Yes, the underused tactic I'm talking about is Probes and Pylons. It can also be known as Overlords and Drones, or SCVs and Supply Depots. You make them and you improve!
Okay it's not quite as simple as just making them and improving, but the simplicity of the idea I'd like to spur discussion about is quite interesting. I also have a video that everyone should take a look at linked below that attempts to support my argued end of the discussion.
IDEA: Players in lower leagues undervalue what is truly important, and focus on smaller details that are low priority for the circumstances in which they reside.
I'll propose that there are three things a player that who is not in Master's league fails to achieve*; constant worker production, no supply blocks, spending of resources. It's simple: you get a lot of workers to get a lot of money, and then you spend that money on a big army. But, what is undervalued here is how much bigger this army really is, and how much your play is affected by very simple fundamentals.
*I'd actually say that most all players on NA don't do these things very well, including those GM players, but that's a little off-topic
I propose that: Down in any league that is not Masters, you can win most of your games by ensuring that there are no flaws in the process of getting your income and spending your income. You must not lay a building down late. You must not lay extra pylons down when you don't need them. You must lay tech structures at appropriate times. You must maintain solid worker production. Your resources must be constantly spent. You must have a basic grasp of what unit composition to acquire.
Luckily all of the "complicated" or "advanced" things from the previous paragraph, such as when to place what structures or what composition to get and when are answered by better players. You can ask for advice on TL, you can look for replays, and you can look for VODs if you are unsure of anything. All you really need to figure out on your own is how to use your mouse and keyboard efficiently to ensure that you can make your probes and pylons.
I've recorded a VOD of myself playing on a Gold league account against a few people as Protoss. I also play a game as Terran (I suck at Terran). I still win because I had so much more resources than both of my opponents. This VOD was recorded because I was talking to someone on Skype, and they said:
Guy on Skype said: [4:08:14 PM] Guy: Sigh. [4:08:14 PM] Guy: People say that [I should just make probes and pylons]. [4:08:16 PM] Guy: But then I just die to shit [4:08:21 PM] Guy: like really stupid shit
Well if you focus on the priorities and play a very safe and standard game, how can you die to stupid shit? You'll have so much shit you can't possibly die to stupid shit.
Here's a small list of what let me win my matches so convincingly in the Gold league (in order of most important to least):
Little to no cuts in probe production
Little to no supply blocks
Constantly spending money
Placing appropriate structures/tech at appropriate times
Good positioning of army
Not taking unnecessary risks (investing in extra cannons, a scout observer)
Resource discrepancy from myself and my opponents.
Probe production
Supply blocks
Mechanics
Minimap watching/usage
Army placement
Decision making (not throwing units away or making blind movements or unnecessary risks)
Take note that I have an advantage that should be stroven for by lower league participants: mechanics. As defined in my old How To Improve Efficiently, mechanics is the ability to perform necessary actions in order to play the game in the way desired by the player. I use mechanical skills such as constantly hotkeying my army and unit production facilities (robo, warpgates, nexus). I have an observer hotkeyed when I want one on the field. I had a Warp Prism hotkeyed at one point. I utilize fkeys for screen positions over my bases so I can easily bounce between them and macro properly. I watched the minimap diligently and spot a Nydus worm at one point. These mechanics are really the catch of this whole idea: in order to make your probes and pylons you need to be able to make your probes and pylons. It sounds redundant I know, but it's overlooked.
SMALLER DETAILS: I mentioned earlier when I proposed my idea that players in lower leagues focus on [relatively] unimportant details instead of the higher priority ones. I myself have hundreds and hundreds of hours of coaching with many different players in all the various leagues. It's my professional opinion that most players don't value their probes and pylons like they should. Although, setting aside my professional opinion for discussion, I'd venture a guess that players often think of minute details. Here are some examples of what students think about before I have taught them anything:
Does chargelot/archon really work in PvX? Don't the Archons just smash force fields making your army weaker?
Do you think that I should be shift clicking my force fields, or casting each one individually?
What is your hotkey setup? Do you think placing your Colossus to key closer to the left side of the keyboard is a good idea?
Do you ever purchase Hallucination in order to do some sort of timing attack?
Are Warp Prisms really the answer to <insert strategy or strategic problem>?
What is the counter to <insert unit>?
These are just the questions people ask me during coaching. What about what people actually think about when they lose? "He played like a faggot" - one of my opponents actually called me a faggot because I beat him so badly in the VOD. What would happen if he admit he can't make probes and pylons like I can? Would he be more likely to improve if he did realize this?; "If I didn't play such faggots I'd be higher on ladder"; "I lost because of bad luck"; "I can't believe he won because <insert unit/strategy> is imbalanced"; "That's so imba"; "I have no way of scouting"; "I would have won if I just made this one small change"; all of these sorts of thoughts distract from the true importance: Probes and Pylons. Don't over-complicate it! You won't need to focus on minute details until other larger more important things are taken care of.
So what do you think? Is this whole Probes and Pylons idea really true? Or is it garbage that you can just focus on these two things while letting better players decide on what strategies to use? Can a lower league player really take on this form of play and win more games due to true improvement? INTERESTING QUOTES:
On April 06 2012 10:35 memcpy wrote: Another thing I think you should mention is the importance of keeping up on production. Even with a small worker count I see lower level players banking more money than their entire army is worth. I'm guessing this has to do with the stigma on queuing units and the ideal of copying pro players with their perfect mechanics and minimum production facilities.
I often refuse to throw down a macro hatch when I float resources due to a missed larva inject because it seems like a waste of money. However, building an additional hatchery could mean winning the game due to the extra larva and extra zerglings/drones I could be making.
Nearly all players have macro issues, even pros, and your PERSONAL macro capabilities should be taken into account when deciding how many buildings to produce.
A few good examples of pros who benefit from "differing" from standard macro practices: HuK - If you watch his stream I guarantee you have seen the mass warpgate spam. Late game he will throw down upwards of 10 additional gateways once his money floats too high.
Stephano - Building mass ling is one of hardest things to do because it requires so much larva and missing a single inject can destroy you. I've seen Stephano throw down a macro hatch for every 2 or so bases when going his mass ling style.
oGsTOP - He queues workers. Because of this, he averages one of the highest worker counts of any Terran in GSL. It's common to see a game of his where his worker count gets around 70-80 by the 15 min mark.
On April 06 2012 11:39 Kambing wrote: For many people, macro is one of those things that falls under the Dunning-Kruger effect. The problem is making people aware of how important macro is and then giving them the proper training and exercises so that they can measure their progress. Usually the people that are resistant to that kind of advice don't know how a game feels when you do have good macro or they don't know how to concretely improve that aspect of their play.
On April 06 2012 16:18 darkscream wrote: This thread isn't actually about a strategy, it's about stubborn people.
This one is pretty funny:
On April 06 2012 16:49 Belial88 wrote: Generally, anytime someone is arguing with a high masters/blue, especially on something big, it's because they have no fucking clue what they are talking about (hey, I've been guilty of it many times, and every time, I was completely wrong).
I don't think these lower level people realize just how much better someone a league up is, or a high masters is, then them. You won't have a single high level player saying macro isn't the absolute most important thing in the game.
So quit arguing with a high masters blue poster here. He really knows his shit, you don't. To think that you would know more about this game, with the less than 1,000 games you've played, less than 100 hours logged on playing starcraft ever in your life, against someone with 10,000+ games played with over 1,000+ hours logged in, who's followed starcraft for about 8 years longer than you have, is just ridiculous.
Like you caught something he didn't get. It's like trying to tell Michael Jordan on the nuances of basketball. Holy shit.
RESOURCES:http://drop.sc/154633 - Vs proxy hatch unscouted. VOD - 3 games of probes and pylons vs some Gold leaguers.
It's important but it's not the end-all-be-all of sc2 success as most people would have you believe. I'd say it's about 90 to 95% of what a novice players should concentrate on though.
100% completely disagree and i have studied low level play for months of my life
User was warned for this post
edit: whatever , i Would say that in lower leagues, the most important thing is "to have a plan" as long as you have a plan you are going to be OK for now. if your plan is Ultras, go ultras. you might die 50% of the time to the first 5 marines your opponent sends at you, but you might also beat the other 50% that turtled off 2 bases to 3/3 reapers. If your plan is DT, go DTs. maybe in bronze league your opponent forgot to get an orbital so they don't have any way of scanning you. If your plan is bunker rush with 4 marines and all of your scvs, it just might work. 4gate for days if that's how you want to get better, i don't care. in lower leagues, everything goes.
So many times I feel that lower level players don't have a sense of what to DO . they get that they should be building econ and stuff, but they never know when to attack or how to defend. In lower leagues, i feel that you just need to do something and then see what happens. and by that point players can figure it out. as long as they understand this == every time you econ instead of building units, your macro will be better later -- , combine that with a solid , if not random plan, and you can probably get out of silver.
Source: working from low to high gold, thoroughly discussing strategy with my friend every day as he moved from low silver (just got the game) to near platinum, reading the blogs by that guy who worker rushes every game , being a caster, playing 2v2 with my friends who are bronze but also platinum , that page that discussed what you needed to get better at as you got higher in leagues, the last one being micro or something , 100s of 2v2 games from low to high gold as random. watching MKP, playing every race, being bad on my own, getting better, reading TL every day, not reading /r/starcraft.
seriously everyone in all of the TL strategy forum is turning into idra - "oh if i just macro the best i'll win automatically" , "oh i just have to hit my drone number as fast as possible and then nothing can go wrong" . SORRY If i just offended you with that statement.
On April 06 2012 09:46 TheNessman wrote: 100% completely disagree and i have studied low level play for months of my life
hopefully trolling. -_-
well put! i agree.
I think that while the mantra can (and should) be "Probes and Pylons!", the REST of the focus should be on making units and making SURE you don't die to "stupid shit." You can make all the probes/pylons you want, but if no units/building placement/defensive structures exist, you'll die.
TL;DR: probes, pylons, units/defensive thoughts until ready to attack.
I disagree with sated. Your completely missing the point of the guide. He is saying that the things you need to work on the most are these key things. And when I was first learning, not only did I not know specific build orders, I didn't execute allins every game, I just played with the metagame and through the metagame and knowing what was SUPPOSED to be good. I became much better. I never started executing 4gates. Then 2 base allins, etc. I looked at the current metagame and what was considered "solid play" and played like that. Sure executing a 4 gate properly will build some decent mechanics. But how can you possibly say that that will build more mechanics than something else. Are you saying that if a toss 3 gate expands and is practicing like that that he will not improve? And that the only way to improve is to revert to 4gating? Cause that is what it sounds like your suggesting.
The OP is suggesting that the importance of playing in these lower leagues is really stressed that they CANNOT macro properly, and they need to learn to. Not to just start executing allins. Like I said, learning a well timed 4 gate WILL help your mechanics somewhat in these lower leagues. But so will executing a 1 gate expand into "the metagame" vs Terran, etc. In fact the reason I think I learned so quickly was BECAUSE I didn't do such silly allins every game, and my pride for wanting to play a solid game allowed me to advance my ability to macro much quicker.
On April 06 2012 10:32 PeanutsNJam wrote: It doesn't matter how many drones, overlords, and speedlings I can get before a bfh allin gets to my base. I will die.
I did say something about unit composition and leaving strategy to better players. Did you read that part?
Another thing I think you should mention is the importance of keeping up on production. Even with a small worker count I see lower level players banking more money than their entire army is worth. I'm guessing this has to do with the stigma on queuing units and the ideal of copying pro players with their perfect mechanics and minimum production facilities.
I often refuse to throw down a macro hatch when I float resources due to a missed larva inject because it seems like a waste of money. However, building an additional hatchery could mean winning the game due to the extra larva and extra zerglings/drones I could be making.
Nearly all players have macro issues, even pros, and your PERSONAL macro capabilities should be taken into account when deciding how many buildings to produce.
A few good examples of pros who benefit from "differing" from standard macro practices: HuK - If you watch his stream I guarantee you have seen the mass warpgate spam. Late game he will throw down upwards of 10 additional gateways once his money floats too high.
Stephano - Building mass ling is one of hardest things to do because it requires so much larva and missing a single inject can destroy you. I've seen Stephano throw down a macro hatch for every 2 or so bases when going his mass ling style.
oGsTOP - He queues workers. Because of this, he averages one of the highest worker counts of any Terran in GSL. It's common to see a game of his where his worker count gets around 70-80 by the 15 min mark.
I didn't see who the author was, and I came by here to say that the underused tactics was "Macro". Then I realized it was CecilSunkere, and this article is awesome, and he's saying quite well what I was going to say to troll. This is really what got me to become a better player.
And for those skeptics among you, consider the following: most high league players think that macro is the most important thing, and most low league players disagree.
This is a great guide and even the highest of level players can glean something from its wisdom. Thank you for taking your valuable time to help us lower players out! =D
However I still won due to good mechanics of spending my money. Crisis management is about staying cool. I spent money on cannons, gates, a Stargate, kept my probes alive. Easy defense! I still would have won even if I lost my Nexus.
I hate this form of advice. In theory, it sounds good, because "Macro is the largest issue". But it's the worst form of teaching imaginable, because you're instilling the worst habits into lower league players.
Lower league players do not have a problem macroing. Now, I know a ton of people are going to jump down my throat and tell me about the bronze players who can't get above 12 workers and still bank thousands of resources. But that's because they completely ignore the root of the problem, and jump straight to the "Probes and Pylons".
The problem is not Macro. It's Multitasking. It's not that lower league players are bad at Macro, it's that as you increase the tasks they perform, the more actions and conscious decisions that are taken away from Macro.
Telling players to focus on "Probes and Pylons" only exasperates the problem, because you're telling them to focus, rather than improving their ability to spread out actions.
Telling players to focus on "Probes and Pylons" only exasperates the problem, because you're telling them to focus, rather than improving their ability to spread out actions.
disagree.
Multitasking comes when you've got the basic skills and actions down to such a science that you perform them automatically without thought, and between those actions you can multitask and do other things. You can't multitask until you can singletask.
On April 06 2012 11:16 WolfintheSheep wrote: I hate this form of advice. In theory, it sounds good, because "Macro is the largest issue". But it's the worst form of teaching imaginable, because you're instilling the worst habits into lower league players.
Lower league players do not have a problem macroing. Now, I know a ton of people are going to jump down my throat and tell me about the bronze players who can't get above 12 workers and still bank thousands of resources. But that's because they completely ignore the root of the problem, and jump straight to the "Probes and Pylons".
The problem is not Macro. It's Multitasking. It's not that lower league players are bad at Macro, it's that as you increase the tasks they perform, the more actions and conscious decisions that are taken away from Macro.
Telling players to focus on "Probes and Pylons" only exasperates the problem, because you're telling them to focus, rather than improving their ability to spread out actions.
But what if the problem really is that they are trying to multitask rather than focus on macro? I bet I could get above 50% winrate by sitting on 1 base solely focusing on unit production and nothing else. The only thing i would pay attention to is the game timer for when to move out and of course moving units in my base to defend attacks. No multitasking required.
On April 06 2012 11:16 WolfintheSheep wrote: I hate this form of advice. In theory, it sounds good, because "Macro is the largest issue". But it's the worst form of teaching imaginable, because you're instilling the worst habits into lower league players.
Lower league players do not have a problem macroing. Now, I know a ton of people are going to jump down my throat and tell me about the bronze players who can't get above 12 workers and still bank thousands of resources. But that's because they completely ignore the root of the problem, and jump straight to the "Probes and Pylons".
The problem is not Macro. It's Multitasking. It's not that lower league players are bad at Macro, it's that as you increase the tasks they perform, the more actions and conscious decisions that are taken away from Macro.
Telling players to focus on "Probes and Pylons" only exasperates the problem, because you're telling them to focus, rather than improving their ability to spread out actions.
This is great advice, because truly this is the only thing you should be focusing on in your play, warp in units in 1 space, rally to 1 space, check it every so often and a move. You'll win games, I'm being 100% serious. When I was playing zerg on a bronze friends account I got promoted to gold before I stopped winning games by just making drones spores and spines (and a queen per hatch, no more , and no attacking untis, AT ALL) Seriously, if you get these mechanics down, you win games! Hope this helps
Another good post from you Cecil. As a recently promoted Gold Player, I have actually found this sort of advice and focus to be quite useful. Though yes it is rather vague and can be frustrating, I basically use it as a priority list (something Day9 has mentioned in several dailies). I keep reinforcing the idea that SCV production is my #1 Priority, then #2 is Supply, #3 Production etc.
This might not be all that useful still, but what you can then do is find a specific goal (watch a VOD of the same build etc and make marks for certain times) then compare your progress to that goal. Oh they had max supply and 70 workers by X:XX time? I had only 50 workers and 170 supply or w/e by that time. Then you can find the times in the build that you stopped producing, make a note of it, and hopefully next time you'll remember. Also hearing this from an experienced player and coach like Cecil reinforces the focus and gives me a drive that I frequently lose.
I actually got to Gold pretty much purely on macro (and not even that great macro either). I am only now realizing that sending max MMM (with mainly marines) doesn't really work against a Protoss Deathball (what are vikings? :o). The reason I'm just now realizing that is that I usually had a decent lead over my opponents, and with a few drops they would fall apart. So why did I go MMM even though I knew how bad it was against the composition? Because I was comfortable macroing with it, I knew timing for setting down more Rax and didn't have to think about it. I'm having to adjust that a bit now, but the macro has still allowed me to win several games I shouldn't have. Just by focusing on "probes and pylons." Anyhow, thanks for the post.
TL;DR: Yes "Probes and Pylons" seems vague, but when applied intelligently it can be quite useful.
For many people, macro is one of those things that falls under the Dunning-Kruger effect. The problem is making people aware of how important macro is and then giving them the proper training and exercises so that they can measure their progress. Usually the people that are resistant to that kind of advice don't know how a game feels when you do have good macro or they don't know how to concretely improve that aspect of their play.
I totally agree with OP, solid macro (worker and when to add building to effectively spend money) is what lay good ground works for better play. You ask what should you make? ==> You will learn how to counter what with what through trail and error, and experiences. Replays and people helping you. Therefore make worker and spend your money, seriously.
On April 06 2012 11:16 WolfintheSheep wrote: I hate this form of advice. In theory, it sounds good, because "Macro is the largest issue". But it's the worst form of teaching imaginable, because you're instilling the worst habits into lower league players.
Lower league players do not have a problem macroing. Now, I know a ton of people are going to jump down my throat and tell me about the bronze players who can't get above 12 workers and still bank thousands of resources. But that's because they completely ignore the root of the problem, and jump straight to the "Probes and Pylons".
The problem is not Macro. It's Multitasking. It's not that lower league players are bad at Macro, it's that as you increase the tasks they perform, the more actions and conscious decisions that are taken away from Macro.
Telling players to focus on "Probes and Pylons" only exasperates the problem, because you're telling them to focus, rather than improving their ability to spread out actions.
This is like saying practicing technique on a musical instrument is bad because it inhibits your ability to apply your technique whilst also thinking about staying in tune, staying in time, having musicality, playing the right notes and rhythm, etc. And yet, all around the world, it is widely considered to be extremely important to practice your technique individually.
The idea is to commit one action to muscle memory so that when you go to apply that action in a grander scheme your brain and muscles are so coordinated they do it without thinking, automatically. Piano players learn pieces one hand at a time and then stick them together. Drummers learn one rhythm at a time and stick them together. This is the best way to learn, and it applies to Starcraft as well.
I find myself disagreeing with the totality of your statement. There are other important factors. I've peaked as mid-master as Zerg and recently started playing Random on EU, at around a platinum level.
For an example, I reference a TvT I played today. I macro'd the entire game like a boss and had a significantly larger army for much of the game. I had an economic lead, and my upgrades were on par. I lost because I made a stupid decision and lost a ton of units to tank splash! He attacked and because I wasn't holding my watchtower he got into a really good position and I proceded to stim into his army. That's a stupid call, obviously. So stupid, in fact, that it overwhelms "probes and pylons" even without a poor composition or strategy.
You might as well put "watch the minimap, hold watchtowers" as important as well because they, too, can win or lose games.
On April 06 2012 12:01 UmiNotsuki wrote: I find myself disagreeing with the totality of your statement. There are other important factors. I've peaked as mid-master as Zerg and recently started playing Random on EU, at around a platinum level.
For an example, I reference a TvT I played today. I macro'd the entire game like a boss and had a significantly larger army for much of the game. I had an economic lead, and my upgrades were on par. I lost because I made a stupid decision and lost a ton of units to tank splash! He attacked and because I wasn't holding my watchtower he got into a really good position and I proceded to stim into his army. That's a stupid call, obviously. So stupid, in fact, that it overwhelms "probes and pylons" even without a poor composition or strategy.
You might as well put "watch the minimap, hold watchtowers" as important as well because they, too, can win or lose games.
I don't believe I was saying you'd win every match. The point was that the most important things are overlooked.
On April 06 2012 12:01 UmiNotsuki wrote: I find myself disagreeing with the totality of your statement. There are other important factors. I've peaked as mid-master as Zerg and recently started playing Random on EU, at around a platinum level.
For an example, I reference a TvT I played today. I macro'd the entire game like a boss and had a significantly larger army for much of the game. I had an economic lead, and my upgrades were on par. I lost because I made a stupid decision and lost a ton of units to tank splash! He attacked and because I wasn't holding my watchtower he got into a really good position and I proceded to stim into his army. That's a stupid call, obviously. So stupid, in fact, that it overwhelms "probes and pylons" even without a poor composition or strategy.
You might as well put "watch the minimap, hold watchtowers" as important as well because they, too, can win or lose games.
the difference being that if you don't have mechanics you won't have units even if you watch the minimap and hold watchtowers.
On April 06 2012 12:01 UmiNotsuki wrote: I find myself disagreeing with the totality of your statement. There are other important factors. I've peaked as mid-master as Zerg and recently started playing Random on EU, at around a platinum level.
For an example, I reference a TvT I played today. I macro'd the entire game like a boss and had a significantly larger army for much of the game. I had an economic lead, and my upgrades were on par. I lost because I made a stupid decision and lost a ton of units to tank splash! He attacked and because I wasn't holding my watchtower he got into a really good position and I proceded to stim into his army. That's a stupid call, obviously. So stupid, in fact, that it overwhelms "probes and pylons" even without a poor composition or strategy.
You might as well put "watch the minimap, hold watchtowers" as important as well because they, too, can win or lose games.
These sorts of things, unit positioning and engagements, and basic micro, are extremely important, no doubt. You don't want to walk your marine army into banelings for example, but the threat of doing this shouldn't stop you from developing and using your economy, which is an ability that really separates the players across the leagues, and what I think is the point of the article.
On April 06 2012 11:16 WolfintheSheep wrote: I hate this form of advice. In theory, it sounds good, because "Macro is the largest issue". But it's the worst form of teaching imaginable, because you're instilling the worst habits into lower league players.
Lower league players do not have a problem macroing. Now, I know a ton of people are going to jump down my throat and tell me about the bronze players who can't get above 12 workers and still bank thousands of resources. But that's because they completely ignore the root of the problem, and jump straight to the "Probes and Pylons".
The problem is not Macro. It's Multitasking. It's not that lower league players are bad at Macro, it's that as you increase the tasks they perform, the more actions and conscious decisions that are taken away from Macro.
Telling players to focus on "Probes and Pylons" only exasperates the problem, because you're telling them to focus, rather than improving their ability to spread out actions.
Wait... Wait.... Your seriously trying to argue that people in lower leagues don't have problems with macroing? Are you kidding? Your correct in that they ALSO lack multitasking. But you are sooo wrong about telling them not to focus on this. Rather it is the first and foremost thing they SHOULD worry about. And it in itself IMPLIES multitasking. If you are constantly building workers, dont get supply blocked, and are constantly producing. Guess what. Your multitasking isn't lacking either. Your basically telling the OP you think his advice is bad because it doesn't help low level players learn to multitask. And that's totally incorrect. It 100% DOES help them multitask. As the OP isn't suggesting "only build workers and don't get supply blocked and do nothing else." the OP is suggesting that above all else this is the problem is lower leagues and that you need to make sure you do those things if you want to get better. Multitasking comes along with it, I don't know how you can't see that.
What about multitasking; specifically for Protoss, dealing with mutalisks and drops? (I'm not saying that macro isn't an issue, but about how much effort should be put towards learning to respond to harass (micro multitasking) as well?)
On April 06 2012 12:45 Shadowforce17 wrote: What about multitasking; specifically for Protoss, dealing with mutalisks and drops? (I'm not saying that macro isn't an issue, but how much effort be put towards learning to respond to harass (micro multitasking) as well?)
In Bronze, silver and gold, a hell of a lot less than making probes and pylons. If you have way more economy than him, then losing 10 probes while you warp in 10 stalkers to deal with 8 mutas means you can still win in the long run
Make some cannons, leave a couple stalkers behind you should be able to roll the opponent over with a better economy so long as they don't get 60 mutalisks and base trade
On April 06 2012 12:45 Shadowforce17 wrote: What about multitasking; specifically for Protoss, dealing with mutalisks and drops? (I'm not saying that macro isn't an issue, but about how much effort should be put towards learning to respond to harass (micro multitasking) as well?)
Well you definitely need to be able to deal with these things just like any other scenario. You're not really only making probes and pylons, that's just the most important thing to figure out first. So once you figure out your probes and pylons, then you can figure out how to get your Stalkers in the right spot to fight Mutas.
I think the problem, is a lot of people don't realize their macro flaws. A lot of people will play 'macro oriented' defensive style, like expand a lot, find themselves always defending timings (usually zerg players), so they just automatically assume they have good macro.
People just never have a critical eye to their own macro. I'm a mid-masters Zerg, and I know I macro 'better' than most people I play on ladder, through analyzing the games. But I never really noticed that MY macro was complete shit. It took playing with some GMs that they said "holy shit you have the worst macro ever, you just never make workers". I was like lolwut? I never get supply blocked. But even though I never get supply blocked, in the first 8 minutes, I CONSTANTLY have idle larva. You should never have idle larva ever in the early game. They should be drones (or units) immediately. But when watching my replays, I didn't know I had idle larva (this is also in part due to pre-patch, larva wasn't displayed on units tab).
Benchmarking is also really useful. I used to always say "toss is bullshit, they just get so many stalkers and just own you no matter what, nothing you can do, toss just makes more stalkers". But then I realized I was 20 supply down than most pros at the 8:00 mark, and that I basically went all-in, without ever attacking. I was just sac'cing my econ that much. I had lost the game irreparably by the 8:00 mark, that no matter what, there was no way for me to win. So when toss arrived with 30 stalkers at 12:00, I was always like "wtf there is no way I can have enough units to fight that, so imba", instead of "shit, I macro'd horribly in the first 8 minutes of the game and now toss can build up a huge army that I can't trade with, and eventually it way too big to deal with and I die".
I'm a mid-masters zerg who macro's 'fairly well' for my level. But I didn't realize that I just constantly fucking suck at macro. So yea, if you are below masters, then your macro is going to be atrocious. The key is realizing what you are fucking up. A lot of lower level players, will, say, never get supply blocked - but that's because they are making 5 overlords at 50 supply. That's just as bad as getting supply blocked. I think it's pretty consistent that anyone in platinum, or below, and the overwhelming majority of diamond players, get supply blocked every single time after 9 supply.
On April 06 2012 11:20 memcpy wrote: But what if the problem really is that they are trying to multitask rather than focus on macro? I bet I could get above 50% winrate by sitting on 1 base solely focusing on unit production and nothing else. The only thing i would pay attention to is the game timer for when to move out and of course moving units in my base to defend attacks. No multitasking required.
On April 06 2012 11:24 Badfatpanda wrote: This is great advice, because truly this is the only thing you should be focusing on in your play, warp in units in 1 space, rally to 1 space, check it every so often and a move. You'll win games, I'm being 100% serious. When I was playing zerg on a bronze friends account I got promoted to gold before I stopped winning games by just making drones spores and spines (and a queen per hatch, no more , and no attacking untis, AT ALL) Seriously, if you get these mechanics down, you win games! Hope this helps
And these responses are basically proof in concept of what I was saying. You're teaching players to stare at their base, build up an army, and A-move at the opponent. Does it win you games? Of course it does, because Bronze to Gold, and even Platinum, is filled with players whose standard of play is worse than you on auto-pilot. You're also still going to lose a lot of games, because a lot of stuff will throw wrenches into your stare-at-base-macro. Doesn't matter though, because you'll still move up in Leagues and ranks.
And then you reach Diamond, or maybe even plateau at Plat, and what you thought was "good macro" is essentially just doing the extreme opposite of watching your entire army the whole time. It had better results, because Macro is more important, but you still have the same terrible habits. You still can't harass effectively, because you never learned to Macro in between Micro. You never learned to control an army while constantly remaxing it.
If all you want to do is reach a half-decent League, then sure, "Probe and Pylon" away. But if you want to go higher than that, eventually you're going to have to learn good habits, and that means being able to Macro without looking at your base, putting down buildings without meticulously placing them, remembering your production timings while being distracted. And it's a lot easier to learn the good habits as a blank slate, instead of trying to rewrite the stare-at-the-base mentality.
On April 06 2012 11:16 WolfintheSheep wrote: I hate this form of advice. In theory, it sounds good, because "Macro is the largest issue". But it's the worst form of teaching imaginable, because you're instilling the worst habits into lower league players.
Lower league players do not have a problem macroing. Now, I know a ton of people are going to jump down my throat and tell me about the bronze players who can't get above 12 workers and still bank thousands of resources. But that's because they completely ignore the root of the problem, and jump straight to the "Probes and Pylons".
The problem is not Macro. It's Multitasking. It's not that lower league players are bad at Macro, it's that as you increase the tasks they perform, the more actions and conscious decisions that are taken away from Macro.
Telling players to focus on "Probes and Pylons" only exasperates the problem, because you're telling them to focus, rather than improving their ability to spread out actions.
This is like saying practicing technique on a musical instrument is bad because it inhibits your ability to apply your technique whilst also thinking about staying in tune, staying in time, having musicality, playing the right notes and rhythm, etc. And yet, all around the world, it is widely considered to be extremely important to practice your technique individually.
The idea is to commit one action to muscle memory so that when you go to apply that action in a grander scheme your brain and muscles are so coordinated they do it without thinking, automatically. Piano players learn pieces one hand at a time and then stick them together. Drummers learn one rhythm at a time and stick them together. This is the best way to learn, and it applies to Starcraft as well.
Terrible, terrible example. The absolute most basic level of playing an instrument is practising chords. You move out of that phase within a month or two, tops. Then you spend the rest of your time playing songs that gradually increase in difficulty, and possibly practising music theory that will give you a much better understanding of what you're playing.
To put the "Probes and Pylons" mentality into music, you're telling people "If you want to play a song, all you have to do is get your chords down pat and hit them at the right rhythm". But anyone who knows anything about music will tell you there's a lot more to playing music then just hitting the notes correctly. You'll get better than the average Joe, but that's only because the average Joe is bad.
If your goal is solely to move up leagues, or if your goal is just to plunk out a song so there are no glaring mistakes, then there is no problem foregoing everything but the absolute basics. But if you want to be more than a 50% Diamond player who macros and A-moves, or more than a musician who does more than mechanically hit the notes to a metronome, then the earlier you learn the intricacies, the less bad habits you'll have to contend with in the future.
i agree wholeheartedly with this post better macro = better player i'm a high masters na player (~1250-1350pts currently (50bp bump for the 2nd #)) i can't micro for my life yet since i push the games so long i will typically be able to overrun my opponent with more/better stuff in the end of the game to make up for my micro deficiencies (well my blink/ff/storm/etc micro is alright it's mostly a positioning problem where i'll lose battles i should never ever lose) i just macro better just having a better income and spending it better can do wonders especially if you play a defensive/economic style like i do (<3 20+gate speedprism harass lategame when i trade armies )
edit: because apparently your posts need to be a fuckton long for people to give you any respect at all, i'll explain myself.
Why did this guy win so much? My guess is its because every single time the game started, HE HAD A PLAN. He had a plan and he EXECUTED IT to the best of his ability. and that ability to plan , and to think , gave him the ability to play and win starcraft. he did not build any probes or pylons. he is better than most bronze players. i would argue that trying to get "lower level players to macro better" is like teaching a person basketball by telling him to sit and look at how you're supposed to shoot, all day. Just let him shoot and once he figures out ANYTHING you can go from there.
On April 06 2012 12:01 UmiNotsuki wrote: I find myself disagreeing with the totality of your statement. There are other important factors. I've peaked as mid-master as Zerg and recently started playing Random on EU, at around a platinum level.
For an example, I reference a TvT I played today. I macro'd the entire game like a boss and had a significantly larger army for much of the game. I had an economic lead, and my upgrades were on par. I lost because I made a stupid decision and lost a ton of units to tank splash! He attacked and because I wasn't holding my watchtower he got into a really good position and I proceded to stim into his army. That's a stupid call, obviously. So stupid, in fact, that it overwhelms "probes and pylons" even without a poor composition or strategy.
You might as well put "watch the minimap, hold watchtowers" as important as well because they, too, can win or lose games.
I don't believe I was saying you'd win every match. The point was that the most important things are overlooked.
I would argue YOU"RE The one overlooking things.
if you build 200/200 of probes and pylons, i would beat you every time.
sorry if i come off as mean i am just in a really bad mood right now and gmarshal keeps warning me and it pisses me off
everything that i have ever posted has been 100% my opinion only and i'm sorry if i'm offending anyone with what i'm saying.
i really really just don't like it when people look at low level players and go "oh just do this 1 thing and everything will be fine" NOTHING IS EVER THAT SIMPLE BTW . again, i'm sorry for yelling, i'm sorry for swearing, i'll leave. but for the record i like playing against lower level people because it is more fun sometimes.
edit: I cannot BELIEVE you are highlighted in blue --_-- i'm sorry but this thread is dumb.
On April 06 2012 12:01 UmiNotsuki wrote: I find myself disagreeing with the totality of your statement. There are other important factors. I've peaked as mid-master as Zerg and recently started playing Random on EU, at around a platinum level.
For an example, I reference a TvT I played today. I macro'd the entire game like a boss and had a significantly larger army for much of the game. I had an economic lead, and my upgrades were on par. I lost because I made a stupid decision and lost a ton of units to tank splash! He attacked and because I wasn't holding my watchtower he got into a really good position and I proceded to stim into his army. That's a stupid call, obviously. So stupid, in fact, that it overwhelms "probes and pylons" even without a poor composition or strategy.
You might as well put "watch the minimap, hold watchtowers" as important as well because they, too, can win or lose games.
I don't believe I was saying you'd win every match. The point was that the most important things are overlooked.
I would argue YOU"RE The one overlooking things.
if you build 200/200 of probes and pylons, i would beat you every time.
sorry if i come off as mean i am just in a really bad mood right now and gmarshal keeps warning me and it pisses me off
everything that i have ever posted has been 100% my opinion only and i'm sorry if i'm offending anyone with what i'm saying.
I'm sure you would beat me every time. Luckily I didn't tell anyone to only make probes and pylons till 200 supply.
On April 06 2012 12:01 UmiNotsuki wrote: I find myself disagreeing with the totality of your statement. There are other important factors. I've peaked as mid-master as Zerg and recently started playing Random on EU, at around a platinum level.
For an example, I reference a TvT I played today. I macro'd the entire game like a boss and had a significantly larger army for much of the game. I had an economic lead, and my upgrades were on par. I lost because I made a stupid decision and lost a ton of units to tank splash! He attacked and because I wasn't holding my watchtower he got into a really good position and I proceded to stim into his army. That's a stupid call, obviously. So stupid, in fact, that it overwhelms "probes and pylons" even without a poor composition or strategy.
You might as well put "watch the minimap, hold watchtowers" as important as well because they, too, can win or lose games.
I don't believe I was saying you'd win every match. The point was that the most important things are overlooked.
I would argue YOU"RE The one overlooking things.
if you build 200/200 of probes and pylons, i would beat you every time.
sorry if i come off as mean i am just in a really bad mood right now and gmarshal keeps warning me and it pisses me off
everything that i have ever posted has been 100% my opinion only and i'm sorry if i'm offending anyone with what i'm saying.
I'm sure you would beat me every time. Luckily I didn't tell anyone to only make probes and pylons till 200 supply.
yeah so you are obviously right in everything you say, because you included the phrase "oh and just don't be dumb btw"
you realize you are talking to people who don't build orbitals
On April 06 2012 12:01 UmiNotsuki wrote: I find myself disagreeing with the totality of your statement. There are other important factors. I've peaked as mid-master as Zerg and recently started playing Random on EU, at around a platinum level.
For an example, I reference a TvT I played today. I macro'd the entire game like a boss and had a significantly larger army for much of the game. I had an economic lead, and my upgrades were on par. I lost because I made a stupid decision and lost a ton of units to tank splash! He attacked and because I wasn't holding my watchtower he got into a really good position and I proceded to stim into his army. That's a stupid call, obviously. So stupid, in fact, that it overwhelms "probes and pylons" even without a poor composition or strategy.
You might as well put "watch the minimap, hold watchtowers" as important as well because they, too, can win or lose games.
I don't believe I was saying you'd win every match. The point was that the most important things are overlooked.
I would argue YOU"RE The one overlooking things.
if you build 200/200 of probes and pylons, i would beat you every time.
sorry if i come off as mean i am just in a really bad mood right now and gmarshal keeps warning me and it pisses me off
everything that i have ever posted has been 100% my opinion only and i'm sorry if i'm offending anyone with what i'm saying.
I'm sure you would beat me every time. Luckily I didn't tell anyone to only make probes and pylons till 200 supply.
yeah so you are obviously right in everything you say, because you included the phrase "oh and just don't be dumb btw"
you realize you are talking to people who don't build orbitals
...his general point remains the same...MACRO BETTER because macro is important making orbitals is under the realm of macro better thus his point still stands, he merely said it from the protoss point of view (since he plays P)
it is true that maintaining a constant worker production forms the basis of sc2, but i tend to find the people who learn the fastest in combination of constant worker production are the aggressive players.
seriously, the ones that are trying to maintain worker production and dont just turtle up will climb leagues faster
On April 06 2012 13:57 Zariel wrote: it is true that maintaining a constant worker production forms the basis of sc2, but i tend to find the people who learn the fastest in combination of constant worker production are the aggressive players.
seriously, the ones that are trying to maintain worker production and dont just turtle up will climb leagues faster
Yeah I tend to notice the same thing. Whenever a student of mine asks "Is it a good time to attack <insert time>", I always tell them to go figure it out. The idea is that if you ever are unsure of whether or not it's a good time to attack, you should just go attack them and figure out what happens. If you won or gained a lead, watch the replay and attempt to figure out why. If you are put behind or end up losing then and there figure out why as well.
even if you just have say 8 stalkers 8 zealots and in immortal you can gauge your enemy. There are 3 possible outcomes:
a) you crush your enemy. good job b) you get crushed. - too many units (macro problem for you) - countered (scouting or unit composition problem) c) draw or minor victory/loss (rinse n repeat).
In general I agree, however I think its wrong to say that the player with better macro will always win. When I very first started playing as a lowly Zerg player, I was constantly frustrated by missing tech because of poor scouting. No matter how many roaches and lings and drones you have, if you don't notice your opponent making 5 voidrays and they roll into your base, you lose. It's the same with Banshees and Mutalisks. And other low league players know this, so they go voidray/banshee/mutalisk basically every game. In the end I started blindly going Hydralisk and winning a lot of games, but it only lasted until my opponents had halfway decent macro themselves.
On April 06 2012 12:01 UmiNotsuki wrote: I find myself disagreeing with the totality of your statement. There are other important factors. I've peaked as mid-master as Zerg and recently started playing Random on EU, at around a platinum level.
For an example, I reference a TvT I played today. I macro'd the entire game like a boss and had a significantly larger army for much of the game. I had an economic lead, and my upgrades were on par. I lost because I made a stupid decision and lost a ton of units to tank splash! He attacked and because I wasn't holding my watchtower he got into a really good position and I proceded to stim into his army. That's a stupid call, obviously. So stupid, in fact, that it overwhelms "probes and pylons" even without a poor composition or strategy.
You might as well put "watch the minimap, hold watchtowers" as important as well because they, too, can win or lose games.
I don't believe I was saying you'd win every match. The point was that the most important things are overlooked.
I would argue YOU"RE The one overlooking things.
if you build 200/200 of probes and pylons, i would beat you every time.
sorry if i come off as mean i am just in a really bad mood right now and gmarshal keeps warning me and it pisses me off
everything that i have ever posted has been 100% my opinion only and i'm sorry if i'm offending anyone with what i'm saying.
i really really just don't like it when people look at low level players and go "oh just do this 1 thing and everything will be fine" NOTHING IS EVER THAT SIMPLE BTW . again, i'm sorry for yelling, i'm sorry for swearing, i'll leave. but for the record i like playing against lower level people because it is more fun sometimes.
edit: I cannot BELIEVE you are highlighted in blue --_-- i'm sorry but this thread is dumb.
You are 100%, completely missing the point of the OP. Try reading it more carefully.
Speaking as someone who's ground my way through the lower leagues without much formal training or practice...Cecil hits this dead on. I slopped my way into mid-gold by just kinda getting better by playing. Halfway through this season, I decided I was going to focus on wearing out my 'E' key. The result? I'm 100 points clear of #2 in my league and facing plats almost exclusively, although my multitasking is still holding me back vs Zerg in particular.
I've placed such importance on spending and eco this season that I find myself spending more time at my proxy pylon than I do watching the battle. I do almost 0 micro (like I said, my multitasking sucks), and yet I'm still shooting up my league.
Basically what I'm saying is, view from the trenches, this stuff works. Big time. And it's not that hard to implement. What is harder is where I'm at now (Day9's "have a plan" stage). But the basic equation for non-plat-at-least is still "Probes & Pylons == MOAR SHIT == Wins
Edit: And the thread title made me LOL. Well played.
Eh from my experience, especially vZ in diamond/ higher, is that straight up macro isnt good enough. Army positioning and map awareness are just as important, or at least thats what ive found through all of my games. I can out macro the guy by quite a bit and lose due to inefficient fighting. You can kill a zergs 3rd while macroing, but if you miss the FF on the counter attack, or youre late with some FFs in your deathball, or your army is at the tower and you get runby you lose, just straight up lose. It works just as well in PvT, if you let him kite your zealots all day without any FFs then no almost no matter how good you macro youre still going to lose. If your army is moving out and a drop lands in your main, youre boned. And this sort of advice in PvP seems kinda useless ( not useless, just not as important given game length. you shouldnt get supply blocked, and you should make probes) as 90% of my games dont get base 2 base.
Guy on Skype said: [4:08:14 PM] Guy: Sigh. [4:08:14 PM] Guy: People say that [I should just make probes and pylons]. [4:08:16 PM] Guy: But then I just die to shit [4:08:21 PM] Guy: like really stupid shit
Well if you focus on the priorities and play a very safe and standard game, how can you die to stupid shit? You'll have so much shit you can't possibly die to stupid shit.
In your game as Terran, you had trouble holding off a push from a platinum league Protoss. Imagine how much trouble a player would have if they are not as good as you. A player might not know when to pull SCVs and how many to pull, or they might pull them too late. Then they would die. Maybe you can see why these lower level players ask questions about strategy - because you can die to stupid shit in lower leagues, even if you have good macro.
Guy on Skype said: [4:08:14 PM] Guy: Sigh. [4:08:14 PM] Guy: People say that [I should just make probes and pylons]. [4:08:16 PM] Guy: But then I just die to shit [4:08:21 PM] Guy: like really stupid shit
Well if you focus on the priorities and play a very safe and standard game, how can you die to stupid shit? You'll have so much shit you can't possibly die to stupid shit.
In your game as Terran, you had trouble holding off a push from a platinum league Protoss. Imagine how much trouble a player would have if they are not as good as you. A player might not know when to pull SCVs and how many to pull, or they might pull them too late. Then they would die. Maybe you can see why these lower level players ask questions about strategy - because you can die to stupid shit in lower leagues, even if you have good macro.
I had really really bad macro. I had tons of extra money, multiple supply blocks, and forgot my vespene for multiple minutes which delayed my stim by a long time. I think I played pretty bad but one because I made more SCVs and Supply Depots than my opponent.
Edit: You can still lose to different things, you won't win every game. You will however play a whole lot better than if you had insufficient macro.
On April 06 2012 09:46 TheNessman wrote: whatever , i Would say that in lower leagues, the most important thing is "to have a plan" as long as you have a plan you are going to be OK for now. if your plan is Ultras, go ultras. you might die 50% of the time to the first 5 marines your opponent sends at you, but you might also beat the other 50% that turtled off 2 bases to 3/3 reapers. If your plan is DT, go DTs. maybe in bronze league your opponent forgot to get an orbital so they don't have any way of scanning you. If your plan is bunker rush with 4 marines and all of your scvs, it just might work. 4gate for days if that's how you want to get better, i don't care. in lower leagues, everything goes.
So many times I feel that lower level players don't have a sense of what to DO . they get that they should be building econ and stuff, but they never know when to attack or how to defend. In lower leagues, i feel that you just need to do something and then see what happens. and by that point players can figure it out. as long as they understand this == every time you econ instead of building units, your macro will be better later -- , combine that with a solid , if not random plan, and you can probably get out of silver.
Source: working from low to high gold, thoroughly discussing strategy with my friend every day as he moved from low silver (just got the game) to near platinum, reading the blogs by that guy who worker rushes every game , being a caster, playing 2v2 with my friends who are bronze but also platinum , that page that discussed what you needed to get better at as you got higher in leagues, the last one being micro or something , 100s of 2v2 games from low to high gold as random. watching MKP, playing every race, being bad on my own, getting better, reading TL every day, not reading /r/starcraft.
seriously everyone in all of the TL strategy forum is turning into idra - "oh if i just macro the best i'll win automatically" , "oh i just have to hit my drone number as fast as possible and then nothing can go wrong" . SORRY If i just offended you with that statement.
I completely agree with your statement. I also tell people that having a clear "plan" is important. Low league players can't be good at macro, because they don't know how to do it else they'll be masters. You can tell them you must macro better and show them the benefits of building probes and pylons however it won't help them because they don't have the tools to master the art of macro. One of the tools is the "plan", the plan not only is key to the improvement of your macro but also lead you to victory by protecting you from attacks, knowing when you should attack and knowing on what to spend your resources. My explanation on the plan might not be very clear, so I would like to illustrate it with examples:
Let's take the ultralisk example from the quoted text: My plan is to go ultralisks. Alright, that's a good plan, when you're in game, you don't have to think "how should I spend my resources". Let me explain why it's important, so you make probes or pylons (in our case drones and overlords) and then your resources get high, you don't have a plan so you just remember general tips like for example "take an expansion" so you have 800 minerals that are unused and you use them on expansions, but then you just die to an attack, so even if that was the best macro you had, and you had effective resource spending it doesn't stop you from dying because you didn't spend your resources on the right thing. "You can't spend resources on the right thing without a plan"
Next you might think that going ultralisks is a too incomplete plan, so now you expand from your bronze-silver player to a much more higher play. Your plan isn't 3 words anymore, you'll have a much larger plan like: My plan is get a lot of drones early game, get lings and spine crawlers to defend, get 3 bases, get infestors, and only then get ultralisks. Now you see that this plan covers all of your needs: 1. You perfectly know how you will macro, you will build mostly only drones early game and this will improve your macro, you will also practice injects by doing so this plan helps you remember to macro. 2. 3 bases also help macro, I remember one player once told me he had perfect macro on 1 base with constant scv production, but if you're on 1 base, you can't really get lots of units and win, so it's important to build bases. 3. You get lings and spinecrawlers, by this you ensure your survival, but you also know how to survive, not just making random units to survive which you would do without a plan. 4. Now you safely transition into your main plan idea which is to get ultralisks.
And further on you expand your plan as you move toward master league, you will add upgrades, anti air defense, anti cloak, anti cheese, anti macro, harasses, timing attacks and all that goody goodness to your plan.
My point is that having a plan and expanding it in order to know what to do in this game is a key to tool to improve your plan in the aspects of macro, mechanics, micro, strategy and anything else.
Edit: Fixed some sentences to make them more clear, btw I'm high master (answering to the post below me).
The irony of this thread is the masses of people obviously lower level, claiming that they do macro properly and they actually need builds/army comps to win.
While that couldn't possibly be true because if it were, you'd be masters. Okay, if you're really bad at everything except macro, REALLY BAD, you might only be diamond. Any lower than that? Your macro sucks, no questions, no replay viewing necessary.
This thread isn't actually about a strategy, it's about stubborn people.
On April 06 2012 16:18 Adonminus wrote: My point is that having a plan and expanding it in order to know what to do in this game is a key to tool to improve your plan in the aspects of macro, mechanics, micro, strategy and anything else.
I definitely agree that those things are super important. But, most players don't need to work on that yet as their misses pieces required to have a plan: probes and pylons. Once you figure out the probes and pylons you can move onto game plans and the like.
On April 06 2012 16:18 darkscream wrote: The irony of this thread is the masses of people obviously lower level, claiming that they do macro properly and they actually need builds/army comps to win.
While that couldn't possibly be true because if it were, you'd be masters. Okay, if you're really bad at everything except macro, REALLY BAD, you might only be diamond. Any lower than that? Your macro sucks, no questions, no replay viewing necessary.
This thread isn't actually about a strategy, it's about stubborn people.
I wouldn't think that's actually irony. That's fittingness. I mean, it would be ironic if a bunch of high level players are arguing that macro isn't important, and a bunch of low league players were saying "no, I think my macro is holding me back"
Whenever I concentrate on FEing and massing workers with some scouting, I win. Whenever I try to make funny stuff (e.g. mid-late game Carriers PvP) instead of macroing and keeping him on 2-3 bases, I die.
On April 06 2012 16:18 Adonminus wrote: My point is that having a plan and expanding it in order to know what to do in this game is a key to tool to improve your plan in the aspects of macro, mechanics, micro, strategy and anything else.
I definitely agree that those things are super important. But, most players don't need to work on that yet as their misses pieces required to have a plan: probes and pylons. Once you figure out the probes and pylons you can move onto game plans and the like.
I think of it in the opposite way: They need a plan to improve their missing pieces that are "probes and pylons". Plus plans can improve anything you do.
Benchmarking is also really useful. I used to always say "toss is bullshit, they just get so many stalkers and just own you no matter what, nothing you can do, toss just makes more stalkers". But then I realized I was 20 supply down than most pros at the 8:00 mark, and that I basically went all-in, without ever attacking. I was just sac'cing my econ that much. I had lost the game irreparably by the 8:00 mark, that no matter what, there was no way for me to win. So when toss arrived with 30 stalkers at 12:00, I was always like "wtf there is no way I can have enough units to fight that, so imba", instead of "shit, I macro'd horribly in the first 8 minutes of the game and now toss can build up a huge army that I can't trade with, and eventually it way too big to deal with and I die
Have to second the guy who said this. As important as it is to understand what your priorities for improving are, you also need objective benchmarks to measure yourself by. I think that too many players to do not objectively benchmark their play and never realize that despite their gosu build they have 30 less supply than the real gosus doing the same build at minute mark xx:xx. In order to optimally improve you need to know each time you've played whether your performance was better or worse than the last time.
It's also important to note, that "good macro" and "work on mechanics" doesn't mean "never allin and turtle on 3bases every game". That can in fact be very detrimental to someone's development as an rts player (see me, 90 ish % win ratio in 4base games and 24% ish in 1base games vs diamond/master players).
Even though i think a player should always start with more simple builds (like, 4gate, then 1base immortal bust, then 2base immortal bust/6gate, then 2base colossus timing, and when you can execute these reasonably well you have a decent platform to start macroing off 3bases) before going for long macro games, pylons and probes makes those simple builds so much better and more efficient. This is why a GM's 4gate hits faster than a platinum's 4gate which in turn hits faster than a bronze 4gate.
Generally, anytime someone is arguing with a high masters/blue, especially on something big, it's because they have no fucking clue what they are talking about (hey, I've been guilty of it many times, and every time, I was completely wrong).
I don't think these lower level people realize just how much better someone a league up is, or a high masters is, then them. You won't have a single high level player saying macro isn't the absolute most important thing in the game.
So quit arguing with a high masters blue poster here. He really knows his shit, you don't. To think that you would know more about this game, with the less than 1,000 games you've played, less than 100 hours logged on playing starcraft ever in your life, against someone with 10,000+ games played with over 1,000+ hours logged in, who's followed starcraft for about 8 years longer than you have, is just ridiculous.
Like you caught something he didn't get. It's like trying to tell Michael Jordan on the nuances of basketball. Holy shit.
On April 06 2012 16:18 Adonminus wrote: My point is that having a plan and expanding it in order to know what to do in this game is a key to tool to improve your plan in the aspects of macro, mechanics, micro, strategy and anything else.
I definitely agree that those things are super important. But, most players don't need to work on that yet as their misses pieces required to have a plan: probes and pylons. Once you figure out the probes and pylons you can move onto game plans and the like.
I think of it in the opposite way: They need a plan to improve their missing pieces that are "probes and pylons". Plus plans can improve anything you do.
Well yeah I still agree. If you take the "probes and pylons" thing too far then you just lose balance and make 200 supply of probes, like what some other guy here was proposing. And also sure you do need a plan of how to execute "probes and pylons" as well. I'm just saying there's a hierarchy of what should be prioritized and when while going through the stages of learning to 1v1.
When I saw the thread title I expected some kind of bronze league-er posting about some strategy/weird timing that sometimes works in the lower leagues. Then I saw the author so I decided to take a look, and I 100% agree
Just wanna say I'm a top diamond toss who has been playing about 50% diamonds, and 50% masters on NA server, and I just realised the main thing that was holding me back was the gaps in my probe production before saturated 3 base, so I would say there are very few people reading this to whom this doesnt apply to anymore
On April 06 2012 16:49 Belial88 wrote: Generally, anytime someone is arguing with a high masters/blue, especially on something big, it's because they have no fucking clue what they are talking about (hey, I've been guilty of it many times, and every time, I was completely wrong).
I don't think these lower level people realize just how much better someone a league up is, or a high masters is, then them. You won't have a single high level player saying macro isn't the absolute most important thing in the game.
So quit arguing with a high masters blue poster here. He really knows his shit, you don't. To think that you would know more about this game, with the less than 1,000 games you've played, less than 100 hours logged on playing starcraft ever in your life, against someone with 10,000+ games played with over 1,000+ hours logged in, who's followed starcraft for about 8 years longer than you have, is just ridiculous.
Like you caught something he didn't get. It's like trying to tell Michael Jordan on the nuances of basketball. Holy shit.
As a lower league player I 100% agree. Macro is the most important thing (as in constant production, no supply blocks and keeping money low).
BUT and this is the point ML/GML players seem to consider as "easy"
ppl lack also in Multitasking. And i dont mean Multitasking in a sense as in "dropping 3 places at one while microing the shit out of my tank/marine army while expanding and Planting 3 additional barracks"
Most lower league players I know actually have decent makro IF (and thats the big IF) left alone to "Probes & Pylons & Army" 12 minutes roach max out? Give a Gold player 10 - 20 tries to figure out Gas and Roachwarren timings and sooner or later he WILL hit the max out around 12 minutes. Now put the same player against another player. You will see his money rise, you will see him miss injects, you will see him getting supply blocked, you will see him with mass idle larvae. Why? Did he suddenly unlearn everything he learned for the last 30 games? Did he suddenly forget how to macro?
Let me take this to an area im better in: Martial Arts
Tell your Students how important are basics. Train basics every day, after they learned their basics quite well (as in starcraft there is no "perfect") let them train with a Shinai (wooden sword). After they learned their basics there and they are quite competent with their weapon, give them REAL weapons. All of a sudden everything is different, they dont remember the basics, they dont remember the techniques. All they see is the sharp edge of the other students sword. How is it any different of what we trained? Its not. Does it FEEL different? Hell yes! It feels a LOT different.
So back to starcraft: In a "macro only situation" there is no need for scouting, no need to react to changing situations, no need to deal with early aggression, no need to remember the opponents timings, no need for even basic army micro. Its just probes + pylons + army. You NEED multitasking, you NEED to get away from the "If i dont look at my army, it will die!" feeling (altough it happens from time to time), you NEED to do may things and priorize these things. That is the hardest thing to do if you have just a small amount of actions available. Even if you KNOW what to do, ppl tend to make mistakes in stressful situations. Another point ML/GML seem to just ignore. Playing competitive against complete strangers IS stressful for the most low league players. Its even stressful to me. Stress is different for different ppl. I could tell you that it isnt a stressful situation if 2 ppl want to get you in a bar brawl. To me it isnt, to you it possibly might be.
So multitasking, handspeed/precision, mindset ist the MOST important part to me, because without these 3 Pillars everything else WILL suffer.
I think thats the reason why 1 or 2 base all-ins are so powerful in lower leagues. First you focus on probes and pylons and after you reached "the end" of probes and pylons you focus on army (+ warpins for example). You just have to focus on one thing instead of two or more.
Charon1979, I am pretty damn good in a 2d-shooter which I play for maybe 6 years now.. And I'm really bad at SC2, which I played less than a year so far.
That game (Teeworlds to not sound too abstract) I didn't quite learn since there're were literally 0 guides, I just played for fun. Tried different stuff. Learned some tricks. Saw smth that better players did and tried to pull off. And grinded TONNS of games. Cause it's been f**ing FUN. Gradually mechanics became so good that I may play bored, tilted, drunk and tired and still show my B-game (lag influences more). If some kid showed me a guide on how to do shit in that game, I would've reached middish level WAY faster, yet I wouldn't ever become significantly better that an average player. I wouln't be able to benefit from my personality. I wouldn't have been able to do some sick stuff because some moron would've told me that it's impossible to do.
It's just.. Just.. Be curious, I don't know.. LOVE THIS GAME.
On April 06 2012 16:49 Belial88 wrote: Generally, anytime someone is arguing with a high masters/blue, especially on something big, it's because they have no fucking clue what they are talking about (hey, I've been guilty of it many times, and every time, I was completely wrong).
I don't think these lower level people realize just how much better someone a league up is, or a high masters is, then them. You won't have a single high level player saying macro isn't the absolute most important thing in the game.
So quit arguing with a high masters blue poster here. He really knows his shit, you don't. To think that you would know more about this game, with the less than 1,000 games you've played, less than 100 hours logged on playing starcraft ever in your life, against someone with 10,000+ games played with over 1,000+ hours logged in, who's followed starcraft for about 8 years longer than you have, is just ridiculous.
Like you caught something he didn't get. It's like trying to tell Michael Jordan on the nuances of basketball. Holy shit.
As a lower league player I 100% agree. Macro is the most important thing (as in constant production, no supply blocks and keeping money low).
BUT and this is the point ML/GML players seem to consider as "easy"
ppl lack also in Multitasking. And i dont mean Multitasking in a sense as in "dropping 3 places at one while microing the shit out of my tank/marine army while expanding and Planting 3 additional barracks"
Most lower league players I know actually have decent makro IF (and thats the big IF) left alone to "Probes & Pylons & Army" 12 minutes roach max out? Give a Gold player 10 - 20 tries to figure out Gas and Roachwarren timings and sooner or later he WILL hit the max out around 12 minutes. Now put the same player against another player. You will see his money rise, you will see him miss injects, you will see him getting supply blocked, you will see him with mass idle larvae. Why? Did he suddenly unlearn everything he learned for the last 30 games? Did he suddenly forget how to macro?
Let me take this to an area im better in: Martial Arts
Tell your Students how important are basics. Train basics every day, after they learned their basics quite well (as in starcraft there is no "perfect") let them train with a Shinai (wooden sword). After they learned their basics there and they are quite competent with their weapon, give them REAL weapons. All of a sudden everything is different, they dont remember the basics, they dont remember the techniques. All they see is the sharp edge of the other students sword. How is it any different of what we trained? Its not. Does it FEEL different? Hell yes! It feels a LOT different.
So back to starcraft: In a "macro only situation" there is no need for scouting, no need to react to changing situations, no need to deal with early aggression, no need to remember the opponents timings, no need for even basic army micro. Its just probes + pylons + army. You NEED multitasking, you NEED to get away from the "If i dont look at my army, it will die!" feeling (altough it happens from time to time), you NEED to do may things and priorize these things. That is the hardest thing to do if you have just a small amount of actions available. Even if you KNOW what to do, ppl tend to make mistakes in stressful situations. Another point ML/GML seem to just ignore. Playing competitive against complete strangers IS stressful for the most low league players. Its even stressful to me. Stress is different for different ppl. I could tell you that it isnt a stressful situation if 2 ppl want to get you in a bar brawl. To me it isnt, to you it possibly might be.
So multitasking, handspeed/precision, mindset ist the MOST important part to me, because without these 3 Pillars everything else WILL suffer.
I think thats the reason why 1 or 2 base all-ins are so powerful in lower leagues. First you focus on probes and pylons and after you reached "the end" of probes and pylons you focus on army (+ warpins for example). You just have to focus on one thing instead of two or more.
just my toughts
I dont follow your martial arts example. If a student forgets the fundamentals than you shouldn't give him a blade in the first place.
