|
On June 03 2012 07:56 reikai wrote:GL sir! if you need any help (and are on the NA server to boot) please contact me! reikai.480 :D i really like this effort. I think moving the game into the casuals' hands is the only way to push it into the spotlight. again, good luck 
Absolutely man. Good to have you on board :D
|
Canada13389 Posts
On June 01 2012 06:13 ulfryc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2012 06:05 JaKaTaK wrote:On June 01 2012 05:33 ulfryc wrote:Really like your commitment to esports. I'll be helping all of the new and struggling lower level players to improve as quickly as possible EVERY DAY at 02:00 CEST (+02:00). What is your background? Why do you think you can help other people? Do you play in Masters or what legitimates do you have? I have studied education in college, and have taught music individually for 10 years. When teaching the very basics to new players, it is more beneficial to understand educational psychology and have the ability to get to the core of the matter rather than to understand the most complex aspects of a subject. Probably the most important qualification I have is that I have spent more time thinking about this particular aspect of Sc2 whereas more skilled and experienced players spend more or most of their time thinking about strategy, which is nearly useless to someone just starting out. Unfortunately I can't yet prove that my method of teaching works because I have just started. But I believe it will work and have seen it work on a small scale. When people have been using my method for a longer amount of time it will be possible to say: "here's a guy who was bronze for 2 years of playing starcraft, once he started focusing on his mechanics and macro he rose to Diamond within 3 months." And other things like that. I believe that this method will show bigger results than it already has (gotten players from bronze to silver in 2 weeks) I am excited to show how well this method works. Finally, no one has taken it upon themselves to do what I am doing, and that is a big part of why I am doing it. It would be silly to start a show that does high level analysis of pro-games with casting of tournaments and one day a week dedicated for newbies. Day9 already does that. This show chronologically orders lessons so that the things to learn with the biggest payoffs are first, and those with the smaller payoffs are last, or left to others. People give advice like, "work on your macro" or "you need better mechanics" but to the new or struggling player, these words mean nothing. If i can tell someone that if you build only marines, scvs, barracks, supply depots, and command centers, keep your money low, attack move, and build supply depos in advance, you can take games off of platinum players on NA. (which can be done) It is a much more helpful suggestion. Awesome question. I hope I answered it completely. Nice!
With that kind of commitment, and foresight, I say good luck to you.
Plus, if ever you need a little extra income you can teach some more guitar students on the side and hopefully there will be an opportunity to monetize what you do. Such as a donation box or individual lessons should people want a more specific lesson set.
|
|
|
I'd like to see an episode where you setup a couple computers and pull people out of the crowd of a mall to compete against each other. Showing them the basics just prior to the match.
|
On June 03 2012 08:30 atuor wrote:
I'd like to see an episode where you setup a couple computers and pull people out of the crowd of a mall to compete against each other. Showing them the basics just prior to the match.
holy shit that's an awesome idea! Bookmarked in the brain. If I can get the funding, I will absolutely do that! God, that sounds awesome.
|
I hope this works out for you man. Goodluck. What a lot of us would like to do if it were within our means.
|
Jak buddy! It's me Zero from Blitz Gaming! I hope this turns out well for you and I wish you the best of luck! Should stop by our chat channel more ofter.
|
On June 05 2012 00:46 Zero RDS wrote:
Jak buddy! It's me Zero from Blitz Gaming! I hope this turns out well for you and I wish you the best of luck! Should stop by our chat channel more ofter.
maybe you're thinking of the other JAKATAK, the one who spells in all caps. In any case, I appreciate the wishing of luck! :D
|
Wow, this is a great initiative! Wish this had been around when I was in the lowest leagues :/
Hey if you need any graphics work, like overlays or between game stuff I do it for free for people in the community like yourself, whom are trying to make things better for everyone! So just PM me if you are interested. :D
|
|
|
Thought I'd share this item to spark a little discussion. To paraphrase the article, at least some pros start out with cheesy one-base all-innish play with a relatively small number of units and a strong emphasis on micro. It seems the idea is to learn very deeply the individual unit abilities and how the interact and then later scale up with macro play.
