|
On May 05 2012 07:12 Belial88 wrote:
Its true zerg has to be a litt more reactive, but its really quite simply.
Open 1414, remove from gas, expand on 21
Drone scout, did opponent take gas or is he clearly cheesing?
Did opponent expand by 530?
Yes? Drone up to 45, then get macro hatch, necessary gas (2 for roach, 4 for infesot or muta) for lair
No? Get 540 evo and roach warren. Make a spore and roaches.
Zvz - make some roaches after 50ish, take third and get roach speed and hydras.
Zvp - take third then make lots of roaches
Zvt - take third, then make ling/bane.
Now that's advice I can get behind 
How often do people go 1base dt or cloaked banshees anyways? Just folllowing a rote build order and losing 1 out of 10 to cloak is fine, you'll still hit diamond.
The last night I played, I encountered (I think) five protoss and one terran. The terran went hellions into cloaked banshees. Two of the protoss went FFE and I beat them. Two more went one base DT, the other went one base void rays. In gold league, you are not in Kansas anymore.
But pplease. You keep talking shit, but won't ppost a replay proving macro wasn't the reason you lost a longer game in gold.
Ok: this is the part where you realise listening is good practice for everyone.
I have never, ever claimed that macro wasn't the reason I lost a longer game. This is the second or third thread and the n'th time I've stated as much.
What I have said is that despite having the goal of improving my macro for a year or more, I was unable to do so.
The key to kickstarting that improvement - for me - turned out to be gaining a better grasp of what I was trying to achieve in various situations. Better macro involves spending less time thinking about what to spend larvae and money on and more time pressing buttons, yes? At the very least, it means thinking further ahead, so that the thinking doesn't delay the doing. I didn't have that. My plans, such as they were, ended at the moment I held off my opponent's first attack.
Now, it's quite possible that, in reality, building anything would have worked in a lot of games. The bit of my brain that remembers all the banshees, DTs, hellion drops, zealot/immortal pushes and burning fields of roach/hydra is screaming at me that it's a lie, but I'm going to put it to the test. For science. You monster.
(and if you don't get that reference, I'm sorry but we can never be friends)
I wasn't kidding about getting behind your advice. I'm going to find out if I was right and that I was actually missing important knowledge, or if gaining that knowledge was merely placating a part of my brain that was just getting in the way. I'll let you know how I get on.
|
On May 05 2012 08:15 Umpteen wrote:
...but I'm going to put it to the test. For science. You monster.
(and if you don't get that reference, I'm sorry but we can never be friends)
GLADOS - portal 2 trailer.
|
While I do really like seeing discussion, these last few pages are trailing off into discussion that for the most part doesn't matter so much. A large point of my original post was that focussing on smaller details often leads to wasted time and effort. You want to work smarter, not just harder. Don't get lost twiddling around with things that don't matter so much. Keep it simple or you'll overlook what's really important.
|
On May 05 2012 08:15 Umpteen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 07:12 Belial88 wrote:
Its true zerg has to be a litt more reactive, but its really quite simply.
Open 1414, remove from gas, expand on 21
Drone scout, did opponent take gas or is he clearly cheesing?
Did opponent expand by 530?
Yes? Drone up to 45, then get macro hatch, necessary gas (2 for roach, 4 for infesot or muta) for lair
No? Get 540 evo and roach warren. Make a spore and roaches.
Zvz - make some roaches after 50ish, take third and get roach speed and hydras.
Zvp - take third then make lots of roaches
Zvt - take third, then make ling/bane.
Now that's advice I can get behind Show nested quote +
How often do people go 1base dt or cloaked banshees anyways? Just folllowing a rote build order and losing 1 out of 10 to cloak is fine, you'll still hit diamond.
