|
Afaik rikter didn't say that the campaign is a better way to train than TheLevels. He just said that both follow
pretty much the same philosophy of slowly adding more complexity and units. I agree with him in that point, too.
I also don't really like the SQ to measure how well you macro (beside Energy and Supply blocks), because it only measures how low you keep your ressources. Constant worker production, expanding and how you spent your money are very important as well but they are currently completely irrelevant to pass TheLevels.
According to the opening post this method is meant to help those people who have trouble to do proper build orders (and to keep their ressources low while microing). Yet I don't really see how the criteria prevents someone from staying on one base the entire game without proper worker management (not constantly build; not enough; to many; idle) or opening inefficient.
A rather spontaneously idea of me is a funmap where you macro while the map watches over you and measures SQ, Number of hard Supply blocks, Supply blocked time, wasted Energy, idle worker time, how much later than possible you reached full saturation (<- not for Zerg), average time without Injects or wasted Larva and so on. You wouldn't have to see your replays to see whether you passed or not and you can't really measure all that without the help of the map...
The maybe new part about the idea is that you rally your units to a teleportation zone where they have to fight an army of the same round and level than you (every T minutes) who exactly meets the requirements to pass that round. You have to keep on macroing during that time to pass the next battle. In that way you could control how efficient the player is.
Trump, Featured Sc2 Streamer / TL community memeber:
Little misspelling.
|
On October 04 2012 08:28 rikter wrote:
Is a new player really going to understand that they are cheating sq?
I think most people will actually know if they cheat SQ, even new players, but there are some fall pits that could be documented better in the OP. (I haven't read it in a while so hope I'm not stating something that is already there).
Things like making sure you are producing from all buildings (warpgates on cd) before building aditional structures.
(when you start getting the hang of it you will most likely notice what you can afford or not)
Energy is easy for zerg and terran to keep track if you are failing or not, but as protos its easy to spend chrono on warpgates and then not using the gates instantly after cd, making the chrono wasted.
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.
Everytime I feel like I play worse than I normally do I play a couple of games against the AI instead. I'ts allot better to do it right vs a bad opponent that to fail vs a good one. It's good to push your limits, and a real player can be good at making you not feel "too" comfortable, but if it's just too much, take a step back.
Edit: Id say its in jaks interest that his system be more comprehensive, if only because its easy to outgrow in its current state.
sorry, but I dont get the part in bold. I think you are too focused on level one. personally I feel like the entire level system is almost overwhelming. I don't see myself getting through the end of level 3 before the summer tbh. (I'm a perfectionist tho), but seriously. The levels are what you put in to it. there is so just much exploring and perfecting to be done at lvl 2 and 3.
|
@UncreativeTroll
Such a map is on the way. 
|
On October 05 2012 02:35 JaKaTaK wrote:@UncreativeTroll Such a map is on the way.
I think the map should become the focus, not the document. Broader appeal, plus with the right triggers and such it could actually be useful to more people. The map could also be round based (like marine split challenge). I think a round based map would make it easier to measure progress, "i got to round 5 this time, maybe next time round 6 etc) Early rounds might have the buildings pre built like the campaign, gradually increasing AI strength and requirements. No ladder anxiety on such a map as well, and with more structure than current levels, as well as introducing efficiency concepts.
|
I sincerely and wholeheartedly disagree. One of the things that theLevels create for me, is fun. Just a map where you practice something rigorously would become pretty stale and uncreative quite quickly to me.
I'd like to take a moment and thank you JaKaTaK. I've always loved starcraft, followed broodwar pro scene for many years, and am doing the same with the SC2 pro scene. It's fun to watch, but playing the game myself became more and more of a chore and increasingly less fun. I've been in Diamond, but it just didn't seem fun to play starcraft anymore.
Now after more than a year, I'm very happy that these guidelines exist. Not only does it make me improve, but it does so while being fun to do. That last part is the reason for me to keep using it and keep playing starcraft again, which I now again thoroughly enjoy.
Thanks
|
On October 05 2012 02:35 JaKaTaK wrote:@UncreativeTroll Such a map is on the way.
sounds great
|
I am a pretty new player and have begun to follow the levels (couldn't find a thread for that) and you seem to have updated it with a targeted division. I want to get to grandmasters (like everyone else I imagine) so I would need to get an SQ of 100.
