|
Well, it could just be how you ask the question.
To answer it most simply, send Banes to groups of Lings, and use individual or minimal amount of lings to kill banes.
To do something, the best way to learn it is to simplify it as much as you can so your brain can handle thinking about it as well as reacting to the game and doing everything else you need to do. If you have a simple goal, you can just FIND your way to execute. And as you practice and practice, all you have is that simple goal and you just execute (at least when you have master's level mechanics).
Like, if you Bunker rush (2 rax) a Zerg, what's your main goals? Make sure the Bunker goes up and keep your Marines alive. To do that, you use halt micro, mineral micro, and stutter step micro. As you keep practicing, it just becomes "oh shit! keep everything alive!" and it just happens. The bottom line is keep things alive and be cost efficient.
Then there's the goal or reason behind the idea. Like, if I 2 rax someone, I'm unlikely to be pressured back as long as I execute the build properly. If I epically fail a 2 rax and force like 20 Lings, the natural follow up is to make banes and kill me. But I'll basically force some lings, keep the Zerg focused on his base, and get my expansion up, so basically a 2 rax allows me to get my expansion up safely as long as I do it properly.
And at the master's level, you start to get an understanding of timings, so it's pretty important to know when you can do something. Like ling/bane, obviously you can't really use small Marine pressure past maybe the 6 or 7 minute mark. Or how Infantry play vs Protoss basically DIES around the 12 minute mark unless you get the appropriate support. (Which is why you should aim to hit around the 10-11 minute mark which is before Protoss can get Thermal Lance and will likely only have 1 Colossus, 2 max).
But overall, I only really agree with the first 2 statements, and partially agree with the 4th statement. In SOME games, ling/bane does allow you to expand. But in ling/bane vs ling/bane, you CAN'T expand because if you don't have enough units, you just DIE. The only way to expand in ling/bane vs ling/bane, you have to be THAT much more cost efficient than your opponent that you can afford it (300 minerals). That's why you generally sneak in a few Drones as opposed to a whole freakin' expansion. A 50 mineral+1 Larvae investment isn't as bad as 300 minerals+1 mining Drone. If your opponent goes JUST speedlings, then ling/bane DOES allow you to expand safely because you just morph a few defensive banes and your opponent can't really do too much about it since they can also use their leftover lings to protect the banes and protect them from getting sniped by individual lings. You can't fight ling/bane without banes or Roaches.
Also, with ling/bane vs ling/bane, if you can find the money for the transition, then you're solid. Roaches basically negate ling/bane unless they have "too much stuff", which is why it's only good if you can find the extra money to support the army and still invest in the tech. Ling/bane vs ling/bane is a tug of war setup like 4 Gate vs 4 Gate... It's hard to afford anything else unless you're being more cost efficient than your opponent (which at the high level is basically the one making less mistakes).
For the 3rd and 4th statements, they are true if it's NOT ling/bane vs ling/bane. If it's ling/bane vs ANYTHING ELSE, they're true. Like I said earlier, defensive banes keep you safe from speedlings. And Roaches or 2 Queens blocking your ramp basically negates ling/bane. But if you're both doing the same thing, where one unit can be insanely cost efficient against the vast majority of the units you will have (you're going to have WAY more lings than banes), if you fall behind, you're that much closer to dying. 150 Minerals=6 Lings. It may not seem like much, but it is since you're unlikely to be in the situation where it's 24 lings vs 30 lings. It's more like 8 lings vs 14, which is a pretty big disparity.
I don't know... Maybe they just didn't understand the question or you didn't phrase EXACTLY what kind of response you wanted. If you just pose a general question, people just throw up the first thing that comes to mind.
|
Zurich15306 Posts
Too bad I was looking forward to this thread when I saw the title. This was dissappointing. You should maybe have named it "Masters players can't explain how to micro bane/ling".
|
If you want to make rational decisions about every situation in starcraft 2, you will be sitting down in each situation doing something like counting units and thinking about odds. This will take you at least 10-20 seconds before reaching a proper weighted decision, and this is 10-20 seconds wasted.
