is, have a different outlook on the game. You can play the game wrong and possibly win, but win less or learn to play the game right and lose a lot right now while you're improving but win a lot more down the line. So yes people can say just work on macro and there are ways to go into a game strictly thinking about improving "X" and its probably the best way to improve area "X" in the quickest speed.
Before being able to play any sport you need to know how to use the basic tools of the sport. You need to know how to pass and kick in soccer before you go and learn about strategies because those strategies assume that you know how to pass and kick.
In addition to what's already here about why macro is more important than unit comp, I would like to add in the fact that, for the most part, whenever there's a thread where someone posts a replay, usually the responses are quite specific about "You were supply blocked at 26 for a long time." or "You missed an inject for over a minute." or "You were queued 4 deep when you could have been building more production."
So when the first attack with the composition that the poster is usually worried about hits, both players are usually roughly equal in supply (which makes sense -- they're the same league, after all), and we've already seen and commented on so many ways to squeeze out more units that we can say "If you just macro better, you would have more than enough to crush that," -- meaning, if you listen to all of the advice we've already said about not missing probes, not missing injects, not getting supply blocked, not overqueueing, you can totally crush him with the units you are already have, just more of them. In most cases, there's really not more advice to give than that. Sure, there's times where people's unit compositions were just plain bad (he had 5 colossi and you were building medivacs and ghosts instead of vikings....you need to be more active about scouting and responding to what you see), but from what I've seen, people have been pretty good about pointing these things out.
Of course, posts without replays that start out with something like "I'm in silver, but I play at a gold level." already make us want to facepalm twice, then asking "How do I defeat a void ray/carrier/colossus/archon army?" without showing a replay will get the standard, "Macro harder and kill him before he gets all that." Generally the effort in the responses is directly related to the effort put into the OP.
On October 09 2011 19:41 aksfjh wrote: This is an interesting topic. On one hand "Improve your macro!" is almost a required statement at all levels. But the statement has meaning on the same level as telling a painter he needs to paint better. Somebody is a student, asking you what they should draw for some contest, you're not going to suggest to them, "Well, that anti-smoking poster you made would win if you painted better." Instead, the reasonable thing would be to say something along the lines of, "I don't like the color used for the black lung disease. Try using fuchsia instead!"
The bottom line, if all you have to say is "work on your macro," then don't say anything. However, if your advice is along the lines of "don't queue up so many probes and you can get that gate down faster." That is much better advice.
That being said, if they're just getting rolled because of some unit comp, might as well steer them in the way of another strategy before talking about macro. If somebody is massing marines against colossi or HTs and you tell them to macro better, you're insane.
Saying 'Improve your macro!' is like saying 'Improve your basics!'. Telling a painter he needs to paint better would be equivalent to telling a guy asking about sc2 to 'play better'. Telling him to improve his macro is like telling a painter to go study the usage of basic geometrical forms and colors in an art form.
On October 09 2011 20:59 ArcticFox wrote: Sure, there's times where people's unit compositions were just plain bad (he had 5 colossi and you were building medivacs and ghosts instead of vikings....you need to be more active about scouting and responding to what you see), but from what I've seen, people have been pretty good about pointing these things out.
Yeah that's all that I'm saying to the "only focus on macro" people in the thread here. If there's a major non-macro error like that then that should be addressed ahead of any minor macro weaknesses. And in real advice threads, that's what usually happens. So no big deal.
On October 09 2011 20:59 ArcticFox wrote: Sure, there's times where people's unit compositions were just plain bad (he had 5 colossi and you were building medivacs and ghosts instead of vikings....you need to be more active about scouting and responding to what you see), but from what I've seen, people have been pretty good about pointing these things out.
Yeah that's all that I'm saying to the "only focus on macro" people in the thread here. If there's a major non-macro error like that then that should be addressed ahead of any minor macro weaknesses. And in real advice threads, that's what usually happens. So no big deal.
Usually though, the macro mistakes are quite major, and the best thing for the player receiving the advice, is to actually fix his macro mistakes. That will help him so much more than knowing 'if you at some point get a similiar situation, do this'.
I think that if a player doesn't want to learn to macro better, they probably don't actually want to learn, and they won't learn. If they just want to mess around and have fun, then they can do that in team games with wonky unit comps and lots of random shit going on, and very little macro.
If a player wants to improve, they will take every mechanical error they make into account, and get as good with their mechanics and macro as they possibly can doing one build per matchup, and ignoring strategy all together.
Once a player has the mechanical part of the game figured out, they'll be able to think 100% about strategy as they play, and then they'll understand how their economy works, and figure out what units/timings/upgrades they can do economically, and then figure out what they need to do. That is where a player begins to learn strategy, and if they're just spoonfed "build x units at x time and attack". They'll win a ton of games cuz they're just building shit and attacking, then they'll hit someone building the counter to their shit and attacking, and then they'll think it's time to go into strategy, when in fact they aren't even playing the same game that mid-high level masters players are, none of the same timings apply, none of the build order losses apply, etc..
As a lowlevel gold player, I have to say that macro better is a very good tip. There are things such as unit engagements, scouting and trying to counter units of my opponent, but the best thing that has ever helped me in the majority of games is..
1. constant scv production for the first 10-14 minutes 2. constantly building things from the production facilities 2a. making sure that units are rallied to where i need them 3. making sure I have some sort of upgrades at what seems like the right time 4. fast expand builds that put me ahead against 1 base pressure 4a. knowing when to build extra production facilities to anticipate the new income from new bases
Just before I had to uninstall sc2 due to incoming uni exams, I was surprised that focusing on these 4 things snapped me out of a pretty long losing streak. I had noticed that there were times when I was on 3 bases and had lost to a 2base all-in timing attack. However I'm sure that I can hold this by just tightening up my tech routes rather than going mass low-tech units.
So yeah, macro better is a very important tip for us. But as low level players some form of investment is needed to learn how to do this.
On October 09 2011 21:31 antz0r wrote:1. constant scv production for the first 10-14 minutes If you have to ask when to stop. Don't stop making them. 2. constantly building things from the production facilities Make sure you don't over que in the que-able buildings 2a. making sure that units are rallied to where i need them 3. making sure I have some sort of upgrades at what seems like the right time Upgrades should finish when you need them. Aka Timings. Prioritizing an upgrade that you don't need before workers or production is probably not a good thing. 4. fast expand builds that put me ahead against 1 base pressure Figuring out how to expand quicker but safer is always better 4a. knowing when to build extra production facilities to anticipate the new income from new bases
On October 09 2011 19:12 Dhalphir wrote: A poor strategy executed well is still better than a good strategy executed badly. That is the core of the matter.
A poor strategy executed well will also win you more games reliably than a good strategy executed badly.
Hence, we come around to "focus on execution and macro, not the ins and outs of your strategy".
This is exactly it.
The Strategy component is irrelevant.
Bad Strategy + Good Execution (macro, prep of build) > Good Strategy + Bad Execution
At lower levels, learn to macro. The rest will follow over time.
Let's put it this way as the OP mentions chances are the opponent you are being matched up against in the lower levels is about your skill level. Well why are they about your skill level? Probably because they can't macro either. Yes if you focus on nothing but macro you may have one ore two horrible losses but your wins will be so numerous that you won't keep getting matched against said opponents. If your opponent has horrible macro and starts going for a mass thor build and you see this you could go for lots of marauders and not macro or you could realize that even if you turned your trust fund of 2k minerals into hellions you would beat his 1 factory mass thor.
Say you lose to a random strategy that involves voidrays which for the sake of this example is not something commonly seen in lower levels and you say well what other composition could I have gone. But then you throw the suggested compositions into your hat of strategies and now your macro slips more because now you have to scout more to find out what they are doing. Now you see another build/composition that is also not common that you want help against and you take more strategy suggestions and your macro slips even more. But if you had just durning the banshee problem had converted the 2k/1k trust fund you had into roaches and just fucking attacked you would of won and roaches can't even attack voidrays.
Even if there is that one situation out of like 10 or 20 that a strategy suggestion could help you.. I promise you it is much better just not work on strat and get the macro down it is much better to work on macro now while you are in the lower leagues then to wait and try and get it down when you get to diamond (even platinum) because that is when macro is becoming less of an issue for your opponents so if you focused on strat the whole time you were in bronze-gold you will have alot of problems in plat and up.
I learned this the hard way in BW. Me and my best friend would always play tvp, he would get a whole bunch of zealots and I would go for firebat medic marine. I would crush him everytime then he started playing working on his macro and he started beating me with zealots then time progresses he started to work on strategy and started going for faster dragoons now I really could handle it. Then I started asking around at how I beat ranged goons so I started watching replays of players like flash then I'm like Ooo all the good terran players go mech so I attempted to too (off of 13 scv's). Good strategy does not mean shit if you have poor macro.
Say you lose to a random strategy that involves voidrays which for the sake of this example is not something commonly seen in lower levels and you say well what other composition could I have gone. But then you throw the suggested compositions into your hat of strategies and now your macro slips more because now you have to scout more to find out what they are doing. Now you see another build/composition that is also not common that you want help against and you take more strategy suggestions and your macro slips even more. But if you had just durning the banshee problem had converted the 2k/1k trust fund you had into roaches and just fucking attacked you would of won and roaches can't even attack voidrays.
You can't completely ignore scouting unless you're doing some sort of aggressive early attacking play, because then you get to scout with your first attack 7RR style. After all there's not a massive window where your roaches can kill all his base before his voids kill all of your roaches.Not that I think that's bad advice, I absolutely love the idea of one build and unit comp that works perfectly for each matchup. I've got a rough build that works out that way for ZvZ, still trying to settle on ones for the other two matchups. I suppose ling/roach should work in the vast majority of situations in ZvP, and just try to end the game with superior macro and an all-in before you need other tech to deal with voids or colossi. I've seen some talk about a mass ling approach for ZvT, but I can't imagine that works against full mech.
On October 06 2011 20:38 sfbaydave wrote: 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.
Pretty much everything I think needs to be said can be said in response to this paragraph.
Bumping along in silver/gold as I am, what gets me killed almost all the time is not an inability to spend larvae, take expansions, keep my money low, or keep up with injections.
It is my inability to prioritize spending larvae, taking expansions, keeping my money low and keeping up with injections that fucks me over, time and time again.
My game knowledge is pretty solid - not good, but easily sufficient to know how to deal with the strategies I encounter. In other words, I'm where you think you want to be. And I'm still in silver/gold.
What will help you in your next ladder game is shifting your priorities.
On October 10 2011 07:28 Umpteen wrote: What will help you in your next ladder game is shifting your priorities.
Actually, if you just learned a really solid build from a pro, practiced it until you could copy it perfectly for the first 6 or 7 minutes, you would pretty much instantly go to diamond.
Simply because you would be so far ahead from the early game that you in 90% of games wouldn't be able to fuck it up later on unless you tried.
A lot of lower level players get the wrong advice.
They think that doing a really horrible build but 'hitting injects and keeping money low' is actually good.
when people say "macro better" what they are really saying is "get better mechanics" good macro cannot be done without good mechanics.
but the thing is, for some people mechanics come easy, come hard, or not at all. so in reality, if your a low league and you wanna be masters sorry but you probably just dont have the mechanics for it. you will never be pro, stop worrying about it and just play for fun and lose 50% of the time like everyone else.
i probably as well dont have pro level mechanics. so i too will never be pro. i just play for fun and lose 50% of the time like everyone else. sure i try my hardest to win but i will face people with superior mechanics and get stomped and i dont let it bother me.
you low level players might not like "macro better", but the truth is you wouldnt like to hear "you suck and you will never not suck"... but thats the truth, and even high master players realize they will never be pro and we "suck" compared to pros but i dont care i play for fun
On October 09 2011 19:41 aksfjh wrote: This is an interesting topic. On one hand "Improve your macro!" is almost a required statement at all levels. But the statement has meaning on the same level as telling a painter he needs to paint better. Somebody is a student, asking you what they should draw for some contest, you're not going to suggest to them, "Well, that anti-smoking poster you made would win if you painted better." Instead, the reasonable thing would be to say something along the lines of, "I don't like the color used for the black lung disease. Try using fuchsia instead!"
The bottom line, if all you have to say is "work on your macro," then don't say anything. However, if your advice is along the lines of "don't queue up so many probes and you can get that gate down faster." That is much better advice.
That being said, if they're just getting rolled because of some unit comp, might as well steer them in the way of another strategy before talking about macro. If somebody is massing marines against colossi or HTs and you tell them to macro better, you're insane.
Saying 'Improve your macro!' is like saying 'Improve your basics!'. Telling a painter he needs to paint better would be equivalent to telling a guy asking about sc2 to 'play better'. Telling him to improve his macro is like telling a painter to go study the usage of basic geometrical forms and colors in an art form.
Uhm, do you know anything about art? Painters have basics too in terms of their coloring, technique, and shading. It's not that ridiculous for painters to "improve your basics," unless the painter obviously has amazing basics. If they are an amateur, then improving those basics is a good way to get going and improve quickly, rather than trying to focus on the other aspects of art.
I think the analogy actually works, but if anything it goes against what you're arguing.
As a gold/plat member i'm simply going to say this is my idea of league differences. I'm excluding builds, because i believe builds naturally evolve as your level of play goes up (Like terran going from 3 rack expand to 3 rack stim timing expo). "macro better" is used as anything from probe production to expand to production building timings to decision making in macro skills.
My macro up to two base, is definantly diamond level. I custom against diamonds and my one base and two base games generally is not a macro issue. Yet i almost always lose. There are MANY things that distinguish a gold from a silver, and a platinum from a gold (not including freshly placed players). generally here is what i've noticed
A bronze-silver player struggles to use one base efficiently, this is indeed the stage where macro is ALWAYS the answer. No matter what, macro better is correct 99% of the time.
A high silver/low gold player have trouble with using two bases efficiently, whether in regard to expanding or just in use. At this point, macro is 90% of the answer, but there is that 10% of "Well, if you see this do this, or this is when you counter, or this is how you prevent this".
A high gold/low Platinum can now use two bases efficiently and can generall get a good timing on the third expo, and does not have a huge deficit in probe production compared to the lower leagues. They also generally know when to cut probes for certain strategems whether offensive or defensive (timing attacks). Their main issue is macroing in the wrong direction (ie, knowing whether they can be greedy or not) and 3 saturated base mineral control. At this point Macro Better is the answer, depending on what strategy and gamelength, between 60-80% of the time.
High plat/low diamond is relatively the same to above paragraph, except their mechanics are slightly better or their decision making improves. This level is where APM starts to show in macro/mechanics as they continue to play. Macro better is 40-60% the answer.
High diamond/low masters is where the "macro better" stops being a Go To answer, and the minor things that players in above paragraphs haven't learned yet really starts coming into effect. This being said, macro is still important and can be improved. 20% can macro be commented on in general.
Mid Masters is the same as above, but either more experience or better mechanics. Say 10-15% of the tim.
High masters to Grandmasters is where you cant say "macro better" at all. Because below 10% each 1% is the difference between a non pro, a unnsuccesful pro, a Code B level, Code A level, and Code S level macro skill, but macro does not mean much, because if a person trades that 1% of macro with an extra 2% or so of micro, they can still come out on top.
One great example of this is Inori, the guy isn't really a player but a player coach. His macro skill is nowhere near the same level as the other goes in the IPL tourney, but his knowledge and execution balances out his 3-4% macro skill deficit.
tl;dr When people look at leagues, they can't automatically think "macro better" they need to think about how Macro effects that particular level and how to improve on it, not just a blithe improve macro comment.
On October 10 2011 08:14 darklight54321 wrote: As a gold/plat member i'm simply going to say this is my idea of league differences. I'm excluding builds, because i believe builds naturally evolve as your level of play goes up (Like terran going from 3 rack expand to 3 rack stim timing expo). "macro better" is used as anything from probe production to expand to production building timings to decision making in macro skills.
My macro up to two base, is definantly diamond level. I custom against diamonds and my one base and two base games generally is not a macro issue. Yet i almost always lose. There are MANY things that distinguish a gold from a silver, and a platinum from a gold (not including freshly placed players). generally here is what i've noticed
A bronze-silver player struggles to use one base efficiently, this is indeed the stage where macro is ALWAYS the answer. No matter what, macro better is correct 99% of the time.
A high silver/low gold player have trouble with using two bases efficiently, whether in regard to expanding or just in use. At this point, macro is 90% of the answer, but there is that 10% of "Well, if you see this do this, or this is when you counter, or this is how you prevent this".
A high gold/low Platinum can now use two bases efficiently and can generall get a good timing on the third expo, and does not have a huge deficit in probe production compared to the lower leagues. They also generally know when to cut probes for certain strategems whether offensive or defensive (timing attacks). Their main issue is macroing in the wrong direction (ie, knowing whether they can be greedy or not) and 3 saturated base mineral control. At this point Macro Better is the answer, depending on what strategy and gamelength, between 60-80% of the time.
High plat/low diamond is relatively the same to above paragraph, except their mechanics are slightly better or their decision making improves. This level is where APM starts to show in macro/mechanics as they continue to play. Macro better is 40-60% the answer.
High diamond/low masters is where the "macro better" stops being a Go To answer, and the minor things that players in above paragraphs haven't learned yet really starts coming into effect. This being said, macro is still important and can be improved. 20% can macro be commented on in general.
Mid Masters is the same as above, but either more experience or better mechanics. Say 10-15% of the tim.
High masters to Grandmasters is where you cant say "macro better" at all. Because below 10% each 1% is the difference between a non pro, a unnsuccesful pro, a Code B level, Code A level, and Code S level macro skill, but macro does not mean much, because if a person trades that 1% of macro with an extra 2% or so of micro, they can still come out on top.
One great example of this is Inori, the guy isn't really a player but a player coach. His macro skill is nowhere near the same level as the other goes in the IPL tourney, but his knowledge and execution balances out his 3-4% macro skill deficit.
tl;dr When people look at leagues, they can't automatically think "macro better" they need to think about how Macro effects that particular level and how to improve on it, not just a blithe improve macro comment.
Macro is always the answer 100% of the time. Top 6 Master Terran here, and I improved from a 1 baser to a player who loves to macro and doesn't miss a beat with SCVs. The idea is simple: Have more stuff than your opponent. And if you have much more stuff, even Micro becomes irrelevant.
Granted, I have build orders that permit me to macro safely and I parlay these build orders into strategies that utilize my high unit count (as a result of my macro) at certain timings. But it all comes down to macro, knowing how it benefits you (CONSULT resource collection rate in replays), and when to strike after reaping the benefits of your macro.
For any league, bronze -> master, macro is always the most important factor, with it having the highest importance in the lower leagues (as you can benefit with great returns very quickly if you make use of it. There will be diminishing returns with macro the further you go).
What this means is that if you learned to constantly produce SCVs, expand at a safe timing, have enough unit-producing buildings and constantly produce units at Bronze league, you would QUICKLY make your way to diamond league on this principle alone. Take it from me who placed in Gold and quickly learned the importance of this concept and am now top masters (I play GMs).. I have limited RTS experience and came late into Sc2
On October 07 2011 03:14 TheYellowOne wrote: I'm really fat and out of shape at like 350 pounds but i wanna be a good runner. I know I'm really fat and I have to lose some weight but are there maybe some better shoes I can wear so I can start running 5 minute miles before I try to lose my fat?
On October 06 2011 20:48 Sm3agol wrote: There's a reason every looks down on low tier players, and just tell them to macro(and micro) better, and not worry about strategies as much. Multiple top tier players have shown that that you can basically do WHATEVER you want at low levels, and as long as your macro and mechanics are good, you will win most of the time regardless of unit composition. Players have 4 gated, 6 pooled, mass queened, mass marined, etc all the way to diamond and sometimes even masters, just by simply outproducing and out microing their opponents. Watch Destiny beat tanks, thors, High templar, etc, with queens, even vs people that were trying to stream snipe him, and knew what he was doing, and would still lose. That's why high level players say ignore strategies and unit compositions for right now.....because IT DOESN'T MATTER. If you're worrying about unit compositions while you have 3k minerals at 15 minutes into the game, you're worrying about the wrong thing. Having 4 less stalkers and having 3 more zealots and 2 more sentries instead just might possibly win you the game. Converting the 1500 minerals you have at the 10 minute mark to stalkers, and it wouldn't matter what composition you had, you're going to rofl-stomp your opponent.
TLDR: It's not that strategy is bad, but improving macro will generate far better results than improving unit composition and tactics.
Congratulations, you are one of those ppl the OP was talking about even though you were trying not to be.
These players are NOT dia/master + and he *already acknowledged this*, saying it's not something you can improve overnight, although of course they try to.
So in the CONTEXT that these players are forever striving to improve their macro, it seems entirely reasonable that they should be wanting to improve their strategical knowledge too. Especially as it's the strategical aspect that's more fun than "4eee 5c wzzzssee"
Except strats change completely once you learn to macro properly, so anything you learn to do while you're macroing wrong will really only hold you back.
On October 07 2011 03:14 TheYellowOne wrote: I'm really fat and out of shape at like 350 pounds but i wanna be a good runner. I know I'm really fat and I have to lose some weight but are there maybe some better shoes I can wear so I can start running 5 minute miles before I try to lose my fat?
I think what bothers the OP is the "macro better" thing doesn't always come with supplementary advice. It's pretty frustrating to post "I'm not sure what I should have done against his composition/timing, can someone explain?" and hear "Well you would've won if you had better macro, so work on that." While that's true, it is something that is improved through practice or through learning material (Strategy section, Day9, etc.)
For example, if you do give the macro better advice, point out that - At 8:30 you had a warp in but didn't do it until 9:18. - You are floating 950 minerals/600 gas at 11 minutes. - You had full chrono on your nexus for 1 minute. - You weren't producing from your robo for almost 3 minutes.
I'm not, by any means, saying that macro isn't the key to winning in this game for the majority of players. If you have a higher income and less money in the bank than your opponent, you will win 90+% of those games. But that is not the only factor in EVERY game. Most, but not every.
For example, my friend recently bought the game and entered bronze about two weeks ago. Most of the games he wins, he wins through better macro, but the ones he loses, he usually loses through bad decisions. For example, I've seen him see an attack coming and panic and throw down a forge so that he can try to build cannons in time, and then end up missing a warp in that could've given him enough to hold. I've seen him get attacked by reapers and not know that he should anticipate where they will come from and chrono a stalker if necessary. I've seen him be ahead in a game by having 3 bases to 2 with less in the bank and higher income, but make an awkward tech switch to carriers because he didn't know what to do. I saw him get way ahead in a PvP but nearly lose because he went for dts even after seeing his opponent's forge and robo.
My point is, while improving your macro will get you wins more so than anything, it helps to have someone with a better understanding of the game tell you the proper response in a certain situation when you can't see it.
Actually, I would say that "macro better" can be a little misleading. What high level players are really saying is "execute better". Many lower level players think that their macro is "good enough" when it is far from the case. This is because they think that small mistakes make no difference but they are very mistaken.
For instance, if someone is "only" 10% behind in terms of mechanics - this is actually a HUGE difference. But to a low level player, they only cursorily look at it and think that it's not a "big deal".
I once advised a gold-level player to 10 supply, 12 rax, 13 rax, 15 OC, 16 depot (this was pre-1.4). His response was that "I do that". However, when I looked at the replay, the SCV pulled to make the 12 rax was so late that it was more like 13 rax! These "small" mistakes accumulate over time and this is HUGE.
However, many high level players already take this "execution matters" for granted, without stressing how important it is. Macro better is misleading - maybe high level players should say "execution matters!"
This thread has been a real eye opener for me. I've plateaued in the top 4(ish) of my bronze league and was wondering why. I have quite superior knowledge of initial builds and of unit compositions and counters. I keep my minerals/gas way low. I EMP the heck out of the Protoss and snipe Brood Lords with my Vikings. I always get upgrades, often from double ebay/armory. And though my micro isn't amazing, I'm always producing units when fighting such that even if I the engagement goes bad, I have an army waiting for me. (And if the engagement is going well, I rally the new units to my Terran deathball of choice for the final push.) But again, this thread had made me realize one VERY CRITICAL point - I do all of this off of 2-base, and often get crushed because my opponents are way ahead in base count. I suppose I win only if I push early or if I turtle against someone with crappier macro than I. Thanks TeamLiquid! I'm going to not get scared to expand to 3, and when my main is mined, I'll take a 4th. If 90ish SCVs is the magic(ish) number, I'll shoot for that.
TLDR: Fantastic peripheral knowledge only got me to high bronze b/c I was too shy to macro beyond 2 base.
On October 06 2011 20:48 Sm3agol wrote: There's a reason every looks down on low tier players, and just tell them to macro(and micro) better, and not worry about strategies as much. Multiple top tier players have shown that that you can basically do WHATEVER you want at low levels, and as long as your macro and mechanics are good, you will win most of the time regardless of unit composition. Players have 4 gated, 6 pooled, mass queened, mass marined, etc all the way to diamond and sometimes even masters, just by simply outproducing and out microing their opponents. Watch Destiny beat tanks, thors, High templar, etc, with queens, even vs people that were trying to stream snipe him, and knew what he was doing, and would still lose. That's why high level players say ignore strategies and unit compositions for right now.....because IT DOESN'T MATTER. If you're worrying about unit compositions while you have 3k minerals at 15 minutes into the game, you're worrying about the wrong thing. Having 4 less stalkers and having 3 more zealots and 2 more sentries instead just might possibly win you the game. Converting the 1500 minerals you have at the 10 minute mark to stalkers, and it wouldn't matter what composition you had, you're going to rofl-stomp your opponent.
TLDR: It's not that strategy is bad, but improving macro will generate far better results than improving unit composition and tactics.
Congratulations, you are one of those ppl the OP was talking about even though you were trying not to be.
These players are NOT dia/master + and he *already acknowledged this*, saying it's not something you can improve overnight, although of course they try to.
So in the CONTEXT that these players are forever striving to improve their macro, it seems entirely reasonable that they should be wanting to improve their strategical knowledge too. Especially as it's the strategical aspect that's more fun than "4eee 5c wzzzssee"
Except strats change completely once you learn to macro properly, so anything you learn to do while you're macroing wrong will really only hold you back.
I can't think of any strat that would work well with bad macro, and not work *even better* with good macro. Perhaps you could name one? While there's plenty of strats that only work well with good macro, if they rely on hitting a good timing. I really do like the concept of a one size fits all build/strategy for low level zergies so that they can just focus on executing that perfectly in terms of macro. As soon as I figure out what the vT and vP ones are I'll let you know.
I recently switched to Terran, so I am still getting used to dealing with early pressure, when trying to macro. I've found it easier to go a safer build, rather than all-out CC first (ok, I don't generally CC first). The idea being that the macro will kick in eventually anyway. But yeah, learning to survive the early game is something that is needed as well as just hitting those SCV's and depots.
My problem with people telling me to macro better is that it's not fun. what's fun is doing drops, sneaky pushes, tech switches, etc. People telling me to stop floating minerals is a boring solution to my problems, regardless of how much more useful it is as far as advice goes.
On October 10 2011 14:09 sfadam wrote: This thread has been a real eye opener for me. I've plateaued in the top 4(ish) of my bronze league and was wondering why. I have quite superior knowledge of initial builds and of unit compositions and counters. I keep my minerals/gas way low. I EMP the heck out of the Protoss and snipe Brood Lords with my Vikings. I always get upgrades, often from double ebay/armory. And though my micro isn't amazing, I'm always producing units when fighting such that even if I the engagement goes bad, I have an army waiting for me. (And if the engagement is going well, I rally the new units to my Terran deathball of choice for the final push.) But again, this thread had made me realize one VERY CRITICAL point - I do all of this off of 2-base, and often get crushed because my opponents are way ahead in base count. I suppose I win only if I push early or if I turtle against someone with crappier macro than I. Thanks TeamLiquid! I'm going to not get scared to expand to 3, and when my main is mined, I'll take a 4th. If 90ish SCVs is the magic(ish) number, I'll shoot for that.
TLDR: Fantastic peripheral knowledge only got me to high bronze b/c I was too shy to macro beyond 2 base.
I don't think this thread has been an eye opener for you at all, lol.
"I need to move from awesome 2 base macro to awesome 3+ base macro" is, uh, not ever a problem in bronze.
If you cannot at least make low diamond, it's almost definitely because you are not yet able to competently manage a single base.
So, please take it easy on us lower level guys and help us out. Remember most everyone was where are at some point.
Here, I will give serious strategic insight. I swear I am not trolling you. Your strategy should be to either destroy their economy or make yours stronger. That is the whole point of the game in a nutshell. That is it. You want strategic advice? Go for the expansions that your opponent has while taking your own. "but that is essentially the same thing as saying 'Just macro'". And? what did you think the point of this game was?
I would say 90% of strategies revolves around killing the opponent's economy and furthering your own. But I'll tell you what, I'll always take the easy win and just beat opponents by macroing my ass off, let them worry about all the strategies and have the lesser macro and just flat out lose.
There is a reason people say "just macro better", we don't say it to be dicks and not give you a legitimate answer. It is that simple. Improve macro, get masters league EASY.
lol at the idiots in this thread, "macro better" is the most useless advice possible.You think every game you lose is because of macro? You can objectively outmacro your opponent and still lose for many different reasons. Why would a casual player need perfect macro when he plays in silver league? Other factors can easily make the difference there.
I'm not a lower league player myself but I realize not everyone has RTS-experience, a lot of time to play games undisturbed or decent hardware to name a few things. As long as you have fun playing the game its all good you dont have to practice like crazy if you cant or dont want to.
