Website Feedback
Closed Threads
IRC Web ChatTeamSpeak 3 (73 users)
Active: 5849 users | |
|
| CanadianSCgamer Canada. June 15 2012 06:08. Posts 64 | Profile # |
Poll at bottom. *Note: I realize that this is quite an abstract concept that's challenging to grasp. In case you don't exactly understand what I mean, feel free to post what you think it means to you.
Just an idea I thought of while watching Idra's stream right now. There are mainly two types of Starcraft players, Generals and Managers. The very best players are BOTH. While the mediocre players are one or the other. In this case, watching Idra failing to win a ZvT with an significant military and economic advantage (on 6-8 bases against his opponent's 4-5, losing one tier 3 army after another), it is easy to deduce that Idra is a Manager who lacks a General's way of thinking, and the worst, most frustrating part about it is that he doesn't seem to know so.
What is the difference between the two? Starcraft after all is a RTS game that requires both economy and army management. A General is as great a tactician as he is a strategist, and he is a master of winning battles. He is a great decision maker with his sights set on victory. On the other hand, a Manager is a person who is great at economic development, planning and production, but lack strategic thinking beyond the realms of maintaining a good economic advantage. Keep in mind, good Generals lead managers, but Managers never lead Generals. If a Starcraft army were compared to a real army, Managers are the support guys who run logistics, whereas Generals are the guy at the top in command, overlooking the bigger picture. Yes, you should strive to be more of a General, not a Manager. Managers play the game, but have no game plan!
Idra is a Manager because he is a mechanical player. He "Manages" like a machine, almost flawlessly every aspect of the game. In the game I just watched, he kept his money low, spreading creep and injecting constantly, but he loses the game in frustration by stating how "retarded" the durability of the Terran race is. In his mind, he thinks that he's done everything he should have done to ensure him victory, spreading lots of creep, getting many bases, and building a strong late game Zerg army; there was nothing more to be done. However, he never asked himself why he lost. Instead, he points his finger at imbalance. His weakness is that he's often too focused on "Managing" the production and economy aspect of the game that he lacks strategic and tactical decision making skills that will help him ultimately to win the game.
This explains why, a mechanically strong but one-dimensional player like Idra has trouble winning against even a random player on ladder, let alone making out alive in the open brackets of the recent MLG. Mechanically, he is almost on par with most top players, but tactically he is one of the worst Generals I've ever seen. His base management is as meticulous as his creep spread and injects, but during battles he almost always hastily engage in terrible positions by A-moving into siege-lines and such. It is almost as if he cares more about spreading creep, not missing injects and expanding at the right time, than the relatively more important job of defeating his opponent.
In my opinion, having the mindset of the General is more important than that of a Manager, though neither alone is strong. Being a General is about wanting to defeat your enemy through strength, tenacity and cleverness. The Manager mentality should play more of a background role, managing your economy and supplies so that the General mentality can accomplish mission objectives. Where Idra faltered is that he has too much of a Manager mentality, so focused on perfecting base and economy management that he forgets that the entire goal of the game is to win. My analogy is about mindset, not about skillset. Being a Manager or a General is about embodying good mindsets that will help you win games. Managers focus on maintaining their bases, like administrators of a organization or country, while Generals focus on defeating their enemy.
To the contrary, players like Flash, DRG, MKP and MVP are both Generals and Managers. They are able to excel at managing both their economies and militaries, while understanding that the final objective is to win. In the end, Starcraft is about killing and destroying your opponent, NOT about who can harvest the most minerals. Although a bigger army will help you win the fight, but that is not always so because battles depend on micro, spell-casting and positioning just as much as the mineral/gas cost of the armies. Also, winning a battle does not mean you will win the war, i.e. recent MKP vs Stephano at MLG game. And that is the beautiful unpredictability of Starcraft.
It is true that certain races are more prone to becoming a Manager than others. Zergs can get pigeonholed into being a manager because there's so much secondary jobs to do, like injects and creep spread. Protosses can easily get trapped in a General's mentality trying to attack relentlessly with all-ins. Terrans by design are more flexible and most players seem to be able to do both. However, this is not to say that Zerg and Protoss can't be played in a more balanced way. The very best Zerg and Protoss players have forced themselves to adapt and become these "General Managers," to quote the term that some posters coined, and that is good.
-----
Edited for better clarity.
To ameliorate some confusion, this is not exactly a Micro vs Macro thread. Being a good General isn't only about out-microing your opponent in a battle. Yes it is one TACTICAL aspect to it, but there's a lot more strategic elements as well. Being a good General means knowing when to engage as well as knowing when to retreat. Yes watching Idra play inspired me to write this post because it was very frustrating as a longtime Idra fan and follower to watch him stubbornly attack a repairing Planetary Fortress down to the last unit, until 90% of his army was gone, and then just to do something similar minutes later, like attacking into a siege line (this is something that he does all the time and has cost him many games and tournaments).
