EPTMany diamond's have no idea how to improve - Page 2
| Blogs > Salv |
|
Garaman
United States556 Posts
| ||
|
MrBitter
United States2940 Posts
I think you raise a valid point, but I will point out one thing that I kind of disagree with: Often times friends will come to me and ask me how to improve their SC2 game. My advice to them is almost always this: "Choose one macro-oriented build order for each match up, and master it." The logic being learn how to play standard first. Once you've figured out how to 14 pool, 16 hatch effectively against virtually everything Terran can do, move on to a new build. But until then, use that one build every single game. Once you learn how to respond to a Toss player after going 14 gas, 15 pool in almost every situation, then move on to something new. But until then, use that one build every single game. For players that approach he "one build dilemma" this way, I have nothing but respect. For the turds that play all-in one-base builds every single game... well, contempt would be the nicest way of describing my feelings toward those noobs... | ||
|
Salv
Canada3083 Posts
On August 20 2010 11:56 nayumi wrote: Sticking to one build isn't necessary a bad thing. I agree, if you're practicing for a tournament for example, and you want to do a very specific build to exploit something, go for it, you probably should practice that. That's just one example, and there are plenty more, I just mean I don't think if you're consistently laddering this way you're efficiently spending your time. On August 20 2010 11:57 Norway wrote: The large majority of people who end up a big enough sample size will see themselves increase in skill whether they notice or not. They're hands will get faster - they're timing gets better - they slowly refine their 1 or 2 strategies they are solid with. I don't see an issue with this... Prove to me that one of your 30 strats can be my 3 refined and solid strats. Does that mean you're a better player than I because you play a different style than I do? If I do a micro intensive all in and beat you does that mean I can't play a long macro game? Who says that an RTS needs to be a long macro-oriented game. If I get beat by a cheese I don't become bitter at the people that use them I find a way to beat it. Of course every one will improve mechanically. Every one will slowly improve their hand speed, precision, timings and things like that naturally, but this isn't about that. This is about efficiently spending your time if you want to improve. I don't have any 'strats', I have a build for each matchup that ends about five minutes in and let's me scout my opponent, and from that point on I wing it based on what my opponent does. The goal is to counter what they are doing and get to midgame in order to play a long game. This let's me improve everything. If I do a four gate push every game, I think that's inefficient time spent. This isn't really about micro or macro styles, it's about playing a way that is going to best improve you a as a player. On August 20 2010 11:58 Icx wrote: I mean it is their decision to do that, does it really bother you that much? It's not like you are suffering from it, or that you get worse because of it. People can spend their time however they want, I just assume that most people who are playing hundred plus games are looking to improve, and I really question their method. If every one wanted to play that way it would be fine by me, it would confuse the shit out of me, but that's fine as well. I'm not upset when I get easy wins even though the competition is supposed to be ramping up, I just don't understand the mindset that people have when they very rigid builds or rushes if they are looking to be better players. On August 20 2010 12:01 Count9 wrote: A little better are the people that do the same build on every map, they just know their one build and they are completely oblivious why they lose 3x more on steppes than on Blist, they never even notice. Tbh you're not too different from them. You go a build that will get you a high win rate, they go a build that gets them a high win rate. You play to your strong points (macro oriented multi tasking) and they play to their strong points (micro oriented early game battles). You want to practice your macro and management, every time they lose they'll think they didn't rush early enough or micro well enough so they'll want to keep practicing that. I play similar to your style cause I know that eventually with new builds and maps one base all ins are going to shift towards more eco friendly early games and larger army control, but I only know this cause I played sc1. If someone has only played AoE2 where more than half the games are feudal age rushes cause that's the dominant strat and early game micro was everything to success, they would never know to play macro. Hell, we might be playing this game the wrong way, maybe one base all-ins will dominant every other build if microed properly and we should all be working on microing our units. The difference is however that I feel I am playing in a way to improve, not to win games. If I lose a lot of games in a row but I take something from each one of them that will help me in the future, I am fine with that. The players who execute rigid builds or very specific timing attacks are simply winning or losing, and I really don't think they are taking much away from their loses, hence why I feel it's a inefficient use of their time. Maybe I am playing the wrong way, of course I really doubt it, since it's been working thus far and it worked the same way for SC:BW. | ||