If you dont care enough to help someone who isnt very serious about the game then dont comment in their threads but thinking that saying "lol your macro sux d00d" is the only and most helpful thing you could have possibly said is borderline retarded.
Say you lose to a random strategy that involves voidrays which for the sake of this example is not something commonly seen in lower levels and you say well what other composition could I have gone. But then you throw the suggested compositions into your hat of strategies and now your macro slips more because now you have to scout more to find out what they are doing. Now you see another build/composition that is also not common that you want help against and you take more strategy suggestions and your macro slips even more. But if you had just durning the banshee problem had converted the 2k/1k trust fund you had into roaches and just fucking attacked you would of won and roaches can't even attack voidrays.
You can't completely ignore scouting unless you're doing some sort of aggressive early attacking play, because then you get to scout with your first attack 7RR style. After all there's not a massive window where your roaches can kill all his base before his voids kill all of your roaches.Not that I think that's bad advice, I absolutely love the idea of one build and unit comp that works perfectly for each matchup. I've got a rough build that works out that way for ZvZ, still trying to settle on ones for the other two matchups. I suppose ling/roach should work in the vast majority of situations in ZvP, and just try to end the game with superior macro and an all-in before you need other tech to deal with voids or colossi. I've seen some talk about a mass ling approach for ZvT, but I can't imagine that works against full mech.
You can ignore scouting completely. You just have to prioritize a standard sort of play over scouting. Scout for his position early on. Bring worker back and do marine marauder medivac, or do zealot stalker colosus, or do roach hydra corrupter. Because all three if you're just out macroing your opponent is basically just a click or t a click and then you're just back to macroing. Not watching fight not focusing his important units becuase if you're just better than your opponent at macroing and the base sort of aspect of the game you'll do an attack and take an expansion and probably still trade roughly even for your opponent. You just have to make sure you're quing properly and rallying proper or injecting the whole time the fight is going and rallying more quick units to the fight, or warping in and making sure you're sending them into the battle but doing everything in your power to prioritize sitting there and watching the fight at all. If you're 20 or 30 food ahead of your opponent and your upgrades are better all you need is just some sort of a click armie. No micro no spells nothing. I've played games with people i've helped out where i just made marine marauder medivac and sent them in he had storm and chargelots hand he blanketed all of my units in one set of poor storms and i just sat in them macroing no micro no nothing. if i ran out of the storms i would have lost less but the attack secured me a base because my basic mechanics are better than his.
You say you have to scout to see cheese but I think of that as being something that is 100% backwards. Sure you have to eventually learn how and what to scout for but if you go into a game saying I want to work on macro period, and then you're scouting him but your basic mechanics won't let you focus in on what you initially set your goal as and you miss a larve inject or you stop making workers or you didn't put the building down where/when it should have been then you're not focusing on what you originally intended. If you go into a game and you say I want to focus on macro. You're basically saying I don't care if I win or lose this game because it will be a win to ME if I macro'd really good. If you get cheesed you're playing for the longer game because you want to win the longer the game goes on you're trying to make yourself make mistakes so you can fix them where as the person with the cheese is just going to cheese and then get to a point where his/her cheese doesn't work and then they're fucked.
If you want to get better throw everything else you know about starcraft out the window, grab a build or a type of play from a pro korean or pro forigner that you like one for each matchup, and work on little things until you can do the build just as good as them. Starting with macroing and stealing the building placements and the amount of production and the timings off of them whilst you focus on smaller more simpler things ONE AT A TIME until you can do them to your satisfaction.
On October 10 2011 20:37 secretary bird wrote:Why would a casual player need perfect macro when he plays in silver league?
I am experiencing an incredible, almost magnetic attraction between my face and my palm.
Thats because you dont understand. Yes if he would practice more and his macro was better he would beat most of his current opponents and get promoted eventually. The fact remains that the players he faces have shitty macro as well so other things can and do make the difference between winning and losing on his level. I hope that wasnt too hard to comprehend for you.
Say you lose to a random strategy that involves voidrays which for the sake of this example is not something commonly seen in lower levels and you say well what other composition could I have gone. But then you throw the suggested compositions into your hat of strategies and now your macro slips more because now you have to scout more to find out what they are doing. Now you see another build/composition that is also not common that you want help against and you take more strategy suggestions and your macro slips even more. But if you had just durning the banshee problem had converted the 2k/1k trust fund you had into roaches and just fucking attacked you would of won and roaches can't even attack voidrays.
You can't completely ignore scouting unless you're doing some sort of aggressive early attacking play, because then you get to scout with your first attack 7RR style. After all there's not a massive window where your roaches can kill all his base before his voids kill all of your roaches.Not that I think that's bad advice, I absolutely love the idea of one build and unit comp that works perfectly for each matchup. I've got a rough build that works out that way for ZvZ, still trying to settle on ones for the other two matchups. I suppose ling/roach should work in the vast majority of situations in ZvP, and just try to end the game with superior macro and an all-in before you need other tech to deal with voids or colossi. I've seen some talk about a mass ling approach for ZvT, but I can't imagine that works against full mech.
You can ignore scouting completely. You just have to prioritize a standard sort of play over scouting. Scout for his position early on. Bring worker back and do marine marauder medivac, or do zealot stalker colosus, or do roach hydra corrupter. Because all three if you're just out macroing your opponent is basically just a click or t a click and then you're just back to macroing. Not watching fight not focusing his important units becuase if you're just better than your opponent at macroing and the base sort of aspect of the game you'll do an attack and take an expansion and probably still trade roughly even for your opponent.
Did you actually read my post or just the first line? I already said I play zerg, so let's look at roach/hydra/corruptor as the "standard play" you suggest. Then you suggest studying and copying a pro build. So two points come up immediately -I don't know *anyone* who goes roach/hydra/corruptor against Terran since maybe season 1. If you can find someone who does, please let me know. Maybe its common against Protoss still but I doubt it. -All the pro Zergs I do watch rely heavily on scouting, and tend to build nothing but drones until absolutely necessary. So either I ignore scouting and still make lots of drones and then proceed to DIE. Or I ignore your advice and learn to scout like they do and make the drones/army decision. Or go for a "make drones then blindly make army and do an early attack that at worst will collide with his early attack" approach.
I get that you play two races that can make all purpose deathballs while also building their economy. But you don't seem very knowledgeable about the zerg equivalent, if one exists. In fact yours is probably the perfect example of a bad "macro better" kind of post that you really should avoid making entirely.
On October 10 2011 20:37 secretary bird wrote:Why would a casual player need perfect macro when he plays in silver league?
I am experiencing an incredible, almost magnetic attraction between my face and my palm.
Thats because you dont understand. Yes if he would practice more and his macro was better he would beat most of his current opponents and get promoted eventually. The fact remains that the players he faces have shitty macro as well so other things can and do make the difference between winning and losing on his level. I hope that wasnt too hard to comprehend for you.
I didn't understand, you're right. I thought the whole premise of this discussion was people who want to get better at Starcraft and are asking stronger players for advice. If you don't want to get better, you wouldn't be posting in the Strategy Forum and no one would be telling you how you could get better.
And then you come along and basically say "but why would a casual player need to get better if he's not good?"
And then words fail me, and my forehead and both palms experience a sudden explosion of pain. Because... well... that sounds kind of dumb.
And then you post more! If he got better macro, he'd get better, and he'd win! Sweet. I totally agree. But he wants a way to beat his current opponents, but not get better (because he just wants to stay in Silver). Also, we have to stick to ways to improve in the game that don't involve playing the game, because our hypothetical student doesn't want to practice but we still need to help him get better. Even though he, again, doesn't care about getting better as long as he can just win more. And we should steer away from big, easy fixes to his overall play and find detailed, nitty gritty fixes to very specific situations, because our goal in the Strategy Forum is to help you get a 1% advantage over an equally skilled opponent, and if we try to help you get a 73% advantage instead, we are douchey douchey douchebags.
And now I understand! Thank you for the clarification! This thread has been a total eye-opener to me.
For the record, I agree with the OP's general point about the uselessness of the phrase "macro better". If you really want to say "macro better" to someone then take time to watch a replay of them playing and point out where their macro is going wrong (mineral saturation or supply blocking or not producing or whatever). "Macro better" could mean ANYTHING.
That said, "macro better" is still a completely legitimate principle to work on. As a simple example...I was playing against a low-league Terran a week or so ago. He first came up with a group of something like eight reapers which he used to blow away half my workers as well as sniping some pylons and even killing a freshly-built robotics facility. Then he went tank/marauder against me and hurt my workers again as well as my army.
However I still won. How? Because I'd fast expanded right at the start of the game so I had more income than he did, I had more production structures then he did, I had more workers than he did (even after he killed literally half of them I STILL had a couple more than he did, I checked the replays) and generally was just out-producing the hell out of him. So despite his siege tech tanks and marauders hurting my army and nitro reapers tearing chunks out of my infrastructure I still had more stuff than he did. I denied his late expansion and then just did mass warp ins from a proxy pylon off six gates and kept a-moving into his base. He just couldn't keep up with my income and production and after I killed his last-ditch attempt to hit my base with some hidden marauders he just ggd out.
In this case army composition meant very little. I just had more stuff.
Sure it's true, but you might as well just say ' play better '. It's just such a broad stroke, that while definitely true, isn't specific enough to be that helpful to them i imagine.
On October 10 2011 23:39 hangarninetysix wrote: Sure it's true, but you might as well just say ' play better '. It's just such a broad stroke, that while definitely true, isn't specific enough to be that helpful to them i imagine.
Well, normally when people ask for help, they will get some feedback about what they are doing wrong not just two words.
Personally at least I try to be a bit more specific.
There's a reason why you are not allowed to comment on help threads without having watched the replay... part of forum rules. And why you are not allowed to create a help thread without replay ...
On October 10 2011 23:39 hangarninetysix wrote: Sure it's true, but you might as well just say ' play better '. It's just such a broad stroke, that while definitely true, isn't specific enough to be that helpful to them i imagine.
Sure, but this whole argument is just a straw man. The simple statement "macro better" is not advice commonly found in the Strategy Forum. This whole conversation consists of people looking at wide-ranging and game-specific advice on how to improve economic and production efficiency, is oversimplifying that advice to the statement "macro better" and then bitching that "macro better" is bad advice.
Seriously, link us to the thread where a low-level player posted a replay, and the forum's response was "macro better." This whole conversation is ridiculous. One side is trying to explain their position, and the other side is trying to argue that that position is a different, stupid position that no one on TL represents.
On October 10 2011 23:39 hangarninetysix wrote: Sure it's true, but you might as well just say ' play better '. It's just such a broad stroke, that while definitely true, isn't specific enough to be that helpful to them i imagine.
Well, normally when people ask for help, they will get some feedback about what they are doing wrong not just two words.
Personally at least I try to be a bit more specific.
There's a reason why you are not allowed to comment on help threads without having watched the replay... part of forum rules. And why you are not allowed to create a help thread without replay ...
Did you even read the OP? The type of response he is specifically referring to is "Dude, forget the replay....work on your macro!!!"
On October 10 2011 23:39 hangarninetysix wrote: Sure it's true, but you might as well just say ' play better '. It's just such a broad stroke, that while definitely true, isn't specific enough to be that helpful to them i imagine.
Sure, but this whole argument is just a straw man. The simple statement "macro better" is not advice commonly found in the Strategy Forum. This whole conversation consists of people looking at wide-ranging and game-specific advice on how to improve economic and production efficiency, is oversimplifying that advice to the statement "macro better" and then bitching that "macro better" is bad advice.
Seriously, link us to the thread where a low-level player posted a replay, and the forum's response was "macro better." This whole conversation is ridiculous. One side is trying to explain their position, and the other side is trying to argue that that position is a different, stupid position that no one on TL represents.
On October 10 2011 23:39 hangarninetysix wrote: Sure it's true, but you might as well just say ' play better '. It's just such a broad stroke, that while definitely true, isn't specific enough to be that helpful to them i imagine.
Well, normally when people ask for help, they will get some feedback about what they are doing wrong not just two words.
Personally at least I try to be a bit more specific.
There's a reason why you are not allowed to comment on help threads without having watched the replay... part of forum rules. And why you are not allowed to create a help thread without replay ...
Did you even read the OP? The type of response he is specifically referring to is "Dude, forget the replay....work on your macro!!!"
The OP did not link a thread as an example of this supposedly common behavior. Can you?
Edit: Also, don't accuse people of failing to read (as you've just done to me) just because you disagree with their opinion. I happen believe that the OP is wrong and that he failed to support his position with any useful examples other than a strawman quote that is not attributed to any conversation that has actually taken place on TL. I think that the result has been a conversation in which one side is complaining categorically about the advice being dispensed to low-level players without referencing any said advice. That's disagreeing, not failing to read.
On October 10 2011 23:39 hangarninetysix wrote: Sure it's true, but you might as well just say ' play better '. It's just such a broad stroke, that while definitely true, isn't specific enough to be that helpful to them i imagine.
Well, normally when people ask for help, they will get some feedback about what they are doing wrong not just two words.
Personally at least I try to be a bit more specific.
There's a reason why you are not allowed to comment on help threads without having watched the replay... part of forum rules. And why you are not allowed to create a help thread without replay ...
Did you even read the OP? The type of response he is specifically referring to is "Dude, forget the replay....work on your macro!!!"
The OP did not link a thread as an example of this supposedly common behavior. Can you?
No. Is this relevant? He posted something that he hates when people tell him, I provided an explanation as to why it might not be helpful: the specific response he cites seems to be extremely broad.
On October 10 2011 23:39 hangarninetysix wrote: Sure it's true, but you might as well just say ' play better '. It's just such a broad stroke, that while definitely true, isn't specific enough to be that helpful to them i imagine.
Well, normally when people ask for help, they will get some feedback about what they are doing wrong not just two words.
Personally at least I try to be a bit more specific.
There's a reason why you are not allowed to comment on help threads without having watched the replay... part of forum rules. And why you are not allowed to create a help thread without replay ...
Did you even read the OP? The type of response he is specifically referring to is "Dude, forget the replay....work on your macro!!!"
The OP did not link a thread as an example of this supposedly common behavior. Can you?
No. Is this relevant? He posted something that he hates when people tell him, I provided an explanation as to why it might not be helpful: the specific response he cites seems to be extremely broad.
Yes, of course it's relevant. Absent the thing he hates actually having been said to him, this whole conversation is just a hypothetical about how horrible it would be if a bad thing were to happen. If you think the forum is full of high-level players posting "macro better" to lower-level players, and want to complain about it, then copy and paste a few examples so we can all see what it is we're talking about.
Edit: For the record, OP has a grand total of 5 posts, none of which is asking for advice in the strategy forum. He has never been told to "macro better."
On October 10 2011 23:39 hangarninetysix wrote: Sure it's true, but you might as well just say ' play better '. It's just such a broad stroke, that while definitely true, isn't specific enough to be that helpful to them i imagine.
Well, normally when people ask for help, they will get some feedback about what they are doing wrong not just two words.
Personally at least I try to be a bit more specific.
There's a reason why you are not allowed to comment on help threads without having watched the replay... part of forum rules. And why you are not allowed to create a help thread without replay ...
Did you even read the OP? The type of response he is specifically referring to is "Dude, forget the replay....work on your macro!!!"
The OP did not link a thread as an example of this supposedly common behavior. Can you?
No. Is this relevant? He posted something that he hates when people tell him, I provided an explanation as to why it might not be helpful: the specific response he cites seems to be extremely broad.
Yes, of course it's relevant. Absent the thing he hates actually having been said to him, this whole conversation is just a hypothetical about how horrible it would be if a bad thing were to happen. If you think the forum is full of high-level players posting "macro better" to lower-level players, and want to complain about it, then copy and paste a few examples so we can all see what it is we're talking about.
Edit: For the record, OP has a grand total of 5 posts, none of which is asking for advice in the strategy forum. He has never been told to "macro better."
I don't recall complaining about it at all. Feel free to disregard my response on the subject that the OP put forth if it happens to offend you. I am commenting on something the OP said, but it's irrelevant to the thread because I can't conjure up a post somewhere? C'mon...
On October 10 2011 23:39 hangarninetysix wrote: Sure it's true, but you might as well just say ' play better '. It's just such a broad stroke, that while definitely true, isn't specific enough to be that helpful to them i imagine.
Well, normally when people ask for help, they will get some feedback about what they are doing wrong not just two words.
Personally at least I try to be a bit more specific.
There's a reason why you are not allowed to comment on help threads without having watched the replay... part of forum rules. And why you are not allowed to create a help thread without replay ...
Did you even read the OP? The type of response he is specifically referring to is "Dude, forget the replay....work on your macro!!!"
Check out page 17 in this thread, there's an example there of the response you should get when asking for help ...
Yeah I did read the whole thread ...
My point is, I don't really see many threads on this forum where the poster isn't helped when making a good help thread ... I see the opposite, them receiving a lot of good advice on how to improve.
And spending 90 minutes on improving your opening, will help you more than 6 hours of laddering if your main wish is to improve.
I played against a silver protoss in a PvP yesterday. He literally was so bad that my cyber core was completed when his had just started, and he didnt mine gas for as long as it took me to mine 100. The reason we say "macro better" is because its true. If you are this silver player, I dont care how good your battle sense, micro or anything is; i nearly killed him with my first zealot and stalker because he only had 1 zealot for a long time. This sort of thing happens all the time in higher league matches. Even if your strategy should "counter" theirs, if you mess up your build in some way you straight up lose. I am high diamond and half of my losses I just tell myself I need to execute my build better.
On October 10 2011 20:37 secretary bird wrote:Why would a casual player need perfect macro when he plays in silver league?
I am experiencing an incredible, almost magnetic attraction between my face and my palm.
Thats because you dont understand. Yes if he would practice more and his macro was better he would beat most of his current opponents and get promoted eventually. The fact remains that the players he faces have shitty macro as well so other things can and do make the difference between winning and losing on his level. I hope that wasnt too hard to comprehend for you.
I didn't understand, you're right. I thought the whole premise of this discussion was people who want to get better at Starcraft and are asking stronger players for advice. If you don't want to get better, you wouldn't be posting in the Strategy Forum and no one would be telling you how you could get better.
And then you come along and basically say "but why would a casual player need to get better if he's not good?"
And then words fail me, and my forehead and both palms experience a sudden explosion of pain. Because... well... that sounds kind of dumb.
And then you post more! If he got better macro, he'd get better, and he'd win! Sweet. I totally agree. But he wants a way to beat his current opponents, but not get better (because he just wants to stay in Silver). Also, we have to stick to ways to improve in the game that don't involve playing the game, because our hypothetical student doesn't want to practice but we still need to help him get better. Even though he, again, doesn't care about getting better as long as he can just win more. And we should steer away from big, easy fixes to his overall play and find detailed, nitty gritty fixes to very specific situations, because our goal in the Strategy Forum is to help you get a 1% advantage over an equally skilled opponent, and if we try to help you get a 73% advantage instead, we are douchey douchey douchebags.
And now I understand! Thank you for the clarification! This thread has been a total eye-opener to me.
You used a whole lot of words to say nothing new so let me sum up your post:
1. Apparently you think that facepalm joke is hilarious. 2. You called my opinion stupid again because thats how you win arguments in Kindergarten I suppose. 3. You think that telling people to macro better is brilliant, it will magically make them win all of their games as most people in silver are really arrogant and think they are great at this game. 4. Giving them specific advice and ways to realistically improve their play and beat the strategy they were up against is pointless in comparison to your genius solution to all of their problems. 5. If someone doesnt have at least diamond level macro he shouldnt post in the strategy forum, if he does giving him a generic answer is the best response as ignoring a thread isnt a viable option.
I mean honestly you didnt even mention what part of my opinion is wrong and why, if you're going to respond like that again dont even bother we will agree to disagree then.
The problem, I think, is for the most part newer players don't really realize how bad their macro is.
Yes. The disparity is that big. Yes in theory if you and your opponent have similar levels of macro, him going voidrays and unit countering your roaches would be a bad thing. But if you're good enough that you simply don't have the option of macroing better then you wouldn't be here asking about stupid questions.
No. If you are here complaining about getting other advice, then you have a huge self-inflicted macro failure that is severely limiting your ability as a player. There is no point trying to give you specific advice when your execution will be 10 units short in a designed 15 unit attack. You're better off having 10 more of the wrong unit than 5 more of the right unit.
There's the Destiny example of winning with almost pure queen. There's the countless I'm going to make only roaches/stalkers/marines/[insert random base unit here] to masters examples. But I guess alternatively you can keep self-righteously be indignant and believe that you have a better understanding of the game than someone who has actually succeeded at a far higher level than you have.
I play diamond-masters players. My macro is awful. Just to give some perspective.
When I practice my macro by just bumrushing 4 bases, I float 1k in a matter of a minute after muling and trying to be fancy with multipronged attacks and kiting. I didn't even let my production buildings stop lighting up or queue past 2. But I could have making another 5 production buildings or taken another expo. I didn't cause I'm bad. The problem is, you're worse and while you know you're worse, you don't realize how much worse and how you are worse.
Say you lose to a random strategy that involves voidrays which for the sake of this example is not something commonly seen in lower levels and you say well what other composition could I have gone. But then you throw the suggested compositions into your hat of strategies and now your macro slips more because now you have to scout more to find out what they are doing. Now you see another build/composition that is also not common that you want help against and you take more strategy suggestions and your macro slips even more. But if you had just durning the banshee problem had converted the 2k/1k trust fund you had into roaches and just fucking attacked you would of won and roaches can't even attack voidrays.
You can't completely ignore scouting unless you're doing some sort of aggressive early attacking play, because then you get to scout with your first attack 7RR style. After all there's not a massive window where your roaches can kill all his base before his voids kill all of your roaches.Not that I think that's bad advice, I absolutely love the idea of one build and unit comp that works perfectly for each matchup. I've got a rough build that works out that way for ZvZ, still trying to settle on ones for the other two matchups. I suppose ling/roach should work in the vast majority of situations in ZvP, and just try to end the game with superior macro and an all-in before you need other tech to deal with voids or colossi. I've seen some talk about a mass ling approach for ZvT, but I can't imagine that works against full mech.
You can ignore scouting completely. You just have to prioritize a standard sort of play over scouting. Scout for his position early on. Bring worker back and do marine marauder medivac, or do zealot stalker colosus, or do roach hydra corrupter. Because all three if you're just out macroing your opponent is basically just a click or t a click and then you're just back to macroing. Not watching fight not focusing his important units becuase if you're just better than your opponent at macroing and the base sort of aspect of the game you'll do an attack and take an expansion and probably still trade roughly even for your opponent.
Did you actually read my post or just the first line? I already said I play zerg, so let's look at roach/hydra/corruptor as the "standard play" you suggest. Then you suggest studying and copying a pro build. So two points come up immediately -I don't know *anyone* who goes roach/hydra/corruptor against Terran since maybe season 1. If you can find someone who does, please let me know. Maybe its common against Protoss still but I doubt it. -All the pro Zergs I do watch rely heavily on scouting, and tend to build nothing but drones until absolutely necessary. So either I ignore scouting and still make lots of drones and then proceed to DIE. Or I ignore your advice and learn to scout like they do and make the drones/army decision. Or go for a "make drones then blindly make army and do an early attack that at worst will collide with his early attack" approach.
I get that you play two races that can make all purpose deathballs while also building their economy. But you don't seem very knowledgeable about the zerg equivalent, if one exists. In fact yours is probably the perfect example of a bad "macro better" kind of post that you really should avoid making entirely.
Yes its true that zerg relies the most heavily on scouting but the reason why I suggest doing a roach hydra corrupter build is because its a non micro army you can literally just a click with it and if your macro is better come out at least even with your opponent. Again you go back to "that is a bad strategy" but i've beat players without using any strategy when I've played against them helping them. So you going back to "no pro players use that strategy" and "pro players rely on scouting to counter what your opponent does." Most of the lower zergs can't get away with the bare minimum and over react anyways and then they die 10 minutes after. Zerg is the hardest race to learn early on because there is that extra resource [aka larve] I've seen zergs at pro levels do roach vs terran i've also seen pro's add hydra into their play vs terran as well. the corrupter addition is namely for toss but lower tier players cant use mutas efficiently and macro they can't use bling properly and half the time they just fly their muta overtop of a shit tonne of stalkers or marine and lose them all anyways. A bulkier army like roach hydra is yes a lot weaker but you're not relying on an army composition to be strong you're relying on your mechanics to just be better than your opponent. You shouldn't start off scouting if you don't know what to look for and you shouldn't go looking for strategies if you don't have the apm for it.
For example ling bling muta is a very technical thing if you fuck up with your muta you don't have the gas to replace them because you need the gas for teching to blord and for bling, you need your lings to wrap around and your bling to impact on nothing but marines. Sure you could do this with pure mechanics but most players in lower tiers cannot do those sorts of things AND INJECT AND SPREAD CREEP AND MAKE SURE THEYRE PRODUCING AND NOT GETTING SUPPLY CAPPED AND MAKING SURE THEIR ECON IS PROPERLY SET UP. That style you have to focus on the battles and that in itself is a the biggest problem lower tier players have, they focus too much on the battles and don't inject and they don't make sure they're upgrading and they don't do all these other more important things. Sure killing an army will get you ahead but IF you don't kill that army then you've invested EVERYTHING into one attack and that is all in.
Up until mid or high plat any strategy doesn't matter. I can kill people doing voids if i go roach. I can kill terran with pure stalkers. I can do pure marine and win vs bling or roach. Thats the point im getting across since terran and toss is 66.666666 repeating percent I bais a post closer to both of those races because I don't really want to have to type all of this shit for something that I can just type into "Make roach and hydra and if needed corrupter and get into plat then focus on strategies."
On October 10 2011 23:19 lynxdaftpunk wrote: I'm gold myself and it it so clear for me that all I need to win on this level is "macro better", so why anyone even argue with that statement?
There's the Destiny example of winning with almost pure queen. There's the countless I'm going to make only roaches/stalkers/marines/[insert random base unit here] to masters examples.
Destiny's mass queen is actually a pretty bad example since they're micro intensive. He says himself in his first game that mass stalker would be a better example since unmicroed queens are weak but unmicroed stalkers are actually pretty good. Mass roach or roach/corruptor sounds like a much better macro build for Zerg.
On October 10 2011 23:39 hangarninetysix wrote: Sure it's true, but you might as well just say ' play better '. It's just such a broad stroke, that while definitely true, isn't specific enough to be that helpful to them i imagine.
Except people usually post their replay along with like "I really need help in ZvP, I have NO IDEA how to beat 6gate! What is a good strategy to beat six gate? And then you watch the replay and they missed like 8 larva injects and got supply blocked 4 times. Trying a "new strategy" which is often what these kinds of posts are asking for, isn't going to do a damned things when you are making that many mistakes, hell I know myself. I had a TERRIBLE run of games at the end of last month and it was mainly because I was trying out a bunch of new strategies and kept getting supply blocked because the timings were a bit off what I was used to. After getting really fed up and finally reflecting on that batch of 20 games or so I realized I needed to go back to the drawing board and fix the basics, low and behold, I turned myself around. So yes, all I had to do was MACRO BETTER!
You can't ride a bike without learning to balance first. You can't win at fighting games without properly learning BnBs, when to throw, blocking, etc. You can't win at tennis if you don't have your swings memorized to muscle memory. You can't win at Starcraft if you can't macro better.
All these things detail what most would call the basics of each game/activity. Strategies are moot if you don't have the mechanics to pull them off because they won't work consistently and to their full potential: might as well call them gimmicks if you attempt them with poor mechanics.
I have friends learning the game who are always coming to me and complaining that they're dying to early game rushes because they're trying out some build like "3-gate robo" or "4-gate", and I always have to tell them that's nonsense and they're losing because their macro was piss poor and they would easily fall to a 2 zealot rush regardless of what he did. Macro better is always the solution to fix low level mistakes. So macro better!
After reading most of the posts in this thread, I'm beginning to think that "macro" is very poorly defined. If we think of "macro" as economic management, then it includes both mechanics and strategy.
The strategy dictates build orders and timings, and the mechanics is the execution. To say that "I want to have more stuff (better macro) in the late game", you cannot be playing an all-in build. Thus, strategy cannot be separated from macro, it is a part of it.
I believe when people talk about strategy vs macro, they are really talking about strategy vs mechanics, and most people think mechanics is more important than strategy, as a poor strategy well executed > a good strategy poorly executed.
From this train of thought, instead of telling someone to work on his "macro", it may be more precise to tell him to work on his "mechanics", as "macro" is too broad.
EDIT: Re-read first post again, the op is asking what if you make a bad reaction to another strategy. This falls into decision making, which is parallel to macro, as opposed to strategy, which is under macro.
Say you lose to a random strategy that involves voidrays which for the sake of this example is not something commonly seen in lower levels and you say well what other composition could I have gone. But then you throw the suggested compositions into your hat of strategies and now your macro slips more because now you have to scout more to find out what they are doing. Now you see another build/composition that is also not common that you want help against and you take more strategy suggestions and your macro slips even more. But if you had just durning the banshee problem had converted the 2k/1k trust fund you had into roaches and just fucking attacked you would of won and roaches can't even attack voidrays.
You can't completely ignore scouting unless you're doing some sort of aggressive early attacking play, because then you get to scout with your first attack 7RR style. After all there's not a massive window where your roaches can kill all his base before his voids kill all of your roaches.Not that I think that's bad advice, I absolutely love the idea of one build and unit comp that works perfectly for each matchup. I've got a rough build that works out that way for ZvZ, still trying to settle on ones for the other two matchups. I suppose ling/roach should work in the vast majority of situations in ZvP, and just try to end the game with superior macro and an all-in before you need other tech to deal with voids or colossi. I've seen some talk about a mass ling approach for ZvT, but I can't imagine that works against full mech.
