|
I really think this all comes down to personal learning preference. Personally, I have the most trouble with being overwhelmed with things to do. When I play a new race I never macro properly because I'm busy trying to learn what tools to scout with at each point in the game and then what units I need to counter what they have and then what buildings I need and I end up with a piss-poor economy and floating 1-2k minerals that I have no way of spending.
TheLevels is perfect for me because it doesn't focus on winning, I think that's a big part that most people don't grasp. Just because you lose most of your games doesn't mean you aren't learning. I took a huge dive in points at the beginning of this system because I was doing things like making only lings and they were doing things like 2 cloaked banshees but all I did was stay alive as long as possible while macroing my heart out. I'd be trying to harass with my lings while still keeping my queen energy low and spreading creep. Using TheLevels I've seen macro beat everything else when I make mass lings at 22:00 and I beat baneling/infestor or marine marauder beat infestor/baneling/broodlord. This is in platinum league that this happens, by the way.
If you think of this in terms of "How could I ever win with mass zealot?" you're missing the point of this program entirely. The point isn't to win, the point is to learn how to keep your money low and your income up while making an army (even if it is a terribly useless army). Later, once you're losing but having some insane macro then you get a stalker and suddenly your army has potential to win games and you learn how to compensate for costs (I can't have 12 gates off 2 bases anymore because now I need gas and stalkers are more expensive) and you QUICKLY learn YOUR limits based on your own understanding versus a seasoned player just telling you that it's impossible to support 5 gates on one base.
I understand the logic behind learning one strategy, that's how I learned protoss and it took me a year to get high diamond. Using that method it's hard to pinpoint the thing you need to work on. One game you think it's your unit composition that lost you the game and the next it's your expansion timing but the problem is that you're constantly gauging yourself against your peers and your equals so the tricks and skills you learn in gold league are suddenly obsolete in plat (I exclusively FFE'd vs every race and turtled on two bases to max until platinum league and found out that wasn't plausible vs all races)
|
I hope this helps clear some things up.
|
On September 23 2012 06:18 damnMangos wrote:
the point is to learn how to keep your money low and your income up while making an army (even if it is a terribly useless army).
... One game you think it's your unit composition that lost you the game and the next it's your expansion timing but the problem is that you're constantly gauging yourself against your peers and your equals so the tricks and skills you learn in gold league are suddenly obsolete in plat
These two statements stand out. A typical 1 base will keep your money low, your income where it needs to be to support 3-4 production buildings, and an army that is terribly useful. Not only that, I say its actually easier to do the 1 base than it is to do these other earlier goals (since you cut workers at 24 and only need to build 3 production buildings), and you learn some finer detail things too that you arent going to get on the early levels, like how to actually kill. Besides, with the levels you are already using a build order, just a really bad and poorly defined one. Seriously, how is the levels easier than making 24 workers, a couple production buildings and then just attacking? Besides which, doing it this way gives you practice at making units, managing rallies, keeping up on supply all while attacking and learning how to exploit and kill the other guy. Macro while microing is the heart of the game, the two things cant be separated, although if you start out with just one base it makes it easier to start learning.
Learning how to analyze your own replays is a nice skill to have. Easy way to do it, look at the graphs on the score screen. See how your army value compares to his, see how your resource rate compares to his. Look at the battles in replay. Before the battle, pause, and check out the units tab. If you each took all of your units and tossed them into the middle of the map, how would you do? Do you have enough units ? Do you have a lot of units but the wrong units? How are your upgrades? If you are doing an established build, compare your game timings to a pro replay, where are you deviating?
In short, everything you learn from the levels you could learn by starting off on one base and progressing in the way I described a post or two up. You will also learn additional things, and do so in a way that corresponds to how the game is actually played. You can still set goals regarding keeping energy low, no supply blocks, constant production, and do so within a framework that will start teaching you all the useful skills of the game right away, no waiting, in a manner that is eminently doable. A one base play is the simplest fundamental element of the game. You can go all the way through the levels, youre still going to have to come back and learn all the stuff you would have otherwise learned at the same time had you started with 1 base instead of 1 unit.
|
On September 23 2012 07:30 rikter wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 06:18 damnMangos wrote:
the point is to learn how to keep your money low and your income up while making an army (even if it is a terribly useless army).
