|
I have SC2 since release. I started playing online (EU server) around January 2011. In season 4, I got to Silver for the first time. In Season 6, I dropped back to Bronze. Not because I don't want to improve (e.g. in that time my APM has gone up from about 15 to around 60-65, and when I first got Silver I almost fainted), but mostly because of the ladder anxiety I've been struggling with for all this time; I'm working on that now, and you're helping a lot with that. I'll explain.
I realise that I'm absolutely terrible at this game being in the league that I am in, but when reading this blog I became not only mad at but also deeply ashamed of myself. How could I be in a league with people that do not know how to A-move? That believed a PF would be able to finish before a worker rush arrived, even on a map like Tal'Darim? This blog, very well-written and a good read I must add, has motivated me to play (a lot) more and get my ass out of EU Bronze League ASAP, as I dread every moment of being associated with such incredible ignorance like that which you faced during your experiment. Silver may not be much (if any) better, but at least I'll be rid of the Bronze League stigma.
So, indirectly, you've helped another bronzie get his act together :D Thank you!
|
Please have my babies.
5/5
|
This man is doing Gods work.
|
|
|
Fascinating as always, Gheed.
|
Great article. Thoroughly enjoyed reading it.
As a Bronze player myself, I find myself versing people mentioned in the article, but mostly players that aren't as bad. It kind of frustrated me that I don't often get matched with the type of players mentioned (didn't seem to describe most Bronze players). Some players aren't that bad. However, then something happened that made me think twice about my frustration.
I am a Protoss player, and accidentally entered a game playing as Terran (the 'how' doesn't matter). I've not played Terran before so I was in a panic. It was a TvZ. I thought it would be a sure loss, since I have little knowledge of Terran build or what creates what. However, after multiple banelings busting my wall and zerglings trying to attack my mineral line, I managed, with little effort, to win the game. I only had SUVs and a bunch of Marines.
W T F?
Maybe just reading the article has benefited me in some way.
It has opened my eyes to see the mistakes a player can make and use it to my advantage.
Thanks Gheed. 
|
This post was awesome. I still can't believe how much time i spent in bronze. How i self taught myself to win in bronze, expand then learn to spend minerals. Eventually they tire themselves out and i win. Repeat until polished. I can't believe how much more i know now. But everyone starts somewhere. Also if it helps I have several friends who are forever bronze, and I would like to say part of it is fear. Some do know there bad, but multiply that fear of being bad by astronomical amounts so they never attempt to try to learn so they don't have to feel bad. And then there are some people who are just bad, like my friend who plays Terran and has like a 90% loss rate to 6 pool cause he still can't wall off...
|
I laughed so hard at the "Gretorp upgrades"!!!
|
In general it’s easier to just do one strategy over and over than being able to deflect any kind of cheese. As stupid as work rush might seem the hate is understandable because you don’t show “skill” by executing one strategy and they have no way of knowing what your intentions are (one trick pony vs. social experiment). That’s why like the recent trend to try to warn them and make them react properly, it’s more scientific, rather than just annoying :D. Anyway, you know how to present it well, it’s really funny .
|
many bronzies have probably never had to deal with a worker rush before, and even if you tell them how to beat it, some are just not used to thinking that fast.
also, i don't think they realize it is a must-defend situation until it is too late.
i admire your work, though, it might eventually make a few bronzies stop thinking they know everything.
|
|
|
there's pretty much no such thing as a must-defend situation in the sense that no single move can cause you to lose the game permanently but rather defeat is an eventuality that is earned rather than experienced over the course of a great period of time. i think this is where fatigue and stamina demonstrate or show the superiority of the defensive style as "+1'ing" the offensive style, but this makes sense for the most part in purely stylistic terms and at higher levels of conceptual play you can apply parameter values to the "+1'ing" (thus negating the validity of Day[9]'s article on programming or whatever)
so in the end i think a balance of offensive and defensive styles is probably optimal and that any purely defensive strategy is almost certain to fail (and that a superior conceptualization of strategics is something like cauchy convergence which allows for more variety in terms of stylistic constraints)
more-or-less i don't necessarily agree with the viability of tit-for-tat or rather i disagree with its supremacy as a strategy because in my mind the necessary assumptions render any model of a simple tit-for-tat strategy as a supremely dominant strategy to be an overly-simplistic model.
