[G] TheStaircase - An Alternative Improvement Method - Pag…

On October 10 2012 06:14 GoldenPro wrote:
This is a complete waste of time. You cannot simply become better in any reasonable amount of time by limiting yourself to bad play. You're telling people to only build Zealots/Marine/Zerglings for level 1, and moving up to a few units on the next levels without micro'ing their units at all or anything. It's just fucking pointless. This game is not that simple and there's no reason to practice this way, because it's 100% non-viable in any high level of play. Why would you practice a mechanically and strategically complex game using only 1 variable? If you want to master StarCraft 2, then you shouldn't play like an idiot on purpose. If you seriously cannot find yourself capable of doing 120'ish+ APM and correct unit compositions/timings every game, then you need to forget about any kind of goal of "improving" or becoming one of the best players, just play for lols, because you will be a joke forever.

StarCraft 2 is not a game of long-term improvement or skill. There is 1 game, one 1v1 on ladder. or a Bo3/5/7/etc in a tournament settings. Why should you have a goal to have an "SQ" of a certain number and no supply blocks with only zealots/marines/zerglings? It has no relevance to standard and correct play. Once you implement more structures/units into the game the relationships fall apart, and what you did with only 1 unit doesn't work with 2, 3,etc. anymore. You cannot "master" this game in small baby steps. You will master it by playing the correct way over and over. You obviously know nothing about RTS gaming, and you should consider a different hobby, because you're going no where.

On October 10 2012 06:29 snively wrote:
when I read "i've been trying to understand the bronze players" the FIRST thing i thought of was Gheed and his rather offensive blogs

On October 10 2012 06:33 Czarnodziej wrote:
Repost from main thread:

I really like The Levels and I think it has tremendous potential. I especially liked it simplicity and clear goals.

On the other hand I think The Levels v.4.0 is a failure when compared to previous version.

1) The Levels v. 3xx : simple goals, easy to follow for players regardless of skill, experience or amount of knowledge regarding the game. Easy to pick up, hard to master, fun to play and experience.
2) 4.0 - a load of random ideas stacked on top of each other in order to satisfy the needs of everyone. It lacks the most important thing any development absolutely requires - a focus. It tries to cater to needs of both novice and advanced players, which is bound to fail. You can't magically bridge the gap between them.

"2 - Scout, React, Make Decisions, Review your replay." - its sounds like telling Average Joe to go rob a bank and expect him to succeed. This blows my mind, because I remember that whole idea of The Levels was to avoid these type of things. Why the sudden change when you said yourself that it is a terrible approach to learn sc2?

On October 10 2012 07:17 JaKaTaK wrote:


I agree with the quote about scouting and it has been changed. I don't see why 4.0 is not easy to pick up, hard to master, fun to play and experience. What specific things did you think made it difficult to pick up, or less fun to play and experience?

On October 10 2012 06:31 JDub wrote:

I'm not exactly sure what your point is. Composition affects how much damage your units can potentially do, which means it affects their efficiency. So with TheLevels you are going to have unit compositions that are not cost efficient. I'm not sure what you mean by "more units than is necessary" -- what is the "necessary" number of units? The bare minimum to win a game? The size of your army, while obviously limited by the supply cap, can increase its cost efficiency. For example, 50 marines v. 10 zealots and you probably won't lose more than 2-3 marines (very cost efficient). Try 30 marines against 10 zealots and you probably win the battle, but lose a whole bunch of marines. This is all I was saying. If you are using TheLevels, the only way you will achieve having a smaller resources lost total than your opponent is by outmacroing them to such a degree that your inferior composition still achieves cost efficiency.

What part of my argument are you disagreeing with?

Edit: I think your point that what I'm saying is a "workaround" to achieve cost efficiency was exactly the point that I was trying to make. My whole point is that the only way you will achieve cost efficiency when doing a build that is "macro as much as you can, build as many of these low-tier units as you can, and then try to micro them against your opponent" is going to be from having such an overwhelming force that you don't lose very many units at all. Unit control can't make equal supply of unupgraded zealot/stalker cost efficient against MMM.

On October 10 2012 08:02 Czarnodziej wrote:


Compared to previous version, 4.0 is:
- way too cluttered with information
- there are too many levels
- macro/micro differentiation is counter productive to the idea of The Levels (macro training)

Basically what Jinro brought up was the fact that the Prime Terrans learned the game in phases. If you look back at MarineKing, Polt, and to a lesser extent, Maru, they started out extremely cheesy. NesTea didn’t even get to make a Mutalisk in the season 2 finals against MKP, because he forced the issue before then. Polt used the first 1-1-1 ever seen on GOM, during Open Season 1. Both, after being “1 base wonders”, became known for their unit control and aggression. They still are, but both can finally play huge macro games. Neither player really has a big hole in any time period in the game.

They learned the game in phases. This CAN BE (but isn’t always) a great way to learn the game.

On October 10 2012 06:14 GoldenPro wrote:
This is a complete waste of time. If you seriously cannot find yourself capable of doing 120'ish+ APM and correct unit compositions/timings every game, then you need to forget about any kind of goal of "improving" or becoming one of the best players,