|
This is clearly just my opinion, but after playing 82 SC2 games and playing a fair amount of diamond players, I don't think many people have any idea how to improve. Is your thought process one of the following:
- I'm going to use this build, no matter what.
- I'm going to cheese.
- I have no intention of making it to midgame.
If you have any of the above thoughts, I really think you have flawed thinking; that or you don't want to actually improve. Point of reference, I just played a guy, I won't reveal his name, but he has played close to 600 games, and he is a random player. The map is Steppes of War, I scout that he's Zerg and that he's six pooling. What's the thought process here? You're either going to win outright, lose outright, or perhaps do just enough damage to make it even, but probably not.
I have friends who insist doing very specific builds, no matter what the opponent is doing. For example, I have a friend who will make a three gateway immortal rush versus Terran, no matter what they're doing. Even if it gets him a win it's a pointless game in my opinion, you might gain points but what's the actual benefit, I wouldn't say you're actually improving.
My theory about improving is that you should play very safe and have a build that should get you in to mid game with no large disadvantages. All my Protoss match ups start with 10 pylon, 10 gate, just for the off chance that my opponent does something cheesy, like a 6pool, I can deal with it. It puts me behind, but I don't feel it puts me behind to the point where more than 5% of my losses could be blamed on losing that economic advantage. As it stands now, my theory is beginning to pay off, as there are very few Terran, Zerg, or Protoss rushes or cheeses that I can't spot and defend with ease.
If I play 10 games, I expect maybe 1 or 2 to make it to a macro mid game point, everyone seemingly does a rush, or a very specific attack no matter what their opponent is doing. For me, it doesn't matter, and it's actually probably even better because even as I near 800 points I gain some very, very wins because people insist on playing this way.
Can any one explain their thought process if they play this way, or have their own theory on improving? I'd be interested in hearing it.
|
|
~ I'm Diamond, I dont need to get better. ~ Most people lose to this all-in so I'll win most of my games if I do it. ~ Beating someone with just zerglings is fun.
Probably 3 reasons I can think of just off the top of my head.
|
Then of course there are just the clueless kids that don't know doing nothing but all-ins doesn't do so much for you.
I noticed the same thing you did though. Like as an example, probably 80% of my PvZ games so far the Zerg tries to do some kind of ling-baneling allin only to meet a force fielded ramp.
|
On August 20 2010 11:37 gods_basement wrote:http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=135766it sounds like it is YOU who does the exact same build no matter what you scout (i.e. enter midgame with no disadvantages). theres nothing wrong with trying to enter midgame with an advantage. also i'm not exactly sure what you're asking for.
lol, i think ur completely lost with ur post. OP is just pointing out that people in platnium/diamond suck. not all of them, just most of them
|
Many diamonds don't belong in diamond. That's the first problem.
|
I think that mentality will always be embraced by many, but the ladder setup REINFORCES that behavior because getting into Diamond is so damn easy. Once you're in Diamond, it's like you don't feel that urgency to improve as much because there's not much else to amount to, other than #1 in your division, which really means jack shit when looking at all players as a whole.
I wish I fucking sucked at this game, because then I could work my up way through all the leauges as I improve my skills and it'd be fun as hell.
|
On August 20 2010 11:37 gods_basement wrote:http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=135766it sounds like it is YOU who does the exact same build no matter what you scout (i.e. enter midgame with no disadvantages). theres nothing wrong with trying to enter midgame with an advantage. also i'm not exactly sure what you're asking for.
The builds I use are akin to Protoss FE in SC:BW, it's safe and as long as you scout, you can adjust and react to what you see. Everything I do is reliant and based upon my opponent. What I meant by doing the exact same build is something like a Terran player who will make X number of barracks and attack a certain point, regardless of what you're doing. The overwhelming majority of the players I play do this, and many have hundreds of games.
What I'm asking is for clarification from players who do this, or for thoughts from others who hold a similar perspective to mine. I can't be the only one who is noticing that a lot of players just blindly go specific builds and either win or lose with it, over and over again.