Well, I agree with OP but I also disagree. Telling low league players that making probes and pylons is the very basic skill of the whole game and that they will start to win more because of a better economy is good, but sometimes they'll die because they have too many probes. So it implies to tell them that at some point they have to stop making probes (and again, if they lose a base with workers, they have to make probes again), well I hope you'll see what I mean. As an ex broodwar hardcore player, I kept my mechanics and my habits of making non-stop probes, so sometimes when I watch my replays I see that I have 100 probes at what, 18-20min ? On 3-4 bases. Sometimes I stop making probes because I'm too busy microing/macroing/harassing/etc, but it's usually when I hit 80-90 probes. I found myself dying to players who have 30-40 probes/scv/drones on their 2 bases while I have 60 probes on my bases, and my economy doesn't allow me to come back in the game and roll their army/bases/etc. They're floating money and they have a bigger army while I spend mine as much as I can, growing my army, just to die to some a-move stuff (no kidding here, I always watch my replays even when I win).
I disagree when people say "just make probes, pylons and stuff, you just need that to kill them", it's not true. You have to know a lot more things to win a game. Yes, you need to "build probes/pylons", but you need alot more. That's how I see this.
Dozens of posts from low level players saying 'nah, that's not right', as they head back to the ladder with their delusional idea of what works better than working on macro...
Keep doing what you're doing. I see a lot of disagreeing with ideas from master players from players who think there's a difference between "low gold" and "high gold". I don't know why it's so hard to listen to master league players at the top, and I have no idea what makes silver and gold players so certain that they know better because they've climbed out of bronze.
Seriously, listen to the advice you hear from better players. They aren't lying !
On April 06 2012 16:49 Belial88 wrote: Generally, anytime someone is arguing with a high masters/blue, especially on something big, it's because they have no fucking clue what they are talking about (hey, I've been guilty of it many times, and every time, I was completely wrong).
I don't think these lower level people realize just how much better someone a league up is, or a high masters is, then them. You won't have a single high level player saying macro isn't the absolute most important thing in the game.
So quit arguing with a high masters blue poster here. He really knows his shit, you don't. To think that you would know more about this game, with the less than 1,000 games you've played, less than 100 hours logged on playing starcraft ever in your life, against someone with 10,000+ games played with over 1,000+ hours logged in, who's followed starcraft for about 8 years longer than you have, is just ridiculous.
Like you caught something he didn't get. It's like trying to tell Michael Jordan on the nuances of basketball. Holy shit.
As a lower league player I 100% agree. Macro is the most important thing (as in constant production, no supply blocks and keeping money low).
BUT and this is the point ML/GML players seem to consider as "easy"
ppl lack also in Multitasking. And i dont mean Multitasking in a sense as in "dropping 3 places at one while microing the shit out of my tank/marine army while expanding and Planting 3 additional barracks"
Most lower league players I know actually have decent makro IF (and thats the big IF) left alone to "Probes & Pylons & Army" 12 minutes roach max out? Give a Gold player 10 - 20 tries to figure out Gas and Roachwarren timings and sooner or later he WILL hit the max out around 12 minutes. Now put the same player against another player. You will see his money rise, you will see him miss injects, you will see him getting supply blocked, you will see him with mass idle larvae. Why? Did he suddenly unlearn everything he learned for the last 30 games? Did he suddenly forget how to macro?
Let me take this to an area im better in: Martial Arts
Tell your Students how important are basics. Train basics every day, after they learned their basics quite well (as in starcraft there is no "perfect") let them train with a Shinai (wooden sword). After they learned their basics there and they are quite competent with their weapon, give them REAL weapons. All of a sudden everything is different, they dont remember the basics, they dont remember the techniques. All they see is the sharp edge of the other students sword. How is it any different of what we trained? Its not. Does it FEEL different? Hell yes! It feels a LOT different.
So back to starcraft: In a "macro only situation" there is no need for scouting, no need to react to changing situations, no need to deal with early aggression, no need to remember the opponents timings, no need for even basic army micro. Its just probes + pylons + army. You NEED multitasking, you NEED to get away from the "If i dont look at my army, it will die!" feeling (altough it happens from time to time), you NEED to do may things and priorize these things. That is the hardest thing to do if you have just a small amount of actions available. Even if you KNOW what to do, ppl tend to make mistakes in stressful situations. Another point ML/GML seem to just ignore. Playing competitive against complete strangers IS stressful for the most low league players. Its even stressful to me. Stress is different for different ppl. I could tell you that it isnt a stressful situation if 2 ppl want to get you in a bar brawl. To me it isnt, to you it possibly might be.
So multitasking, handspeed/precision, mindset ist the MOST important part to me, because without these 3 Pillars everything else WILL suffer.
I think thats the reason why 1 or 2 base all-ins are so powerful in lower leagues. First you focus on probes and pylons and after you reached "the end" of probes and pylons you focus on army (+ warpins for example). You just have to focus on one thing instead of two or more.
just my toughts
Why don't bronzies play with this 'macro only' mentality. Forget about scouting, forget about unit composition, just focus on macro. If you can't multitask, don't multitask, don't do anything that might impede your macro. If you just focus on macro, and ignore anything else, you're gonna win sooooo easily. Bronze players don't move out until 9 minutes and if you have 100 supply by this point, you will have double their army. Its that easy.
Damn Cecil, your threads are like Day9 Dailies but text based. Great read and some very useful tips in there, I agree completely, macro is the reason I loose a lot of games and the reason I still have been unable to make the jump from Diamond to Master.
You must make workers, not get supply blocked, spend money, lay structures at the right time... SO basically play perfectly (short of perfect micro. Cheers...really helpful
This and another post I saw last week have really help me win alot of games. I was a mid level Silver playing other mid level silvers on SEA as a terran. Read a post somewhere on here where a guy did a VOD describing some test he did which was. * Que 3 SCV's at a time * Que 2 marines at each barracks * Que 2 supply depots * Extra Coin Buld Barracks * And expand at this time
So very macro orientated. I have followed this except I did get gas and 3/3 marines very quickly aswell as stim and combat shields. Also tech lab 1 barracks and all the rest have reactors. Than I have thrown in 5 or so medivacs and 3-5 tanks. And well I have lost 2 out of my past 13-14 games and am now getting paired with platinum players and winning. And the main reason why is because I can just pump out 20 or so marines at a time even after I lose half my army. And I can only do this because I have built so many SCVS. Where as when I followed BO once the build order was done I wouldnt keep up with scv,s supply depots and would end up losing.
But just buy focusing on basic - SCV's, Supply Depots, Marines, Upgrades, Barracks I have skyrocketed in wins. Now I am looking to start addind a stim timing push with what ever marines I have. And once I feel I have that down pack I will start dropping more often ect. Building on that base.
Granted I have started to throw in vikings in TvP as collosi just rip through marines and plat players look to get them fairly quickly. Also TvT you do need early tanks - marines melt to tanks =P
I reccomend lower league players do take this onboard alot or dont and I will jsut keep winning with mass marine & scvs =D
Your points are certainly all valid, and some of your other posts have really helped me, but I don't feel this one is as "lower league-friendly" as some others. Start with probes and pylons...have too much money. Once you're good at that, move onto building right structures so that you're spending your money. Small steps at a time I think are better for developing players
On April 06 2012 16:49 Belial88 wrote: Generally, anytime someone is arguing with a high masters/blue, especially on something big, it's because they have no fucking clue what they are talking about (hey, I've been guilty of it many times, and every time, I was completely wrong).
I don't think these lower level people realize just how much better someone a league up is, or a high masters is, then them. You won't have a single high level player saying macro isn't the absolute most important thing in the game.
So quit arguing with a high masters blue poster here. He really knows his shit, you don't. To think that you would know more about this game, with the less than 1,000 games you've played, less than 100 hours logged on playing starcraft ever in your life, against someone with 10,000+ games played with over 1,000+ hours logged in, who's followed starcraft for about 8 years longer than you have, is just ridiculous.
Like you caught something he didn't get. It's like trying to tell Michael Jordan on the nuances of basketball. Holy shit.
As a lower league player I 100% agree. Macro is the most important thing (as in constant production, no supply blocks and keeping money low).
BUT and this is the point ML/GML players seem to consider as "easy"
ppl lack also in Multitasking. And i dont mean Multitasking in a sense as in "dropping 3 places at one while microing the shit out of my tank/marine army while expanding and Planting 3 additional barracks"
Most lower league players I know actually have decent makro IF (and thats the big IF) left alone to "Probes & Pylons & Army" 12 minutes roach max out? Give a Gold player 10 - 20 tries to figure out Gas and Roachwarren timings and sooner or later he WILL hit the max out around 12 minutes. Now put the same player against another player. You will see his money rise, you will see him miss injects, you will see him getting supply blocked, you will see him with mass idle larvae. Why? Did he suddenly unlearn everything he learned for the last 30 games? Did he suddenly forget how to macro?
Let me take this to an area im better in: Martial Arts
Tell your Students how important are basics. Train basics every day, after they learned their basics quite well (as in starcraft there is no "perfect") let them train with a Shinai (wooden sword). After they learned their basics there and they are quite competent with their weapon, give them REAL weapons. All of a sudden everything is different, they dont remember the basics, they dont remember the techniques. All they see is the sharp edge of the other students sword. How is it any different of what we trained? Its not. Does it FEEL different? Hell yes! It feels a LOT different.
So back to starcraft: In a "macro only situation" there is no need for scouting, no need to react to changing situations, no need to deal with early aggression, no need to remember the opponents timings, no need for even basic army micro. Its just probes + pylons + army. You NEED multitasking, you NEED to get away from the "If i dont look at my army, it will die!" feeling (altough it happens from time to time), you NEED to do may things and priorize these things. That is the hardest thing to do if you have just a small amount of actions available. Even if you KNOW what to do, ppl tend to make mistakes in stressful situations. Another point ML/GML seem to just ignore. Playing competitive against complete strangers IS stressful for the most low league players. Its even stressful to me. Stress is different for different ppl. I could tell you that it isnt a stressful situation if 2 ppl want to get you in a bar brawl. To me it isnt, to you it possibly might be.
So multitasking, handspeed/precision, mindset ist the MOST important part to me, because without these 3 Pillars everything else WILL suffer.
I think thats the reason why 1 or 2 base all-ins are so powerful in lower leagues. First you focus on probes and pylons and after you reached "the end" of probes and pylons you focus on army (+ warpins for example). You just have to focus on one thing instead of two or more.
just my toughts
Why don't bronzies play with this 'macro only' mentality. Forget about scouting, forget about unit composition, just focus on macro. If you can't multitask, don't multitask, don't do anything that might impede your macro. If you just focus on macro, and ignore anything else, you're gonna win sooooo easily. Bronze players don't move out until 9 minutes and if you have 100 supply by this point, you will have double their army. Its that easy.
When I was Bronze I was trying to improve by following three seperate build orders for every race and playing like the pros. it didn't work. I was too slow in micro-ing my scout, trying to figure out what the scouting means, and reacting and building counters. "Oh, he's got a bunch of void rays? I guess I should make vikings, it totally won't take 5 minutes." I finally got out of bronze by just making marines and marauders every game, expanding every 6 minutes, and maxing out somewhere between 14-16 minutes and just A-moving huge bioballs.
On April 06 2012 23:55 Arlenius wrote: You must make workers, not get supply blocked, spend money, lay structures at the right time... SO basically play perfectly (short of perfect micro. Cheers...really helpful
No, you have to have good mechanics, not play perfectly.
Play perfectly includes that plus perfect scouting, positioning, engagements, timing attacks, harassment (and harassment defense) and army micro.
Cecil's point is that so very often, in lower leagues players are concerned with the latter instead of the former.
On April 06 2012 16:49 Belial88 wrote: Generally, anytime someone is arguing with a high masters/blue, especially on something big, it's because they have no fucking clue what they are talking about (hey, I've been guilty of it many times, and every time, I was completely wrong).
I don't think these lower level people realize just how much better someone a league up is, or a high masters is, then them. You won't have a single high level player saying macro isn't the absolute most important thing in the game.
So quit arguing with a high masters blue poster here. He really knows his shit, you don't. To think that you would know more about this game, with the less than 1,000 games you've played, less than 100 hours logged on playing starcraft ever in your life, against someone with 10,000+ games played with over 1,000+ hours logged in, who's followed starcraft for about 8 years longer than you have, is just ridiculous.
Like you caught something he didn't get. It's like trying to tell Michael Jordan on the nuances of basketball. Holy shit.
As a lower league player I 100% agree. Macro is the most important thing (as in constant production, no supply blocks and keeping money low).
BUT and this is the point ML/GML players seem to consider as "easy"
ppl lack also in Multitasking. And i dont mean Multitasking in a sense as in "dropping 3 places at one while microing the shit out of my tank/marine army while expanding and Planting 3 additional barracks"
Most lower league players I know actually have decent makro IF (and thats the big IF) left alone to "Probes & Pylons & Army" 12 minutes roach max out? Give a Gold player 10 - 20 tries to figure out Gas and Roachwarren timings and sooner or later he WILL hit the max out around 12 minutes. Now put the same player against another player. You will see his money rise, you will see him miss injects, you will see him getting supply blocked, you will see him with mass idle larvae. Why? Did he suddenly unlearn everything he learned for the last 30 games? Did he suddenly forget how to macro?
Let me take this to an area im better in: Martial Arts
Tell your Students how important are basics. Train basics every day, after they learned their basics quite well (as in starcraft there is no "perfect") let them train with a Shinai (wooden sword). After they learned their basics there and they are quite competent with their weapon, give them REAL weapons. All of a sudden everything is different, they dont remember the basics, they dont remember the techniques. All they see is the sharp edge of the other students sword. How is it any different of what we trained? Its not. Does it FEEL different? Hell yes! It feels a LOT different.
So back to starcraft: In a "macro only situation" there is no need for scouting, no need to react to changing situations, no need to deal with early aggression, no need to remember the opponents timings, no need for even basic army micro. Its just probes + pylons + army. You NEED multitasking, you NEED to get away from the "If i dont look at my army, it will die!" feeling (altough it happens from time to time), you NEED to do may things and priorize these things. That is the hardest thing to do if you have just a small amount of actions available. Even if you KNOW what to do, ppl tend to make mistakes in stressful situations. Another point ML/GML seem to just ignore. Playing competitive against complete strangers IS stressful for the most low league players. Its even stressful to me. Stress is different for different ppl. I could tell you that it isnt a stressful situation if 2 ppl want to get you in a bar brawl. To me it isnt, to you it possibly might be.
So multitasking, handspeed/precision, mindset ist the MOST important part to me, because without these 3 Pillars everything else WILL suffer.
I think thats the reason why 1 or 2 base all-ins are so powerful in lower leagues. First you focus on probes and pylons and after you reached "the end" of probes and pylons you focus on army (+ warpins for example). You just have to focus on one thing instead of two or more.
just my toughts
I dont follow your martial arts example. If a student forgets the fundamentals than you shouldn't give him a blade in the first place.
He knows his fundametals well, He even trained it for years. But you cant just tell him "ignore the sharp edge of the blade, it doent matter." Because he cant just ignore it unless it becomes "normal" to him to deal with this risk. Lets go for another example: A wooden Plank, about 25 cm broad spans in 1m hight across shallow water, no problem to cross it. Right? Its easy. A wooden Plank, about 40 cm broad spans in 10m hight across a mountain gap, should be even easier - the board is broader. And now ask 10 ppl which one they would use. You can tell then 1000 times "its easier", for them ists harder. Not because their mind is with the act of crossing, but with the consequences of falling.
Which indirectly answers Mickets question:
Why don't bronzies play with this 'macro only' mentality. Forget about scouting, forget about unit composition, just focus on macro. If you can't multitask, don't multitask, don't do anything that might impede your macro. If you just focus on macro, and ignore anything else, you're gonna win sooooo easily. Bronze players don't move out until 9 minutes and if you have 100 supply by this point, you will have double their army. Its that easy.
Most Lower League players struggle with their mindset. They want to win. So, you do your probes and pylons, dont scout, dont multitask, dont do anything that might impede your macro AND (speaking as a zerg player): Get rolled over by a proxy rax bunker rush, 2 Port banshees, voidrays, 6Pool, cannon rush,.. All the sudden you stop your probes and pylons and swith to the "wrong" mindset: "If my micro was better I could have won"
My point is not "Cecil is wrong", as a matter of fact I support his view of things. I just want to say "Many high level players take mindset, physical abilities and their own trained reactions as given." Which leads to the false assumption that macro ist the answer to everything. It covers a huge field, but without the right amount of actions available, without the right mindset, without a raw game plan - macro wont save you either. When ppl here swing the "macro Hammer" it often sounds like "Doesnt matter if you lose 30 Lings to a single baneling, as long as you remember drones + pylons."
The problem here is we're assuming the bronze league players are actually learning their fundamentals when they focus on just probes and pylons. It's one thing to consciously focus on just macroing as well as possible, but that doesn't really improve you as a player. What you should be trying to do is commit macroing to muscle memory so you don't even have to think about it. Drills like just microing a worker around the map while macroing help here. Or having a friend attack you and forcing you to micro against him while macroing.
A low-level player who's focusing on macro will constantly be thinking "gotta build probes, gotta build pylons, check my resources, k gotta build probes again, getting close to supply block, more pylons." The ideal player would just subconsciously do all these things without really thinking about it. He's absorbing the information and reacting to it purely out of routine. So while he's thinking about his opponent's strategy, what timings to look out for, how to position his units, he's macroing without even thinking about it. That's the difference.
It's not just macroing well that lower-level players need to focus on. It's refining their macro techniques to the point where they are subconscious and take up as little time as possible, so they can also think about the other parts of the game.
Ok I think I get your point, but I think the discussion here is off track. I agree that macro is important and that anyone say under masters will get better simply by improving that aspect of their game. I'll also agree with your premise that lower league players underestimate how much better better macro will make them.
So lets talk about:
- Why do lower level players undervalue macro?
I think this is obvious (but there may be other opinions). It's hard to blame macro when you lose to two port banshee. Hard to blame macro when a terran sieges your natural on TDA. Hard to blame macro when a Protoss deathball with FF's rolls over you. The fact is that whenever you lose, you're going to lose to some strategy or to some combination of units. Now although the ability to defeat these units and strategies is based on having good macro, it's simply more obvious to blame the strats and units because those things are what's killing your shit.
- What are the best strategies for changing players mindset to value macro?
Here is where the real gold of discussion lays IMO. I'm currently Plat (formerly Diamond) and I've heard 'macro better' a thousand times. Why aren't I Masters? Because my macro sucks I'm sure, and yet hearing 'macro better' hasn't changed my mindset in the slightest. I'm sure I'm not alone.
So how about we brainstorm some practical, simple, effective methods that lower level players can drill on ladder to change their mindset and give higher priority to macro. That would make an interesting thread. Go.
On April 06 2012 16:49 Belial88 wrote: Generally, anytime someone is arguing with a high masters/blue, especially on something big, it's because they have no fucking clue what they are talking about (hey, I've been guilty of it many times, and every time, I was completely wrong).
I don't think these lower level people realize just how much better someone a league up is, or a high masters is, then them. You won't have a single high level player saying macro isn't the absolute most important thing in the game.
So quit arguing with a high masters blue poster here. He really knows his shit, you don't. To think that you would know more about this game, with the less than 1,000 games you've played, less than 100 hours logged on playing starcraft ever in your life, against someone with 10,000+ games played with over 1,000+ hours logged in, who's followed starcraft for about 8 years longer than you have, is just ridiculous.
Like you caught something he didn't get. It's like trying to tell Michael Jordan on the nuances of basketball. Holy shit.
As a lower league player I 100% agree. Macro is the most important thing (as in constant production, no supply blocks and keeping money low).
BUT and this is the point ML/GML players seem to consider as "easy"
ppl lack also in Multitasking. And i dont mean Multitasking in a sense as in "dropping 3 places at one while microing the shit out of my tank/marine army while expanding and Planting 3 additional barracks"
Most lower league players I know actually have decent makro IF (and thats the big IF) left alone to "Probes & Pylons & Army" 12 minutes roach max out? Give a Gold player 10 - 20 tries to figure out Gas and Roachwarren timings and sooner or later he WILL hit the max out around 12 minutes. Now put the same player against another player. You will see his money rise, you will see him miss injects, you will see him getting supply blocked, you will see him with mass idle larvae. Why? Did he suddenly unlearn everything he learned for the last 30 games? Did he suddenly forget how to macro?
Let me take this to an area im better in: Martial Arts
Tell your Students how important are basics. Train basics every day, after they learned their basics quite well (as in starcraft there is no "perfect") let them train with a Shinai (wooden sword). After they learned their basics there and they are quite competent with their weapon, give them REAL weapons. All of a sudden everything is different, they dont remember the basics, they dont remember the techniques. All they see is the sharp edge of the other students sword. How is it any different of what we trained? Its not. Does it FEEL different? Hell yes! It feels a LOT different.
So back to starcraft: In a "macro only situation" there is no need for scouting, no need to react to changing situations, no need to deal with early aggression, no need to remember the opponents timings, no need for even basic army micro. Its just probes + pylons + army. You NEED multitasking, you NEED to get away from the "If i dont look at my army, it will die!" feeling (altough it happens from time to time), you NEED to do may things and priorize these things. That is the hardest thing to do if you have just a small amount of actions available. Even if you KNOW what to do, ppl tend to make mistakes in stressful situations. Another point ML/GML seem to just ignore. Playing competitive against complete strangers IS stressful for the most low league players. Its even stressful to me. Stress is different for different ppl. I could tell you that it isnt a stressful situation if 2 ppl want to get you in a bar brawl. To me it isnt, to you it possibly might be.
So multitasking, handspeed/precision, mindset ist the MOST important part to me, because without these 3 Pillars everything else WILL suffer.
I think thats the reason why 1 or 2 base all-ins are so powerful in lower leagues. First you focus on probes and pylons and after you reached "the end" of probes and pylons you focus on army (+ warpins for example). You just have to focus on one thing instead of two or more.
just my toughts
Why don't bronzies play with this 'macro only' mentality. Forget about scouting, forget about unit composition, just focus on macro. If you can't multitask, don't multitask, don't do anything that might impede your macro. If you just focus on macro, and ignore anything else, you're gonna win sooooo easily. Bronze players don't move out until 9 minutes and if you have 100 supply by this point, you will have double their army. Its that easy.
When I was Bronze I was trying to improve by following three seperate build orders for every race and playing like the pros. it didn't work. I was too slow in micro-ing my scout, trying to figure out what the scouting means, and reacting and building counters. "Oh, he's got a bunch of void rays? I guess I should make vikings, it totally won't take 5 minutes." I finally got out of bronze by just making marines and marauders every game, expanding every 6 minutes, and maxing out somewhere between 14-16 minutes and just A-moving huge bioballs.
If you're terran and you max out at 14-16 minutes you should be in high masters/GM.
On April 07 2012 00:56 BoxingKangaroo wrote: Ok I think I get your point, but I think the discussion here is off track. I agree that macro is important and that anyone say under masters will get better simply by improving that aspect of their game. I'll also agree with your premise that lower league players underestimate how much better better macro will make them.
So lets talk about:
- Why do lower level players undervalue macro?
I think this is obvious (but there may be other opinions). It's hard to blame macro when you lose to two port banshee. Hard to blame macro when a terran sieges your natural on TDA. Hard to blame macro when a Protoss deathball with FF's rolls over you. The fact is that whenever you lose, you're going to lose to some strategy or to some combination of units. Now although the ability to defeat these units and strategies is based on having good macro, it's simply more obvious to blame the strats and units because those things are what's killing your shit.
I agree with your reasoning why low level players don't believe it's their macro that's killing them but I feel that their conclusions should be easily countered. 2-port banshee is easily countered through macro by just streaming mass units at their base. You will win the base-race without even trying to counter their tech. Mass roach/marauder spam even with void rays will decimate any attempted protoss death ball at lower levels. Mass ling will absolutely crush any sort of attempt to siege your natural on TDA.
The OP never states you will win every game, but you should win most games and improve by just macroing harder with relatively little thought to unit comp, micro, tricky build orders, mind games, whatever.
Why don't bronzies play with this 'macro only' mentality. Forget about scouting, forget about unit composition, just focus on macro. If you can't multitask, don't multitask, don't do anything that might impede your macro. If you just focus on macro, and ignore anything else, you're gonna win sooooo easily. Bronze players don't move out until 9 minutes and if you have 100 supply by this point, you will have double their army. Its that easy.
You can't ignore scouting entirely in silver, and you need to beat silvers to get out of bronze. I go 3 rax>expand>gas>upgrades+mass marine in every TvZ, basically Halby's Mineral Drill with marine upgrades. The only times it hasn't worked were -a guy who double expanded and made nothing but drones for 8-9 minutes -a guy who stayed on 1 hatch and 14 drones and made pure lingbling till like 7 minutes and rolled in and killed me
And the "A-move and win" approach totally falls apart in TvT, where unit comp and positioning are vital, and bunkers+sieged tanks on highground will destroy much larger armies.
On April 07 2012 00:56 BoxingKangaroo wrote: Ok I think I get your point, but I think the discussion here is off track. I agree that macro is important and that anyone say under masters will get better simply by improving that aspect of their game. I'll also agree with your premise that lower league players underestimate how much better better macro will make them.
So lets talk about:
- Why do lower level players undervalue macro?
I think this is obvious (but there may be other opinions). It's hard to blame macro when you lose to two port banshee. Hard to blame macro when a terran sieges your natural on TDA. Hard to blame macro when a Protoss deathball with FF's rolls over you. The fact is that whenever you lose, you're going to lose to some strategy or to some combination of units. Now although the ability to defeat these units and strategies is based on having good macro, it's simply more obvious to blame the strats and units because those things are what's killing your shit.
I agree with your reasoning why low level players don't believe it's their macro that's killing them but I feel that their conclusions should be easily countered. 2-port banshee is easily countered through macro by just streaming mass units at their base. You will win the base-race without even trying to counter their tech. Mass roach/marauder spam even with void rays will decimate any attempted protoss death ball at lower levels. Mass ling will absolutely crush any sort of attempt to siege your natural on TDA.
The OP never states you will win every game, but you should win most games and improve by just macroing harder with relatively little thought to unit comp, micro, tricky build orders, mind games, whatever.
Those things may well be true. But speaking from the perspective of a lower level player, they're simply hard to believe. Specifically I'm a lower Zerg, and beating that siege play with mass ling just seems ridiculous to me. Countering a lower level player's conclusions may be easy - I mean you did it in one sentence (mass ling - macro better). Getting them to believe it is the hard part. In fact you made it worse by saying it can be beaten by mass ling. Here I am, building lings, banelings and muta and losing, and you're saying I can beat it with just ling? That makes it more unbelievable. You're going up against human psychology here, and that ain't easy.
Finally a thread that ACTUALLY HELPS the lower leagues...
if they are willing to listen, that is.
People with their fancy BO's and pushes n stuff, first learn to utilise your keyboard and master the basics instead of keyboardturning and complaining afterwards.
Not to turn this into a SC2 vs BW discussion, but SC2 makes macro more important. Maps are smaller, resources come faster, so its necessary to have a big army faster-- losing an engagement is much closer to losing the game in SC2 than BW, because if you can't match your opponent's production he can very easily bludgeon you to death.
It's a product of Blizzard design, which some guy discussed in some thread. They made SC2 for the casual player sort of-- macro up a big army, smash it, win or lose. Yay deathball!
Fantastic OP-couldn't agree more. I started playing Terran and magically hit gold league after a few placement matches because I was fairly decent @ SCVs/Supply. I often found myself delving into advanced tactics and stuff way above my head, but always came back to the realization that my macro (scv/sd/production) was in some way off and I resumed concentrating on that aspect of my play, I started winning again. I'm now high diamond after 3 months of playing and can say without a doubt that every time I got better, it was due to better macro, and every time I got worse, it was because I got in over my head with something and forgot the basics.
Though many seem skeptical so far, I hope more people see this thread and swallow their pride long enough to realize that this strategy is better than anything else you can/should do. Skipping this step of learning is like trying to play basketball without first learning how to dribble, pass, or take free-throws.
Hi hi. I'm a silver league Terran player who has recently started regularly beating top golds (promotion coming soon I hope >.<) and I have to agree with OP that most lower league problems are with macro. Only in the past few months have I started consistently making greater than 70 workers and expanding when needed. However, I feel that in the lower leagues it's hard to pinpoint exactly where people go wrong with their macro (for me it was supply depots) and I knew that problem so I fixed that problem (with a bit of help from dApollo's Terran tutorial) and by consistently PRACTICING! It is normal for me to spend 2-3 hours per week refining my downtrodden mechanics in custom games or by smashing the AI and that way I can be a bit more reactionary vs a real opponent. Any way I thought I'd give my 2 cents on this thread. Real input from a low league player that wants to get better. ^^
On April 07 2012 00:56 BoxingKangaroo wrote: Ok I think I get your point, but I think the discussion here is off track. I agree that macro is important and that anyone say under masters will get better simply by improving that aspect of their game. I'll also agree with your premise that lower league players underestimate how much better better macro will make them.
So lets talk about:
- Why do lower level players undervalue macro?
I think this is obvious (but there may be other opinions). It's hard to blame macro when you lose to two port banshee. Hard to blame macro when a terran sieges your natural on TDA. Hard to blame macro when a Protoss deathball with FF's rolls over you. The fact is that whenever you lose, you're going to lose to some strategy or to some combination of units. Now although the ability to defeat these units and strategies is based on having good macro, it's simply more obvious to blame the strats and units because those things are what's killing your shit.
I agree with your reasoning why low level players don't believe it's their macro that's killing them but I feel that their conclusions should be easily countered. 2-port banshee is easily countered through macro by just streaming mass units at their base. You will win the base-race without even trying to counter their tech. Mass roach/marauder spam even with void rays will decimate any attempted protoss death ball at lower levels. Mass ling will absolutely crush any sort of attempt to siege your natural on TDA.
The OP never states you will win every game, but you should win most games and improve by just macroing harder with relatively little thought to unit comp, micro, tricky build orders, mind games, whatever.
Those things may well be true. But speaking from the perspective of a lower level player, they're simply hard to believe. Specifically I'm a lower Zerg, and beating that siege play with mass ling just seems ridiculous to me. Countering a lower level player's conclusions may be easy - I mean you did it in one sentence (mass ling - macro better). Getting them to believe it is the hard part. In fact you made it worse by saying it can be beaten by mass ling. Here I am, building lings, banelings and muta and losing, and you're saying I can beat it with just ling? That makes it more unbelievable. You're going up against human psychology here, and that ain't easy.
If you're playing someone of relatively equal skill, they're likely making the same macro mistakes you are: floating minerals, really late expos, not enough production, no upgrades, too few workers, massive supply blocks. This means that if you do every one of these things correctly while they don't, you'll have more units faster with better upgrades off of more bases. There would literally be no way for you to lose the game at that point.
This and another post I saw last week have really help me win alot of games. I was a mid level Silver playing other mid level silvers on SEA as a terran. Read a post somewhere on here where a guy did a VOD describing some test he did which was. * Que 3 SCV's at a time * Que 2 marines at each barracks * Que 2 supply depots * Extra Coin Buld Barracks * And expand at this time
Yep, that's Halby's mineral drill. Its a good training exercise, and not half bad in TvZ.
This thread became a shitfest far too fast, but I've decided that I wanna put my input into it.
Often players come onto the strategy forum, and post to the effect of "I lost this game, this strat is imba". Let's take a totally standard example: A TvP occurs in bronze league. The terran player opts for a 1/1/1 build, the protoss player plays a standard 1g FE -> whatever. The Protoss player comes on TL and says "my control was perfect, 1/1/1 is imba". Now naturally, this is a pretty questionable statement in itself, but let's look at some possible implications of this.
a) Protoss macro'd perfectly, but to hold a bronze league 1/1/1 requires to micro perfectly, and our P didn't micro perfectly. b) Protoss macro'd poorly, he didn't the number of units he could have at this point, and regardless of micro was unable to hold the 1/1/1 because of a macro flaw. c) Protoss played perfectly, bronze league 1/1/1 is imba.
Now say we put a Grandmaster Protoss in this position against the same bronze league terran. Again, we have 3 possible outcomes, considering the difference in level of play. a) Protoss macro'd perfectly, he can a-move/dance his units and probably still beat the terran composition, as it will be late/poorly executed etc. b) Protoss macros perfectly but greedily, not having the optimal number of units for this point, uses his superior micromanagement to hold off the attack somehow and win anyway. c) Protossplays perfectly and loses; bronze league 1/1/1 is imba.
Now to take this apart. When bronze league P watches these games of GM P, he often wrongly makes the following assumptions (in respect to the above points) a) GM decision making was better, his unit comp was better, he was less nervous. Naturally, all those things are probably true. The small nuances the GM has in his play will shine through, but none of them caused him to win the game, he won purely because of probe and pylon building (and warpin cycle) was perfect throughout, and would have won regardless of his unit comp, or his decision making (within reason).
b) GM micro was far better than bronze, bronze lost because of micro issues The first issue is true, sure the GM has better micro than the bronze; in this case, however, the latter is not true. The GMs good micro masks the fact that he won because his macro is far, far superior. Having played against players who most likely will hit with more units at an earlier time, and playing against it, this bronze league 1/1/1 is a piece of cake.
c) Pretty unlikely to be frank.
The above is why I can't listen to anybody (often at high master level, even) who figures they lose because of means related to anything other than macro. Sure there are exceptions to this; can perfect probe/pylon production stop a cannon rush? absolutely not. Can it build an observer against unscouted cloaked banshees? no. But those are simple matters which can be resolved through other training. I regularly play with high master/GM players, who often find the root of their issue with holding builds is macro related. Whether that be getting supply blocked at a critical moment, not making workers when they should be, or simply not making full use of production cycles and adding additional production to early, it still illustrates the fact that bronze - whatever league players who think their macro is perfect are wrong in EVERY sense of the word. They can argue and flame in this thread, but it just further shows their lack of understanding for the deeper issues of Starcraft. It's not an idrA "macro or die" approach to Starcraft, it's simply that macro is so deep in the core of the game that it cannot EVER be ignored.
EDIT: just an afterthought.
THE ONLY TIME STARCRAFT IS NOT A GAME OF MACRO IS WHEN THE MAP IS MINED OUT AND BOTH PLAYERS HAVE THE EXACT SAME COMPOSITION OF UNITS.
The reason players can 6pool/cannon rush their way to GM is because their strategies do not rely on micro; they rely on decision making and micro.
The problem is this only works for zerg and protoss. Try to "just macro perfectly" as terran in platinum and above. I bet you're going to have a very fun time getting smashed over and over again. (atleast on eu, I don't know if the AM-server really is as terrible as they say)
On April 06 2012 16:49 Belial88 wrote: Generally, anytime someone is arguing with a high masters/blue, especially on something big, it's because they have no fucking clue what they are talking about (hey, I've been guilty of it many times, and every time, I was completely wrong).
I don't think these lower level people realize just how much better someone a league up is, or a high masters is, then them. You won't have a single high level player saying macro isn't the absolute most important thing in the game.
So quit arguing with a high masters blue poster here. He really knows his shit, you don't. To think that you would know more about this game, with the less than 1,000 games you've played, less than 100 hours logged on playing starcraft ever in your life, against someone with 10,000+ games played with over 1,000+ hours logged in, who's followed starcraft for about 8 years longer than you have, is just ridiculous.
Like you caught something he didn't get. It's like trying to tell Michael Jordan on the nuances of basketball. Holy shit.
As a lower league player I 100% agree. Macro is the most important thing (as in constant production, no supply blocks and keeping money low).
BUT and this is the point ML/GML players seem to consider as "easy"
ppl lack also in Multitasking. And i dont mean Multitasking in a sense as in "dropping 3 places at one while microing the shit out of my tank/marine army while expanding and Planting 3 additional barracks"
Most lower league players I know actually have decent makro IF (and thats the big IF) left alone to "Probes & Pylons & Army" 12 minutes roach max out? Give a Gold player 10 - 20 tries to figure out Gas and Roachwarren timings and sooner or later he WILL hit the max out around 12 minutes. Now put the same player against another player. You will see his money rise, you will see him miss injects, you will see him getting supply blocked, you will see him with mass idle larvae. Why? Did he suddenly unlearn everything he learned for the last 30 games? Did he suddenly forget how to macro?
Let me take this to an area im better in: Martial Arts
Tell your Students how important are basics. Train basics every day, after they learned their basics quite well (as in starcraft there is no "perfect") let them train with a Shinai (wooden sword). After they learned their basics there and they are quite competent with their weapon, give them REAL weapons. All of a sudden everything is different, they dont remember the basics, they dont remember the techniques. All they see is the sharp edge of the other students sword. How is it any different of what we trained? Its not. Does it FEEL different? Hell yes! It feels a LOT different.
So back to starcraft: In a "macro only situation" there is no need for scouting, no need to react to changing situations, no need to deal with early aggression, no need to remember the opponents timings, no need for even basic army micro. Its just probes + pylons + army. You NEED multitasking, you NEED to get away from the "If i dont look at my army, it will die!" feeling (altough it happens from time to time), you NEED to do may things and priorize these things. That is the hardest thing to do if you have just a small amount of actions available. Even if you KNOW what to do, ppl tend to make mistakes in stressful situations. Another point ML/GML seem to just ignore. Playing competitive against complete strangers IS stressful for the most low league players. Its even stressful to me. Stress is different for different ppl. I could tell you that it isnt a stressful situation if 2 ppl want to get you in a bar brawl. To me it isnt, to you it possibly might be.
So multitasking, handspeed/precision, mindset ist the MOST important part to me, because without these 3 Pillars everything else WILL suffer.
I think thats the reason why 1 or 2 base all-ins are so powerful in lower leagues. First you focus on probes and pylons and after you reached "the end" of probes and pylons you focus on army (+ warpins for example). You just have to focus on one thing instead of two or more.
just my toughts
Why don't bronzies play with this 'macro only' mentality. Forget about scouting, forget about unit composition, just focus on macro. If you can't multitask, don't multitask, don't do anything that might impede your macro. If you just focus on macro, and ignore anything else, you're gonna win sooooo easily. Bronze players don't move out until 9 minutes and if you have 100 supply by this point, you will have double their army. Its that easy.
When I was Bronze I was trying to improve by following three seperate build orders for every race and playing like the pros. it didn't work. I was too slow in micro-ing my scout, trying to figure out what the scouting means, and reacting and building counters. "Oh, he's got a bunch of void rays? I guess I should make vikings, it totally won't take 5 minutes." I finally got out of bronze by just making marines and marauders every game, expanding every 6 minutes, and maxing out somewhere between 14-16 minutes and just A-moving huge bioballs.
If you're terran and you max out at 14-16 minutes you should be in high masters/GM.
Hardly. Maxing out at 14 minutes isn't the difficult part, its a basic benchmark of Halby's Mineral Drill which I linked to above.
The hard bit is not dying or getting heavily set back on the way there
, or actually achieving anything with a pure bioball against massed colossi or siegetanks. http://drop.sc/154895 (190 or so supply at 14 minutes) http://drop.sc/154897 (long game! pure bio vs tank stuff happens near the end)
On April 06 2012 23:07 Sakray wrote: I disagree when people say "just make probes, pylons and stuff, you just need that to kill them", it's not true. You have to know a lot more things to win a game. Yes, you need to "build probes/pylons", but you need alot more. That's how I see this.
Well yeah you need to know more. Most of my post is saying you need to know more. I'm also saying however that's there's a priority schema that needs not be neglected. You have to crawl before you can walk, or so to speak.
you can win most of your games by ensuring that there are no flaws in the process of getting your income and spending your income. You must not lay a building down late. You must not lay extra pylons down when you don't need them. You must lay tech structures at appropriate times. You must maintain solid worker production. Your resources must be constantly spent. You must have a basic grasp of what unit composition to acquire
So pretty much what your saying that that if you play well you should win!? If people in lower leagues can do all the things you just described then they sure as hell aren't in the lower leagues anymore!
you can win most of your games by ensuring that there are no flaws in the process of getting your income and spending your income. You must not lay a building down late. You must not lay extra pylons down when you don't need them. You must lay tech structures at appropriate times. You must maintain solid worker production. Your resources must be constantly spent. You must have a basic grasp of what unit composition to acquire
So pretty much what your saying that that if you play well you should win!? If people in lower leagues can do all the things you just described then they sure as hell aren't in the lower leagues anymore!
Yes, yes. If you play well by accomplishing those specific tasks, you should not be in the lower leagues
* Little to no supply blocks * Little to no cuts in probe production * Placing appropriate structures/tech at appropriate times * Constantly spending money Good positioning of army Not taking unnecessary risks (investing in extra cannons, a scout observer)
Wouldn't this priority list be more accurate? Supply blocks halt ALL production, not just probes. And being able to constantly spend money is largely a function of building extra hatcheries/gateways/barracks at the right time.
you can win most of your games by ensuring that there are no flaws in the process of getting your income and spending your income. You must not lay a building down late. You must not lay extra pylons down when you don't need them. You must lay tech structures at appropriate times. You must maintain solid worker production. Your resources must be constantly spent. You must have a basic grasp of what unit composition to acquire
So pretty much what your saying that that if you play well you should win!? If people in lower leagues can do all the things you just described then they sure as hell aren't in the lower leagues anymore!
Yes, yes. If you play well by accomplishing those specific tasks, you should not be in the lower leagues
Problem is, you don't say how to do that.
Anyone can play against an Easy computer and auto-pilot to max in about 15 minutes. A Bronze league player just doesn't know/care about build orders, but a high Silver or Gold can do it well enough. The problem is always when there's more to focus on than your own base.
The difference between something like Day9's newbie tutorials, and random generic posts like this, is that Day9 will show you techniques and skills to focus on your macro while you're doing other stuff, and posts like this try to sound sagely by saying nothing of real value.
i watched many replays of lowlvl players because they wanted to know what they couldve done better.
i ask them before if they cut probes or supplyblock, they say "no, thats my biggest strengh i never cut workers". Then i watch the replay and the player constantly stopps buildings workers. at the 10 minute mark with an ffe, he has 20 less workers than i have at that time - obviously with less tech / units as well.
i will never understand how ppl in lower leagues can watch their own replays and still be convinced they do everything right when they compare their replay to a gm replay. They can see the numbers, cant they?
you can win most of your games by ensuring that there are no flaws in the process of getting your income and spending your income. You must not lay a building down late. You must not lay extra pylons down when you don't need them. You must lay tech structures at appropriate times. You must maintain solid worker production. Your resources must be constantly spent. You must have a basic grasp of what unit composition to acquire
So pretty much what your saying that that if you play well you should win!? If people in lower leagues can do all the things you just described then they sure as hell aren't in the lower leagues anymore!
Yes, yes. If you play well by accomplishing those specific tasks, you should not be in the lower leagues
Problem is, you don't say how to do that.
Anyone can play against an Easy computer and auto-pilot to max in about 15 minutes. A Bronze league player just doesn't know/care about build orders, but a high Silver or Gold can do it well enough. The problem is always when there's more to focus on than your own base.
The difference between something like Day9's newbie tutorials, and random generic posts like this, is that Day9 will show you techniques and skills to focus on your macro while you're doing other stuff, and posts like this try to sound sagely by saying nothing of real value.
you are wrong. a gold level player will have about 120 supply when the gm player is maxed - even when nothing ever happened. he will most likely have half of the upgrades and a lower tech as well. i can guarantee you that.
you can win most of your games by ensuring that there are no flaws in the process of getting your income and spending your income. You must not lay a building down late. You must not lay extra pylons down when you don't need them. You must lay tech structures at appropriate times. You must maintain solid worker production. Your resources must be constantly spent. You must have a basic grasp of what unit composition to acquire
So pretty much what your saying that that if you play well you should win!? If people in lower leagues can do all the things you just described then they sure as hell aren't in the lower leagues anymore!
Yes, yes. If you play well by accomplishing those specific tasks, you should not be in the lower leagues
Problem is, you don't say how to do that.
Anyone can play against an Easy computer and auto-pilot to max in about 15 minutes. A Bronze league player just doesn't know/care about build orders, but a high Silver or Gold can do it well enough. The problem is always when there's more to focus on than your own base.
The difference between something like Day9's newbie tutorials, and random generic posts like this, is that Day9 will show you techniques and skills to focus on your macro while you're doing other stuff, and posts like this try to sound sagely by saying nothing of real value.
you are wrong. a gold level player will have about 120 supply when the gm player is maxed - even when nothing ever happened. he will most likely have half of the upgrades and a lower tech as well. i can guarantee you that.
Got a link of a gm game where one of them maxes out without any army trades/worker losses so I could benchmark?
I did a "kind of Stephano 12 min 200 Supply style".
! pulled off a drone to simulate scouting. I didnt expand wildly all over the map (3 bases, 1 Macro hatch) to simulate a "normal environment" I got Evo Chamber and Roachwarren around the 7 Minute mark (6:30 I think should be a good time) I did nothing else except macroing (and watching IPL)
My Benchmark at 12 minutes (first try):
3 Bases (1 Makro Hatch) 3 Queens 64 Drones (12 in Gas) 48 Roaches (16 more 3 sec from finishing)
Zerglingspeed Roachspeed Burrow 1+ Attack
What could I have done differently:
1) more Queens, just 3 isnt "realistic", would have had the Minerals 2) Underestimated Roch Supply once, leading to a supply block at around 9:00 3) Im not sure if Stephano gets burrow, I think he opts for +2 4) could have taken/used the gasses a bit earlier 5) my Inject timing could be better (still - no queen over 40 energy at 12:00)
Yes. If I can incorporate this in a "normal ladder game", Im quite sure I could make it to higher levels (as in Diamond, maybe even low Masters). BUT There was no scouting, no creepspread, no poking the front, no pylon block, not a tiny bit of aggression, no thing i ever had to react to.
Also note, that this was the first try (gold level), 10 - 20 more tries in this "sterile environment" will most probably yield better results - but guess what will happen in a "real game": not even 120 supply by the 12 minute mark. Why? Because I have to scout. Because i havt to look at the minimap. Because I have to spread creep Because I have to micro Drones/Queens Because I get pylonblocked or even cannonrushed Because I will lose Overlords at unexpected times
At alone took me (Source: SC2Gears) 83 (!) EAPM (87 APM, 4% Redundancy) which is about the same EAPM i have in normal games, where I have to distribute my 80 APM to other things too.
you can win most of your games by ensuring that there are no flaws in the process of getting your income and spending your income. You must not lay a building down late. You must not lay extra pylons down when you don't need them. You must lay tech structures at appropriate times. You must maintain solid worker production. Your resources must be constantly spent. You must have a basic grasp of what unit composition to acquire
So pretty much what your saying that that if you play well you should win!? If people in lower leagues can do all the things you just described then they sure as hell aren't in the lower leagues anymore!
Yes, yes. If you play well by accomplishing those specific tasks, you should not be in the lower leagues
Problem is, you don't say how to do that.
...
and posts like this try to sound sagely by saying nothing of real value.
It's of value if you don't know what your problem is. How to solve that problem in deep detail is however out of the scope of the the discussion. We're discussing about how people don't understand or acknowledge what's most important for them to fix first. You're trying to discuss something else.
However if you're interested in learning those things in deep detail and you find Day9 is helpful, go watch him. If not I have a lot of free content here on TL and on youtube. I also work for HotKeyit.com which also has a lot of great content.
I think alot of people are getting way to particular about "if i only make probes and pylons what about my army?"
If you constantly make workers and pylons you have all the tools to get huge armies in the game, while yes you still need to have the multitask to control your army and not walk into tanks (duh!) if you have the workers shitty strategic play is less important.
Dying to stupid shit is less dependent on scouting than you would think. Having a good build can help for BO losses (ex cloak banshees) but for most timings having good macro is sufficient in lower leagues.
if you have a 20 worker lead and suicide an army into tanks it doesnt matter as long as you kept your production going If you are even on workers/have a defecit you cant make strategic mistakes or you lose.
probes and pylons (scv's and depots) i think is a great method to get people at least to diamond and obviously as it becomes second nature you start to focus on strategy/micro
Literally every time i offrace my #1 concern is not missing workers. Having a rape economy makes micro mistakes, bad engagements, and poor decision making acceptable. I could try to play super tight builds but im simply not good enough with my offrace to do that but if i just focus on my economy and production i can just herp derp my way to victory though attrition no matter how inefficient.
Getting kinda sick of the macro better people. Do you know how many times a game I press V and hear not enough energy? I almost never have money to spare. Rarely get supply blocked. I am still pretty far from masters.
I can hardly remember a score screen where I had less workers and less resources harvested than opponents. However it's very common for me to have alot fewer units killed even though I made alot more.
I _ALWAYS_ lose because of micro, multitasking, build order & scouting issues. However few people talk about that because it's alot easier to use the goto mantra "macro better" and sound smart without having to put any thought into it.
SC2 is a complex game and being great is maybe 50% macro at most. If macro was as important as alot of people on TL say. GSL players wouldn't scout so early, wouldn't sacrafice mules, overlords & workers just to maybe get a glance of what opponents are doing. Proxy stuff, bank money, micro the shit out of one banshee and allin so much. They would like you know macro better ^^
On April 07 2012 08:28 oZe wrote: Getting kinda sick of the macro better people. Do you know how many times a game I press V and hear not enough energy? I almost never have money to spare. Rarely get supply blocked. I am still pretty far from masters.
I can hardly remember a score screen where I had less workers and less resources harvested than opponents. However it's very common for me to have alot fewer units killed even though I made alot more.
I _ALWAYS_ lose because of micro, multitasking, build order & scouting issues. However few people talk about that because it's alot easier to use the goto mantra "macro better" and sound smart without having to put any thought into it.
SC2 is a complex game and being great is maybe 50% macro at most. If macro was as important as alot of people on TL say. GSL players wouldn't scout so early, wouldn't sacrafice mules, overlords & workers just to maybe get a glance of what opponents are doing. Proxy stuff, bank money, micro the shit out of one banshee and allin so much. They would like you know macro better ^^
At the highest level, everyone can macro close to equally, so that doesn't matter as much. This isn't the case at not top masters and below. You may lose a lot because of other issues, but I still bet you overestimate your macro.
All you need to do to misspell the myth that strategy matters in low leagues is have a reasonably decent masters player smurf offrace. Many times they will do dozens of things completely horribly, but they win anyway due to just having way more than their opponent all game long no matter what. It's funny to watch, because everyone realizes how sloppy the offrace is for that player, yet the army and worker advantages and the rate of taking bases is just so much greater that it becomes really apparent how important macro really is in this game.
Teach new players a non-cheese one-base all-in build. It's easy to learn for a new player, it has clear expectations of them, it teaches them how to balance army control and macromanagement to an acceptable degree, and once they learn to execute an all-in build, they can start working on macro builds more easily. It's an important first step for a new player that lets them understand the game AND rack up some wins (which makes them want to keep playing). When they start having a clear idea of what a good game looks and feels like, they can start applying that to other builds. Free-form play is TERRIBLE. You don't want to EVER tell a new player to think about the game. There's not enough attention that they can afford to come up with bright gameplay decisions on their own. It's tough enough for a new player to just remember hotkeys. They have to just play, and the best way to just play is to use an all-in.
I disagree a bit with that classic "just macro" advice. Even in lower leagues, believe or not, the decision making matters a lot. This is most prominent in TvT, in which it is common occurence that people with a lot weaker macro abilities are winning games just because they play more smart game. Also even if your mechanics are good, but your build does not make sense at all, you are gonna lose games.
If you have not a single piece of sense what you should do or doing stupid engagements, you are gonna lose games no matter what your macro is.
That is because they are right. You lose most games because of macro. Macro IS as important as they say.
But they often overdo it. If a 2Port bashee all-in is coming my way, there is no way mass drones and Zerglings are going to save me. I have to know the timing, I have to see the signs and I have to react accordingly. I have to incorporate this in my macro and try to defend WHILE I macro up. And here is a problem for many low league players. In most replays you will see a low league zerg, spending his money, droning up, getting his overlords... suddenly 4 hellions appear and his money skyrockets, he get supplyblocked because a lone marine is hunting missrallied overlords while his drones are getting rosted. Its easy to tell him "your macro slipped badly, fix it!" (and it is actually a true statement) but this wont help him. He already knows that his macro splips in these situation, but he has just a limited ressource. So he can either: a) overlord and drones b) micro drones and Queens c) take precaution bevore the hellions arrive and avoid the entire situation
low league players will mostly resort to b. Why? Because they dont see what could have been done and what they should do the next 30 sec. They only see whats happening NOW. And whats happening NOW is Hellions roasting a shitton of Drones.
All you need to do to misspell the myth that strategy matters in low leagues is have a reasonably decent masters player smurf offrace. Many times they will do dozens of things completely horribly, but they win anyway due to just having way more than their opponent all game long no matter what. It's funny to watch, because everyone realizes how sloppy the offrace is for that player, yet the army and worker advantages and the rate of taking bases is just so much greater that it becomes really apparent how important macro really is in this game.
Done many times, but it doent help to misspell the "myth" because you just cant strip the decent masters players "decent masters micro" Destiny as prime example: he managed to get to Platinum with just using Queens. While that in itself is a nice achivement and macro actually plays a big part in it, I think we can agree that a bronze level player (letting destiny do all the macro stuff) would have failed badly by just microing the queens. Transfuses, engagements, target firing,... Or let say... Dimaga play a hatch first against me going for a sixpool. I bet he will defend. Is that a valid proof that his macro is superior (which obviously is)? How often did I have games where I lost against a Terran with half army supply and not even half worker supply just because I wasted key units in a critical moment? How often did I lose my muta flock by accidently flying over a bunch of marines. Macro has its limits. If the cost of my additional losses is below the number of additional income/reproduction, then this is the situation where the better macro clearly achieves to win over a player with worde macro. But if your losses exeed your additional income, macro fails to compensate.
On April 07 2012 09:00 oOOoOphidian wrote: All you need to do to misspell the myth that strategy matters in low leagues is have a reasonably decent masters player smurf offrace. Many times they will do dozens of things completely horribly, but they win anyway due to just having way more than their opponent all game long no matter what. It's funny to watch, because everyone realizes how sloppy the offrace is for that player, yet the army and worker advantages and the rate of taking bases is just so much greater that it becomes really apparent how important macro really is in this game.
This perfectly describes my Zerg off-race. I'm diamond Terran and play my friend's ex-account as Plat Zerg and I'm pretty much just guessing as far as strategy, but I hit injects, don't get supply blocked, and have general game knowledge. I've literally played <10 games as Zerg and almost beat a Diamond Zerg this morning. In short, fundamentals are called fundamentals for a reason. They are literally stepping stones that you MUST become at least competent in before you will even have the mental time to think about anything else. I know exactly how to execute my build order without thinking and that automatic process frees up my mind to think about other things: "what is he doing, where is his army, what kind of units should I be making, should I attack now, am I ahead or behind..." The OP may oversimplify the reasoning behind improving macro, but anecdotally, it seems lower league players seem to question this philosophy while higher level players seem to be backing it up.
On April 07 2012 09:19 Mongolbonjwa wrote: I disagree a bit with that classic "just macro" advice. Even in lower leagues, believe or not, the decision making matters a lot. This is most prominent in TvT, in which it is common occurence that people with a lot weaker macro abilities are winning games just because they play more smart game. Also even if your mechanics are good, but your build does not make sense at all, you are gonna lose games.
If you have not a single piece of sense what you should do or doing stupid engagements, you are gonna lose games no matter what your macro is.
I'm a mediocre platinum on NA who plays maybe 10 games a week and I crush silver players as a random player when I play on my friends account to teach him basics, even in TvT. Yes, there is more to macro than "pylons and probes" but decision making really doesn't matter which was the point of the OP. I can tell a silver player "I'm only making marines and medivacs, build tanks and Vikings to win" and he'd still lose. With the exception of stealth units or ground vs air it really doesn't matter. This isn't a "focus on macro and reach top8 masters" type thing but what is the use in working on game sense and decision making when the situations you're facing are so poorly executed that a masters 4gate will hit harder than a silver/gold 6gate all in and come 4-5 minutes quicker. You'll still progress but it'll be much slower.
The best way to make a Bronze - Platinum plater realize the importance of Probes & Pylons is to make them simply play FFA games. Nothing makes this more clear than a silver level player winning against Gold/Diamond level players in FFA by their making purely more workers/bases than the other player. Also, on FFA's it lowers the chances of Allins, so they can appreaciate the use of Probes & Pylons that much more than on ladder.
Well in most cases the losses in the lower leagues isn't because of bad macro because your at the same relative macro level. If you were facing a better player you would loose to bad macro as macro is such an essential aspect of the game.
On April 07 2012 11:12 archonOOid wrote: Well in most cases the losses in the lower leagues isn't because of bad macro because your at the same relative macro level. If you were facing a better player you would loose to bad macro as macro is such an essential aspect of the game.
It's not so much about losing because you got outmacrod, but more that if you could macro better you would win anyway.
I agree with the folks who are sayings it's more than "probes and pylons", (or SCVs and Depots in my case)
As a forever Bronze, I've learned the following about my play in order of importance:
It's SCVs and Depots And Barracks, Factories, and Starports And scouting And ups And unit compostion And micro
I've lost plenty of games where I had more workers, Lost games where I had more workers, and more production Lost games where I had more workers, more production, more army and failed to scout tech changes. Where I had all of the above and failed to engage correctly, (MMM V vs P deathball anyone?)
While I could have won many of these games if I had even better macro it's stilldisheartening to lose when your macro was better than your opponent.
I'm continuing to work on all aspects of my play and its working, slowly.
On April 07 2012 09:19 Mongolbonjwa wrote: I disagree a bit with that classic "just macro" advice. Even in lower leagues, believe or not, the decision making matters a lot. This is most prominent in TvT, in which it is common occurence that people with a lot weaker macro abilities are winning games just because they play more smart game. Also even if your mechanics are good, but your build does not make sense at all, you are gonna lose games.
If you have not a single piece of sense what you should do or doing stupid engagements, you are gonna lose games no matter what your macro is.
I'm a mediocre platinum on NA who plays maybe 10 games a week and I crush silver players as a random player when I play on my friends account to teach him basics, even in TvT. Yes, there is more to macro than "pylons and probes" but decision making really doesn't matter which was the point of the OP. I can tell a silver player "I'm only making marines and medivacs, build tanks and Vikings to win" and he'd still lose. With the exception of stealth units or ground vs air it really doesn't matter. This isn't a "focus on macro and reach top8 masters" type thing but what is the use in working on game sense and decision making when the situations you're facing are so poorly executed that a masters 4gate will hit harder than a silver/gold 6gate all in and come 4-5 minutes quicker. You'll still progress but it'll be much slower.
You probably dont suecide your all units for nothing.
On April 07 2012 08:28 oZe wrote: Getting kinda sick of the macro better people. Do you know how many times a game I press V and hear not enough energy? I almost never have money to spare. Rarely get supply blocked. I am still pretty far from masters.
I can hardly remember a score screen where I had less workers and less resources harvested than opponents. However it's very common for me to have alot fewer units killed even though I made alot more.
I _ALWAYS_ lose because of micro, multitasking, build order & scouting issues. However few people talk about that because it's alot easier to use the goto mantra "macro better" and sound smart without having to put any thought into it.
SC2 is a complex game and being great is maybe 50% macro at most. If macro was as important as alot of people on TL say. GSL players wouldn't scout so early, wouldn't sacrafice mules, overlords & workers just to maybe get a glance of what opponents are doing. Proxy stuff, bank money, micro the shit out of one banshee and allin so much. They would like you know macro better ^^
At the highest level, everyone can macro close to equally, so that doesn't matter as much. This isn't the case at not top masters and below. You may lose a lot because of other issues, but I still bet you overestimate your macro.
This is so, so true. I've been plateaued close to masters for a while (mostly mid-high diamond with fluctuations up and down). I play a macro-focused game. Despite my macro playstyle and decently high level (compared to the total population), I recently realized that my macro is still hugely flawed. I have occasional (but too many and fairly consistent) midgame supply blocks and don't spend larvae fast enough, especially when other things are going on.
On April 07 2012 14:16 DrLOAC wrote: I agree with the folks who are sayings it's more than "probes and pylons", (or SCVs and Depots in my case)
As a forever Bronze, I've learned the following about my play in order of importance:
It's SCVs and Depots And Barracks, Factories, and Starports And scouting And ups And unit compostion And micro
I've lost plenty of games where I had more workers, Lost games where I had more workers, and more production Lost games where I had more workers, more production, more army and failed to scout tech changes. Where I had all of the above and failed to engage correctly, (MMM V vs P deathball anyone?)
While I could have won many of these games if I had even better macro it's stilldisheartening to lose when your macro was better than your opponent.
I'm continuing to work on all aspects of my play and its working, slowly.
I think you're taking the phrase "probes and pylons" just a little too literally. Those are indeed the most important parts of macro, but as Cecil says in the OP spending your money correctly on production facilities and units is critical too. Note that I did not say making decisions about which units to build, merely getting a high income and spending it on things that aren't ridiculously wrong will get you farther than you think.
On April 07 2012 14:16 DrLOAC wrote: I agree with the folks who are sayings it's more than "probes and pylons", (or SCVs and Depots in my case)
As a forever Bronze, I've learned the following about my play in order of importance:
It's SCVs and Depots And Barracks, Factories, and Starports And scouting And ups And unit compostion And micro
I've lost plenty of games where I had more workers, Lost games where I had more workers, and more production Lost games where I had more workers, more production, more army and failed to scout tech changes. Where I had all of the above and failed to engage correctly, (MMM V vs P deathball anyone?)
While I could have won many of these games if I had even better macro it's stilldisheartening to lose when your macro was better than your opponent.
I'm continuing to work on all aspects of my play and its working, slowly.
I think you're taking the phrase "probes and pylons" just a little too literally. Those are indeed the most important parts of macro, but as Cecil says in the OP spending your money correctly on production facilities and units is critical too. Note that I did not say making decisions about which units to build, merely getting a high income and spending it on things that aren't ridiculously wrong will get you farther than you think.
