The [Newer!!!] NorCal Thread! - BB, GGAC, HnK, FUC, Touhou, and Other Sad Life Games!

[NamelessCounter]

I hope you can back up that talk son!

PS: your come back fails because proxy rush is exactly the kind of strat you execute with out thinking.

Na its a strat that like, yo im gonna beat u with pure micro. And at the end of the match ill be like, "you did good but u need to learn to micro your probes better." Sometimes its not worth playing a 13 minute game if u can end it in 4:59. It worked all through plat and mid diamond but maybe since u played bw u actually can micro well.

What race do u play... and dont say terran.

[KatanaDash]

I haven't played sc2 since the beta, I wouldn't say I'm good at micro. I'm terrible at SC.

[Spirit Juice]

Starcraft has always been about both micro and macro (among other things), so having good micro is just as important as having good macro. Gotta be good at all aspects of the game (timing, game sense, knowing when to attack or macro up) to be good at Starcraft.

[NamelessCounter]

since the beta :O thats soooooo long ago. Why no fiend? And dont take insult to it, i just feel like so many people overemphasize MACRO while they look down at MICRO as only partially important. Having good Macro is great, thats wonderful. U know what your opponent can have when u have X and Y or you can count how much money he has spent on his army and then know just how much money and gas he has to spend on buildings or when to expand etc etc. But micro is about, geez how can i use what i have to its best ability and even beat things that should actually kill me. To make a metaphor, Good macro without good micro is like playing eddie in AC but droping most of your combos. People also underestimate Forcing (forcing is using strat that if your opponent doesnt respond in a specific way than its auto win for you) and controling the pace of the match, if you dont get what i mean by pace of the match just think about boxing and what controling the pace means.

[Ginseng]

I have time right now if you want to play.

[Spirit Juice]

since the beta :O thats soooooo long ago. Why no fiend? And dont take insult to it, i just feel like so many people overemphasize MACRO while they look down at MICRO as only partially important. Having good Macro is great, thats wonderful. U know what your opponent can have when u have X and Y or you can count how much money he has spent on his army and then know just how much money and gas he has to spend on buildings or when to expand etc etc. But micro is about, geez how can i use what i have to its best ability and even beat things that should actually kill me. To make a metaphor, Good macro without good micro is like playing eddie in AC but droping most of your combos. People also underestimate Forcing (forcing is using strat that if your opponent doesnt respond in a specific way than its auto win for you) and controling the pace of the match, if you dont get what i mean by pace of the match just think about boxing and what controling the pace means.

Pretty good troll post. Anyways, I'm not sure why you think I'm downplaying micro (or just making a blanket statement in general) when I said macro is just as important. Macro is a lot easier to manage in SC2, but a good example of micro vs macro in SC1 would be late game Zerg. You could have the best micro in the world, but if your macro sucks, there is no way you're going to manage 5+ hatcheries while managing your army as well.

Players that usually try to end the game early with rushes are generally bad players that don't know how to go beyond 1 base play. Unfortunately, there are a lot of those kinds of players on SC2, and sadly even if you're that bad you can still make it into Platinum and Diamond leagues.

[KatanaDash]

Players that usually try to end the game early with rushes are generally bad players that don't know how to go beyond 1 base play. Unfortunately, there are a lot of those kinds of players on SC2, and sadly even if you're that bad you can still make it into Platinum and Diamond leagues.

QFT

Getting to high leagues by repeatedly proxy-ing doesn't mean you are good, it means every one else is bad.

PS: I am not saying I am good, but I have the sense not to talk shit!

[Ginseng]

Losing to proxies doesn't necessarily mean a person is bad. It's a tactic that is often used in tournament play, especially in bo3s and bo5s. Though if you use it in ladder, it's generally looked down upon as all-in sort of play and sort of a desperate attempt to reach high ranks in a very superficial ranking.

