|
There have been countless threads on players saying focus on Macro, Macro and more Macro. Macro is the single most important factor of any player's success or lack there of.
As a zerg, the players I study to no end are Idra, Ret, and Stephano. What do these players all have in common? They macro like Gods and rarely cheese or go all-in.
Now compare this to the Korean style of play. Anyone thats watched people playing on the Korean ladder, know these guys are aggressive to no end. From 2 Rax bunker play to early pools, anything goes with the Koreans.
All the best Korean zergs mixed up their builds. Leenock and July being on the extreme end but even DRG and Nestea will be aggressive at times. Whether its DRG pulling a Roach baneling bust on a terran or Nestea pullilng an 8 pool in ZvZ.
My question is if our strict focus on "Macro" could be a detriment to the top level players. I dont pretend to live in Korea, but it seems like they practice a much more aggressive style of play than foreigners. There is something to be said of being forced to being aggressive instead of always macro'ing. There have been a few players trying to preach the benefits of aggressive play, such as Tang, but these posts are usually met with anger and disgust. However, one could agrue that mechanics are learned through aggressive all-ins more so than building more SCVs.
The proof though is looking at the Korean players. Yeah, they practice to no-end and face better competition but they also play in an enviroment of attacking. Just compare when there is cheese in the GSL, the korean spectators appreciate it as an opportunity to take down a weakness. In the US ladder, people think its garbage.
I grew up hating cheese and all-ins like most American zergs. I cringe whenever I see a 8 pool or cannons. But maybe us foreigners have to take a look at why Koreans embrace this and we dont.
|
|
|
I agree that foreigners may be focusing a little too much on macro and that aggression is one big thing that sets koreans apart from foreigners. However, one thing that must not be forgotten is that they are coupling this aggression with brilliant macro. Without this brilliant macro their aggression is not nearly as effective. Macro, macro, macro is often preached to learning players because they tend to neglect macro when they are putting on aggression, resulting in more harm than good. However, I don't know if this should stop people trying to be aggressive, all while trying to improve their macro and multitasking in addition.
|
Having good macro doesn't mean you can't also be aggressive. At the highest level you need to be able to micro aggressively while flawlessly keeping up with your macro. You don't have to do one or the other. Any time Liquid'Hero is streaming, check him out, and you'll see. He is not only the most aggressive Protoss you will ever watch stream, he also expands the most aggressively. Hero will throw down an expansion when absolutely no other Protoss would dare to, and he will be doing some crazy 3 pronged harassment while doing so.
Aggressive play is not the same thing as going allin, going allin/cheesing is not the same thing as not macroing, and in fact no matter what style of play you do you NEED to have solid macro backing it up. And generally, the more ways you can find to attack and harass and pressure while executing macro oriented builds, the better.
|
I think Snute (okay, not a top pro, but still decent), said that if he would give someone any advice when starting out, it's to be aggressive. Pick the most aggressive build (6 pool for zerg), and just learn how that works out. When considering time spent, you'd just learn more playing 10 6 pool games, than one 'turtle for 40 minutes' game.
|
I'm sorry, but what about this is "American macro"? Idra is the only american mentioned.
|
the mere fact you call an aggresive build "cheese" is the answer to your question. "american zergs" are all wana-be idras in the fact that if anyone does anything aggressive / non-standard they are a gimmicky scrub. that's just the mentality on NA.
I play on the korean server a lot and they have a completely different mindset on the game. Micro-ing well and being aggressive is seen as "skilled", not "gimmicky" as a generic NA zerg would call it. If I execute a well micro-d stargate all in in PvT on the NA server I get BM'd 90% of the time, but on KR they will just GG.
Macro in starcraft 2 is easy. Saying you're a good macro player is not really saying much. But if you can mix in crazy aggressive builds AND have amazing korean-level micro AND macro well behind it (Again, not hard) THAT will make you a great player, and it is a large factor as to why korean players are better than americans.
|
On April 12 2012 17:32 Tobberoth wrote:
I'm sorry, but what about this is "American macro"? Idra is the only american mentioned.