That is just about the polar opposite of the approach you are taking where macro play and basic mechanics are emphasized and micro would come in later. There is probably not a best approach here, my own play to date has been a muddled mess of half formed ideas about macro and micro with no clear ideas on what I should do to get better so I am not sure which direction would be better for me. That said, I think I favor the approach you are taking with a graduated series of well-defined macro oriented steps and working in micro when these fundamentals are well established.
|
On June 05 2012 02:13 dissent_sc2 wrote:Thought I'd share this item to spark a little discussion. To paraphrase the article, at least some pros start out with cheesy one-base all-innish play with a relatively small number of units and a strong emphasis on micro. It seems the idea is to learn very deeply the individual unit abilities and how the interact and then later scale up with macro play. That is just about the polar opposite of the approach you are taking where macro play and basic mechanics are emphasized and micro would come in later. There is probably not a best approach here, my own play to date has been a muddled mess of half formed ideas about macro and micro with no clear ideas on what I should do to get better so I am not sure which direction would be better for me. That said, I think I favor the approach you are taking with a graduated series of well-defined macro oriented steps and working in micro when these fundamentals are well established.
As I have learned the game the hard way alone up from bronze I can tell you that maybe macro will help you alot more ( my macro is still shit and ever will be as i don´t have any kind of good mechanics). I did all this little micro stuff, strategic stuff... everything. Because I wanted to have fun. Baneling busting was fun, dropping in 3 locations at once was fun. Building 3 bases 60 probes and 200 supply of stuff just to A move was not fun.
It´s all about what you want. Do you want masters league with good macro and such beeing a "good" player. Or do you want to be a "mediocre" one, but have fun trying everything out... Sure you can achieve both. I just didn´t want to go the hard way with macro and mechanics first/ micro and strategie after...
|
On June 05 2012 02:34 Blackfish wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2012 02:13 dissent_sc2 wrote:Thought I'd share this item to spark a little discussion. To paraphrase the article, at least some pros start out with cheesy one-base all-innish play with a relatively small number of units and a strong emphasis on micro. It seems the idea is to learn very deeply the individual unit abilities and how the interact and then later scale up with macro play. That is just about the polar opposite of the approach you are taking where macro play and basic mechanics are emphasized and micro would come in later. There is probably not a best approach here, my own play to date has been a muddled mess of half formed ideas about macro and micro with no clear ideas on what I should do to get better so I am not sure which direction would be better for me. That said, I think I favor the approach you are taking with a graduated series of well-defined macro oriented steps and working in micro when these fundamentals are well established. As I have learned the game the hard way alone up from bronze I can tell you that maybe macro will help you alot more ( my macro is still shit and ever will be as i don´t have any kind of good mechanics). I did all this little micro stuff, strategic stuff... everything. Because I wanted to have fun. Baneling busting was fun, dropping in 3 locations at once was fun. Building 3 bases 60 probes and 200 supply of stuff just to A move was not fun. It´s all about what you want. Do you want masters league with good macro and such beeing a "good" player. Or do you want to be a "mediocre" one, but have fun trying everything out... Sure you can achieve both. I just didn´t want to go the hard way with macro and mechanics first/ micro and strategie after...
I get what you are saying here. I have often fallen in to the passive, sit back and get units then a-move approach. You are right, this is a boring way to play. To clarify, though, it would mis-represent Jakatak's approach to say that that is what he is advocating. I have been working his level one and it is best played with an active approach. Since you have only basic units to work with, you have to put the pressure on and keep it on to have a chance. Also, it appears that as we add units with abilities, those abilities will be expected to be used. So I don't think that this macro approach precludes the active, fun approach you want to play. Macro is the backbone that will support all of that activity (or so I surmise).
|
You had made a terrible mistake in your career by giving up everything. Making this decision is similar to girls who believe they are an exception to join the Hollywood club, but end up in misery and dissapointment.
Also, your channel is empty. Shows how much the community actually cares about you. People just post here with garbage post to increase their count, as well as their ego. IE: comments like "Nice!", "Nice, keep it up!". But hey, if anything I'd blame how the forum is handled by the Powers that Be.
|
On June 05 2012 03:04 MicroTastiC wrote:
You had made a terrible mistake in your career by giving up everything. Making this decision is similar to girls who believe they are an exception to join the Hollywood club, but end up in misery and dissapointment.
