|
Heh, nice, I successfully predicted the first two replies.
@Megabuster
Of course its sub-optimal roach maxing. I was just pointing out that the 23 minute figure is a laughably high overestimate.
@Forbidden17
Its fairly common against Protoss not to need any units that early. Granted if they do a FFE there's a higher chance of a pylon block or a cannon at your natural that would make going hatch first less viable.
http://drop.sc/159242
So there's a pool first variant with a later expand, scouting lings, +1 ranged and armour, roachspeed and burrow by 13:30ish.
|
Lol, wow. Are you Diamond? I am pretty sure you aren't (you're better, duh). Just because that stuff didn't happen when you were in Diamond doesn't mean that it doesn't happen now. I was Plat in season 6 (am easily Diamond), and that does happen. Lol, just lol. I have played multiple games where I go 3 hatch before gas against FFE, respond to WG pressure, mass roaches to delay/deny third while getting some tech (not always Broods). This was in Plat. Granted, it was during the ladder lock, and I was playing all Diamond players (but it was still just Diamond players).
Rep please. I'm sure there are games where toss does 2 base pressure, zerg holds, then pushes back with roaches, but I can't imagine it's a game where Toss goes sentry/zealot wg pressure, zerg gets roaches, then toss tries to take third, and then zerg gets mutas to keep toss in base, etc, with macro behind it all. I don't think the strategy you see in higher level games would exist in platinum or diamond because of the lack of macro. Toss can't get those zealot/sentry out to hit right before roaches can be out or that zerg gets roaches out at the exact moment to hold it, or that zerg gets map control and denies third with roaches, and then eventually toss gets third while zerg gets mutas, and then delays p long enough to get bl while P tries to get a big army to push with, etc.
Strategy is important in all leagues (you can't be a complete moron),
Well, you can be a 'moron' strategically and win in the lower leagues with pure macro, that's the whole point here. Obviously, no one is saying just go pure ling and focus on pure macro - what we are saying is play your game, but focus on improving your macro as you progress. You don't need to be re-watching replays wondering about this or that strat, you need to be rewatching your replays focusing on your macro.
The problem is almost never strategy. Never. You will see it in every [H]elp me thread, that the macro was the reason the person lost, not strategy, about 90% of the time. It doesn't take much to realize "hey, i should make roach/ling to defend toss 2 base pressure, then take third, tech up, deny third, then try to get bl in time". But it does take a lot to know how to macro right - it's hard as fuck to do! But it's not like anyone here is saying "dont worry about getting roaches to defend pushes, or getting broodlords or upgrades later in the game, just macro bro!".
I am in Silver, my experinece says strategies are very important on low leagues. I lost a fight with 200/200 pure roaches against 120 supply protoss at his natural at 13min yesterday.
"macro better" seems not the best answer in low leagues.
I can 99% guarantee, that macro was your problem.
I am 100% positive that a zerg who macros well, can easily crush a 2 base toss with pure roach. 100%.
I am pretty sure, not 100%, but I'm pretty sure, if you macro'd reasonably better, you would have won with your 200/200 roaches.
Please, post a replay. Because this thread is full of people saying the exact same thing you are. You, are the exact person the OP is directed toward. People who think that strategy is more important than it really is, and that macro isn't 100% the reason you are lower level. I guarantee I can pick apart very, very basic problems in your macro, and that is why you lost.
If you don't believe me, I'd be more than willing to play the person you played, in a PvZ, and I will go pure roach, and I will tell him I am going pure roach, and he can do the same strat.
I mean, we all saw Zeerax vs Mondragon. Mondragon won through pure macro against the voidray/colossi play he was doing. The reason the strategy of deathball play is so bad, is because of the basic macro behind it - you just won't have enough shit to hold.
Zerg 200/200 should able to beat 120 protoss without reinforcement, or is it wrong?
I would say it completely is dependent on what toss is doing, and their macro... It's not hard for zerg to get 200/200 roaches ~12-13 minute. There's a reason that kyrix style mass 3 base roach doesn't just always win against toss.