To date I have not been able to break 90 and am averaging around 85. Do you feel that it is possible for a new player to hit this agressive target or that it should be revisited once I have gone through the levels at a lower skill level? I have worked pretty hard at it but >90 seems impossible ( i know its just really hard in reality )
the other metrics (energy and supply) are doable even though im sure im not doing it efficiently, spamming too much supply and not always using energy on the best option.
|
On October 09 2012 12:45 frito wrote:
I am a pretty new player and have begun to follow the levels (couldn't find a thread for that) and you seem to have updated it with a targeted division. I want to get to grandmasters (like everyone else I imagine) so I would need to get an SQ of 100.
To date I have not been able to break 90 and am averaging around 85. Do you feel that it is possible for a new player to hit this agressive target or that it should be revisited once I have gone through the levels at a lower skill level? I have worked pretty hard at it but >90 seems impossible ( i know its just really hard in reality )
the other metrics (energy and supply) are doable even though im sure im not doing it efficiently, spamming too much supply and not always using energy on the best option.
I would recommend you advance through the lower difficulties first.
100 SQ alone won't get you into grandmaster league, and it's fallacious to assume you need 100 SQ every game to be a grandmaster.
85 SQ is pretty good for a newer player, but you most likely won't have 85 SQ once you add different units to the equation, which will give you something new to strive for as you advance.
|
On October 09 2012 12:45 frito wrote:
I am a pretty new player and have begun to follow the levels (couldn't find a thread for that) and you seem to have updated it with a targeted division. I want to get to grandmasters (like everyone else I imagine) so I would need to get an SQ of 100.
To date I have not been able to break 90 and am averaging around 85. Do you feel that it is possible for a new player to hit this agressive target or that it should be revisited once I have gone through the levels at a lower skill level? I have worked pretty hard at it but >90 seems impossible ( i know its just really hard in reality )
the other metrics (energy and supply) are doable even though im sure im not doing it efficiently, spamming too much supply and not always using energy on the best option.
100 SQ for 20 min long games off 3/4 bases is a difficult task even for experienced players. You should go ahead and shoot of 85 or 90 as your goal. Then you can always try again for 100. They are benchmarks so start with something achievable and then try to improve on your best performance.
|
Hey, Jak - noticed a whole bunch of changes to TheLevels. I worry a little bit about the efficiency requirement (that you lose less than your opponent). My worries (and they are just worries - I'm not sure they're valid) are:
1.) It's the only requirement that is opponent-dependent. Fundamentally, one of the focuses of the program is on the player improving, and it pits the player against static values so that your improvement can pretty much be consistent over games. Pitting a player against a moving target (opponent's units lost) seems against this spirit.
2.) In TheLevels, you generally want to encourage mechanics-based play; 2 bases, 10+ minute long games, etc. If you are playing a long game, and all you get to use is Zealots/Stalkers, you are going to be unable to trade efficiently at some point, due to tech disadvantage. No matter how good you are. It might be possible, therefore, for people to get "stuck" on a micro-level, handicapped by the units available to them.
----
I'm not sure I have a useful suggestion to fix these things. I will update this post or make a new one if I manage to think of a static micro metric.
-Cross
|
On October 10 2012 01:07 Crosswind wrote:
Hey, Jak - noticed a whole bunch of changes to TheLevels. I worry a little bit about the efficiency requirement (that you lose less than your opponent). My worries (and they are just worries - I'm not sure they're valid) are:
1.) It's the only requirement that is opponent-dependent. Fundamentally, one of the focuses of the program is on the player improving, and it pits the player against static values so that your improvement can pretty much be consistent over games. Pitting a player against a moving target (opponent's units lost) seems against this spirit.
2.) In TheLevels, you generally want to encourage mechanics-based play; 2 bases, 10+ minute long games, etc. If you are playing a long game, and all you get to use is Zealots/Stalkers, you are going to be unable to trade efficiently at some point, due to tech disadvantage. No matter how good you are. It might be possible, therefore, for people to get "stuck" on a micro-level, handicapped by the units available to them.
