|
On March 21 2013 20:26 Shikyo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2013 08:46 ROOTMinigun wrote:On March 21 2013 08:43 Shikyo wrote:On March 21 2013 07:47 ROOTMinigun wrote:On March 21 2013 07:34 JustAGame wrote:On March 21 2013 06:10 ROOTMinigun wrote:
Where are you getting this information?
What kind of exercises do you give your students ? There isn't better exercises for starcraft 2 than queing up ladder games. I'll totally disagree with this. Of course my example will be from Brood War, but in it I was a 60 APM player who knew some things and the general idea of how to play but still was really really bad. After like 300 games of iccup I still didn't improve much at all, so I decided to just practice APM and multitasking. After about a week of just wanting to become faster and faster and learn to control units and macro at the same time, my APM went up to around 250 and after a while I went up to C-rank with like a 21-3 w/l(Had never even been near C before that) and so on. Mass laddering wouldn't have helped with that at all(or maybe it would have by spending like 20 times the amount of time), it was very specific training to improve a very specific point. Mass laddering is in my opinion ONLY useful if you do them to practice a specific point. After you reach it and it becomes natural (<- important), you are to stop laddering, gain a new specific focus, practice it 1v0, and then focus on improving it while laddering . The above is entirely my opinion. Everyone is allowed to disagree. I am not saying that I am objectively correct at all. I do heavily disagree with mass ladder being even close to a good way to improve, though. The tricks I'm talking about are mental tricks to -remember- making probes and pylons, not useless things like saving 5 minerals by building pylon x with a specific probe I had 60 apm when I first started this game. How did I improve this? I laddered and now I have around 250-300. If you are wanting to improve one thing specifically than ofc just going to a custom game or whatever is going to improve that. But most people I am talking about don't have the time to specifically set aside for "increasing apm". Overall laddering is going to be the best use of their time. Hmm, I've seen some of your games played-figures. I imagine it's in the tens of thousands by now? let's just assume it's 10000. That's hmm... 1000 hours. I am going to argue that if a player does specialized training exercises for 900 hours and plays ladder for 100 hours after that, they're going to improve at a faster rate than if they had only played ladder for 1000 hours. Practicing a specific thing with a teammate for example does count as specialized training. It also doesn't stop there. If you lose to something, you see what you lost to. You see why you lost. Can your build not deal with it? If it cannot, look for his build order flags(or if he sucks, recreate it and figure them out). After identifying them, see how you can scout them and prepare for the build, optimally the second the attack would hit. An easy old example for ZvP, I died to a 1gas 4gate back in like 2011. So I went and tried to perfect the build, figured that it can hit at 5:55 or whatever it was if you do the build perfectly, and then had my build have barely enough to defend at 5:55 after scouting the build order flags that show what he's doing(unit x or building x or lack of them at time y). After that I never lost to that build again mostly because no one actually did do it perfectly. I also believe that this is far more efficient than just grinding ladder after you lose. A second example although I haven't actually done this: Let's say you lose in ZvT against a double medivac Marine drop, one at the main and one at the natural. Instead of going "FUCK NOOB CHEESER BG" -> ragequit into the next game and losing to this again, you can do the exact same thing. Look for the build order flags, figure out how to scout it, figure out when it hits when it's done perfectly, and have enough to stop it when it's done perfectly. Something like having seperate control groups of Zerglings that still are enough to take them on if the marines are dropped in the same place or something, I don't know in specific. After that You just practice yourself to mentally prepare for it when you scout the flags(if you cannot pinpoint it you want to have another flag branch or just need to prepare for multiple options), and after this you will hopefully never lose to that thing again, and never need to type "FUCK NOOB CHEESER BG" for example. JAG's post above mine is really nice by the way.
If its the case that spezialised mechanical-training is so much better that ladder-training, why isn't there a single example of a player who is just really really good today, that barely plays 1on1's?
I agree with Minigun that the best way to practice mechanics is to mass ladder games as it is very time efficient.
Secondly there is no saying that you can't focus on improving a certain part of your play by playing ladder games. For instance I think I went from 50 SQ to 95+ SQ in 4-5 months by just playing a bit of ladder games (wasn't massing them, just a couple on a daily basis), and I would have games where I never missed scv's.
That got me very close to GM in spring 2011, however then I hit a wall as my unit control wasn't good enough. This took me quite a bit of time, but I slowly began changing my build orders (less defensive more aggresive) in a way to put me into more microbased situations. At that time my SQ probably declined to 85 or something like that, but I could clearly notice that my unit control improved. I never got to GM though as terrans being nerfed set me back unfortunately, but looking back, I doubt that custom game exercises would have had any noticeable effect on my gameplay.