On August 20 2010 11:41 Lightswarm wrote:lol, i think ur completely lost with ur post. OP is just pointing out that people in platnium/diamond suck. not all of them, just most of them
Suck at knowing good ways to improve perhaps, haha. It's possible I'm wrong, but I think most good players would agree that playing safe and countering/reacting is the best strategy if you plan to improve at the fastest pace.
On August 20 2010 11:43 Mikilatov wrote: I think that mentality will always be embraced by many, but the ladder setup REINFORCES that behavior because getting into Diamond is so damn easy. Once you're in Diamond, it's like you don't feel that urgency to improve as much because there's not much else to amount to, other than #1 in your division, which really means jack shit when looking at all players as a whole.
I wish I fucking sucked at this game, because then I could work my up way through all the leauges as I improve my skills and it'd be fun as hell.
That's an interesting point. The motivation is that for all extensive purposes, it's not that far fetched to become one of the top 200 in the world on the ladder. As it stands now it's perfectly achievable to be the top 200 in NA, I think you only need 780+ points, whereas for the world you need around 940+, those kind of goals are within any good players grasp I believe.
I wonder what else could be down to curb this lack of urgency.
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
When you're at 800+, there's almost no cheeses and I find you see less all-in attacks like 4 gate (though it is still fairly frequent). Although I do agree with you that plenty of people do this at lower/mid diamond levels and they're never going to get to the top because they're not improving the more critical parts of their game.
On August 20 2010 11:46 Salv wrote: That's an interesting point. The motivation is that for all extensive purposes, it's not that far fetched to become one of the top 200 in the world on the ladder. As it stands now it's perfectly achievable to be the top 200 in NA, I think you only need 780+ points, whereas for the world you need around 940+, those kind of goals are within any good players grasp I believe.
I wonder what else could be down to curb this lack of urgency. Make my top 200 NA seem worthless why don't you!
|
On August 20 2010 11:49 infinity21 wrote: When you're at 800+, there's almost no cheeses and I find you see less all-in attacks like 4 gate (though it is still fairly frequent). Although I do agree with you that plenty of people do this at lower/mid diamond levels and they're never going to get to the top because they're not improving the more critical parts of their game.
I agree about four gate attacks, I barely see them any more, that's one thing that does indeed drop off as you gain more points. I don't even really mean all-in's, just senseless games that you can't possibly take anything away from. You play games with these people and if you defend their attacks, or the thing that they've been building to, they fall apart because you can see they have no transition or experience in playing a longer style game.
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
|
Well my original point remains, that the motivation for improving is that it's not terribly difficult to break into the top 200. If you play, and you improve at a steady rate, it's definitely accessible to any one at this point, unlike in BW where if you weren't a top player, or the very few on the cusp of being top players, you had absolutely no chance of doing so.
|
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.
|
Sticking to one build isn't necessary a bad thing.
Like when I started with BW, I kept practicing 5-fact timing push in all of my TvPs just to master it. Because I felt that it was a strong build which potentially could lead me into mid/late game, or even an early win if the timing window was right.
In SC2, I've been doing the 1/1/1 for most if not all of my games, unless my scout found out that the opponent was going for an all-in cheese then I would altered my build a little bit to counter it.
Totally agree on the "cheese/all-in 24/7" though. I knew this zerg guy who went 6-pool in all of his games against me (I've played him like 10+ times, blame SEA). Maybe he thought it was fun doing that I dunno. But I'd rather struggle to get a win through a 30 minutes of sloppy gaming than a 5-min free win from cheese. The first was so much more satisfying
P/S: I'm only at Plat so my argument might be invalid ;P
|
I really disagree with this post all together
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...
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 to begin with.
The games are independent of each other, no game will be identical. Most of my games for example don't end up going past 20+ minutes. I find that to be extremely normal. Most of my games are 13-18 minutes in length I would say. However the skill difference in that time becomes extremely apparent.
|
-The ladder is just very "competitive", I mean, for some people it is practice, but other people just want to win, and whatever gives them the most easy/most wins at that time in terms of build they are gonna do that.
Why? Because they just want to get higher on the ladder on short-term. And they don't really care about becoming an actual solid/good player on the long-term, they just want to have fun and get wins.