You can ignore scouting completely. You just have to prioritize a standard sort of play over scouting. Scout for his position early on. Bring worker back and do marine marauder medivac, or do zealot stalker colosus, or do roach hydra corrupter. Because all three if you're just out macroing your opponent is basically just a click or t a click and then you're just back to macroing. Not watching fight not focusing his important units becuase if you're just better than your opponent at macroing and the base sort of aspect of the game you'll do an attack and take an expansion and probably still trade roughly even for your opponent.
Did you actually read my post or just the first line? I already said I play zerg, so let's look at roach/hydra/corruptor as the "standard play" you suggest. Then you suggest studying and copying a pro build. So two points come up immediately -I don't know *anyone* who goes roach/hydra/corruptor against Terran since maybe season 1. If you can find someone who does, please let me know. Maybe its common against Protoss still but I doubt it. -All the pro Zergs I do watch rely heavily on scouting, and tend to build nothing but drones until absolutely necessary. So either I ignore scouting and still make lots of drones and then proceed to DIE. Or I ignore your advice and learn to scout like they do and make the drones/army decision. Or go for a "make drones then blindly make army and do an early attack that at worst will collide with his early attack" approach.
I get that you play two races that can make all purpose deathballs while also building their economy. But you don't seem very knowledgeable about the zerg equivalent, if one exists. In fact yours is probably the perfect example of a bad "macro better" kind of post that you really should avoid making entirely.
Yes its true that zerg relies the most heavily on scouting but the reason why I suggest doing a roach hydra corrupter build is because its a non micro army you can literally just a click with it and if your macro is better come out at least even with your opponent. Again you go back to "that is a bad strategy" but i've beat players without using any strategy when I've played against them helping them. So you going back to "no pro players use that strategy" and "pro players rely on scouting to counter what your opponent does." Most of the lower zergs can't get away with the bare minimum and over react anyways and then they die 10 minutes after. Zerg is the hardest race to learn early on because there is that extra resource [aka larve] I've seen zergs at pro levels do roach vs terran i've also seen pro's add hydra into their play vs terran as well. the corrupter addition is namely for toss but lower tier players cant use mutas efficiently and macro they can't use bling properly and half the time they just fly their muta overtop of a shit tonne of stalkers or marine and lose them all anyways. A bulkier army like roach hydra is yes a lot weaker but you're not relying on an army composition to be strong you're relying on your mechanics to just be better than your opponent. You shouldn't start off scouting if you don't know what to look for and you shouldn't go looking for strategies if you don't have the apm for it. <snip>
Lingblingmuta is micro intensive, really? Its actually pretty A-movey if you have enough of them. I'd still put my money on that over roach/hydra against Terran. Or maybe roach/ling. I'll do some testing later. You still haven't addressed the scouting issue, other than saying "durr, bad players are bad at it". The 2 options I see are -get good at scouting -sacrifice the economy to get an early army Atleast roach/hydra/corruptor is a good alternative to infestor play against Protoss. So that only leaves one matchup to sort out.
Say you lose to a random strategy that involves voidrays which for the sake of this example is not something commonly seen in lower levels and you say well what other composition could I have gone. But then you throw the suggested compositions into your hat of strategies and now your macro slips more because now you have to scout more to find out what they are doing. Now you see another build/composition that is also not common that you want help against and you take more strategy suggestions and your macro slips even more. But if you had just durning the banshee problem had converted the 2k/1k trust fund you had into roaches and just fucking attacked you would of won and roaches can't even attack voidrays.
You can't completely ignore scouting unless you're doing some sort of aggressive early attacking play, because then you get to scout with your first attack 7RR style. After all there's not a massive window where your roaches can kill all his base before his voids kill all of your roaches.Not that I think that's bad advice, I absolutely love the idea of one build and unit comp that works perfectly for each matchup. I've got a rough build that works out that way for ZvZ, still trying to settle on ones for the other two matchups. I suppose ling/roach should work in the vast majority of situations in ZvP, and just try to end the game with superior macro and an all-in before you need other tech to deal with voids or colossi. I've seen some talk about a mass ling approach for ZvT, but I can't imagine that works against full mech.
You can ignore scouting completely. You just have to prioritize a standard sort of play over scouting. Scout for his position early on. Bring worker back and do marine marauder medivac, or do zealot stalker colosus, or do roach hydra corrupter. Because all three if you're just out macroing your opponent is basically just a click or t a click and then you're just back to macroing. Not watching fight not focusing his important units becuase if you're just better than your opponent at macroing and the base sort of aspect of the game you'll do an attack and take an expansion and probably still trade roughly even for your opponent.
Did you actually read my post or just the first line? I already said I play zerg, so let's look at roach/hydra/corruptor as the "standard play" you suggest. Then you suggest studying and copying a pro build. So two points come up immediately -I don't know *anyone* who goes roach/hydra/corruptor against Terran since maybe season 1. If you can find someone who does, please let me know. Maybe its common against Protoss still but I doubt it. -All the pro Zergs I do watch rely heavily on scouting, and tend to build nothing but drones until absolutely necessary. So either I ignore scouting and still make lots of drones and then proceed to DIE. Or I ignore your advice and learn to scout like they do and make the drones/army decision. Or go for a "make drones then blindly make army and do an early attack that at worst will collide with his early attack" approach.
I get that you play two races that can make all purpose deathballs while also building their economy. But you don't seem very knowledgeable about the zerg equivalent, if one exists. In fact yours is probably the perfect example of a bad "macro better" kind of post that you really should avoid making entirely.
Yes its true that zerg relies the most heavily on scouting but the reason why I suggest doing a roach hydra corrupter build is because its a non micro army you can literally just a click with it and if your macro is better come out at least even with your opponent. Again you go back to "that is a bad strategy" but i've beat players without using any strategy when I've played against them helping them. So you going back to "no pro players use that strategy" and "pro players rely on scouting to counter what your opponent does." Most of the lower zergs can't get away with the bare minimum and over react anyways and then they die 10 minutes after. Zerg is the hardest race to learn early on because there is that extra resource [aka larve] I've seen zergs at pro levels do roach vs terran i've also seen pro's add hydra into their play vs terran as well. the corrupter addition is namely for toss but lower tier players cant use mutas efficiently and macro they can't use bling properly and half the time they just fly their muta overtop of a shit tonne of stalkers or marine and lose them all anyways. A bulkier army like roach hydra is yes a lot weaker but you're not relying on an army composition to be strong you're relying on your mechanics to just be better than your opponent. You shouldn't start off scouting if you don't know what to look for and you shouldn't go looking for strategies if you don't have the apm for it. <snip>
Lingblingmuta is micro intensive, really? Its actually pretty A-movey if you have enough of them. I'd still put my money on that over roach/hydra against Terran. Or maybe roach/ling. I'll do some testing later. You still haven't addressed the scouting issue, other than saying "durr, bad players are bad at it". The 2 options I see are -get good at scouting -sacrifice the economy to get an early army Atleast roach/hydra/corruptor is a good alternative to infestor play against Protoss. So that only leaves one matchup to sort out.
Ling bling muta is more micro intensive than doing a roach style build yes. Because to be effective with a muta you need to not engage things meaning you either sit them in a corner thus not being effective or you focus on using them properly thus not doing what you should be doing. I'm saying break things up into steps or else I would say just do everything better. But since one cannot do everything better they should focus on the most important thing, that being macro. You can go into a game make 50 drones have the person kill you and then next game be like "oh i guess i don't make fifty drones I guess i make 40 and then begin making an army." If you lose early on thats not a bad thing because as i said before you're going into the game to learn how to macro better not learn how to hold off 2 rax or what have you sort of cheese. sure learning how to hold off a 2 rax will make you better and probably up your win percentage but it depends on how you hold it off what if you put down 10 spine crawlers to deal with it or made too many lings then you just lose 10 minutes later because he's got his expo up and has more workers than you. Going into a game knowing that you're going to make roaches and anytime you see something on your minimap you just a click to that position with a small group of your units and then you forget about it and then when you're ready to engage you put up an expansion and just a click inject and remax but not look at the fight until you've done literally everything else. where as ling bling muta if you just a click with your whole army a lot can go wrong in a quicker time period. I'm not saying don't make lings i'm not saying don't do ling bling muta im saying that strategy and scouting doesn't matter but dont' try and play like a pro if you're not focus on the most basic points and work your way from there. If scouting got you farther than having good macro everyone would be telling people to work on scouting. But macro will get you farthest the quickest so thats why everyone falls onto it. I'm not saying scouting isn't important im saying scouting is less important than macro and queen injecting.
And yet again you bring strategy into the mix. You can win with pure marine or pure marauder or pure stalker or pure roach or roach hydra or roach corrupter or ling bling or any mixture of early tier units if you just out play your opponent. You can be in the same league as someone but have better mechanics as them. Sure they might know a more optimal build or sure they might have a better unit composition than you that is more cost effective but you can do any unit comp and come out equal with them. The reason why i suggested roach hydra corrupter as a zerg is because its an a click unit composition no infestors that would do literally nothing if you juts a click, the unit mix is generally cost effective assuming that you're ontop of your injects and you reinforce with the roaches that died and you have a creepline to your reinforcement point and your upgrades are better than your opponents and your money is low when you reinforce and not just that you have no more larve. Aka if you just macro better than your opponent. Because in silver/gold I am sure you should be 20 food ahead of where the matchup should be and you should have better upgraded units than your opponent not only that but you should be reinforcing the second you lose a unit and the lower tier players are too focused on the battle that they stop queing or they stop warping in.
Every time I start up a new account (recently mouz gave me a new one for Casting for example).. I just mothership rush every game until Diamond.. I'm sure it's been said many times already in this thread but "macro better" is just the truth sadly at lower levels. Every time I go into an opponents base at lower levels with my force, they never have the right amount of units out, be it through lack of workers/income or just plain bad unit production.
I understand Mothership rush isn't the best example of "macro better" but, you really can do anything at lower levels and win ezpz.
Just to expand on the roach/hydra/corruptor example, here's two replays from this evening. I haven't even looked at them myself yet.The Typhon peaks one was played right after the Shakuras one.
Its...not too bad. I went with the "screw scouting and just build defenses blindly" option in the 2nd one, which would have worked out nicely for the first game too I think. I'll probably go with that in future. I'm not sure if the hydras are accomplishing much beyond sinking a bit more gas and deterring him from just going mass banshee, but I'll keep adding them in anyway. Corruptors feel unnecessary unless he turtles on battlecruisers or something weird like that. I skipped burrow in the 2nd game because hey, its not like I'm ever going to use it, and got my +3/+3 instead.
So yeah I'll just iron the kinks out of the "get lots of roaches" aspect and see how it goes.
I got to high Platinum league just doing Roach/Hydra as Zerg in all matchups. When I learned you are supposed to go Muta/Ling vs Terran, my mechanics were ready for it and I was promoted to Diamond.
I only realized I had to learn better strategy after I had been promoted to Master league 3 times and demoted twice. Macro is most important.
On October 11 2011 05:20 Monkeyballs25 wrote: Just to expand on the roach/hydra/corruptor example, here's two replays from this evening. I haven't even looked at them myself yet.The Typhon peaks one was played right after the Shakuras one.
Its...not too bad. I went with the "screw scouting and just build defenses blindly" option in the 2nd one, which would have worked out nicely for the first game too I think. I'll probably go with that in future. I'm not sure if the hydras are accomplishing much beyond sinking a bit more gas and deterring him from just going mass banshee, but I'll keep adding them in anyway. Corruptors feel unnecessary unless he turtles on battlecruisers or something weird like that. I skipped burrow in the 2nd game because hey, its not like I'm ever going to use it, and got my +3/+3 instead.
So yeah I'll just iron the kinks out of the "get lots of roaches" aspect and see how it goes.
Just watched the one on shak. The very first attack you paid attention to it too much, you got roach early so you shouldn't need to use queens, this also caused you to lose an inject meaning your production is lower than it should be. You make way too many roaches, the initial 4 would have been fine for quite some time. After you hold off an attack like that you should expand and drone up. The reason is because no one is just going to attack with half of his/her army, once you killed it you are free to expand you're free to drone up. The problem i see with your play is that you don't make enough workers you're 1 behind your opponent and you don't have mules. Relying on your counter attack isn't really the purpose of what i'm trying to get here. You want the games to go on as long as possible if you attack you have the possibility of killing him or losing your army. The point of something like this is to just hold off w.e he throws at you with a bulky unit that will buy you a lot of time to judge if you need more in army or more in econ. If you only made 4 roach instead of 8 thats 4 more workers you would've had by the time you attacked those 4 workers would've made you 2 minutes worth of mining which is; 40 [minerals per minute] x 4 [workers] x 2 [minutes] which is 320 minerals minus the initial cost of 200, just by the point you attacked at it would've got you an extra 120 minerals. Your money got high when the banshee rolled in and you shouldn't really be scared of them just morph an overseer and a click with both queens then ignore it. If you killed it yay if you didn't well whatever. But its not worth getting up to 750 minerals. That's what the banshee whats you to do. It just seems that you're missing the whole point of someone telling you to macro better because you're still investing so much into defenses. You don't need as much as you think you do and that is why its ok to lose because you made too many drones but its not okay to lose because you made too many units.
All in all if you lose because of strategy. Thats fine. You made roaches he made banshee he killed you because roaches don't shoot up. Thats fine because you should've been making sure your money is low and that you're injecting. Just GG and be like ok he's playing to win, im playing to improve my mechanics so that i can win later vs that silly strategy without any effort at all.
So, please take it easy on us lower level guys and help us out. Remember most everyone was where are at some point.
This post represents the problem:
The idea that you need others to help you. Instead, try adopting the mindset that you can help yourself.
Many people on here are kind enough to offer incite, ideas, and resources of all kinds. Utilize that information and do not expect others to give you some cut and dried "secret" build that will take you to the Master league.
You alone can take yourself there and much higher through asking questions, staying open-minded, consulting resources, and being diligent in your work and preparation.
The reality in SC2 is the same reality everywhere else in life. Teach yourself and you will receive the greatest benefit.
Expecting other people to "help us lower league players out" downplays the idea that you have all the tools you need to help yourself out. It's one thing to put in work and ask specific questions. It's another thing to ask "What's the best TvP build derp?"
To be completly Honest, macro dosnt Really matter, untill diamond-ish, my friend made it diamond with 2 builds, but his macro was almost non existant, he works on one or two builds , that do not need high macro to win with, if you hold off his initial PuSh he loses,
To be good you need to be able to macro, but if you can execute good build then you can make it to diamond,
I dont like this but its True a good build can beat a better player
From What i can see from your original post your saying take it easy on lower level because they are to Lazy/ dont have time to work on mechanics, they say work on your macro, because if you have solid mechanics you should be able to look at your replay and say "I lost because my mechanics were bad" or "I lost because his build just beats mine" ETC...
I cant keep a train of thought, I'M watching IPL3 sorry if i misunderstood anything you said but this is my take on it
On October 11 2011 06:29 nqqvt3 wrote: To be completly Honest, macro dosnt Really matter, untill diamond-ish, my friend made it diamond with 2 builds, but his macro was almost non existant, he works on one or two builds , that do not need high macro to win with, if you hold off his initial PuSh he loses,
To be good you need to be able to macro, but if you can execute good build then you can make it to diamond,
I dont like this but its True a good build can beat a better player
From What i can see from your original post your saying take it easy on lower level because they are to Lazy/ dont have time to work on mechanics, they say work on your macro, because if you have solid mechanics you should be able to look at your replay and say "I lost because my mechanics were bad" or "I lost because his build just beats mine" ETC...
I cant keep a train of thought, I'M watching IPL3 sorry if i misunderstood anything you said but this is my take on it
In a way, perfecting a build, even if it is a cheesy or all-in build, and using it successfully means you've mastered macro for that much amount of time. Let's say you want to go 5 rax marines in TvZ and you pull it off successfully. That means you make SCVs when you need to, put down the barracks when you need to, don't get supply blocked, and constantly make Marines. Then you go end the game by 7 minutes with a horde of units. Well, for those 7 minutes, your macro was pretty darn good.
On October 11 2011 06:29 nqqvt3 wrote: To be completly Honest, macro dosnt Really matter, untill diamond-ish, my friend made it diamond with 2 builds, but his macro was almost non existant, he works on one or two builds , that do not need high macro to win with, if you hold off his initial PuSh he loses,
To be good you need to be able to macro, but if you can execute good build then you can make it to diamond,
I dont like this but its True a good build can beat a better player
From What i can see from your original post your saying take it easy on lower level because they are to Lazy/ dont have time to work on mechanics, they say work on your macro, because if you have solid mechanics you should be able to look at your replay and say "I lost because my mechanics were bad" or "I lost because his build just beats mine" ETC...
I cant keep a train of thought, I'M watching IPL3 sorry if i misunderstood anything you said but this is my take on it
In a way, perfecting a build, even if it is a cheesy or all-in build, and using it successfully means you've mastered macro for that much amount of time. Let's say you want to go 5 rax marines in TvZ and you pull it off successfully. That means you make SCVs when you need to, put down the barracks when you need to, don't get supply blocked, and constantly make Marines. Then you go end the game by 7 minutes with a horde of units. Well, for those 7 minutes, your macro was pretty darn good.
I agree with "The W" here. There's a crucial difference between "having good macro" and "playing a macro game"... when HuK does a 6-gate attack, even if he has no intention of taking a 3rd base, he's macroing perfectly off of his existing bases. He has good macro without playing a macro game.
This becomes even more clear on a 1-base all in. If you're doing an all in like say, a Thor rush in TvP, it's super super crucial that you not get supply blocked, since you're trying to hit a timing window. That being said, I'm not sure the best way to improve as a player is to spam 1-base allins ._.
On October 11 2011 06:29 nqqvt3 wrote: To be completly Honest, macro dosnt Really matter, untill diamond-ish, my friend made it diamond with 2 builds, but his macro was almost non existant, he works on one or two builds , that do not need high macro to win with, if you hold off his initial PuSh he loses,
To be good you need to be able to macro, but if you can execute good build then you can make it to diamond,
I dont like this but its True a good build can beat a better player
From What i can see from your original post your saying take it easy on lower level because they are to Lazy/ dont have time to work on mechanics, they say work on your macro, because if you have solid mechanics you should be able to look at your replay and say "I lost because my mechanics were bad" or "I lost because his build just beats mine" ETC...
I cant keep a train of thought, I'M watching IPL3 sorry if i misunderstood anything you said but this is my take on it
In a way, perfecting a build, even if it is a cheesy or all-in build, and using it successfully means you've mastered macro for that much amount of time. Let's say you want to go 5 rax marines in TvZ and you pull it off successfully. That means you make SCVs when you need to, put down the barracks when you need to, don't get supply blocked, and constantly make Marines. Then you go end the game by 7 minutes with a horde of units. Well, for those 7 minutes, your macro was pretty darn good.
I agree with "The W" here. There's a crucial difference between "having good macro" and "playing a macro game"... when HuK does a 6-gate attack, even if he has no intention of taking a 3rd base, he's macroing perfectly off of his existing bases. He has good macro without playing a macro game.
This becomes even more clear on a 1-base all in. If you're doing an all in like say, a Thor rush in TvP, it's super super crucial that you not get supply blocked, since you're trying to hit a timing window. That being said, I'm not sure the best way to improve as a player is to spam 1-base allins ._.
It's almost like people think that Masters/GMs just played long macro games until they knew how to macro by heart. It never starts like that. I will guarantee you that almost every high level player started out learning how to perfectly 4gate/3rax/roach+speedling rush over and over until it didn't work anymore. Once those builds were perfected and being stopped, adjustments were made to include a critical upgrade, or a tech building, or an expansion and harder macro. The perfect 7 minute 1base build was then adjusted to a 10 minute 2-base build....then developed into a 2-base 12 minute timing....then a 3-base 15 minute push. Every addition developed a new key timing that hit a weakness in the opponent's build, while still adjusting the early play to not die to any of the timings that already existed.
Starting out learning how to *perfectly* 1-base all-in is actually a great first step. That's where all of your learning begins.
As it has been said many times on this post, macroing better will win you games in lower leagues. I was in bronze once and would stockpile massive ammounts of resources quickly (Since I was at least smart enough to constantly make scv's), But then I realized "If I spent that 3k minerals on only marines, I will have 60 more marines" and since my army was around 20 marines and 5 siege tanks, thats a big number. Adjusting your build will help for sure (Ex. The mass queen post), but quite often the easiest way out is better macro, since you can use it in ALL matchups, not just in 1 perticulat situation.
Focus on getting better, not on winning. Trying to win games can end up being very detrimental to your improvement as a player. You should focus on proper macro, adding your units to control groups, etc.. More often than not, the one control group syndrome is a result of trying to win, when you should be trying to get better.
Once you get better, the wins will come naturally.
On October 11 2011 06:29 nqqvt3 wrote: To be completly Honest, macro dosnt Really matter, untill diamond-ish, my friend made it diamond with 2 builds, but his macro was almost non existant, he works on one or two builds , that do not need high macro to win with, if you hold off his initial PuSh he loses,
To be good you need to be able to macro, but if you can execute good build then you can make it to diamond,
I dont like this but its True a good build can beat a better player
From What i can see from your original post your saying take it easy on lower level because they are to Lazy/ dont have time to work on mechanics, they say work on your macro, because if you have solid mechanics you should be able to look at your replay and say "I lost because my mechanics were bad" or "I lost because his build just beats mine" ETC...
I cant keep a train of thought, I'M watching IPL3 sorry if i misunderstood anything you said but this is my take on it
In a way, perfecting a build, even if it is a cheesy or all-in build, and using it successfully means you've mastered macro for that much amount of time. Let's say you want to go 5 rax marines in TvZ and you pull it off successfully. That means you make SCVs when you need to, put down the barracks when you need to, don't get supply blocked, and constantly make Marines. Then you go end the game by 7 minutes with a horde of units. Well, for those 7 minutes, your macro was pretty darn good.
I agree with "The W" here. There's a crucial difference between "having good macro" and "playing a macro game"... when HuK does a 6-gate attack, even if he has no intention of taking a 3rd base, he's macroing perfectly off of his existing bases. He has good macro without playing a macro game.
This becomes even more clear on a 1-base all in. If you're doing an all in like say, a Thor rush in TvP, it's super super crucial that you not get supply blocked, since you're trying to hit a timing window. That being said, I'm not sure the best way to improve as a player is to spam 1-base allins ._.
It's almost like people think that Masters/GMs just played long macro games until they knew how to macro by heart. It never starts like that. I will guarantee you that almost every high level player started out learning how to perfectly 4gate/3rax/roach+speedling rush over and over until it didn't work anymore. Once those builds were perfected and being stopped, adjustments were made to include a critical upgrade, or a tech building, or an expansion and harder macro. The perfect 7 minute 1base build was then adjusted to a 10 minute 2-base build....then developed into a 2-base 12 minute timing....then a 3-base 15 minute push. Every addition developed a new key timing that hit a weakness in the opponent's build, while still adjusting the early play to not die to any of the timings that already existed.
Starting out learning how to *perfectly* 1-base all-in is actually a great first step. That's where all of your learning begins.
Still a problem with your logic. If you learn long games you learn your short game too, if you only learn your short games, you don't learn your long game plan.
I would rather teach someone how to set up 2 base with a strong pressure into a 3rd base rather than limiting someone to being 1 trick pony doing 1 base all-ins. The further into the game you go, the more situations that allow for learning to happen.
If you do a perfect 1 base all-in and it can get you to X league with X number of points, that is going to make you hit a wall much sooner than learning how to attack and expand at the same time with crisp timing pushes.
1 base all-ins are going to teach bad habits about cutting scvs at X number. The only good they will do is help work on micro and hitting a certain timing. Relying only on a timing attack and hoping that your opponent isn't good enough to hold it off is setting yourself up for failure in the long run.
Even though I say all of this, I do advise people to play around with different builds for the purpose of having fun. On the other hand SC has and always will be an economy based game, the person who can hold a better economy while being able to defend all-ins and heavy aggression is going to be the superior player in the long run. That is why most people advise macro macro macro.
Still a problem with your logic. If you learn long games you learn your short game too, if you only learn your short games, you don't learn your long game plan.
You have to survive the short game to get to the long game. Take it step by step. When you're learning a piece for piano, you don't do it by playing the whole thing over and over. You break it down into sections. But you're right. Short game is relatively easy to get an understanding of, so what most people really need is learning long games, or pretty much what to do after they have an expansion.
If you do a perfect 1 base all-in and it can get you to X league with X number of points, that is going to make you hit a wall much sooner than learning how to attack and expand at the same time with crisp timing pushes.
And when you hit that wall, you make adjustments to your build that result in longer games. That's exactly what he said, there's no logical problem there.
1 base all-ins are going to teach bad habits about cutting scvs at X number. The only good they will do is help work on micro and hitting a certain timing. Relying only on a timing attack and hoping that your opponent isn't good enough to hold it off is setting yourself up for failure in the long run.
Not necessarily. 1 base all-ins don't teach long game macro, but they do teach short game macro. And you need good short game macro to get good long game macro.
Still a problem with your logic. If you learn long games you learn your short game too, if you only learn your short games, you don't learn your long game plan.
You have to survive the short game to get to the long game. Take it step by step. When you're learning a piece for piano, you don't do it by playing the whole thing over and over. You break it down into sections. But you're right. Short game is relatively easy to get an understanding of, so what most people really need is learning long games, or pretty much what to do after they have an expansion.
If you do a perfect 1 base all-in and it can get you to X league with X number of points, that is going to make you hit a wall much sooner than learning how to attack and expand at the same time with crisp timing pushes.
And when you hit that wall, you make adjustments to your build that result in longer games. That's exactly what he said, there's no logical problem there.
Well that is what I said in my post, surviving on 2 bases, have a good timing attack/aggression while taking a 3rd. This tests your transition from 1 base macro into 2 base macro (transferring workers, when to throw down your structures, not getting supply blocked and being able to hold off early aggression from your opponent).
Instead of hitting a wall with 1 base play (which doesn't take much macro focus at all) you can focus on 2 base play and adjust your play to hold off their 1/2 base aggression. The point is that if you keep winning within 10 minutes with perfect 1 base macro, it becomes that much harder on 2 base.
Either way if a player is focusing on 1 base play, he only has a 1 base plan and has to rely on a little macro, a lot of micro and crisp timing. If the player goes for a 2 base play he focuses mainly on macro while also having to be careful with units and having crisp timing to hold off any early pressure. The difference is that the 1 base player is actually not pushing himself to his limits by staying on one base and will almost always have shorter games than the player going for 2 bases and making just enough units to hold off 1 base tech/aggression.
Not necessarily. 1 base all-ins don't teach long game macro, but they do teach short game macro. And you need good short game macro to get good long game macro.
This is what is wrong though. Short game macro teaches less than long game macro. The community should be teaching pressure builds into expansions, not finger crossing builds that hope they didn't scout and put up extra bunkers to stop your push.
On October 11 2011 02:50 w3jjjj wrote: After reading most of the posts in this thread, I'm beginning to think that "macro" is very poorly defined. If we think of "macro" as economic management, then it includes both mechanics and strategy.
The strategy dictates build orders and timings, and the mechanics is the execution. To say that "I want to have more stuff (better macro) in the late game", you cannot be playing an all-in build. Thus, strategy cannot be separated from macro, it is a part of it.
I believe when people talk about strategy vs macro, they are really talking about strategy vs mechanics, and most people think mechanics is more important than strategy, as a poor strategy well executed > a good strategy poorly executed.
From this train of thought, instead of telling someone to work on his "macro", it may be more precise to tell him to work on his "mechanics", as "macro" is too broad.
EDIT: Re-read first post again, the op is asking what if you make a bad reaction to another strategy. This falls into decision making, which is parallel to macro, as opposed to strategy, which is under macro.
Well put. This was my biggest frustration as a lower level player reading TL: not that I disputed that I needed to improve my macro (I knew I did) but that there seemed to be so little consensus on what this actually meant.
The holy trinity that everyone agrees on is "always make workers, don't get supply blocked, spend your resources." But I knew that these three on their own weren't enough, since I could fulfil these criteria making nothing but drones, queens and hatcheries, and it also doesn't capture macro mechanics like inject or chrono (or expanding). There must be something more, but what? Everyone had a different answer. Some people seemed to think of macro as everything other than controlling individual units during battle, in which case "macro better" becomes almost content free advice.
As a Zerg player I ended up adding two more items to the holy trinity: scout, and use the scouting information to figure out when to make units. (I'm not sure whether or not people would define these as macro, but either way I think they are things that people should be working on even in Bronze). If I do these things over a lot of games then eventually I have a sense of how many units I am going to need at different points in the game and against different strategies, which in turn gives me a framework in which I can apply the "macro better" advice. Effectively I try to refine my build and mechanics to make it all happen as fast and efficiently as possible.
This works OK for me and I don't pay a whole lot of attention to micro for the most part (I'm in Platinum, so I assume I have a way to go yet before I worry about it). However I have learned that there are times when poor or nonexistent micro will lose the game outright - e.g. losing a large muta ball to stimmed marines - and I do focus on it in those situations.
Fantastic (and hilarious) example of "macro better" in the Day9 Funday Monday that just finished up. The last game a troll won a 2v2 by doing nothing but mass expanding, making SCVs and then attacking with 138 SCVs to win the game. Macro with horrific strategy ftw.