Also, your channel is empty. Shows how much the community actually cares about you. People just post here with garbage post to increase their count, as well as their ego. IE: comments like "Nice!", "Nice, keep it up!". But hey, if anything I'd blame how the forum is handled by the Powers that Be.
Watch out! We got a badass here.
|
On June 05 2012 02:59 dissent_sc2 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2012 02:34 Blackfish wrote:On June 05 2012 02:13 dissent_sc2 wrote:Thought I'd share this item to spark a little discussion. To paraphrase the article, at least some pros start out with cheesy one-base all-innish play with a relatively small number of units and a strong emphasis on micro. It seems the idea is to learn very deeply the individual unit abilities and how the interact and then later scale up with macro play. That is just about the polar opposite of the approach you are taking where macro play and basic mechanics are emphasized and micro would come in later. There is probably not a best approach here, my own play to date has been a muddled mess of half formed ideas about macro and micro with no clear ideas on what I should do to get better so I am not sure which direction would be better for me. That said, I think I favor the approach you are taking with a graduated series of well-defined macro oriented steps and working in micro when these fundamentals are well established. As I have learned the game the hard way alone up from bronze I can tell you that maybe macro will help you alot more ( my macro is still shit and ever will be as i don´t have any kind of good mechanics). I did all this little micro stuff, strategic stuff... everything. Because I wanted to have fun. Baneling busting was fun, dropping in 3 locations at once was fun. Building 3 bases 60 probes and 200 supply of stuff just to A move was not fun. It´s all about what you want. Do you want masters league with good macro and such beeing a "good" player. Or do you want to be a "mediocre" one, but have fun trying everything out... Sure you can achieve both. I just didn´t want to go the hard way with macro and mechanics first/ micro and strategie after... I get what you are saying here. I have often fallen in to the passive, sit back and get units then a-move approach. You are right, this is a boring way to play. To clarify, though, it would mis-represent Jakatak's approach to say that that is what he is advocating. I have been working his level one and it is best played with an active approach. Since you have only basic units to work with, you have to put the pressure on and keep it on to have a chance. Also, it appears that as we add units with abilities, those abilities will be expected to be used. So I don't think that this macro approach precludes the active, fun approach you want to play. Macro is the backbone that will support all of that activity (or so I surmise).
That is very much correct. As my name might indicate, I advocate very aggressive play, especially when learning the game, that way you get to learn how the units "feel" and where the holes and weaknesses of an opponent are. I do not advocate learning the game via turtling. In fact, I ban use of any static defensive structures in my method to further force aggressive play and the "feeling out" of your opponent. Obviously later in development static defensive structures are very important and knowing when to attack and when to retreat is also very important, but when starting off, being aggressive and active is the way to go IMO.
This article by artosis is very interesting. I would say that my method allows for this as well (for instance, on terran level 1 you can do anything from proxy 2 rax bunker rush, to a triple expand before barracks. The only constraints are the buildings and units you are allowed to build, the idea is to explore as many different things you can do within those constraints as possible.
