|
I used to play DOTA. When I say "used to," I played DOTA in Warcraft 3 Vanilla days. I think it was around WC3 1.05 or 1.06, I forget, back when there was no magic damage type or unarmored type and the only strategies were mass casters/ghouls/dryads. DOTA was pretty fun and offered me a diversion over the constant losses I would suffer on the ladder, mostly because I suck at RTS. I never lost a match at DOTA and pretty soon got bored of it, because the skill level was so low.
At the time though, I was wondering about strategy. Mainly, I was wondering if it was possible to hit an enemy at the last minute to get the gold, and to do it consistently. I posted about it on the most popular WC3 forum at the time.
"Hey, is it physically possible to hit a creep at the last second? It seems like if you could, you would get a lot more money and dominate the opponent."
One of the top WC3 ladder guys scoffed at me for suggesting this. Everyone else agreed with him.
(Fuck that guy anyway. He ended up being caught hacking.)
But as you probably know now, the strategy behind it is called "Last Hit" and anybody who's anybody probably uses it. And what do I get? "Told you so?"
If you are nowhere near top, or at least the Ro8 in a major tournament then almost no one will listen to your strategy ramblings. Maybe if you bust out some science like with the 9rax/12rax or the building an HQ farther from the minerals thing, you can get some people listening. Maybe you'll get lucky and a top player will read your strategy and implement it in a tournament... but guess what? That's his strategy, not yours.
Same thing happened in SF4 with Sakura's resets. As it came out there were only a handful of people on SRK studying it and using it. JWong said she might be the best console character because of it, but there were still hardly any people convinced at how good she was. Enter SaBRe vs. Valle and now people think Sakura reset = SaBRe and that she's a somewhat viable character now.
Simply posting, or even worse conjecturing about a strategy almost always gets you nowhere unless it's actually been proven in a high level competition. (Or cheese.) 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.
(Then when you're at that point anyway, you don't necessarily want to promote it because then people will know what to expect when they face off against you, so you still lose at telling people about your strategy.)
 
|
well of course ppl are going to trust the pros rather than someone random who has no rep. it's like that in everything no?
|
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)
|
Seems reasonable to me and not something to whine about. People want to see a strategy executed before they start considering it 'viable'. And they want to see it executed at the highest level. A suggestion may work well against low level players but fail miserably against decent opponents.
Skill level at dota is actually pretty high these days. And people have been 'last hitting' ever since I've been playing, pretty much the last 6 years.
|
Nothing better than proving doubters I mean haters wrong.
|
Calgary25967 Posts
This is a terrible thread. So one time you had an idea and people didn't accept it but now it's standard? And another time people didn't study a character in a fighting game except a few people and now people think that character is viable? First of all, I completely reject your hypothesis that no one will listen to you unless you are a top 8 player, and secondly I don't even understand what point you are driving at even if that is true. Let's assume it is true, what is your comment or suggestion or what should anyone take away from this?
|
Because calling imbalance and bandwagon/FOTM is so much easier. I'm pretty sure every single unit in SC2 has been "the shittiest unit ever omg buff plz or get rid of it srs this sucks ass" only to have someone use it the way it was intended, and suddenly its the best unit ever.
People are also adverse to change and unable to think for themselves. Just yesterday someone was amazed at the ingenuity of using Fungal Growth in worker lines. Seriously!? How anyone with a brain couldn't figure that out on their own is beyond me.
|
Calgary25967 Posts
I mean imagine some D+ player developed the Bisu Build and wrote about it, it would probably get rejected because on paper it's impossibly difficult to imagine the timings working together, how map control goes back and forth, and how all the counters get dealt with. But I can watch one best of 5 and instantly be able to infer all that information easily.
|
On April 22 2010 02:37 Chill wrote:
I mean imagine some D+ player developed the Bisu Build and wrote about it, it would probably get rejected because on paper it's impossibly difficult to imagine the timings working together, how map control goes back and forth, and how all the counters get dealt with. But I can watch one best of 5 and instantly be able to infer all that information easily.
I think the point is that unless you're high level, few will listen to you merely because you aren't high level, regardless of if you have a good idea or not. It's more like the proof they want is just your skill representation. The rational folks will ask for proof of the strategy in action (or test it themselves), the irrational ones will ask for rank or go to someone they believe is authoritative and have them reaffirm their bias. It's more important to look at the claim, not who is making the claim, because that creates bias and a good idea can be ignored. Even if the idea is flawed, it could be improved or lead to better ideas.
