| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
|
Budha
Canada60 Posts
"You can't blindly build workers forever and expect to win. Information tells you whether or not you should be building an economy, an army, and/or tech; therefore, it is more important." I will use your own Sophism against you. So here it goes: Even if you have a maphack and you can perfectly respond to what your opponent is doing, you cannot produce anything if you have 2 workers. Ergo, economy is more important. Point made? I don't think so, but apparently, it's enough for you. | ||
|
bransom
United States40 Posts
On August 15 2011 11:36 Budha wrote: @bransom This is going to be my last reply to you. "You can't blindly build workers forever and expect to win. Information tells you whether or not you should be building an economy, an army, and/or tech; therefore, it is more important." I will use your own Sophism against you. So here it goes: Even if you have a maphack and you can perfectly respond to what your opponent is doing, you cannot produce anything if you have 2 workers. Ergo, economy is more important. Point made? I don't think so, but apparently, it's enough for you. If you have two workers, you aren't perfectly responding to the information gathered. If you were maphacking, you'd know how many workers you could make, how much of an army, and what that army composition consists of based on what your opponent was doing. Ergo, information is more important. You're using a scenario where you don't use the information, making your point invalid. | ||
|
Budha
Canada60 Posts
| ||
|
Ziktomini
United Kingdom377 Posts
| ||
|
Budha
Canada60 Posts
| ||
|
bransom
United States40 Posts
On August 15 2011 11:42 Budha wrote: @bransom Sry, THIS is going to be my last reply to you. Learn what a Sophism is, and stop using them. It's ignorant of you to call me a sophist without disproving my logic. Your point was that if you had unlimited information (i.e. maphack), and two drones, then you would still lose. My point was that if you had two drones, you probably weren't responding correctly to the information gathered. | ||
|
Budha
Canada60 Posts
We will just have to agree to disagree on this one, unfortunately, it has become out of context, and I will have to ask you to stop, as we are tracking besides the point. I think both of us have made our points in previous posts. We can keep talking via PM, I will be glad to explain further and discuss, but this discussion has no more link to the pyramid. Sorry for not holding my promise of not responding  too tempting ! | ||
|
FireBlazzer
4 Posts
| ||
|
mixXanber
United States96 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/vPZkp.png) OT: There is no way to even give a rudimentary diagram of which area of play is more necessary as it completely differentiates between games, different styles, etc. For example, you put Timings near the top. Timings are really freakin important even for a silver player: When a stim push should be, when medivacs should come out. You also have micro higher then map control. In certain cirumstances, such as in ghost vs ht, its all about winning the micro war, and map control doesn't matter that much. However in PvZ, a zerg losing map control loses way's to know if the protoss is going to push or not. You cannot rate certains assets of play more then others as it changes so much from matchup to player to game. | ||
|
Mortilia
Canada1 Post
If I can give my two cents: I feel the pyramid is more about "I suck at multiple aspects, what should I work on improving this week ?" and not "I have 60 APM and I'd need 400 APM to do everything I want in the next 15 seconds, what do I ditch ?". The second question is highly dependant on the game itself and is important for winning that game, while the first one is game-independant, and is what people need to do to improve long-term. Bransom, I'll take a shot at your question (Give me a scenario where economy is more important than information) with a real-life example. I convinced a friend to try to play against other humans instead of AIs. He did exactly what he's used to in the campaign: he built 15 SCVs, never more, and didn't scout. I believe he would improve more working on improving his economy (don't stop making SCVs until at least 40, possibly 60) than on working on improving his scouting. Sure it's tempting to say "he'll get even better doing both !", but it's exactly why this pyramid is so awesome. You have dozens of areas to improve in SCII, the hard part is figuring out which ones to work on first. Trying to improve all of them at once just doesn't work well. I think this pyramid is pretty much spot-on for priorities. Another way I see the pyramid is "What's easiest to get a lot better at quickly ?" It's common sense to improve something you can get much better at really quickly, than to train a skill that will take a long time to show some results. However I agree with the previous posters mentionning cheese, new players need to learn how to defend against them properly. If not they'll just start cheesing themselves and never macro properly, which is really bad for getting better at long-term. | ||
|
Budha
Canada60 Posts
I will also try to take a stab at Cheesing. I do believe that cheeses are a very big and important concept in Starcraft. Honestly, I don't even think "cheese" should have a negative connotation, and I think it's as much a part of the game as a standard macro game. That is why I actually tried to build this pyramid to incorporate it in the game and it's progression. I came to the same conclusion as other TL-ers did. That most high-end aspect take a higher priority in a short cheese-focused game. I remedied to this by focusing the pyramid on a purely theoretical and hypothetical case. What I mean by this is that in a cheese situation IF you could somehow over-produce or out-position your opponent, you would still get the advantage. The only problem in these games are that, unfortunately, you can't! Which is why the upper-levels tend to pop up in your face I hope I clarified this aspect and that it makes sense BTW, Mortilia, thanks for posting, one of the most constructive and supported comments. I am currently taking notes for a final revision of the article, would love to have your input (or anyone elses) on re-formulating some parts to make it clearer | ||
