@E33144211332424 I never said they would know how to use mass perfectly. I said they would be "able to use mass". I am 1100 and if not braindead tired, I am not overflowing mass in first minutes. Yeah, you are surely better than me, and if you constantly need to underline your rating, you can say it again. But as he said: "this only matters if a) you are actually able to capitalise on the extra mass instead of just overflowing it..." "(classic <1.5k issues)" It kind of made me laugh. I would think that people at 1300-1400 are able to use mass in early game, even if not perfectly. Anyway, as said, it was under the assumption, that those people have "necessary apm".
@Tagada So you say, that if there is optimal way to win the game, it should not be won on other way? Lets say at x condition, it is better to win with t1, so no one should win it on t2? All the games should be played the same way? lets modify this example. I play CYB, and my opponent plays UEF. And for the sake of example, UEF t2 is 2times stronger massvise than CYb t2. Now all the noobs are screaming that this is unfair (or gives advantage to click spammers, on reclaim topic), and you tell that CYB should just win at t1 stage... So all is fine. The fact, that some other things (you pointed out eco-management, or playing t1 at x condition), give advantage, possibly bigger one, does not mean that manual reclaim does not give advantage also.
"injecting 300 extra mass won't fix the lack of fundamentals", but if I play against someone at my level, it can very well win the game for me. Even if you say that it is not optimal way, manual reclaim wins games in some conditions. Unluckily I dont remember in which ones of my games, but it gives quite big advantage sometimes. And I think that if this would not give such an advantage, game would be easyer to learn, player retention would be better, game would be more fun and less mechanic.