A good toss should be able to survive 200/200 roaches at 13 minute. What makes the game though, is how good both the z and p are, and their macro, and the outcome of such an attack. There are plenty of reasons why doing mass roach like that is bad - your tech is late, you have too few mutas/infestors, and then toss pushes back with ~150 supply and kills you because all you have are roaches against sentry/immortal, possibly colossi.
Its posts like this that make it hard to take macrobots seriously. Maxing out with roaches by 13 minutes is NOT THAT HARD. HURR SILVER LEAGUE, MUST HAVE TAKEN 23 MINUTES.
Yea, it's not hard to reach max by 13 minute. What's hard, is having all the tech behind it, and enough drones behind it, and getting everything else out in a timely manner. I don't think it's hard at all for a silver to max out at 13 minutes in a game against AI. I don't really see it happening in a real game, and a silver definitely wont max out by 13 against a good toss.
Macro better does not mean make more drones. It means get your shit out earlier, bigger, harder.
@monkeyballs: I don't doubt you can max out in under 13 minutes. What I doubt, is that you can macro well at all. Are you avoiding supply blocks/early/multiple supply made too early and banking over 300 minerals or gas in the first 10 minutes? I doubt it.
Getting maxed under 13, easy. Can you hit 70+ in a real game by the 8 minute mark (and eventually winning) with lair, speed, evo, warren, queens as necessary, is the real question.
|
On April 14 2012 16:03 Belial88 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Lol, wow. Are you Diamond? I am pretty sure you aren't (you're better, duh). Just because that stuff didn't happen when you were in Diamond doesn't mean that it doesn't happen now. I was Plat in season 6 (am easily Diamond), and that does happen. Lol, just lol. I have played multiple games where I go 3 hatch before gas against FFE, respond to WG pressure, mass roaches to delay/deny third while getting some tech (not always Broods). This was in Plat. Granted, it was during the ladder lock, and I was playing all Diamond players (but it was still just Diamond players). Rep please. I'm sure there are games where toss does 2 base pressure, zerg holds, then pushes back with roaches, but I can't imagine it's a game where Toss goes sentry/zealot wg pressure, zerg gets roaches, then toss tries to take third, and then zerg gets mutas to keep toss in base, etc, with macro behind it all. I don't think the strategy you see in higher level games would exist in platinum or diamond because of the lack of macro. Toss can't get those zealot/sentry out to hit right before roaches can be out or that zerg gets roaches out at the exact moment to hold it, or that zerg gets map control and denies third with roaches, and then eventually toss gets third while zerg gets mutas, and then delays p long enough to get bl while P tries to get a big army to push with, etc.
Strategy is important in all leagues (you can't be a complete moron),
Well, you can be a 'moron' strategically and win in the lower leagues with pure macro, that's the whole point here. Obviously, no one is saying just go pure ling and focus on pure macro - what we are saying is play your game, but focus on improving your macro as you progress. You don't need to be re-watching replays wondering about this or that strat, you need to be rewatching your replays focusing on your macro. The problem is almost never strategy. Never. You will see it in every [H]elp me thread, that the macro was the reason the person lost, not strategy, about 90% of the time. It doesn't take much to realize "hey, i should make roach/ling to defend toss 2 base pressure, then take third, tech up, deny third, then try to get bl in time". But it does take a lot to know how to macro right - it's hard as fuck to do! But it's not like anyone here is saying "dont worry about getting roaches to defend pushes, or getting broodlords or upgrades later in the game, just macro bro!". I am in Silver, my experinece says strategies are very important on low leagues. I lost a fight with 200/200 pure roaches against 120 supply protoss at his natural at 13min yesterday.