He is using it to refer to the most common mindset of American players - and pointing out macro players of different nationalities that he look up to. Not claiming those players are American.
|
i think macro is wrong word. turtle is more like it
|
On April 12 2012 17:35 aebriol wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2012 17:32 Tobberoth wrote:
I'm sorry, but what about this is "American macro"? Idra is the only american mentioned. He is using it to refer to the most common mindset of American players - and pointing out macro players of different nationalities that he look up to. Not claiming those players are American.
I'm pretty sure this mindset has nothing to do with American players, it's true for all european players as well. As he said himself, Ret and Stephano are both macro beasts. Jinro got far in the GSL because he was the first Terran to play a real macro style. Makes far more sense to say "foreign macro" than "american macro".
|
I only used "American" macro because Im not familiar with the EU ladder. I didnt want to speak on behalf of all EU players.
I just know what the mindset is in America. I assumed its the same for all foreigners, at least zerg players.
|
the main difference between foreigners and koreans regarding the all in vs marco aspect is:
there are two good reason for allinning once in a while. first reason is to be unreadable, so your opponent cant just ecocheese you and skip on units. second reason for allinning is to see a weakness in the opponents play (weak wall-off, not enough units etc.) and outright punish your opponent with a huge (allinnish) attack.
in both aspects koreans > foreigners right now.
|
Aggressive play is always better than just macroing home, because it can force your opponent to make mistakes. However, as some of the previous posters have stated, good macro is required in order to do anything efficiently, be it a turtle or aggressive strategy. Therefore it's good to focus on getting good at macro before you decide to switch it up with aggressive plays. Top level players should definitely handle both kinds of strategies.
On April 12 2012 16:58 sfbaydave wrote:
However, one could agrue that mechanics are learned through aggressive all-ins more so than building more SCVs.
I would argue that your mechanics will improve only at handling a small army and a few buildings. E.g. lings and banelings from 2 hatcheries. Macroing 3 bases, upgrades and a larger army is harder, and you can't practice those mechanics with fast pushes. Of course, if all you do is 2base all-ins, you have nothing to worry about!
|
As others before said: Early aggression is not cheese.
Koreans apply pressure at all stages, from early- to lategame, and their builds are tailored to being aggressive which allows them to be more greedy because the opponent can't attack if you have units attacking him all the time. Many foreigners play "Go strong eco and concentrate on surviving" because they lack the training and speed to multitask good enough for such levels of aggression.
If you watch for example Stephano, he doesn't usually go 7pool but he still applies pressure on the opponent. He's very aggressive (See for example game 2 vs Nestea in IPL4 where he's constantly in nesteas face with roaches, so nestea has to concentrate on not dying) and still backs it up with good economy. This is what makes him very korean-like, compared to for example Ret or IdrA who prefer to sit back until they have everything they need to move out. That works against other passive players but against Koreans, it just crumbles under the pressure.
EDIT:
On April 12 2012 19:22 tuukster wrote:Aggressive play is always better than just macroing home, because it can force your opponent to make mistakes. However, as some of the previous posters have stated, good macro is required in order to do anything efficiently, be it a turtle or aggressive strategy. Therefore it's good to focus on getting good at macro before you decide to switch it up with aggressive plays. Top level players should definitely handle both kinds of strategies. Show nested quote +On April 12 2012 16:58 sfbaydave wrote:
However, one could agrue that mechanics are learned through aggressive all-ins more so than building more SCVs.
I would argue that your mechanics will improve only at handling a small army and a few buildings. E.g. lings and banelings from 2 hatcheries. Macroing 3 bases, upgrades and a larger army is harder, and you can't practice those mechanics with fast pushes. Of course, if all you do is 2base all-ins, you have nothing to worry about!
Macroing while sitting on your backside is easy, even i could do that easily. Macroing while constantly attacking is hard. You won't learn good macro by not doing anything until 3 bases, however, you will learn good macro by using your army and working on still hitting all those injects or having constant production.
