|
Thanks everyone for your support. You're the biggest reason I do what I do.
@eS_ToDo
Step 1 of TheStaircase for Zerg is very larva intensive (because its all zerglings) You will likely need 4 instead of the normal 3 injecting queens, and as many as 2 hatcheries per base. Keep in mind, that going to 4 injecting queens will be used for these types of special situations where your unit composition is particularly larva intensive, and normally you will stick to 3. Late game I've been noticing pros stop injecting and use the queens with their army as the late game units are so larva efficient.
Remember, the reason why all of these standards and builds exist is because they are driven by logic and efficiency. That many macro hatches are inefficient with most unit compositions and that is why you often see only 1 or maybe 2 macro hatches and not 3 or more. Strategy is driven by mechanics, so let your focus on mechanics create your strategy 
|
Maybe you should update your OP, with a tutorial on how to use TheStaircase with the "Custom Game" map you added. I guess that'll help lots of people.
Just saying!
|
On November 29 2012 16:12 Belial154 wrote:
Just by reading the "scoring" for how to win a game, being aware of the SQ factor, Hard Supply blocks, and the energy portion I immediately was able to consistently average over 100 in the SQ tracker and have won 7 of the 10 games that I played since reading this thread. Point is for those of us that are not starting brand new...this is still a very applicable tool for improvement, just tailor it to your current skill level. (I do think that the "Pro" SQ should probably be higher than 100).
I'd like to point out that 100 is ludicrous already. If you've ever read the "Do you macro like a pro" thread, Grack's average SQ was 88.
On a different thread, Stephano's average was 85 and Nerchio's was 87. The highest on that thread was an average of 95 by Demuslim.
No data on Koreans, but I'm positive that their average SQs don't go above 100, save for possibly tip-top progamers like Creator, Life, and Taeja.
It may seem easy with only minerals, but with gas it's insane. I peaked at about 150 SQ on step one, and now I'm down to averaging 75 SQ on step 2. Maybe the minimum SQ should be bumped up by 15-20 for step one, then go back to normal, but nothing more than that.
|
Antylamon, it sounds like you're having trouble managing your gas properly (it is included in unspent resources you know  ) Maybe go back through some of your replays and see when you have a LOT of gas for no reason, and remember (cause it took a while to sink in for me) that you don't have to have 3 guys in every geyser. If you're only making enough units to need 1 or 2 then only have 1 or 2. For example a single guy in gas can let you make 1 marauder constantly, so if you have 4 barracks with TL makin' marauders then you'll need 4 guys in gas to support it.
|
You have to remember I'm Toss, contrary to what my icon says (I played Zerg in BW). I spend Mins and Gas in bursts due to Warpgate. In step one I didn't have Warpgate. And besides, Toss pretty much always needs Probes on gas from when the Cyber starts to the end of the game.
Plus, I get Ground Weps and Ground Armor upgrades at the same time, including 3/3. 800 resources at one time, plus the time it takes to save it up. Saving money for that is hell. :/
Admittedly though, I'm almost always on 3 bases by the time I start 3/3, so I have decent income which can sometimes offset it (Except when the next WG round is at the same time as 3/3... UGH). It's just so much easier when you're spamming Zealots the entire game.
One more thing, pros have problems with gas too. That's probably the only reason why their SQ is so low compared to the goals on TheStaircase, besides banking minerals ofc.
|
OK, I just got the chance to try out the Staircase map. I really really like it, now I just did Step 2 for Protoss but I noticed that against the AI the game will never end. edit: maybe I should have read the whole post, map has to be reset. my bad.
And for some reason it would not allow me to turn my gateways into warpgates, which confused me.
Otherwise, I totes dig that it forces you to restart if you miss the league goal in supply block, really really great. Looking forward to any improvements :D
|
Also would ir be possible to actually implement macro/micro steps? maybe disabling the abilities except for attack, patrol, move, etc. So like disabling stalker's blink or sentry's abilities for a macro step? I've never used the map editor so I have no clue if it's even possible.
|
On November 30 2012 09:53 KazYami wrote:
Also would ir be possible to actually implement macro/micro steps? maybe disabling the abilities except for attack, patrol, move, etc. So like disabling stalker's blink or sentry's abilities for a macro step? I've never used the map editor so I have no clue if it's even possible.