But "spending your money correctly on production facilities" and "making decisions about which units to build" are closely linked. Especially as Terran where each structure+addon combo can only build a small selection of units.
Edit : The funny thing is that OP never made the "just A-move army after pylons and probe and win" claim, he does acknowledge the importance of building the right units, defending stuff like cloaked banshees, and having good army positioning before an engage. Obviously some macrobots tried to hijack the thread since then.
On April 07 2012 14:16 DrLOAC wrote: I agree with the folks who are sayings it's more than "probes and pylons", (or SCVs and Depots in my case)
As a forever Bronze, I've learned the following about my play in order of importance:
It's SCVs and Depots And Barracks, Factories, and Starports And scouting And ups And unit compostion And micro
I've lost plenty of games where I had more workers, Lost games where I had more workers, and more production Lost games where I had more workers, more production, more army and failed to scout tech changes. Where I had all of the above and failed to engage correctly, (MMM V vs P deathball anyone?)
While I could have won many of these games if I had even better macro it's stilldisheartening to lose when your macro was better than your opponent.
I'm continuing to work on all aspects of my play and its working, slowly.
I think you're taking the phrase "probes and pylons" just a little too literally. Those are indeed the most important parts of macro, but as Cecil says in the OP spending your money correctly on production facilities and units is critical too. Note that I did not say making decisions about which units to build, merely getting a high income and spending it on things that aren't ridiculously wrong will get you farther than you think.
Honestly, that advice applies to masters too. I regularly messup my builds and I play mid masters, and I mean like royally mess them up to the point where my timings on certain builds can be different by entire minutes sometimes.
Low level players really need to work on Probes and Pylons --> Having a plan. It's proven time and time again that when you think in sc2 you play extremely slowly. Why do you think the Koreans are so good and have such high apm? It's not because they are debating if colli or templar would be good in this situation it's I'm making templar and their body just does it, they get the right amount of gates etc through practice.
If you're in bronze, silver or gold focus and stare down your command centers/nexus/hatches and never miss probes/drones/scv's, have a plan to get 2 barracks before you expand etc and you will link everything together. Over the course of 5 or 6 games you'll be starting to do the same things over and over.
"Probes and pylons" sounds too much like "don't have a build at all, just make units" which isn't really what you're saying in the OP. Something that was repeated often in 2010-11 before Day9's probes/pylons daily was that people outside the very top level should only have one build per matchup so you can focus on mechanics more instead of playing reactively or on the opposite end of the spectrum, blindly.
I do disagree with Destiny's statements that you don't need to know strategy at all, knowing when to add gas/production/expos is essential to good macro and doesn't come too naturally. "You shouldn't theorycraft" is a better statement than "you shouldn't learn builds."
Basically it's a good OP that everyone should read but "Pylons and Probes" doesn't sum it up effectively.
Great post Cecil. I definitely think people don't realize how much smaller their army will get if they skip some probes here and there or get pylon blocked.
But I would agree that macroing your way to master with pylons and probes is just ONE way to play the game and get better. I think there are many other ways to improve your game that shouldn't always be discarded as "inferior".
mechanics/execution: I've laddered accounts to master using only a perfect 4 gate. I've also taught some of my friends to execute a perfect 4 gate (same build for all matchups) and gotten them from bronze to diamond
strategy: Last time for fun I played on a gold account and limited myself to a very low APM (with an apple trackpad). I won some games with a low as 15 average APM up to playing diamond players before I had to stop. Would be fun to see if I can get to master with a trackpad and no keyboard. If you know what you're doing and how to counter builds, scout etc... you have a HUGE lead on your opponent.
unit control(micro) : make 3 gates a twilight council and blink stalkers and relentlessly attack with blink micro, stalker control.
Basically, I wholeheartedly agree that macroing is a sure way to improve, never missing a probe or a pylon, and keeping your money low. But there are many other ways to play the game and improve.
When I started SC2 I was placed in copper league with no prior RTS experience and I laddered all the way to diamond (then master when it came out) with one base builds. Then I focused on macro management. I can understand the low league players that are discouraged to hear "pylon and probes" because down there, it's seriously cannon rush, proxy gates, 6 pool, roach all in, and 3 rax all-in every other game.
tl, dr; There's nothing wrong with improving other aspects of your game before getting to the macro part.
By the way, this really reminds me of the question i asked you when you coached me, "why is my stuff a few seconds too late compared to progamers!"
Answer (been watching my own replays a lot to figure that out): because i have very slight pauses in probe production. Half a second here, a second there while microing a scout, another two seconds late on a chronoboost...and bam all of a suden my build is delayed by 5-10 seconds. And this is in high diamond/low master, lower it's probably even worse.
I'm high silver at the moment. I've hit a wall, in that i didn't progress in rank for like 40 games. I will be the first to say to my macro is not very good, i got supplyblocked often etc. But as much as I would like to believe that macro would be the answer to everything, I just cant understand how people can say that. For example I play Protoss. When you meet another protoss, to me, it is not about macro but about micro. It is very hard to expand. Mismicro your 4gate versus his 3gate robo and lose. Mismicro your 3gate robo versus his 4gate and lose. Mismicro your initial units and lose to fast stalkers. Blink into some unseen immortals and lose. In none of these situations I feel that 1 stalker or zealot extra due to perfect macro would win you the game. Every protoss has done 4gate etc enough times to have a reasonable timing, even in silver/low gold.
Then vs zerg. You could macro like a boss, but if the zerg also macros (and most of them that I meet on ladder do), you'll still need good micro to be cost effective versus roaches, as stalkers are so much more expensive and zealots just get kited. And you'll need to anticipate a muta switch or you will still lose. I dont understand how pure macro can win this.Tips would be welcome.
Protoss vs Terran. This is the only matchup were I feel that macro would work, as zealots can be cost effective as long as they can actually hit anything, and good macro would lead to earlier collosi which wins you the game. But mismicro vs a drop and you can still lose.
All in all, i'm not really convinced. But i'll give it a try and will try to focus purely on not getting supplyblocked in my next games.
On April 07 2012 19:50 Hylirion wrote: I'm high silver at the moment. I've hit a wall, in that i didn't progress in rank for like 40 games. I will be the first to say to my macro is not very good, i got supplyblocked often etc. But as much as I would like to believe that macro would be the answer to everything, I just cant understand how people can say that. For example I play Protoss. When you meet another protoss, to me, it is not about macro but about micro. It is very hard to expand. Mismicro your 4gate versus his 3gate robo and lose. Mismicro your 3gate robo versus his 4gate and lose. Mismicro your initial units and lose to fast stalkers. Blink into some unseen immortals and lose. In none of these situations I feel that 1 stalker or zealot extra due to perfect macro would win you the game. Every protoss has done 4gate etc enough times to have a reasonable timing, even in silver/low gold.
Then vs zerg. You could macro like a boss, but if the zerg also macros (and most of them that I meet on ladder do), you'll still need good micro to be cost effective versus roaches, as stalkers are so much more expensive and zealots just get kited. And you'll need to anticipate a muta switch or you will still lose. I dont understand how pure macro can win this.Tips would be welcome.
Protoss vs Terran. This is the only matchup were I feel that macro would work, as zealots can be cost effective as long as they can actually hit anything, and good macro would lead to earlier collosi which wins you the game. But mismicro vs a drop and you can still lose.
All in all, i'm not really convinced. But i'll give it a try and will try to focus purely on not getting supplyblocked in my next games.
Macroing doesn't give you "1 stalker or zealot extra". As the OP says, you're underestimating the value of macro. You're focusing on unit counter, build order losses etc... when you should just focus on building probes, pylons and units. You're also delusional to think that silver protosses have "reasonable timings" on 4gate and that silver Zergs can macro decently. If you're on the EU server, I'm willing to play some games with you to show you what I mean and give you some tips on where to improve, PM me if interested
On April 06 2012 16:49 Belial88 wrote: Generally, anytime someone is arguing with a high masters/blue, especially on something big, it's because they have no fucking clue what they are talking about (hey, I've been guilty of it many times, and every time, I was completely wrong).
I don't think these lower level people realize just how much better someone a league up is, or a high masters is, then them. You won't have a single high level player saying macro isn't the absolute most important thing in the game.
So quit arguing with a high masters blue poster here. He really knows his shit, you don't. To think that you would know more about this game, with the less than 1,000 games you've played, less than 100 hours logged on playing starcraft ever in your life, against someone with 10,000+ games played with over 1,000+ hours logged in, who's followed starcraft for about 8 years longer than you have, is just ridiculous.
Like you caught something he didn't get. It's like trying to tell Michael Jordan on the nuances of basketball. Holy shit.
As a lower league player I 100% agree. Macro is the most important thing (as in constant production, no supply blocks and keeping money low).
BUT and this is the point ML/GML players seem to consider as "easy"
ppl lack also in Multitasking. And i dont mean Multitasking in a sense as in "dropping 3 places at one while microing the shit out of my tank/marine army while expanding and Planting 3 additional barracks"
Most lower league players I know actually have decent makro IF (and thats the big IF) left alone to "Probes & Pylons & Army" 12 minutes roach max out? Give a Gold player 10 - 20 tries to figure out Gas and Roachwarren timings and sooner or later he WILL hit the max out around 12 minutes. Now put the same player against another player. You will see his money rise, you will see him miss injects, you will see him getting supply blocked, you will see him with mass idle larvae. Why? Did he suddenly unlearn everything he learned for the last 30 games? Did he suddenly forget how to macro?
Let me take this to an area im better in: Martial Arts
Tell your Students how important are basics. Train basics every day, after they learned their basics quite well (as in starcraft there is no "perfect") let them train with a Shinai (wooden sword). After they learned their basics there and they are quite competent with their weapon, give them REAL weapons. All of a sudden everything is different, they dont remember the basics, they dont remember the techniques. All they see is the sharp edge of the other students sword. How is it any different of what we trained? Its not. Does it FEEL different? Hell yes! It feels a LOT different.
So back to starcraft: In a "macro only situation" there is no need for scouting, no need to react to changing situations, no need to deal with early aggression, no need to remember the opponents timings, no need for even basic army micro. Its just probes + pylons + army. You NEED multitasking, you NEED to get away from the "If i dont look at my army, it will die!" feeling (altough it happens from time to time), you NEED to do may things and priorize these things. That is the hardest thing to do if you have just a small amount of actions available. Even if you KNOW what to do, ppl tend to make mistakes in stressful situations. Another point ML/GML seem to just ignore. Playing competitive against complete strangers IS stressful for the most low league players. Its even stressful to me. Stress is different for different ppl. I could tell you that it isnt a stressful situation if 2 ppl want to get you in a bar brawl. To me it isnt, to you it possibly might be.
So multitasking, handspeed/precision, mindset ist the MOST important part to me, because without these 3 Pillars everything else WILL suffer.
I think thats the reason why 1 or 2 base all-ins are so powerful in lower leagues. First you focus on probes and pylons and after you reached "the end" of probes and pylons you focus on army (+ warpins for example). You just have to focus on one thing instead of two or more.
just my toughts
I would say 100% of people in Bronze to Gold just genuinely do not understand how to play the game. Not, like they don't know how to play the game like 99% of midmasters do not understand map control and when to drone up and make units - but as in, you don't know the hotkeys yet. You don't realize the nuances of holding shift, control, alt, or a combination of those buttons, in conjunction with hotkeys, right click, left click, et cetera. You don't fully understand what units, counter what units - you may know "a banshee beats a roach", although most of bronze to gold don't, but you definitely don't understand things like "roaches counter stalkers at X timing" or "roaches counter thors, despite on paper it being opposite".
When someone says 'lower level player', I don't consider Bronze to Gold 'lower level'. That would be like saying my grandfather is a 'lower level MW2 player' - no, he just doesn't know how to play the game yet.
It's not an insult, this is an extremely complex game, and I'm sure if a blue like Cecil saw me play, he'd laugh and say I didn't know what the fuck I was doing at all (and he'd be right). You can watch the many things, like Gheed's Worker Rushing in Bronze. Oh, you can hold a worker rush? Great - but you being in the same league as people like this, means you play just at the same level, and make just as ridiculous of mistakes.
You are completely wrong that lower level people have 'decent macro'. You are so wrong. You making that comment, just proves that you have no clue what decent macro is. Please, please provide a replay showing your 'decent macro' in a ladder game. I'll happily eat my words. I've actually done it many times on this forum (eat my words), every time I argued with a blue poster.
What I think is going on, is you have never, ever, ever played with a GM level player (or perhaps diamond, really). You don't realize just how bad you really are. It took playing with a GM for me to realize how much of a fucking idiot I really was. I used to be just like you - 'oh yea, I macro really well, i never get supply blocked!'. Turns out, you can avoid supply blocks 100% and still have atrocious macro. But I guarantee that every bronze to diamond player gets supply blocked at least once before the 8 minute mark.
I seriously do not believe a bronze-gold player can play against easy AI and max out in 12 minutes on roaches.
The reason 1 and 2 base all-ins are strong in bronze-gold is because no one macros well. So 'timings' exist that are just completely nonsensical anywhere else. Like many people have said, "anything is viable in diamond- league".
I could guarantee I can beat anyone in bronze-gold with just pure banelings, or roaches, or queens, or whatever. Just like a High masters could troll the shit out of me, and beat me with pure queen, pure marauder, pure queen, or whatever. There's just that large a difference in the macro.
Bronze to Gold is not a 'low level player'. It's someone who doesn't know the hotkeys yet, who doesn't know all the nuances of the controls. I would say 'lower level' is more like platinum to low masters, who understands the command prompts, but may or may not know what the fuck they are doing.
I mean really, just pay Cecil $20 to coach you for an hour, and by the end, you'll realize how much of an insolent brat you are for ever doubting a High Masters/GM level player. I used to be such an insolent brat, and my TL Warning & Ban History can attest to that. Now, I am ashamed I ever talked back to a blue poster, and high masters players, and I've learned I have no fucking clue what I'm doing.
I mean literally. Cecil, and every other blue and high master, spend like 5+ hours every day on starcraft. For the last 10 years. How long have you been in starcraft? Oh, what, you are gold, and only been around for a year, and only play on the weekends? What, you didn't even get to D+ on ICCUP? What, you never even played ICCUP?
You realize, that these guys were like B+ on ICCUP, which is like high masters, on BW, 10 years ago. Do you realize how crazy it is that you somehow figured something out to this game that they simply forgot? Don't you think it's odd that how every, single, high masters+ player says macro is the most important thing? Or are they just all assholes and wrong? I mean I get it, I did the same thing a lot too. Just find someone who's GM or High Masters, and have him play with you for a few games. You'll realize just how bad you are so quickly.
I mean anyone who played on ICCUP, is at least Masters. That should tell you something. Don't be surprised that after a year of playing, you can't get past Gold. Where do you think idra was for the first year he played?
I mean I agree with everything you said, it's downright hilarious that people try to argue when they don't know what they are talking about, but you are coming off too strong there.
Anyway, I agree that Bronze-Gold players just do NOT know how to play the game yet. Which is why, even though I am simply low Masters and not qualified to really coach anyone in SC2, when I was teaching my silver Zerg friend, I told her to just forget about trying to do anything near what she has watched on streams or read on TL. The only thing you can do in lower leagues to get better is to learn basic unit composition (as in, you shouldn't be making roaches against void rays herr derr) and the basic rules for your race (i.e. zerg wants to be a base ahead of their counterparts). That's it. No timings, no emphasis on macro, just play play play until you acquire somewhat DECENT multitasking. To the point that someone can actually look at your game and say "Oh okay, NOW you're losing because you need to learn how to make more drones at X time). Because prior to that, even if you know you should macro more, you just don't have enough games logged to have the focus or multitasking to even make those drones/scvs/probes, much less know WHEN to be making them.
Which leads me to say, as sad as it is to say this, if you're one of those low league players that wants to get better but can only log in a few games here and there due to work or school or whatever, I'm sorry, but you're simply not going to get better for a long, long time.
On April 07 2012 20:33 Belial88 wrote: I just had someone go forge/gateway in masters. Masters.
What's wrong with forge/gateway ? Maybe you want to hit an early 7:20-7:30 warpgate timing, but still be safe from early pool builds ?
Except your econ is pretty heavily impacted so that early gateway timing is going to be not nearly as strong, it's just completely pointless to go forge gateway.
You're basically hoping your opponent doesn't scout you and doesn't know that the only reasonable option coming from a forge/gateway opening is a really early gateway timing.
I completely agree with the thread and playing in the lower leagues, it's astounding how rare it is to see my opponent expand (getting a third base only after their main and natural are mined out) or having 3 bases, and only 50 workers at the 15 minute mark.
The problem I have and I expect many other lower league players have as a Zerg is when to build drones or units, due to the way Zerg produces units. I've lost so many games where I thought it would be safe to build a round of drones, then a push or drop came into my base that I simply wasn't prepared for, or I tried to drone up as much as possible early game and a random timing that I failed to scout from my opponent completely catches me off guard. This is something that I expect is helped a lot with experience. Also I'd like to add there's a lots of other problems with my play that I am aware of such as forgetting overlords at some points, but knowing when to drone is one of the most notable.
On April 07 2012 20:33 Belial88 wrote: I just had someone go forge/gateway in masters. Masters.
What's wrong with forge/gateway ? Maybe you want to hit an early 7:20-7:30 warpgate timing, but still be safe from early pool builds ?
Except your econ is pretty heavily impacted so that early gateway timing is going to be not nearly as strong, it's just completely pointless to go forge gateway.
You're basically hoping your opponent doesn't scout you and doesn't know that the only reasonable option coming from a forge/gateway opening is a really early gateway timing.
Lol no I fail to see how delaying your nexus by 150 minerals is "pretty heavily impacting" my econ. 150 minerals is like 15 seconds mining time at that point in the game. I've tried all sorts of gateway timings, and with an early warpin, jsut the threat of 4-5 +1 zealots walking to their base at an earlier timing is enough to make them skip a round of drone which has a lot more impact than being 15 sec late on nexus timing.
Although all in all I do prefer the nexus first, or forge nexus gate for various reason, earlier second gas, tech possibiities, etc... I don't really see why you would immediately discard forge/gateway as being horrible. I've seen master player do much crazier builds.
Also, the fact that it is "scoutable" is pretty much irrelevant as to whether or not it's a usuable build. If that were the case, than you would never see any 6 pools or proxy gates at high levels.
I feel I should point out that the games in the OP's vod aren't "probes and pylons" games. There's warp prism harass, killing creep / moving army around, blink stalker micro, warping in reinforcements, force-fields and adding on production structures. You won because you did all of that and didn't happen to face any aggression at all, not because you remembered probes and pylons.
In the terran game, you get supply blocked at 62 for quite a while... More importantly the reason you survived the protoss attack was unit control / decision making (build another bunker, attack with SCVs when the bunkers were down) at the same time as producing more units. You could have not built any SCVs or made any depots during that time, and you'd still have won once you held off the attack. Also, if you'd just pulled SCVs earlier (when he was lurking outside), you might have saved both bunkers you already had just fine (more decision making), instead of being barely alive. Decision making / micro were way more important in this game.
On April 07 2012 20:03 Belial88 wrote:
I would say 100% of people in Bronze to Gold just genuinely do not understand how to play the game. Not, like they don't know how to play the game like 99% of midmasters do not understand map control and when to drone up and make units - but as in, you don't know the hotkeys yet. You don't realize the nuances of holding shift, control, alt, or a combination of those buttons, in conjunction with hotkeys, right click, left click, et cetera. You don't fully understand what units, counter what units - you may know "a banshee beats a roach", although most of bronze to gold don't, but you definitely don't understand things like "roaches counter stalkers at X timing" or "roaches counter thors, despite on paper it being opposite".
[...]
Don't you think it's odd that how every, single, high masters+ player says macro is the most important thing? Or are they just all assholes and wrong?
Aren't you contradicting yourself here? If someone doesn't know hotkeys / controls / units / whatever, don't they have something much more important to work on than macro?
Personally I find it bizarre that anyone (Masters or no) says anything so ridiculous as "just macro". Especially without defining exactly what they mean by macro.
Do you mean producing units? What about upgrades? Base management / managing saturation? Decision making about when to expand? Decision making about when to make more production? All of them? They could all be considered macro. You're telling people to macro better, without actually telling them how, or what they should be focussing on.
Any single one of these is also laughably simple on it's own. When you put them together, it's a lot harder. When you're playing someone on the ladder, and have to take into account everything else that you should be doing as well (scouting, map control, waaay more decision making), it becomes infinitely more complex.
That's why I support the guy who says that multi-tasking far more of an issue than "macro". Doing any one of the things listed on it's own is pretty useless. Doing all of them makes someone a better player.
An example:
I decided to use a 2 rax TvP build a few weeks ago, figured out what units to produce, and what tech structures to build when I had the money. Then I tried it on the ladder.
Dear god did it suck so badly I nearly gave up. But I did notice that my 2 rax was a whole 30 seconds late, because I screwed up the build order. So I fixed that... and still lost every game.
Then I looked at my production - SCVs and units. It was awful. When I was figuring out the build, I pretty much just ignored the units, and concentrated on production / tech. On ladder I was microing as well, and when I did that, my production went out the window.
So I went back to the single player, and microed my units around, while making sure I kept producing.
On ladder, though, I still kept missing tech structures - it was really hard to figure out when I had the money, while microing and keeping up production. So I used single player to fix exact times that I go back to my base and make the tech structures.
Having done all that, I found that my APM was way up (~60, instead of ~40), and I was winning some games. But not all of them, because I wasn't making the right decisions based on what the Protoss was doing. So I spent a while figuring out when to scout / what decisions to make. I still haven't figured it all out, but my TvP win rate is now ~80%, instead of ~20%.
To sum up. I had to do all the things to really start winning games. Sure, I had to focus on individual elements, but in the end it was doing micro, production, tech and decision making all at once, that actually helped me start to win games. Yes, at one stage my production was terrible, but it was only a symptom of my lack of ability to do everything at once (multi-tasking).
Perhaps my issues aren't the same for every low league player, but this is my experience.
EDIT:
Also, just to point out that anyone (I'm high gold - though the account used in the replay is silver (it's my messing around / testing / playing zerg account)) can max out on roaches at 12 minutes: http://drop.sc/155226
I think I'm actually ~10 seconds slow (and the final roaches are still in production), but there's plenty of things that could be easily improved. I made an unnecessary macro hatch + extra queen (and forgot to hotkey it), get supply blocked once, have drones long range mining the third before it finishes, don't keep enough drones for gas at the first / second bases, batch lots of overlords and miss an inject at the start. But I play terran, so I figure that's ok.
If I fix those things, I'm still not going to be winning on ladder.
On April 07 2012 20:33 Belial88 wrote: I just had someone go forge/gateway in masters. Masters.
What's wrong with forge/gateway ? Maybe you want to hit an early 7:20-7:30 warpgate timing, but still be safe from early pool builds ?
haha, of course of course. Why go 1 base 4 gate at 6:30 when you can do it at 7:30 when both gate first and forge first are safe from early pools
Which leads me to say, as sad as it is to say this, if you're one of those low league players that wants to get better but can only log in a few games here and there due to work or school or whatever, I'm sorry, but you're simply not going to get better for a long, long time.
That's just how it is.
I think a big problem is that bronze-diamond people just watch streams and reddit and tournaments way too much. Like, pro players, they *never* follow a full tourney. Like ever. They don't have time. You can't be GM and waste 2 hours a day of free time you have watching games instead of actually playing. They don't follow the forums either (notice the total lack of pros who post here), because they don't need to 'waste' their time here (i can assure you, most high masters say this place is a cesspool of bad misinformation spread by people like, well, me, and since they know everything, they don't need to be here to learn anything new).
Except your econ is pretty heavily impacted so that early gateway timing is going to be not nearly as strong, it's just completely pointless to go forge gateway.
You're basically hoping your opponent doesn't scout you and doesn't know that the only reasonable option coming from a forge/gateway opening is a really early gateway timing.
I think he was trolling. Everyone knows both gate first and forge first are totally safe from early pools, so there is no point to go forge/gate on 1 base as an opening. Seeing something like that is a record in masters - I've seen forge/gate 1 base in diamond, but never masters before. I've seen some pretty bad stuff in low masters, like FFE with no wall into a plain 8 gate where the 8 gates were laid down at 8:00 mark and he took 4 gas and made sentries as his first units.
The problem I have and I expect many other lower league players have as a Zerg is when to build drones or units, due to the way Zerg produces units. I've lost so many games where I thought it would be safe to build a round of drones, then a push or drop came into my base that I simply wasn't prepared for, or I tried to drone up as much as possible early game and a random timing that I failed to scout from my opponent completely catches me off guard. This is something that I expect is helped a lot with experience. Also I'd like to add there's a lots of other problems with my play that I am aware of such as forgetting overlords at some points, but knowing when to drone is one of the most notable.
Learn about map control. It was something I never understood until mid-masters, but it's a huge factor in how you drone up in the midgame. Also, 1st overlord to spot by their natural for expo/gas count/droning, and try to get a 2nd overlord near their main (send 2nd overlord, made at 9, as soon as your pool finishes and it's done spotting your natural for shenanigans like bunkers/cannons/spines).
Lol no I fail to see how delaying your nexus by 150 minerals is "pretty heavily impacting" my econ. 150 minerals is like 15 seconds mining time at that point in the game. I've tried all sorts of gateway timings, and with an early warpin, jsut the threat of 4-5 +1 zealots walking to their base at an earlier timing is enough to make them skip a round of drone which has a lot more impact than being 15 sec late on nexus timing.
Although all in all I do prefer the nexus first, or forge nexus gate for various reason, earlier second gas, tech possibiities, etc... I don't really see why you would immediately discard forge/gateway as being horrible. I've seen master player do much crazier builds.
Also, the fact that it is "scoutable" is pretty much irrelevant as to whether or not it's a usuable build. If that were the case, than you would never see any 6 pools or proxy gates at high levels.
He wasn't going FFE.... he went forge first, at the top of his ramp, placed the same way as you would with a gateway first opening. Then he did a bad cannon rush against a pool first build (it's possible, if the person isn't patrolling a drone, and his execution was horrid - he didn't commit more than 1 pylon and 1 cancelled cannon though), then went gateway at top of ramp. He didn't put forge on low ground, he didn't try to wall the ramp at the natural. He very clearly was going forge/gate, as in after his gateway, he grabbed 2 gas and cybercore.
I get there are some interesting all-ins with forge/gate, but that's with gate first, forge as reaction to hatch first. I didn't go hatch first, and he went forge first, not hatch first, and he didn't make either particular quick or as a follow up.
You are reading way too deep into it Geiko. He went forge at 13 at the top of his ramp, then gateway at like 17, then core and 2xgas.
Aren't you contradicting yourself here? If someone doesn't know hotkeys / controls / units / whatever, don't they have something much more important to work on than macro?
No, I'm not contradicting myself. I made myself clear when I said "I consider lower level as plat-low masters". So, 'lower level players' need to follow the OP's advice of probes and pylons. People in Bronze-Gold, who are essentially just people learning how to mechanically interact with this game still, or basically casuals, need to just log games and learn how to interact with the UI.
It's like, people in bronze to gold are below level 60 in WoW. There's a lot of content, but you aren't really playing the game yet. Then you hit level 60 at platinum, and that's where you actually start playing WoW, with the raids and stuff. Maybe this analogy is confusing because you can hit like level 100 now and raids don't exist but...
Personally I find it bizarre that anyone (Masters or no) says anything so ridiculous as "just macro". Especially without defining exactly what they mean by macro.
Do you mean producing units? What about upgrades? Base management / managing saturation? Decision making about when to expand? Decision making about when to make more production? All of them? They could all be considered macro. You're telling people to macro better, without actually telling them how, or what they should be focussing on.
To clarify, what I mean by macro: I mean in the first 9 minutes of the game, avoiding supply blocks, avoiding making supply earlier than when the supply is 99% done you are at Max/Max, avoiding making multiple supply at once when you clearly don't have the production to warrant it, avoiding making multiple supply to overcompensate when it's too early in the game and it actually hurts more than helps (just avoid the next supply block, move on, you don't need 2 depots at once at 18 supply), constant worker production as T/P and NEVER having idle larva as Z, never queing up units and never missing injects or warp ins, not taking your gas too early, and not taking your gas too late, and never banking more than 100 minerals (if you need a nexus or whatever, obviously, be ready to plant it exactly at necessary amount, and not going over that amount by 100 minerals).
It's very simple to do this in the first 9 minutes, but 'lower level players' generally can never do this. Fuck dude - I'm mid masters, I come across pros on ladder (albeit very, very rarely), and I, without fail, fuck this up royally every single game (including against easy AI too). I have over 100 APM (i dont spam), and I can assure you, that my macro is better than any lower league player, and compared to most players my level. But I promise you, I promise you, that anyone lower level than me, has much worse macro. If you are not just 100 points lower than me in masters, but actually diamond, or bronze - forget about it, your macro is sooo behind. You really, really don't realize it.
Here's this: If you think you have good macro as a bronze-gold player, please post a replay, and I promise you we will find very, very dumb mistakes in the first 10 minutes. Please submit the most boring and plain games you can too. Whatever you think makes you look best.
If you can manage all of that, things like bases taken, upgrades, et cetera, will come naturally. You can't constantly produce workers, never get blocked, and then not tech up or take more bases without banking a ton of money. It just won't work out.
If you can macro out fine in the first 9 minutes, the rest of the stuff like builds are pretty straightforward. You will just naturally start to realize, hey, toss can't do shit to me, I can take a third, or hey, I have total map control now against hellions, I can take a third against T, et cetera. Don't macro well, and it's like 'fuck I keep losing to stuff I didn't scout!'.
Well, sorry man. But if you macro well, things like 1 base mass void ray or banshees aren't an issue. You can't possibly lose to mass 1 base void ray if you macro well. You will just have too many drones that you can put down a million spores and laugh it off. But these 'timings' exist in the lower levels, so in bronze, people are like 'omg i have to worry about thors/banshees/vikings/ghosts/marines/marauders/battlecruisers/carriers/mass voids/dts/ etc because your timings are off. Tighten your macro, and it becomes "Does he have a 2nd gas? Okay, he can either be going expand, or something that needs 1 spore crawler and 2 extra queens".
That's why I support the guy who says that multi-tasking far more of an issue than "macro". Doing any one of the things listed on it's own is pretty useless. Doing all of them makes someone a better player.
I promise you, I'll beat any bronze-gold without multitasking anything. I'll never harass, I'll never counterattack, I'll never flank or spread, I'll only a-move, I'll put all units on same hotkey (or no hotkey). I'll still win 10/10.
Multitasking is useful at like GM level. Otherwise, not really. Mass roach. Mass stalkers. Mass marine/tank. That'll handle anything really.
To sum up. I had to do all the things to really start winning games. Sure, I had to focus on individual elements, but in the end it was doing micro, production, tech and decision making all at once, that actually helped me start to win games. Yes, at one stage my production was terrible, but it was only a symptom of my lack of ability to do everything at once (multi-tasking).
Perhaps my issues aren't the same for every low league player, but this is my experience.
i don't think most people consider constant worker production, making sure to follow a BO and plant buildings on time, avoiding supply blocks, and not making supply too early to too many at once, ie probes & pylons, is multitasking.
But in reality, yes, it is. You do need about 70+ APM to be effective for basic macro. It's an extremely multitasking-stressful game, even at the most basic level. But it's not 'you need multitasking' when you are just talking about probes&pylons. People would consider multitasking things like setting up flanks, dealing with harass, micro. What you are talking about is not 'multitasking'. It's basic macro, which, confusingly, yes, requires some multitask ability. You are learning to play the basics of the game.
This game is hard as fuck.
By the way, I played FXOasd today (pretty sure it was, or maybe it was a platinum screwed by ladder lock). It's ZvP, on entombed. He blocked my third with a pylon, that couldn't be taken out because my lings were distracted by another probe. It caused my third to go down a little late (which is fine), and then he pushed with zealot/stalker. The thing is, higher level players, really, only pros, can do amazing things with their units, and make them soooo efficient (so amazing macro + extreme unit efficiency, is ridiculous). He used 1 zealot and 2 stalkers, with a warp in 2 minutes later of just 4 units, to kill over 30 lings and 8 roaches. I eventually held, but he had taken a third behind it while macro'ing up immortal/sentry at home.
He just literally trolled the fuck out of me with less than 10 units. That's just how much better FXOasd (or a platinum, tt) is than me. It was pathetic. And he didn't play particularly special, I would imagine any high masters would do the same thing and he would troll them just the same too). You don't get it, just how much better some people can be at this game. Someone like a Blue poster, like Cecil. He's just fucking god at this game compared to you.
Seriously. How dare you question him. If only he could waste the time to play you and make you pay for your insolence.
On April 06 2012 16:49 Belial88 wrote: Generally, anytime someone is arguing with a high masters/blue, especially on something big, it's because they have no fucking clue what they are talking about (hey, I've been guilty of it many times, and every time, I was completely wrong).
I don't think these lower level people realize just how much better someone a league up is, or a high masters is, then them. You won't have a single high level player saying macro isn't the absolute most important thing in the game.
So quit arguing with a high masters blue poster here. He really knows his shit, you don't. To think that you would know more about this game, with the less than 1,000 games you've played, less than 100 hours logged on playing starcraft ever in your life, against someone with 10,000+ games played with over 1,000+ hours logged in, who's followed starcraft for about 8 years longer than you have, is just ridiculous.
Like you caught something he didn't get. It's like trying to tell Michael Jordan on the nuances of basketball. Holy shit.
As a lower league player I 100% agree. Macro is the most important thing (as in constant production, no supply blocks and keeping money low).
BUT and this is the point ML/GML players seem to consider as "easy"
ppl lack also in Multitasking. And i dont mean Multitasking in a sense as in "dropping 3 places at one while microing the shit out of my tank/marine army while expanding and Planting 3 additional barracks"
Most lower league players I know actually have decent makro IF (and thats the big IF) left alone to "Probes & Pylons & Army" 12 minutes roach max out? Give a Gold player 10 - 20 tries to figure out Gas and Roachwarren timings and sooner or later he WILL hit the max out around 12 minutes. Now put the same player against another player. You will see his money rise, you will see him miss injects, you will see him getting supply blocked, you will see him with mass idle larvae. Why? Did he suddenly unlearn everything he learned for the last 30 games? Did he suddenly forget how to macro?
Let me take this to an area im better in: Martial Arts
Tell your Students how important are basics. Train basics every day, after they learned their basics quite well (as in starcraft there is no "perfect") let them train with a Shinai (wooden sword). After they learned their basics there and they are quite competent with their weapon, give them REAL weapons. All of a sudden everything is different, they dont remember the basics, they dont remember the techniques. All they see is the sharp edge of the other students sword. How is it any different of what we trained? Its not. Does it FEEL different? Hell yes! It feels a LOT different.
So back to starcraft: In a "macro only situation" there is no need for scouting, no need to react to changing situations, no need to deal with early aggression, no need to remember the opponents timings, no need for even basic army micro. Its just probes + pylons + army. You NEED multitasking, you NEED to get away from the "If i dont look at my army, it will die!" feeling (altough it happens from time to time), you NEED to do may things and priorize these things. That is the hardest thing to do if you have just a small amount of actions available. Even if you KNOW what to do, ppl tend to make mistakes in stressful situations. Another point ML/GML seem to just ignore. Playing competitive against complete strangers IS stressful for the most low league players. Its even stressful to me. Stress is different for different ppl. I could tell you that it isnt a stressful situation if 2 ppl want to get you in a bar brawl. To me it isnt, to you it possibly might be.
So multitasking, handspeed/precision, mindset ist the MOST important part to me, because without these 3 Pillars everything else WILL suffer.
I think thats the reason why 1 or 2 base all-ins are so powerful in lower leagues. First you focus on probes and pylons and after you reached "the end" of probes and pylons you focus on army (+ warpins for example). You just have to focus on one thing instead of two or more.
just my toughts
I would say 100% of people in Bronze to Gold just genuinely do not understand how to play the game. Not, like they don't know how to play the game like 99% of midmasters do not understand map control and when to drone up and make units - but as in, you don't know the hotkeys yet. You don't realize the nuances of holding shift, control, alt, or a combination of those buttons, in conjunction with hotkeys, right click, left click, et cetera. You don't fully understand what units, counter what units - you may know "a banshee beats a roach", although most of bronze to gold don't, but you definitely don't understand things like "roaches counter stalkers at X timing" or "roaches counter thors, despite on paper it being opposite".
When someone says 'lower level player', I don't consider Bronze to Gold 'lower level'. That would be like saying my grandfather is a 'lower level MW2 player' - no, he just doesn't know how to play the game yet.
It's not an insult, this is an extremely complex game, and I'm sure if a blue like Cecil saw me play, he'd laugh and say I didn't know what the fuck I was doing at all (and he'd be right). You can watch the many things, like Gheed's Worker Rushing in Bronze. Oh, you can hold a worker rush? Great - but you being in the same league as people like this, means you play just at the same level, and make just as ridiculous of mistakes.
You are completely wrong that lower level people have 'decent macro'. You are so wrong. You making that comment, just proves that you have no clue what decent macro is. Please, please provide a replay showing your 'decent macro' in a ladder game. I'll happily eat my words. I've actually done it many times on this forum (eat my words), every time I argued with a blue poster.
What I think is going on, is you have never, ever, ever played with a GM level player (or perhaps diamond, really). You don't realize just how bad you really are. It took playing with a GM for me to realize how much of a fucking idiot I really was. I used to be just like you - 'oh yea, I macro really well, i never get supply blocked!'. Turns out, you can avoid supply blocks 100% and still have atrocious macro. But I guarantee that every bronze to diamond player gets supply blocked at least once before the 8 minute mark.
I seriously do not believe a bronze-gold player can play against easy AI and max out in 12 minutes on roaches.
The reason 1 and 2 base all-ins are strong in bronze-gold is because no one macros well. So 'timings' exist that are just completely nonsensical anywhere else. Like many people have said, "anything is viable in diamond- league".
I could guarantee I can beat anyone in bronze-gold with just pure banelings, or roaches, or queens, or whatever. Just like a High masters could troll the shit out of me, and beat me with pure queen, pure marauder, pure queen, or whatever. There's just that large a difference in the macro.
Bronze to Gold is not a 'low level player'. It's someone who doesn't know the hotkeys yet, who doesn't know all the nuances of the controls. I would say 'lower level' is more like platinum to low masters, who understands the command prompts, but may or may not know what the fuck they are doing.
I mean really, just pay Cecil $20 to coach you for an hour, and by the end, you'll realize how much of an insolent brat you are for ever doubting a High Masters/GM level player. I used to be such an insolent brat, and my TL Warning & Ban History can attest to that. Now, I am ashamed I ever talked back to a blue poster, and high masters players, and I've learned I have no fucking clue what I'm doing.
I mean literally. Cecil, and every other blue and high master, spend like 5+ hours every day on starcraft. For the last 10 years. How long have you been in starcraft? Oh, what, you are gold, and only been around for a year, and only play on the weekends? What, you didn't even get to D+ on ICCUP? What, you never even played ICCUP?
You realize, that these guys were like B+ on ICCUP, which is like high masters, on BW, 10 years ago. Do you realize how crazy it is that you somehow figured something out to this game that they simply forgot? Don't you think it's odd that how every, single, high masters+ player says macro is the most important thing? Or are they just all assholes and wrong? I mean I get it, I did the same thing a lot too. Just find someone who's GM or High Masters, and have him play with you for a few games. You'll realize just how bad you are so quickly.
I mean anyone who played on ICCUP, is at least Masters. That should tell you something. Don't be surprised that after a year of playing, you can't get past Gold. Where do you think idra was for the first year he played?
There's a little truth to this post. I was worker rushed twice on ladder by the same guy, (went back and checked it wasn't Gheed), lost both times. I saw them in coming, I attacked moved, kept making SCVs, and lost, both times. The guy was GM enough to show me how to defend it in a custom game. Turns out I wasn't attack moving. I was targeting units one drone and after it was dead my SCVs stopped attacking giving him the upper hand. This was a subtle difference between army and workers army units.
1. You take a gas before third. That isn't really good macro. Maybe we can say not knowing BO isn't necessary, but you should know you can't manage that gas and droning with fast third. Haven't you seen a pro game of fast third? You don't get gas until the third is almost done, at the earliest.
2. You keep sending drones to take bases wayyyy before they arrive. You should be sending the drone there at like 100-200 minerals, so it arrives at 300. This is because...
3. You keep having idle larva. Holy shit. From 4:32 to the end of the game, you have idle larva. Which causes the problem of...
4. You CONSTANTLY having over 100 minerals. At 5:17 you have 200 minerals! If you constantly made workers, you wouldn't have this problem.
5. You took a gas super super early, but never put drones into it. Poor macro. Manage your gas better. You need to time that better.
6. Holy shit just idle larva the whole time. At one point you had 7 idle larva for well over 20 seconds.
7. Over 400 minerals at 5:45 mark.
8. I cannot stress enough how bad it is you have idle larva, all the time. ALL the time.
9. By 6:00, when most pros are 45+ supply, you are at 34! This is a direct result of you banking so much money, and your idle larva all game long.
10. 30 drones at the 6:30 mark.... too low.
11. No 2nd gas by 7:00...
12. Queen at natural has 22 energy after inject. You know what Nestea said? He said "if your queen has over 50 energy at any time in the [early] game, it's impossible to win". You are getting pretty close to being in a position where it's impossible for you to win. How can you have that much extra energy by the 7:00 mark?!?!
13. Taking 4 gas all at once at 7:00. You have 38 drones. You can barely afford 2 gas right now, let alone 4. If you watch pros play, they stay on 2 gas at 6-7:00+, then 3 gas when lair is morphing. They don't get the 4th gas until about 90+ supply (unless they go pure drone, very rare.... dont think it's possible anymore with current zvp). You, however, take all 4 at 7:00. Horrible gas management. You just kill off the few drones you have.
14. You are at 48 supply when most people are at 55+...
15. You don't maynard any workers to arrive at your third when it pops. No queen started there, and it's not like you had a queen you were going to make from nat or main to walk to it.
16. 7:08 you hit 108 gas. You don't make any roaches, you don't make lair. You don't use gas again until...
17: 2 overlords at 50/54. Why? You only need 1 overlord. This is a really, really big mistake of lower level players. They say 'yea i never get supply blocked". Yea, that's because you make 10 overlords at 30 supply. That's worse than getting supply blocked. Considering you have SIX idle larva right now, i'd say that could have bee 4 drones that you could have gotten there. So not good.
18. 7:30 you start lair... at 47/70 supply. You've made way too many extra overlords, you barely have any drones at all, you take 4 gas yet your roach warren isn't even done. You realize you are going to have 12/38 drones on gas. So 12 on gas, 26 on minerals. That's about a 1:2 ratio to minerals to gas. Wtf?
19. Lair started about 15 seconds after you had 100 gas to do so. Making lair at ~7:30 is standard, but it's NOT standard to get it at onjly 38 drones, or 47 supply. This is not only a result of your poor macro with overlords and idle larva, but taking the gas too quickly. Take the gas slower.
20. Third has been up a minute. There is no queen, there, no queen even started, and you haven't maynarded any workers. You are probably losing about 20% income because your mineral saturation is HORRIBLE.
21. By the way, if this was a real game, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for you to win, because you are sooo far behind. Toss could either push and you'd die because you can't afford anything, and then you'd make posts saying "wtf toss is imbalanced they just mass stalkers and win", or "wtf toss gets colossi and I can't do anything about it, he just gets so much tech on 2 base and pushes and I can't do anything about it" or "wtf hydras are useless, I get hydras but when i arrive he has colossi to roflbbq them" or "wtf toss just takes a third and I can't punish it, toss is ridiculous". But in reality, your macro is just so bad that you kill yourself. It's like trying to play a macro game after 6 pooling, you are that far behind.
22. At 8:00 you are at 60 supply. I don't think this is fair, because 30 seconds before, you were at 49 supply, and 15 seconds before, you were at 56. If this was a real game, where you would have to make 4 lings, and can't make such greedy pool and hatch timings, you really wouldn't be here. But even in a game with no pressure, you can't get above 60 supply.
23. Your worker saturation on your bases at 8:15 is 22, 18, 8. This is soooo horrible. You are losing a huge amount of income due to this.
24. It's not even the 9:00 mark, you have over 600 minerals, and 500 gas. WOW
25. Supply blocked at 86/86. You screw up EVERY SINGLE SUPPLY BLOCK. At 50/54, you make 2 extra overlords, so that puts you at 70. Then before 70 comes around, you make 2 overlords way too early. Then, you get blocked at 86/86. You can't manage to get past 40 supply without either getting supply blocked every single time, or making too many overlords more than your production justifies. Just avoid getting suply blocked, and if it happens, just make a single overlord, and move on, and don't do it again. Not hard. Yet you, fuck, it, up. Hard.
26. 13 idle larva at 7:38 by the way. Wow. That may have something to do with your 400+ bank at the moment too.
27. By 9:00, the queens have 25 energy, and 32, and 29 respectively just after injecting. How can you have so much energy banked already? This is horrible!
28. You get suply blocked at 110/110. You proceed to make FOUR overlords at once. That's ridiculous. You can support 2 right now, not 4. That's lost drones, idle larva, lost supply... late tech, et cetera. Then, when they pop. you are at 116/144, and you make 2 more. Why would you do that?
29. Over 700 minerals before 10 minutes.
30. There hasn't been a single moment past 4:32 where you didn't have idle larva. Huuuuuge problem man.
31. You are at like 140/170, you make 4 overlords at once.
Mind you, high masters+ will get 75+ supply (not drones, supply!) at 8:00 mark. In a game with zero pressure, you can't even hit 61. So how are you going to tell me you can macro like a pro 'when there is no pressure'... when you clearly can't?
Yes, you maxed out at 12:00. But it's pretty obvious you can't macro at all. You have just horrible, horrible macro. You could never play a game against a high masters+, even if they told you they weren't going to do anything, and that it was NR20, and a-move only at 20 minute (or 10, or whatever, you get the idea). You just have atrocious macro.
Now, I don't know if you, as a lower level player, are just completely oblivious to your own problems (like we all are, actualy, I'm completely guilty of it too, last week I posted a rep and everyone tore me a new one about 'how come you never inject before 9 minute mark?'), or what. But it's pretty obvious that NO, you CANT macro well at all, even against the AI.
Most lower league players I know actually have decent makro IF (and thats the big IF) left alone to "Probes & Pylons & Army" 12 minutes roach max out? Give a Gold player 10 - 20 tries to figure out Gas and Roachwarren timings and sooner or later he WILL hit the max out around 12 minutes.
It's not about the max out or not. What your replay has clearly proven, is give a gold player 10-20 tries to macro well in the first 10 minutes in a build order tester, and they can't do it.
Wait, Belial, I'm thinking really hard right now as to how you lost 30 lings and 8 roaches to 10 units.
There's no way... unless you let your reinforcements trickle in one by one... and your lings must not have speed... hmm.
Sounds like you got trolled pretty badly, haha.
yea no speed, fast third. It was entombed valley, with those dumb fucking rocks so your units have to take forever to get around. I only held it off because I created roaches from the third, but no queen was to inject there (it died) so it was hard.
3. You keep having idle larva. Holy shit. From 4:32 to the end of the game, you have idle larva. Which causes the problem of...
6. Holy shit just idle larva the whole time. At one point you had 7 idle larva for well over 20 seconds.
8. I cannot stress enough how bad it is you have idle larva, all the time. ALL the time.
I'd just like to point out that idle larvae is on the list of unforgiveable zerg macro offenses. having just 4 idle larvae is the equivalent of whiffing a full inject. This is comparable to straight-up cutting workers and units as Terran or Protoss.
I think it would be easy to program a perfect 'macro AI' which produces flawlessly and occasionally a-move the troops into the enemy's base. Which league would it reach? To me, that answers the question of how far you can get by mechanical macro (factoring out all other game knowledge and human intelligence). Up to that point, SC2 would be in essence a solved and trivial game of optimization. This is not to deny the importance of macro or to question what's said in OP, it's just what I think the notion of 'pure macro' means and how we could test how important it is. But I don't know the answer. Maybe it would reach gold-plat? or higher?
So.. and don't you think that was MUCH more helpful than "ohm... macro better"?
All the things you say are true and i appreciate that you took your time.
Now tell me the following:
That was me with 80 APM. Alone to to box my workers and count them cost me a few seconds doing nothing but double checking, Do you think that all of the points you mentioned above are possible with my hand speed, so ists just an issue of "pylons & probes" or should i fix my "awareness", handspeed and settings first in order to "properly" execute probes and pylons?
So give this list to a bronze player (as in lower league, the OP wrote about gold level players) with 40 APM and tell him to do all the stuff. Do you really think he will be able to do it? The main problem here is that there is a bunch of ppl which dont get tired to say "the game is easy, just macro" when the game is NOT easy. One GML Player even stated here that he can macro perfectly even with a trackball and 20 APM.
The discussion here never was "is it important to build probes and pylons?" the discussion was
Can a lower league player really take on this form of play and win more games due to true improvement?
and as you said, I would not be able to take on this form of play and improve with "just" probes and pylons. There are other things lacking to leading to a totally screwed up probes & pylons.
Solid macro is the most important and fundamental skill a player can have in their arsenal. However, an improvement in macro is not always the lowest hanging fruit. In other words, focusing on macro will eventually hit diminishing returns. There will come a point where spending 4 hours on build orders will help your MMR more than spending 20 hours on improving macro.
When this point is reached, it is completely wrong to tell a player they should ignore the other aspects of this multi-faceted game. If a person has bronze-level builds, composition, or unit control, they should not wait until they have masters-level macro to address that issue.
The OP's point is really not that useful, but he's certainly not the first person to jump on that soapbox. A more interesting issue is:
When should players diversify their focus on practice and improvement if they want to improve as quickly and efficiently as possible?
That point is much sooner than "macro 'til masters!"
For example, in season 5, high-gold zergs primarily used muta-ling-bling. Typically, if a terran had poor unit control and positioning they'd get wrecked. Terran sees huge gains in the efficiency of their units if they stay off creep, target fire banelings with tanks, stim scout ahead of their moving tanks, and run/spread their marines from banes.
It is easier and quicker to achieve competency in some of these control fundamentals than it is to go from platinum-level macro to diamond-level macro. If a gold player lacks these control basics but has platinum macro, they should clean up their control and positioning before they resume their quest for perfect macro.
Builds can also make a big difference in high-gold TvZ. A high-gold terran with better macro mechanics will typically get out-macroed by his zerg opponent if he plays passively. Being unprepared for the muta timing will also cost terrans the game. Tweaking a build to include some early pressure on the zerg can make a huge difference. Having muta defense ready at the right time can make a huge difference. These fixes are much easier than achieving perfect macro.
In short...
TLDR: Yes, masters-level macro is great, but other game-play improvements are much easier to achieve. Don't wait until masters to take a more hollistic approach to improvement.
On April 07 2012 23:23 Charon1979 wrote: So.. and don't you think that was MUCH more helpful than "ohm... macro better"?
All the things you say are true and i appreciate that you took your time.
Now tell me the following:
That was me with 80 APM. Alone to to box my workers and count them cost me a few seconds doing nothing but double checking, Do you think that all of the points you mentioned above are possible with my hand speed, so ists just an issue of "pylons & probes" or should i fix my "awareness", handspeed and settings first in order to "properly" execute probes and pylons?
So give this list to a bronze player (as in lower league, the OP wrote about gold level players) with 40 APM and tell him to do all the stuff. Do you really think he will be able to do it? The main problem here is that there is a bunch of ppl which dont get tired to say "the game is easy, just macro" when the game is NOT easy. One GML Player even stated here that he can macro perfectly even with a trackball and 20 APM.
The discussion here never was "is it important to build probes and pylons?" the discussion was
Can a lower league player really take on this form of play and win more games due to true improvement?
and as you said, I would not be able to take on this form of play and improve with "just" probes and pylons. There are other things lacking to leading to a totally screwed up probes & pylons.
Like I said, even though most people don't refer to basic macro as 'multitasking', it requires a lot of multitasking to pull off. This is a hard as fuck game. Just the basics of macro take a year or two to get down. To play this game competently, takes over a year. It's like the first year of playing this game, you are in a tutorial. No one is denying that starcraft is hard a fuck. Just some people don't realize how fucking hard, it is.
I also think fast third is a lot more taxing than most builds, and zerg is also a bit harder in terms of pulling off the basic macro. If you weren't going fast third, and were playing P or T instead of Z, yea, a lower level player could pull it off pretty simply with a few games.
I think the heart of the OP's post, is learning how to analyze your play better, going over your replays, and focusing on your macro more than things like "muta or infestor" or "should my hotkey for army be on X or Y?" Then people are arguing, saying how no, decision making and scouting and all this stuff is so much more important, and that they macro just fine.
I think the heart of the OP's post, is learning how to analyze your play better, going over your replays, and focusing on your macro more than things like "muta or infestor" or "should my hotkey for army be on X or Y?" Then people are arguing, saying how no, decision making and scouting and all this stuff is so much more important, and that they macro just fine.
While this is true, I have the feeling its more a matter of the mindset. Ladder places you (except for deepest down bronze and high GM) against ppl of your own skill. This forced 50:50 win/loss rate leads to some games where you are way ahead (as in better upgrades, more army supply, more army value, more workers, way more income) and suddenly you lose 8 Infestors to missmicro and your 3/5 Ultra/Ling army gets torn by his 2/2 MMM. While it is clear that macro ALWAYS is an issue, the player will not percieve it as an issue. Why should he? He can clearly see that he was way ahead. He isnt thinking "oh I could have ended the game 5 minutes earlier if my macro where proper", he is thinking "my macro was better, everybody tells me that macro is winning the game and my opponent was on 2 bases 44 SCV, his main mined out and still rolled over my 4 bases and 80 Drones!" I think thats why ppl tend to "defend" their macro. They dont say "My macro is top!" (altough thats what they sometimes type) they say "my macro was BETTER THAN HIS and I still lost because of <enter reason here>.
When your macro gets better, guess what... the ladder places you against other players with improved macro. And the same game starts anew.
This article is really good not only because it outlines the single most important concept of StarCraft, but also elaborates a little more than the cliche "Macro Better."
Also, for those saying it's more about multi-tasking: most lower-level players struggle with getting supply blocked and forgetting to bring up an economy. Remember, their opponent is just as (or remotely close to) skillful as they are. Therefore, the battles are probably not going to come down to a micro battle or "multi-tasking", as neither player can do those things well.
"Probes and Pylons" is merely the idea of maintaining good macro habits. If you have good habits, then the "multi-tasking" will become easier. Basic Macro (such as correct saturation of minerals and not getting supply blocked) will change from another task to as easy as breathing; they just do it out of habit.
On April 07 2012 23:23 Charon1979 wrote: (Snip) So give this list to a bronze player (as in lower league, the OP wrote about gold level players) with 40 APM and tell him to do all the stuff. Do you really think he will be able to do it? (snip)
Of COURSE not. That's the whole point! If you can't do everything perfectly, then focus on improving on the important stuff.
I'd just like to point out that ive only started to win TvTs when I -learnt how to stop early reapers getting multiple SCV kills -learnt how to fend off early cloaked banshees without losing a dozen scvs -switched to marine tank viking from mass marine -learnt how to control a siege vs siege line effectively
I was already winning most tvz and tvp through better macro, because you just don't need much else.
Great post. I want you to know that, as a lower league player, I am absolutely in agreement with you.
To anyone arguing with Cecil on this thread: stop being such an idiot. Seriously, ask ANY high level player and they will tell you that having more shit is the key to winning. Day[9], Tastosis, DJ WHEAT, Husky, Force, and myriad strategy makers, teachers, commentators, and pros have said as much (including our beloved Cecil).
Don't fuck with the facts, people. Go read the forum rules, in which you are warned against arguing with a blue.
EDIT: To all you bronzies arguing that you don't have the multitasking to macro better, you should try watching your replays. You will see just how much time you waste staring at your army, spamming one button for 30 seconds, looking around at the pretty lights, etc. This isn't about multitasking. It's about reallocation of your APM. You don't need to have 300 APM to build probes...and pylons....
I'd also like to point out the importance of army composition and positioning and knowing when to attack I've lost more than a few battles where I've had close to double the supply of my opponent just because more than half my army was zealots and I engaged in a narrow choke. Sure if i'm macroing way better than him i can just re-max on more zealots from my 20+ gates and keep doing it till he dies but, it's easier if you understand proper unit composition/positioning. There is also the importance of being able to understand what your opponent is doing so that you can understand how to position and adapt your build to protect your probes and pylons. I always see people posting about how you can macro your way to masters or w/e you can also become a professional NBA player if you have perfect shooting percentage it's just way easier and more efficient to improve on other skills sometimes.
Aren't you contradicting yourself here? If someone doesn't know hotkeys / controls / units / whatever, don't they have something much more important to work on than macro?
No, I'm not contradicting myself. I made myself clear when I said "I consider lower level as plat-low masters". So, 'lower level players' need to follow the OP's advice of probes and pylons. People in Bronze-Gold, who are essentially just people learning how to mechanically interact with this game still, or basically casuals, need to just log games and learn how to interact with the UI.
Fair enough. A bit of reading comprehension fail on my part.
i don't think most people consider constant worker production, making sure to follow a BO and plant buildings on time, avoiding supply blocks, and not making supply too early to too many at once, ie probes & pylons, is multitasking.
But in reality, yes, it is. You do need about 70+ APM to be effective for basic macro. It's an extremely multitasking-stressful game, even at the most basic level. But it's not 'you need multitasking' when you are just talking about probes&pylons. People would consider multitasking things like setting up flanks, dealing with harass, micro. What you are talking about is not 'multitasking'. It's basic macro, which, confusingly, yes, requires some multitask ability. You are learning to play the basics of the game.
Ok. I guess this was new to me (at least it became clearer to me in my head that macro involves multi-tasking). I suppose I wish people would emphasise the multi-tasking more when they talk about the basics.
My issue with things like "probes and pylons" is not that it's incorrect. People obviously do forget supply depots and so on. But telling them that they have done so, and that they should fix it is not necessarily helping. They already know they have to.
In order to help the player improve, you have to ask why they forgot. It's not that they're being rebellious and just decided they weren't going to. Forgetting isn't voluntary. It happens because they're doing something else - microing, or thinking (whether about the game or about what socks they'll wear tomorrow).
Ask why they missed it. I'm willing to bet that it's not because they were being idle (I know that I wasn't really conscious of any idle time in my brain with my 2 rax build). They were almost certainly doing something else (i.e. it's a multi-tasking issue). What were they thinking about or doing? Can they cut out the thought? or learn to move away from microing and come back? Can they speed up the process mechanically or use better hotkeys? Or just become more familiar with the build order?
Asking all of these questions will lead to an answer that helps correct the issue. Saying "build probes and pylons" like someone hasn't heard this before a million times is almost insulting. Yes, the issue is that they don't build them, but until you ask why they're not building them, you're not actually helping.
Just wanna say I'm a top diamond toss who has been playing about 50% diamonds, and 50% masters on NA server, and I just realised the main thing that was holding me back was the gaps in my probe production before saturated 3 base, so I would say there are very few people reading this to whom this doesnt apply to anymore
On April 06 2012 16:49 Belial88 wrote: Generally, anytime someone is arguing with a high masters/blue, especially on something big, it's because they have no fucking clue what they are talking about (hey, I've been guilty of it many times, and every time, I was completely wrong).
I don't think these lower level people realize just how much better someone a league up is, or a high masters is, then them. You won't have a single high level player saying macro isn't the absolute most important thing in the game.
So quit arguing with a high masters blue poster here. He really knows his shit, you don't. To think that you would know more about this game, with the less than 1,000 games you've played, less than 100 hours logged on playing starcraft ever in your life, against someone with 10,000+ games played with over 1,000+ hours logged in, who's followed starcraft for about 8 years longer than you have, is just ridiculous.
Like you caught something he didn't get. It's like trying to tell Michael Jordan on the nuances of basketball. Holy shit.
As a lower league player I 100% agree. Macro is the most important thing (as in constant production, no supply blocks and keeping money low).
BUT and this is the point ML/GML players seem to consider as "easy"
ppl lack also in Multitasking. And i dont mean Multitasking in a sense as in "dropping 3 places at one while microing the shit out of my tank/marine army while expanding and Planting 3 additional barracks"
Most lower league players I know actually have decent makro IF (and thats the big IF) left alone to "Probes & Pylons & Army" 12 minutes roach max out? Give a Gold player 10 - 20 tries to figure out Gas and Roachwarren timings and sooner or later he WILL hit the max out around 12 minutes. Now put the same player against another player. You will see his money rise, you will see him miss injects, you will see him getting supply blocked, you will see him with mass idle larvae. Why? Did he suddenly unlearn everything he learned for the last 30 games? Did he suddenly forget how to macro?
Let me take this to an area im better in: Martial Arts
Tell your Students how important are basics. Train basics every day, after they learned their basics quite well (as in starcraft there is no "perfect") let them train with a Shinai (wooden sword). After they learned their basics there and they are quite competent with their weapon, give them REAL weapons. All of a sudden everything is different, they dont remember the basics, they dont remember the techniques. All they see is the sharp edge of the other students sword. How is it any different of what we trained? Its not. Does it FEEL different? Hell yes! It feels a LOT different.
