|
+ Show Spoiler +On July 29 2011 23:25 jhk0219 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2011 07:40 Island wrote:But basic goals that you should be able to meet with your race further in into the game will really let you know how good your mechanics are. I've found goals such as "get 48 drones by 6.30" to be very motivating and helpful for both training and build order design  High master zerg here. I could hardly imagine the level of play at which these little benchmarks could matter. Maybe in some PvP between players at the same caliber as MC and Alicia, but these little early game timing things are really getting out of hand. I play against top masters and GM's all the time, but I don't ever feel hugely disadvantaged because I didn't get my 13hatch down 2 seconds quicker or my overlord timing was half a second off. I guess these little things can help you since one should take advantage of everything possible in a game, but considering how most players/readers on TL are not at super-high level of play, I don't see how this can be a crucially important factor. It's almost detrimental for players at lower level to even worry about this sort of stuff. They should focus on more fundamental basics like scouting, proper macro, accomplishing game plan and building placement. Macro becomes harder to perfect as bases are added and unit count gets larger, so if anything, lower-level players should focus on maintaining acceptable macro continuously during the game. For the people who are arguing "these sort of things separate masters players from ______ players," I'm at a loss for words. The above quote shows just how ridiculous these little "benchmarks" can get. At no point should a player ever set a goal like "get x workers at x:xx." Starcraft 2 is a reactionary game, and ESPECIALLY if you're zerg you should learn to cut drones according to the situation. Creating benchmarks under the assumption that everything will go perfectly smooth is almost useless. A simple 12/12 2rax pressure, 1 rax poke, zealot stalker harass, 2 stalker harass, ling harass will all alter your outputs. It's much more important to UNDERSTAND what you need to have at a certain point in the game WITH RESPECT TO what the enemy player has.
mid master zerg here, and I fully agree with the above stated.
Mechanics are great, but they come with practice anyway. Learn WHAT to do, before you learn how to do it best. There is really not a lot of use in improving your larvasplit, if you don't know how to react to an opening.
about the "drone or mining first" thing: It doesn't have a lot of impact. You get larvablocked at 13supply anyway, and larva pops every 15sec while workers take 17seconds, so there is hardly any difference for zergs, terrans and protoss players around that time in terms of building up.
Using an early queen build (11p/18h) or an early hatch build (14-16h) is like a million times stronger than any early game mechanics you can do, to build up zerg production.
One last exapmle to show you how little a lot of progamers care about those little things:
IMNesTea, arguably the best player/zerg in the world uses mostly 10 supply OL with or even without extractor trick, while there have been a lot of calculations that have shown 9OL is straight up better than those two.
|
I think another tip would be to make sure you are sending workers to the closest mineral patches first and if you're good at it you can double up on the close mineral patches early on.
|
On July 30 2011 00:46 EvilZergling wrote:
I think another tip would be to make sure you are sending workers to the closest mineral patches first and if you're good at it you can double up on the close mineral patches early on.
It's not even that important. Personally I do it out of habit, but I've watched a lot of pro games where the workers are rallied to occupied patches and they bounce around (which is inefficient).
At a GM level I'm sure it helps a little, but even then you have to wonder if it's worth practicing. Anything below that (I'm high masters) seems to be just a waste of time. Personally I'd rather learn how to defend 15 hatch vs 11/11 rax than try and get an extra 5 - 10 minerals from an efficient split.
|
I'm starting to realize why this forum is such a filthy cesspool.
I present an objective way to train hand speed in an applicable manner.
Negative Nancys start moving their lil fingers about how it's a useless method and the way they like to train is obviously superior.
I hate visiting this forum because it's usually so sad. But I do still frequent it in the hopes some actual strategy discussion will break out. I can see now why it doesn't, too much ego and negativity.
I'm not going to work on the OP any more, this discussion is so disgusting to me.
|
On July 30 2011 04:03 Komsa wrote:
I'm starting to realize why this forum is such a filthy cesspool.
I present an objective way to train hand speed in an applicable manner.
Negative Nancys start moving their lil fingers about how it's a useless method and the way they like to train is obviously superior.
I hate visiting this forum because it's usually so sad. But I do still frequent it in the hopes some actual strategy discussion will break out. I can see now why it doesn't, too much ego and negativity.