The last night I played, I encountered (I think) five protoss and one terran. The terran went hellions into cloaked banshees. Two of the protoss went FFE and I beat them. Two more went one base DT, the other went one base void rays. In gold league, you are not in Kansas anymore. Show nested quote +But pplease. You keep talking shit, but won't ppost a replay proving macro wasn't the reason you lost a longer game in gold. Ok: this is the part where you realise listening is good practice for everyone. I have never, ever claimed that macro wasn't the reason I lost a longer game. This is the second or third thread and the n'th time I've stated as much. What I have said is that despite having the goal of improving my macro for a year or more, I was unable to do so. The key to kickstarting that improvement - for me - turned out to be gaining a better grasp of what I was trying to achieve in various situations. Better macro involves spending less time thinking about what to spend larvae and money on and more time pressing buttons, yes? At the very least, it means thinking further ahead, so that the thinking doesn't delay the doing. I didn't have that. My plans, such as they were, ended at the moment I held off my opponent's first attack. Now, it's quite possible that, in reality, building anything would have worked in a lot of games. The bit of my brain that remembers all the banshees, DTs, hellion drops, zealot/immortal pushes and burning fields of roach/hydra is screaming at me that it's a lie, but I'm going to put it to the test. For science. You monster. (and if you don't get that reference, I'm sorry but we can never be friends) I wasn't kidding about getting behind your advice. I'm going to find out if I was right and that I was actually missing important knowledge, or if gaining that knowledge was merely placating a part of my brain that was just getting in the way. I'll let you know how I get on.
Macro IS the reason why you lost a longer game. You don't need to what units to build against A, what to build against B, etc. You just need to build more units than the enemy. After a long game, take a look at your queens: do they have more than 25 energy? Even pros miss injects, but their macro is fine. After 20 minutes, if your queens have more than 100 energy (probably 200), work on your macro. If your macro was better, you would hold all those battles that you barely lost, and you would have won all those battles where you barely held. Heck, you would even have enough minerals to spare to make 2 spores and 2 spines at every base in case of cheese.
You want to see what everyone means by macroing better? Here it is. This is me smurfing in silver league, playing against mainly gold and plat league players.In almost all of these games, I just macroed harder than the opponent, and flung a ton of units at him. My macro isn't the best either; I can see a ton of glaring errors. But look at how badly my opponents are macroing!!! Who cares if my micro is better; my macro simply stomps them!
TL;DR Poor macro snowballs into a big disadvantage.
Edit: added a sentence.
|
On May 05 2012 08:15 Umpteen wrote:
Ok: this is the part where you realise listening is good practice for everyone.
I have never, ever claimed that macro wasn't the reason I lost a longer game. This is the second or third thread and the n'th time I've stated as much.
On May 05 2012 09:11 Heh_ wrote:
Macro IS the reason why you lost a longer game.
For the n+1th time, I've never claimed otherwise. All I've ever said is that I have tried to improve my macro for at least a year and failed. I didn't know why; it just wasn't happening. Then I discovered my macro wasn't improving because I was a) spending precious seconds in the game wondering what I should do rather than doing it, and b) making bad decisions in that wasted time.
Look, I'm sorry for dragging this out. I felt like there was maybe a communication gap to be bridged, but that's not happening. Thanks to everyone for their generosity in trying to help; it was never my intention or desire to seem ungrateful or to imply I knew something better players didn't. I'm just going to go and play.
|
Blazinghand
United States25550 Posts
The reason we say improve macro to get better is because it's the easiest thing to do... in terms of effort per improvement, it's the most efficient way to become a better player. If you want to put in more effort to learn strategies or decisionmaking, that's fine, but it's a lot easier to get better by focusing on probes and pylons.
|
On May 05 2012 09:58 Umpteen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 08:15 Umpteen wrote:
Ok: this is the part where you realise listening is good practice for everyone.
I have never, ever claimed that macro wasn't the reason I lost a longer game. This is the second or third thread and the n'th time I've stated as much.
Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 09:11 Heh_ wrote:
Macro IS the reason why you lost a longer game. For the n+1th time, I've never claimed otherwise. All I've ever said is that I have tried to improve my macro for at least a year and failed. I didn't know why; it just wasn't happening. Then I discovered my macro wasn't improving because I was a) spending precious seconds in the game wondering what I should do rather than doing it, and b) making bad decisions in that wasted time. Look, I'm sorry for dragging this out. I felt like there was maybe a communication gap to be bridged, but that's not happening. Thanks to everyone for their generosity in trying to help; it was never my intention or desire to seem ungrateful or to imply I knew something better players didn't. I'm just going to go and play.
