EPTWhy almost no one cares when you suggest strategy - Page 2
| Blogs > kainzero |
|
Creationism
China505 Posts
| ||
|
kainzero
United States5211 Posts
@Chill: The point is that instead of sitting around and theorizing and hypothesizing things like "Why doesn't anybody use Carriers" and that if it truly is a good strategy, the only way for it to really show is to be a good player. Imagine some D+ Toss invented the Bisu Build and played against some D players and used the replays as proof of its viability. People would be quick to throw it away because they assume a good player would counter it in so many ways and that's what happens. The take-home point? Don't merely suggest strategy and ideas and wait for them to be implemented. Keep doing it till you know it doesn't work. @Slayer91: After you do an EX Hurricane with Sakura, do a jumping LK. You land before the opponent and have the option of walking underneath them to play mindgames and make them guess which way to block. On success, you start another combo, so it's called a reset because you "reset the combo counter." The terminology came in MvC2, when people would throw in a mix-up during an infinite to get more damage. @intrudor: Thanks, but I've never suggested any strategy. @Creationism: No, it's like you were on the cusp of developing calculus, but when you took it to the math community, they thought it was terrible and so you gave up on it. Yes, this shit happens in real life. I struggle with it every day in my job. Do you think I'm whining because no one accepted Last Hit and that it wasn't my strategy? Or that I thought Sakura was viable all this time and had sick resets that no one could see? No, I feel like shit because I didn't carry it all the way through and that I gave up because people didn't listen when it could've given me a huge advantage. And now I also know what it takes for people to listen. | ||
Chill
Calgary26003 Posts
On April 22 2010 03:39 kainzero wrote: @Chill: The point is that instead of sitting around and theorizing and hypothesizing things like "Why doesn't anybody use Carriers" and that if it truly is a good strategy, the only way for it to really show is to be a good player. Imagine some D+ Toss invented the Bisu Build and played against some D players and used the replays as proof of its viability. People would be quick to throw it away because they assume a good player would counter it in so many ways and that's what happens. I'm sorry man, but you need to learn how to construct an argument driving towards a point. Your opening post implies that you think it's unfair that people cannot get recognition for inventing builds theoretically before they are put into practice. This is cited by your DotA example, SF4 example, and the underlying disappointing tone surrounding the fact that this becomes "his" strategy as opposed to yours. Then you come in and say the only way to prove something is to be able to execute it. This completely contradicts your first post altogether. And then you provide another example of a D+ player inventing the Bisu Build but getting dismissed because he wasn't a high enough level, which neither confirms your first nor second points and thus accomplishes nothing. I don't even know how to respond to this. Cheeseburgers dynamite lilacs. | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
You were forced to kill off opposing heros in your lanes and there were no wards. You couldn't camp in lanes in relative safety and rice up cash all game. But that was okay, because the carry heros were retarded strong for what they did. Naix used to be magic immune, the size of a normal creep, attacked faster, gained 4 agil (with agil as primary) per level and had a 50% lifeleach, for instace. Timelord could stun THE ENTIRE MAP FOR SEVEN SECONDS. etc. | ||
|
RageOverdose
United States690 Posts
On April 22 2010 03:39 kainzero wrote: The take-home point? Don't merely suggest strategy and ideas and wait for them to be implemented. Keep doing it till you know it doesn't work. I seem to have missed your point then. In fact, I'm somewhat arguing against your point without realizing it, merely the waiting around part, although I don't think it's a good idea to just wait around, just that I think people should be more open-minded towards new ideas if they aren't noticeably bad to start with. But I do agree with testing yourself instead of just expecting others to test it. Although, when I think about it, playing Starcraft and coming up with new strategies is so hard because of how much of the game has been developed strategically anyway. That's probably less so with Starcraft 2, so your ability to play may not be as big of a wall. Now I feel like I wasted good time typing my previous two posts... =/ | ||
|
Slayer91
Ireland23421 Posts
On April 22 2010 03:39 kainzero wrote: @Slayer91: After you do an EX Hurricane with Sakura, do a jumping LK. You land before the opponent and have the option of walking underneath them to play mindgames and make them guess which way to block. On success, you start another combo, so it's called a reset because you "reset the combo counter." The terminology came in MvC2, when people would throw in a mix-up during an infinite to get more damage. Thanks, I saw the crossovers when I looked up the video it makes sense now. Brutal EX-Shunpukyaku's I never seem to land them like that. | ||