sort of sleepy after reading this whole thread and i guess i'm just gonna revisit it later but try not to be too discouraged Gheed, i think what you've done here is good, on the whole, and for the most part there are no bronze players reading it anyway (and comprehending what you're saying) so i'm sure they're not offended, and i think you knew that intuitively.
|
United States972 Posts
On February 21 2012 00:33 Failsafe wrote:
there's pretty much no such thing as a must-defend situation in the sense that no single move can cause you to lose the game permanently but rather defeat is an eventuality that is earned rather than experienced over the course of a great period of time. i think this is where fatigue and stamina demonstrate or show the superiority of the defensive style as "+1'ing" the offensive style, but this makes sense for the most part in purely stylistic terms and at higher levels of conceptual play you can apply parameter values to the "+1'ing" (thus negating the validity of Day[9]'s article on programming or whatever)
so in the end i think a balance of offensive and defensive styles is probably optimal and that any purely defensive strategy is almost certain to fail (and that a superior conceptualization of strategics is something like cauchy convergence which allows for more variety in terms of stylistic constraints)
more-or-less i don't necessarily agree with the viability of tit-for-tat or rather i disagree with its supremacy as a strategy because in my mind the necessary assumptions render any model of a simple tit-for-tat strategy as a supremely dominant strategy to be an overly-simplistic model.
sort of sleepy after reading this whole thread and i guess i'm just gonna revisit it later but try not to be too discouraged Gheed, i think what you've done here is good, on the whole, and for the most part there are no bronze players reading it anyway (and comprehending what you're saying) so i'm sure they're not offended, and i think you knew that intuitively.
I'm not entirely sure what you're on about, but I'm glad to have you on board, sir.
|
Tears in my eyes :'). The good kind.
|
Just had to make an account to say thank you for a hilarious read, please keep doing more of these.
|
That was excellent
|
5/5
Keep fighting the good fight. With workers.
|
Played in bronze league once. It was painful to try to lose. I think its harder for a masters player to lose vs a bronze player legitimately than to win vs a pro player. I won 80 games in a row. Was sad. Good write up.
|
Thank you.
You put in words what we all wanted to make clear. Basically, the answer to getting better isn't simply "macro" or "micro", but it's to ask yourself the question: If X happens, how do I defend it? If Y happens, how do I defend it?
It's exactly this sort of thinking that propels a player into managing their economy and working towards that vague concept of "macro" that we tend to preach to lower level players. On a similar level, even "micro" involves the same type of question: How can I most cost-efficiently position and utilize my units in this skirmish?
I have one friend IRL who is Bronze, and talking to him about the game always degenerates into "This race OP", "Everyone cheeses in Bronze", "This unit is too strong", and all of that talk upsets me. Sure, as a 1250 point master, I have my own complaints, but as was talked about in the Bronze is Hell blog, I try to own them and I genuinely know the result of a loss was my own fault.
I think his blog entry attempted to get inside the mind of a Bronze player, which as he said, is not necessarily a "new" player. He said that only a few people had 100 games or less. The majority actually had many more games. So you can't use the excuse that these were "new" players. So the question remains: How can you play so much and not learn from your mistakes?
I guess the whole issue fascinates me on some level and I'd like to know what people think. Whether they completely disagree with and are angry with me or they are captivated by this issue as well.
|
When i bought my second account, I played a single game in practise league. It was on a TvZ on the Steps of War beginner-version.
I got to 4 bases, went mutas, maxed out on mutas, mined for a bit, tried to suicide all my workers, then realised he wasnt able to kill them, killed them myself, got 200 supply of mutas.
I didnt attack, just watched. He didnt wall of, had like 10 workers, expanded to his natural 25 minutes in the game, got a pf at both bases, was on 2 rax, 2 facts and 2 starports each with 1 techlab and 1 reactor, but he only build units very occasionally.
I gg'ed out of the game when he had about 20 marines a tank and 1 of each starport units except the battlecruiser at the 35 minute mark. It was an interesting experience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