Is that bad?
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.
Let's say everyone just completely focused on becoming a more solid player and started doing builds that are aimed to get small advantages over time and go into lategame.
Now you are playing a tournament, first few games, you get cheesed/get certain pushes, but you have rarely encountered them, so you will probably lose against it (and yes, except if you are just really good, getting put in a spot where you encounter something completely new is mostly gonna affect you in a bad way).
In the end, it's their 50dollars/euro/... and they choose how they want to play.
And yes, let's say 80% of my laddergames are basicly macro-games from my part, but since I got into diamond I also started expirimenting with baneling busts vs P, and a all-in here and there.
Why? Because I was getting to much in a mindset of passive zerg play, and I really needed to test how far I could push it and how I could punish players for doing certain builds. +after playing 5 30-45min games you just feel like doing something else for once.
If you encountered me (or someone like me) in one of those games, then in your eyes that might be a player who just cheeses every game.
But maybe that person doesn't actually do that a lot? Don't raze everyone over the same comb (dnno if that expression exists in english, just directly translated).
And imo the higher you go into the ladder the better it gets, I recently went from 500-550 (wich I bounced between for like 5-7 days) to 700'ish. My last 10 games or so, 7 of them were actual long games where the other player also wanted the game to last further, and they had actuall follow-ups.
edit: just read that your over 800, well I guess i'm more "lucky" with the games I get
|
HI SALV!Q
|
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.
|
I agree, it seems like the majority of protoss and terran players are just sticking to some kind of 1 base all-in build. At least against zerg they are. The sad part is that I still lose to them fairly often.
|
I think he just wants his unit portraits.
|
everything ppl are pointing out is key to the fact that sc2 won't have the longevity of sc1
|
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...
|
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.
|
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.
|
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
|
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)
|
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.
|
Another thing to note is that SC II is an extremely new game. Think of all the old school cheeses and random shit people use to pull back in the early days of Vanilla or even BW. Standard builds are still being created and rebuilt and fine tuned to the point of knowing exactly where you should be at 5-10 minutes into a game.
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.
|
On August 20 2010 12:10 Salv wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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)
|
It could be that they don't even really want to improve, then.
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.
|
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.
|
As a Diamond player, I stand true to the topic when I say that I'm not too sure how to get better. It's not really for any of the reasons in the OP though.
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.
|
Once I got around 700s I ran into the dumb cheeses a lot less o_O
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)
|
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.
|
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.
|
On August 20 2010 12:45 Trowabarton756 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
On August 20 2010 12:13 MrBitter wrote:Show nested quote +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) Also remember, most SCBW players don't play on ICCUP
And getting Diamond seems easier to achieve than d+ on iccup to me :D
|
its easy to improve and to know how.learning resources are as abundant as they have ever been
however, a lot of people just like to play cognitively, and good for them.
|
edit: wrong thread imanoobkillme
|
it was said in bw that players that dont improve are the ones that only want to win fast and easy, that applies to sc2 obviously
|
Dominican Republic463 Posts
On August 20 2010 11:41 a176 wrote: Many diamonds don't belong in diamond. That's the first problem. diamonds are already 5% of the server population on average, what would you have diamond be? 1%?
|
On August 20 2010 13:56 SwaY- wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2010 11:41 a176 wrote: Many diamonds don't belong in diamond. That's the first problem. diamonds are already 5% of the server population on average, what would you have diamond be? 1%?
Top 1-2 % at the most imo.
|
yeah diamonds are pretty rare apparently.
the rock
|
United States10774 Posts
On August 20 2010 14:20 Bosu wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2010 13:56 SwaY- wrote:On August 20 2010 11:41 a176 wrote: Many diamonds don't belong in diamond. That's the first problem. diamonds are already 5% of the server population on average, what would you have diamond be? 1%? Top 1-2 % at the most imo. only diamonds should be those who are good enough to be 700+ in it. (on a skill measurement)
it's really surprising how bad some of the diamond players are. they don't really know how to play at all :o
|
Is Diamond really only 5% of the server population? That must be wrong. I thought it was closer to 20%.
