|
United States4883 Posts
I was talking with a fellow TL member and we began to delve into what a "macro game" was exactly. He talked to me for nearly an hour and told me his experiences with progaming (music games) and how he applied similar ideas and thoughts to Starcraft, but most importantly, left with me a really memorable story. He said:
I used to have a Korean Starcraft practice partner. One day he asked me, "Why do you think Koreans are so cheesy when they're learning to play?" I don't remember exactly what I replied, but it was probably something along the lines of: "They've got better micro, macro, etc., so they can win early." He took a moment, then responded, "No, it's because the goal of the game is much simpler."
"What is a cheese? What the hell is a macro game?" When he asked me how I defined a macro game, I felt ready for the question and immediately typed in my answer: "I see a macro game as any game which has a clear goal in mind from start to finish." And then I realized that every strategy has a clear goal in mind, including cheeses and 1-2 base all-ins. As long as you have a plan, a clear goal in mind, you're officially playing a "macro game". That said, we can define the strategy in SC2 as a clearly defined game plan from start to finish with which to decide the outcome in a game.
He also asked me how I studied games. "Well, I look through the replay, take some notes on the build, how the player managed to make it to the mid game, then I make some conclusions and see how they tie back to the original opening." He told me I was half right. He said, "To me, build orders are a way to solve problems. You have a goal and then you create the build around that goal. When you study a replay or a pro game, you should watch all the way through to the end, then work your way backwards on how Player X got to the end of the game.
Unnecessary rant: + Show Spoiler +There's this big misconception that cheeses and 2-base all-ins are somehow "no skill" or noob builds or "the wrong way to play the game". People play against opponents on ladder who do a proxy 2-gate or pull SCVs or open with speedling rushes every game, and there's the tendency to feel belittled or dumbed down by losing to a well-executed cheese; naturally this excites them and makes them feel like they should have won if they had just scouted better/controlled better, etc. And that's true. All cheeses are beatable at the top levels of play as long as you scout, continue to macro, and control well; when you lose to a cheese or some kind of all-in build, you were lacking in one of these areas, not because the cheese is "no skill OP".
While it is true that there are mechanically better players that lose to people performing cheeses and 2-base all-ins in masters and GM leagues (even on the pro level), this doesn't change the fact that one player simply executed a strategy better than the other. There are a lot of players who don't have a set goal in mind when they ladder; with my definition of macro, you could argue that a dedicated cheeser is technically a better "macro" player than their opponent who just builds whatever works without a clearly defined goal, even if the dedicated cheeser is not mechanically as good.
There's also the flawed school of thought that somehow playing only cheeses and 2-base all-ins is detrimental to your SC2 growth and makes you a "bad macro player". The truth is that there is plenty to learn about the early and mid games through these shorter-term game plans, things you wouldn't necessarily learn by just sitting back, taking 3 bases, and "macroing". If you play only cheese and mid game attacks, you miss out on learning the late game, but it's actually a great stepping stone into what is considered "true macro play".
Let's apply this definition and plan a strategy!
Strategy #1 (the cheese): In PvP, I want to overwhelm my opponent with zealots before he can get stalkers out.
Step 1: How do we overwhelm our opponent with zealots before 4:20? Obviously no warp gate attack will work, so we'll have to use gateways. In order to hit early enough, we're going to have to proxy the gateway(s).
Step 2: How many gateways can we support? What is the most efficient build order? We can go 6 pylon, 6 gateway, but will that be enough to support it? We can place down two gateways around 13; will that be too late? If neither work, we're looking for a sweet spot somewhere in the middle. After some testing, building two gateways on 10 is the most efficient way to do this build.
Step 3: What maps will this work on? Where should I place my gateways to be most effective? It seems like this strategy won't work on 4-player maps because I don't have time to scout, so I can only do it on 2-player maps. We also need to see if there are particularly good hiding spots where our opponent is least likely to scout on each map.
Conclusion: At the beginning of the game, I need to send a probe immediately to my opponent's base (to a predetermined location), build a pylon as soon as possible and 2 gateways on 10 food. I will chronoboost zealots constantly when my gateways finish and push into my opponent's mineral line with 3 zealots and one probe. I can only do this on 2-player maps, but Akilon Wastes and Yeonsu seem best for this. (Luckily, all this was figured out in the WoL beta, so we don't need to plan out this strategy very hard; broken apart, however, this strategy looks like this.)
Strategy #2 (the timing attack): In PvZ, I want to hit my opponent before he has optimal saturation on 3 bases using some kind of robo-based build.
Step 1: How quickly can the zerg player reach 3-base saturation? If we can't run tests, we can just play a couple of games or watch a few pro VoDs to get a good idea of when the zerg player generally reaches 3-base saturation. Most zergs, when doing macro play, usually don't go up to ~70 drones until around 11:00, so our attack must hit before 11:00.
Step 2: What composition will we attack with? What units can the zerg player use to counter aggression? If we want to do a robo-based build, our primary damage-dealers are going to be the immortal and the colossus. We can either rush out several immortals and attack or we can rush colossus and attack. Or we can get a combination of both. Let's choose the combination. Our opponent will probably defend with lings, roaches, or hydras (but swarm hosts and mutas are another option to keep in mind). We'll probably want a lot of sentries and, depending on the army composition, either a lot of zealots or a lot of stalkers. In the end, our army composition should look something like colossus/immortal/sentry/stalker/zealot with varying ratios of stalkers to zealots.
Step 3: How do we get to our composition? What is the most efficient build to get there? We can either go forge fast expansion or gateway expand. We might experiment with this step a bit to get a good idea of the strength and weaknesses of each build. We might try interesting insertions like phoenix or 3-gate pressure before the actual push. This is also a time for us to figure out exactly how much of each unit we can make and still hit before the allotted time. All in all, our goal in this step is to come up with a clearly defined pathway to get to our planned composition. For the sake of this analysis, let's choose the simplest one: FFE into a push with 2 immortals and 2 colossus behind 7 gates.
Step 4: Which maps will this work on? Maps with plenty of chokes are going to make forcefields strong and this push more effective. Smaller maps with less walking distance from base to base are also going to give us an advantage by allowing us to attack sooner. The inverse of this is true: open maps and maps with long rush distances will be detrimental to our attack. Using this information, we can conclude that maps like Bel'Shir Vestige and Yeonsu are prime candidates for this strategy while maps like Whirlwind and Derelict Watcher aren't as good.
Step 5: We now have a strategy, how can we refine it? How do we deal with early pressure and stay alive into the mid game? After formulating the plan and developing the build, we should test it extensively on ladder and make small tweaks and adjustments based on our games. This is the prime opportunity to learn how to deal with things that mess with our otherwise optimal build: what happens if our opponent hatch blocks? What happens if he attacks with early roaches? Will we die to an early speedling attack? What happens if our opponent just goes for mutas? What happens if the zerg just doesn't take an early 3rd base? There are several questions to be answered; tons of time should be spent on this step refining our strategy and gameplay to the point of perfection.
Conclusion: I want to do a forge fast expand (nexus first) while scouting with a probe and zealot for any potential threats and deflecting them as necessary. I will get up a robo and a robo bay as soon as economically possible, chronoboosting out 2 immortals followed by 2 colossus and a warp prism, amassing sentries (and getting +1 attack) behind this. When I reach 2-base saturation, I will add on additional gateways for a total of 7 while denying scouting overlords the best I can. At 10:00, I will move out with 2 colossus, 2 immortals, 8 sentries, and a handful of zealots and stalkers, primarily targeting the zerg player's 3rd base. If he has mass spines at his third, I will just walk straight into his natural. After several ladder games of testing, I will make improvements and adjustments wherever necessary in the strategy.
Strategy #3 (the "macro" build): In PvT, I want to slowly starve out my opponent by denying outer bases and always staying one base ahead.
Step 1: How can we deny our opponent's bases continually while keeping our own secure? We're probably going to need a lot of mobility and a cheap way to both attack and defend. For offense, late game zealots and DTs are pretty powerful, cost-effective units for denying bases and controlling space. For defense, a cannon/HT wall seems to be fairly unbreakable by most bio forces. However, we're probably still going to need a large main army in order to stop the terran player from just walking into our main or overwhelming our bases with sheer numbers.
Step 2: What kind of late game army are we shooting for? What is the terran players likely late game army? Again, these may not be things we know off the top of your head, but studying a few VoDs will give us a pretty good clue. Obviously, our army should be fairly mobile; the late game terran army will probably be primarily ghost/viking with a few marines and marauders for support. When thinking about what army is not only mobile but also counters ghost/viking well, we can come to the conclusion that stalker/colossus with HT support is the best overall composition for our lategame army. If we reach a split map position, we'll have to transition into tempests in order to beat the ghost/viking army; however, this is not our game plan, so it appears we'll have to be very active and constantly trying to trade armies and kill our opponent's economy in the late game.
