|
On September 28 2012 00:34 Uncreative_Troll wrote:
. 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
Cool, I suggested some of these changes 2 months ago. Better late than never I guess.
|
On September 28 2012 00:44 JaKaTaK 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? I'm done reading any of your posts man. You clearly are not here to help. Show nested quote +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
The system works. Itd be cool if you either added to the original post with a changelog, or something, so that people can give specific feedback. Heres another idea for you: instead of using the levels as a build order why not try and partner up with a mapmaker and create single player custom games featuring economy based map triggers. You could do all the unlocking in a single session of practice. And, you can be the one adding structure instead of a live opponent. Keep playing to see how far you can go, all while working on macro mechanics
|
My advice/feedback to the OP - Have some way of incorporating match-up/game knowledge in your teaching process.
While macro is a big part, it is simply a necessary condition nothing more i.e. while a good player will always have good mechanics the converse is not true.
A lot of players focus on macro and while it is important, at the end of the day it will only help you get wins against lower level players who cannot macro properly. The real fun and ultimate skill of RTSes is the strategy/decision making side (this is also why I find "drill style" methods boring but that is just my opinion) which can best be learnt by grinding a whole bunch of standard games against opponents at the same skill level. This is why I prefer grinding out actual build orders copied from pros because along with the mechanics, you also get better at decision making. This particularly important in TvZ and TvT, where mechanics are simply not enough to trump better decision making/match-up understanding (unless, of course, there is a huge skill gap in mechanics).
You don't want to be one of those guys who are only good at copying and blindly executing pro builds. You can win a lot on the ladder but among the good/serious players, your standing will be mediocre at best.
|
On September 28 2012 09:17 babyToSS wrote:
My advice/feedback to the OP - Have some way of incorporating match-up/game knowledge in your teaching process.
While macro is a big part, it is simply a necessary condition nothing more i.e. while a good player will always have good mechanics the converse is not true.
A lot of players focus on macro and while it is important, at the end of the day it will only help you get wins against lower level players who cannot macro properly. The real fun and ultimate skill of RTSes is the strategy/decision making side (this is also why I find "drill style" methods boring but that is just my opinion) which can best be learnt by grinding a whole bunch of standard games against opponents at the same skill level. This is why I prefer grinding out actual build orders copied from pros because along with the mechanics, you also get better at decision making. This particularly important in TvZ and TvT, where mechanics are simply not enough to trump better decision making/match-up understanding (unless, of course, there is a huge skill gap in mechanics).
You don't want to be one of those guys who are only good at copying and blindly executing pro builds. You can win a lot on the ladder but among the good/serious players, your standing will be mediocre at best.
I agree, that those things are super fun and important. This program is designed to discover that kind of stuff through exploration and experimentation. Its like playing Jazz vs playing Classical. Different people like to play and learn different styles. I definitely like the idea of guiding the process somewhat, just so long as it doesn't impose on the individual style and creativity of the learner.
What kind of stuff did you have in mind?
|
On September 28 2012 10:40 JaKaTaK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2012 09:17 babyToSS wrote:
My advice/feedback to the OP - Have some way of incorporating match-up/game knowledge in your teaching process.
While macro is a big part, it is simply a necessary condition nothing more i.e. while a good player will always have good mechanics the converse is not true.
A lot of players focus on macro and while it is important, at the end of the day it will only help you get wins against lower level players who cannot macro properly. The real fun and ultimate skill of RTSes is the strategy/decision making side (this is also why I find "drill style" methods boring but that is just my opinion) which can best be learnt by grinding a whole bunch of standard games against opponents at the same skill level. This is why I prefer grinding out actual build orders copied from pros because along with the mechanics, you also get better at decision making. This particularly important in TvZ and TvT, where mechanics are simply not enough to trump better decision making/match-up understanding (unless, of course, there is a huge skill gap in mechanics).
You don't want to be one of those guys who are only good at copying and blindly executing pro builds. You can win a lot on the ladder but among the good/serious players, your standing will be mediocre at best. I agree, that those things are super fun and important. This program is designed to discover that kind of stuff through exploration and experimentation. Its like playing Jazz vs playing Classical. Different people like to play and learn different styles. I definitely like the idea of guiding the process somewhat, just so long as it doesn't impose on the individual style and creativity of the learner. What kind of stuff did you have in mind?
In my experience the absolute best way to develop good game sense is to grind out multiple games with a practice partner close to your skill level (you could pair up your students and ask them to duel each other for say x times a week or something. This could even happen within the confines of TheCore lesson structure).
