|
So from the executive summary:
-You've been working on that excel file for 3 years
-no one you know can beat mass 1A zealots
- mass 1a zealots every game is... Fun?
Ok, ok on a serious note... Hasn't perfecting Macro always been one school of thought with little/no concern for game sense been a common discussion. Ie 4gate or 3rax your way into diamond? As opposed to learning a build and learning how to react to your enemy and when "feels" right to do something? While obviously a mid-late game macro oriented exposes players to longer games, are there mechanics actually improving more than the 4gater due to the limited scope of what they are allowed to build or do due to the imposed restrictions? It's interesting.
|
On October 11 2012 04:28 rikter wrote:
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.
Your statements here could be applied to any of the several training guides available. That degree of rigor is likely not going to happen. Your claim that what TheLevels tries to teach can be learned "just by playing" is unsubstantiated and unsupported. It is not true from my personal experience. I never said I improved faster by this method than by any other out there, nor would I ever make such a claim. I would suggest to consider other methods and use the one that seems best suited to your learning style.
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.
I disagree quite a bit with these statements. Given specific measurables even very new players can evaluate their results. It takes only a few moments to understand the concept of SQ and begin tracking its value. Similarly for constant worker production, avoiding supply blocks, making units without excessive queueing, saturating mineral fields without over-saturating, etc. For me, what I value in TheLevels is that it brought all of these together as a means to understand and improve my macro efficiency under simplified conditions. Macro is not the sole focus of TheLevels. It also has me working and improving other mechanical aspects of my play, such as efficiency in moving around a map by the use of multiple camera and army hotkeys (where before I only ever used a single army hotkey and never used cameras). Again, I can only sum up with a very personal statement that I am immensely enjoying TheLevels and what it brings to my experience of SC2 and give the rather obvious disclaimer that YMMV.
|
On October 12 2012 02:09 Dubsy wrote:
So from the executive summary:
-You've been working on that excel file for 3 years
-no one you know can beat mass 1A zealots
- mass 1a zealots every game is... Fun?
Ok, ok on a serious note... Hasn't perfecting Macro always been one school of thought with little/no concern for game sense been a common discussion. Ie 4gate or 3rax your way into diamond? As opposed to learning a build and learning how to react to your enemy and when "feels" right to do something? While obviously a mid-late game macro oriented exposes players to longer games, are there mechanics actually improving more than the 4gater due to the limited scope of what they are allowed to build or do due to the imposed restrictions? It's interesting.
zealots is level 1. its called TheLevels, because there are more than one. The main advantage is autonomy, and exploratory learning. In order to understand TheLevels you have to look at them as a whole. The player is given a unit of focus for two levels. One to learn the maco (gas/mineral management, production management, general button pressing, building/unit construction etc) and one to learn the micro/multitasking (kiting, army arrangement, attacking, retreating, flanking, decision making, and doing all this while keeping in mind the lessons learned from the macro level)
The difference is, instead of telling the player what do to, they are encouraged to explore and discover the how's and why's instead of the just the what's. It creates a reasonable space to work within for that players current skill/goals and provides specific benchmarks so that the player knows when he/she is read to expand that space and explore a little more. The advantage of taking an autonomous/exploratory approach to Sc2 instead of a build order focused approach is that it will help the player to be more motivated to play as well as teach lessons in a way that will stay with the player and provide a deeper understanding of the game.
Also, we've be developing the levels for less than 6 months as far as the spread sheet goes.
Winning is not the goal
and there's more to TheLevels than mass 1a zealots, that's just where it starts.
|
Easy, easy the whole "1A zealots" is based on your anecdote about your friend running your show make pure zealot.
My main point is I don't think I agree with you that a unit-by-unit progression is more effective than an infrastructure (ie build order) based progression. If your objective was strictly to improve micro and maybe unit compositions then going unit by unit might be better. But from an improvement stand point I think a more infrastructure based approach is better.
That said you mention fun as a factor. If a player has a lot more fun playing with a limited unit set there is some merit to it.
The one problem you do address very well is a common one at low levels is that any unit + good macro will beat bad players. Too often shitty SC players are on TL or Bnet and say: "how can I possibly beat mass Thor/Mmm/ling muta/blink stalker". Using the "Levels"(Tm)(R)(c) solves some of those problems by showing making a lot of stuff will beat smaller amounts of stuff.
However the size of your work (6 months, whoa) seems to exceed the relatively small scope of that problem.
|
Rikter I have to question wheter you actually read and understood the point of the levels in the replies you've given. Surely attacking when you have more units and the correct tech is the right answer you say...
If you actually read the guide, once you've completed the perfect macro round, you'll have a balls-to-the-wall aggression and micro round while maintaining the macro. So yes, once you've completed macroing only Zealots, you'll be working on microing them and being aggressive when you have your openings.
- Thats exactly what levels is for! This teaches you how to use Zealots as efficiently as possible, and gets you accustomed to how much you can produce. Then the level ramps up and you'll have Sentries, Stalkers and Zealots to just Macro up, before you again go balls to the wall aggressive.
