|
journal entry one:
i didn't get hit by a car yesterday.
i won't be hit by a car today.
i'm working on my starcraft site, still renaming and moving things around, and noticed that google doesn't update my site on their search results. it shows the site with three titles, from updates over the year, which is not exactly what i want to show people searching or browsing for my site.
i've got this idea that my site would have a retail location. still kicking that around, computer cafes, as they call them in korea, aren't mainstream and it would be a big risk. i've seen all the big ones around here stick around for a few years and them close up shop. this is odd considering that i'm located in Silicon Valley - HQ of Google, HP, Yahoo, Apple, Sun, Oracle, Cisco, netgear, OCZ, ASUS, and dozens and dozens of other companies.
well, as i said still kicking it around. been posting on teamliquid.net. i have something to say here, and i'm being heard.
rant starts here, skip it if you aren't interested in hearing rants:
being here beats having interviews omitted.
beats having other forums coming down hard on you for being able to lone wolf.
my personal favorite is having the moderator (of another starcraft group - on yahoo i might add) arguing strategy and them removing all my posts after proving my point.
the point that i made that the moderator on yahoo really had an issue with:
a. you don't need to lose units to win at StarCraft.
b. the theory that good strategy includes acceptable losses is bad theory.
rant finished
poisonous rant aside, back to the point of this journal entry. i'm still tossing around the idea of a retail location. would that even work in the US model?
your thoughts would be greatly insightful and appreciated.
|
b. the theory that good strategy includes acceptable losses is bad theory.
I really hate people that say this. Even in the context of a game these people have obviously never been in a position where sacrifices are made to win with.
They've also never fought an actual war... but that's usually a given.
|
poisonous rant aside, back to the point of this journal entry. i'm still tossing around the idea of a retail location. would that even work in the US model?
this could use a response.
regarding strategies that include acceptable loss. in more recent memory we have WWII Japanese fighter pilots ordered to take acceptable losses as a winning strategy. we see this strategy in larger use with jumbo planes and fanatics piloting them at the turn of the century.
it's not a new strategy, however history has proven that ultimately it is not a winning one.
there is also the example of the 300 spartans. however, remember in that history lesson a much larger force was held back long enough to halt their momentum, which was the intent of such an action that had a near 100% casualty rate.
going into a battle estimating losses is realistic, however a strategy based on certain losses for your side is a last case scenario, and if you are playing this way i strongly recommend implementing changes so that your strategy has options that make certain losses into potential losses, and even more so a strategy that gives options for overwhelming victory.
so again - i'm still tossing around the idea of a retail location. would that even work in the US model?
|
a. you don't need to lose units to win at StarCraft.
does this make sense?
I mean, wasn't it about the opposite? As you don't have stay with 0 unit loss to win?
|
the point that i made that the moderator on yahoo really had an issue with:
a. you don't need to lose units to win at StarCraft.
b. the theory that good strategy includes acceptable losses is bad theory.
As much as I wouldn't call Yahoo an authority on StarCraft...  You must be trolling, so I won't even bother explaining it.
|
On April 27 2009 04:11 Chef wrote:Show nested quote +the point that i made that the moderator on yahoo really had an issue with:
a. you don't need to lose units to win at StarCraft.
b. the theory that good strategy includes acceptable losses is bad theory. As much as I wouldn't call Yahoo an authority on StarCraft... You must be trolling, so I won't even bother explaining it.
This
At first I misread it and thought that the yahoo moderator was the one who had made those points, but now that I re-read it I realize that you are completely wrong
|
On April 27 2009 03:45 Sparkwind wrote:
the point that i made that the moderator on yahoo really had an issue with:
a. you don't need to lose units to win at StarCraft.
b. the theory that good strategy includes acceptable losses is bad theory.
Intentionally sacrificing units in order to perform a specific strategy, such as using a small attack as a decoy knowing you will lose the small force, is no different than going into a battle with superior forces knowing you'll come out on top, also knowing that you will lose some units. In both cases you will come out with an advantage if you play well while knowing you will lose some units.
If you were to play so conservatively that you tried not to lose one unit, you would get rolled because you would never be able to secure an advantage in economy, unit count or anything else. You have to lose units to win. These are acceptable losses.