Playing repeatedly against the same person is one of the best ways to improve -
(1) Unlike ladder, you can't fall into a pattern and blindly repeat the same thing each game, you are forced to mix things up which forces creativity and an understanding of balancing econ, tech and army investments based on what your opponent is expected to do. This concept is fundamental to any economy based RTS game.
For Example - If I invest in tech and econ then my opponent can invest a lot more in army and kill me but certain techs like cloak banshee can prevent this. Thus, few marines+cloak banshee followed by greed can be a powerful opener if the opponent scouts tech and tends to respond with expo behind light to medium pressure. Players like DRG and Leenock are scary good at this stuff where they scout, identify weakness, adjust on the fly and proceed to roflstomp opponent, even though the other guy didn't do anything wrong the whole game.
Note that this a pretty fundamental thing and has nothing to do with tech switching, building weird army compositions or any of that stuff. Even if you are only making marines, scvs from cc's and raxes, something as little as playing around with the order in which you get the buildings can have significant impacts on the game. Of course, players will have to start taking gas if they want to learn about tech investments.
(2) Soon you will know tendencies about your opponent, and players start learning about the importance of scouting because they have an active interest in finding out what their opponent is doing and have a much clearer idea of how to use the information they receive.
(3) Its always nice to discuss the games with your opponent and compare both perspectives.
(4) Last and the most important point, as you both get better at thwarting each others' moves, the games tend to always go to the late game. Long games allow players to start developing game sense and learning important tactical concepts like expansion control, army positioning for self, controlling and exploiting opponent's army positioning with multi-pronged drops/counter-attacks, when to turtle, be aggressive etc.
None of these things involve fancy micro, difficult to remember rules or require high APM. Even if you are playing with restricted unit compositions, these concepts should still apply. Of course as you are grinding out more number of longer games, your mechanics keep improving as well.
|
I really like the idea of encouraging practice partners and playing against the same person instead of laddering. Unfortuantely for me personally, it is important that I raise my ladder rank for credibility, but I will definitely suggest this to people I talk to.
We actually have a thing like this called Mechanics vs Strategy. One opponent would be on TheLevels and the other would be allowed to do whatever they wanted (with some small occasional restrictions for flying and cloaked units to make the game more interesting) The Mechanics player would try to overcome the good strategy with their limited resources and the strategy player would try to overcome the good mechanics by taking advantage of the weaknesses that come from the limited resources of the mechanics player. Repeating this against the same opponents, as well as taking turns between mechanics and strategy would be a great way to implement your suggestion.
Thanks :D
|
I absolutely love what you are doing here. I have never truly seen one person so dedicated to specifically branching out and trying to raise the skill level of lower ranked players. (Besides Day[9]) I actually bought another SC2 account and made this new teamliquid account to match. Just to try out your 'TheLevels' method with a fresh start.
Let me tell you something. I have played Starcraft on and off since midway through broodwar. (Protoss player) So, I have basically been fiddling with Starcraft for around 2-3 years. I have an average APM of about 100 and a fairly small knowledge of current SC2 strategy. I laddered all the way up to top diamond in SC2 beta (On a different account) and continued to play around diamond level for a few months, before returning to playing only every once in awhile. I was never really able to improve and playing the game became frustrating over time. I felt like I was never getting better and I just could not keep up.
Having all this experince and having played Starcraft for so long. Hopefully it means something when I say, I have never enjoyed Starcraft as much as I have following your program. Seriously, this thing is absolutely incredible and so well designed it blows me away. Not only did it strip me of my ladder anxiety but it is also forcing me to improve at such an incredible rate. I'm currently documenting every single replay I do throughout this program and plan on posting my results to you when I am finished.
However, in the meantime I just want to say that I have gained around 20-30 average APM in 4 days. (Began program on 9/25/12) Sometimes I even spike to around 220 when things get tense. Have GREATLY improved at keeping my money down and low. Almost never ever get supply blocked. And can maintain nearly constant probe production throughout the game.
Thank you so so much for developing 'TheLevels' method. You brought me back to Starcraft 2 and I feel more confident as well as enjoy playing the game more than I ever have before.
|
For those who don't believe a build order, strategy based style tutorial doesn't go out of date. Listen to the first minute of this tutorial by Apollo.
|
Dude just because individual build orders go out of date with patches and exploration of the game doesnt mean the skills you learned mastering the build are suddenly useless
|
Wait, are you claiming that the relevance of the build order you're learning in the current metagame is more important than the skills gained in the process of learning that build order? Isn't that in opposition to the entire point of your proposed learning method? I fail to see your point.
|
On October 02 2012 08:30 rikter wrote:
Dude just because individual build orders go out of date with patches and exploration of the game doesnt mean the skills you learned mastering the build are suddenly useless
When did he ever say they were useless, talk about throwing words in someone's mouth.