Still a problem with your logic. If you learn long games you learn your short game too, if you only learn your short games, you don't learn your long game plan.
You have to survive the short game to get to the long game. Take it step by step. When you're learning a piece for piano, you don't do it by playing the whole thing over and over. You break it down into sections. But you're right. Short game is relatively easy to get an understanding of, so what most people really need is learning long games, or pretty much what to do after they have an expansion.
If you do a perfect 1 base all-in and it can get you to X league with X number of points, that is going to make you hit a wall much sooner than learning how to attack and expand at the same time with crisp timing pushes.
And when you hit that wall, you make adjustments to your build that result in longer games. That's exactly what he said, there's no logical problem there.
Well that is what I said in my post, surviving on 2 bases, have a good timing attack/aggression while taking a 3rd. This tests your transition from 1 base macro into 2 base macro (transferring workers, when to throw down your structures, not getting supply blocked and being able to hold off early aggression from your opponent).
Instead of hitting a wall with 1 base play (which doesn't take much macro focus at all) you can focus on 2 base play and adjust your play to hold off their 1/2 base aggression. The point is that if you keep winning within 10 minutes with perfect 1 base macro, it becomes that much harder on 2 base.
Either way if a player is focusing on 1 base play, he only has a 1 base plan and has to rely on a little macro, a lot of micro and crisp timing. If the player goes for a 2 base play he focuses mainly on macro while also having to be careful with units and having crisp timing to hold off any early pressure. The difference is that the 1 base player is actually not pushing himself to his limits by staying on one base and will almost always have shorter games than the player going for 2 bases and making just enough units to hold off 1 base tech/aggression.
Not necessarily. 1 base all-ins don't teach long game macro, but they do teach short game macro. And you need good short game macro to get good long game macro.
This is what is wrong though. Short game macro teaches less than long game macro. The community should be teaching pressure builds into expansions, not finger crossing builds that hope they didn't scout and put up extra bunkers to stop your push.
I guess the question is how far in the development of the game is the player? You're not going to sit down a player who is brand new to the game and teach him how to hold all types of TvP aggression with a 1rax gasless FE, or how to do a FFE in PvZ to hold every type of aggression. Those are inherently risky builds to begin with, and defending properly with those builds comes with a greater understanding of how units work in relation to one another. How do you learn these things? By doing *super* safe 1base builds that give you all kinds of units. Then you figure out how you can cut corners and squeeze out an expansion, and still have enough units to be safe. Then you can cut more corners and pop out a critical upgrade or a tech structure.
Everything builds from the basics. If you have someone who is already perfectly macroing their 1-base build, then you can expand that out to a 2base style. There is no way someone who is relatively new is going to be able to sit down and pull out a 2base macro style, hit their depots on time, get their production down when it's supposed to go down, get the upgrades when they need to, and keep worker and unit production up properly. It's hard enough to perfectly nail that on 1 base when you're getting started.
You may be overestimating how easy it is to macro a 1base build. I have a friend who I've been trying to help improve by basically doing the same thing. He 4gates literally every game, but the timing is always late. The amount of units he should have at 6:30, he instead would have at 9:00. That reduced down to 8:30, then down to 8:00, and is now down to about 7:15. He is currently Top 8 Gold. What would be the point of trying to teach a 3gate robo build, or a 1gate FE, or a FFE build to somebody who can't build probes and pylons effectively enough to 4gate in the first place?
Mind you, a lot of the things I said about the development of builds has already been done by players over the past year. Thus, when you're comfortable with how to macro a 1-base style, you can simply steal the builds of the players that have come before you. Instead of trying to figure out exactly when to put down your expansion, or how many units you should have, or when you should be scouting for possible pressure, you just pick your favorite pro, download a bunch of replays, and steal the build. Play it a few times, and you can get a feel for why the build works, where it's weak, how it can be exploited, the timings you need to watch for and be prepared to defend against.
The point is, trying to teach a complicated and delicate 2-base build to someone who can't macro a 1-base build properly is wasted effort. Learn to macro a 1-base build properly, then steal a 2-base build and learn how to macro it properly, then learn when it's safe to take a 3rd, then get used to macroing it properly. It all builds from the ground up.
For low level players, i don't agree on the "just work on your macro and you will get better" theory. Yes macro is the essential path to become a high level player but its not the 1st thing to learn.
In my opinion, to make your life easier later on, its most important to learn the habit of scouting and how to interpret the info that you scouted, identify the type of cheese play opponent using (low level players cheese ALOT! learn to deal with it). n then, learn to defend the cheese!
When u are comfortable on defending cheese play, then you can proceed working on your macro. Or else you will always be interrupted by all kinds of cheese play and your macro learning wont progress smoothly. You can also learn to cheese as well but i don't recommend that way. Afterall macro is the ultimate way to become a good player.
When considering a lower level 1v1, where both players macro fairly evenly, strategy is fairly relevant, but not something worth asking about on the forums. At lower levels(as said by you) strategy is the fun part and not everyone wants to macro constantly., however the reason strategy is fun is because you can rely on your own instincts and game knowledge and use those strategies to win. (Once again, considering equal mechanics).
So to come on the forums with a low level replay and want a strategy discussion seems unfit for a website like TL, which is a very Macro or Die type of forum. The battlenet forums offer plenty of strategical advice because there is a larger gathering of players with rough understanding of the game rather than masters level. The fun part of Starcraft (at least in my case) is developing your own builds,timings, scouting patterns (basically your style) and find things that help you defend certain situations. Even if your macro is terrible, SC should always be fun because of the strategical aspect which really involves your own abilities to play the game no matter what level you are at.
This is why it's the best eSport around and is something to be enjoyed without using the forums to talk about specific strategies at low levels, much better discussion will arise with a friend or chat channel than it will here. Macro or Die.
It's almost coherent I apologize.
Basically, enjoy learning strategies on your own, do less forum viewing, and more gaming. Find some practice partners and have discussions about strategies with them. You will get alot more out of your games and less hateful Macro oriented responses.
I think there is a small degree of truth to this post. Since bronze players all got told to "macro better", doesn't that mean everyone is trying to do that? Therefore, thanks to forums, macroing better is no longer the only distinguishing line between good and bad players. Most players who are active also read the forums for tips and therefore all of our macro has gotten better. The standards of starcraft has risen.
On October 07 2011 11:40 tuestresfat wrote: I remember seeing a Master player ladder an account from bronze to diamond by making stalkers and stalkers only, never harassing or scouting (besides initial probe scout), expanding at standard timings, getting upgrades at standard timings, never putting any pressure on his opponent, and a-clicking his opponent's base when he was at 200/200.
Seriously just macro, if you want a strategy, make pure stalkers.
well hang on a second. I saw that exact post on reddit, and the guy was condescending as hell about it.
He was basically advocating sitting in your base, macroing to 200/200 and A move, and he slammed anyone who couldn't do exactly the same as him.
Seriously he was one cocky loser who honestly was spouting wrongful information. He's giving completely false hope to bronze players who, when they try to copy what he does, fails.
what's this "expanding at standard timings" what a second...isn't that something that a bronzie isn't supposed to be even concerned with?
how about "getting upgrades at standard timings" starting to see a theme here?
A bronze player, according to this community, shouldn't even be concerned with what the hell a "standard timing" is, remember? Look at the hierarchy. It states that a "timing" is only masters and above material, stuff that anyone below has no right to even see, right?
It goes to show you simply cannot, and should not, believe everything you read. If he were to request this so-called A Move player to provide a list of the last 100 replays where he did nothing but A Move 200/200 stalkers and win, I bet you that he can't provide that.
On October 11 2011 13:12 Ripps wrote: Didn't Destiny go from Bronze to Masters using Mass Queens only?
Mechanics > Strategy, methinks.
Last I heard he stalled around platinum, I'll let you know when I watch the rest of the games this evening. His games are are more an example of GM macro+GM micro+GM scouting and reaction>Absolutely terrible strategy. The A-moving stalker guy should be your go-to example for Macro>Micro and to a lesser extent strategy, since mass stalker is actually a viable strat unlike mass queen. His main thing seems to be blindly building defences(IE not scouting), not harassing and not doing anything but Amoving(IE no micro)
On October 07 2011 11:40 tuestresfat wrote: I remember seeing a Master player ladder an account from bronze to diamond by making stalkers and stalkers only, never harassing or scouting (besides initial probe scout), expanding at standard timings, getting upgrades at standard timings, never putting any pressure on his opponent, and a-clicking his opponent's base when he was at 200/200.
Seriously just macro, if you want a strategy, make pure stalkers.
well hang on a second. I saw that exact post on reddit, and the guy was condescending as hell about it.
He was basically advocating sitting in your base, macroing to 200/200 and A move, and he slammed anyone who couldn't do exactly the same as him.
Seriously he was one cocky loser who honestly was spouting wrongful information. He's giving completely false hope to bronze players who, when they try to copy what he does, fails.
what's this "expanding at standard timings" what a second...isn't that something that a bronzie isn't supposed to be even concerned with?
how about "getting upgrades at standard timings" starting to see a theme here?
A bronze player, according to this community, shouldn't even be concerned with what the hell a "standard timing" is, remember? Look at the hierarchy. It states that a "timing" is only masters and above material, stuff that anyone below has no right to even see, right?
It goes to show you simply cannot, and should not, believe everything you read. If he were to request this so-called A Move player to provide a list of the last 100 replays where he did nothing but A Move 200/200 stalkers and win, I bet you that he can't provide that.
When people are talking about timings it is more about aggressive pushing around a certain time or when a vital upgrade is researched.
The things lower level players have the hardest time with is always producing workers, having the right amount of production facilities per base and getting supply blocked. The guy who did only stalkers on reddit posted a replay pack of his games and did get around diamond without anything but one unit. He was condescending because he was sick of lower level people posting help on forums wondering why they lost a game and blaming their strategy for their loss instead of their macro.
If you read all the guides on TL about improving and have 1 good build for each match-up while focusing on creating workers and making expansions while not getting supply blocked and always producing out of your structures then you will go up leagues even if your micro and execution is bad. Eventually strategy and micro will become more prevalent as they are needed at the top levels to trade armies efficiently.
Anyway, SCII is a game of economics and that is why macro is always the first problem to look at correcting before anything else.
On October 11 2011 12:53 Darth Caedus wrote: Fantastic (and hilarious) example of "macro better" in the Day9 Funday Monday that just finished up. The last game a troll won a 2v2 by doing nothing but mass expanding, making SCVs and then attacking with 138 SCVs to win the game. Macro with horrific strategy ftw.
That troll was SlayerS_Cella. Gandi power! T_T That game is a very strange example of "macro beats all". Cella's partner made MM, which was beaten by stalkers and marines. Cella actually kept his money down and I don't remember him really transferring much money to his partner despite the sick income he was getting. Thus with good macro he took out 2 players with pure workers (and upgrades). Sure stalkers can micro away and kill scvs, but at 170 supply scvs it's a slaughter.
On October 11 2011 15:58 (kimi)YaSu wrote: I think there is a small degree of truth to this post. Since bronze players all got told to "macro better", doesn't that mean everyone is trying to do that? Therefore, thanks to forums, macroing better is no longer the only distinguishing line between good and bad players. Most players who are active also read the forums for tips and therefore all of our macro has gotten better. The standards of starcraft has risen.
I understand where you're coming from with this post, but what you are saying is simply not true. Bronze players do get told that they need to work on their macro, but if they actually had good macro they would not be bronze players any more. You're probably right that lots of lower-level players are trying to macro better, but if they were succeeding they would no longer be lower-level players, as the ability to macro well is the single most important determining factor in whether you win or lose games.
There are a lot of posts in this thread positing that there are low-level players who have great macro, and in my opinion that is simply not true. If you can achieve the goals of constantly making workers and constantly producing units without getting supply blocked and while keeping your money low, you would have to be doing such odd things with the resulting army to not be at least in Platinum that I just can't believe such a player exists.
By all means, if you disagree, then put up a replay! I'd be very interested to see what bronze-level play with good macro looks like.
Anyway, SCII is a game of economics and that is why macro is always the first problem to look at correcting before anything else.
Expansion and upgrade timings are crucual to good macro, though. Upgrades, atleast the passive ones like +3/+3 are an awesome force multiplier to whatever A-move army you're making, and obviously you won't have a good economy if you expand too early and die, or expand too late and get oversaturated.
On October 11 2011 15:58 (kimi)YaSu wrote: I think there is a small degree of truth to this post. Since bronze players all got told to "macro better", doesn't that mean everyone is trying to do that? Therefore, thanks to forums, macroing better is no longer the only distinguishing line between good and bad players. Most players who are active also read the forums for tips and therefore all of our macro has gotten better. The standards of starcraft has risen.
<snip>
By all means, if you disagree, then put up a replay! I'd be very interested to see what bronze-level play with good macro looks like.
Probably any Protoss player who drops his 9 pylon perfectly on time, constantly makes workers, gets his gateway(and core? not sure on timings) down perfectly and then dies to 6pool lings. Would he have had perfect macro afterwards? Probably not, but that's why you need to add a little cheese defence advice into the general "just focus on macro" advice to bronzies
On October 11 2011 15:58 (kimi)YaSu wrote: I think there is a small degree of truth to this post. Since bronze players all got told to "macro better", doesn't that mean everyone is trying to do that? Therefore, thanks to forums, macroing better is no longer the only distinguishing line between good and bad players. Most players who are active also read the forums for tips and therefore all of our macro has gotten better. The standards of starcraft has risen.
<snip>
By all means, if you disagree, then put up a replay! I'd be very interested to see what bronze-level play with good macro looks like.
Probably any Protoss player who drops his 9 pylon perfectly on time, constantly makes workers, gets his gateway(and core? not sure on timings) down perfectly and then dies to 6pool lings. Would he have had perfect macro afterwards? Probably not, but that's why you need to add a little cheese defence advice into the general "just focus on macro" advice to bronzies
You make a valid point to a certain extent, but even if you literally just died every time you got 6-pooled, you would still make it out of the lower leagues if you were meeting all the goals I describe. 6-pools aren't 50% of games on the ladder.
Probe1 made a similar point, and I'll concede it: Macro and scouting and responding to cheese are the only things you should be really focusing on in low-level games. Regardless, you can't respond to cheese correctly without good macro either. Even responding correctly to a 6-pool is made much easier if your pylon and gateway go down as quickly as possible, and responding to stuff like 2-gate proxied Zealots or a Marine/SCV all-in is all about getting as many units as possible out as fast as you can.
On October 11 2011 15:58 (kimi)YaSu wrote: I think there is a small degree of truth to this post. Since bronze players all got told to "macro better", doesn't that mean everyone is trying to do that? Therefore, thanks to forums, macroing better is no longer the only distinguishing line between good and bad players. Most players who are active also read the forums for tips and therefore all of our macro has gotten better. The standards of starcraft has risen.
<snip>
By all means, if you disagree, then put up a replay! I'd be very interested to see what bronze-level play with good macro looks like.
Probably any Protoss player who drops his 9 pylon perfectly on time, constantly makes workers, gets his gateway(and core? not sure on timings) down perfectly and then dies to 6pool lings. Would he have had perfect macro afterwards? Probably not, but that's why you need to add a little cheese defence advice into the general "just focus on macro" advice to bronzies
You make a valid point to a certain extent, but even if you literally just died every time you got 6-pooled, you would still make it out of the lower leagues if you were meeting all the goals I describe. 6-pools aren't 50% of games on the ladder.
Probe1 made a similar point, and I'll concede it: Macro and scouting and responding to cheese are the only things you should be really focusing on in low-level games. Regardless, you can't respond to cheese correctly without good macro either. Even responding correctly to a 6-pool is made much easier if your pylon and gateway go down as quickly as possible, and responding to stuff like 2-gate proxied Zealots or a Marine/SCV all-in is all about getting as many units as possible out as fast as you can.
With regards to the bit I highlighted: In fairness there is an absurd amount of cheese further down the ladder because many low ranked players are just looking to win as fast as possible. They may lose some, but they'll win more because its rare they'll come across a decently competent opponent. Hence cheesing is the fastest way to move up the ladder.
Bad habit to learn to play that way from the very start; but its undeniably effective up to a certain point. So it tends to be really quite prevalent.
On October 09 2011 14:11 Darth Caedus wrote: Yes the heroine ref was awesome, but no one ever acknowledges my posts cause im still sub-3-digits. It's depressing and I feel like I might need some heroine.
Or maybe I just need to macro better. But heroine seems like the easier choice.
There is a dark, secret place, where post-counts rise.
The only thing that bothers me about "just macro better" advice is that's it's incredibly vague and how is one suppose to know where one is lacking in their macro without a replay. It is about as useful as "just live healthier."
I'll echo what someone else stated. When I started, I placed into gold. I quickly moved into diamond and then master when that league came around.
The Secret?
I watched the replay of "Favored" players who beat me. I memorized their build and copied it verbatim. Every time I played that match up, I would do that same build over and over and over. After a while, I learned how to improve it and why.
Now, I'm Top 6 Master player who plays a good number of GMs.
On October 11 2011 15:58 (kimi)YaSu wrote: I think there is a small degree of truth to this post. Since bronze players all got told to "macro better", doesn't that mean everyone is trying to do that? Therefore, thanks to forums, macroing better is no longer the only distinguishing line between good and bad players. Most players who are active also read the forums for tips and therefore all of our macro has gotten better. The standards of starcraft has risen.
By all means, if you disagree, then put up a replay! I'd be very interested to see what bronze-level play with good macro looks like.
Probably any Protoss player who drops his 9 pylon perfectly on time, constantly makes workers, gets his gateway(and core? not sure on timings) down perfectly and then dies to 6pool lings. Would he have had perfect macro afterwards? Probably not, but that's why you need to add a little cheese defence advice into the general "just focus on macro" advice to bronzies
You make a valid point to a certain extent, but even if you literally just died every time you got 6-pooled, you would still make it out of the lower leagues if you were meeting all the goals I describe. 6-pools aren't 50% of games on the ladder.
Probe1 made a similar point, and I'll concede it: Macro and scouting and responding to cheese are the only things you should be really focusing on in low-level games. Regardless, you can't respond to cheese correctly without good macro either. Even responding correctly to a 6-pool is made much easier if your pylon and gateway go down as quickly as possible, and responding to stuff like 2-gate proxied Zealots or a Marine/SCV all-in is all about getting as many units as possible out as fast as you can.
With regards to the bit I highlighted: In fairness there is an absurd amount of cheese further down the ladder because many low ranked players are just looking to win as fast as possible. They may lose some, but they'll win more because its rare they'll come across a decently competent opponent. Hence cheesing is the fastest way to move up the ladder.
Bad habit to learn to play that way from the very start; but its undeniably effective up to a certain point. So it tends to be really quite prevalent.
Ironically enough, that's also why the "practice your macro" bit is sometimes ignored by lower league players.
On topic: macro better is definitely the way to go. I went from bronze to platinum simply macroing until maxed on 3 bases, amoving my army while putting up maybe a guardian shield and a few forcefields, and then going back to macro. Most of the time i didn't even watch the battles, and most of the time i would lose the engagement but my second weave of reinforcements would overwhelm him. After making it in diamond i have had to micro -a bit- in battles, and it's definitely something i have to work on, but i guarantee from personal experience to all the lower league players posting here that if you want to improve on the long run, practicing 1) not getting supply blocked 2) ALWAYS build stuff. The unit itself isn't particularly important, as long as your money is constantly sub-500 ish. 3) ALWAYS build workers. Never, ever, ever stop. Applying those three gets you to at least platinum easily.
Developing and talking about strategy is just more fun than talking about improving macro. You can end up feeling like some of the fun of the game isn't available to you when people just keep telling you to improve your macro.
I think I felt that way myself before I started really seeing how unbelievably important basic macro is. I played in the GeForce Pro-Am as Gold, lost to a Masters level player and dove right into the reply to see what clever build he did, what strat he used to crush me. Turns out he crushed me by making probes. That was it.
So I know what I need to improve -- basic macro. But here's the upside for the OP and other low-level players: because macro is really what you need, you can pretty much do any strategy you like. Since neither you nor your opponent is going to nail all your scvs/probes/injects, the one who does better probably wins.
Take advantage of this to do fun things! Battlecruiser rush! Nukes, mothership, mass infestors, w/e. Go crazy and have fun with it. The meta game will probably shift before we get to diamond anyway, so you don't have to worry about crisp openings just yet.
This was a fascinating thread to read for a low leaguer, like me, because of the difference of opinions. I played beta and started in Season 1, but due to actually knowing a few good builds and how to stop cheese, I was placed in Platinum (which I'm definitely not). So I got discouraged because I was constantly getting destroyed in 80% of my matches. Between that, buying a house, and having a pregnant wife (son due in about a week) I stopped playing until two weeks ago. I was placed in Bronze after my placement matches. Yesterday I was moved to Silver.
In my last 25 games I have 18 wins. The reason? Most of the games are TvP right now, oddly enough. For example my last seven straight ladder games have been TvP and I bet 65+% of my matches have been TvP. Which I why I wish I wasn't pushed to Silver so quickly as I think I'm skewed badly since my TvZ is awful and my TvT is pretty mediocre.
I have a build for TvP that I practiced and practiced and practiced back in Season 1 because once upon a time my TvP was totally pathetic. Practicing that build taught me how to pay incredible attention to the macro portion of that build for the first 10 minutes or so because my TvP doesn't generally last beyond that. My macro starts slipping after the initial 10 minutes if the P survives, but my macro gets better every game as I start to remember how to react to what I scout so things become more second nature. I fully believe the games don't last beyond 10 minutes because my macro is just flat out better then the other guy.
TL;DR - coming from a fellow low ranked player, macro is 95% of the answer in reality. The other 5% in my opinion is to practice a single build or two per match up and only use those in the lower leagues. Once you get those mastered everything starts to mesh together allowing you to start being reactive to what you scout and move onto other builds as you see fit.
Here's another replay of the "just make roaches and hydras and kill the other guy" variety. http://www.sc2rep.com/replays/(Z)Tamerlane_vs_(T)Edodind/14308 -no scouting beyond "where is his base" and "has he expanded". I literally had no idea what he was teching to, nor did I care -no looking at battles unless they take place in my base, because hey I need to look at my base anyway Its really quite an interesting experience. I remember looking at my minimap during the final attack and seeing my coloured blob of units at his natural make his differently coloured blob disappear and was like "oh sweet, I guess I'll build some more roaches and hydras and send those in too"
The banshee harass(if you can call 4 very late banshees with cloak a harass) was still pretty scary given that they nearly killed my lair, need to make myself safer there. But no real dangers other then that. I think that also highlights the connection between good macro and cheese defence. I've you've got the response to a bunker in the natural or cloaked banshee attacks memorised, it hopefully won't break your macro routine as badly.
I'm glad to see that a macro-centric approach is working for you. I consider the most important basic skills to learn to be Macro and Crisis Management. Fighting off that cloak harass was vital your success in the game, just as amassing an enormous army of roach/hydra was.
Macrostomp is a legitimate way to win a game, and is pretty fun-- but do try to work on your other skills as well. A vital thing you will want to work on is "Macroing while also doing other stuff" as you improve. Many players have good macro that utterly falls apart when they try to do other things like spread creep, scout, or micro the army. The idea of "only look at your base" is based on that fact. If you can sustain good macro while also doing things like microing, that's a good step as well, and is how most people try to play.
* * *
A classic example of where this becomes important is, some time ago a Terran player posted asking for help about how to hold a VR all-in. It was a TvP (Both players were master league) on Shattered temple. The Void Ray all in started, and the Terran player looked like he was going to hold, but his macro eventually slipped, and he finally got busted with about 800 minerals in the bank.
He's a Master League player; he clearly knows how to spend his money on 1 base. It wasn't just macro that did him in, but "Macro while other stuff is going on" that did him in. This happens to me all the time as well; whenever anything stressful happens, I get tunnel vision and have to forcibly remind myself to macro so I don't lose.
The strategy of not looking at a fight and just macroing is trying to avoid this sort of loss that comes from tunnel vision. As you start to look back towards your battles and micro, remember that the purpose of the macrostomp exercise for most people is to demonstrate how powerful macro is so that you don't let it slip.
A friend once told me, "When a battle happens, poor players watch the fight, and good players look away and macro-- but the truly great players are watching the fight WHILE looking away and macroing."
You have to be good to be great, though. Still working on that first part
On October 12 2011 03:26 Blazinghand wrote: A friend once told me, "When a battle happens, poor players watch the fight, and good players look away and macro-- but the truly great players are watching the fight WHILE looking away and macroing."
Thanks for watching Yeah I'm so guilty of watching fights when I'm not really contributing anything meaningful to them, and totally neglecting production and rallying of reinforcements instead. I just watched the replay, apparently I killed a PF at his natural with hydras too, that was nice Also the crisis management while macroing thing is pretty big. Its probably not a coincidence that I got supply blocked even right after the fairly pathetic bunker harass. I think if that's the reason for macro slipups, its important for the player to learn and memorise the right response so they can get back to macroing.
Also for future games I think I'll just get a 3rd queen and morph an overseer right after the lair pops, its a fairly useful thing to do generally imo.
I think it's also important to note (and it may have been mentioned) but the macro is what allows you to utilize that strategy you're talking about improving. For example, in a zerg v terran if he has a huge marine ball you might say "a good strategy is to get infestors" but if you're macro is weak you get 1 or 2 infestors w/o energy upgrade and you still lose and you think to yourself "that strategy feels wrong" but actually it is right, you just need 4-5 infestors w/ energy upgrade and units to back them up.
I do agree; as someone who has coached lower league players, yes they can always improve their macro. I can always improve my macro. But often times their macro isn't what is keeping them from moving to the next league. Other things that are also very important:
Then as you get a little higher you need things like positioning, sacrificing bases, harassing, multi prong attack/defense, multiple build orders, game sense.
That's why SC2 is so awesome, it's not just all about macro; it just happens to be that macro is a very good correlation to skill, as your macro improves typically all other aspects of your gameplay do as well.
On October 12 2011 04:36 1st_Panzer_Div. wrote: I do agree; as someone who has coached lower league players, yes they can always improve their macro. I can always improve my macro. But often times their macro isn't what is keeping them from moving to the next league. Other things that are also very important:
Then as you get a little higher you need things like positioning, sacrificing bases, harassing, multi prong attack/defense, multiple build orders, game sense.
That's why SC2 is so awesome, it's not just all about macro; it just happens to be that macro is a very good correlation to skill, as your macro improves typically all other aspects of your gameplay do as well.
Bold- improving mechanics improves this stuff implicitly italics- this is not that important after you know when to "run away" or "fight" underline- the hell?
On October 12 2011 04:36 1st_Panzer_Div. wrote: I do agree; as someone who has coached lower league players, yes they can always improve their macro. I can always improve my macro. But often times their macro isn't what is keeping them from moving to the next league. Other things that are also very important:
Then as you get a little higher you need things like positioning, sacrificing bases, harassing, multi prong attack/defense, multiple build orders, game sense.
That's why SC2 is so awesome, it's not just all about macro; it just happens to be that macro is a very good correlation to skill, as your macro improves typically all other aspects of your gameplay do as well.
Bold- improving mechanics improves this stuff implicitly italics- this is not that important after you know when to "run away" or "fight" underline- the hell?
Funny how quickly "improve your macro" becomes "improve your mechanics" a term so vague it encompasses pretty much every single aspect of Starcraft 2 beyond unit choice.
Build orders are a 50/50 thing. A build order is a means to an end. The end is a strategy, the means is how efficiently the build order gets you there. Like that earlier post where someone pointed out that going 13 pool over 11 overpool and delaying your gas a bit more gives you the same general result(+1 speedlings) but just plain does it better. Provided the build's goal itself is vaguely sensible(IE not mass queen), the individual choice(roach/hydra vs muta/ling/bling) is less important compared to macro stuff. I'd agree that battle micro isn't super important. And if you rely on unit blobs you don't even have to worry about the "retreat" bit, you just build another blob if the first one dies. Scouting helps macro, especially for Zerg. But its pointless conflating the two things. Just say "scouting is important, just not as much as macro", if that's what you meant to say. Yes scouting is part of mechanics, but so is EVERYTHING. "Overturtling". Hey, you'd be surprised how common this is in low leagues. Part of it can be solved by macro tips, IE don't cut worker production to build base defenses, always expand to your natural when you're at 30 workers(20 for zerg). Anyone who follows those two tips simply won't be able to turtle since they'll have to keep expanding. Part of it is scouting so that the player knows when he simply doesn't need base defenses. And part of it is pointing out exactly how much base defense they need to hold a given push, IE not very much if any. "Dealing with cheese". Yes improving your "mechanics" will help with these. Specifically, improving your *dealing with cheese* mechanics that so many people take for granted. Continuing to macro *during* the cheese is also important, but insufficient on its own.