"macro better" seems not the best answer in low leagues. I can 99% guarantee, that macro was your problem. I am 100% positive that a zerg who macros well, can easily crush a 2 base toss with pure roach. 100%. I am pretty sure, not 100%, but I'm pretty sure, if you macro'd reasonably better, you would have won with your 200/200 roaches. Please, post a replay. Because this thread is full of people saying the exact same thing you are. You, are the exact person the OP is directed toward. People who think that strategy is more important than it really is, and that macro isn't 100% the reason you are lower level. I guarantee I can pick apart very, very basic problems in your macro, and that is why you lost. If you don't believe me, I'd be more than willing to play the person you played, in a PvZ, and I will go pure roach, and I will tell him I am going pure roach, and he can do the same strat. I mean, we all saw Zeerax vs Mondragon. Mondragon won through pure macro against the voidray/colossi play he was doing. The reason the strategy of deathball play is so bad, is because of the basic macro behind it - you just won't have enough shit to hold. Zerg 200/200 should able to beat 120 protoss without reinforcement, or is it wrong? I would say it completely is dependent on what toss is doing, and their macro... It's not hard for zerg to get 200/200 roaches ~12-13 minute. There's a reason that kyrix style mass 3 base roach doesn't just always win against toss. A good toss should be able to survive 200/200 roaches at 13 minute. What makes the game though, is how good both the z and p are, and their macro, and the outcome of such an attack. There are plenty of reasons why doing mass roach like that is bad - your tech is late, you have too few mutas/infestors, and then toss pushes back with ~150 supply and kills you because all you have are roaches against sentry/immortal, possibly colossi. Show nested quote +Its posts like this that make it hard to take macrobots seriously. Maxing out with roaches by 13 minutes is NOT THAT HARD. HURR SILVER LEAGUE, MUST HAVE TAKEN 23 MINUTES. Yea, it's not hard to reach max by 13 minute. What's hard, is having all the tech behind it, and enough drones behind it, and getting everything else out in a timely manner. I don't think it's hard at all for a silver to max out at 13 minutes in a game against AI. I don't really see it happening in a real game, and a silver definitely wont max out by 13 against a good toss. Macro better does not mean make more drones. It means get your shit out earlier, bigger, harder. @monkeyballs: I don't doubt you can max out in under 13 minutes. What I doubt, is that you can macro well at all. Are you avoiding supply blocks/early/multiple supply made too early and banking over 300 minerals or gas in the first 10 minutes? I doubt it. Getting maxed under 13, easy. Can you hit 70+ in a real game by the 8 minute mark (and eventually winning) with lair, speed, evo, warren, queens as necessary, is the real question.
Then you understand my point. Maxing out in under 13 minutes does not require good macro. Which is why it was stupid for that other guy to question a silver leaguer's ability to do so.
I'll answer your second question with some replays, provided you tell me what you think that level of macro(70+ supply by 8 minutes and still winning the game) would land someone in.
|
@Belial:
Could have won if macroed better =\= macro was THE reason for loss.
Sufficient =\= Necessary
Possible way to have won =\= simplest or smallest change leading to victory.
|
^ No that's not the point. Maxing out in 13 minutes as zerg, with roaches, isn't impressive. You might as well say "see im silver and i can hit 200/200 supply after 40 minutes". There's nothing that's really 'impressive', since it's just considered competent macro, but it's extremely unlikely that a bronze-plat can hit 70+ supply against computer at the 8 minute mark. Even if they could, they could just never, ever do it in a real game.
The other guy just didn't realize how easy it is to max in 13 minutes. Charon posted a replay a few pages back saying he could, and 'proving' that low level can macro well in a vacuum. I watched the replay, and it was actually counter-proof of his argument, showing that a gold CANT macro well ina vacuum - he had tons of supply blocks, early overlords, making 5+ overlords at once (i believe after 18 supply, he was either blocked or made way more overlords than his production could justify EVERY time).
But his point is basically right - that even in a vacuum, a low level player can't macro well. A better example than 13 minute max, is 8 minute 70+ (which i never hit in real games on ladder, and im mid-masters). I doubt a plat could ever do that in a vacuum, but even if he could, he would never do that in a real game, never come close to it.
People who are below diamond, just cannot macro 'competently' (as in not macro well, but just avoid major issues like supply blocks, and banking gas/minerals over 300) in the first 10 minutes. I mean, I don't even think mid-masters can do that in an actual game (but probably in a vacuum). If you are below masters, you have a long way to go before strategy. You have to macro 'competently'.