Even though I barely played in 2012, I am still a much stronger allround player than I ever was without any glaring holes in my play.
For some people custom games might be a decent idea, but I still believe that gold+ players should primarily que que up ladder games. Playing like 5-10 minutes of "custom game exercise" followed by 5 minute break, "then 5-10 minutes of custom game" exercise is simply a too time inefficient method. Often times custom games are a lot more boring than ladder and since there is no one who forces you to play these exercises during the whole time you sit on the chair, you will simply not spend your time very inefficient since most people are too undisciplined.
Some people may think that I could have used some custom games to improve my unit control, however these people are likely ladderchair pro's, as unit control is alot about positioning your units in relation to the map and how your opponent moves. Again not saying you can't spend 10 minutes once a day splitting marines against banelings, but it should be 90% ladder games, 10% custom games and as you get better and better the amount of custom games you play should decrease.
Using badminton/other sports as an argument
This isn't valid as you will play against other human beings and often times you will be put into somewhat realistic game situations. In Sc2 on the other hand the situations you face in custom games aren't as similar as thus you face in a real game.
Secondly, a big part of the reason why you train specialised exercises in physical sports is to train your weak area's, which you would otherwise try to find ways to circumvent using them in a real match. For instance when I played tabletennis my backhand tehnique wasn't optimal, so if I only matches, I would simply overuse my forehand to optimize my short-term winning chances. However, Sc2 isn't like that way, as most people (including me) are willing to give up short-term wins in order to improve over the longer haul by 1) Not allining, 2) Not playing overly defensively/turtling.
|
On March 22 2013 16:36 Hider wrote:
If its the case that spezialised mechanical-training is so much better that ladder-training, why isn't there a single example of a player who is just really really good today, that barely plays 1on1's?
I agree with Minigun that the best way to practice mechanics is to mass ladder games as it is so damn time efficient.
Secondly there is no saying that you can't focus on improving a certain part of your play by playing ladder games. For instance I think I went from 50 SQ to 95+ SQ in 4-5 months by just playing a bit of ladder games (wasn't massing them, just a couple on a daily basis), and I would have games where I never missed scv's.
That got me very close to GM in spring 2011, however then I hit a wall as my unit control wasn't good enough. This took me quite a bit of time, but I slowly began changing my build orders (less defensive more aggresive) in a way to put me into more microbased situations. At that time my SQ probably declined to 85 or something like that, but I could clearly notice that my unit control improved. I never got to GM though as terrans being nerfed set me back unfortunately, but looking back I hardly doubt that various exercises to train mechanics is a good idea.
Even though I barely played in 2012, I am still a much stronger allround player than I ever was without any glaring holes in my play.
For some people it might be pretty good, but I still believe that gold+ players should just que up ladder games. Playing like 5-10 minutes of "custom game exercise" followed by 5 minute break, "then 5-10 minutes of custom game" exercise is simply a too time inefficient method. Often times custom games are a lot more boring than ladder and since there is no one who forces you to play these exercises during the whole time you sit on the chair, you will simply not spend your time very inefficient since most people are too undisciplined.
Some people may think that I could have used some custom games to improve my unit control, however these people are likely ladderchair pro's, as unit control is alot about positioning your units in relation to the map and how your opponent moves. Again not saying you can't spend 10 minutes once a day splitting marines against banelings, but it should be 90% ladder games, 10% custom games and as you get better and better the amount of custom games you play should decrease.
Using badminton/other sports as an argument
This isn't valid as you will play against other human beings and often times you will be put into somewhat realistic game situations. In Sc2 on the other hand the situations you face in custom games aren't as similar as thus you face in a real game.
Secondly, a big part of the reason why you train specialised exercises in physical sports is to train your weak area's, which you would otherwise try to find ways to circumvent using them in a real match. For instance when I played tabletennis my backhand tehnique wasn't optimal, so if I only matches, I would simply overuse my forehand to optimize my short-term winning chances. However, Sc2 isn't like that way, as most people (including me) are willing to give up short-term wins in order to improve over the longer haul by 1) Not allining, 2) Not playing overly defensively/turtling.
A few facts:
1.) Mechanics are mostly about muscle memory.
2.) Muscle memory works like this: you practice what you are doing, meaning: if you do something wrong, you practice something wrong.
3.) Lower league players (and this is not bronze and silver but even up to diamond league) make many mistakes while playing.
Compine 1 2 and 3 and you get fact number 4
=> 4.) LAdder games are VERY inefficient for practicing mechanics, especially when your mechanics are weak in the first place.
