|
On October 10 2012 08:06 rikter wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2012 06:31 JDub wrote:On October 10 2012 06:15 rikter wrote:
@Jdub "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.
Cost efficiency comes from unit control and strategy. Positioning, timing windows, composition and micro all have an effect on how much damage your units can potentially do. Making more units than is necessary is the opposite of efficiency, its just a workaround, and it has a limit (200 supply) 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.
10 zealots vs 20 marines, the zealots win with 5 left over. 10 zealots vs 50 marines, all the zealots die killing only (yep JDub called it) 2 or 3 marines. That sounds pretty cost effective to me.
|
On October 10 2012 10:48 JackDT wrote:Sounds a bit like: http://scdojo.tumblr.com/post/24330196542/learning-the-game-in-phases-some-quick-thoughtsShow nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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.
Theres always a learning curve, even for a bw pro coming to sc2. UI is different, new abillities and such. If you have a functioning brain and two hands, you too could perhaps be the best in the world, if you put in the work.
|
On October 10 2012 11:15 MstrJinbo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2012 08:06 rikter wrote:On October 10 2012 06:31 JDub wrote:On October 10 2012 06:15 rikter wrote:
@Jdub "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.
Cost efficiency comes from unit control and strategy. Positioning, timing windows, composition and micro all have an effect on how much damage your units can potentially do. Making more units than is necessary is the opposite of efficiency, its just a workaround, and it has a limit (200 supply) 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. 10 zealots vs 20 marines, the zealots win with 5 left over. 10 zealots vs 50 marines, all the zealots die killing only(yep JDub called it) 2 or 3 marines. That sounds pretty cost effective to me.
Microd perfectly the 20 marines can kill the zealots without taking a single hit (10 targeted marines run, other 10 shoot). No human can do that but basic stim stutter step will get you the same result, and thats easy stuff. Is it really helpful to build 30 extra units instead of just learning how to use 20? Especially when your opponant adds tech while you are waiting on your extra units? In the zealot marine scenario (20 micro v 50 unmicrod) the microd trade 1000:0 while unmicrod trade 1000:150, AND you had to spend an extra 1500 minerals in order to only lose 150, as opposed to spending less and losing less units to boot.
|
This is really cool!
Unfortunately I'm already masters so can't really benefit from this myself, I'll be sure to show this to my friends who want to improve!
Thanks for all the hard work you put into helping people improve jak 
|
Microd perfectly the 20 marines can kill the zealots without taking a single hit (10 targeted marines run, other 10 shoot). No human can do that but basic stim stutter step will get you the same result, and thats easy stuff. Is it really helpful to build 30 extra units instead of just learning how to use 20? Especially when your opponant adds tech while you are waiting on your extra units? In the zealot marine scenario (20 micro v 50 unmicrod) the microd trade 1000:0 while unmicrod trade 1000:150, AND you had to spend an extra 1500 minerals in order to only lose 150, as opposed to spending less and losing less units to boot.
The point is that you can rarely (if ever) micro your way out of having bad macro. Lets assume you're doing a build that needs those 50 marines, and you end up only having 20. Sure, if your opponent sucked and only has 10 zealots where he should have had 25, the scenario will be equal to having 50 marines vs 25 Zealots.
You should not worry about getting cost efficient or fancy combinations before you're capable of having enough stuff. There's no point microing against a superior sized army only to get crushed because you had too little.
|
This is incredible! Props to you for doing this, and thanks for putting time into a growing community like this!
|
On October 10 2012 13:19 Xana wrote:Show nested quote +
Microd perfectly the 20 marines can kill the zealots without taking a single hit (10 targeted marines run, other 10 shoot). No human can do that but basic stim stutter step will get you the same result, and thats easy stuff. Is it really helpful to build 30 extra units instead of just learning how to use 20? Especially when your opponant adds tech while you are waiting on your extra units? In the zealot marine scenario (20 micro v 50 unmicrod) the microd trade 1000:0 while unmicrod trade 1000:150, AND you had to spend an extra 1500 minerals in order to only lose 150, as opposed to spending less and losing less units to boot.
