EPTOn July 08 2011 12:46 Xapti wrote:
I didn't like this guide personally. I found it very convoluted and/or just plain poorly written.
I don't understand why 2 people said it was well-written.
How is this good English?:
And that's just the quality of the English sentence syntax, let alone the lack of structuring, and even formatting. Sure, some basic paragraphs are there, a bit of bullets, and titles, which is useful but it doesn't make it great, nor does it fix the problems.
For some parts that I actually did seem to understand the reasoning, I wouldn't even necessarily agree with them. The topic also seemed to cover the game in way too much of an analytical and narrow-visioned method. The problem is that different maps have different timings, different game actions change timings, and different players have their own differences in build style.
Not only that, but oftentimes players will not opt for the most efficient way of running a certain build since it's too much of a dead giveaway of their actions.
Aside from those things, there's nothing too wrong with writing and suggesting to play to analytical, but I would have to say that it's a small minority of people who excel at that. Overall I'd say this goes over too many people's heads, and is definitely not worth the time practicing and training the brain to deal with some of the stuff mentioned.
As a suggestion to the author, aside from just fixing up some structure here and there (and everywhere), I think it would be a good idea to explain and/or introduce various concepts that you talk about in a sort of explanation section (or preface). In addition, there should be some sort of introduction which can be related to, or part of the explanation of concepts, as well as overview (conclusion) paragraphs after a section.
I didn't like this guide personally. I found it very convoluted and/or just plain poorly written.
I don't understand why 2 people said it was well-written.
How is this good English?:
And that's just the quality of the English sentence syntax, let alone the lack of structuring, and even formatting. Sure, some basic paragraphs are there, a bit of bullets, and titles, which is useful but it doesn't make it great, nor does it fix the problems.
For some parts that I actually did seem to understand the reasoning, I wouldn't even necessarily agree with them. The topic also seemed to cover the game in way too much of an analytical and narrow-visioned method. The problem is that different maps have different timings, different game actions change timings, and different players have their own differences in build style.
Not only that, but oftentimes players will not opt for the most efficient way of running a certain build since it's too much of a dead giveaway of their actions.
Aside from those things, there's nothing too wrong with writing and suggesting to play to analytical, but I would have to say that it's a small minority of people who excel at that. Overall I'd say this goes over too many people's heads, and is definitely not worth the time practicing and training the brain to deal with some of the stuff mentioned.
As a suggestion to the author, aside from just fixing up some structure here and there (and everywhere), I think it would be a good idea to explain and/or introduce various concepts that you talk about in a sort of explanation section (or preface). In addition, there should be some sort of introduction which can be related to, or part of the explanation of concepts, as well as overview (conclusion) paragraphs after a section.
yeah I realise the quality of writing is pretty poor. This post started as a brain dump without any clear structure on sc2sea.com then I went to my sc2 notepad and added in all the timings that I had verified multiple times in progames. I just didn't and don't have the incentive to spend 2-3 hours improving the quality, but i did put in 1 hour making it at least understandable.
Although i must dispute your other criticisms, namely that its overly analytical and too narrow minded. From the perspective of knowing these timings and playing good players, my experience of never dying to dts, never being caught off guard by 1 base stargate all ins, always knowing blink is a huge part of his range when he reveals it, never not nkowing proxy rax is coming, etc, i know how good these timings are when you're playing good players.
The problem is that different maps have different timings, different game actions change timings, and different players have their own differences in build style.
Not only that, but oftentimes players will not opt for the most efficient way of running a certain build since it's too much of a dead giveaway of their actions.
Not only that, but oftentimes players will not opt for the most efficient way of running a certain build since it's too much of a dead giveaway of their actions.
- Maps have the same timings. His range changes because different builds have different levels of effectiveness.
- Provide examples of "game actions change timings" and how this invalidates what I'm saying as something other than extremely useful.
- Do you realise that my approach that I've used through the entire OP - that of assigning a range based on timing tells and other information - is due solely BECAUSE ppl have different build styles?
- Since when does suboptimal execution of a build jeopardize a player who is sticking to these timings? Provide an example.