Your brain is very good at calculating things for you, and will tell you in the way of "This feels good", or "Doesnt feel right!". Maybe your brain will make a mistake, but at least you didnt sit still for 10 seconds. Not acting can be even more damaging than doing something wrong.
This also makes sense in an evolutionary type of way. Remember when we were still clubbing rabbits in the jungle? When we encountered a tiger, we weren't like "What's the odds? Let's plan a strategy". We just did something that felt good. Like run the #$%# away :D Jimmy died however cuz he thought tigers couldnt climb. He made a shitty decision basically. Noone else made the decision because their instincts said "Keep running, trees are prolly not safe!".
We didnt tell this to Jimmy's grandmother btw, so can everyone please shush to her? We told her that Jimmy was fighting the tiger with his teeth and hands, because he wanted to solve the tribes food problems. If you ever encounter Jimmy's grandmother, please tell her that! Tell her he died as a hero!
|
|
|
Yep, biggest dissappointment yet. Most lower Masters are good at mimicing builds, microing and macroing. But they can't adapt! I hoped that this thread would've had something to do with that, not something this silly. I can't explain how to micro my marauders/rines/hellions the way I do, u need to learn the timings. If i explained it u'd learn less. Eg. "Move marauders 0.4339s in opposite direction then press stop, repeat."
|
You're essentially saying that it's incredible to you that people can be good at starcraft2 and bad at explaining themselves. I really don't see the necessary connection that a top level sc2 player NEEDS to be able to explain themselves. Nerds (the generalization for players who play this game) arn't always the most articulate, which makes sense if you follow the generalization that they're not the most social of people. How many top level sc2 players are on the debate team or constantly giving speeches? Some, not many. Your frustration is directed at the wrong thing.
As far as helping you out, explanations only go so far. The top players (GM) are generally so because they make really really good in game decisions in situations that last for seconds. Surprise attacks, holding off big pushes and macroing afterwards, etc, and most definitely ling/baneling micro are really really hard to explain. It helps a bit with a replay to explain why a certain decision was made, but muscle memory and countless interactions are really what help.
|
I pretty much learned that when you can't explain something properly, you don't really understand it.
Maybe you know the endresult but you have no idea how to elaborate it yourself.
Simple "fake" example:
People know that 2 + 2 equals 4, 1 + 1 equals 2, but when you ask them what 2 + 3 is they'd have to guess as they just learned the other 2 fixed results but not the actual rules of calculating stuff.
It's just the way people learn it:
They keep the results, maybe even just read it on the internet, but never actually evaluate it so that they are not able to explain it properly.
|
That has nothing to do with it:
Try to teach someone, whiteout the person actually doing the "thing" himself, how to Ski, Snowboard, Cycling... Play the Guitar/Piano... whatever....
People bloody well know how to Ski/Snowboard/Piano/Guitar... But explaining it? Yeah... No problem, but even if i make a perfect explanation you won't "get it" and eventually even think my explanation was not correct...
|
Zurich15306 Posts
On August 31 2011 18:19 Velr wrote:
That has nothing to do with it:
Try to teach someone, whiteout the person actually doing the "thing" himself, how to Ski, Snowboard, Cycling... Play the Guitar/Piano... whatever....
People bloody well know how to Ski/Snowboard/Piano/Guitar... But explaining it? Yeah... No problem, but even if i make a perfect explanation you won't "get it" and eventually even think my explanation was not correct...
Yeah that is a very good example. I am a pretty good skier, but whenever people ask me for help I am at a complete loss.
It's probably like that with everything that you haven't learned systematically but just by trying.
|
On August 31 2011 18:44 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2011 18:19 Velr wrote:
That has nothing to do with it:
Try to teach someone, whiteout the person actually doing the "thing" himself, how to Ski, Snowboard, Cycling... Play the Guitar/Piano... whatever....