So back to starcraft: In a "macro only situation" there is no need for scouting, no need to react to changing situations, no need to deal with early aggression, no need to remember the opponents timings, no need for even basic army micro. Its just probes + pylons + army. You NEED multitasking, you NEED to get away from the "If i dont look at my army, it will die!" feeling (altough it happens from time to time), you NEED to do may things and priorize these things. That is the hardest thing to do if you have just a small amount of actions available. Even if you KNOW what to do, ppl tend to make mistakes in stressful situations. Another point ML/GML seem to just ignore. Playing competitive against complete strangers IS stressful for the most low league players. Its even stressful to me. Stress is different for different ppl. I could tell you that it isnt a stressful situation if 2 ppl want to get you in a bar brawl. To me it isnt, to you it possibly might be.
So multitasking, handspeed/precision, mindset ist the MOST important part to me, because without these 3 Pillars everything else WILL suffer.
I think thats the reason why 1 or 2 base all-ins are so powerful in lower leagues. First you focus on probes and pylons and after you reached "the end" of probes and pylons you focus on army (+ warpins for example). You just have to focus on one thing instead of two or more.
just my toughts
I would say 100% of people in Bronze to Gold just genuinely do not understand how to play the game. Not, like they don't know how to play the game like 99% of midmasters do not understand map control and when to drone up and make units - but as in, you don't know the hotkeys yet. You don't realize the nuances of holding shift, control, alt, or a combination of those buttons, in conjunction with hotkeys, right click, left click, et cetera. You don't fully understand what units, counter what units - you may know "a banshee beats a roach", although most of bronze to gold don't, but you definitely don't understand things like "roaches counter stalkers at X timing" or "roaches counter thors, despite on paper it being opposite".
When someone says 'lower level player', I don't consider Bronze to Gold 'lower level'. That would be like saying my grandfather is a 'lower level MW2 player' - no, he just doesn't know how to play the game yet.
It's not an insult, this is an extremely complex game, and I'm sure if a blue like Cecil saw me play, he'd laugh and say I didn't know what the fuck I was doing at all (and he'd be right). You can watch the many things, like Gheed's Worker Rushing in Bronze. Oh, you can hold a worker rush? Great - but you being in the same league as people like this, means you play just at the same level, and make just as ridiculous of mistakes.
You are completely wrong that lower level people have 'decent macro'. You are so wrong. You making that comment, just proves that you have no clue what decent macro is. Please, please provide a replay showing your 'decent macro' in a ladder game. I'll happily eat my words. I've actually done it many times on this forum (eat my words), every time I argued with a blue poster.
What I think is going on, is you have never, ever, ever played with a GM level player (or perhaps diamond, really). You don't realize just how bad you really are. It took playing with a GM for me to realize how much of a fucking idiot I really was. I used to be just like you - 'oh yea, I macro really well, i never get supply blocked!'. Turns out, you can avoid supply blocks 100% and still have atrocious macro. But I guarantee that every bronze to diamond player gets supply blocked at least once before the 8 minute mark.
I seriously do not believe a bronze-gold player can play against easy AI and max out in 12 minutes on roaches.
The reason 1 and 2 base all-ins are strong in bronze-gold is because no one macros well. So 'timings' exist that are just completely nonsensical anywhere else. Like many people have said, "anything is viable in diamond- league".
I could guarantee I can beat anyone in bronze-gold with just pure banelings, or roaches, or queens, or whatever. Just like a High masters could troll the shit out of me, and beat me with pure queen, pure marauder, pure queen, or whatever. There's just that large a difference in the macro.
Bronze to Gold is not a 'low level player'. It's someone who doesn't know the hotkeys yet, who doesn't know all the nuances of the controls. I would say 'lower level' is more like platinum to low masters, who understands the command prompts, but may or may not know what the fuck they are doing.
I mean really, just pay Cecil $20 to coach you for an hour, and by the end, you'll realize how much of an insolent brat you are for ever doubting a High Masters/GM level player. I used to be such an insolent brat, and my TL Warning & Ban History can attest to that. Now, I am ashamed I ever talked back to a blue poster, and high masters players, and I've learned I have no fucking clue what I'm doing.
I mean literally. Cecil, and every other blue and high master, spend like 5+ hours every day on starcraft. For the last 10 years. How long have you been in starcraft? Oh, what, you are gold, and only been around for a year, and only play on the weekends? What, you didn't even get to D+ on ICCUP? What, you never even played ICCUP?
You realize, that these guys were like B+ on ICCUP, which is like high masters, on BW, 10 years ago. Do you realize how crazy it is that you somehow figured something out to this game that they simply forgot? Don't you think it's odd that how every, single, high masters+ player says macro is the most important thing? Or are they just all assholes and wrong? I mean I get it, I did the same thing a lot too. Just find someone who's GM or High Masters, and have him play with you for a few games. You'll realize just how bad you are so quickly.
I mean anyone who played on ICCUP, is at least Masters. That should tell you something. Don't be surprised that after a year of playing, you can't get past Gold. Where do you think idra was for the first year he played?
maxing out on roaches by 12 mins is a piece of piss for me in silver.. bottom of bronze you are right ... but top of bronze is actually pretty close to the top of gold (for macro players) because the leagues have HUUUUGE overlap. IE a lot of players qualify in gold maybe but a lot of bronze players would beat them.
What people forget is tiny mistakes cost you the entire game. Sure they are gigantic mistakes because they do cost you the game but players dotn play enough to keep track of the critical things.
you take me who plays 1-2 games a week. Who suddenly comes back and plays 10 games a day .. i go from 50:50 win rate to winning 10 in a row. Why? Because of the fast iterations on an idea.
It amazes me how few people actually understand how learning and being practiced at something works. They also completely undervalue a lot of basic knowledge.
Cecil, this was very helpful in making me realize how I don`t need to cut workers cause his attack is incoming early game. I also played a PvT eairlier and dedcided to put this concept into play. I actually had more than I normally would at a sooner time and didn`t feel more dangered at all. I only lost the game cause I threw too much stuff away and didnt expand more. And the T was Diamond :D
On April 07 2012 23:23 Charon1979 wrote: So.. and don't you think that was MUCH more helpful than "ohm... macro better"?
All the things you say are true and i appreciate that you took your time.
Now tell me the following:
That was me with 80 APM. Alone to to box my workers and count them cost me a few seconds doing nothing but double checking, Do you think that all of the points you mentioned above are possible with my hand speed, so ists just an issue of "pylons & probes" or should i fix my "awareness", handspeed and settings first in order to "properly" execute probes and pylons?
So give this list to a bronze player (as in lower league, the OP wrote about gold level players) with 40 APM and tell him to do all the stuff. Do you really think he will be able to do it? The main problem here is that there is a bunch of ppl which dont get tired to say "the game is easy, just macro" when the game is NOT easy. One GML Player even stated here that he can macro perfectly even with a trackball and 20 APM.
The discussion here never was "is it important to build probes and pylons?" the discussion was
Can a lower league player really take on this form of play and win more games due to true improvement?
and as you said, I would not be able to take on this form of play and improve with "just" probes and pylons. There are other things lacking to leading to a totally screwed up probes & pylons.
Like I said, even though most people don't refer to basic macro as 'multitasking', it requires a lot of multitasking to pull off. This is a hard as fuck game. Just the basics of macro take a year or two to get down. To play this game competently, takes over a year. It's like the first year of playing this game, you are in a tutorial. No one is denying that starcraft is hard a fuck. Just some people don't realize how fucking hard, it is.
I also think fast third is a lot more taxing than most builds, and zerg is also a bit harder in terms of pulling off the basic macro. If you weren't going fast third, and were playing P or T instead of Z, yea, a lower level player could pull it off pretty simply with a few games.
I think the heart of the OP's post, is learning how to analyze your play better, going over your replays, and focusing on your macro more than things like "muta or infestor" or "should my hotkey for army be on X or Y?" Then people are arguing, saying how no, decision making and scouting and all this stuff is so much more important, and that they macro just fine.
What we have here is failure...to communicate...you see, some men...you just..can't ...reach.
I've followed the recent related threads quite seriously. As a low apm old fart(37 year old, 50ish apm) the Protoss and Zerg I find most playable for me. I still play terran, just not so good. Which makes the work you, Monk, Kcdc, Cecil and others very very irreplacible. DRG and Stephano may be the best zergs going, and it's their playstyle that most of attempt to emulate, but it's not DRG and Stephano in these forums toiling to either help others improve or impart perspective to the perspectiveless. I cannot thank you enough for putting out the benchmark thread. It got me motivated to test if my Oldboy movie/Thorzain style training was worth anything. It was.
Coming from a guy who plays very very infrequently while watching/lurking/ tourney gazing. I was able to knock out 72, 75 , 77 in consecutive games. Not too shabby. So when you said a few posts ago that silver/golders just can't macro, you were right. I've even started having a bit o anxiety because I know the difference between a dry run vs ai and a silver leaguer looking for a good time running a Geiko Rine/scv all in.
Coincidently, it brought me online to the channels hoping to get into obs KoTH action to see how league skillsets had progressed. I wanted to watch two platinum players duke it out, and just offhand TLO joined the game. I had just had a shot of 151(alcohol) and was set to relax and somehow ended up getting squared of with the platinum. TLO's present, check. Drinking hard stuff, check and accidental participation. check. I had mid 30's supply at 8 min, just atrocious. It was my first 1 on 1 since season 4. I didn't watch the replay till today... it hurt me inside
I have 18 whopping career wins, was a Silver in season 4, haven't placed since. With good reason. She's 2 years old and in my lap. It was just easier to play with a baby as opposed to a toddler.
I think just like myself, people need to worry less, try harder, and have some damn fun trying to improve, not just trying to win. In my own reality, I need to set up a 'game time" without so many distractions in RL or just get better headphones and a plush 'talk to the infestor" sign. The thread dissenters have some valid points, but only if you consider your improvement in a black and white /win loss mindset.
Replay: I started labeling practice runs by supply count on zerg. Including the 75 supply which was still pretty bad, 3rd late, yadda yadda. I'm pretty sure I was maxxed by 12-12:30 It's opened my eyes to my own potential, if I continue to have a macro-centric mind. I used to have a tough time taking 3rd bases, let alone 4th and 5ths against the VH AI. Now it's a afterthought, even versus GTAI(which in my situation, I love for the selectable build opponent while i work on expanding and holding off pressure/cannon rush comps ftw, good practice)
I think there are really a few problems with the "just macro your way to masters" mentality.
A friend of mine recently started to play SC2 as zerg, and i also told him that he should just simply try to produce a lot of drones , bases and get a good unit composition and focus on his macro, because i thought that was what brought me into the higher leagues. But that didn't really seem to work out for him, so i looked at his replays, and it wasnt that he didn't try to macro right, it was just that he was way to slow, didnt know what to focus on, and in 90% of his games were he lost, he just got rolled over by some odd 1 base play between 7 and 9 minutes.
A big problem with the "macro thinking" is , that it works quite well if you put a really fast, experienced player into bronze league and let him macro up. But looking at my friend , who didnt play that much of games at all, his control and awareness was even worse than his macro. Even if he macroed considerably well for his level, he still just died to some surprisingly strange attack. And that actually is a really frustrating way to lose games, not just at lower levels.
So i would actually state that "macro up" isn't even an advice or any kind of help. It's just a strategical mindset that you can use or not, but its nothing you can practice. It's like saying "if you want to play the guitar really good, you just need to play clean and use a metronome." And even if that is a very reasonable and true statement, it does not serve any educational purpose or provide any concrete structure, that someone who wants to learn something actually needs.
So much truth in this article. Probes and pylons, plus a tiny bit of scouting so that you don't get outrageously hardcountered (by outrageously hardcountered I mean making pure ling vs pure bfh for example) is enough to jump up many leagues.
I think the hardest part about starcraft II is knowing what things to build and when. Ideally you want near perfect macro no matter what you do, and that is a huge part of execution. The difficult to comes in adapting your build to various strategies and then as you adapt them, also maintaining excellent macro.
This thread is overtly simplistic though. Its easy to say "build pylons and probes", but that really isn't what most players who are on the cusp of diamond or master league struggle with the most. In many matchups, the game is hinged on a specific focal point; if you don't execute well at that point you are going to lose. Defending most rushes and timing attack involves near perfect macro AND good scouting AND good execution in order to defend properly AS WELL as appropriate follow up to insure your advantage after the fact. A good example; in zvp a +2 blink stalker timing with observer is a really powerful timing attack that is good against pretty much every opening against zerg in the matchup. To beat it you have to scout it, or at least prepare for a gateway timing attack. This involves near perfect macro until you scout what you need to see, near perfect macro (and positioning of spine crawlers and other defenses) while you prepare for the timing, then good unit control to deflect the attack, and you must also have an appropriate follow up or the protoss has the option to take a late third and still win the game. Another good example, is 4 gate timing after fast expansion in TvP, a roaching ling timing in PvZ, or a maruader hellion timing in ZvT, ect.
Also, many matchups, even when you play standard, hinge on specific timings. In TvP, the terran must have a decisive advantage in the mid game in order to beat a protoss late game. If you can't execute your mid game aggression well enough, even with perfect macro, you are going to struggle in that matchup. The same can be said for mid game ZvP. PvP is a good example of a matchup where macro is secondary to decision making and micro.
It frustrates me, as a diamond level player myself, when masters level players write guides that make too broad of generalizations. A silver league player with a silver league understanding of the game cannot make it to masters league if they only perfect their macro. There is more to the game then that. It is probably the single most important part of the game, but the reason you see players often focusing on other stuff is either; they suffer from a lack of understanding and they need to be educated, or they are struggling with another aspect of execution and that is more difficult for them. If you are a person who has put in thousands of games and hundreds of hours to try and improve it is frustrating to hear "all you need to do is macro perfectly and you will make it to mid level masters no problem". From my perspective, that doesn't feel like its true. Even in gold league there are other aspects of execution a player must become proficient in order to have any success. Not to mention, a big part of the game is DOES YOUR STRATEGY MAKE ANY SENSE. Strategy is complex because it involves an understanding of timing, positioning, ect that are so important. Many strategies only work if the player has decent micro; marine tank in tvz hinges on being able to target fire bannelings and split marines at least decently well for example. I think in order to progress to higher leagues you need to gradually absorb and improve in pretty much all areas of the game. Macro is the most important, but it is very inaccurate to say that it is nearly all you need to get to master league or even diamond league.
On April 07 2012 19:50 Hylirion wrote: I'm high silver at the moment. I've hit a wall, in that i didn't progress in rank for like 40 games. I will be the first to say to my macro is not very good, i got supplyblocked often etc. But as much as I would like to believe that macro would be the answer to everything, I just cant understand how people can say that. For example I play Protoss. When you meet another protoss, to me, it is not about macro but about micro. It is very hard to expand. Mismicro your 4gate versus his 3gate robo and lose. Mismicro your 3gate robo versus his 4gate and lose. Mismicro your initial units and lose to fast stalkers. Blink into some unseen immortals and lose. In none of these situations I feel that 1 stalker or zealot extra due to perfect macro would win you the game. Every protoss has done 4gate etc enough times to have a reasonable timing, even in silver/low gold.
Then vs zerg. You could macro like a boss, but if the zerg also macros (and most of them that I meet on ladder do), you'll still need good micro to be cost effective versus roaches, as stalkers are so much more expensive and zealots just get kited. And you'll need to anticipate a muta switch or you will still lose. I dont understand how pure macro can win this.Tips would be welcome.
Protoss vs Terran. This is the only matchup were I feel that macro would work, as zealots can be cost effective as long as they can actually hit anything, and good macro would lead to earlier collosi which wins you the game. But mismicro vs a drop and you can still lose.
All in all, i'm not really convinced. But i'll give it a try and will try to focus purely on not getting supplyblocked in my next games.
As someone who went from diamond toss to silver random (now up to platinum as random, yay!) In PvP at silver level you just need one build that you do and you do it cleanly, macro is probably less important in that matchup than any others, even though it is no longer nothing but one base play, its still very heavy, but never, ever get supply blocked in the early game.
When watching many of my pvps, I see myself lose my scouting probe to his workers (lame) and watch him keep his alive but paying so much attention to it he ends up supply blocked and behind even though he lost no units. If you slip up on micro, you will lose some games, if he hits you with dts and you have no detection, you lose. But getting up to those few probes you plan to build quickly and never getting supply blocked will get you more stuff. That will give you an advantage and you can make more mistakes and still win, but its not like you can just press 1 then a then click and win.
In PvZ you sure as hell can just macro your way to victory, take a fast third on heavy gateway immortal after some opening then go kill him when you can. You need to make sure you have a solid number of stalkers and gateways (maybe 6-10 each, 4 or so gates added on to simcity your third after you take it) plus blink from the twilight council you want for upgrades and templar tech anyways, you can handle a muta switch if you lay down cannons liberally after you see it coming, otherwise warpins and what you have will have to suffice, you might take damage but if you have enough probes it doesnt matter as much. If his macro was actually terrible and he just throws down 20 mutas at once from a 2000/2000 bank, then you might have problems but your mistake was not killing him before then (you have obs, build them and look for opportunities to kill shit). At least thats my experience in pvz at low levels.
Also remember at the level you're at and I'm at, you can't rely on knowing his timings at all, because his macro is bad and his builds are unrefined, so just having enough stuff to kill whatever the hell he throws at you is even more important than trying to counter builds directly or anything like that. I have never seen a clean Stephano style build, but I have had a lot of zerglings and roaches thrown at me between 13-14 minutes many times. Theres just never enough to kill me, now buildings and forcefields are still what makes the difference, but just get plenty of stuff and you can survive way more easily.
Do that actually, just do what day9 says and hit those probes/pylons and you should be safe. Do not focus on your air units enough to forget your third or pylons or anything else, just let those units float in the empty space on maps. 4 pheonixes will also buy a lot of time if a player goes mutas even if he has a lot of them.
Edit: @Mothergoose: At lower levels most players cannot properly hit timings, except for relatively simple one base all-ins or cheeses. Defending them is much simpler because they show up late anyways except for something like a double proxy 10 gate, those always show up at about the same time. Players cannot ignore all aspects of micro and composition, I think this assumes they stole a build from a pro and have a vague idea about timing attacks and proper composition, speaking as someone who has spent the past couple seasons in the lower leagues, this is all you need to get to diamond, timings become more important around then but before then they don't matter anywhere near as much. I really think you're underestimating how bad most low level player's macro really is. Macroing properly is hard but if you do it well and as a primary goal, you are better off than trying to adapt to whatever crazy far from standard attack and comp is being thrown at you.
On April 08 2012 01:12 netherh wrote: Ask why they missed it. I'm willing to bet that it's not because they were being idle (I know that I wasn't really conscious of any idle time in my brain with my 2 rax build). They were almost certainly doing something else (i.e. it's a multi-tasking issue). What were they thinking about or doing? Can they cut out the thought? or learn to move away from microing and come back? Can they speed up the process mechanically or use better hotkeys? Or just become more familiar with the build order?
Asking all of these questions will lead to an answer that helps correct the issue. Saying "build probes and pylons" like someone hasn't heard this before a million times is almost insulting. Yes, the issue is that they don't build them, but until you ask why they're not building them, you're not actually helping.
I think I tried to address this. The main idea in the OP was that the low league players I've experienced (including myself, I used to be in Silver) focus on unimportant details, and or ignore the most important ones at the time.
As for much more specific than this I'd be getting into the realm of personal coaching, which I usually have people pay me for. So I can't really do this for free on a forum now can I? That's out of the scope of the discussion. Like I've said before, I have a whole lot of free resources in my TL profile, and also on Youtube. Feel free to use any of them to help yourself figure out why what you did is wrong or to figure out something better to be doing.
I agree that lower league players sometimes focus to much on small non important details like splitting your probes. I think that you should not focus on anything else than spending your resources, saturating your bases and getting the correct army composiotion when you play in lower leagues.
On April 08 2012 01:17 Southwards wrote: Just wanna say I'm a top diamond toss who has been playing about 50% diamonds, and 50% masters on NA server, and I just realised the main thing that was holding me back was the gaps in my probe production before saturated 3 base, so I would say there are very few people reading this to whom this doesnt apply to anymore
You're arguing against a strawman, though. I haven't seen any low level players saying their macro is perfect, just that there's other stuff that's important too. Like army positioning as Cecil said. if you're diamond, you probably already have a good grasp of the other stuff, and it makes sense to go focus on small macro gaps.
But telling them that they have done so, and that they should fix it is not necessarily helping. They already know they have to.
Oh, no no no! I think a big part of what I am saying (and if I may be as bold to speak for Cecil as well), is that people don't know this. Sooooo many bronze to diamond players think they macro just fine. Just take for example that replay Charon submitted as 'proof' that a lower level player can macro well in insolation and it's the pressures of the game that are the real difference between lower level players and pros - I ripped him apart, and his replay was actually proof that lower level players are completely unable to pull off basic macro in a vacuum.
I mean, it's quite evident in the replies here from some of the lower level players. They insist their macro is fine, or that other things like decision making are more important. I'm a mid-masters player, and I can definitely attribute about 80% of my losses to just plain macro screw-ups. So I'm pretty sure that lower level players than myself, have it much worse.
People think they macro just fine. Charon seriously believed that the replay he submitted, was of half decent macro. He had no clue, that had he played like that in a real game (and the toss didn't do any pressure and told him what build he was doing so he wouldn't have to scout), he would have just autolost because his macro was so poor.
People just don't realize it. They don't realize how bad 5 seconds is, or a supply block is. They don't realize that making a supply 3 supply too early is bad. They don't think making 3 overlords at once is bad. But it's SO horrible. They have no idea that idle larva is bad. They are completely unaware that for 2 seconds, they hit 500+ minerals. And that's okay - the better the player you become, the better you can analyze your macro. But that's also the problem - lower level players are unable to identify their macro problems. So then they post here saying their macro is fine.
They just play these games where their games, vs their opponents, looks just like a pro game. Except it's 10:00, instead of 8:00. And their opponent is doing stuff like ZvP deathball or pure marine ZvT, and they complain about how 'broken' or 'ridiculous' it is, when in reality it's just their poor macro letting their opponents get away with it.
maxing out on roaches by 12 mins is a piece of piss for me in silver.. bottom of bronze you are right ... but top of bronze is actually pretty close to the top of gold (for macro players) because the leagues have HUUUUGE overlap. IE a lot of players qualify in gold maybe but a lot of bronze players would beat them.
False (it seems almost no one in the lower leagues understand the ladder system - it's quite complicated, I went around saying I was high masters for a long time, even though I thought i understood it).
Ranking, points, and placement in your league, only matter in the current top division. Right now, that's masters (gm is an exception, it's invite only). It used to be Diamond (and before diamond was introduced, it was plat, then gold like way back in beta). In the lower leagues, divisions are spread all over the place, and points value is so arbitrary because you could or could not rank up, that you really can't take your ranking/points value as any indication of your relative place compared to other bronzes.
Also, there's a huge gap between bronze and silver, silver and gold. At gold and below, macro is just so atrocious that avoiding a supply block at 26 randomly in one of the games would just make your macro like instantly twice better than your average opponent. These advantages are instantly lost by such players not making constant workers, taking gas too early, whatever, but it is amazing how the ladder system can average these out and say 'your macro is basically at this level/mmr'.
What people forget is tiny mistakes cost you the entire game. Sure they are gigantic mistakes because they do cost you the game but players dotn play enough to keep track of the critical things.
I completely disagree. It may look like a tiny mistake that 'oh no i move commanded my army for 5 seconds through mass roach', but in reality you had already lost the game. Although in lower levels the game is just going everywhere and who knows what's going on, both players hit points where they cannot possibly win the game, but the other player just fucks up so bad that it doesn't matter, and it just bounces back and forth like that. It's not a 'tiny mistake' to have idle larva for 20 seconds, or miss injects.
Anyways, you act like top of gold has anything going for it. It does compared to bronze, sure, but to everyone else, gold is just so horribly, horribly bad at macro.
I think there are really a few problems with the "just macro your way to masters" mentality.
I think a problem is that people say "macro better". And yes, it's 100% true, but what they are leaving out, is that it's really fucking hard to macro well, it takes a lot of multitasking and APM, and it requires you to be pretty quick.
It sounds simple, so people say it over and over. But to a bronze, they aren't going to be able to do that right away. So there is difficulty. But I do think that a bronze could really improve their game by just watching their replays, checking for supply blocks in their next 10-20 games, be vigilant on correcting it in their next games, and they would improve drastically just by fixing this one facet of their play.
Like, in masters, you can't do this. I can't just fix one little thing like this, and suddenly be 10% better of a player. But if you are in gold, you can. Avoid supply blocks for the first 5 mintues of the game, just the 5 minutes. Watch every replay, win or lose - try to analyze when you screw up supply blocks (too early, too late, supply blocked, and making 2 at once when production doesn't warrant it), and try to actually find what the tangible result of that supply block/late/screw up was. Would that have been 5 more marines earlier, that would have ended the game/saved the game? Would that have been 5 more drones, which over 5 minutes, is 300 minerals, which, could have been another hatch that would have helped your income? et cetera.
To add to the discussion, I remember when I first started playing SC2 after BW. I had a terrible comp that couldn't handle large amount of units battling, so I would lose every single long game I played, and since I was, at that point, a macro only Zerg (I blame IdrA ;p) I could not get out of gold league. It was frustrating as hell, then I watched Mr.Bitter coaching some diamond level Zerg and telling him how bad his macro was ON STREAM. Like, he was actually yelling at him a bit, it was funny to watch.
Then he told the guy that in the next game he played, he wasn't allowed to make units. He was just going to make drones, hit injects, spread creep (in that order), OLs at appropriate times, and keep a few lings scouting so he would make units when the opponent pushed out. It was incredible how much drastically better he got. Sometimes the opponent's army would be almost at his natural RAMP, but he just had so much more income than his opponents, he could pump out so many units.
When I finally got a decent comp, I applied that same philosophy to my games. While I would lose to unscouted cheese here and there, the pure focus on just macro-multitasking made my opponents seem downright silly and terrible all the way up to platinum. It was like we were playing two different games, or like I was already declared the winner once we hit 28 supply.
Just improving little parts of your macro at a time (say, instead of making 2 OLs at 34 supply, you make 1 at 32 supply then 1 at 36-38) will improve you SO much at lower levels it's astonishing.
I disagree with this. Why? I am in bronze league, near the top. I outmacro my opponent almost every game, and have solid build orders that I can execute fairly well. However. I often lose because of a strategy that you don't know how to respond to. Higher league players really don't realize how many lower level games are nonstandard. Half of my TvPs involve a double proxy stargate into mass void rays. I get rushed in almost every single TvZ I play, and I often lose to these special tactics, even with better macro.
On April 09 2012 04:03 PinheadXXXXXX wrote: I disagree with this. Why? I am in bronze league, near the top. I outmacro my opponent almost every game, and have solid build orders that I can execute fairly well. However. I often lose because of a strategy that you don't know how to respond to. Higher league players really don't realize how many lower level games are nonstandard. Half of my TvPs involve a double proxy stargate into mass void rays. I get rushed in almost every single TvZ I play, and I often lose to these special tactics, even with better macro.
One big point of the thread that you're missing is the following: At any level with 2 players of identical skill, one player will always have better macro than the other player, but will be deficient in other parts; this is the case with you. However, at lower levels, if you have masters level macro, you can overcome almost anything. Even though you may macro better than your opponents at your level/league, if you macroed even better, you wouldn't lose to the same cheese
On April 09 2012 04:03 PinheadXXXXXX wrote: I disagree with this. Why? I am in bronze league, near the top. I outmacro my opponent almost every game, and have solid build orders that I can execute fairly well. However. I often lose because of a strategy that you don't know how to respond to. Higher league players really don't realize how many lower level games are nonstandard. Half of my TvPs involve a double proxy stargate into mass void rays. I get rushed in almost every single TvZ I play, and I often lose to these special tactics, even with better macro.
One big point of the thread that you're missing is the following: At any level with 2 players of identical skill, one player will always have better macro than the other player, but will be deficient in other parts; this is the case with you. However, at lower levels, if you have masters level macro, you can overcome almost anything. Even though you may macro better than your opponents at your level/league, if you macroed even better, you wouldn't lose to the same cheese
True. But its easier to get gold level game knowledge than acquiring masters level macro.
On April 09 2012 04:03 PinheadXXXXXX wrote: I disagree with this. Why? I am in bronze league, near the top. I outmacro my opponent almost every game, and have solid build orders that I can execute fairly well. However. I often lose because of a strategy that you don't know how to respond to. Higher league players really don't realize how many lower level games are nonstandard. Half of my TvPs involve a double proxy stargate into mass void rays. I get rushed in almost every single TvZ I play, and I often lose to these special tactics, even with better macro.
One big point of the thread that you're missing is the following: At any level with 2 players of identical skill, one player will always have better macro than the other player, but will be deficient in other parts; this is the case with you. However, at lower levels, if you have masters level macro, you can overcome almost anything. Even though you may macro better than your opponents at your level/league, if you macroed even better, you wouldn't lose to the same cheese
True. But its easier to get gold level game knowledge than acquiring masters level macro.
Honestly you don't need master's level macro to progress leagues. And honestly the general master level macro is very poor too. It starts getting decent once you get way up there.
On April 09 2012 05:01 LazinCajun wrote: I don't think it's fair to say master's level macro is "poor." Perhaps saying it still has holes is more accurate.
Well it's just my personal and subjective opinion.
Lower leaguers just need to understand basic build orders and how to execute them cleanly. If they can do that, they will win almost all of their games without even entering the lategame. Training for the lategame is overrated; most games end quite early at the higher levels if you just play aggresively.
I would say 100% of people in Bronze to Gold just genuinely do not understand how to play the game. Not, like they don't know how to play the game like 99% of midmasters do not understand map control and when to drone up and make units - but as in, you don't know the hotkeys yet. You don't realize the nuances of holding shift, control, alt, or a combination of those buttons, in conjunction with hotkeys, right click, left click, et cetera. You don't fully understand what units, counter what units - you may know "a banshee beats a roach", although most of bronze to gold don't, but you definitely don't understand things like "roaches counter stalkers at X timing" or "roaches counter thors, despite on paper it being opposite".
When someone says 'lower level player', I don't consider Bronze to Gold 'lower level'. That would be like saying my grandfather is a 'lower level MW2 player' - no, he just doesn't know how to play the game yet.
It's not an insult, this is an extremely complex game, and I'm sure if a blue like Cecil saw me play, he'd laugh and say I didn't know what the fuck I was doing at all (and he'd be right). You can watch the many things, like Gheed's Worker Rushing in Bronze. Oh, you can hold a worker rush? Great - but you being in the same league as people like this, means you play just at the same level, and make just as ridiculous of mistakes.
You are completely wrong that lower level people have 'decent macro'. You are so wrong. You making that comment, just proves that you have no clue what decent macro is. Please, please provide a replay showing your 'decent macro' in a ladder game. I'll happily eat my words. I've actually done it many times on this forum (eat my words), every time I argued with a blue poster.
What I think is going on, is you have never, ever, ever played with a GM level player (or perhaps diamond, really). You don't realize just how bad you really are. It took playing with a GM for me to realize how much of a fucking idiot I really was. I used to be just like you - 'oh yea, I macro really well, i never get supply blocked!'. Turns out, you can avoid supply blocks 100% and still have atrocious macro. But I guarantee that every bronze to diamond player gets supply blocked at least once before the 8 minute mark.
I seriously do not believe a bronze-gold player can play against easy AI and max out in 12 minutes on roaches.
The reason 1 and 2 base all-ins are strong in bronze-gold is because no one macros well. So 'timings' exist that are just completely nonsensical anywhere else. Like many people have said, "anything is viable in diamond- league".
I could guarantee I can beat anyone in bronze-gold with just pure banelings, or roaches, or queens, or whatever. Just like a High masters could troll the shit out of me, and beat me with pure queen, pure marauder, pure queen, or whatever. There's just that large a difference in the macro.
Bronze to Gold is not a 'low level player'. It's someone who doesn't know the hotkeys yet, who doesn't know all the nuances of the controls. I would say 'lower level' is more like platinum to low masters, who understands the command prompts, but may or may not know what the fuck they are doing.
I mean really, just pay Cecil $20 to coach you for an hour, and by the end, you'll realize how much of an insolent brat you are for ever doubting a High Masters/GM level player. I used to be such an insolent brat, and my TL Warning & Ban History can attest to that. Now, I am ashamed I ever talked back to a blue poster, and high masters players, and I've learned I have no fucking clue what I'm doing.
I mean literally. Cecil, and every other blue and high master, spend like 5+ hours every day on starcraft. For the last 10 years. How long have you been in starcraft? Oh, what, you are gold, and only been around for a year, and only play on the weekends? What, you didn't even get to D+ on ICCUP? What, you never even played ICCUP?
You realize, that these guys were like B+ on ICCUP, which is like high masters, on BW, 10 years ago. Do you realize how crazy it is that you somehow figured something out to this game that they simply forgot? Don't you think it's odd that how every, single, high masters+ player says macro is the most important thing? Or are they just all assholes and wrong? I mean I get it, I did the same thing a lot too. Just find someone who's GM or High Masters, and have him play with you for a few games. You'll realize just how bad you are so quickly.
I mean anyone who played on ICCUP, is at least Masters. That should tell you something. Don't be surprised that after a year of playing, you can't get past Gold. Where do you think idra was for the first year he played?
You have a very low opinion of bronze to gold league. Most people in top Bronze, Silver, and Gold know their hotkeys, and actually do know how to play. They do actually know some or most counters. You refer to to Gheed's worker rushing in Bronze, but still, you fail to comprehend the enormous skill gap between the bottom and the top of bronze, and even the bottom of bronze and the top of gold. I am not saying that bronze-gold league can macro well. All i am saying is that you are vastly underselling that skill set, and you really do not have an idea of what things are like there. I'm not taking what you said as an insult, it is just atrociously incorrect.
On April 09 2012 08:33 PinheadXXXXXX wrote: You have a very low opinion of bronze to gold league. Most people in top Bronze, Silver, and Gold know their hotkeys, and actually do know how to play. They do actually know some or most counters. You refer to to Gheed's worker rushing in Bronze, but still, you fail to comprehend the enormous skill gap between the bottom and the top of bronze, and even the bottom of bronze and the top of gold. I am not saying that bronze-gold league can macro well. All i am saying is that you are vastly underselling that skill set, and you really do not have an idea of what things are like there. I'm not taking what you said as an insult, it is just atrociously incorrect.
Not to detract from your argument, but didn't Gheed actually get up to facing the occasional gold player when doing his worker rushing...?
On April 09 2012 08:33 PinheadXXXXXX wrote: You have a very low opinion of bronze to gold league. Most people in top Bronze, Silver, and Gold know their hotkeys, and actually do know how to play. They do actually know some or most counters. You refer to to Gheed's worker rushing in Bronze, but still, you fail to comprehend the enormous skill gap between the bottom and the top of bronze, and even the bottom of bronze and the top of gold. I am not saying that bronze-gold league can macro well. All i am saying is that you are vastly underselling that skill set, and you really do not have an idea of what things are like there. I'm not taking what you said as an insult, it is just atrociously incorrect.
Not to detract from your argument, but didn't Gheed actually get up to facing the occasional gold player when doing his worker rushing...?
Yeah, but lots of players, including me, are horrendous at worker combat, but much better at other stuff. Worker combat is not that easy for a lot of people.
On April 09 2012 08:33 PinheadXXXXXX wrote: You have a very low opinion of bronze to gold league. Most people in top Bronze, Silver, and Gold know their hotkeys, and actually do know how to play. They do actually know some or most counters. You refer to to Gheed's worker rushing in Bronze, but still, you fail to comprehend the enormous skill gap between the bottom and the top of bronze, and even the bottom of bronze and the top of gold. I am not saying that bronze-gold league can macro well. All i am saying is that you are vastly underselling that skill set, and you really do not have an idea of what things are like there. I'm not taking what you said as an insult, it is just atrociously incorrect.
Not to detract from your argument, but didn't Gheed actually get up to facing the occasional gold player when doing his worker rushing...?
Yeah, but lots of players, including me, are horrendous at worker combat, but much better at other stuff. Worker combat is not that easy for a lot of people.
On April 09 2012 08:33 PinheadXXXXXX wrote: You have a very low opinion of bronze to gold league. Most people in top Bronze, Silver, and Gold know their hotkeys, and actually do know how to play. They do actually know some or most counters. You refer to to Gheed's worker rushing in Bronze, but still, you fail to comprehend the enormous skill gap between the bottom and the top of bronze, and even the bottom of bronze and the top of gold. I am not saying that bronze-gold league can macro well. All i am saying is that you are vastly underselling that skill set, and you really do not have an idea of what things are like there. I'm not taking what you said as an insult, it is just atrociously incorrect.
Not to detract from your argument, but didn't Gheed actually get up to facing the occasional gold player when doing his worker rushing...?
Yeah, but lots of players, including me, are horrendous at worker combat, but much better at other stuff. Worker combat is not that easy for a lot of people.
You have a very low opinion of bronze to gold league. Most people in top Bronze, Silver, and Gold know their hotkeys, and actually do know how to play. They do actually know some or most counters. You refer to to Gheed's worker rushing in Bronze, but still, you fail to comprehend the enormous skill gap between the bottom and the top of bronze, and even the bottom of bronze and the top of gold. I am not saying that bronze-gold league can macro well. All i am saying is that you are vastly underselling that skill set, and you really do not have an idea of what things are like there. I'm not taking what you said as an insult, it is just atrociously incorrect.
I would argue you are vastly overselling. There is an even larger skill gap between diamond and lower masters, yet low masters doesn't macro well at all. And bottom of bronze are like 10 year olds, handicapped people, and portrait farming or bots.
Yeah, but lots of players, including me, are horrendous at worker combat, but much better at other stuff. Worker combat is not that easy for a lot of people.
You are obviously either a troll, or just seriously... worse than you think you are. There is no such thing as 'worker combat'. That was the whole point of Gheed's blogs. That you just a-move, and you will win, because you have 2-4 more workers than the worker rusher.
Horrendous at worker combat, but much better at other stuff... are you really serious? Please, read gheed's blogs. And I seriously doubt you are better at anything else. Submit a replay of your best macro, or a game you think you lost because of something other than macro or an obvious mismacro. I seriously doubt you play this game at what most would consider a competent level, if you are defending losing to worker rushing.
I don't think it's fair to say master's level macro is "poor." Perhaps saying it still has holes is more accurate.
I think most masters would say master's level macro is pretty poor. At masters people start to understand how to analyze their game and how to get better, and just how truly shitty they are. It's not holes, many lower masters have some pretty glaring errors in their macro early on. So it's funny when someone below masters insists they have good macro.
Cecil's last few posts, I think have been pretty informative.
Thanks sunkure! For another great read. I have to agree that lower league players really under estimate how far behind you are setting yourself from the opponent who is not getting supply blocked and is having constant worker production.
What's funny is that better I get at the game, the more issues I find in my play. At bronze-gold I could only find a couple of things wrong with what I did during any given game. It wasn't that I was looking for the wrong things...it was simply the case that I had almost no information about the subtleties of the game and implications of tiny errors. If I lost the game, I would look at the end of the final engagement and ask how I could have won that specific fight with what I had. Obviously that's the wrong approach since SC is always about gradually building towards an end goal. I wouldn't even consider looking at my worker/army production ratio and I figured that I needed units more than drones in most cases. You can feel like you are macroing perfectly by keeping your money low and constantly making units. The issue comes when you fail to see that your income rate is inferior to what it could/should be.
I remember one game on Steppes of War (God forbid that name be spoken) in which I thought I played the best game of my life because my money was always low and I got my injects down on two bases for a good amount of time. I won the game and was so excited that I had finally learned how to play a macro game and knew what to look for. My analysis of the game afterwards confirmed what I had believed as my opponent typed "gg." I was a macro beast...high money, nope...constant units, check. Sadly, I was far from it and my ability to gauge my current skill level was totally skewed by my lack of overall understanding.
Think of it like this: It's like applying Newtonian gravity to everything and saying you understand how gravitational forces work. While you might have a very close representation of what is actually the case, it isn't sufficient enough to say that you understand gravitational physics. You can't even point out the own issues with Newton's theory without knowing more. Once you add in extra knowledge (in this case general relativity) you start to see the holes in the original thought process.
The same can be said for SC...you need to have that extra insight in order to understand how to improve. It's not easy and it's why there are so many help threads on TL. For most people, there will be walls that you hit and you simply need a key piece of knowledge to help you break through. It can be something as small as making set supply timings for your overlords. Even though it might not be completely optimal and timings in a real game are not always clear, having an set method the your overlord production can drastically improve your ability to produce more drones/units. Later on, you might gain a better understanding of how to efficiently time your overlords and scrap your original method. The structure is simply a tool to gain that next tidbit of information that will help you continually progress. Just like general relativity patched up a lot of holes in Newton's theory, your improvement will help you improve more simply by pointing out flaws you wouldn't have noticed before.
This is the approach everyone should take if they want to improve. You can't ever be content with your current level. Until you reach the very top, you know for certain that there are ways to get better. As long as there are people above you, it's impossible that you are doing things correctly...and even if you become the first player in SC2 history to win every major tournament you enter, there will be things you can improve. The OP gives good advice but I can see how some people could see it as painfully obvious and not helpful at all. It might seem vague but the fact is, improving is about the basics and all you really need to do as a lower level player is focus on those basics. I agree with others about having a plan; you should probably have a set strategy for each matchup so you aren't wasting brain power thinking about a build or style. Once you have this, focus on the very basic aspects of the game. One at a time, improve your ability to play smoothly. Build on what you know and improve the things that need attention. Find yourself a higher level player than you to point out things you normally wouldn't spot and have them explain it in detail. Sometimes you will hear something and it will simply click...then you're off to the races.
Not for your OP on Probes and Pylon. I'm a platinum random player, I suck, my main problem is my macro and my inability to stay focused on what really matters (top-right and bottom-left corner of the screen) is why I'm losing games. Apart from the occasional "come on, I was playing so godly, I only lost because this or that is OP", I'm very conscious of this fact.
The reason why I wanted to thank you is that I'm currently a student of a Social Psychology class, and one of the topic I'm currently dealing with is The Psychology of Self-Defense, i.e. how do people use motivational and cognitive strategies to preserve the image they have of themselves. Practically, they will actively deny anything that stands between who they really are and we call their "motivated illusion of themselves". This is usually not a problem: for instance, this system will help you forget that humiliating night where you got drunk and puked everywhere. However, it will all too often prevent you from improving: indeed, the first step in getting better is acknowledging that you have been so far mistaken in certain aspects, and this realization can be perceived as threatening.
In this case, people want believe they are good at Starcraft, because they invest a significant amount of their time into the game, but also because they belong to a community that emphasize being good at Starcraft as a positive aspect of the self. In their opinion, it's OK to have some micro or strategic issues, because even pros have them. However, accepting that they do not even have the slightest grasp on the game is very threatening for their perceived self, and for this reason they will actively deny that their macro sucks.
Long story short, responses to your topic are a trove of potential illustrations for this phenomenon, and anyone not believing in this theory should have a look at people like PinheadXXXX. It's absolutely compelling !
On the subject of bronze-gold hotkeys. -Everyone I know in silver-gold knows the letter hotkeys for their respective races perfectly. Its hard to tell how widespread this is, though. -Based on replay watching, only a smaller subset know about shift-queuing. IE sending a scout to visit all 3 spawns, or having it loop around the enemy's CC, or sending an SCV to build then back to mining. -Also most but not all hotkey all their production buildings. -Most people clearly the theory behind stutterstep and kiting, even if the execution is sloppy.
The bigger problems I see are non-standard or overly defensive buildorders. Fixing those would be a much simpler source of improvement. Also some throw their games away with bad decisions that are easy to avoid -building hydras vs terran, or using pure roach vs bio, Both had big macro leads and lost. -walking waves of bio into a 10 siegetank position, 4 times. And we had been in a tank war prior to this, and he had been winning. -switching from marine/tank /viking war to mass BC while one base up.
Those people all had an extremely flawed game understanding relative to their macro, and likely could have it fixed with a few minutes explanation of the matchup.
Long story short, responses to your topic are a trove of potential illustrations for this phenomenon, and anyone not believing in this theory should have a look at people like PinheadXXXX. It's absolutely compelling !
haha. I feel like that comment should be framed in TL hall of fame or something. "Im not good at worker combat but good at other things". Just the biggest fail I think I've ever seen. Ever.
And he still hasn't submitted a replay of his supposed play where he doesn't make any glaring macro issues in the first 10 minutes. Charon submitted a replay showing how a gold could macro perfectly in first 10 minutes if playing by themselves, and his macro was horrible. He just wasn't aware of it, and he just ended up proving my point.
I see a lot of "lol making drones is bad - I just die" comments here. (Or any variation of that. ) It just simply is not true. That is the exact piece of advice I received when I started in bronze. I began making probes (played protoss back then) non-stop. I would NEVER stop producing them. And look at that. I quickly went up to gold without any strategies or gameplans what so ever. I was just simply able to outproduce my opponent with my unit of choice (stalkers ftw)
Only when I reached gold, I needed to start thinking of things like saturations and build orders :3
So yeah. Awesome Piece of advice Cecil. I hope I had seen something like this when I started :D
Long story short, responses to your topic are a trove of potential illustrations for this phenomenon, and anyone not believing in this theory should have a look at people like PinheadXXXX. It's absolutely compelling !
haha. I feel like that comment should be framed in TL hall of fame or something. "Im not good at worker combat but good at other things". Just the biggest fail I think I've ever seen. Ever.
And he still hasn't submitted a replay of his supposed play where he doesn't make any glaring macro issues in the first 10 minutes. Charon submitted a replay showing how a gold could macro perfectly in first 10 minutes if playing by themselves, and his macro was horrible. He just wasn't aware of it, and he just ended up proving my point.
Glad you liked it Belial .
The amount of delusion is indeed strong within this guy: "Hey, I can't walk, but I can run pretty well you know?!"
On April 09 2012 17:59 Ringall wrote: I see a lot of "lol making drones is bad - I just die" comments here. (Or any variation of that. ) It just simply is not true. That is the exact piece of advice I received when I started in bronze. I began making probes (played protoss back then) non-stop. I would NEVER stop producing them. And look at that. I quickly went up to gold without any strategies or gameplans what so ever. I was just simply able to outproduce my opponent with my unit of choice (stalkers ftw)
Only when I reached gold, I needed to start thinking of things like saturations and build orders :3
So yeah. Awesome Piece of advice Cecil. I hope I had seen something like this when I started :D
Expand and make lots of stalkers IS a gameplan, though. And not a terrible one either. And from a similar experiment with mass marines, I had to fix my saturation issues quite early. A 20/40/20 mineral mining scv split on 3 bases is bad! And I had to force myself to cut scvs at 80 or so to allow for more army and raxes.
On April 09 2012 08:33 PinheadXXXXXX wrote: You have a very low opinion of bronze to gold league. Most people in top Bronze, Silver, and Gold know their hotkeys, and actually do know how to play. They do actually know some or most counters. You refer to to Gheed's worker rushing in Bronze, but still, you fail to comprehend the enormous skill gap between the bottom and the top of bronze, and even the bottom of bronze and the top of gold. I am not saying that bronze-gold league can macro well. All i am saying is that you are vastly underselling that skill set, and you really do not have an idea of what things are like there. I'm not taking what you said as an insult, it is just atrociously incorrect.
Not to detract from your argument, but didn't Gheed actually get up to facing the occasional gold player when doing his worker rushing...?
From reading the blogs, he seems to lose to most of the silvers. He did beat a gold, but that turned out to someone on the way down to bronze. Certainly there's little excuse for people who regularly see worker rushes and who are somewhat serious about the game not knowing how to beat it. But there's also people who might lose simply because they've never seen it before. I've seen 1 worker rush in 300-400 games, and that guy quit because he scouted me last.
I'm a low-level Diamond player. I play the game strictly for fun, but I find a lot of the fun lies in the learning of it. I've always been the strongest player amongst my friends and regarded as the "safe, mechanical player." However, my mechanics are the worst part of my play - specifically my macro. After deciding to learn a new hotkey setup to aid this, I'm coming back to threads like this one and the "Focused Approach to Perfecting Mechanics" to help me just get better at the fundamentals of the game.
I found your VOD very convincing - no shenanigans, just straight macro and vs an unchecked zerg at that. Your post has helped me learn more about the game, the message simple and well presented. Thank you for posting, I'll be returning to this thread simply to reread the OP.
On April 09 2012 08:33 PinheadXXXXXX wrote: You have a very low opinion of bronze to gold league. Most people in top Bronze, Silver, and Gold know their hotkeys, and actually do know how to play. They do actually know some or most counters. You refer to to Gheed's worker rushing in Bronze, but still, you fail to comprehend the enormous skill gap between the bottom and the top of bronze, and even the bottom of bronze and the top of gold. I am not saying that bronze-gold league can macro well. All i am saying is that you are vastly underselling that skill set, and you really do not have an idea of what things are like there. I'm not taking what you said as an insult, it is just atrociously incorrect.
Not to detract from your argument, but didn't Gheed actually get up to facing the occasional gold player when doing his worker rushing...?
Yeah, but lots of players, including me, are horrendous at worker combat, but much better at other stuff. Worker combat is not that easy for a lot of people.
Worker combat? You mean beating a worker rush?
It's so easy to beat a worker rush, I can literally type every action you have to do to beat one.
1) Select all your workers by dragging using the left click button on your mouse. 2) Right click on a mineral field near your CC/Nexus/Hatchery. There are 8 to choose from on most maps. Any will do. 3) Select your CC/Nex/Hatch using the left click button. 4) Create a worker. This involves one button press for Terran or Protoss (S or E respectively) and two button presses for zerg (S and then D) 5) Right click on one of the mineral patches to "rally" your CC/Nex/Hatch. 6) When you have 50 minerals, repeat step 4. 7) Repeat step 6 until you are at 9 supply for protoss and zerg or 10 supply for terran. 8) As terran or protoss, select a worker, press b, and then s or e respectively. Left click anywhere the icon is green in your main base. As zerg, select your hatchery and press S and then V. 9) You will see the worker rush around about now. Select all of your workers using the same left-click-drag you used in step 1. 10) Press a. 11) Left click on the ground and not an enemy unit, your CC/Nex/Hatch, your building supply depot or pylon, or any of your larvae or eggs. 12) You have now won the game, congratulations.
Seriously, that's it. If you struggle with the above 12 actions and you are not physically or mentally impaired in some way (and there are players who've lost limbs for whatever reason who can achieve the above), you seriously don't know enough to talk about any topic relating to the game until you've improved.
You don't even need all 12 of the above. If you manage to create 2 workers in the first minute of the game and press a and left click on the ground, you win.
On April 09 2012 08:33 PinheadXXXXXX wrote: You have a very low opinion of bronze to gold league. Most people in top Bronze, Silver, and Gold know their hotkeys, and actually do know how to play. They do actually know some or most counters. You refer to to Gheed's worker rushing in Bronze, but still, you fail to comprehend the enormous skill gap between the bottom and the top of bronze, and even the bottom of bronze and the top of gold. I am not saying that bronze-gold league can macro well. All i am saying is that you are vastly underselling that skill set, and you really do not have an idea of what things are like there. I'm not taking what you said as an insult, it is just atrociously incorrect.
Not to detract from your argument, but didn't Gheed actually get up to facing the occasional gold player when doing his worker rushing...?
From reading the blogs, he seems to lose to most of the silvers. He did beat a gold, but that turned out to someone on the way down to bronze. Certainly there's little excuse for people who regularly see worker rushes and who are somewhat serious about the game not knowing how to beat it. But there's also people who might lose simply because they've never seen it before. I've seen 1 worker rush in 300-400 games, and that guy quit because he scouted me last.
On November 07 2011 07:28 Gheed wrote: When I first began worker rushing and my MMR settled, I noticed I would play almost exclusively against bronze leaguers. Now, I'm facing a silver leaguer or above in about one of every four matches.
Mostly silver, yes, but he's still facing a reasonable number of golds. The first thing you need to do to improve is realise how terrible you actually are, and if your ladder peers (at the same level as you) can be beaten by something as simple and stupid as a worker rush you have to accept you are just plain terrible at the game. Once you have accepted you are terrible, you are better able to look at areas you THOUGHT were good and find glaring mistakes, which lead to ways to improve!
I am a low EU Diamond player, and I used to look at protoss opponents (it is always protoss) who have literally half of my APM and didn't use hotkeys AT ALL, and I used to think they were terrible and that I was better than them. Then I realised that, for me to be facing them on ladder, I was equally as terrible as them. My play may be better than them in some areas, but if I am facing them on ladder it means my MMR is ~= to theirs. And that means, even though I am using base cameras and hotkeys and have double their APM, that I have huge glaring holes elsewhere in my play. [spoiler]Protoss are still nubs though[/quote]
On April 09 2012 08:33 PinheadXXXXXX wrote: You have a very low opinion of bronze to gold league. Most people in top Bronze, Silver, and Gold know their hotkeys, and actually do know how to play. They do actually know some or most counters. You refer to to Gheed's worker rushing in Bronze, but still, you fail to comprehend the enormous skill gap between the bottom and the top of bronze, and even the bottom of bronze and the top of gold. I am not saying that bronze-gold league can macro well. All i am saying is that you are vastly underselling that skill set, and you really do not have an idea of what things are like there. I'm not taking what you said as an insult, it is just atrociously incorrect.
Not to detract from your argument, but didn't Gheed actually get up to facing the occasional gold player when doing his worker rushing...?
Yeah, but lots of players, including me, are horrendous at worker combat, but much better at other stuff. Worker combat is not that easy for a lot of people.
Worker combat? You mean beating a worker rush?
It's so easy to beat a worker rush, I can literally type every action you have to do to beat one.
1) Select all your workers by dragging using the left click button on your mouse. 2) Right click on a mineral field near your CC/Nexus/Hatchery. There are 8 to choose from on most maps. Any will do. 3) Select your CC/Nex/Hatch using the left click button. 4) Create a worker. This involves one button press for Terran or Protoss (S or E respectively) and two button presses for zerg (S and then D) 5) Right click on one of the mineral patches to "rally" your CC/Nex/Hatch. 6) When you have 50 minerals, repeat step 4. 7) Repeat step 6 until you are at 9 supply for protoss and zerg or 10 supply for terran. 8) As terran or protoss, select a worker, press b, and then s or e respectively. Left click anywhere the icon is green in your main base. As zerg, select your hatchery and press S and then V. 9) You will see the worker rush around about now. Select all of your workers using the same left-click-drag you used in step 1. 10) Press a. 11) Left click on the ground and not an enemy unit, your CC/Nex/Hatch, your building supply depot or pylon, or any of your larvae or eggs. 12) You have now won the game, congratulations.
Seriously, that's it. If you struggle with the above 12 actions and you are not physically or mentally impaired in some way (and there are players who've lost limbs for whatever reason who can achieve the above), you seriously don't know enough to talk about any topic relating to the game until you've improved.
You don't even need all 12 of the above. If you manage to create 2 workers in the first minute of the game and press a and left click on the ground, you win.
Don't overcomplicate it. To beat a worker rush (of the type Gheed was doing) you simply need to: 1) Box your workers 2) A-move
On April 09 2012 08:33 PinheadXXXXXX wrote: You have a very low opinion of bronze to gold league. Most people in top Bronze, Silver, and Gold know their hotkeys, and actually do know how to play. They do actually know some or most counters. You refer to to Gheed's worker rushing in Bronze, but still, you fail to comprehend the enormous skill gap between the bottom and the top of bronze, and even the bottom of bronze and the top of gold. I am not saying that bronze-gold league can macro well. All i am saying is that you are vastly underselling that skill set, and you really do not have an idea of what things are like there. I'm not taking what you said as an insult, it is just atrociously incorrect.
Not to detract from your argument, but didn't Gheed actually get up to facing the occasional gold player when doing his worker rushing...?
Yeah, but lots of players, including me, are horrendous at worker combat, but much better at other stuff. Worker combat is not that easy for a lot of people.
Worker combat? You mean beating a worker rush?
It's so easy to beat a worker rush, I can literally type every action you have to do to beat one.
1) Select all your workers by dragging using the left click button on your mouse. 2) Right click on a mineral field near your CC/Nexus/Hatchery. There are 8 to choose from on most maps. Any will do. 3) Select your CC/Nex/Hatch using the left click button. 4) Create a worker. This involves one button press for Terran or Protoss (S or E respectively) and two button presses for zerg (S and then D) 5) Right click on one of the mineral patches to "rally" your CC/Nex/Hatch. 6) When you have 50 minerals, repeat step 4. 7) Repeat step 6 until you are at 9 supply for protoss and zerg or 10 supply for terran. 8) As terran or protoss, select a worker, press b, and then s or e respectively. Left click anywhere the icon is green in your main base. As zerg, select your hatchery and press S and then V. 9) You will see the worker rush around about now. Select all of your workers using the same left-click-drag you used in step 1. 10) Press a. 11) Left click on the ground and not an enemy unit, your CC/Nex/Hatch, your building supply depot or pylon, or any of your larvae or eggs. 12) You have now won the game, congratulations.
Seriously, that's it. If you struggle with the above 12 actions and you are not physically or mentally impaired in some way (and there are players who've lost limbs for whatever reason who can achieve the above), you seriously don't know enough to talk about any topic relating to the game until you've improved.
You don't even need all 12 of the above. If you manage to create 2 workers in the first minute of the game and press a and left click on the ground, you win.
Don't overcomplicate it. To beat a worker rush (of the type Gheed was doing) you simply need to: 1) Box your workers 2) A-move
No, because if you do that you'll have equal harvesters to them and it'll come down to micro and positioning. To reliably beat a worker rush with an a-move as any race against any race, you need to have more than they do. You can have at least 2 more than them (and probs about 3/4 more with another on the way, I don't know the exact timings and what map) by the time a worker rush arrives, in which case a simple a-move will autowin against any micro.
I was being intentionally very verbose in my first post to drive home how simple this really is.
On April 09 2012 08:33 PinheadXXXXXX wrote: You have a very low opinion of bronze to gold league. Most people in top Bronze, Silver, and Gold know their hotkeys, and actually do know how to play. They do actually know some or most counters. You refer to to Gheed's worker rushing in Bronze, but still, you fail to comprehend the enormous skill gap between the bottom and the top of bronze, and even the bottom of bronze and the top of gold. I am not saying that bronze-gold league can macro well. All i am saying is that you are vastly underselling that skill set, and you really do not have an idea of what things are like there. I'm not taking what you said as an insult, it is just atrociously incorrect.
Not to detract from your argument, but didn't Gheed actually get up to facing the occasional gold player when doing his worker rushing...?
Yeah, but lots of players, including me, are horrendous at worker combat, but much better at other stuff. Worker combat is not that easy for a lot of people.
Worker combat? You mean beating a worker rush?
It's so easy to beat a worker rush, I can literally type every action you have to do to beat one.
1) Select all your workers by dragging using the left click button on your mouse. 2) Right click on a mineral field near your CC/Nexus/Hatchery. There are 8 to choose from on most maps. Any will do. 3) Select your CC/Nex/Hatch using the left click button. 4) Create a worker. This involves one button press for Terran or Protoss (S or E respectively) and two button presses for zerg (S and then D) 5) Right click on one of the mineral patches to "rally" your CC/Nex/Hatch. 6) When you have 50 minerals, repeat step 4. 7) Repeat step 6 until you are at 9 supply for protoss and zerg or 10 supply for terran. 8) As terran or protoss, select a worker, press b, and then s or e respectively. Left click anywhere the icon is green in your main base. As zerg, select your hatchery and press S and then V. 9) You will see the worker rush around about now. Select all of your workers using the same left-click-drag you used in step 1. 10) Press a. 11) Left click on the ground and not an enemy unit, your CC/Nex/Hatch, your building supply depot or pylon, or any of your larvae or eggs. 12) You have now won the game, congratulations.
Seriously, that's it. If you struggle with the above 12 actions and you are not physically or mentally impaired in some way (and there are players who've lost limbs for whatever reason who can achieve the above), you seriously don't know enough to talk about any topic relating to the game until you've improved.
You don't even need all 12 of the above. If you manage to create 2 workers in the first minute of the game and press a and left click on the ground, you win.
Don't overcomplicate it. To beat a worker rush (of the type Gheed was doing) you simply need to: 1) Box your workers 2) A-move
No, because if you do that you'll have equal harvesters to them and it'll come down to micro and positioning. To reliably beat a worker rush with an a-move as any race against any race, you need to have more than they do. You can have at least 2 more than them (and probs about 3/4 more with another on the way, I don't know the exact timings and what map) by the time a worker rush arrives, in which case a simple a-move will autowin against any micro.
I was being intentionally very verbose in my first post to drive home how simple this really is.
On what map can you possibly have equal number of harvesters when a worker rush hits your base? They have 6 workers, you should have at the very least 8. You're supposed to box your workers and a-move when they reach your base, not when the game starts, which is quite obvious since you don't know it's a worker rush before that point anyway.
As stated, you're way overcomplicating something for no reason. Literally box workers and amove as soon as you see the worker rush, anything before or after is way overcomplicating.
On April 09 2012 08:33 PinheadXXXXXX wrote: You have a very low opinion of bronze to gold league. Most people in top Bronze, Silver, and Gold know their hotkeys, and actually do know how to play. They do actually know some or most counters. You refer to to Gheed's worker rushing in Bronze, but still, you fail to comprehend the enormous skill gap between the bottom and the top of bronze, and even the bottom of bronze and the top of gold. I am not saying that bronze-gold league can macro well. All i am saying is that you are vastly underselling that skill set, and you really do not have an idea of what things are like there. I'm not taking what you said as an insult, it is just atrociously incorrect.