Take for example the GOMTV game played today, Jaedong vs Movie,+ Show Spoiler +Movie managed to take out Jaedong's spire before he could get mutas out in game 2, but he did get 2 scourge hatched in time. An excellent move by Movie at this point would have been to sacrifice his corsair so that his shuttle could harass without fear of scourge. In your eyes, this would be a bad strategy?
|
United States47024 Posts
On April 27 2009 05:15 Wohmfg wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Movie managed to take out Jaedong's spire before he could get mutas out in game 2, but he did get 2 scourge hatched in time. An excellent move by Movie at this point would have been to sacrifice his corsair so that his shuttle could harass without fear of scourge. In your eyes, this would be a bad strategy?
+ Show Spoiler +In his eyes, wouldn't using scourge be a bad strategy because by nature, you have to lose them for them to be effective?
|
As far as the starting a new business goes...I wouldn't take a huge risk like that in the current business climate. I mean, assuming your business survives that long I guess your potential benefits will be good once the market corrects, but I would imagine for every guy that gets insanely rich in situations like this 9 go into bankruptcy. I guess that is kinda the way starting a business goes though.  GL, if you decide to go through with it though.
|
On April 27 2009 05:22 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2009 05:15 Wohmfg wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Movie managed to take out Jaedong's spire before he could get mutas out in game 2, but he did get 2 scourge hatched in time. An excellent move by Movie at this point would have been to sacrifice his corsair so that his shuttle could harass without fear of scourge. In your eyes, this would be a bad strategy? + Show Spoiler +In his eyes, wouldn't using scourge be a bad strategy because by nature, you have to lose them for them to be effective?
Not saying I agree with his analysis, (I don't), but from his view scourge are probably considered a weapon rather than a unit. (I mean, if you think about it, scourge are basically just a missle, although you can technically scout with them too.)
|
On April 27 2009 04:11 freelander wrote:
a. you don't need to lose units to win at StarCraft.
does this make sense?
I mean, wasn't it about the opposite? As you don't have stay with 0 unit loss to win?
you've never played a starcraft game where you lose no units?
|
On April 27 2009 08:01 Sparkwind wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2009 04:11 freelander wrote:
a. you don't need to lose units to win at StarCraft.
does this make sense?
I mean, wasn't it about the opposite? As you don't have stay with 0 unit loss to win? you've never played a starcraft game where you lose no units?
What the hell kind of question is that. TROLL ???
|
On April 27 2009 08:01 Sparkwind wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2009 04:11 freelander wrote:
a. you don't need to lose units to win at StarCraft.
does this make sense?
I mean, wasn't it about the opposite? As you don't have stay with 0 unit loss to win? you've never played a starcraft game where you lose no units?
I know Toad has played games like this, and he is a PROGAMER IN KOREA
Clearly sparkwind is correct in every way.
+ Show Spoiler +What a troll, so basically you trolled a mod until he nuked everything you posted. Then you came here to brag about it? Nice plan.
|
first - this is my blog, please show respect towards that.
how does one troll their own blog? you tell me.
|
second
after complicated and tortured analysis i would say that the comment earlier about high risk missions, expendables, decoys, and so on. have their merits.
intentional sacrifice is a LAST resort. this is key, i believe, in improving as a strategist.
sure, plenty of players have great hand eye coordination - but they aren't all Boxers. the first step in improving your game is checking your strategy. if your game went from 85% win ratio to 51% win ratio - it's your strategy that needs evaluation, not your mouse skills, your replay tactic database, or any of that other stuff that just sloooows you down.
the strategy that i've seen the most that results in losses is the intentional sacrifice.
it is a strategy, however let's examine it's usefulness.
1. buys time - which if you are doing is probably a 80% loss probability. if your a pro, perhaps 60% loss probability.