----
I'm not sure I have a useful suggestion to fix these things. I will update this post or make a new one if I manage to think of a static micro metric.
-Cross
I actually ran into this issue yesterday. I agree, I think this constraint creates unnecessary frustration at the lower levels. What I did for the time being, is eliminated the micro/multitask level for zeals, marines, and zerglings. Keep testing and let me know if this is enough to avoid unnecessary frustration. If not, we could push that requirement out another 2 levels. Also, It has been long overdue that I make a "TheLevels" Thread. I'll be starting work on it today, hopefully I can finish
|
On October 10 2012 01:36 JaKaTaK wrote:I actually ran into this issue yesterday. I agree, I think this constraint creates unnecessary frustration at the lower levels. What I did for the time being, is eliminated the micro/multitask level for zeals, marines, and zerglings. Keep testing and let me know if this is enough to avoid unnecessary frustration. If not, we could push that requirement out another 2 levels. Also, It has been long overdue that I make a "TheLevels" Thread. I'll be starting work on it today, hopefully I can finish
Efficiency in trading, in my opinion, is something more important when you are the one trying to win on fewer bases than your opponent with some kind of timing attack. It feels to be against the spirit of TheLevels, which to me was always get way more stuff than your opponent and win through "power overwhelming" mode. That's not to say that you can't trade efficiently playing this style - you totally can - but I feel it's a poor metric for the style.
|
On October 10 2012 01:36 JaKaTaK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2012 01:07 Crosswind wrote:
Hey, Jak - noticed a whole bunch of changes to TheLevels. I worry a little bit about the efficiency requirement (that you lose less than your opponent). My worries (and they are just worries - I'm not sure they're valid) are:
1.) It's the only requirement that is opponent-dependent. Fundamentally, one of the focuses of the program is on the player improving, and it pits the player against static values so that your improvement can pretty much be consistent over games. Pitting a player against a moving target (opponent's units lost) seems against this spirit.
2.) In TheLevels, you generally want to encourage mechanics-based play; 2 bases, 10+ minute long games, etc. If you are playing a long game, and all you get to use is Zealots/Stalkers, you are going to be unable to trade efficiently at some point, due to tech disadvantage. No matter how good you are. It might be possible, therefore, for people to get "stuck" on a micro-level, handicapped by the units available to them.
----
I'm not sure I have a useful suggestion to fix these things. I will update this post or make a new one if I manage to think of a static micro metric.
-Cross I actually ran into this issue yesterday. I agree, I think this constraint creates unnecessary frustration at the lower levels. What I did for the time being, is eliminated the micro/multitask level for zeals, marines, and zerglings. Keep testing and let me know if this is enough to avoid unnecessary frustration. If not, we could push that requirement out another 2 levels. Also, It has been long overdue that I make a "TheLevels" Thread. I'll be starting work on it today, hopefully I can finish
I should caveat: I haven't run into the problem personally (I was cheerily up at 2.6 on the previous levels, so I didn't go back). The theorycraft behind your methods has been pretty impeccable, though, so I figured I'd try to contribute a bit if I saw a weakness.
I think, perhaps, that a change of philosophy might be in order. Instead of trying to achieve some sort of micro-metric, a more relevant approach might be: Achieve the appropriate macro metric while, at a minimum, doing some amount of micro. Under the previous system, this is what I found myself doing - making damn @#$%ing sure that I had my macro straight, while also trying to micro enough to not lose games.
Idea - What if, instead of a micro-focus, you had a build focus?
Protoss Example: To get past level 3, you have to execute any of the following builds, subject to your macro constraints, correctly: 4-gate, 3-gate expo into WG pressure, 1-gate expo into WG pressure. (This list picked, at random, from pressure-oriented builds you can do with the units available).
By basically forcing people to try some sort of early-ish attack, you'll force people to micro at least a bit while sustaining the macro they built up. Plus, you're equipping people with actual builds, so they might win a few more games. While the goal isn't winning games, it's never a bad thing to do, and it might give people some positive reinforcement.