|
Think it's the regional constraints. If it was international the top 5% would look a lot more impressive.
|
I got into diamond without knowing any builds. Make diamond 1% plz =(
|
On August 20 2010 15:01 OneOther wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2010 14:20 Bosu wrote:On August 20 2010 13:56 SwaY- wrote:On August 20 2010 11:41 a176 wrote: Many diamonds don't belong in diamond. That's the first problem. diamonds are already 5% of the server population on average, what would you have diamond be? 1%? Top 1-2 % at the most imo. only diamonds should be those who are good enough to be 700+ in it. (on a skill measurement) it's really surprising how bad some of the diamond players are. they don't really know how to play at all :o
I think it's probably point inflation... I was having problems around 300 diamond a few weeks ago, but I came back last week (I don't really have a lot of time to play games on a consistent basis these days ) and stomped my way to 550ish after ripping off an 8 game winning streak or so. It seemed like every zerg was trying to kill me outright with early aggression, and when that failed, to try to kill me with baneling/roaches... which never worked, because I would go straight to voidrays after they tried their economy wrecking ling garbage. Seems like maybe half of my PvPs are won on a 2-3 gate robo when my opponent completely fails to react properly- it's not like I'm doing a super early robo either, I'm just playing economical and beating them because their micro/unit composition is terrible.
|
Sounds like the topic starter is the one having problems. He wants his macro mid-game position but is unable to get there in most games due to inability to adapt to his opponents.
|
Diamond isn't nearly as indicative of skill as you think.
Cheese is absolutely a valid strategy, as is aiming to end the game early. If you're facing Idra, who you know is a macro machine, and you blow at macro, why the hell would you wanna go late game? Furthermore, if you know he's going to use a macro build because he's bad at early game micro, why would you not exploit it?
These are always the worst arguments. People whine about getting all-in'ed when it's so obvious that they are going for a pure macro build. Bitching about someone using one all-in build is stupid if you don't realize that and adapt yourself.
Plus, just because he has 800 games and 6ooled doesnt mean that's his go-to strat. Tears of six pool victims are like crack. There is no rage like that of someone who just 6pooled, especially someone at a high rank.
|
United States47024 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. I agree with the point, and I would say even this setup is ambitious. I know a fair number of people who were D- at BW and are Diamond now. What's more, mechanics was never the issue in their play--it's their decision-making that was always way more suspect.
IMO it will take a long time for the skill level of the game to even out. Over time, the divisions will be more meaningful because not only will everyone get better at the game, you can expect a large chunk of players at the lower end to drop out and move on once the next big triple-A title comes out.
Of course, expect those people to come back when HotS and LotV come out.
|
On August 21 2010 00:41 Hawk wrote: Diamond isn't nearly as indicative of skill as you think.
Cheese is absolutely a valid strategy, as is aiming to end the game early. If you're facing Idra, who you know is a macro machine, and you blow at macro, why the hell would you wanna go late game? Furthermore, if you know he's going to use a macro build because he's bad at early game micro, why would you not exploit it?
These are always the worst arguments. People whine about getting all-in'ed when it's so obvious that they are going for a pure macro build. Bitching about someone using one all-in build is stupid if you don't realize that and adapt yourself.
Plus, just because he has 800 games and 6ooled doesnt mean that's his go-to strat. Tears of six pool victims are like crack. There is no rage like that of someone who just 6pooled, especially someone at a high rank.
Someone pointed out the same thing as your first sentence a page ago, and I conceded that this was the case, but it doesn't affect the overall point I was making, which is that the vast majority of players seemingly don't know the best way to improve, or spend their time efficiently.
Cheese is a valid strategy, so are rushes, so are specific builds, but I don't think it's an efficient way to spend your time if you're just looking to improve, by just doing the same cheese, rush, or rigid build over, and over again. If you're looking to just win now, then maybe it's a good idea, but I assume most people are trying to improve as players, and I think playing long, hard games, and not quick rush games are the best way to do that.