Milkis
5003 Posts
Ideas aren't applied over night -- in many cases, they need to be refined before they should ever consider being used in practice. I'm sure Bisu didn't come up with his build over night, but it is a constant refinement by playing over and over again and figuring out what he needs to do at certain points. You may think you have the most brilliant idea ever, but without refinement, you're not getting anywhere. This need for empirical evidence is going to be stronger in online communities, when people are literally teenagers. Many of the people you're going to run across will not have the right mindset, and you're just going to have to accept that no matter what. They won't be constructive or even consider your ideas, because in the end most of the players play for fun or for other twisted reason rather than playing to win, even if the game is supposedly "competitive". Hell, many of these kids will reject your idea even if you prove it beyond a doubt because they are just that stubborn. The need for empirical evidence is prevalent in pretty much anything you'll ever going to do. You don't present your ideas in meetings saying "do you think this is possible", you go in with facts and evidence that supports your idea. Academia runs on "ideas", but they're not accepted until they're proven in an empirical setting. Keep in mind that there are always A LOT of competing ideas, and in many cases you're competing against ideas that are already widely accepted. Chill is absolutely correct in this. Note that people in wall street will eat up whatever Warren Buffet says as gold and his one word will sway markets -- this is because he has proven himself and has the experience. The experience simply put, allows you to put forth ideas in a much more convincing matter. Same thing with a Doctor and a student -- the Doctor is more likely able to tell you exactly why he's correct, while the student will likely have to cite some sources. So, simply put, if no one is listening to you, you're likely doing a poor job backing up your statements. You can back up your statements through experience or through a thorough analysis (ie refine your ideas) -- and a thorough analysis is definitely going to convince people. This is the only way you're probably going to convince anybody. Note that this doesn't mean you should abstract it away by just blindly applying whatever tools you have, but you should in the end, aim to explain it in the simplest way possible why you think your strategy works. At the very least, you'll get a discussion if you have accomplished this. | ||
|
Ack1027
United States7873 Posts
Even if its true you probably weren't thinking about creep wave location/blocking or even the reverse, denies. These are more relevant to ' strategy ' than last hitting for gold ever is. A D+ toss can't invent the Bisu build because they can't execute it. Bisu build's preconditions are that you are able to harass and multitask. If someone [ A D+ player ] has never been able to experience or have the ability to do this, they would be unable to ' sit and think up ' the bisu build. | ||
|
niteReloaded
Croatia5282 Posts
It's like living on crutches made of other people's opinions - sucks very much. But they did perfect this system by only trusting people who've attained the goal they're aiming for, so yeah, it's a pretty good way to live average and not die. If you have a great idea, and everyone agrees and supports you, you can pretty much bet the idea isn't all that great. | ||
|
Pokebunny
United States10654 Posts
On April 22 2010 03:22 Slithe wrote: Did they alt key function exist at that time? If not, then maybe that's why people didn't see it as a viable tactic back then. You can turn them on permanently? | ||
|
citi.zen
2509 Posts
When a D player tells you they invented a new build, you likely shrug it off. When Bisu demonstrates it at the highest level of play in all its glory, you study and practice it. All's well in the world. I don't even know how to respond to this. Cheeseburgers dynamite lilacs. Well said. | ||
|
Jugan
United States1566 Posts
On April 22 2010 02:14 EtherealDeath wrote: If that DOTA story is true, that's pretty shocking, especially considering how boring the game is when you don't add in last hit. Also... it's just so obvious lol. That's like someone scoffing at using archons against pure ling zerg who does not get lair. There's not even a tradeoff in that Dota example O.O Anyways, unless you bring results with your proposed strat, no one will listen to it of course unless you are a known pro. I mean, I could suggest some strange strat and claim a 1 second timing window, but unless it can be demonstrated, I'm just full of shit. Theory is no good without proof (except for string theory) It wasn't obvious in the early days, just like how 3 hatch before pool was "ridiculous" in the early days. | ||
|
Judicator
United States7270 Posts
| ||
|
josemb40
Peru611 Posts
| ||
|
Diamond
United States10796 Posts
