|
On April 16 2012 10:15 Belial88 wrote:But thanks for posting a rep, and at least having the balls to do that. Even if it actually proved my point, and proved yourself wrong. It really goes to show how low level players just don't understand, and delude themselves. It's a tough fucking game, so there's nothing wrong with you. You just need to understand that you can macro your way to masters. Every masters will tell you that.
Your Welcome
But . . .
Please do us all a favor, go back to that amazingly deep analysis of yours, review each and every one of your own comments and please please please please PLEASE, highlight using different colors what is a Macro Mistake and what is a Strategic Mistake. I do have problems with Macro I never denied it. But I fail to understand how not teching-up is a MACRO?!?!? mistake. Where in the definition of Macro does it ever mention that I should tech-up?!?
Of course my play is horrible and has a gazillion mistakes, not all the mistakes you pointed out are Macro . . . You proved both our points, my Macro is horrible and needs work (I believe I said that before I uploaded). But had I teched up well maybe I'd have won the game also?!? Last time I looked Teching-up was definitly not in Team Liquids Definition of Macro.
Thank-you Belial, you actually proved to all of us through your amazingly deep and (shall we say colorful language) analysis of my game that Strategy goes hand in hand with Macro, Pick a horrible strategy (stay on Marine and Marauders to long) and you loose Darn I'm Shocked!
Oh here is the link to TeamLiquid's definition of MACRO
|
Any time 2 equally skilled players face off strategy is important.
When a player A is of greater skill than player B strategy is irrellivant due to the fact that player A will just have way more stuff.
Simply put, when 2 bronze level players face off their macro and mechanics are equally terrible and so if one player positions their army better, or has a better compostion either by luck or by decision that player will win.
Important note : lower league strategies are different to higher league strategies. Take the 111. Strong build, everyone knows that right? It involves too much stuff for a lower level player to pull off effectively, they will have more success with a marine tank push, cause it's less complicated. A 111 will be too late with too many macro hiccups to work properly.
Other builds in the lowest levels of play require no one attacking for the first 15 minutes, which tends to work out ok in bronze. They would outright lose in higher leauges, but it's still a viable strategy for two equally skilled bronze players.
I'm using bronze examples becaue they are more extreme, but all levels of play have variations of this. Diamond players will do builds that just outright lose to master players because they work vs diamond players.
|
I think its syles vs styles. Yes, you will get more consistent wins with good macro and mechanics, but, it also takes longer to learn. You have to repeat things over and over, fix each thing that is wrong with your play one by one. As most people will say, "just play more games".
But, some people in the lower leagues are in there probably because they haven't even played 200 games in total. Some people just play 2 ladder games a week MAX. These are the people that probably would just benefit from coming up with a creative build or just out scouting and out reacting to opponents.
These are the people who just want to enjoy those 2 games a week. Either they have work, or enjoy other games for the PC/Console. So they just cant focus on SC2 only let alone macro and mechanics. They just want fun fun strategies. They might just don't care if they leave silver or not.
Case in point, watch LagTV. People win by just out-thinking others. And it's probably the most fun way to win!
+ Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler +
Now, there is another breed of gamer that just plays SC2 all day long. 1000+ games total, and wants to climb the ladder. They have probably already hit the wall where strategy just wont cut it. And, they probably already know that macro and mechanics will get you wins more than strategy until they reach diamond.
So, where does this come down to? Just play the game and maximize your fun.
The beauty of the matchmaking system is, that whatever style you have you probably will get 50% wins 50% losses in the long run. Macro/Mechanics/Strategy, the system wont care.
|
Please do us all a favor, go back to that amazingly deep analysis of yours, review each and every one of your own comments and please please please please PLEASE, highlight using different colors what is a Macro Mistake and what is a Strategic Mistake. I do have problems with Macro I never denied it. But I fail to understand how not teching-up is a MACRO?!?!? mistake. Where in the definition of Macro does it ever mention that I should tech-up?!?
Okay, teching up could be considered strategy, but there's a MACRO problem that is the root cause of it.
You failed to make workers. Because of this, you sat at 40 SCVs. If you have only 40 SCVs, and not have good macro and constantly make workers, you won't have higher income. If you don't have higher income, then you don't need tech to spend your money, you can just make marine/marauder and make sure not to have a bank.
