|
On October 03 2012 20:04 rikter wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2012 14:00 dissent_sc2 wrote: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.
You keep harping on this JaKaTaK method = the campaign. There are plenty of people I know who bought SC2 when it was released, played through the campaign on normal, maybe the occasional 4v4, but in 1v1 they would have struggled in bronze and gotten stomped by silver players.
Also protoss and zerg players, the campaign is super helpful for them for learning build orders and what units do, right?
|
You have access to protoss in the campaign, though its optional. The point is simply that this is a system that is pretty much identical to the campaign philosophy, but lacks the finer details that are present in the campaign.
|
On October 04 2012 00:16 rikter wrote:
You have access to protoss in the campaign, though its optional. The point is simply that this is a system that is pretty much identical to the campaign philosophy, but lacks the finer details that are present in the campaign.
In the campaign you learn how to use T units, including ones that aren't even in the game, as well as upgrades that don't exist (like the mule calldown for all rax units). So honestly how is the campaign better? I'm not saying the campaign isn't fun, it's just not realistic for helping you into the 1v1 scenario.
|
On October 04 2012 00:16 rikter wrote:
You have access to protoss in the campaign, though its optional. The point is simply that this is a system that is pretty much identical to the campaign philosophy, but lacks the finer details that are present in the campaign.
I'm curious what the "finer details" of the campaign are. Most of the campaign missions are nothing like playing a regular 1v1 match. Some are pure micro with specialized units that do not exist in multiplayer. As another guy mentioned, you have all sorts of upgrades and units that you do not have access to in multiplayer.
I mean I understand the point you're trying to make, but it just really doesn't work. Playing the campaign is demonstrably worse for improving in 1v1 than playing 1v1 and going through TheLevels. In one you add on units slowly and focus on macro, in the other you add on units one at a time, some of which you'll never be able to use in multiplayer, and in situations that are unique to the campaign and oftentimes do not require you to be aggressive, or require you to make only one unit, or don't have any macro at all.
|
On October 04 2012 00:16 rikter wrote:
You have access to protoss in the campaign, though its optional. The point is simply that this is a system that is pretty much identical to the campaign philosophy, but lacks the finer details that are present in the campaign.
The levels aren't actually about the units. It is about placing arbitrary limitations on what units you can build and what decisions you can make so that you are forced to use macro and mechanics. People who play the campaign are woefully unprepared for multiplayer. This is not because they don't know the units but because the stresses of playing the 1v1 ladder are very different from the campaign. The pace is faster, you are playing an opponent that is hard to predict, and if you get behind you generally stay behind unless you do something to take the edge. So your assertion that the campaign is better prep for new users is incredibly silly.
|
Making Lvl.1 strictly against ai practice could help in refining the macro without interference. It does not even involve reacting to what opponent is doing, so what is the point of laddering then? Its only a warm-up phase, isn't it?
On the other hand, after beating Lvl. 1 a player have clearer general outlook on what macro really is, so implementing those skills in a ladder game could be more efficient than, for example, mindlessly massing zealots against roaches, which is pointless from a strategic standpoint 95% of the time.
There are no spellcasters in Lvl.1. Document could use an explanation about it.
Lvl.1 should have requirement of building structures, same as units (ie. you have to build at least 1 sensor tower in Terran 1.3) in order to get familiar with building time, size, requirements and mechanics.
Setting and recalling base/rally cameras and avoiding edge scroll should be mandatory (Lvl. 3).
Considering tech paths:
1.3 Siege Tank
1.4 Medivac
1.5 (Battle) Hellion, Widow Mine
1.6 Thor
1.7 Banshee, Viking
1.8 Battlecruiser
Should be:
1.3 (Battle) Hellion, Widow Mine
1.4 Siege Tank
1.5 Thor
1.6 Medivac
1.7 Banshee, Viking
1.8 Battlecruiser
|
@Czar
There will be more explaination videos and tutorials for TheLevels as I have the time to do them (Especially now that TheCore 0.5 is pretty much wrapped up). As far as putting more restrictions, like "you must build at least X of this building" I think is interesting. It would work pretty well with things like sensor towers, but I'm not sure about other stuff. Let me give you an example:
I am playing Protoss 2.2 now, which means gateway units and upgrades. I started my first day on this round playing with the sentries and getting a feel for their spells. I especially wanted to mess around with some early zealot sentry pressure. However, later on I decided to try out some pure blink stalker attacks. Having a restriction that forced me to get a twilight council, for example, would have prevented me from passing when I did well with an early zealot sentry attack and didn't get to the point where I would want to get a twilight council. (as a side note to anyone reading please do not respond to what strategies here are good or bad and for whatever reason make this point invalid, it is not the point)
But something like encouraging the use of a sensor tower would be cool. Or maybe, you must have built at least 1 of every structure and unit before moving on the next round. That would be interesting.