|
On June 05 2012 03:16 JaKaTaK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2012 02:59 dissent_sc2 wrote:On June 05 2012 02:34 Blackfish wrote:On June 05 2012 02:13 dissent_sc2 wrote:Thought I'd share this item to spark a little discussion. To paraphrase the article, at least some pros start out with cheesy one-base all-innish play with a relatively small number of units and a strong emphasis on micro. It seems the idea is to learn very deeply the individual unit abilities and how the interact and then later scale up with macro play. That is just about the polar opposite of the approach you are taking where macro play and basic mechanics are emphasized and micro would come in later. There is probably not a best approach here, my own play to date has been a muddled mess of half formed ideas about macro and micro with no clear ideas on what I should do to get better so I am not sure which direction would be better for me. That said, I think I favor the approach you are taking with a graduated series of well-defined macro oriented steps and working in micro when these fundamentals are well established. As I have learned the game the hard way alone up from bronze I can tell you that maybe macro will help you alot more ( my macro is still shit and ever will be as i don´t have any kind of good mechanics). I did all this little micro stuff, strategic stuff... everything. Because I wanted to have fun. Baneling busting was fun, dropping in 3 locations at once was fun. Building 3 bases 60 probes and 200 supply of stuff just to A move was not fun. It´s all about what you want. Do you want masters league with good macro and such beeing a "good" player. Or do you want to be a "mediocre" one, but have fun trying everything out... Sure you can achieve both. I just didn´t want to go the hard way with macro and mechanics first/ micro and strategie after... I get what you are saying here. I have often fallen in to the passive, sit back and get units then a-move approach. You are right, this is a boring way to play. To clarify, though, it would mis-represent Jakatak's approach to say that that is what he is advocating. I have been working his level one and it is best played with an active approach. Since you have only basic units to work with, you have to put the pressure on and keep it on to have a chance. Also, it appears that as we add units with abilities, those abilities will be expected to be used. So I don't think that this macro approach precludes the active, fun approach you want to play. Macro is the backbone that will support all of that activity (or so I surmise). That is very much correct. As my name might indicate, I advocate very aggressive play, especially when learning the game, that way you get to learn how the units "feel" and where the holes and weaknesses of an opponent are. I do not advocate learning the game via turtling. In fact, I ban use of any static defensive structures in my method to further force aggressive play and the "feeling out" of your opponent. Obviously later in development static defensive structures are very important and knowing when to attack and when to retreat is also very important, but when starting off, being aggressive and active is the way to go IMO. This article by artosis is very interesting. I would say that my method allows for this as well (for instance, on terran level 1 you can do anything from proxy 2 rax bunker rush, to a triple expand before barracks. The only constraints are the buildings and units you are allowed to build, the idea is to explore as many different things you can do within those constraints as possible.
Okay get it now. Bad reading is bad^^ Overall I think it´s a great idea was just having problems with telling bad people that they should go no rush 15, but since you don´t do that everything is okay, totally my fault. Whats also great is that someone actually cares about lower league people. I think there is much potential for the game, since I know many friends who got a bad grasp of it and quit after 15-20 matches just cause its "to hard" ( which is totally understandable for everyone with no RTS background/or no gaming background at all). And then there are others. Who really want it, but don´t get it and then are stuck in bronze. If we can´t help those people out, the playing community is getting so much smaller. I mean right now, I think we have more "I only watch the game", then " I´m kinda good at playing it" people. Which is getting more and more of a problem. So many have quit due to varius reasons and it will get harder and harder to start playing SC2 just cause of the increasing skill level. When I started out in beta everyone was really bad and we all learned together. When you start out now gold silver and even bronze league got alot harder and many people are just kinda slow but know what to do to a certain extent.
I personally tried helping out alot of people while smurfing in bronze but it´s often so hard to tell them who thinks work out, so I can say it´s a hell of a ride you accepted to take their. Big props man.
Although in the end I don´t think it will work out. Starcraft 2 will lose it´s player base and will either be a total spectator sport for masses or a little niche with some guys playing some guys watching. It´s just to hard to start right now and losing is to antifun. And if something doesnt grow, it will decrease over time 
|
On June 05 2012 04:01 Blackfish wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2012 03:16 JaKaTaK wrote:On June 05 2012 02:59 dissent_sc2 wrote:On June 05 2012 02:34 Blackfish wrote:On June 05 2012 02:13 dissent_sc2 wrote:Thought I'd share this item to spark a little discussion. To paraphrase the article, at least some pros start out with cheesy one-base all-innish play with a relatively small number of units and a strong emphasis on micro. It seems the idea is to learn very deeply the individual unit abilities and how the interact and then later scale up with macro play. That is just about the polar opposite of the approach you are taking where macro play and basic mechanics are emphasized and micro would come in later. There is probably not a best approach here, my own play to date has been a muddled mess of half formed ideas about macro and micro with no clear ideas on what I should do to get better so I am not sure which direction would be better for me. That said, I think I favor the approach you are taking with a graduated series of well-defined macro oriented steps and working in micro when these fundamentals are well established. As I have learned the game the hard way alone up from bronze I can tell you that maybe macro will help you alot more ( my