... One game you think it's your unit composition that lost you the game and the next it's your expansion timing but the problem is that you're constantly gauging yourself against your peers and your equals so the tricks and skills you learn in gold league are suddenly obsolete in plat These two statements stand out. A typical 1 base will keep your money low, your income where it needs to be to support 3-4 production buildings, and an army that is terribly useful. Not only that, I say its actually easier to do the 1 base than it is to do these other earlier goals (since you cut workers at 24 and only need to build 3 production buildings), and you learn some finer detail things too that you arent going to get on the early levels, like how to actually kill. Besides, with the levels you are already using a build order, just a really bad and poorly defined one. Seriously, how is the levels easier than making 24 workers, a couple production buildings and then just attacking? Besides which, doing it this way gives you practice at making units, managing rallies, keeping up on supply all while attacking and learning how to exploit and kill the other guy. Macro while microing is the heart of the game, the two things cant be separated, although if you start out with just one base it makes it easier to start learning. Learning how to analyze your own replays is a nice skill to have. Easy way to do it, look at the graphs on the score screen. See how your army value compares to his, see how your resource rate compares to his. Look at the battles in replay. Before the battle, pause, and check out the units tab. If you each took all of your units and tossed them into the middle of the map, how would you do? Do you have enough units ? Do you have a lot of units but the wrong units? How are your upgrades? If you are doing an established build, compare your game timings to a pro replay, where are you deviating? In short, everything you learn from the levels you could learn by starting off on one base and progressing in the way I described a post or two up. You will also learn additional things, and do so in a way that corresponds to how the game is actually played. You can still set goals regarding keeping energy low, no supply blocks, constant production, and do so within a framework that will start teaching you all the useful skills of the game right away, no waiting, in a manner that is eminently doable. A one base play is the simplest fundamental element of the game. You can go all the way through the levels, youre still going to have to come back and learn all the stuff you would have otherwise learned at the same time had you started with 1 base instead of 1 unit.
I agree with what you are saying. I am a fresh player to Starcraft 2 who found the levels just last week and started implementing it in ladder games a few days ago. Of course being a noob, I am starting off in bronze, but one thing I have noticed, because of the levels I am learning each unit one by one, I am not worrying about winning and I am focusing on keeping my resources, energy (protoss by the way) and supply at a sufficient level. If I had not found the levels, I probably would not be doing these things at this point. Now, if I were to just stick to one base and set the same goals as the levels set for us, I could probably be at the same level. After about 30-40 games trying to keep my resources low I am slowly learning how to manage all of that. When I first started out, I was slightly focusing on my micro along with my macro, but by doing that, my income was well over 1k-2k. I was worrying more about my army than I was focusing on producing structures, units and workers. When I found the levels and realized what it implemented, I started focusing on my production and spending my money instead of what my army is doing. Also, the more I do this, the more comfortable I am getting with the game and the better my economy is doing, which means I can not focus a little on keeping my army alive. Now, I could probably do the same thing with just sticking to one base and throwing in expansions when comfortable as well. Along with the one base, I could also set goals and what not. I could also use the whole unlock system that the levels uses. The only question I have with this is, why would I go through all that trouble when it is already done for me? The levels already simplifies all that and sets the goals for me. Most beginners just do not know where to start and I think that the player just loses hope. Of course there are thousands upon thousands of forum threads which explains all the details, but the levels puts it all in one system.
Now I am only speaking from a beginners stand point. For platinum, diamond and beyond I understand that it is a lot different. That is all you here is how different it is. But the point of the levels is to learn fundamentals. There are many ways on how to learn fundamentals, but the levels just simplifies all this in one system. Now the only problem I am seeing with the levels is mostly how to further implement microing and multitasking, because to me all the levles are really the same, which is macro/macro, macro/micro and macro/micro/multitask. But I feel that it needs to be more defined than just that. The micro and multitasking need specific goals or guidelines to help higher leagues and still keep the fundamentals of the game in mind.
|
On September 24 2012 04:29 Tragedyx1 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 07:30 rikter wrote:On September 23 2012 06:18 damnMangos wrote:
the point is to learn how to keep your money low and your income up while making an army (even if it is a terribly useless army).