Sc2 is my first ever that i ever played, so everything about microing and marcoing is comepetey new to me but i believe the best way to get into a good at timings etc is by doing a cheese build. i was playing in bronze and trying to play not focusing only anything. and i came across husky where i saw TLO do a 4racks and i thought it would be funny to do that. i played terran and 4racks everygame and then it helped with my timings, when i should do certain things. it has taken me 6 months and i got put into masters.
doing cheese builds in my opinion is the best way to understand how sc2 works. when i mean cheese builds i dont mean a fully in all build. such as a 6pool with 2 extra pair of lings just a 4racks with obital something to fall back on even if you tear up his base. good luck noobies
On October 12 2011 05:41 BeVDoG wrote: doing one-base builds in my opinion is the best way to understand how sc2 works. when i mean cheese builds i dont mean a fully in all build. such as a 6pool with 2 extra pair of lings just a 4racks with obital something to fall back on even if you tear up his base. good luck noobies
Changed it, I think that's a more accurate statement. Players want to macro better but can't because they can't handle more than 1 base properly, meaning saturation, supply, and infrastructure. The idea is basically work on your macro yes, but don't skip macro 101 and go straight to macro 201
On October 12 2011 04:36 1st_Panzer_Div. wrote: I do agree; as someone who has coached lower league players, yes they can always improve their macro. I can always improve my macro. But often times their macro isn't what is keeping them from moving to the next league. Other things that are also very important:
Then as you get a little higher you need things like positioning, sacrificing bases, harassing, multi prong attack/defense, multiple build orders, game sense.
That's why SC2 is so awesome, it's not just all about macro; it just happens to be that macro is a very good correlation to skill, as your macro improves typically all other aspects of your gameplay do as well.
Bold- improving mechanics improves this stuff implicitly italics- this is not that important after you know when to "run away" or "fight" underline- the hell?
Don't have time to read the entire 26page thread, and I am sure something like this has been posted before, but one of the main reasons why "Macro better" is a big part of advice for newbies, is because not only is what they actually need to focus on and improve, their macro, but strategy is completely different at lower levels, builds are different timings are different (non-existent ;P) and units are have a different value. In a specific game going something with infestors or blings might be the correct strategy, but for a lower level player that might be wrong, since they would either be unable to control their blings or infestors properly, or it would take too much of a toll on their macro.
Obviously simple strategy still applies, like if he goes all hydra in ZVP you can go colossi to counter it, or if he builds mutas you build marines\thors. But most people know such strategy\unit counters, or could find it in places like liquipedia, not needing specific advice on it.
Nor saying lower level players shouldnt ask for advice , or that they shouldn't get it, just adding another point towards the pile of why strategic advice is a lot less relevant for low level players than it is for say diamond\masters and up.
The biggest mistake a lot of people seem to be making in this thread is simply the assumption that lower level players have to choose macro or strategy. As the OP pointed out, this is simply not the case. when I was learning about the game, watching streams helped me so much with simple things like defending bunker rushes, placing overlords, beating 6 pools, and other such things.
Also a lot of people do not understand to what extent simple composition wins are a problem at lower levels. I remember how I could just get broodlords against terran in silver and autowin because they simply had no clue what to do about them. I also remember in zvz when one person got unscouted mutas, they pretty much instantly won as well. These are things which have simple responses which many lower level players just don't have programmed into their heads.
Macro is always important, and everybody knows that, but strategy is not only a great deal funner than macro, but it does not take away from macro. I absolutely agree with the OP in this regard.
On October 12 2011 04:36 1st_Panzer_Div. wrote: I do agree; as someone who has coached lower league players, yes they can always improve their macro. I can always improve my macro. But often times their macro isn't what is keeping them from moving to the next league. Other things that are also very important:
Then as you get a little higher you need things like positioning, sacrificing bases, harassing, multi prong attack/defense, multiple build orders, game sense.
That's why SC2 is so awesome, it's not just all about macro; it just happens to be that macro is a very good correlation to skill, as your macro improves typically all other aspects of your gameplay do as well.
Bold- improving mechanics improves this stuff implicitly italics- this is not that important after you know when to "run away" or "fight" underline- the hell?
better macro =/= better mechanics.
when people tell lower level players to improve their macro they actually mean mechanics or maybe i'm giving the avg joe too much credit
On October 12 2011 04:36 1st_Panzer_Div. wrote: I do agree; as someone who has coached lower league players, yes they can always improve their macro. I can always improve my macro. But often times their macro isn't what is keeping them from moving to the next league. Other things that are also very important:
Then as you get a little higher you need things like positioning, sacrificing bases, harassing, multi prong attack/defense, multiple build orders, game sense.
That's why SC2 is so awesome, it's not just all about macro; it just happens to be that macro is a very good correlation to skill, as your macro improves typically all other aspects of your gameplay do as well.
Bold- improving mechanics improves this stuff implicitly italics- this is not that important after you know when to "run away" or "fight" underline- the hell?
It goes both ways though... you even posted in your guide that practicing your build order would help improve people's mechanics (which I agree with greatly) .
Practicing a race's 'generic' build order (eg: Protoss 1 gate core into 3 gates) until it's pretty sharp is the first step in acknowledging your basic 'macro'. You'd want to develop it into your memory bank so that you do not have to think so much about 'what do i build next?" in your head therefore freeing up your 'RANDOM BRAIN ACCESS' space to do other things such as scouting, taking towers and more importantly, think what your enemy is doing and react to it.
Eventually, your memory bank for your macro (ie: build order) expands from 1 base to 2 base and you start to get a feel of your race's economy flow (ie: how many gates can I pump from 1 or 2 bases, how many barracks/facts/starports).
You learn this by paying attention to your mineral flow such as when you have 3 gates and on 2 bases, you find yourself starting to float more and more minerals even though you are making 3 units at a time whenever you possibly can, that's when you realise you need more gateways.
[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.
I think you (the OP) make one critically wrong assumption, which is that people at high level actually know how to play at low level.
The truth is - they don't. They know how to beat low level, of course, they know what you need to do to get out of low level, but they do not know how to play at low level using skills and knowledge of a low level player. It's a completely different game, with completely different strategies. And - here's the kicker - better macro beats every low level strategy. SC2 is a macro-oriented game, and in some aspects pretty simple - more stuff beats less stuff. If you want to have more stuff, you need macro. If you are on equal footing with your opponent macro-wise, then "strategy" comes into question.. but any strategic "tips" a pro can give you would either be too general and pointless (e.g. counter Colossus with Vikings) or help you improve your game 1% or even less, while better macro has potential to improve it 200%.
So, IMHO at least, "improve macro" is the best advice, period. It's dry, it's boring, it's not fun, it's lazy... but this doesn't change the fact that it tells you EXACTLY what you need to do to improve, and it tells you EXACTLY why you lost your last game, even though it appeared to you that your strategy was one that was lacking. If you want fun strategy tips you can try out to marginally improve your game, you must ask people from your own league or perhaps the one directly above... anything beyond that is a completely different game, one you can play only if (brace yourself).. improve your macro.
On October 12 2011 04:36 1st_Panzer_Div. wrote: I do agree; as someone who has coached lower league players, yes they can always improve their macro. I can always improve my macro. But often times their macro isn't what is keeping them from moving to the next league. Other things that are also very important:
Then as you get a little higher you need things like positioning, sacrificing bases, harassing, multi prong attack/defense, multiple build orders, game sense.
That's why SC2 is so awesome, it's not just all about macro; it just happens to be that macro is a very good correlation to skill, as your macro improves typically all other aspects of your gameplay do as well.
Bold- improving mechanics improves this stuff implicitly italics- this is not that important after you know when to "run away" or "fight" underline- the hell?
better macro =/= better mechanics.
when people tell lower level players to improve their macro they actually mean mechanics or maybe i'm giving the avg joe too much credit
I cannot emphasize how true this is. This guy speaks wisdom. It's true.
When you say "Dude, work on your macro, you don't inject" They mean: "Go fucking look at your queen's energy and inject when needed" When you don't have enough units because you get supply blocked "Go watch your supply/maximum supply, also your production" When you have overmins and people tell you to lower them, they actually just say that you are bad at tabbing and you should imrpove it. Everything is based around mechanics when it comes to macro.
Also, a common misconception is that people think they have good macro when they spend 95% of the time in their base. But it's actually the complete opposite: Good macro is when you look 5% of the time in your base but still have 0 energy on your macro-abilities, low minerals/gas and never get supply blocked while having a decent dronecount/production; because then you have the time to run around with your lings, overlords, dropships etc and other stuff like decision making, micro, scouting...
On October 12 2011 04:36 1st_Panzer_Div. wrote: I do agree; as someone who has coached lower league players, yes they can always improve their macro. I can always improve my macro. But often times their macro isn't what is keeping them from moving to the next league. Other things that are also very important:
Then as you get a little higher you need things like positioning, sacrificing bases, harassing, multi prong attack/defense, multiple build orders, game sense.
That's why SC2 is so awesome, it's not just all about macro; it just happens to be that macro is a very good correlation to skill, as your macro improves typically all other aspects of your gameplay do as well.
Bold- improving mechanics improves this stuff implicitly italics- this is not that important after you know when to "run away" or "fight" underline- the hell?
better macro =/= better mechanics.
when people tell lower level players to improve their macro they actually mean mechanics or maybe i'm giving the avg joe too much credit
Good macro is when you look 5% of the time in your base but still have 0 energy on your macro-abilities, low minerals/gas and never get supply blocked while having a decent dronecount/production; because then you have the time to run around with your lings, overlords, dropships etc and other stuff like decision making, micro, scouting...
So we've gone from "focus on your macro" to "don't focus on your macro too much so you have more time for other stuff". This thread is confusing sometimes
On October 12 2011 03:10 Monkeyballs25 wrote: Here's another replay of the "just make roaches and hydras and kill the other guy" variety. http://www.sc2rep.com/replays/(Z)Tamerlane_vs_(T)Edodind/14308 -no scouting beyond "where is his base" and "has he expanded". I literally had no idea what he was teching to, nor did I care -no looking at battles unless they take place in my base, because hey I need to look at my base anyway Its really quite an interesting experience. I remember looking at my minimap during the final attack and seeing my coloured blob of units at his natural make his differently coloured blob disappear and was like "oh sweet, I guess I'll build some more roaches and hydras and send those in too"
The banshee harass(if you can call 4 very late banshees with cloak a harass) was still pretty scary given that they nearly killed my lair, need to make myself safer there. But no real dangers other then that. I think that also highlights the connection between good macro and cheese defence. I've you've got the response to a bunker in the natural or cloaked banshee attacks memorised, it hopefully won't break your macro routine as badly.
Again the purpose isn't to win. if you lose to a silly strategy just go onto the next game. People won't cheese you every game. Again zerg is the hardest to do this style. But you can get it to work and get to around the diamond level without strategy.
On October 12 2011 04:36 1st_Panzer_Div. wrote: I do agree; as someone who has coached lower league players, yes they can always improve their macro. I can always improve my macro. But often times their macro isn't what is keeping them from moving to the next league. Other things that are also very important:
Then as you get a little higher you need things like positioning, sacrificing bases, harassing, multi prong attack/defense, multiple build orders, game sense.
That's why SC2 is so awesome, it's not just all about macro; it just happens to be that macro is a very good correlation to skill, as your macro improves typically all other aspects of your gameplay do as well.
Bold- improving mechanics improves this stuff implicitly italics- this is not that important after you know when to "run away" or "fight" underline- the hell?
better macro =/= better mechanics.
when people tell lower level players to improve their macro they actually mean mechanics or maybe i'm giving the avg joe too much credit
Good macro is when you look 5% of the time in your base but still have 0 energy on your macro-abilities, low minerals/gas and never get supply blocked while having a decent dronecount/production; because then you have the time to run around with your lings, overlords, dropships etc and other stuff like decision making, micro, scouting...
So we've gone from "focus on your macro" to "don't focus on your macro too much so you have more time for other stuff". This thread is confusing sometimes
Well the whole thread is a mix of half questions with half answers. Telling someone to "macro better" is the shittiest of half ass answers to begin with. For example, if I were to post a replay where I lost a TvP with a 40 food deficit while floating 3k resources the most common reply would be "macro better". Is "macro better" a fair statement if I was on 3 bases, hit all of my mule timings, had 72 v 63 workers, and had 90 percent up time on my producing structures? It would encompass the answer when you realize I'm on 3 rax, 1 factory, and 1 starport with no upgrades. This is where the Op makes sense. Is teaching us how to priorotize macro any different then teaching us strategy?
There's no sense in focusing on anything other than mechanics at the lower-levels. There's a serious "tunnel-vision" effect that happens in lower leagues that isn't as prevalent in higher leagues. What I mean is, a Masters player will more likely attribute a loss to macro/mechanics reasons than a lower-level player with worse mechanics. A lower-league player will attribute a loss to "getting 4-gated" when the truth of the matter is that one supply block and/or missed inject WILL kill you. Too many low-level threads and responses begin with "I played this game perfectly but...." or "My macro was excellent however I still lost." I think it's hard to make the first step and ADMIT that your macro is bad. As anyone on TL could tell you, we're very friendly, but the reason the community is hard on you is because all of the "better players" on this forum are hard on themselves. It takes someone who's willing to tell themselves that they're complete shit at the game in order for them to improve. With regards to macro and mechanics, it's never good to benchmark yourself against your peers ("oh well I outmacro / outresource 90% of my gold league peers") because that creates tunnel vision. Is your macro good on an absolute basis? If not, suck it up and keep practicing.
Strategy and advanced build order planning are for those who can understand and conceptualize what an optimized version of the build order would look like and whether or not it is actually within the realm of feasibility in an "optimal-macro environment." What do I mean by this? A gold player doesn't have the right to spout false information / build order when it's almost 100% guaranteed that there's incredible variability in his execution and macro.
Hello people I just wanted to had a little something real quick to this tread, no i am not a top player by any means.I am only a plat player who tries to improve when i have time to do it. But i do have a lot of experience teaching other things, like sports for exemple. Now i know a lot of people will say it is a completly different thing, and they are not wrong. I cannot say that because of that i know what to teach someone who is trying to learn sc2. But i do know how to teach something efficiently to someone. And i was reading the forum when i saw this thread link and i really think high player, or people interested in coaching sc2 should give a particular attention to the method explain in this thread.
On October 12 2011 04:36 1st_Panzer_Div. wrote: I do agree; as someone who has coached lower league players, yes they can always improve their macro. I can always improve my macro. But often times their macro isn't what is keeping them from moving to the next league. Other things that are also very important:
Then as you get a little higher you need things like positioning, sacrificing bases, harassing, multi prong attack/defense, multiple build orders, game sense.
That's why SC2 is so awesome, it's not just all about macro; it just happens to be that macro is a very good correlation to skill, as your macro improves typically all other aspects of your gameplay do as well.
Bold- improving mechanics improves this stuff implicitly italics- this is not that important after you know when to "run away" or "fight" underline- the hell?
better macro =/= better mechanics.
when people tell lower level players to improve their macro they actually mean mechanics or maybe i'm giving the avg joe too much credit
Good macro is when you look 5% of the time in your base but still have 0 energy on your macro-abilities, low minerals/gas and never get supply blocked while having a decent dronecount/production; because then you have the time to run around with your lings, overlords, dropships etc and other stuff like decision making, micro, scouting...
So we've gone from "focus on your macro" to "don't focus on your macro too much so you have more time for other stuff". This thread is confusing sometimes
In this context, when people say "focus" they don't mean look at it. They mean focus on improving to the point where you don't need to constantly stare at your base for your macro-related tasks to go smoothly.
That means you need to always be looking at your base less and training your brain to perform all the menial tasks (building Probes, Pylons, executing a BO) without actively thinking about it.
On October 12 2011 04:36 1st_Panzer_Div. wrote: I do agree; as someone who has coached lower league players, yes they can always improve their macro. I can always improve my macro. But often times their macro isn't what is keeping them from moving to the next league. Other things that are also very important:
Then as you get a little higher you need things like positioning, sacrificing bases, harassing, multi prong attack/defense, multiple build orders, game sense.
That's why SC2 is so awesome, it's not just all about macro; it just happens to be that macro is a very good correlation to skill, as your macro improves typically all other aspects of your gameplay do as well.
Bold- improving mechanics improves this stuff implicitly italics- this is not that important after you know when to "run away" or "fight" underline- the hell?
better macro =/= better mechanics.
when people tell lower level players to improve their macro they actually mean mechanics or maybe i'm giving the avg joe too much credit
Good macro is when you look 5% of the time in your base but still have 0 energy on your macro-abilities, low minerals/gas and never get supply blocked while having a decent dronecount/production; because then you have the time to run around with your lings, overlords, dropships etc and other stuff like decision making, micro, scouting...
So we've gone from "focus on your macro" to "don't focus on your macro too much so you have more time for other stuff". This thread is confusing sometimes
A good [insert random profession name] does his task well, and requires a specific amount of time to do it. A *GREAT* [insert profession name] does the exact same task, in the exact same satisfying manner, but requires only half of that time to do it. That's the difference between competent people and exceptional people, and it actually shows really well in SC2 -- the difference between top players who make us all dream, and just mid-level Masters (mid-level M isn't a break point I actually studied, just trying to give a rough idea) who have ideal mechanics but don't know what to exactly do with them sometimes ;p
Oh and I didn't bother reading all the pages and I guess that's been answered already, but in case it didn't... to all the (elitist) people asking "what's the point about asking for kewl/efficient builds when you can't execute them well"... well the point is we want to play to have fun, not specifically to be in GM or win big offline tourneys. Sure if I get promoted I'm happy, but I can have a blast staying where I am and trying to have fun with cute things like nyduses or vortices or whatnot.
Oh and in case you wonder, I'm a ("high") Plat' Zerg.
On October 12 2011 04:36 1st_Panzer_Div. wrote: I do agree; as someone who has coached lower league players, yes they can always improve their macro. I can always improve my macro. But often times their macro isn't what is keeping them from moving to the next league. Other things that are also very important:
Then as you get a little higher you need things like positioning, sacrificing bases, harassing, multi prong attack/defense, multiple build orders, game sense.
That's why SC2 is so awesome, it's not just all about macro; it just happens to be that macro is a very good correlation to skill, as your macro improves typically all other aspects of your gameplay do as well.
Bold- improving mechanics improves this stuff implicitly italics- this is not that important after you know when to "run away" or "fight" underline- the hell?
better macro =/= better mechanics.
when people tell lower level players to improve their macro they actually mean mechanics or maybe i'm giving the avg joe too much credit
Good macro is when you look 5% of the time in your base but still have 0 energy on your macro-abilities, low minerals/gas and never get supply blocked while having a decent dronecount/production; because then you have the time to run around with your lings, overlords, dropships etc and other stuff like decision making, micro, scouting...
So we've gone from "focus on your macro" to "don't focus on your macro too much so you have more time for other stuff". This thread is confusing sometimes
In this context, when people say "focus" they don't mean look at it. They mean focus on improving to the point where you don't need to constantly stare at your base for your macro-related tasks to go smoothly. That means you need to always be looking at your base less and training your brain to perform all the menial tasks (building Probes, Pylons, executing a BO) without actively thinking about it.
Oh right, that makes more sense. I think that's a more advanced thing though, something to work on once you do have solid macro even while staring at it the whole time. And if you're struggling with all those things at the same thing, the order to prioritise them should be
1) Macro 2-3) Scouting/decision making 4) Micro Whereas most lowbies tend to focus on micro, specifically during battles when they shouldn't be. Not sure which of the middle ones I'd put ahead, they're pretty interlinked.
Oh, and here's another macro-focused roach/hydra ZvT game. http://www.sc2rep.com/replays/(Z)Tamerlane_vs_(T)manuelx/14353 -opponent spawned as random, so I did eventually scout him just to see what race he was since I do a slightly different build in each matchup. But I did absolutely no follow up scouting beyond checking where his expansions were, if any. -Likewise, I completely ignored any attacking forces I sent in, beyond the small concession of routing them around his cliffs. I'll be watching the replay now to see what defences he actually had there -harass still does terrible, terrible damage to my focus and macro. This time from drops. Better hydra/spore positioning should sort that out.
All in all its turning out to be a fun experiment, and far more successful than I initially suspected.
I think it all comes down to one thing, strategy is different at low levels. Scouting means nothing because scouting assumes they are playing efficiently. For example if i see no gas units against toss and know he has 2 gas i can expect DTs or stargate play. I dont expect the toss player to be banking 500 gas. When i play against zerg i can FFE and safely defend allins due to good simcity macro and micro but in low leagues FFE is suicide. Master level strategies dont always work in low leagues and low league strategies dont work in higher leagues. So when you ask higher level player for strategy advice we cant actually help you. Our builds require a certain level of micro and macro to not die to allins and we expect our opponents to have a certain level of macro and micro to be able to scout and know when to push. But at lower leagues thats all different so we CANT help you with strategy. we can only say to work on your macro so then you can be good enough to use the strategies we use.
All of a sudden you'll find you have plenty of time, money and units for "other things."
If your macro isn't right,
You'll be spending all of your time being supplyblocked / not having enough money / larvae (or production buildings) and have neither the time nor the capability to do the "other things."
First post here, I didn''t read all the pages but here's a nice way of learning and enjoying sc2 that I saw at a friend of mine(if you really want to and don't get lazy in the process). So he plays toss. When he begun in bronze he played just 4 gate. So he was playing practically a 9-10 minutes game. Being so short he could learn to macro good enough for that particular build order he learnt by heart. Also 4 gate means micro and basic unit production decisions (stalker, sentry or zealot) and that's fun to focus on. He got really fast at the point where people started to hold a good-ish executed 4gate. And here I think there is the followup of this learning process. You know a bit of everything until 10 minute mark, now just extend the knowledge with longer game plans. Usually everyone that you should improve your macro in a macro-based game but I think that learning good macro for short games is done easier and also easy to extend.
Of course only then you learn about game plan, mind game(at hardcore level) etc. In three months he got in diamond and now he is about to hit masters. And he plays just macro games.
On October 12 2011 04:36 1st_Panzer_Div. wrote: I do agree; as someone who has coached lower league players, yes they can always improve their macro. I can always improve my macro. But often times their macro isn't what is keeping them from moving to the next league. Other things that are also very important:
Then as you get a little higher you need things like positioning, sacrificing bases, harassing, multi prong attack/defense, multiple build orders, game sense.
That's why SC2 is so awesome, it's not just all about macro; it just happens to be that macro is a very good correlation to skill, as your macro improves typically all other aspects of your gameplay do as well.
Bold- improving mechanics improves this stuff implicitly italics- this is not that important after you know when to "run away" or "fight" underline- the hell?
better macro =/= better mechanics.
when people tell lower level players to improve their macro they actually mean mechanics or maybe i'm giving the avg joe too much credit
Good macro is when you look 5% of the time in your base but still have 0 energy on your macro-abilities, low minerals/gas and never get supply blocked while having a decent dronecount/production; because then you have the time to run around with your lings, overlords, dropships etc and other stuff like decision making, micro, scouting...
So we've gone from "focus on your macro" to "don't focus on your macro too much so you have more time for other stuff". This thread is confusing sometimes
In this context, when people say "focus" they don't mean look at it. They mean focus on improving to the point where you don't need to constantly stare at your base for your macro-related tasks to go smoothly. That means you need to always be looking at your base less and training your brain to perform all the menial tasks (building Probes, Pylons, executing a BO) without actively thinking about it.
Oh right, that makes more sense. I think that's a more advanced thing though, something to work on once you do have solid macro even while staring at it the whole time. And if you're struggling with all those things at the same thing, the order to prioritise them should be
1) Macro 2-3) Scouting/decision making 4) Micro Whereas most lowbies tend to focus on micro, specifically during battles when they shouldn't be. Not sure which of the middle ones I'd put ahead, they're pretty interlinked.
Oh, and here's another macro-focused roach/hydra ZvT game. http://www.sc2rep.com/replays/(Z)Tamerlane_vs_(T)manuelx/14353 -opponent spawned as random, so I did eventually scout him just to see what race he was since I do a slightly different build in each matchup. But I did absolutely no follow up scouting beyond checking where his expansions were, if any. -Likewise, I completely ignored any attacking forces I sent in, beyond the small concession of routing them around his cliffs. I'll be watching the replay now to see what defences he actually had there -harass still does terrible, terrible damage to my focus and macro. This time from drops. Better hydra/spore positioning should sort that out.
All in all its turning out to be a fun experiment, and far more successful than I initially suspected.
You should be attempting to not miss injects even when there is fights and ect. That is the biggest thing about zerg nestea said that to yellow in project A and if nestea tells someone to do that then everyone should do that. Again this army is less micro dependant than a muta ling bling cause if you a move a muta ling bling a lot can go wrong quicker. 3 thor shoot all your muta, your bling run into the tanks and thor and then you just have lings vs marine and possibly hellion. Just not pretty.
The big problem is that I hear a lot of lower level players say the game is imbalanced, that the other person was OP or they insinuate there was nothing they could do.
I don't mind honest posts by people about how to analyze their game, but it's really annoying when people post "What should I have done?" when it's really a not-so-thinly veiled balance complaint and way to get attention.
They will say, I don't know, Infestors are OP. But then I watch their game, and they open with a failed all-in, never take a third, get supply blocked every single time after 20 supply, and go minutes on end without making probes.
And that's when I want to smack someone in the face.
On October 12 2011 04:36 1st_Panzer_Div. wrote: I do agree; as someone who has coached lower league players, yes they can always improve their macro. I can always improve my macro. But often times their macro isn't what is keeping them from moving to the next league. Other things that are also very important:
Then as you get a little higher you need things like positioning, sacrificing bases, harassing, multi prong attack/defense, multiple build orders, game sense.
That's why SC2 is so awesome, it's not just all about macro; it just happens to be that macro is a very good correlation to skill, as your macro improves typically all other aspects of your gameplay do as well.
Bold- improving mechanics improves this stuff implicitly italics- this is not that important after you know when to "run away" or "fight" underline- the hell?
better macro =/= better mechanics.
when people tell lower level players to improve their macro they actually mean mechanics or maybe i'm giving the avg joe too much credit
Good macro is when you look 5% of the time in your base but still have 0 energy on your macro-abilities, low minerals/gas and never get supply blocked while having a decent dronecount/production; because then you have the time to run around with your lings, overlords, dropships etc and other stuff like decision making, micro, scouting...
So we've gone from "focus on your macro" to "don't focus on your macro too much so you have more time for other stuff". This thread is confusing sometimes
In this context, when people say "focus" they don't mean look at it. They mean focus on improving to the point where you don't need to constantly stare at your base for your macro-related tasks to go smoothly. That means you need to always be looking at your base less and training your brain to perform all the menial tasks (building Probes, Pylons, executing a BO) without actively thinking about it.
Oh right, that makes more sense. I think that's a more advanced thing though, something to work on once you do have solid macro even while staring at it the whole time. And if you're struggling with all those things at the same thing, the order to prioritise them should be
1) Macro 2-3) Scouting/decision making 4) Micro Whereas most lowbies tend to focus on micro, specifically during battles when they shouldn't be. Not sure which of the middle ones I'd put ahead, they're pretty interlinked.
Oh, and here's another macro-focused roach/hydra ZvT game. http://www.sc2rep.com/replays/(Z)Tamerlane_vs_(T)manuelx/14353 -opponent spawned as random, so I did eventually scout him just to see what race he was since I do a slightly different build in each matchup. But I did absolutely no follow up scouting beyond checking where his expansions were, if any. -Likewise, I completely ignored any attacking forces I sent in, beyond the small concession of routing them around his cliffs. I'll be watching the replay now to see what defences he actually had there -harass still does terrible, terrible damage to my focus and macro. This time from drops. Better hydra/spore positioning should sort that out.
All in all its turning out to be a fun experiment, and far more successful than I initially suspected.
You should be attempting to not miss injects even when there is fights and ect. That is the biggest thing about zerg nestea said that to yellow in project A and if nestea tells someone to do that then everyone should do that. Again this army is less micro dependant than a muta ling bling cause if you a move a muta ling bling a lot can go wrong quicker. 3 thor shoot all your muta, your bling run into the tanks and thor and then you just have lings vs marine and possibly hellion. Just not pretty.
Yeah I'm trying my best with the injects. I had my first ZvP win with this new approach against a silver Protoss today and I think I did pretty good there. But that was mainly because he didn't harass me at any point. One concern is that I didn't have detection in time for a proper DT rush http://www.sc2rep.com/replays/(Z)Tamerlane_vs_(P)RanGo/14368 Again, not stressing over what his army comp or where his forcefields got placed is quite relaxing. Sure I might lose an army or two, but my next one will be ready before his.
I also straight up lost to a high gold Zerg player who expanded before me and just had more stuff. Not sure what to do there without breaking the no scouting rule or radically altering the build. I'll stick with it a bit longer and see if I can optimise it a bit more. http://www.sc2rep.com/replays/(Z)Malusroby_vs_(Z)Tamerlane/14369
It is understandable that Macro improvement is acknowledged but I think it is somewhat being misinterpreted.
The reason this is said is that at lower levels, certain "optimal" strategies are actually detrimental to one's play if its not carried out with good macro in mind. For example: A bronze zerg is told by everyone, macro is important and a good way to address that is possibly hatch first and get minimum zerglings and focus on largely drones. Now, the zerg player has yet to learn to recognize what to look for when scouting, and proper drone control so, by hatch first'ing or over droning, they are extremely vulnerable to not just cheese or timing attacks, but seemingly random, unrefined "pressure" where as if said zerg 14/14'd, while neither is carried out optimally, the survival rate at that level will be much higher. SO when told to "macro better" it is not referring to say going harder econ say 15 hatch, 15 pool vs 14gas 14 pool because that is not "macroing better" that in itself is a switch of strategy. So instead, 14/14 should be optimized (or 1 base play in general) before slowly branching off to 2 base play, then multi base play based on comfort level and playing ability.