I didn't write this post to single out Idra in disrespect, but perhaps hoping to help him take a second look at his play. Instead of getting angry at the game or calling "imba" all the time, he should revise his play style a little, shifting his econ focused mindset to a military mindset that will help him win battles. The intention of this post to remind Starcraft players, myself included, to always evaluate weaknesses in their gameplay. It doesn't matter how great you think you are, if you're not winning anything and posting no results, then you are not doing something right.
So members of Teamliquid, which one are you? Are you a General or a Manager? Or are you, like Flash, Bisu, Jaedong, MVP and DRG, and have what it takes to be both?
What my questions mean is that: Identify your weaknesses and strengths, are you the Manager or General type? How can you modify your mentality to help you win more games?
I guess another way to put it is are you Internally Focused (Manager) or Externally Focused (General), focusing on your own base macro or focusing on defeating the outer threat (your opponent) using "calculated aggressiveness?"
*Note for Poll: People are assuming that these two "dichotomies" are equal. They are not. Managers are like autopilots that try to keep everything of the game "in-line" and perfect, but don't realize the goal of the game is to win. Generals are the real "intelligence" behind winning games, making decisions to destroy their enemy. However, pure Generals can't win games because they lack Managing skills to keep the "macro" going. This may seem like it is an obvious point, but if it is so obvious, then why are some "pros" like Idra (Manager-centric) or MC (General-centric) keep losing to other more General dominant, yet well-rounded, players like DRG, MPV, MKP, etc.
Poll: What is your dominant game mentality?Manager (Internally Focused) (175) 44% General (Externally Focused) (171) 43% Both (56) 14% 402 total votes Your vote: What is your dominant game mentality? (Vote): Manager (Internally Focused)
(Vote): General (Externally Focused)
(Vote): Both
Last edit: 2012-06-15 14:44:50 |
|
|
| .Sic. United States. June 15 2012 06:12. Posts 492 | Profile # |
Decently written post, but
On June 15 2012 06:08 CanadianSCgamer wrote:
keen observers like myself can easily see it.
i have to disagree cause anyone can see that idra sucks at engaging.
|
| | Clan MvP Member | http://sc2ranks.com/kr/3273340/SicMvP |
|
|
| PriMaL97 United States. June 15 2012 06:17. Posts 20 | Profile # |
| I would say that I'm a general. I often come off of a win with my opponent having had a higher score than me because of my poor macro, but I still seem to be able to attack at the right places/times and such to be able to win the game. |
| | Sometimes we all just need to be shown a little kindess. ~fluttershy |
|
|
| DarkPlasmaBall United States. June 15 2012 06:18. Posts 20094 | Profile Blog # |
Positioning and control are indeed very important aspects to the game, but they take a backseat to polished mechanics... so are you saying that everyone needs to worry about being a good Manager before they worry about being a General (to use your terms)? After all, solid mechanics will get you to diamond with no problem. Control really hardly means anything at the lower levels in comparison.
Also, I have no idea why you would note that IdrA fails at one of these two seemingly dichotomous and mutually exclusive traits, and then expect to characterize ourselves similarly to him- a pro-gamer. We may feel that our mechanics are better than our control (or vice-versa), but 99% of us are in no way at IdrA's level of mechanics (or control, believe it or not). It would be quite weird to call both IdrA and a diamond level player "Managers", as they're on such different tiers and they're level of "failure" for being a General is really not the same. One's failure is "Not getting to Master League". The other failure is "Not being DRG".
That being said, I'm better at mechanics than unit positioning and engaging >.> Put me in the Manager column I suppose.
EDIT: Also-
Although he doesn't see his weakness, keen observers like myself can easily see it.
I feel like you're being a bit too arrogant here, saying that you're more observant than pro-gamers, and thus you should be ridiculed somehow.
Other than that, interesting post. Last edit: 2012-06-15 06:22:49 |
| | "Those who can, teach. Those who can't, whine about teachers." ~Me |
|
|
| thurst0n United States. June 15 2012 06:19. Posts 582 | Profile Blog # |
+ Show Spoiler +
On June 15 2012 06:08 CanadianSCgamer wrote:
Just an idea I thought of while watching Idra's stream right now. There are mainly two types of Starcraft players, Generals and Managers. The very best players are BOTH. While the mediocre players are one or the other. In this case, watching Idra failing to win a ZvT while on 6-8 bases against his opponent's 4-5, it is easy to deduce that Idra is a Manager.