(That is to say "good macro at top level", low level players still need to learn to macro 3 bases without doing anything army related)
|
Ummm, I dunno if the right term is Macro vs cheese.
Its more like Turtling vs Aggressive.
And I do think being aggressive and being out there in the map will teach you more than turtling on a million bases
A lot of the Korean cheese is backed by awesome macro and multitasking.
|
Americans have a macro-mindset? It seems whenever I watch someone stream NA ladder it's one-base all-ins 90% of the time, lol.
|
Oh wow didn't know that, CombatEX 2.0.
|
Northern Ireland25107 Posts
It's a pretty interesting topic, there seems to be this mentality about the 'correct' way to play matchups on NA and EU that just makes for a poisonous laddering environment. I've long appreciated the Korean 'style' of SC2 a lot more, it seems that by straining their multitasking by doing heavy pressure and macroing behind it that Koreans just keep their mechanics in tip-top shape.
Plus on top of that Koreans seem to have better decision making/on the fly build adjustments than I see on even some of the top foreigners that stream.
|
The difference is people in NA at least (no experience in EU) want to play "the right way" and if that means win or lose, that's fine with them. That's my experience on ladder. On KR, it's you either win or win, doesn't matter if you worker rush or cannon rush, or play a long macro game, as long as you win.
I've had so many people BM me on ladder simply cause I would lose a lot defending a 2 base pressure and instead of just sitting back and playing a macro game, I pull my SCVs and just go and kill the other player cause I'd be way too far behind.
|
Why can't he use Tang as a source? Even if Tang uses ways to trick people to make money, he does play and teach aggressive playstyle, which suits him just fine as a source for this post. The anti-tang vendetta is way off-topic.
Ontopic: I find on europe that playing aggresive (as a zerg) (I don't cheese but do cut some eco to build a army and expand behind it if i feel the push wont finish it) does awake alot of anger towards me from my opponents. But i really do like the play style and keep on using it where i see fit.
|
Picture ten thousand crouching Terrorists on DE_Dust, screaming over Vent as they huddle behind boxes, that they're ready to quit the game because they can't stand these fucking sprinting AWPing bunny hopping assholes who kill them within mere seconds of the start of the match, because Valve won't fix their garbage game by nerfing legs.
Now make them astronauts in Space and you have a good idea of the North American Starcraft scene.
Aggression is the great American Heresy.
|
I think you can actually sum it up like Artosis states it: " if you are ahead , get more ahead". That seems to be the general EU and American mindset.
In contrast to korean players which often , as soon as they see a certain weakness, just know that they can go for the kill, and then do it. I wouldn't actually call it cheese , because for me cheese is mostly based on luck and done blindly.
But thats not what korean players do , they just exploit the fact that they know very well when they're ahead and when they need to attack and how hard, to guarantee a kill right now.
But i think thats not a good way to learn the game, because as a new player, at least for the most time you are not even aware of how far ahead or behind you are and what timings you can exploit. So just trying to snowball your advantage up seems to be the most reasonable way to learn for unexperienced players.
But for top level play you really need to punish your opponents if you can, and i agree that foreigners often seem like even if they know they could kill their opponent right now or punish a mistake, they simply don't do it and let him get back into the game.
|
Our top level players do not 'Macro Macro Macro'
That's their advice for anyone NOT top level.
Once you're Diamond/Masters+ your skills have to be much more diverse
|
I think it´s harder to play aggressive and do multi pronged attacks, while macro´ing well, than just do the macro it´s like the koreans prefer to abuse their multitasking, if it is really good so they play aggressive and they still have really good macro.
If they would only focus on macro they would give weaker players a chance to win because they also only have to focus on ONE thing.
|
when everyone has good macro you cant win with just that, so you must outplay strategically your opponent. This is what timing attacks and thought out cheese play do. Macro is overrated.
|
On April 12 2012 22:07 Cheerio wrote:
when everyone has good macro you cant win with just that, so you must outplay strategically your opponent. This is what timing attacks and thought out cheese play do. Macro is overrated.