I'm not going to work on the OP any more, this discussion is so disgusting to me.
Your "benchmarks" had nothing to do with training hand speed. If you're gonna post something that's [D][G] you better be ready for some counter arguments. Why post at all if you're expecting people to agree with everything you say? Don't post if you don't want feedback.
It's not about ego or negativity. It's about viability. You presented an idea and people disagreed. Extending this single case to say "this forum is such a filthy cesspool" goes to show how close-minded you are. If you feel like your arguments are correct, then respond to the "negative nancys" with an organized set of reasons why you are right.
If anything, people being strict about posts on TL is a good thing because it keeps the level of posts high. What's the point of having a strategy forum if everyone posts [G]'s?
|
Komsa, why do you say that 3 chronoboosts with contiguous probe production nets you one extra probe when a probe takes 17 seconds to build and each chrono boost shaves 10 seconds of build time? 3 chrono boosts will give you slightly less than 2 probes.
|
On July 29 2011 16:49 KimJongChill wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2011 13:14 gdot5 wrote:On July 29 2011 07:35 Geiko wrote:On July 29 2011 07:28 gdot5 wrote:
I wouldn't consider those benchmarks to matter. Improving your drone split by 0.8 seconds isn't going to make much of a difference in your game Yes it is. People who care about those things also get more precision later in the game. It's the difference between a master execution and a plat execution which gets everything out 1 minute later. I disagree again. "gets everything out 1 minute later" Although I do agree that a master level timing attack can come out a full minute before a platinum league one, it is not because they split their drones 0.8 seconds faster. That would make their timing come out 0.8 seconds faster, not a minute Well it's the butterfly effect, man. Building a later depot means a later rax, which means later so on and so forth. The slight delays are compounded until they coalesce into a significant setback. This is why pro zerg players can max out much faster than some random nabs. Of course, optimizing drone splits is absolutely useless for the majority of players, who simply just need better macro, unit control, and scouting.
No it doesn't. If I split 1 second later than you, my supply depot will be 1 second later, my rax will be 1second later, my marine will be 1 second later.
It doesn't magically get worse and worse
|
On July 30 2011 04:03 Komsa wrote:
I'm starting to realize why this forum is such a filthy cesspool.
I present an objective way to train hand speed in an applicable manner.
Negative Nancys start moving their lil fingers about how it's a useless method and the way they like to train is obviously superior.
I hate visiting this forum because it's usually so sad. But I do still frequent it in the hopes some actual strategy discussion will break out. I can see now why it doesn't, too much ego and negativity.
I'm not going to work on the OP any more, this discussion is so disgusting to me.
Why come to a forum, and post a [D] topic if you're not willing to discuss it. You presented us an idea, and we unanimously determined it to be a bad one. If you really were in search of "some actual strategy discussion," you wouldn't come in with such a narrow frame of mind.
Actually strategy discussion would be you presenting an idea, and changing it based on the feedback you receive. You presenting a bad idea, and raging when people disagree is just as productive as practising a drone split.
|
On July 30 2011 04:20 jhk0219 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2011 04:03 Komsa wrote:
I'm starting to realize why this forum is such a filthy cesspool.
I present an objective way to train hand speed in an applicable manner.
Negative Nancys start moving their lil fingers about how it's a useless method and the way they like to train is obviously superior.
I hate visiting this forum because it's usually so sad. But I do still frequent it in the hopes some actual strategy discussion will break out. I can see now why it doesn't, too much ego and negativity.
I'm not going to work on the OP any more, this discussion is so disgusting to me. Your "benchmarks" had nothing to do with training hand speed. If you're gonna post something that's [D][G] you better be ready for some counter arguments. Why post at all if you're expecting people to agree with everything you say? Don't post if you don't want feedback. It's not about ego or negativity. It's about viability. You presented an idea and people disagreed. Extending this single case to say "this forum is such a filthy cesspool" goes to show how close-minded you are. If you feel like your arguments are correct, then respond to the "negative nancys" with an organized set of reasons why you are right. If anything, people being strict about posts on TL is a good thing because it keeps the level of posts high. What's the point of having a strategy forum if everyone posts [G]'s?
thats exactly what it IS about for him. He believed he had a sound idea, and having it crushed makes him feel inadequate, hence his comments about how horrible the forum and all of us are.. He might be onto something if he sees whats wrong with his idea and reworks it to do as he intends and succeed at that. we'd all agree with him then. Thats the problem with ego, it causes you to shut down and stop doing anything productive.
|
We really need a liquipedia page on the split/build first discussion. Its actually quite simple to figure out.