However, it is reasonable to expect someone of higher skill is a better authority on strategy, because they probably understand strategy better. But they should be the ones reviewing it and being objective and logical about it, and not flaunting around rank.
|
This is a good blog, let alone thread.
One issue here is that in, say, chess, football, tennis, etc, you can do pretty well as a coach.
Not so in video games.
If there is no market for coaching, then it seems that there is hardly any value in knowing something but not implementing it.
(and even in coaching it often helps immensely to be successful in competition)
Still throwing around strategy ideas can be fun, just realize its worth just about nothing without being developed. That is probably the main point here. Had an idea like facebook before facebook? Oh well too bad since you did nothing with it.
Personally, will I ever go though as much effort for sc2 as I did to make guides for sc1.
Heck no. Then, if anything, my gain, and I won't really be missed for it either.
|
United States17042 Posts
another easy example of a top level player playing, and then everyone else just "understanding" the timing (in addition to the bisu build) is the fantasy mech build. Explaining the variants and imagining the possibilites of early/mid/lategame working together is almost impossible, but watching it makes it easy to understand (and pretty sick).
|
Could you explain the reset thing you're talking about? I know about canceling and focus canceling ad stuff but never heard of that term. Played some SF4 Sakura pretty casually after being used to classic SSF2T chars.
Oh, and yeah, coming up with the strategy and executing it properly to make it viable are 2 seperate processes that has to happen. that's pretty obvious though =p
|
hum.....maybe ppl dont take your strategies seriously because they (your strategies) are not very good...
just saying..
|
Calgary25967 Posts
On April 22 2010 02:57 RageOverdose wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2010 02:37 Chill wrote:
I mean imagine some D+ player developed the Bisu Build and wrote about it, it would probably get rejected because on paper it's impossibly difficult to imagine the timings working together, how map control goes back and forth, and how all the counters get dealt with. But I can watch one best of 5 and instantly be able to infer all that information easily. I think the point is that unless you're high level, few will listen to you merely because you aren't high level, regardless of if you have a good idea or not. It's more like the proof they want is just your skill representation. The rational folks will ask for proof of the strategy in action (or test it themselves), the irrational ones will ask for rank or go to someone they believe is authoritative and have them reaffirm their bias. It's more important to look at the claim, not who is making the claim, because that creates bias and a good idea can be ignored. Even if the idea is flawed, it could be improved or lead to better ideas. However, it is reasonable to expect someone of higher skill is a better authority on strategy, because they probably understand strategy better. But they should be the ones reviewing it and being objective and logical about it, and not flaunting around rank.
Right, just like if you're a doctor, people will likely listen to your ideas; whereas if you are some university student you will have to work harder to prove your ideas.
Which is completely analogous to this situation and hence I don't understand why this thread exists.
|
Chill, did you lose sight of the "close thread" button?
there's a big white "reply" box....which shouldnt be there,
|
Every time I've seen someone suggest something it gets explored or gunned down ferociously, don't see where the "not caring" comes from there.
I think what you really mean to say is random newbie's thoughts often get dismissed. It doesn't take much thought to realise why that happens.
|
Last hitting and animation canceling were a part of War3 long before 1.06.
|
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.
|
Calgary25967 Posts
I think alt was in WC3 1.00
|
On April 22 2010 03:11 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2010 02:57 RageOverdose wrote:On April 22 2010 02:37 Chill wrote:
I mean imagine some D+ player developed the Bisu Build and wrote about it, it would probably get rejected because on paper it's impossibly difficult to imagine the timings working together, how map control goes back and forth, and how all the counters get dealt with. But I can watch one best of 5 and instantly be able to infer all that information easily. I think the point is that unless you're high level, few will listen to you merely because you aren't high level, regardless of if you have a good idea or not. It's more like the proof they want is just your skill representation. The rational folks will ask for proof of the strategy in action (or test it themselves), the irrational ones will ask for rank or go to someone they believe is authoritative and have them reaffirm their bias. It's more important to look at the claim, not who is making the claim, because that creates bias and a good idea can be ignored. Even if the idea is flawed, it could be improved or lead to better ideas. However, it is reasonable to expect someone of higher skill is a better authority on strategy, because they probably understand strategy better. But they should be the ones reviewing it and being objective and logical about it, and not flaunting around rank. Right, just like if you're a doctor, people will likely listen to your ideas; whereas if you are some university student you will have to work harder to prove your ideas. Which is completely analogous to this situation and hence I don't understand why this thread exists.
I think the analogy you made is fine, but I feel like it exaggerates the disparity in this situation. A doctor compared to a university student is a huge leap in comparison to two people of different skill levels in both knowledge and ability, and a person with a lower skill level in a game can have just as much knowledge, only be unable to effectively implement it because of lack of ability.