-Cross (Edit: You already encourage people to use the new builds they found. Seems like the logical step is to force them to use builds which require a bit of micro as the "micro test")
(Double Edit: Also, it seems like, in the fullness of time, it would be nice of you to have a set of builds that new people could try at each level. That stretch goal seems like it dovetails nicely with the micro goal.)
|
On October 10 2012 02:39 shogeki wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2012 01:36 JaKaTaK wrote:I actually ran into this issue yesterday. I agree, I think this constraint creates unnecessary frustration at the lower levels. What I did for the time being, is eliminated the micro/multitask level for zeals, marines, and zerglings. Keep testing and let me know if this is enough to avoid unnecessary frustration. If not, we could push that requirement out another 2 levels. Also, It has been long overdue that I make a "TheLevels" Thread. I'll be starting work on it today, hopefully I can finish Efficiency in trading, in my opinion, is something more important when you are the one trying to win on fewer bases than your opponent with some kind of timing attack. It feels to be against the spirit of TheLevels, which to me was always get way more stuff than your opponent and win through "power overwhelming" mode. That's not to say that you can't trade efficiently playing this style - you totally can - but I feel it's a poor metric for the style.
I agree completely. TheLevels, to me, is all about getting lower level players to macro as efficiently as a much higher level by simplifying their options to the point where they can do so. But if you are sacrificing tech to increase your macro ability, you are going to have way more resources and a way less cost efficient army than your opponent. Theoretically you could achieve cost efficiency by out-macroing your opponent so hard that your zealot/stalker force can trade well with a MMM or roach army, but such a requirement I would agree is against the philosophy of TheLevels.
|
TheLevels TL Post
TheLevels Reddit Post
I just finished TheLevels TL thread and a reddit post to go along with it. It describes the philosophy of the method much better than I have described it here and will provide a more focused place to discuss about TheLevels.
I am taking the cost efficiency requirement out. It was an experimental way to try and put a number on micro and multitasking, but I agree that it doesn't fit in line with the philosophy of TheLevels.
As far as forcing people to choose a build from a list, I think that cuts way to far into Autonomy than is necessary. Giving a link to places where they can find builds if they want to try them might be a good compromise, but I do not think forcing a player to do a build is a good idea. If they choose to, that's great, but it should be their choice, not mine.
Thanks again, for all the feedback and help. and now, what should become of this thread if TheLevels talk occurs on TheLevels Thread and TheCore talk occurs on TheCore Thread. This thread dicussion should focus on TheJaKaTaK (the show, not me)
What this means is that any ideas you have for streaming, the triathlon, ways to reach new players, things i'm doing that I can improve on (saying umm too much, day9isms, not streaming enough, streaming too much etc) and things like that. I want to dedicate my life to promoting eSports through Starcraft. I want to make Starcraft more accessible without lowering the skill ceiling, and I want to keep doing this after May 1st 2013. If you have any ideas, or ways you think you can help, this is the place to talk about them.
GLHF,
JaK
|
I think being aware of cost efficiency is an important part of learning about units and how they perform in various situations, which is one goal of the levels. I hear casters talk about cost efficiency, but did not really appreciate the significance until I started checking the units lost tab when I was on the old protoss level 1.2. I was winning a fair share of games by the power of macro, but could see how badly stalker-zealot was trading against roach-zergling.
|
|
|
Random comment about your channel, you keep having triathalons and its not obvious what that means.
I'm sure you explain it in your videos but then i would have to open them watch the ad and have you verbally describe it to me where a text description would be very fast (maybe in the links on your page)...maybe im just lazy but that is why i've never opened up any of those videos.
|
@frito, good idea, as far as the info section, It would make it a bit cluttered. We'll have a website up for that soon (hopefully) But until then, where do you think this text could go?
|
Thank you Jak!!! I am having a blast with this system! I am using 4.2.2 I feel there is something MISSING! I have added a level 1.5 for Micro/Multitasking. Essentially, this is Level 1 with micro. The reason I feel this is needed is because I have been 50/50 on the ladder (Silver) with level one, but, I have lost some games just because I was not allowed to Scout/Micro my zealots. I would have won FOR SURE if those options were available. Replays available on request. I would like to feel I have truly explored all the options with Zealots before moving on to level 2. Could we please have a 1.5 level?
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