Step 3: How do we get to that late game army and 4+ bases? What does our mid game look like? We need forge upgrades, blink, charge, colossus, high templar, dark templar, and a high gateway count. We need to figure out if we're going to do double forge or single forge (or single forge into double forge). We know we'll need splash damage in the mid game (something we learned from watching VoDs) so we need to choose either colossus or HT first and choose the best order of twilight council upgrades to support our initial AoE choice. If we go for double forge with a blink/colossus army, we can secure a 3rd base relatively early and transition into HT. When we hit +3/+3, we should take a 4th while attacking to deny our opponent's 4th and kill some economy and production in his main with warp prism drops.
Step 4: How can we refine the mid game? Is there a better way to economically take a 3rd? If our opponent goes for an early 3rd, how should we respond? How do we beat an SCV pull attack? How do we deal with multiple drops effectively? After testing some different tactics on ladder, we should make conclusions about how to more effectively play the mid game based on scouting and positioning. We can establish rules of when to apply pressure, when to play passively, when to take our 3rd base more quickly, when to scout, etc., etc.
Step 5: How can we most efficiently reach the mid game safely? Going all the way back to the beginning of the game, we want to formulate how we're going to get to the double forge, stalker/colossus mid game. After watching several VoDs, we can conclude that we need at least one colossus by 10:00 to fend off any early medivac pressure. Other than that, we need to figure out our gateway timings, our gas timings, when to get blink, how many sentries we should get, etc., all revolving around the central idea that we need to have a colossus out at 10:00. After some experimentation, it seems we can do a MSC expand into 3 gates + a robo and then add on two forges followed by the robotics facility and a twilight. In the end, we can have double upgrades going, blink on the way, 6 gateways, and a colossus out before 10:00. During this time, we should also give thought to map choices; colossus/stalker isn't as good at defending drops as a templar-based build, so maps like Polar Night or Whirlwind can be a nightmare to defend on. Some maps such as Yeonsu and Bel'Shir Vestige have rather short rush distances, making early terran pressure stronger.
Step 6: In what ways can we refine the early game? Can we safely eke out an advantage by doing something like cutting a sentry or getting our forges before our 2nd and 3rd gates? This should be an area of exploration in which we focus on perfecting our general macro and learning subtle scouting tells and how to respond to them. After extensive ladder experience, we can learn how to stop any early pressure or how to hold early all-ins. This stage is all about refining the build going into the mid game to perfection.
Conclusion: I want to open with a MSC expand into a robo and double forge before additional gateways. If I scout early pressure based on my probe scout and map vision, I will throw a cannon in my main base and rely on photon overcharge to keep my natural safe. When I can afford it, I will put down a robo bay and a twilight council and transition into blink/colossus, making sure I have a colossus out by 10:00. Once I am able to take a 3rd base and I have 3 colossus, I will begin a tech switch to HT while defending drops and doing my own warp prism harassment. Once I hit +3/+3 and am fully saturated on 3 bases, I will attempt to take a 4th while pressuring my opponent. As the game progresses, my goal is to stay active on the map denying my opponent's bases as much as possible (specifically, pressuring one base with my army while using a warp prism/warpins to pressure other places) and taking my own bases, securing them with cannons and HT. After extensively playing on the ladder, I will make slight adjustments to my strategy.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Here is a good synopsis of what I'm trying to say:
We want to break out of this flawed thinking that somehow you have to take a fast expansion or go double upgrades or not attack until 10:00 in order to play a "macro game". If we want to play a "lategame-focused game", we'll probably end up doing some of these things, but that doesn't mean that we HAVE to go CC first or some kind of safe, conservative opening. When you start fitting yourself into a mold and making up imaginary rules ("seeing ghosts" as Day9 puts it), you start to slowly narrow your vision and your problem-solving ability until you cease to actually improve. We want to form our strategy around our goal, not around our opening.
Older Day9 Podcasts (highly recommended):
http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/Day9/Day[9]0013-SideStepping.mp3
http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/Day9/Day[9]0014-HOP3-AGoodMindset.mp3
http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/SonuvBob/podcasts/Day[9]0010-NewLookAtBuilds.mp3
http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/intrigue/Day90011RelativeTimings.mp3
http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/RaGe/Day90005HOP2RedundancyAndPur.mp3
http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/zatic/Day[9]0002-BuildingTriggers.mp3
http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/intrigue/Day90006PlayAgainstWorsePlay.mp3
On playing to practice vs. playing to win:
It's important to note the difference between playing to practice and playing to win. In terms of practice, you should generally follow through with whatever strategy you had planned, despite the opponent's build and adjustments. This is so that you can test your build thoroughly and refine it against everything. When you're playing to win, you want to have an arsenal of already refined strategies at your disposal. Don't get confused and think you have to adjust your strategy and play "reactively" against your ladder opponents during a game.
Also well worth its weight it gold:
On October 27 2013 17:48 vaderseven wrote:Show nested quote +When thinking about what army is not only mobile but also counters ghost/viking well, we can come to the conclusion that stalker/colossus with HT support is the best overall composition for our lategame army. If we reach a split map position, we'll have to transition into tempests in order to beat the ghost/viking army; however, this is not our game plan, so it appears we'll have to be very active and constantly trying to trade armies and kill our opponent's economy in the late game. [It is extremely strong to think like this.] For one, it teaches us if our game plan is a good solid one. If we find situations that no amount of tweaking to timings or corrections to micro and macro are working then we know that we have reached a point where the decision to go for a large army to hold pushes, DT and zealots to harass and deny bases, and a cannon and HT wall to control parts of the map is not a valid way to accomplish the goal of: In PvT, I want to slowly starve out my opponent by denying outer bases and always staying one base ahead. As such, we can explore another way to accomplish that goal and modify our play up to that point to fit the new step that leads to the goal of staying one base ahead and starving out the enemy.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
People are encouraged to post about game plans they have seen or used or to ask game plan related questions in this thread! VaderSeven and I would love to discuss game plans and how they relate to your perception of the game and the way that you play  .
_
|
Hey that guy sounds smart you were talking to <3
|
I wouldn´t call a cheese or an allin a "macro game". The difference is just, that the goal of a macro game lies in the later stages of the game, while allins or cheeses want to avoid these stages and end the game before a certain stage. The goal of a macro game always has something to do with expansion management. ,,How can I get 1 base ahead of my opponent?", ,,How can I deny my opponent´s base x?", ,,How can I defend my bases?", ,,How can I apply pressure to my opponent´s economy?". The goal of a macro game is to get and stay ahead in economy and use this extra ressources to first: prevent your opponent from getting his additional base and second: trade units until he has no more money to build new units. The difference between a "macro game" and a cheese or allin lies within the definition of the goal.
Cheeses and allins are much simplier to execute, because you play a "shorter" game with less information than a longer game. Also the goal is much simplier: ,,Kill your opponent with x units at time y". The goals of a macro game changes from map to map as the layout of expansions are different and the important moves by pro gamers are harder to notice, because the goals are different from player to player and from matchup to matchup. On some maps it´s quite easy to take a 3rd base, so players tend to focus and deny his opponent´s 4th base for example. As such it´s harder to discover, how you should play a "macro game" and which build order is best suited to reach your goals in the mid and late game on a certain map.
Day9 did a few dailies in the past, where he explained expansion management and army movement in the mid and lategame, which are the two key skills for a macro player. I don´t know the number of the daily anymore.
|
Ok Imma comment on this part here as I feel like it is a great starting point for extending this conversation:
Conclusion: I want to open with a MSC expand into a robo and double forge before additional gateways. If I scout early pressure based on my probe scout and map vision, I will throw a cannon in my main base and rely on photon overcharge to keep my natural safe. When I can afford it, I will put down a robo bay and a twilight council and transition into blink/colossus, making sure I have a colossus out by 10:00. Once I am able to take a 3rd base and I have 3 colossus, I will begin a tech switch to HT while defending drops and doing my own warp prism harassment. Once I hit +3/+3 and am fully saturated on 3 bases, I will attempt to take a 4th while pressuring my opponent. As the game progresses, my goal is to stay active on the map denying my opponent's bases as much as possible (specifically, pressuring one base with my army while using a warp prism/warpins to pressure other places) and taking my own bases, securing them with cannons and HT. After extensively playing on the ladder, I will make slight adjustments to my strategy.
#1. I love the basic build idea and how you have strong assumptions (important to have part of any plan) that are based on watching pro play and you have specifics built in. I love that. It creates a starting point for tweaking (if you have a specific timing or relative relation ship goal you can learn if it is good or bad and then change it to a new one instead of having a vague freestyle-ish goal). This is exemplified by how you say this:
When I can afford it, I will put down a robo bay and a twilight council and transition into blink/colossus, making sure I have a colossus out by 10:00.
I know you based that timing of 10:00 for one colossus off of VODs and pro play but if you hadn't based it off pro play I would still love that statement. If you had choosen 10:00 as just a assumptive starting point and found yourself dieing at about 10:15 or 10:30 to frontal pushes you would KNOW that one colossus at 10:00 is not enough and you can adjust to having one colossus at 9:30. If you had choosen 10:00 as just a assumptive starting point and found yourself dieing at 9:30 you would know that getting one colossus at 10:00 is too greedy and that you need more stuff available pre colossus tech and can adjust your first colosuss timing to 10:30. If either situation happened and tweaking the colossus timing did not work you would know that a colossus timing on two base can not hold vs common Terran plays!