|
The_Pacifist
United States540 Posts
It can take less than 20 games to get into Diamond. I personally see it as the equivalent of D+ on ICCUP. The problem isn't that cheesers can get into Diamond, it's that there's nothing above Diamond. Like ICCUP if it only had D-, D, and D+. If D+ is the top, then all the C, B, and A players are stuck there as well. Bronze = D- Silver = D- Gold = D- or D Platinum = D or D+ Diamond = D+ all the way to A Top Players/Pros = Don't really ladder to practice seriously (Who can actually "improve" if you have a win percentage over 80% on ladder, anyway?). Custom games to practice and improve. And since I see Diamond as including the D+ equivalent players, I don't get shocked when I see cheese at top Diamond. | ||
|
a176
Canada6688 Posts
On August 20 2010 12:11 The_Pacifist wrote: People in general, including the OP, I think, overestimate the Diamond rank. It can take less than 20 games to get into Diamond. I personally see it as the equivalent of D+ on ICCUP. The problem isn't that cheesers can get into Diamond, it's that there's nothing above Diamond. Like ICCUP if it only had D-, D, and D+. If D+ is the top, then all the C, B, and A players are stuck there as well. Bronze = D- Silver = D- Gold = D- or D Platinum = D or D+ Diamond = D+ all the way to A Top Players/Pros = Don't really ladder to practice seriously (Who can actually "improve" if you have a win percentage over 80% on ladder, anyway?). Custom games to practice and improve. And since I see Diamond as including the D+ equivalent players, I don't get shocked when I see cheese at top Diamond. +1 agree totally | ||
|
MrBitter
United States2940 Posts
On August 20 2010 12:11 The_Pacifist wrote: People in general, including the OP, I think, overestimate the Diamond rank. It can take less than 20 games to get into Diamond. I personally see it as the equivalent of D+ on ICCUP. The problem isn't that cheesers can get into Diamond, it's that there's nothing above Diamond. Like ICCUP if it only had D-, D, and D+. If D+ is the top, then all the C, B, and A players are stuck there as well. Bronze = D- Silver = D- Gold = D- or D Platinum = D or D+ Diamond = D+ all the way to A Top Players/Pros = Don't really ladder to practice seriously. Custom games to practice and improve. And since I see Diamond as including the D+ equivalent players, I don't get shocked when I see cheese as top Diamond. This is one way to think about it... But I would be willing to wager that the percentage of ICCUP players that were/are B and higher, is about proportionally equivalent to the amount of Ladder players that are Diamond... It's not that getting to Diamond is easy... It's that there's just been such a massive influx of terrible players, that being in the top ten percentile is trivial for anyone with an RTS background. Edit: This isn't to say that your point is invalid and that the issue isn't one that warrants concern... Just that the players that are Diamond are, at least in some capacity, capable of basic 1a2a3a... (Or I guess since we're talking about SC2, 1a) | ||
|
Salv
Canada3083 Posts
On August 20 2010 12:06 MrBitter wrote: o.O Great to see you playing SC2 Salv. I think you raise a valid point, but I will point out one thing that I kind of disagree with: Often times friends will come to me and ask me how to improve their SC2 game. My advice to them is almost always this: "Choose one macro-oriented build order for each match up, and master it." The logic being learn how to play standard first. Once you've figured out how to 14 pool, 16 hatch effectively against virtually everything Terran can do, move on to a new build. But until then, use that one build every single game. Once you learn how to respond to a Toss player after going 14 gas, 15 pool in almost every situation, then move on to something new. But until then, use that one build every single game. For players that approach he "one build dilemma" this way, I have nothing but respect. For the turds that play all-in one-base builds every single game... well, contempt would be the nicest way of describing my feelings toward those noobs... Hey MrB :D, I agree with that advice, I would say that's sound. Playing a macro oriented build is generally safe and reactionary, which I believe is the way to play. In SC:BW I would never memorize a build order up to 60 or 70 supply, I would have a set opening that works well, and I would focus