|
Some of the suggestions that have been made by me personally include tweaking the order on some of the terran units so that youre not missing tech, and adding in some more actual content. I dont post in this thread to pump my ego or try to get followers or what have you, I post because I dont have time to do this kind of work, jak does, and really I think more could and should be done.
I actually gave jak an outline of a level system that could literally generate a books worth of content, that would justify people giving him money.
Someone earlier posted an analogy about drum students not doing rudiments, wanting to do fancy stuff, and then not having the results they wanted because rudiments were lacking. Well, in sc2 building more units on more bases than you can actually manage is like rushing ahead without rudiments. Three bases is the fancier play, not 1.
Ask yourself, why is this guy with nothing to gain and no investment feel the need to respond to these people? I did a similar thing in one of Tangs threads and the end result was he learned about a new resource for pro vods and in general I think he improved the quality of posts. Not all my credit, but it can have positive impact.
|
Lets simplify it a little to make it clearer. Imagine this:
New player wants to learn SC2 and he loses 10 games in a row using level system provided here. What are the chances that he will continue using it?
Close to none. Because losing is not fun. How level system is gonna approach that? I do not see any incentive besides "you need to lose to get better" which actually does not even work most of the time when novice/casual players are considered.
|
Just another quick addition: lets just assume that levels takes off in its current form, with lots of new players using it. Do you think after getting smashed in and bm'd on the ladder, playing in a way that doesnt resemble what the pros are doing, that they are going to want to keep playing? When people get bad advice they lose, losing isnt fun, why play a game thats not fun? This does not help the cause of esports.
Ive really tried to think of a person or a scenario where doing this in its current state would be of real use and I just cant. I cant think of one reason why this build order is better than an actual build order. People learn differently, so finding a different way to present the build order would be great, but you still need to learn the build!
Good advice is good advice.
|
Hey Jak. Great work on The Core and The Levels. So far, I've notices an improvement on my inject timing, but I am having a problem that I can hopefully get some help with.
I'm currently using The Levels as a Zerg player. I've made it past 1.0 without any issue, but am having trouble meeting the SQ requirement. I have no problem with spending resources at the start of the game, but towards the end I seem to be floating a lot. The best I have been able to do is around 50 SQ. What should I be doing to get my unspent resources down? Should I throw down macro hatches when my resources start to get high? Should I be on two bases or just one? Lately, I've been on two bases with two macro hatches. Is this the right direction to go in? It seems like when I take a third, it pushes my unspent resources even higher. Thanks for all that you do for the community.
|
rikter... I disagree with you. Can't we just agree to disagree and move on. You like constricted build orders and a base constricted method. I like free build orders and a unit/building constricted method. I've tried the exact thing you are talking about already with new players and it wasn't working, players were getting overloaded with information, confused, and frustrated, which is why I've moved on. I am not ignoring your advise, I am disagreeing with it.
@thieveshonor
I assume you are talking about 1.1 (because you said you moved past 1.0)
More bases will increase your income as well as your average unspent resources, but you will likely find it easier to get a high SQ with a higher number of bases. But above all, economy drives everything. If you have money, find something useful to spend it on. So on 1.1, that means macro hatches, expansions, maybe queens. Just make sure you are spending your larva first and building hatches and queens 2nd.
and you're very welcome :D
|
On September 27 2012 08:45 thieveshonor wrote:
Hey Jak. Great work on The Core and The Levels. So far, I've notices an improvement on my inject timing, but I am having a problem that I can hopefully get some help with.
I'm currently using The Levels as a Zerg player. I've made it past 1.0 without any issue, but am having trouble meeting the SQ requirement. I have no problem with spending resources at the start of the game, but towards the end I seem to be floating a lot. The best I have been able to do is around 50 SQ. What should I be doing to get my unspent resources down? Should I throw down macro hatches when my resources start to get high? Should I be on two bases or just one? Lately, I've been on two bases with two macro hatches. Is this the right direction to go in? It seems like when I take a third, it pushes my unspent resources even higher. Thanks for all that you do for the community.
Focus on injects first. Most zerg players even at high levels don't have perfect injects, so don't be too worried if you don't master it right away. Injects are everything for playing zerg.
If you find your queens are all low on energy all the time, and you are still hording minerals, build macro hatcheries and more queens to inject them. If you've injected all your hatcheries non-stop, spent all your larva, and have 300 minerals to spare, it's time for a macro hatch and an extra queen. Keep adding hatches until you are comfortably spending all your money. Don't worry if at first you end up with way too many hatches -- in future games you can worry about getting the number of extra hatches down.