When everyone has good macro, you win by having excellent macro. When everyone has excellent macro, you need to outplay your opopnent strategically. Fortunately, that only matters at master level, which is about the top 2% of all players, so no, macro is far from overrated.
|
On April 12 2012 17:33 AegiS_ wrote:
the mere fact you call an aggresive build "cheese" is the answer to your question. "american zergs" are all wana-be idras in the fact that if anyone does anything aggressive / non-standard they are a gimmicky scrub. that's just the mentality on NA.
I play on the korean server a lot and they have a completely different mindset on the game. Micro-ing well and being aggressive is seen as "skilled", not "gimmicky" as a generic NA zerg would call it. If I execute a well micro-d stargate all in in PvT on the NA server I get BM'd 90% of the time, but on KR they will just GG.
Macro in starcraft 2 is easy. Saying you're a good macro player is not really saying much. But if you can mix in crazy aggressive builds AND have amazing korean-level micro AND macro well behind it (Again, not hard) THAT will make you a great player, and it is a large factor as to why korean players are better than americans.
I tend to agree with this post.
Micro is just as critical as macro. Aggressive builds require quite a bit of skill to be pulled off near perfectly... and they basically can't be 100% perfect because you can never micro more than 1 or 2 units perfectly over the course of 15 seconds in an RTS like SC2.
The western mentality that aggression is always bad is just plain wrong. It's part of the puzzle that makes SC2 a great game. Macro is a part of it. Mind games is a part of it. Scouting is a part of it. Etc. etc.
Saying aggression at the wrong time that costs you games is bad may be correct... but as the Koreans prove, you need to be aggressive and lose some to learn how to get better at being aggressive so it's more rewarding than not. On the ladder a lot of players aren't quite good enough to micro and macro, so they lose doing it, so they fall into that mentality that is just plain wrong... so they hate the game and BM when they lose to aggression. It's really a travesty and I believe people are missing out on an important part of the game.
|
Korean cheese is what makes them good macro players. They punish the greedy and don't rely on themselves always having much better late game army control, which is what many players used to do before they realized that doing so makes you as much a one trick pony as a player who cheeses every game.
Cheese, along with the skill it takes to transition in and out of it, is what makes a player like MC so good: He's willing to go for a macro slugfest as long as he isn't going into it at a disadvantage.
|
On April 12 2012 21:44 Nyxisto wrote:
I think you can actually sum it up like Artosis states it: " if you are ahead , get more ahead". That seems to be the general EU and American mindset.
In contrast to korean players which often , as soon as they see a certain weakness, just know that they can go for the kill, and then do it. I wouldn't actually call it cheese , because for me cheese is mostly based on luck and done blindly.
But thats not what korean players do , they just exploit the fact that they know very well when they're ahead and when they need to attack and how hard, to guarantee a kill right now.
But i think thats not a good way to learn the game, because as a new player, at least for the most time you are not even aware of how far ahead or behind you are and what timings you can exploit. So just trying to snowball your advantage up seems to be the most reasonable way to learn for unexperienced players.
But for top level play you really need to punish your opponents if you can, and i agree that foreigners often seem like even if they know they could kill their opponent right now or punish a mistake, they simply don't do it and let him get back into the game.
One problem with the western mentality is that you only learn to beat the other guy if your army and income is double his. Well yeah duh, it's easy to win at that point. The aggressive mentality is that you will be barely ahead and win if you engage now... but you know your micro will be (has to be) spot on and you can assume it will mess up the other guy's macro or flow or whatnot and you push in and kill. You never know what is safe and what isn't until you've played a billion games and tried each scenario out a few times (watching pros helps).
|
If one has perfected their macro into builds and adjustments that are tested to be safe against a variety of cheese, and flexible enough to adjust to insanely greedy play, why would you even want to cheese?
|
In the ABL thread, it turned out the mod got it wrong and apologised for it.