I have no idea why it isn't working for you. If you practice a ton, your macro should naturally improve, especially if you put in extra effort. The only reason I think why it isn't working is that you're overthinking things. Just spam a ton of roaches and lings and a-move. I should probably direct my posts to someone else, there's some pretty good examples around this thread.
|
On May 04 2012 21:19 Belial88 wrote:Show nested quote +Now the question i have, is as a completely average master protoss, how do i improve MY macro because it is god awful! I truely believe it is the most important part of play, but i rarely go a game where i get to 3 bases without floating 1200+ minerals for a least a little while
I think maybe i need to learn to place extra gates/structures quicker. I really think i am an example of a player who has some good elements of my play, but not my macro. Unless my macro is about average for my level, it is hard to tell. You need to set goals (my probe count vs pro at X time, do i ever go any period of time when probes aren't being made), understand concrete side effects of your deficiencies in macro (how much cumulative time did I not produce workers, how many probes is that 'lost' by 10:00, how much money would X probes would have mined, how many more units could I have gotten with that money, what would those units have done in that battle?), analyze the very basics (am I ever supply blocked for a split second, could I make taht pylon slightly earlier, am I ever still at or below the previous supply cap when new pylon comes on, could I make that pylon later, not making probes), and find out when your macro usually slips (i tend to not make probes when I'm trying to figure out if Terran is going 2 base all-in or not, so now on I will just blindly queu up 5 workers as I then spend my APM scouting, or I tend to get my third too late - why - and what can I scout to know if I can take it earlier?). This is true for all levels of play, really, but it's easier for low level (do I get supply blocked ever? Do I ever not make workers? Do I ever not make units? Do i ever have idle larva?).
Umpteen, I don know if I was responding directly to you. Anyways, I am repostingg this, because this is what you need. I agree macro better is ambiguous, but learning to understand how to improve your macro, is really impportant, and what isn't said as much. You can apply what I said to zerg (I said it covering all 3 races really).
Just post replays on tl if you don't get why you lost. Big way I imrpvoed my macro was posting reps, and people tearing me apart. I thought I was so clever with my thought out balance bitching about toss deathball. Turns out, deathball play is a joke if you macro better. You went 2 base vr/colossi? Lol 200/200 roaches. Oh you survived? Here's 20 mutas in your base then.
Really, scouting with zerg is 'he expanded? Cool, lemme drone up for 5 minutes, ill get back to you then'
|
And again, lease, post reps. This discussion is all pretty pointlesd without providing reps. I guarantee we won't only make you feel like shit, but we'll also give you the tools so you can be aware of how shiity you are at all times.
Its hard to get better with, say, micro or knowing when to tech switch. Its easy to understand 'i make my 54 overlord too late always, now on ill make it at 51 instead of 49'. I mean still to this day I find myself correcting the supply number I make overlords.
|
On May 05 2012 15:13 Belial88 wrote:
Just post replays on tl if you don't get why you lost.
This is so frustrating 
You're so used to arguing with people who say "I don't know why I lost but it wasn't macro" that no matter how often I explain myself, that's all you hear. I've said the same thing over and over and over. I've used italics, I've used boldface. Nothing seems to work. It's as though you're reading the words you expect to see instead of the ones that are actually there.
I know bad macro is why I'm losing.
I know bad macro is why I'm losing.
I know bad macro is why I'm losing.
Do any of those three lines of text above say "I don't know why I lost but it wasn't macro"? I mean, I don't think they do, but I'm starting to doubt myself.
What stumped me for the longest time wasn't "why did I lose that game?" but "Why is my macro not improving when that's what I set out to do, every time?"
It wasn't improving because whenever I tried to cycle round my production after the first couple of minutes I would be slowed down by indecision. Should I be making drones? Another queen? Maybe I need an evo chamber. Is it time for lair yet, or should this 100 gas go on speed? If he's doing X, maybe I need a baneling nest - ah crap, I'm at 700 minerals and don't even have enough overlords to spend it.
No matter how much I tried to focus on macro, that's what would happen.
Then, after watching some VoDs that emphasised decision making, I realised that there weren't as many decisions to be made as I had thought. There were just a few, at particular times, with clear objectives before and after. Some precautionary, like timing an evo chamber, some planned responses to scouting info. It's not as simple as pure stalkers, but nor is it as complex or reactive as I'd made it out to be in my head. Armed with this information, it became possible for me to concentrate on getting from point to point more smoothly without worrying as much that I might do the wrong thing. Since then, my macro has begun to improve. It's still awful, but at long last it's getting better.