[vanfleihight]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyTQpCFnHUg

[NamelessCounter]

wow contain the rage. First of all the post wasnt even a response to yours and therefore no way could it be considered a trolling. Zerg vs zerg was a bore in sc1 also, defilers and mutas yawn can it get more boring late game.

And i dont proxy ALL the time. Im just saying that it works at high end game play, IT IS a LEGITIMATE gameplay style just like early reapers TvZ. So much butt hurt saltyness and i wasnt even talking to you, nothing even remotely directed towards you.

Also i disagree with your statement about whether a micro player would lose to a macro player, since a macro player has to have more than the micro player in order for it to start to be in their advantage while any micro oriented player would end the game before that advantage would ever occur.

Just to prove my point. Starcraft 1 Grand finals of a tournament. Boxer the best Terran player of all time. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jen46qkZVNI Macro is where every begin starts, but only gods master micro. Its the difference between being Rank 1 in ladder and being Rank 1 in world. Macro is also much easier to do and harder to fail at it doesnt take a genius to know when to expand and what tech tree line to go down but it takes a Pro to use their units to the max of their ability.

Anyways im not here to start a fight, san fran supposed to be the gay capital of the world so where is the love spirit juice?

[Ginseng]

wow contain the rage. First of all the post wasnt even a response to yours and therefore no way could it be considered a trolling. Zerg vs zerg was a bore in sc1 also, defilers and mutas yawn can it get more boring late game.

Actually modern day ZvZ is ling/muta with a rock paper scissors match-up. It's been like that for years.

Also i disagree with your statement about whether a micro player would lose to a macro player, since a macro player has to have more than the micro player in order for it to start to be in their advantage while any micro oriented player would end the game before that advantage would ever occur.

Actually micro and macro are both effective all game. It really depends on the situation. Micro is important, but you cannot neglect macro. This is especially the case in SC1. SC2, macro is easier, but it's still important to keep your macro up when it reaches midgame/lategame. Depending all the time on 1 base plays against a better player won't work all the time. However, with SC2 being the way it is at the moment, 1 base play is often superior.

Just to prove my point. Starcraft 1 Grand finals of a tournament. Boxer the best Terran player of all time. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jen46qkZVNI Micro is godlike, Macro is begin mode.

Ah the classic 3-0 bunker rushing Yellow. Great moment. However, this is from many many years ago, and Starcraft has evolved so much since that time. Bunker rushes like that are often easily fended off, and usually only used as a "snipe" build or in one game of a specific series. Also, current-day starcraft is a lot more macro-oriented.

As much as I love Boxer, he isn't nearly as good as he was back then, especially in a day and age where the average skill level of the progamer is so high.

[NamelessCounter]

korean military 2 years destroyed boxer.

But yeah im not saying neglect macro. But if someone micros well than there is no way that their macro is gonna be weak also, however the same does not apply to macro oriented players. Macro is what every begin starts with, what do i build, when do i build it, what are they building, what should be my response, etc. But only once people get really good at the game do they concentrate on micro oriented play. In no way do i mean ignore it im assuming a micro player will have their macro down, maybe not as well as only a macro oriented player but not lacking to the point where they do stupid shit like build the wrong things at the wrong time or never expanding, nor do i advocate only 1 basing. What i am advocating is using every unit you have to its absolute optimal ability, those that do this are easily the best players.

But yeah <3, no anger be chill.

[Ginseng]

Actually....Boxer's a perfect example of having good micro and TERRIBLE macro. Also, Boxer was already declining well before he entered the military. iloveoov was a perfect example of having wonderful macro and terrible micro. Their unique playstyles were what made them unique. Boxer for his incredible micro and creative plays, and oov with his amazing macro and not caring about losing units due to micro. Starcraft 1 just developed to suit these various different playstyles based on micro and macro. Of course you can be decent or good at both, like most progamers nowadays. However, you can't say that one style is better than the other or what they decide to concentrate on. What people concentrate on are new builds and the ability to execute their builds/playstyles against various different openings on various different maps.