And there is a reason ppl don't go nuts when a new player comes up with something. You have to get out there and prove it works against high level players. I went 5 base Carrier last night in SC2. Did it work? Yes. Will it work on anyone with a brain? No..... | ||
|
Ruthless
United States492 Posts
| ||
|
kawoq
Guatemala357 Posts
On April 22 2010 02:03 kainzero wrote: .... So I guess if you wanna talk about great new TvP 2 BC-push you developed, all you can really do to promote it is to use it yourself at a high level. I think his point was: "if you want to be hear go push yourself and play the strategy you want to "promote" and after 10,000 hours you will find out for sure if it works or not and then you can talk about it... or in other words, if you are not a high level player just dont post any strategy at all, just play and prove it first, then come back to talk with a high level record..." PD: honestly I wan to believe that what he wanted to say was: just because a high level player didnt agree with you about your strategy/idea doesnt mean you should throw it away, try it and tray it again until you can say "this is an epic fail and will never work" or "EUREKA IT WORKS!!! IT WORKS!!!"... | ||
|
shindigs
United States4795 Posts
On April 22 2010 05:50 kawoq wrote: I think his point was: "if you want to be hear go push yourself and play the strategy you want to "promote" and after 10,000 hours you will find out for sure if it works or not and then you can talk about it... or in other words, if you are not a high level player just dont post any strategy at all, just play and prove it first, then come back to talk with a high level record..." PD: honestly I wan to believe that what he wanted to say was: just because a high level player didnt agree with you about your strategy/idea doesnt mean you should throw it away, try it and tray it again until you can say "this is an epic fail and will never work" or "EUREKA IT WORKS!!! IT WORKS!!!"... That's a nice rewording of his argument. However, you have to look at it from the perspective of a high level player. Just looking at the SC2 forums you see a slew of PLEASE HELP ME IN THIS MATCHUP IS THIS VIABLE or WHAT IF I..? It's really difficult to separate what is legit from what is noise unless there is extreme testing and proof form a high level player. | ||
|
Chairman Ray
United States11903 Posts
When a weak player introduces a new strategy, there are two situations - the strategy is nonviable, or the player cannot execute it himself. If the strategy is nonviable, awesome, if the player cannot execute it himself, then there's no need to discuss it because obviously it wasn't thought out at all. Every strategy has a lot of considerations. How much APM is required? Does it transition from any build order? If you broodlord rush, are you able to die before a broodlord comes out? Are there any counters? The huge list of considerations go on and on. The person who thought of the strategy has thought about none of these considerations, because if he did, then he would have been able to execute it. Usually in theory crafting, the person just assumes it works and thinks about the outcome, rather than the steps needed to attain it. I believe you when you say you discovered last hitting, but I'm not going to credit you for it; I'm going to credit the first person to put it into practice. If a person can take credit just for an idea, then I should be quite famous as well. First time I saw muta micro, I thought about muta microing multiple groups of mutas. Afterwards, July and Jaedong started doing it. I can't take any credit at all because in the end, I didn't do anything at all. Thinking of a strategy is easier than just loading up Starcraft. The first day of sc2, the battle.net forums flooded with clueless noobs crying imba whenever they lost a game. A lot of them didn't even attempt to find a counter. All the good players were trying to find a counter and decided later on whether something was imbalanced or not. Once the patch hit and things were nerfed, there's a lot of people that could have said "I told you so", but they're right out of pure luck. When you think of a new strategy but can't put it into play, you are not relying an your intuition, you are relying on pure luck. There are way too many factors to consider in a complex game like Starcraft, and if you cannot put something into play, all you can do is pray that it's actually good. Once you find out it's good, you deserve just as much credit as everyone who thought up nuke rushing before Boxer did it. | ||
|
Knickknack
United States1187 Posts
Random Joe has an idea -> he is correct about this idea -> Shares idea -> often the situation is hardly anyone cares due to him just being a random joe, and idea not yet being shown to be successful. Random Joe has an idea -> he is correct about this idea -> acts on idea -> chance he gets something valuable out of it. It is about the value of acting. It says some sad (I find) facts about sharing however. Sharing a good idea could lead to others convincing you it is not. Sharing takes time away from acting on ideas. When you have good ideas it can be beneficial for you not to share. Overall, shared good ideas have little value for sharer, better to just act. But hey, that's the way a competitive game works eh. | ||
| ||