Now when addressing "new strategy", New strategies are not something that can simply be implemented at will even when you hear about them. For example: A low level protoss who plays at mid optimized one base play or poorly optimized two base play is having trouble with Roach Ling All-ins. Strategy wise, he has observed MC use a fast stargate to safely deflect it. So he adds a stargate into his play in a swap of "Strategy". Seemingly it fits, cause he can afford it in but that is of a result of slippage in macro anyways which seems like it works out well but in reality, he still loses to roach ling all ins perhaps because the stargate does not finish in time or 1 void is simply not enough with no ground backing. So he cuts corners to get to it faster but now you have just damaged your macro play further instead of trying to optimally spend your resources at reasonable points in time so now he is stuck with an early gate, barely enough resources to spend it and possibly deflects the roach all in but still loses. This all brings back to the point that strategy changes, even when seemingly obvious, do not address problems without the proper macro backing and CERTAINLY micro should not be a focus. So often I have observed low level players doing early harass with the scouting working and seemingly doing well, perhaps even killing a worker or 2... but then they look back at their minerals and they missed their pool by 200 minerals or something like that.
You see the counters in this game are only 20% to 40% effective. That means if you got a smaller army by this amount I will rolf stomp you, dont matter what I have. So focus on your macro and dont worry about strategy yo.
On October 06 2011 21:27 marvellosity wrote: I don't think the OP is disputing that macro is the #1 way to get better. He's just saying it's not the ONLY THING in the game and he's right.
Say it's a PvT. As a Protoss you've decided to go mass stalkers against a marauder only army. Now, having 20 more stalkers due to good macro is of course going to be very important. But it might also be nice for people to explain that stalkers suck against marauders and he should try chargelots instead.
Grossly oversimplified example, but you get the point.
1) More units = more win - true 2) You make the right decisions (strategy) = also more likely to win - true
Edit: what Plexa said
Blind, raw macro will get you to diamond. Raw macro plus minimal scouting at the appropriate times will get you to high diamond, maybe low masters.
These are obvious generalizations, but you get the point.
Once you're at a comfortable spot macro wise, then you should start working on strategy. The reason all the help threads exist are because so many players are dealing with inconsistent pushes that happen at variable times. This is because people in the same lower leagues aren't playing efficiently either. So when you lose to the 10 minute 4gate, or 14:30 +2 blink push, strategy is not your problem. If you learn to macro DECENTLY you'll blindly stop builds like these simply by having shit at a good time.
The only point where macro doesn't become enough is when you're facing properly timed and executed pushes, which, astoundingly, is in diamond+ leagues. So seriously, just worry about macro until you're comfortable with that.
It's like any sport. You need to get the fundamentals down before you start worrying about strategy, because strategy is based around what happens AFTER proper execution of fundamental skill.
You don't see a coach going up to his peewee baseball kids saying "okay, so this is how you throw a fastball. You want to put your fingers this far apart along the stitches and flick your fingers as you're releasing. Make sure you only do it after you've consistently thrown a few sinkers or curve balls though. Okay johnny, let's see you try it, then we'll work on seeing if you can get a ball to go over the plate"
This is because strategy and tactics don't matter if you can't execute the fundamentals. It doesn't matter if he's throwing curveballs, fastballs or a hissy fit if he walks every person that comes up to plate. So again, strategy is based off of the situations that arise from proper execution of fundamentals.
On October 14 2011 06:53 Miggypops wrote: Sorry dude but its just macro. You see the counters in this game are only 20% to 40% effective. That means if you got a smaller army by this amount I will rolf stomp you, dont matter what I have. So focus on your macro and dont worry about strategy yo.
I think this only works reasonably well with a robust army composition choice, stuff like roaches, marines and stalkers. I mean you could try to macrostomp someone with no-micro mass reaper, DT or mutalisk strat but stuff like that is hard countered much more effectively. Or to give more realistic examples, in a pure macro situation Roach/hydra trumps muta/ling/bling MMM trumps marine/tank Stalker/Colossus trumps..erm...that other composition with High Templar and other stuff.
If you're gonna focus on macro, you might as well pick a strat that still works well with little else. 1 base strats are better for similar reasons, they're less reliant on scouting and reacting.
On October 14 2011 06:53 Miggypops wrote: Sorry dude but its just macro. You see the counters in this game are only 20% to 40% effective. That means if you got a smaller army by this amount I will rolf stomp you, dont matter what I have. So focus on your macro and dont worry about strategy yo.
I think this only works reasonably well with a robust army composition choice, stuff like roaches, marines and stalkers. I mean you could try to macrostomp someone with no-micro mass reaper, DT or mutalisk strat but stuff like that is hard countered much more effectively. Or to give more realistic examples, in a pure macro situation Roach/hydra trumps muta/ling/bling MMM trumps marine/tank Stalker/Colossus trumps..erm...that other composition with High Templar and other stuff.
If you're gonna focus on macro, you might as well pick a strat that still works well with little else. 1 base strats are better for similar reasons, they're less reliant on scouting and reacting.
This is also because the "frail" unit compositions usually have a very specific and micro-reliant purpose. For example, muta ling works because with proper muta control, you can contain a player in their base while you drone super hard to the point where you'll need hardly any more for the rest of the game, allowing you to gear up into super macro mode later on. Whereas roach hydra is just kind of a beefy army right from the get-go.
So yes your logic is sound, but people who have poor macro usually don't have the multitasking to execute these more advanced builds, and therefore only have that much more reason to not attempt them with their current level of execution.
If you look at all of the bronze league players, you see that they would get like 50 supply at the 15 min mark. If they actually macro, then they would probably get into gold because they would have a major supply lead against their opponent, and maybe they would get better.
But then again, half of the bronze league are just smurfs, so it really doesn't matter in the first place.
On October 06 2011 20:48 Sm3agol wrote: There's a reason every looks down on low tier players, and just tell them to macro(and micro) better, and not worry about strategies as much. Multiple top tier players have shown that that you can basically do WHATEVER you want at low levels, and as long as your macro and mechanics are good, you will win most of the time regardless of unit composition. Players have 4 gated, 6 pooled, mass queened, mass marined, etc all the way to diamond and sometimes even masters, just by simply outproducing and out microing their opponents. Watch Destiny beat tanks, thors, High templar, etc, with queens, even vs people that were trying to stream snipe him, and knew what he was doing, and would still lose. That's why high level players say ignore strategies and unit compositions for right now.....because IT DOESN'T MATTER. If you're worrying about unit compositions while you have 3k minerals at 15 minutes into the game, you're worrying about the wrong thing. Having 4 less stalkers and having 3 more zealots and 2 more sentries instead just might possibly win you the game. Converting the 1500 minerals you have at the 10 minute mark to stalkers, and it wouldn't matter what composition you had, you're going to rofl-stomp your opponent.
TLDR: It's not that strategy is bad, but improving macro will generate far better results than improving unit composition and tactics.
Congratulations, you are one of those ppl the OP was talking about even though you were trying not to be.
These players are NOT dia/master + and he *already acknowledged this*, saying it's not something you can improve overnight, although of course they try to.
So in the CONTEXT that these players are forever striving to improve their macro, it seems entirely reasonable that they should be wanting to improve their strategical knowledge too. Especially as it's the strategical aspect that's more fun than "4eee 5c wzzzssee"
Well said. The problem with your line of thinking however is that you make it sound like strategy is something that is as easy as deciding what units to make. Although that is the general sense of strategy from your viewpoint, by varying what you make you vary your mineral/ gas distribution, and slow down improving macro because your changing too many variables. I would say choose 1 unit composition that is fairly solid against everything, 1 build that is ok against everything, and just drill with those only forcusing on pumping units, using your money, making probes ect. Trust me wheni say that you will improve a lot faster if you only worry about 1 thing at a time. Once you have mastered that one thing, then move on to the next most pressing matter. I hope this made sense, and pm me if you would like to discuss it further. Or you can just post on this thread.
What if I drastically, drastically out-macro my opponent, but attack at the wrong angle, or didn't wait until my upgrades finish, or didn't accurately scout?
Everyone keeps bringing up "pro" players proving that macro will win in the lower leagues. This is maybe because even if these people only made stalkers, they knew when to attack, when to pull back, and where to strike so as to maximize efficiency. They have the proper game sense to back up their incredible macroeconomic ability; they know what to do with their shit after making their shit.
Why can't this issue be case-specific? If I lost because of macro, then I lost because of macro, but if I clearly lost because I didn't attack at this time, or I attacked at the wrong angle, then don't give me "macro better". Higher-level players already have game sense; they won't understand that macro is sometimes not enough.
On October 14 2011 12:54 holyhalo5 wrote: What if I drastically, drastically out-macro my opponent, but attack at the wrong angle, or didn't wait until my upgrades finish, or didn't accurately scout?
Everyone keeps bringing up "pro" players proving that macro will win in the lower leagues. This is maybe because even if these people only made stalkers, they knew when to attack, when to pull back, and where to strike so as to maximize efficiency. They have the proper game sense to back up their incredible macroeconomic ability; they know what to do with their shit after making their shit.
Why can't this issue be case-specific? If I lost because of macro, then I lost because of macro, but if I clearly lost because I didn't attack at this time, or I attacked at the wrong angle, then don't give me "macro better". Higher-level players already have game sense; they won't understand that macro is sometimes not enough.
The person who massed stalkers actually made a point not to micro or care about engagements at al.l They just A-moved to their opponents base once they hit 200 supply.
I'm pretty sure Huk or someone was streaming on a friend's smurf account that was in Bronze league, and they literally made nothing but drones the entire game and won... Macro wins in lower leagues
Not to be a backseat moderator, but can we please have this damn thread locked? It's worthless, stupid, and just the same point being reiterated and reinforces again and again and again and again and again and again.
On October 14 2011 12:54 holyhalo5 wrote: What if I drastically, drastically out-macro my opponent, but attack at the wrong angle, or didn't wait until my upgrades finish, or didn't accurately scout? Everyone keeps bringing up "pro" players proving that macro will win in the lower leagues. This is maybe because even if these people only made stalkers, they knew when to attack, when to pull back, and where to strike so as to maximize efficiency. They have the proper game sense to back up their incredible macroeconomic ability; they know what to do with their shit after making their shit. Why can't this issue be case-specific? If I lost because of macro, then I lost because of macro, but if I clearly lost because I didn't attack at this time, or I attacked at the wrong angle, then don't give me "macro better". Higher-level players already have game sense; they won't understand that macro is sometimes not enough.
Check out the replays I posted earlier in the thread where I'm picking up a majority of wins against silver and gold players. I'm only scouting to check where his base(s) are. Mostly only attacking when I'm maxed. I attack at *terrible* angles, up ramps against siege tanks and so on with absolutely no unit micro. Hell I'm not even watching the battles most of the time. And most people would agree roach/hydra isn't the best unit comp vs Terran. And my harass defence is amateurish at best.
I'm not saying I've a chance of getting into diamond with this approach, but it feels like a good place to start. Even if I hit a wall around high gold/low plat, *then* I can start adding in fancy schmancy stuff like "maybe I should make *some* lings against his immortal/stalker army" or "maybe I should go *around* the siege tank line" and stuff. But atm it feels irrelevant when I could just figure out ways to safely get to 200/200 roach hydra faster. And yeah, cheese and early rush defence is definitely a caveat I'd add to the "just focus on macro" advice. But I find its not nearly as complicated as tech switching or lategame lingblingmuta micro and the like.
I am sceptical. Mass blink stalker guy didn't even get into diamond. I'm happy to be proved wrong if I get to see some fun replays though
It really depends on how you define 'pure macro'.
Some kind of artificial limits, or can you just execute some thought out plan beforehand with an absolute minimum of scouting (ie, just placing stuff at expansions to see when they are taken).
I mean, going ling bling roach vs Terran, roach ling vs zerg, roach hydra vs protoss, I am confident I can win roughly 50% of my matches at #20 masters level with an absolute minimum of micro (everything on one hotkey, A move).
But that includes having a unit composition that defaults to decent vs the most normal stuff the opposing players make, and that's made for A-moving.
On October 14 2011 12:54 holyhalo5 wrote: What if I drastically, drastically out-macro my opponent, but attack at the wrong angle, or didn't wait until my upgrades finish, or didn't accurately scout?
Everyone keeps bringing up "pro" players proving that macro will win in the lower leagues. This is maybe because even if these people only made stalkers, they knew when to attack, when to pull back, and where to strike so as to maximize efficiency. They have the proper game sense to back up their incredible macroeconomic ability; they know what to do with their shit after making their shit.
Why can't this issue be case-specific? If I lost because of macro, then I lost because of macro, but if I clearly lost because I didn't attack at this time, or I attacked at the wrong angle, then don't give me "macro better". Higher-level players already have game sense; they won't understand that macro is sometimes not enough.
For the record, whilst I agree with the point that "just macro" isn't that helpful and that theres other aspects that might be helpful too; but I can't agree with "game sense" being as important as you make it seem.
Case in point: game I played last night. PvP. My opponent FFEd (against Protoss...what?). So I opened one-gate expand into three gateways and a robo. Then another three gateways, bay and another robo. Finally adding on a twilight council to start work on blink. Then I moved out off two bases with my six gates and two robos with my first colossus on the way; bringing a probe for forward pylons.
I'd sent an observer to my opponent after my robo bay but hadn't scouted for ages in-between, just focussed on macroing up. I basically marched my army up a slope that was protected by a wall off with cannons, a pair of colossi and my opponent's army...and I trashed him. Because it turned out his saturation was worse than mine and his production capability off two bases consisted of two gateways and two robos building colossi.
On October 14 2011 19:28 Lightspeaker wrote: I had more stuff than him, I a-moved, I won.
I'm pretty sure this is SC2 in a nutshell for 80% of the playerbase.
Of course, there's a bit of denial going on. People don't want to believe they are bad, and they don't want to believe the game is so one-dimensional in certain aspects. So I think the biggest obstacle on the way of improvement is acknowledging these things.
However I can understand low leaguers, kinda being one of them. You want to have fun, so you want to try out clever and creative strategies, do impressive tactical maneuvers, outsmart your opponent ... and lo and behold, you can have that! You do not need to keep focusing on polishing the dry boring macro, you can basically do whatever you want, have as much fun as you can and enjoy the game immensely, as long as you are fine with the fact that you will probably not improve and your league icon will be pretty static. But some people kinda want to have their cake and eat it too - they want to improve their gameplay by widening their strategy arsenal and avoid all that boring stuff about getting your macro game up. Sorry, nope. Macro = more stuff, more stuff=more wins, more wins=shiny league icon.
TL;DR - strategy tips can seem fun and entertaining, but realistically they are pointless and in plenty of scenarios just plain wrong because there's no way of telling what works in what league. And better macro would trump it anyways.
What's with that btw? Is there a big population of...erm...starcraftically challenged people in the US propping up everyone else's rankings or something?
What's with that btw? Is there a big population of...erm...starcraftically challenged people in the US propping up everyone else's rankings or something?
I think it is just due to proportions actually.
The ladder is done on percentages and there are just more NA accounts therefore the skill level needed to get into Master League is a bit lower.
I think, I could be wrong but I got friends who have accounts on NA and they say it is a bit easier to climb up the ladder.
I am sceptical. Mass blink stalker guy didn't even get into diamond. I'm happy to be proved wrong if I get to see some fun replays though
You can easily get to masters by going blink stalkers every single game in every matchup, steal a build from a pro for each matchup, hammer it out a few hundred times, and soon you will see how much better a well executed horrible strategy is than a poorly executed good strategy.
What's with that btw? Is there a big population of...erm...starcraftically challenged people in the US propping up everyone else's rankings or something?
I think it is just due to proportions actually.
The ladder is done on percentages and there are just more NA accounts therefore the skill level needed to get into Master League is a bit lower.
I think, I could be wrong but I got friends who have accounts on NA and they say it is a bit easier to climb up the ladder.
You are wrong, masters on NA and masters on EU are pretty much the same (at the bottom of masters). Once you reach high masters on EU there are a lot more pro players so the chance of you hitting scrubs from NA who cheese every game is a lot lower.
You can benefit from understanding and being able to apply strategic/tactical theory in the lower levels. Higher level players can and should help lower level players understand some of these concepts (surface area in engagements, rules for when to attack, when to expand, etc.).
The problem is that the most common way to develop this theory comes from trial and error. Without mechanics, learning theory by trial and error is largely a waste of time, as your "results" will always be tainted by your weaknesses in macro, e.g. did I lose this battle because my unit composition was bad or because I got supply blocked right before the battle.
Being in Silver I have read threads that read "What happened at ten minutes when he rolled me" and the answer was "Macro Better" instead of "Spread troops/micro better/composition issues". I look at the response and think to myself "He didn't answer the question, he answered with a nonsequitor"
If I may be so bold as to suggest: Providing two separate answers may help. One answer being macro oriented (build probes, harvest more, build more crap than the other buy). One answer being micro oriented (what went wrong at that point in the game).
I realize that macro issues will drive the micro issues (more probes = more stuff) but people don't always want to hear that answer. So providing the answer that is needed (ie macro better) will go down better when answering the question that he asked (micro/unit composition).
This is just silly. If your stuck in a zilver or bronze or even gold, you just dont understand the game that well. Your coming here asking for help and you get honest answers from better players. Of course macro better is the answer because at 10 mins I can get a better army than someone in a lower level can.
And stop with this WHAT IF bullshit. So many different things happen EVERY game and you just have to experience it do avoid it in the future. "WHAT IF IF ATTACK AT A BAD ANGLE AND LOSE??????" Answer : dont attack at that angle for the next game on that map. Jesus christ
wow the first 2 responds are kinda terrible (no offence lol)
TLDR: It's not that strategy is bad, but improving macro will generate far better results than improving unit composition and tactics. Last edit: 2011-10-06 20:49:33
Yes we know that. Focussing on macro will yield better results then focussing on strategy. The op did never denie that, you are missing the point The point is that although focus on macro will yield best results, focus on strategy also will lead to better results then not trying to get better or focus at all. Not everyone likes to focus on macro. Beside getting better, having fun is also a reason to play this game. Focussing on strategy is just alot more fun for manny people, and even though it is not the "best" way to improve your results, it is a fun way to improve your results
TLDR if a low lvl player asks for advice on strategy, dont be a noob at reading and reply with an advice on macro,
Azzur Australia. October 06 2011 20:57. Posts 2642
PM Profile Blog Report Quote #
You may think that strategy is something that you can use in the next game - but you are incorrect. For instance, lets say you lose to a "timing push", but it was found that your macro was poor. The reason you lost is not because your opponent had some magical composition or an immaculate timing; rather, you lost because you didn't execute well.
yes you can use strategy even if you dont execute it perfectly,what you say is absolute nonsense Pro,s demonstrate this every day, None of them executes even the first 5 minutes close to theorethical perfection yet they all make good use of strategy Strategy has an effect at every lvl of execution, a low lvl of execution will still be better with strategy then without
I've been trying to improve my macro because of this whole thread. I've focused mainly on worker production, not getting supply blocked and not floating minerals over 1k. I have to say that "macro better" does improve your game GREATLY.
To give an example, I'm silver and I was matched with silver. It was TvT match. I never missed a beat on my worker production and made sure to get the OC up for MULEs. My opponent missed about 5-6 SCVs, so I was ahead in worker count. I push out in 11mins with 2 medivacs full of marines with +1 upgrades and shields. I decimate his worker line, then he opts to base-trade but his army was crushed with my marines and tanks camping in my base.
It's amazing how much of difference 5 or 6 workers can do to your game, and have a mental note to just pump out shit.
I think anytime you're incorporating some fancy scouting, harassment, micro or other non macro stuff you should look at two things. 1) Did my macro slip while doing that stuff? 2) Did the stuff I lost out on outweigh the benefit I gained from whatever non-macro stuff I did.
Obviously if you need to micro a bit to ward off some hellions or banshees harass and save 10+ drones , that'll probably more than compensate for missing an inject or piling up a few minerals. But if you're just picking off an SCV or saving one or two stalkers with retreat micro, even a small macro slip as a result would leave you at a net loss.
One thing I've noticed when switching from mutalingbling to roachhydra is that mutalisks are an ENORMOUS black hole of an APM sink. You have to constantly babysit them to make sure they don't wander into a fight they can't win(like say a dozen marines...or a missile turret), and if you don't use them to harass and exert map control and pick off tanks etc they're hardly worth the investment anyway. They were literally the number one reason why my midgame macro was so bad.
Obviously you can't improve macro overnight, but a lot of these players are right to say that you should focus on macro.
The biggest reason a masters player would tell you to work on macro is because the meta-game in silver is completely different than in masters. Unit compositions, strategies, and even timings are different from silver league to grand masters. In Grand Masters, it's viable to go DT/Warp Prism on two bases, or even viable to fake a hellion rush into expand. This is because 1) they have the APM and 2) their opponent reads and reacts to things like unit composition and timings. In silver league the best thing to do is to build an army and kill the opponent.
Lets say I watch your replay and you do a MM drop in their expansion at 12 minutes. I could tell you that was a bit late for a drop because they have turrets, or that you shouldn't drop after forcing them to build anti air; but honestly there is too large of a gap in timings and such a big difference in play styles at that level of play.
Build orders, timings and the whole meta game in general changes, basic fundamentals, mechanics, and solid macro is mostly a consistent. I know telling you this will not help your gameplay today, nor is it new information to you, but it justifies why people tell you macro, macro, macro.
All that being said, I understand your point and personally love to analyze the specific play-by-play of a replay. Your point is not void, telling you what you already know if pointless and you came to these forums to learn something new. People should always keep that in mind when giving feedback.
On October 15 2011 04:45 DamageInq wrote: The biggest reason a masters player would tell you to work on macro is because the meta-game in silver is completely different than in masters.
Actually, it's because if you spend 2 hours working out the basics of your build by copying exactly what a pro does for the first 6 minutes of the game, you will roflstomp everyone in silver 90% of the games by going for a straight up match - and just live with the 10% cheese losses.
On October 15 2011 04:45 DamageInq wrote: The biggest reason a masters player would tell you to work on macro is because the meta-game in silver is completely different than in masters.
Actually, it's because if you spend 2 hours working out the basics of your build by copying exactly what a pro does for the first 6 minutes of the game, you will roflstomp everyone in silver 90% of the games by going for a straight up match - and just live with the 10% cheese losses.
That's why we say focus on macro.
Hah! If only cheese was a 10% thing. Regardless, lets look at some of the common things pros do in the first 6 minutes. -execute 2rax bunker pressure, or defend against same with mostly drones -1 stalker/1 zealot harass -2 marauder/3 SCV harass All while macroing perfectly, I assume. But I assume you just meant a standard 1base build like 3rax stim timing or 4gate or 7RR. In which case I'd absolutely agree, if you can execute the macro portion of that perfectly, you'd hardly need to micro anything else. I just think you have to be careful with "just copy the pros" advice, because some of the stuff they do is actively detrimental in lower leagues because the APM just isn't there to support it.
And here's another gold ZvP game on the "macro+generically useful unit comp>micro, scouting and fancy unit comp" theme. http://www.sc2rep.com/replays/(Z)Tamerlane_vs_(P)HateSeason/14415 Hell I even mess up and delay my queen a bit, though I think my macro comes out a bit better later on. I don't need corruptors for his colossi, I don't need to worry about what units he has or where he's putting his forcefields. Because those are apparently all countered by large numbers of roaches and hydras.The only real elements of game sense I'm using are -expect a big attack around 7 minutes -have detection and stuff that can shoot up by 7 minutes -have overlords around the base perimeter -have detection and a small anti-harass detachment at 3rd+ bases
On October 15 2011 04:15 DigiGnar wrote: I've only played two games since I got sc2, and this is why "macro better" is correct. http://drop.sc/44521
He was a silver? Is that the normal skill level for silver?
Yeah looks about right. But tbh I think this is a good example of how knowing the right response to harass is key to good macro. If he'd had his first stalker out on time to meet your reapers I think he would have had a much easier time with his macroing. And he has a poor sense of how powerful his gateway army is vs your marines. But yeah if he'd kept up his constant probe production and expanded on time he'd have crushed you easily.
I am in bronze. Most games, I only get supply blocked at most once, for a duration of about 10 seconds. I always expand from 4 minutes to 7minutes, I chronoboost probes along with almost constant probe production. I normally have 5-6 gates and 1 robo with twilight and forge by the end of a two base game. My only weakness is not making units always on cue. With all this above, would I still be considered a crappy bronze player?
On October 15 2011 07:49 (kimi)YaSu wrote: I am in bronze. Most games, I only get supply blocked at most once, for a duration of about 10 seconds. I always expand from 4 minutes to 7minutes, I chronoboost probes along with almost constant probe production. I normally have 5-6 gates and 1 robo with twilight and forge by the end of a two base game. My only weakness is not making units always on cue. With all this above, would I still be considered a crappy bronze player?
As opposed to a good bronze player you mean? Kinda hard to say much without replays. If you're not already on your way out of bronze, my guess would be one of -you're dying to cheese or early pushes. If you're expanding at 4 minutes, that sounds like Nexus first or FFE, pretty risky. If that's the case and you're not having any macro problems while dying to same, you'd need to either improve your scouting and crisis management, or switch to a safer, later expo timing. -your macro isn't as good as you think it is. What's helpful is getting a higher skilled friend or trying to find a replay of someone doing a similar build to yours, and seeing how much more food they have after X minutes. "not making units always on cue" is quite vague, could be a few seconds here and there on a warpin cycle, or building up a 5k trust fund 10 minutes into the game
Well, Destiny mass Queened his way up to Diamond, so like hell does strategy matter when your macro is bad. I personally mass Stalkered my way to Diamond a while back, I wasn't even paying attention to how many Warp Gates I had, I was just making Probes and spending my money.
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.
I don't understand why it's so hard for players to improve below the diamond level. I've watched some lower level players play, and I think the main problem is that they don't think when they're playing. What do you mean when you say your strategy is wrong? It's not very hard to know that you don't use roaches against marauders, or you need antiair if you're suspecting banshees, and you need to tech or get spore crawlers when you suspect DT or something. But the problem is, you're not doing it. something about your brain... I don't know. but seirously, its' not that hard.
1- macro 2- use your brain to figure out what units to make 3- ... 4- diamond
On October 15 2011 07:49 (kimi)YaSu wrote: I am in bronze. Most games, I only get supply blocked at most once, for a duration of about 10 seconds. I always expand from 4 minutes to 7minutes, I chronoboost probes along with almost constant probe production. I normally have 5-6 gates and 1 robo with twilight and forge by the end of a two base game. My only weakness is not making units always on cue. With all this above, would I still be considered a crappy bronze player?
if you're bronze, you're pretty bad, so yes. if u switch from toss to terran, u would probably be in high plat or diamond if you just have one marine/marauder/medic build order that you play every single game until you got it down cold.
also, don't constantly make probes. you only need 16 probes on minerals per base, and 6 on gas. (2 probes per mineral patch and 3 per gas).
this is just common sense. yes, forums are supposed to help you, but they aren't supposed to think for you. if ur brain just can't seem to get there, then you'll never be good at sc2 much less anything else that requires well... thinking.
This is in response to the people who responded to my post.
I see your point. Maybe I'm overinflating game sense (although I never said macro wasn't important).
But what about cheese? When I was lower level I often lost because of unscouted proxy pylons, factories being lifted into my base, nydus canals, banelings, four-gate, marine-SCV allins, banshee timings, DTs, and the like. What is the solution here? Higher-level people don't cheese because their enemies know how to scout and counter, but you can't say the same applies to lower-levels.
I'm a masters terran and I worked my way up from silver over the summer. To improve your macro as terran I would recommend picking a build in which you can que up one extra unit on each production facility. This will allow for a little more wiggle room for you to micro. Eventually you will develop a sort of tick in your mind when you need to produce more so you do not miss a production cycle. Once you've got the rhythm down you can start to improve your play in other ways.
On October 15 2011 08:30 LoneWolf.Alpha- wrote: if you're bronze, you're pretty bad, so yes. if u switch from toss to terran, u would probably be in high plat or diamond if you just have one marine/marauder/medic build order that you play every single game until you got it down cold.
also, don't constantly make probes. you only need 16 probes on minerals per base, and 6 on gas. (2 probes per mineral patch and 3 per gas).
this is just common sense. yes, forums are supposed to help you, but they aren't supposed to think for you. if ur brain just can't seem to get there, then you'll never be good at sc2 much less anything else that requires well... thinking.
This is wrong. Full saturation is 26-28 workers per base. you should have about 20-22 on minerals and 6 on gas...maybe you should have used your brain before posting.
I have horrible macro for my level of play but ive beaten some pro players and other lesser known Grandmasters even though i miss macro rounds and workers, supplies and god knows what. Strategy and timing does make alot as well.
On October 15 2011 01:24 Elfich wrote: Being in Silver I have read threads that read "What happened at ten minutes when he rolled me" and the answer was "Macro Better" instead of "Spread troops/micro better/composition issues". I look at the response and think to myself "He didn't answer the question, he answered with a nonsequitor"
If I may be so bold as to suggest: Providing two separate answers may help. One answer being macro oriented (build probes, harvest more, build more crap than the other buy). One answer being micro oriented (what went wrong at that point in the game).
I realize that macro issues will drive the micro issues (more probes = more stuff) but people don't always want to hear that answer. So providing the answer that is needed (ie macro better) will go down better when answering the question that he asked (micro/unit composition).
Ultimately though, the answer is often "well he had 4000 minerals+gas of units attacking you and you only had 2000 minerals+gas of units to defend with." because you were late with a lot of workers 5 minutes earlier, and couldn't generate as much income. You're looking at the fight when the problem happened earlier. You MUST look at the first things that goes wrong (sufficiently... some things that go wrong are minor, of course) in a game when trying to figure out what went wrong.