Not saying anything else about Tang because I know literally nothing about him.
|
In my opinion early pressure =/= cheese. It's just a strategy that should deal some damage or put you behind. Even the "cheesiest" build 7 pool, is not really a cheese, it is a way to get the game where you want it to be. That is why the best players goes for these fast attacks, to maintain control over the game. The "both macro up and cross their fingers hoping they chose the better build" is really not that smart.
|
I think Day9 and Artosis agree that cheese is the best way to learn starcraft 2, since you become more aware of timings and build orders. plus cheese can make for more fun and weirder situations. Generally, if you can cheese properly, your mechanics should be pretty strong.
|
Yes, the aggression/pressure part is key in SC2, as opposed to BW where simply having the best macro in the world bar none would make also make you the best player overall (key in point: Flash). I believe that the quicker maxouts and macro mechanics in SC2 will also steer the game towards being more aggressive and tactically-oriented in the future because it's much easier to get "extremely good" at SC2 macro than it is in BW.
|
On April 12 2012 22:41 Opeasy wrote:
In my opinion early pressure =/= cheese. It's just a strategy that should deal some damage or put you behind. Even the "cheesiest" build 7 pool, is not really a cheese, it is a way to get the game where you want it to be. That is why the best players goes for these fast attacks, to maintain control over the game. The "both macro up and cross their fingers hoping they chose the better build" is really not that smart.
With something like a 7 pool, there are hard counters to it that set you really far behind. To choose an extreme example, let's say you 10 pool against a toss who went forge first. If you only make 6 lings and the toss responds correctly (pull workers for a sec if necessary to not allow a run by) you have lost right there. It's a straight up build order loss. If you go 6 rax marines against a terran who gets a bunker you lose. There are many all in builds where the entire point is to cross your fingers and hope. I don't know what you mean by macroing and hoping you chose the better build. The reason to play a macro game is to play a safe build that can work against anything ><. You have no understanding at all.
|
I'd say in general agressiveness tend to pay off (especially in lower leagues). The player who harrass, deny and attack will most likely wins if his build is somewhat well executed. Macro is just something behind everything that players have too keep up with no matter the game. It's just that Korean are more balanced in more aspects of the game. They know "cheeses" but they know macro too.
|
On April 12 2012 23:02 boxman22 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2012 22:41 Opeasy wrote:
In my opinion early pressure =/= cheese. It's just a strategy that should deal some damage or put you behind. Even the "cheesiest" build 7 pool, is not really a cheese, it is a way to get the game where you want it to be. That is why the best players goes for these fast attacks, to maintain control over the game. The "both macro up and cross their fingers hoping they chose the better build" is really not that smart. With something like a 7 pool, there are hard counters to it that set you really far behind. To choose an extreme example, let's say you 10 pool against a toss who went forge first. If you only make 6 lings and the toss responds correctly (pull workers for a sec if necessary to not allow a run by) you have lost right there. It's a straight up build order loss. If you go 6 rax marines against a terran who gets a bunker you lose. There are many all in builds where the entire point is to cross your fingers and hope. I don't know what you mean by macroing and hoping you chose the better build. The reason to play a macro game is to play a safe build that can work against anything ><. You have no understanding at all.
There are economical 7pool variants that put you slightly behind but can do enough damage to put you around equal footing (for example killing the forge and denying expansion). As a simple example, Sheth demonstrated such a build order when he was coaching TotalBiscuit, though of course i have seen it used before. Of course many people do it wrong and only build lings and don't back it up with drones and a queen, but 7pool doesn't have to be all-in.
Yes, there are many builds that _are_ all-in but early pool in ZvZ and ZvP is not unless you screw it up. You just need to know how to transition, a 7pool build order doesn't stop at "build 1 drone, build pool, build lings, attack".
Playing aggressive is a way to ensure the opponent _does_ play safe and doesn't cut corners while it actually allows you to play a lot greedier because as long as you micro your units correctly and don't lose them, the opponent can neither play greedy - he would die to the aggression - nor can he attack you because he has an army in his face that is ready to just kill his base as soon as he tries to cross the map. It gives you a lot of safety that you can abuse.
|
I have to agree that we are told to macro macro etc and the NA reaction to cheese so called; I read threads here since Bronze finally hit Diamond this season (VICTORY dance into FACE PALM) and doing bad.