The point is that you can rarely (if ever) micro your way out of having bad macro. Lets assume you're doing a build that needs those 50 marines, and you end up only having 20. Sure, if your opponent sucked and only has 10 zealots where he should have had 25, the scenario will be equal to having 50 marines vs 25 Zealots. You should not worry about getting cost efficient or fancy combinations before you're capable of having enough stuff. There's no point microing against a superior sized army only to get crushed because you had too little.
The point of the micro isnt to cover for bad macro its to let you take the fight sooner, when your opponant may not be able to handle it. And anyways in the context of the levels your scenario doesnt make sense, since you arent actually learning anything at all about how you actually get those 50 marines on time, there are no timing goals, there are no builds and now there is no emphasis on efficiency either, so how will this actually help you get your units in a timely fashion? You arent actually perfecting macro by doing this if you dont consider timing and efficiency. Low resources arent enough...
Literally, all the things you learn from this you could also learn from just playing games, no matter what you did in those games, because repetition of the controls will improve as long as you use them. OP has picked benchmarks that are almost guaranteed to improve with any amount of play at all, no matter what you do, and ignores the areas that are not guaranteed to improve (decision making/strategic issues/efficiency) and severely limits a third (unit control) that otherwise be trained faster if you werent choosing to ignore it.
Seriously, just call it "The levels, a way to learn hotkeys" because that is what this is." If you want to succede at this mb a system that isnt laughably easy to outgrow would be a good place to start, because as it is anyone wanting to go higher will have to go somewhere else because you seem to be incapable or unwilling to offer guidance in other areas.
|
I honestly think bronze players are stuck in bronze because they don't watch enough vods/streams. How can they possibly improve if they don't know what proper play looks like, doesn't matter how much time they put in or what their goals are. They just need to take some time to look at the basics of each matchup and they'll get out of bronze in a week or two(worked for me when I started).
Edit: it might have been a bit easier for me because I got to the top in another game previously but i think my point still stands.
|
Hello.
I am a random player in silver league, playing since 1 year ago and i would like to follow this steps, i cant understand the excel sheet and the video doesnt explain it or maybe i dont understand, could someone help me?
Thanks!
|
On October 10 2012 20:46 m0nt wrote:
I honestly think bronze players are stuck in bronze because they don't watch enough vods/streams. How can they possibly improve if they don't know what proper play looks like, doesn't matter how much time they put in or what their goals are. They just need to take some time to look at the basics of each matchup and they'll get out of bronze in a week or two(worked for me when I started).
Edit: it might have been a bit easier for me because I got to the top in another game previously but i think my point still stands.
Agree. The thing about other games is that while mechanically you start from scratch you are still in good shape strategically, and this alone puts you ahead.
The issue for me isnt the ops teaching style, its the curriculum
|
On October 10 2012 10:52 Jermman wrote:
You know what would help low level players 100 times more than watching your videos? Opening an AI game and practicing macro. In the same amount of time spent watching these videos/reading, you could improve far more by playing the computer. Its kind of insulting to most people that you're in like gold league trying to teach people.
This is definitely a good thing to do from time to time, but from my experience it is not sufficient to really learn macro well. The AI's are very predictable after you learn them and not representative of the situations you will run into on ladder. It is easy to macro well in low-stress situations. By following TheLevels out on ladder, you will learn to keep up your macro in the many different and stressful situations laddering will put you through.
As a side note, I am not at all insulted that Jak is in the gold league at the moment. I know where he came from (switching from right handed to left handed to learn how it feels to start from scratch) and I know from interacting with him that he has a good understanding of the game that he is able to explain in a very clear manner.
|
On October 10 2012 23:44 dissent_sc2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2012 10:52 Jermman wrote:
You know what would help low level players 100 times more than watching your videos? Opening an AI game and practicing macro. In the same amount of time spent watching these videos/reading, you could improve far more by playing the computer. Its kind of insulting to most people that you're in like gold league trying to teach people. This is definitely a good thing to do from time to time, but from my experience it is not sufficient to really learn macro well. The AI's are very predictable after you learn them and not representative of the situations you will run into on ladder. It is easy to macro well in low-stress situations. By following TheLevels out on ladder, you will learn to keep up your macro in the many different and stressful situations laddering will put you through. As a side note, I am not at all insulted that Jak is in the gold league at the moment. I know where he came from (switching from right handed to left handed to learn how it feels to start from scratch) and I know from interacting with him that he has a good understanding of the game that he is able to explain in a very clear manner.