macro is still shit and ever will be as i don´t have any kind of good mechanics). I did all this little micro stuff, strategic stuff... everything. Because I wanted to have fun. Baneling busting was fun, dropping in 3 locations at once was fun. Building 3 bases 60 probes and 200 supply of stuff just to A move was not fun. It´s all about what you want. Do you want masters league with good macro and such beeing a "good" player. Or do you want to be a "mediocre" one, but have fun trying everything out... Sure you can achieve both. I just didn´t want to go the hard way with macro and mechanics first/ micro and strategie after... I get what you are saying here. I have often fallen in to the passive, sit back and get units then a-move approach. You are right, this is a boring way to play. To clarify, though, it would mis-represent Jakatak's approach to say that that is what he is advocating. I have been working his level one and it is best played with an active approach. Since you have only basic units to work with, you have to put the pressure on and keep it on to have a chance. Also, it appears that as we add units with abilities, those abilities will be expected to be used. So I don't think that this macro approach precludes the active, fun approach you want to play. Macro is the backbone that will support all of that activity (or so I surmise). That is very much correct. As my name might indicate, I advocate very aggressive play, especially when learning the game, that way you get to learn how the units "feel" and where the holes and weaknesses of an opponent are. I do not advocate learning the game via turtling. In fact, I ban use of any static defensive structures in my method to further force aggressive play and the "feeling out" of your opponent. Obviously later in development static defensive structures are very important and knowing when to attack and when to retreat is also very important, but when starting off, being aggressive and active is the way to go IMO. This article by artosis is very interesting. I would say that my method allows for this as well (for instance, on terran level 1 you can do anything from proxy 2 rax bunker rush, to a triple expand before barracks. The only constraints are the buildings and units you are allowed to build, the idea is to explore as many different things you can do within those constraints as possible. Okay get it now. Bad reading is bad^^ Overall I think it´s a great idea was just having problems with telling bad people that they should go no rush 15, but since you don´t do that everything is okay, totally my fault. Whats also great is that someone actually cares about lower league people. I think there is much potential for the game, since I know many friends who got a bad grasp of it and quit after 15-20 matches just cause its "to hard" ( which is totally understandable for everyone with no RTS background/or no gaming background at all). And then there are others. Who really want it, but don´t get it and then are stuck in bronze. If we can´t help those people out, the playing community is getting so much smaller. I mean right now, I think we have more "I only watch the game", then " I´m kinda good at playing it" people. Which is getting more and more of a problem. So many have quit due to varius reasons and it will get harder and harder to start playing SC2 just cause of the increasing skill level. When I started out in beta everyone was really bad and we all learned together. When you start out now gold silver and even bronze league got alot harder and many people are just kinda slow but know what to do to a certain extent. I personally tried helping out alot of people while smurfing in bronze but it´s often so hard to tell them who thinks work out, so I can say it´s a hell of a ride you accepted to take their. Big props man. Although in the end I don´t think it will work out. Starcraft 2 will lose it´s player base and will either be a total spectator sport for masses or a little niche with some guys playing some guys watching. It´s just to hard to start right now and losing is to antifun. And if something doesnt grow, it will decrease over time
Don't get so down man, Starcraft 2 is an amazing game, and while it may be hard without help, if you get started on the right foot, learn how to have a beneficial mindset, and follow a program that helps you to improve while having fun and being creative, I believe it will grow immensely.
Also, I don't think its a bad thing that people watch Sc2 but do not play it. Obviously I encourage everyone to give it a try, but eSports needs spectators as well as players. I think a big part of the reason why Sc2 will be so big in the world of eSports is because it is so much fun to watch!
I appreciate your support man, Thanks :D
|
Here are my notes from playing level 1 pretty heavily over several days (nothing very profound here):
I started as a mid to high gold player:
- played a lot of games partly to see where level 1 protoss would end up on the ladder
- dropped to silver after a ton of early losses with a few wins against gold players
- started out with one base play only, lost a few after mining out the main, I like the expand version of level 1
- currently in high silver and looks like that is where I would stay so I feel comfortable saying a level 1 toss is at least a high silver player
- here are my records against each race:
- vs. protoss: 14-4
- vs. zerg: 14-10
- vs. terran: 8-34
I really enjoyed going in depth in level 1:
- there is a simple pleasure in making lots of units and sending them out in ever growing waves
- I felt more relaxed playing, trying to get a good SQ number takes the pressure off winning and worrying about my performance
- I started a hotkey change a few days before, it looks like your levels will be a good way to transition since it starts with a few keys and adds more as you go
- I like the emphasis on putting units into action, I see it helping me get over the passive play syndrome
I feel like spending a little extra time on this level was a good thing. The relative simplicity of this level removed a lot of the mental clutter, so that while I was not thinking at all about build orders during a game, I feel like I got a better sense of what build orders are all about. By playing a lot of games and changing things up, I could feel the effect of waiting to do something I could have done earlier like starting a pylon to avoid a supply block or waiting to get that next gateway until after the expansion started. Also, it is really cool and a bit mysterious to see my 100th mineral collected at the exact moment my first GW completes so the first zealot can get started immediately.
