|
On November 28 2010 09:46 b_unnies wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2010 09:43 Orome wrote:On November 28 2010 09:41 b_unnies wrote:On November 28 2010 09:35 OriginalBeast wrote:On November 28 2010 09:32 b_unnies wrote:
the only difference is better macro :| macro is important but the complexities of starcraft entail more than just macro. Of course there are other important areas, but they don't matter below diamond. Problem with all players below diamond is they spent too much time on non-macro related things. Not true from my custom games experience. A lot of players below diamond have as good macro as low diamond players, but lack good builds, game understanding or other things. Good builds are part of macro. Honestly, saying that players below diamond have as good a macro as low diamond isnt really saying much because i would probably say half of all diamond players dont have good macro
I don't see how good builds are part of macro. You can keep your money low just fine with a terrible build that doesn't make sense.
And of course a lot of diamond players don't have good macro, but we're talking about whether or not they're better at it than platinum players.
|
I'd have to agree with b_unnies and Orome. (I am a zerg player about 1760 diamond)
First and foremost it is better macro. ("building pylons and building probes" in the words of day9)
- not getting supply caped and constantly producing off of every production structure ALL GAME.
and secondly it is that game sense of putting pressure and "poking" and stuff to apply pressure without necessarily going all-in. The mid-high diamonds seem to understand the concept of getting small advantages wherever possible from simply forcing your opponent to make more defensive units/structures instead of more and more drones.
(sorry if I missed some other good points. I just skimmed the thread and wanted to give my 2 cents)
|
On November 28 2010 09:52 ZergCushion wrote:
The mid-high diamonds seem to understand the concept of getting small advantages wherever possible from simply forcing your opponent to make more defensive units/structures instead of more and more drones.
That reminds me, a lot of low level players don't see that. I play with a friend of mine who is silver/gold level a lot in team games and he seems to see the game as solely relying on one push all the time. And it doesn't help that he has no idea how to react to cannons despite being rushed by them 20+ games in a row.
|
oh yeah and Scouting! Getting creative with scouting and reacting accordingly was what finally launched me up out of gold and very quickly up through the diamond ranks.
|
The difference is macro. As the rank goes up, everything is tighter. You can see it when you play lower ranks. You're way ahead of them if they're going a sub-optimal banshee build, or baneling bust. You can feel that you're ridiculously safe against whatever they do because the timings are off. As you move up, those timings get shorter, and at the highest ranks, which haven't been reached yet, are perfect.
With intuition, you understand when you can do what you want, but you need the macro to be able to pull that move off. You'll see windows of opportunity where you can gain an advantage, like stalker harass. But then it's moving into the upper levels and micro.
Gold and below players understand counters, and how to get to the counters they want. Higher gold and platinum players understand, but do not macro fully.
|
A couple people have said that apply pressure without going all in is a key difference, and I'd like to point it out; definitely a juicy bit of knowledge there, because Im not the kind of protoss that likes to make a bunch of cannons turtle and hope for a macro game, however I do find myself having problems applying pressure, in particular to zerg with approximately 1 spine crawler
|
On November 28 2010 09:49 Orome wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2010 09:46 b_unnies wrote:On November 28 2010 09:43 Orome wrote:On November 28 2010 09:41 b_unnies wrote:On November 28 2010 09:35 OriginalBeast wrote:On November 28 2010 09:32 b_unnies wrote:
the only difference is better macro :| macro is important but the complexities of starcraft entail more than just macro. Of course there are other important areas, but they don't matter below diamond. Problem with all players below diamond is they spent too much time on non-macro related things. Not true from my custom games experience. A lot of players below diamond have as good macro as low diamond players, but lack good builds, game understanding or other things. Good builds are part of macro. Honestly, saying that players below diamond have as good a macro as low diamond isnt really saying much because i would probably say half of all diamond players dont have good macro I don't see how good builds are part of macro. You can keep your money low just fine with a terrible build that doesn't make sense. And of course a lot of diamond players don't have good macro, but we're talking about whether or not they're better at it than platinum players.
