|
On April 03 2011 02:32 zatic wrote:
9 Start theorycrafting and discussing changes to the game
I presume the difference between experimental strategy and theorycrafting here would be the inclusion of replays of the strategy, rather than empty discussion without any examples of its application?
|
Zatic, you instantly became my hero. This is the kind of administration I want to see more of from TL across all forums. Thank you for your hard work, pun
|
On April 04 2011 10:58 ManOfScience wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2011 02:32 zatic wrote:
9 Start theorycrafting and discussing changes to the game
I presume the difference between experimental strategy and theorycrafting here would be the inclusion of replays of the strategy, rather than empty discussion without any examples of its application? Ya, generally if you have replays to back up what you are talking about you should be safe.
|
This is the best thing I have seen on the strategy forums in a long time. I too am guilty of making not the best OP, but I really, REALLY like rules 2, 6, and 9.
Those alone will make a significant improvement in the post quality here.
So many people just barge in with their first line as "well I didn't watch the replay but....." in a thread where the OP has clearly outlined that watching the replay before posting is critical to your understanding.
Be very, very drunk my friend. The banlist will be a good read.
|
If mods are busting out the banhammer, can they go after people who say "your macro was bad" without saying what about the players' macro was bad/why macro lost them the game, or who ignore specific requests for help from the OP with battle tactics in favor of "oh you had 3 workers queued consistently starting at the 9:30 mark and you were supply blocked for fourseconds while your depot was finishing when you were at 126/126 food, that's why you lost even though you had a 20 food advantage at the start of the battle; go work on your macro until it's perfect and forget about fighting"? 'Cause that s*** is bush league.
On April 03 2011 08:25 Aequos wrote: Out of curiosity, what determines the quality of the advice given in borderline cases? For example, if someone had suggested 1 gate FE in PvT back at the release of SC2, people would have called him crazy, and his advice would have seemed useless. However, now it's a build that at least is available as an option in PvT as it can hold off most bio plays. Likewise, people wouldn't have dared face a Zerg in a macro game back in the early days following the release, but now it is the standard for playing PvZ. Is the usefulness of the advice determined only by the current available strategies?
This sort of falls under point [9] as well, as it could relate to theorycrafting.
I agree with a lot of this; coming up with good strategies involves lots of stumbling in the dark. I look forward to digging up threads closed by overeager mods who know The Right Way To Play SC2 only to find that two months later the "wrong" advice turns out to be genius. EDIT: Okay, looking at the OP on something bigger than the phone it sounds like anyone who can back up what they have to say is probably in the clear. Still will be on the hunt for geniuses unappreciated in their time, mostly for fun though.
Someone suggested making tanks in TvP? Hahah, what a n00b, P can just make immortals & chargelots and win! Banned!
oh wait Jinro beat oGsMc with mech play? Uhhh ... these are not the droids you're looking for. Move along ...
Drinking Gatorade before you go the bed is a great way to avoid a hangover. That's all I've got on that subject.
|
what if I don't have something strategically relevant to add to a post but it's REALLY funny and/or witty, I mean involuntary knee slapping funny.
|
This sounds like an excellent idea. I do agree that there are many garbage posts in the strategy forum. Just as some of the others comments in this post, take the time to make your post worthwhile. Watch the replays, think of what you would do in that situation, and write it in such a way that it is intelligible, is relevant, and above all actually helpful and not something generic. More power to you! And have fun with your mad parties!
|
The sooner you can apply this purge to the rest of the sc2 forums (the entire forum?) the better. I love you for doing zatic, and i look forward to the progress of the strategy forum. Sometimes, we just need some Chill-style loving in here.
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/Chill/theproblemwiththestratforum.jpg)
Good luck.
|
Purge now for the love of God
|
|
yayay hurray for purge :D i'm tired of seeing a new 4-gate thread come up every week xD
|
On April 04 2011 14:23 Guppers wrote: what if I don't have something strategically relevant to add to a post but it's REALLY funny and/or witty, I mean involuntary knee slapping funny.
Please save it for SC2 General or Blogs.
|
On April 04 2011 05:17 Deja Thoris wrote: I'm a lower level player (gold) and I'd love to see strats aimed towards lower levels too. I know the majority are aimed at high level and I'd love to see that change a bit.
This is something I was on the fence about for a while: is there really such a thing as a 'high level' or 'low level' strategy?
Some people say scouting and timings won't work against an opponent who isn't playing at masters level; other people say that won't matter because if a strategy can beat masters level play it will beat a more imperfectly executed build in silver/gold. Then the first people say 'Sure, it'll win if you have masters-level execution yourself, but if you don't (and you don't, because you're in silver/gold), it might instead lead to a loss. To which the reply is "Then you should be working on your execution, so all is well with the world."
I'm now leaning towards the 'stick to top strategies and just work on execution' camp myself, just because it removes variables. If I lose doing something that works in Master league, at least I know I can watch the replay and see what I did to screw it up.
EDIT: Case in point, I once created a thread discussing the potential merits of a ramp hatch on Jungle Basin. The problem was, although I could make some statements about economy and larvae compared to a 14 hatch, and some substantial timing differences in terms of defending the ramp with spinecrawlers, my lack of experience meant I could only make the most tentative, limited statements about the build's overall utility. I have to accept that if I want to make meaningful contributions I need to put in the time and effort to improve first.
|
|
Hehe - yeah; I thought that was a pretty low-hanging fruit too data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c81e3/c81e334f952fa6a3b77a0f55297a8c05972c04b5" alt=""
"well , solution is simple , make Vikings just "a little" more than rubbish vs Mutalisks"
"A reasonable buff to turrets/thors or a valkyrish unit could do the trick..."
"Hey, does anyone else hear that? A kind of roaring, whistling sensation like something approaching very fast; very, very fast. I wonder if it will be friends with me?"
|
On April 04 2011 18:11 Umpteen wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2011 05:17 Deja Thoris wrote: I'm a lower level player (gold) and I'd love to see strats aimed towards lower levels too. I know the majority are aimed at high level and I'd love to see that change a bit. This is something I was on the fence about for a while: is there really such a thing as a 'high level' or 'low level' strategy?
Speaking as someone who had a 30% win rate in bronze for his first 50 games and is now high platinum with a 65% win rate over my last 50 games, you have to learn how to deal with a different set of things in at the low levels. You see more cheese and more turtling; usually the turtlers are trying to tech to mass BCs/Void Rays or mothership/colossus/carriers or whatnot. "Just macro a giant bioball/mass stalkers/whatever" isn't enough; you have to learn a thing or two about unit composition and army control to win these games in less than 45 minutes.
|
Please be gentle my intentions are good O_O
|
I'm glad for this as long as the dumbasses on TL stay away. The only bad thing about it is scaring the new members of TL from posting because they are afraid they might break a rule and get banned.
|
So you want 1 person to write a 10 page essay on how to counter mech play from T as Z? If everyone posts small words of advice, it will be better than 20 guys each posting a page long essay.
|
On April 05 2011 02:21 Dismantlethethroat wrote: So you want 1 person to write a 10 page essay on how to counter mech play from T as Z? If everyone posts small words of advice, it will be better than 20 guys each posting a page long essay.
No. Because if 100 idiots post the same thing over and over that come to their minds first. It's never as good as if someone takes some time and posts a well thought out statement with examples and explanations.
|
|
|
|