If you had been constantly making workers, and was instead at a very modest 60 workers (which would still be bad macro, by the way), there would be no way you could keep your money below 500/500 without teching up (or extremely fast multitask and macro where you throw down 20+ rax.. but I highly doubt you could do that, and that's a lot harder to macro out right, unless you go like gasless pure marine 30+ rax).
So yes, there's a strategic problem of you not making medivacs, ghosts, or vikings, but the root cause if a macro problem of you not making workers OR spending your bank. If you make workers, your income goes up, and you can't just go marine/marauder to spend it all, so you are FORCED to tech up in order to keep your money low.
Solve macro, and you solve the strategy.
But had I teched up well maybe I'd have won the game also?!? Last time I looked Teching-up was definitly not in Team Liquids Definition of Macro.
No, you would not have. You could not afford medivacs or ghosts, because your income was so low, because you never made workers. You would have had half the army for 4 medivacs or some ghosts, which would ahve been crushed just the same.
It looks like a strategic problem, but in reality, it's a macro problem. Because pure marine/marauder with good macro would have won that game just as easily. It looks like if you only made medivacs and ghosts you would have won, but in reality, if you did that with your horrible macro, you would have a tiny, tiny army that would have been crushed much easier.
Take a look at the infamous Kryxi vs MKP on shakuras plateau, where he went pure baneling. It LOOKED like a micro issue, or a strategy issue (ling/bane is much better than pure bane). But in reality, Kryix lost the game because he went all-in on 40 drones, and didn't outright kill MKP with his bane bust. There was no way for kryix to have won that game after a failed bane bust, but MKP's micro just served to make the game entertaining as hell.
Any time 2 equally skilled players who play at a competent level face off strategy is important.
FTFY.
At bronze to diamond (and most would argue, up to mid-masters, or even GM on NA/low masters KR), people play 'incompetently'. I know that sounds harsh, but what I mean is, is that people play at such a low level in the lower leagues, that strategy is not important, because everyone macros so poorly.
If you macro GOOD, you will get to masters, if not high masters, easily. People in silver, they just don't play 'competently'. It's like people playing chess who don't know the rules of the game. Timings don't exist, strategy is irrelevant. Just macro out more units, and win.
Like, I could play any platinum player, and go pure speedling, and win. Now, obviously, I'm better than a plat. But a Platinum player, could focus on his macro, maybe be more mindful of his macro, and concentrate on it, and he will rank up soon enough.
it takes time to macro well. it's hard as fuck. But if you are bronze to diamond, please, please, please, understand, if you macro better, you will get to masters easily. We aren't saying macro good. We're saying avoid the silliest of mistakes like getting supply blocked at 28 supply, or making a depot when you are at 21/28 supply, or just constantly make workers.
Liek taht's it. Constantly, always, always make workers, never have lapse in time of worker production? Diamond, easily.
Important note : lower league strategies are different to higher league strategies. Take the 111. Strong build, everyone knows that right? It involves too much stuff for a lower level player to pull off effectively, they will have more success with a marine tank push, cause it's less complicated. A 111 will be too late with too many macro hiccups to work properly.
Other builds in the lowest levels of play require no one attacking for the first 15 minutes, which tends to work out ok in bronze. They would outright lose in higher leauges, but it's still a viable strategy for two equally skilled bronze players.
That's because anything is viable in the lower leagues. People macro so poorly that you can literally do anything, and win. We've seen countless pros, as well as just regular masters players, just troll the fuck out of bronze to diamond doing stupid shit, and winning, because you can do anything in the lower leagues and win. Because no one has enough shit to win.
Nevermind that strategy and micro is absolutely atrocious in the lower leagues too. But the biggest reason, is because of the macro.
But, some people in the lower leagues are in there probably because they haven't even played 200 games in total. Some people just play 2 ladder games a week MAX. These are the people that probably would just benefit from coming up with a creative build or just out scouting and out reacting to opponents.
Of course. If you log 2,000 games, 99% of people will be diamond. If not masters. Really, you should be masters if you play 3k games. It's very rare to have more than 3k games and be below masters.
Which goes to show, hey, it doesnt take skill to get to masters.
Now, there is another breed of gamer that just plays SC2 all day long. 1000+ games total, and wants to climb the ladder. They have probably already hit the wall where strategy just wont cut it. And, they probably already know that macro and mechanics will get you wins more than strategy until they reach diamond.