The tl;dr of it is that you do whichever option you can do faster. This will typically be build->split, because it involves less total mouse movement than split->build.
However, optimal play for a Zerg in particular, and P/T in certain situations, is to split->build. Theoretically, if you had infinite time to train, you'd train yourself to perform both sequences in as little time as possible.
I can re-do the math (for like the 4th time) if people are interested.
|
On July 30 2011 04:03 Komsa wrote:
I'm starting to realize why this forum is such a filthy cesspool.
I present an objective way to train hand speed in an applicable manner.
Your training of hand speed is potentially the worst method I've seen to date, maybe after 5+ hours you will have your first zealot 2 seconds faster whoop-de-freaking do.
If you want people to increase their hand speed they should do micro challenges. Not retarded shit like planting buildings down faster. Even the best of the best players don't care too much to share 1 second off planting all their shit down faster.
|
On July 31 2011 23:33 kzn wrote:
We really need a liquipedia page on the split/build first discussion. Its actually quite simple to figure out.
The tl;dr of it is that you do whichever option you can do faster. This will typically be build->split, because it involves less total mouse movement than split->build.
However, optimal play for a Zerg in particular, and P/T in certain situations, is to split->build. Theoretically, if you had infinite time to train, you'd train yourself to perform both sequences in as little time as possible.
I can re-do the math (for like the 4th time) if people are interested.
I do basic click to mine (all 6 probes), build probe, the split off second(2 probes) and third group(1probe).
|
On July 29 2011 23:25 jhk0219 wrote:
The above quote shows just how ridiculous these little "benchmarks" can get. At no point should a player ever set a goal like "get x workers at x:xx." Starcraft 2 is a reactionary game, and ESPECIALLY if you're zerg you should learn to cut drones according to the situation. Creating benchmarks under the assumption that everything will go perfectly smooth is almost useless. A simple 12/12 2rax pressure, 1 rax poke, zealot stalker harass, 2 stalker harass, ling harass will all alter your outputs. It's much more important to UNDERSTAND what you need to have at a certain point in the game WITH RESPECT TO what the enemy player has.
Yes, absolutely right. Almost never will you be allowed to just "drone away" for 7 minutes of game time totally unchallenged. But before I realized that it was possible to have 48 drones by 6.30 I played games where I had 30 drones by 7-8 minutes and thought that I was doing great. I wanted to try and shift the focus of the thread away from "doing X instead of Y saves you 0.5 seconds" and more towards "you should be able to do X in a solo game or your macro is simply not good enough". I would like the benchmarks more if they were goals you could aim to achieve regardless of which build/s you're using.
A similar and perhaps less idiotic benchmark would be "max on 60 drones/140 army by 11 minutes" or something such (totally arbitrary numbers); a benchmark you can compare yourself to in order to see how your macro is compared to the "objective best". Or for terran, "Kill 20 banelings with 10 marines" etc.
That's what I thought it would be about when I read "benchmarks" and I liked the thought, so I imagine that there are other players who would also enjoy testing themselves to get an objective read on how good they are. Like I said, I used to think 30 drones by 8 minutes was great. 