Until macro is good, expectations of what you ought to be able to do by whatever time (such as having enough roaches or lings to hold off a 4-gate) don't hold true. You could do it if you didnt miss your first couple injects, but if you miss those injects... well, you're gonna die to that 4-gate.
On October 06 2011 20:48 Sm3agol wrote: There's a reason every looks down on low tier players, and just tell them to macro(and micro) better, and not worry about strategies as much. Multiple top tier players have shown that that you can basically do WHATEVER you want at low levels, and as long as your macro and mechanics are good, you will win most of the time regardless of unit composition. Players have 4 gated, 6 pooled, mass queened, mass marined, etc all the way to diamond and sometimes even masters, just by simply outproducing and out microing their opponents. Watch Destiny beat tanks, thors, High templar, etc, with queens, even vs people that were trying to stream snipe him, and knew what he was doing, and would still lose. That's why high level players say ignore strategies and unit compositions for right now.....because IT DOESN'T MATTER. If you're worrying about unit compositions while you have 3k minerals at 15 minutes into the game, you're worrying about the wrong thing. Having 4 less stalkers and having 3 more zealots and 2 more sentries instead just might possibly win you the game. Converting the 1500 minerals you have at the 10 minute mark to stalkers, and it wouldn't matter what composition you had, you're going to rofl-stomp your opponent.
TLDR: It's not that strategy is bad, but improving macro will generate far better results than improving unit composition and tactics.
Congratulations, you are one of those ppl the OP was talking about even though you were trying not to be.
These players are NOT dia/master + and he *already acknowledged this*, saying it's not something you can improve overnight, although of course they try to.
So in the CONTEXT that these players are forever striving to improve their macro, it seems entirely reasonable that they should be wanting to improve their strategical knowledge too. Especially as it's the strategical aspect that's more fun than "4eee 5c wzzzssee"
Yeah except its not even possible for them to execute the strategies. If I tell a bad player to hit a timing, as a followup to another timing, in relation to a timing his enemy did...its not arbitrary, its specific. Theres a reason im telling him to do that. Poor macro [on both parts] will lead to the strategy actually serving no purpose. What was initially a timing attack to exploit a weakness will just be an arbitrary collection of troops being poorly microed and thrown at another, similar force. Once you can actually macro and multitask, then you can learn what and how to direct it.
And no shit it doesnt come over night, that doesnt matter at all. If his fault is macro his fault is macro until it no longer is, they can just try harder.
Good Macro is essential. Some people will never have good macro but a lot of gold players I have seen can follow a pro-build order for the first 7-8 mins with minimal mistakes... Great macro for the open.
However... Zealot rush... they watch the zealots the entire time and their macro falls apart. Reapers... they seem to be watching their reapers but they seem useless in their hands... Same with hellions (with the rare exception of the 4 dropped hellions on the min line... reaction speed for their opponents are very slow.
Some builds do great... Bunker rushing zergs... taking out their expo and trapping them in their main... Its incredibly easy to do. I watched Dimagas stream the other day and watched him pwn it like a boss but what he did he must have done before... it was near flawless even though he said he blew up the wrong baneling... I mean his execution from the leading zergling to soak damage to the exact correct number of banelings to execute the task to killing two bunkers and all the marines and then going on to win the match... Incredible mechanics. You are not going to find that "Kind" of mechanics in gold. They don't know how many banelings they need... how to time that... they can follow a build order and keep their money low but the pro's are at a whole nother level.
Macro will win games for sure. But there is a lot more to starcraft 2 then just macro. Awesome macro can get you into diamond and maybe even masters and even many of their games they will say well my macro fell off at X mins, I missed Y chrono or Z injects and Creep spread was lacking etc etc....
I think practicing mechanics can help a lot. Zergs with awesome crazy macro losing to Void Ray rushes probably just need to watch a few Vods on build orders that either scout out the voids (Not always easy if they proxy it...) or are just build relatively safe from voids. I watched a lot of pros get out of things that I know I just couldn't do right now... it wasn't macro that saved them but very key decisions at perfect times with perfect or near perfect execution.
Yabot is cool... practicing Macro is essential for all levels of play... Learning how to defeat cheese is awesome but just as blizzard put together challenges to earn badges there must be a way to create maps that are scenarios like beating a 2 rax perfectly executed bunker rush on each 1v1 map... Or beating some of the more clever Cannon rushes which I watched pros own like a boss as well. Beating a perfect macro terran who does a 6:15 push vrs beating a 6 pool... (Which I think would be hard to code... since the 6 pool requires a lot of micro and decision making etc)
The point is macro is great and so is micro but experience can not be underestimated. Play more!
I also think a lot of people made good points with the argument that lets assume this is my macro cap and I am unlikely to ever get better at that aspect... Are there any other things I can get better at that would help me compete competitively at a higher level? And there probably is but understand not a lot of people are necessarily going to be able to tell you what that is. If your macro is poor and you are down 4 marines and a marauder then you normally would have had with better macro then many players who watch your horrible macro will not see anything except you missing your mule timing, getting supply blocked... canceling a depot to put it 3 spaces somewhere else... it will drive them nuts! They will be Throwing their hands up and screaming noob etc... To try and seriously look at your game will be difficult as they see timing attacks and other circumstances that would arise if your opponent had better macro. Other players will look and say... ahhh well you could actually get out of that if you preemptively made a concave and pulled 2 scvs and then ran the first guy hit left... Another guy might say yeah well you made 2 hellions instead of 4 marines.... etc etc.
On October 15 2011 09:12 Drowsy wrote: "I can't run fast and beat this guy in a race! What supplements should I use to improve my performance?!"
"You're missing your left foot, could you get a prosthetic?"
"NO WTF SHUT UP I'M TALKING ABOUT SUPPLEMENTS HERE, WHAT DO I TAKE?"
Another analogy:
"I can't play tennis very well. Which racquet should I buy to make my shots more powerful? Which strings should I use for more spin? Which shoes should I get to make myself run faster?"
"No dude none of those matter at your level, I watched your video and you need to improve your technique first before worrying about those."
On October 15 2011 05:23 Monkeyballs25 wrote: Hah! If only cheese was a 10% thing. Regardless, lets look at some of the common things pros do in the first 6 minutes. -execute 2rax bunker pressure, or defend against same with mostly drones -1 stalker/1 zealot harass -2 marauder/3 SCV harass All while macroing perfectly, I assume. But I assume you just meant a standard 1base build like 3rax stim timing or 4gate or 7RR.
Not really. Ignore the pressure they use. Ignore that they are going out with their stuff. Focus on exactly what they are building when they are going for a macro game, where they place their overlords or whatever, and just do that.
Focus on a macro opening.
If you are in silver, you are just doing so much wrong with your opening that you should focus on that to the exclusion of everything - that is - assuming you want to improve and move up in leagues. If you don't care, then don' bother, obviously.
On October 15 2011 01:33 Rassy wrote: yes you can use strategy even if you dont execute it perfectly,what you say is absolute nonsense Pro,s demonstrate this every day, None of them executes even the first 5 minutes close to theorethical perfection yet they all make good use of strategy Strategy has an effect at every lvl of execution, a low lvl of execution will still be better with strategy then without
Absolutely 100% wrong. If you seriously think that pros don't have perfect macro for the first 4-7 minutes of a game, I can tell you exactly why you're not in a better league.
On October 15 2011 08:30 LoneWolf.Alpha- wrote: if you're bronze, you're pretty bad, so yes. if u switch from toss to terran, u would probably be in high plat or diamond if you just have one marine/marauder/medic build order that you play every single game until you got it down cold.
also, don't constantly make probes. you only need 16 probes on minerals per base, and 6 on gas. (2 probes per mineral patch and 3 per gas).
this is just common sense. yes, forums are supposed to help you, but they aren't supposed to think for you. if ur brain just can't seem to get there, then you'll never be good at sc2 much less anything else that requires well... thinking.
This is wrong. Full saturation is 26-28 workers per base. you should have about 20-22 on minerals and 6 on gas...maybe you should have used your brain before posting.
Full saturation yes, but not optimal. Anything beyond 16 workers on minerals is very inefficient, if you can afford to take another base and put the extra workers at the new base, you will have a much better economy.
18 workers is slightly more income than 24 workers if 2 of those 18 are on a 2nd base.
It takes ~5 in-game minutes for a 3rd mineral patch worker (17-24) just to BREAK EVEN on the 50 minerals that you spent to get it... maybe you should have used your brain before insulting him.
On October 15 2011 09:12 Drowsy wrote: "I can't run fast and beat this guy in a race! What supplements should I use to improve my performance?!"
"You're missing your left foot, could you get a prosthetic?"
"NO WTF SHUT UP I'M TALKING ABOUT SUPPLEMENTS HERE, WHAT DO I TAKE?"
Another analogy:
"I can't play tennis very well. Which racquet should I buy to make my shots more powerful? Which strings should I use for more spin? Which shoes should I get to make myself run faster?"
"No dude none of those matter at your level, I watched your video and you need to improve your technique first before worrying about those."
A worse analogy, in terms of the person and not that actual analogy:
"I want to get better at skateboarding, but I don't like to go fast at all."
"Slowser, go faster."
"But I'm scared."
"The faster you go, the more balance you will retain when you land because your inertia will be going forward more than down when you do trick. The slower you go, the harder it is just to balance on the board and you'll either lean too much forward or too back, and even if you don't do that, when you land, you'll come to a complete stop and look like a poser.... Oh wait, you are a poser!"
"I don't like to go fast, it's not my style."
"(punches slowser in the face and takes his board from him to snap it) You don't deserve this."
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.
I don't understand why it's so hard for players to improve below the diamond level. I've watched some lower level players play, and I think the main problem is that they don't think when they're playing. What do you mean when you say your strategy is wrong? It's not very hard to know that you don't use roaches against marauders, or you need antiair if you're suspecting banshees, and you need to tech or get spore crawlers when you suspect DT or something. But the problem is, you're not doing it. something about your brain... I don't know. but seirously, its' not that hard.
1- macro 2- use your brain to figure out what units to make 3- ... 4- diamond
In my own experience it was the opposite. I was thinking about *too much* when playing. Worrying about keeping my scout alive, or checking to see exactly what build my opponent was doing and trying to remember the official TL approved counter, trying to harass with mutas. And all that crap was crowding out the part of my brain that's supposed to be doing injects and making units, expansions and upgrades. Now instead of trying to work out what the right unit comp to beat 10 marauders is and ending up with 10 zerglings, I just make 20 roaches. I guess my brain just performs poorly under pressure, but its pretty good at routines. Probably the same reason I was pretty good at WoW raiding but absolutely terrible at arena pvp. You can see similar things if you watch low level games. You see his camera centre on a big army he scouted, or on a fight that he's slowly losing. And you can practically hear him thinking "oh crap oh crap what do I build now" and getting a bad case of decision paralysis as his minerals climb into the thousands.
On October 15 2011 08:37 holyhalo5 wrote: This is in response to the people who responded to my post.
I see your point. Maybe I'm overinflating game sense (although I never said macro wasn't important).
But what about cheese? When I was lower level I often lost because of unscouted proxy pylons, factories being lifted into my base, nydus canals, banelings, four-gate, marine-SCV allins, banshee timings, DTs, and the like. What is the solution here? Higher-level people don't cheese because their enemies know how to scout and counter, but you can't say the same applies to lower-levels.
First of all, high level players still do cheese, even in tournaments where they will meet the same opponent over up to 7 matches. I suppose I'd put it down to three things -picking a safe build order. This doesn't mean 3 cannons at your ramp at 5 minutes, but it does mean, for example, having some form of detection by the time banshees or DTs could be out. So for Protoss I guess you'd want a fairly quick Forge or Robo, which is a component of many standard builds. I'd also suggest not going for one of those early expand builds like Nexus first or 1gate FE that are very risky if not supported by good scouting and reaction. -good vision around the perimeter of your base. Ok I play Zerg so I've got creep and overlords to make this easy. But I'm pretty sure a lot of even the pro Toss players place pylons around the edge of their base, or leave a stalker or two to catch drops/reapers/banshees etc. -the third thing is knowing the basic responsee to common early aggression or cheese. I've watched enough games to know stuff like -pull a drone to chase any probe near your base until it retreats to its own. -pull 2 drones if it tries to block the natural hatch -pull 3-4 drones to kill a pylon, cannon, bunker or spine crawler building near my base if my lings aren't ready yet -mineral move all my drones through his lings and then A-move when they get a surround if he has early pool lings before mine are out I assume the standard responses to anti-Protoss cheese is also just as simple.
If you can do all of that without it negatively affecting your early game macro, then all should be well. And let's face it, early game macro is pretty easy Also I have to admit I still struggle with 4gate rushes and 1base lingbling. But the last 4gate I lost due to bad macro(2 supply blocks) and the 1base lingbling was down to an unsafe buildorder(too much teching without getting sufficient roaches to defend).
So basically -pick a safe build and unit comp -have vision of your whole base area -know the anti-cheese responses -macro well while doing all of the above
On October 15 2011 01:33 Rassy wrote: yes you can use strategy even if you dont execute it perfectly,what you say is absolute nonsense Pro,s demonstrate this every day, None of them executes even the first 5 minutes close to theorethical perfection yet they all make good use of strategy Strategy has an effect at every lvl of execution, a low lvl of execution will still be better with strategy then without
Absolutely 100% wrong. If you seriously think that pros don't have perfect macro for the first 4-7 minutes of a game, I can tell you exactly why you're not in a better league.
On October 15 2011 08:30 LoneWolf.Alpha- wrote: if you're bronze, you're pretty bad, so yes. if u switch from toss to terran, u would probably be in high plat or diamond if you just have one marine/marauder/medic build order that you play every single game until you got it down cold.
also, don't constantly make probes. you only need 16 probes on minerals per base, and 6 on gas. (2 probes per mineral patch and 3 per gas).
this is just common sense. yes, forums are supposed to help you, but they aren't supposed to think for you. if ur brain just can't seem to get there, then you'll never be good at sc2 much less anything else that requires well... thinking.
This is wrong. Full saturation is 26-28 workers per base. you should have about 20-22 on minerals and 6 on gas...maybe you should have used your brain before posting.
Full saturation yes, but not optimal. Anything beyond 16 workers on minerals is very inefficient, if you can afford to take another base and put the extra workers at the new base, you will have a much better economy.
18 workers is slightly more income than 24 workers if 2 of those 18 are on a 2nd base.
It takes ~5 in-game minutes for a 3rd mineral patch worker (17-24) just to BREAK EVEN on the 50 minerals that you spent to get it... maybe you should have used your brain before insulting him.
In any case lonealpha is still wrong in saying that you should keep your probe count around 16 probes. Has the sc2 community REALLY not grasped the simple and well known act of maynarding? Jesus christ.
On October 15 2011 08:50 Pulimuli wrote: I have horrible macro for my level of play but ive beaten some pro players and other lesser known Grandmasters even though i miss macro rounds and workers, supplies and god knows what. Strategy and timing does make alot as well.
Strategy does matter but when I can just do nothing but make marines in every single match up to plat/low diamond... well.
There are better things you can work on but whatever works for you.
On October 15 2011 08:50 Pulimuli wrote: I have horrible macro for my level of play but ive beaten some pro players and other lesser known Grandmasters even though i miss macro rounds and workers, supplies and god knows what. Strategy and timing does make alot as well.
Theres a distinct difference between not being able to multi-task, and completely botching basic build orders/unable to spend money past 2 base. Even top Korean pros miss workers/production/injects/get supply blocked.
A lot of masters get there via perfecting a build all the way up to 3 bases and flailing aimlessly when tested purely on their late game mechanics vs someone who is actually top notch. It's pretty easy to end games before they reach 3 base. There are a lot of factors really. I highly doubt what you say is true or you grossly over-exaggerate the extent to which your macro apparently falters.
On October 14 2011 01:58 TigerRawr wrote: Lol this thread is still going?
The solution is MACRO.
Nothing more to say.
Terrible Strategy + Good Macro > Great Strategy + Poor Macro
This principle exists all the way to diamond and low masters. ez. Solved :D
Damnit, I was going to post exactly that.
If you lose in sub-diamond, it's because your opponent spent more money than you. 100%.
Here are the stats from my last 5 losses according to SC2Gears. Plus sign means I spent that much more than the other player did, minus means I spent less:
+12025 minerals, +4900 gas +4175 minerals, -425 gas +24425 minerals, +4950 gas +8350 minerals, +3050 gas +6075 minerals, -1575 gas
I would say that I am behind on total resources spent in fewer than 25% of my losses overall. I am in Platinum and have been for quite a long time now.
On October 14 2011 01:58 TigerRawr wrote: Lol this thread is still going?
The solution is MACRO.
Nothing more to say.
Terrible Strategy + Good Macro > Great Strategy + Poor Macro
This principle exists all the way to diamond and low masters. ez. Solved :D
Damnit, I was going to post exactly that.
If you lose in sub-diamond, it's because your opponent spent more money than you. 100%.
Here are the stats from my last 5 losses according to SC2Replays folder. Plus sign means I spent that much more than the other player did, minus means I spent less:
+12025 minerals, +4900 gas +4175 minerals, -425 gas +24425 minerals, +4950 gas +8350 minerals, +3050 gas +6075 minerals, -1575 gas
I would say that I am behind on total resources spent in fewer than 25% of my losses overall. I am in Platinum and have been for quite a long time now.
I think players who have been good for a while (or at least Diamond for a while) don't understand that the ranking system has shifted as the community grows more skilled. I personally had a similar problem to yours; I was in Platinum and couldn't break out, even though before I'd seen constant improvement as a function of time spent playing. I made the push into Diamond by dramatically improving my strategy and execution.
That doesn't mean to get above Platinum you should only work on strategy. According to SC2Gears my injection rate is about 40%. That's fucking terrible. I will make it into Masters through working on my strategy as WELL as my macro and mechanics. But macro and mechanics are still very, very important and shouldn't be ignored.
Just because you'd like to work on strategy doesn't mean you're good enough to merit it. Just because you merit working on strategy doesn't mean you don't need to work on macro.
I understand both sides of this very well since i have been on both sides. let us rephrase the term "macro better" and say "WORK HEAVILY ON MECHANICS!!!!" mechanics are not the only things that will get you to master but they are an extremly extreeeeemly important foundation to strengthen on your way to becoming a great player mechanics are so key that u can ALMOST throw everything else out the window. TRY THIS-> watch a replay of some Grand Master you like that plays your race (not a cast mind you the real replay) and try to match everything he does exactly. play against a very ez ai on the same map v the same race u saw the gm play against in the replay. doing a perfect mirror will not be ez but its your whole focus... win or lose it doesnt even matter just get it as close as to what the GM did as u can. take notes about everything throughout watching the replay... so u can have ur notes help u do the same exact things when u play. some suggestions on notes to take: what time did he do it (when did he make a building/unit, when did he scout, got gas/tech, built supply, when did he expand 5min?6 min?13min? etc..)? also what was his food count when he did it (9/10, 50/50, 130/175,etc)? what was his bank like (100 minerals 100 gas, 50 minerals 200 gas,etc)? how saturated is the base or bases (double click or ctrl click a miner to see how many rows of miners u see... 2 rows in his main, 2 rows +4 in his natural, etc) take note of all of the above and any other notes u find important throughout the whole game at the start and finish of all events like, starting of a push/end of the push, or starting a building/completed the building, started tech/tech finished, expansion started/finished/saturated with miners. also mix in while doing all of the above..... take some side notes of the army size, composition, and positions on both sides. note when the armies moved, and where they moved to, where did they lay in wait and where they engaged in battle. preffereably watch a win against a race you have trouble with... the more replays vs a certain race u watch the more openings u will become familiar with and map specific issues u will see. watch mutiple replays of all match ups vs ur race if u can stand to. so far with this alone if u watch a replay u should be able to say for example... the zerg finished his lair at 8:42 he had 68/68 supply 509 minerals 276 gas. also started producing 3 overlords. he had 9 roaches and 20 lings moving toward the enemy. had 3 rows of drones and 2 gas in the main, almost 2 rows and 1 gas in the natural...this should be a ever changing paragraph that u fill in basically throughout the game... this is now your framework---your foundation of good mechanics when you play u should see u have things very close to exactly the same as the replay. u dont even have to move out with those units to attack or scout, just make sure u get timings right, just watch ur base very closely maybe even only looking at ur base and play a very easy ai if u have to just so u can get down the timings. u will start to notice maybe u stopped builing miners at a certain time, or maybe u stopped production at a certain time.... things like getting supply blocked or a building that is producing nothing should never happen... having a ton of gas and no money doesnt always mean spend more gas, it usually means u made something too soon or too late. the replay notes help u never stop having something to do NVR JUST SIT AND WATCH SOMETHING HAPPEN... ALWAYS BE INVOLVED WITH BUILDING OR MOVING SOMETHING. having a big bank is almost always bad. take note of how that big bank gets dumped in the pro replay... maybe producing a bunch of buildings to then make a bunch of mineral or gas costing units with. making lots of something that balances your econ is usually a good way to dump. have too much money? make zlots or rines or lings.. still too much minerals?... make gateways, rax or hatchs so u can make more rines, zlots and lings at a time DO NOT HAVE UNITS WAITING IN LINE TO BE MADE just keep making more as they finish or are half way or more complete... MAKE MORE BUILDINGS INSTEAD of lining up something to be built. too much gas... get tech... make tier 2 or tier 3 units, still too much make more buildings to make more gas units. the more replays you take notes on the better. watch like as many replays vs a race as u can... u will see what adjustments are made to this framework...sometimes its a small difference due to the map or other players style of play... sometimes its huge. NOW WHAT!?!?? now you keep on keeping on... you have a mechanic to perfect... which includes everything from teching to expanding and pushing or defending. notice the timings change each game but only slightly and for a very specific reason and when you know the timing you will learn the reason. when you learn the reason u will fix it and get better all on your own. fixing timings becomes a fun way to improve you will notice...losing means your improving if u watch what made you lose and what timing could have helped u win...winning means you did some stuff right and the other guy did a lot wrong. just cuz you won doesnt mean your timings are right and can make you get into a pattern of losing if u dont pay attention to the mechanics of why u won and y the other guy lost. include what he should have done to win...and then factor in a timing for you to beat that with a mineral or gas dump at some point before the time he should have done that something better to beat u... and u will improve even when u win your framework should allow you saturate bases fast and max out fast with a mix of making enough miners and having enough production buildings to keep your minerals and gas low 1000 minerals = 20 marines... if u have 1000 minerals and 1 rax and i have 1000 minerals and 20 rax i can have 20 marines by the time u have 1 marine. same money count but my mechanics will out produce you and i will win very easily good mechanics means at 10 min if i hit you with 1 colosi and 4 stalkers... u will already just have enough to kill it cuz you always do. or if not ready right then u will know that in 30 sec-1min u will have enough to kill it, u didnt even have to scout it... tho you should have seen it coming.. or delayed its coming like in the replays. good mechanics means always making a steady progress toward the late game and having the most u can have at that point in time when it comes to units/upgrades/buildings/scouting info, what ever... when you have good mechanics your game will improve incredibly faster than a player who does not work on his mechanics. he just complains that he wants to learn a better strategy to beat your great mechanics not realizing that he CANT beat u with some strategy cuz no matter what he makes its slow and not constantly pumping... u are ahead in, economy, food, production, tech u name it ur better. he can only play you to help you work on perfecting your own timings so u beat him, faster, stronger and with more each time cuz he is not improving... he just a living punching bag.... someone tell him to go "macro better" this is not a game where someone can say a strategy that makes you play better if your lower level..without mechanics u cant even perform a strategy...you may win a game with a strategy if u learn it.... but you will win a tournament with good mechanics....sorry but there has not been discovered an ez way to just win all the time...and when there is....there will be a patch for that
On October 16 2011 08:45 GHOST87 wrote: I understand both sides of this very well since i have been on both sides. let us rephrase the term "macro better" and say "WORK HEAVILY ON MECHANICS!!!!" mechanics are not the only things that will get you to master but they are an extremly extreeeeemly important foundation to strengthen on your way to becoming a great player mechanics are so key that u can ALMOST throw everything else out the window. TRY THIS-> watch a replay of some Grand Master you like that plays your race (not a cast mind you the real replay) and try to match everything he does exactly. play against a very ez ai on the same map v the same race u saw the gm play against in the replay. doing a perfect mirror will not be ez but its your whole focus... win or lose it doesnt even matter just get it as close as to what the GM did as u can. take notes about everything throughout watching the replay... so u can have ur notes help u do the same exact things when u play. some suggestions on notes to take: what time did he do it (when did he make a building/unit, when did he scout, got gas/tech, built supply, when did he expand 5min?6 min?13min? etc..)? also what was his food count when he did it (9/10, 50/50, 130/175,etc)? what was his bank like (100 minerals 100 gas, 50 minerals 200 gas,etc)? how saturated is the base or bases (double click or ctrl click a miner to see how many rows of miners u see... 2 rows in his main, 2 rows +4 in his natural, etc) take note of all of the above and any other notes u find important throughout the whole game at the start and finish of all events like, starting of a push/end of the push, or starting a building/completed the building, started tech/tech finished, expansion started/finished/saturated with miners. also mix in while doing all of the above..... take some side notes of the army size, composition, and positions on both sides. note when the armies moved, and where they moved to, where did they lay in wait and where they engaged in battle. preffereably watch a win against a race you have trouble with... the more replays vs a certain race u watch the more openings u will become familiar with and map specific issues u will see. watch mutiple replays of all match ups vs ur race if u can stand to. so far with this alone if u watch a replay u should be able to say for example... the zerg finished his lair at 8:42 he had 68/68 supply 509 minerals 276 gas. also started producing 3 overlords. he had 9 roaches and 20 lings moving toward the enemy. had 3 rows of drones and 2 gas in the main, almost 2 rows and 1 gas in the natural...this should be a ever changing paragraph that u fill in basically throughout the game... this is now your framework---your foundation of good mechanics when you play u should see u have things very close to exactly the same as the replay. u dont even have to move out with those units to attack or scout, just make sure u get timings right, just watch ur base very closely maybe even only looking at ur base and play a very easy ai if u have to just so u can get down the timings. u will start to notice maybe u stopped builing miners at a certain time, or maybe u stopped production at a certain time.... things like getting supply blocked or a building that is producing nothing should never happen... having a ton of gas and no money doesnt always mean spend more gas, it usually means u made something too soon or too late. the replay notes help u never stop having something to do NVR JUST SIT AND WATCH SOMETHING HAPPEN... ALWAYS BE INVOLVED WITH BUILDING OR MOVING SOMETHING. having a big bank is almost always bad. take note of how that big bank gets dumped in the pro replay... maybe producing a bunch of buildings to then make a bunch of mineral or gas costing units with. making lots of something that balances your econ is usually a good way to dump. have too much money? make zlots or rines or lings.. still too much minerals?... make gateways, rax or hatchs so u can make more rines, zlots and lings at a time DO NOT HAVE UNITS WAITING IN LINE TO BE MADE just keep making more as they finish or are half way or more complete... MAKE MORE BUILDINGS INSTEAD of lining up something to be built. too much gas... get tech... make tier 2 or tier 3 units, still too much make more buildings to make more gas units. the more replays you take notes on the better. watch like as many replays vs a race as u can... u will see what adjustments are made to this framework...sometimes its a small difference due to the map or other players style of play... sometimes its huge. NOW WHAT!?!?? now you keep on keeping on... you have a mechanic to perfect... which includes everything from teching to expanding and pushing or defending. notice the timings change each game but only slightly and for a very specific reason and when you know the timing you will learn the reason. when you learn the reason u will fix it and get better all on your own. fixing timings becomes a fun way to improve you will notice...losing means your improving if u watch what made you lose and what timing could have helped u win...winning means you did some stuff right and the other guy did a lot wrong. just cuz you won doesnt mean your timings are right and can make you get into a pattern of losing if u dont pay attention to the mechanics of why u won and y the other guy lost. include what he should have done to win...and then factor in a timing for you to beat that with a mineral or gas dump at some point before the time he should have done that something better to beat u... and u will improve even when u win your framework should allow you saturate bases fast and max out fast with a mix of making enough miners and having enough production buildings to keep your minerals and gas low 1000 minerals = 20 marines... if u have 1000 minerals and 1 rax and i have 1000 minerals and 20 rax i can have 20 marines by the time u have 1 marine. same money count but my mechanics will out produce you and i will win very easily good mechanics means at 10 min if i hit you with 1 colosi and 4 stalkers... u will already just have enough to kill it cuz you always do. or if not ready right then u will know that in 30 sec-1min u will have enough to kill it, u didnt even have to scout it... tho you should have seen it coming.. or delayed its coming like in the replays. good mechanics means always making a steady progress toward the late game and having the most u can have at that point in time when it comes to units/upgrades/buildings/scouting info, what ever... when you have good mechanics your game will improve incredibly faster than a player who does not work on his mechanics. he just complains that he wants to learn a better strategy to beat your great mechanics not realizing that he CANT beat u with some strategy cuz no matter what he makes its slow and not constantly pumping... u are ahead in, economy, food, production, tech u name it ur better. he can only play you to help you work on perfecting your own timings so u beat him, faster, stronger and with more each time cuz he is not improving... he just a living punching bag.... someone tell him to go "macro better" this is not a game where someone can say a strategy that makes you play better if your lower level..without mechanics u cant even perform a strategy...you may win a game with a strategy if u learn it.... but you will win a tournament with good mechanics....sorry but there has not been discovered an ez way to just win all the time...and when there is....there will be a patch for that
HOLYSHIT use your enter key. I've never said this before, ever, but...
