|
I (finally) made it to Masters league recently (yay :D) after I worked out a few kinks in my mechanics. Now, for the most part, I have fairly good macro with enough game sense to know when things are coming.
Now the question is: What differentiates a mid-high level Masters player with presumably good macro with a Grandmasters player? Mainly, what can a Masters player improve on to significantly improve his or her level of play?
Admittedly, Grandmaster players, primarily pro-gamers, have a large range of build orders/styles to play from, but for single 1v1 matches, having one solid build for each MU wouldn't be too much worse than having a variety of builds.
I'm stumped; is the their (GM's) slightly-more consistent macro really that big of a difference to separate GM players from M? Is having perfect micro for early game battles really that game-changing as opposed to having good micro? Is there some different strategic mindset that truly separates GM players as the best of the best?
Any thoughts are welcome.
|
Everything a gm player does (or knows) is, on average, slightly better than a masters player. There's no secret. It's the same thing for any other 2 leagues, such as plat and diamond.
|
GM players are (generally speaking) better at every phase of the game. Better macro, better army movements, better minimap awareness, better micro, better multi-tasking, better scouting, etc. When someone is a little bit better at everything, it makes it so a GM v. Master game can quickly get out of hand for the master player, unless it's a 1-base all-in or something.
|
A lot of it is micro. GM level players micro extremely well in maxed engagements and know how to engage opponents at favorable positions to maximize their army's effectiveness. Someone did a statistical analysis and also found that GM level players have, on average, better macro than master level players as well. A combination of both macro and micro differentials separates them... similar to how it is with any other two leagues.
|
Surprised no wonder mentioned game sense. A GM knows what to do better than the average Master player and what to build, when to move out, how far ahead they are, etc.
|
28086 Posts
It can be different for each person as well. I was high masters based purely off macro/micro mechanics, but had horrible knowledge of builds, and general game sense. But some high masters might have great game sense and lack mechanics,etc.
|
Starcraft is 95% mechanics - you can figure it out from that.
The game is too well-understood now to strategically overcome your opponent despite mechanical deficiencies. Improving on this game is as simple as following the metagame and improving your mechanical skill via massing games using solid builds.
|
Timing & execution, control, decision making. Macro is a fairly broad term that isn't quite correct to describe the differences in inefficiencies between masters players and grandmasters players imo.
On December 12 2012 15:08 riser wrote:
A lot of it is micro. GM level players micro extremely well in maxed engagements and know how to engage opponents at favorable positions to maximize their army's effectiveness. Someone did a statistical analysis and also found that GM level players have, on average, better macro than master level players as well. A combination of both macro and micro differentials separates them... similar to how it is with any other two leagues.
I'm curious: did the statistical analysis cover ranges of ratings in masters and GM, or did they merely clump GM and masters each into one big group, respectively? In my own observations, the top end of masters' macro is generally indistinguishable from the lower half of GM, with various exceptions between each. That, and the skill disparity between low masters and high masters when put against GM is fairly huge.
|
28086 Posts
On December 12 2012 15:26 rd wrote:Timing & execution, control, decision making. Macro is a fairly broad term that isn't quite correct to describe the differences in inefficiencies between masters players and grandmasters players imo. Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 15:08 riser wrote:
A lot of it is micro. GM level players micro extremely well in maxed engagements and know how to engage opponents at favorable positions to maximize their army's effectiveness. Someone did a statistical analysis and also found that GM level players have, on average, better macro than master level players as well. A combination of both macro and micro differentials separates them... similar to how it is with any other two leagues. I'm curious: did the statistical analysis cover ranges of ratings in masters and GM, or did they merely clump GM and masters each into one big group, respectively? In my own observations, the top end of masters' macro is generally indistinguishable from the lower half of GM, with various exceptions between each. That, and the skill disparity between low masters and high masters when put against GM is fairly huge.