on scouting and reacting, which is exactly what I do now. For example, in PvP I use an opening build that can defend all aggression, and let's me scout them effectively, and from that point on I can choose how to best defend and counter what my opponent intends to do. You could say I do this same, 'build' every game, but I would say it's more like a goal and not a build, since I rarely play the same game twice. On August 20 2010 12:11 The_Pacifist wrote: People in general, including the OP, I think, overestimate the Diamond rank. It can take less than 20 games to get into Diamond. I personally see it as the equivalent of D+ on ICCUP. The problem isn't that cheesers can get into Diamond, it's that there's nothing above Diamond. Like ICCUP if it only had D-, D, and D+. If D+ is the top, then all the C, B, and A players are stuck there as well. Bronze = D- Silver = D- Gold = D- or D Platinum = D or D+ Diamond = D+ all the way to A Top Players/Pros = Don't really ladder to practice seriously. Custom games to practice and improve. And since I see Diamond as including the D+ equivalent players, I don't get shocked when I see cheese as top Diamond. You're probably right with your estimates, but I could easily take out the part about diamond players and the overall point would remain: People seemingly just don't know how to improve, or are going about it all wrong. | ||
|
Norway
United States341 Posts
So I think that it's perfectly natural for a games progression to initially be a shitfest of random cheeses + talentless builds. Because at the moment that's all we really know. How can we all determine your path or my path is the correct way to acquire skill? I think the randomness of play will dictate the direction the strategies take and also how someone improves at the game. | ||
|
Count9
China10928 Posts
On August 20 2010 12:10 Salv wrote: The difference is however that I feel I am playing in a way to improve, not to win games. If I lose a lot of games in a row but I take something from each one of them that will help me in the future, I am fine with that. The players who execute rigid builds or very specific timing attacks are simply winning or losing, and I really don't think they are taking much away from their loses, hence why I feel it's a inefficient use of their time. Maybe I am playing the wrong way, of course I really doubt it, since it's been working thus far and it worked the same way for SC:BW. That was the point I was trying to make, we're basing our judgement on sc1. Sure, basing it off of the most competitive rts game ever is probably not a bad way to go, but we are definitely biased. But I think I misread your original post in that you're not necessarily criticizing all one-base builds but criticizing the inability of current diamond level players to adapt, and I have nothing to say against that in that every rts I've ever played, even rush dominated ones, you'd have to adapt to what your opponent is doing. However using a rigid build is not necessarily bad. Look at Koreans vs. Foreigners in SC1. They have their rigid builds down so well that it actually gives them freedom to adapt to weird things. The probes they didn't queue up to get a goon range or the 2 scvs they cut to get more marines for their push just crushes someone who doesn't have that down. Also having such an optimized build they can deal with a lot of variation because none-optimized adapting builds could just die to them cause they have the most of some type of units you can possibly make in a unit time. Again, I doubt any of the current diamond players are actually doing this, they just want a high win rate with least effort, and all-in builds are definitely the way to go. Everyone loves to win, winning is fun; sure they could improve by aiming towards mid game, but that means losing a lot/stepping out of comfort zone and not many want to lose a lot for the sake of improvement. (e.g. newbies who get scared off iccup cause they get stomped to D- in 1 hour) | ||
|
The_Pacifist
United States540 Posts
Once you hit top Diamond, then what? The only difference between you and the guy ranked above you becomes the number of games you play and how long it's been since you last logged on. Without a true higher place on the ladder to go, people become satisfied with their own level of skill and aren't motivated to find ways to improve sufficiently. And of course, there are the many players who aren't laddering to improve but just to see how far they can make it with their one build/cheese to feel good about themselves. Nothing wrong with that, I think. A low ambition for a serious player but for the casual gamer who's going to go back to Halo, Madden, and MW2 later, whatever floats their boat. | ||
|
ChaseR
Norway1004 Posts