Concerning Tech Paths,
The tank is after the bio to open up marine tank play as well as 3/3 ups for bio. Followed by the medivac which allows for MMM play. I had your second "Should be" section as the original unit order, but for terrans, putting the medivac that far off in the system did not work well.
Thanks for the feedback :D
|
On October 04 2012 00:48 JDub wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 00:16 rikter wrote:
You have access to protoss in the campaign, though its optional. The point is simply that this is a system that is pretty much identical to the campaign philosophy, but lacks the finer details that are present in the campaign. I'm curious what the "finer details" of the campaign are. Most of the campaign missions are nothing like playing a regular 1v1 match. Some are pure micro with specialized units that do not exist in multiplayer. As another guy mentioned, you have all sorts of upgrades and units that you do not have access to in multiplayer. I mean I understand the point you're trying to make, but it just really doesn't work. Playing the campaign is demonstrably worse for improving in 1v1 than playing 1v1 and going through TheLevels. In one you add on units slowly and focus on macro, in the other you add on units one at a time, some of which you'll never be able to use in multiplayer, and in situations that are unique to the campaign and oftentimes do not require you to be aggressive, or require you to make only one unit, or don't have any macro at all.
"In one you add on units 1 at a time" "In one you add on units slowly" these are almost exactly the same thing. The fact that there are extra units and upgrades have literally NOTHING to do with the fact that the progression is essentially the same. But if the campaign is so terrible for 1v1 then why is the levels magically better, considering that they share the same base.
I dont know what campaign, on what difficulty you played, but the game is just as fast as on the ladder, with an AI that is considerably better than a typical low league player. The campaign actually requires you to be aggressive, while the levels doesnt, especially in doing achievements. The campaign scenarios actually feature design elements that highlight the things that make the units unique (as opposed to just winging it on the ladder) my biggest complaint about the campaign is that all the way up to brutal you can just macro hard and smash a-move...so this is also the opposite of what you said.
The biggest failing of both the campaign and the levels is that they dont teach efficiency at all, while build orders do.
Why not split the levels up by building instead of by specific unit. Quicker progression, better access to necessary tech etc.
|
I meant only Lvl1 as a warm up phase. Higher levels should have the strategic standpoint accommodated as it is right now, but I think it is unnecessary in Lvl. 1.
|
On October 04 2012 02:19 rikter wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 00:48 JDub wrote:On October 04 2012 00:16 rikter wrote:
You have access to protoss in the campaign, though its optional. The point is simply that this is a system that is pretty much identical to the campaign philosophy, but lacks the finer details that are present in the campaign. I'm curious what the "finer details" of the campaign are. Most of the campaign missions are nothing like playing a regular 1v1 match. Some are pure micro with specialized units that do not exist in multiplayer. As another guy mentioned, you have all sorts of upgrades and units that you do not have access to in multiplayer. I mean I understand the point you're trying to make, but it just really doesn't work. Playing the campaign is demonstrably worse for improving in 1v1 than playing 1v1 and going through TheLevels. In one you add on units slowly and focus on macro, in the other you add on units one at a time, some of which you'll never be able to use in multiplayer, and in situations that are unique to the campaign and oftentimes do not require you to be aggressive, or require you to make only one unit, or don't have any macro at all. "In one you add on units 1 at a time" "In one you add on units slowly" these are almost exactly the same thing. The fact that there are extra units and upgrades have literally NOTHING to do with the fact that the progression is essentially the same. But if the campaign is so terrible for 1v1 then why is the levels magically better, considering that they share the same base. I dont know what campaign, on what difficulty you played, but the game is just as fast as on the ladder, with an AI that is considerably better than a typical low league player. The campaign actually requires you to be aggressive, while the levels doesnt, especially in doing achievements. The campaign scenarios actually feature design elements that highlight the things that make the units unique (as opposed to just winging it on the ladder) my biggest complaint about the campaign is that all the way up to brutal you can just macro hard and smash a-move...so this is also the opposite of what you said. The biggest failing of both the campaign and the levels is that they dont teach efficiency at all, while build orders do.