(disclaimer: again, we all know that 10:00 is a very solid one colossus timing but I wanted to make a point about how to mentally approach the game and usuing specific assumptive timings like this is a very strong way to quickly find VERY strong timings)
[/B][/U]#2.[/B][/U]It is extremely strong to think like this:
When thinking about what army is not only mobile but also counters ghost/viking well, we can come to the conclusion that stalker/colossus with HT support is the best overall composition for our lategame army. If we reach a split map position, we'll have to transition into tempests in order to beat the ghost/viking army; however, this is not our game plan, so it appears we'll have to be very active and constantly trying to trade armies and kill our opponent's economy in the late game.
For one, it teaches us if our game plan is a good solid one. If we find situations that no amount of tweaking to timings or corrections to micro and macro are working then we know that we have reached a point where the decision to go for a large army to hold pushes, DT and zealots to harass and deny bases, and a cannon and HT wall to control parts of the map is not a valid way to accomplish the goal of: In PvT, I want to slowly starve out my opponent by denying outer bases and always staying one base ahead. As such, we can explore another way to accomplish that goal and modify our play up to that point to fit the new step that leads to the goal of staying one base ahead and starving out the enemy.
#3. This is the point that is the culmination of the first two AND a main point that could have been stated by itself. You are playing in such a stronger fashion by having the first point of you strategy be the end game goal and having everything else planed out as steps towards that in a reverse fashion. Always have a plan. That phrase refers to this type of thinking and this approach to the game.
#4. I am going to quote alot of day9 from his earlier days of super genius game theory here. This stuff predates sc2 and, honestly, comes from the time period where day9 was making content intended for player of his skill level and players wanting to play at his skill level (and, at the time, that skill level was of top 5 non korean player in the world).
+ Show Spoiler +if there is one thing you remember from this entire recording, let it be this—I never stopped to question whether my play was right or wrong. That is, I never said, "Should I be going Guardians?" I never stopped to do that; I never stopped to question whether I should be going hydralisk/lurker or anything like that. Rather, I said, "I am going hydralisk/lurker on this map, it feels like I need to go Guardians, when do I get those Guardians?" and I tried only to answer the question when. That is it. That is so important in the improvement of your play: to focus on a question and work on that. There are countless players in StarCraft who think the goal is to find "the right build". You see these players all the time: they're 2-gate rushing, you know, one week and then the next week they're going early-expand, Bisu-style, and then the next week they're just doing whatever the current trend in Proleague is. They keep changing and changing and changing. That is not your goal. Your goal in StarCraft is not to try to find "the right build" and (from a bit earlier in the podcast but on a similar point) At this point, a critical mistake that so, so, so many players make is to think that when late-game rolls around they can just feel it out: they'll be able somehow to "feel" when Terran has too many tanks and then they'll get the Hive. That logic does not work and you should avoid this at all costs. -Day9 podcast on Building Triggers (which means MAKING a trigger not triggers for a build etc)
+ Show Spoiler +I’m sure everyone has heard of the story of the kid who sleeps all the way through high school because when he gets home at 3 pm he does nothing but play StarCraft till 5 in the morning because he wants to be the best. However after a year and half of doing this, that kid is still C- and can not seem to get any aspect of his play better no mater what. So, though practice is very important, many people such as the kid I just mentioned will not improve based upon the huge amount of hours they play simply because they have the wrong mindset. These are the players that cannot reflect upon their game and analyze it properly and as a result stagnate for very long periods of time. Naturally, with an introduction like that, I’d like to present on how to have a good mindset when approaching the game. I want to provide a structure to your thought process so that way you don’t end up in any sort mental prison that will prevent you from improving. Since, having a right mindset is sort of a vague broad term that encompasses a huge aspect of play, what I’m going to do is present 5 ideas, each of which can only help to improve your play, and hopefully other areas of your life too. ... Number 1: Always have a plan.Note that I did not say always have a build order. Those are two very different things. A build order is just a set of instructions that you follow to optimize something. The plan is generally what that something is. You always need to know what your plan is first. ... Number 2: Don't see ghosts.This is another way of saying: don't convince yourself that things are true when really they only exist in your own head. You'll see this a lot of times when an intermediate player starts moving up the ranks on [ladder]. Let's say he's hit B- for his first time ever, and he's playing against an other B or B- player. In his head, he'll say: "Oh no, I'm worried that I'm playing against a better player" and he'll modify his play purely because his opponent is "better". ... Number 3: Trust your own logic over whatever trends you might see in the strategy forums or the Proleague matches. More importantly, throw away all vocabulary and thought-process used on a lot of these community sites. So many words are tossed around freely, like counter, or standard or unorthodox or cheesy. These words are useful for discussion, you know, giving the people a sense of what's going on. I can say "oh, he played a standard terran vs zerg", and immediately the listener has much clearer idea of what's going on. However, in terms of analysis, it doesnt mean anything for something to be standard or not standard. Why is it that medic&marine is the standard in terran vs zerg? In fact, controlling a mech army is way easier than controlling a m&m army, so why isn't mech standard? The answer is that: none of it matters. You should only be looking for what is clearly correct for you. This means that if you're having much more comfort sticking to lair and going hydra-lurk for a long time instead of getting really fast defilers, then by all means you should continue going delayed hive. You should continue doing whatever feels comfortable for you. What every player should always be doing at all points in time is snacking around on various strategies, just making sure you are aware of what all the possibilities of all the other races are. And then, when you find a strategy you like, you should dig deeply into that and find all the possible nuances and variations and solutions that you can in that style of play. Never ever ever think that you should play standard because it is standard in any sense of the word. ... Number 4: Keep a very strong awareness of your mental state throughout the entire game.This includes things like panicking when something bad happens or getting a flood of adrenaline when you think you're at an advantage, or even when you get to that relaxed state where you think "oh yeah, I've won, there's no way I could possibly lose". All of these should be slowly weeded out so that way your brain is actually focusing on the game at all points in time. ... Number 5: And finally, number 5, which is somewhat of a culmination of everything I've said so far: Have confidence in your execution, and skepticism and doubt in your analysis. When you're playing the game, you should be convinced that what you're doing is absolutely correct, so that way you can maximize your efficiency with whatever you're doing. Whether it'd be a really strong play or an absolutely flawed play. After the game is when you should look at your play and say "mhm, what did I do right and wrong here, what's a way that I could improve? What's a build that he could have done that would have crushed this a 100% of the time?" That is when you think of what adjustments you want to make for the next game. And of course, in that next game, you'll play with 100% confidence as though everything you're doing is absolutely correct. A huge issue that a lot of players deal with is that when they are in the game, and they get thrown off just a little bit - maybe they get storm-dropped or maybe they see a strategy they havent seen before -, that's when they start to analyze their play and to make these huge, large-scale adjustments. Unless making that adjustment was part of your plan, don't do it! -Day9 podcast on Having a Good Mindset
I think these parts of sc2 are missed so much. Many people just work on builds and grind out micro and fix macro problems and then never play a single set of 10 games where they are fixing a problem in their plan so that it works better. Most people dont even have a plan they just have a build.
In all honesty, I win vs better players of the physical game alot simply because I have a better plan that I made outside of the game.
I encourage everyone to listen to the following day9 podcasts (ordered in my recommended listening order):
http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/Day9/Day[9]0013-SideStepping.mp3
http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/Day9/Day[9]0014-HOP3-AGoodMindset.mp3
http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/SonuvBob/podcasts/Day[9]0010-NewLookAtBuilds.mp3
http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/intrigue/Day90011RelativeTimings.mp3
http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/RaGe/Day90005HOP2RedundancyAndPur.mp3
http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/zatic/Day[9]0002-BuildingTriggers.mp3
http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/intrigue/Day90006PlayAgainstWorsePlay.mp3
Day9 caters to a lower level audience than he used to and the reason the sc2 world listened to him when he started in the beta of WoL was in a great part due to the amazing amount of pure and solid RTS theory he had shown the community with works such as these. There is higher level concepts within those podcasts than can be found in most forums about RTS and even in most featured threads on TL (I say that as a writter of such threads so, again, I mean no insult I am just trying to say that these contain litterally the best high level thoughts really produced to date on general RTS theory).
If you need help learning how to play a strategy game, listen to these. Carefully. And take them to heart.
|
On October 27 2013 17:36 Sianos wrote:
I wouldn´t call a cheese or an allin a "macro game". The difference is just, that the goal of a macro game lies in the later stages of the game, while allins or cheeses want to avoid these stages and end the game before a certain stage. The goal of a macro game always has something to do with expansion management. ,,How can I get 1 base ahead of my opponent?", ,,How can I deny my opponent´s base x?", ,,How can I defend my bases?", ,,How can I apply pressure to my opponent´s economy?". The goal of a macro game is to get and stay ahead in economy and use this extra ressources to first: prevent your opponent from getting his additional base and second: trade units until he has no more money to build new units. The difference between a "macro game" and a cheese or allin lies within the definition of the goal.