If I was just concerned about myself, I wouldn't even say anything, I beat these players quite easily. Any one who does a quick rush, or a specific rigid build I find easy to defeat because I scout thoroughly and adapt and react to what they are doing. I'm just saying I don't understand why people would play this way if they are looking to improve.
That Zerg player I used as an example fortunately isn't the only case I'm basing this blog off of. 80-90% of the players I play just use a specific build or attack that doesn't adapt or react to the other player, they simply do what they have pre-planned to do and either win or lose with it. I don't think that's effective, do you?
|
The bonus pool adds allot of points, you can get to 500-700 points pretty easy in 20 wins or so o_o
However at that point the match finding gets really tough, I had no time for a learning curve because in just a few days...boom I'm ranked 1st in plat and it takes 30 mins to find games now which makes me give up waiting and just play custom games.
I'm not sure quite how the bonus pool is replenished, it seems to add bonus points day by day. I think how the match finding system works also has allot to do with it.
|
Piggy-backing off of what Salv was saying -
If you want to win for the sake of winning, any ole strategy will do. All-in builds will continue to be successful until people stop playing SC2, purely because they force the other opponent to react correctly. One mistake and they lose.
If you want to get better at Starcraft 2, however, running those all-in builds is only going to get you so far. You might become the best 4 warpgate rusher in the world, but you're going to immediately be put at a disadvantage when your rush doesn't win the game outright, because you're not going to have practiced builds that cater to later game play.
Sure, practicing cheesey stuff will make your micro better, but what about the other important aspects of the game? Timings, macro (especially later game), expanding, army movement, drop-play/harass, multi-task in general... These are all parts of your game that are going to suffer because you decided that learning to play long-term wasn't your style.
|
On August 21 2010 01:08 Salv wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2010 00:41 Hawk wrote: Diamond isn't nearly as indicative of skill as you think.
Cheese is absolutely a valid strategy, as is aiming to end the game early. If you're facing Idra, who you know is a macro machine, and you blow at macro, why the hell would you wanna go late game? Furthermore, if you know he's going to use a macro build because he's bad at early game micro, why would you not exploit it?
These are always the worst arguments. People whine about getting all-in'ed when it's so obvious that they are going for a pure macro build. Bitching about someone using one all-in build is stupid if you don't realize that and adapt yourself.
Plus, just because he has 800 games and 6ooled doesnt mean that's his go-to strat. Tears of six pool victims are like crack. There is no rage like that of someone who just 6pooled, especially someone at a high rank. Someone pointed out the same thing as your first sentence a page ago, and I conceded that this was the case, but it doesn't affect the overall point I was making, which is that the vast majority of players seemingly don't know the best way to improve, or spend their time efficiently. Cheese is a valid strategy, so are rushes, so are specific builds, but I don't think it's an efficient way to spend your time if you're just looking to improve, by just doing the same cheese, rush, or rigid build over, and over again. If you're looking to just win now, then maybe it's a good idea, but I assume most people are trying to improve as players, and I think playing long, hard games, and not quick rush games are the best way to do that. If I was just concerned about myself, I wouldn't even say anything, I beat these players quite easily. Any one who does a quick rush, or a specific rigid build I find easy to defeat because I scout thoroughly and adapt and react to what they are doing. I'm just saying I don't understand why people would play this way if they are looking to improve. That Zerg player I used as an example fortunately isn't the only case I'm basing this blog off of. 80-90% of the players I play just use a specific build or attack that doesn't adapt or react to the other player, they simply do what they have pre-planned to do and either win or lose with it. I don't think that's effective, do you?
How can you say doing the same thing over and over won't help you improve?
You don't think your micro will improve if you're constantly doing a micro-heavy rush build?? Not any different from grinding away at PvZ to not suck up at the match up any longer. If you 2gate 15 matches in a row, I guarantee that you'll be pretty damn good at it after a few hours. If you're not good at macro but good at micro, 2gate is much more desirable than FE in PvZ if your opponent expos. And if you're able to learn how to micro and macro early in the game—when every single little thing counts—it quite easily transfers over into fundamentals that are useful in long games.