Have I made myself clear, finally? I'm not winning more because of the extra strategic knowledge I gained. I'm winning more because I'm macroing better, and I'm starting to macro better because of the clarity and focus that little extra strategic knowledge allowed me.
This really is the last post I'm going to make on this. If you come away from it still thinking "What an idiot, thinking it's strategy and not macro that's making him lose", so be it. I can't think of any more ways to say the same thing. Thanks for trying to help.
|
My macro first improved when i knew exactly what i was doing. I found a safe build order against Terran, back in the old days it was a 3 gate robo expand that i stole, practiced it A LOT to get the timings right, then took it to ladder and said, this is the order i am placing buildings. Other than that spend my money, and i improved a thousand times from that point.
Whenever i expanded i placed 4-5 buildings, and i knew that that would be enough if i was playing right. and so i kept trying until it was. (for my level at the time, back then everyone was much worse and so "good macro" was something else.) Give someone a straight forward plan, so that they make NO decisions, and then tell them to work on macro.
Also, giving benchmarks to hit really helps i think.
|
On May 04 2012 15:42 Hairy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2012 13:03 nyccine wrote:
...Really, it's unneccessary though; Blizzard gives you a handy-dandy graph at the end of your match that tells you what the army values were. And I can tell you exactly what they look like: I outpace my opponent, then there's a dramatic drop where my army gets wiped; repeat this trend until end of match.
The thing is, this doesn't say ANYTHING about your macro ability though. Bronze players' games can follow the same pattern, but it doesn't mean the guy that had higher army value had good macro (or even that the player with a larger army had better macro than his opponent). To analyse one of your games, and look for macro slip-ups, you cannot simply look at the graphs at the end of the game - they are virtually useless! They really tell you NOTHING of learning value. The very fact you've said that "you don't need to look at my replay, as I've already looked at the end of game graphs" is a very big warning sign that you lack the ability to properly analyse your own reps. Show nested quote +Also, saying I could get out of Gold with pure Macro is obviously false because I dropped *from* Platinum by switching my focus to macro. Not to sound like a dick or anything, but this is probably because your macro really isn't any good, rather than it being bad advice. By not posting a replay you are passing up the chance for more experienced players to point out areas you can improve, on a game you thought went well no less! Their motive may be to prove a point, rather than purely to help you out, but the result would be the same on your end.
The fact that you're pulling quotes out of context, and completely misrepresenting what was communicated, is a very big warning sign that you're not interested in actually having a discussion. Nonetheless, please address the argument at hand:
1- the claim is that macro trumps everything else in winning.
2- if "1" is true, then the player whose macro was "better" - which says nothing about whether that player's macro is objectively "good," or even "great" - will win more often than not
3- if it is shown that "2" is not happening, or at least not reliably so, then we can safely conclude that something else is necessary.
4- if "3" is true, then telling lower-skilled players who don't have this "something else" to focus on macro could very easily lead to poor play.
This is why talk of "let me show you where your macro is off" is so utterly pointless; if I make 100 macro errors in a game - and I wouldn't be at all surpised if you could find many games where I did - but my opponent makes 200, I should cleanly win. Since macro means "more stuff, quicker," then yes, Blizzards army value graph by definition *is* a good indicator of who had "better" - yet again, not necessarily "good" by an objective standard, much less great, could even be utterly horrible, just so long as it was "better" than the other guy's - macro.
If macro in fact means something other than "make more stuff, quicker," then we need to say what it is, because that is the meaning everyone seems to take away from discussions of macro.