Cheeses and allins are much simplier to execute, because you play a "shorter" game with less information than a longer game. Also the goal is much simplier: ,,Kill your opponent with x units at time y". The goals of a macro game changes from map to map as the layout of expansions are different and the important moves by pro gamers are harder to notice, because the goals are different from player to player and from matchup to matchup. On some maps it´s quite easy to take a 3rd base, so players tend to focus and deny his opponent´s 4th base for example. As such it´s harder to discover, how you should play a "macro game" and which build order is best suited to reach your goals in the mid and late game on a certain map.
Day9 did a few dailies in the past, where he explained expansion management and army movement in the mid and lategame, which are the two key skills for a macro player. I don´t know the number of the daily anymore.
Gonna be mean and simple and just say WRONG though I dont mean it in a mean way.
What the OP is talking about is breaking down some assumptions that are getting in the way of real strategy formation. Words like cheese and macro game are weird and thrown around alot and create prejudice that guides players in their learning. By saying a macro game is how you define and cheese is how you define it you have labeled things that suggest good and bad. You also assume alot about how a macro game is about being ahead in resources.
The bottom line is every GOOD strategy has a goal of winning via some piece of logic and has steps to reaching it. By looking at very short game plans you can see very similar trends to longer games in that good players, no matter of their choice of long or short game plan, have the same logical steps in place in how they form a strategy. Saying that macro and cheese are bad words is simply a way to help break a mental set of prejudices that is VERY common even among masters and gm level players that is holding them back mentally from understanding the idea of a good game plan.
The difference between a "macro game" and a cheese or allin lies within the definition of the goal.
I just think that is the core problem with your post. A macro game by your definition is an open ended game plan that is based vaguely off of winning with alot of stuff and a cheese or allin game is about winning before you have alot of stuff? I cant even figure out fully what you (or everyone else) REALLY means about specifics in the difference. If you cant state specific differences, you don't really have a logical case.
I can comment on cheese at least. Cheese is a game plan based upon winning via a bad decision making on the enemies's part or on winning via a risk that has not been logically planned out as sound.
Anything that is based on solid logic that the player feels can win through actions that they take in game is not cheese.
Therefor, cheese is the lack of a plan beyond a single path goal straight to a win that relies on assuming sub optimal play out of the enemy player.
There are alot of all in plays that are not cheese and there is alot of 'longer games with the player getting alot of stuff via solid mechanics' that are cheese.
Therefor Macro and Cheese are not a ying and yang.
Jeeze, even bronze players play 'macro games.' They build stuff and make their economy get bigger over time (at least they intend for it to grow). The only game plan that involves no macro is a 6 worker rush. I hate vague non logic based terms like Macro build.
+ Show Spoiler +btw I did not mean to pick on the poster I quoted I knew SOMEONE would post a similar post pretty quick as it is the common accepted way of thinking in the community
|
On October 27 2013 17:59 vaderseven wrote:By saying a macro game is how you define and cheese is how you define it you have labeled things that suggest good and bad. Show nested quote +The difference between a "macro game" and a cheese or allin lies within the definition of the goal. I just think that is the core problem with your post. A macro game by your definition is an open ended game plan that is based vaguely off of winning with alot of stuff and a cheese or allin game is about winning before you have alot of stuff? I cant even figure out fully what you (or everyone else) REALLY means about specifics in the difference. If you cant state specific differences, you don't really have a logical case. I can comment on cheese at least. Cheese is a game plan based upon winning via a bad decision making on the enemies's part or on winning via a risk that has not been logically planned out as sound. Anything that is based on solid logic that the player feels can win through actions that they take in game is not cheese. Therefor, cheese is the lack of a plan beyond a single path goal straight to a win that relies on assuming sub optimal play out of the enemy player. There are alot of all in plays that are not cheese and there is alot of 'longer games with the player getting alot of stuff via solid mechanics' that are cheese. Therefor Macro and Cheese are not a ying and yang. Jeeze, even bronze players play 'macro games.' They build stuff and make their economy get bigger over time (at least they intend for it to grow). The only game plan that involves no macro is a 6 worker rush. I hate vague non logic based terms like Macro build. + Show Spoiler +btw I did not mean to pick on the poster I quoted I knew SOMEONE would post a similar post pretty quick as it is the common accepted way of thinking in the community
I never said allin or cheese is bad. I just stated the difference between cheeses and allins and a macro game. A cheese is a strategy, which relies on your opponent not scouting it (this can be an offensive move like proxy buildings or a defensive move like double upgrades or a hidden expansion), while an allin can still be successful even if the opponent scouts it against certain builds. Of course both are "valid" strategies, which can lead towards victory. I only wanted to state the difference between cheeses, allins and a macro game, because the OP mentioned that cheeses and allins are a "macro game". For me the difference between a macro game and cheese or allins lies within the definition of the goal, where allins or cheeses want to end the game before a certain stage is reached and the macro game is about controlling expansions.
An allin is used to avoid a certain stage in the game, because either the players executing is doesn´t feel comfortable in that stage or the player just don´t want to hit that stage against the actual opponent. Another goal of using allins is to punish greedy play as allins are designed to work against certain builds.
A cheese is used to get an advantage over your opponent by hiding a certain strategy, so that your opponent isn´t really prepared for it. This can be offensive proxy buildings to quickly surprise your opponent with units or it can be a hidden expansion or hidden tech. Normaly you wouldn´t get away with it, but when your opponent does not scout it and or react to it properbly, you´ll get an advantage, you normaly "shouldn´t" have in a "normal" game in order to deal better with specific situations.
Both are tools, which can lead towards victoroy and require a good insight about maps and the opponent to use effectively in a tournament. But the important part of it is, that the goals are different from a "normal" macro game.
|
Italy12246 Posts
I approve of this thread. Actually, i think it'll go in the recommended section. Nice work yo, blue poster bro high five.
edit: just to chip in the discussion. No matter how you define a game, a sound strategy knows when you WIN. Wether that's when you get 4 zealots out and kill all his shit, or when you're maxed on the sickest templest/colossus/templar army, you have to be able to arrive at a moment in time when you win. You don't necessarily take more bases all the time either.
Take the old double forge builds. They are clearly a macro build, yet when you executed them you KNEW you would WIN when you hit 3/3, 3 colo, charge, blink, archons and amoved the terran with better upgrades. There's a specific point in time when you know, more often than not, you will win. If you don't of course you can transition, but that always has a price. Taking double forge templar-less armies, that's of course less and later storms.
The differences between cheese, allin, timing and macro builds are simply in the price paid to transition out of them. For instance, it's obviously simpler to transition out of a 4gate pressure than a 7gate allin. This also means that all those terms aren't well defined. Many builds need to do some sort of damage to pay off in investments (say, DT's). If you do x amount of damage you're ahead, otherwise you're behind, which is true for, well, everything, from a cheesy mantrain to a simpel stargate opener. The question then becomes "how much damage to i need to deal with build x to be able to transition?" If that's a lot you can call a build cheese or allin, otherwise you don't, but it's important to keep in mind that this is true for basically every build by every race in sc2 and bw. All those definitions are subjective, so some people might call proxy oracle or dt's cheesy are allins while others don't.
Finally, regarding how you learn the game, i have always been a proponent of learning simpler builds first. I personally never, ever microed a single battle until i got to diamond, and as a result to this day, 3 years later, my micro is the weakest spot in my game. I was all about "macro macro macro", and that left me with pretty glaring holes in gameplay. I think that if i had started with simpler builds (read: various all-ins, going from easy ones like 4gate to trickier ones like soultrain or 2base colo) i might be a more complete player today. Additionally, at first the information required to play a macro game correctly is overwheling, so it helps to start out in simpler situations.
Oh i forgot, saying "cheese and allins can be countered, but macro builds can't" is also somewhat incorrect. No matter what, you always have the wheel of aggression>greedy>safety>aggression. Assuming you are both playing in a macro game, sometimes it's possible to scout the particular "brand" of macro build the opponent is using and immediately switching into the style that will counter it. The best example i can come up with right now was a WoL GSTL match where the P went fast 3nex, the T instantly scouted it thanks to a lucky scv, went 5rax marine and won. If he had gone for the standard 2medivac push he wouldn't have been able to punish his opponent as heavily. At the end of the day, every sc2 build has some kind of "counter", or, another build that does extremely well against it.
|
On October 27 2013 18:23 Teoita wrote:
Finally, regarding how you learn the game, i have always been a proponent of learning simpler builds first. I personally never, ever microed a single battle until i got to diamond, and as a result to this day, 3 years later, my micro is the weakest spot in my game. I was all about "macro macro macro", and that left me with pretty glaring holes in gameplay. I think that if i had started with simpler builds (read: various all-ins, going from easy ones like 4gate to trickier ones like soultrain or 2base colo) i might be a more complete player today. Additionally, at first the information required to play a macro game correctly is overwheling, so it helps to start out in simpler situations.
That´s what most masters or higher say to newer players: ,, Keep it simple and learn the basics first". It doesn´t matter if you have polt like micro, when your opponent just has more stuff than you. So doing allins for example can be a good start, because you play shorter games and have less information to worry about. However at the same time you can just macro up and hit 200 supply faster than your opponent and a-move to victory. This alone basically get´s you into diamond or faster. By learning and improving you have to divide the game into simple parts and then decide on which part you want to focus on while basically ignoring the other.