"the 1 at a time" and "slowly" were two ways of saying the same thing. I wasn't trying to draw a distinction there, sorry if that was confusing. The distinction was meant to be that campaign missions are often "defend a lot" or "micro only these units" or "mass this unit that you can't actually use in multiplayer".
Sure, you can just macro + a-move through the campaign, but you can also just turtle, macro horrendously, and make tanks for a lot of the campaign too. Playing through the campaign a bunch isn't going to prepare you for 1v1 like playing through TheLevels will, if only because one is an actual 1v1 game, and the other is contrived scenarios that don't require playing in the same way. One of the recommendations of TheLevels is aggression (perhaps you should read the spreadsheet?), sure it's not required, but you also can't win a 1v1 by sitting in your base until a clock ticks down to zero.
Edit: I will say this -- there are some missions in the campaign that are comparable, where you have to macro up quickly, utilize a new unit, and attack. But there are many missions that are a waste of time in terms of improvement. So I think the whole campaign argument is moot because of that.
|
On October 04 2012 02:19 rikter wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 00:48 JDub wrote:On October 04 2012 00:16 rikter wrote:
You have access to protoss in the campaign, though its optional. The point is simply that this is a system that is pretty much identical to the campaign philosophy, but lacks the finer details that are present in the campaign. I'm curious what the "finer details" of the campaign are. Most of the campaign missions are nothing like playing a regular 1v1 match. Some are pure micro with specialized units that do not exist in multiplayer. As another guy mentioned, you have all sorts of upgrades and units that you do not have access to in multiplayer. I mean I understand the point you're trying to make, but it just really doesn't work. Playing the campaign is demonstrably worse for improving in 1v1 than playing 1v1 and going through TheLevels. In one you add on units slowly and focus on macro, in the other you add on units one at a time, some of which you'll never be able to use in multiplayer, and in situations that are unique to the campaign and oftentimes do not require you to be aggressive, or require you to make only one unit, or don't have any macro at all. "In one you add on units 1 at a time" "In one you add on units slowly" these are almost exactly the same thing. The fact that there are extra units and upgrades have literally NOTHING to do with the fact that the progression is essentially the same. But if the campaign is so terrible for 1v1 then why is the levels magically better, considering that they share the same base. I dont know what campaign, on what difficulty you played, but the game is just as fast as on the ladder, with an AI that is considerably better than a typical low league player. The campaign actually requires you to be aggressive, while the levels doesnt, especially in doing achievements. The campaign scenarios actually feature design elements that highlight the things that make the units unique (as opposed to just winging it on the ladder) my biggest complaint about the campaign is that all the way up to brutal you can just macro hard and smash a-move...so this is also the opposite of what you said. The biggest failing of both the campaign and the levels is that they dont teach efficiency at all, while build orders do.
On October 04 2012 02:19 rikter wrote:
"In one you add on units 1 at a time" "In one you add on units slowly" these are almost exactly the same thing.
Yes this is true, I think you missed the point of what he was saying. TheLevels make you macro up to a standard, while campaign you either don't have to macro or you can lazily macro.
On October 04 2012 02:19 rikter wrote:
The fact that there are extra units and upgrades have literally NOTHING to do with the fact that the progression is essentially the same
No one is refuting this fact, yet you keep arguing it. Yes, in both the campaign and TheLevels you slowly get to use more units.
On October 04 2012 02:19 rikter wrote:
But if the campaign is so terrible for 1v1 then why is the levels magically better, considering that they share the same base.
TheLevels make you macro. Macro, ie. one of the major core components of any RTS. TheLevels set a hard value that lets you see your progress. How does that difference not matter?
TheLevels let you play against an opponent who is of equal skill to you, that is, using matchmaking, there is yet another advantage. Saying they are "magically" better is just your apparent personal vendetta against the levels.