Macro is a lot more complex than keeping your money low. How fast you're getting something, how fast you're getting a certain amount of units, how often you're expanding, your probe count etc.
A player could have 10 gates off 1 base, that's not a good build but he's keeping his money low. Still doesn't mean he has good macro.
You're saying that lots of low diamond has as good macro as lots of players who are below diamond. You can't generalize low diamond as all of diamond, which is why the number one biggest difference between random plat and random diamond player is macro. Only if you start comparing diamond players of higher levels does other areas become a bigger difference
|
On November 28 2010 09:59 b_unnies wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2010 09:49 Orome wrote:On November 28 2010 09:46 b_unnies wrote:On November 28 2010 09:43 Orome wrote:On November 28 2010 09:41 b_unnies wrote:On November 28 2010 09:35 OriginalBeast wrote:On November 28 2010 09:32 b_unnies wrote:
the only difference is better macro :| macro is important but the complexities of starcraft entail more than just macro. Of course there are other important areas, but they don't matter below diamond. Problem with all players below diamond is they spent too much time on non-macro related things. Not true from my custom games experience. A lot of players below diamond have as good macro as low diamond players, but lack good builds, game understanding or other things. Good builds are part of macro. Honestly, saying that players below diamond have as good a macro as low diamond isnt really saying much because i would probably say half of all diamond players dont have good macro I don't see how good builds are part of macro. You can keep your money low just fine with a terrible build that doesn't make sense. And of course a lot of diamond players don't have good macro, but we're talking about whether or not they're better at it than platinum players. Macro is a lot more complex than keeping your money low. How fast you're getting something, how fast you're getting a certain amount of units, how often you're expanding, your probe count etc. A player could have 10 gates off 1 base, that's not a good build but he's keeping his money low. Still doesn't mean he has good macro. You're saying that lots of low diamond has as good macro as lots of players who are below diamond. You can't generalize low diamond as all of diamond, which is why the number one biggest difference between random plat and random diamond player is macro. Only if you start comparing diamond players of higher levels does other areas become a bigger difference
Macro means managing your base. I think knowing when to expand is a part of macro. The entire game is either micro or macro. Good macro means everything even related to macro. Knowing when to expand, knowing when to upgrade, keeping resources low, always be producing, only research what is needed. A good build order is just an optimal macro situation.
|
gold=aggressive folks that just 4gate or allin
plat=gold peoples trying to do something other than 4gate and all-in (they're prob less scary than gold players)
diamond=players that have good macro and understand the game at some level..
its prob been discussed 500 times though, i dont see why to make a thread about it -_-;
and honestly.. most good players dont ladder.. they have some kinda cult where they just sit there and obs eachother in 10player 1v1games all day -_-; kinda boring tbh lol
|
On November 28 2010 09:49 Orome wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2010 09:46 b_unnies wrote:On November 28 2010 09:43 Orome wrote:On November 28 2010 09:41 b_unnies wrote:On November 28 2010 09:35 OriginalBeast wrote:On November 28 2010 09:32 b_unnies wrote:
the only difference is better macro :| macro is important but the complexities of starcraft entail more than just macro. Of course there are other important areas, but they don't matter below diamond. Problem with all players below diamond is they spent too much time on non-macro related things. Not true from my custom games experience. A lot of players below diamond have as good macro as low diamond players, but lack good builds, game understanding or other things. Good builds are part of macro. Honestly, saying that players below diamond have as good a macro as low diamond isnt really saying much because i would probably say half of all diamond players dont have good macro I don't see how good builds are part of macro. You can keep your money low just fine with a terrible build that doesn't make sense. And of course a lot of diamond players don't have good macro, but we're talking about whether or not they're better at it than platinum players.
keeping your money low isn't the definition of good macro, it is an effect of good macro
macro is most basically how much stuff you can make
spending all your money on supply depots or queuing up 5 units in each production building isn't good macro, even if it does keep your money low
OT: There is no one distinct difference in level, and its not like moving to diamond makes you suddenly better. It's a gradual progression that happens to be broken into chunks. Work on improving one aspect at a time (mechanics is generally the most important), and you will find yourself rise
|
OriginalBeast. I am by no means an expert. I am learning so much everyday as a zerg. But in response to your post...