What is the difference between the two? Starcraft after all is a RTS game that requires both economy and army management. A General is as great a tactician as he is a strategist, and he is a master of winning battles. On the other hand, a Manager is a person who is great at economic development, planning and production.
Idra is a Manager because he is a mechanical player. In the game I just watched, he kept his money low, spreading creep and injecting constantly, but he ends the game in frustration by stating how "retarded" the durability of the Terran race is. Although he doesn't see his weakness, keen observers like myself can easily see it. His weakness is not being able to win important battles. He's too focused on the production and economy management aspect of the game that he lacks the attention to help him decisively win battles by positioning and attacking in a strong and timely fashion.
This explains why, a mechanically strong player like Idra has trouble winning against a random player on ladder, let alone making out alive in the open brackets of the recent MLG. Mechanically, he is almost on par with most top players, but tactically he is one of the worst Generals I've ever seen. His base management is as meticulous as his creep spread and injects, but during the battle he almost always hastily engage in terrible positions by A-moving into siege-lines and such.
To the contrary, players like Flash, DRG, MKP and MVP are both Generals and Managers. They are able to excel at managing both their economies and militaries. It is simple, that's how they win games.
I didn't write this post to single out Idra in disrespect, but perhaps hoping to help him take a second look at his play. Instead of getting angry at the game or calling "imba" all the time, he should revise his play style a little, shifting his econ focused mindset to a military mindset that will help him win battles. In the end, Starcraft is about killing and destroying your opponent, NOT about who can harvest the most minerals. Although a bigger army will help you win the fight, but that is not always so because battles depend on micro, spell-casting and positioning just as much as the mineral/gas cost of the armies. And that is the beautiful unpredictability of Starcraft.
So members of Teamliquid, which one are you? Are you a General or a Manager? Or are you, like Flash, Bisu, Jaedong, MVP and DRG, and have what it takes to be both?
Haha, interesting.
Even if you didnt' mean to single out Idra you did.
What you say makes sense, but Idra is most certainly both. He focuses more on managing his econ/tech/macro, but I'm 100% sure he understands the importance of engagements, he is afterall Zerg. He won't show that in every game, and he certainly lets his attitude effect his perception in the now. You could have easily used generic examples to explain your point, but clearly this game of Idra was your catalyst for making the thread so it makes sense.
You are quite presumptuous to think you can help Idra with his attitude. Good luck!
Overall your post seems to not really say anything novel. Not sure what you want to discuss.. Do you want everyone to say what type of player they are? I wish I was a better Manager, but I'm the best damn General this game has ever seen. Although, doesn't it depend on the moment? I would posture that it's impossible to even face Idra on the ladder unless your mechanics are at least comparable to his. I don't care how much time you spend microing if you don't have the amount of units you should, you will fail.
Isn't it entirely possible, that Idra knows the outcome of engagements before they occur, you know because of his vastly superior game knowledge and or simply the vastly greater amount of time he has put into the game, that he doesn't care about the outcome of that particular match anymore, especially when streaming ladder games, and therefor will 1A those units and continue to practice keeping his mechanics up while still doing something with those units.
If you want to talk about why he doesn't practice as if every game is for the world champion and a hundred trillion dollars, that's a different discussion.
Again not sure what we're supposed to talk about here.
Edit: perhaps you should start a poll...
Are you more of a Manager or General?Last edit: 2012-06-15 06:22:10 |
| | P.S. I'm nub. If you'd like you can follow me @xthurst but its not worth it ill be honest |
|
|
| dodelol Netherlands. June 15 2012 06:22. Posts 68 | Profile # |
I'm a manager for sure.
it allows me to play a but slower and defend instead of attack.
and if i wanted to become a general i would need a better computer than this crappy imac can't micro with 5 fps in battles:D |
|
|
| EchelonTee United States. June 15 2012 06:23. Posts 3419 | Profile # |
You should put examples of people who are "generals" but are unable to be good "managers" too.
It just looks like you're calling Idra inferior and Koreans superior. |
| | learn lots. dont judge. laugh for no reason. be nice. seek happiness. -D[9] || Na`Vi - LGD - Dignitas - Liquid - Fnatic |
|
|
| lodeet United States. June 15 2012 06:24. Posts 146 | Profile # |
| I'm just a General Manager. |
|
|
| QNdie Poland. June 15 2012 06:25. Posts 203 | Profile # |
| Being a general is probably better because macro is something you can improve, and micro is I think, more "talent" based and requires more practice for worse results as it is less linear. |
|
|
| PriMaL97 United States. June 15 2012 06:26. Posts 20 | Profile # |
On June 15 2012 06:23 EchelonTee wrote:
You should put examples of people who are "generals" but are unable to be good "managers" too.