I would say decision making is one of the biggest differences between M and GM players. When to attack,where, and how. What units to produce,etc.
|
My question is what is the difference between top GM and GSL champions
|
On December 12 2012 15:37 uberism wrote:
My question is what is the difference between top GM and GSL champions
Same differences as with every league but just a much greater degree of refinement.
|
What is the difference between your average GM ranked 100-200 to the top 25 GM guys (who are usually all pro gamers)?
|
On December 12 2012 15:45 sCCrooked wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 15:37 uberism wrote:
My question is what is the difference between top GM and GSL champions Same differences as with every league but just a much greater degree of refinement.
Theres also entirely different skillsets programers (and GSL champions) use in high level tournament settings that aren't really applicable when competing on ladder. It's difficult in that regard to directly compare one player based on their ladder success and put it up against another player by evaluating their tournament success -- both top level players, of course.
|
The difference between a low master and a high master is about just as big as bronze to diamond. A low master literally has no chance vs a high master. With that being said if it took you 1 year to get from bronze to master then it will probably take you another year to get from master to gm.
|
Masters is an entire skillset in itself.
I can go pure reaper and beat pretty much any low masters in TvZ, TvT, or TvP.
I can do similar ridiculous strategies ZvX and PvX. Vs a low masters, I can completely dick around and throw units around at whim.
I'm not a GM either, just high masters.
|
most of this is prabably said already, but the difference is pretty big, the higher the ceiling the harder it is to improve, and gm basicly does everything slightly better than a master player. control, execution, timings.
|
It's not really a slight difference in mechanics, if you're talking the difference between a newly promoted masters player and even the lowest GM player, it's a huge difference. They aren't perfect, but I guess it's hard to know just how bad your mechanics are without comparing it to someone like them.
|
On December 12 2012 16:03 Rickyvalle21 wrote:
The difference between a low master and a high master is about just as big as bronze to diamond. A low master literally has no chance vs a high master. With that being said if it took you 1 year to get from bronze to master then it will probably take you another year to get from master to gm.
I don't think this is true at all. A diamond player can beat a bronze or even silver (possibly gold) player only using their mouse. I seriously doubt any non-pro could beat a low masters like that, and even then it would be very challenging.
I think there's a difference in all areas, but the main difference is in unit control and multitask.
|
On December 12 2012 14:46 dasfewfawdx wrote:
I (finally) made it to Masters league recently (yay :D) after I worked out a few kinks in my mechanics. Now, for the most part, I have fairly good macro with enough game sense to know when things are coming.
Now the question is: What differentiates a mid-high level Masters player with presumably good macro with a Grandmasters player? Mainly, what can a Masters player improve on to significantly improve his or her level of play?
Admittedly, Grandmaster players, primarily pro-gamers, have a large range of build orders/styles to play from, but for single 1v1 matches, having one solid build for each MU wouldn't be too much worse than having a variety of builds.
I'm stumped; is the their (GM's) slightly-more consistent macro really that big of a difference to separate GM players from M? Is having perfect micro for early game battles really that game-changing as opposed to having good micro? Is there some different strategic mindset that truly separates GM players as the best of the best?
Any thoughts are welcome.
I grantee that your macro is no where near GM macro. There are so many small things that you may gloss over but will have a huge impact on your ability to get things out.
For example even if you don't get supply blocked that doesn't mean you aren't building supply at the optimal time (optimal being as late as possible).
Infrastructure is another example and should not have resources invested into it unless it is getting maximum use.
Stepping away from macro, GM multitasking and crisis management is phenomenal as well as their ability to make in game decisions. All of these things are not even needed to achieve masters and no doubt any masters players skills in these areas are very underdeveloped compared to a GM.
|
1)GM Macro and mechanics are A LOT better then an average mid-master.
2) Timings. Just an example : parting doing the immortal/sentry allinn leaves his base at 8.40, an average gm maybe at 9.00, a mid-master 9.30 (based on my experience). Thats a huge difference.
3)Engagements : most of the master players just a-move and spam storm/emp/fungal. GMs takes very refined engagements.
4)Litttle details that makes the difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