[Spirit Juice]

wow contain the rage. First of all the post wasnt even a response to yours and therefore no way could it be considered a trolling. Zerg vs zerg was a bore in sc1 also, defilers and mutas yawn can it get more boring late game.

And i dont proxy ALL the time. Im just saying that it works at high end game play, IT IS a LEGITIMATE gameplay style just like early reapers TvZ. So much butt hurt saltyness and i wasnt even talking to you, nothing even remotely directed towards you.

Also i disagree with your statement about whether a micro player would lose to a macro player, since a macro player has to have more than the micro player in order for it to start to be in their advantage while any micro oriented player would end the game before that advantage would ever occur.

Just to prove my point. Starcraft 1 Grand finals of a tournament. Boxer the best Terran player of all time. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jen46qkZVNI Micro is godlike, Macro is begin mode.

I think the only person mad here is you. I was just correcting you on being wrong. I'm not saying doing all in/cheese tactics is bad at all, but there are a lot of bad players in Platinum and Diamond players that rely heavily on cheese. Like Ginseng said, it's a better strat to sometimes do in best of threes or best of fives, but in ladder SC2 best of one play (or even SC1), it's considered to be pretty cheap.

In regards to the example I gave, your response isn't really accurate unless the micro oriented player did some sort of early rush or timing push. Like Ginseng mentioned as well, the game is a lot more macro oriented now. If both players go for a safe build to go past mid and to late game, the player that has weaker macro won't do as well. Besides, early rushes don't really take advantage of superior micro anyways if the other player wasn't expecting it and just gets stomped because he wasn't expecting cheese.

[KatanaDash]

this is a forum full of competitive video game players, no one is angry about this. But! we are all ready to tell people what is up if we think they are spouting bull shit. All I am saying is, if you are going talk the talk, you gotta get some respect before any one is gonna listen to you. Respect doesn't necessarily mean winning either, just being willing to play some good games, take your licks or come out on top, either way as long as you are improving your game people will give you props for it. I'd take ginseng up on his offer to play. You might learn something.

I'll you've done so far is back pedal.

also this song disagrees with you

[NamelessCounter]

1. There is no such thing as cheese in rts. Thats just what people call it when they lose and their salty about it. All strategies are available in RTS, to say certain successful ones shouldnt be used because they are "cheese" is to ignore the S in RTS. Everything has a response, if you die to it you need to learn to scout and respond accurately.

2. I will accept ginsengs argument that there is different playstyles between micro and macro while still holding the belief that macro is where people start the game learning and micro is where people finish the game learning. Even if some players decide to deviate from this basic learning pattern in order to create unique playstyles.

3. lol im not angry, nor do i take any insult to this. I just graduated with a honors in philosophy and im on my way to law school, arguing is what i do and love so if it seems like im angry its a misinterpretation. Im just stating my opinion. I am an argumentative person, its part of my personality. Ill argue about things i dont even believe if i think it would be a fun argument. <3 Ethics.

4. I take your song and raise u a video sir. The best video to ever hit dustloop by my personal friend and #1 blazer in canada. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z83S9CVQy8o&p=261833A31FB57BB7&playnext=1&index=17

[Arvoyea]

Sure is Starcraft debate in here. This actually makes want to try playing the game. Also, shoutouts to commentators on last Friday's RAMnation stream reading my shoutouts on the chat and fucking up the pronunciation of my name.

[Ginseng]

1. There is no such thing as cheese in rts. Thats just what people call it when they lose and their salty about it. All strategies are available in RTS, to say certain successful ones shouldnt be used because they are "cheese" is to ignore the S in RTS. Everything has a response, if you die to it you need to learn to scout and respond accurately.

Cheese is just a term for risky all-in strategies. You cannot say there is no such thing as cheese in RTS. They can be handled when properly scouted, but they can be very strong when not.