That´s also why the best way to learn your macro and mechanics is to grind games against an easy ai, which does not attack you. This way you know exactly what will happen during the game and you can focus only on your macro and your mechanics. Of course it´s another story when you are inside a "real" game with lot´s of hidden information and when your opponent applies heavy pressure, but the more "repetition" you have, the easier you can deal with pressure or unorthodox builds and fall back on what you have already learned instead of trying to learn something and getting disturbed by something else. This will slow down your learn process.
In short: Keep it simple and know what skills you want to improve on and find the best way to practice these skills one by one.
|
Macro is always to me defined as economy and infrastructure:
Economy: Proper saturation, constant worker production, securing expansions, and spending your money.
Infrastructure: Adding production, getting upgrades, building placement, avoiding supply blocks, and walling off (sim city).
So in summary, securing and protecting your income, whilst spending it efficiently and correctly is in my view the purest definition of Macro. And although I feel the terms macro and strategy are used loosely and interchangeably, my above definition I think will feel right for a lot of people.
All other aspects of the game such as map control, scouting, harassment, timing attacks, compositions etc are in my view 'Strategical'. Whereas Macro is about the ability to power your Strategy with money (economy), whilst being able to spend your money properly (infrastructure).
TL;DR (Anything below is extra you need not read)
To further make a clear distinction, I have an example that we all know well; the TvZ matchup. For purposes of simplicity I'll note some real basic timings:
(1) 11:30 - 4M creep clearing push.
(2) Continue to rally on 3 bases, with 8 barracks, 2 factories and 1 starport.
Very basic strategy, with the goal to kill the zerg player with constant aggression, before they can kick their economy and tech into high gear. Obviously a lot is missing, but the point I'm making is that the above is a 'Strategy', and is clearly defined outside of 'Macro'. 'Macro' in this case would getting 1-1 upgrades going whilst constantly producing units and securing your 3rd. Macro is the ability to spend your money where it's needed in order to power your economy, which in turn powers your strategy. Strong macro requires strong multi-tasking, in the case of certain strategies, as you usually need to perform 'Macro' whilst composing your attack.
That being said, I think that a "Macro Strategy" would be one where you focus on macro, and play re-actively whilst attempting to get a stronger economy into the mid-game. Which is a great plan because you don't rely on harassment or timing attacks.
|
United States4883 Posts
On October 27 2013 17:36 Sianos wrote:
I wouldn´t call a cheese or an allin a "macro game". The difference is just, that the goal of a macro game lies in the later stages of the game, while allins or cheeses want to avoid these stages and end the game before a certain stage. The goal of a macro game always has something to do with expansion management. ,,How can I get 1 base ahead of my opponent?", ,,How can I deny my opponent´s base x?", ,,How can I defend my bases?", ,,How can I apply pressure to my opponent´s economy?". The goal of a macro game is to get and stay ahead in economy and use this extra ressources to first: prevent your opponent from getting his additional base and second: trade units until he has no more money to build new units. The difference between a "macro game" and a cheese or allin lies within the definition of the goal.
Cheeses and allins are much simplier to execute, because you play a "shorter" game with less information than a longer game. Also the goal is much simplier: ,,Kill your opponent with x units at time y". The goals of a macro game changes from map to map as the layout of expansions are different and the important moves by pro gamers are harder to notice, because the goals are different from player to player and from matchup to matchup. On some maps it´s quite easy to take a 3rd base, so players tend to focus and deny his opponent´s 4th base for example. As such it´s harder to discover, how you should play a "macro game" and which build order is best suited to reach your goals in the mid and late game on a certain map.
Day9 did a few dailies in the past, where he explained expansion management and army movement in the mid and lategame, which are the two key skills for a macro player. I don´t know the number of the daily anymore.
I think I understand what you're saying, but I think it's also important to not focus on flawed thinking that "a macro game is one that is based off of expansion management and making sure you have more bases than your opponent." That can be your game plan or goal, but that doesn't necessarily make it the ONLY way to play macro. For instance, if you take any PvZ or PvT game from late 2012, you can clearly see that the game is designed to end ~15:00-16:00. In PvZ, everything led up to a huge 15-minute attack before broodlords. In PvT, everything led up to the moment when Protoss had +3/+3 and both tech trees and could just attack into the terran and win. But no one would consider these dedicated 3-base pressure attacks a "cheese" or "cheap timing attacks". They would call them "macro" games.
On October 27 2013 19:59 Dan26 wrote:
Macro is always to me defined as economy and infrastructure:
Economy: Proper saturation, constant worker production, securing expansions, and spending your money.
Infrastructure: Adding production, getting upgrades, building placement, avoiding supply blocks, and walling off (sim city).
So in summary, securing and protecting your income, whilst spending it efficiently and correctly is in my view the purest definition of Macro. And although I feel the terms macro and strategy are used loosely and interchangeably, my above definition I think will feel right for a lot of people.
All other aspects of the game such as map control, scouting, harassment, timing attacks, compositions etc are in my view 'Strategical'. Whereas Macro is about the ability to power your Strategy with money (economy), whilst being able to spend your money properly (infrastructure).
TL;DR (Anything below is extra you need not read)
To further make a clear distinction, I have an example that we all know well; the TvZ matchup. For purposes of simplicity I'll note some real basic timings:
(1) 11:30 - 4M creep clearing push.
(2) Continue to rally on 3 bases, with 8 barracks, 2 factories and 1 starport.
Very basic strategy, with the goal to kill the zerg player with constant aggression, before they can kick their economy and tech into high gear. Obviously a lot is missing, but the point I'm making is that the above is a 'Strategy', and is clearly defined outside of 'Macro'. 'Macro' in this case would getting 1-1 upgrades going whilst constantly producing units and securing your 3rd. Macro is the ability to spend your money where it's needed in order to power your economy, which in turn powers your strategy. Strong macro requires strong multi-tasking, in the case of certain strategies, as you usually need to perform 'Macro' whilst composing your attack.
That being said, I think that a "Macro Strategy" would be one where you focus on macro, and play re-actively whilst attempting to get a stronger economy into the mid-game. Which is a great plan because you don't rely on harassment or timing attacks.
I think you're missing the point of my post. Macro, in your definition, is simply a tool to support your strategy. In just the same way, aggression, composition, and hiding information are also tools to support your strategy. A "macro game" or "macro strategy", though, is simply a game based around a plan (according to my definition). If you goal is to win with an attack, the timing of it doesn't actually change the goal; it just changes the way you get there. Whether you attack at 4:00, 10:00, 14:00, or 20:00 for the win, the game goal is still the same.
What if starting with an aggressive play gives you a stronger economy going into the mid game? What if, 3 months ago, doing a hellbat drop was the BEST POSSIBLE WAY to get a stronger economy in the mid game? When you start thinking like that, you see that your definition of "macro strategy" is inherently flawed. If your focus is to use a greedy, safe play to get a strong mid-game advantage, so be it. But that doesn't mean that an aggressive play is somehow subpar or not as "macro-oriented" as a more passive play. They are both means to an end: getting a better mid game economy.
|
I hate when people use the word macro to hide behind a style that lacks a plan for winning.
A good goal can be to stay one base ahead and deny the enemy 4th with a certain comp and tactic.
A bad goal is to Fast Expand and hit standard timings and play a macro game if the game goes long.
Macro is not a plan, it is a set of mechanics. I think people would do better to get away from playing macro games as their overall mental goal and to playing out strategies to win. The longer a strategy plans out the harder it is to beat. That doesn't mean MACRO though...
edit:
An example of two players trying to do the same concept, one does it REALLY well and one does it REALLY poorly.
Good: On Bel'Shir Vestige vs Zerg I want to have a perfect unit composition based around bio vs the enemy hive composition and to hit a good timing of drops as hive kicks in and a 3/3 timing before hive kicks in. I will be greedy and get to three bases and a good production level as soon as possible to hit those attacks and then when I do those attacks I will even up or even take a lead in base count by killing bases of his and taking a 4th base of my own. I will then focus on the advantage in economy and unit composition I have and use those advantages in order to deny bases (especially whichever of the five bases he takes last) and defend my economy until I have snowballed to a point where I can win a straight up fight or he is starved out.
- Perfect Unit comp vs Hive Tech (Marauders and Vikings as appropriate with big bio ball back bone)
- Drop multi bases as his Hive morphs
- Hit a +3/+3 attack timing to punish his transition towards Hive
- Stay ahead or even in bases post Hive and especially deny his 5th and defend my 4th
- Get to a three base production level asap
Why is that a good plan? It has a clear set of steps that are based in logic I believe in that should produce a win. It offers clear goals that can motivate decision making. I can use these goals when looking at a lose in order to determine exactly what needs to be fixed in order to achieve my end game goal of being on four bases vs a four base Zerg. The steps and goals in this plan motivate everything including choice of opening, mid game, army position at different times, aggression and defensive timings, and even scouting.