I love the game regardless of the stress so who cares, but since playing and reading alot when learning the mind set was "macro macro macro".
I decided maybe around Plat that I was getting bored with the how things play out, and would try some cheese now an then.
Personally I found the game more fun O_O mind = blown. And it was this little fact if the aggression was held off --> shiz he held it off he's in the lead but I wonder if I can keep up or gain better eco advantage ??? <---- THIS (Obviously im not playing this style every game; but since its ladder I DO xD - FUN times)
THIS got me hooked on an aggressive style cause its like lol he's going to WIN. Can I use any sly / skill to maximise a come back ( CHALLENGE ACCEPTED ). An so I drone like mad, and I feel its made my macro slightly better. I can't for sure say it has, but I like the discussion thought I'd chime in.
Hope my engerind is good <- sorry if not.
|
The thing is the better the 2 players playing each other are, the more the game is about the strategic, metagaming and outfoxing your opponent rather than mechanics. The top pros (which most of the koreans are, lol) are obviously already as good as they can get in macro and micro (if they pratice enough).
Like someone said earlier, the advice to macro better is for non-pros. Anything else and it's like trying to learn poker by watching WSOP, I won't say it's the correct way.
When someone like Nestea or Naniwa cheeses or do something all-in, it's not purely a coinclip, it's probably a calculated risk based off studying their opponent's scouting pattern, playstyle preferences on maps etc etc. stuff like that, and mindgaming. Basically, they're playing the player, not the game.
And the koreans really aren't afraid to go for the throat if they sense weakness, which I think is the biggest difference in playstyle compared to foreigners.
|
Most NA players dont play on KR server so they dont realize how aggressive play styles can translate into a macro game...there's a way to be aggressive without all in.
|
If it's like a tournament with a bo3, you definetly should all in once to put pressure on your opponent and not allow him to just go greedy plays every game. I have at least 1 solid and good allin in each match up. I think macro player is better for ladder unless you want to practice some allin from time to time. After all allins are easier to learn than macro plays.
Wow, people really do that? And I thought that replying to 1 person's question in my quite old guide was a bit too attention attractive.
|
Koreans usually dont cheese. They use aggressive builds that get them advantages to lead them into macro games while still being aggressive. if you lose in the early game, thats you fault.
|
On April 13 2012 00:58 AeroEffect wrote:
Koreans usually dont cheese. They use aggressive builds that get them advantages to lead them into macro games while still being aggressive. if you lose in the early game, thats you fault.
Depends on how you define cheese, a couple of things are true
Koreans are at least on ladder prone to a lot more cheese than europeans/americans. Koreans focus more on carefully thought out builds rather than relying on the pure strength of their mechanics. Koreans mix in more all-in builds than others do, they doesn't classify as cheese but they're intented to end the game.
|
I've always been saying that foreigners emphasize macro games way too much, and especially foreign pro's vs korean pro's. It makes them way too predictable. Huk is one of the few that does it right, probably as a result of grinding the korean ladder for so long.
|
Wait a minute...American macro? Every Zerg on the NA server pretty much all-ins almost every game. They rarely build drones on NA server, they usually drone after some random roach/ling or bane/ling all-in. If you go on EU, that's where they make drones even if you just built 15 hellions and ran by their spine crawlers they're still making drones.
|
I think if you Allin a player you can see his real skill and game-sense. If I 6 Pool a guy and he holds it and then looses the game anyways he is just a bad player. Responding to cheese often can´t be trained and because of that it shows the real skill of the player getting allined!
Greetings.
|
I refuse to play a macro game, but only because that is not what I enjoy. Some people are misinformed (idiots) and think that you HAVE to drag games out to improve, and think that if you even think about going for the win at any point before the 20 min mark, you are an all in noob lol.
|
In my opinion, if you're new to the game, it is better to play allin/aggressive a lot.