How many hatcheries you actually need depends largely on what units you're building. Zerglings are larva-inefficient units - you need a lot of larva to spend your money strictly on zerglings, so likewise you would need more hatches. Roaches are more expensive so will need fewer larva to spend all that money, thus you might need only 1 macro hatch off 3 saturated bases.
|
Jak is it maybe, maybe possible that the reason they got frustrated because your instruction was not sufficient? I dont think this is really a stretch, since your league is low and your comments kind of indicate a real lack of appreciation for the material.
have you actually gone through all the levels yourself? Or are you just doing them concurrently while instructing others? Do you think you have an obligation to maybe actually finish your own system and see the results before instructing others? Or to actually try a controlled experiment comparing methods?
It just seems like, given your rigidity, that the most important thing to you is that the system is yours, n.ot that it works best. I can understand working some things in a little later, but to just not include them at all?
|
The question with build order centric learning, in my experience with trying to learn the game, is that you use a build order, win big time and crush your opponent, and then you're all giggles and go into the next game to get stomped, then you ask yourself why? Because both games seem to be the same, you followed the build, and didn't get the same results. You don't know what to look for when it comes to problems. Maybe you did everything correctly and it was a build order loss, but a new person won't know that. They won't know what to look for and they'll get frustrated with it and go to another build order and have the same results, and eventually get PO'd at the game and stop playing. That was all me the first season I played. I never made it out of bronze.
TheLevels gives you a chance to alternatively advance, while getting some wins on the ladder. No matter if you win or lose, you' still feel like you're advancing. It's a little extra incentive to keep playing, and that's what most players need. 
As for doing it in ladder.. I don't recall ever hearing or reading that it must be done in ladder. I did it against some friends for awhile, and some AI games, and I suddenly understood how important macro was when I would walk into a friends base with 10 more units than he had.
I think that TheLevels is a good way to learn for someone that's tried to follow Build orders and doesn't understand why they win or why they lose. Or, someone that can follow build orders perfectly, and then can't figure out what to do after that.
TheLevels teaches you macro, and that works no matter how long the game goes, whether it's 8 minutes or 30 minutes. If you're spending your money quickly at all stages of the game, you're already better than most players.
On a side note, Rikter, I appreciate your comments. It's motivated me to go home and play, which I haven't been motivated to do for a week or two due to the emergence of the dreaded Dramalama in my life. Also, if you ever get the chance to write up a guide on your 1base play idea, I think I have a friend that would benefit from that and enjoy the learning experience, since I could probably help him with his replays and tell him what went wrong.
|
On September 27 2012 19:51 rikter wrote:
Jak is it maybe, maybe possible that the reason they got frustrated because your instruction was not sufficient? I dont think this is really a stretch, since your league is low and your comments kind of indicate a real lack of appreciation for the material.
have you actually gone through all the levels yourself? Or are you just doing them concurrently while instructing others? Do you think you have an obligation to maybe actually finish your own system and see the results before instructing others? Or to actually try a controlled experiment comparing methods?
It just seems like, given your rigidity, that the most important thing to you is that the system is yours, n.ot that it works best. I can understand working some things in a little later, but to just not include them at all?
Don't you think you have the responsibility to actually test this system before unilaterally imposing judgement on it? Your posts are full of "I think" and "I don't think" but you don't have very much to go on but your opinion, do you? I wouldn't be the first person to post in this thread that I am sick and tired of hearing your same opinion posted over and over again, so how about you contribute something fresh or just accept that people are not going to agree with you?
|
On September 27 2012 04:49 Siemon16 wrote:
I bet the most of the people that are responding didnt even try it. But as said before, jack lacks a little bit in advertizing
Those comminuty members that he listed didn't try it either. A lot of the people posting here can't even try it, I for example am already a master player. I've never reviewed pro replays, my own replays, learned builds (literally) to get to masters (as both protoss and zerg), and I started out in bronze. I don't need to butcher my hotkeys and divide my apm by 10 to understand what techniques is trying to be taught here.
|
On September 27 2012 22:38 shogeki wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2012 19:51 rikter wrote:
Jak is it maybe, maybe possible that the reason they got frustrated because your instruction was not sufficient? I dont think this is really a stretch, since your league is low and your comments kind of indicate a real lack of appreciation for the material.
have you actually gone through all the levels yourself? Or are you just doing them concurrently while instructing others? Do you think you have an obligation to maybe actually finish your own system and see the results before instructing others? Or to actually try a controlled experiment comparing methods?