Hmmmm, that is an interesting idea. I initially decided not to create macro steps because I didn't forsee a way to force players to 100% only macro. The suggestions you have made is a way to limit them to macroing (not quite 100%, but still, forces attention to be to macro because they cannot micro as much). My concern would be if these limits actually accomplish forcing the player to macro. I can disable abilities like blink, and even patrol or hold position or something like that, but I do not have the ability to stop them from moving their army a few spaces, then attacking (studder stepping), which is where the concern of microing vs macroing becomes counter productive.
Beyond that though, there is a current problem with the menu. I understand how the current menu doesn't conform on a 1:1 basis with the spread sheet because of the loss of these macro steps. The loss of these macro steps seemed acceptable to me because of my inability to effectively limit the players actions and that the only difference between a macro or micro step is from these limitations. Maybe relabeling the menu to include this information will be sufficient, because anyway I look at it, the player is the one that must enforce these macro/micro limitations.
|
On November 30 2012 09:34 KazYami wrote:
OK, I just got the chance to try out the Staircase map. I really really like it, now I just did Step 2 for Protoss but I noticed that against the AI the game will never end. edit: maybe I should have read the whole post, map has to be reset. my bad.
Hmm, this seems to be a rather common problem. In the next build (I'll try to get one up tonight), I will make sure to include the information for restarting, as well as an automatic map reset when a player loses all buildings to clear up this problem. You shouldn't have to read the entire thread to get this information. My apologies.
On November 30 2012 09:34 KazYami wrote:And for some reason it would not allow me to turn my gateways into warpgates, which confused me.
This looks to be a bug. Am I correct in interpreting your problem as you can research Warp Gate, but your gateways cannot be turned into Warp Gates?
On November 30 2012 09:34 KazYami wrote:Otherwise, I totes dig that it forces you to restart if you miss the league goal in supply block, really really great. Looking forward to any improvements :D
Great! That is a pretty tough problem the map has right now. Detecting a supply block is extremely difficult and I am sure will require some attention in the future. I'm glad to see it is currently working well.
There are also energy restrictions in place. This isn't too hard to get around for Terran or Protoss as it is very easy to use your Orbital/Nexus energy before hitting the limits. However, to my Zerg brethren, keep an eye on ALL of your Queens.
|
On November 30 2012 04:26 Qube wrote:
Maybe you should update your OP, with a tutorial on how to use TheStaircase with the "Custom Game" map you added. I guess that'll help lots of people.
Just saying!
The map is really unstable right now is the problem. With a perfect implementation, a guide would not be needed. The map would guide the user and everything would be understood. Since the map is VERY young, this type of problem will be solved as new features are added and bugs are resolved. With the few people who are testing, they are leaving great information, and I will get as many problems fixed as I can. I am only one person though.
|
New build is up.
This should make the map restart when a player loses all structures.
|
On November 30 2012 14:08 Coldlogic wrote:
New build is up.
This should make the map restart when a player loses all structures.
Isn't there a code in the AI so that it automatically surrenders? Is that code accessible or is it hidden in compiled files and not compatible with the mapmaking engine?
|
On November 30 2012 14:14 Antylamon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2012 14:08 Coldlogic wrote:
New build is up.
This should make the map restart when a player loses all structures. Isn't there a code in the AI so that it automatically surrenders? Is that code accessible or is it hidden in compiled files and not compatible with the mapmaking engine?
This functionality is in the AI module. Not exposed to map developers. Well, to be more specific, I would have to tell the AI to surrender. It is exposed under normal melee map conditions, which this map does not adhere to. There are 4 things that happen when a melee map is played. Start AI, setup resources, create starting units, and set melee victory conditions. Currently, this map does the first 3 to allow the ability to restart the map and change steps without having to remake the map. The AI surrendering is based on the idea that the melee victory conditions will be met if the computer surrenders.
To make it more understandable, I have to create the map based on events. Events are what fires triggers. So I need an event to happen for me to do anything pretty much. For this type of event to fire, I would have to evaluate the state of the game and tell the AI to propose a surrender. Beyond that, I don't have the specific intention of creating a map that is always played against AI opponents.
|
On November 30 2012 13:23 Coldlogic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2012 09:34 KazYami wrote:And for some reason it would not allow me to turn my gateways into warpgates, which confused me. This looks to be a bug. Am I correct in interpreting your problem as you can research Warp Gate, but your gateways cannot be turned into Warp Gates?