My assertion - and it isn't mine alone, others in this thread have made the same point - is that to be "good" at macro, you need some fundamental skills in unit control, hotkey use, and proper decision making on the fly that allows for crisp production. My assertion is emphatically *not* that macro is irrelevent. When someone says "all the pros talk about where they could have macro'd better," this doesn't contradict my argument at all - my argument states that the pros have the fundamentals down pat enough that the deciding factor will often boil down to macro as that's the only variable really left (some matches there will of course be a critical mistake that costs an army, sometimes there's just a build-order loss, but for the most part it will be macro). What I am saying is that for people as unskilled as me, "macro harder" just makes us keep our eyes in our base and make poor decisions because we *can't* macro and controll our armies properly at the same time.
|
Umpteen, that post wasn't even directed towards you. Take a chill pill. There's a reason why I made a big post starting with "Umpteen", and then a separate post. I've largely ignored what you've said because I didn't really have any disagreement with you. But you take every post I've made as directed only towards you, when it was rather more general (with certain other people in mind).
1- the claim is that macro trumps everything else in winning.
2- if "1" is true, then the player whose macro was "better" - which says nothing about whether that player's macro is objectively "good," or even "great" - will win more often than not
3- if it is shown that "2" is not happening, or at least not reliably so, then we can safely conclude that something else is necessary.
4- if "3" is true, then telling lower-skilled players who don't have this "something else" to focus on macro could very easily lead to poor play.
We aren't saying that at all - specifically, number 2. What we are saying, is in bronze to platinum, people macro so horribly because they make such huge, gaping mistakes, like getting supply blocked every single time, never making a worker for over a minute, getting supply blocked at 18 supply, banking over 500 minerals in the first 8 minutes, that everything else doesn't matter, because these problems are just so huge, and in Diamond+ league, these mistakes would autolose to anything or any strat because they are so huge.
A supply block at 18 is like losing 10 workers for free at the 7:00 mark. But it's not just once these kind of huge problems happen in gold, it happens over and over in the first 10 minutes. Quite frankly, in Gold, no one is playing 'competently', in the sense that the game isn't being played how it's supposed to be played, or with current metagame trends, because everyone is just macro'ing so poorly.
Because if you avoided supply blocks, over 300 resources, and lack of worker production for more than 10 seconds, in the first 8 minutes, you would be diamond overnight. These aren't hard things to fix, any bronze can simply move on knowing that "Hey, I should make an overlord at 16 now on".
Micro takes practice. Good macro, actually takes a fuckton of practice. Strategy, takes intuition and practice. Make an overlord at 16 supply now on, can happen overnight.
So yea. Your premise is wrong. Macro is so off in Gold that these aren't big issues, not to mention horrible decision making (micro really is non-existent or an issue at all). But you don't need decision making - just avoid major, game-ending macro mistakes, be in diamond. Don't get supply blocked, go more than 10 seconds without worker/unit production, inject/chrono/MULE reasonably (just no 50+ energy), don't bank more than 400 resources, don't take your gas super early (ie Z should never take 2nd gas until after 40+ supply in a macro game), and you'll be diamond as long as you don't move command your marines into siege tanks.
|
On April 06 2012 09:30 CecilSunkure wrote:
Well if you focus on the priorities and play a very safe and standard game, how can you die to stupid shit? You'll have so much shit you can't possibly die to stupid shit.
While I agree with a lot of your post, this part is kind of annoying me. Most people in the lower leagues have no idea of how to play safe. A lot of people think they do, but if they play against a terran going fast banshees > BFH drops and a hidden expo > BATTLECRUISERS they are going to loose 90% of the time. (the exception being TvT, where this is standard  )
While the fundamentals are very important, I doubt you'll be able to make it past platinum without being equally good at scouting/game reading and reacting to what you see.
Telling a player who will loose instantly to any kind of proxy 2 gate that his problem is mechanics seems like a poor analysis.
|
I'm a gold player and played this one game (TvT) against a platinum player. Right, so my macro clearly beats his (I actually had higher overall score) but still lost because I managed to only kill 250 something units while he demolished 700+ of mine.
I focus a lot on economy and facilities but I suck some serious cocks on confrontations. I simply get demolished in fights most of the time. And because I suck in fights I tend to out macro my opponent just so I can overpower him with a huge *ss army.
Watching my own replays, I have constant SCV/supply production until like 60-70 scv and rarely get supply blocked. My army values and economy in general is huge compared to my opponents.
Also I think in somecases I also 'auto-mule' (almost unintentional) at 50-52 energy every single time so that when I actually need a scan I can't use it rofl.