As long as you avoid supply blocks, not make more overlords than your production can justify (ie no 2 overlords at once at 20 supply), and not bank over 300 minerals/gas in the first 10 minutes, you should be able to get to low masters fairly easily, with basic game knowledge (derp, hellions beat lings, derp, don't run into sieged tanks, derp, dont fly mutas into marines on accident) and strategy/scouting (opponent is still on 1 base, he's all-inning, my opponent is on 2 base continue as normal, my opponent took 4 gas, make spores).
If you can actually macro well, as in make overlords on time, don't bank more than 100 minerals, never be late on injects, you should be able to get very, very well into masters, if not high masters, along with some basic game understanding that you DEFINITELY will have accrued from having practiced your macro and just watching enough games (hey mutas, good unit).
I'll answer your second question with some replays, provided you tell me what you think that level of macro(70+ supply by 8 minutes and still winning the game) would land someone in.
A real game where you hit 70+ supply by 8 minute, and have the normal stuff (lair or speed started, evo chamber unless you see no gas at toss base or get a really good scout off and know you don't need it, roach warren, 3 queens). No play like you are ignoring your opponent to 'prove' something obviously, just a natural game where you deal with toss sending out a zealot as scout/pressure (if he doesn't do that...), and you have to figure out what he's doing and scout, et c.
I mean, I'm mid-masters, and I don't think I ever hit that. So if you can pull off a game where you scout, deal with that pressure, and hit 70+ and respond appropriately to what's going on and have the right stuff and at least don't lose to something ridiculous like never making units or whatever, I'd say you are probably way past platinum, at the very least... like masters.
|
strategy is important if you want to comprehend why you won or lost any given game. macro becomes easier to understand once you start to think about how you actually want to win games. players are too focused on building up armies and playing "macro games" when they should just learn to attack and see how it goes.
when i started playing, i always got attacked at my front door. my games would be won or lost based on whether or not i held the attack well enough simply because my opponent was literally right in front of my base every time i had an engagement. i got so frustrated when i lost because i felt like i should have won since i macro'd my best and had tech and upgrades and yadda yadda yadda. if i had just engaged even halfway to my opponent's base, i would have increased my options as well as my map awareness.
so to answer your question, strategy is very very important. even if its the most basic of plans, its better than just sitting around and waiting for your opponent to decide how the games gonna go.
edit: i like to compare it to chess. in chess, both players have their entire armies from square one. you don't have to think about macro management, you have to think about strategy. in starcraft, while its true that you must be competent enough to build up your army at an equal rate or greater than your opponent can, you should not disregard the fundamental aspect of using your army in a strategy game.
|
^ I guarantee 99% of games lost below high masters is because of macro (barring huge blunders like running mutas over marines or not responding to an opponent who didn't expand).
If you are below diamond, please, post a replay showing how (besides major blunders or not scouting obvious things like DTs or he didn't expand) you lost not because of strategy.
I wrote a guide about holding 6 pools, and someone recently posting say he lost when going 14 pool. He was lower level, I watched the replay, and he actually lost purely because of macro.
Strategy is not important. Macro is. Any bronze player on TL will know enough strategy that they can get by. I really, really don't think any bronze is losing because of strategy...
so to answer your question, strategy is very very important. even if its the most basic of plans, its better than just sitting around and waiting for your opponent to decide how the games gonna go.
Sitting around and macro'ing is just as much pressure as an attack. When you expand, drone up, et cetera, you are forcing your opponent to make certain choices or he loses. He doesn't have many options, whether you macro, or all-in.
People are making these weird straw man analogies that make no sense. You are arguing ridiculous things, like saying "yea, but if you focus on macro, then you are going to go pure zergling against hellions! If you focus on macro, then his worker rush will kill you! If you focus on macro, then your opponent can do whatever he wants!" No. If you macro, you force the opponent to either macro too (game stays even), or desperately attack, to which, if you macro well and scout just basically (he expanded, didn't expand), you will hold, and come out ahead.
