EPTim not saying embed 4gate into your mind so you can never do anything else, im saying use 4gate, because its simple, for as long as it takes for you to master all the other aspects of the game, before you care about reacting and scouting
A Standard Paradox - Page 2
| Blogs > FODDER~ |
|
turdburgler
England6749 Posts
im not saying embed 4gate into your mind so you can never do anything else, im saying use 4gate, because its simple, for as long as it takes for you to master all the other aspects of the game, before you care about reacting and scouting | ||
|
huameng
United States1133 Posts
On March 20 2011 16:51 FODDER~ wrote: So you're also learning in the same direciton? You think the end result of the metagame will eventually reach a point where each race has one super openings thats equally good and bad against every single possibility and rely completly on reaction and scouting? And that it won't actually be moreso just an ocean of random variations and blind counters? What, no, how did you get that from my post? I think a particular race's strategy on a particular map vs. a particular race will converge to a group of builds, which is impossible to do better than 50% against. The individual builds aren't 50% vs each opposing build, but the group (with weighting, e.g. 80% 2rax and 20% 14cc) together does 50% or better vs every possible opposing group. | ||
|
FODDER~
United States109 Posts
turdburgler: im not saying embed 4gate into your mind so you can never do anything else, im saying use 4gate, because its simple, for as long as it takes for you to master all the other aspects of the game, before you care about reacting and scouting And how do you know you've mastered the other aspects? Or you've been on a long lucky streak, or everyone has been off the entire time? Those are the kickers... there is so much room for descrepency and misread results... huameng: What, no, how did you get that from my post? I think a particular race's strategy on a particular map vs. a particular race will converge to a group of builds, which is impossible to do better than 50% against. The individual builds aren't 50% vs each opposing build, but the group (with weighting, e.g. 80% 2rax and 20% 14cc) together does 50% or better vs every possible opposing group. Oh I gotcha'. Accidentally conjoined your comments with another and got your opinions mixed up. Good insight though.  | ||
Xeofreestyler
Belgium6787 Posts
| ||
|
DocM
United States212 Posts
| ||
|
Impervious
Canada4222 Posts
In BW, I would always 9 hatch, in every matchup. This is because I had roughly the economy of a 9 pool, with the lings coming out at about the same time as a 12 pool, speed/lair coming at around the same time as a 12 pool speed/lair, and a 2nd hatch + earlier creep than a 12 hatch. There was no situation where I was utterly fucked beyond belief. There were numerous timing windows available that my opponents could abuse, regardless of the opening they chose, however, since I knew what those timing windows were, I also had to learn how to deal with it. This allowed me to get into the midgame in every game on close to even footing. From that point, I tried to play as if I was better than my opponent, and make up for that disadvantage I put myself in. This was solely for when I was laddering. I still practiced more common openings. Because of this, when I was in a specific match, I could tailor my openings to face what I expected from my opponent, and since I was used to fighting off worse abuses of timing windows that I left myself open to on a regular basis, it made it easier to deal with them in games that actually counted (I didn't, and still don't, take laddering seriously), since I did not leave as big of windows open in those games. | ||
|
-orb-
United States5770 Posts
| ||
|
tyCe
Australia2542 Posts
The link goes to a blog with scans of the notes from the Starcraft professor from Berkeley (?) at a special lecture in Chicago. He explains something that progamers and veteran starcraft enthusiasts already know but never phrased into words. Just read the notes and you'll be vindicated. Also, "standard" in colloquial SC2 speak just means any one of the builds that are accepted to be solid and safe in the current metagame. | ||
Chill
Calgary26004 Posts
On March 23 2011 23:50 tyCe wrote: The OP is completely right in one sense. It is all conveniently explained in another recent blog here. The link goes to a blog with scans of the notes from the Starcraft professor from Berkeley (?) at a special lecture in Chicago. He explains something that progamers and veteran starcraft enthusiasts already know but never phrased into words. Just read the notes and you'll be vindicated. Also, "standard" in colloquial SC2 speak just means any one of the builds that are accepted to be solid and safe in the current metagame. He's not a professor lol. He was a second year student at that time. | ||
intrigue
Washington, D.C9935 Posts
| ||
|
FODDER~
United States109 Posts
intrigue: oh dear. you are way overthinking this. the best way to resolve your crisis is to go play a ton of games on ladder, and then laugh at this thread in year. I already do play a lot. Though you are right, it's always good to have a look past to the past every once and a while and laugh at how oblivious you used to be about things earlier on. But I enjoy theorizing and philosophy so I don't see what's so bad about analyzing metagame a little bit more than most people bother to.  | ||
| ||