Not to detract from your argument, but didn't Gheed actually get up to facing the occasional gold player when doing his worker rushing...?
Yeah, but lots of players, including me, are horrendous at worker combat, but much better at other stuff. Worker combat is not that easy for a lot of people.
Worker combat? You mean beating a worker rush?
It's so easy to beat a worker rush, I can literally type every action you have to do to beat one.
1) Select all your workers by dragging using the left click button on your mouse. 2) Right click on a mineral field near your CC/Nexus/Hatchery. There are 8 to choose from on most maps. Any will do. 3) Select your CC/Nex/Hatch using the left click button. 4) Create a worker. This involves one button press for Terran or Protoss (S or E respectively) and two button presses for zerg (S and then D) 5) Right click on one of the mineral patches to "rally" your CC/Nex/Hatch. 6) When you have 50 minerals, repeat step 4. 7) Repeat step 6 until you are at 9 supply for protoss and zerg or 10 supply for terran. 8) As terran or protoss, select a worker, press b, and then s or e respectively. Left click anywhere the icon is green in your main base. As zerg, select your hatchery and press S and then V. 9) You will see the worker rush around about now. Select all of your workers using the same left-click-drag you used in step 1. 10) Press a. 11) Left click on the ground and not an enemy unit, your CC/Nex/Hatch, your building supply depot or pylon, or any of your larvae or eggs. 12) You have now won the game, congratulations.
Seriously, that's it. If you struggle with the above 12 actions and you are not physically or mentally impaired in some way (and there are players who've lost limbs for whatever reason who can achieve the above), you seriously don't know enough to talk about any topic relating to the game until you've improved.
You don't even need all 12 of the above. If you manage to create 2 workers in the first minute of the game and press a and left click on the ground, you win.
Don't overcomplicate it. To beat a worker rush (of the type Gheed was doing) you simply need to: 1) Box your workers 2) A-move
No, because if you do that you'll have equal harvesters to them and it'll come down to micro and positioning. To reliably beat a worker rush with an a-move as any race against any race, you need to have more than they do. You can have at least 2 more than them (and probs about 3/4 more with another on the way, I don't know the exact timings and what map) by the time a worker rush arrives, in which case a simple a-move will autowin against any micro.
I was being intentionally very verbose in my first post to drive home how simple this really is.
On what map can you possibly have equal number of harvesters when a worker rush hits your base? They have 6 workers, you should have at the very least 8. You're supposed to box your workers and a-move when they reach your base, not when the game starts, which is quite obvious since you don't know it's a worker rush before that point anyway.
As stated, you're way overcomplicating something for no reason. Literally box workers and amove as soon as you see the worker rush, anything before or after is way overcomplicating.
This is so offtopic, but:
As I said, I was being intentionally verbose to emphasize how simple this is to beat. Obviously you need to box and a-move. But it's technically incorrect to say that all you need to do to beat a worker rush is to box and a-move, because if they're the only actions you perform, you by default haven't created any more workers and you will have equal numbers of harvesters when they reach your base since neither of you have made any (they'll have a 7th coming shortly after their first 6 arrive)
Since I was going through every step in excruciating detail, I emphasized that you do indeed need to create workers to beat a worker rush reliably with an a-move. Boxing and a-moving with equal workers would lead to micro and positioning being important.
I don't know how I can make it any more clear that I was going through every step required to beat a worker rush.
The only possible "overcomplication" is the part I wrote about building supply depots/pylons/overlords, because you can obviously beat a worker rush if you continue producing up to the cap. I actually mentioned this in my first post though.
A little anecdotal feedback. Taking the OP's point of valuing macro, I attempted to make it my main focus of late. I had a good night last night, and went 9-4 tonight. Even thought I had no specific plans on improving macro, simply having it in the back of my mind helped immensely. I'm looking more and more at the top right of the screen to keep track of my money and production and am hitting my injects better.
The games I win I have an equal or better Resource Collection Rate. The games I lose are usually due to specific Protoss timings, or ZvZ early game. At least at my level (high plat Zerg) simply having a little reminder of "macro" in the back of your head seems to help.
It's a little early to call success yet. It's the end of the season and I'm coming of a 2 week break. Both these could have contributed to my good win rate. I'm not sure I'll get promoted in Season 7, but we'll keep going and see how it goes. I feel like my APM is topping out though (around 60) so this may limit my improvement long term.
Before I say anything, I want to make it clear that I absolutely agree with the premise and I'm not trying to fight the point that macro is the most important thing. I play with a LOT of bronze/silver league friends for fun sometimes. I'm going to point out some things I noticed in your first game that I don't think they "get" when they hear "probes & pylons". These are subtle things that I think you do subconsciously and are supremely obvious to you, that actually do have a discernible impact on the outcome of the game that they would NEVER do.
- Probe Stacking (ok fine, not a big deal) - Scouting without forgetting absolutely everything in their base. They come back to 1000/250 when they micro a probe. - Microing your probe without losing it and therefore being completely blind to the 25 lings that pop, or coming up with some random thing in their head like "OMG HE COULD BE SENDING 20 ROACHES, BETTER DROP 15 CANNONS". - Knowing to look for a hatch against the zerg (seriously) - Checking for gas and/or knowing what that might even mean. Many silver players don't know that zergling speed costs gas. - Not taking 2-4 gas for absolutely no reason and just making pure zealots. - Positioning your army/structures so run-bys aren't possible and doing this without losing any time. - Pre-emptively breaking rocks to your third. - Building a pylon near your third for vision and warp in ability (they rarely do this) - Observer scouting without your macro going to shit. - Not screen scrolling (this eats up a ton of their time). - Built a cannon above the rocks at third. - Built a warp prism and used waypoints at all, let alone ones that didn't fly directly over their base. - Killed creep. - Got appropriate upgrades at reasonable times (ok, macro I guess). - Harassed the mineral line of main and the front at the same time and paid attention to both while simultaneously not letting your macro go to shit. This is laughable for a silver league player. This falls under "Probes & Pylons"? - Forcefielded the ramp. - Knew when to retreat a bit. - Harassed the mineral line again while simultaneously strafing your army away from the ramp so that hydras couldn't shell you from range (seriously?) lol. They're more likely to move command up the ramp because "the army is up there, if I kill it, I win!". - Didn't move command (this has ended so many games). - Minimap awareness (not really relevant in this game). I've sat an entire army on someone's creep and they didn't even see it. - Didn't build 45 cannons in your main because "fuck mutalisks, that's why".
The point I'm trying to make is that they blunder basically all of these. Their games generally don't get this far because they move their army out in front of their base, someone sends 75 lings into their third because they didn't realize they broke down the rocks, they lose that. By the time they realize this is even happening at all, they move command (not A-move) their army back to their natural. Lings run into the mineral line and kill half the shit there. And the entire gameplan (or lack thereof) goes to crap.
One of the oft-misunderstood things about silver league players (don't know why I'm harping on silver league so much) is that one ounce of pressure and absolutely everything goes to crap. You ever play WoW? There was always the ever so slightly older person in the guild that just played for fun and didn't want to hit her fireball key all the time because arcane missiles was cooler looking. That's bronze. Silver is just above that. Gold is where maybe 1/3rd of that list is now attainable.
Imagine the zerg player had gone for muta. And he flew them around and went to your main mineral line. Then when you moved your army up, he flew them down to your natural. Then when you moved your entire army there, he flew back to your main. I have yet to encounter a silver league player that can handle this. Make all the probes/pylons you want. They NEVER split up their army.
Again, I'm not trying to argue the probes & pylons point. I'm just saying that some of the uber-low league players have such unbelievably glaring flaws that sometimes people don't even consider. It wouldn't matter if macro happened automatically and perfectly. You would still destroy them.
On April 09 2012 23:26 South wrote: Before I say anything, I want to make it clear that I absolutely agree with the premise and I'm not trying to fight the point that macro is the most important thing. I play with a LOT of bronze/silver league friends for fun sometimes. I'm going to point out some things I noticed in your first game that I don't think they "get" when they hear "probes & pylons". These are subtle things that I think you do subconsciously and are supremely obvious to you, that actually do have a discernible impact on the outcome of the game that they would NEVER do.
- Probe Stacking (ok fine, not a big deal) - Scouting without forgetting absolutely everything in their base. They come back to 1000/250 when they micro a probe. - Microing your probe without losing it and therefore being completely blind to the 25 lings that pop, or coming up with some random thing in their head like "OMG HE COULD BE SENDING 20 ROACHES, BETTER DROP 15 CANNONS". - Knowing to look for a hatch against the zerg (seriously) - Checking for gas and/or knowing what that might even mean. Many silver players don't know that zergling speed costs gas. - Not taking 2-4 gas for absolutely no reason and just making pure zealots. - Positioning your army/structures so run-bys aren't possible and doing this without losing any time. - Pre-emptively breaking rocks to your third. - Building a pylon near your third for vision and warp in ability (they rarely do this) - Observer scouting without your macro going to shit. - Not screen scrolling (this eats up a ton of their time). - Built a cannon above the rocks at third. - Built a warp prism and used waypoints at all, let alone ones that didn't fly directly over their base. - Killed creep. - Got appropriate upgrades at reasonable times (ok, macro I guess). - Harassed the mineral line of main and the front at the same time and paid attention to both while simultaneously not letting your macro go to shit. This is laughable for a silver league player. This falls under "Probes & Pylons"? - Forcefielded the ramp. - Knew when to retreat a bit. - Harassed the mineral line again while simultaneously strafing your army away from the ramp so that hydras couldn't shell you from range (seriously?) lol. They're more likely to move command up the ramp because "the army is up there, if I kill it, I win!". - Didn't move command (this has ended so many games). - Minimap awareness (not really relevant in this game). I've sat an entire army on someone's creep and they didn't even see it. - Didn't build 45 cannons in your main because "fuck mutalisks, that's why".
The point I'm trying to make is that they blunder basically all of these. Their games generally don't get this far because they move their army out in front of their base, someone sends 75 lings into their third because they didn't realize they broke down the rocks, they lose that. By the time they realize this is even happening at all, they move command (not A-move) their army back to their natural. Lings run into the mineral line and kill half the shit there. And the entire gameplan (or lack thereof) goes to crap.
One of the oft-misunderstood things about silver league players (don't know why I'm harping on silver league so much) is that one ounce of pressure and absolutely everything goes to crap. You ever play WoW? There was always the ever so slightly older person in the guild that just played for fun and didn't want to hit her fireball key all the time because arcane missiles was cooler looking. That's bronze. Silver is just above that. Gold is where maybe 1/3rd of that list is now attainable.
Imagine the zerg player had gone for muta. And he flew them around and went to your main mineral line. Then when you moved your army up, he flew them down to your natural. Then when you moved your entire army there, he flew back to your main. I have yet to encounter a silver league player that can handle this. Make all the probes/pylons you want. They NEVER split up their army.
Again, I'm not trying to argue the probes & pylons point. I'm just saying that some of the uber-low league players have such unbelievably glaring flaws that sometimes people don't even consider. It wouldn't matter if macro happened automatically and perfectly. You would still destroy them.
Don't confuse old, with lazy /casual. Age is only relevant to declining ability, not desire.
I praticed as much as possible last week, and finally got around to redoing my 5 placement matches. I went 4-1 and placed platinum. Had a good practice partner ( thanks Orange). He was a Zergie, so I switched to Toss
On April 09 2012 08:33 PinheadXXXXXX wrote: You have a very low opinion of bronze to gold league. Most people in top Bronze, Silver, and Gold know their hotkeys, and actually do know how to play. They do actually know some or most counters. You refer to to Gheed's worker rushing in Bronze, but still, you fail to comprehend the enormous skill gap between the bottom and the top of bronze, and even the bottom of bronze and the top of gold. I am not saying that bronze-gold league can macro well. All i am saying is that you are vastly underselling that skill set, and you really do not have an idea of what things are like there. I'm not taking what you said as an insult, it is just atrociously incorrect.
Not to detract from your argument, but didn't Gheed actually get up to facing the occasional gold player when doing his worker rushing...?
Yeah, but lots of players, including me, are horrendous at worker combat, but much better at other stuff. Worker combat is not that easy for a lot of people.
Worker combat? You mean beating a worker rush?
It's so easy to beat a worker rush, I can literally type every action you have to do to beat one.
1) Select all your workers by dragging using the left click button on your mouse. 2) Right click on a mineral field near your CC/Nexus/Hatchery. There are 8 to choose from on most maps. Any will do. 3) Select your CC/Nex/Hatch using the left click button. 4) Create a worker. This involves one button press for Terran or Protoss (S or E respectively) and two button presses for zerg (S and then D) 5) Right click on one of the mineral patches to "rally" your CC/Nex/Hatch. 6) When you have 50 minerals, repeat step 4. 7) Repeat step 6 until you are at 9 supply for protoss and zerg or 10 supply for terran. 8) As terran or protoss, select a worker, press b, and then s or e respectively. Left click anywhere the icon is green in your main base. As zerg, select your hatchery and press S and then V. 9) You will see the worker rush around about now. Select all of your workers using the same left-click-drag you used in step 1. 10) Press a. 11) Left click on the ground and not an enemy unit, your CC/Nex/Hatch, your building supply depot or pylon, or any of your larvae or eggs. 12) You have now won the game, congratulations.
Seriously, that's it. If you struggle with the above 12 actions and you are not physically or mentally impaired in some way (and there are players who've lost limbs for whatever reason who can achieve the above), you seriously don't know enough to talk about any topic relating to the game until you've improved.
You don't even need all 12 of the above. If you manage to create 2 workers in the first minute of the game and press a and left click on the ground, you win.
Don't overcomplicate it. To beat a worker rush (of the type Gheed was doing) you simply need to: 1) Box your workers 2) A-move
No, because if you do that you'll have equal harvesters to them and it'll come down to micro and positioning. To reliably beat a worker rush with an a-move as any race against any race, you need to have more than they do. You can have at least 2 more than them (and probs about 3/4 more with another on the way, I don't know the exact timings and what map) by the time a worker rush arrives, in which case a simple a-move will autowin against any micro.
I was being intentionally very verbose in my first post to drive home how simple this really is.
On what map can you possibly have equal number of harvesters when a worker rush hits your base? They have 6 workers, you should have at the very least 8. You're supposed to box your workers and a-move when they reach your base, not when the game starts, which is quite obvious since you don't know it's a worker rush before that point anyway.
As stated, you're way overcomplicating something for no reason. Literally box workers and amove as soon as you see the worker rush, anything before or after is way overcomplicating.
This is so offtopic, but:
As I said, I was being intentionally verbose to emphasize how simple this is to beat. Obviously you need to box and a-move. But it's technically incorrect to say that all you need to do to beat a worker rush is to box and a-move, because if they're the only actions you perform, you by default haven't created any more workers and you will have equal numbers of harvesters when they reach your base since neither of you have made any (they'll have a 7th coming shortly after their first 6 arrive)
Since I was going through every step in excruciating detail, I emphasized that you do indeed need to create workers to beat a worker rush reliably with an a-move. Boxing and a-moving with equal workers would lead to micro and positioning being important.
I don't know how I can make it any more clear that I was going through every step required to beat a worker rush.
The only possible "overcomplication" is the part I wrote about building supply depots/pylons/overlords, because you can obviously beat a worker rush if you continue producing up to the cap. I actually mentioned this in my first post though.
How is it not overcomplicating something to give excruciating detail in everything, and what's the point of doing it? What a player losing to worker rushes need to hear isn't "First, plug in your mouse..", it's "box and a-move". I don't think they want to read a whole book on a subject so simple.
On April 09 2012 08:33 PinheadXXXXXX wrote: You have a very low opinion of bronze to gold league. Most people in top Bronze, Silver, and Gold know their hotkeys, and actually do know how to play. They do actually know some or most counters. You refer to to Gheed's worker rushing in Bronze, but still, you fail to comprehend the enormous skill gap between the bottom and the top of bronze, and even the bottom of bronze and the top of gold. I am not saying that bronze-gold league can macro well. All i am saying is that you are vastly underselling that skill set, and you really do not have an idea of what things are like there. I'm not taking what you said as an insult, it is just atrociously incorrect.
Not to detract from your argument, but didn't Gheed actually get up to facing the occasional gold player when doing his worker rushing...?
Yeah, but lots of players, including me, are horrendous at worker combat, but much better at other stuff. Worker combat is not that easy for a lot of people.
Worker combat? You mean beating a worker rush?
It's so easy to beat a worker rush, I can literally type every action you have to do to beat one.
1) Select all your workers by dragging using the left click button on your mouse. 2) Right click on a mineral field near your CC/Nexus/Hatchery. There are 8 to choose from on most maps. Any will do. 3) Select your CC/Nex/Hatch using the left click button. 4) Create a worker. This involves one button press for Terran or Protoss (S or E respectively) and two button presses for zerg (S and then D) 5) Right click on one of the mineral patches to "rally" your CC/Nex/Hatch. 6) When you have 50 minerals, repeat step 4. 7) Repeat step 6 until you are at 9 supply for protoss and zerg or 10 supply for terran. 8) As terran or protoss, select a worker, press b, and then s or e respectively. Left click anywhere the icon is green in your main base. As zerg, select your hatchery and press S and then V. 9) You will see the worker rush around about now. Select all of your workers using the same left-click-drag you used in step 1. 10) Press a. 11) Left click on the ground and not an enemy unit, your CC/Nex/Hatch, your building supply depot or pylon, or any of your larvae or eggs. 12) You have now won the game, congratulations.
Seriously, that's it. If you struggle with the above 12 actions and you are not physically or mentally impaired in some way (and there are players who've lost limbs for whatever reason who can achieve the above), you seriously don't know enough to talk about any topic relating to the game until you've improved.
You don't even need all 12 of the above. If you manage to create 2 workers in the first minute of the game and press a and left click on the ground, you win.
Don't overcomplicate it. To beat a worker rush (of the type Gheed was doing) you simply need to: 1) Box your workers 2) A-move
No, because if you do that you'll have equal harvesters to them and it'll come down to micro and positioning. To reliably beat a worker rush with an a-move as any race against any race, you need to have more than they do. You can have at least 2 more than them (and probs about 3/4 more with another on the way, I don't know the exact timings and what map) by the time a worker rush arrives, in which case a simple a-move will autowin against any micro.
I was being intentionally very verbose in my first post to drive home how simple this really is.
On what map can you possibly have equal number of harvesters when a worker rush hits your base? They have 6 workers, you should have at the very least 8. You're supposed to box your workers and a-move when they reach your base, not when the game starts, which is quite obvious since you don't know it's a worker rush before that point anyway.
As stated, you're way overcomplicating something for no reason. Literally box workers and amove as soon as you see the worker rush, anything before or after is way overcomplicating.
This is so offtopic, but:
As I said, I was being intentionally verbose to emphasize how simple this is to beat. Obviously you need to box and a-move. But it's technically incorrect to say that all you need to do to beat a worker rush is to box and a-move, because if they're the only actions you perform, you by default haven't created any more workers and you will have equal numbers of harvesters when they reach your base since neither of you have made any (they'll have a 7th coming shortly after their first 6 arrive)
Since I was going through every step in excruciating detail, I emphasized that you do indeed need to create workers to beat a worker rush reliably with an a-move. Boxing and a-moving with equal workers would lead to micro and positioning being important.
I don't know how I can make it any more clear that I was going through every step required to beat a worker rush.
The only possible "overcomplication" is the part I wrote about building supply depots/pylons/overlords, because you can obviously beat a worker rush if you continue producing up to the cap. I actually mentioned this in my first post though.
How is it not overcomplicating something to give excruciating detail in everything, and what's the point of doing it? What a player losing to worker rushes need to hear isn't "First, plug in your mouse..", it's "box and a-move". I don't think they want to read a whole book on a subject so simple.
You're overly simplifying it. He's overly complicating it.
On April 09 2012 17:17 Ahelvin wrote: Long story short, responses to your topic are a trove of potential illustrations for this phenomenon, and anyone not believing in this theory should have a look at people like PinheadXXXX. It's absolutely compelling !
I believe in this theory, btw. When did I ever say I didn't? Macro is the most important thing in the game, and I have never said otherwise.
On April 09 2012 08:33 PinheadXXXXXX wrote: You have a very low opinion of bronze to gold league. Most people in top Bronze, Silver, and Gold know their hotkeys, and actually do know how to play. They do actually know some or most counters. You refer to to Gheed's worker rushing in Bronze, but still, you fail to comprehend the enormous skill gap between the bottom and the top of bronze, and even the bottom of bronze and the top of gold. I am not saying that bronze-gold league can macro well. All i am saying is that you are vastly underselling that skill set, and you really do not have an idea of what things are like there. I'm not taking what you said as an insult, it is just atrociously incorrect.
Not to detract from your argument, but didn't Gheed actually get up to facing the occasional gold player when doing his worker rushing...?
Yeah, but lots of players, including me, are horrendous at worker combat, but much better at other stuff. Worker combat is not that easy for a lot of people.
Worker combat? You mean beating a worker rush?
It's so easy to beat a worker rush, I can literally type every action you have to do to beat one.
1) Select all your workers by dragging using the left click button on your mouse. 2) Right click on a mineral field near your CC/Nexus/Hatchery. There are 8 to choose from on most maps. Any will do. 3) Select your CC/Nex/Hatch using the left click button. 4) Create a worker. This involves one button press for Terran or Protoss (S or E respectively) and two button presses for zerg (S and then D) 5) Right click on one of the mineral patches to "rally" your CC/Nex/Hatch. 6) When you have 50 minerals, repeat step 4. 7) Repeat step 6 until you are at 9 supply for protoss and zerg or 10 supply for terran. 8) As terran or protoss, select a worker, press b, and then s or e respectively. Left click anywhere the icon is green in your main base. As zerg, select your hatchery and press S and then V. 9) You will see the worker rush around about now. Select all of your workers using the same left-click-drag you used in step 1. 10) Press a. 11) Left click on the ground and not an enemy unit, your CC/Nex/Hatch, your building supply depot or pylon, or any of your larvae or eggs. 12) You have now won the game, congratulations.
Seriously, that's it. If you struggle with the above 12 actions and you are not physically or mentally impaired in some way (and there are players who've lost limbs for whatever reason who can achieve the above), you seriously don't know enough to talk about any topic relating to the game until you've improved.
You don't even need all 12 of the above. If you manage to create 2 workers in the first minute of the game and press a and left click on the ground, you win.
Well, thank you. Couldn't some of you people have considered that maybe i thought YOU HAD TO MICRO YOUR WORKERS! Obviously, I was wrong, but for those people saying that I am a troll, or stupid, or mentally impaired, it could just be because I actually didn't know how to deal with a worker rush! You have to remember that people, including me, go/went into this game knowing completely nothing. All other "obvious" things are very easy to find, but that you can simply 1a your way to victory in a worker rush? I have actually never seen this before, because people simply insist that you must be mentally impaired or whatever, and refuse to tell how to do it. I say this also because it's not like it's a very common thing to turn up, and a lot of people actually think that you need to micro your workers in a scenario like this. You'd be surprised, and its partly because if anyone asks, all you high league players just talk about how stupid this person is, etc.
Long story short, responses to your topic are a trove of potential illustrations for this phenomenon, and anyone not believing in this theory should have a look at people like PinheadXXXX. It's absolutely compelling !
haha. I feel like that comment should be framed in TL hall of fame or something. "Im not good at worker combat but good at other things". Just the biggest fail I think I've ever seen. Ever.
And he still hasn't submitted a replay of his supposed play where he doesn't make any glaring macro issues in the first 10 minutes. Charon submitted a replay showing how a gold could macro perfectly in first 10 minutes if playing by themselves, and his macro was horrible. He just wasn't aware of it, and he just ended up proving my point.
I didn't ever say my macro was good, I just said I know my hotkeys and my unit counters. In reality, my macro is horrendous, (and yes, I do think it is the most important part of the game), but I still train all units through hotkeys, queue commands, and know generally what units to build in which situation. I also never said I was good at other things, I just actually can play, although fairly horribly. In Gheed's blog, he tried to lose without worker rushing, and faced awful players. I am better than any of those players. And yes, although this would be somewhat difficult to prove through a replay, I can submit one that shows this. Not that my macro is good or anything like that, just that I have some basic knowledge of the game.
I would argue you are vastly overselling. There is an even larger skill gap between diamond and lower masters, yet low masters doesn't macro well at all. And bottom of bronze are like 10 year olds, handicapped people, and portrait farming or bots.
Yeah, the bottom of bronze sucks. But how am I overselling by saying that 50% of the people who play starcraft actually know something about it? I'm not saying bronze-gold is actually good, you just said that 50% of the starcraft 2 population actually doesn't know how to play. I am in bronze, and I actually know my basic unit counters and all my hotkeys. That is way, way better than your opinion of gold league, even. And no, I am not wrong, because knowing counters and hotkeys is a very tangible thing.
One interesting thing I discovered with regards to the "mass stalker to Diamond" guy. His macro wasn't even that good! http://drop.sc/156912 I reviewed some of his replays, he'd generally have 19-22 stalkers and 54-58 probes by the 12 minute mark. I did a practice session vs Normal AI to prepare me for the switch to a mass stalker strat in season 7. It went so horribly bad that I had ended up depowering my 1st gateway and cybercore because I accidentally walled myself in and broke the Artosis pylon to get out.
I had 23 stalkers and 55 probes by the 12 minute mark. http://drop.sc/156911 I haven't played more than half a dozen customs vs AI as Protoss, and 2 practice sessions vs a friend.
there are many many many ppl in bronze and silver who dont know how to a-move. I can remember various threads in official forums where ppl asking how to defend a worker rush "because his workers wont attack and he has to select and right-klick every single worker". Add to this that people reading/posting in forums are a very small amount. Most player dont even know the forums exist or just dont care. In the past in all RTS i just played the story mode (I think Dune was the first I ever played) and until SC2 Ladder around silver I knew nothing at all about a-move. I just movecommanded everyting close by and waited for the auto aggression to happen. Not to hard to imagine taht there are loads of "victims" out there who lose to workerrushes even when its 10 to 6
I am sorry, But as a mid-high masters league player myself I disagree on a slight point. I believe the fundamental basis of starcraft should be MECHANICS and not macro. Of course economy management comes next, I believe lower league players need to learn the fundamentals of mechanics before concentrating on macro. Building probes and pylons is great but did you use your screen hotkey to go build a pylon, was your pylon late because you were inefficiently sending a stalker to a watchtower from your main army without utilizing cloning (shift deselecting)?
Honestly, the hardcore brood war crowd fails to grasp that these lower league players are stuck struggling cause they waste so much time doing incredibly inefficient actions because they fail to realize how ctrl and shift function with the hotkeys completely, as well as minimap and UI utilization. Instead the hardcore elite BW crowd just tells them they need better econ management ect, assuming the mechanical RTS interface things are obvious(guess what, they're not). Just frustrates me, the misinformation and myths lower league players develop because of things like these.
Kind of in line with the above poster I think this is a huge oversimplification: probes and pylons aren't going to stop a 1-1-1 or a fe roach rush. You combine your years of SC2 experience with a macro oriented guide, that's nice and I imagine you get a few more clients but your knowledge of build orders and micro is clearly showcased in your examples (I think your 1 gate expand agaisnt the first zerg is cheeky, what if he decides to bust you and your warp prism harass is neither a probe nor a pylon so what are you showcasing?) Really you are saying concentrate on macro and pick up all the things i already know. Well, clap-clap.
I think you are absolutely right. I myself am proof of this to a certain extent. At the beginning of playing SC2 I was all like you said above... How do I counter if I see my opponent go one-base carrier? Do I have the right amount of Marauders to deal with the roach push? etc etc etc, continue infinitely.
After I got the general impression that I should focus on macro, I started doing one, repeat, ONE build in all match-ups. I always always always go 1 Rax FE into pure Bio play into MMM(G)(V), rarely do I build tanks. Now while this obviously brought me some losses, I have until now advanced the following:
Season 3: Bronze Season 4: Gold Season 5: Gold Season 6: Plat.
I am currently something like 30th in my division, and that is with I think around only 30 wins this season. I play a mere 2-3 games every 2-3 days, and still I feel like I am improving further and further. Basically all I do is watch my workers, supply, money/gas. I don't even build tanks when I see lots of banelings, and sometimes I still can win the game just because of superior production.
So there you have your prime example. Macro is still the key. Of course you will lose to direct counters to your composition, but everything else? You just crush with superior macro.
On April 10 2012 04:29 ChaZzza wrote: Kind of in line with the above poster I think this is a huge oversimplification: probes and pylons aren't going to stop a 1-1-1 or a fe roach rush. You combine your years of SC2 experience with a macro oriented guide, that's nice and I imagine you get a few more clients but your knowledge of build orders and micro is clearly showcased in your examples (I think your 1 gate expand agaisnt the first zerg is cheeky, what if he decides to bust you and your warp prism harass is neither a probe nor a pylon so what are you showcasing?) Really you are saying concentrate on macro and pick up all the things i already know. Well, clap-clap.
Luckily I said that probes and pylons alone won't win you games. In like the second sentence. I didn't create this thread to get more students, I actually have gotten zero more students and that's likely how it will stay, because I'm not advertising coaching.
I'm glad you already know these things. Now you just have to do them.
This thread has got me thinking a lot about this problem. I feel I have a natural aversion to the idea that macro is the only thing you need to get to masters league in starcraft II. I feel like, as a terran play myself, other aspects of the game are as important if not more important than macro because of the dynamics of the terran matchups. But that doesn't mean that it isn't true. I consistently out macro my opponents on the majority of my ladder games, but I never had truly excellent macro in any of my games. Maybe if I macro as close to perfectly as possible, I might be able to break master league?
I think starting my own discussion thread at this point would be redundant, so I am going to ask here: do masters league players truly believe you can make it to master with essentially excellent macro only? As a terran player, if I did a passive, economically focused build in all three matchups with an emphasis on maxing out first and attacking, would it be possible to reach masters league?
The answer I seem to be getting from the majority of people in this thread is "yes". I am thinking about starting a blog post about it, and putting the theory to test. Something like "Cecil Macro Challenge". Play some 200 games with only one build focusing entirely on macro only and see how far it gets me. Keep a sort journal documenting my successes and failures. Ignore pretty much everything else and see what flushes out. What do you guys think?
On April 10 2012 10:32 mothergoose729 wrote: This thread has got me thinking a lot about this problem. I feel I have a natural aversion to the idea that macro is the only thing you need to get to masters league in starcraft II. I feel like, as a terran play myself, other aspects of the game are as important if not more important than macro because of the dynamics of the terran matchups. But that doesn't mean that it isn't true. I consistently out macro my opponents on the majority of my ladder games, but I never had truly excellent macro in any of my games. Maybe if I macro as close to perfectly as possible, I might be able to break master league?
I think starting my own discussion thread at this point would be redundant, so I am going to ask here: do masters league players truly believe you can make it to master with essentially excellent macro only? As a terran player, if I did a passive, economically focused build in all three matchups with an emphasis on maxing out first and attacking, would it be possible to reach masters league?
The answer I seem to be getting from the majority of people in this thread is "yes". I am thinking about starting a blog post about it, and putting the theory to test. Something like "Cecil Macro Challenge". Play some 200 games with only one build focusing entirely on macro only and see how far it gets me. Keep a sort journal documenting my successes and failures. Ignore pretty much everything else and see what flushes out. What do you guys think?
I'd personally love to read that. I've had some success so far giving my games a macro focus (at high platinum). I'd love to know how far this approach alone can take you.
As a platinum-level player, I absolutely, completely agree. Every step up from my initial bronziness has been working on these fundamentals. There's still such a long way to go.
On April 10 2012 10:32 mothergoose729 wrote: This thread has got me thinking a lot about this problem. I feel I have a natural aversion to the idea that macro is the only thing you need to get to masters league in starcraft II. I feel like, as a terran play myself, other aspects of the game are as important if not more important than macro because of the dynamics of the terran matchups. But that doesn't mean that it isn't true. I consistently out macro my opponents on the majority of my ladder games, but I never had truly excellent macro in any of my games. Maybe if I macro as close to perfectly as possible, I might be able to break master league?
I think starting my own discussion thread at this point would be redundant, so I am going to ask here: do masters league players truly believe you can make it to master with essentially excellent macro only? As a terran player, if I did a passive, economically focused build in all three matchups with an emphasis on maxing out first and attacking, would it be possible to reach masters league?
The answer I seem to be getting from the majority of people in this thread is "yes". I am thinking about starting a blog post about it, and putting the theory to test. Something like "Cecil Macro Challenge". Play some 200 games with only one build focusing entirely on macro only and see how far it gets me. Keep a sort journal documenting my successes and failures. Ignore pretty much everything else and see what flushes out. What do you guys think?
The only problem I see in this is that starting from wherever your current account is could cause problems when it comes to really observing the differences in league macro. For example, where they are at in bases/army/workers/tech when you hit with your maxed MMM or whatever. So you might have to tank down to bronze to add anything other than the most basic knowledge of where pure macro would settle out eventually on the ladder.
On April 10 2012 10:32 mothergoose729 wrote: This thread has got me thinking a lot about this problem. I feel I have a natural aversion to the idea that macro is the only thing you need to get to masters league in starcraft II. I feel like, as a terran play myself, other aspects of the game are as important if not more important than macro because of the dynamics of the terran matchups. But that doesn't mean that it isn't true. I consistently out macro my opponents on the majority of my ladder games, but I never had truly excellent macro in any of my games. Maybe if I macro as close to perfectly as possible, I might be able to break master league?
I think starting my own discussion thread at this point would be redundant, so I am going to ask here: do masters league players truly believe you can make it to master with essentially excellent macro only? As a terran player, if I did a passive, economically focused build in all three matchups with an emphasis on maxing out first and attacking, would it be possible to reach masters league?
The answer I seem to be getting from the majority of people in this thread is "yes". I am thinking about starting a blog post about it, and putting the theory to test. Something like "Cecil Macro Challenge". Play some 200 games with only one build focusing entirely on macro only and see how far it gets me. Keep a sort journal documenting my successes and failures. Ignore pretty much everything else and see what flushes out. What do you guys think?
The only problem I see in this is that starting from wherever your current account is could cause problems when it comes to really observing the differences in league macro. For example, where they are at in bases/army/workers/tech when you hit with your maxed MMM or whatever. So you might have to tank down to bronze to add anything other than the most basic knowledge of where pure macro would settle out eventually on the ladder.
I don't think so. Pure macro can and will get you to diamond league. I got to diamond league myself using pretty much nothing but my macro. I question whether or not it would work to get me to masters though.
I agree with your assertion, but I feel that this VOD is a bad example to prove (what I think is) your point.
You might not even realize it, but you are doing quite a few things in those games that are advanced beyond the point of "just build probes and pylons." You FE and are perfectly fine doing so because you scouted and knew how to read your opponents build. You're blocking hatcherys, building warp prisms for multi-prong aggression , altering your build based on scouting, and other things that are advanced far beyond the level of the player who needs to hear the "build probes on pylons" mantra.
Nothing wrong (in fact, everything good) about all that, of course, but I think your point would be much better shown by implementing a simple build with little scouting (e.g. Destiny's mass queen build, or the reddit guy that leveled to platinum on mass stalkers and no micro) and prove that just having great mechanics trumps all of the clever stuff that people try to do at these levels. Your Terran game was much better as you were obviously much less comfortable with it, so it was more demonstrative of your point. As for the others, it strikes me as a good player just being better and doesn't really support your position as well.
On April 10 2012 13:20 SCbiff wrote: I agree with your assertion, but I feel that this VOD is a bad example to prove (what I think is) your point.
You might not even realize it, but you are doing quite a few things in those games that are advanced beyond the point of "just build probes and pylons." You FE and are perfectly fine doing so because you scouted and knew how to read your opponents build. You're blocking hatcherys, building warp prisms for multi-prong aggression , altering your build based on scouting, and other things that are advanced far beyond the level of the player who needs to hear the "build probes on pylons" mantra.
Nothing wrong (in fact, everything good) about all that, of course, but I think your point would be much better shown by implementing a simple build with little scouting (e.g. Destiny's mass queen build, or the reddit guy that leveled to platinum on mass stalkers and no micro) and prove that just having great mechanics trumps all of the clever stuff that people try to do at these levels. Your Terran game was much better as you were obviously much less comfortable with it, so it was more demonstrative of your point. As for the others, it strikes me as a good player just being better and doesn't really support your position as well.
This is all true, but I don't really want to advocate pure macro. I just want to set a very good example of how with efficient APM usage and good mechanics you can play a solid game and absolutely smash opponents in the lower league. In the VOD I was more of aiming to set a good and very realistic/reachable goal for readers, rather than to prove a hypothetical point. Does this make sense?
On April 10 2012 10:32 mothergoose729 wrote: This thread has got me thinking a lot about this problem. I feel I have a natural aversion to the idea that macro is the only thing you need to get to masters league in starcraft II. I feel like, as a terran play myself, other aspects of the game are as important if not more important than macro because of the dynamics of the terran matchups. But that doesn't mean that it isn't true. I consistently out macro my opponents on the majority of my ladder games, but I never had truly excellent macro in any of my games. Maybe if I macro as close to perfectly as possible, I might be able to break master league?
I think starting my own discussion thread at this point would be redundant, so I am going to ask here: do masters league players truly believe you can make it to master with essentially excellent macro only? As a terran player, if I did a passive, economically focused build in all three matchups with an emphasis on maxing out first and attacking, would it be possible to reach masters league?
The answer I seem to be getting from the majority of people in this thread is "yes". I am thinking about starting a blog post about it, and putting the theory to test. Something like "Cecil Macro Challenge". Play some 200 games with only one build focusing entirely on macro only and see how far it gets me. Keep a sort journal documenting my successes and failures. Ignore pretty much everything else and see what flushes out. What do you guys think?
The only problem I see in this is that starting from wherever your current account is could cause problems when it comes to really observing the differences in league macro. For example, where they are at in bases/army/workers/tech when you hit with your maxed MMM or whatever. So you might have to tank down to bronze to add anything other than the most basic knowledge of where pure macro would settle out eventually on the ladder.
I don't think so. Pure macro can and will get you to diamond league. I got to diamond league myself using pretty much nothing but my macro. I question whether or not it would work to get me to masters though.
My point isn't that it wouldn't work relative to your league. Rather, I'm saying starting at bronze and progressing up would provide a kind of "snapshot" of the various leagues with regard to macro, compared to your more-nearly-ideal play. I guess I was thinking about making it deeper than a simple "pure macro gets you to X points in Y league" experiment. Of course, I'm being pretty cavalier with YOUR ladder points here...
My original point was that if you simply switch to your pure-macro-only build, you'd just drop straight from your current rank to gold/plat/diamond, wherever the ultimate MMR of pure macro is, without passing through and observing lower leagues like Gheed has/does. He's known as "That worker rush guy", but he really does have some interesting takes on bronze. Obviously that would be a huge project to do your macro research like that, but I'm just throwing ideas. Like I said, not my points and not my time...Why not dream big?
On April 10 2012 10:32 mothergoose729 wrote: This thread has got me thinking a lot about this problem. I feel I have a natural aversion to the idea that macro is the only thing you need to get to masters league in starcraft II. I feel like, as a terran play myself, other aspects of the game are as important if not more important than macro because of the dynamics of the terran matchups. But that doesn't mean that it isn't true. I consistently out macro my opponents on the majority of my ladder games, but I never had truly excellent macro in any of my games. Maybe if I macro as close to perfectly as possible, I might be able to break master league?
I think starting my own discussion thread at this point would be redundant, so I am going to ask here: do masters league players truly believe you can make it to master with essentially excellent macro only? As a terran player, if I did a passive, economically focused build in all three matchups with an emphasis on maxing out first and attacking, would it be possible to reach masters league?
The answer I seem to be getting from the majority of people in this thread is "yes". I am thinking about starting a blog post about it, and putting the theory to test. Something like "Cecil Macro Challenge". Play some 200 games with only one build focusing entirely on macro only and see how far it gets me. Keep a sort journal documenting my successes and failures. Ignore pretty much everything else and see what flushes out. What do you guys think?
The only problem I see in this is that starting from wherever your current account is could cause problems when it comes to really observing the differences in league macro. For example, where they are at in bases/army/workers/tech when you hit with your maxed MMM or whatever. So you might have to tank down to bronze to add anything other than the most basic knowledge of where pure macro would settle out eventually on the ladder.
I don't think so. Pure macro can and will get you to diamond league. I got to diamond league myself using pretty much nothing but my macro. I question whether or not it would work to get me to masters though.
My point isn't that it wouldn't work relative to your league. Rather, I'm saying starting at bronze and progressing up would provide a kind of "snapshot" of the various leagues with regard to macro, compared to your more-nearly-ideal play. I guess I was thinking about making it deeper than a simple "pure macro gets you to X points in Y league" experiment. Of course, I'm being pretty cavalier with YOUR ladder points here...
My original point was that if you simply switch to your pure-macro-only build, you'd just drop straight from your current rank to gold/plat/diamond, wherever the ultimate MMR of pure macro is, without passing through and observing lower leagues like Gheed has/does. He's known as "That worker rush guy", but he really does have some interesting takes on bronze. Obviously that would be a huge project to do your macro research like that, but I'm just throwing ideas. Like I said, not my points and not my time...Why not dream big?
Alright, I think I see your point. It would be interesting and instructive to show what pure macro in lower leagues can do. It would make whatever the result is more compelling as well.
In order for someone to get progressively better at the game is to tell them to attack (not at 200/200, but at something like 60-80 supply). You can only learn 'oh so much' from building 'probes and pylons', but if you don't teach a low-league player to be aggressive, then he will never learn WHY he needs to macro better. The 'Why should I macro' is a fundamental problem with most low-league players, they simply rank the importance of macro as somewhat low.
It may not directly teach them to constantly build probes, but eventually it will catch on to them why they need to macro better and basic multitasking (building probes, pylons and fighting units while focusing on their army). The core knowledge of what they will learn is what your opponent will approximately have and you can gauge how well he is.
It's a good thread. Straight macro can still take you surprisingly high, atleast on Europe-server. I did nothing but gasless expansions to lots of stuff for a season and was on top of a master division half way through it. I thought it displayed quite well how lacking the approach of many competitive players was. Especially as in none of my 3000+ (?) games have I ever followed a rigid build order. Didn't do it when I picked up SC2 again because for Terran a gasless expand is not optimal in my opinion, in any match-up.
This is all true, but I don't really want to advocate pure macro. I just want to set a very good example of how with efficient APM usage and good mechanics you can play a solid game and absolutely smash opponents in the lower league. In the VOD I was more of aiming to set a good and very realistic/reachable goal for readers, rather than to prove a hypothetical point. Does this make sense?
Make sense, and as it happens, I like the idea that you aren't advocating that (pure macro). I think far too many good players spout the "macro > all" line, as if the rest of the game skills are irrelevant.
But I will still argue that it weakens your assertion in this post, because you're saying that people need to concentrate more on basic mechanics and then showing a video of you doing much more than that. Which, to me, could be construed as admitting that that *isn't* enough to make it past these opponents. I know that's not what you're intending, just reporting to you how it came across to me.
To clarify my point, when Destiny did his all queen build, he wasn't advocating building nothing but queens as a playstyle, merely attempting to demonstrate that superior mechanics overwhelmingly trump players < plat/diamond.
This is all true, but I don't really want to advocate pure macro. I just want to set a very good example of how with efficient APM usage and good mechanics you can play a solid game and absolutely smash opponents in the lower league. In the VOD I was more of aiming to set a good and very realistic/reachable goal for readers, rather than to prove a hypothetical point. Does this make sense?
Make sense, and as it happens, I like the idea that you aren't advocating that (pure macro). I think far too many good players spout the "macro > all" line, as if the rest of the game skills are irrelevant.
But I will still argue that it weakens your assertion in this post, because you're saying that people need to concentrate more on basic mechanics and then showing a video of you doing much more than that. Which, to me, could be construed as admitting that that *isn't* enough to make it past these opponents. I know that's not what you're intending, just reporting to you how it came across to me.
To clarify my point, when Destiny did his all queen build, he wasn't advocating building nothing but queens as a playstyle, merely attempting to demonstrate that superior mechanics overwhelmingly trump players < plat/diamond.
I think you raise a valid point.
I would say the key message is to focus on macro as a way to overcome deficiencies in your game, not trust macro to make up for deficiencies in your game.
I've found myself increasingly using ling Infestor style lately, for example. In order for it to work at all, I've needed to learn to macro. 0/0 lings will not keep you alive, so if you don't get your gas timings and expansions down reasonably well, get the infestation pit and your upgrades, you'll die.
I recently played a game where I could say two things: 1. If I had have taken my fourth faster and planned a transition to broodlords, I would likely have been able to win 2. If I had have been more on the ball with macro, I would have been able to overrun my opponent before I got to that situation.
Being told that statement 1 doesn't matter at all because of statement 2 is not helpful. It's not incorrect, but it's not helpful. I'll admit I was probably busy trying to land fungals and get surrounds while my queens sat idle and I floated 3k minerals. I know that's what cost me the game before I got into an engagement with an inferior army. And that sort of thing is definitely on my mind.
But here's how I put it. Each and every game I'm trying to make sure I don't fail at macro. I've had games where my queens have <25 energy while I'm on 3 base 12 minutes into the game, and I'm proud of that, but I dont' forget that those were games where I didn't really get messed with in those opening stages, so it's not so fantastic. Next time I play, I'm going to work damn hard to make sure I'm not floating minerals. Already I've pushed myself so I can eek out more drones safely, get spore crawlers and no longer die to DTs, get those gas timings and expansions to enable an earlier infestation pit because damnit void rays suck, and so on.
Most of these adaptations come from statement 1 adjustments, not statement 2 adjustments. I agree that you can't achieve the statement 1 goals without improving macro, and that should always be the first avenue for improvement. If I want to work out how to transition to broodlords safely, you can bet the best way will be to not float so many minerals, which could have been a hatch, 2 geysers, a dozen drones and a spire.
But I would suggest that "focus on macro, it will solve all your problems" doesn't quite get the message across. You need to identify the problem you want to solve before you can begin to use macro to solve it.
maxing out on roaches by 12 mins is a piece of piss for me in silver.. bottom of bronze you are right ... but top of bronze is actually pretty close to the top of gold (for macro players) because the leagues have HUUUUGE overlap. IE a lot of players qualify in gold maybe but a lot of bronze players would beat them.
not really Im just a shitty Gold, but whenever I lose too many games in the row and my MMR hit high silver players, I will just get a couple of easy win before starting to get matched up with Gold/Plat again
the matchmaking will play you with people around your skill, that's an undeniable fact. So if you still playing fellow Bronze/Silver/Gold then there is where you are supposed to be
On April 10 2012 10:32 mothergoose729 wrote: This thread has got me thinking a lot about this problem. I feel I have a natural aversion to the idea that macro is the only thing you need to get to masters league in starcraft II. I feel like, as a terran play myself, other aspects of the game are as important if not more important than macro because of the dynamics of the terran matchups. But that doesn't mean that it isn't true. I consistently out macro my opponents on the majority of my ladder games, but I never had truly excellent macro in any of my games. Maybe if I macro as close to perfectly as possible, I might be able to break master league?
I think starting my own discussion thread at this point would be redundant, so I am going to ask here: do masters league players truly believe you can make it to master with essentially excellent macro only? As a terran player, if I did a passive, economically focused build in all three matchups with an emphasis on maxing out first and attacking, would it be possible to reach masters league?
The answer I seem to be getting from the majority of people in this thread is "yes". I am thinking about starting a blog post about it, and putting the theory to test. Something like "Cecil Macro Challenge". Play some 200 games with only one build focusing entirely on macro only and see how far it gets me. Keep a sort journal documenting my successes and failures. Ignore pretty much everything else and see what flushes out. What do you guys think?
I plan on doing a similar experiment myself, based on attempting to replicate the "mass stalker to diamond" thing from a year or so ago. Unlike that guy, I don't have any prior experience in the higher leagues or with Protoss, so there's no chance of it being "tainted" with game sense or knowledge. The first step is to see if I can hit the same macro targets in a safe environment.
So churning out the requisite number of probes, bases and stalkers doesn't seem that difficult. The next phase will be to see -can I duplicate that macro output against a human opponent -if so, how much better will my macro be relative to silver/gold/plat opponents, if at all -will that macro advantage be sufficiently large to overcome my other shortcomings
On April 09 2012 17:59 Ringall wrote: I see a lot of "lol making drones is bad - I just die" comments here. (Or any variation of that. ) It just simply is not true. That is the exact piece of advice I received when I started in bronze. I began making probes (played protoss back then) non-stop. I would NEVER stop producing them. And look at that. I quickly went up to gold without any strategies or gameplans what so ever. I was just simply able to outproduce my opponent with my unit of choice (stalkers ftw)
Only when I reached gold, I needed to start thinking of things like saturations and build orders :3
So yeah. Awesome Piece of advice Cecil. I hope I had seen something like this when I started :D
That's not a fair comparision. You can easily play protoss and terran, ALWAYS build workers, and still have a safe build which survives to pretty much anything. You never need to cut workers to defend unless it's a cheese.
Zerg, the drones in your quote, is different. If you overdrone, you WILL die, there is no safe zerg build which lets you build the drones you want without pausing drone production to create units. This is why Zerg is the hardest race to do "macro into diamond" with, because it's so different. It's still true that zergs can win using macro, but they also need to know when to drone, where as any terran or protoss could learn a good standard build which never cuts workers, and as long as they do that and can keep their money low, they should win more than 50% of their games and eventually end up in diamond. A zerg who has perfect macro but no idea when it's safe or unsafe to drone will never get past gold.
On April 06 2012 09:46 TheNessman wrote: 100% completely disagree and i have studied low level play for months of my life
User was warned for this post
edit: whatever , i Would say that in lower leagues, the most important thing is "to have a plan" as long as you have a plan you are going to be OK for now. if your plan is Ultras, go ultras. you might die 50% of the time to the first 5 marines your opponent sends at you, but you might also beat the other 50% that turtled off 2 bases to 3/3 reapers. If your plan is DT, go DTs. maybe in bronze league your opponent forgot to get an orbital so they don't have any way of scanning you. If your plan is bunker rush with 4 marines and all of your scvs, it just might work. 4gate for days if that's how you want to get better, i don't care. in lower leagues, everything goes.
So many times I feel that lower level players don't have a sense of what to DO . they get that they should be building econ and stuff, but they never know when to attack or how to defend. In lower leagues, i feel that you just need to do something and then see what happens. and by that point players can figure it out. as long as they understand this == every time you econ instead of building units, your macro will be better later -- , combine that with a solid , if not random plan, and you can probably get out of silver.
Source: working from low to high gold, thoroughly discussing strategy with my friend every day as he moved from low silver (just got the game) to near platinum, reading the blogs by that guy who worker rushes every game , being a caster, playing 2v2 with my friends who are bronze but also platinum , that page that discussed what you needed to get better at as you got higher in leagues, the last one being micro or something , 100s of 2v2 games from low to high gold as random. watching MKP, playing every race, being bad on my own, getting better, reading TL every day, not reading /r/starcraft.
seriously everyone in all of the TL strategy forum is turning into idra - "oh if i just macro the best i'll win automatically" , "oh i just have to hit my drone number as fast as possible and then nothing can go wrong" . SORRY If i just offended you with that statement.
there is a reason you are still bad. re-read your post and I bet you will see it.
Yeap, its your stubborn-ness to take advice from people who are much smarter and better than you at this game.
On April 10 2012 13:22 CecilSunkure wrote: This is all true, but I don't really want to advocate pure macro. I just want to set a very good example of how with efficient APM usage and good mechanics you can play a solid game and absolutely smash opponents in the lower league. In the VOD I was more of aiming to set a good and very realistic/reachable goal for readers, rather than to prove a hypothetical point. Does this make sense?
It makes sense, but it's completely unrealistic for a lot of players. When they hear "probes & pylons", they're thinking "all I have to do is keep making workers, not get supply blocked, and spend my money and I'll win". It's a complete misnomer. That's simply not the case when you have mechanics as absolutely god-awful as some of the people I know in Bronze->Gold. They react poorly to EVERYTHING.
You should watch a silver league player react to mutalisk harass. That might help you understand how the games you played aren't even on the horizon for them.
One of the things that seems consistent about "probes & pylons" explanations is that whoever is demonstrating it tends to make a push at a reasonable time. A lot of lower league players want to make 200/200 3/3 and go. Even that is generally ok, except they'll move command into a line of 12 tanks and lose everything. Their decision making has flaws you can't even comprehend because it's so ingrained in you.
Just adding my 2 cents to this very helpful and informative thread. After reading this topic yesterday it inspired me to give SC2 another shot.
I love watching SC2, I follow the pro scene for more than a year now, and I bought the game itself last October. My results were horrible, I can't remember winning any real games, only if the guy left or didn't even know what game he's playing. I tried all the races for weeks but I was terrible even for the wooden league.
After this thread I tried again, without any real hopes or plans. As a terran I went for early wall-in and after that just macro like crazy. I payed close attention to SCV-production, made army (marine-marauder) constantly, whenever I went above 200 minerals I dropped a rax, teched as good as I could (stim, +1 +1, combat shield, etc), when I over-saturated the mineral line dropped an expo, so nothing really fancy.
As for the attack, around the time when +1 attack finished, and I had a rather strong MMM ball, I just simply A-moved the group to the enemy's natural, and I microed them just barely, target-firing important units, etc.
The results? Quite a spectacular run, the 5 placement matches were the following: - 1: bronze 6-pool defeated like a boss, poor guys didn't stand a chance - 2: bronze zerg with mass roach: by the time he scouted me and got to my base, at the 10 minute mark I had stim, concussive shells, +1 weapon, 15 marines, 6 marauders, and 2 medivacs, so I wiped the floor with him - 3: gold terran with a mirror "build": he went MMM just like me, but had less units, less upgrade, basicly less everything than me - 4: gold zerg: the baneling bust at 6:30 got me with my pants down, didn't stand a chance - 5: platinum protoss went FFE, which helped me tremendously, I was able to build up a nice army and deny the natural, but since I suck at scouting, he was able to successfully tech-switch into double stargate, and the mass skillrays effectively raped me
All in all, with mostly focusing to macro, I got into mid-gold after the placement matches, which is crazy, since I've never been out out the wooden league. I know it's still nothing, but quite a big step to me. Now I know the weak spots, where I have to improve (scouting-scouting-scouting), but I know that at least I'm on the right path.
So a very big thanks to the OP, and everyone who contributed to this thread
On April 11 2012 03:10 TheDroneNextDoor wrote: Just adding my 2 cents to this very helpful and informative thread. After reading this topic yesterday it inspired me to give SC2 another shot.
I love watching SC2, I follow the pro scene for more than a year now, and I bought the game itself last October. My results were horrible, I can't remember winning any real games, only if the guy left or didn't even know what game he's playing. I tried all the races for weeks but I was terrible even for the wooden league.
After this thread I tried again, without any real hopes or plans. As a terran I went for early wall-in and after that just macro like crazy. I payed close attention to SCV-production, made army (marine-marauder) constantly, whenever I went above 200 minerals I dropped a rax, teched as good as I could (stim, +1 +1, combat shield, etc), when I over-saturated the mineral line dropped an expo, so nothing really fancy.
As for the attack, around the time when +1 attack finished, and I had a rather strong MMM ball, I just simply A-moved the group to the enemy's natural, and I microed them just barely, target-firing important units, etc.
The results? Quite a spectacular run, the 5 placement matches were the following: - 1: bronze 6-pool defeated like a boss, poor guys didn't stand a chance - 2: bronze zerg with mass roach: by the time he scouted me and got to my base, at the 10 minute mark I had stim, concussive shells, +1 weapon, 15 marines, 6 marauders, and 2 medivacs, so I wiped the floor with him - 3: gold terran with a mirror "build": he went MMM just like me, but had less units, less upgrade, basicly less everything than me - 4: gold zerg: the baneling bust at 6:30 got me with my pants down, didn't stand a chance - 5: platinum protoss went FFE, which helped me tremendously, I was able to build up a nice army and deny the natural, but since I suck at scouting, he was able to successfully tech-switch into double stargate, and the mass skillrays effectively raped me
All in all, with mostly focusing to macro, I got into mid-gold after the placement matches, which is crazy, since I've never been out out the wooden league. I know it's still nothing, but quite a big step to me. Now I know the weak spots, where I have to improve (scouting-scouting-scouting), but I know that at least I'm on the right path.
So a very big thanks to the OP, and everyone who contributed to this thread
Oh wow that's very awesome! This thread seemed to have bumped you two leagues near instantaneously. That's wonderful to hear, thanks
On April 10 2012 22:46 South wrote: It makes sense, but it's completely unrealistic for a lot of players. When they hear "probes & pylons", they're thinking "all I have to do is keep making workers, not get supply blocked, and spend my money and I'll win". It's a complete misnomer. That's simply not the case when you have mechanics as absolutely god-awful as some of the people I know in Bronze->Gold. They react poorly to EVERYTHING.
You should watch a silver league player react to mutalisk harass. That might help you understand how the games you played aren't even on the horizon for them.
One of the things that seems consistent about "probes & pylons" explanations is that whoever is demonstrating it tends to make a push at a reasonable time. A lot of lower league players want to make 200/200 3/3 and go. Even that is generally ok, except they'll move command into a line of 12 tanks and lose everything. Their decision making has flaws you can't even comprehend because it's so ingrained in you.
I understand your intentions are good, but I don't see you think you'd know better about how a silver league player would react to mutalisk harass than I would. I used to be silver, and I've worked with many Silver league students. I also am not sure how you know better in that my VOD was unhelpful because I play better than some people that watch it.
On April 11 2012 03:10 TheDroneNextDoor wrote: Just adding my 2 cents to this very helpful and informative thread. After reading this topic yesterday it inspired me to give SC2 another shot.
I love watching SC2, I follow the pro scene for more than a year now, and I bought the game itself last October. My results were horrible, I can't remember winning any real games, only if the guy left or didn't even know what game he's playing. I tried all the races for weeks but I was terrible even for the wooden league.
After this thread I tried again, without any real hopes or plans. As a terran I went for early wall-in and after that just macro like crazy. I payed close attention to SCV-production, made army (marine-marauder) constantly, whenever I went above 200 minerals I dropped a rax, teched as good as I could (stim, +1 +1, combat shield, etc), when I over-saturated the mineral line dropped an expo, so nothing really fancy.
As for the attack, around the time when +1 attack finished, and I had a rather strong MMM ball, I just simply A-moved the group to the enemy's natural, and I microed them just barely, target-firing important units, etc.
The results? Quite a spectacular run, the 5 placement matches were the following: - 1: bronze 6-pool defeated like a boss, poor guys didn't stand a chance - 2: bronze zerg with mass roach: by the time he scouted me and got to my base, at the 10 minute mark I had stim, concussive shells, +1 weapon, 15 marines, 6 marauders, and 2 medivacs, so I wiped the floor with him - 3: gold terran with a mirror "build": he went MMM just like me, but had less units, less upgrade, basicly less everything than me - 4: gold zerg: the baneling bust at 6:30 got me with my pants down, didn't stand a chance - 5: platinum protoss went FFE, which helped me tremendously, I was able to build up a nice army and deny the natural, but since I suck at scouting, he was able to successfully tech-switch into double stargate, and the mass skillrays effectively raped me
All in all, with mostly focusing to macro, I got into mid-gold after the placement matches, which is crazy, since I've never been out out the wooden league. I know it's still nothing, but quite a big step to me. Now I know the weak spots, where I have to improve (scouting-scouting-scouting), but I know that at least I'm on the right path.
So a very big thanks to the OP, and everyone who contributed to this thread
Good read ^_^ I hope other people struggling in the low leagues will pay attention!
I get all giddy and excited when I killed like 30 probes with cloak banshees in TvP, but then I realized I banked 2k minerals in the process like a tard and now I'm trying to hurry up and spend all my minerals.
So it's like a constant battle of macro and micro. Kill some probes, go back to building supply depots, tech structure, and SCVs, and etc.
This is pretty much true. I recently went from silver to diamond in 1 season just focusing purely on making workers and attacking units. I'm sure that mechanics can carry anyone from bronze to mid-master league even (it's just that working on your strategy as well will give you more improvement per amount of time spent at that level).
The op is absolutely right. I am actually surprised this is not common knowledge after almost two years of Starcraft.
I disagree with one point, though. The op states that as a lower league player, one can easily obtain strategy from better player and hence does not need to be concerned about it. In fact, unless you enjoy developing builds, there is also no need to develop own strategies at the highest level of play, as information is available. Incorporating this information into your play is costly, though. I really do not see the difference between lower and higher league players here.
Anyways, good mechanics are a prerequisite for strategy. Good mechanics without strategy will bring you in one of the higher leagues. Hence, you do not really need to think about strategy until you reach one of the higher leagues - with the obvious drawback that only focusing on mechanics is boring as shit.
In fact, it has been proven many times that solid mechanics carry you very far. In Broodwar, I have seen B-level players beating the shit out of C- players using Scouts. And C- in Broodwar means you can get mid-masters easily.
On April 10 2012 10:32 mothergoose729 wrote: This thread has got me thinking a lot about this problem. I feel I have a natural aversion to the idea that macro is the only thing you need to get to masters league in starcraft II. I feel like, as a terran play myself, other aspects of the game are as important if not more important than macro because of the dynamics of the terran matchups. But that doesn't mean that it isn't true. I consistently out macro my opponents on the majority of my ladder games, but I never had truly excellent macro in any of my games. Maybe if I macro as close to perfectly as possible, I might be able to break master league?