|
WarChimp
Australia943 Posts
| ||
|
ThunderGod
New Zealand897 Posts
On August 15 2011 11:43 Ziktomini wrote: I think it should be "Defending cheese" up to high master, then maybe some of the other stuff, bronze to diamond is just different skill levels of cheese in my experience. This is covered by a combination of Scouting and Knowledge. | ||
|
ThunderGod
New Zealand897 Posts
| ||
|
zipz0p
United States123 Posts
I know that if I play more and learn to scout and learn a few good BOs I'll be out of Plat. I think you've really laid it out quite well! | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
Production/Economy ARE the foundation. Knowledge/Information/Army ARE first pillars. Like I commented on your YouTube video, a related thought can be worked out in regards to Build Orders in the *specific* application of coaching. A loose build order is great to learn as you automatically get practice in its execution as you develop your economy and other skills. Now, if you have problems just building probes, keep at it with no knowledge of developed build orders until you're pretty good hitting nexus hotkey and getting another probe built. Once that's in its basic area, I teach and encourage students to be thinking about, "Is my army ready to fight?" (ARMY key concept) and "Am I scouting (later harassing) him?" So one of the beginning lessons is as we practice build orders, seeing "Oh he has marauders. I know what I want against a bio army and I know the spending of gas on marauders limits the possibilities of other stuff he could be building that I need to be prepared for!" Of course for the sake of a pyramid, the Army itself takes precedence over Build because player's conceptions of what a build is (regimented pro builds) is second in priority to building the Army you wand with a *loose* build order. On the other hand, as I say in the previous paragraph, the teaching and learning of loose build orders (structure order without huge emphasis on exact supplies to 30) prepares you to have an initial army that is capable of dealing with early threats AND gaining early scouting information/deny enemy scouting information. Thanks for posting this! | ||
|
Zestage
United States15 Posts
Zerg is a bad example, because of the whole "build drones as long as you can" mechanic, but you get the idea... @danglars, did i understand your post correctly? | ||
|
Zestage
United States15 Posts
| ||
|
bransom
United States40 Posts
On August 16 2011 07:24 Mortilia wrote: Woah, amazing info in a single post. I'm a long-time Starcraft player, but I've just started playing ladder and most games are overwhelming. Props for putting that info together. If I can give my two cents: I feel the pyramid is more about "I suck at multiple aspects, what should I work on improving this week ?" and not "I have 60 APM and I'd need 400 APM to do everything I want in the next 15 seconds, what do I ditch ?". The second question is highly dependant on the game itself and is important for winning that game, while the first one is game-independant, and is what people need to do to improve long-term. Bransom, I'll take a shot at your question (Give me a scenario where economy is more important than information) with a real-life example. I convinced a friend to try to play against other humans instead of AIs. He did exactly what he's used to in the campaign: he built 15 SCVs, never more, and didn't scout. I believe he would improve more working on improving his economy (don't stop making SCVs until at least 40, possibly 60) than on working on improving his scouting. Sure it's tempting to say "he'll get even better doing both !", but it's exactly why this pyramid is so awesome. You have dozens of areas to improve in SCII, the hard part is figuring out which ones to work on first. Trying to improve all of them at once just doesn't work well. I think this pyramid is pretty much spot-on for priorities. Another way I see the pyramid is "What's easiest to get a lot better at quickly ?" It's common sense to improve something you can get much better at really quickly, than to train a skill that will take a long time to show some results. However I agree with the previous posters mentionning cheese, new players need to learn how to defend against them properly. If not they'll just start cheesing themselves and never macro properly, which is really bad for getting better at long-term. I'm not saying that macro is not important. Sure, it would be great practice for your friend to make workers constantly. However, my argument is that information is superior to economy. The term "information" could be interpreted ambiguously, but in my opinion, knowledge about the game itself, gathering information, and properly responding to the given information all fall under the term "information." If your friend is constantly making workers to 40 or 60, but doesn't know how to scout or respond to a 6 pool, he will still lose. Information gives you the ability to make decisions on whether or not economy, tech, and/or army should be invested in, which is why I believe information is the most important part of this game. The reason I feel information is more important than execution is that if you do not know what to execute, then execution becomes seemingly worthless. | ||
|
1Lamb1Rice
United States435 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
StarCraft2.fi
Monday Night Weeklies
Replay Cast
WardiTV 2025
StarCraft2.fi
PiGosaur Monday
StarCraft2.fi
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