It just looks like you're calling Idra inferior and Koreans superior.
well, the latter part of that statement is probably true :D |
| | Sometimes we all just need to be shown a little kindess. ~fluttershy |
|
|
| Upgrayedd. Denmark. June 15 2012 06:27. Posts 3 | Profile # |
| So what you are saying is basically: Some players are good at macro, some players are good at micro and some players are good at both - and they are the best. Who would have known. |
| | killin ain't fair but sombody gotta do it |
|
|
| Raid United States. June 15 2012 06:29. Posts 398 | Profile # |
| The greatest general who ever lived, The Emperor, SlayersBoxer... |
|
|
| fezvez France. June 15 2012 06:30. Posts 1023 | Profile Blog # |
keen observers like myself
I am truly sorry, but it is very hard to keep on reading such an article with this kind of... self-promotion.
Though, I read it till the end. Well, there is some truth behind it, but I am afraid it is a bit of a simplification. I could for example say that Starcraft is a game where you have to balance your economy, your army and your tech. So in fact, you could be a General, a Manager or a Technician (knowing when to tech, and what to tech to). I can assure you that what we call star sense (OMG, he opened double stargate because he felt the Zerg was going mutas!) could be summed up as being a good Technician.
Or I could come up with an even more accurate depiction of SC2 and have even more "roles" to describe. |
| |
|
| PriMaL97 United States. June 15 2012 06:32. Posts 20 | Profile # |
On June 15 2012 06:30 fezvez wrote:I am truly sorry, but it is very hard to keep on reading such an article with this kind of... self-promotion. Though, I read it till the end. Well, there is some truth behind it, but I am afraid it is a bit of a simplification. I could for example say that Starcraft is a game where you have to balance your economy, your army and your tech. So in fact, you could be a General, a Manager or a Technician (knowing when to tech, and what to tech to). I can assure you that what we call star sense (OMG, he opened double stargate because he felt the Zerg was going mutas!) could be summed up as being a good Technician. Or I could come up with an even more accurate depiction of SC2 and have even more "roles" to describe.
Economy, Army, and Technology....So starcraft is a game of watching what you E.A.T.? |
| | Sometimes we all just need to be shown a little kindess. ~fluttershy |
|
|
| Snoodles June 15 2012 06:33. Posts 400 | Profile # |
| I'm good at whichever one I focus on, and suck at trying to do both. I'll do some neat tank or drop play, and bank some oprah money. Or I can keep my minerals below 500 the whole game and lose my maxed out army to a bunch of fungals or storms because I wasn't prioritizing my units. Last edit: 2012-06-15 06:35:13 |
|
|
| Kasu United Kingdom. June 15 2012 06:34. Posts 345 | Profile # |
Hmm, I'd like to see this presented as two "traits" which all players have to varying degrees, rather than a one-or-the-other model. I think that would also allow you to present the case of IdrA a little less critically, because at the moment I don't think you give him enough credit and come off as presumptuous.
Personally I think I'm more a general - that's certainly my in-game instinct - but that might be my dreadful micro-inhibiting PC getting my hopes up, maybe I would be just as bad even on a good system. |
|
|
| willoc Canada. June 15 2012 06:36. Posts 1000 | Profile # |
Good stuff but this isn't anything new really. Macro players are usually "Managers" while Micro players are usually "Generals".
Micro (Generals) of note:
- MKP (early career)
- Boxer
Macro (Managers) of note:
- Ret
Most other players are more balanced. |
| | Be bold and mighty forces will come to your aid! |
|
|
| Retgery Canada. June 15 2012 06:37. Posts 1165 | Profile # |
Put a poll in.
I would probably be a general, I am way more focussed on my army and battles than on my macro. |
| | "Do you have enemies? If so good, that means you once stood for something." |
|
|
| Hypemeup Sweden. June 15 2012 06:37. Posts 2716 | Profile # |
On June 15 2012 06:26 silentchaos97 wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 15 2012 06:23 EchelonTee wrote:
You should put examples of people who are "generals" but are unable to be good "managers" too.
It just looks like you're calling Idra inferior and Koreans superior.
well, the latter part of that statement is probably true :D
It is true. Results speak for themself. IdrA has not been able to throw down any of the top koreans for a while now. Last edit: 2012-06-15 06:37:47 |
|
|
| Moa United States. June 15 2012 06:40. Posts 764 | Profile Blog # |
What a silly thread based on false dichotomy.
To say that there are just two poles of play or that these are the two aspects is just silly. Someone could have great marine control but bad multitask, where does that put them on your spectrum?
You just picked two arbitrary things aspects of play and renamed them and tried to classify players under your labels. |
| |
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next All |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Sidebar Settings...
|
Store