2. redirects opposing force - this has merit - however, redirection doesn't not equal the loss of your recon team. in fact, if you keep that recon team alive, you will be able to gain significant psychological, tactical, and strategic advantages.
this skill takes SKILL. just sending in a dropship with marines vs an experienced player will not result in instant redirection. perhaps an measured response would result. 6 marines = 12 zerglings (and don't start analyzing the math of 6 vs 12 that is not the point). as we've all seen in countless replays, gettting an opponent to redirect is not as simple as delivering forces.
haven't we all seen the all my units in their base and all their units in my base scenario before?
does that clarify what i'm talking about. intentional sacrifice of your units is a LAST resort, it has it's purpose however the intent is NOT TO SACRIFICE. it is to gain an advantage, and part of that is in keeping your units alive ESPecially in a situation where your units are at a disadvantage.
everyone in the world can win in a 5 vs 1 situation. is an 1vs5 an automatic intentional sacrifice? the players who convert 1v5 most often, you know what are probably winning more often as well.
|
third
why is everyone only talking starcraft strategy with me? my strategy is probably not updated after so many years, however that was not the point of my blog post.
why don't i start a strategy post for those of you that want to talk strategy.
look for that in a blog post coming soon.
my question, in retrospect, is probably too early given starcraft 2's delay. it's on the table, answer it anytime if you have the inclination.
|
intentional sacrifice is a LAST resort. this is key, i believe, in improving as a strategist.
Since you worked so hard to troll with all that garbage, I'll respond with a line or two.
Every time a Protoss can send his shuttle in loaded with templars, and do huge damage to economy/infrastructure, it's okay that both the shuttle, and the templars are guaranteed to die. It's not a last resort at all. It happens in every game with harass oriented players. You make the game A LOT easier on your opponent when you don't.
|
garbage is edible - can you eat my blog post right there from the screen? i didn't think so.
easy win. so the strategy for that player is built around making that templar drop?
then that strategy is an intentional sacrifice. if i know that templar drop is coming - guess what it's pretty easy to figure out what to do. sure they might be good at it, but how many times are you going to want to play a player who does the same tactic again and again. sure it might give that player a 90% win ratio - however in the long run, if you are playing right, that player is going to be the templar drop guy. and that's all.
sending units is not the only way to intentionally sacrifice your team. repeating tactics too often, being predictable even if it's a highly advantageous position, are all ways of intentionally sacrificing.
|
All I can say is that if you're serious, don't ever try to run your own business, or build a website... Stick to whatever it is that's paying the bills now.
|
Chef just wants to ban me from my own blog.
yeah, that's reasonable.
|
On April 27 2009 09:49 Sparkwind wrote:
garbage is edible - can you eat my blog post right there from the screen? i didn't think so.
On April 27 2009 10:56 Sparkwind wrote:
Chef just wants to ban me from my own blog.
yeah, that's reasonable.
Hi, I'm Lemonwalrus, and I've been hanging around tl for a couple years now. Not to sound condescending, but I have seen quite a few people find themselves on the receiving end of a banhammer in my day, and have even survived 2 purges, so I like to think I know a little bit about what will and will not get you banned at TL.net.
Let me just offer this advice, take it or leave it.
I find it rare that someone of your low post count will make it very far making posts like that. In the first one, well, you just assault the reader with verbal filth, to be honest, and in the second one, you bait a veteran poster into a flame war.
Both of these things are inadvisable, especially when you haven't built any sort of reputation on TL yet.
Assuming you are a troll, which I hate to say it, but I do, you are heading for a ban either way, so it doesn't really matter.
However, if you are by chance just a guy that's having a bad day, and you wish to stay here, I would strongly suggest pondering the Ten Commandments before you continue posting, because your stay at teamliquid can be terminated at any time.
Good Luck.
|
On April 27 2009 09:27 Chef wrote:Show nested quote +intentional sacrifice is a LAST resort. this is key, i believe, in improving as a strategist.
Since you worked so hard to troll with all that garbage, I'll respond with a line or two. [
Lemonwalrus, thank you for the introduction.
i believe the term garbage was thrown at me, along with troll!!! and what i read as 'don't post here (which happens to be my blog)' and host of other outraged comments, some of which felt like insults rather than comments.
for what i may ask. about the section i clearly marked RANT.
if it continues, i will have to ban people from my blog, which seems a bit premature considering i just started posting.
was the entirety of what i wrote in my first blog post ignored for the parts written as a rant?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