It just seems like, given your rigidity, that the most important thing to you is that the system is yours, n.ot that it works best. I can understand working some things in a little later, but to just not include them at all? Don't you think you have the responsibility to actually test this system before unilaterally imposing judgement on it? Your posts are full of "I think" and "I don't think" but you don't have very much to go on but your opinion, do you? I wouldn't be the first person to post in this thread that I am sick and tired of hearing your same opinion posted over and over again, so how about you contribute something fresh or just accept that people are not going to agree with you?
I have tested this system. A better version, actually, in the WoL campaign. There is really only so much that can be done under single player but at least the scenarios are better designed. Even then, I found that I was woefully unprepared for the ladder, and I am not a novice gamer. It might be useful to familiarize yourself with units, but where WoL has scenarios that highlight abillities, thelevels has.....nothing. the point of the game is not to keep money low it is to kill the other guy.
My opinions are based on two decades of experience, across a huge spectrum of games and sports and competitive endeavors. Forget the fact that Ive been consistently at the top I have never met an actual winner whose attitude even remotely resembles that of this teaching method. Not one but TWO pro gamers have posted almost identical criticisms, in this very thread. This system reminds me of all the nonsense gambling literature out there claiming that you can succede despite doing things that don't resemble established techniques.
I get a little tired hearing all the "i cant, this is too hard" does that mean they shouldnt post either? My posts are a little more than "I dont like this", there are reasons and explanations and evidence.
|
On September 27 2012 23:08 rikter wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2012 22:38 shogeki wrote:On September 27 2012 19:51 rikter wrote:
Jak is it maybe, maybe possible that the reason they got frustrated because your instruction was not sufficient? I dont think this is really a stretch, since your league is low and your comments kind of indicate a real lack of appreciation for the material.
have you actually gone through all the levels yourself? Or are you just doing them concurrently while instructing others? Do you think you have an obligation to maybe actually finish your own system and see the results before instructing others? Or to actually try a controlled experiment comparing methods?
It just seems like, given your rigidity, that the most important thing to you is that the system is yours, n.ot that it works best. I can understand working some things in a little later, but to just not include them at all? Don't you think you have the responsibility to actually test this system before unilaterally imposing judgement on it? Your posts are full of "I think" and "I don't think" but you don't have very much to go on but your opinion, do you? I wouldn't be the first person to post in this thread that I am sick and tired of hearing your same opinion posted over and over again, so how about you contribute something fresh or just accept that people are not going to agree with you? I have tested this system. A better version, actually, in the WoL campaign. There is really only so much that can be done under single player but at least the scenarios are better designed. Even then, I found that I was woefully unprepared for the ladder, and I am not a novice gamer. It might be useful to familiarize yourself with units, but where WoL has scenarios that highlight abillities, thelevels has.....nothing. the point of the game is not to keep money low it is to kill the other guy.
What RTS have you been playing. Keeping you money low to build shit to kill the other guy is a large part of the game. Also I'm still waiting for Jak to add wraiths and diamondbacks to the levels :D
|
I really enjoy this. throwing 500000 Marines at people is so fun :D
|
You dont need your money low to kill the other guy. You can bank huge resources and win. Its obviously better if your money is low, but its not an end in and of itself. Low money is just a performance benchmark to evaluate build efficiency, and the reason your money is low is more important than whether its low. If you have minimal workers and your money is low what have you learned? If your money is low because you have more production facillities than you need, what have you learned?
|
I think the main charm of TheLevels is that there are additional achievements beside actually improving like reaching a higher round/level, measuring results (and watching your hopefully increasing SQ), focussing on some kind of training, seemingly less investigation (for build orders and stuff like that) and maybe beeing less focussed on winning the game...
However I doubt that TheLevels is an ideal all around training method, because the restriction on certain units and the focus on certain aspects of the game force you to play worse than you could and won't train every skillset which would rewarding.
The user learns that it's important to spent their ressources, to not get supply blocked and that attacking can win you games, but they most likely won't learn how to macro efficient (by not having an ideal Build Order), scouting and how to react to opponents, using good follow ups and they delay learning to micro and other important stuff which is beneficial too.
The ideal way to learn playing Starcraft is most likely a bit of everything. Get some basic macro with TheLevels or Multitasking maps or learning Build Orders, understand Gameplans, play funmaps which focus on certain aspects of the game, play ladder, play buddies, analyse your replays, watch some tournaments/streams/learning shows and so on... (The order of the points doesn't show how important/good they are.)
The most important point is that the player has fun and doesn't totally waste his time. TheLevels might not be ideal yet but they are improving and it has it's good points. When Jak starts to promote TheLevels as a way to start training or as part of a training plan then most of the critism (except his own skills and his experience with this system)* should stop I guess.
*He is currently working on both points.