Just to contradict with OP.
|
Blazinghand
United States25550 Posts
On May 06 2012 20:17 Red_Player wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2012 09:30 CecilSunkure wrote:
Well if you focus on the priorities and play a very safe and standard game, how can you die to stupid shit? You'll have so much shit you can't possibly die to stupid shit.
While I agree with a lot of your post, this part is kind of annoying me. Most people in the lower leagues have no idea of how to play safe. A lot of people think they do, but if they play against a terran going fast banshees > BFH drops and a hidden expo > BATTLECRUISERS they are going to loose 90% of the time. (the exception being TvT, where this is standard ) While the fundamentals are very important, I doubt you'll be able to make it past platinum without being equally good at scouting/game reading and reacting to what you see.
Scouting and game reading are meaningless when the game being played isn't a good one. Fast Banshees -> BFH Drops -> Hidden Expo -> BCs is such a complicated strategy that your efforts would be better spent becoming a stronger player than trying to master it.
In any case, I made it into Diamond League without really understanding anything about the game, without knowing about TL or any sc2 proscene or anything like that. Honestly, at every stage of my development as a player the thing that held me back was macro.
My micro is atrocious. I don't know how to split, focus fire, stutter step, use ghosts, vikings, tanks, or any of that. Hell, even my macro is atrocious at times. But I execute a basic build order and don't get blocked for the first 10 minutes and sometimes that's all I need.
In any case, do some research and find a "safe" build order. A lot of build orders are safe against the unexpected. For example, straight up standard play CAN beat anything, because, well, it's standard.
|
On May 06 2012 11:19 nyccine wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2012 15:42 Hairy wrote:On May 04 2012 13:03 nyccine wrote:
...Really, it's unneccessary though; Blizzard gives you a handy-dandy graph at the end of your match that tells you what the army values were. And I can tell you exactly what they look like: I outpace my opponent, then there's a dramatic drop where my army gets wiped; repeat this trend until end of match.
The thing is, this doesn't say ANYTHING about your macro ability though. Bronze players' games can follow the same pattern, but it doesn't mean the guy that had higher army value had good macro (or even that the player with a larger army had better macro than his opponent). To analyse one of your games, and look for macro slip-ups, you cannot simply look at the graphs at the end of the game - they are virtually useless! They really tell you NOTHING of learning value. The very fact you've said that "you don't need to look at my replay, as I've already looked at the end of game graphs" is a very big warning sign that you lack the ability to properly analyse your own reps. Also, saying I could get out of Gold with pure Macro is obviously false because I dropped *from* Platinum by switching my focus to macro. Not to sound like a dick or anything, but this is probably because your macro really isn't any good, rather than it being bad advice. By not posting a replay you are passing up the chance for more experienced players to point out areas you can improve, on a game you thought went well no less! Their motive may be to prove a point, rather than purely to help you out, but the result would be the same on your end. The fact that you're pulling quotes out of context, and completely misrepresenting what was communicated, is a very big warning sign that you're not interested in actually having a discussion. Nonetheless, please address the argument at hand:
Why this must be such a combative thing? This thread, and (most of) the posts in it aren't here with the goal to show low level players are idiots, or that they're stupid and concentrating on the wrong thing - the goal is to HELP people play better.
In this case I wasn't trying to "pull quotes out of context", I was just quoting the bits of your post I wanted to discuss. I can quote the entire thing and bold relevant sections, if you prefer.
On May 06 2012 11:19 nyccine wrote:1- the claim is that macro trumps everything else in winning.
2- if "1" is true, then the player whose macro was "better" - which says nothing about whether that player's macro is objectively "good," or even "great" - will win more often than not
3- if it is shown that "2" is not happening, or at least not reliably so, then we can safely conclude that something else is necessary.
4- if "3" is true, then telling lower-skilled players who don't have this "something else" to focus on macro could very easily lead to poor play.
The claim isn't that "macro trumps everything else in winning"; the claim is that "macro is extremely important, and its importance is often extremely under-valued by low level players".
Having stronger macro than your opponent will give you an advantage. Having good macro will give you an incredible advantage against low league players (more on that later). If you really are macroing well (not just a bit better than your opponent, but actually macroing WELL), and you are still losing, then that would indicate there would be severe flaws elsewhere in your play that are so vast that they are overshadowing the overwhelming advantage you had (we're talking pretty extreme flaws here, like a prediliction to move-commanding your army into his).