I think starting my own discussion thread at this point would be redundant, so I am going to ask here: do masters league players truly believe you can make it to master with essentially excellent macro only? As a terran player, if I did a passive, economically focused build in all three matchups with an emphasis on maxing out first and attacking, would it be possible to reach masters league?
The answer I seem to be getting from the majority of people in this thread is "yes". I am thinking about starting a blog post about it, and putting the theory to test. Something like "Cecil Macro Challenge". Play some 200 games with only one build focusing entirely on macro only and see how far it gets me. Keep a sort journal documenting my successes and failures. Ignore pretty much everything else and see what flushes out. What do you guys think?
As a fellow Terran, I can say the OP's advice is very relevant to improving even at the diamond/low master lvl of play. I was stuck in diamond for 5 seasons. I pretty much exclusively worked on improving my macro last season and finally made the jump into masters yesterday. But even still, I can pick out macro mistakes in every single one of my replays ^_____^
On April 10 2012 10:32 mothergoose729 wrote: This thread has got me thinking a lot about this problem. I feel I have a natural aversion to the idea that macro is the only thing you need to get to masters league in starcraft II. I feel like, as a terran play myself, other aspects of the game are as important if not more important than macro because of the dynamics of the terran matchups. But that doesn't mean that it isn't true. I consistently out macro my opponents on the majority of my ladder games, but I never had truly excellent macro in any of my games. Maybe if I macro as close to perfectly as possible, I might be able to break master league?
I think starting my own discussion thread at this point would be redundant, so I am going to ask here: do masters league players truly believe you can make it to master with essentially excellent macro only? As a terran player, if I did a passive, economically focused build in all three matchups with an emphasis on maxing out first and attacking, would it be possible to reach masters league?
The answer I seem to be getting from the majority of people in this thread is "yes". I am thinking about starting a blog post about it, and putting the theory to test. Something like "Cecil Macro Challenge". Play some 200 games with only one build focusing entirely on macro only and see how far it gets me. Keep a sort journal documenting my successes and failures. Ignore pretty much everything else and see what flushes out. What do you guys think?
As a fellow Terran, I can say the OP's advice is very relevant to improving even at the diamond/low master lvl of play. I was stuck in diamond for 5 seasons. I pretty much exclusively worked on improving my macro last season and finally made the jump into masters yesterday. But even still, I can pick out macro mistakes in every single one of my replays ^_____^
As someone who's personal friend's with laplace, I can say that if HE can hit masters, ANYONE can. He's super slow, has horrible multitask, and is not really a natural video gamer. But I remember when he told me about BW when SC2 came out and he got me buy it (i didnt know about pro bw), and he was like "macro is everything" and I was like "whats macro?".
I guess that means you finally worked out that horrible macro of yours, like when you would bank so much money every time you pushed. I know that in the games we played, some of them were actually quite close, and you won that series of games when I hadn't played in a while. But the reason you lost so often was your macro, I knew that you would have won most of those games if you had macro'd better - I could tell your armies were always too small, your third was always too late, your pushes were always just a little late.
Going from a low level bronze player to a Dia on NA, macro, is, by, far in a way
THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN THIS GAME!!! Its only when you reach high plat and upwards that strategy start to make a big difference. i got out of Bronze Silv and Gold for the most part, just massing roaches and then relentless counter attacking with mutas. on paper that should never work, but was my go to strat that i did for at least a solid year.
On April 12 2012 14:34 Mazaire wrote: Its only when you reach high plat and upwards that strategy start to make a big difference.
Nah, truly it's more like once you hit mid+ Master's does it starts getting to the point where you can't just mess around and still win easily most of the time. But if course if you're macro abilities cap out at around Platinum, then it'll feel like you require significant strategy to start winning to make up for macro deficiencies. The feeling of requiring to incorporate strategy is relative to each person's ability to macro, hence the whole point of this topic.
On April 12 2012 14:34 Mazaire wrote: Going from a low level bronze player to a Dia on NA, macro, is, by, far in a way
THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN THIS GAME!!! Its only when you reach high plat and upwards that strategy start to make a big difference. i got out of Bronze Silv and Gold for the most part, just massing roaches and then relentless counter attacking with mutas. on paper that should never work, but was my go to strat that i did for at least a solid year.
Every Matchup.
Every game.
I play in high diamond/low masters and there's very, very little strategy involved in most of my games. People on ladder just do whatever they damn well please.
Macro, i.e. building all your stuff on time, making workers constantly, using macro abilities perfectly, saturating expands efficiently etc. is a big deal all the way up to and including progamer level. If you think you are doing all these things perfectly, you are frankly kidding yourself.
On April 13 2012 00:02 Fenneth wrote: Macro, i.e. building all your stuff on time, making workers constantly, using macro abilities perfectly, saturating expands efficiently etc. is a big deal all the way up to and including progamer level. If you think you are doing all these things perfectly, you are frankly kidding yourself.
The point of the thread is this:
Don't worry about strategies and cute builds or interesting tactics in lower leagues. Burrowed banelings? Not a big deal in Silver or Gold.
As long as you make something that can shoot up and something that can shoot down, all you need to do is macro better than the other person. Eventually you will need splash, but thats a unit decision and not a tactic or trick. Macro well, you will get better its that simple.
That's the point of the thread not macro till masters then stop caring. Its more like dont worry about tactics or little things that don't matter, focus on macro.
Thanks for posting this Cecil, much appreciated. I'm new to RTS games having got SC2 for this past Christmas from my girlfriend (big mistake on her part, hah!). Having a blast and just got promoted to Gold. When I watch my replays, it shocks me how terrible I am at every single facet of this game. It seems like an insurmountable challenge to improve, but putting my focus primarily on making probes and not getting supply blocked is a manageable goal.
My computer sucks, so large engagements of maxed armies lags me beyond belief even on lowest settings. Thus I have been trying to execute a variety of 1/2 base all in's depending on the map/opponent. (Getting the new MSI laptop at the end of this month, woot!)
My thought process is if I can execute perfectly a 4gate/2+blink 7gate/Immortal rush/insert clever build order based on opponents early scouting, I'll have improved my mechanics substantially. I can't execute any of those builds perfectly, which tells me I still have lots of work to be done. I still get supply blocked, float too many resources at times, and am too slow setting up proxy pylons regularly. A great 4gate for me is warping into his base @6:00 and I'm told this can be done at 5:45?
My next idea is to play the other races a bit to learn the feel for them a bit more. I've only ever played protoss. Figure I could learn a basics at least from the other races.
I guess to summarize my rambling point/question, here's how I'm trying to improve: 1) learn 2 macro via probes + pylons, avoid supply blocks, produce units with the buildings I have, and stay low in resources 2) have a plan/goal in mind, IE: 1 or 2 base all ins 3) take the time to play the other races to get the feel for them 4) get a better computer!
Am I going in the right direction? I've read a LOT of information on this forum and the SC2 protoss forum, and it seems this approach follows most of the advice here. I guess I'm just touching base with a community of much more skilled players than myself to double check I'm doing the right things to improve.
Thanks for posting this Cecil, much appreciated. I'm new to RTS games having got SC2 for this past Christmas from my girlfriend (big mistake on her part, hah!). Having a blast and just got promoted to Gold. When I watch my replays, it shocks me how terrible I am at every single facet of this game. It seems like an insurmountable challenge to improve, but putting my focus primarily on making probes and not getting supply blocked is a manageable goal.
My computer sucks, so large engagements of maxed armies lags me beyond belief even on lowest settings. Thus I have been trying to execute a variety of 1/2 base all in's depending on the map/opponent. (Getting the new MSI laptop at the end of this month, woot!)
My thought process is if I can execute perfectly a 4gate/2+blink 7gate/Immortal rush/insert clever build order based on opponents early scouting, I'll have improved my mechanics substantially. I can't execute any of those builds perfectly, which tells me I still have lots of work to be done. I still get supply blocked, float too many resources at times, and am too slow setting up proxy pylons regularly. A great 4gate for me is warping into his base @6:00 and I'm told this can be done at 5:45?
My next idea is to play the other races a bit to learn the feel for them a bit more. I've only ever played protoss. Figure I could learn a basics at least from the other races.
I guess to summarize my rambling point/question, here's how I'm trying to improve: 1) learn 2 macro via probes + pylons, avoid supply blocks, produce units with the buildings I have, and stay low in resources 2) have a plan/goal in mind, IE: 1 or 2 base all ins 3) take the time to play the other races to get the feel for them 4) get a better computer!
Am I going in the right direction? I've read a LOT of information on this forum and the SC2 protoss forum, and it seems this approach follows most of the advice here. I guess I'm just touching base with a community of much more skilled players than myself to double check I'm doing the right things to improve.
Cheers,
Ramone
Well personally I think you can work on your mechanics and even just your macro without going to 200 supply on 3/4 bases. As you say good macro will make your attacks hit considerably earlier. Arriving earlier or at the same time but with a higher unit count can compensate for less effective unit control.
On April 12 2012 14:34 Mazaire wrote: Its only when you reach high plat and upwards that strategy start to make a big difference.
Nah, truly it's more like once you hit mid+ Master's does it starts getting to the point where you can't just mess around and still win easily most of the time. But if course if you're macro abilities cap out at around Platinum, then it'll feel like you require significant strategy to start winning to make up for macro deficiencies. The feeling of requiring to incorporate strategy is relative to each person's ability to macro, hence the whole point of this topic.
The problem with probes and pylons threads and tips is that your target audience is your target audience BECAUSE they refuse to listen to this very piece of advice.
I cant even comprehend how many times I have told friends that all they need to do is macro efficiently. I play against bronze-platinum friends who have these crazy strategies named after pro players like "ret style double evo into fast broods" or "marineking style mech pvt" where they focus so hard on these "plans" but completely miss out on basic macro so badly that I can and do literally anything I want and still win. The worst part is at the end of the game when they say something like "I had a bad engagement at my 3rd" or "my plus 2 armor finished late".
Its less a problem of probes and pylons and more a problem of being honest with yourself for these people. It hurts to be told that the reason you lose is because you didn't pull off basic macro properly. you want to lose to engagements and timings and enemy builds like the pros you watch.
The other funny constant complaint I get (and see in here) is the "I will lose to all ins". My response : GO LOSE THEN. You are doing yourself SUCH a huge favor in low leagues by dying to an allin with 50 drones instead of expanding late and building units to be "safe". There is such thing as good losses and bad wins when you are trying to improve, and if you go out and focus on macro every game EVERY win and EVERY loss will be GOOD. Go lose 10 games in a row right now or even 20 because once you get your macro down you are gonna jump two leagues anyway.
The other funny constant complaint I get (and see in here) is the "I will lose to all ins". My response : GO LOSE THEN. You are doing yourself SUCH a huge favor in low leagues by dying to an allin with 50 drones instead of expanding late and building units to be "safe". There is such thing as good losses and bad wins when you are trying to improve, and if you go out and focus on macro every game EVERY win and EVERY loss will be GOOD. Go lose 10 games in a row right now or even 20 because once you get your macro down you are gonna jump two leagues anyway.
I don't think blindly making 50 drones is either particularly difficult or particularly rewarding, its basically a coin-toss. You'll score some free wins against an opponent that doesn't know to attack you while you're doing it, just like you'd score some free wins using an all-in they don't know how to defend.
The other funny constant complaint I get (and see in here) is the "I will lose to all ins". My response : GO LOSE THEN. You are doing yourself SUCH a huge favor in low leagues by dying to an allin with 50 drones instead of expanding late and building units to be "safe". There is such thing as good losses and bad wins when you are trying to improve, and if you go out and focus on macro every game EVERY win and EVERY loss will be GOOD. Go lose 10 games in a row right now or even 20 because once you get your macro down you are gonna jump two leagues anyway.
I don't think blindly making 50 drones is either particularly difficult or particularly rewarding, its basically a coin-toss. You'll score some free wins against an opponent that doesn't know to attack you while you're doing it, just like you'd score some free wins using an all-in they don't know how to defend.
Well for zerg, you usually want to keep toning back as you get comfortable with how much you can get away with. But in lower leagues I find you can get away with making fewer units because your opponents won't siege properly or split marines and such making your units infinitely more affective.
You can't just blindly make drones. You can make up to 30 drones no problem if the opponent takes gas. You can make 40 drones no problem if the opponent expands. You can't just make 50 drones and hope the opponent is bad, no matter what, they're 1 base will hit and kill you.
It's totally not the same thing.
We aren't saying here "make millions of drones". We are saying 'make millions of stuff'. Drones, units, whatever. An all-in takes good macro to execute too.
On April 13 2012 06:55 seupac wrote: The problem with probes and pylons threads and tips is that your target audience is your target audience BECAUSE they refuse to listen to this very piece of advice.
I cant even comprehend how many times I have told friends that all they need to do is macro efficiently. I play against bronze-platinum friends who have these crazy strategies named after pro players like "ret style double evo into fast broods" or "marineking style mech pvt" where they focus so hard on these "plans" but completely miss out on basic macro so badly that I can and do literally anything I want and still win. The worst part is at the end of the game when they say something like "I had a bad engagement at my 3rd" or "my plus 2 armor finished late".
Its less a problem of probes and pylons and more a problem of being honest with yourself for these people. It hurts to be told that the reason you lose is because you didn't pull off basic macro properly. you want to lose to engagements and timings and enemy builds like the pros you watch.
The other funny constant complaint I get (and see in here) is the "I will lose to all ins". My response : GO LOSE THEN. You are doing yourself SUCH a huge favor in low leagues by dying to an allin with 50 drones instead of expanding late and building units to be "safe". There is such thing as good losses and bad wins when you are trying to improve, and if you go out and focus on macro every game EVERY win and EVERY loss will be GOOD. Go lose 10 games in a row right now or even 20 because once you get your macro down you are gonna jump two leagues anyway.
Agreed. I think a more valuable thread would be strategies on how to get lower league players (like myself) to listen to this advice. It's hard to accept that you actually do suck at macro, even harder when you're told this by someone who, despite being so much better than you, says their macro is horrible too (i.e. TL masters players).
One person suggested playing some FFA's. These have lower level players and seeing how easily they lose because of bad macro can open your eyes to how much macro is important. FFA's have long queue times though, so I think something else is needed.
On April 13 2012 06:55 seupac wrote: The problem with probes and pylons threads and tips is that your target audience is your target audience BECAUSE they refuse to listen to this very piece of advice.
I cant even comprehend how many times I have told friends that all they need to do is macro efficiently. I play against bronze-platinum friends who have these crazy strategies named after pro players like "ret style double evo into fast broods" or "marineking style mech pvt" where they focus so hard on these "plans" but completely miss out on basic macro so badly that I can and do literally anything I want and still win. The worst part is at the end of the game when they say something like "I had a bad engagement at my 3rd" or "my plus 2 armor finished late".
Its less a problem of probes and pylons and more a problem of being honest with yourself for these people. It hurts to be told that the reason you lose is because you didn't pull off basic macro properly. you want to lose to engagements and timings and enemy builds like the pros you watch.
The other funny constant complaint I get (and see in here) is the "I will lose to all ins". My response : GO LOSE THEN. You are doing yourself SUCH a huge favor in low leagues by dying to an allin with 50 drones instead of expanding late and building units to be "safe". There is such thing as good losses and bad wins when you are trying to improve, and if you go out and focus on macro every game EVERY win and EVERY loss will be GOOD. Go lose 10 games in a row right now or even 20 because once you get your macro down you are gonna jump two leagues anyway.
Agreed. I think a more valuable thread would be strategies on how to get lower league players (like myself) to listen to this advice. It's hard to accept that you actually do suck at macro, even harder when you're told this by someone who, despite being so much better than you, says their macro is horrible too (i.e. TL masters players).
One person suggested playing some FFA's. These have lower level players and seeing how easily they lose because of bad macro can open your eyes to how much macro is important. FFA's have long queue times though, so I think something else is needed.
For individual cases, the best way is to just mirror their build order, but do it with proper macro, and point out -how many seconds earlier your timing attack can hit -how many more units you should have by the time the opponent's attack hits Or just link to a few standard "Masters level macro demo" replays and give them the standard benchmarks.
On April 13 2012 14:31 Belial88 wrote: You can't just blindly make drones. You can make up to 30 drones no problem if the opponent takes gas. You can make 40 drones no problem if the opponent expands. You can't just make 50 drones and hope the opponent is bad, no matter what, they're 1 base will hit and kill you.
Yeah my reply was just to the guy saying that losing while making 50 drones is a "good" loss. Only if you're able to identify *why* it was a bad idea to make 50 drones in that case, but not in another case. And you've identified the basic scouting rules that tell you this.
On April 13 2012 16:01 Monkeyballs25 wrote: Or just link to a few standard "Masters level macro demo" replays and give them the standard benchmarks.
This is something which needs to be standardized and promoted... maybe a big thread, or a whole website. The one thing which makes 3hatch roach such an amazing build in ZvP right now is that it's figured out to the point where any zerg can sit down and learn it while not only following build orders, but also evaluating their macro. It's a known fact that no matter how you pull it of, you should have 3 hatches, about 60 drones, a roach warren, 4 gas, an evolution chamber and not be supply blocked while around 70+ supplyby the 8 minute mark, because that's what good macro players can do. This gives massive motivation to work on your macro because you can play a game, go back and check your replay and see just how bad your macro was.
This build is the only one I know with such a clear benchmark, would be awesome to see for all standard builds in all matchups... how many stalkers at what minute when doing a 2base allin blink +2 stalker? How many marines and how many marauders when doing a stim push off a 3rax?
These kind of benchmarks are IMO key to let players improve their macro, since at higher leagues such as gold and platinum, it starts to become a bit more difficult to evaluate your macro than in bronze and silver when we're usually talking massive lack of workers.
Yesterday I tried playing 5 games and not focusing on strategy, and it was a huge success. G1: I faced a protoss deathball and an opponent with roughly even macro, so I had to land some EMPs to get somewhat even engagements. But I kept maxing and remaxing more quickly until I was way ahead and I attacked and won. G2: I was 6-pooled without my wall up in time, but I had 5 more workers than usual so I simply fought the lings and won easily after moving out with some marines and hellions. G3: I went pure bio. My opponent went mech. I couldn't win this with all my stuff because of his 15 siege tanks, but with one simple flank I got an even trade, remaxed quite quickly, attacked, and won. G4: I faced pure roach against my pure marine army, but I won easily with my 30 more supply. G5: I faced a proxy stargate, but I had so many marines that it didn't matter.
The biggest thing I emphasize when I try to help lower league players is : Get your priorities straight
And yes, pylons and probes is on the top of the priority list. A ton of lower league players always feel so overwhelmed by the fact that they have to do multiple things at the same time, and they don't have the hand speed/experience for everything just yet. And the trap in SC2, and also in BW was that all the "cool flashy, OMFG i saw this in GSL/OSL" stuff is towards the bottom of the priority list. The least important of the skill sets in SC2 and BW is what makes you feel badass. If you micro 1 banshee to kill 10 scvs and 10 marines, you feel a lot more badass than if you had spent that time making 8scvs started 5 more raxes, 5 more supplies and 30 more marines. As long as you know your limitations at that moment in time, and do the "top priority" things first, you can jump easily to diamond lvl in NA. I mean assuming that anyone who has played seriously for a few months will have 60~70+ APM, and that's all you need to get to masters.
On April 12 2012 14:34 Mazaire wrote: Its only when you reach high plat and upwards that strategy start to make a big difference.
Nah, truly it's more like once you hit mid+ Master's does it starts getting to the point where you can't just mess around and still win easily most of the time. But if course if you're macro abilities cap out at around Platinum, then it'll feel like you require significant strategy to start winning to make up for macro deficiencies. The feeling of requiring to incorporate strategy is relative to each person's ability to macro, hence the whole point of this topic.
I really like this quote, and for the OP as a whole, you do make a point... But i was really hoping to read up on lots of tips from you about how to keep your macro going. Guess I'm spoiled by your other guides.. Well, this is a {D] anyway.
Plus there probably are only few tips you can give anyway (and you did give some, like spamming nexus hotkey to check production, practicing vs AI). Other possibly useful things are to queue probes after a warp in and halfway through WG cooldown for an easier macro cycle..
edit: something I've done recently cause I wanna sack 1 of my accounts back to diamond was completely not giving as shit about winning. To ensure, even if I win I offer opponents to surrender the game to them. It turned into a great thing! For some games, i specifically focus on probes and pylons with little worry about anything else. For other games I worked on my timings.. My macro went up, I actually won lots of games easily (well dropping MMR prolly also factored in), improved my timings a lot... and regardless of the result there is no stress. Never knew I could enjoy losing so much, and I think its really helping my game.. Plus its really funny how greatful some people are if u offer them free points after u defeat them.
I guess what Im saying is if you forget about trying to win, it clears your mind a bit and allows you to focus on other things much more. Now you actually trully focus on getting better and not winning short-term.
I'm just chiming in to say this thread has made me develop a new understanding of macro, and I think pylons and probes is succinct, but not clear.
I'm gonna take a stab at it here... Good macro is having a highly refined process of getting your economy, technology and army produced as efficiently as possible.
Coming to realisations that making overlords at the incorrect time - before they're needed as well as after, making units or static defense without a proper purpose, and failing to adapt to changes in your income smoothly, having unused larvae for any reason - all make a hugely significant impact on this, has led to a much more relaxed playstyle for me.
And I realise that while I knew this stuff and I'd tried to institute methods of naturally performing it, I'd let my mind wander to all sorts of other things and the fundamentals would just drop right off. I now have much less map awareness as my scouting isn't quite as good, but I was scouting to work out whether to drone or make units, while the larvae sat there doing nothing, so it's not having a negative impact at all.
I'm an inconsistent player with bad macro, bad scouting and bad multitasking. I like the message you're trying to get across into our metals-league heads.
On April 06 2012 09:30 CecilSunkure wrote:
I agree. And I think I can help you get the message across better. See the problem is this: you have too many messages.
The more informative part of your message is hidden somewhere in the middle of a sea of text, insights, convincing examples etcetera:
On April 06 2012 09:30 CecilSunkure wrote: Here's a small list of what let me win my matches so convincingly in the Gold league (in order of most important to least):
Little to no cuts in probe production
Little to no supply blocks
Constantly spending money
Placing appropriate structures/tech at appropriate times
Good positioning of army
Not taking unnecessary risks (investing in extra cannons, a scout observer)
This is what people need to take away from your post, right? I agree completely, and I'm ready to learn. You ordered them from most to least important. They also seem to be ordered from least to most complex, with the last three points extremely simplified. This is necessary, otherwise the list would be unreadable.
The problem is that because this little list is not in the right place, the post has conflicting messages. The intro implies that probes and pylons, excluding everything else ever will get you to master's. The body text with all the examples implies that we/they need to listen to you. The list implies that we need to work on several simple macro-related issues, in order of importance. And from discussion in the topic, I gather that the last three issues in the list, largely ignored in the post and for good reason, are of course key in the higher league. All this results in your target audience reading your simple message, then saying 'I tried this', then getting patronized by people who do know better (i.e. not you target audience) for not appreciating the nuance of all the other messages.
My solution - restructure a bit: Make a single message. + Show Spoiler +
choose: Probes and pylons get you to platinum This list will get you to diamond What does it even mean, good macro Diamond players suck, look Probes and pylons are important even at the pro level
Explain the message immediately, as far as necessary (list or short paragraph). Then convince people if necessary. Put all the super-convincingness in one place, to avoid patronizing. Then explain the application. You have good examples. Finally conclude, repeating your message. This is important, partly because you can add nuance here.
Once again, I agree with the macro message and I like the details and examples. Thank you Cecil, for putting all that effort and making such nice guides. I post this because I believe everything can be improved, and you made an impressive effort in the biggest communication challenge in SC2.
Streaming some random games on a Platinum account! I know very little about all offrace matchups, but I probably won't lose anyways! Come watch some macro oriented games -- I'll be talking with anyone in the stream while playing. Should be fun!
One of the problems with telling lower leaguers (actually anyone really) to "just macro better" is that macroing better is remarkably hard.
You can't just look at a replay and say "hmm that game my macro was bad, next game i will do it better". This is because macro and mechanics are so closely linked that they are basically the same thing.
Good macro means having: -an efficient hotkey setup -knowing what the action you need to do next is, without having to think about it -fast hands and muscle memory (this will come with time) -a decent build order
imo the brain is what slows people down the most, not hand speed. If you know what the next 4 or so actions you need to do are, you will execute them much quicker than if you do the first action, consider what to do next, do that one, consider the next one etcetc
Also i'm not sure that a high masters playing against low leagues and winning with macro is really anything new or insightful. I know loads of bronze/silver league players and (assuming they are even vaguely bothered about improving) they know that macroing is very important. The real trick is actually doing it.
Hello everyone, I've read this thread and I was on the fence about this with the macro vs multitasking debate, which ended up not being a debate at all.
I'd like to thank Cecil, Belial, and others who emphasized just how much the lower leagues suck so horribly at macro. I've steadily got better with my macro over time, as well as watching replays of pro players and listening to pros speak about how to play the game and how to use strategy and coming up with right composition.
All I have to say to that is, until you're Master League, none of that matters. Today I focused intensely on macro and won most of my matches (except for TvP because I kept getting rolled by DTs). I trolled and went 1-rax expand 3-Port Banshee/Viking in TvZ and for the other matches I just made units until 10 minutes and pushed to see if I won (and most of the time I did).
So as a Platinum Terran, let me stand on the soapbox and say Macro is hard. You really have to focus on it and make it become second nature. Then and only then should you focus on other efforts of strategy.
That said, I was also hoping that someone here could analyze a recent game I played and tell me my macro mistakes so I know what to focus on:
Hi everyone in this thread. I want to thank Cecil to thank him, after reading this guide it got me back to basics.
Some time ago when i was just learning the game i was paying attention to building pylons and probes and eventually progressed throught ladder to silver, gold and to plat. At that point i shifted my vision to getting a better build and better production, upgrades, basically to have A LOT OF STUFF! And i thought i was doing okay, but this guide got me to watch for probes and pylons again. Basically my mistake is that with better production, and money spending, that I manage to get, I constantly supply-block myself and then build bunch of pylons, and that's money that I could use somewhere else at the moment.
So question is: 1. What is a good supply gap to start building pylon? (i know 2 supply early, 4 later... but next?) 2. How many pylons should i build at a time (is it always 1 or mb. 2,3,4??)
On May 01 2012 17:26 Rimak wrote: So question is: 1. What is a good supply gap to start building pylon? (i know 2 supply early, 4 later... but next?) 2. How many pylons should i build at a time (is it always 1 or mb. 2,3,4??)
Thanks in advance.
It doesnt work like that. As your rate of income increases, your ability to produce units accelerates. This means as you progress through the game, you need to leave a progressively larger supply gap for new pylons so that you can continue to produce units without getting blocked.
To clarify: the perfect pylon/overlord/depot is one that finishes exactly at the moment that you needed the extra supply. No earlier; no later. If you build them too late and get supply blocked this is obviously bad. But it also bad to build it too early! This is something many people overlook.
An easy example is zerg droning hardcore ZvP earlygame. If you build an overlord earlier than you needed to this means you spent your money on an overlord now, and drones AFTER; instead of drones now, THEN the overlord. This means that some of your drones hatched later than they could have. Therefore, those drones did not get the chance to mine as many minerals as they could have. Which means you don't have as much money as you could have. Which means you aren't able to build as many more drones as you could have, which means you get less money than you could have, ......
You get the idea. Small differences like building supply at the right time (as late as possible without getting blocked), or having idle larvae, really build up to make a huge difference.
On May 01 2012 17:26 Rimak wrote: So question is: 1. What is a good supply gap to start building pylon? (i know 2 supply early, 4 later... but next?) 2. How many pylons should i build at a time (is it always 1 or mb. 2,3,4??)
Thanks in advance.
It doesnt work like that. As your rate of income increases, your ability to produce units accelerates. This means as you progress through the game, you need to leave a progressively larger supply gap for new pylons so that you can continue to produce units without getting blocked.
So, basically you should be building a pylon every warpgate cooldown for every 4 warpgates you have, plus a little extra so you can make probes (which will absorb about 1 pylon per minute with 2 nexuses). I rule of thumb I use as Terran is 1 depot constantly building until 2 bases, then 2 depots constantly building.
The easiest way to figure this out is to watch your replay and troubleshoot your personal pylon production. When are you overbuilding pylons? When are you getting supply blocked? And do better the next time.
The other funny constant complaint I get (and see in here) is the "I will lose to all ins". My response : GO LOSE THEN. You are doing yourself SUCH a huge favor in low leagues by dying to an allin with 50 drones instead of expanding late and building units to be "safe". There is such thing as good losses and bad wins when you are trying to improve, and if you go out and focus on macro every game EVERY win and EVERY loss will be GOOD. Go lose 10 games in a row right now or even 20 because once you get your macro down you are gonna jump two leagues anyway.
I don't think blindly making 50 drones is either particularly difficult or particularly rewarding, its basically a coin-toss. You'll score some free wins against an opponent that doesn't know to attack you while you're doing it, just like you'd score some free wins using an all-in they don't know how to defend.
Can only quote this, this is basically what lower leagues are from a Zerg perspective. I don't lose 4 in 5 ZvZs because I'm bad at macro, I just lose them because I couldn't scout fast or well enough. It's really a gamble. You can only hope for your zerglings making it past the natural, other than that you gotta live with playing almost blindly. So you either expand and maybe die, or you don't expand/delay and then die to a superior macro force.
I think I'm rather good at macroing (for my league), but the moment someone hits me at an usual time or simply with an all-in, macro won't help me as much as scouting could. When in the middle of drone production you see 12 lings run across the map, good luck getting up a spine in time, especially given you have a lot less than 12 lings yourself and minerals all in drones. I literally only lose games at the moment because I get all-inned all the time. That's where this advice is too much to ask for and not really all that useful.
The moment I get the chance to outmacro my opponent I just flat out beat them, but I don't see how that comes as a surprise. I do better against plats than I do against silvers, because they're just so predictable. Unfortunately it doesn't get me out of the league I'm in currently.
Edit: I guess before I receive some really bad reactions, I'll just say that OP is generally right though. Just from my own Z perspective macro will win your games against P and T, but ZvZ is a whole different story.
On May 01 2012 18:56 Tevian wrote: Edit: I guess before I receive some really bad reactions, I'll just say that OP is generally right though. Just from my own Z perspective macro will win your games against P and T, but ZvZ is a whole different story.
I think with Z it works differently though, and this just might be because you don't play P or T so let me explain how things work as P and T.
Protoss Macro: Good Macro: Nexus queue always in use, constant probe production; Nexus Energy always in use-- shit is getting chronoed, whether it's units or probes or upgrades or whatever. Bad Macro: Nexus queue sometimes not in use, probes are being cut; Nexus energy builds up-- shit isn't getting chronoed.
Terran Macro Good Macro: CC queue always in use, constant scv production; OC energy always in use-- shit is getting muled unless you're specifically saving for a scan or whatever. Bad Macro: CC queue sometimes not in use, scvs are being cut; OC energy builds up-- mules are being missed.
What this means in general: Good Macro: your Town Hall resources are constantly being used-- your queue is always doing something (for P and T this means making workers) and your energy is always being used. Bad Macro: your Town Hall resources are not always being used-- you're getting supply blocked or forgetting to keep yoru queue active, and your energy is building up.
So now, when you look at Zerg, what does "Good Macro" mean? I'll tell you what it doesn't mean: It doesn't mean "only drone" or "mass drones" or some equine feces like that. It means what it means for the other races: your Town Hall resources are always being used. So the question is, what are Zerg's Town Hall resources? Well, they are: 1) Larvae, generated naturally by the Hatchery 2) Larvae, generated via Queen injections
So, for a Protoss or Terran player, an accumulation of energy on the CC is analogous to the accumulation of energy on a queen. But how do we correspond the "constantly make SCVs / have your town hall queue always working and doing things" with the zerg equivalent?
Well, the Zerg equivalent of cutting scvs is having idle larvae. It doesn't matter whether those larvae were gonna be zerglings, or drones, or overlords, or whatever-- as long as they're idle, they're doing what an scv cut would do to a terran. So when you as a zerg player see people saying "constantly make workers" don't think "hurr durr I'm only going to make drones" because that's not the zerg equivalent-- the zerg equivalent to a constantly-working CC or Nexus is constantly-working larvae. If you hit your injects and constantly use your larvae, you'll be able to make a bigger army, and have more income. Now, a certain number of those larvae are going to drones and overlords and stuff, but when a guy says "focus on probes and pylons" don't think "ok i'm not gonna make combat units", think "I'm gonna focus on making sure I use my larvae.
It's a fairly common mistake for new Zerg players to not fully get the "probes and pylons" analogy since as a Zerg you have the capacity to ONLY make drones and overlords. That's not what people are saying. They're saying to optimally use your Town Hall resources-- make drones, sure, but #1 goal should be to hit injects and put all your larvae to good use.
So, in summary:
Zerg Macro: Good Macro: You hit every inject and your injecting queens don't build up energy. All your larvae are being used quickly to make drones, overlords, and combat units, and are not sitting idle. Bad Macro: You miss injects and your injecting queens build up energy, and/or you have larvae being left idle, instead of making drones, overlords and combat units.
This means that you can make pure drones and overlords AND hit all your injects AND never get supply blocked and still have bad macro. Just allocating what larvae you do use to economy isn't good macro. Just injecting and making ovies isn't good macro (but it's a part of it). Zerg macro is about the production and utilization of larvae.
On May 01 2012 18:56 Tevian wrote: Edit: I guess before I receive some really bad reactions, I'll just say that OP is generally right though. Just from my own Z perspective macro will win your games against P and T, but ZvZ is a whole different story.
I think with Z it works differently though, and this just might be because you don't play P or T so let me explain how things work as P and T.
Protoss Macro: Good Macro: Nexus queue always in use, constant probe production; Nexus Energy always in use-- shit is getting chronoed, whether it's units or probes or upgrades or whatever. Bad Macro: Nexus queue sometimes not in use, probes are being cut; Nexus energy builds up-- shit isn't getting chronoed.
Terran Macro Good Macro: CC queue always in use, constant scv production; OC energy always in use-- shit is getting muled unless you're specifically saving for a scan or whatever. Bad Macro: CC queue sometimes not in use, scvs are being cut; OC energy builds up-- mules are being missed.
What this means in general: Good Macro: your Town Hall resources are constantly being used-- your queue is always doing something (for P and T this means making workers) and your energy is always being used. Bad Macro: your Town Hall resources are not always being used-- you're getting supply blocked or forgetting to keep yoru queue active, and your energy is building up.
So now, when you look at Zerg, what does "Good Macro" mean? I'll tell you what it doesn't mean: It doesn't mean "only drone" or "mass drones" or some equine feces like that. It means what it means for the other races: your Town Hall resources are always being used. So the question is, what are Zerg's Town Hall resources? Well, they are: 1) Larvae, generated naturally by the Hatchery 2) Larvae, generated via Queen injections
So, for a Protoss or Terran player, an accumulation of energy on the CC is analogous to the accumulation of energy on a queen. But how do we correspond the "constantly make SCVs / have your town hall queue always working and doing things" with the zerg equivalent?
Well, the Zerg equivalent of cutting scvs is having idle larvae. It doesn't matter whether those larvae were gonna be zerglings, or drones, or overlords, or whatever-- as long as they're idle, they're doing what an scv cut would do to a terran. So when you as a zerg player see people saying "constantly make workers" don't think "hurr durr I'm only going to make drones" because that's not the zerg equivalent-- the zerg equivalent to a constantly-working CC or Nexus is constantly-working larvae. If you hit your injects and constantly use your larvae, you'll be able to make a bigger army, and have more income. Now, a certain number of those larvae are going to drones and overlords and stuff, but when a guy says "focus on probes and pylons" don't think "ok i'm not gonna make combat units", think "I'm gonna focus on making sure I use my larvae.
It's a fairly common mistake for new Zerg players to not fully get the "probes and pylons" analogy since as a Zerg you have the capacity to ONLY make drones and overlords. That's not what people are saying. They're saying to optimally use your Town Hall resources-- make drones, sure, but #1 goal should be to hit injects and put all your larvae to good use.
So, in summary:
Zerg Macro: Good Macro: You hit every inject and your injecting queens don't build up energy. All your larvae are being used quickly to make drones, overlords, and combat units, and are not sitting idle. Bad Macro: You miss injects and your injecting queens build up energy, and/or you have larvae being left idle, instead of making drones, overlords and combat units.
This means that you can make pure drones and overlords AND hit all your injects AND never get supply blocked and still have bad macro. Just allocating what larvae you do use to economy isn't good macro. Just injecting and making ovies isn't good macro (but it's a part of it). Zerg macro is about the production and utilization of larvae.
Also, QFT. This is a really good example of the dichotomy between good and bad macro.
On May 01 2012 18:56 Tevian wrote: Edit: I guess before I receive some really bad reactions, I'll just say that OP is generally right though. Just from my own Z perspective macro will win your games against P and T, but ZvZ is a whole different story.
I think with Z it works differently though, and this just might be because you don't play P or T so let me explain how things work as P and T.
Protoss Macro: Good Macro: Nexus queue always in use, constant probe production; Nexus Energy always in use-- shit is getting chronoed, whether it's units or probes or upgrades or whatever. Bad Macro: Nexus queue sometimes not in use, probes are being cut; Nexus energy builds up-- shit isn't getting chronoed.
Terran Macro Good Macro: CC queue always in use, constant scv production; OC energy always in use-- shit is getting muled unless you're specifically saving for a scan or whatever. Bad Macro: CC queue sometimes not in use, scvs are being cut; OC energy builds up-- mules are being missed.
What this means in general: Good Macro: your Town Hall resources are constantly being used-- your queue is always doing something (for P and T this means making workers) and your energy is always being used. Bad Macro: your Town Hall resources are not always being used-- you're getting supply blocked or forgetting to keep yoru queue active, and your energy is building up.
So now, when you look at Zerg, what does "Good Macro" mean? I'll tell you what it doesn't mean: It doesn't mean "only drone" or "mass drones" or some equine feces like that. It means what it means for the other races: your Town Hall resources are always being used. So the question is, what are Zerg's Town Hall resources? Well, they are: 1) Larvae, generated naturally by the Hatchery 2) Larvae, generated via Queen injections
So, for a Protoss or Terran player, an accumulation of energy on the CC is analogous to the accumulation of energy on a queen. But how do we correspond the "constantly make SCVs / have your town hall queue always working and doing things" with the zerg equivalent?
Well, the Zerg equivalent of cutting scvs is having idle larvae. It doesn't matter whether those larvae were gonna be zerglings, or drones, or overlords, or whatever-- as long as they're idle, they're doing what an scv cut would do to a terran. So when you as a zerg player see people saying "constantly make workers" don't think "hurr durr I'm only going to make drones" because that's not the zerg equivalent-- the zerg equivalent to a constantly-working CC or Nexus is constantly-working larvae. If you hit your injects and constantly use your larvae, you'll be able to make a bigger army, and have more income. Now, a certain number of those larvae are going to drones and overlords and stuff, but when a guy says "focus on probes and pylons" don't think "ok i'm not gonna make combat units", think "I'm gonna focus on making sure I use my larvae.
It's a fairly common mistake for new Zerg players to not fully get the "probes and pylons" analogy since as a Zerg you have the capacity to ONLY make drones and overlords. That's not what people are saying. They're saying to optimally use your Town Hall resources-- make drones, sure, but #1 goal should be to hit injects and put all your larvae to good use.
So, in summary:
Zerg Macro: Good Macro: You hit every inject and your injecting queens don't build up energy. All your larvae are being used quickly to make drones, overlords, and combat units, and are not sitting idle. Bad Macro: You miss injects and your injecting queens build up energy, and/or you have larvae being left idle, instead of making drones, overlords and combat units.
This means that you can make pure drones and overlords AND hit all your injects AND never get supply blocked and still have bad macro. Just allocating what larvae you do use to economy isn't good macro. Just injecting and making ovies isn't good macro (but it's a part of it). Zerg macro is about the production and utilization of larvae.
Also, QFT. This is a really good example of the dichotomy between good and bad macro.
It is admittedly a little more complex for Zerg, since you could have good macro mechanics (injecting, spending larvae) and just not make units ever. Terran has only one "speed" of worker production, and although Protoss is a little more flexible, it can only make probes a little faster than normal. Expansion timing aside (yes this is a huge thing to put aside), Zerg has the most flexibility in terms of how much you can power before consuming.
However, powering too hard and having good macro are distinct concepts and should not be confused. If I as a Terran player opened 1 rax Expo Expo against Protoss and got 3 gate VR All-inned, it's basically my own fault for powering so hard against a 2-gas Protoss.
EDIT: but the basic lesson still holds true. focusing on solid macro helps enormously. even at my level, the first thing I look at when I analyze one of my replays is my own macro and worker production to figure out where it all went wrong.
On May 01 2012 18:56 Tevian wrote: Edit: I guess before I receive some really bad reactions, I'll just say that OP is generally right though. Just from my own Z perspective macro will win your games against P and T, but ZvZ is a whole different story.
I think with Z it works differently though, and this just might be because you don't play P or T so let me explain how things work as P and T.
Protoss Macro: Good Macro: Nexus queue always in use, constant probe production; Nexus Energy always in use-- shit is getting chronoed, whether it's units or probes or upgrades or whatever. Bad Macro: Nexus queue sometimes not in use, probes are being cut; Nexus energy builds up-- shit isn't getting chronoed.
Terran Macro Good Macro: CC queue always in use, constant scv production; OC energy always in use-- shit is getting muled unless you're specifically saving for a scan or whatever. Bad Macro: CC queue sometimes not in use, scvs are being cut; OC energy builds up-- mules are being missed.
What this means in general: Good Macro: your Town Hall resources are constantly being used-- your queue is always doing something (for P and T this means making workers) and your energy is always being used. Bad Macro: your Town Hall resources are not always being used-- you're getting supply blocked or forgetting to keep yoru queue active, and your energy is building up.
So now, when you look at Zerg, what does "Good Macro" mean? I'll tell you what it doesn't mean: It doesn't mean "only drone" or "mass drones" or some equine feces like that. It means what it means for the other races: your Town Hall resources are always being used. So the question is, what are Zerg's Town Hall resources? Well, they are: 1) Larvae, generated naturally by the Hatchery 2) Larvae, generated via Queen injections
So, for a Protoss or Terran player, an accumulation of energy on the CC is analogous to the accumulation of energy on a queen. But how do we correspond the "constantly make SCVs / have your town hall queue always working and doing things" with the zerg equivalent?
Well, the Zerg equivalent of cutting scvs is having idle larvae. It doesn't matter whether those larvae were gonna be zerglings, or drones, or overlords, or whatever-- as long as they're idle, they're doing what an scv cut would do to a terran. So when you as a zerg player see people saying "constantly make workers" don't think "hurr durr I'm only going to make drones" because that's not the zerg equivalent-- the zerg equivalent to a constantly-working CC or Nexus is constantly-working larvae. If you hit your injects and constantly use your larvae, you'll be able to make a bigger army, and have more income. Now, a certain number of those larvae are going to drones and overlords and stuff, but when a guy says "focus on probes and pylons" don't think "ok i'm not gonna make combat units", think "I'm gonna focus on making sure I use my larvae.
It's a fairly common mistake for new Zerg players to not fully get the "probes and pylons" analogy since as a Zerg you have the capacity to ONLY make drones and overlords. That's not what people are saying. They're saying to optimally use your Town Hall resources-- make drones, sure, but #1 goal should be to hit injects and put all your larvae to good use.
So, in summary:
Zerg Macro: Good Macro: You hit every inject and your injecting queens don't build up energy. All your larvae are being used quickly to make drones, overlords, and combat units, and are not sitting idle. Bad Macro: You miss injects and your injecting queens build up energy, and/or you have larvae being left idle, instead of making drones, overlords and combat units.
This means that you can make pure drones and overlords AND hit all your injects AND never get supply blocked and still have bad macro. Just allocating what larvae you do use to economy isn't good macro. Just injecting and making ovies isn't good macro (but it's a part of it). Zerg macro is about the production and utilization of larvae.
Another QFT from me. This bit:
Zerg Macro: Good Macro: You hit every inject and your injecting queens don't build up energy. All your larvae are being used quickly to make drones, overlords, and combat units, and are not sitting idle. Bad Macro: You miss injects and your injecting queens build up energy, and/or you have larvae being left idle, instead of making drones, overlords and combat units.
Is spot on. Good zerg macro is building overlords at the right times (too early is just as bad as too late), ALWAYS hitting your injects, and never having idle larvae. Anything else is essentially strategy - the choice of where best to allocate your larvae.
On May 01 2012 18:56 Tevian wrote: Edit: I guess before I receive some really bad reactions, I'll just say that OP is generally right though. Just from my own Z perspective macro will win your games against P and T, but ZvZ is a whole different story.
I think with Z it works differently though, and this just might be because you don't play P or T so let me explain how things work as P and T.
Protoss Macro: Good Macro: Nexus queue always in use, constant probe production; Nexus Energy always in use-- shit is getting chronoed, whether it's units or probes or upgrades or whatever. Bad Macro: Nexus queue sometimes not in use, probes are being cut; Nexus energy builds up-- shit isn't getting chronoed.
Terran Macro Good Macro: CC queue always in use, constant scv production; OC energy always in use-- shit is getting muled unless you're specifically saving for a scan or whatever. Bad Macro: CC queue sometimes not in use, scvs are being cut; OC energy builds up-- mules are being missed.
What this means in general: Good Macro: your Town Hall resources are constantly being used-- your queue is always doing something (for P and T this means making workers) and your energy is always being used. Bad Macro: your Town Hall resources are not always being used-- you're getting supply blocked or forgetting to keep yoru queue active, and your energy is building up.
So now, when you look at Zerg, what does "Good Macro" mean? I'll tell you what it doesn't mean: It doesn't mean "only drone" or "mass drones" or some equine feces like that. It means what it means for the other races: your Town Hall resources are always being used. So the question is, what are Zerg's Town Hall resources? Well, they are: 1) Larvae, generated naturally by the Hatchery 2) Larvae, generated via Queen injections
So, for a Protoss or Terran player, an accumulation of energy on the CC is analogous to the accumulation of energy on a queen. But how do we correspond the "constantly make SCVs / have your town hall queue always working and doing things" with the zerg equivalent?
Well, the Zerg equivalent of cutting scvs is having idle larvae. It doesn't matter whether those larvae were gonna be zerglings, or drones, or overlords, or whatever-- as long as they're idle, they're doing what an scv cut would do to a terran. So when you as a zerg player see people saying "constantly make workers" don't think "hurr durr I'm only going to make drones" because that's not the zerg equivalent-- the zerg equivalent to a constantly-working CC or Nexus is constantly-working larvae. If you hit your injects and constantly use your larvae, you'll be able to make a bigger army, and have more income. Now, a certain number of those larvae are going to drones and overlords and stuff, but when a guy says "focus on probes and pylons" don't think "ok i'm not gonna make combat units", think "I'm gonna focus on making sure I use my larvae.
It's a fairly common mistake for new Zerg players to not fully get the "probes and pylons" analogy since as a Zerg you have the capacity to ONLY make drones and overlords. That's not what people are saying. They're saying to optimally use your Town Hall resources-- make drones, sure, but #1 goal should be to hit injects and put all your larvae to good use.
So, in summary:
Zerg Macro: Good Macro: You hit every inject and your injecting queens don't build up energy. All your larvae are being used quickly to make drones, overlords, and combat units, and are not sitting idle. Bad Macro: You miss injects and your injecting queens build up energy, and/or you have larvae being left idle, instead of making drones, overlords and combat units.
This means that you can make pure drones and overlords AND hit all your injects AND never get supply blocked and still have bad macro. Just allocating what larvae you do use to economy isn't good macro. Just injecting and making ovies isn't good macro (but it's a part of it). Zerg macro is about the production and utilization of larvae.
Also, QFT. This is a really good example of the dichotomy between good and bad macro.
It is admittedly a little more complex for Zerg, since you could have good macro mechanics (injecting, spending larvae) and just not make units ever. Terran has only one "speed" of worker production, and although Protoss is a little more flexible, it can only make probes a little faster than normal. Expansion timing aside (yes this is a huge thing to put aside), Zerg has the most flexibility in terms of how much you can power before consuming.
Yup, for Zerg, if you hit all of your injects, never are supply blocked and don't have any idle drones, you still need to scout very diligently to prepare for what's coming. If you make 45 drones vs. a 4-gate, you lose. The drone vs. unit thing is quite hard for beginning zergs, especially in the lower leagues - for example, sometimes I scout a terran that is not going gas, rushing me into panic mode, throwing up spine crawlers and making lings. Then nothing happens, and he just 'forgot' gas and exanded behind this. You can never really prepare for this, and good early game scouting is not very easy for Z. The other day I scouted a P throwing down 4-gates off 1 base, I start to pump roaches only to find out that he just expanded a bit later and never even put any pressure, while I was waiting for the 4-gate to hit, that never came. Got killed by DTs 'cause I never got to lair. On some maps this is really hard to OL scout, and you're preparing for something that isn't coming. Every race has its things that are tricky, but early game as Z I'm always a bit nervous, and it is hard to make desciscions if you're 'in the dark', and you need to spend more attention on scouting (meaning you can mess-up actually building stuff if your multitasking is bad). What I'm trying to say in a very long-winded way is, that while not getting supply blocked, hitting injects, spending larvae is very important, in ladder games scouting is incredibly important as zerg, otherwise there's a high risk of dying to stuff you didn't see coming. I've been in games where things were going reasonably well macro-wise (for my standards), but I died to stuff I didn't scout. For the other races there isn't really a penalty for making too many workers, and it is good practice to 'keep making probes/scvs'. However, for Z this is a completely different story I feel.
Anyway, in terms of concept this thread is very good, being able to spend your money and securing a superior income wins many games.
I'm not even talking about ZvZ, which is incredibly volatile and frankly a bit stupid at the moment, this matchup often comes down to good micro.
On May 01 2012 20:08 Hairy wrote: Zerg Macro: Good Macro: You hit every inject and your injecting queens don't build up energy. All your larvae are being used quickly to make drones, overlords, and combat units, and are not sitting idle. Bad Macro: You miss injects and your injecting queens build up energy, and/or you have larvae being left idle, instead of making drones, overlords and combat units.
I disagree. its not bad makro just cuz u have idle larvae in midgame. zerg has this beatiful mechanic that you can actually not produce units until you have the proper information on the units you should create and then proceed to create them all in a short period of time (through not spending larvae)
On May 01 2012 20:08 Hairy wrote: Zerg Macro: Good Macro: You hit every inject and your injecting queens don't build up energy. All your larvae are being used quickly to make drones, overlords, and combat units, and are not sitting idle. Bad Macro: You miss injects and your injecting queens build up energy, and/or you have larvae being left idle, instead of making drones, overlords and combat units.
I disagree. its not bad makro just cuz u have idle larvae in midgame. zerg has this beatiful mechanic that you can actually not produce units until you have the proper information on the units you should create and then proceed to create them all in a short period of time (through not spending larvae)
Yes, in certain (rare) circumstances you may wish to make a strategic choice to intentionally delay using your larvae, but this is the exception to the rule.
Why are you not objecting to the Protoss, or Terran macro standards? eg it was recommended that protoss should always be making probes and using their chronoboost, yet sometimes you want to cut your probes, or save chronoboost up to chrono out blink etc.
Hi, im a Top Gold Terran Player (EU) and I completely agree with Cecil.
I know my Macro is really bad, eventhough i think it is not too bad for my league ^^
But for example, on the Ladder, I'm only at about 43-46 SCVs at 10 min, opposed to the ideal 52 I play with Sound off, so that I will get punished even harder for Supply Blocks, and train looking on the Minimap (I already had 3 minutes Supplyblocks until I noticed.. ^^)
ATM i play 1 rax Expo with Bunker against every Matchup, so I always play Macro Games. TvT -> Marine focused, Tanks after Medivacs TvP -> MMM and Ghost + Vikings TvZ -> Marine Tank (Ghost)
Should I not focus on engagements at all? Just Macro and A move from time to time? I just have the feeling that I need to focus on my army or I loose, I mean I cant just A move into Templar, neither Infestor nor Tanks. Currently im the Boss of throwing 40+ Supply advantages away ^^ When I work on that, I lose focus of my macro game which I initially wanted to improve.
Any Ideas how I can improve? What is the best way for a Player like me, who has a huge number of problems (Misclicking, Army Hotkeys, Macro, Reacting to Drops (Watching the minimap), and so on)
@Galaxy345 Don't focus on "macro". That's WAY too big a subject. Watch this: http://day9.tv/d9d341/ The gist of it: Instead of trying to "macro", focus on one specific thing to improve at a time. For example, SCV production you already mentioned. Have SCV production your #1 priority - you want it to be flawless. Try to play the best you can otherwise with the remainder of your attention, but not at the expense of SCV production! You should also try to benchmark yourself, so you can track your improvement as you practice - this is important as it will motivate you and make you feel good to be able to plainly see improvement.
You also want to try to ignore winning or losing. You shouldn't be focusing on trying to win - you should be focusing on trying to get better at the game. This is a subtle, but important distinction. In this case, try to be of the attitude that it doesn't fucking matter if you lose. Who cares that you died horribly to something stupid - your scv production that game was AMAZING! And that's what you were working to improve. It doesn't matter if you lost the game, because you got BETTER.
Once you've done a bunch of games and you're happy your scv production is ace, and the intensity of trying to always check SCVs doesnt seem like such a burden anymore, then go back to playing "normally". Your scvs should be better! Or move straight into your next area of improvement, eg supply depos!
Love the article, should get spotlighted. It's this kind of stuff, that makes people good. Not how they multitask and micro - such stuff only becomes important once you play an opponent who macros as good as possible. Though good macro needs a ton of multitasking as well
I'd really appreciate it if you could help me figure something out. This is a discussion I've had several times here on TL and having followed your threads avidly in the past I would value your thoughts tremendously.
To state the problem as concisely as possible: playing for over a year as Zerg, reading TL, watching Day[9], 12 weeks with the pros etc etc, I failed to meaningfully improve either my macro or my ladder ranking until I watched some VoDs that helped me improve my understanding and decision-making.
This flies in the face of everything far better players than I keep telling me. I know I shouldn't argue with pros and blue posters. At the same time, I know I didn't get anywhere just trying to focus on macro.
It's important that I'm clear: I'm not saying that I improved my macro and it didn't help, or that I focused on something else, let my macro stay the same, and shot up the ladder.
No: the point is that, in an actual game, 'macro better' felt like a meaningless abstraction after the first couple of minutes. I couldn't remind myself "I need to macro better" and act. I had idle larvae, my resources were piling up, I'd get myself supply blocked - and most of the time it was because I didn't have a clue what to do next.
The advice in the OP of this thread (and elsewhere) has always implied that "What you do is far less important than doing it well." In my ignorance of what it's like to play Protoss or Terran, I could imagine that being true for them. But it has never felt true playing Zerg. What felt true was:
1. There is no 'safe' or 'standard'. 2. My only chances to win or gain advantage come after failed aggression on his part. If I make units and attack, I lose 100% of the time.
That was the extent of my game-sense. I never articulated it to myself at the time, but how was I supposed to 'do that' better? It meant nothing. I couldn't get past the feeling that if I picked a way to spend my money, it was probably going to turn out to be wrong.
Then I watched the Stoic ZvX vods, and I realised that everything I thought I knew was either wrong, or right but in a misleadingly incomplete way. And this was after twelve months plus of playing, watching dailies, following the pro scene etc etc. Within days I had risen a league and was starting to feel my macro holding me back, rather than just feeling stupid and lost. Since when I've found it far easier to concentrate on injects, concentrate on avoiding supply blocks or overspending on overlords, concentrate on taking and saturating expansions. I'm still shit at these things, but I'm not as shit, and it's because my mind is naturally drawn to them as a means to a definite end.
In some respects I feel like a pretentious actor demanding "But what's my motivation?" I wonder if I'm too distracted by 'why' to just get on with stuff. What do you think? Am I just really stupid in a very specific way? Are high level players assuming too much gamesense because they just can't imagine how anyone could lack it? Is zerg as much of a special case as it seems to me?
On May 02 2012 00:18 Umpteen wrote: @Cecilsunkure:
I'd really appreciate it if you could help me figure something out. This is a discussion I've had several times here on TL and having followed your threads avidly in the past I would value your thoughts tremendously.
To state the problem as concisely as possible: playing for over a year as Zerg, reading TL, watching Day[9], 12 weeks with the pros etc etc, I failed to meaningfully improve either my macro or my ladder ranking until I watched some VoDs that helped me improve my understanding and decision-making.
This flies in the face of everything far better players than I keep telling me. I know I shouldn't argue with pros and blue posters. At the same time, I know I didn't get anywhere just trying to focus on macro.
It's important that I'm clear: I'm not saying that I improved my macro and it didn't help, or that I focused on something else, let my macro stay the same, and shot up the ladder.
No: the point is that, in an actual game, 'macro better' felt like a meaningless abstraction after the first couple of minutes. I couldn't remind myself "I need to macro better" and act. I had idle larvae, my resources were piling up, I'd get myself supply blocked - and most of the time it was because I didn't have a clue what to do next.
The advice in the OP of this thread (and elsewhere) has always implied that "What you do is far less important than doing it well." In my ignorance of what it's like to play Protoss or Terran, I could imagine that being true for them. But it has never felt true playing Zerg. What felt true was:
1. There is no 'safe' or 'standard'. 2. My only chances to win or gain advantage come after failed aggression on his part. If I make units and attack, I lose 100% of the time.
That was the extent of my game-sense. I never articulated it to myself at the time, but how was I supposed to 'do that' better? It meant nothing. I couldn't get past the feeling that if I picked a way to spend my money, it was probably going to turn out to be wrong.
Then I watched the Stoic ZvX vods, and I realised that everything I thought I knew was either wrong, or right but in a misleadingly incomplete way. And this was after twelve months plus of playing, watching dailies, following the pro scene etc etc. Within days I had risen a league and was starting to feel my macro holding me back, rather than just feeling stupid and lost. Since when I've found it far easier to concentrate on injects, concentrate on avoiding supply blocks or overspending on overlords, concentrate on taking and saturating expansions. I'm still shit at these things, but I'm not as shit, and it's because my mind is naturally drawn to them as a means to a definite end.
In some respects I feel like a pretentious actor demanding "But what's my motivation?" I wonder if I'm too distracted by 'why' to just get on with stuff. What do you think? Am I just really stupid in a very specific way? Are high level players assuming too much gamesense because they just can't imagine how anyone could lack it? Is zerg as much of a special case as it seems to me?
Thanks.
I think I understand what you're trying to say. What it seems to be coming down to is that with Protoss and Terran it's very easy to have an understanding for the separation of your worker production, and other types of production. With Zerg however it's kind of muddled together, and so a new player would have to learn a proper pacing of worker production, since it's a more open ended task.
On April 14 2012 02:39 PinheadXXXXXX wrote: Yesterday I tried playing 5 games and not focusing on strategy, and it was a huge success. G1: I faced a protoss deathball and an opponent with roughly even macro, so I had to land some EMPs to get somewhat even engagements. But I kept maxing and remaxing more quickly until I was way ahead and I attacked and won. G2: I was 6-pooled without my wall up in time, but I had 5 more workers than usual so I simply fought the lings and won easily after moving out with some marines and hellions. G3: I went pure bio. My opponent went mech. I couldn't win this with all my stuff because of his 15 siege tanks, but with one simple flank I got an even trade, remaxed quite quickly, attacked, and won. G4: I faced pure roach against my pure marine army, but I won easily with my 30 more supply. G5: I faced a proxy stargate, but I had so many marines that it didn't matter.
I'm glad that you won the games with better macro, but you shouldn't discount the value of strategy entirely.
Actually, I regularly beat top 8 masters zergs in ZVZ almost purely with superior macro.
I tell my friends that the counter to roaches and banelings are just drones. With a high enough mineral income and an overlord in front of their ramp, you can hold the majority of roach allins by throwing down 7 emergency spines once you see them move out.
I have won a number of games with mirror builds because I care about timing my gas on my third so that it finishes the same time as the hatchery.
Of course, there are a couple of other subtler things here happening (scouting, overlord positioning), but it is superior macro that makes ZvZ my best MU.
Completely agree. A friend bet me recently I couldn't take an account from platinum to master with only making stalkers (and observers, but no cannons) Army supply, which is a direct result of macro, is king at lower levels. Collossi/Immortal/Zealot vs blink stalkers in a battle... well duh the stalkers lose. Unless your army supply of stalkers is double the 'correct' ball. I'd say the #1 reason I lose games in masters is a macro failure in mid to late game, when my opponent just has too much stuff for me to kill. I recently decided to switch my focus from a variety of strats, to only a couple and really focus on my macro and not having things floating/idle, and in 2 days shot up 400 points. (master league)
As a side note, I think one key for the platinum-diamond level in addition to macro, is start working your upgrades consistantly as well. The only thing better than a big army, is a big +3/+3 army.
Thanks for the OP, re-read it myself as it's a good stuff, even for people not in 'lower' leagues.
On May 02 2012 03:53 Mauzel wrote: Actually, I regularly beat top 8 masters zergs in ZVZ almost purely with superior macro.
I tell my friends that the counter to roaches and banelings are just drones. With a high enough mineral income and an overlord in front of their ramp, you can hold the majority of roach allins by throwing down 7 emergency spines once you see them move out.