... One game you think it's your unit composition that lost you the game and the next it's your expansion timing but the problem is that you're constantly gauging yourself against your peers and your equals so the tricks and skills you learn in gold league are suddenly obsolete in plat These two statements stand out. A typical 1 base will keep your money low, your income where it needs to be to support 3-4 production buildings, and an army that is terribly useful. Not only that, I say its actually easier to do the 1 base than it is to do these other earlier goals (since you cut workers at 24 and only need to build 3 production buildings), and you learn some finer detail things too that you arent going to get on the early levels, like how to actually kill. Besides, with the levels you are already using a build order, just a really bad and poorly defined one. Seriously, how is the levels easier than making 24 workers, a couple production buildings and then just attacking? Besides which, doing it this way gives you practice at making units, managing rallies, keeping up on supply all while attacking and learning how to exploit and kill the other guy. Macro while microing is the heart of the game, the two things cant be separated, although if you start out with just one base it makes it easier to start learning. Learning how to analyze your own replays is a nice skill to have. Easy way to do it, look at the graphs on the score screen. See how your army value compares to his, see how your resource rate compares to his. Look at the battles in replay. Before the battle, pause, and check out the units tab. If you each took all of your units and tossed them into the middle of the map, how would you do? Do you have enough units ? Do you have a lot of units but the wrong units? How are your upgrades? If you are doing an established build, compare your game timings to a pro replay, where are you deviating? In short, everything you learn from the levels you could learn by starting off on one base and progressing in the way I described a post or two up. You will also learn additional things, and do so in a way that corresponds to how the game is actually played. You can still set goals regarding keeping energy low, no supply blocks, constant production, and do so within a framework that will start teaching you all the useful skills of the game right away, no waiting, in a manner that is eminently doable. A one base play is the simplest fundamental element of the game. You can go all the way through the levels, youre still going to have to come back and learn all the stuff you would have otherwise learned at the same time had you started with 1 base instead of 1 unit. I agree with what you are saying. I am a fresh player to Starcraft 2 who found the levels just last week and started implementing it in ladder games a few days ago. Of course being a noob, I am starting off in bronze, but one thing I have noticed, because of the levels I am learning each unit one by one, I am not worrying about winning and I am focusing on keeping my resources, energy (protoss by the way) and supply at a sufficient level. If I had not found the levels, I probably would not be doing these things at this point. Now, if I were to just stick to one base and set the same goals as the levels set for us, I could probably be at the same level. After about 30-40 games trying to keep my resources low I am slowly learning how to manage all of that. When I first started out, I was slightly focusing on my micro along with my macro, but by doing that, my income was well over 1k-2k. I was worrying more about my army than I was focusing on producing structures, units and workers. When I found the levels and realized what it implemented, I started focusing on my production and spending my money instead of what my army is doing. Also, the more I do this, the more comfortable I am getting with the game and the better my economy is doing, which means I can not focus a little on keeping my army alive. Now, I could probably do the same thing with just sticking to one base and throwing in expansions when comfortable as well. Along with the one base, I could also set goals and what not. I could also use the whole unlock system that the levels uses. The only question I have with this is, why would I go through all that trouble when it is already done for me? The levels already simplifies all that and sets the goals for me. Most beginners just do not know where to start and I think that the player just loses hope. Of course there are thousands upon thousands of forum threads which explains all the details, but the levels puts it all in one system. Now I am only speaking from a beginners stand point. For platinum, diamond and beyond I understand that it is a lot different. That is all you here is how different it is. But the point of the levels is to learn fundamentals. There are many ways on how to learn fundamentals, but the levels just simplifies all this in one system. Now the only problem I am seeing with the levels is mostly how to further implement microing and multitasking, because to me all the levles are really the same, which is macro/macro, macro/micro and macro/micro/multitask. But I feel that it needs to be more defined than just that. The micro and multitasking need specific goals or guidelines to help higher leagues and still keep the fundamentals of the game in mind.
You're completely over-thinking this. Starcraft is not nearly as complicated as you make it sound. Just constantly make workers and amass a fat army of gateway units.
Counters don't matter. Army control doesn't matter.
|
I did make it sound complicated and that was not my intention. But why don't counters and army control matter? Emphasis on this would further put it into perspective.
|
On September 24 2012 05:03 Tragedyx1 wrote:
I did make it sound complicated and that was not my intention. But why don't counters and army control matter? Emphasis on this would further put it into perspective.
By learning Macro and Micro at the same time, you slow progress. The mind is best equipped to learn as few things at a time as possible. I've considered framing a learning method with the 1 base first idea, but most new players found that being constricted to a particular build order, or a particular number of bases wasn't as fun as being constricted to a particular set of units and being allowed to be as creative as they wanted with those building blocks. Maybe your idea is more efficient, I don't think it is, but let's say it is. There is another component to improvement that we are not considering here. Time.