I mean, some people can see things on paper and conceptualize it very easily too. Some people need the visual stimuli.
At the end of they day, they made the claim his strategy was bad, using the logic that they are better and that's it (at least as far as his story says). That's false authority fallacy.
Now, if a progamer or progamer coach came in and said your strategy is bad, I'd probably not bring up this false authority point because they probably are legitimate authorities. However, I'd also probably expect they could tell you why it's bad, not just say it's bad because they are better. Although I guess that goes further into saying whether or not they want to take the time to explain why, which is a different point altogether.
|
Wow Chill, you completely dominated this thread with logic and common sense in a brutal beatdown of a whiner. Seriously, it's like saying you discovered calculus because you had the THOUGHT of looking at slopes in instances and combining the values for calculation. This kinda shit happens all the time and everywhere. Whats the point of this thread, saying that you want this to change? or just bitching about how life isn't fair?
|
@EtherealDeath: This was DOTA in its infancy, back when the WC3 custom games was not just DOTA. It was something people played very recreationally and not seriously, so it was not something people just really explored.
@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.
|
Calgary25967 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.
|
Early dota didn't need last hit because heros had like 500 damage aoe nukes to farm and the dps heros did like seven times the damage. There were no tangos, so sitting in the lane for long periods of time plinking off creeps wasn't an option either.
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.
|
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... =/
|
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.
|
5003 Posts
Ideas are all they are -- ideas, unless you can actually refine it enough to the point where you can actually pull it off or test it in some other ways. Empirical evidence is needed to seriously consider most ideas for most people.
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.
|
Are you really that full of yourself to think you were one of the first to think of last hit lol..
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.
|
The reason is that most people are incredibly average (duh) and unable to think out of the box. They diverge their reality from other people's opinions because they don't have the mental power to comprehend the background laws of events by themselves.
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.
|
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?
|
Everyone has limited bandwidth: nobody can read everything everyone says, much less think about it and test it until they are sure it works or not. We all filter information based on the source: when I check-out at the store, if I glance at the cover of the Enquirer and see a story about alien abductions I don't even blink; if it were the NY Times cover story, I would be a bit more curious.
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.
|
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.
|
Sorry but that DotA story is total bullshit, DotA is NOT the first game to incorporate basic last hitting mechanics, it's like saying you invented headshots in Counterstrike. Stuff like that is so basic that anyone with any innate skill will do it.
|
|
|
Does anyone else get the impression the OP is trying to become a TL celeb by claiming he "invented" last hit?
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.....
|
So your saying you came up with wc3 micro?
|
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!!!"...
|
On April 22 2010 05:50 kawoq wrote:Show nested quote +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!!!"...
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.
|
I think it's perfectly okay for non reputable players to not get listened to.
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.
|
Amazing that simple things like this get trashed...not that I am surprised.
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.
|
Wow some of you guys are nuts.
NO I DIDN'T INVENT LAST HIT OR EVEN CLAIM TO INVENT IT.
I thought of the idea, and didn't use it because "good" people at the time said it wasn't worth it. The really good person who said it was impossible to last hit was also the top Undead player on US West at the time.
[What do I get? "Told you so?"] was meant to imply that I developed nothing from an idea. No one cared.
Take a time travel machine and go back to 1998. Imagine all the SC vanilla top players are using the mouse to build stuff and not hotkeys, because let's face it, back then everyone used mouse to do anything. Let's say I'm a slightly below-average player. I can say to you, "Hey, hotkeys are faster. You can build stuff and move things faster and you don't waste time moving the cursor around." People might've said, "Hey. All the top players aren't using it, so it's not worth your time."
Why the hell would I wanna be a TL Celeb? If I wanted to, I would actually work hard and be good at Starcraft, not post articles in a blog. And I'm too old for internet popularity anyway.
-----
By the way, in retrospect, my post was pretty clumsy and rambling. I'll revise it later since I think the core argument is in there somewhere and I didn't organize it correctly, even having points that gave people the wrong impression like me claiming to invent last hit. Just, no.
|
We all have ideas, but never put it into practice because there are just so many complications to think of, and we haven't quite worked out how to get around all of them. I'm sure every single person that has ever played Brood War has thought of using valks to counter mutalisks and provide further overlord harrassment, but when we tried it, we all ran into a long list of problems: Too expensive, takes forever to build, dies easily to scourge, doesn't provide enough advantage to justify the cost. Then Fantasy shows us a way to use valkeries, shows us clever transitions that allows us to get around these problems and turn them into advantages.