On October 04 2012 02:19 rikter wrote:
The campaign actually requires you to be aggressive...my biggest complaint about the campaign is that all the way up to brutal you can just macro hard and smash a-move
Uh... what? Those are opposites.
|
Someone wrote:
Levels>build orders
Someone else wrote:
Levels<build orders
Simple solution: make build orders a part of Lvl.4. Examples:
-setting time/supply restrictions like: make 200/200 army consisting of only Tank/Marine or Archon/Zealot as fast as possible
-expand first then build any army production structures
-defeat your opponent before 10 minute mark etc.
|
Edit: I will say this -- there are some missions in the campaign that are comparable, where you have to macro up quickly, utilize a new unit, and attack. But there are many missions that are a waste of time in terms of improvement. So I think the whole campaign argument is moot because of that.
It's also worth noting that on those missions where you macro fast and attack the new unit you get is completely overpowered on that scenario. Wraiths in the Odin mission come to mind. There are also missions which actively discourage good macro such as the ones where you get banshees and reapers because you have to constantly move your base.
|
On October 03 2012 20:04 rikter wrote:
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.
I can say exactly what caused me to get me promoted, quite simply it was much better macro at all points in the game which is directly attributable to the levels. I don't know exactly what you mean by improving on the ladders. If you mean going from bronze to silver, gold or plat, based on my experience good macro is all that is needed. This can be learned very quickly with the levels. For some, following builds may be sufficient to get them to good macro, but it was not working for me. When I say good macro here, I mean good macro at all points in the game. This is what slows people down on the macro side, they forget to keep macroing when stuff starts happening. If you mean improving at the higher levels of the ladder, then I expect you are correct that past a certain point good builds and good reads of your opponent, among other skills, are needed to keep improving.
I'd like to say again that I think you have raised good points, but you seem to be opposed to giving any credit to the levels for having helped people get better at the game. This is unfortunate, I had hoped you could lead a discussion that could improve and refine that system even as you promoted an alternative.
|
I apologize about the negative language I have used in past posts about build orders. I was being attacked aggressively on my learning method and reacted defensively. This was not the optimal response, and for that I apologize. That being said...
Concerning the Build Orders vs TheLevels Debate,
Build Orders can be used with TheLevels. Essentially, any time you see a pro game, each player will fit into a level. A 4 gate without sentries falls into the 2.1 or 3.1 Levels. A six pool falls into the 2.1 and 3.1 levels as well. Using TheLevels to figure out if you are ready for a particular strategy or build is a great idea, IMO. Say I want to do some phoenix play in PvP, but I am on Level 1.4 and am still struggling to make robo units and keep my money low. I am probably not ready for phoenix play just yet.
I think it is important to remember that TheLevels are a tool, for you to do with as you will. If you have a hammer, and you want to use it to break down a wall instead of nailing in a nail, there's nothing to stop you. (although you may lose that deposit on your apartment). If a hammer won't do the job you want to do, then why pick one up in the first place?
I hope that helps clear some things up.
GLHF
|
On October 04 2012 02:39 SirPsychoMantis wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 02:19 rikter wrote:On October 04 2012 00:48 JDub wrote:On October 04 2012 00:16 rikter wrote:
You have access to protoss in the campaign, though its optional. The point is simply that this is a system that is pretty much identical to the campaign philosophy, but lacks the finer details that are present in the campaign. I'm curious what the "finer details" of the campaign are. Most of the campaign missions are nothing like playing a regular 1v1 match. Some are pure micro with specialized units that do not exist in multiplayer. As another guy mentioned, you have all sorts of upgrades and units that you do not have access to in multiplayer. I mean I understand the point you're trying to make, but it just really doesn't work. Playing the campaign is demonstrably worse for improving in 1v1 than playing 1v1 and going through TheLevels. In one you add on units slowly and focus on macro, in the other you add on units one at a time, some of which you'll never be able to use in multiplayer, and in situations that are unique to the campaign and oftentimes do not require you to be aggressive, or require you to make only one unit, or don't have any macro at all. "In one you add on units 1 at a time" "In one you add on units slowly" these are almost exactly the same thing. The fact that there are extra units and upgrades have literally NOTHING to do with the fact that the progression is essentially the same. But if the campaign is so terrible for 1v1 then why is the levels magically better, considering that they share the same base. I dont know what campaign, on what difficulty you played, but the game is just as fast as on the ladder, with an AI that is considerably better than a typical low league player. The campaign actually requires you to be aggressive, while the levels doesnt, especially in doing achievements. The campaign scenarios actually feature design elements that highlight the things that make the units unique (as opposed to just winging it on the ladder) my biggest complaint about the campaign is that all the way up to brutal you can just macro hard and smash a-move...so this is also the opposite of what you said. The biggest failing of both the campaign and the levels is that they dont teach efficiency at all, while build orders do. Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 02:19 rikter wrote:
"In one you add on units 1 at a time" "In one you add on units slowly" these are almost exactly the same thing.