The reaction from opponents seeing this encountering has been all over the map. Some bewilderment and amusement and pretty good amount of bm. Getting over-run by wave after wave of slow zealots seems to unleash the rage. Several times I have been told to "learn the game" (I like that one) and one time was threatened to be turned into to Blizz cause they hate cheaters like me who are ruining it for others. Lately, I have been trying to deflect some of this by announcing at the start that I will be doing a macro learning build that will look a little weird. I am getting more practice trying to counter the bm with good manner.
I will add that the quality of play in silver seems higher than when I was first there. A lot of the losses were very nice reactions by the opponent, zerg and toss mainly since terran has it easy against this.
I will be moving on to level 2 as soon as I know what that is. There was some discussion of warp gate vs. zealot legs on the twitch channel. I am thinking why not do both. You need the Cyber Core to get the Twilight Council and its only a little extra gas to do both. I will play around with this and also check in with what you are thinking.
Finally, a big thanks for getting this thing started, its looking great and I like where it is headed.
|
On June 06 2012 03:48 dissent_sc2 wrote:Here are my notes from playing level 1 pretty heavily over several days (nothing very profound here): I started as a mid to high gold player: - played a lot of games partly to see where level 1 protoss would end up on the ladder
- dropped to silver after a ton of early losses with a few wins against gold players
- started out with one base play only, lost a few after mining out the main, I like the expand version of level 1
- currently in high silver and looks like that is where I would stay so I feel comfortable saying a level 1 toss is at least a high silver player
- here are my records against each race:
- vs. protoss: 14-4
- vs. zerg: 14-10
- vs. terran: 8-34
I really enjoyed going in depth in level 1: - there is a simple pleasure in making lots of units and sending them out in ever growing waves
- I felt more relaxed playing, trying to get a good SQ number takes the pressure off winning and worrying about my performance
- I started a hotkey change a few days before, it looks like your levels will be a good way to transition since it starts with a few keys and adds more as you go
- I like the emphasis on putting units into action, I see it helping me get over the passive play syndrome
I feel like spending a little extra time on this level was a good thing. The relative simplicity of this level removed a lot of the mental clutter, so that while I was not thinking at all about build orders during a game, I feel like I got a better sense of what build orders are all about. By playing a lot of games and changing things up, I could feel the effect of waiting to do something I could have done earlier like starting a pylon to avoid a supply block or waiting to get that next gateway until after the expansion started. Also, it is really cool and a bit mysterious to see my 100th mineral collected at the exact moment my first GW completes so the first zealot can get started immediately. The reaction from opponents seeing this encountering has been all over the map. Some bewilderment and amusement and pretty good amount of bm. Getting over-run by wave after wave of slow zealots seems to unleash the rage. Several times I have been told to "learn the game" (I like that one) and one time was threatened to be turned into to Blizz cause they hate cheaters like me who are ruining it for others. Lately, I have been trying to deflect some of this by announcing at the start that I will be doing a macro learning build that will look a little weird. I am getting more practice trying to counter the bm with good manner. I will add that the quality of play in silver seems higher than when I was first there. A lot of the losses were very nice reactions by the opponent, zerg and toss mainly since terran has it easy against this. I will be moving on to level 2 as soon as I know what that is. There was some discussion of warp gate vs. zealot legs on the twitch channel. I am thinking why not do both. You need the Cyber Core to get the Twilight Council and its only a little extra gas to do both. I will play around with this and also check in with what you are thinking. Finally, a big thanks for getting this thing started, its looking great and I like where it is headed.
This was exactly the point of the program. So glad to see that it is translating well :D Level 2 is +1 forge upgrades! GLHF
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