It's really quite the generalization to assume that every single person gunning for a cheese or a rush has no interest in improving their game. Even with people who do seemingly normal builds but don't deviate from them. Are there people with no interest in getting better?? Of course. But it's totally foolish to assume that everyone is that way.
Don't forget, the morons who developed this game packaged it without chatrooms. If you don't have any friends playing, you are stuck practicing by either rolling the dice on a custom game (IE., play shit opponents) or trying your luck on ladder....which is where anyone worth a damn is. You don't gain anything from practice if you're stomping bronze people in custom games. You can't learn if the build you're trying is viable if your random custom opponent is so terrible that you'd beat him with just SCVs.
|
On August 21 2010 04:03 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2010 01:08 Salv wrote:On August 21 2010 00:41 Hawk wrote: Diamond isn't nearly as indicative of skill as you think.
Cheese is absolutely a valid strategy, as is aiming to end the game early. If you're facing Idra, who you know is a macro machine, and you blow at macro, why the hell would you wanna go late game? Furthermore, if you know he's going to use a macro build because he's bad at early game micro, why would you not exploit it?
These are always the worst arguments. People whine about getting all-in'ed when it's so obvious that they are going for a pure macro build. Bitching about someone using one all-in build is stupid if you don't realize that and adapt yourself.
Plus, just because he has 800 games and 6ooled doesnt mean that's his go-to strat. Tears of six pool victims are like crack. There is no rage like that of someone who just 6pooled, especially someone at a high rank. Someone pointed out the same thing as your first sentence a page ago, and I conceded that this was the case, but it doesn't affect the overall point I was making, which is that the vast majority of players seemingly don't know the best way to improve, or spend their time efficiently. Cheese is a valid strategy, so are rushes, so are specific builds, but I don't think it's an efficient way to spend your time if you're just looking to improve, by just doing the same cheese, rush, or rigid build over, and over again. If you're looking to just win now, then maybe it's a good idea, but I assume most people are trying to improve as players, and I think playing long, hard games, and not quick rush games are the best way to do that. If I was just concerned about myself, I wouldn't even say anything, I beat these players quite easily. Any one who does a quick rush, or a specific rigid build I find easy to defeat because I scout thoroughly and adapt and react to what they are doing. I'm just saying I don't understand why people would play this way if they are looking to improve. That Zerg player I used as an example fortunately isn't the only case I'm basing this blog off of. 80-90% of the players I play just use a specific build or attack that doesn't adapt or react to the other player, they simply do what they have pre-planned to do and either win or lose with it. I don't think that's effective, do you? How can you say doing the same thing over and over won't help you improve? You don't think your micro will improve if you're constantly doing a micro-heavy rush build?? Not any different from grinding away at PvZ to not suck up at the match up any longer. If you 2gate 15 matches in a row, I guarantee that you'll be pretty damn good at it after a few hours. If you're not good at macro but good at micro, 2gate is much more desirable than FE in PvZ if your opponent expos. And if you're able to learn how to micro and macro early in the game—when every single little thing counts—it quite easily transfers over into fundamentals that are useful in long games. It's really quite the generalization to assume that every single person gunning for a cheese or a rush has no interest in improving their game. Even with people who do seemingly normal builds but don't deviate from them. Are there people with no interest in getting better?? Of course. But it's totally foolish to assume that everyone is that way. Don't forget, the morons who developed this game packaged it without chatrooms. If you don't have any friends playing, you are stuck practicing by either rolling the dice on a custom game (IE., play shit opponents) or trying your luck on ladder....which is where anyone worth a damn is. You don't gain anything from practice if you're stomping bronze people in custom games. You can't learn if the build you're trying is viable if your random custom opponent is so terrible that you'd beat him with just SCVs.
If you look back to what I wrote I said that players who did that are easy to defeat, because after you've defended or taken them to mid-game, they are out of their element. Of course their micro will improve, they will become very adept at two gate pressure in your example, but if it's countered and dealt with, and they are used to ending games at that point, those players tend to fall apart.