That won't happen unless there's a handicap on the player... Play 3k games, you'll be masters.
|
Belial, did you actually check my opponent's macro skills? Was his Macro equal, greater then or less then my own Macro level. I checked and from what I can see it seems to me that his macro was more or less equal to mine. Would I have won if my macro was better then his, maybe. Would I have won if my Strategy was better then his, maybe. Would I have won if both my strategy and my macro was better then his, most likely.
You can't just macro a simple basic unit, and expect to win every match-up Banelings>Marines, (remember splitting up marine is definitely not a Macro skill). Yah you might say well if you have a 30 supply lead on your opponent no matter how many banelings, you'll kill him then in that case I expect Blizzards match system will soon match me against better skilled opponents since a 30 supply lead (assuming no big harassment was successful earlier) is bordering on unfair and I definitely need to be placed against better opponents, but with equal macro skill, of course strategy will make a difference.
Yes I already know that my words can be taken out of context and be used to prove your point. Remember I never said Macro was not a way to improve, I'm simply trying to get you to understand that Strategy is an other way to improve. Improving both is better then improving only one.
|
^ It looked like he was macro'ing really bad, but he made more workers than you did, had a more standard build instead of doing an all-in like you were, and was better about constant worker production, pylons, and spending his gas.
You were ahead in supply before you pushed out, but that was because you were all-inning and so had lots of production going but no tech or macro.
Both of you macrod pretty badly, and I wouldn't say you macro'd better. You were ahead in supply at 58 , but that was because you didnt' expand or tech. If you cut tech or macro, you will shoot ahead in supply of the opponent for a while, before their macro kicks in or their tech takes advantage of you.
I'd say you both macro'd extremely evenly. You had some really blatant mistakes. Not making workers ever. Not making marines ever (marauder production was better). Making supply depots just ludicrously early. After you 9:30 attack that should have hit around I think 7:00, your macro really fell apart as you banked 2k/2k+, got supply blocked every single time, and just really never made any more workers.
You can't just macro a simple basic unit, and expect to win every match-up Banelings>Marines, (remember splitting up marine is definitely not a Macro skill). Yah you might say well if you have a 30 supply lead on your opponent no matter how many banelings, you'll kill him then in that case I expect Blizzards match system will soon match me against better skilled opponents since a 30 supply lead (assuming no big harassment was successful earlier) is bordering on unfair and I definitely need to be placed against better opponents, but with equal macro skill, of course strategy will make a difference.
It's been done many times by people trying to prove a point. You can easily get to diamond macro'ing just marines, or just banelings, or just zerglings, et cetera. It's been posted in this thread even, like the guy who went gasless pure marine, and didn't even do a good build, he just made marines, and made expos only when he started to bank money (he would go 4 rax on 1 base, then expand, and that's a horribly all-in build).
Since you aren't going to macro much better overnight, no, don't do that yourself. We are just saying that that's how important macro is, if you had decent macro, you could get to diamond with just going a single, basic unit only.
Yes I already know that my words can be taken out of context and be used to prove your point. Remember I never said Macro was not a way to improve, I'm simply trying to get you to understand that Strategy is an other way to improve. Improving both is better then improving only one.
Right, but everyone here, including blues, are telling you, that you are wrong.
This kind of thinking is WHY you are FAILING. Realize your macro is shit, and focus on it. keep deluding yourself into thinking your macro is good, or that strategy is important, and stay in gold league. Gold is soooo horribly low level, you have very little understanding of this game and macro. Please, listen to higher level people, when they are telling you, that you need to FOCUS on macro.
Trust us. We were all in gold at one time too. I watch every one of my replays for macro, not strategy. Every time I've posted a thread on TL about "Hey, why did i lose?", I got 20 responses saying "Macro better" (obviously not just like that, but very detailed responses, explaining why my macro caused my loss).
Because I PROMISE you, no one can get to masters with just strategy. You can have the best 'strategy' in the world, you will NEVER hit diamond. But if you have the best macro in the world, you will be top masters overnight. That should tell you everything you need to know.
Besides, every strategy is viable in Gold league. What we are telling you, is that low masters on NA is so horribly bad, that you can do any strategy you want, and win. You can 4 gate, you can go roach/hydra/corruptor, you can go stalker/colossus pvz, whatever. Macro well, and you'll get to diamond, if not masters.