Now about scouting. You say people need to learn to scout and respond accurately, and that's true! However, when you scout that early every game, you get a lower income rate, which delays your builds by a few seconds. That's why when players scout for proxies, they usually suspect it beforehand, or they saw something in the opponent's base that prompts the proxy. That's why doing proxy builds once in awhile in a series is so important. In the end, scouting for proxies/cheeses is based on the mind game/metagame element of the game.

2. I will accept ginsengs argument that there is different playstyles between micro and macro while still holding the belief that macro is where people start the game learning and micro is where people finish the game learning. Even if some players decide to deviate from this basic learning pattern in order to create unique playstyles.

I think you're confusing micro with the term "multitasking". What players want in the long run are these things: better game sense, better mechanics/apm(actions per minute), and better builds. If you improve your mechanics or apm, you give yourself the ability to improve your macro and micro.

3. lol im not angry, nor do i take any insult to this. I just graduated with a honors in philosophy and im on my way to law school, arguing is what i do and love so if it seems like im angry its a misinterpretation. Im just stating my opinion. I am an argumentative person, its part of my personality. Ill argue about things i dont even believe if i think it would be a fun argument. <3 Ethics.

No offense, but your arguments are pretty easy to refute :/. You have yet to provide conclusive evidence to back up any of your claims.

[NamelessCounter]

omg arvoyea that was awesome.

[NamelessCounter]

"better game sense(Macro), better mechanics/apm(actions per minute)(Micro), and better builds(Macro)."

It is quite possible we are using the same terms but with different meanings. Which is always a problem when dealing with arguments that have terms with implied meanings.

Lower income rate is always acceptable when its against losing a game completely (those few seconds of being later is made up in the travel time between the bases when playing defensive and most people send a worker after your scouting worker anyways). Applying probe harassment is also important with scouting just as is poking with your army to keep the pressure on (especially true for terran whos workers are defenseless when building). Especially with the improvements they made to shield regen, quite easily making the probe the strongest builder in sc2.

Oh well we will have some fun games ginseng.

[TGS]

1. There is no such thing as cheese in rts. Thats just what people call it when they lose and their salty about it. All strategies are available in RTS, to say certain successful ones shouldnt be used because they are "cheese" is to ignore the S in RTS. Everything has a response, if you die to it you need to learn to scout and respond accurately.

2. I will accept ginsengs argument that there is different playstyles between micro and macro while still holding the belief that macro is where people start the game learning and micro is where people finish the game learning. Even if some players decide to deviate from this basic learning pattern in order to create unique playstyles.

3. lol im not angry, nor do i take any insult to this. I just graduated with a honors in philosophy and im on my way to law school, arguing is what i do and love so if it seems like im angry its a misinterpretation. Im just stating my opinion. I am an argumentative person, its part of my personality. Ill argue about things i dont even believe if i think it would be a fun argument. <3 Ethics.

4. I take your song and raise u a video sir. The best video to ever hit dustloop by my personal friend and #1 blazer in canada. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z83S9CVQy8o&p=261833A31FB57BB7&playnext=1&index=17

Hi, I like to be goaded into retarded arguments. Let me give it a shot.

1. "Cheese" is just a name for a really risky all-in that if it succeeds, you pretty much just won the game but on the other hand if it fails, you just lost the game or are in a reeeeeaaally big deficit. In other words, it's akin to doing wake-up Ultra in SF4; if it works, it works; if not, there goes your advantage. HOWEVER, saying "you need to learn to scout and respond accurately" is a really flimsy statement in Starcraft since unlike fighters, they're not dealing with a large playing field in addition to the fog of war. So let's say you want to scout for "cheese" in a large map that has numerous places for said "cheese" to occur. What do you do? Pull one probe/drone/SCV to wander the entire map trying to find a proxy, hoping you get lucky with that one probe/drone/SCV before it's too late? Or you pull more probes/drones/SCVs to help scout for possible "cheese", at the expense of lower early game econ? OK, so you do those things; but what if the guy didn't decide to "cheese" and just played straight up? Guess what, you just lost the game if you pulled more than 1 probe/drone/SCV trying to spot "cheese" when the other guy didn't even bother and instead went straight for a rush or fast expand. In other words, you just got outplayed by the threat of "cheese", instead of actual "cheese" itself.