Bad: On Bel'Shir Vestige vs Zerg I want to play a solid macro game. I will open with Innovations 3CC double eng build and focus on hitting every single macro benchmark that I have researched. I will parade push into the Zerg and hit a 3/3 timing that abuses the power of 4M and should allow me to win the game or get into at least an even game vs a late game Zerg. In the late game, I will look to be on the five bases on my side of the map and to destroy any base of the Zerg that I feel is either unsafe for him to take or under defended.
- Get a large army and take every base on my side of the map
- 3/3 timing attack
- Parade push after 3 bases until 3/3 timing attack
- Open with Innovations 3 CC Double Eng build stolen from replay/vod
- Abuse power of 4M
Why is that a bad plan? This plan lacks clear paths to winning and banks on a vague romantic notion of winning via macro or winning via better mechanics. The unspoken part of those ideas is that the player will try to win via macro with no set idea on how that win will occur or winning via better mechanics though there is no clear way that those mechanics will be used to win. The plan assumes that the player with worse mechanics will automatically lose and ignores any semblance of striking at weakness or defending with strength. Furthermore, this plan seems implies an element of free style in game thinking will be employed in order to determine how the actual win will occur. Essentially, this plan relies on having better mechanics and on the fly the thinking that surpass any and all out of game plans that the other player might bring to the table. This plan motivates only a inward look during lose analysis and will blame most if not all loses on what will be come increasingly smaller mistakes in mechanics. The plan has no underlining trends that will lead the player to stronger decision making or to learn new concepts about the match up beyond those of the most basic enemy timings and friendly mechanics.
One VERY interesting thing that I have noticed in RTS is that good game plans are based upon knowing alot about the enemy and bad game plans are based upon trying to know alot about your own play. Good plans are fundamentally outward focused and bad plans are inward focused.
|
United Kingdom20274 Posts
This thread is gold already <3
|
Brilliant thread thank you so much OP. In the 3 years I've been coming to TL I've never read anything that describes how to plan a strategy so eloquently.
After recently switching to Zerg I will be writing down my plan before writing my build order in future.
|
On October 28 2013 03:02 SC2John wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2013 19:59 Dan26 wrote:
Macro is always to me defined as economy and infrastructure:
Economy: Proper saturation, constant worker production, securing expansions, and spending your money.
Infrastructure: Adding production, getting upgrades, building placement, avoiding supply blocks, and walling off (sim city).
So in summary, securing and protecting your income, whilst spending it efficiently and correctly is in my view the purest definition of Macro. And although I feel the terms macro and strategy are used loosely and interchangeably, my above definition I think will feel right for a lot of people.
All other aspects of the game such as map control, scouting, harassment, timing attacks, compositions etc are in my view 'Strategical'. Whereas Macro is about the ability to power your Strategy with money (economy), whilst being able to spend your money properly (infrastructure).
TL;DR (Anything below is extra you need not read)
To further make a clear distinction, I have an example that we all know well; the TvZ matchup. For purposes of simplicity I'll note some real basic timings:
(1) 11:30 - 4M creep clearing push.
(2) Continue to rally on 3 bases, with 8 barracks, 2 factories and 1 starport.
Very basic strategy, with the goal to kill the zerg player with constant aggression, before they can kick their economy and tech into high gear. Obviously a lot is missing, but the point I'm making is that the above is a 'Strategy', and is clearly defined outside of 'Macro'. 'Macro' in this case would getting 1-1 upgrades going whilst constantly producing units and securing your 3rd. Macro is the ability to spend your money where it's needed in order to power your economy, which in turn powers your strategy. Strong macro requires strong multi-tasking, in the case of certain strategies, as you usually need to perform 'Macro' whilst composing your attack.
That being said, I think that a "Macro Strategy" would be one where you focus on macro, and play re-actively whilst attempting to get a stronger economy into the mid-game. Which is a great plan because you don't rely on harassment or timing attacks.
I think you're missing the point of my post. Macro, in your definition, is simply a tool to support your strategy. In just the same way, aggression, composition, and hiding information are also tools to support your strategy. A "macro game" or "macro strategy", though, is simply a game based around a plan (according to my definition). If you goal is to win with an attack, the timing of it doesn't actually change the goal; it just changes the way you get there. Whether you attack at 4:00, 10:00, 14:00, or 20:00 for the win, the game goal is still the same. What if starting with an aggressive play gives you a stronger economy going into the mid game? What if, 3 months ago, doing a hellbat drop was the BEST POSSIBLE WAY to get a stronger economy in the mid game? When you start thinking like that, you see that your definition of "macro strategy" is inherently flawed. If your focus is to use a greedy, safe play to get a strong mid-game advantage, so be it. But that doesn't mean that an aggressive play is somehow subpar or not as "macro-oriented" as a more passive play. They are both means to an end: getting a better mid game economy.
Yes but as you said in your original OP, you actually have a "macro build" which is correct. Everything from early game to late game is focused on denying bases, getting ahead, opening up with macro (e.g. CC first), having map control, and killing workers. Whereas the other strategies you pointed out are designed to kill. So a "hellbat drop" entails macro of course it does. But there are many different types of "Hell-bat drop" strategies. Some delay the expansion in order to follow up with some early timing attack with tanks. Some are greedy behind it in order to get an economical advantage, so they can defeat their opponent in the mid-late game stages. So yes, a "Hell-bat drop" can be defined as "Macro orientated". However a 6 pool, cheese, or 10-min one base timing attack are not macro orientated. They become macro orientated should the attack fail. A strategy you have to "macro out of" is not macro orientated.
I feel like there is a meter bar with a slider, at one end is aggression/defense, and at the other end is macro. You can have both to varying degrees, but never both at equal strength, having one weakens the other to some extent. So when you open CC first against someone who opens up 1-1-1 first on a large map, you can prepare adequate defenses in time to defend it, then you'll be way ahead because your economy is superior.
The difference is that your have prioritized macro over aggression, hence it's a "Macro orientated strategy" with other elements mixed in order to not die early on. In the above case, getting 1-1-1 after CC first is your defense mechanic. Some keywords here: Passivity, macro, scouting, and defense. This could quickly turn into an aggressive strategy if you scout your opponent has been far more greedier than you, and you have to punish it or fall way behind. Otherwise you can just be as greedy, and get early upgrades while building your 3rd. So it's still macro orientated. Eventually you move out at maximum supply and hope to win by "having more stuff" faster than your opponent. A "Macro stress test" if you will. Good for Diamond and below to win by pure macro and mechanics. So a macro build can net many wins in the lower leagues, if your mechanics and scouting (game reading) are up to speed.
|
United States4883 Posts
On October 28 2013 12:33 Dan26 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2013 03:02 SC2John wrote:On October 27 2013 19:59 Dan26 wrote:
Macro is always to me defined as economy and infrastructure:
Economy: Proper saturation, constant worker production, securing expansions, and spending your money.
Infrastructure: Adding production, getting upgrades, building placement, avoiding supply blocks, and walling off (sim city).
So in summary, securing and protecting your income, whilst spending it efficiently and correctly is in my view the purest definition of Macro. And although I feel the terms macro and strategy are used loosely and interchangeably, my above definition I think will feel right for a lot of people.
All other aspects of the game such as map control, scouting, harassment, timing attacks, compositions etc are in my view 'Strategical'. Whereas Macro is about the ability to power your Strategy with money (economy), whilst being able to spend your money properly (infrastructure).
TL;DR (Anything below is extra you need not read)
To further make a clear distinction, I have an example that we all know well; the TvZ matchup. For purposes of simplicity I'll note some real basic timings:
(1) 11:30 - 4M creep clearing push.
(2) Continue to rally on 3 bases, with 8 barracks, 2 factories and 1 starport.
Very basic strategy, with the goal to kill the zerg player with constant aggression, before they can kick their economy and tech into high gear. Obviously a lot is missing, but the point I'm making is that the above is a 'Strategy', and is clearly defined outside of 'Macro'. 'Macro' in this case would getting 1-1 upgrades going whilst constantly producing units and securing your 3rd. Macro is the ability to spend your money where it's needed in order to power your economy, which in turn powers your strategy. Strong macro requires strong multi-tasking, in the case of certain strategies, as you usually need to perform 'Macro' whilst composing your attack.
That being said, I think that a "Macro Strategy" would be one where you focus on macro, and play re-actively whilst attempting to get a stronger economy into the mid-game. Which is a great plan because you don't rely on harassment or timing attacks.