If you go say 3 warp gate blink stalker on xel naga against a zerg fe and just dance back and forth picking off things when you have the advantage. I guarantee you that actually utilising those stalkers like that will result in the zerg not being able to saturate his natural even NEARLY as efficently as he would like because he will of course be making a ton of roaches. Meanwhile you are expanding yourself... and so the game progresses and assuming you are equally competent players you will bith be on an even footing for mid-late game.
If you are the superior player it is likely you will force errors that will win you the game
|
On November 28 2010 09:32 b_unnies wrote:
the only difference is better macro
This is true I would say the only main thing that sets these leagues apart is macro and very subtle changes in build orders.
I would say this trend is consistent up until mid-high diamond once players want to step into top diamond thats when fine tuning and great control really start coming into play aside from that more often then not having more shit wins you the game..
|
On November 28 2010 10:02 vica wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2010 09:59 b_unnies wrote:On November 28 2010 09:49 Orome wrote:On November 28 2010 09:46 b_unnies wrote:On November 28 2010 09:43 Orome wrote:On November 28 2010 09:41 b_unnies wrote:On November 28 2010 09:35 OriginalBeast wrote:On November 28 2010 09:32 b_unnies wrote:
the only difference is better macro :| macro is important but the complexities of starcraft entail more than just macro. Of course there are other important areas, but they don't matter below diamond. Problem with all players below diamond is they spent too much time on non-macro related things. Not true from my custom games experience. A lot of players below diamond have as good macro as low diamond players, but lack good builds, game understanding or other things. Good builds are part of macro. Honestly, saying that players below diamond have as good a macro as low diamond isnt really saying much because i would probably say half of all diamond players dont have good macro I don't see how good builds are part of macro. You can keep your money low just fine with a terrible build that doesn't make sense. And of course a lot of diamond players don't have good macro, but we're talking about whether or not they're better at it than platinum players. Macro is a lot more complex than keeping your money low. How fast you're getting something, how fast you're getting a certain amount of units, how often you're expanding, your probe count etc. A player could have 10 gates off 1 base, that's not a good build but he's keeping his money low. Still doesn't mean he has good macro. You're saying that lots of low diamond has as good macro as lots of players who are below diamond. You can't generalize low diamond as all of diamond, which is why the number one biggest difference between random plat and random diamond player is macro. Only if you start comparing diamond players of higher levels does other areas become a bigger difference Macro means managing your base. I think knowing when to expand is a part of macro. The entire game is either micro or macro. Good macro means everything even related to macro. Knowing when to expand, knowing when to upgrade, keeping resources low, always be producing, only research what is needed. A good build order is just an optimal macro situation.
Thanks for ending the debate on what macro is. I think the last sentence is good information, I let go of the theory of build orders a long time ago, I go for a general look to my base getting one thing after the other. I feel its the best way to play because as protoss a lot of what you have to do is make the units you have money for.
To explain my last sentence. Terran barracks for expamle, if you have a tech lab, generally you dont make marines; marauders or reapers is what your going to get, most likely in mid/ late game marauders but if your have a reactor marines are going to be made. So more direct unit choices are made. As I see it in protoss the units I make are a direct result of having too much gas/ minerals, or having a good mix of both.
|
gold -> plat is just macro
but plat -> diamond is better understanding of the game (when to expand, what builds counter what etc)
|
Here is my experience of gold, platinum and diamond leagues. I myself have played ~400 games total, started in silver league, advanced up to diamond league, stayed there for a while and then fell down to platinum after losing to zerg 20 times in 25 matches or so.