Yes this is true, I think you missed the point of what he was saying. TheLevels make you macro up to a standard, while campaign you either don't have to macro or you can lazily macro. Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 02:19 rikter wrote:
The fact that there are extra units and upgrades have literally NOTHING to do with the fact that the progression is essentially the same
No one is refuting this fact, yet you keep arguing it. Yes, in both the campaign and TheLevels you slowly get to use more units. Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 02:19 rikter wrote:
But if the campaign is so terrible for 1v1 then why is the levels magically better, considering that they share the same base.
1) TheLevels make you macro. Macro, ie. one of the major core components of any RTS. TheLevels set a hard value that lets you see your progress. How does that difference not matter? 2)TheLevels let you play against an opponent who is of equal skill to you, that is, using matchmaking, there is yet another advantage. Saying they are "magically" better is just your apparent personal vendetta against the levels. Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 02:19 rikter wrote:
3)The campaign actually requires you to be aggressive...my biggest complaint about the campaign is that all the way up to brutal you can just macro hard and smash a-move
Uh... what? Those are opposites.
1) The problem with that hard value is that even if you hit it, it is not necessarily an indicator that everything is OK. Too many buildings, too few workers, etc. SQ doesnt REALLY tell you how efficient you are being in its current state. Theres more than one way to keep unspent resources low, this doesnt account for that right now.
2) You arent really responding to the opponant very much in the early levels, and other people have mentioned this too. And its tough to really say if someone is equal skill when you are both, literally, playing different games at the same time. My point about the potentially strong AI is that if you so chose, you could get some legit practice in, and do so in an environment that lets you save and reload your game from any point, so you have some added flexibility there. The campaign CAN approximate the ladder, if you want it to.
3) Kind of similar to point 2. Up to brutal, if you so chose, you could macro up blindly and 1 A in enough instances that you could unlock the core units. I should have written that completing the campaign on brutal, or doing the achievements, requires aggressive play and/or micro.
You keep harping on this JaKaTaK method = the campaign. There are plenty of people I know who bought SC2 when it was released, played through the campaign on normal, maybe the occasional 4v4, but in 1v1 they would have struggled in bronze and gotten stomped by silver players.
Also protoss and zerg players, the campaign is super helpful for them for learning build orders and what units do, right?
Yes there is only one campaign out now (featuring two races), but in the future there will be campaigns for everyone, so since we are talking about theory here lets just ignore that theres only T campaign, and assume that the other campaigns will have reasonably similar fundamentals. Reasonable, yes?
To be fair, the levels doesnt help with build orders either, and really if the system is to be complete then, to me, there absolutely has to be some kind of concrete emphasis, even if its not expansive, on build orders. This is the part of the game where your teaching skills and game knowledge come into play. This is the part that you can monetize (I assume you want to make some money off this at some point, and theres nothing wrong with that if you have a legit service).
Edit:
I can say exactly what caused me to get me promoted, quite simply it was much better macro at all points in the game which is directly attributable to the levels. I don't know exactly what you mean by improving on the ladders. If you mean going from bronze to silver, gold or plat, based on my experience good macro is all that is needed. This can be learned very quickly with the levels. For some, following builds may be sufficient to get them to good macro, but it was not working for me. When I say good macro here, I mean good macro at all points in the game. This is what slows people down on the macro side, they forget to keep macroing when stuff starts happening. If you mean improving at the higher levels of the ladder, then I expect you are correct that past a certain point good builds and good reads of your opponent, among other skills, are needed to keep improving.
I'd like to say again that I think you have raised good points, but you seem to be opposed to giving any credit to the levels for having helped people get better at the game. This is unfortunate, I had hoped you could lead a discussion that could improve and refine that system even as you promoted an alternative.