A downside of blindly following one build order is when the metagame shifts you have a very hard time figuring out a solution to the new problems that arise. No one is saying learning build orders is horrible and that you don't learn anything from them.
|
On October 02 2012 10:29 SirPsychoMantis wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 08:30 rikter wrote:
Dude just because individual build orders go out of date with patches and exploration of the game doesnt mean the skills you learned mastering the build are suddenly useless When did he ever say they were useless, talk about throwing words in someone's mouth. A downside of blindly following one build order is when the metagame shifts you have a very hard time figuring out a solution to the new problems that arise. No one is saying learning build orders is horrible and that you don't learn anything from them.
As I read that, the point was that since builds and the meta game change, you should learn by doing something that cant change. Maybe thats not what he meant, I dont know. Theres some room for interpretation with that statement though. Its not exactly putting words in his mouth, but maybe jak can clarify his point a bit?
to me, if you can do just one build properly, it makes it infinitely easier to learn other ones. Also, if a build is so powerful that you can just mindlessly do it ans smash without learning anything, then the game is broken. 5 rax reaper comes to mind as an example.
|
My ZvT has always been one of my strongest match ups. I've have had about 60% win since season 1, no more, no less. I never had a build (longer than 15hatch/15pool) or strategy that I have followed or tried to perfect. My entire play in this match up has been based on my knowledge of the match up and whatever skill I have.
My ZvZ is a totally different story. It was hard for me to grasp ZvZ at first so therefore I have based my ZvZ on different types of builds and strategy. This has caused my win rate to go up and down as the metagame shifts.
For example the first half of the last season I played one style conclusively and did not do well, mid season I took a 3 week break (for my vacation) and when I came back I learned a new build and conclusively used that build for the rest of the season.
During the first half of the season my win rate was 19% and the second half my win rate was 93%
I think this shows how incredibly strong or weak a build order/strategy can be and how much a build can "hide" the actual skill of a player. (sorry can't think of a better way to phrase this atm). The fact that players of the exact same skill level and understanding of the game can have such huge differences in win rate in the same match up, just because of the build is mind blowing to me.
I have been analyzing my replays from that season, and I do the exact same types mistakes both halves of the season, and I would actually say that I make more of them in the second half.
Ofc. there are LOTS of things to learn through trying out optimized builds, but I really think that most people have lots and lots of things to improve BEFORE spending time and sweat on understanding why and when specific builds are good since this can be done without the bumps in progression that the meta game changes can throw at you.
|
On September 29 2012 02:34 JaKaTaK wrote:
Unfortuantely for me personally, it is important that I raise my ladder rank for credibility...
Jak, does this mean you'll demonstrate your system on WoL instead of HOTS? I know you're platinum in HOTS but can we really consider that your true ladder rank when the beta is exactly that--the beta? You should get out of gold in WoL and show the viewers you can do it in WoL too instead of using your friends HOTS account. Just a suggestion :D
|
I wasn't implying anything when I said, "For those who don't believe a build order, strategy based style tutorial doesn't go out of date. Listen to the first minute of this tutorial by Apollo."
I meant exactly what I said, and that is all. Previously in this thread people have asked my how a build order could possibly become outdated. This is evidence for that specific point, that is all, and that is exactly what I said.
Concerning playing HotS vs WoL. More people want to watch me play HotS than WoL, so I play HotS. If more people wanted me to play WoL, I would play that. But in any case, I think its a good example to show that balance and patches don't matter as much when you're working on your mechanics with TheLevels. My mechanics allow me to experiment and have fun with different styles and ideas without being locked down to a build order. This is especially helpful in a game like HotS, where experimenting is probably more fun because of the new units and the meta game shifts quickly with each patch.
|
I have continued playing with "the levels" since my earlier post back in May. I have been meaning to come back and do a quick update. The levels have changed quite a bit since that time, I usually do at least a partial reset when the major changes come in. This has not been a problem for me, I understood from the outset that it was a work in progress. I have been very happy taking my time through the levels, more so than I think most would take or would need to take. I am an older gamer with not a lot of time so things come to me at a bit slower pace. At the current moment, I am on protoss level 1.6 (the DT/HT/archon level). Shortly after hitting the colossus level I finally got promoted to platinum, previously I could not get above the gold league. There is more to say but I will keep this post shorter and just add thanks to Jak for the system. I look forward to continued improvement and refinement of the system.
