EPT[G] How to Improve Efficiently at SC2 1v1 - Page 23
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
|
EnOmy
Australia183 Posts
| ||
|
ShnAndrei
Romania164 Posts
I am currently a 'top' gold level player on the EU server. I just read the entire thread and I have to say it took me about 2 hours and a half (maybe I am a slow reader :s). So I can only imagine how much time it took you to write it and I fully appreciate it. Thank you for taking so much of your time in making this elaborated thread on improving. Some of the things I've read are also stated by Day[9] in his dailies. I also found some helpful things to know, but above all it was great to hear the opinion of a top level player that was talking through experience. It is always great to know how another player got where he is and I find it priceless when he is sharing the way he achieved that with the rest of us. I have some questions that bother me though, because I never did the build 'emulating' thing. I perfectly agree with you on focusing on one single build until having some sense of macro, and I did this unwillingly before getting to silver (doing only the 3rax build the best I could). But what I want to ask you is if it is really important to copy a professional player's build. I find it pretty hard to do, because I know those builds have lots of twists depending on what the opponent does, and I couldn't know all of those twists even if I study a lot of replays of that player. Also, some of those builds are hard to pull of by low level players, because some of them are demanding great micro (like the risky 1 rax FE build) or are very risky if you are not an experienced player. The questions: (!) 1. How can we distinguish the safe builds that we can also pull off, from the ones that are only pro-oriented? 2. Wouldn't it be easier for us to plan our own games and learn from mistakes if we think our strategies are good enough for our current leagues (and improve the builds while meeting better and better players, until they are perfect)? Yes, I know I suck and that I should be humble.  It's just that I find it very hard to understand what is in a top player's head when he performs a build and I am also unaware if that strategy is good for improving. (!!!) 3. And finally, if I got to gold (and meeting platinum players) with some 'build orders' of my own that I perform against each of the three races, would it still be better for me to abandon everything I gained regarding the refinement of those build orders and try to borrow a build from a professional (I would really like to hear your opinion on this)? | ||
|
CecilSunkure
United States2829 Posts
On May 23 2011 04:30 ShnAndrei wrote: Hi Cecil, I am currently a 'top' gold level player on the EU server. I just read the entire thread and I have to say it took me about 2 hours and a half (maybe I am a slow reader :s). So I can only imagine how much time it took you to write it and I fully appreciate it. Thank you for taking so much of your time in making this elaborated thread on improving. Some of the things I've read are also stated by Day[9] in his dailies. I also found some helpful things to know, but above all it was great to hear the opinion of a top level player that was talking through experience. It is always great to know how another player got where he is and I find it priceless when he is sharing the way he achieved that with the rest of us. I have some questions that bother me though, because I never did the build 'emulating' thing. I perfectly agree with you on focusing on one single build until having some sense of macro, and I did this unwillingly before getting to silver (doing only the 3rax build the best I could). But what I want to ask you is if it is really important to copy a professional player's build. I find it pretty hard to do, because I know those builds have lots of twists depending on what the opponent does, and I couldn't know all of those twists even if I study a lot of replays of that player. Also, some of those builds are hard to pull of by low level players, because some of them are demanding great micro (like the risky 1 rax FE build) or are very risky if you are not an experienced player. The questions: (!) 1. How can we distinguish the safe builds that we can also pull off, from the ones that are only pro-oriented? 2. Wouldn't it be easier for us to plan our own games and learn from mistakes if we think our strategies are good enough for our current leagues (and improve the builds while meeting better and better players, until they are perfect)? Yes, I know I suck and that I should be humble. It's just that I find it very hard to understand what is in a top player's head when he performs a build and I am also unaware if that strategy is good for improving. (!!!) 3. And finally, if I got to gold (and meeting platinum players) with some 'build orders' of my own that I perform against each of the three races, would it still be better for me to abandon everything I gained regarding the refinement of those build orders and try to borrow a build from a professional (I would really like to hear your opinion on this)? This is really wordy. I'm just trying to help you out when I say this; anytime you message someone that might be a busy person that gets a lot of questions, make it as concise as possible. Because I'm a really really busy dude, but I hate to not answer questions people ask me, because I'd hate it if I sent a message to someone just to have it ignored. To answer your question, yes you have to copy other people's builds, if it wasn't necessary I wouldn't have made it nearly the entire piece's focus. Also, it isn't very hard. You just mimic the overall idea. The subtle variations or deviations don't really matter, as I never even talked about them in the article. I only mentioned learning the purpose of a build through trial and error. If a high level player is playing a high level player, and both are playing mind games or reacting to obtained info, then you will never experience that sort of thing at a Gold level. In the sub Master's level of play the defining factor of who wins is wholly determined by who has more stuff. So just copy the standard play build pros do and you'll be sure to have to most units possible at the right times with the best possible economy. A top player's head isn't