There's a reason why masters players can beat any bronze-plat (and most diamond, if not all) by just making 1 unit and doing any kind of strat.
edit: i like to compare it to chess. in chess, both players have their entire armies from square one. you don't have to think about macro management, you have to think about strategy. in starcraft, while its true that you must be competent enough to build up your army at an equal rate or greater than your opponent can, you should not disregard the fundamental aspect of using your army in a strategy game.
Starcraft is definitely like chess. But let me fix that for you:
Starcraft is like chess. But people who are below high masters, are like people playing chess who don't know how all the pieces move yet.
You can't get into strategy until you get the basics down. No one is denying that macro'ing well is hard as fuck, and takes years to get the basics down. Similar to chess, really - you don't get into strategy in chess until you learn the basics of the game, like how pieces interact, how to set things up, the openers...
|
You can get to upper master leauge just by makro and mikro, you need absolutely no strategy.
I started at silver, and got up to master's by just building units and ccs
|
Concentrate on macro.
In terms of composition just stick to whatever is standard in that matchup eg. MMM+V vs P.
In terms of when to attack, well 200/200 is always a safe bet.
|
There are some standard compositions and ways to get there for every race. You'll always be best off sticking to those. There's not much strategy in my TvZ for instance, I open FE-->reactor hellions-->cloakedB with inbase fast 3rd, but past that it's just building marine medivac tanks and attacking when I think it'll work. If I see Hive tech I prepare for that. It's pretty simple, doesn't go much thinking into it.
Edit. Realized I didn't really answer the question.
Do you need to utilize a mainstream strategy to maintain gold league? Hardly. You can freestyle it all the way to masters if you feel like it, but eventually you'll be limited by people executing relatively tight timing attacks.
|
I was in a bronze and just got into silver by doing two things: having a build that holds most early 1base allins and by concentrating on macro alone. Since I can now survive early all-ins reliably, and I am in a lower league, I am going to put the 'mid masters by macro alone' theory to test. What I am going to do is to use the same build over and over, and make sure i (1) constantly produce SCVs until ~70, (2) constantly produce army and new production buildings, (3) keep minerals low, (4) make expos when possible. If I lose, I check if (1-4) were done properly. If they were, and I still lose, I will post a replay here. I will a-move my army and only micro minimally (tanks into siege mode etcetera). I will put zero attention to army composition or strategy.
So far, I am winning. But we'll see. A possibility is that I will never learn to do (1-4), but that's another story...
|
Yeah 70 supply by 8 minutes is well out of my league(get it?). I was in silver as zerg in season 3, and gold zerg in season 4. Had between 45-60 food at 8:00, with the average closer to 55. I actually went through a point where I never lost to a Protoss FFE, simply because I had worked out that they can't actually do anything prior to 8 minutes or so so I could tunnelvision my basebuilding. The Toss that beat me mostly used 2/3 gate expands, because it was harder to tell on scouting gateways first whether they were onebasing or not early on, and I'd get the dronecount wrong. The food count itself was the same or higher.
|
On April 14 2012 19:14 aggu wrote:
I was in a bronze and just got into silver by doing two things: having a build that holds most early 1base allins and by concentrating on macro alone. Since I can now survive early all-ins reliably, and I am in a lower league, I am going to put the 'mid masters by macro alone' theory to test. What I am going to do is to use the same build over and over, and make sure i (1) constantly produce SCVs until ~70, (2) constantly produce army and new production buildings, (3) keep minerals low, (4) make expos when possible. If I lose, I check if (1-4) were done properly. If they were, and I still lose, I will post a replay here. I will a-move my army and only micro minimally (tanks into siege mode etcetera). I will put zero attention to army composition or strategy.
So far, I am winning. But we'll see. A possibility is that I will never learn to do (1-4), but that's another story...
Glad to see you got out of bronze already. 
Let me know how it goes. I think practicing macro alone will take you to platinum-low diamond.
Then some strategy/game sense would be required to get to Masters.