But hey, I thought of combining valk with mech way before Fantasy implemented it on the big stage. We should be calling it the purind build. Fantasy just happened to be able to execute the ideas I invented 6+ years ago
|
The skill level of a player and the number of viable ideas they'll come up during theorycraft/practice are often coorelated. It usually takes a good player, someone who is intimately familiar with the game in question, in order to come up with a viable way of playing. (Not that all good players are necessarily revolutionists. Didn't Kingdom? say that Bisu was good at copying builds that Stork and Kal created and refining them?)
Occasionally, you will get someone who appears to be a scrub coming up with some weird, revolutionary idea, and who will have the talent and execution to back it up. Unfortunately, there'll be some discrepancy between his measured rank, and how he can actually do, which is a shame. But if this idea of his gives him a distinct advantage over his competition and he sticks with it, then he'll be right up where he belongs in no time.
|
Good thread. I enjoyed the read.
Over the years I've come to the conclusion that in any argument, whether it be about video games, music, politics or whatever, that the point itself is so much less important to an observer than the person making it.
I have nothing against this, it's natural for most people to evaluate ideas based on where they come from since there are so many bad ones out there. What I can't stand though, is that people will not only dismiss the idea but actively argue against it based on the person making the call, regardless of whether they've thought about/tried the idea themselves. The DoTA instance is a perfect example of this.
The example of taking the word of a doctor over a uni student is something most people would do, but when people actively start arguing against the university student without even exploring his ideas we have a problem.
This problem extends even further when you get into areas where people become personally offended by the idea, I'm thinking specifically about religion and the dark ages here.
I think that the point is if people were more open to new ideas, regardless of who makes them, then progress would be acheived a lot faster, something that I definitely agree with.
|
We measure the credibility of a given information by the help of different things. We need that extra thing before we accept it. It happens all the time, 'this guy has over 5k posts, he must be right', 'this guy has an MBA, he must be right about this motivation theory'. And sometimes we don't accept it just because we like being an asshole: 'lol noob this would never work, you are wrong' a.k.a 'I am a narrow-minded retard who won't accept the fact that other human beings are smarter than me.'
|
@OP
2 points
1st, Just because you don't see your idea of a good strategy being use by the so call "good players you see on stream" does not mean good players don't use them. Guess what? good players don't play on streams right now, and when they do, they don't play with their best strategy. they don't want their strategy being figured out and counter on tournaments.
2 Evidences:
1) nony never used that blink trick over the destructible rock on his stream.
2) Artosis Never show off his trick to get his entire roach army to shoot pass all the force fields and wipe out all the immortals stalkers colousi in any of his replays. He only showed it off during the most important match of his sc2 career. He didn't even do it before it is the team usa elimination match vs team china.
2nd point
It doesn't take the best player of the game to be able to have a good understand of strategy. Chill has a good understanding of sc1, but he's nowhere near as good as Idra in real matches. It doesn't mean his understand of the overall game dynamic is weaker than Idra, it could just mean that some of us lacks the ability to execute their strategy perfectly. hence, a players' ladder ranking don't equal to their understand of strategy. their ladder ranking is a combination of their understanding and execution of strategy.
The following is to answer your thread topic question
If you have something amazing to offer, and being selfless as you seem to be then teach us your strategy by going over the building order; teach us your 20+ variations of how your strategy can bench off according to what you scout by give us 20+ replays of all these different variations; teach us your steps in how you prepare your attack/upgrade/expand timing; teach us on how you can dictate what your opponent is doing with what you are doing. Do you even realize you need to think at least this far to develop a well thought out strategy? You think Bisu just wing it one day and came up with his strategy by accident? You definitely don't go "hey go carriers" and call it a strategy.
To answer the question of "Why almost no one cares when you suggest strategy" it is because you failed to present your elite understanding of what a strategy is. Everybody will take you very seriously if you compose an article of a strategy with the curriculum i outlined for you in the above paragraph.
|
On April 22 2010 09:26 rei wrote:
To answer the question of "Why almost no one cares when you suggest strategy" it is because you failed to present your elite understanding of what a strategy is. Everybody will take you very seriously if you compose an article of a strategy with the curriculum i outlined for you in the above paragraph.
You are preaching to the choir, or rather, he already knows this.
The point of the blog was that he should've worked to show that the strategy was viable, instead of letting the better skilled players tell him it's useless and he had no idea what he was talking about.
He's made this clear in his posts in the thread, and acknowledged the original post didn't convey his point well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