Having a method that is efficient is important, but if you aren't putting in the time, you aren't going to improve. We can go about this in 2 basic ways:
Assume that the players who "really want it" will put in the time.
or
Incentivize putting in the time by making the process more enjoyable and rewarding.
I want to make Starcraft 2 more accessible to all people, not just the people who power through that rough and frustrating beginning phase of learning.
Autonomy
Mastery
Purpose
That is what we need to encourage if we want to grow Starcraft 2.
|
Wouldn't you get the same benefit by executing one simple build over and over, and then reviewing the replays. For example, just 4 gate every game, and focus on hitting the timing of zealot, stalker + 4 warp in rounds at 5:40. Focus on chroning probes twice and the core 4 times, and don't get supply capped. Then focus on not missing warp in rounds. Then you can focus on keeping zealots in front of stalkers and reteating when the zealots die (conserve gas units). Wouldn't that be more fun than an artificial training regimine?
|
On September 24 2012 05:42 Salient wrote:
Wouldn't you get the same benefit by executing one simple build over and over, and then reviewing the replays. For example, just 4 gate every game, and focus on hitting the timing of zealot, stalker + 4 warp in rounds at 5:40. Focus on chroning probes twice and the core 4 times, and don't get supply capped. Then focus on not missing warp in rounds. Then you can focus on keeping zealots in front of stalkers and reteating when the zealots die (conserve gas units). Wouldn't that be more fun than an artificial training regimine?
It lacks autonomy. People want to be able to exercise their creativity and try different things. They want to have the freedom to enjoy the game on their own terms, without being overloaded with information. TheLevels achieves this.
|
On September 24 2012 05:42 Salient wrote:
Wouldn't you get the same benefit by executing one simple build over and over, and then reviewing the replays. For example, just 4 gate every game, and focus on hitting the timing of zealot, stalker + 4 warp in rounds at 5:40. Focus on chroning probes twice and the core 4 times, and don't get supply capped. Then focus on not missing warp in rounds. Then you can focus on keeping zealots in front of stalkers and reteating when the zealots die (conserve gas units). Wouldn't that be more fun than an artificial training regimine?
This might work for some, but not a wider audience. That is what he is going for I believe. If you were to do the same thing over and over without some kind of reward, then it gets tedious and boring. I hate to use this as an example but it is for lack of a better example. Call of duty uses an unlock system, right? Now it is not used for learning purposes generally, but it is used to get players wanting more. Players want to unlock everything and want to progress. You get better by playing and there needs to be some way of measuring that progression. Now setting goals like not getting supplied blocked and keeping resources low is a good way of doing this. Now the unlocking of something can be more rewarding. Also, when you progress to better units, you can start using various other strategies with the units you unlocked.
|
You slow progress by splitting macro and micro. Macroing in a vacuum and macroing while fighting are two different things, and one of those has a lot more utillity than the other. It kills me to see people advocating splitting up macro and micro, or saying stuff like dont worry about comp or strategy. They are all wrapped up together.
Your levels are not a simplified version of what you will actually be doing as you get better, they are instead teaching you a version of the game that is not consistent with reality. I dont care if you can do the levels perfectly, macroing while fighting is mechanically different. Its the most critical skill. Why would you not advocate an instruction method that gives you the most time to work on this?
You could do the levels in custom game vs easy AI and get the same results, so why send people out onto the ladder with a weak build and no other goals but keeping money low? Hell, you could do the levels in microsoft word and just check to make sure your sequence is right.
There is no starcraft pyramid, not in terms of game skills anyways since you need them all to win at any level. The difference in leagues is of degree to which they are used. But they are all needed, always. 1 base, 2 base, 3 base, thats the levels. Not one unit, two unit, no micro, no plan to win.