mysterious or profound as most people would think it to be. A top player's head can simply think strategically while playing and has a very solid base of experience, and excellent mechanics. The reason they can think strategically is because their mechanics are so great that they don't need to focus to perform the tasks necessary to play, and instead can think about other things. It's like a hierarchy of needs. First in order to play, you need to be able to input actions into the game. Second, you need to be able to input the right actions (macro). Third you need to be able to input lots of precise actions and manage your units effectively (micro, macro, mechanics). Lastly once all previous things have become muscle-memory you can start thinking about things like game sense and decision making. So, you are in gold because you cannot macro. You cannot macro because you have convinced yourself that it's too hard to copy better players, probably because you are just too lazy to go do it. So then you justify not doing it with "Well I'll never learn the intricacies of the build so I might as well learn nothing about it". when in fact, learning intricacies of builds at your level is like learning to do a gymnastic performance when you have trouble with a somersault. | ||
|
ShnAndrei
Romania164 Posts
| ||
|
vincentlee
China1 Post
| ||
|
Svizcy
Slovenia300 Posts
This topic should be featured at top imho so if any mods are reading this... good day, svizcy | ||
|
Swap
Sweden144 Posts
 | ||
|
CecilSunkure
United States2829 Posts
On May 24 2011 16:34 Swap wrote: Great write up Cecil, finally had time to read it all. I do miss your commentaries from wcreplays too Wrong Cecil, this one is different | ||
|
ZeroTalent
United States297 Posts
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=216550 They're not perfect, but they're a very good tool for improving your macro. It might be worth including a link to the thread in the "Improving your Macro" section. I was working on something like this but Major's map is much better than anything I have ATM . | ||
|
kuro466
United States19 Posts
1) Since the guide gets into nitty-gritty details of hand positioning and mouse settings, I recommend adding game-configuration suggestions. (a) set "show unit status bars" to "always" (b) set "menu bar mode" to "unclickable" or "hidden" (c) set "control groups" to "unclickable" (d) check (turn on) "show game timer" ------- 2) I play zerg, and I found it much easier to learn micro before macro, by starting with shorter simpler games through early aggression builds. I'm currently no pro (only platinum 1v1), but back when I was silver/gold I read similar guides suggesting learning macro first. I found this method incredibly frustrating as macro zerg play needs to effectively master too many skills at once... a) macro zerg players have to have decent micro during engagements to have a chance to win them. a-move a zerg army into a similar sized T/P army, even with reasonable composition, and zerg will much more frequently lose. b) macro zerg players have to scout to know what midgame build to use. It's commonly discussed that zerg is the reactive race... we need to know what the enemy is building to know how to be prepared. Fighting off a 7m banshee push requires very different units than fighting off a 7m 6-rax marine push. New zerg players frequently complain about the difficulty scouting behind the wall. Even Idra recently complained about it in a 'state of the game'. As a new zerg player, my multi-tasking skills were very poor, and the more energy I focused on scouting, the more my macro slipped, and vice versa. c) macro zerg players have to decide when to build drones and when to build army. There is no mechanism naturally limiting drone production, so rules like "when you have more than XX minerals make more army production buildings" don't work. For pro zerg, this is heavily dependent on scouting. The beginning player is not great at multi-tasking, and not great at scouting, which makes it easy to make a mistake here and build the wrong amount of army at the wrong time. For all these reasons, in my opinion, telling a zerg to learn to learn macro first is telling them to simultaneously learn micro, scouting , drone/army balance, and macro. For me it was just too much at once. Further, macro games are longer, which not only slows down the feedback cycle, but also makes it easier for a zerg player to make mistakes in all of a/b/c and not know which of them are the most important problem to fix. Eventually I tired of this confusion, and started using early aggression builds. Early aggression builds fix the above problems for new zerg players and allow them to learn one thing at a time. The three main zerg 5m aggression builds (11/10 pool - 7rr, speedling, and speedling/bling) are all relatively short build orders which are easy to practice and execute. They can also easily be shifted into an earlier 4m ling rush if needed. (I also spent a little time learning 6/7/8 pool, because they offer an even smaller realm to learn zerg ling micro. Understanding the mechanics of how they work also helped me learn to beat them.) For me, learning zerg through early aggression meant: a) Focus on zerg micro first. An early aggression build allows you to learn basic engagement positioning and basic micro first, which is critical to succeed as a zerg player. b) Learn scouting without so much pressure. A 5m aggression build reduces the window of opportunity for 6m tech pushes (banshee rush, dt rush, vr rush), which are common and successful against zerg players at low ladder levels. Early aggression reduces the dependence on scouting tech rushes. It also means that the tech-build is often discovered at their base, with only one tech unit is on the field, providing some time to reactively handle it. Even with 4-5m rush builds, there is opportunity for early-game scouting, so that becomes the second challenge. Scouting to compose the right 4-5m rush. Scouting to discover 6m tech pushes, and shift the aggression earlier (to 4m). c) Learn multi-tasking. Early aggression reduces the army vs drones decision complexity. A 5m aggression build has a set number of starting drones before army. After some basic micro and scouting is figured out, a player can apply their focus to multi-tasking. At first this can