|
In explaining what a build order is to someone who knows nothing about StarCraft, and how different build orders make a difference in game styles, I made this image:
Sample Build Order Graph: http://i.imgur.com/CZ69z.jpg
Instead of listing a bunch of different builds from start to finish, I've arranged them as a prefix tree. Doing this lets you see how different builds diverge and how decisions you make at various points in time affect the offensive / defensive nature of the build. Also, it helps me memorize multiple build orders because now you only have to memorize these 'choice points' in the graph where you have multiple options.
I realize those builds are for BW, and this is the SC2 forum but the builds themselves don't matter, just the visualization.
I'd be interested on your thoughts on using this technique to view multiple build orders, as I haven't seen anyone list them this way before. Also, it would be interesting to build some sort of comprehensive tree of build orders for SC2 in this manner with some sort of web interface to click through and expand branches as you explore.
Edit: typo
|
Hey wow, actually really like it. For someone just starting playing, its a easy way to learn all the openings without having to search them up by names which they may or may not know. Its a lot easier to see with the chart because you begin to see divergences between builds rather than learning each build as a separate entity
|
|
|
This is actually really cool, I like it. Hopefully it catches on and people start designing things like this for sc2, it'd be really good just to print something like this out and tape it to a wall or something next to your computer to glance at while you're playing
|
Great in concept, bad in execution.
By bad I mean "very hard to actually to do."
It's easy when you have a pen+paper, yet how can I show people on TL? Not everyone has a scanner  Or the patience / willingness to use a program that can create that informational organization system.
Although I think it is, in many ways, far superior to the standard '# action' lists we currently use as the standard for communicating builds.
|
I think it's great, especially because it's easy to see how to make decisions based on what you want. Of course different build are made for different purposes, and at this point you would have to search "toss aggression build" or something of the sort if you didn't know the possible stats.
It would make it easier for a new player to learn how to play
|
Not a fan, personally. I don't see what the benefit of this, in any circumstance.
A. Memorize a few fucking builds
B. Know when to use them.
Learning to look over at another screen often is frankly ridiculous, and definitely does not meet the criteria of a tactic/strategy related to successful play in SC2.
|
On August 07 2011 13:00 bonerificus wrote:
Not a fan, personally. I don't see what the benefit of this, in any circumstance.
A. Memorize a few fucking builds
B. Know when to use them.
Learning to look over at another screen often is frankly ridiculous, and definitely does not meet the criteria of a tactic/strategy related to successful play in SC2.
Actually, what's really good about this structure is it allows you to solidify *when* exactly you are able to divert from or stay in a build order you are doing.
For example, when is a good time to switch from 111 Banshee into a transition once you see them building an Evo chamber? Is it more efficient to stay the course or are you still in a gray enough area to shift your build without coming out at a loss?
This structure allows you to teach new build orders without the need to explain in such vague terms such "when you think ____" or "when it feels like your opponent is doing _____"
Not only that, it also allows you to keep track of when you make mistakes in your non numbers oriented game play when watching your replays.
|
thats actually really cool. it will help a ton in not having to improvise random unit combinations to deal with a situation. great post 
|
|
|
Cool idea, I'd like to see it made out using a mind mapping program ofc, instead of pen and paper :D
Loving those backgrounds, I've just set the Terran one to mine, wont be forgetting them ever again!! Thanks a bunch. I usually have like 5-6 notepads open with my build orders scattered across my second screen
|
At the very least, you can represent the same amount of information in much less space
|
Cool idea. Some brainstorming might have to be done to find a way to represent "dense" decision trees in a way that is visually comprehensible, but I think this is a good method for displaying build orders.
|
On August 08 2011 05:27 Fission wrote:
Cool idea. Some brainstorming might have to be done to find a way to represent "dense" decision trees in a way that is visually comprehensible, but I think this is a good method for displaying build orders.
I think a way to do this could be to have a 'popularity' ranking for leaf nodes, and collapse branches which are unpopular. Given a decent interface which allows collapsing and expanding of nodes this could be a pretty powerful visualization method for build orders. I'm just too lazy to write it
|
You can try a mind-mapping software like http://www.xmind.net/ to create the diagrams and decision paths, it's rather easy to use once you get the hang of it. In any case, regardless of what visual form this comes in it's a pretty cool idea. Cheers!
|
Haha this is actually really good...
I would do this with strategies, but I never thought to do it with Builds
^_^
I'm still not a big fan of the number system though....what if you lose a worker? Haha
|
I thought of something like this a while back, but it was a "possibili-tree," basically a tree chart of divergent paths or strategies based on an opener/build order. They get complicated really fast, though.
|
sounds great for new player !
Good job
|
Looks like a red-black tree; good way to visualize it though. 
|
I made one of these with simplified strategies so it had only 3 or so branches for my friend who was really new to the game. When i got him to play i thought about how to teach someone who has no knowledge of the game before playing but who can also grasp simple ideas and execute simplified strategies while reacting to in game events.
Coming up with a noob how to guide is actually extremely hard, you really have to be concise and truly understand concepts before you can explain them to someone else. My trees were designed for someone who doesnt have enough knowledge to follow a truly strict BO and instead was more like:
****************************************scout opponent*******************************************************
standard play********rush dt's**********rush colossi***********rush air (voids or phoenix)******cheese
-4 gate**************-into more gates**-blink stalker +colo****-mass voids*********************-proxy
-2 gate robo FE****-archon zealot*****-voidray+colo**********-carrier rush*********************-cannons
with a simple explanation of how to execute each build. I was considering making a general opener tree for each race followed up with what opener counters it, or at least doesn't die to it but never did make one.
The flowchart layout can be very good for visual learners but is limited in its ability to be extremely complex. At a certain point it becomes too muddled with varying branches that it is no longer neatly organized and loses any advantages of being in a flowchart.
*EDIT* it didnt add all the spaces between the different trees so it just looked bad on the forum oh wells i added the * to space it out instead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