I'm using your 2 gate example, but I don't think that really exemplifies what I am trying to say. You can open 2 gate, pressure, and then react and adapt to your opponent and I would say you're being efficient. I am speaking to players who 4 gate all-in, or who 6 pool, or who have a very specific 8:00 minute timing attack that they will use regardless of what's happening. Is a four gating Protoss probably pretty good at 4 gates? Yes. If you defend it, then what happens? They usually fall a part, because the rest of their game is so handicapped by never playing long games.
Like I said, if you have an important match or tournament, it might be worth it to run a couple dozen games to become adept at a specific build, but to just continuously do something and win or lose is pointless, I really doubt people are getting much out of their losses, if anything at all.
If you play a safe, reactionary and adaptive style, I think you're best off. If the opponent cheeses or rushes, you have to have good micro to defend it, if your opponent turtles, you have to have good macro and harass to ensure you'll win in the end, etc. You're playing a wide variety of games that way and sharpening all your skills, not just your early game micro, or your ability to warp in units out of 4 quick gateways.
|
On August 21 2010 04:03 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2010 01:08 Salv wrote:On August 21 2010 00:41 Hawk wrote: Diamond isn't nearly as indicative of skill as you think.
Cheese is absolutely a valid strategy, as is aiming to end the game early. If you're facing Idra, who you know is a macro machine, and you blow at macro, why the hell would you wanna go late game? Furthermore, if you know he's going to use a macro build because he's bad at early game micro, why would you not exploit it?
These are always the worst arguments. People whine about getting all-in'ed when it's so obvious that they are going for a pure macro build. Bitching about someone using one all-in build is stupid if you don't realize that and adapt yourself.
Plus, just because he has 800 games and 6ooled doesnt mean that's his go-to strat. Tears of six pool victims are like crack. There is no rage like that of someone who just 6pooled, especially someone at a high rank. Someone pointed out the same thing as your first sentence a page ago, and I conceded that this was the case, but it doesn't affect the overall point I was making, which is that the vast majority of players seemingly don't know the best way to improve, or spend their time efficiently. Cheese is a valid strategy, so are rushes, so are specific builds, but I don't think it's an efficient way to spend your time if you're just looking to improve, by just doing the same cheese, rush, or rigid build over, and over again. If you're looking to just win now, then maybe it's a good idea, but I assume most people are trying to improve as players, and I think playing long, hard games, and not quick rush games are the best way to do that. If I was just concerned about myself, I wouldn't even say anything, I beat these players quite easily. Any one who does a quick rush, or a specific rigid build I find easy to defeat because I scout thoroughly and adapt and react to what they are doing. I'm just saying I don't understand why people would play this way if they are looking to improve. That Zerg player I used as an example fortunately isn't the only case I'm basing this blog off of. 80-90% of the players I play just use a specific build or attack that doesn't adapt or react to the other player, they simply do what they have pre-planned to do and either win or lose with it. I don't think that's effective, do you? How can you say doing the same thing over and over won't help you improve? You don't think your micro will improve if you're constantly doing a micro-heavy rush build?? Not any different from grinding away at PvZ to not suck up at the match up any longer. If you 2gate 15 matches in a row, I guarantee that you'll be pretty damn good at it after a few hours. If you're not good at macro but good at micro, 2gate is much more desirable than FE in PvZ if your opponent expos. And if you're able to learn how to micro and macro early in the game—when every single little thing counts—it quite easily transfers over into fundamentals that are useful in long games.
If you genuinely want to improve, wouldn't it make more sense that you focus on a macro play-style if your macro is what's lacking?
Micro is cute, and fun, and can swing battles in your favor, but let's be honest - it's only going to carry you so far.
And macroing off of 2 gates is a far cry from macroing off of 12. If it carries over so easily, the hypothetical person from your example wouldn't have macro troubles to begin with...
|
Alot of the players just don't have the experience of playing Broodwar competitively for however many years like we do. We were just as dumb as them when we started playing BW, we just have a greater knowledge of the game and it makes them look stupid in comparison.
|
This is what i bloged about before..thank god im not the only one...But contributing to the BW vs SC2 skill level i was a Solid D+ terran im a diamond player now 700+.
|
|
|
|
|