Edit to add: the CoD unlock system is not like the levels, because you can still play the same way regardless of what weapon you have. The weapons might not all be equal, but whether you have an mp5 (starting smg) or an mp7 (final smg) you still play it largely the same. This is not in any way true about the levels.
|
On September 24 2012 06:03 Tragedyx1 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2012 05:42 Salient wrote:
Wouldn't you get the same benefit by executing one simple build over and over, and then reviewing the replays. For example, just 4 gate every game, and focus on hitting the timing of zealot, stalker + 4 warp in rounds at 5:40. Focus on chroning probes twice and the core 4 times, and don't get supply capped. Then focus on not missing warp in rounds. Then you can focus on keeping zealots in front of stalkers and reteating when the zealots die (conserve gas units). Wouldn't that be more fun than an artificial training regimine? This might work for some, but not a wider audience. That is what he is going for I believe. If you were to do the same thing over and over without some kind of reward, then it gets tedious and boring. I hate to use this as an example but it is for lack of a better example. Call of duty uses an unlock system, right? Now it is not used for learning purposes generally, but it is used to get players wanting more. Players want to unlock everything and want to progress. You get better by playing and there needs to be some way of measuring that progression. Now setting goals like not getting supplied blocked and keeping resources low is a good way of doing this. Now the unlocking of something can be more rewarding. Also, when you progress to better units, you can start using various other strategies with the units you unlocked.
Yes. Thank you. The goal is to grow eSports by making Starcraft more accessible and fun to learn.
|
On September 24 2012 05:54 JaKaTaK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2012 05:42 Salient wrote:
Wouldn't you get the same benefit by executing one simple build over and over, and then reviewing the replays. For example, just 4 gate every game, and focus on hitting the timing of zealot, stalker + 4 warp in rounds at 5:40. Focus on chroning probes twice and the core 4 times, and don't get supply capped. Then focus on not missing warp in rounds. Then you can focus on keeping zealots in front of stalkers and reteating when the zealots die (conserve gas units). Wouldn't that be more fun than an artificial training regimine? It lacks autonomy. People want to be able to exercise their creativity and try different things. They want to have the freedom to enjoy the game on their own terms, without being overloaded with information. TheLevels achieves this. How is trying to execute a 4 gate or some other super simple build more of an information overload than following some drawn-out, multi-tiered system with different self-imposed restrictions and requirements at each stage? I fail to see how the former is more of an information overload than the latter. Also, how are self-imposed restrictions giving people freedom to enjoy the game on their own terms? Yeah, a 4 gate might be slightly more technical than building zealots out of gateways for someone playing the game for the first time, but the person who practices running a 4 gate for 50 games will be a much more capable player than someone doing your system for the same amount of time.
|
how is getting smashed on the ladder bc you "cant" build all your units fun? Wouldnt it be more fun to win? How long do you seriously think it takes to learn 1-1-1, 3 gate robo, roach bust? You build 3-4 buildings and a handful of workers. You do people a disservice by making this out to be something that is beyond them, or something that takes huge amounts of time.
Some people say they like it and it helps them, but you could give a bunch of cancer patients sugar pills disguised as medicine and some of them will get better. Doesnt mean the sugar did anything, or that you have found some innovative way to treat cancer. No matter how flawed or ineffective your method may or may not be, some people will have results.
A lot of other people have raised the same issues I have, one even asking you to do a controlled experiment to test the levels vs a method similar to what I described. Why not do this? Or at least try and incorporate some of what others have said?
|
rikter, I don't think you are fully aware that other people learn differently. You don't micro while macroing for a long long time. At least platinum. If your microing in gold, your macro is behind. Splitting them up IS good for the majority of people because you have 1 thing to worry about. Splitting them up allows you to learn micro and macro seperatly and it is better that way for a lot of people. If you can't accept that fact, you just want Jakatak's levels to be unsuccessful.
Also, the 1/1/1, 3 gate robo and roach bust are very difficult to learn for beginners. It may seem easy, but someone who has just started playing cannot come close to properly doing those builds.
|
rikter, you don't get smashed on the ladder by using TheLevels. You crush people, easily. I feel like you are refusing to take the perspective of a new player. The only thing you need to reach platinum league is macro. That is all. And that accounts for approximately 60% of all players.
|
On September 24 2012 06:39 Lancatron wrote:
rikter, I don't think you are fully aware that other people learn differently. You don't micro while macroing for a long long time. At least platinum. If your microing in gold, your macro is behind. Splitting them up IS good for the majority of people because you have 1 thing to worry about. Splitting them up allows you to learn micro and macro seperatly and it is better that way for a lot of people. If you can't accept that fact, you just want Jakatak's levels to be unsuccessful.
Also, the 1/1/1, 3 gate robo and roach bust are very difficult to learn for beginners. It may seem easy, but someone who has just started playing cannot come close to properly doing those builds.