Or just ignore me, and Cecil, and every blue and pro and high masters who's commented on this. Whatever. We have no fucking clue what we are talking about. The only difference between you and me, I'm sure is just a little multitask. Because everyone in masters actually plays well and doesn't 1a derp their units (sarcasm).
|
On April 16 2012 11:17 Belial88 wrote:Show nested quote +Any time 2 equally skilled players who play at a competent level face off strategy is important. FTFY.
See this is where we disagree. We're not talking about a competent level of play, we're talking about all levels of play. Lower level players can do 2 things to win games:
One is improve their macro, which will give them more stuff and the strategy they use will be almost irrelivant (i say almost
because some things like a DT rush vs a no detection protoss loses regardless how much shit they have)
The other is learn to scout / read opponent and react 'correctly'.
Both are important, both can get you to diamond, but neither will get you into masters on their own. Most people walk a middle path, improving their macro a little and their strategy a little and slowly moving up the leagues.
|
"Strategy" and "Macro" are two terms defined way too broadly. You can't say one is more important than the other because they intersect at many many points.
That said, if you substitute "Strategy" for "Unit composition", it suddenly makes a lot more sense. You can have success with suboptimal unit compositions as long as you have more of them. It doesn't matter if you have zealot voidray, archon sentry or colossus stalker, as long as you have more than your opponent. As long as you have more, it makes no different what unit composition your opponent is using. At least as long as you have stuff that shoots ground and stuff that shoots air and if you're not being absurdly hard countered (mass ling vs bf helion).
|
See this is where we disagree. We're not talking about a competent level of play, we're talking about all levels of play. Lower level players can do 2 things to win games:
One is improve their macro, which will give them more stuff and the strategy they use will be almost irrelivant (i say almost
because some things like a DT rush vs a no detection protoss loses regardless how much shit they have)
The other is learn to scout / read opponent and react 'correctly'.
Both are important, both can get you to diamond, but neither will get you into masters on their own. Most people walk a middle path, improving their macro a little and their strategy a little and slowly moving up the leagues.
What level are you, may I ask?
You can get to masters with macro alone. You can't use strategy to get to platinum without macro.
Things like DTs and such can be solved most of the time by macro alone, especially in lower levels, which is the point here. People will have such late DTs it doesn't matter. As long as you scout for expo or not expo, army out front or not army out front, that should be enough. You can make throwaway turret/spore every game anyways, and if you macro well, you will get to masters just fine. Dts will never come before zerg has a standard evo chamber up anyways.
If you macro competently, than you can get to diamond, if not masters. We aren't talking about good macro, just better macro.
"Strategy" and "Macro" are two terms defined way too broadly. You can't say one is more important than the other because they intersect at many many points.
No.
At the lower levels, there is no strategy, because anything is viable due to the horrendous macro there (not to mention micro, decision making, etc).
Strategy can only come with macro. If you don't macro well, you can't do any strategy. "mass hellions" is not a strategy, it's just a plan. "4 hellions at 7:30 to deny third" is a strategy, but if you don't macro well, the zerg can just take the third in your face because the hellions won't stop the drone.
You need ghosts to deal with HT. But in the lower levels, people don't make enough shit, and you can steamroll zealot/archon/ht because you have just twice the size of army. Secondly, you can't just get ghosts - you have to have good macro for them to be worthwhile. Ghosts with a tiny army is crap. Ghosts with no econ, is crap. But if you macro well, you will be FORCED to get ghosts, otherwise you will bank money.
So macro well, and the right strategic decisions will come naturally. You will say "Hey, I'm on 10 bases, gee, the only way I can keep my money low is with 3/3 mass broodlords!" or colossi/archon/ht/mothership or ghost/viking/medivac/tank/thor.
