|
Hi I wasnt sure where to post this (either here or in general) but since it involves me publishing a strat that i have had worked out for a LONG time now for 2v2 I figured i would ask here.
1. I am not very skilled at the game relative to a lot of the people on this forum, and as such i am afraid that elitest diamond ranked players will bash me down without any consideration into its effectiveness.
2. I have repalys but as i previously said I am not very skilled, as such i can only really show that it works at lower levels (although we have beat a few diamond 2v2 couples with it over the months of its use)
3. Some people will say that i ripped of an existing strat becuase its quite similar and as such i feel that I wont be credited with my work and someone else will simply becuase they are *better* than me. (please not i devised this start before i knew abou the similar strat)
4. Its 2v2, and a lot of people seem to think this is irrelevant will this be an issue?
So am i just being paranoid? How wouild i go about this without getting flamed to death simply becuase i am not a diamond player?
* if its in the wrong spot could a mod please move the thread please
** I will not post the build in here yet simpyl beucase i am at work and want to do it properly with replays and all as it is not theorycrafting
|
Honestly you should just post it with all of the evidence you can muster. If it's bad, people will let you know, but there's nothing wrong with that. That's the whole reason you should post it here: to find out if good players are going to be ablee to crush it.
|
simply put if you have an idea you think might work. then post it here with some replays as soon as you have enough to try support your claim.
trust me its better for us at TL to bash down your idea if its unviable. then for you to not know and waste time that could be spent practicing more useful things.
|
right well i now its viable, so tonight it looks like im browsing my replays for some good ones
|
You also shouldn't worry about people saying you "ripped off" some other better player. You know whether or not you had the idea first. You don't need credit. Worst case, if the idea is similar to one already in use, then you should feel good that you're able to strategize as well as the better players even if your mechanics aren't quite up to their level.
|
Im always looking for new and fun things to try
|
On December 31 2010 09:41 archwaykitten wrote:
You also shouldn't worry about people saying you "ripped off" some other better player. You know whether or not you had the idea first. You don't need credit. Worst case, if the idea is similar to one already in use, then you should feel good that you're able to strategize as well as the better players even if your mechanics aren't quite up to their level.
cheers, that actually made me quite confident in posting it. I never considered it that way.
|
You know the actual problem with being creative, is that there's no such thing as originality.
All the creative people in history never got inspired out of nothing, they always took inspiration from bits and pieces. Don't be afraid of being called unoriginal, take ideas from others and incorporate them into your own. You developed this strategy by taking bits and pieces and assembled them to call your own. There's probably another player out there that had the same mindset, no worries; that just means there's someone you can look for help with when you want to take your idea one step further.
Remember, Even pro players steal timing ideas from each other and use it as a portion of their broad strategy. Look into replay packs, someone's probably done the first 7 minutes of your strat exactly the same but they've probably branched off to a different strategy after that.
|
if you aren't good people will clearly point out things that are wrong with it, sorry that is reality
do not take it personally
if u are noob as u say then other noobs might appreciate it, u can even label it as a noob strategy and then people who excessively bash it are making themselves appear to be dicks
|
The reason why many people find it harder to take seriously when you say "it worked in 2v2" is because 2v2 random (which is the assumed implied meaning of "2v2") is well, random. you could have easily been paired with a more skilled player who carried you through to victory or could have been matched poorly with much less skilled players. Because of the unreliability of team random match-ups they are not taken very seriously by the majority of the community.
However since it appears you have made a reference to a regular team partner. then I think it's possible that you may have discovered or found a viable strategy. I'm personally interested in any sort of 2v2 that is made up of cooperative timing between a pair of regular partners. I think it would be interesting if we started doing a pro-team-league this way. Anyways, because of the unreliability of team random rankings, just remember to check your opponents 1v1 random ranking to get a better idea of the skill level of players you are competing against.
Also please do post replays, if only so we can see what you mean. It may seem like some people are tearing your strategy down sometimes, but in pointing out weaknesses more skilled players can exploit, you learn what you need to improve on and how to become more competitive.
|
On December 31 2010 10:23 travis wrote:
if you aren't good people will clearly point out things that are wrong with it, sorry that is reality
do not take it personally
if u are noob as u say then other noobs might appreciate it, u can even label it as a noob strategy and then people who excessively bash it are making themselves appear to be dicks
This is really it.
If you're afraid of people tearing it apart for valid reasons, then you're not serious about it being a legitimate strategy.
Don't worry about people tearing it apart for no reason.
|
On December 31 2010 10:29 Apprentice wrote:
The reason why many people find it harder to take seriously when you say "it worked in 2v2" is because 2v2 random (which is the assumed implied meaning of "2v2") is well, random. you could have easily been paired with a more skilled player who carried you through to victory or could have been matched poorly with much less skilled players. Because of the unreliability of team random match-ups they are not taken very seriously by the majority of the community.
However since it appears you have made a reference to a regular team partner. then I think it's possible that you may have discovered or found a viable strategy. I'm personally interested in any sort of 2v2 that is made up of cooperative timing between a pair of regular partners. I think it would be interesting if we started doing a pro-team-league this way. Anyways, because of the unreliability of team random rankings, just remember to check your opponents 1v1 random ranking to get a better idea of the skill level of players you are competing against.
Also please do post replays, if only so we can see what you mean. It may seem like some people are tearing your strategy down sometimes, but in pointing out weaknesses more skilled players can exploit, you learn what you need to improve on and how to become more competitive.
Yeah sry, just a differnt minset here as we play 2v2 a lot of the time (unfortunately not lately which suck as we are consistenyl being placed against mid 2v2 diamond...I want my promotion  ). Personally i agree with your pro league idea, the fact that starcraft is often known as a 1v1 game really annoys me epsecially when its team game legacy could in my opinion exceed that of AOE3 which in my opinion was had the greatest team dynamics of any rts to date.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
