I'm looking to do a compilation of BW knowledge to cover all the basis', an easy to see compilation of useful information regarding units, spells and damage types and other in-depth knowledge, micro / macro nuances, maps, strategies, player traits, evolution of the meta game, etc. I'm looking for people to help me catalog things. In particularly right now I'm doing a TBLS compilation of their Wins / Loses by match time, match duration, opener strategy, and other potential stats which involves looking at every game that the TBLS has played that I can find a VOD for.
The goal is to introduce people to BW and help them understand and enjoy it, and to inform or entertain old and new BW fans. If you are personally interested in participating, or if you can contribute in some other way (say banners or art), or if you simply have interest in seeing such a compilation, PM me or leave a note in this thread. I feel that in such a dire time for BW it's important to have positive projects that people can look forward to.
Yes, I think it would be informative or useful (7)
78%
No, it's a waste of time (2)
22%
Yes, but I don't think it's useful since there are other sources (0)
0%
No, I'm not personally interested in statistics like that (0)
0%
9 total votes
Your vote: Do you want to see a project like this
(Vote): Yes, I think it would be informative or useful (Vote): Yes, but I don't think it's useful since there are other sources (Vote): No, I'm not personally interested in statistics like that (Vote): No, it's a waste of time
just to paraphrase this .. you're essentially saying "hey look, here's an awesome game called broodwar. Have a look at this giant spread sheet full of words that you don't know as proof. so, isn't it a cool game?" i think i don't understand what you are trying to achieve at all, and, guessing from the lack of engagement of other people in this thread, most of them neither. You might have to work on how you present your project a bit..
Love the work you did on the fpvod thread :D. Idk about this though. There is already a lot of information on liquipedia about things like the units and build orders. What if you focused your efforts on revamping liquipedia instead?
On April 27 2012 08:23 MisterD wrote: just to paraphrase this .. you're essentially saying "hey look, here's an awesome game called broodwar. Have a look at this giant spread sheet full of words that you don't know as proof. so, isn't it a cool game?" i think i don't understand what you are trying to achieve at all, and, guessing from the lack of engagement of other people in this thread, most of them neither. You might have to work on how you present your project a bit..
Well, the point was to try to segway into player strategies and explainations of situations and show examples of games with knowledge of said nuances so people would understand it better. Because in this case understanding the nuance of the game really does help you appreciate how good the players are or how intense the timings are.
Take this game for example:
To a new comer or even a casual BW viewer, it would seem that either Hero pulled off an extremely ballsy and risky hidden expansion, or that flash was uncharacteristically not scouting the whole map. But in reality if you understand that a 3 gas zerg is a completely different animal from a 2 gas zerg, then look at flash's scouting pattern, you would realize that flash was playing brilliantly and Hero was meta-gaming brilliantly. Flash was ensuring that the zerg never got 3 gases up and running and he scouted every possible 3rd gas location and not a single potential gas spot went dark for more than 3 minutes. And Hero took a min only expansion so he could have easy access to expand to near by gas expansions.
Or take this more recently famous game for example:
If you don't understand the nuances you can't appreciate how ballsy Flash is at cancelling the turret. Only if you understand the build orders, flash's scan pattern, how Dear hid his shuttle/ reaver/robotics support bay and speed upgrade and showed a fast third pylon wall / observer... would you know why Flash would be inclined to cancel that turret. Else you would just see a terran player who apparently made a blunder that may have costed him his game and then tried to expand to a third with out an army, you might have even called him bad. When in reality it was calculated.
Or how about this game:
If you don't understand the tech timings of the zerg caster units as well as the fundamentals of PvZ, you would question why the protoss would want to take a forward base towards the zerg, or why you never see queens in ZvP when they are apparently so effective. You also wouldn't understand why protoss' go HT/storm first before getting an observer and the associated lurker timing or sniping observers with overlords.
Or how about this game:
Flash forcing effort to make extra rounds of lings and having the units the defend it, Flash's turret / academy / scan timings, Effort's burrowed lings for scouting information, the attempted / successful vessel snipes and the scourge placement in anticipation for them, Flash's contain and Effort's breaks and attempts to secure resources, Effort's defiler / consume timing, etc. All of these things casual viewers may just take for granted when in reality it takes serious meta gaming and knowledge of what your opponent is prune to do.
With out understanding all of these nuances you can't fully appreciate actions for what they are. That's why I want to do a project like this. Because with out understanding things like this, seeing a game like this:
May lead to you thinking that Jaedong is a noob, when he's just trying to squeeze out as much as possible with the least amount of army count and scouting.
The key to Flash's game vs Jaedong was not as much as Jaedong trying to squeeze out as much as possible is that he just assumed Flash was going for his usual fast +1 weap into 5 rax. So he didn't expect really any pressure but Flash knew this and went 2 rax acad after taking his nat and hit a timing where jd was not expecting flash to move out.