Its a constant shift between the two, and whenever you can properly do it two-three games in a row, you move up a level. This should give you fammiliarities as to what you can pull off with each and every unit available to your race, while still macroing at the level of the league you've chosen.
Sure it might not be for everyone, but it sure as hell is faster to progress this way for a noobie, than to just play a lot of games. I guarantee.
|
@Dubsy
Just to clarify, I'm not upset or tilted. Just correcting the inaccuracies.
I think the autonomy of this system is what makes it the most fun, and the unit constriction is what prevents it from being overwhelming. With a build focused system, you have more to memorize and less to explore, this in most cases is less fun.
|
On October 12 2012 02:20 dissent_sc2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 04:28 rikter wrote:
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. 1) Your statements here could be applied to any of the several training guides available. That degree of rigor is likely not going to happen. Your claim that what TheLevels tries to teach can be learned "just by playing" is unsubstantiated and unsupported. It is not true from my personal experience. I never said I improved faster by this method than by any other out there, nor would I ever make such a claim. I would suggest to consider other methods and use the one that seems best suited to your learning style. Show nested quote +
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.
2)I disagree quite a bit with these statements. Given specific measurables even very new players can evaluate their results. It takes only a few moments to understand the concept of SQ and begin tracking its value. Similarly for constant worker production, avoiding supply blocks, making units without excessive queueing, saturating mineral fields without over-saturating, etc. For me, what I value in TheLevels is that it brought all of these together as a means to understand and improve my macro efficiency under simplified conditions. Macro is not the sole focus of TheLevels. It also has me working and improving other mechanical aspects of my play, such as efficiency in moving around a map by the use of multiple camera and army hotkeys (where before I only ever used a single army hotkey and never used cameras). Again, I can only sum up with a very personal statement that I am immensely enjoying TheLevels and what it brings to my experience of SC2 and give the rather obvious disclaimer that YMMV.
1) Technically, you can learn everything if you play the game long enough. But this can be a realllly long time, especially if you have no background in gaming. But a guide that shows you say, exactly what you can be doing with X buildings in Y time AND adds in consideration for the opponents play, that delves into strategy, can shave a TON of time off your learning curve because it allows you to skip all the worthless iterations in between. Just because in theory you can learn it all doesnt mean you actually have the time. TheLevels you can DEFINITELY learn, all while doing any other method, because literally all the system itself does is drill in the keys, not tell you what to do with them. Because as it stands thelevels has nothing in it in regards to efficiency (SQ is now gone iirc, doesnt talk about build orders, timings, any kind of strategic concept).
2) All that stuff you said you are learning is coming from somewhere else because I see no instruction for how to actually do the things you are being told to do, in regards to micro, hotkeys and whatnot. Even if you give credit for making you aware of those things (assuming you didnt already know), its all on you to figure it out. How did you decide what to use your cameras for, what to hotkey etc?
"Given specific measurables even very new players can evaluate their results." -
Part of the reason established pro builds are such great learning tools is that you have a gold standard comparison for your own game, and instead of a vague SQ number you have numbers that are way more relevant. Do you think youll get a better idea of where you stand comparing your results to Jaks formula? or to marinkings? Even if you can't micro like marineking you can still macro like him, because perfect macro does NOT take a lot of apm.
|
I'm not saying a strict build order, I agree those are dull and aren't great ways to learn the game. What I'm saying is why control the units students can use rather than the buildings? You can really customize the learning process and it gives the student a chance to jump right into builde orders because they're focusing on infrastructure.
So instead of saying:
10 depot
12 rax
13 gas
15 depot
Etc.
You say:
(while keeping all your probe building/spending req's in place as you see fit).
-1.1: At this level you must build 3 gateways and keep constant production before expanding
If you want to keep going with your macro/micro stages feel free to go stage 1/2.
Then as the levels progress you can mix it up:
-5.1 build one gateway then expand. Add 2 upgrade facilities and 4 production facilities of your choice before attacking or expanding again.
I've always found good infrastructure management the most crucial part of development; moreso than learning the units individually. I also feel this produces controlled autonomy. In one stage you can give them a break and let them build 3 structures of they're choice before expanding (could be a 1-1-1 all in or a 2 rax expo with an EBay, they can be creative), then the next stage you can tighten up a bit and say you must expand off of 1 rax, then add a factory, star port and 2-4 more rax before either attacking or expanding again.
It gives them the option and diversity to try a 3-1-1 tank, banshee, raven, marine timing or play standard mmm TvP while giving them a feel for what "standard" mid game infrastructure feels like.
Edit: Be wary of blurring the line between fun and Improvement. Doing the Monday day9 daily is fun, but wont
Do much to make you a better player. Be sure you are targeting improvement and not just holding attention.