People bloody well know how to Ski/Snowboard/Piano/Guitar... But explaining it? Yeah... No problem, but even if i make a perfect explanation you won't "get it" and eventually even think my explanation was not correct... Yeah that is a very good example. I am a pretty good skier, but whenever people ask me for help I am at a complete loss. It's probably like that with everything that you haven't learned systematically but just by trying.
Well the op claims to know what it should look like, and is trying that without any luck. Perhaps the real issue is that he does not actually know what it should look like, and as a result when he emulates it, he emulates it wrong. However, it appears right to him due to his initial misconception of what is right.
Think we need replays for a real example ^
|
On August 31 2011 18:19 Velr wrote:
People bloody well know how to Ski/Snowboard/Piano/Guitar... But explaining it? Yeah... No problem, but even if i make a perfect explanation you won't "get it" and eventually even think my explanation was not correct...
Thats a pretty bad example imho and it doesn't fit the criteria at all.
Snowboarding, Skiing is all about your body and moving it in right ways, explaining that is really hard as you have to really get a feeling for what you have to do. Also it is really dependant on people.
But explaining which buttons to press is super easy. Or did you ever hear someone say
"Ough, I don't know how to explain this but you have to build a roach, how you exactly do that... I don't know, it's just something you have to learn." No, it's not like that. It's about knowing what and how to scout and also knowing the specific responses in advance.
This is nothing about bodyfeeling or something you can't explain, it's all just logical and based on previous analysis.
Sure there is something like "I feel like I can do this now and attack here bla" etc but it is all based on things you can explain easily. (You have more or better units, you have better upgrades, you are way behind in economy etc)
I don't think we need a replay here as this is quite true for most of the players(Note: I know that there are people around that aren't like that but you can't deny that there also many people that are exactly like that):
They learn build orders and then play them out without thinking about it. When they have to explain it they can't as they just copy what others did.
There was a game on crevasse (or was it crossfire? I don't know.) a few months ago where IdrA did some sweet roach stuff vs a terran. People went like "Okay now this is the new must-play build vs Terran apparently because IdrA won with it", and IdrA responded by saying
"This was just the answer to his weird play, I made it up based on what I saw" etc. THIS is someone who has the game knowledge and can explain it. You might think of IdrA what you want, but he clearly has the game knowledge and you see that he doesnt say "Well uhh I don't know I just did something ..." He always has a specific answer.
Theres a big difference between just executing build orders etc and actually have the game knowledge to do all that stuff yourself. Did you ever see IdrA post in a guide to a specific build he wants to use? No, he doesn't need it.
Do you think NesTeal lurks the strategy forum to copy the next meta-game build orders or find out how to counter them? He doesn't need to as he has the proper gameknowledge.
|
On August 31 2011 16:48 Meborg wrote:
We didnt tell this to Jimmy's grandmother btw, so can everyone please shush to her? We told her that Jimmy was fighting the tiger with his teeth and hands, because he wanted to solve the tribes food problems. If you ever encounter Jimmy's grandmother, please tell her that! Tell her he died as a hero!
No Jimmy just noooo.
|
On August 31 2011 20:38 KeksX wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2011 18:19 Velr wrote:
People bloody well know how to Ski/Snowboard/Piano/Guitar... But explaining it? Yeah... No problem, but even if i make a perfect explanation you won't "get it" and eventually even think my explanation was not correct... Thats a pretty bad example imho and it doesn't fit the criteria at all. Snowboarding, Skiing is all about your body and moving it in right ways, explaining that is really hard as you have to really get a feeling for what you have to do. Also it is really dependant on people. But explaining which buttons to press is super easy. Or did you ever hear someone say "Ough, I don't know how to explain this but you have to build a roach, how you exactly do that... I don't know, it's just something you have to learn." No, it's not like that. It's about knowing what and how to scout and also knowing the specific responses in advance. This is nothing about bodyfeeling or something you can't explain, it's all just logical and based on previous analysis. Sure there is something like "I feel like I can do this now and attack here bla" etc but it is all based on things you can explain easily. (You have more or better units, you have better upgrades, you are way behind in economy etc) I don't think we need a replay here as this is quite true for most of the players(Note: I know that there are people around that aren't like that but you can't deny that there also many people that are exactly like that): They learn build orders and then play them out without thinking about it. When they have to explain it they can't as they just copy what others did. There was a game on crevasse (or was it crossfire? I don't know.) a few months ago where IdrA did some sweet roach stuff vs a terran. People went like "Okay now this is the new must-play build vs Terran apparently because IdrA won with it", and IdrA responded by saying "This was just the answer to his weird play, I made it up based on what I saw" etc. THIS is someone who has the game knowledge and can explain it. You might think of IdrA what you want, but he clearly has the game knowledge and you see that he doesnt say "Well uhh I don't know I just did something ..." He always has a specific answer. Theres a big difference between just executing build orders etc and actually have the game knowledge to do all that stuff yourself. Did you ever see IdrA post in a guide to a specific build he wants to use? No, he doesn't need it. Do you think NesTeal lurks the strategy forum to copy the next meta-game build orders or find out how to counter them? He doesn't need to as he has the proper gameknowledge.