I think you're missing the point of my post. Macro, in your definition, is simply a tool to support your strategy. In just the same way, aggression, composition, and hiding information are also tools to support your strategy. A "macro game" or "macro strategy", though, is simply a game based around a plan (according to my definition). If you goal is to win with an attack, the timing of it doesn't actually change the goal; it just changes the way you get there. Whether you attack at 4:00, 10:00, 14:00, or 20:00 for the win, the game goal is still the same. What if starting with an aggressive play gives you a stronger economy going into the mid game? What if, 3 months ago, doing a hellbat drop was the BEST POSSIBLE WAY to get a stronger economy in the mid game? When you start thinking like that, you see that your definition of "macro strategy" is inherently flawed. If your focus is to use a greedy, safe play to get a strong mid-game advantage, so be it. But that doesn't mean that an aggressive play is somehow subpar or not as "macro-oriented" as a more passive play. They are both means to an end: getting a better mid game economy. Yes but as you said in your original OP, you actually have a "macro build" which is correct. Everything from early game to late game is focused on denying bases, getting ahead, opening up with macro (e.g. CC first), having map control, and killing workers. Whereas the other strategies you pointed out are designed to kill. So a "hellbat drop" entails macro of course it does. But there are many different types of "Hell-bat drop" strategies. Some delay the expansion in order to follow up with some early timing attack with tanks. Some are greedy behind it in order to get an economical advantage, so they can defeat their opponent in the mid-late game stages. So yes, a "Hell-bat drop" can be defined as "Macro orientated". However a 6 pool, cheese, or 10-min one base timing attack are not macro orientated. They become macro orientated should the attack fail. A strategy you have to "macro out of" is not macro orientated. I feel like there is a meter bar with a slider, at one end is aggression/defense, and at the other end is macro. You can have both to varying degrees, but never both at equal strength, having one weakens the other to some extent. So when you open CC first against someone who opens up 1-1-1 first on a large map, you can prepare adequate defenses in time to defend it, then you'll be way ahead because your economy is superior. The difference is that your have prioritized macro over aggression, hence it's a "Macro orientated strategy" with other elements mixed in order to not die early on. In the above case, getting 1-1-1 after CC first is your defense mechanic. Some keywords here: Passivity, macro, scouting, and defense. This could quickly turn into an aggressive strategy if you scout your opponent has been far more greedier than you, and you have to punish it or fall way behind. Otherwise you can just be as greedy, and get early upgrades while building your 3rd. So it's still macro orientated. Eventually you move out at maximum supply and hope to win by "having more stuff" faster than your opponent. A "Macro stress test" if you will. Good for Diamond and below to win by pure macro and mechanics. So a macro build can net many wins in the lower leagues, if your mechanics and scouting (game reading) are up to speed.
I think we're just getting into semantics here. I prefer to think of the sliding meter bar as "extremely early aggression to lategame focus". In my 3rd example, I use the term "macro" to make the strategy more easily recognizable and understandable. In conversation, I'm okay with using the term "macro game" to describe a long game, but I think "lategame-focused game" is a better way to look at a game when analyzing it.
At some point in WoL, 6pool was beginning to be a viable opening against protoss players due to its ability to punish the ever-increasing nexus first play. Behind this, the zerg would take an expansion, get a gas up, and pull ahead economically. Does this make the 6pool a cheesy strategy? No, because the strategy for the player focuses on a later period of time, the 6pool is just something the player does to get ahead economically. Another example: in the finals of IEM NY, Life opened with a 15 hatch block against Naniwa into a double expand with gas and still played the game out all the way into queen/SH/hydra/infestor. Even though he opened with a "cheesy" play, his focus was on the late game.
We want to break out of this flawed thinking that somehow you have to take a fast expansion or go double upgrades or not attack until 10:00 in order to play a "macro game". If we want to play a "lategame-focused game", we'll probably end up doing some of these things, but that doesn't mean that we HAVE to go CC first or some kind of safe, conservative opening. When you start fitting yourself into a mold and making up imaginary rules ("seeing ghosts" as Day9 puts it), you start to slowly narrow your vision and your problem-solving ability until you cease to actually improve.
Seriously, listen to this podcast and all the other ones VaderSeven posted: http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/Day9/Day[9]0014-HOP3-AGoodMindset.mp3
|
Get cheese builds and macro builds OUT of this thread lol. They are just silly concepts and if posters can't get past that then they should just refrain from posting.
I encourage people to post about game plans they have seen or used or to ask game plan related questions in this thread.
|
On October 28 2013 12:33 Dan26 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2013 03:02 SC2John wrote:On October 27 2013 19:59 Dan26 wrote:
Macro is always to me defined as economy and infrastructure:
Economy: Proper saturation, constant worker production, securing expansions, and spending your money.
Infrastructure: Adding production, getting upgrades, building placement, avoiding supply blocks, and walling off (sim city).
So in summary, securing and protecting your income, whilst spending it efficiently and correctly is in my view the purest definition of Macro. And although I feel the terms macro and strategy are used loosely and interchangeably, my above definition I think will feel right for a lot of people.
All other aspects of the game such as map control, scouting, harassment, timing attacks, compositions etc are in my view 'Strategical'. Whereas Macro is about the ability to power your Strategy with money (economy), whilst being able to spend your money properly (infrastructure).
TL;DR (Anything below is extra you need not read)
To further make a clear distinction, I have an example that we all know well; the TvZ matchup. For purposes of simplicity I'll note some real basic timings:
(1) 11:30 - 4M creep clearing push.
(2) Continue to rally on 3 bases, with 8 barracks, 2 factories and 1 starport.
Very basic strategy, with the goal to kill the zerg player with constant aggression, before they can kick their economy and tech into high gear. Obviously a lot is missing, but the point I'm making is that the above is a 'Strategy', and is clearly defined outside of 'Macro'. 'Macro' in this case would getting 1-1 upgrades going whilst constantly producing units and securing your 3rd. Macro is the ability to spend your money where it's needed in order to power your economy, which in turn powers your strategy. Strong macro requires strong multi-tasking, in the case of certain strategies, as you usually need to perform 'Macro' whilst composing your attack.
That being said, I think that a "Macro Strategy" would be one where you focus on macro, and play re-actively whilst attempting to get a stronger economy into the mid-game. Which is a great plan because you don't rely on harassment or timing attacks.
I think you're missing the point of my post. Macro, in your definition, is simply a tool to support your strategy. In just the same way, aggression, composition, and hiding information are also tools to support your strategy. A "macro game" or "macro strategy", though, is simply a game based around a plan (according to my definition). If you goal is to win with an attack, the timing of it doesn't actually change the goal; it just changes the way you get there. Whether you attack at 4:00, 10:00, 14:00, or 20:00 for the win, the game goal is still the same. What if starting with an aggressive play gives you a stronger economy going into the mid game? What if, 3 months ago, doing a hellbat drop was the BEST POSSIBLE WAY to get a stronger economy in the mid game? When you start thinking like that, you see that your definition of "macro strategy" is inherently flawed. If your focus is to use a greedy, safe play to get a strong mid-game advantage, so be it. But that doesn't mean that an aggressive play is somehow subpar or not as "macro-oriented" as a more passive play. They are both means to an end: getting a better mid game economy. However a 6 pool, cheese, or 10-min one base timing attack are not macro orientated. They become macro orientated should the attack fail. A strategy you have to "macro out of" is not macro orientated. I feel like there is a meter bar with a slider, at one end is aggression/defense, and at the other end is macro. You can have both to varying degrees, but never both at equal strength, having one weakens the other to some extent. So when you open CC first against someone who opens up 1-1-1 first on a large map, you can prepare adequate defenses in time to defend it, then you'll be way ahead because your economy is superior.
Your meter bar with a slider is bad mindset. Focus only on the plan you have made for winning the game and you will realize that this slider bar is just a framework to describe the natural decision making that needs to happen in order to reach the end plan that the player wanted to get.
I think you are trying to separate openings/builds/strats into camps and really that is a flawed way to view the game. Your viewpoint fails to create understanding or to outline logic behind plays and, as such, will only hide knowledge from you in the long run. Simply look at the game as a template in which to execute a plan. Your plan is like an argument. It is a theory you have on what is a logical way to win the game. You then use mechanics in game in an effort to prove your point. The example SC2John gave about 6 pool when it was semi common and your reaction to it is a perfect example of how your mindset is limiting your understanding.
If you see aggression, of what you label cheesy, and then see a followup you give in to confirmation bias and simply call it macro-ing out of a cheese. Putting aside that I dislike the way you use both cheese and macro in that sentence, you cant make an argument like that. It literally is confirmation bias and is VERY strong evidence of a flaw in your logical model for labeling strategy. Also, the strategy he was talking about with the 6 pool won more games in the late game than with the 6 pool timing. It was an optimal opening in many eyes on some maps for creating a mid game game state that could lead an end game that had the Zerg as the winner. It was part of a plan. It wasnt a macro play or a cheese. It was an opening.
I hate how the best advice that is traditionally given to someone learning is to focus on Macro and not to Cheese. It creates a focus on mindless mechanics, not aim to win, and a black and white view of aggression and greed. Starcraft 2 does not work like that at all. Starcraft 2 works much closer to a chess game than some kind of game of chicken. You have to develop a position, have a plan of attack (be it to attack first or second!), and be able to keep your desired end game (be it a 9:00, 12:00, or 25:00 end game) in mind so that you can continuously bend your play back towards your plan while still reacting to and reading your opponent.
Read this quote again from the OP:
[Back when I was playing on iCCup] I used to have a Korean Starcraft practice partner. One day he asked me, "Why do you think Koreans are so 'cheesy' when they're learning to play?" I don't remember exactly what I replied, but it was probably something along the lines of: "They've got better micro, macro, etc., so they can win early." He took a moment, then responded, "No, it's because the goal of the game is much simpler."