Anyway, GOLD:
-Gold players do not usually make stupid or weird mistakes
-APM/Micro/Macro is relatively decent, but not great
-Not really graps of tactics of weaknesses
PLATINUM:
-Good to great macro/micro skills
-Decent grasp of general tactics, unless they got here by perfecting and executing a single tactic for hundreds of games (like a cheese)
-No innovation, usually plays with "mainstream" tactics
DIAMOND:
-Great micro macro/micro skills
-Knows tactics
-Shows innovation
Now, not all diamond players are that great, but I have yet to meet one that is a complete run-over. Usually diamonds can also give a decent discussion on what I/he did wrong and so on. I've also seen some very extraordinary stuff from some low-mid diamonds I've fought (1400+). One zerg did some brilliant nydus worms when he couldn't get trough my ramp wall-off, for example. I've seen "hidden" expansions as 2nd bases instead of naturals, avoiding forcefields with burrow micro, zerg "300 food pushes", dropping siege tanks in most nasty/abusive places etc.
Of course not every diamond is great and not every gold is bad, but that's how I'd rate the difference.
|
On November 28 2010 09:59 b_unnies wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2010 09:49 Orome wrote:On November 28 2010 09:46 b_unnies wrote:On November 28 2010 09:43 Orome wrote:On November 28 2010 09:41 b_unnies wrote:On November 28 2010 09:35 OriginalBeast wrote:On November 28 2010 09:32 b_unnies wrote:
the only difference is better macro :| macro is important but the complexities of starcraft entail more than just macro. Of course there are other important areas, but they don't matter below diamond. Problem with all players below diamond is they spent too much time on non-macro related things. Not true from my custom games experience. A lot of players below diamond have as good macro as low diamond players, but lack good builds, game understanding or other things. Good builds are part of macro. Honestly, saying that players below diamond have as good a macro as low diamond isnt really saying much because i would probably say half of all diamond players dont have good macro I don't see how good builds are part of macro. You can keep your money low just fine with a terrible build that doesn't make sense. And of course a lot of diamond players don't have good macro, but we're talking about whether or not they're better at it than platinum players. Macro is a lot more complex than keeping your money low. How fast you're getting something, how fast you're getting a certain amount of units, how often you're expanding, your probe count etc. A player could have 10 gates off 1 base, that's not a good build but he's keeping his money low. Still doesn't mean he has good macro. You're saying that lots of low diamond has as good macro as lots of players who are below diamond. You can't generalize low diamond as all of diamond, which is why the number one biggest difference between random plat and random diamond player is macro. Only if you start comparing diamond players of higher levels does other areas become a bigger difference
That's not what I mean by bad builds, the kind of bad I'm talking about has nothing to do with macro. Gold/Platinum players will often go for builds that just make no sense. One example would be a pure marauder stim rush against Z. Their macro can be perfectly fine doing it and they can get a lot of marauders out, but the build makes no sense because pure marauder get torn apart by speedlings. This has nothing to do with macro unless you want to include what units you're getting in macro and that's just wrong.
Anyway, we're discussing semantics now and this is getting pretty pointless. I agree with you that macro's one of the differences between platinum and diamond players, but it's by no means the only one.
|
On November 28 2010 10:15 lol12tree wrote:
gold -> plat is just macro
but plat -> diamond is better understanding of the game (when to expand, what builds counter what etc)
It's funny, because my macro is HORRIBLE usually compared to the people I end up playing (slight exaggeration, but it's certainly sub-par). However, the only reason I end up winning is because of when I time my pushes, my army composition, and positioning for battles.
I'm a platinum, and I've met gold player's who out macro the crap out of me, but I just win with better decision making. Same for diamond player's I've had matches with.
|
I do agree with b_unnies.
Between Gold, Plat and Diamond, most players are still working on better macro, and getting strategies that work.
Once you start hitting mid diamond, thats where the Micro really starts to come in.
|
I recently played on my friends acc and got him from 1.6k to 2k in plat, and i have to say everyone i played seemed pretty damn awful... ranging from 1k platinum players to 2k diamond players, none put up a fight. So imo, there isn't much of a dif between gold/plat or plat/diamond although the dif between gold/diamond is prolly pretty big. I'm a 2.4k random player myself and not to brag, but i was light years ahead of those players.
|
im plat but i feel i should be in diamond since im beating diamond players on 50:50 and like 90:10 vs plat players :\
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