I'm sorry but, people who just follow builds without understanding them are bad. And they don't get super far in starcraft 2 ( 111 is an exception because it's silly right now, so lets not consider this. 4gate also had this phase before it was figured out/patched).
Most of the people who just learn build orders without understanding are players who are trying to play a strategy game without having a strategy of their own... this is in itself, stupid wouldn't you agree?
I mean, at best you can argue that their strategy is listen to what Internetguy333 said in his forum post and win. But honestly, this isn't going to get you very far in an evolving strategy game, let alone one was competitive as starcraft.
A replay would be nice, and is often needed.
As for Idra, he is a very good players with years of experience. But if you recall his comments about winning IPL, it was something along the lines of "I dunno I just did random all ins and they worked". So, sometimes players do just do builds, in the case of all ins.
|
On August 31 2011 21:07 Vlare wrote:
So, sometimes players do just do builds, in the case of all ins.
Well this pretty much sums it up:
Sometimes they do that, but also just if it is needed.
But most of the time it is the knowledge of the game and previous analysis that brought the play to where he is now, and that is what most "ladder-players" don't have.
|
On August 31 2011 21:34 KeksX wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2011 21:07 Vlare wrote:
So, sometimes players do just do builds, in the case of all ins.
Well this pretty much sums it up: Sometimes they do that, but also just if it is needed. But most of the time it is the knowledge of the game and previous analysis that brought the play to where he is now, and that is what most "ladder-players" don't have.
Rather depressing isn't it. Masters is top 2-3% per region, and about half of masters players suck...
|
"The right way is to kill as many of his lings as possible and banes"
"With banes, you either trade well, poorly, or even; You want to, in a perfect world, always trade well"
"If you go ling bane it lets you take an expand"
"You make banes and transition into whatever because ling bane loses after point x"
"I dont see what the problem is"
These had me on the floor. :D
But that happens all the time in life, something you know how to do and understand, and then you try to explain to someone and they just don't understand. It's both frustrating and hilarious in hindsight.
|
A lot of people here had really good points. Sometimes things are hard to explain. Sometimes people just aren't articulate. Sometimes people aren't good teachers or good coaches.
But if you asked someone about the body mechanics of skiing, they'd at least understand the question enough to go, "Well, that's really complex, here are a few things you need to watch out for, but you're gonna need to practice A LOT." You're probably not gonna just get, "I dunno, you just...uh...skii? You know, you just....go down the mountain. With skiis. The skiis help you go fast on the snow. I don't understand the question."
The point is, asking a lot of higher-league players in SC2, those ARE the answers you get. The 'explanation' of how to do some tasks simply become, "Hell, I dunno, just DO it." And they really, honestly, don't seem to understand how it could possibly involve any more complex thought than that. As if there was just a button on the keyboard that said "Micro banelings," and I'm being super retarded because I'm asking how to press it. Like I just asked them where the 'any' key was.
|
Consider a native tribe that's never seen or used shoes and shoelaces before.
Without using pictures, explain to them in words how to tie shoe laces properly.