Good teams I've faced coordinate cheese/rushes together and reapers, lings, proxies are just so easy to pull off no matter how much you suck as long as your apm is 20-40 and it's hard to stop because it's difficult to scout the whole map during the first 1-2 mins. The game and maps really are layed out now for rushes to be really effective and easy to do. It's kinda like BW at the beginning when Blood Bath and 4-6 pool rushes was all anyone did. However all the teams that I get now are among the best and 50%+ of the time it transcends into mid-late game heavy macro. | ||
|
IndecisivePenguin
United States771 Posts
I played Random since the official release. I'm currently deciding between playing Protoss or Zerg now, but that isn't completely relevant to the point I'm trying to make. I was never that great of a BW player, and I don't consider myself a very good SC2 player either. I know that I got to Diamond league primarily because of good, basic macro, micro, reacting and timing. I don't really play with any specific strategy; I only know the very basic ideas of build orders out there, and it's usually only within the first few moments of the game (e.g. 9 pylon 12 gate 14 gas, 14 pool 15 hatch, etc). From then on, I just kind of do as I feel. I believe that working with more refined build orders may bring me more success, but I have not pushed myself toward learning any. | ||
|
FragKrag
United States11567 Posts
PvP is still more or less a hellhole though. I'm proud to say that I have never 4 gated :D (though I have used my fair share of void rays) | ||
|
Trowabarton756
United States870 Posts
On August 20 2010 11:56 Garaman wrote: it all stems from the issue that starcraft 2 is a shitty RTS game overall compared to the original. only in this lame game, can you keep going 3 rax push, 6 pooling, etc and still get to diamond. can you imagine on iccup, 4 pooling every game and getting to A? rofl shitty shitty game. =_= I can tell you're new its ok, but some random korean guy got A- doing nothing but zerg all-ins. | ||
|
MrBitter
United States2940 Posts
On August 20 2010 12:31 ChaseR wrote: I haven't tried 1v1 as much yet but Im ranked 1st in random 2v2, 3v3 plat with about 690, 640 points just 20 wins each, match finding system is really confusing, at this point it can take up to 30 mins to find games and it's usually always the same team party opponents. Good teams I've faced coordinate cheese/rushes together and reapers, lings, proxies are just so easy to pull off no matter how much you suck as long as your apm is 20-40 and it's hard to stop because it's difficult to scout the whole map during the first 1-2 mins. The game and maps really are layed out now for rushes to be really effective and easy to do. It's kinda like BW at the beginning when Blood Bath and 4-6 pool rushes was all anyone did. However all the teams that I get now are among the best and 50%+ of the time it transcends into mid-late game heavy macro. Team games have always been like this... If you ever followed BW Proleague, you might remember their 2v2 games. All of them (virtually) ended in the first ten minutes, and were decided almost solely by tier 1 and tier 2 units. Edit: Another thing - SC2 still needs to develop. Think back to BW's glory days. Anyone remember Boxer? He wasn't famous for big macro style and long, drawn out, economic games... He was the cheese-Wiz! It wasn't until players became proficient enough to defend cheese, while still macroing effectively that the metagame evolved into what it is today. Edit 2: And if anyone is following the IEM tourney, we can see some of that already. One base play is everywhere, and only the most adept players are able to consistently deal with it and move into the later stages of the game. | ||
|
Entropic
Canada2837 Posts
On August 20 2010 12:45 Trowabarton756 wrote: =_= I can tell you're new its ok, but some random korean guy got A- doing nothing but zerg all-ins. Plus, theres so many more players playing sc2... these ranks are all RELATIVE, there were way fewer players on ICCUP so of course its much harder to get A-. While in starcraft 2 theres so many newbies and less skilled players that populate bronze/silver/gold/plat. | ||
|
JohannesH
Finland1364 Posts
On August 20 2010 12:13 MrBitter wrote: This is one way to think about it... But I would be willing to wager that the percentage of ICCUP players that were/are B and higher, is about proportionally equivalent to the amount of Ladder players that are Diamond... It's not that getting to Diamond is easy... It's that there's just been such a massive influx of terrible players, that being in the top ten percentile is trivial for anyone with an RTS background. Edit: This isn't to say that your point is invalid and that the issue isn't one that warrants concern... Just that the players that are Diamond are, at least in some capacity, capable of basic 1a2a3a... (Or I guess since we're talking about SC2, 1a) Also remember, most SCBW players don't play on ICCUP And getting Diamond seems easier to achieve than d+ on iccup to me :D | ||
|
ShaperofDreams
Canada2492 Posts
however, a lot of people just like to play cognitively, and good for them. | ||
|
ShaperofDreams
Canada2492 Posts
| ||
|
HeadhunteR
Argentina1258 Posts
| ||
| ||