The advice is being given out because most people don't have such extreme flaws; their macro is awful but they do not recognise its incredible importance and are concentrating/worrying about other things, and/or they don't realise their macro really isn't "ok". If you really are in the aforementioned group - where your macro is good but you have severe flaws elsewhere - then this advice will not apply to you. But it does not mean the advice is wrong - you must recognise that you are in the minority.
On May 06 2012 11:19 nyccine wrote:This is why talk of "let me show you where your macro is off" is so utterly pointless; if I make 100 macro errors in a game - and I wouldn't be at all surpised if you could find many games where I did - but my opponent makes 200, I should cleanly win. Since macro means "more stuff, quicker," then yes, Blizzards army value graph by definition *is* a good indicator of who had "better" - yet again, not necessarily "good" by an objective standard, much less great, could even be utterly horrible, just so long as it was "better" than the other guy's - macro.
If macro in fact means something other than "make more stuff, quicker," then we need to say what it is, because that is the meaning everyone seems to take away from discussions of macro. "Macro" does mean is what you say it means. However, as I said earlier, having stronger macro than your opponent will give you an advantage, and having good macro will give you an incredible advantage against low league players - it doesn't mean you will automatically win if you have extreme flaws elsewhere.
I'd also like to point out the fact that the army value graph really tells you very little. No masters player is going to look at the graph and say "hey, I macrod well that game" (most likely they will never EVER even look at that page). If I want to look at how well I macrod, or want to compare myself to my opponent, I look at the replay, NOT the army graph! There's too many variables involved. For example, a typical ZvP will often have the zerg far ahead in both army value and supply, yet he isn't actually ahead! Their armies are comparable, and just because the zerg has a higher army value does not indicate he macrod better. Another example would be one player going for a "tech" route, and his opponent instead sticking with low tech units. The "low tech" player MUST be ahead of his opponent in army value or his army is actually going to be weaker than his opponent's.
On May 06 2012 11:19 nyccine wrote:My assertion - and it isn't mine alone, others in this thread have made the same point - is that to be "good" at macro, you need some fundamental skills in unit control, hotkey use, and proper decision making on the fly that allows for crisp production. My assertion is emphatically *not* that macro is irrelevent. When someone says "all the pros talk about where they could have macro'd better," this doesn't contradict my argument at all - my argument states that the pros have the fundamentals down pat enough that the deciding factor will often boil down to macro as that's the only variable really left (some matches there will of course be a critical mistake that costs an army, sometimes there's just a build-order loss, but for the most part it will be macro). What I am saying is that for people as unskilled as me, "macro harder" just makes us keep our eyes in our base and make poor decisions because we *can't* macro and controll our armies properly at the same time.
You think good macro requires a higher level of mechanical ability than it really does. Day[9] in some old episodes has specifically demonstrated this very fact by using ONLY THE MOUSE to play, clicking very slowly and deliberately, and still macroing superbly. Good macro is far more about just remembering to everything you're supposed to, and placing buildings and building units with crisp timings (eg starting the next marine when the previous one is 90% done). You really DON'T need incredible mechanics (hotkey use + camera hotkeys etc) to macro well!
|
On April 06 2012 09:30 CecilSunkure wrote:
These are just the questions people ask me during coaching. What about what people actually think about when they lose? "He played like a faggot" - one of my opponents actually called me a faggot because I beat him so badly in the VOD. What would happen if he admit he can't make probes and pylons like I can? Would he be more likely to improve if he did realize this?; "If I didn't play such faggots I'd be higher on ladder"; "I lost because of bad luck"; "I can't believe he won because <insert unit/strategy> is imbalanced"; "That's so imba"; "I have no way of scouting"; "I would have won if I just made this one small change"; all of these sorts of thoughts distract from the true importance: Probes and Pylons. Don't over-complicate it! You won't need to focus on minute details until other larger more important things are taken care of.
So what do you think? Is this whole Probes and Pylons idea really true? Or is it garbage that you can just focus on these two things while letting better players decide on what strategies to use? Can a lower league player really take on this form of play and win more games due to true improvement?