Again for you bronzers out there, try copying this T build like he did. Maybe you'll get out of bronze within a week too.
http://replayfu.com/r/bLP0Bc
|
The other guy just didn't realize how easy it is to max in 13 minutes. Charon posted a replay a few pages back saying he could, and 'proving' that low level can macro well in a vacuum. I watched the replay, and it was actually counter-proof of his argument, showing that a gold CANT macro well ina vacuum - he had tons of supply blocks, early overlords, making 5+ overlords at once (i believe after 18 supply, he was either blocked or made way more overlords than his production could justify EVERY time).
If you refer to my replay at least stay to the facts.
There was no supplyblock till 86 and the 5 OL occured after the 9 min mark.
Most of your critics was idle larvae and my overlordtiming being off. So if you want to make a point feel free but dont bend "evidence" so it suits your argument.
Even after your analysis of my replay I watched pro replays and guess what: The same things happen to them all the time. Idle Larvae while having 400 minerals, to many overlords at certain points, even supplyblocks.
While I see the mistakes i made, you guys still keep saying "You just need GM level macro and you can play what you want till plat!"
Guess what: Ppl in Bronze dont have GM level macro, they probably will never have. So they need to play something that makes at least a tiny bit of sense.
But thanks to your advise I really got better, having more army, more income and more upgrades earlier. Still i lose to ppl with less army, less income and less upgrades (3/3 Ling/Infestor/Ultra against 2/1 Marine/Tank/Medivac, 2 Base vs 4 Base 80 Workers to 46)
I didnt lose because my macro was so much worse than his. I lost because of overlord placement, losing units stupidly and engaging in unvavorable positions.
|
On April 08 2012 23:06 TechSc2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2012 22:39 netherh wrote:On April 08 2012 21:29 TechSc2 wrote:Enlighten me, what is the RL defination of Strategy? + Show Spoiler +Dictionary explanation of strategy: The ability to acomplish goals with the current available resources (Dutch english translated) ::EDIT:: you cannot agree or disagree on a word that is explained in a dictionary.... Your dictionary is broken. Google says:
strat·e·gy
noun /ˈstratəjē/
strategies, plural
1. A plan of action or policy designed to achieve a major or overall aim
- time to develop a coherent economic strategy
- shifts in marketing strategy
2. The art of planning and directing overall military operations and movements in a war or battle
3. A plan for such military operations and movements
- nonprovocative defense strategies
2. The art of planning and directing overall military operations and movements in a war or battlewait so google even agrees with a REAL dictionary and you say it's broken? how can a real dictionary be broken? go ahead and learn language from the interwebz, it's gonna be very helpfull in your job later on if it's not flipping burgers. The art of planning and directing overall military operations A.K.A. doing something with what you have NOW, not thinking about how to get whatever you want in 2 minutes. Strategists such as Napoleon weren't bothered with recruiting new soldiers, he was responsible to put those soldiers to good use. 7Gameplan is how do i get new soldiers. Strategy is how do i use my current set of soliders to benefit me the most
Gameplan as you describe it is part of strategy in this game ... your argument is straw man. Getting units is part of this game and so it will be involved in strategies for the game. You will even have a strategic keyboard setup fo the game ... if you don't then you should.
I love how in previous posts its all you dont need strategy
just use mechanics
then some guy says i did look at this
you say he should of maxed 1:30 earlier ..... and that you missed the essential scouting lings
That sounds suspiciously like strategy to me.
the problem is that the game has got to the point where everyones mechanics has to be tip top because for strategies to be really useful all that stuff has to be very consistent - otherwise you are just not playing optimally. Its a bad strategy.
But call it mechanics, macro whatever it is still part of your strategy.
You can sum up all actions in a game as being part of strategy and tactics at the same time. Eg microing marines against banelings is a tactic, but knowledge of that tactic and anticipating its use is part of strategy. Just because you have defined strategy to suddenly not include this stuff jsut says you have a narrow idea of what a strategy is and are probably missing a ton of things to analyse as result.