Caihead, Im very interested. I have had two ideas to improve teamliquid. 1. Add build order tags to each game in the TLPD. So each game would have a few tags shared between Opening, midgame, and late game style. You could then sort the database using these tags. Ive started making a collection of tags already, for example TvP would be something like: + Show Spoiler +
rax expand, mine expand, 2 fac, 2 rax, 1 base tech, siege expand 2 base factory timing, 2 base 2 armoury, 3 base 2 armoury, 2 base biomech (after 3 base) expand and defend, attack then expand
Looks like we have fairly similar ideas when it comes to tagging liek this.
2. Reorganise/add to Liquipedia. Rather than search by matchup then build order like at the moment, you would search by map, then by start position, then by matchup. The article explains the 'go to' build orders over the lifespan of the map. So for example, when browsing liquipedia you would choose your map (Circuit Breakers), then start position (left vs right) (top vs bottom) (cross positions), and matchup before seeing the build orders. Much more accurate this way.
I would be very happy to settle for just one map per season, cross positions only, and 3 builds per matchup maximum. Important not to be over ambitious.
So yeah overall, I think we should modernise what we have already rather than start from scratch. Personally I have 12 Build Order articles planned atm for the strategy section which I intend to put out over the next few days.
Other things to improve teamliquid: 1. Update TLPD team pages, Team 8 isnt there etc. http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/teams 2. Show the teams that retired players were in. Show the teams active players used to be in. 3. Allow a way to display 2 build orders side by side with Time on the y axis. Also, separate columns for depots, scvs, gas buildings, support buildings, units. And finally spaces for interactions (scouting, harass, fights, movement). 3. Ban the words 'allin', 'fake double', 'metagame', 'fast' expand, 'rush'. (kind of a joke, but only kind of lol)
On April 27 2012 13:09 Ilikestarcraft wrote: The key to Flash's game vs Jaedong was not as much as Jaedong trying to squeeze out as much as possible is that he just assumed Flash was going for his usual fast +1 weap into 5 rax. So he didn't expect really any pressure but Flash knew this and went 2 rax acad after taking his nat and hit a timing where jd was not expecting flash to move out.
Well, yea, if you expect your opponent to go for a build then you respond with a build that gets as much economy out as possible while having the army to deal with it, that's what I meant lol. If you could have perfect scouting information in ZvZ and you know your opponent is going for 9 pool you would respond with a 12 pool.
On April 27 2012 13:22 CardinalAllin wrote: Caihead, Im very interested. I have had two ideas to improve teamliquid. 1. Add build order tags to each game in the TLPD. So each game would have a few tags shared between Opening, midgame, and late game style. You could then sort the database using these tags. Ive started making a collection of tags already, for example TvP would be something like: + Show Spoiler +
rax expand, mine expand, 2 fac, 2 rax, 1 base tech, siege expand 2 base factory timing, 2 base 2 armoury, 3 base 2 armoury, 2 base biomech (after 3 base) expand and defend, attack then expand
Looks like we have fairly similar ideas when it comes to tagging liek this.
2. Reorganise/add to Liquipedia. Rather than search by matchup then build order like at the moment, you would search by map, then by start position, then by matchup. The article explains the 'go to' build orders over the lifespan of the map. So for example, when browsing liquipedia you would choose your map (Circuit Breakers), then start position (left vs right) (top vs bottom) (cross positions), and matchup before seeing the build orders. Much more accurate this way.
I would be very happy to settle for just one map per season, cross positions only, and 3 builds per matchup maximum. Important not to be over ambitious.
So yeah overall, I think we should modernise what we have already rather than start from scratch. Personally I have 12 Build Order articles planned atm for the strategy section which I intend to put out over the next few days.
Other things to improve teamliquid: 1. Update TLPD team pages, Team 8 isnt there etc. http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/teams 2. Show the teams that retired players were in. Show the teams active players used to be in. 3. Allow a way to display 2 build orders side by side with Time on the y axis. Also, separate columns for depots, scvs, gas buildings, support buildings, units. And finally spaces for interactions (scouting, harass, fights, movement). 3. Ban the words 'allin', 'fake double', 'metagame', 'fast' expand, 'rush'. (kind of a joke, but only kind of lol)
Problem with finding precise build orders is if you don't have access to a replay it's often difficult if not impossible. Build order tags are also difficult because often players make adjustments or changes to them in response to what they scout, and it's especially hard to put them into categories if an early aggression / all-in gets stopped but the players transition out of it.
Yeah but then again there lots of replays available.
often players make adjustments
Not often, always!
Yes I agree, there is normally a stage when the game becomes what I like to call 'volatile'. The earlier the timing attack the faster the game reaches this stage. However, the tags Im suggesting are more and more generic for the later stages of the game.
But yeah, let me know what your thinking or if you want me to help in some way. Im interested in your project.
I would recruit him. He seems eager :p. Good luck! If you need someone to proof read *cough* liek/=/like(@Cardinal) *cough* after you're all done, I can help with that. I've been away from SC too much as of late. No updated guides seem to be around anymore either .
EPT
.