|
On April 16 2012 10:58 Don.681 wrote:I think its syles vs styles. Yes, you will get more consistent wins with good macro and mechanics, but, it also takes longer to learn. You have to repeat things over and over, fix each thing that is wrong with your play one by one. As most people will say, "just play more games". But, some people in the lower leagues are in there probably because they haven't even played 200 games in total. Some people just play 2 ladder games a week MAX. These are the people that probably would just benefit from coming up with a creative build or just out scouting and out reacting to opponents. These are the people who just want to enjoy those 2 games a week. Either they have work, or enjoy other games for the PC/Console. So they just cant focus on SC2 only let alone macro and mechanics. They just want fun fun strategies. They might just don't care if they leave silver or not. Case in point, watch LagTV. People win by just out-thinking others. And it's probably the most fun way to win! + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCoLdWn1ZzU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOvGCrilWik&list=UU1GXL5VYIankj3MGgknwGfA&index=2&feature=plcp Now, there is another breed of gamer that just plays SC2 all day long. 1000+ games total, and wants to climb the ladder. They have probably already hit the wall where strategy just wont cut it. And, they probably already know that macro and mechanics will get you wins more than strategy until they reach diamond. So, where does this come down to? Just play the game and maximize your fun.The beauty of the matchmaking system is, that whatever style you have you probably will get 50% wins 50% losses in the long run. Macro/Mechanics/Strategy, the system wont care.
I can't say the pretend to be afk strategy is out thinking someone as it wont work in any league above... oh dear lord.
But the terran SCV rush was silly, protoss can run around and regen shield, giving not only a home advantage and a worker advantage, but also he has a survivablity advantage since the terran really has no mining to fund repairs.
|
After more thought Belial88 is right if your objective is to get a higher league.
Winning that game, right now, strategy will do it for you, because improving your macro takes lots and lots of practise, but the right decision right now will win you this game. But in the next game you might make the wrong decision, or your opponent will make a better decision, leaving you with a 50/50 win rate.
Improving your mechanics/macro will lower the importance of those strategic or tactical decisions improving your win rate and thus improving your MMR.
So I will amend my statement, strategy is really important for winning right now, but because the game is so complicated and people don't make logical decisions you will still lose a lot of games if you rely on just strategy.
If you improve your macro you will have more stuff, which often times will allow you to survive a game you should have lost even though you were trading poorly due to bad engagements or bad compositions.
|
I decided to put the 'macro better into masters' theory into test, since I was a bronze terran player. Haven't been able to play that much, but I am winning almost every game so far, got me into high silver rather instantly. In the last game, however, I was not winning convincingly against silver opponent, so I checked the replay. I noticed certain problems:
First problem: too many SCVs. How bad is it to have extra SCVs? I had ~90. Should I try to learn to stop at ~70?
Second problem: spending is difficult after 3rd base and say 6 orbitals, or after 200/200. Should I just build rax after rax, or rather try to tech up and produce thors and stuff? Is my gas going to sustain high tech units? How to sink all those minerals? or should i start banking at that point?
Third: If I let the opponent to max out as well, I don't know how to make use of my better macro. If say ultras eat all my marines, reproduction is too slow never mind I have 10 bases and 10k in the bank, and I get killed even if I have more bases and other stuff. I lost once because I a-moved my MM+viking ball into zealot+templar army. It was not pretty. I had ~20-30 rax, several orbitals, and all the money but couldn't resupply fast enough and lost to 2-base protoss. i guess it's about resupply speed, if the enemy starts to kill my orbitals which are at this point everywhere, I win because I can resupply. I played protoss before and this wasn't a problem. So I guess the problem is how to take advantage of terran macro when the income becomes ridiculously high but supply is capped. Teching is slow, too.
|
For all those who believe bronze or silver players are any good at all, watch Filter Starcraft decimate them without micro... 0 MICRO.. ZERO
They are that bad.
www.youtube.com/user/filtersc
|
On April 16 2012 11:17 Belial88 wrote:Show nested quote +Please do us all a favor, go back to that amazingly deep analysis of yours, review each and every one of your own comments and please please please please PLEASE, highlight using different colors what is a Macro Mistake and what is a Strategic Mistake. I do have problems with Macro I never denied it. But I fail to understand how not teching-up is a MACRO?!?!? mistake. Where in the definition of Macro does it ever mention that I should tech-up?!? Okay, teching up could be considered strategy, but there's a MACRO problem that is the root cause of it. You failed to make workers. Because of this, you sat at 40 SCVs. If you have only 40 SCVs, and not have good macro and constantly make workers, you won't have higher income. If you don't have higher income, then you don't need tech to spend your money, you can just make marine/marauder and make sure not to have a bank. If you had been constantly making workers, and was instead at a very modest 60 workers (which would still be bad macro, by the way), there would be no way you could keep your money below 500/500 without teching up (or extremely fast multitask and macro where you throw down 20+ rax.. but I highly doubt you could do that, and that's a lot harder to macro out right, unless you go like gasless pure marine 30+ rax).So yes, there's a strategic problem of you not making medivacs, ghosts, or vikings, but the root cause if a macro problem of you not making workers OR spending your bank. If you make workers, your income goes up, and you can't just go marine/marauder to spend it all, so you are FORCED to tech up in order to keep your money low. Solve macro, and you solve the strategy.