If you want to focus on micro or macro, nothing is stopping you from focusing on either one exclusively when playing a game. In my opinion you don't need some specific, rigid system to facilitate that. Also, there's a big difference between just doing a build and properly executing a build. A player using a build order at low levels, even if it's executed really poorly, will usually have a big leg up on a player just doing their own thing. Personally, I got from silver to near diamond league just starting out with the game only using a god-awful execution of a 3 gate robo build. There seems to be this thought that a newer player will get overwhelmed by a build order if they can't do it perfectly, but that's just silly. They don't have to do it perfectly. It's just a learning tool. And one that you naturally get better at using over time. I just don't see how limiting yourself to fake, useless strategies to become better at macro is more useful than becoming better at macro by slowly learning to become better and better using an actual build. It seems like you assume that people are incapable of teaching themselves through expereince, so they have to have their hands held.
|
A lot of people are mentioning personal learning styles. Heres how my level system handles that. True, you may learn differently, but you still need to learn the same things! The subject matter doesnt change, just the method of instruction!
Maybe you learn from a traditional 10x 12y 14z build order, visualizing whats happening as you read the build.
Maybe the traditional build order notation doesnt make sense to you, for whatever reason. Perhaps watching a video would be helpful?
Maybe you like the video but it moves too fast, so how about a slideshow format instead, so you can better follow whats happening?
Maybe you just cant pull it off because while you can mechanically do the build, you lack understanding of the strategic principles at play, so we talk about the theory of what you are doing and why?
When someone is having difficulty learning something, you dont say to them, "dont bother with it", you present it in a new way.
As far as me not having perspective, I played 2 seasons in gold on release and then stopped playing until midway through last season (I watched a lot of games though, and have background in RTT). When I came back I got stuck in bronze. In half a season of doing it as described, I am now top3 plat and still rising. It isnt macro you need to get to plat, its a good 1 base play. Also, I hate to bring league into this, but if you are only in gold then how can you be so sure you know what it takes to get plat?
Yes, I am an experienced gamer, and your system is designed for rank noobs, but this game is different from all the others. The mechanics arent the same, so I had to learn from scratch, just like they did. The advantage of my experience is that I know the right way to do things, so I waste less time on the wrong ones.
|
On September 24 2012 06:11 rikter wrote:
Edit to add: the CoD unlock system is not like the levels, because you can still play the same way regardless of what weapon you have. The weapons might not all be equal, but whether you have an mp5 (starting smg) or an mp7 (final smg) you still play it largely the same. This is not in any way true about the levels.
The way the CoD unlock system works and how it does not change your play styles was not what the example was showing. The idea of giving you rewards for playing and doing well was the point of the example. Meaning that if someone (not all) were to play something with a steep learning curve or skill curve plays a large amount of games to improve upon a specific skill without being rewarded in some way is less likely to continue to play. An example of this would be the gold gun skins. Now, people do not want to work towards it to learn or get better, but because it is a form of achievement. In short form, people like to unlock stuff.
On September 24 2012 07:21 rikter wrote:
A lot of people are mentioning personal learning styles. Heres how my level system handles that. True, you may learn differently, but you still need to learn the same things! The subject matter doesnt change, just the method of instruction!
Maybe you learn from a traditional 10x 12y 14z build order, visualizing whats happening as you read the build.
Maybe the traditional build order notation doesnt make sense to you, for whatever reason. Perhaps watching a video would be helpful?
Maybe you like the video but it moves too fast, so how about a slideshow format instead, so you can better follow whats happening?
Maybe you just cant pull it off because while you can mechanically do the build, you lack understanding of the strategic principles at play, so we talk about the theory of what you are doing and why?
When someone is having difficulty learning something, you dont say to them, "dont bother with it", you present it in a new way.
As far as me not having perspective, I played 2 seasons in gold on release and then stopped playing until midway through last season (I watched a lot of games though, and have background in RTT). When I came back I got stuck in bronze. In half a season of doing it as described, I am now top3 plat and still rising. It isnt macro you need to get to plat, its a good 1 base play. Also, I hate to bring league into this, but if you are only in gold then how can you be so sure you know what it takes to get plat?
Yes, I am an experienced gamer, and your system is designed for rank noobs, but this game is different from all the others. The mechanics arent the same, so I had to learn from scratch, just like they did. The advantage of my experience is that I know the right way to do things, so I waste less time on the wrong ones.