To be fair switching hands is not the same as starting from scratch, since even the scratch player has years of coordination and general skills trained to their dominate hand. More appropriate way would be to use his dominate hand but completely foreign hotkeys.
League matters, if only because certain things or more likely to happen in certain leagues, so its a useful reference point for giving advice.
Where in the levels do you learn what units you should be macroing in a given situation? If its by trial and error, that doesnt seem frustrating? Especially since when they inevitably ask for help the answers almost certainly involve concepts not covered in any way in the levels?
|
On October 11 2012 02:25 rikter wrote:
To be fair switching hands is not the same as starting from scratch, since even the scratch player has years of coordination and general skills trained to their dominate hand. More appropriate way would be to use his dominate hand but completely foreign hotkeys.
League matters, if only because certain things or more likely to happen in certain leagues, so its a useful reference point for giving advice.
You are right, switching hands and using completely foreign hotkeys (in fact, a hotkey layout that has been in ongoing development) should be worse that starting from scratch, so I am even less concerned about what his league is at this particular moment.
Where in the levels do you learn what units you should be macroing in a given situation? If its by trial and error, that doesnt seem frustrating? Especially since when they inevitably ask for help the answers almost certainly involve concepts not covered in any way in the levels?
TheLevels, for me, have been about experimenting and trying things out. I value the trial and error aspect deeply, I have learned several things I would not have otherwise. But even with that, TheLevels do not exist in a vacuum, there are other sources of information that I can and do use to help me in and out of the context of the TheLevels. Additionally, the OP cleary states that this method is not for everyone, there are other ways to learn SC that others will find better suited to themselves. You have suggested an alternative that looks like it could be useful, but you don't seem to be developing it (please correct me if I am wrong about that).
Rikter, it is difficult to repsond to your posts. You have denied on a couple of occasions that is even possible that TheLevels have helped anyone, likening users to cancer patients on sugar pills here (from the previous thread):
Some people say they like it and it helps them, but you could give a bunch of cancer patients sugar pills disguised as medicine and some of them will get better. Doesnt mean the sugar did anything, or that you have found some innovative way to treat cancer. No matter how flawed or ineffective your method may or may not be, some people will have results.
and telling me this after I indicated how TheLevels had helped me:
Its good you are improving, although since there are some skills you can learn just by playing, cant say for sure what caused it.
These statements are very much conversation stoppers. You are basically telling people they are not competent to evaluate their own results. That is quite an unacceptable stance for me.
|
On October 11 2012 03:31 dissent_sc2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 02:25 rikter wrote:
To be fair switching hands is not the same as starting from scratch, since even the scratch player has years of coordination and general skills trained to their dominate hand. More appropriate way would be to use his dominate hand but completely foreign hotkeys.
League matters, if only because certain things or more likely to happen in certain leagues, so its a useful reference point for giving advice.
You are right, switching hands and using completely foreign hotkeys (in fact, a hotkey layout that has been in ongoing development) should be worse that starting from scratch, so I am even less concerned about what his league is at this particular moment. Show nested quote +
Where in the levels do you learn what units you should be macroing in a given situation? If its by trial and error, that doesnt seem frustrating? Especially since when they inevitably ask for help the answers almost certainly involve concepts not covered in any way in the levels?