This is getting just a tad silly.
"There would be no way you could keep your money below 500/500 without teching up... well, unless you kept your money low without teching up. But you wouldn't try to do that; you'd make the right strategic decision at the right time and tech up, even without knowing that's what you should be trying to do, and even with me insisting over and over that you don't need to think strategically and that you can get into diamond with just basic units and good macro."
I'm not arguing that people should shift their focus from improving their macro. I'm arguing that a degree of strategic understanding can serve as a lens to help them focus on macro. It certainly helped me.
As a for-instance: I've been working on my ZvP lately, practicing the 12-minute-max versus FFE. It's great because there's a solid macro benchmark (which I'm not quite hitting in a real game yet, before you ask  ). But I still have to watch the gasses at his natural (thank you Intimate ZvX) so I don't get caught out by air or DTs.
At the same time, not all my opponents go FFE. I often get 4-gated or zealot-rushed, so I've been working on deviations based on scouting gate/core or gate/gate, possibly with a pylon block at my natural. Knowing how many drones to build or when to start a spine crawler/roach warren/gas is not macro. Knowing what to do next to prevent him getting back in the game is not macro. And knowing these things makes it easier - makes it possible - for me to aim for what you call 'competent macro', because there's something concrete for me to aim for.
When my head's in the right place and I know exactly what I'm trying to do and why, I tend not to get supply blocked, make too many overlords or miss injects. I'm actually focused on my macro because my brain isn't worrying about a bunch of other decisions. Why is that so difficult for you to accept?
|
On April 16 2012 10:52 Sylvanium wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2012 10:15 Belial88 wrote:But thanks for posting a rep, and at least having the balls to do that. Even if it actually proved my point, and proved yourself wrong. It really goes to show how low level players just don't understand, and delude themselves. It's a tough fucking game, so there's nothing wrong with you. You just need to understand that you can macro your way to masters. Every masters will tell you that. Your Welcome But . . . Please do us all a favor, go back to that amazingly deep analysis of yours, review each and every one of your own comments and please please please please PLEASE, highlight using different colors what is a Macro Mistake and what is a Strategic Mistake. I do have problems with Macro I never denied it. But I fail to understand how not teching-up is MACRO?!?!? mistake. Where in the definition of Macro does it ever mention that I should tech-up?!?
Techingup is a macro mistake if you do it when you cant afford it.
|
At the same time, not all my opponents go FFE. I often get 4-gated or zealot-rushed, so I've been working on deviations based on scouting gate/core or gate/gate, possibly with a pylon block at my natural. Knowing how many drones to build or when to start a spine crawler/roach warren/gas is not macro. Knowing what to do next to prevent him getting back in the game is not macro. And knowing these things makes it easier - makes it possible - for me to aim for what you call 'competent macro', because there's something concrete for me to aim for.
When my head's in the right place and I know exactly what I'm trying to do and why, I tend not to get supply blocked, make too many overlords or miss injects. I'm actually focused on my macro because my brain isn't worrying about a bunch of other decisions. Why is that so difficult for you to accept?
You are clearly smart enough now, to know enough now, to make the right strategic decisions, based on very simple scouting (did he ffe, or did he gateway expand?).
Now that your strategy and scouting is ace, you should focus on your macro.
That's what we are saying. You aren't losing because of strategy. You already know enough strategy to get along just fine. Now focus on your macro.
You could also just go 2 base lair, macro well, and get up to at least diamond with sub-optimal strategy/builds, if not masters, and be safe from whatever opening toss did.