Getting tired of all this not maxing out by 12-13 mins bs - yes im in silver (Admittedly at the top) and do it regularly. Its getting really annoying constantly reading the same old uninformed bullshit. Macroing to 200 food in 12 mins takes like 40 apm at most probably more like 30 average (you build 3 hatches, 1 pool, warren and 4 extractors, all drones an few lings then roaches with overlords ... not exactly taxing - a terran 5 rax that then transitions into expand + something mechy takes far more effort in a 4v4 for instance). I am playing silver and gold opponents. They suck too so they cant harass and macro so its easy to do. If they harass lots then i probably have more stuff provided i defend properly and win if they dont i max out and win ... unless they have a lot of immortals (or hide a third) it seems. The reason why i lose is all the games where they dont FFE, or they fake it and then go mass gateway and i have no defences.
IE my strategy is broken as i haven't figured out various scouting timings to figure out when i shuold stop droning for a while. Its really obvious why i am where i am for me.
You stop seeing 1 basing play once you leave bronze.
Its really NOT HARD to do even in a game so stop the condescending bullshit that you clearly are uninformed about. Plat cant max out? Rofl if that's true ill be in diamond in a week or 2. What is hard for lower league players is that until you know its possible you cannot do it. Because i am always playing other turds that are just as turdy as me I dont get to learn quickly by getting slaughtered by strong opponents. In fact this max out build at 12 mins is fairly new its not been around for a year - although i remember idra doing some very roach heavy play vs p a while back but i wouldnt of noticed timings then)
you do get that players in silver play 30 game a season right? And they can still max out by 12-13 mins (if they know they can)? The problem is that they know nothing else so have HUGE holes in their builds that cause them to lose to any build slightly different to what their is built to beat. IE they build 20 lings jsut so they know they wont die ....
|
Defining the terms
+ Show Spoiler +Macro : Macromanagement - The creation of units, buildings, upgrades, and expansions. LINK : http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Definitions#MStrategy : 1. a (1) : The science and art of employing the political, economic, psychological and military forces of a nation or group of nations to afford the maximum support to adopted policies in peace or war (2) : The science and art of military command exercised to meet the enemy in combat under advantageous conditions1. b : a variety of or instance of the use of strategy 2. a : a careful plan or method : a clever stratagem 2. b : the art of devising or employing plans or stratagems toward a goal 3. an adaptation or complex of adaptations (as of behavior, metabolism, or structure that serves or appears to serve an important function in achieving evolutionary success <foraging strategies of insects> LINK : http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/strategy
Some Statistics:
+ Show Spoiler +Global destribution of players (according to SC2Ranks.com) Link : http://sc2ranks.com/stats/league/all/1/allGrandmasters and Masters players Globally : 29 501 Players or 4.2% of all players. All leagues below Masters players Globally : 682 736 Players or 95.8% of all players.
First seeing those statistics. I am amazed at how some people can assert that any players below Masters only need to work on their Macro. Think about it, that means that almost 96% of all players only need to work on only ONE thing to get better ?!?
Second lets all agree that within 20 games of practice even a totally new player can max out his supply with Marines/Zerglings/Zealots when playing alone (no AI, no Opponent) fairly quickly (like by the 12 min mark, no I haven't tested it so I just picked a number out of thin air, I may be wrong but the point is you can max out on simple units very quickly when you do not have to worry about Strategy). So simple macro can`t be all that complicated, keeping up with your Macro while attacking or defending is a great deal more complicated and requires good Multitasking skills and, yes you guessed it, a good strategy.
Third Starcraft 2 is classified as Real Time STRATEGY game.
Now I agree with all of you that a Bronze leaguer's Macro will not ever be close to being as good as a Masters leaguer's Macro however I will speculate that one Bronze leaguer's Macro is comparable to an other Bronze leaguer's Macro.
I concede the point that ONE way to win the game vs. your opponent of the same league is to have a better Macro then him. However an OTHER way to win the game vs. your opponent is to have a better strategy then him.
I will further speculate that improving both your Macro skills and learning new and better implementation of strategies will ultimately help you improve faster. Allow me to explain further because I can already foresee all the objections to my last
statement. If you work on improving both your strategy and your macro, ultimately you will tax your multitasking ability to the max. Improvement at first will be slow because well you are trying to multi-task which in and of itself is a very hard skill. However since you are practicing that skill your Macro and Strategy implementation will improve as you are improving at multitasking, the first signs of improvement may be slow but eventually (maybe by the time you get to Platinum)
improvement will be faster because you can multi task better and can now proceed to learn harder more complex strategies that require stronger multitasking skills. On the other hand if a player only works on one aspect of his play (either Macro or Strategy) then that player will eventually reach a ceiling in his game and never be able to progress further until he improves the other aspect that he has ignored. Strategy and Macro are to pillars of improvement in Starcraft 2, a third pillar is
Micro.