You have no idea how to tie shoe laces either.
|
On August 31 2011 23:19 Reithan wrote:
A lot of people here had really good points. Sometimes things are hard to explain. Sometimes people just aren't articulate. Sometimes people aren't good teachers or good coaches.
But if you asked someone about the body mechanics of skiing, they'd at least understand the question enough to go, "Well, that's really complex, here are a few things you need to watch out for, but you're gonna need to practice A LOT." You're probably not gonna just get, "I dunno, you just...uh...skii? You know, you just....go down the mountain. With skiis. The skiis help you go fast on the snow. I don't understand the question."
The point is, asking a lot of higher-league players in SC2, those ARE the answers you get. The 'explanation' of how to do some tasks simply become, "Hell, I dunno, just DO it." And they really, honestly, don't seem to understand how it could possibly involve any more complex thought than that. As if there was just a button on the keyboard that said "Micro banelings," and I'm being super retarded because I'm asking how to press it. Like I just asked them where the 'any' key was.
Perhaps many people you ask come from RTS background where "micro' is something that is colon to them. From the sounds of it, you don't come from a micro intensive background, so when someone just says 'micro your x" you don't really understand.
This is a common assumption made with people of higher levels, people assume you have some sort of base knowledge where they can use words like micro and macro and other common RTS lingo.I could go on giving hundreds of examples, but I think people in this thread have already done that.
I'll give you an example for the hell of it though. When I have my friends watch me play (irl or in vent) there are points in the game where he will say, "macro macro macro, micro your X, chrono". Now, I know what this means, and I understand what the idea's behind these words mean, but if your friend told you "ok micro micro, macro macro" Would you really be in a position where you know what he means? - From the sounds of it, you simply don't understand the nature of the words, and as mentioned above, this may simply stem from a lack of background, or base knowledge.
This is sort of why Universities/Colleges in first year give everyone classes to equalize everyone's base knowledge, so they can begin building under the assumption that everyone has the same understanding of idea's, concepts and meanings. In SC2 there isn't something like this, there is simply assumptions that people are familiar with RTS and gaming.
Edit: Was just watching white-ra's stream while eating breakfast, if you notice he says things like "Here you need just micro". I'm 100% sure white-ra DOES know what he's talking about. And it really seems like the issue is what I've mentioned above.
|
It's both 2 sides of the same coin. When you create a lexicon, internally or externally to quickly describe a given phenomenon, you often lose a lot of granularity of explanation that may be needed to explain the concept to a novice in the field. This is what people talk about when they use the term "jargon" or "techno-babble."
In this case, maybe it's craft-babble? I duno.
I have an understanding of what the terms macro and micro mean, but a lot of my fundamentals in accomplishing either are sorely lacking. In terms of how to streamline certain procedure, what's good or bad in terms of common practices I should or shouldn't use. When to box units, when to single-select, what to hotkey, when and how, etc.
Even though, as mentioned in a previous blog of mine, and also noted by Day[9] in his daily the day directly after that blog (LOL!) Macro and Micro are often used as answers to a question or discussion that should really have a lot more content.
Too often people, as you said, give advice such as "ok micro micro, macro macro." Even if you understand what those terms mean in broad strokes, you may not grasp the mechanics or execution of those tasks well enough to use that advice. (Not to mention APM or focus not being sufficient, which is a separate problem)
Sometimes you really DO need to break these terms back down to basics. Maybe you DO need to tell the person you're admonishing, "Hey, you need to stay on top of your larva injects, your queen energy is way too high. You're missing OLs all over the place, you need to work on not getting supply blocked. Your expansions are waaay late. Expand sooner." Or whatever. Just because you invoke the term macro, and they acknowledge that their macro is bad, they're floating resources, not getting expansions, have pitiful food counts, etc...doesn't mean they know the individual actions they need to take to fix these problems.
Additionally, even if they know the actions they need to take, especially in micro more than macro, they may not know the mechanics of how to accomplish those actions competently. Do they need to box units? Make more control groups? Set rally points? A-move, or normal move? Patrol??
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