I have won a number of games with mirror builds because I care about timing my gas on my third so that it finishes the same time as the hatchery.
Of course, there are a couple of other subtler things here happening (scouting, overlord positioning), but it is superior macro that makes ZvZ my best MU.
I agree that a lot of ZvZs come down to pure macro. If you are quick and accurate with your drone timings you saturate quickly enough that you can go directly from drone production to roach production without a hitch. You can hold off roach all-ins without even cutting drones. When you get into 3 base roach wars, one guy can easily lose the game by getting supply blocked or missing injects.
On May 02 2012 03:53 Mauzel wrote: Actually, I regularly beat top 8 masters zergs in ZVZ almost purely with superior macro.
I tell my friends that the counter to roaches and banelings are just drones. With a high enough mineral income and an overlord in front of their ramp, you can hold the majority of roach allins by throwing down 7 emergency spines once you see them move out.
I have won a number of games with mirror builds because I care about timing my gas on my third so that it finishes the same time as the hatchery.
Of course, there are a couple of other subtler things here happening (scouting, overlord positioning), but it is superior macro that makes ZvZ my best MU.
Actually, as a Master Zerg, ZvZ is the only MU for me in which I can screw up my macro completly and still win with better multitasking, micro and positioning. I agree that you can win purely based upon macro, but I have made the experience, that in mirror battles as Zerg, it is the only time you can win based upon your micro and not upon just having to much for him to outmicro you.
That being said, I'm not relying upon this, but when I really screw up my macro in ZvZ, my opponents won't see a weird "gg" out of the blue, unlike in the other MUs, were I tend to not waste my time hanging in lost games.
On May 02 2012 00:18 Umpteen wrote: @Cecilsunkure:
I'd really appreciate it if you could help me figure something out. This is a discussion I've had several times here on TL and having followed your threads avidly in the past I would value your thoughts tremendously.
To state the problem as concisely as possible: playing for over a year as Zerg, reading TL, watching Day[9], 12 weeks with the pros etc etc, I failed to meaningfully improve either my macro or my ladder ranking until I watched some VoDs that helped me improve my understanding and decision-making.
This flies in the face of everything far better players than I keep telling me. I know I shouldn't argue with pros and blue posters. At the same time, I know I didn't get anywhere just trying to focus on macro.
It's important that I'm clear: I'm not saying that I improved my macro and it didn't help, or that I focused on something else, let my macro stay the same, and shot up the ladder.
No: the point is that, in an actual game, 'macro better' felt like a meaningless abstraction after the first couple of minutes. I couldn't remind myself "I need to macro better" and act. I had idle larvae, my resources were piling up, I'd get myself supply blocked - and most of the time it was because I didn't have a clue what to do next.
The advice in the OP of this thread (and elsewhere) has always implied that "What you do is far less important than doing it well." In my ignorance of what it's like to play Protoss or Terran, I could imagine that being true for them. But it has never felt true playing Zerg. What felt true was:
1. There is no 'safe' or 'standard'. 2. My only chances to win or gain advantage come after failed aggression on his part. If I make units and attack, I lose 100% of the time.
That was the extent of my game-sense. I never articulated it to myself at the time, but how was I supposed to 'do that' better? It meant nothing. I couldn't get past the feeling that if I picked a way to spend my money, it was probably going to turn out to be wrong.
Then I watched the Stoic ZvX vods, and I realised that everything I thought I knew was either wrong, or right but in a misleadingly incomplete way. And this was after twelve months plus of playing, watching dailies, following the pro scene etc etc. Within days I had risen a league and was starting to feel my macro holding me back, rather than just feeling stupid and lost. Since when I've found it far easier to concentrate on injects, concentrate on avoiding supply blocks or overspending on overlords, concentrate on taking and saturating expansions. I'm still shit at these things, but I'm not as shit, and it's because my mind is naturally drawn to them as a means to a definite end.
In some respects I feel like a pretentious actor demanding "But what's my motivation?" I wonder if I'm too distracted by 'why' to just get on with stuff. What do you think? Am I just really stupid in a very specific way? Are high level players assuming too much gamesense because they just can't imagine how anyone could lack it? Is zerg as much of a special case as it seems to me?
Thanks.
I think I understand what you're trying to say. What it seems to be coming down to is that with Protoss and Terran it's very easy to have an understanding for the separation of your worker production, and other types of production. With Zerg however it's kind of muddled together, and so a new player would have to learn a proper pacing of worker production, since it's a more open ended task.
How about this: to macro well, inject well and don't get supply blocked. Get up to 2 bases quickly (unless there's some cheese you scouted). Obviously making only drones is suicide, just build 16 drones per base +3 for every gas taken. When making a building, build 1 drone to replace the one lost. After saturating each base, build 3 inject waves of units then put down a new hatch. When the hatch comes online, saturate it. Then build 3 inject waves of units again. Rinse and repeat. If your minerals float about 800, put down a macro hatch.
On May 02 2012 04:03 1st_Panzer_Div. wrote: Completely agree. A friend bet me recently I couldn't take an account from platinum to master with only making stalkers (and observers, but no cannons) Army supply, which is a direct result of macro, is king at lower levels. Collossi/Immortal/Zealot vs blink stalkers in a battle... well duh the stalkers lose. Unless your army supply of stalkers is double the 'correct' ball.
Do you have a replay pack, or even a few games? I watched all of the mass stalker to Diamond replays, but they're quite dated now.
On May 02 2012 00:18 Umpteen wrote: @Cecilsunkure:
I'd really appreciate it if you could help me figure something out. This is a discussion I've had several times here on TL and having followed your threads avidly in the past I would value your thoughts tremendously.
To state the problem as concisely as possible: playing for over a year as Zerg, reading TL, watching Day[9], 12 weeks with the pros etc etc, I failed to meaningfully improve either my macro or my ladder ranking until I watched some VoDs that helped me improve my understanding and decision-making.
This flies in the face of everything far better players than I keep telling me. I know I shouldn't argue with pros and blue posters. At the same time, I know I didn't get anywhere just trying to focus on macro.
It's important that I'm clear: I'm not saying that I improved my macro and it didn't help, or that I focused on something else, let my macro stay the same, and shot up the ladder.
No: the point is that, in an actual game, 'macro better' felt like a meaningless abstraction after the first couple of minutes. I couldn't remind myself "I need to macro better" and act. I had idle larvae, my resources were piling up, I'd get myself supply blocked - and most of the time it was because I didn't have a clue what to do next.
The advice in the OP of this thread (and elsewhere) has always implied that "What you do is far less important than doing it well." In my ignorance of what it's like to play Protoss or Terran, I could imagine that being true for them. But it has never felt true playing Zerg. What felt true was:
1. There is no 'safe' or 'standard'. 2. My only chances to win or gain advantage come after failed aggression on his part. If I make units and attack, I lose 100% of the time.
That was the extent of my game-sense. I never articulated it to myself at the time, but how was I supposed to 'do that' better? It meant nothing. I couldn't get past the feeling that if I picked a way to spend my money, it was probably going to turn out to be wrong.
Then I watched the Stoic ZvX vods, and I realised that everything I thought I knew was either wrong, or right but in a misleadingly incomplete way. And this was after twelve months plus of playing, watching dailies, following the pro scene etc etc. Within days I had risen a league and was starting to feel my macro holding me back, rather than just feeling stupid and lost. Since when I've found it far easier to concentrate on injects, concentrate on avoiding supply blocks or overspending on overlords, concentrate on taking and saturating expansions. I'm still shit at these things, but I'm not as shit, and it's because my mind is naturally drawn to them as a means to a definite end.
In some respects I feel like a pretentious actor demanding "But what's my motivation?" I wonder if I'm too distracted by 'why' to just get on with stuff. What do you think? Am I just really stupid in a very specific way? Are high level players assuming too much gamesense because they just can't imagine how anyone could lack it? Is zerg as much of a special case as it seems to me?
Thanks.
I think I understand what you're trying to say. What it seems to be coming down to is that with Protoss and Terran it's very easy to have an understanding for the separation of your worker production, and other types of production. With Zerg however it's kind of muddled together, and so a new player would have to learn a proper pacing of worker production, since it's a more open ended task.
How about this: to macro well, inject well and don't get supply blocked. Get up to 2 bases quickly (unless there's some cheese you scouted). Obviously making only drones is suicide, just build 16 drones per base +3 for every gas taken. When making a building, build 1 drone to replace the one lost. After saturating each base, build 3 inject waves of units then put down a new hatch. When the hatch comes online, saturate it. Then build 3 inject waves of units again. Rinse and repeat. If your minerals float about 800, put down a macro hatch.
Does that actually work? And what am I building?
@Cecil:
Thanks so much for replying
It's partly what you said, but partly other stuff too.
For instance, while playing tonight I hit a whole bunch of Protoss, and lost to all but two of them. In my head I have two plans: if I see FFE I practice the 12 minute roach max. If I see gates I deviate into two spines and both queens at the natural with a roach warren to follow, with which I've been able to stop 4-gates (and have the economy to follow through and win) for the first time in, well, ever. So far, so good. The games tonight went like this:
1. Looked like a 4-gate, turned out to be DTs. I thought I'd just put him off attacking by denying his attempted forward pylon with patrolling lings, and was feeling pretty good. I took my lair about 30 seconds too late; he killed both it and my spawning pool before my overseer morphed. I had plenty of stuff to stop him with and twice the economy, but it didn't matter. What mattered is that I didn't get a lair or spores because I was too scared/distracted by the prospect of a stronger, delayed attack.
2. Looked like a 4-gate, turned out to be 3 gate stargate. I was lucky enough to sneak in a ling and see the stargate, but I wasn't sure what to do about it. I made two extra queens straight away but I had no idea what kind of support ground army I'd need, when to stop making queens and go lair, when or if to get hydra, when to try to push back - in the end he sent hardly any ground army and made a second stargate instead. He lifted and killed all my queens and took down my natural for the win.
3. Looked like a 4-gate, turned out to be 3 gate robo. I hadn't enough stuff to stop the later, more powerful push because I cut drones too early.
4. Same as 3.
5. DTs again. Saw the building warping in this time, but bad spore and spine placement made clearing out the DTs a pain and cost me two queens. Had no real idea how to follow up or what he'd do next or when so I made a random number of drones and roaches and died when he turned up with a bunch of stalkers and zealots.
And on it goes. There were a couple of ZvTs too. One was hellions into cloaked banshees (I never win those), the other was hellions into being completely unprepared for my roach-ling counterattack.
The two I won were versus FFE. I knew what I was doing and overwhelmed my opponent with macro. I remembered injects, looked away from the battles - it was great.
It's pretty humiliating to talk about all this, but it's important to be honest. Outside of a few very specific scenarios, I'm completely at sea, unable to macro worth a damn. Only by actually coming up with rehearsed responses am I able to do anything beyond delaying the inevitable.
This is why I wonder if higher-level players are overlooking something more fundamental even than macro. I'm sure many will be reading this with a kind of horrified disgust - how could anyone not know what his goal is after holding off X, Y or Z?
Zerg: So, destiny got out of bronze with pure queens.
Protoss: That one guy on reddit got of bronze up to playing diamonds making pure stalkers.
Terran: guy named Taerix posted a macro build based on making nothing but marines and marauders and expanding every 6 minutes.
So why do people still deny it? It's like Gheed said, some people are stubbornly unaware of how bad they are.
If you practice a macro build, you will build muscle memory in a way that you never stop producing harvesters and supply, so that AFTERWARDS you can vary and try different strats, so long as these strats dont stop you from making supply non-stop. A lot of you guys are trying to learn bicycle stunts while refusing to learn how to pedal.
Telling players to focus on "Probes and Pylons" only exasperates the problem, because you're telling them to focus, rather than improving their ability to spread out actions.
disagree.
Multitasking comes when you've got the basic skills and actions down to such a science that you perform them automatically without thought, and between those actions you can multitask and do other things. You can't multitask until you can singletask.
This is 180 degrees off of reality. There is no such basic task as "good macro;" and it's beyond belief that people can watch replays of pros, or just high league players in general, watch the crazy amount of actions taken, and yet stillcome away with the notion that "the fundamental thing that makes this guy good is macro, and this is what you as a lower skilled player need to do."
The fact of the matter is that what allows the pros to have such amazing macro is that they have such amazing control - they are able to fly through hotkeys in fractions of a second, they can make the split-second decisions about what to do in a particular situation, they know the strategies they want to push like the back of their hand, and with all this *then* they have the ability to weave flawless production cycles into their army management. Those are the fundamentals; a thing cannot be fundamental if it requires so many supporting steps.
Telling lower-league guys to do this is a recipe for disaster; I'm probably the poster child for what happens when someone gets into their heads to focus on macro when they simply don't have the micromanagement skills to back it up. I was once a mid-level Platinum leaguer who was running into a wall - all of my builds were heavy harassment, focused on keeping my opponent's economy down, but players that could stave off the early harass would usually find a way to win - if I didn't have an overwhelming advantage, I was hosed. Since everyone says the problem is macro, I just shrugged my shoulders and worked on making sure I wasn't queueing units, never missed production cycles...and plummetted all the way down to silver. I'm sure if I had more time to play, I'd have been demoted to Bronze. I've only recently clawed my way back into Gold, and who knows when the next massive losing streak is going to wreck me.
Because, you see, my problem is that I can't multitask. My army? One hotkey, baby. If I need to unsiege tanks, move, then resiege, then stim my army, that's a whole mess of tab selection. By focusing in on macro, I had to neglect my micro, and what was already a rather poor part of my game - large army management - became absolutely atrocious. I'd get massive numbers of units by keeping my attention on what is going on in my base ("can't queue an SCV gotta build him right as the previous one is done!")...and that get slaughtered because I didn't see the incoming army. And these poor habits are so ingrained now that even me sitting there during the game telling myself not to do that, to use all my hotkeys, I just can't break it. I can't help but 1A and check back on my base to make sure my production's up, and either I luck out or I don't.
Outside of the non-existant case of a player so bad it's basically "AMG WHY CAN'T I MAEK MANS!" sitting on supply block for minutes at a time, the realty is that macro is not a fundamental, it is a refinement; after you are comfortable controlling your army and not throwing it away, it will necessarily follow that you can macro because you've already got the apm and decision making to spare. You simply can't go the other way; scrubs like me who keep the camera in base are only gonna beat the other guys doing the same thing.
For me, this is very eye opening, Cecil! I tuned in to your stream when you were playing random and still winning games, and I just realized that I actually stop making probes just as I saturate 2 bases...
For most people, it feels like they are constantly producing workers, but if you go back and watch your replays, you can see really long and painful periods of times where you don't make any workers.
This helped me so much that I beat the last zerg I played when I normally would have lost, so thanks again!
I wanted to thank guys for advice on pylon count few pages earlier. Helped me out alot.
I've managed to play 5 games yesterday, paying attention on how many pylons i'm building, and got supply-blocked just couple of times for a few seconds. Thanks again.
On May 02 2012 13:54 nyccine wrote: The fact of the matter is that what allows the pros to have such amazing macro is that they have such amazing control - they are able to fly through hotkeys in fractions of a second, they can make the split-second decisions about what to do in a particular situation, they know the strategies they want to push like the back of their hand, and with all this *then* they have the ability to weave flawless production cycles into their army management. Those are the fundamentals; a thing cannot be fundamental if it requires so many supporting steps.
No; as much as I think there can be things getting in the way of good macro, you're way off base here (pun intended).
Players have demonstrated time and again that good macro + a-move is sufficient for good ladder placement, and I'm not going to disagree with the evidence. My issue is that, to my knowledge nobody has done it with Zerg, because Zerg is more like Judo: you have to counter what your opponent is doing in such a way as to throw them off balance, which means you need to pay a lot more attention to what your opponent is up to.
I remember reading a 'blue' Terran guide here on TL where he said he never bothered to scan the zerg before the 10:00 mark; it just doesn't matter what the Zerg is doing because all he can do is lose or prolong the game on an even footing.
On May 02 2012 00:18 Umpteen wrote: @Cecilsunkure:
I'd really appreciate it if you could help me figure something out. This is a discussion I've had several times here on TL and having followed your threads avidly in the past I would value your thoughts tremendously.
To state the problem as concisely as possible: playing for over a year as Zerg, reading TL, watching Day[9], 12 weeks with the pros etc etc, I failed to meaningfully improve either my macro or my ladder ranking until I watched some VoDs that helped me improve my understanding and decision-making.
This flies in the face of everything far better players than I keep telling me. I know I shouldn't argue with pros and blue posters. At the same time, I know I didn't get anywhere just trying to focus on macro.
It's important that I'm clear: I'm not saying that I improved my macro and it didn't help, or that I focused on something else, let my macro stay the same, and shot up the ladder.
No: the point is that, in an actual game, 'macro better' felt like a meaningless abstraction after the first couple of minutes. I couldn't remind myself "I need to macro better" and act. I had idle larvae, my resources were piling up, I'd get myself supply blocked - and most of the time it was because I didn't have a clue what to do next.
The advice in the OP of this thread (and elsewhere) has always implied that "What you do is far less important than doing it well." In my ignorance of what it's like to play Protoss or Terran, I could imagine that being true for them. But it has never felt true playing Zerg. What felt true was:
1. There is no 'safe' or 'standard'. 2. My only chances to win or gain advantage come after failed aggression on his part. If I make units and attack, I lose 100% of the time.
That was the extent of my game-sense. I never articulated it to myself at the time, but how was I supposed to 'do that' better? It meant nothing. I couldn't get past the feeling that if I picked a way to spend my money, it was probably going to turn out to be wrong.
Then I watched the Stoic ZvX vods, and I realised that everything I thought I knew was either wrong, or right but in a misleadingly incomplete way. And this was after twelve months plus of playing, watching dailies, following the pro scene etc etc. Within days I had risen a league and was starting to feel my macro holding me back, rather than just feeling stupid and lost. Since when I've found it far easier to concentrate on injects, concentrate on avoiding supply blocks or overspending on overlords, concentrate on taking and saturating expansions. I'm still shit at these things, but I'm not as shit, and it's because my mind is naturally drawn to them as a means to a definite end.
In some respects I feel like a pretentious actor demanding "But what's my motivation?" I wonder if I'm too distracted by 'why' to just get on with stuff. What do you think? Am I just really stupid in a very specific way? Are high level players assuming too much gamesense because they just can't imagine how anyone could lack it? Is zerg as much of a special case as it seems to me?
Thanks.
I think I understand what you're trying to say. What it seems to be coming down to is that with Protoss and Terran it's very easy to have an understanding for the separation of your worker production, and other types of production. With Zerg however it's kind of muddled together, and so a new player would have to learn a proper pacing of worker production, since it's a more open ended task.
How about this: to macro well, inject well and don't get supply blocked. Get up to 2 bases quickly (unless there's some cheese you scouted). Obviously making only drones is suicide, just build 16 drones per base +3 for every gas taken. When making a building, build 1 drone to replace the one lost. After saturating each base, build 3 inject waves of units then put down a new hatch. When the hatch comes online, saturate it. Then build 3 inject waves of units again. Rinse and repeat. If your minerals float about 800, put down a macro hatch.
Does that actually work? And what am I building?
If you want a simple cookie cutter build for all 3 matchups, just spam roaches. Build 1 set of lings, then as much roaches as you can manage. When you get 200 supply, a-move and win. It's not particularly efficient vs terran, but if you have more roaches than he has marines, you still win.
If you want to play more efficiently vs terran, then just go ling bling ultra. Get a baneling nest when you're getting lair tech, then get baneling speed, SPREAD CREEP!. When you see him coming, just morph a ton of blings and kill his army. No fancy micro tricks required.
Telling players to focus on "Probes and Pylons" only exasperates the problem, because you're telling them to focus, rather than improving their ability to spread out actions.
disagree.
Multitasking comes when you've got the basic skills and actions down to such a science that you perform them automatically without thought, and between those actions you can multitask and do other things. You can't multitask until you can singletask.
This is 180 degrees off of reality. There is no such basic task as "good macro;" and it's beyond belief that people can watch replays of pros, or just high league players in general, watch the crazy amount of actions taken, and yet stillcome away with the notion that "the fundamental thing that makes this guy good is macro, and this is what you as a lower skilled player need to do."
The fact of the matter is that what allows the pros to have such amazing macro is that they have such amazing control - they are able to fly through hotkeys in fractions of a second, they can make the split-second decisions about what to do in a particular situation, they know the strategies they want to push like the back of their hand, and with all this *then* they have the ability to weave flawless production cycles into their army management. Those are the fundamentals; a thing cannot be fundamental if it requires so many supporting steps.
As Umpteen said, you CAN get out of gold with pure macro. If you think your macro is good enough, post a replay here and we can see if it's really good. If you have limited apm, use it for macroing. Don't try to be fancy with intricate army compositions which require a ton of micro and babysitting. Just get an MMM army. See enemy units, just press t and a-move. You'll get wrecked occasionally by running into a ton of banelings, but you'll win more games simply because your army is much larger than the opponent.
On May 02 2012 22:08 Heh_ wrote: If you want a simple cookie cutter build for all 3 matchups, just spam roaches. Build 1 set of lings, then as much roaches as you can manage. When you get 200 supply, a-move and win. It's not particularly efficient vs terran, but if you have more roaches than he has marines, you still win.
Interesting. I know that works vs FFE because of the speed with which it's possible to max when unmolested, but I'm dubious about its broader usefulness. Any terran at my level is going to be hitting me with something random and scary long before the 12 minute mark, and if I make roaches sooner I'll have to take gas sooner and now the whole build is pushed back a few more minutes.
Tell you what, though: I'll give it a try and report back.
On May 02 2012 22:08 Heh_ wrote: If you want a simple cookie cutter build for all 3 matchups, just spam roaches. Build 1 set of lings, then as much roaches as you can manage. When you get 200 supply, a-move and win. It's not particularly efficient vs terran, but if you have more roaches than he has marines, you still win.
Interesting. I know that works vs FFE because of the speed with which it's possible to max when unmolested, but I'm dubious about its broader usefulness. Any terran at my level is going to be hitting me with something random and scary long before the 12 minute mark, and if I make roaches sooner I'll have to take gas sooner and now the whole build is pushed back a few more minutes.
Tell you what, though: I'll give it a try and report back.
You don't need to grab 3 bases before pumping out roaches. You can do the same on 2 bases. The reason why I didn't mention lings is because you need twice the larva, meaning that your larva management has to be even better. Also, a-moving lings are situationally less effective than roaches due to the simple fact that they're melee.
On May 02 2012 22:08 Heh_ wrote: If you want a simple cookie cutter build for all 3 matchups, just spam roaches. Build 1 set of lings, then as much roaches as you can manage. When you get 200 supply, a-move and win. It's not particularly efficient vs terran, but if you have more roaches than he has marines, you still win.
Interesting. I know that works vs FFE because of the speed with which it's possible to max when unmolested, but I'm dubious about its broader usefulness. Any terran at my level is going to be hitting me with something random and scary long before the 12 minute mark, and if I make roaches sooner I'll have to take gas sooner and now the whole build is pushed back a few more minutes.
Tell you what, though: I'll give it a try and report back.
Chances are though, his random scary push will be later than optimal (most optimal Terran attacks hit from 9 - 10.30).
Given that Stephano can max at 1140, I would be nearly certain he could fend these off with roach only. In fact, roaches do really well against any Terran openers. The reason they aren't build is for their lack of efficiency going into the lategame/latemidgame. If you can't build stuff and attack well enough yet, don't even worry about the lategame yet.
On May 02 2012 22:08 Heh_ wrote: If you want a simple cookie cutter build for all 3 matchups, just spam roaches. Build 1 set of lings, then as much roaches as you can manage. When you get 200 supply, a-move and win. It's not particularly efficient vs terran, but if you have more roaches than he has marines, you still win.
Interesting. I know that works vs FFE because of the speed with which it's possible to max when unmolested, but I'm dubious about its broader usefulness. Any terran at my level is going to be hitting me with something random and scary long before the 12 minute mark, and if I make roaches sooner I'll have to take gas sooner and now the whole build is pushed back a few more minutes.
Tell you what, though: I'll give it a try and report back.
You don't need to grab 3 bases before pumping out roaches. You can do the same on 2 bases. The reason why I didn't mention lings is because you need twice the larva, meaning that your larva management has to be even better. Also, a-moving lings are situationally less effective than roaches due to the simple fact that they're melee.
Another strategy if you find yourself losing to weird attacks is building an extra queen-- connecting your 2 bases with creep and having stronger early game anti-air will make you safe against weird all-ins that have starport tech.
On May 03 2012 00:27 CluEleSs_UK wrote: Chances are though, his random scary push will be later than optimal (most optimal Terran attacks hit from 9 - 10.30).
It's true it won't be optimal, but you might be surprised how close it can get.
In the same way that I can max at 12:00 against FFE, the people I'm playing can hit that first big timing reasonably well, because they don't really have to do anything except follow their build order. Their (and my) macro goes to pieces when the action kicks off, which is why I often find flavour-of-the-month lotsa-micro hellion openers easier to deal with than a straight up 2-base push: their harassment does them as much damage as it does me.
Now that I'm facing gold and the occasional platinum player, I've definitely noticed an upswing in the number of players who use that first aggression with deliberation, as a tool to get them to a better place, rather than as a wannabe knockout punch. Which is why I'm struggling again
If you think your macro is good enough, post a replay here and we can see if it's really good.
Nice circular logic there - the assertion is that macro is so vital, it outweighs everything else. If this is true, then pointing out my 1, 2, 5, 10, 100 or whatever macro errors and saying "See, I told you so!" is a major error in logic at best, and outright intellectual dishonesty at worst. The claim is that whoever has the better macro, wins, so you'd have to look at mine and my opponent's.
Which you'll never do, of course. Really, it's unneccessary though; Blizzard gives you a handy-dandy graph at the end of your match that tells you what the army values were. And I can tell you exactly what they look like: I outpace my opponent, then there's a dramatic drop where my army gets wiped; repeat this trend until end of match.
Also, saying I could get out of Gold with pure Macro is obviously false because I dropped *from* Platinum by switching my focus to macro.
The problem is, you're simply ignoring the true fundamentals in favor of what you want to see; you're ignoring the solid decision-making, proper army control, good hotkey usage that allows players to then macro up without placing themselves at risk of being surprised.
On May 04 2012 13:03 nyccine wrote: ...Really, it's unneccessary though; Blizzard gives you a handy-dandy graph at the end of your match that tells you what the army values were. And I can tell you exactly what they look like: I outpace my opponent, then there's a dramatic drop where my army gets wiped; repeat this trend until end of match.
The thing is, this doesn't say ANYTHING about your macro ability though. Bronze players' games can follow the same pattern, but it doesn't mean the guy that had higher army value had good macro (or even that the player with a larger army had better macro than his opponent). To analyse one of your games, and look for macro slip-ups, you cannot simply look at the graphs at the end of the game - they are virtually useless! They really tell you NOTHING of learning value. The very fact you've said that "you don't need to look at my replay, as I've already looked at the end of game graphs" is a very big warning sign that you lack the ability to properly analyse your own reps.
Also, saying I could get out of Gold with pure Macro is obviously false because I dropped *from* Platinum by switching my focus to macro.
Not to sound like a dick or anything, but this is probably because your macro really isn't any good, rather than it being bad advice. By not posting a replay you are passing up the chance for more experienced players to point out areas you can improve, on a game you thought went well no less! Their motive may be to prove a point, rather than purely to help you out, but the result would be the same on your end.
If you think your macro is good enough, post a replay here and we can see if it's really good.
Nice circular logic there - the assertion is that macro is so vital, it outweighs everything else. If this is true, then pointing out my 1, 2, 5, 10, 100 or whatever macro errors and saying "See, I told you so!" is a major error in logic at best, and outright intellectual dishonesty at worst. The claim is that whoever has the better macro, wins, so you'd have to look at mine and my opponent's.
Which you'll never do, of course. Really, it's unneccessary though; Blizzard gives you a handy-dandy graph at the end of your match that tells you what the army values were. And I can tell you exactly what they look like: I outpace my opponent, then there's a dramatic drop where my army gets wiped; repeat this trend until end of match.
Also, saying I could get out of Gold with pure Macro is obviously false because I dropped *from* Platinum by switching my focus to macro.
The problem is, you're simply ignoring the true fundamentals in favor of what you want to see; you're ignoring the solid decision-making, proper army control, good hotkey usage that allows players to then macro up without placing themselves at risk of being surprised.
No... I don't think you really understand.
We aren't saying 'with GOOD macro you could have won'. We are saying with very basic macro, you could have won - don't get supply in the first 8 minutes (read: not about making depots on time, not too early or not slightly too late), constant worker production (read: not avoiding queuing up workers or having perfect chrono/mules/injects), constant unit production (read: Not about queing up units or chrono/inject/addons), and keeping your money below 500 (read: not 200.
You are in gold, and you really aren't aware of your macro deficincies. We could just ppoint out some very basic things, hey, don't get blocked at 34, hey you went 30 seconds with no worker or unit production, hey you banked 600 minerals, heym you exanded at 6 instead of 530.
I guarantee, in gold, you have such huge macro problems, that really could be fixed overnight, and that you are perfectly capable of doing.
Its not about better macro than your gold opponent - both of you are macroing bad.
Things like strategy and harass really aren't an issue. So you kill 5 workers with a drop, but how many workers did you 'lose' because you banked money and got supply blocked?
Please. Post a rep, and that would really make all of us either stfu, or help you really improve your game. I don't think you realize that most masters watch their replays (or post them here) and go 'doh, I screwed upp my macro so hard, that's why I lost).
In gold, execute a build to 70 suppply with smooth timings, just like any pro would execute them, and you'd be fine. It takes a pro to micro, or have so much at 10:00. It doesn't take a pro to execute a 3gate sentry expand, a 141421, a reactor hellion.
We aren't trying to be mean here, but if you exectued the build right, with just basic macro, you really wouldn't be in gold. Its not that gold is average, remember, the overwleming majority of bronze to gold are people who played the game for a month then moved on to halo. Skill is so not even a factor even up to masters. Up to masters, its largely about people who are vying to macro better then their oponent.
Strategy is okay, but it really doesn't take you far when you aren't making enough units behind it or at the right timing to push the game a certain way. Maybe the opponent is macroing bad and strategy seems to be a factor, but in these games, just better macro that could be fixed overnight would have won that game. Until then, strats that are largely not viable, become viable, like pvz deathballs, or mass marine, wonky allins, etc.
On May 01 2012 07:25 HeroMystic wrote: Hello everyone, I've read this thread and I was on the fence about this with the macro vs multitasking debate, which ended up not being a debate at all.
I'd like to thank Cecil, Belial, and others who emphasized just how much the lower leagues suck so horribly at macro. I've steadily got better with my macro over time, as well as watching replays of pro players and listening to pros speak about how to play the game and how to use strategy and coming up with right composition.
All I have to say to that is, until you're Master League, none of that matters. Today I focused intensely on macro and won most of my matches (except for TvP because I kept getting rolled by DTs). I trolled and went 1-rax expand 3-Port Banshee/Viking in TvZ and for the other matches I just made units until 10 minutes and pushed to see if I won (and most of the time I did).
So as a Platinum Terran, let me stand on the soapbox and say Macro is hard. You really have to focus on it and make it become second nature. Then and only then should you focus on other efforts of strategy.
That said, I was also hoping that someone here could analyze a recent game I played and tell me my macro mistakes so I know what to focus on:
Things I noticed right away that I got supply blocked a few times and I forget to put SCVs on gas on my natural and 3rd expansion.
I noticed that no-one actually replied to this post, which is fair enough, as it is easy to lose stuff in here, so i thought that i would
Hmm, firstly it is pretty bm to provide a replay of you winning when asking for help, but anyway.
I thought your depot production was pretty good, well, to be honest you went over board multiple time, like build 3 depots when already 30 supply in the green, but at least that shows you are constantly thinking about them.
But i noticed that you didn't actually hotkey your fac until 10+minutes into the game, and whenever you attacked you produced nothing at all. Also, your marine production in general all game long was bad, you need to check the amount of time even in the early-mid game that your barracks were idle that is why the game seemed remotely even, you just weren't building marines. But hey! this is so easy to fix, and the reason that you had so much money was becauseyou were building SCVs and Depots!
Also, it is better to have 15 rax and 1500 minerals than 5 rax and 3000, i could be much more extreme than that, but that will do as an example. Practice ACTUALLY keeping your money low. NO excuses. You stayed above 2000 minerals for like 10 minutes of the game, which is unacceptable.
Otherwise, i thought you played not that badly. Your scv production was by no means 100%, because i watched it through at x2 speed and there were times where your 3 ccs were not producing for like 10 seconds or so (at x2 speed), which in game time is a very long time.
On May 04 2012 16:26 Belial88 wrote: In gold, execute a build to 70 suppply with smooth timings, just like any pro would execute them, and you'd be fine.
Cool! I play Zerg; which are the builds I can execute up to 70 supply? I've been labouring under the misapprehension that I need to know what my opponent is planning to hit me with and when so I can counter it. It will be a huge weight off my mind to have a safe 70 supply build for each matchup.
On May 04 2012 16:26 Belial88 wrote: I don't think you realize that most masters watch their replays (or post them here) and go 'doh, I screwed upp my macro so hard, that's why I lost).
I can agree with this wholeheartedly, as a low Diamond player.
In many games I could look at [strategy] or [micro] and say something like "I didn't scout what he was doing here properly, so my unit choice was bad"; or "I attacked at a bad angle here"; or "I would have won that battle if I had microd my banelings better" etc... but virtually EVERY lost game I can look at and simply say "I wouldn't have lost there if I had spent my money and I had 15 more roaches" etc.
Next game you lose, look at how much money you had left at the point you lost. How much money were you floating throughout the game? Then ask yourself - would the game would have gone differently if that money was army value instead of cash? Would you have stomped his army if you had 20 more marines and 10 more marauders? Most likely, the answer is a huge YES (it almost always is for me as a diamond player).
And that doesn't even take into account the fact that lower league players will frequently suffer from issues such as: not building enough workers, worker production gaps, supply blocks, late (or not enough) expansions and neglecting to use their mules/chrono; so they don't have nearly as much money as they should! Imagine how big your army would have been if you had spent all the money you had, AND you had twice as much money to begin with! The difference is truly monumental.
On May 04 2012 16:26 Belial88 wrote: In gold, execute a build to 70 suppply with smooth timings, just like any pro would execute them, and you'd be fine.
Cool! I play Zerg; which are the builds I can execute up to 70 supply? I've been labouring under the misapprehension that I need to know what my opponent is planning to hit me with and when so I can counter it. It will be a huge weight off my mind to have a safe 70 supply build for each matchup.
14/14. In ZvZ, just make sure the opponent isn't doing a 1 base all-in like 10 pool bane or 1 base roach, before taking a 21 hatch with baneling nest shortly afterwards, 2 queens+spine.
In the other match-ups, just drone up to 35, then check to make sure the opponent expanded or is planning to (In ZvT, just make sure he isn't going 2 rax or 7 rax with a drone scout followed up by a ling scout, to see to make sure he didnt' go gasless or proxy stuff) by sacrificing an overlord. If he hasn't expanded by 5:30 (or making an obvious indication he is imminently about to expand, like at 5:40 and was late), get evo chamber and make units until he expands. Then drone up to 45, grab 2-4 gas depending on what you are doing (going roaches, or going muta/infestor).
Make units to be safe. Take third when you are obviously safe (you can confidently run around the map). Make units, drone it up.
In ZvP you may want to react to toss expanding by getting a third. If it's gateway expand, get a roach warren. If it's ffe, get a roach warren at 7:00. But you can get away with just going 2 base lair and using roaches to secure your third either way (if he went ffe, you dont have to make any roaches to take third after getting lair, just make them after getting third).
I don't really see this thread going anywhere for the time being. It's just low level players who have the gall to argue with high masters and blues (and the many crappier players, like mid-masters me, who agree with them). Every single blue and high masters has told you that macro is just soooo important, and will carry you easily to masters. You are literally arguing with what pro players think on the issue, as if you know better than them.
And even if they are just being assholes, it's no question that you would get to diamond with just macro alone. Whenever I watch a bronze-plat replay, every single one, there are just huge, gapping, horrible issues.
Remember that thread that Gheed made about how worker rushing in bronze, even in silver, was just so successful? Well, that's how everyone looks at bronze to platinum players. People in bronze-plat just fail so hard in their macro, it's not even funny. They go 30+ seconds without making workers.
If you ever get supply blocked before 40 supply, it's a joke. Every gold player gets supply blocked before 40 (if he doesn't, he has some other serious issues that are just as bad...) and banks 500+ money. This isn't about good macro. Just competent macro. How do you get supply blocked at 34? I don't know, but golds do it every time.
It's not like gold people are stupid here. This is a very simple problem to fix. Hey, make a pylon at 30 supply. Whatever. You are 10% better of a player instantly. but the problem, is that golds refuse to look at this. They don't think this is a big deal.
So please. Post a replay of you playing a game that was 10+ minutes long, where the opponent at least expanded, and you lost. We'll point out some very laughable mistakes in why you lost. I promise, no circular logic or anything like that. We'll point out some very, very basic mistakes that should never occur, that you can fix overnight, that would have won you the game if you had done it (oh, avoid that 30 supply block, and you would have had 6 more marines with that push, you would have easily won).
I mean, I think the big thing here is that all the really good players are saying "yeah, macro will help you win" and clearly they used this advice to get good. Bad players are saying "no, gold league macro is fine it's other stuff that's the problem" and clearly they did not get good.
So, are you gonna follow the advice of the dudes who are high master, or the dudes who are bad? Assuming people aren't intentionally misleading you on how they personally improved it seems pretty clear to me.
Now the question i have, is as a completely average master protoss, how do i improve MY macro because it is god awful! I truely believe it is the most important part of play, but i rarely go a game where i get to 3 bases without floating 1200+ minerals for a least a little while
I think maybe i need to learn to place extra gates/structures quicker. I really think i am an example of a player who has some good elements of my play, but not my macro. Unless my macro is about average for my level, it is hard to tell.
On May 04 2012 16:26 Belial88 wrote: In gold, execute a build to 70 suppply with smooth timings, just like any pro would execute them, and you'd be fine.
Cool! I play Zerg; which are the builds I can execute up to 70 supply? I've been labouring under the misapprehension that I need to know what my opponent is planning to hit me with and when so I can counter it. It will be a huge weight off my mind to have a safe 70 supply build for each matchup.
Pay particular attention to the macro goals he sets! They are all pretty reasonable - practice this build vs the very easy AI (or no AI at all) in custom games until you can reliably hit those benchmarks! Until you can max your army by 12 minutes, keep practicing! I would suggest recording the macro results of your own games (how many units/drones you have at 8:00 and 12:00), and keeping record of it so you can track your improvement. Then go and smash some protoss on ladder! Compare it to one of your old games vs a FFE and you should see the HUGE difference in how many drones & units you have. Move onto looking at the other matchups after that.
It's the small things that really add up, and hopefully the above exercise will make you more sensitive to them (which will be useful for all matchups). Did you build the hatch at exactly 300 minerals? Or was it closer to 400. Are you building drones the instant that you get 50 minerals? Or is it more like 70-80 minerals. Did you ever run into a supply block? That's 25 seconds of no production. Try to watch your replays and look at how many idle larvae you have in the earlygame - if you have 1 idle larvae, that means you have not built anything for 0-15 seconds. 2 idle larvae? 15-30 seconds of no production. THREE idle larvae? I would consider that to be a huge macro slipup - you have neglected to build anything for 30+ seconds!
On May 04 2012 19:12 Surili wrote: Now the question i have, is as a completely average master protoss, how do i improve MY macro because it is god awful! I truely believe it is the most important part of play, but i rarely go a game where i get to 3 bases without floating 1200+ minerals for a least a little while
I think maybe i need to learn to place extra gates/structures quicker. I really think i am an example of a player who has some good elements of my play, but not my macro. Unless my macro is about average for my level, it is hard to tell.
If you are floating minerals, but are gas starved, you want to be carefully looking at when you are taking your gases - chances are your gases are late. If it's just a question of general money-spending, you want to look at your game and carefully identify the FIRST moment that you had money that never gets spent. In future games try to build your production earlier than you did, or perhaps additional production at that point.
Eg, when I was recently looking at one of my builds and I knew my macro hatch needed to be earlier, so I carefully studied a replay and looked for the first moment that I was floating 300 minerals that I was never able to spend (but not just the first time I hit 300 minerals, as I may have larvae injects about to pop etc). Then next game try to build at that point and see how it goes!
Now the question i have, is as a completely average master protoss, how do i improve MY macro because it is god awful! I truely believe it is the most important part of play, but i rarely go a game where i get to 3 bases without floating 1200+ minerals for a least a little while
I think maybe i need to learn to place extra gates/structures quicker. I really think i am an example of a player who has some good elements of my play, but not my macro. Unless my macro is about average for my level, it is hard to tell.
You need to set goals (my probe count vs pro at X time, do i ever go any period of time when probes aren't being made), understand concrete side effects of your deficiencies in macro (how much cumulative time did I not produce workers, how many probes is that 'lost' by 10:00, how much money would X probes would have mined, how many more units could I have gotten with that money, what would those units have done in that battle?), analyze the very basics (am I ever supply blocked for a split second, could I make taht pylon slightly earlier, am I ever still at or below the previous supply cap when new pylon comes on, could I make that pylon later, not making probes), and find out when your macro usually slips (i tend to not make probes when I'm trying to figure out if Terran is going 2 base all-in or not, so now on I will just blindly queu up 5 workers as I then spend my APM scouting, or I tend to get my third too late - why - and what can I scout to know if I can take it earlier?).
This is true for all levels of play, really, but it's easier for low level (do I get supply blocked ever? Do I ever not make workers? Do I ever not make units? Do i ever have idle larva?).
On May 04 2012 16:26 Belial88 wrote: In gold, execute a build to 70 suppply with smooth timings, just like any pro would execute them, and you'd be fine.
Cool! I play Zerg; which are the builds I can execute up to 70 supply? I've been labouring under the misapprehension that I need to know what my opponent is planning to hit me with and when so I can counter it. It will be a huge weight off my mind to have a safe 70 supply build for each matchup.
14/14. In ZvZ, just make sure the opponent isn't doing a 1 base all-in like 10 pool bane or 1 base roach, before taking a 21 hatch with baneling nest shortly afterwards, 2 queens+spine.
In the other match-ups, just drone up to 35, then check to make sure the opponent expanded or is planning to (In ZvT, just make sure he isn't going 2 rax or 7 rax with a drone scout followed up by a ling scout, to see to make sure he didnt' go gasless or proxy stuff) by sacrificing an overlord. If he hasn't expanded by 5:30 (or making an obvious indication he is imminently about to expand, like at 5:40 and was late), get evo chamber and make units until he expands. Then drone up to 45, grab 2-4 gas depending on what you are doing (going roaches, or going muta/infestor).
Make units to be safe. Take third when you are obviously safe (you can confidently run around the map). Make units, drone it up.
In ZvP you may want to react to toss expanding by getting a third. If it's gateway expand, get a roach warren. If it's ffe, get a roach warren at 7:00. But you can get away with just going 2 base lair and using roaches to secure your third either way (if he went ffe, you dont have to make any roaches to take third after getting lair, just make them after getting third).
I'm grateful for the advice (particularly the foods and times), but what you're describing isn't 'executing a build to 70 supply with smooth timings'. It's 'play reactively the way you're already trying to do, only with better macro'. You're not able to say what units I should make, because it's going to be very different if he's following a zealot/immortal build or a marauder/hellion build or marine/tank or banshees or void rays. Against Protoss, if I max on roach/hydra I am going to lose incredibly hard to a Protoss who patiently turtles to Colossus.
Doesn't it strike you as just a little significant that you're telling someone to 'just focus on macro and forget about strategy' and then having to give them a bunch of strategic advice, and rely on them to fill in the gaps as to which units to make under what circumstances and when their army will become dangerously obsolete?
On May 04 2012 16:26 Belial88 wrote: In gold, execute a build to 70 suppply with smooth timings, just like any pro would execute them, and you'd be fine.
Cool! I play Zerg; which are the builds I can execute up to 70 supply? I've been labouring under the misapprehension that I need to know what my opponent is planning to hit me with and when so I can counter it. It will be a huge weight off my mind to have a safe 70 supply build for each matchup.
14/14. In ZvZ, just make sure the opponent isn't doing a 1 base all-in like 10 pool bane or 1 base roach, before taking a 21 hatch with baneling nest shortly afterwards, 2 queens+spine.
In the other match-ups, just drone up to 35, then check to make sure the opponent expanded or is planning to (In ZvT, just make sure he isn't going 2 rax or 7 rax with a drone scout followed up by a ling scout, to see to make sure he didnt' go gasless or proxy stuff) by sacrificing an overlord. If he hasn't expanded by 5:30 (or making an obvious indication he is imminently about to expand, like at 5:40 and was late), get evo chamber and make units until he expands. Then drone up to 45, grab 2-4 gas depending on what you are doing (going roaches, or going muta/infestor).
Make units to be safe. Take third when you are obviously safe (you can confidently run around the map). Make units, drone it up.
In ZvP you may want to react to toss expanding by getting a third. If it's gateway expand, get a roach warren. If it's ffe, get a roach warren at 7:00. But you can get away with just going 2 base lair and using roaches to secure your third either way (if he went ffe, you dont have to make any roaches to take third after getting lair, just make them after getting third).
I'm grateful for the advice (particularly the foods and times), but what you're describing isn't 'executing a build to 70 supply with smooth timings'. It's 'play reactively the way you're already trying to do, only with better macro'. You're not able to say what units I should make, because it's going to be very different if he's following a zealot/immortal build or a marauder/hellion build or marine/tank or banshees or void rays. Against Protoss, if I max on roach/hydra I am going to lose incredibly hard to a Protoss who patiently turtles to Colossus.
Doesn't it strike you as just a little significant that you're telling someone to 'just focus on macro and forget about strategy' and then having to give them a bunch of strategic advice, and rely on them to fill in the gaps as to which units to make under what circumstances and when their army will become dangerously obsolete?
Cool! I play Zerg; which are the builds I can execute up to 70 supply? I've been labouring under the misapprehension that I need to know what my opponent is planning to hit me with and when so I can counter it. It will be a huge weight off my mind to have a safe 70 supply build for each matchup.
I can't tell if you were actually asking for help or if you were just attempting to prove a point.
The point of scouting is so that you can make the most appropriate response to what you believe your opponent might be doing - but "the most appropriate" response isn't strictly necessary. If you macro superbly, and make a few extra roaches/spines/banelings that you didn't strictly need, you will still be way WAY far ahead of your average low level player (eg see Destiny making it to Platinum/Diamond? with only queens). Against terran or zerg you will do just fine making some units (or a pre-emptive roach warren or baneling nest) to be safe.
If you WERE actually looking for advice, and not just trying to undermine the recommendations of better players than you, I suggest you follow my advice on ZvP that is basically good up to 200 supply. If you can manage to achieve the benchmarks you will be in a superb spot.
Or do I need to tell you that if you see him sending some zealots you should make a few lings?
On May 04 2012 16:26 Belial88 wrote: In gold, execute a build to 70 suppply with smooth timings, just like any pro would execute them, and you'd be fine.
Cool! I play Zerg; which are the builds I can execute up to 70 supply? I've been labouring under the misapprehension that I need to know what my opponent is planning to hit me with and when so I can counter it. It will be a huge weight off my mind to have a safe 70 supply build for each matchup.
Thanks - that's actually the build order I've been following vs FFE I hit the 12:00 max in an actual game yesterday; was really pleased - and did indeed smash some serious protoss with it.
It's the small things that really add up, and hopefully the above exercise will make you more sensitive to them (which will be useful for all matchups). Did you build the hatch at exactly 300 minerals? Or was it closer to 400. Are you building drones the instant that you get 50 minerals? Or is it more like 70-80 minerals. Did you ever run into a supply block? That's 25 seconds of no production. Try to watch your replays and look at how many idle larvae you have in the earlygame - if you have 1 idle larvae, that means you have not built anything for 0-15 seconds. 2 idle larvae? 15-30 seconds of no production. THREE idle larvae? I would consider that to be a huge macro slipup - you have neglected to build anything for 30+ seconds!
GL
My point has always been that it's easier to focus on these things when you don't feel completely lost as to what you're supposed to be building and when, and it's very easy to feel that way in ZvX when A) it seems like any old random shit can descend upon you at any moment, and B) after holding said shit off it can be pretty opaque whether the right decision is to counterattack, expand, tech up, focus on expansion denial...
Maybe I'm really, really dumb but a lot of the time I'm just kind of hoping for the best after that first engagement. It's so frustrating to watch one replay and see that I should have counterattacked to redress an economic disadvantage that ended up snowballing, and then watch another replay and see that if I hadn't traded armies at that exact moment I could have safely droned up another expansion, and then watch another and see that I needlessly built units out of fear and let him get ahead.
There's a reason all these threads advise people to pick a build and stick to it to practice macro: you can't practice macro if you don't know what you're trying to do. And nobody has convinced me that, playing as Zerg, 'knowing what you're trying to do' is a trivial matter.
On May 04 2012 16:26 Belial88 wrote: In gold, execute a build to 70 suppply with smooth timings, just like any pro would execute them, and you'd be fine.
Cool! I play Zerg; which are the builds I can execute up to 70 supply? I've been labouring under the misapprehension that I need to know what my opponent is planning to hit me with and when so I can counter it. It will be a huge weight off my mind to have a safe 70 supply build for each matchup.
14/14. In ZvZ, just make sure the opponent isn't doing a 1 base all-in like 10 pool bane or 1 base roach, before taking a 21 hatch with baneling nest shortly afterwards, 2 queens+spine.
In the other match-ups, just drone up to 35, then check to make sure the opponent expanded or is planning to (In ZvT, just make sure he isn't going 2 rax or 7 rax with a drone scout followed up by a ling scout, to see to make sure he didnt' go gasless or proxy stuff) by sacrificing an overlord. If he hasn't expanded by 5:30 (or making an obvious indication he is imminently about to expand, like at 5:40 and was late), get evo chamber and make units until he expands. Then drone up to 45, grab 2-4 gas depending on what you are doing (going roaches, or going muta/infestor).
Make units to be safe. Take third when you are obviously safe (you can confidently run around the map). Make units, drone it up.
In ZvP you may want to react to toss expanding by getting a third. If it's gateway expand, get a roach warren. If it's ffe, get a roach warren at 7:00. But you can get away with just going 2 base lair and using roaches to secure your third either way (if he went ffe, you dont have to make any roaches to take third after getting lair, just make them after getting third).
I'm grateful for the advice (particularly the foods and times), but what you're describing isn't 'executing a build to 70 supply with smooth timings'. It's 'play reactively the way you're already trying to do, only with better macro'. You're not able to say what units I should make, because it's going to be very different if he's following a zealot/immortal build or a marauder/hellion build or marine/tank or banshees or void rays. Against Protoss, if I max on roach/hydra I am going to lose incredibly hard to a Protoss who patiently turtles to Colossus.
Doesn't it strike you as just a little significant that you're telling someone to 'just focus on macro and forget about strategy' and then having to give them a bunch of strategic advice, and rely on them to fill in the gaps as to which units to make under what circumstances and when their army will become dangerously obsolete?
Cool! I play Zerg; which are the builds I can execute up to 70 supply? I've been labouring under the misapprehension that I need to know what my opponent is planning to hit me with and when so I can counter it. It will be a huge weight off my mind to have a safe 70 supply build for each matchup.
I can't tell if you were actually asking for help or if you were just attempting to prove a point.
It's like this: everyone tells me to listen to better players. I know that makes sense without needing to be told. So I listened when I was told to just concentrate on macro. I tried that for a year, and remained in silver. My macro didn't improve.
Then I watched some vods about understanding what was going on in the game and making better decisions.
My macro promptly improved, rapidly, as did my ladder rank. Now I actually CAN focus on not missing injects, leaving larvae idle or getting supply blocked, because I know (more often) what I'm trying to build and when. I'm still bad, but the trajectory is at least upwards.
That puts me in a tough spot. I shouldn't argue with better players - yet I had to learn things they said didn't matter before I could improve what they said DID matter. Is that just me? Or are there other players like me, who try to follow good advice and get nowhere? What if they decide the advice isn't good after all? I haven't done that - I just think there's other good advice that can be at least as fundamental, and which maybe - maybe good players are overlooking because they think it's trivially obvious stuff. Or am I just wrong, and there is a 70-food build I can just follow and use to practice pure macro?
No, you don't have to tell me to build a few lings if I see zealots coming But I did need to be told to watch the gases at a Protoss natural to judge his tech, without which I'd have lost several games to sudden mass void rays. I did need to have my eyes opened to judging when to counterattack, concentrate on expansion denial, tech up etc etc after stopping a push.
Probably good points. However one issue Ii have with your terminology is fundamentals are more of a " foundation" in nature and not "tactics" per say A tactic would be more akin to taking advantage of a " a short term scenario" employing the use of mechanics or decision making to take advantage of a given situation .
Where as having good fundamentals allows one to play the game from a higher level of understanding on a "fundamental " level
On reflection, what Hairy said is making me feel bad about what I wrote. I don't want to offend or piss anyone off here.
This is not in any way about me trying to say I'm smarter or know more than master level / pro players. If anything I'm arguing that I know less than they're giving me credit for - which is why their advice didn't help as much as it should have.
I have a five year old daughter. For fairly obvious reasons I am - at the moment anyway - considerably smarter and more experienced than she is. Obviously the smart thing to do is for her to take my advice when I offer it. However, on several occasions now I've realised that the reason she's not listening to me is that I haven't properly understood the problem she's having before offering my advice. Or sometimes, I've unthinkingly used a word or phrase whose connotations I understand but she does not. So my advice, whilst being perfectly sound and obviously correct from my perspective, fails to have the impact I expect. That's the vibe I'm aiming for here
I mean, in every one of these threads I see pro/high level players shaking their heads in bafflement. "Here we are, taking time out to offer advice, and these idiots are arguing with us. What's wrong with them?" Well, maybe THIS is what's wrong with them. Us, I mean :D
On May 05 2012 02:34 MrProphylactic wrote: Probably good points. However one issue Ii have with your terminology is fundamentals are more of a " foundation" in nature and not "tactics" per say A tactic would be more akin to taking advantage of a " a short term scenario" employing the use of mechanics or decision making to take advantage of a given situation .
Where as having good fundamentals allows one to play the game from a higher level of understanding on a "fundamental " level
I'm pretty sure the OP is well aware of this and chose the term "tactics" deliberately with a bit of tongue-in-cheek in mind.
On May 05 2012 03:43 Umpteen wrote: I have a five year old daughter. For fairly obvious reasons I am - at the moment anyway - considerably smarter and more experienced than she is. Obviously the smart thing to do is for her to take my advice when I offer it. However, on several occasions now I've realised that the reason she's not listening to me is that I haven't properly understood the problem she's having before offering my advice. Or sometimes, I've unthinkingly used a word or phrase whose connotations I understand but she does not. So my advice, whilst being perfectly sound and obviously correct from my perspective, fails to have the impact I expect. That's the vibe I'm aiming for here
I mean, in every one of these threads I see pro/high level players shaking their heads in bafflement. "Here we are, taking time out to offer advice, and these idiots are arguing with us. What's wrong with them?" Well, maybe THIS is what's wrong with them. Us, I mean :D
It's way more fun to win because you did a good engagement/decision than because you spammed workers, army, supply. People play to have fun, and I think masters/GM don't understand we can lose from decision making at equal poor mechanics. But we can. Then I agree with them, this decision making won't help once you have proper macro. If one wants to raise his skill level, he has to focus on mechanics, it's the easy way and I also agree lower leaguers should know they can't improve too much just with better decision making because it will only lead them to superior macro opponents where their decision making is useless and therefore can't improve more.
As a gold T, soon plat I hope, I'm ok with worker & army production, sometimes forget supply, but less & less, however I struggle to manage the add-on timings (it really weakens the army for a minute, just when people can do decent executed timing attacks) and building timings. And if my macro is keeping to improve at this rate and if I learn 3 BO after 20 supply, I think I can reach diamond in a month. I'm just too lazy to learn some BO at the moments and I'm having tons of fun so why change?
I'm a Gold/Platinum player, so feel free to bash on me not being a master and having to STFU for the sake of everything you love.
Now don't get me wrong: I do think that perfecting macro is the biggest problem of people at my level, but it isn't self-sufficient to make me go a league higher. Yeah, I heard examples of a player leveling to high diamond by just making stalkers and a-clicking, and I won't deny your probe/pylon is very effective.
This works for Protoss, because they have a fully upgraded Protoss army is strong in every matchup. Except I play Terran, and have to face the following problems : - In TvT, blindly pushing makes you die to siege mode, regardless of your 30 barracks and you being 2 bases ahead. - In TvP, the endgame will be violent if you opt for direct confrontation while a-clicking. - In TvZ, having a perfect macro while being in passive mode will still allow a gold zerg player to be maxed at the 15-17 min mark on 4-6 bases.
Now these are secondary problems compared to developping decent mechanics, but it's false to imply you can overlook decision making, notably concerning the nature, timing and desired effect of pushes, until reaching the Master league.
This works for Protoss, because they have a fully upgraded Protoss army is strong in every matchup. Except I play Terran, and have to face the following problems
This is also true for terran, check out filterSC on youtube. He uses the same build from bronze to masters, refining it a little bit as the leagues go on and gives you solid benchmarks to train to. Up to gold he doesnt even bother to control his army and just a-moves across the map. He did no scouting at all and didnt need to by playing a rather safe build - the same build against all 3 races.
While I found such builds and benchmarks for P & T, Im still looking for a safe build as Z where I can try the same. 1 build for all matchups, no scouting, no change in build, just a-move. Havent found one so far.
the funny thing is: I really put efford in the FilterSC "tactics" and went to diamond so far (with terran) while Im still stuck at gold with my main race (zerg)
On May 05 2012 03:43 Umpteen wrote: On reflection, what Hairy said is making me feel bad about what I wrote. I don't want to offend or piss anyone off here.
No worries - I felt what I said was a bit strong as well. I was just a bit pissed I spent a reasonable amount of time making a post to try and help a fellow zerg, when it later appeared the question was just a guise with an ulterior motive.
On May 05 2012 03:43 Umpteen wrote:This is not in any way about me trying to say I'm smarter or know more than master level / pro players. If anything I'm arguing that I know less than they're giving me credit for - which is why their advice didn't help as much as it should have.
I have a five year old daughter. For fairly obvious reasons I am - at the moment anyway - considerably smarter and more experienced than she is. Obviously the smart thing to do is for her to take my advice when I offer it. However, on several occasions now I've realised that the reason she's not listening to me is that I haven't properly understood the problem she's having before offering my advice. Or sometimes, I've unthinkingly used a word or phrase whose connotations I understand but she does not. So my advice, whilst being perfectly sound and obviously correct from my perspective, fails to have the impact I expect. That's the vibe I'm aiming for here
I mean, in every one of these threads I see pro/high level players shaking their heads in bafflement. "Here we are, taking time out to offer advice, and these idiots are arguing with us. What's wrong with them?" Well, maybe THIS is what's wrong with them. Us, I mean :D
Good analogy, and I think you're pretty spot on.
The thing is... you're talking about feeling the need for strategy (and sure, having a good strategic grasp on the game will definitely help). You feel like you don't really know what you should be doing, and you don't really know what units you should be building. The thing is, what the high players will tell you is basically.... make anything you want. Don't worry about it. The one thing that's worse than making the "incorrect" unit is making no units at all! The cumulative effect of droning properly, good overlord timings, sharp building placement and simply BUILDING STUFF (i.e. keeping your money low) is colossal.
People stress too much about strategy and the "right response", but then you can look at the game and say "well... you had enough money to make 50 banelings". You know what's good against most armies? 50 banelings!
Feel free to post a replay and we can give suggestions - I do actually enjoy analysing replays (when I have the time), and it can only help.
Its true zerg has to be a litt more reactive, but its really quite simply.
Open 1414, remove from gas, expand on 21 Drone scout, did opponent take gas or is he clearly cheesing? Did opponent expand by 530? Yes? Drone up to 45, then get macro hatch, necessary gas (2 for roach, 4 for infesot or muta) for lair No? Get 540 evo and roach warren. Make a spore and roaches. Zvz - make some roaches after 50ish, take third and get roach speed and hydras. Zvp - take third then make lots of roaches Zvt - take third, then make ling/bane.
How often do people go 1base dt or cloaked banshees anyways? Just folllowing a rote build order and losing 1 out of 10 to cloak is fine, you'll still hit diamond.
But pplease. You keep talking shit, but won't ppost a replay proving macro wasn't the reason you lost a longer game in gold. Aparently your the one guy, in gold, who knows better than everyone else. I don't think in gold you can macro perfectly even against the ai (I know I can't), so please. Rep.
On May 05 2012 07:12 Belial88 wrote: Its true zerg has to be a litt more reactive, but its really quite simply.
Open 1414, remove from gas, expand on 21 Drone scout, did opponent take gas or is he clearly cheesing? Did opponent expand by 530? Yes? Drone up to 45, then get macro hatch, necessary gas (2 for roach, 4 for infesot or muta) for lair No? Get 540 evo and roach warren. Make a spore and roaches. Zvz - make some roaches after 50ish, take third and get roach speed and hydras. Zvp - take third then make lots of roaches Zvt - take third, then make ling/bane.
Now that's advice I can get behind
How often do people go 1base dt or cloaked banshees anyways? Just folllowing a rote build order and losing 1 out of 10 to cloak is fine, you'll still hit diamond.