Just my thoughts. Very well written either way.
|
@Dubsy
I understand what you mean now. I think it complicates TheLevels too much. I definitely agree that infrastructure is an important thing to learn, but it might work better as supplementary suggestions rather than direct incorporation into the system. Like a list of challenges that people can try if they want to. That actually sounds like a lot of fun. We could have challenges in the form of infrastructure as well as builds, maybe even micro goals. Definitely room for growth there.
|
It (Starcraft) is an incredibly beneficial exercise and challenge. More and more studies are coming out about the benefits of playing Starcraft both mentally and physically. In the future I will be doing more research on this and collecting all of these things in one form or another, but until then there's one more motivator to address:
Hi! I'd be really interested in seeing any of the research that promotes Starcraft mentally/physically, if there are links to websites etc you could offer I'd really appreciate that :D
I also really like the parts of your guide where you focus on enjoyment of the game. From personal experience, I've introduced about four or so friends to the game and all of them have wanted to have me as their "coach". To begin with I just began to knuckle down on probes, pylons (the standard how to guide for starcraft noobies). It never worked. It's not that they didn't improve very fast, it's that they just didn't find it fun and so they barely ever practiced and just found themselves playing LoL more often than not. With the friend I'm helping out atm I've taken a completely new approach and that's to focus on the enjoyment of the game and then if he WANTS to improve and he feels motivated already then that's where I come in with my "macro is important" speech.
I think the best way to improve at sc2 is simply by having a really good attitude/mindset and then improving just comes naturally. My friend after only two months of playing has already found himself in mid platinum (more than I can say about the others, only one has gotten out of bronze!). Anyway I hope your guide gets lots of support and you can achieve your goal in helping as many people as possible. GLHF :D
|
On October 12 2012 12:02 BLZ Rel wrote:Show nested quote + It (Starcraft) is an incredibly beneficial exercise and challenge. More and more studies are coming out about the benefits of playing Starcraft both mentally and physically. In the future I will be doing more research on this and collecting all of these things in one form or another, but until then there's one more motivator to address: Hi! I'd be really interested in seeing any of the research that promotes Starcraft mentally/physically, if there are links to websites etc you could offer I'd really appreciate that :D I also really like the parts of your guide where you focus on enjoyment of the game. From personal experience, I've introduced about four or so friends to the game and all of them have wanted to have me as their "coach". To begin with I just began to knuckle down on probes, pylons (the standard how to guide for starcraft noobies). It never worked. It's not that they didn't improve very fast, it's that they just didn't find it fun and so they barely ever practiced and just found themselves playing LoL more often than not. With the friend I'm helping out atm I've taken a completely new approach and that's to focus on the enjoyment of the game and then if he WANTS to improve and he feels motivated already then that's where I come in with my "macro is important" speech. I think the best way to improve at sc2 is simply by having a really good attitude/mindset and then improving just comes naturally. My friend after only two months of playing has already found himself in mid platinum (more than I can say about the others, only one has gotten out of bronze!). Anyway I hope your guide gets lots of support and you can achieve your goal in helping as many people as possible. GLHF :D
I've only caught the occasional article here and there, and I can't remember/find any of them, but I'll be on the lookout for sure.
Definitely agree about the focus on enjoying the game. :D
|
I think this is a great idea, but who am I to say, I´m silver.
However, stupid me doesn´t get how to use the SQ calculator in your excel document. Plz help.
|
@the_fixxer
I'm streaming in 12 minutes at
www.twitch.tv/thejakatak
I'll show you, its much easier than trying to explain it in words :D
|
|
|
|
|
JaKaTaK, a SC2 gears plugin for this would be really cool. Keeping track of all the rules and benchmarks could be complicated, tedious and mistake prone. You could use SC2 gears to set up your requirements, parse out the data from replays, and display how close you came to hitting goals, you could show progress. I think it's a perfect fit.
|
On October 13 2012 09:54 SmittyC wrote:
JaKaTaK, a SC2 gears plugin for this would be really cool. Keeping track of all the rules and benchmarks could be complicated, tedious and mistake prone. You could use SC2 gears to set up your requirements, parse out the data from replays, and display how close you came to hitting goals, you could show progress. I think it's a perfect fit.
We've been looking into this. I wouldn't know how to make a plug-in for this, but I'm sure there is someone who can. It would be a huge time saver for sure.
|
It's a brilliant idea introducing players to units in small quantities allows them to explore that particular unit more and :understand where that unit is, strong why it is useful, where it tapers off (Point in the game as well as unit composition) and how to use the unit to the best of it's ability.
One criticism/suggestion the levels could just branch as opposed to continually growing i.e. after gateway units for protoss it progress' through a tech path so people aren't using all the units at once but focusing more on particular units.
One thing that i've noticed alot with just studying build orders is you don't understand what makes a unit effective breaking everything into smaller chunks forces you to learn more about why certain compositions work together well.
|
@HiTeK
The idea is that, although you can build many things in the later levels, you should be focused on the new unit. So if you're on the immortal levels, you should be focusing on immortal play etc etc etc.
|
Thank you Jak!!! I am having a blast with this system! I am using 4.2.2 I feel there is something MISSING! I have added a level 1.5 for Micro/Multitasking. Essentially, this is Level 1 with micro. The reason I feel this is needed is because I have been 50/50 on the ladder (Silver) with level one, but, I have lost some games just because I was not allowed to Scout/Micro my zealots. I would have won FOR SURE if those options were available. Replays available on request. I would like to feel I have truly explored all the options with Zealots before moving on to level 2. Could we please have a 1.5 level?
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