You learn the value of having smooth builds, get good practice microing and learn a lot about decision making. New players will do so many things wrong if they go for 30min+ macro games, it's a very time inefficient way to improve, and you won't be able to take much from it.
|
Being an aggressive player is the only way to become a overall better player. By a better player, I mean having a better gamesense and knowledge of the game as a whole.
By not being aggressive these are the following points you miss learning on:
- You cannot gauge how well you and your opponent can multitask
- You will also not improve on being good at macro while you attack/defend
- You will not know what your opponent could possibly (as in, what's the most he can produce) have at each stage of the game
- Dictating the pace of the game
- Micro
- Limits of individual or small groups of units. The most beautiful attacks/defenses are the ones that succeed/hold with the skin of their teeth. This is what makes spectators on the edge of their seats, not the games where one army completely rolls over another.
This is why I teach my friends to attack anywhere between the 5-9 minute mark, because if they are able to constantly reinforce their attack and micro their troops whilst expanding or building SCVs, then they will ultimately learn to become better players. Even up to a point where they only have 1 zealot, 1 stalker.
|
MACRONI AND CHEESE
User was warned for this post
|
On April 13 2012 00:58 AeroEffect wrote:
Koreans usually dont cheese. They use aggressive builds that get them advantages to lead them into macro games while still being aggressive. if you lose in the early game, thats you fault.
This. I play on KR server and it's not like they are even all-inning. They'll hit with really well executed aggression, and even if you hold they are probably expanding behind it. I've lost a bunch of games where I had my opponent in a position any NA player would GG out of and they just macro hard as shit and come back. KR server teaches you to scout more intelligently because everyone doesn't just copy the same pro builds they see on stream and then execute them poorly.
|
I hate only certain types of cheese. Things that are acceptable on ladder but not in tournaments are what are the most infuriating. There is a reason why 3 pylon wall offs and bunker wall ins are blocked from tournament play: they are nearly impossible to beat no matter how good you are. I get frustrated when I lose to things like 4 gates or 2 port cloak banshee, but it is more focused towards losing to something that has been figured out already and I just read wrong.
|
With my experience on both the NA and KR ladder as well as just being an esports fan..what you are describing is not "NA macro vs. KR cheese," it's more along the lines of "NA Uncreativity, Passivity, and Mechanic-Relying vs. Korean Creativity, Mechanics, and Aggression." If you play on KR ladder and/or watch Koreans play in tournaments, you will realize that what makes the stereotypical korean player a "korean" is that they have incredibly aggressive and creative builds in addition to their incredible mechanics and macro whilst players from NA are just the latter. So, in conclusion, macro is always first. Always. Koreans are so good because they have these creative and aggressive builds which highlight their amazing macro abilities.
|
Even "cheese builds" benefit from good macro.
|
I really have to disagree with the title. The Korean play style isn't "cheese", it's just aggressive. The term "cheese" is usually reserved for blind all-ins that only work if completely unscouted. Doing lots of drops, timing attacks, and other stuff to throw off your opponents rhythm is a lot different than building 2 gateways outside of their base.
Otherwise, I more or less agree with what you're saying. I think NA/EU players need to try and incorporate more attacking and harassment instead of just turtling to 200/200 before really doing anything.
|
On April 13 2012 09:10 mikedebo wrote:
MACRONI AND CHEESE
This phrase needs to be added to the Starcraft Dictionary.
|
I am a mid diamond player who is finding macro doesn't work for me. I started doing some aggressive plays(oh god, I hate long tvts. End em early if I can) and it has been working very well for me. Most people just don't know how to hold early pressure. Non-Koreans need to face reality and learn to play something else then no-rush 10min. I suggest you all find some aggressive builds and see how they work for you. Winning under 6 min is not less honorable or cheesy then winning at 20min.
|
Korean cheese is backed up by terrific macro. It's a matter of gosu practice regimen mechanics vs chobo foreigner practice regimen mechanics.
|
You know what? Korean can micro and marco at the same time while foreigners can't do that both.