Added allowing of upgrading to warp gate and downgrading to gateway on step 2.
|
On November 30 2012 13:15 Coldlogic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2012 09:53 KazYami wrote:
Also would ir be possible to actually implement macro/micro steps? maybe disabling the abilities except for attack, patrol, move, etc. So like disabling stalker's blink or sentry's abilities for a macro step? I've never used the map editor so I have no clue if it's even possible. Hmmmm, that is an interesting idea. I initially decided not to create macro steps because I didn't forsee a way to force players to 100% only macro. The suggestions you have made is a way to limit them to macroing (not quite 100%, but still, forces attention to be to macro because they cannot micro as much). My concern would be if these limits actually accomplish forcing the player to macro. I can disable abilities like blink, and even patrol or hold position or something like that, but I do not have the ability to stop them from moving their army a few spaces, then attacking (studder stepping), which is where the concern of microing vs macroing becomes counter productive. Beyond that though, there is a current problem with the menu. I understand how the current menu doesn't conform on a 1:1 basis with the spread sheet because of the loss of these macro steps. The loss of these macro steps seemed acceptable to me because of my inability to effectively limit the players actions and that the only difference between a macro or micro step is from these limitations. Maybe relabeling the menu to include this information will be sufficient, because anyway I look at it, the player is the one that must enforce these macro/micro limitations.
Can you restrict the player's camera? It could work if you know where their next expand should be or give them enough leeway to get to the next expand. Literally stop them from looking anywhere except one screen-width away from their bases, which would force just A-clicking the minimap to attack.
EDIT: Another idea, once they a-move a unit, they lose control of it.
|
Restricting the player's camera would be useless when the player has no CCs/Nexi/Hatches, because the camera would have to be unrestricted for those times. Plus, it doesn't disable micro at all when you are defending, along with the complications of not being able to expand on maps in which the natural is more than one screen-width away, assuming the custom map will be ported to other melee maps.
If you lost control of units, then you would lose the ability to defend at all without sacrificing the ability to move those units back or attack with them.
I personally feel that it's better to trust the player on this one. If someone doesn't abide by the rules, then so be it.
|
On December 01 2012 08:32 Antylamon wrote:
Restricting the player's camera would be useless when the player has no CCs/Nexi/Hatches, because the camera would have to be unrestricted for those times. Plus, it doesn't disable micro at all when you are defending, along with the complications of not being able to expand on maps in which the natural is more than one screen-width away, assuming the custom map will be ported to other melee maps.
If you lost control of units, then you would lose the ability to defend at all without sacrificing the ability to move those units back or attack with them.
When does a player not have any CCs/Nexi/Hatches? You mean if they've lost every base? At that point they can't really macro anymore anyway, right?
|
On December 01 2012 08:45 JDub wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 08:32 Antylamon wrote:
Restricting the player's camera would be useless when the player has no CCs/Nexi/Hatches, because the camera would have to be unrestricted for those times. Plus, it doesn't disable micro at all when you are defending, along with the complications of not being able to expand on maps in which the natural is more than one screen-width away, assuming the custom map will be ported to other melee maps.
If you lost control of units, then you would lose the ability to defend at all without sacrificing the ability to move those units back or attack with them. When does a player not have any CCs/Nexi/Hatches? You mean if they've lost every base? At that point they can't really macro anymore anyway, right?
No. VRs and DTs can be used to snipe the CCs/Nexi/Hatches only, then run away. It's dumb for both sides, but it happens. If you're macroing at all, you should be able to cancel a couple of structures and rebuild. It should not be treated as an automatic loss at the expense of enforcing macro-only.
|
I think the Macro vs Multitasking Steps have to be in the hands of the player. Its not clean cut enough to make a hard restriction IMO.
|
On December 01 2012 10:16 JaKaTaK wrote:
I think the Macro vs Multitasking Steps have to be in the hands of the player. Its not clean cut enough to make a hard restriction IMO.
I feel like like losing control of a unit after a-moving could work (excluding workers). It would make you send them on one action and be done while keeping you quick since you only have one shot at the action.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