I watched his stream quite a bit since my first posts here. The chat is quite nice and it's somehow interesting to see where he is heading to with QuestofJack. TheLevels were quite a bit changed, too:
- the Protoss tech tree advances now more with the buildings
- less rounds per level and more unified (number of rounds for each race)
- much faster to reach higher round/level cause you need to meet the requirements only 3 times in a row instead of 5 times (for level 1 and 2)
- better presentation
- you lose less tech when you reach a higher level
- level 3 got reduced heavily considering that those player should be decent already
...
I talked about some of these points in my posts. I don't know if he changed them because of me or because he gets a lot more experience with TheLevels currently but we can say for sure that he is still fixing problems and doesn't ignore all kinds of feedback. The most rewarding way to deal with this topic is most likely to point out still existing problems (Terran Tech tree, missing information, maybe an additional mining-Base-number focussed way of dealing with Macro and the way the first Post in this Topic somewhat discredits other learning approaches) in his streamchat or this thread and try to influence this learning approach in a positive way. It has his place after all.
|
On September 27 2012 19:51 rikter wrote:
Jak is it maybe, maybe possible that the reason they got frustrated because your instruction was not sufficient? I dont think this is really a stretch, since your league is low and your comments kind of indicate a real lack of appreciation for the material.
have you actually gone through all the levels yourself? Or are you just doing them concurrently while instructing others? Do you think you have an obligation to maybe actually finish your own system and see the results before instructing others? Or to actually try a controlled experiment comparing methods?
It just seems like, given your rigidity, that the most important thing to you is that the system is yours, n.ot that it works best. I can understand working some things in a little later, but to just not include them at all?
I'm done reading any of your posts man. You clearly are not here to help.
On September 28 2012 00:34 Uncreative_Troll wrote:
I think the main charm of TheLevels is that there are additional achievements beside actually improving like reaching a higher round/level, measuring results (and watching your hopefully increasing SQ), focussing on some kind of training, seemingly less investigation (for build orders and stuff like that) and maybe beeing less focussed on winning the game...
However I doubt that TheLevels is an ideal all around training method, because the restriction on certain units and the focus on certain aspects of the game force you to play worse than you could and won't train every skillset which would rewarding.
The user learns that it's important to spent their ressources, to not get supply blocked and that attacking can win you games, but they most likely won't learn how to macro efficient (by not having an ideal Build Order), scouting and how to react to opponents, using good follow ups and they delay learning to micro and other important stuff which is beneficial too.
The ideal way to learn playing Starcraft is most likely a bit of everything. Get some basic macro with TheLevels or Multitasking maps or learning Build Orders, understand Gameplans, play funmaps which focus on certain aspects of the game, play ladder, play buddies, analyse your replays, watch some tournaments/streams/learning shows and so on... (The order of the points doesn't show how important/good they are.)
The most important point is that the player has fun and doesn't totally waste his time. TheLevels might not be ideal yet but they are improving and it has it's good points. When Jak starts to promote TheLevels as a way to start training or as part of a training plan then most of the critism (except his own skills and his experience with this system)* should stop I guess.
*He is currently working on both points.
I watched his stream quite a bit since my first posts here. The chat is quite nice and it's somehow interesting to see where he is heading to with QuestofJack. TheLevels were quite a bit changed, too:
- the Protoss tech tree advances now more with the buildings
- less rounds per level and more unified (number of rounds for each race)
- much faster to reach higher round/level cause you need to meet the requirements only 3 times in a row instead of 5 times (for level 1 and 2)
- better presentation
- you lose less tech when you reach a higher level
- level 3 got reduced heavily considering that those player should be decent already
...
I talked about some of these points in my posts. I don't know if he changed them because of me or because he gets a lot more experience with TheLevels currently but we can say for sure that he is still fixing problems and doesn't ignore all kinds of feedback. The most rewarding way to deal with this topic is most likely to point out still existing problems (Terran Tech tree, missing information, maybe an additional mining-Base-number focussed way of dealing with Macro and the way the first Post in this Topic somewhat discredits other learning approaches) in his streamchat or this thread and try to influence this learning approach in a positive way. It has his place after all.
Thanks for noticing man. Its been a while since I made those changes, so it'd be hard to say who put them in my head, but I think you and rikter were actually the ones who gave me some of those ideas. Thanks :D
|
@ Gravve,
I see your point. Build orders can seem deceptively simplistic because they don't generally account for all the reactions and variations that come up in actual play. For example, it is necessary to abandon any normal build in order to stop cheese (like a cannon rush). Newer players may get frustrated by the need to learn to adapt to the variety of situations in actual play. I don't see any way around losing a lot of games in order to learn those sorts of skills -- regardless of whether you use a build order or Jak's method. This game is pretty complicated. It's not Angry Birds. :p
|
On September 27 2012 19:51 rikter wrote:
...
have you actually gone through all the levels yourself? Or are you just doing them concurrently while instructing others? Do you think you have an obligation to maybe actually finish your own system and see the results before instructing others? Or to actually try a controlled experiment comparing methods?
