EPTPlease just get in a less troll-y attitude before posting, ishyishy.
[G] TheStaircase - An Alternative Improvement Method - Pag…
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
|
Antylamon
United States1981 Posts
Please just get in a less troll-y attitude before posting, ishyishy. | ||
|
Qwyn
United States2779 Posts
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. Holy shit. You wanna rage? Let's rage together, yo. "Your advice is a complete waste of time." You can improve other aspects of your play by limiting an important factor to a single variable. If you build only marines a whole game and are able to streamline your macro and keep your money down on multiple bases, then you are learning the concept of macro better and will be better able to cope with adding in gas to your play later down the road. And if you're a fucking NOOB then why would you ever talk about HIGH LEVEL PLAY? Have you considered that you would practice a "mechanically and strategically complex" game using only one unit to WORK ON MECHANICS? If you're trying to work on improving your mechanics then strategy doesn't matter. The point of these exercises, and any guide really, is to teach you to streamline your improvement by focusing on ONE THING AT A TIME. If you tried to do everything in the game without understanding or having the muscle memory to perform individual components on your own, then you'd just fail. You DO master the game with small baby steps, just as you master ANYTHING ELSE WITH SMALL BABY STEPS. Holy shit. Analogy time. Let's say I pick up a sax. You are saying that in order to master the sax, I go pick up a professional level chart and start playing, from scratch, with no muscle memory or coordination built up at all. You are saying that I should just practice that chart, roll through it with NO FUCKING IDEA of what I'm doing, and that eventually I'll improve? Bullshit. You improve by practicing one area of play at a time, until you can do it without thinking. Then when all the components are there, you improve by making them synergize with each-other. You improve your game-sense when you can play the game at a decent mechanical level. Then you improve efficiency. Correct compositions? SCII compositions are fucking SIMPLE. They are simple and streamlined, and that's for a reason. You CAN win with only a single unit, yo. It has been done many times. | ||
|
9-BiT
United States1089 Posts
| ||
|
JaKaTaKSc2
United States2787 Posts
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  He was part of the motivation for me to start doing this. There was a point in his blog that went along the lines of, "Who will teach these people? They don't even want to try." I responded by saying that I will teach these people, with a little help from my friends of course  We used to discuss this on the thread for the stream "TheJaKaTaK" but i thought this tool deserved its own thread, as well as a much better explanation. | ||
|
kylclor
United States19 Posts
| ||
|
JaKaTaKSc2
United States2787 Posts
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? 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? | ||
|
Turbogangsta
Australia319 Posts
Edit: i ment .sc2mapster. It's hard to post from phone. | ||
|
TangSC
Canada1866 Posts
| ||
|
JaKaTaKSc2
United States2787 Posts
| ||
|
Czarnodziej
Poland624 Posts
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? 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) | ||
|
TheGreenMachine
United States730 Posts
First im going to play ~10 ladder games and check my spending quotient, # of hard supply blocks, and excessive cost inefficency. Those are the 3 completely objective things I can count and compare to future games. Once I get an idea where I'm at, im gunna try for a similar levelup system (im a sucker for leveling games). Tho I will not limit myself to certain units, I will have a focus per game and will keep track of progress. If you made a custom map for this I would play it though | ||
|
TheGreenMachine
United States730 Posts
First im going to play ~10 ladder games and check my spending quotient, # of hard supply blocks, and excessive cost inefficency. Those are the 3 completely objective things I can count and compare to future games. Once I get an idea where I'm at, im gunna try for a similar levelup system (im a sucker for leveling games). Tho I will not limit myself to certain units, I will have a focus per game and will keep track of progress with a lvl 1-10 (10 being near impossible). If you made a custom map for this I would play it though | ||
|
rikter
United States352 Posts
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. You cant increase cost efficiency by using more of some bad comp because you are spending so much more money than you need to. In your example above, 50 marines vs 10 zealots reults in a huge chunk of units not even firing weapons, so what good are those non firing units? This is what I mean by more units than necessary. If you have enough to go kill a guy, you go kill him. Waiting around for more units just gives him a chance to make up ground, get tech, whatever. Besides, if you have a big army the other guy should too, so your comp matters, and if he doesnt have a decent army you should have killed him earlier. Tl;dr Spending more money on weak comp is the exact opposite of being efficient. | ||
|
Striker.superfreunde
Germany1120 Posts
The custom map idea is probably the best solution to get this concept into people minds. Good read and very informative too! | ||
|
JaKaTaKSc2
United States2787 Posts
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) There are actually less levels now than the were then, they're just not broken up into rounds anymore because its more straight forward, IMO. The presentation could definitely be cleaned up a bit though. Definitely agree on that. A custom map, IMO is the absolute best way. And the idea of the TheLevels is not just macro training. Its about learning the things in starcraft that do not change first, so you can better adapt to the things that do change. I apologize if this was not clear. | ||
|
ChiknAdobo
United States208 Posts
| ||
|
0gooby0
23 Posts
But overall the teaching method is very well thought out and professional. This is for sure something I am looking forward to growing. | ||
|
JaKaTaKSc2
United States2787 Posts
You should never be maxed while working on your mechanics, just attack before maxing and you will avoid this. You can also expand and add production structures so that you can remax quickly @0gooby0 I am not sure how we would go about implementing this idea into TheLevels without sacrificing autonomy. Ideas? | ||
|
JackDT
724 Posts
http://scdojo.tumblr.com/post/24330196542/learning-the-game-in-phases-some-quick-thoughts 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, Why do you think this it remotely targeted at aspiring pro gamers? People who might actually become the best in the world probably hit diamond or masters right off the bat, no kidding. | ||
|
Jermman
Canada174 Posts
| ||
| ||