TL;DR.
Also, grammar goes a LONG way in encouraging people to hear you out. L2Spell.
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.
7:00 Built two spine crawlers and moved queens to block ramp like the pro did. Sure nothing is attacking me but I have to copy him. 7:30 Lost 3 drones and 10 lings. The pro lost them to hellions but in this game there are no hellions so I had to tell the spines to kill them. 8:30 Made 20 more lings and attacked his natural expansion. By opponent hasn't actually expanded so I just left them outside where they died to siege tank fire.
"Durr you can't copy them *exactly* you have to adapt to what happens in the game"
Yeah no kidding. If you can copy everything a pro does AND adapt it perfectly to everything happening in the game, then you're a pro. Its a tautological argument thingy. And I can say it in that one sentence instead of a mile high wall of text.
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.
its like fighting. the stronger person will win 90% of the time, unless the other person gets a lucky nutshot or something. knowing taekwondo or judo or whatever wont help if you dont have the strength to use it.
I disagree Alex--- if you are weak, your only hope is to learn allt he nut shots and kidney shanks avaialble... likewise, if you suffer from terrible macro, your only hope could be an amazing strategy
On October 16 2011 17:59 rawler wrote: I disagree Alex--- if you are weak, your only hope is to learn allt he nut shots and kidney shanks avaialble... likewise, if you suffer from terrible macro, your only hope could be an amazing strategy
To beat someone way better than you once or twice, maybe. To improve to the point where you can consistently beat that player even after he has seens your one "amazing strategy", you just need better macro. Period.
Good macro is like the Rocky Balboa approach to strategy. Sure he has difficulty with such concepts as "ducking" and "blocking" and gets punched in the face 500 times a match. But he just wins anyway through the brute force tactic of not falling over and repeatedly slugging his opponent till they give up.
On October 16 2011 17:59 rawler wrote: I disagree Alex--- if you are weak, your only hope is to learn allt he nut shots and kidney shanks avaialble... likewise, if you suffer from terrible macro, your only hope could be an amazing strategy
Or you make sure to get stronger. Especially if you havent trained for strength before it would only take a few months to do amazing progress.
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?
On October 16 2011 18:13 tjosan wrote: I disagree Alex--- if you are weak, your only hope is to learn allt he nut shots and kidney shanks avaialble... likewise, if you suffer from terrible macro, your only hope could be an amazing strategy
When a player is at a lower skill, there are many ways to improve. One say, the bucket can hold as much water as its lowest plank. Well, sometimes it's worth to brush up strategy if that's the lowest plank, there's no use improving macro if the only thing you know is mass zerglings with amazing macro, for an extreme case.
Sometimes improving on game sense is very important as well, so a blind "just macro" is definitely not the best way at all times
I just wanted to pipe in on the context of the title alone. If you are playing this game in even a minutely competitive fashion. I.E. playing like 2+ games on ladder a week. You should have the capacity to notice at least 100 times you fucked something up each game and could have been more efficient even if the difference is tiny. If you're too blind to see said errors and understand that chipping away at them is the easiest and most clear way to refine your play. Well then well you're probably an idiot.
Don't ask for a build order or some other bullshit, efficient build orders are discovered through efficient play. Look at the errors you make over the course of a game. Chances are even if the overall strategy you were doing was fuck awful and stupid you still could've pulled it off by using: proper transitions, scouting, macro, unit placement/movement and most importantly not flipping the fuck out when things start to not go the way you planned and instead analyzing the situation and deducing the most efficient and reasonable response. Not saying it'll all come in one big rush. Or that you'll ever be able to hammer out every single error always, but that's pretty obviously the way to get better it's not like it's a super secret.
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.
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.
Nice one! Sounds like a point in favour of the "learning an offensive early attack build really well first" approach. People have mentioned similar successes with 4gates, 3/4 rax plays and so on. I mean looking at the liquipedia entries for baneling bust vs hatch first
The baneling bust adaptation entry amounts to, can you win with your lingbling? Yes. Make more lings and blings. No. Expand and tech.
The hatch first build order stops at 15 food and has 3-4 pages worth of adaptations to different types of aggression.
And Destiny's ZvZ build goes all the way to 50 food and has absolutely no notes on adaptation. Probably because either the all-in succeeds or you lose right there.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
When Silver level players want to know what to do strategically, saying 'don't focus on strategy just focus on macro' is certainly not what they want to here. Sure, good macro will give them the fastest rate of improvement, but knowing to get Vikings vs Colossi and Ghosts vs Protoss and Marines vs Zerg or knowing 10 depot 12 rax 13 gas 15 orbital 15 marine is just as important. Not telling these players basic stuff will also not allow them to get better.
On October 16 2011 22:03 Micket wrote: When Silver level players want to know what to do strategically, saying 'don't focus on strategy just focus on macro' is certainly not what they want to here. Sure, good macro will give them the fastest rate of improvement, but knowing to get Vikings vs Colossi and Ghosts vs Protoss and Marines vs Zerg or knowing 10 depot 12 rax 13 gas 15 orbital 15 marine is just as important. Not telling these players basic stuff will also not allow them to get better.
They can make anything they want as long as it's macro'ed well and isn't completely retarded i.e. mass roach vs carrier.
If a silver level player comes in asking for a composition posting a replay of his loss and his macro is a major factor, do you expect everyone to sit back and simply tell him how he engaged incorrectly when it's compounded by the poor macro?
On October 16 2011 08:45 GHOST87 wrote: I understand both sides of this very well since i have been on both sides. let us rephrase the term "macro better" and say "WORK HEAVILY ON MECHANICS!!!!" mechanics are not the only things that will get you to master but they are an extremly extreeeeemly important foundation to strengthen on your way to becoming a great player mechanics are so key that u can ALMOST throw everything else out the window. TRY THIS-> watch a replay of some Grand Master you like that plays your race (not a cast mind you the real replay) and try to match everything he does exactly. play against a very ez ai on the same map v the same race u saw the gm play against in the replay. doing a perfect mirror will not be ez but its your whole focus... win or lose it doesnt even matter just get it as close as to what the GM did as u can. take notes about everything throughout watching the replay... so u can have ur notes help u do the same exact things when u play. some suggestions on notes to take: what time did he do it (when did he make a building/unit, when did he scout, got gas/tech, built supply, when did he expand 5min?6 min?13min? etc..)? also what was his food count when he did it (9/10, 50/50, 130/175,etc)? what was his bank like (100 minerals 100 gas, 50 minerals 200 gas,etc)? how saturated is the base or bases (double click or ctrl click a miner to see how many rows of miners u see... 2 rows in his main, 2 rows +4 in his natural, etc) take note of all of the above and any other notes u find important throughout the whole game at the start and finish of all events like, starting of a push/end of the push, or starting a building/completed the building, started tech/tech finished, expansion started/finished/saturated with miners. also mix in while doing all of the above..... take some side notes of the army size, composition, and positions on both sides. note when the armies moved, and where they moved to, where did they lay in wait and where they engaged in battle. preffereably watch a win against a race you have trouble with... the more replays vs a certain race u watch the more openings u will become familiar with and map specific issues u will see. watch mutiple replays of all match ups vs ur race if u can stand to. so far with this alone if u watch a replay u should be able to say for example... the zerg finished his lair at 8:42 he had 68/68 supply 509 minerals 276 gas. also started producing 3 overlords. he had 9 roaches and 20 lings moving toward the enemy. had 3 rows of drones and 2 gas in the main, almost 2 rows and 1 gas in the natural...this should be a ever changing paragraph that u fill in basically throughout the game... this is now your framework---your foundation of good mechanics when you play u should see u have things very close to exactly the same as the replay. u dont even have to move out with those units to attack or scout, just make sure u get timings right, just watch ur base very closely maybe even only looking at ur base and play a very easy ai if u have to just so u can get down the timings. u will start to notice maybe u stopped builing miners at a certain time, or maybe u stopped production at a certain time.... things like getting supply blocked or a building that is producing nothing should never happen... having a ton of gas and no money doesnt always mean spend more gas, it usually means u made something too soon or too late. the replay notes help u never stop having something to do NVR JUST SIT AND WATCH SOMETHING HAPPEN... ALWAYS BE INVOLVED WITH BUILDING OR MOVING SOMETHING. having a big bank is almost always bad. take note of how that big bank gets dumped in the pro replay... maybe producing a bunch of buildings to then make a bunch of mineral or gas costing units with. making lots of something that balances your econ is usually a good way to dump. have too much money? make zlots or rines or lings.. still too much minerals?... make gateways, rax or hatchs so u can make more rines, zlots and lings at a time DO NOT HAVE UNITS WAITING IN LINE TO BE MADE just keep making more as they finish or are half way or more complete... MAKE MORE BUILDINGS INSTEAD of lining up something to be built. too much gas... get tech... make tier 2 or tier 3 units, still too much make more buildings to make more gas units. the more replays you take notes on the better. watch like as many replays vs a race as u can... u will see what adjustments are made to this framework...sometimes its a small difference due to the map or other players style of play... sometimes its huge. NOW WHAT!?!?? now you keep on keeping on... you have a mechanic to perfect... which includes everything from teching to expanding and pushing or defending. notice the timings change each game but only slightly and for a very specific reason and when you know the timing you will learn the reason. when you learn the reason u will fix it and get better all on your own. fixing timings becomes a fun way to improve you will notice...losing means your improving if u watch what made you lose and what timing could have helped u win...winning means you did some stuff right and the other guy did a lot wrong. just cuz you won doesnt mean your timings are right and can make you get into a pattern of losing if u dont pay attention to the mechanics of why u won and y the other guy lost. include what he should have done to win...and then factor in a timing for you to beat that with a mineral or gas dump at some point before the time he should have done that something better to beat u... and u will improve even when u win your framework should allow you saturate bases fast and max out fast with a mix of making enough miners and having enough production buildings to keep your minerals and gas low 1000 minerals = 20 marines... if u have 1000 minerals and 1 rax and i have 1000 minerals and 20 rax i can have 20 marines by the time u have 1 marine. same money count but my mechanics will out produce you and i will win very easily good mechanics means at 10 min if i hit you with 1 colosi and 4 stalkers... u will already just have enough to kill it cuz you always do. or if not ready right then u will know that in 30 sec-1min u will have enough to kill it, u didnt even have to scout it... tho you should have seen it coming.. or delayed its coming like in the replays. good mechanics means always making a steady progress toward the late game and having the most u can have at that point in time when it comes to units/upgrades/buildings/scouting info, what ever... when you have good mechanics your game will improve incredibly faster than a player who does not work on his mechanics. he just complains that he wants to learn a better strategy to beat your great mechanics not realizing that he CANT beat u with some strategy cuz no matter what he makes its slow and not constantly pumping... u are ahead in, economy, food, production, tech u name it ur better. he can only play you to help you work on perfecting your own timings so u beat him, faster, stronger and with more each time cuz he is not improving... he just a living punching bag.... someone tell him to go "macro better" this is not a game where someone can say a strategy that makes you play better if your lower level..without mechanics u cant even perform a strategy...you may win a game with a strategy if u learn it.... but you will win a tournament with good mechanics....sorry but there has not been discovered an ez way to just win all the time...and when there is....there will be a patch for that
HOLYSHIT use your enter key. I've never said this before, ever, but...
TL;DR.
Also, grammar goes a LONG way in encouraging people to hear you out. L2Spell.
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.
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.
Yes I'm liking the upgraded roaches too And that rally point trick should be fairly easy to implement, I'll start using that.
About lower lever players like the original poster.
People always say that "you should macro better". And do nothing else?
Most lower level players like me (Platinum) are CASUAL. We have other games we play, other things to do, we don't want to spend time working on something boring like macro. (if you think 'macro' is not boring, you play way more rts games than me-) I just want to play cool games and win with cool ways. Battles, flanking, surprising opponent.
If I would happen to ask advice, I want to hear what cool stuff I could do to win, not "macro better".
You shouldn't have to consider the game like some kind of job.
On October 17 2011 18:36 Coeus1 wrote: About lower lever players like the original poster.
People always say that "you should macro better". And do nothing else?
Most lower level players like me (Platinum) are CASUAL. We have other games we play, other things to do, we don't want to spend time working on something boring like macro. (if you think 'macro' is not boring, you play way more rts games than me-) I just want to play cool games and win with cool ways. Battles, flanking, surprising opponent.
If I would happen to ask advice, I want to hear what cool stuff I could do to win, not "macro better".
You shouldn't have to consider the game like some kind of job.
What you could do to win ON THE LONG RUN is macro better. If you want advice on how to improve, in that one game, in that one situation, while not doing trying to be the best player you can be, maybe TL is not the place to ask for advice?
I don't even understand this whole singling out of strategy as something to improve on.
How tough is it?
If he makes a certain set of units, you need to make a set of units that beat his. Knowing army composition is simple. Watch a few pro games to find it out, or try different army compositions and observe what does well. It would seem odd that you would need a whole thread to figure out that zerglings beat stalkers for cost. (In fact, when I lose with an army composition to something that I thought I it should beat, I will often ask my opponent their opinion on it. I made a bunch of roaches against marines the other day thinking that that was a good plan, until he just stimmed and raped all my shit. I spoke up: "Hey! I thought my roaches should have performed better than they did. Are they really just a bad choice vs mass marine/medivac?" The answer was a resounding yes. I had a hypothesis based off of an observation, and confirmation from the person who obviously knew how to overcome my decision)
If you weren't prepared with the right units to deflect an attack, you need to scout better. Put a unit in front of his ramp to see when he moves out, build appropriate units. Every 30 seconds, scout the front of his base to make sure you're making the right stuff.
If you're losing battles when you have the right army composition, you're fighting in the wrong place. Ideally, you should always be minimizing how much they are attacking you and maximizing how many of your units are attacking. ie: have ranged units against a wall or other tight position. Have ranged units in a concave. Make your melee units surround his. Easy peezy.
In short: a) Make the right units b) Scout to make sure you're making the right units c) Don't fight in stupid positions.
But all those things are common knowledge. Telling someone to do those things is as useless as 'macro better'. However, since those are not time consuming endeavours (relatively little attention and few clicks to accomplish those things), all you CAN do is improve your macro.
Making better decisions (as far as strategy goes) will just come from experience and from thinking about why you lost. You can't "focus" on better strategy. You can focus on better macro though. Hit your injects. Tap through your buidings. Watch the minimap. Macro. Tap. Watch minimap. Macro. Tap. FOCUS.
Seriously, the only reason anyone really loses up until ~Grand Master level is because they fucked up simple stuff like scouting or macro.
And if your goal is to actually learn strategy, I'd recommend staying away from "standard BOs", as you're not teaching yourself proper analysis skills. Ask yourself what you should be building, why, and when. When you lose, ask yourself what area you fucked up in: "was it that I built the wrong stuff? Was it where I positioned things? Was my timing off?"
But again, like every other useless person in this thread has said, making adjustments to whether you expand at 7:00 or 7:45, or whether you go muta tech or roach tech in response to mech is pretty irrelevant if you're going to be sitting on 1k minerals and 700 gas.
There are a hundreds of answers to any situation, all are possible if you have the proper mechanics to support it. Asking for a strategy that is tailored around unspent resources seems to be the wrong direction.
On October 17 2011 18:36 Coeus1 wrote: About lower lever players like the original poster.
People always say that "you should macro better". And do nothing else?
Most lower level players like me (Platinum) are CASUAL. We have other games we play, other things to do, we don't want to spend time working on something boring like macro. (if you think 'macro' is not boring, you play way more rts games than me-) I just want to play cool games and win with cool ways. Battles, flanking, surprising opponent.
If I would happen to ask advice, I want to hear what cool stuff I could do to win, not "macro better".
You shouldn't have to consider the game like some kind of job.
I understand your position on this, but there are certain fundamentals that a person needs to learn before making any real progress.
I run soccer training camps, and I approach them similar to the way I approach coaching in Starcraft.
For a player who has never kicked a soccer ball before, I don't start off by showing them how to do the Maradona or how to push Forwards off side. You start off by showing how to do a proper pass. Where you put your plant foot, what part of your foot you hit the ball with; what direction you point your plant-foot, etc.
You get them to practice running drills and other general fitness. You practice throw-ins, and basic trapping with your feet and chest. etc.
Starcraft is no different. Unfortunately, the skills you need to start playing soccer are a lot simpler and translate a lot easier to other physical activities. If you can run, and have played any other sport for a year, you will pick up the basics for soccer very quickly. Starcraft is a different beast. Hopefully you enjoy practicing macro and that kind of improvement, as that will be the quickest route to enjoying the even richer aspects of an RTS such as strategy.
Also, there are other strategy games out there that have lower physical requirements than Starcraft. You could always try turn based games, or Relic's RTSs that were designed with the specific intention of relieving players of much of the management found in Blizzard RTS games.
Company of Heroes is a great game (companyofheroes.com). It might be of interest to you.
Well the thing is ... if you are not trying to improve, you shouldn't post a 'please help me' thread. Then just be casual. Battle.net will match you against opponents of roughly your skill level (at the extreme bottom of bronze, or extreme top of GM, that might not be the case, but for everyone else), and just play and have fun.
But when you ask for help, you should expect people to point out the things that will help you improve your game the most with the least amount of effort.
On October 17 2011 19:08 Mora wrote: In short: a) Make the right units b) Scout to make sure you're making the right units c) Don't fight in stupid positions.
But all those things are common knowledge. Telling someone to do those things is as useless as 'macro better'. However, since those are not time consuming endeavours (relatively little attention and few clicks to accomplish those things), all you CAN do is improve your macro.
Making better decisions (as far as strategy goes) will just come from experience and from thinking about why you lost. You can't "focus" on better strategy. You can focus on better macro though. Hit your injects. Tap through your buidings. Watch the minimap. Macro. Tap. Watch minimap. Macro. Tap. FOCUS.
I have to disagree on the "can't 'focus' on better strategy" thing. By watching lots of other games, learning what units are and are not capable of, learning the maps, etc you'll definitely improve your strategy.
Working on your strategy has its place, theres definitely something to be said for knowing how to engage. Hell, I played a game just the other day PvP. We were pretty even right through with him having perhaps a slight advantage in macro. He pushed out against my base with a more expensive and slightly larger army of mixed archon/gateway/colossi/immortal against my gateway/colossus/immortal army at my natural; I think he even had better upgrades. Result? Absolute slaughter because I knew when he was coming so I had my colossi nice and safe up on the cliff overlooking the ramp and it was just a case of focussing down his colossi with mine followed by wiping out the rest of the army and counter attacking to win. Finished with me having killed more than twice the amount of unit resources that he had (about 5500 to over 12k if I remember right) purely because I figured out how best to engage.
However, it is true that macro will get you far more "bang for your buck" in terms of improvement. Improve your strategy and micro and you'll occassionally pull off clever wins. Improve your macro and you'll be able to win the majority of your games up to a certain level by just flooding your opponent beneath huge tidal waves of units.
Company of Heroes is a great game (companyofheroes.com). It might be of interest to you.
Dawn of War 2 is an alternative that might be considered as well.
I feel as though this is really getting exhausted.
It is simple. No matter what units you make, if you macro up in the first 7-9 minutes and attack in Bronze-Gold, you will win. Hell, if you macro up in the first 30 minutes and attack, you will win.
Obviously you could say "oh, what about DT?" Well, that is a pain, isn't it? But oh wait, it's bronze. He has 1 DT at the 10 minute mark. Just A-click the back of his base and build spore/turret/cannon/forge/lair/scan.
A big reason why it shouldn't even matter your strategy is that once you get out of bronze, guess what? You will never see those builds again. Scouting a bronze player is probably one of the most frustrating things I've ever seen. My friend recently played his way up from Bronze. The builds are awful. They cannon up their front and build either 1 production structure or 20, and never expand.
Build workers, build units, don't get supply blocked, expand. Simple STRATEGY for Plat!
This has probably been mentioned, but there's a limit to how much strategy one can do with very subpar mechanics.
For example i can tell you to build marines against mass voidrays... And if you were building marauders instead then yes this can help you.
But things like timings, and specific build orders are irrelevant if you're not executing them properly.
This doesn't mean that you shouldn't have a build order however... you should. You should have a build that you try to execute as well as you can, and eventually your mechancis will be good enough taht the build that you're doing is actually going to make a difference, and then it makes sense to go ahead and learn other builds.
Timings are pretty much completely irrelevant if your and your opponent's macro isn't smooth.
Still you can get strategic help from people in terms of what unit compositions to use against what other units compositions, and etc.
Platinum players often wants easy answers to how do I beat this attack. And the truth is that many attacks requires good macro, timing and scouting to survive if you are playing a macro style. Even if the attack by it self is very easy to pull of.
When the higher league player look at the replay he sees maybe cyber delayed by 20 s in pvp or something, and thinks this is an auto-loss to 4 gate best to tell him to do it right.
Or in pvz when protoss camps, and the zerg should be ahead a lot in econ, but the zerg is just even saying "we are even in econ and army but I lost 150 supply when he lost 40 lol colossus voidray imba".
The higher league player only wants to give advice on what is the biggest reason for the loss and he sees things other ways you might loose vs other strategies because of bad macromanagement/build timings. He don't see how you can improve micro or decision making vs other things.
Macro is until master lvl is about 50 % motivation 40% knowledge and 10 % skill. Almost everyone can call down a mule, build 2 marines 1 marouder 1 scv and 1 supply during a 20 s timespan. Everyone can get the first 20 supplies correctly only he check up the correct way, and do it.
On October 17 2011 18:36 Coeus1 wrote: About lower lever players like the original poster.
People always say that "you should macro better". And do nothing else?
Most lower level players like me (Platinum) are CASUAL. We have other games we play, other things to do, we don't want to spend time working on something boring like macro. (if you think 'macro' is not boring, you play way more rts games than me-) I just want to play cool games and win with cool ways. Battles, flanking, surprising opponent.
If I would happen to ask advice, I want to hear what cool stuff I could do to win, not "macro better".
You shouldn't have to consider the game like some kind of job.
If you're a casual player, then I don't understand why you care about winning/losing or ranks in the first place. If you actually do want to get better then you have to listen to advice of better players, which means you sacrifice a little bit of fun for some improvement.
If a new player makes a thoughtful post asking for help that follows all the guidelines and somebody says "macro better" and nothing else, that is a trollish response. If they point out specifically how you could macro better, however, the advice should be valued. I've never played an RTS before last year, and I took all the "macro better" advice to heart and worked on nothing but my macro throughout my ladder time. I'm in masters now and I attribute a big part of that to working on my macro so much. Things like micro, surviving against cheese, and reactions to different unit compositions and playstyles are also very important to know, but none of this matters unless your macro is up to par.
On October 17 2011 18:36 Coeus1 wrote: About lower lever players like the original poster.
People always say that "you should macro better". And do nothing else?
Most lower level players like me (Platinum) are CASUAL. We have other games we play, other things to do, we don't want to spend time working on something boring like macro. (if you think 'macro' is not boring, you play way more rts games than me-) I just want to play cool games and win with cool ways. Battles, flanking, surprising opponent.
If I would happen to ask advice, I want to hear what cool stuff I could do to win, not "macro better".
You shouldn't have to consider the game like some kind of job.
Why would you ask for help in the first place then? Since you have no motivation to improve (witch is totally fine), why would you ask for help?
If you are looking for cool ways to win, this thread does not cover that imo. I have seen a few of those threads, and I cant remember seeing anyone saying "macro better" to a person who have asked for cheap ways to win.
On October 17 2011 18:36 Coeus1 wrote: About lower lever players like the original poster.
People always say that "you should macro better". And do nothing else?
Most lower level players like me (Platinum) are CASUAL. We have other games we play, other things to do, we don't want to spend time working on something boring like macro. (if you think 'macro' is not boring, you play way more rts games than me-) I just want to play cool games and win with cool ways. Battles, flanking, surprising opponent.
If I would happen to ask advice, I want to hear what cool stuff I could do to win, not "macro better".
You shouldn't have to consider the game like some kind of job.
Why would you ask for help in the first place then? Since you have no motivation to improve (witch is totally fine), why would you ask for help?
If you are looking for cool ways to win, this thread does not cover that imo. I have seen a few of those threads, and I cant remember seeing anyone saying "macro better" to a person who have asked for cheap ways to win.
Well I won't argue about what the intended purpose of the TL strat forum should be, but I would like to point out that I did learn a really fun way to play thanks to the posts from D u o in this thread. Thanks!
And also the official forums can be just as dogmatic in terms of macro improvements and only using a small subset of unit comps, and have the added annoyance of trolling. This is actually a pretty good place to get advice on unusual tactics, like here http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=275501¤tpage=2
Maybe there should be a tag like [casual] or something so that the serious folks know that the poster just wants tips on a more enjoyable game and not a more useful but work oriented approach. Then they can stay clear of those threads.
I really am shocked this thread is still going on It basically boils down to 3 things 1. people do actually give good strat advice in addition to simply saying macro better- IMHO the OP created this discussion without ever providing thread examples where it happened 2. ppl are claiming they don't want to improve they just want to have fun- then don't ask for help on the most hardcore star craft site's strategy forum 3. people who actually understand the game are trying to explain to 1 and 2 that macro is actually necessary to execute a strategy well (think about Boxer at certain points in his career where he executes a harass tactic perfectly only to accumulate 1200+ minerals and just die to a counter attack cause he had no stuff)
so... can we end this thread already? We already have Plexa's sticky because of this thread so what further purpose is it serving beyond continuing a circular and never ending debate of a problem that never actually existed in the first place?
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.
That's exactly the thing. No one cares or disputes if you're right. OP even confirms you're right, right there on page 1. This thread is saying that people would like a licence to discuss strategy or ask questions about it even under the shameful conditions of not being able to macro perfectly. Imagine that...
When someone ask for the counter to a 3rax ghost push, they want to know the counter to a 3 rax ghost push, regardless of whether you think they are worthy of receiving this information. You either give them the information they asked for, or you don't answer, simple as that.
Stuff that is irrelevant: - Whether they can actually perform this counter properly, that's up to them to learn. - Whether you are satisfied with their mineral banking. - What league they would be in if they kept their minerals under 200 at all times. - Whether or not they could beat the specific strategy they mention by macroing like a boss.
None of that is relevant. You don't get to decide whether or not someone can try to 'properly' counter a strat or they just have to suck it up and play brainlessly until their macro is up to your goddamn standard.
When someone makes an open-ended thread, saying "critique my play", and they're banking 2000 minerals, by all means: comment on their macro. If not, keep those unwanted and useless comments out of the thread.
On October 17 2011 22:46 Echo_ wrote: I feel as though this is really getting exhausted.
It is simple. No matter what units you make, if you macro up in the first 7-9 minutes and attack in Bronze-Gold, you will win. Hell, if you macro up in the first 30 minutes and attack, you will win.
Obviously you could say "oh, what about DT?" Well, that is a pain, isn't it? But oh wait, it's bronze. He has 1 DT at the 10 minute mark. Just A-click the back of his base and build spore/turret/cannon/forge/lair/scan.
A big reason why it shouldn't even matter your strategy is that once you get out of bronze, guess what? You will never see those builds again. Scouting a bronze player is probably one of the most frustrating things I've ever seen. My friend recently played his way up from Bronze. The builds are awful. They cannon up their front and build either 1 production structure or 20, and never expand.
Build workers, build units, don't get supply blocked, expand. Simple STRATEGY for Plat!
I think the best solution for this thread is for everyone to quote this guy and just spam it, because he is exactly right, and the thread itself is going absolutely nowhere.
I'm in platinum league (was in diamond before my couple month break, but probably deserved to be in platinum at the time), I'm moderately casual, but willing to put in some practice. I also haven't played in a few months, but have started again recently--I think this may have affected my outlook some.
I was always falling into the trap of trying to improve strategy, keeping up with the current metagame, getting build orders down, etc. Why do I call this a trap? For the following reasons:
- It does actually help you improve some in the short term, if you have leveled out in matchmaking. I.e., if you are against equally skilled opponents, and you improve your build, or start using a solid build while before you weren't using a solid build, you will notice a difference, and win a bit more.
- But, then you will advance a bit further, hit opponents with either better mechanics or similarly improved builds, and get stuck again. Where do you go from here?
- I would get very frustrated at this point. As other posters have pointed out, it sometimes felt random to me, or arbitrary, that my opponent managed to get more units than me in some games. I would know my macro wasn't as good as it could have been, but for some reason I kept downplaying the importance of this... I would KNOW I missed a bunch of larvae injects, but would still focus on the strategy, the build, the unit compositions... I don't know why.
- It is more fun to focus on strategy. Its where the fun thinking comes in--how do I out think my opponent. This makes it more appealing.
One thing that made it hard, or at least made me think it would be hard to start getting back into the game after a break of a few months would be catching back up on strategy, the metagame, builds, etc. Which builds are still viable on which maps now? Etc etc.
Its a little intimidating and time consuming trying to catch up on all that. So I figured I'd bite the bullet and work on my mechanics a bit instead. And to those who say you can't improve quickly--that isn't the case. If you really focus on one thing, you can improve quickly. I would tell myself in the past that this is what I was going to do, then I'd go into a game, do that for the first 10 minutes, and forget to focus as things got intense. But if you can keep focusing (in my case, tapping my hatchery and keeping up with injects), it works rather well... and its rather ridiculous the difference it makes.
: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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
EPT
)
![[image loading]](http://ctrlaltdesign.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/micro-macro-balance-white_design.png)