2. Macro = producing units at the highest efficiency. Micro = controlling those units. How is this hard to understand?

3. Waving your degree around doesn't mean jack shit to the argument at hand. If you instead said "My name is Flash, and I just won an OSL, MSL, Proleague Title, and soon a WCG World Title," it would be relevant to the discussion. Last I checked, a philosophy degree doesn't exactly help you learn competitive gaming (unless there are classes for it; in that case, I feel sorry for you if you had to take classes on it).

[NamelessCounter]

Hi, I like to be goaded into retarded arguments. Let me give it a shot.

1. "Cheese" is just a name for a really risky all-in that if it succeeds, you pretty much just won the game but on the other hand if it fails, you just lost the game or are in a reeeeeaaally big deficit. In other words, it's akin to doing wake-up Ultra in SF4; if it works, it works; if not, there goes your advantage. HOWEVER, saying "you need to learn to scout and respond accurately" is a really flimsy statement in Starcraft since unlike fighters, they're not dealing with a large playing field in addition to the fog of war. So let's say you want to scout for "cheese" in a large map that has numerous places for said "cheese" to occur. What do you do? Pull one probe/drone/SCV to wander the entire map trying to find a proxy, hoping you get lucky with that one probe/drone/SCV before it's too late? Or you pull more probes/drones/SCVs to help scout for possible "cheese", at the expense of lower early game econ? OK, so you do those things; but what if the guy didn't decide to "cheese" and just played straight up? Guess what, you just lost the game if you pulled more than 1 probe/drone/SCV trying to spot "cheese" when the other guy didn't even bother and instead went straight for a rush or fast expand. In other words, you just got outplayed by the threat of "cheese", instead of actual "cheese" itself.

1. Sigh, you dont need to search the whole map looking for a cheese. All you have to do is scout his base early on and see that "hey he doesnt have anything at his base, he either built a nexus right away or is proxying", you dont need to scout all over the map looking for a cheese. Even when a cheese does come, the proper way to deal with it is not by using ur builders to attack the building but to respond to it accurately with your own army, its really as easy as two gating as soon as you scout his base and not letting any of your zealots die in PvP, all you have to do is delay and keep him at bay. There are even ways of proxying that are still decently safe when the applied pressure doesnt end the game, though the most successful at winning early are those that are done ALL in, however this ALL in does not need to apply to the term proxy rushing.

2. Macro = producing units at the highest efficiency. Micro = controlling those units. How is this hard to understand?

2. Macro has much more than that including understanding the possibilities open to your opponent based upon what he created prior when you scouted, whether it is his army or his buildings... it is not just cut and dry simple, its a diluted term used to include a variety of important factors. Whether all these important factors deserve terminalogy themselves is an important discussion and non inclusion into the term Macro.

3. Waving your degree around doesn't mean jack shit to the argument at hand. If you instead said "My name is Flash, and I just won an OSL, MSL, Proleague Title, and soon a WCG World Title," it would be relevant to the discussion. Last I checked, a philosophy degree doesn't exactly help you learn competitive gaming (unless there are classes for it; in that case, I feel sorry for you if you had to take classes on it).

3. Im not waving my degree around. Im stating that my personality is argumentative and i find it entertaining. Im not angry when discussing different point of views...

You guys are really starting to get out of hand, this is supposed to be a civil discussion and yet your getting into name calling and using insulting terms like "retarded". Try to act like an adult or at least a mature teenager if that is your age. I'm not gonna reply anymore if your going to be acting immature/trolling.

[qwerty]

yo nameless, chill out dude... when you come down here we'll smoke a blunt, talk philosophy and maybe play gg

fuck those shitty korean esports anyways that shit puts me to sleep and so does this discussion

[Honnou]

Lol at nameless trying to be civil on dustloop. You have much to learn, young Padowan.

[qwerty]