I think my points above can surely be seen as trying to refine the system. Theyre legitimate concerns. My real issue isnt even that people are doing this, its that there isnnt anything at all about even basic build orders, that theres not much here to REALLY refine your play, and to help you get into the state of mind of a winner. And Im not talking about hippy-dippy "think happy thoughts", its an analytical, calculated approach that is useful in literally ANYTHING you could choose to do with your life. I think you can really better yourself by playing games, and to pass on doing this seems like a real shame. Dude quit his job, and has the time to do this, may as well do it right. He would (in my opinion) enter the realm of doing something much more useful. Im not saying "throw everything away and do it my way", but its something that should be addressed in some way.
You could do it like Super/System and have people who cant do a whole project like this just guest write a section, etc. Its a good way to incorporate more people and generate a little more community interest and participation.
In the lower leagues, a single cloak banshee out as fast as you can will win a lot of games, whether you stack minerals or not. Even while executing this simple tech play (or other compartitivly simple plays), I was able to work on my macro, because even though I was floating minerals I was still managing rallies and making units and stuff. Forget whole builds, Im talking more about OPENERS, your first 4-6 buildings or so (not counting depots) which are enough to all-in with at the very least.
|
@Rikter - I keep seeing you coming back to this point about losing to a cloaked banshee. The point isn't to win games, it's to improve. Will the player who rushes cloaked banshees every game beat the player using TheLevels? Almost undoubtedly. Will they beat the player using TheLevels in a month's time? Probably not.
|
@sandbox it could be a banshee, a dt, etc etc its the simplest example though were literally a single unit will kill everything, or has a chance to anyways. Why artificially extend the game if you dont need to? I must disagree on the 1 month prediction, and since there areny any numbers to compare its tough to say something for sure. But the guy doing 1 base and moving up is doing all the same things as mr levels, plus some other things.
|
On October 04 2012 06:14 rikter wrote:
1) The problem with that hard value is that even if you hit it, it is not necessarily an indicator that everything is OK. Too many buildings, too few workers, etc. SQ doesnt REALLY tell you how efficient you are being in its current state. Theres more than one way to keep unspent resources low, this doesnt account for that right now.
Yes, there are ways to "cheat" SQ, but why would you?
On October 04 2012 06:14 rikter wrote:
2) You arent really responding to the opponant very much in the early levels, and other people have mentioned this too. And its tough to really say if someone is equal skill when you are both, literally, playing different games at the same time. My point about the potentially strong AI is that if you so chose, you could get some legit practice in, and do so in an environment that lets you save and reload your game from any point, so you have some added flexibility there. The campaign CAN approximate the ladder, if you want it to.
You can argue about whether matchmaking is accurate or not, but that isn't really relevant here. You could do TheLevels against AI if you really want to.
On October 04 2012 06:14 rikter wrote:
Yes there is only one campaign out now (featuring two races), but in the future there will be campaigns for everyone, so since we are talking about theory here lets just ignore that theres only T campaign, and assume that the other campaigns will have reasonably similar fundamentals. Reasonable, yes?
It will be many years before LotV. Even after that, TheLevels still have a lot of things that are better, as mentioned previously.
On October 04 2012 06:14 rikter wrote:
To be fair, the levels doesnt help with build orders either, and really if the system is to be complete then, to me, there absolutely has to be some kind of concrete emphasis, even if its not expansive, on build orders. This is the part of the game where your teaching skills and game knowledge come into play. This is the part that you can monetize (I assume you want to make some money off this at some point, and theres nothing wrong with that if you have a legit service).
Check out what Jak said about builds, you can do builds and you probably should, you are very limited only in the first few levels where you should be learning about units. As you progress you will learn builds, why they work, and hopefully be able to make your own. There are plenty of resources already here on team liquid about openers and builds, no reason to make a new one.
You also don't have to follow the levels constantly, maybe you can spend a few days practicing banshee all ins, or whatever else to your liking, I don't think TheLevels should be changed to be the END ALL of all training, it is a good way to learn macro.
|
Is a new player really going to understand that they are cheating sq?
A bunch of people have brought up that levels doesnt need to be on ladder. Probably a good idea to designate the first few as games against AI of varying difficulty since you can rely on the AI more than a ladder opponent.
instead of sq why not set production goals for each level: using x buildings make y units by time t...at least then youd be introducing some basic build concepts and set the stage for timings.
Edit: Id say its in jaks interest that his system be more comprehensive, if only because its easy to outgrow in its current state.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