Would you say that macro is enough to get up to gold and than micro is enough to get to plat/diamond?
What I am seeing is that newer players like my self lack the ability to macro period. So therefor I would not take on
microing if I cannot make resources, spend those resources in a sufficient amount of time. With doing this system, it helps a new player accomplish that. Now if I were to improve on this and I have all that down naturally, could I not then work on my micro to reach higher leagues?
|
On September 24 2012 07:52 Tragedyx1 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2012 06:11 rikter wrote:
Edit to add: the CoD unlock system is not like the levels, because you can still play the same way regardless of what weapon you have. The weapons might not all be equal, but whether you have an mp5 (starting smg) or an mp7 (final smg) you still play it largely the same. This is not in any way true about the levels. The way the CoD unlock system works and how it does not change your play styles was not what the example was showing. The idea of giving you rewards for playing and doing well was the point of the example. Meaning that if someone (not all) were to play something with a steep learning curve or skill curve plays a large amount of games to improve upon a specific skill without being rewarded in some way is less likely to continue to play. An example of this would be the gold gun skins. Now, people do not want to work towards it to learn or get better, but because it is a form of achievement. In short form, people like to unlock stuff. Show nested quote + On September 24 2012 07:21 rikter wrote:
A lot of people are mentioning personal learning styles. Heres how my level system handles that. True, you may learn differently, but you still need to learn the same things! The subject matter doesnt change, just the method of instruction!
Maybe you learn from a traditional 10x 12y 14z build order, visualizing whats happening as you read the build.
Maybe the traditional build order notation doesnt make sense to you, for whatever reason. Perhaps watching a video would be helpful?
Maybe you like the video but it moves too fast, so how about a slideshow format instead, so you can better follow whats happening?
Maybe you just cant pull it off because while you can mechanically do the build, you lack understanding of the strategic principles at play, so we talk about the theory of what you are doing and why?
When someone is having difficulty learning something, you dont say to them, "dont bother with it", you present it in a new way.
As far as me not having perspective, I played 2 seasons in gold on release and then stopped playing until midway through last season (I watched a lot of games though, and have background in RTT). When I came back I got stuck in bronze. In half a season of doing it as described, I am now top3 plat and still rising. It isnt macro you need to get to plat, its a good 1 base play. Also, I hate to bring league into this, but if you are only in gold then how can you be so sure you know what it takes to get plat?
Yes, I am an experienced gamer, and your system is designed for rank noobs, but this game is different from all the others. The mechanics arent the same, so I had to learn from scratch, just like they did. The advantage of my experience is that I know the right way to do things, so I waste less time on the wrong ones. Would you say that macro is enough to get up to gold and than micro is enough to get to plat/diamond? What I am seeing is that newer players like my self lack the ability to macro period. So therefor I would not take on microing if I cannot make resources, spend those resources in a sufficient amount of time. With doing this system, it helps a new player accomplish that. Now if I were to improve on this and I have all that down naturally, could I not then work on my micro to reach higher leagues?
I think the best reward you could give someone is the feeling that comes when you go head to head with someone else and come out on top. Also, it isnt a 'reward' when the reward is a critical unit that has been artificially withheld. You don't need the CoD unlocks, you do need banshees, vikings, collosus etc.
No, you have it all backwards! You need the unit control and some basic builds to get yourself to at least plat. At around that point you start running into people who can hold your timing, or who harass you back, and so NOW it is time to start incorporating three bases and later game stuff. Keep in mind, you can still advance by further refining your attack, even GSL pros lose to 1-1-1. But you get nothing out of fumbling through a long game that was artificially extended because even though you could have killed the guy earlier you didn't. Seriously, playing T you could smash your way out of bronze with a simple 1-1-1. Just getting a single cloaked banshee or siege tank out as fast as you can will win you a lot of games. If someone cant even hold a single cloak banshee, how are they going to give you practice on 3 bases? You cant actually learn anything from them because they are so terrible, so use your 1 and 2 base plays as skill checks to get you to a point where it actually becomes necessary to play on more bases. Then when the time comes to play more bases, its such a small step up from what you have been doing already that it shouldnt be such a huge deal, and the mechanics to playing 3 bases are identical to the mechanics used in playing 1 or 2, only the scale is different. This is not true of "The Levels"
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