The last night I played, I encountered (I think) five protoss and one terran. The terran went hellions into cloaked banshees. Two of the protoss went FFE and I beat them. Two more went one base DT, the other went one base void rays. In gold league, you are not in Kansas anymore.
But pplease. You keep talking shit, but won't ppost a replay proving macro wasn't the reason you lost a longer game in gold.
Ok: this is the part where you realise listening is good practice for everyone.
I have never, ever claimed that macro wasn't the reason I lost a longer game. This is the second or third thread and the n'th time I've stated as much.
What I have said is that despite having the goal of improving my macro for a year or more, I was unable to do so.
The key to kickstarting that improvement - for me - turned out to be gaining a better grasp of what I was trying to achieve in various situations. Better macro involves spending less time thinking about what to spend larvae and money on and more time pressing buttons, yes? At the very least, it means thinking further ahead, so that the thinking doesn't delay the doing. I didn't have that. My plans, such as they were, ended at the moment I held off my opponent's first attack.
Now, it's quite possible that, in reality, building anything would have worked in a lot of games. The bit of my brain that remembers all the banshees, DTs, hellion drops, zealot/immortal pushes and burning fields of roach/hydra is screaming at me that it's a lie, but I'm going to put it to the test. For science. You monster.
(and if you don't get that reference, I'm sorry but we can never be friends)
I wasn't kidding about getting behind your advice. I'm going to find out if I was right and that I was actually missing important knowledge, or if gaining that knowledge was merely placating a part of my brain that was just getting in the way. I'll let you know how I get on.
While I do really like seeing discussion, these last few pages are trailing off into discussion that for the most part doesn't matter so much. A large point of my original post was that focussing on smaller details often leads to wasted time and effort. You want to work smarter, not just harder. Don't get lost twiddling around with things that don't matter so much. Keep it simple or you'll overlook what's really important.
On May 05 2012 07:12 Belial88 wrote: Its true zerg has to be a litt more reactive, but its really quite simply.
Open 1414, remove from gas, expand on 21 Drone scout, did opponent take gas or is he clearly cheesing? Did opponent expand by 530? Yes? Drone up to 45, then get macro hatch, necessary gas (2 for roach, 4 for infesot or muta) for lair No? Get 540 evo and roach warren. Make a spore and roaches. Zvz - make some roaches after 50ish, take third and get roach speed and hydras. Zvp - take third then make lots of roaches Zvt - take third, then make ling/bane.
How often do people go 1base dt or cloaked banshees anyways? Just folllowing a rote build order and losing 1 out of 10 to cloak is fine, you'll still hit diamond.
The last night I played, I encountered (I think) five protoss and one terran. The terran went hellions into cloaked banshees. Two of the protoss went FFE and I beat them. Two more went one base DT, the other went one base void rays. In gold league, you are not in Kansas anymore.
But pplease. You keep talking shit, but won't ppost a replay proving macro wasn't the reason you lost a longer game in gold.
Ok: this is the part where you realise listening is good practice for everyone.
I have never, ever claimed that macro wasn't the reason I lost a longer game. This is the second or third thread and the n'th time I've stated as much.
What I have said is that despite having the goal of improving my macro for a year or more, I was unable to do so.
The key to kickstarting that improvement - for me - turned out to be gaining a better grasp of what I was trying to achieve in various situations. Better macro involves spending less time thinking about what to spend larvae and money on and more time pressing buttons, yes? At the very least, it means thinking further ahead, so that the thinking doesn't delay the doing. I didn't have that. My plans, such as they were, ended at the moment I held off my opponent's first attack.
Now, it's quite possible that, in reality, building anything would have worked in a lot of games. The bit of my brain that remembers all the banshees, DTs, hellion drops, zealot/immortal pushes and burning fields of roach/hydra is screaming at me that it's a lie, but I'm going to put it to the test. For science. You monster.
(and if you don't get that reference, I'm sorry but we can never be friends)
I wasn't kidding about getting behind your advice. I'm going to find out if I was right and that I was actually missing important knowledge, or if gaining that knowledge was merely placating a part of my brain that was just getting in the way. I'll let you know how I get on.
Macro IS the reason why you lost a longer game. You don't need to what units to build against A, what to build against B, etc. You just need to build more units than the enemy. After a long game, take a look at your queens: do they have more than 25 energy? Even pros miss injects, but their macro is fine. After 20 minutes, if your queens have more than 100 energy (probably 200), work on your macro. If your macro was better, you would hold all those battles that you barely lost, and you would have won all those battles where you barely held. Heck, you would even have enough minerals to spare to make 2 spores and 2 spines at every base in case of cheese.
You want to see what everyone means by macroing better? Here it is. This is me smurfing in silver league, playing against mainly gold and plat league players.In almost all of these games, I just macroed harder than the opponent, and flung a ton of units at him. My macro isn't the best either; I can see a ton of glaring errors. But look at how badly my opponents are macroing!!! Who cares if my micro is better; my macro simply stomps them!
TL;DR Poor macro snowballs into a big disadvantage.
On May 05 2012 08:15 Umpteen wrote: Ok: this is the part where you realise listening is good practice for everyone.
I have never, ever claimed that macro wasn't the reason I lost a longer game. This is the second or third thread and the n'th time I've stated as much.
On May 05 2012 09:11 Heh_ wrote: Macro IS the reason why you lost a longer game.
For the n+1th time, I've never claimed otherwise. All I've ever said is that I have tried to improve my macro for at least a year and failed. I didn't know why; it just wasn't happening. Then I discovered my macro wasn't improving because I was a) spending precious seconds in the game wondering what I should do rather than doing it, and b) making bad decisions in that wasted time.
Look, I'm sorry for dragging this out. I felt like there was maybe a communication gap to be bridged, but that's not happening. Thanks to everyone for their generosity in trying to help; it was never my intention or desire to seem ungrateful or to imply I knew something better players didn't. I'm just going to go and play.
The reason we say improve macro to get better is because it's the easiest thing to do... in terms of effort per improvement, it's the most efficient way to become a better player. If you want to put in more effort to learn strategies or decisionmaking, that's fine, but it's a lot easier to get better by focusing on probes and pylons.
On May 05 2012 08:15 Umpteen wrote: Ok: this is the part where you realise listening is good practice for everyone.
I have never, ever claimed that macro wasn't the reason I lost a longer game. This is the second or third thread and the n'th time I've stated as much.
On May 05 2012 09:11 Heh_ wrote: Macro IS the reason why you lost a longer game.
For the n+1th time, I've never claimed otherwise. All I've ever said is that I have tried to improve my macro for at least a year and failed. I didn't know why; it just wasn't happening. Then I discovered my macro wasn't improving because I was a) spending precious seconds in the game wondering what I should do rather than doing it, and b) making bad decisions in that wasted time.
Look, I'm sorry for dragging this out. I felt like there was maybe a communication gap to be bridged, but that's not happening. Thanks to everyone for their generosity in trying to help; it was never my intention or desire to seem ungrateful or to imply I knew something better players didn't. I'm just going to go and play.
I have no idea why it isn't working for you. If you practice a ton, your macro should naturally improve, especially if you put in extra effort. The only reason I think why it isn't working is that you're overthinking things. Just spam a ton of roaches and lings and a-move. I should probably direct my posts to someone else, there's some pretty good examples around this thread.
Now the question i have, is as a completely average master protoss, how do i improve MY macro because it is god awful! I truely believe it is the most important part of play, but i rarely go a game where i get to 3 bases without floating 1200+ minerals for a least a little while
I think maybe i need to learn to place extra gates/structures quicker. I really think i am an example of a player who has some good elements of my play, but not my macro. Unless my macro is about average for my level, it is hard to tell.
You need to set goals (my probe count vs pro at X time, do i ever go any period of time when probes aren't being made), understand concrete side effects of your deficiencies in macro (how much cumulative time did I not produce workers, how many probes is that 'lost' by 10:00, how much money would X probes would have mined, how many more units could I have gotten with that money, what would those units have done in that battle?), analyze the very basics (am I ever supply blocked for a split second, could I make taht pylon slightly earlier, am I ever still at or below the previous supply cap when new pylon comes on, could I make that pylon later, not making probes), and find out when your macro usually slips (i tend to not make probes when I'm trying to figure out if Terran is going 2 base all-in or not, so now on I will just blindly queu up 5 workers as I then spend my APM scouting, or I tend to get my third too late - why - and what can I scout to know if I can take it earlier?).
This is true for all levels of play, really, but it's easier for low level (do I get supply blocked ever? Do I ever not make workers? Do I ever not make units? Do i ever have idle larva?).
Umpteen, I don know if I was responding directly to you. Anyways, I am repostingg this, because this is what you need. I agree macro better is ambiguous, but learning to understand how to improve your macro, is really impportant, and what isn't said as much. You can apply what I said to zerg (I said it covering all 3 races really).
Just post replays on tl if you don't get why you lost. Big way I imrpvoed my macro was posting reps, and people tearing me apart. I thought I was so clever with my thought out balance bitching about toss deathball. Turns out, deathball play is a joke if you macro better. You went 2 base vr/colossi? Lol 200/200 roaches. Oh you survived? Here's 20 mutas in your base then.
Really, scouting with zerg is 'he expanded? Cool, lemme drone up for 5 minutes, ill get back to you then'
And again, lease, post reps. This discussion is all pretty pointlesd without providing reps. I guarantee we won't only make you feel like shit, but we'll also give you the tools so you can be aware of how shiity you are at all times.
Its hard to get better with, say, micro or knowing when to tech switch. Its easy to understand 'i make my 54 overlord too late always, now on ill make it at 51 instead of 49'. I mean still to this day I find myself correcting the supply number I make overlords.
On May 05 2012 15:13 Belial88 wrote: Just post replays on tl if you don't get why you lost.
This is so frustrating
You're so used to arguing with people who say "I don't know why I lost but it wasn't macro" that no matter how often I explain myself, that's all you hear. I've said the same thing over and over and over. I've used italics, I've used boldface. Nothing seems to work. It's as though you're reading the words you expect to see instead of the ones that are actually there.
I know bad macro is why I'm losing. I know bad macro is why I'm losing. I know bad macro is why I'm losing.
Do any of those three lines of text above say "I don't know why I lost but it wasn't macro"? I mean, I don't think they do, but I'm starting to doubt myself.
What stumped me for the longest time wasn't "why did I lose that game?" but "Why is my macro not improving when that's what I set out to do, every time?"
It wasn't improving because whenever I tried to cycle round my production after the first couple of minutes I would be slowed down by indecision. Should I be making drones? Another queen? Maybe I need an evo chamber. Is it time for lair yet, or should this 100 gas go on speed? If he's doing X, maybe I need a baneling nest - ah crap, I'm at 700 minerals and don't even have enough overlords to spend it.
No matter how much I tried to focus on macro, that's what would happen.
Then, after watching some VoDs that emphasised decision making, I realised that there weren't as many decisions to be made as I had thought. There were just a few, at particular times, with clear objectives before and after. Some precautionary, like timing an evo chamber, some planned responses to scouting info. It's not as simple as pure stalkers, but nor is it as complex or reactive as I'd made it out to be in my head. Armed with this information, it became possible for me to concentrate on getting from point to point more smoothly without worrying as much that I might do the wrong thing. Since then, my macro has begun to improve. It's still awful, but at long last it's getting better.
Have I made myself clear, finally? I'm not winning more because of the extra strategic knowledge I gained. I'm winning more because I'm macroing better, and I'm starting to macro better because of the clarity and focus that little extra strategic knowledge allowed me.
This really is the last post I'm going to make on this. If you come away from it still thinking "What an idiot, thinking it's strategy and not macro that's making him lose", so be it. I can't think of any more ways to say the same thing. Thanks for trying to help.
My macro first improved when i knew exactly what i was doing. I found a safe build order against Terran, back in the old days it was a 3 gate robo expand that i stole, practiced it A LOT to get the timings right, then took it to ladder and said, this is the order i am placing buildings. Other than that spend my money, and i improved a thousand times from that point. Whenever i expanded i placed 4-5 buildings, and i knew that that would be enough if i was playing right. and so i kept trying until it was. (for my level at the time, back then everyone was much worse and so "good macro" was something else.) Give someone a straight forward plan, so that they make NO decisions, and then tell them to work on macro.
Also, giving benchmarks to hit really helps i think.
On May 04 2012 13:03 nyccine wrote: ...Really, it's unneccessary though; Blizzard gives you a handy-dandy graph at the end of your match that tells you what the army values were. And I can tell you exactly what they look like: I outpace my opponent, then there's a dramatic drop where my army gets wiped; repeat this trend until end of match.
The thing is, this doesn't say ANYTHING about your macro ability though. Bronze players' games can follow the same pattern, but it doesn't mean the guy that had higher army value had good macro (or even that the player with a larger army had better macro than his opponent). To analyse one of your games, and look for macro slip-ups, you cannot simply look at the graphs at the end of the game - they are virtually useless! They really tell you NOTHING of learning value. The very fact you've said that "you don't need to look at my replay, as I've already looked at the end of game graphs" is a very big warning sign that you lack the ability to properly analyse your own reps.
Also, saying I could get out of Gold with pure Macro is obviously false because I dropped *from* Platinum by switching my focus to macro.
Not to sound like a dick or anything, but this is probably because your macro really isn't any good, rather than it being bad advice. By not posting a replay you are passing up the chance for more experienced players to point out areas you can improve, on a game you thought went well no less! Their motive may be to prove a point, rather than purely to help you out, but the result would be the same on your end.
The fact that you're pulling quotes out of context, and completely misrepresenting what was communicated, is a very big warning sign that you're not interested in actually having a discussion. Nonetheless, please address the argument at hand:
1- the claim is that macro trumps everything else in winning. 2- if "1" is true, then the player whose macro was "better" - which says nothing about whether that player's macro is objectively "good," or even "great" - will win more often than not 3- if it is shown that "2" is not happening, or at least not reliably so, then we can safely conclude that something else is necessary. 4- if "3" is true, then telling lower-skilled players who don't have this "something else" to focus on macro could very easily lead to poor play.
This is why talk of "let me show you where your macro is off" is so utterly pointless; if I make 100 macro errors in a game - and I wouldn't be at all surpised if you could find many games where I did - but my opponent makes 200, I should cleanly win. Since macro means "more stuff, quicker," then yes, Blizzards army value graph by definition *is* a good indicator of who had "better" - yet again, not necessarily "good" by an objective standard, much less great, could even be utterly horrible, just so long as it was "better" than the other guy's - macro.
If macro in fact means something other than "make more stuff, quicker," then we need to say what it is, because that is the meaning everyone seems to take away from discussions of macro.
My assertion - and it isn't mine alone, others in this thread have made the same point - is that to be "good" at macro, you need some fundamental skills in unit control, hotkey use, and proper decision making on the fly that allows for crisp production. My assertion is emphatically *not* that macro is irrelevent. When someone says "all the pros talk about where they could have macro'd better," this doesn't contradict my argument at all - my argument states that the pros have the fundamentals down pat enough that the deciding factor will often boil down to macro as that's the only variable really left (some matches there will of course be a critical mistake that costs an army, sometimes there's just a build-order loss, but for the most part it will be macro). What I am saying is that for people as unskilled as me, "macro harder" just makes us keep our eyes in our base and make poor decisions because we *can't* macro and controll our armies properly at the same time.
Umpteen, that post wasn't even directed towards you. Take a chill pill. There's a reason why I made a big post starting with "Umpteen", and then a separate post. I've largely ignored what you've said because I didn't really have any disagreement with you. But you take every post I've made as directed only towards you, when it was rather more general (with certain other people in mind).
1- the claim is that macro trumps everything else in winning. 2- if "1" is true, then the player whose macro was "better" - which says nothing about whether that player's macro is objectively "good," or even "great" - will win more often than not 3- if it is shown that "2" is not happening, or at least not reliably so, then we can safely conclude that something else is necessary. 4- if "3" is true, then telling lower-skilled players who don't have this "something else" to focus on macro could very easily lead to poor play.
We aren't saying that at all - specifically, number 2. What we are saying, is in bronze to platinum, people macro so horribly because they make such huge, gaping mistakes, like getting supply blocked every single time, never making a worker for over a minute, getting supply blocked at 18 supply, banking over 500 minerals in the first 8 minutes, that everything else doesn't matter, because these problems are just so huge, and in Diamond+ league, these mistakes would autolose to anything or any strat because they are so huge.
A supply block at 18 is like losing 10 workers for free at the 7:00 mark. But it's not just once these kind of huge problems happen in gold, it happens over and over in the first 10 minutes. Quite frankly, in Gold, no one is playing 'competently', in the sense that the game isn't being played how it's supposed to be played, or with current metagame trends, because everyone is just macro'ing so poorly.
Because if you avoided supply blocks, over 300 resources, and lack of worker production for more than 10 seconds, in the first 8 minutes, you would be diamond overnight. These aren't hard things to fix, any bronze can simply move on knowing that "Hey, I should make an overlord at 16 now on".
Micro takes practice. Good macro, actually takes a fuckton of practice. Strategy, takes intuition and practice. Make an overlord at 16 supply now on, can happen overnight.
So yea. Your premise is wrong. Macro is so off in Gold that these aren't big issues, not to mention horrible decision making (micro really is non-existent or an issue at all). But you don't need decision making - just avoid major, game-ending macro mistakes, be in diamond. Don't get supply blocked, go more than 10 seconds without worker/unit production, inject/chrono/MULE reasonably (just no 50+ energy), don't bank more than 400 resources, don't take your gas super early (ie Z should never take 2nd gas until after 40+ supply in a macro game), and you'll be diamond as long as you don't move command your marines into siege tanks.
On April 06 2012 09:30 CecilSunkure wrote: Well if you focus on the priorities and play a very safe and standard game, how can you die to stupid shit? You'll have so much shit you can't possibly die to stupid shit.
While I agree with a lot of your post, this part is kind of annoying me. Most people in the lower leagues haveno idea of how to play safe. A lot of people think they do, but if they play against a terran going fast banshees > BFH drops and a hidden expo > BATTLECRUISERS they are going to loose 90% of the time. (the exception being TvT, where this is standard ) While the fundamentals are very important, I doubt you'll be able to make it past platinum without being equally good at scouting/game reading and reacting to what you see. Telling a player who will loose instantly to any kind of proxy 2 gate that his problem is mechanics seems like a poor analysis.
I'm a gold player and played this one game (TvT) against a platinum player. Right, so my macro clearly beats his (I actually had higher overall score) but still lost because I managed to only kill 250 something units while he demolished 700+ of mine.
I focus a lot on economy and facilities but I suck some serious cocks on confrontations. I simply get demolished in fights most of the time. And because I suck in fights I tend to out macro my opponent just so I can overpower him with a huge *ss army.
Watching my own replays, I have constant SCV/supply production until like 60-70 scv and rarely get supply blocked. My army values and economy in general is huge compared to my opponents.
Also I think in somecases I also 'auto-mule' (almost unintentional) at 50-52 energy every single time so that when I actually need a scan I can't use it rofl.
On April 06 2012 09:30 CecilSunkure wrote: Well if you focus on the priorities and play a very safe and standard game, how can you die to stupid shit? You'll have so much shit you can't possibly die to stupid shit.
While I agree with a lot of your post, this part is kind of annoying me. Most people in the lower leagues haveno idea of how to play safe. A lot of people think they do, but if they play against a terran going fast banshees > BFH drops and a hidden expo > BATTLECRUISERS they are going to loose 90% of the time. (the exception being TvT, where this is standard ) While the fundamentals are very important, I doubt you'll be able to make it past platinum without being equally good at scouting/game reading and reacting to what you see.
Scouting and game reading are meaningless when the game being played isn't a good one. Fast Banshees -> BFH Drops -> Hidden Expo -> BCs is such a complicated strategy that your efforts would be better spent becoming a stronger player than trying to master it.
In any case, I made it into Diamond League without really understanding anything about the game, without knowing about TL or any sc2 proscene or anything like that. Honestly, at every stage of my development as a player the thing that held me back was macro.
My micro is atrocious. I don't know how to split, focus fire, stutter step, use ghosts, vikings, tanks, or any of that. Hell, even my macro is atrocious at times. But I execute a basic build order and don't get blocked for the first 10 minutes and sometimes that's all I need.
In any case, do some research and find a "safe" build order. A lot of build orders are safe against the unexpected. For example, straight up standard play CAN beat anything, because, well, it's standard.
On May 04 2012 13:03 nyccine wrote: ...Really, it's unneccessary though; Blizzard gives you a handy-dandy graph at the end of your match that tells you what the army values were. And I can tell you exactly what they look like: I outpace my opponent, then there's a dramatic drop where my army gets wiped; repeat this trend until end of match.
The thing is, this doesn't say ANYTHING about your macro ability though. Bronze players' games can follow the same pattern, but it doesn't mean the guy that had higher army value had good macro (or even that the player with a larger army had better macro than his opponent). To analyse one of your games, and look for macro slip-ups, you cannot simply look at the graphs at the end of the game - they are virtually useless! They really tell you NOTHING of learning value. The very fact you've said that "you don't need to look at my replay, as I've already looked at the end of game graphs" is a very big warning sign that you lack the ability to properly analyse your own reps.
Also, saying I could get out of Gold with pure Macro is obviously false because I dropped *from* Platinum by switching my focus to macro.
Not to sound like a dick or anything, but this is probably because your macro really isn't any good, rather than it being bad advice. By not posting a replay you are passing up the chance for more experienced players to point out areas you can improve, on a game you thought went well no less! Their motive may be to prove a point, rather than purely to help you out, but the result would be the same on your end.
The fact that you're pulling quotes out of context, and completely misrepresenting what was communicated, is a very big warning sign that you're not interested in actually having a discussion. Nonetheless, please address the argument at hand:
Why this must be such a combative thing? This thread, and (most of) the posts in it aren't here with the goal to show low level players are idiots, or that they're stupid and concentrating on the wrong thing - the goal is to HELP people play better.
In this case I wasn't trying to "pull quotes out of context", I was just quoting the bits of your post I wanted to discuss. I can quote the entire thing and bold relevant sections, if you prefer.
On May 06 2012 11:19 nyccine wrote:1- the claim is that macro trumps everything else in winning. 2- if "1" is true, then the player whose macro was "better" - which says nothing about whether that player's macro is objectively "good," or even "great" - will win more often than not 3- if it is shown that "2" is not happening, or at least not reliably so, then we can safely conclude that something else is necessary. 4- if "3" is true, then telling lower-skilled players who don't have this "something else" to focus on macro could very easily lead to poor play.
The claim isn't that "macro trumps everything else in winning"; the claim is that "macro is extremely important, and its importance is often extremely under-valued by low level players".
Having stronger macro than your opponent will give you an advantage. Having good macro will give you an incredible advantage against low league players (more on that later). If you really are macroing well (not just a bit better than your opponent, but actually macroing WELL), and you are still losing, then that would indicate there would be severe flaws elsewhere in your play that are so vast that they are overshadowing the overwhelming advantage you had (we're talking pretty extreme flaws here, like a prediliction to move-commanding your army into his).
The advice is being given out because most people don't have such extreme flaws; their macro is awful but they do not recognise its incredible importance and are concentrating/worrying about other things, and/or they don't realise their macro really isn't "ok". If you really are in the aforementioned group - where your macro is good but you have severe flaws elsewhere - then this advice will not apply to you. But it does not mean the advice is wrong - you must recognise that you are in the minority.
On May 06 2012 11:19 nyccine wrote:This is why talk of "let me show you where your macro is off" is so utterly pointless; if I make 100 macro errors in a game - and I wouldn't be at all surpised if you could find many games where I did - but my opponent makes 200, I should cleanly win. Since macro means "more stuff, quicker," then yes, Blizzards army value graph by definition *is* a good indicator of who had "better" - yet again, not necessarily "good" by an objective standard, much less great, could even be utterly horrible, just so long as it was "better" than the other guy's - macro.
If macro in fact means something other than "make more stuff, quicker," then we need to say what it is, because that is the meaning everyone seems to take away from discussions of macro.
"Macro" does mean is what you say it means. However, as I said earlier, having stronger macro than your opponent will give you an advantage, and having good macro will give you an incredible advantage against low league players - it doesn't mean you will automatically win if you have extreme flaws elsewhere.
I'd also like to point out the fact that the army value graph really tells you very little. No masters player is going to look at the graph and say "hey, I macrod well that game" (most likely they will never EVER even look at that page). If I want to look at how well I macrod, or want to compare myself to my opponent, I look at the replay, NOT the army graph! There's too many variables involved. For example, a typical ZvP will often have the zerg far ahead in both army value and supply, yet he isn't actually ahead! Their armies are comparable, and just because the zerg has a higher army value does not indicate he macrod better. Another example would be one player going for a "tech" route, and his opponent instead sticking with low tech units. The "low tech" player MUST be ahead of his opponent in army value or his army is actually going to be weaker than his opponent's.
On May 06 2012 11:19 nyccine wrote:My assertion - and it isn't mine alone, others in this thread have made the same point - is that to be "good" at macro, you need some fundamental skills in unit control, hotkey use, and proper decision making on the fly that allows for crisp production. My assertion is emphatically *not* that macro is irrelevent. When someone says "all the pros talk about where they could have macro'd better," this doesn't contradict my argument at all - my argument states that the pros have the fundamentals down pat enough that the deciding factor will often boil down to macro as that's the only variable really left (some matches there will of course be a critical mistake that costs an army, sometimes there's just a build-order loss, but for the most part it will be macro). What I am saying is that for people as unskilled as me, "macro harder" just makes us keep our eyes in our base and make poor decisions because we *can't* macro and controll our armies properly at the same time.
You think good macro requires a higher level of mechanical ability than it really does. Day[9] in some old episodes has specifically demonstrated this very fact by using ONLY THE MOUSE to play, clicking very slowly and deliberately, and still macroing superbly. Good macro is far more about just remembering to everything you're supposed to, and placing buildings and building units with crisp timings (eg starting the next marine when the previous one is 90% done). You really DON'T need incredible mechanics (hotkey use + camera hotkeys etc) to macro well!
On April 06 2012 09:30 CecilSunkure wrote: These are just the questions people ask me during coaching. What about what people actually think about when they lose? "He played like a faggot" - one of my opponents actually called me a faggot because I beat him so badly in the VOD. What would happen if he admit he can't make probes and pylons like I can? Would he be more likely to improve if he did realize this?; "If I didn't play such faggots I'd be higher on ladder"; "I lost because of bad luck"; "I can't believe he won because <insert unit/strategy> is imbalanced"; "That's so imba"; "I have no way of scouting"; "I would have won if I just made this one small change"; all of these sorts of thoughts distract from the true importance: Probes and Pylons. Don't over-complicate it! You won't need to focus on minute details until other larger more important things are taken care of.
So what do you think? Is this whole Probes and Pylons idea really true? Or is it garbage that you can just focus on these two things while letting better players decide on what strategies to use? Can a lower league player really take on this form of play and win more games due to true improvement?
I appreciate the first paragraph quoted above. This definitely speaks to the negative mindset a lot of players adopt that stops them from improving.
That being said, the protoss games of your vod are a bit misleading. At the end of the paragraph you said that "you won't need to focus on minute details until other larger more important things are taken care of". If I was a beginning protoss I would look at the first game and see how you harassed the drone at the expansion and try to copy it myself. With both major battles against the roach army you used a ton of forcefields. As a beginning protoss I would focus so much on the forcefields and ideal attack arc that I'd forget to warp in reinforcements. Even the point in the second game where you worried about a nydus to the main and threw down a bunch of canons can throw my upstart protoss self into confusion. I'll put down a bunch of canons and after 30 seconds to a minute realize I haven't been making probes.
Everything I mentioned is a little, less important detail. However, it's one of the many small details a less experienced player can become hung up on. When I started playing SC2 in August 2010 I started with the noblest intentions to focus on macro, specifically avoiding supply blocks and getting a good economy. Then I started losing to a bunch of players wielding ridiculous strategies and before long I was focusing on winning the game more than improving macro mechanics. This is a trap all players fall in at some point or another.
What I have yet to see out of any improvement guide is a video that shows the iterative, often frustrating, macro learning process. Contrary to what a lot of people say, you're going to lose a TON of games when focusing on "probes and pylons". It takes MANY games to master the general build order with decent macro and many more to implement it against different styles. For example, I'm top 8 plat and a month and a half ago I started learning a 13 minute max, upgrade-heavy zvp. I became very disillusioned after a series of soul-crushing games where I had a 60-80 supply lead, rarely missed overlords, and had a bustling, 4-5 base economy and flat-up lost in my 13 minute max engagements. In one game I lost to a late-game army and had such a good economy that I exited the game with over 5000 minerals and 3000 gas. This happened because of poor battle management, but the end result made me want to run to the TL forums and cuss out the next upper level player who says you can macro and A-move into masters*. (Instead, I veto'd entomed valley)
More on the macro learning process, I would also love to see a tutorial where a player dies while building an economy and then regames immediately, makes a change to avoid death, and continues to build economy. One might say "scout better", especially to a new zerg player or any race when defending cheese, but even scouting takes attention away from building an economy. Players often put so much thought into what their scout is seeing they neglect worker production. After getting bogged down with a negative mindset for a few weeks I got my macro focus back on track and now I frequently lose to ZvT 2 base all-ins because I didn't scout them in time. These are upsetting, especially because if I knew about them I could have beaten them, but with learning a new opening and preferring to improve injects, overlords, and drones my scouting has taken a back seat in the match-up. The end result is deceiving since I'm losing a ton of games even though my macro is improving greatly**.
So to answer the question at the end, I agree that lower level players should let the pro's figure out the big-picture strategies while we focus on macro mechanics. "Probes and pylons" is probably the best place to start, but it's the first leg of a long journey!
*As an aside, the game development has made promotion into masters a LOT more difficult than it was, say, 6 months ago. The bar of lower leagues rises just as the bar in the highest league rises. If you're a midmasters player now, but you were platinum 8 months ago, I guarantee that the platinum players now are of much higher quality than the ones you remember facing.
**disclaimer: I am focusing a lot on losses, but a good 2/3-3/4 of my wins are because of superior macro while about half my losses are due to bad scouting/unconventional play/not reponding to a strategy correctly while the other half is due to messing up macro in some way (win ratio is around 50% for the 110 games I've played this season). Even though I lose a lot because I'm focusing on improving droning, injects, and overlords I am facing higher level opponents (in this case diamond) and the means of winning (better production from improved economy mechanics) stays the same.
This guide just boils down to : 'macro better nubs'. No need to sugarcoat it with nice images and VODs. If your macro is bad, you're bad. That's just the way it is.
On May 07 2012 07:27 AcesAnoka wrote: This guide just boils down to : 'macro better nubs'. No need to sugarcoat it with nice images and VODs. If your macro is bad, you're bad. That's just the way it is.
Just telling someone "macro better nubs" isn't useful though;; this guide goes beyond that by demonstrating what the problem is and showing HOW to macro better, and where to focus your energies, which is in my opinion useful.
On April 06 2012 09:30 CecilSunkure wrote: These are just the questions people ask me during coaching. What about what people actually think about when they lose? "He played like a faggot" - one of my opponents actually called me a faggot because I beat him so badly in the VOD. What would happen if he admit he can't make probes and pylons like I can? Would he be more likely to improve if he did realize this?; "If I didn't play such faggots I'd be higher on ladder"; "I lost because of bad luck"; "I can't believe he won because <insert unit/strategy> is imbalanced"; "That's so imba"; "I have no way of scouting"; "I would have won if I just made this one small change"; all of these sorts of thoughts distract from the true importance: Probes and Pylons. Don't over-complicate it! You won't need to focus on minute details until other larger more important things are taken care of.
So what do you think? Is this whole Probes and Pylons idea really true? Or is it garbage that you can just focus on these two things while letting better players decide on what strategies to use? Can a lower league player really take on this form of play and win more games due to true improvement?
I appreciate the first paragraph quoted above. This definitely speaks to the negative mindset a lot of players adopt that stops them from improving.
That being said, the protoss games of your vod are a bit misleading. At the end of the paragraph you said that "you won't need to focus on minute details until other larger more important things are taken care of". If I was a beginning protoss I would look at the first game and see how you harassed the drone at the expansion and try to copy it myself. With both major battles against the roach army you used a ton of forcefields. As a beginning protoss I would focus so much on the forcefields and ideal attack arc that I'd forget to warp in reinforcements. Even the point in the second game where you worried about a nydus to the main and threw down a bunch of canons can throw my upstart protoss self into confusion. I'll put down a bunch of canons and after 30 seconds to a minute realize I haven't been making probes.
Sure, but you can always ask for help on what to focus on. I answer a lot of PMs all the time, so truly the onus is on the improving player to go and figure out what all he should be focusing on. It's out of the scope of my job in the thread to actually go into deep detail on what these things are. Either one needs to figure these things out with free resources available or purchase some form of coaching.
My job in this thread is mostly to raise awareness and provide an interesting and fun to read article that spurs a lot of healthy discussion.
I propose that: Down in any league that is not Masters, you can win most of your games by ensuring that there are no flaws in the process of getting your income and spending your income.
This statement is always made by Master players who try to play in lower leagues using "just good macro" and find out that they win easily. I would be more inclined to believe it if it came from actual lower league players focusing on "just good macro" and finding out that they indeed win easily most of the time when they do so, although I don't think it would be the case.
The thing is that as a Master player, even when focusing on "just good macro", you still do everything else way better than anyone in the lower leagues. You scout better, you know better how to interpret scouting information, even if you don't scout, your educated guesses are way more educated, you have a more solid and detailed game plan, you know exactly where to lay down your buildings, on every map, your focus on macro doesn't prevent you from keeping tabs on everything else because you have good multitasking, because you are comfortable using multiple different hotkeys, you know why, when and how to attack, what works and what doesn't, etc.
Therefore, your observation that you win easily doesn't allow you to conclude that it is simply because you have better macro, even though that may be the only thing you consciously focus on in those games.
I propose that: Down in any league that is not Masters, you can win most of your games by ensuring that there are no flaws in the process of getting your income and spending your income.
...
The thing is that as a Master player, even when focusing on "just good macro", you still do everything else way better than anyone in the lower leagues. You scout better, you know better how to interpret scouting information, even if you don't scout, your educated guesses are way more educated, you have a more solid and detailed game plan
...
Therefore, your observation that you win easily doesn't allow you to conclude that it is simply because you have better macro...
I understand I'm better and I do other things better, but the main thing I was focusing on wasn't winning those games, more of the resource disparity. Other things are out-of-scope.
I propose that: Down in any league that is not Masters, you can win most of your games by ensuring that there are no flaws in the process of getting your income and spending your income.
...
The thing is that as a Master player, even when focusing on "just good macro", you still do everything else way better than anyone in the lower leagues. You scout better, you know better how to interpret scouting information, even if you don't scout, your educated guesses are way more educated, you have a more solid and detailed game plan
...
Therefore, your observation that you win easily doesn't allow you to conclude that it is simply because you have better macro...
I understand I'm better and I do other things better, but the main thing I was focusing on wasn't winning those games, more of the resource disparity. Other things are out-of-scope.
Yet he's right, isn't he? Everything you do is better anyway.
Imagine two players, one in master league and one in diamond league, and let's assume that they both have absolutely perfect macro. The player in master league has a deeper understanding of the game. He spends his money on the right units at the right time, he reads his opponent better, and he responds in a more timely fashion. But the diamond player, with identical income and spending ability, makes the wrong units on occasion, maybe misplaces buildings or makes poor decisions in any aspect of the game.
The diamond player may still be diamond, but not because of his macro. He might have other problems to work on.
It's just not so simple.
Disclaimer: I am bad.
Disclaimer 2: This isn't to say that macro isn't a common problem. Macroing better can in fact mean the difference between bronze and master league. I was simply pointing out that it's not the only issue 100% of the time.
I propose that: Down in any league that is not Masters, you can win most of your games by ensuring that there are no flaws in the process of getting your income and spending your income.
...
The thing is that as a Master player, even when focusing on "just good macro", you still do everything else way better than anyone in the lower leagues. You scout better, you know better how to interpret scouting information, even if you don't scout, your educated guesses are way more educated, you have a more solid and detailed game plan
...
Therefore, your observation that you win easily doesn't allow you to conclude that it is simply because you have better macro...
I understand I'm better and I do other things better, but the main thing I was focusing on wasn't winning those games, more of the resource disparity. Other things are out-of-scope.
Yet he's right, isn't he? Everything you do is better anyway.
Imagine two players, one in master league and one in diamond league, and let's assume that they both have absolutely perfect macro. The player in master league has a deeper understanding of the game. He spends his money on the right units at the right time, he reads his opponent better, and he responds in a more timely fashion. But the diamond player, with identical income and spending ability, makes the wrong units on occasion, maybe misplaces buildings or makes poor decisions in any aspect of the game.
The diamond player may still be diamond, but not because of his macro. He might have other problems to work on.
It's just not so simple.
Disclaimer: I am bad.
Disclaimer 2: This isn't to say that macro isn't a common problem. Macroing better can in fact mean the difference between bronze and master league. I was simply pointing out that it's not the only issue 100% of the time.
I would agree with this. I'm top Diamond playing Masters players and some games I've out macroed the Masters player after watching the reps. More workers, more bases, more army, better infrastructure, etc but I made a few poor attacking decisions and with poorer micro and lost in the end.
But I think that's outside the scope of the OP. He's talking about like Bronze through Gold mostly, although Plat and Diamond is applicable as well for sure. Just to a lesser degree.
On May 08 2012 07:56 CecilSunkure wrote: I propose that: Down in any league that is not Masters, you can win most of your games by ensuring that there are no flaws in the process of getting your income and spending your income. You must not lay a building down late. You must not lay extra pylons down when you don't need them. You must lay tech structures at appropriate times. You must maintain solid worker production. Your resources must be constantly spent. You must have a basic grasp of what unit composition to acquire.
In other words, you are proposing that any player who is not in Masters, would be in Masters if he played like one, which is not saying much. The only way you can learn how to reliably and constantly increase your income, put every tech and production structure at appropriate times, and constantly spend all your income, is through playing hundreds of games, analyzing replays and developing solid mechanics, i.e. becoming a Master player.
I understand the point of taking focus away from the tactical aspects of the game to the economic, but they go hand-in-hand. The appropriate number of gateways is the number you need to have enough troops, and the appropriate number of troops is the number you need to defend vs what your opponent might have now, which involves both tactical and strategic mastery of the game. Or to take another example, if you can't place forcefields, then you need twice as many units and you'll never have a good economy.
On May 08 2012 08:57 Qxz wrote: In other words, you are proposing that any player who is not in Masters, would be in Masters if he played like one, which is not saying much...
I understand the point of taking focus away from the tactical aspects of the game to the economic, but they go hand-in-hand.
No, I'm not saying that. It's pretty clear as to what I was saying in the OP.
As for the second sentence, I disagree. I don't think you need to know much at all to have very solid macro.
I propose that: Down in any league that is not Masters, you can win most of your games by ensuring that there are no flaws in the process of getting your income and spending your income.
...
The thing is that as a Master player, even when focusing on "just good macro", you still do everything else way better than anyone in the lower leagues. You scout better, you know better how to interpret scouting information, even if you don't scout, your educated guesses are way more educated, you have a more solid and detailed game plan
...
Therefore, your observation that you win easily doesn't allow you to conclude that it is simply because you have better macro...
I understand I'm better and I do other things better, but the main thing I was focusing on wasn't winning those games, more of the resource disparity. Other things are out-of-scope.
Yet he's right, isn't he? Everything you do is better anyway.
Imagine two players, one in master league and one in diamond league, and let's assume that they both have absolutely perfect macro. The player in master league has a deeper understanding of the game. He spends his money on the right units at the right time, he reads his opponent better, and he responds in a more timely fashion. But the diamond player, with identical income and spending ability, makes the wrong units on occasion, maybe misplaces buildings or makes poor decisions in any aspect of the game.
The diamond player may still be diamond, but not because of his macro. He might have other problems to work on.
It's just not so simple.
Disclaimer: I am bad.
Disclaimer 2: This isn't to say that macro isn't a common problem. Macroing better can in fact mean the difference between bronze and master league. I was simply pointing out that it's not the only issue 100% of the time.
Well put. I would go beyond this and say that sometimes higher level players giving advice actually miss some key things, because they unconsciously assume a lot of things that just aren't done by low level players (especially Bronze). To be fair, I rarely see this from the blue posters here (and I don't think the OP suffers from this problem) but it often crops up in the followup discussion.
For example, consider the following two early game strategies for ZvP:
STRATEGY A 1. Send a drone scout 2. Confirm no cannon rush, proxy gate or in-base pylon [details on how to react if each of these occurs] 3. Prevent possible pylon block of ramp [details on how to do this] 4. Deal with pylon/probe block at natural, if necessary [details on how to do this] 5. Expand 6. Confirm no 4 gate [details on how to scout and recognize this and how to react if confirmed, e.g. when to cut drones] 7. Make 4 lings, take watchtowers, place one outside ramp, drone up 8. Confirm expansion from Protoss, or prepare for one base tech attack if no expo [details on types and how to respond] 9. Take a third and drone up
STRATEGY B 1. Expand and take a quick third (no scouting) 2. Drone up to 70 3. Get roaches and roach upgrades 4. At 200/200, A-move all roaches to opponent's natural while remaxing on roaches 5. Go to 4
For a low level player, strategy A actually involves quite a lot of things that aren't simply drones and overlords - there is scouting at the decision points, game knowledge and understanding to make the correct decisions and know how to execute them correctly. For a low level player this is all quite difficult and it's quite hard for them to also macro well while doing it. Strategy B, in contrast, requires no decision making and involves no distractions, since you are paying no attention to your opponent before 200/200, so it's very easy to work on getting your macro streamlined. It will auto-lose to any one base aggression and a lot of 2 base aggression, or to any player that scouts your greedy opening and decides to push and kill you. However it will do well against FFE tech builds, FFE into third or any greedy opening that doesn't pay much attention to what Zerg is doing. If you can get out of Bronze (a.k.a. the land of one base all-ins) with this build, you can probably win games in ZvP up to around Gold/Plat on ladder if you get your macro really tight. At the same time, you are not really learning how to play the game, there are important skills you aren't developing, and you will struggle to get much further unless you make some fundamental changes.
When people post that you don't need decision making (Belial, page 17) or that any loss below Diamond could have been avoided through better macro (multiple posts in this thread and others) low level players interpret that to mean that they should not be attempting Strategy A but instead should be doing Strategy B so that they can focus 100% on macro improvement. I actually did this for a while in Bronze because I thought it was how I was being told to learn. The problem is that the deficiencies in strategy B are obvious even to a Bronze player (it's clear you can never beat a 4 gate with it, for example) so they get disillusioned, conclude that the advice is worthless, and ignore it.
I would say that the priority order for low level players should be:
1. Learn to play standard. 2. Learn to macro well while playing standard.
I actually think this is what most people actually mean when they say "macro better" - they just forget step #1 because it's automatic for them, when in fact step #1 may be the main thing that's making it difficult for a player to focus on macro. The relevant skill is actually macroing well in the context of a normal game, and learning how to play a normal game is the biggest task facing low level players. I certainly find it works better for me - I did get quite good at macro using strategy B, but found that it didn't help me all that much, since it fell apart again when I tried applying it to Strategy A.
Disclaimer: I am Platinum. However I have quite a bit of teaching experience and know a lot of the difficulties involved in trying to explain a concept that's obvious to you, but not to the other person.
I propose that: Down in any league that is not Masters, you can win most of your games by ensuring that there are no flaws in the process of getting your income and spending your income.
...
The thing is that as a Master player, even when focusing on "just good macro", you still do everything else way better than anyone in the lower leagues. You scout better, you know better how to interpret scouting information, even if you don't scout, your educated guesses are way more educated, you have a more solid and detailed game plan
...
Therefore, your observation that you win easily doesn't allow you to conclude that it is simply because you have better macro...
I understand I'm better and I do other things better, but the main thing I was focusing on wasn't winning those games, more of the resource disparity. Other things are out-of-scope.
Yet he's right, isn't he? Everything you do is better anyway.
Imagine two players, one in master league and one in diamond league, and let's assume that they both have absolutely perfect macro. The player in master league has a deeper understanding of the game. He spends his money on the right units at the right time, he reads his opponent better, and he responds in a more timely fashion. But the diamond player, with identical income and spending ability, makes the wrong units on occasion, maybe misplaces buildings or makes poor decisions in any aspect of the game.
The diamond player may still be diamond, but not because of his macro. He might have other problems to work on.
It's just not so simple.
Disclaimer: I am bad.
Disclaimer 2: This isn't to say that macro isn't a common problem. Macroing better can in fact mean the difference between bronze and master league. I was simply pointing out that it's not the only issue 100% of the time.
I actually think this is what most people actually mean when they say "macro better" - they just forget step #1 because it's automatic for them, when in fact step #1 may be the main thing that's making it difficult for a player to focus on macro. The relevant skill is actually macroing well in the context of a normal game, and learning how to play a normal game is the biggest task facing low level players. I certainly find it works better for me - I did get quite good at macro using strategy B, but found that it didn't help me all that much, since it fell apart again when I tried applying it to Strategy A.
This is very true, yes! I can max out on roaches at 11:30 when I'm the only player on the map, no problem. The trouble is that when you're actually playing against someone and have to be aware of them and how to deal with it, that all goes to hell and macro becomes extremely difficult, whereas before it may have been easy.
Like I said, there's so much more to it than just macroing.
I guess these sorts of reminders are useful for lower league players, and I agree 100% with this line:
I mentioned earlier when I proposed my idea that players in lower leagues focus on [relatively] unimportant details instead of the higher priority ones.
In general though you're not saying much more beyond "macro," and that's not new. There's a huge distinction between being good and being a good teacher. Perhaps you are a good teacher given your coaching, but there's a real problem on these forums of people saying "macro" better and then defining macro as everything minus one. It's a rhetorical trick, and it fails to convey useful information to most new players.
The next big step in making people better is to really lay out what this means. Your post is a start. Pylons and probes is a nice slogan, but you should get into what that means in depth. When I watch lower level players I'm amazed how many workers they miss, and how little they think it matters. One of the more convincing things I read when I started was a mathematical layout of how much income early workers mattered in terms of minerals. That's a compelling point.
But this community needs to get away from the pedantic "macro" line, and instead talk about what it actually means. And it can't mean everything, which is how it often gets defined when you push people on the details. We might as well tell people "work harder."
Thank you for pushing this trend in the right direction, but there's a lot further to go.
What Cecil is trying to say is that people that are in lower leagues are so overwhelmed with the amount of variables that go into playing a game of Starcraft that they sometimes forget the most basic fundamental aspects. In this case, workers and supply. show me a replay pack of your games and ill show you all the times you are performing irrelevant tasks instead of accounting for basic game fundamentals.
On May 08 2012 10:54 cactusjack914 wrote: What Cecil is trying to say is that people that are in lower leagues are so overwhelmed with the amount of variables that go into playing a game of Starcraft that they sometimes forget the most basic fundamental aspects. In this case, workers and supply. show me a replay pack of your games and ill show you all the times you are performing irrelevant tasks instead of accounting for basic game fundamentals.
Sure, I agree. But what I'm saying is what you call "basic fundamental aspects" and "irrelevant tasks" is an amorphous concept and it doesn't do much for someone wanting to put that into action.
That's why "constant worker production" is a great piece of advice. The core piece of advice imo. Spend your money's pretty good, but it's trickier because... spend it on what, how many gates/rax/hatches do you build, etc. My point is not that this "macro" oriented advice is wrong, but rather that it's inadequate.
On May 08 2012 10:54 cactusjack914 wrote: What Cecil is trying to say is that people that are in lower leagues are so overwhelmed with the amount of variables that go into playing a game of Starcraft that they sometimes forget the most basic fundamental aspects. In this case, workers and supply. show me a replay pack of your games and ill show you all the times you are performing irrelevant tasks instead of accounting for basic game fundamentals.
Sure, I agree. But what I'm saying is what you call "basic fundamental aspects" and "irrelevant tasks" is an amorphous concept and it doesn't do much for someone wanting to put that into action.
That's why "constant worker production" is a great piece of advice. The core piece of advice imo. Spend your money's pretty good, but it's trickier because... spend it on what, how many gates/rax/hatches do you build, etc. My point is not that this "macro" oriented advice is wrong, but rather that it's inadequate.
So I'll summarize it like this: 1: Constantly produce workers (not for zerg, I outlined a simple "build" a few pages back) 2: Build pylons/supply depots/overlords before being supply blocked. Before 50 supply, build them when you're 2-4 supply away from being blocked. About 50-100 supply, keep 8 supply available. Above that, keep 16 supply free. Might be a bit overkill at times, but overkill is better than getting supply blocked. If terran, stick 1 scv always building depots (stop for a bit if you have like 20-30 free supply). When you start to get supply blocked, stick 2 scvs instead. 3: Spend your money. Build units when you have money floating around. When you have 500+ minerals, build 2 raxes/gateways/macro hatch. Tech if you can. 4: Build an expansion every 5-6 minutes.
In bronze-gold, you will simply have more stuff than him to repel any cheese. At higher levels, you may need to react to scouting, and have a game plan.
On May 08 2012 10:54 cactusjack914 wrote: What Cecil is trying to say is that people that are in lower leagues are so overwhelmed with the amount of variables that go into playing a game of Starcraft that they sometimes forget the most basic fundamental aspects. In this case, workers and supply. show me a replay pack of your games and ill show you all the times you are performing irrelevant tasks instead of accounting for basic game fundamentals.
Sure, I agree. But what I'm saying is what you call "basic fundamental aspects" and "irrelevant tasks" is an amorphous concept and it doesn't do much for someone wanting to put that into action.
That's why "constant worker production" is a great piece of advice. The core piece of advice imo. Spend your money's pretty good, but it's trickier because... spend it on what, how many gates/rax/hatches do you build, etc. My point is not that this "macro" oriented advice is wrong, but rather that it's inadequate.
I mentioned in my lengthy reply on the last page that the "macro only" advice is inadequate and it seems like a lot of lower league players become disillusioned.
I played a few practice games courtesy of the TL practice partner thread last night. It was against a guy in bronze league who had spent so much time in custom games against the computer learning how to macro that he was able to beat me easily when my macro was slipping (I'm high plat). He knew his build order well enough that he even beat me when I was macroing just as well.
Cecil mentioned in his reply to me that there are a lot more little things like "how many gates/rax/hatches do you build, etc" that require other questions to be answered (the Help Me threads are pretty good about this). This is simply a good starting point.
To the chap who was worried about placing a macro hatch in his base 'because it's wasteful' - you don't get it.
In a game where you have banked 500 minerals you can't spend immediately, you have already flubbed your macro that game. You can't go back in time and fix it. Your macro is already imperfect and leaving that money there in the hope that you will eventually find a use for it and pretending it didn't happen isn't improving things. Just say 'oops i fucked my macro' and then SPEND THAT MONEY. Drop that damn hatch! And NEXT game try not to bank minerals.
Macro mistakes are always about NEXT game. When you're in a game you just make the best of the situation you find yourself in. Next game try and keep making workers without missing till the 6 min mark. Then the 7 min mark.
On April 06 2012 11:16 WolfintheSheep wrote: I hate this form of advice. In theory, it sounds good, because "Macro is the largest issue". But it's the worst form of teaching imaginable, because you're instilling the worst habits into lower league players.
Lower league players do not have a problem macroing. Now, I know a ton of people are going to jump down my throat and tell me about the bronze players who can't get above 12 workers and still bank thousands of resources. But that's because they completely ignore the root of the problem, and jump straight to the "Probes and Pylons".
The problem is not Macro. It's Multitasking. It's not that lower league players are bad at Macro, it's that as you increase the tasks they perform, the more actions and conscious decisions that are taken away from Macro.
Telling players to focus on "Probes and Pylons" only exasperates the problem, because you're telling them to focus, rather than improving their ability to spread out actions.
Totally and completely wrong.
Multitasking is nice, but utterly unimportant to get out of say, platinum at least.
I promise you, if I eco macro perfectly then leave my base with the army I made IGNORING EVERYTHING IN THE GAME WITH MY MAP FROZEN ONTO MY BASE, I will crush every silver leaguer you throw my way when I move out.
It's a matter of priority. There are many things you can devote your attention to - scouting, harassing, expanding, attacking, defending, etc but of all these macro and mechanics are just *more* important. If you can micro speedlings and pick of a few marines OR inject and make an overlord this given second, which choose?
The problem the people below masters have is they don't realise that almost no matter the apparent gain, performing the mechanics and macro is the most important thing they can do with their time. It then follows logically that if they do not have the multitasking or APM to be able to do anything but macro, then they should do nothing but macro - and they will actually improve by doing this, as incredible as it seems.
Another thing people don't realise at lower levels is being supply capped is the single most adverse thing you can do to your game position. Being supply capped is what gets you killed above ANY OTHER single factor, literally any. It directly affects your relative army size. It monitors the efficiency of any production structures you have made. It enables you to respond - or not to be able to respond - to new threats or aggression. It monitors your ability to increase your income. I've seen many a pro player die (esp in earlier seasons) when a few marines snipe off an overlord JUST before a push or all-in hits.
I would say before doing anything and I do mean anything, advisedly, to improve your game - never, ever get supply capped. Then focus on making workers continually. Then focus on spending your money. In that order of importance.
Another example: I played on a new account the other day. I was playing some guy around gold MMR after a few games and not really playing attention when he 1 base doom dropped me with MM + Tanks. I had no idea it was coming, but held it with hellions and scvs, lost most of my workers and within about 3-4 minutes my economy was better than his. I didn't do any damage to him, I just macrod.
On May 09 2012 01:20 DaemonX wrote: Another thing people don't realise at lower levels is being supply capped is the single most adverse thing you can do to your game position. Being supply capped is what gets you killed above ANY OTHER single factor, literally any. It directly affects your relative army size. It monitors the efficiency of any production structures you have made. It enables you to respond - or not to be able to respond - to new threats or aggression. It monitors your ability to increase your income. I've seen many a pro player die (esp in earlier seasons) when a few marines snipe off an overlord JUST before a push or all-in hits.
This. I was watching a game on Peepmode yesterday and there was this zerg player who got supply blocked every single time. He had good saturation at each base, but after a while, he built up a ton of money due to his extremely poor macro. At 13 minutes into the game, after 1 engagement where both players traded ~20 supply, he was at ~110 supply. As I've mentioned, the players only responded to each other ONCE. There was no scouting, no harassment etc. The xel'naga towers were rarely taken. So please don't tell me you have to think about 1024 things, and this causes your macro to slip. There is literally nothing to think about. Focus on your own shit, and you'll win games.
On May 09 2012 01:20 DaemonX wrote: Another thing people don't realise at lower levels is being supply capped is the single most adverse thing you can do to your game position. Being supply capped is what gets you killed above ANY OTHER single factor, literally any. It directly affects your relative army size. It monitors the efficiency of any production structures you have made. It enables you to respond - or not to be able to respond - to new threats or aggression. It monitors your ability to increase your income. I've seen many a pro player die (esp in earlier seasons) when a few marines snipe off an overlord JUST before a push or all-in hits.
This. I was watching a game on Peepmode yesterday and there was this zerg player who got supply blocked every single time. He had good saturation at each base, but after a while, he built up a ton of money due to his extremely poor macro. At 13 minutes into the game, after 1 engagement where both players traded ~20 supply, he was at ~110 supply. As I've mentioned, the players only responded to each other ONCE. There was no scouting, no harassment etc. The xel'naga towers were rarely taken. So please don't tell me you have to think about 1024 things, and this causes your macro to slip. There is literally nothing to think about. Focus on your own shit, and you'll win games.
I learned a lot from peepmode. If you watch a vod or tournament cast or play yourself it feels hectic like there are a million things going on, but in peepmode you realize that the game is actually relatively slow with the whole outcome decided by one or two big battles. You don't notice micro that well, but it only take a few minutes from harvester count and supply count who's going to win every time. often times, the bad macro player will trade an army evenly, or even downright win the battle, but go on to lose the game because he can't replenish his army as fast as the other guy or he falls behind because he cant afford 3/3 upgrades or whatever. You don't see this from pro games because everyone's macro is impeccable, it's like trying to pick out bad dribblers in the NBA or soccer. Your macro is your dribble, your strategy doesn't mean anything if you cant dribble.
I mentioned in my lengthy reply on the last page that the "macro only" advice is inadequate and it seems like a lot of lower league players become disillusioned.
I played a few practice games courtesy of the TL practice partner thread last night. It was against a guy in bronze league who had spent so much time in custom games against the computer learning how to macro that he was able to beat me easily when my macro was slipping (I'm high plat). He knew his build order well enough that he even beat me when I was macroing just as well.
I find it interesting that you consider you to be macroing just as well as him but him winning because he knew his build order better than you knew yours. To me, ideas like "build order", "when to expand", "how much infrastructure to have" and the like are all part of macro. If your macro was even but he knew his build order crisply and you didn't, then your macro was not even; you were not macroing just as well.
I mentioned in my lengthy reply on the last page that the "macro only" advice is inadequate and it seems like a lot of lower league players become disillusioned.
I played a few practice games courtesy of the TL practice partner thread last night. It was against a guy in bronze league who had spent so much time in custom games against the computer learning how to macro that he was able to beat me easily when my macro was slipping (I'm high plat). He knew his build order well enough that he even beat me when I was macroing just as well.
I find it interesting that you consider you to be macroing just as well as him but him winning because he knew his build order better than you knew yours. To me, ideas like "build order", "when to expand", "how much infrastructure to have" and the like are all part of macro. If your macro was even but he knew his build order crisply and you didn't, then your macro was not even; you were not macroing just as well.
Under your definition yes, he completely bested me both games. By "macroing just as well" I meant building up workers (which I did a LOT better than him), making units without supply blocks, expanding, and teching. By "knew his build order well enough" I specifically meant that he went mech, I scouted it later than usual and by that time his infrastructure was built up. My roach drop response was therefore later than usual due to the delayed scout. Sometimes we can all get away with this if the other player is not on top of their build either, but in this case they were. I don't usually consider scouting a part of macro and I'm still struggling to find a way to get a decent 7 minute scout on cloud kingdom without sacrificing the overlord on the cliff. Regardless of outcome, the practice of tech switching to roach and building up a large army for mobile harass was totally worth it.
Oh, as in like a build order counter. Yeah, I mean, that really isn't macro, that's more of a game sense / decisionmaking thing. In any case, although there may be individual games like this, the large majority of games will be won by superior macro, which is what you need to climb the ladder. Basically, assuming all your skills are pretty bad, the easiest way to improve is to focus on macro mechanics and learning a standard build order, making probes and pylons and units. Learning other things like tricky compositions, scouting, tech switches, etc, is all harder than learning how to macro. If you want the best "skill gained" to "effort put in" ratio you want to focus on macro for a long time.
On May 08 2012 09:53 Chutoro wrote: I would say that the priority order for low level players should be:
1. Learn to play standard. 2. Learn to macro well while playing standard.
I'm a pretty low level player (mid diamond) so obviously I'm not speaking from any kind of position of authority, but I honestly think your strategy B is the better way to go. Assuming both of your hypothetical strategies are exaggerated a little bit for effect, I think your strategy A contains far too many elements for a low level player (and I am one) to be able to think about during a game. To use a personal example, I generally don't drone scout, because if I'm controlling a scouting unit I'm definitely going to have a late pool, or forget to take drones off gas, or something silly like that.
Yes, I lose to one base DTs/banshees/whatever from time to time. But a 100% winrate is wishful thinking, and the players who are doing those all-ins every game are deliberately holding themselves back, in the long term, by not working on playing for a longer game. My focus is squarely on having good eco+upgrades and minimal unspent resources going into the late game. Individual ladder wins aren't really worth worrying over.
Oh, and the other thing about those one base all ins: at low levels, they come late, and they're executed badly. Maybe at higher levels you need to scout a 4-gate in order to not lose to it, but at diamond all you have to do is not shit your pants and keep injecting.
On May 09 2012 01:20 DaemonX wrote: Another thing people don't realise at lower levels is being supply capped is the single most adverse thing you can do to your game position. Being supply capped is what gets you killed above ANY OTHER single factor, literally any.
This, this, this. Figuring out when to make overlords is what I'm focusing on in my ladder practice at the moment. Delaying worker production by even a few seconds in the early or mid game has a terrible effect on army size a little bit later on.
On May 06 2012 19:04 Belial88 wrote: Umpteen, that post wasn't even directed towards you. Take a chill pill. There's a reason why I made a big post starting with "Umpteen", and then a separate post. I've largely ignored what you've said because I didn't really have any disagreement with you. But you take every post I've made as directed only towards you, when it was rather more general (with certain other people in mind).
I'm sorry for getting frustrated and being impolite - and I really do appreciate the effort you put in to help others.
On the other hand, you wrote this in the post directed at me:
Umpteen, I don know if I was responding directly to you. Anyways, I am repostingg this, because this is what you need. I agree macro better is ambiguous, but learning to understand how to improve your macro, is really impportant, and what isn't said as much. You can apply what I said to zerg (I said it covering all 3 races really).
Just post replays on tl if you don't get why you lost.
Reading back over it and taking what you're saying now into account, I can see you probably meant "Follow this advice, and then in future post replays if you're not sure why you still lost (and it'll still be because of macro)". However, at the time it came across as "You're telling me you don't know why you're losing; post your reps here and I'll prove to you that it's because of macro", which was face-palmingly annoying when I'd already said I knew macro was to blame a few times
Anyway, since I think we finally see eye-to-eye I'll bow out. Cheers!