What you are saying is just helpful stuff, sure. But if you macro well, you can move well past platinum, at the very least. Are you capable of macro'ing well? Probably not. But if you focus on your macro, you will improve enough to the point to where strategy will become an issue. Until then, in bronze to plat, you can do whatever you want and win games.
|
it feels like strategy is only usefull to the point of,
do you have detection? OR do you have the right army composition? OR try to make sure they dont have a hard counter to what you have.
apart from getting these right, macro win you the game.
|
It's pretty much irrelevant. As long as you got your mechanics down you will be fine.
|
On April 16 2012 18:31 Belial88 wrote:Show nested quote +At the same time, not all my opponents go FFE. I often get 4-gated or zealot-rushed, so I've been working on deviations based on scouting gate/core or gate/gate, possibly with a pylon block at my natural. Knowing how many drones to build or when to start a spine crawler/roach warren/gas is not macro. Knowing what to do next to prevent him getting back in the game is not macro. And knowing these things makes it easier - makes it possible - for me to aim for what you call 'competent macro', because there's something concrete for me to aim for.
When my head's in the right place and I know exactly what I'm trying to do and why, I tend not to get supply blocked, make too many overlords or miss injects. I'm actually focused on my macro because my brain isn't worrying about a bunch of other decisions. Why is that so difficult for you to accept? You are clearly smart enough now, to know enough now, to make the right strategic decisions, based on very simple scouting (did he ffe, or did he gateway expand?). Now that your strategy and scouting is ace, you should focus on your macro. That's what we are saying. You aren't losing because of strategy. You already know enough strategy to get along just fine. Now focus on your macro.
That's what I've been trying to get through to you since I joined the thread. That's what I am able to do, now that I have some semblance of a strategic framework. And it's not just a question of 'did he FFE or gateway expand', either - you do play zerg, right? Plus I'm getting a handle on understanding what kind of advantage I've eked out in any given situation and what I should do next to exploit it.
Like I said: people keep telling you you're taking too much for granted, and you aren't listening. I'm not proud of the fact that my decision making and game-sense were so bad that they were preventing me improving my macro. It would be humiliating, if I were a less well-adjusted and all-round fabulous person. Still, there it is. So could you find it in your heart to temper your advice just a little?
For instance, could you agree with:
'You'll find it easier to concentrate on improving your macro if your other in-game decisions are swift and premeditated, so make sure you have a decent mental road-map of what you're going to do in what circumstances. Keep it as simple as possible by starting with a safe, middle of the road build, and DON'T build decisions into it that are based on poor macro. Always be thinking: should I easily have had more stuff? Would I have needed to make this decision if I had had it? Use strategy sparingly to inform your macro goals, not compensate for macro shortcomings.'
|
Up to plat/diamond (depends on region) you should just use 1-2 standard builds against each race and execute them perfectly. Just don't float any minerals or gas too often, add extra production buildings & upgrade when you can afford it and you should be able to defend any attack or cheese easily and also kill your opponent with pretty much 1 attack. That has nothing to do with strategy though, it's just following a build order.. No matter what you decide to do after that point, your units will always be superior to your opponents and you will be able to beat him by just attacking him and not screwing up your micro horribly.That is pretty much what Destiny wanted to prove in his stream when he did the low league games.
After plat/diamond though, the advantage you can get by doing a build flawlessly isn't that great anymore, because obviously your opponent has practiced his macro as well and even if his is a bit worse than yours (of course diamond players have nowhere near perfect macro), it ain't enough to compensate for poor strategy choice.
For example, in a TvZ the zerg's standard build might include early double expand. In lower leagues this would be ok even against a 1 base all-in because the allin simply wouldn't come early enough and also wouldn't include the proper amount of units for it to be deadly because of supply blocks, delay in worker production, poor micro by the terran,etc. But in higher leagues this should never happen and the zerg would be dead if he blindly did that build without being ready to deviate from it. That is strategy ! The build itself might aim for a great early economy but that's exactly what the allin counters. The zerg must adapt to the situation and maybe cancel the 3rd base or pull drones in order to defend. Then he can try to counter the terran's strategy himself by going fast muta or something (assuming the allin was marauder-hellion, = no early thors or stim marines).
But thinking like that in lower leagues is just unnecessary because a)your opponent doesn't think either,so what he does will be completely random, b)there are flaws in your gameplay that need to be fixed first c)nobody at higher levels has these flaws anymore so you MUST overcome them in order to be able to get there. So, I'm afraid that strategy doesn't matter at all in lower leagues. Just have a build that is known to be safe and standard and keep doing it until you do it perfectly. Never float minerals, not even while fighting. That should be your goal. Might be hard at first, too much multitasking maybe, but that's Starcraft.. Practice will make you better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