Should one try to improve his macro? YES ALWAYS!!
Is it correct to point out to a fellow player that his macro is laking at time XYZ? OF COURSE!!!!
But also explain why his Macro failed at that point (you were attacking at 3 places, while Microing the
main army and as you did that you Macro slipped considerably, maybe you should practice that particular type of engagement so you can keep up your Macro).
The same can be said about strategic advise the difference is that when you give strategic advise please keep in mind the league of the player. Take for example this simple strategic advice that can be given to a Zerg player facing a Terran player.
If you see a lot of marines get a lot of banelings.
This strategic advice may seem like common sense to a player In Gold league however to a player in Bronze league that maybe has played the game a grand total of 1 week, that may be INVALUABLE advice. On the other hand to a zerg player facing a Meching Terran player :
When you attack him, pull his attention at 3 or 4 diffrent places at once, attack his fourth with a ling run-by, his main with mutalisk's, engage his main army with Roach/Brood Lord/Infesters out of position when he tries to deal with the ling run-by and the mutas.
That is (probably incorrect) advice which is next to incomprehensible to a Bronze player, no matter how long he has played the game, since there is no way for him to do all of that at once however a Platinum and above player can implement such a strategy with varying degrees of success. So the lower the league you are playing in, the simpler the strategy you are trying to implement should be.
In short, yes in my opinion Strategy is very important no matter what league you are in, what that strategy will look like and how complex that strategy is will change depending on your league.
In My Opinion the "All lower leagues have horrible Macro" attitude is down right prejudice and should be discouraged at all times. There are multiple pillars to Starcraft2 and Macro is but one of them. Improving all aspects of your game is a much
better approach then simply improving one aspect. On one day, practice your Macro, the next practice your strategy and on the third practice your Micro, one the fourth day, start over. Only through constance practice of all relevant aspects of the game will you continually improve and never hit a ceiling.
Sorry for the wall of text  but I wanted to make my point of vue clear.
Sylvanium
|
Tactics* don't matter. Ex. composition, micro, engagements
Strategy is too broad of a term. Just macro and learn to secure expansions
|
I've made it to high masters on multiple names (boosting/leveling names) with sub par macro, so you really can't say macro is everything. I do it through unit control, and multitasking. Handling 2-3 drops at once while pushing can stress even superior macro players. I drop player after player that macro WAAAAAAAAAAY better than me, but because I make the most of my engagements, and abuse Terrain
Granted, macro is a very large reason many people, myself included, lose games. And by bad macro, I mean for the level of people I play. I draw a lot of high masters, and low grandmasters routinely, and if you look at macro, I'm ahead...why? Because of uber aggressive builds and unit control to force mistakes out of better players.
Strategy is too broad of a term, too, by the way.
I think knowing how to FE into 2 base aggression (3 for Z) can be a great stepping stone for making someone a better player. You learn to hold all ins off 2 base early, and then learn to macro properly to do a nice 2 base push. From there, is when you learn the rest of the real 'macro' on 3+ base with amount of production, depot timings, upgrades etc.
|
Macro is very, very important. So important that it's importance is overemphasized. You can lose with perfect macro easily in lower leagues. You always have to have some clue about whats going on no matter who you are facing. The best macro in the world will not stop an unexpected 4 gate, which is something you will encounter pretty often in all leagues.
Many players develop a very good build that they rely on most of the time to win in lower leagues. They perform that one build almost perfectly, but it's all they know how to do. If you don't see builds like this coming; the ones people have honed game after game, you will lose to them, even if you are the superior player.
|
i would say its not existent till gold...
and by strategy lower leaguers mean : whats your strategy in tvp? oh man i make marines...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