just mean building more army while attacking, eliminating the need to balance army vs drones. This requires learning to inject and build units while still controlling an army. As soon as this is understood, the player can finally begin to build some more drones during the rush and allow a 4-5m rush to transition into a macro game. At this point, the zerg player has incrementally built up the skills to play a macro game, and by using scouting, and the knowledge he has gained about being reactive with zerg, he can begin a macro game with confidence. This method of starting with micro, and building up skills one by one worked much better for me to learn zerg. Instead of playing for 8-12 minutes to a-move an army which the forums say is a reasonable counter and lose, or worse, get caught by an unexpected tech push -- I could work on one skill at a time. Now when I play a macro game, I better understand what happened to cause a loss, I have the attention to learn to better use later tier units, and I can focus on only a few new challenges each game. Other players (especially zerg) who find themselves frustrated learning macro-first might try a similar route. Very recently, I've enjoyed shifting to the no-gas Ice Fisher opener, because it affords me a larger mineral income to scout with overlords, throw down extra hatches, get a bunch of queens and creep spread, and get an econ advantage before first army contact. In the limited Terran/Toss I've played, the above pattern doesn't seem as prevalent, because (a) the armies are more effective with simple a-move, (b) the armies are more general purpose, and (c) the army defensive strength is realitively larger from 6-8 minutes. As a result, I can see how a focus on macro-style first may be easier with those races. | ||
|
IIIOmegaIII
Sweden319 Posts
| ||
|
upz
Denmark1 Post
| ||
|
whoso
Germany523 Posts
| ||
|
charliexjustice
United States42 Posts
So, first of all, thanks very much for those recommended builds! Do you have a recommended "standard" PVP build as well? I read through your guide again and couldn't find one, sorry if I missed it. | ||
|
CecilSunkure
United States2829 Posts
On May 30 2011 08:40 charliexjustice wrote: I am a protoss player, and I have been practicing your recommended PVT and PVZ builds exclusively and improving greatly with them. So, first of all, thanks very much for those recommended builds! Do you have a recommended "standard" PVP build as well? I read through your guide again and couldn't find one, sorry if I missed it. Maybe you missed this part... On April 03 2011 13:13 CecilSunkure wrote: This document is not about current strategies or trends, it's about improving the aspects of gameplay that apply to any player despite current strategies or trends. | ||
|
blackodd
Sweden451 Posts
| ||
|
Kleinmuuhg
Vanuatu4091 Posts
| ||
|
charliexjustice
United States42 Posts
This document is not about current strategies or trends, it's about improving the aspects of gameplay that apply to any player despite current strategies or trends. Yes, I did read that part, and that is overall why I think this is such a great guide, and why I keep coming back to it. However, I also noticed that you had recommended builds for PVT and PVZ with this reasoning: Hands down, the best builds for people to improve with are ones that increase the chances for learning moments to happen. It is my belief that these builds are ones that get the improving player a lot of information, are well-documented on some sort of forum like TeamLiquid.net, and are commonly used by top players. The PvZ and PvT builds you recommended fit that description perfectly, I was just wondering if there was any such PvP build you knew of that fit the description as well. Thanks again for the great guide! | ||
|
iStarKraft
United Kingdom79 Posts
On June 01 2011 05:49 charliexjustice wrote: On April 03 2011 13:13 CecilSunkure wrote: This document is not about current strategies or trends, it's about improving the aspects of gameplay that apply to any player despite current strategies or trends. Yes, I did read that part, and that is overall why I think this is such a great guide, and why I keep coming back to it. However, I also noticed that you had recommended builds for PVT and PVZ with this reasoning: The PvZ and PvT builds you recommended fit that description perfectly, I was just wondering if there was any such PvP build you knew of that fit the description as well. Thanks again for the great guide! I recommend learning the 4-Gate for now, as it is still solid with the new patch. The version I recommend is the one in this replay of Naniwa versus NightEnD, where he gets two gates initially, then adds two more later as well as getting no zealot, but 3 stalkers before the first warp in. Also, the replay illustrates how to break an opponent when they forcefield their ramp with sentries, and even when they get an immortal out. iSK | ||
|
Numy
South Africa35471 Posts
 . Anyway here goes:1) Boxing - I'm a small handed man(:D) currently using kinzu and I believe finger grip or something very close. I noticed in your boxing section you state that the optimal way to do it is top left to bottom right but I've always naturally done it either alternating ways or the other way. I'm just wondering if this is something I should actively try to go about changing or if it doesn't matter. I'm mainly wondering about fatigue and if it might effect that. 2) Hotkeying - The other question is that of hotkeying. I used to main zerg for awhile and I got around mid masters before I decided to change to Terran. I've been training them up for the last month or so and got around with a hotkey setup that had 5 as all production and tabbing between it but recently I've started to notice errors with the method and wondering if i should change it around. I have 1-4 as army and want to try get that working solidly but many matches I play I hardly hotkey army so I'm not sure if I should sacrifice those hotkeys and shift things down in order to compensate for added production hotkeys or I should focus on using better army hotkeys and shift everything up to accomodate. Something like 5 rax 6 cc 7 fact 8 starport. I'm sorry if you covered this before, I haven't read the whole thread(So tired right now , exams :<) but if you have I'll find it eventually. Thanks | ||
| ||