TheLevels, for me, have been about experimenting and trying things out. I value the trial and error aspect deeply, I have learned several things I would not have otherwise. But even with that, TheLevels do not exist in a vacuum, there are other sources of information that I can and do use to help me in and out of the context of the TheLevels. Additionally, the OP cleary states that this method is not for everyone, there are other ways to learn SC that others will find better suited to themselves. You have suggested an alternative that looks like it could be useful, but you don't seem to be developing it (please correct me if I am wrong about that). Rikter, it is difficult to repsond to your posts. You have denied on a couple of occasions that is even possible that TheLevels have helped anyone, likening users to cancer patients on sugar pills here (from the previous thread): Show nested quote +
Some people say they like it and it helps them, but you could give a bunch of cancer patients sugar pills disguised as medicine and some of them will get better. Doesnt mean the sugar did anything, or that you have found some innovative way to treat cancer. No matter how flawed or ineffective your method may or may not be, some people will have results.
and telling me this after I indicated how TheLevels had helped me: Show nested quote +
Its good you are improving, although since there are some skills you can learn just by playing, cant say for sure what caused it.
These statements are very much conversation stoppers. You are basically telling people they are not competent to evaluate their own results. That is quite an unacceptable stance for me.
My point in comparing improvement to cancer patients with sugar pills, or making statements similar to that is that without proper experimental controls, it really isnt possible to attribute your improving to the levels, since there is no control, or baseline to compare it to. Especially since the things this is trying to improve can be learned by just playing. So its not necessarily accurate to say that the levels caused the improvement, that you improved faster than you would have had you done something else (though it may be true, cant say for sure), to say nothing of any observer bias.
as to people not being able to evaluate results, this program is geared towards people who by definition are not able to accurately evaluate their results. If they could, they would not likely be in a low league. Theres no shame in being new, but new players arent exactly savvy. Its a harsh truth, but its still the truth, and its not meant to demean. Accepting this is a step in the right direction.
A proper guide is a lot of work, that I cant do now that I am working. Ive thought about doing something on how to analyze the graphs from the score screen or something on just 1-1-1 but I havent been able to generate the replays since I havent been able to play.
|
Really impressive work. Very interesting. Thanks for putting in all the time! This is one of the (many) things that I find really interesting about the sc community, is people with such a diverse range of skills applying their skills and talents to all different aspects of the game. ggwp.
|
interesting. my primary gripe about this is that i read the post, watched the first bits of the first lesson video, and i still don't really know what's going on. your title is almost more informative than your whole post. I liked the bit about how your friend not following build orders, instead just focusing on spending money, did very well as a result. Other than that, I have only a vague grasp of what you wrote and your alternate system of benchmarks.
this isn't a critique of the effectiveness of your system, not at all; i'm just letting you know that I found it wholly unapproachable. And this is coming from someone who reads scientific papers on a daily basis.
|
On October 11 2012 09:47 6xFPCs wrote:
interesting. my primary gripe about this is that i read the post, watched the first bits of the first lesson video, and i still don't really know what's going on. your title is almost more informative than your whole post. I liked the bit about how your friend not following build orders, instead just focusing on spending money, did very well as a result. Other than that, I have only a vague grasp of what you wrote and your alternate system of benchmarks.
this isn't a critique of the effectiveness of your system, not at all; i'm just letting you know that I found it wholly unapproachable. And this is coming from someone who reads scientific papers on a daily basis.
How do you suggest I change it? I'm all about improving the presentation. (I tend to be more of an idea guy instead of a presentation guy, but i'm learning as fast as i can)
|
I would suggest a few things to improve the presentation:
1. Divide it up into two sections: a) description of what theLevels are and b) a step by step guide on how to attempt a level, evaluate your performance and decide when to move to the next level.
2. I would hide away all the educational theory stuff and motivations. It's interesting but not the core topic.
3. At least 2/3rds of the post should be devoted to 1.b. there is a big gap between looking at your spreadsheet (and watching the two videos and being able to actually do/pass a level properly.
4. Include at least one two videos with a complete talk through of someone doing a level with an explanation of the pre-game thoughts, in game focus and errors, and post game analysis. One should be a macro focus and one a micro focus.
5. Link to that post about SQ since that is a critical measure to "get" as well as probably sc2gears since I think you might be depending on that to identify energy use (?)
6. Beg someone to make a custom map that enforces the rules and promotion and ideally displays the metrics in game somehow.
|
@Son of hisashi
Awesome feedback man. Will definitely look into this.
Thanks :D
|
This is a cool idea. I'm plat but I will try it out and see what it does for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