|
good luck! 
|
On October 03 2012 04:13 dissent_sc2 wrote:
I have continued playing with "the levels" since my earlier post back in May. I have been meaning to come back and do a quick update. The levels have changed quite a bit since that time, I usually do at least a partial reset when the major changes come in. This has not been a problem for me, I understood from the outset that it was a work in progress. I have been very happy taking my time through the levels, more so than I think most would take or would need to take. I am an older gamer with not a lot of time so things come to me at a bit slower pace. At the current moment, I am on protoss level 1.6 (the DT/HT/archon level). Shortly after hitting the colossus level I finally got promoted to platinum, previously I could not get above the gold league. There is more to say but I will keep this post shorter and just add thanks to Jak for the system. I look forward to continued improvement and refinement of the system.
Its hard to get out of gold league without ht's and collossus, the late observers dont help. An army with no AoE is hard to win with as the game goes later, and I think most levels games in lower leagues are either going to be really short (with you losing most of these to quick tech plays/hard counters whose proper counter you havent unlocked) or long (if people in lower leagues could do proper 2 base timings they wouldnt be in gold) . You can have base detection with cannons, but no observers leaves army vulnerable out on the map. You cant even do a proper build that could take you higher than gold without sentries at 1.3
Now that you actually have everything you need it should be easier to improve.
|
On October 03 2012 07:10 rikter wrote:
Its hard to get out of gold league without ht's and collossus, the late observers dont help. An army with no AoE is hard to win with as the game goes later, and I think most levels games in lower leagues are either going to be really short (with you losing most of these to quick tech plays/hard counters whose proper counter you havent unlocked) or long (if people in lower leagues could do proper 2 base timings they wouldnt be in gold) . You can have base detection with cannons, but no observers leaves army vulnerable out on the map. You cant even do a proper build that could take you higher than gold without sentries at 1.3
Now that you actually have everything you need it should be easier to improve.
I had all of those tools before I started the levels and the resources of build orders for each matchup that I tried to follow but was unable to get above gold. This covers a much longer period of time than I have currently spent on the levels. I was no worse off as far as my rank went when I was on level 1.2 with only un-upgraded zealots and stalkers, no detection, no base defense and no complicated strategy. According to the MMR plugin to sc2gears I was hovering around the gold/plat line. I had the feeling that if I spent some more time on this level and added some micro I could probably have gotten the promotion to plat.
Rikter, I have been following your posts with interest. You have raised several good points which I hope I can follow up on at a later time. I am not prepared to say what is the best approach to learning SC2. I will say I have thoroughly enjoyed following Jak's levels and have measurably improved my play in several areas.
|
On October 03 2012 14:00 dissent_sc2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2012 07:10 rikter wrote:
Its hard to get out of gold league without ht's and collossus, the late observers dont help. An army with no AoE is hard to win with as the game goes later, and I think most levels games in lower leagues are either going to be really short (with you losing most of these to quick tech plays/hard counters whose proper counter you havent unlocked) or long (if people in lower leagues could do proper 2 base timings they wouldnt be in gold) . You can have base detection with cannons, but no observers leaves army vulnerable out on the map. You cant even do a proper build that could take you higher than gold without sentries at 1.3
Now that you actually have everything you need it should be easier to improve.
I had all of those tools before I started the levels and the resources of build orders for each matchup that I tried to follow but was unable to get above gold. This covers a much longer period of time than I have currently spent on the levels. I was no worse off as far as my rank went when I was on level 1.2 with only un-upgraded zealots and stalkers, no detection, no base defense and no complicated strategy. According to the MMR plugin to sc2gears I was hovering around the gold/plat line. I had the feeling that if I spent some more time on this level and added some micro I could probably have gotten the promotion to plat. Rikter, I have been following your posts with interest. You have raised several good points which I hope I can follow up on at a later time. I am not prepared to say what is the best approach to learning SC2. I will say I have thoroughly enjoyed following Jak's levels and have measurably improved my play in several areas.
Its good you are improving, although since there are some skills you can learn just by playing, cant say for sure what caused it. Maybe you just needed X time and now youve gotten it in? At some point, the most important thing is to just play the game, so if this keeps you playing its good...to a point. Im sure this will help some people, though I think you can do it faster other ways. I used the campaign (verrrry similar in principle)to round into shape and while it helped me learn my hotkeys, once I hit the ladder I didnt really improve on the ladders until I started using proper openers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