The reason why Korean are always aggressive is because they can micro very well without losing any units.
|
I don't think that people on the KR server cheese more :/
|
massing drones ("macroing") is not difficult. what's difficult is holding off all the variety of timing attacks while massing drones. thus idra actually would not be considered a good macro player since he has such a weakness to all ins and timing attacks. he only wins when he gets way ahead from being allowed to mass drone.
it's like if no one attacks me, and i make 6 orbitals in 5 minutes and go on to win the game. is that "macro" impressive? it's holding off the void ray all in, or holding off the roach bust that is impressive.
|
On April 13 2012 11:35 Fishgle wrote:This phrase needs to be added to the Starcraft Dictionary.
And I've never even played the game! lol
|
|
|
Any gam eis about winning.
The basic point behind macro is all due to the defenders advantage.
If you build things taking into account travel time you can always get a better economy so you will win the fight due to equal numbers and faster reinforcements.
HOWEVER the entire point of macro is to get a decent army at a time when your opponent is weak.
So all these Korean timing attacks when described as all in are technically perfect examples of applied proper macro play.
Also if you are z and are macroing but can die to early 3 rax all in then you really don't have a build your just messing around praying that the opponent doesnt do all kinds of viable builds.
Its like the protoss v zerg how do you deal with 200 food at 12 mins ... the answer is probably dont let the zerg do what he likes and attack when he likes -because then you are giving a perfect timing window. Don't get me wrong, i can't solve it but I think z deserves to win if you let them do what they like (as with any side).
Why are people so obsessed about whether something is cheese or not? If your build doesn't defend vertain builds then ithas flaws. Saying well it doesn't defend against these cheeses doesn't somehow make it better or mean you don;t need to defend against them. It just means that by exposing yourself to them you are forcing the tendencies of players TOWARDS doing those cheeses. If a player could 'cheese' and win and chooses to take a less optimal path then they have made a mistake and have played the game in a less strong way than they should of.
Cheese is just an excuse for people to stay shit and dismiss a whole host of valid strategies as being below them when those timings are the fundementals of the game.
|
I play aggressive and cheesey in every match-up. Say what you will about me, but my theory is that if a Protoss or Terran is going to play super greedy and assume I'm playing a macro game, I'm doing myself a disservice by playing directly into their hands. It's amazing how many ZvTs I win by just performing a 2-base baneling bust because the Terran was rushing to three CCs. Ditto for ZvP. FFE? 12 roaches, bust open the forge wall, and rush in with lings. Does it build solid macro mechanics? Not necessarily. Does it win? Surprisingly often! I'm no pro obviously but I'd rather have fun, fast games that I WIN by being aggressive, than let a protoss go 200/200 and ROFLstomp me, or get my BL/Infestor army laughably owned by one good vortex.
|
Korean style is generally to kill there opponet no matter what. In tournaments we see more cheesy stuff from Koreans. On the ladder you see they actually practice macro games. To come to think of it though, Koreans execute great timing attacks a lot of the time. Like squritle in IPL 4 did to mma and MKP. Koreans just want to kill you whenever they have the opertunity, which imo is the best way to play the game.
|
In regards to this discussion, I would like to point out (arguably) one of the top foreigners at least in mixed foreigner/Korean tournaments: HuK. HuK's strengths really lie in his agressive micro intensive play-style. This comes up especially in PvP where even with the metagame shift a 4gate can still threaten. In almost all of his matchups he often relies more on agressive timing attacks and/or trick builds (7-9 gate PVZ, dt and/or blink stalker PvT) with some level of success because of his ability with micro. "Top 3 control" may have become a joke but honestly he does have a high level of micro.
However at the same times it's his mechanics that allow him to micro. Although he seems lacking in the "macro game" he macros well enough for an aggressive build. Might this debate actually come down to finding a style you excel at then bringing up ALL you mechanics to a level that allows maximum execution of that style.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