My practice partner was telling me that when they are learning the game (when they are new) they tend to favor game plans that win the game much sooner and with less steps. By doing that they practice the concept of playing out a game plan instead of blindly playing for a vague later game state.
As our convo went on, my friend (his name was HyeongJu Ban or simply Ban) explained that as a player becomes better and their understanding of the game increases, they naturally go for later and later wins. You see, as they get better mechanically they can handle more macro and micro actions and as their understanding expands they can formulate more and more complex game plans.
I really see this lack of mindset in the foreign scene as a critical problem holding back the average player and honestly is one of the biggest contributing factors to the difference in average skill between Korea and the rest of the world. The two other large factors (having the strongest professional scene and having the highest density of players in a small physical area) actually help to ensure that the average new player is exposed to someone at the local PC bang that will set them on the right path and mindset.
Most of the very best players clearly subscribed to this mindset and a bit of research into their playstyle progressions provide strong support to what Ban passed onto me and I onto SC2John. Look at Flash, MVP, MKP, JulyZerg, iloveoov, Jaedong, Maru, Losira, Bisu, Naniwa, and others (MANY more). All of these players had a reputation among forum posters that speak English as being "very cheesy" and each slowly became known as "macro" players. WATCH a cross section of their games. They didn't change their approach to the game. They simply were executing plans they knew inside and out and as time went on and they played more and more they became familiar with more and more plans of increasing complexity. They were masters of excellent game plans from the start of their careers onward and nothing about their approach to strategy ever changed yet so many people that speak English feel like they went through mysterious transformations from cheesy players to macro gods.
|
On October 28 2013 14:04 vaderseven wrote:
Get cheese builds and macro builds OUT of this thread lol. They are just silly concepts and if posters can't get past that then they should just refrain from posting.
I encourage people to post about game plans they have seen or used or to ask game plan related questions in this thread.
I'd be happy to...
After reading this thread I feel inspired to develop a game plan for each of my 3 MU's so I can tweak and improve it over time.
I recently switched to Zerg and feel extremely lost in the zvz match up.
I want to develop a game plan around the Gasless ZvZ +1/+1 roach timing
1. Get to 2 base via either pool first or hatch first. Scout opponents natural with overlord to identify early pool so we don't die. Rush out 4 queens and sim city with evo chambers/roach warren. Block the entrance with 2 queens and save energy to transfuse if opponent decides to put on ling/bling aggression.
2. Drone up to ~50 drones, take a 3rd base and start producing roaches. (Use overseers to scout if Z elected for roach or muta composition and how heavily they are droning their 3rd. Depending on opponents choice, keep producing roaches and attack or drone up the 3rd base.
3. Defend until 3 bases are saturated and then move out for an attack when 2+/2+ is nearing completion.
Other than this I am really not sure... Do I add in hydras for the 2+/2+ timing attack? if so when do I add the hydra den? Should I have infestors in the 2+/2+ timing window? If so when? What happens if I cannot engage efficiently at the 2+/+2 timing window or if the engagement goes relatively evenly... What is my follow up? How do I deny expansions while keeping my own safe? What end game unit composition should i be shooting for?
|
On October 28 2013 15:19 Vies wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2013 14:04 vaderseven wrote:
Get cheese builds and macro builds OUT of this thread lol. They are just silly concepts and if posters can't get past that then they should just refrain from posting.
I encourage people to post about game plans they have seen or used or to ask game plan related questions in this thread. I'd be happy to... After reading this thread I feel inspired to develop a game plan for each of my 3 MU's so I can tweak and improve it over time. I recently switched to Zerg and feel extremely lost in the zvz match up. I want to develop a game plan around the Gasless ZvZ +1/+1 roach timing 1. Get to 2 base via either pool first or hatch first. Scout opponents natural with overlord to identify early pool so we don't die. Rush out 4 queens and sim city with evo chambers/roach warren. Block the entrance with 2 queens and save energy to transfuse if opponent decides to put on ling/bling aggression.
I suggest choosing an opening based on the map and mid game choice. In this case you know the mid game choice of roach with ups so make sure your opening flows well into that. The only remaining factor is map so choose pool first or hatch first based on which is better for getting to that roach mid game when taking into account the map.
On October 28 2013 15:19 Vies wrote:2. Drone up to ~50 drones, take a 3rd base and start producing roaches. (Use overseers to scout if Z elected for roach or muta composition and how heavily they are droning their 3rd. Depending on opponents choice, keep producing roaches and attack or drone up the 3rd base.
This is going to be the part of your play that generates the most loses at first but dont let that get you down. Save every replay and name them based on the enemy strategy and when you have a bunch of vs one strat watch them all in a row and look for the trends in their movements and build. Find times where you have units that can stop some of the trends (queens to deny ovi or a few lings to control a key tower etc etc) to gain small advantages. Then once you really know that enemy style decide on any decision making type changes you will need to make and what you see in game should trigger them and then go test those ideas out. Repeat until you feel like you know the right way to play vs every style at this stage.
(note: this stage is the main powering stage of this Zerg's plan and scouting and reacting during moments of powering is something that thoughtful and logical decision making creates amazingly smart looking plays out of. if this zerg is able to successfully ID the enemies plan for this stage of the game and maintain some kind of advantage into the next stage he should be set to win or gain a very large advantage.)
On October 28 2013 15:19 Vies wrote:3. Defend until 3 bases are saturated and then move out for an attack when 2+/2+ is nearing completion.
I love it. You clearly havent mapped out an entire game plan yet but THIS is how you handle the fact that you dont have a game plan mapped 100% yet. You go into the game with a logical idea and execute it with confidence. If you do that, you will have invaluable wins and loses as replays that will help to answer the next questions you have.
On October 28 2013 15:19 Vies wrote:Other than this I am really not sure... Do I add in hydras for the 2+/2+ timing attack? if so when do I add the hydra den? Should I have infestors in the 2+/2+ timing window? If so when? What happens if I cannot engage efficiently at the 2+/+2 timing window or if the engagement goes relatively evenly... What is my follow up? How do I deny expansions while keeping my own safe? What end game unit composition should i be shooting for?
Step 1, go and do this build ALOT on ladder or with practice partners.
Step 2, save every single win and lose and keep them in some kind of ogranized way that allows you to quickly watch every lose vs one style or every win vs one style.
Step 3, ask yourself is this winning every game? If yes, you have done it. GG go win gsl! If no, ensure that significant macro mistakes are not the main contributing factor to the +2/+2 timing window failing (to do this, ensure that you know when you get +2/+2 and know the roach count you should have at that time; if you are hitting the benchmarks for your build then its likely not a macro error) and if its not a macro error go to step 4.
Step 4, look at exactly what is happening and ask yourself are you dieng to something or are you failing to kill something. If you are failing to kill something, decide on a logical change that you feel will allow you kill something that is needed to claim the win. If you are dieing to something (such as a counter attack or a unit comp or a timing attack that comes before or after your timing or a tech choice that comes before or after your timing), then come up with a logical idea on how go from the +2/+2 timing game state and to keep the game going longer.
Step 5, Test your logical idea in real games. If you idea requires additional tweaking (I need Hydras to kill this player that has mutas, but when do I get them) simply pick a timing and try it out with 100% confidence. After a good number of games where you use that timing look at all the replays where you use the timing and see if it is working or not and if not then decide on a logical way to change the timing (I dont have enough hydras when I get the den at 50% of +2, obv I need to get the den sooner; if I get the den as I start +2 I dont have enough units at the +2 timing so I need it later... GREAT you know its somewhere between +2 starting and 50% completion of +2).
As for the end game unit composition, expansion control, and what is your follow up? Your plan right now lacks those things. These are things that you will have to provide some confident self thought up logic to. Since you are basing your planning off of the roach +1 and +2 timings which is a mid game set of timings I will recommend two concepts (normally it is STRONGEST to base your plan on as late a part of the game as you can imagine a winning game state for but naturally that is something that does not always occur when making a plan):
Try to make the +2 timing your game winner. This will aid you in making all the decision leading to the +2 timing stronger but will not be as strong in theory as a plan that goes for an even later goal. The later the goal, the easier it is to account for enemy plans that try to win before the goal occurs (this is the reason why 'standard' styles or the styles we see alot of tend to become later and later game focused as the game ages). Planting an extra hatchery for additional larva that can be in play as you switch to full army production makes sense with this in mind.
Try to come up with a logical next punch that follows up on the strs of the +2 timing. The strengths are obviously the upgrades and the army size. I would logically suggest going for +3 and some kind of support unit that has synergy with the roach or roach/hydra army. Going for +3 and infestors seems logical with that in mind. If you can not come up with a valid next punch then you know that you have reached the skill ceiling of this plan and you can either try to refine an earlier part of it or put it in your back pocket for future use and begin work on another game plan!
Please note that I do not know if any of this plan I outlined in this post is GOOD or BAD I just know that I (and the zerg that posted) used some logic and we now have a VERY testable good concept that can teach us alot about the game and make us better at ZvZ.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