|
I have an idea. Let's start a poll about what league you're in and what benchmarks you have beaten:
Poll: What league are you in and what benchmarks have you reached?Bronze/Silver - All Benchmarks (1) 33% Gold/Plat - Benchmarks 1+2 (1) 33% Dia/Master - All Benchmarks (1) 33% Bronze/Silver - Benchmark 1 Only (0) 0% Bronze/Silver - Benchmarks 1+2 (0) 0% Gold/Plat - Benchmark 1 Only (0) 0% Gold/Plat - All Benchmarks (0) 0% Dia/Master - Benchmark 1 Only (0) 0% Dia/Master - Benchmarks 1+2 (0) 0% 3 total votes Your vote: What league are you in and what benchmarks have you reached? (Vote): Bronze/Silver - Benchmark 1 Only
(Vote): Bronze/Silver - Benchmarks 1+2
(Vote): Bronze/Silver - All Benchmarks
(Vote): Gold/Plat - Benchmark 1 Only
(Vote): Gold/Plat - Benchmarks 1+2
(Vote): Gold/Plat - All Benchmarks
(Vote): Dia/Master - Benchmark 1 Only
(Vote): Dia/Master - Benchmarks 1+2
(Vote): Dia/Master - All Benchmarks
If the author of the OP wants to add it to the OP feel free to do so 
|
Platinum Zerg here, interesting benchmarks, given this won't make us perfect, but it is worth considering, despite whatever others are saying. I mean, brushing your teeth each day is important, but probably not as important as eating and sleeping, though i doubt anyone would be in their right mind to say, Fuck brushing your teeth, being healthy is able to occur as long as you simply eat and sleep well. Seriously guys? Seriously? It's all important, given maybe pedantic in realtion to the big picture, but it is a part of the picture, nonetheless.
Well, I have always heard that splitting drones and then queueing production of drone #7 is optimal for Zerg, (while queueing for Terran and Toss then splitting is optimal for them) so the OP first made me skeptical as to the knowledge base of its author. However, one post (near top of 2nd page i think it was) had me thinking, one which claimed that the next larvae doesn't begin producing naturally until there is <3 larvae on the hatch, which I believe is in fact true (or is it <4?). Regardless, this is interesting.
However, it does seem detrimental to Zerg to drone first then split, because we seeming must click-s-d, while toss and terran just click-s or click-e... So I had a thought: What if we could click the larvae, and then d? then split? That shouldnt be any longer than it is for T or P, given we can aim our mouse to that tiny target. Then I had another thought: the hatch is always center screen, and the larvae are always directly beneath... Assuming there's no doodads right where a larvae initially spawns, and there's not much lag, shouldnt there be a pixel just south of center screen where once the game begins, we can click and be guaranteed to hit that middle larvae?
I don't know, maybe... But if so, its just click, and hit d, then go to splitting, and then send olord, then route your drones building to a min patch b4 the drone #7 is built, such that we're not wasting time right clicking minerals b4 splitting...
Am I missing something, or does this sound reasonable? I would test thismyself, but unfortunatelyI'm not able to today due to my life's schedule...
|
Good benchmarks for early game, its a little harder after your opening build orders to be able to set most benchmarks however just because of the pure situational feel of builds. All in all a good OP cant wait to see more ^^
|
On July 29 2011 02:11 Qxz wrote:Show nested quote +Assume it takes 1 unit of time to send your drones off to mine, and 1 unit of time to start building a drone. I build the worker first and then I send. The idea is that I don't need to look at anything to build the drone. I place my cursor in the middle of the screen as the game loads, and click+s+d blindly as soon as the game finishes loading. During that time, I will recognize where my drones are (which is variable) and move my cursor to where I want to start the selection box. The net result is that both actions finish faster. I can do the blind automated action (selecting hatchery + build drone) immediately while I figure out how I want to do the non-automated action (selecting the drones, which depends on spawn position).
Ctrl +F1 to select all idle workers.
Removes a variable.
Works for me as toss, but might be a bit cumbersome for you as zerg have more button presses to make that first drone.
|
To be honest, I voted Dia/Mas all benchmarks, but as zerg I've been doing all the benchmarks since gold+. I came from brood war so I guess its second nature to move as quickly as possible to get things done. However this does NOT equate to hand speed, as macro with one or two lazy right click rally points =/= a super strenuous exercise.
Now a good benchmark for zerg would be:
1. Create multiple hotkey groups of only 1 type of ground unit.
2. use these hotkeys in conjunction with regular move to get positioning and surround on protoss ball.
3. kill said protoss ball with only these forces when protoss ball has colossus.
4. Repop and recreate hotkey groups within 10 seconds of remaxing.
5.Repeat from step 2.
|
are you mineral stacking scv's to get the 1st depot finished before the 11th scv finishes? I don't have enough minerals to build it soon enough for it to finish before 11th scv.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
