2

In Starcraft you can use your attention to either hit the perfect timings on your macro or to micro manage your units.

The first one guarantees that your money is invested as soon as possible and you do not lose build cycles.

The second increases your effectiveness of your units beyond what they would be able to do without additional control.

If you are really good you can do both to some degree. Still there are limits to what is possible.

There is a point where micro hurts your gameplay overall, because you neglect macro. If you forget to build 2 SCVs while microing your Reaper to kill 1 Drone you are actually behind 1 SCV.

Is it somehow possible to calculate this in a replay?

For example

In replay XYZ I microed my Reaper for 10 seconds while neglecting macro. Was it worth it? Should I do it again?

3

Yes.

The key is to practice doing both. Try consciously practice microing while having your base buildings on hotkeys to do stuff. Over time you should get better and won't forget to do so. It's just like any other activity though, it takes time getting used to doing something. If you are having a hard time remembering, do something silly like have a post it note on the corner of your monitor saying 'DONT FORGET TO BUILD WHILE MICROING' or something like that. Come up with some way to help you remember and it can't be said enough that it just takes practice to do.

EDIT:

Adding my comment to my answer since it was too long.

Well, I really just focused on answering your example question. Your non example question is pretty subjective and so I would have to say no. How would you decide what is worth in an economic basis? You could argue that killing 1 SCV for the enemy while killing 2 enemies isn't worth it. But guess what, since you didn't spend that 50 minerals on something it can go towards something else. You can't really say that you are down an SCV by doing that. If your question is really 'Should I always try to micro with a base to worry about?' I would have to say yes no matter what anyways.

If I created a graph to say is it worth it, it would be 1 sided to say always do it. If you want a completely economical graph, that's literally impossible. You can't just say you only killed 1 SCV. How long did you stop other SCVs from mining? How long did they have to spend microing to kill your guy. Does not building those SCVs immediately allow a more efficient building upgrade or an expo? There are just way too many variables to make it impossible.

If you want an economic graph, then my answer is No. You can't get a complete one simply because there are pretty much hidden in game values specific to that game in there.

In replay XYZ I microed my Reaper for 10 seconds while neglecting macro. Was it worth it? Should I do it again?

Yes, always do it. You get better, you are likely making your opponent play inefficiently as well.

There is a point where micro hurts your gameplay overall, because you neglect macro. If you forget to build 2 SCVs while microing your Reaper to kill 1 Drone you are actually behind 1 SCV.

Is it somehow possible to calculate this in a replay?

No, Read the above answer in full.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    This does not answer the question. You basically just say: Get better at the game. This does not help me. My question is about determining if a specific decision between micro / macro was good or bad. I want a metric or algorithm to determine this. – ayckoster Mar 30 '15 at 0:30
  • @ayckoster Well, I really just focused on answering your example question. Your non example question is pretty subjective and so I would have to say no. How would you decide what is worth in an economic basis? You could argue that killing 1 SCV for the enemy while killing 2 enemies isn't worth it. But guess what, since you didn't spend that 50 minerals on something it can go towards something else. You can't really say that you are down an SCV by doing that. If your question is really 'Should I always try to micro with a base to worry about?' I would have to say yes no matter what anyways – dphil Mar 30 '15 at 1:10
1

I agree with dphil except for the order precedence of micro and macro.

He says that you should always micro and then try to remember to macro I believe that the opposite is better for both learning and being a better player.

I have proved the importance of macro over micro multiple times to my lower league students (bronze - gold) where I would defeat them without using ANY micro at all. I would focus solely on macro and just attack move my army in their general direction. Sure they might withstand the first attack or two because their micro is superior to my own but their macro is quite poor because of this while mine is still as strong as ever. So my army eventually just ends up overwhelming them.

Being able to macro well is hard in itself, once you get that down then you should add more and more micro while not weakening your macro.

I think that you are correct that even at higher levels of play there are limits and that focus on one or the other is more important; macro is usually (there are always exceptions, especially in the case of cheeses) far more important in the early game whereas micro will usually be more important in the late game.

As to your question, same as what dphil said, you can't determine exactly. It depends on the game and lots of factors, uploading a replay and getting someone experienced to look at it might be your best bet. As a general rule, I'd say micro over macro is rarely worth it if it doesn't win you or prevent you from losing the game right then.

| improve this answer | |
1

Yes and no. It is possible to determine whether or not specific actions were worth the time and attention, just like it is possible to determine if certain actions were even worth doing. Both are handled differently however. People will argue that one is more important than the other, this all comes down to your play style.

Actions worth the time: This is something you have to be conscious of because many actions can also be made with hotkey usage, without ever needing to adjust your screen position. In your reaper example, you may spend 10 seconds microing your reaper but you should only spend 1 second clicking your command center hotkey, pressing 's', and then clicking the hotkey to re-select your reaper. All of which can be done without you having to move your screen away from your reaper.

With that same scenario, if you were supply capped, then it would be a higher priority to back your reaper off to safety, manage your supply depo production, and then return to the reaper management. From a replay you will say "yes I needed to do this instead", but that does not always mean you should neglect your micro, a lot of times they can synergize.

Actions worth the Investment: This is something you identify much easier in replays. Say I have an army of 3 mauraders and 7 marines, and my opponent has 16 zerglings. My opponent comes rushing into my base to engage my army and I react by attempting to studder-step my way back. In the replay I see our armies before they collide, and I see the outcome after the fight is over. From there I can say "Well studder-stepping delayed the fight, however my execution caused me to lose out on damage". If I repeat the scenario with the same numbers and do not studder-step then I am capable of judging whether or not the micro had hurt or helped me.

If your mauraders are in front tanking sometimes it is better to hold your ground, often you will see terran players actually lose more because they attempt to studder-step. Same is true with blink stalkers and speed lings.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.