I appreciate the first paragraph quoted above. This definitely speaks to the negative mindset a lot of players adopt that stops them from improving.
That being said, the protoss games of your vod are a bit misleading. At the end of the paragraph you said that "you won't need to focus on minute details until other larger more important things are taken care of". If I was a beginning protoss I would look at the first game and see how you harassed the drone at the expansion and try to copy it myself. With both major battles against the roach army you used a ton of forcefields. As a beginning protoss I would focus so much on the forcefields and ideal attack arc that I'd forget to warp in reinforcements. Even the point in the second game where you worried about a nydus to the main and threw down a bunch of canons can throw my upstart protoss self into confusion. I'll put down a bunch of canons and after 30 seconds to a minute realize I haven't been making probes.
Everything I mentioned is a little, less important detail. However, it's one of the many small details a less experienced player can become hung up on. When I started playing SC2 in August 2010 I started with the noblest intentions to focus on macro, specifically avoiding supply blocks and getting a good economy. Then I started losing to a bunch of players wielding ridiculous strategies and before long I was focusing on winning the game more than improving macro mechanics. This is a trap all players fall in at some point or another.
What I have yet to see out of any improvement guide is a video that shows the iterative, often frustrating, macro learning process. Contrary to what a lot of people say, you're going to lose a TON of games when focusing on "probes and pylons". It takes MANY games to master the general build order with decent macro and many more to implement it against different styles. For example, I'm top 8 plat and a month and a half ago I started learning a 13 minute max, upgrade-heavy zvp. I became very disillusioned after a series of soul-crushing games where I had a 60-80 supply lead, rarely missed overlords, and had a bustling, 4-5 base economy and flat-up lost in my 13 minute max engagements. In one game I lost to a late-game army and had such a good economy that I exited the game with over 5000 minerals and 3000 gas. This happened because of poor battle management, but the end result made me want to run to the TL forums and cuss out the next upper level player who says you can macro and A-move into masters*. (Instead, I veto'd entomed valley)
More on the macro learning process, I would also love to see a tutorial where a player dies while building an economy and then regames immediately, makes a change to avoid death, and continues to build economy. One might say "scout better", especially to a new zerg player or any race when defending cheese, but even scouting takes attention away from building an economy. Players often put so much thought into what their scout is seeing they neglect worker production. After getting bogged down with a negative mindset for a few weeks I got my macro focus back on track and now I frequently lose to ZvT 2 base all-ins because I didn't scout them in time. These are upsetting, especially because if I knew about them I could have beaten them, but with learning a new opening and preferring to improve injects, overlords, and drones my scouting has taken a back seat in the match-up. The end result is deceiving since I'm losing a ton of games even though my macro is improving greatly**.
So to answer the question at the end, I agree that lower level players should let the pro's figure out the big-picture strategies while we focus on macro mechanics. "Probes and pylons" is probably the best place to start, but it's the first leg of a long journey!
*As an aside, the game development has made promotion into masters a LOT more difficult than it was, say, 6 months ago. The bar of lower leagues rises just as the bar in the highest league rises. If you're a midmasters player now, but you were platinum 8 months ago, I guarantee that the platinum players now are of much higher quality than the ones you remember facing.
**disclaimer: I am focusing a lot on losses, but a good 2/3-3/4 of my wins are because of superior macro while about half my losses are due to bad scouting/unconventional play/not reponding to a strategy correctly while the other half is due to messing up macro in some way (win ratio is around 50% for the 110 games I've played this season). Even though I lose a lot because I'm focusing on improving droning, injects, and overlords I am facing higher level opponents (in this case diamond) and the means of winning (better production from improved economy mechanics) stays the same.
|
This guide just boils down to : 'macro better nubs'. No need to sugarcoat it with nice images and VODs. If your macro is bad, you're bad. That's just the way it is.
|
Blazinghand
United States25550 Posts
On May 07 2012 07:27 AcesAnoka wrote:
This guide just boils down to : 'macro better nubs'. No need to sugarcoat it with nice images and VODs. If your macro is bad, you're bad. That's just the way it is.
Just telling someone "macro better nubs" isn't useful though;; this guide goes beyond that by demonstrating what the problem is and showing HOW to macro better, and where to focus your energies, which is in my opinion useful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