...
That paragraph are valid questions. He is at Level 2.1 with Protoss. AFAIK Jak haven't gone through all the levels himself. I agree that he really should have started QuestofJak way earlier.
JaKaTaK United States. September 28 2012 00:44. Posts 567
I'm done reading any of your posts man. You clearly are not hear to help.
I just wrote a post that you don't ignore feedback. You aren't helping me ;P
Salient United States. September 28 2012 00:47. Posts 55
@ Gravve,
I see your point. Build orders can seem deceptively simplistic because they don't generally account for all the reactions and variations that come up in actual play. For example, it is necessary to abandon any normal build in order to stop cheese (like a cannon rush). Newer players may get frustrated by the need to learn to adapt to the variety of situations in actual play. I don't see any way around losing a lot of games in order to learn those sorts of skills -- regardless of whether you use a build order or Jak's method. This game is pretty complicated. It's not Angry Birds.
A good Build order guide tells you what to scout for and tells you how to react to most of the stuff you are facing. I don't think that learning to adjust to the opponent while doing a bad descripted Build Order is harder than completly making everything up by yourself.
|
On September 27 2012 23:08 rikter wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2012 22:38 shogeki wrote:On September 27 2012 19:51 rikter wrote:
Jak is it maybe, maybe possible that the reason they got frustrated because your instruction was not sufficient? I dont think this is really a stretch, since your league is low and your comments kind of indicate a real lack of appreciation for the material.
have you actually gone through all the levels yourself? Or are you just doing them concurrently while instructing others? Do you think you have an obligation to maybe actually finish your own system and see the results before instructing others? Or to actually try a controlled experiment comparing methods?
It just seems like, given your rigidity, that the most important thing to you is that the system is yours, n.ot that it works best. I can understand working some things in a little later, but to just not include them at all? Don't you think you have the responsibility to actually test this system before unilaterally imposing judgement on it? Your posts are full of "I think" and "I don't think" but you don't have very much to go on but your opinion, do you? I wouldn't be the first person to post in this thread that I am sick and tired of hearing your same opinion posted over and over again, so how about you contribute something fresh or just accept that people are not going to agree with you? I have tested this system. A better version, actually, in the WoL campaign. There is really only so much that can be done under single player but at least the scenarios are better designed. Even then, I found that I was woefully unprepared for the ladder, and I am not a novice gamer. It might be useful to familiarize yourself with units, but where WoL has scenarios that highlight abillities, thelevels has.....nothing. the point of the game is not to keep money low it is to kill the other guy. My opinions are based on two decades of experience, across a huge spectrum of games and sports and competitive endeavors. Forget the fact that Ive been consistently at the top I have never met an actual winner whose attitude even remotely resembles that of this teaching method. Not one but TWO pro gamers have posted almost identical criticisms, in this very thread. This system reminds me of all the nonsense gambling literature out there claiming that you can succede despite doing things that don't resemble established techniques. I get a little tired hearing all the "i cant, this is too hard" does that mean they shouldnt post either? My posts are a little more than "I dont like this", there are reasons and explanations and evidence.
So you play a lot of games, I'm pretty sure a majority of people on these forums have been gaming since they were kids. Not really a "qualification" on how to teach starcraft. Being smart or experienced doesn't mean you can teach. I had several professors in college who were obviously very smart people, but just couldn't convey the information in a reasonable manner.
You seem to think your comparison to WoL campaign is pretty clever, but how many missions do you and your opponent start with 6 workers, 50 minerals? None. How about units you get that are not in multiplayer? There are clearly many more things that are better about this teaching method over just playing the singleplayer campaign.
|
I'm shocked.
I thought I gonna get roflstomped in Diamond EU when I do the 1.2 level, especially when I have to deal with slow Zealots and Stalkers... Surprisingly I won some games, and even I won a game vs Diamond level player doing 1.1, so to anyone thinks that the levels will discourage people in lower leagues because they will lose 10 games, it's completely false. If your mechanics strong enough, it will get you far even on 1.2.
This is for example a game in PvP, no less... And it's isn't a 4 gate.
![[image loading]](http://www.gamereplays.org/community/uploads/repimgs/repimg-33-272013.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