The most efficient way to practice mechanics, is by doing isolated exercises to bring them to a level, that you make no mistakes while playing and THEN (after!!!) you play and use those mechanics. While playing it is important to "slow down" enough, to make sure that you do not make any mistakes. The more you play that way, the faster you can play without making mistakes.
Another huge advantage of isolated exercises is, that you can actually practice those keycombinations you are weak at. You can decide what to practice, while a game will not allow you to adjust your training in any way.
I have played in many badminton tournaments and guarantee you, that practicing sequences and technique is not even near a real game situation. the main reason for this is, that you know what your opponent is doing before he is even hitting the ball. This makes the sequence totally unrealistic. OFC, after this kind of training, you need to play real games against real opponents to learn other skills, such as predicting what your opponent is doing, which can only be learned in games, but as i said before, without the isolated practice, you wouldnt even get to this point as you wont be able to hit the ball hard/far enough on long balls, or short enough for short ones. You will also not know the right movement and therefore lose no matter what your opponent is doing. You must practice the different techniques, and you must practice the movement out of the game, or you got no chance at all.
|
On March 22 2013 21:15 JustAGame wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2013 16:36 Hider wrote:
If its the case that spezialised mechanical-training is so much better that ladder-training, why isn't there a single example of a player who is just really really good today, that barely plays 1on1's?
I agree with Minigun that the best way to practice mechanics is to mass ladder games as it is so damn time efficient.
Secondly there is no saying that you can't focus on improving a certain part of your play by playing ladder games. For instance I think I went from 50 SQ to 95+ SQ in 4-5 months by just playing a bit of ladder games (wasn't massing them, just a couple on a daily basis), and I would have games where I never missed scv's.
That got me very close to GM in spring 2011, however then I hit a wall as my unit control wasn't good enough. This took me quite a bit of time, but I slowly began changing my build orders (less defensive more aggresive) in a way to put me into more microbased situations. At that time my SQ probably declined to 85 or something like that, but I could clearly notice that my unit control improved. I never got to GM though as terrans being nerfed set me back unfortunately, but looking back I hardly doubt that various exercises to train mechanics is a good idea.
Even though I barely played in 2012, I am still a much stronger allround player than I ever was without any glaring holes in my play.
For some people it might be pretty good, but I still believe that gold+ players should just que up ladder games. Playing like 5-10 minutes of "custom game exercise" followed by 5 minute break, "then 5-10 minutes of custom game" exercise is simply a too time inefficient method. Often times custom games are a lot more boring than ladder and since there is no one who forces you to play these exercises during the whole time you sit on the chair, you will simply not spend your time very inefficient since most people are too undisciplined.
Some people may think that I could have used some custom games to improve my unit control, however these people are likely ladderchair pro's, as unit control is alot about positioning your units in relation to the map and how your opponent moves. Again not saying you can't spend 10 minutes once a day splitting marines against banelings, but it should be 90% ladder games, 10% custom games and as you get better and better the amount of custom games you play should decrease.
Using badminton/other sports as an argument
This isn't valid as you will play against other human beings and often times you will be put into somewhat realistic game situations. In Sc2 on the other hand the situations you face in custom games aren't as similar as thus you face in a real game.
Secondly, a big part of the reason why you train specialised exercises in physical sports is to train your weak area's, which you would otherwise try to find ways to circumvent using them in a real match. For instance when I played tabletennis my backhand tehnique wasn't optimal, so if I only matches, I would simply overuse my forehand to optimize my short-term winning chances. However, Sc2 isn't like that way, as most people (including me) are willing to give up short-term wins in order to improve over the longer haul by 1) Not allining, 2) Not playing overly defensively/turtling.
A few facts: 1.) Mechanics are mostly about muscle memory. 2.) Muscle memory works like this: you practice what you are doing, meaning: if you do something wrong, you practice something wrong. 3.) Lower league players (and this is not bronze and silver but even up to diamond league) make many mistakes while playing. Compine 1 2 and 3 and you get fact number 4 => 4.) LAdder games are VERY inefficient for practicing mechanics, especially when your mechanics are weak in the first place. The most efficient way to practice mechanics, is by doing isolated exercises to bring them to a level, that you make no mistakes while playing and THEN (after!!!) you play and use those mechanics. While playing it is important to "slow down" enough, to make sure that you do not make any mistakes. The more you play that way, the faster you can play without making mistakes. Another huge advantage of isolated exercises is, that you can actually practice those keycombinations you are weak at. You can decide what to practice, while a game will not allow you to adjust your training in any way. I have played in many badminton tournaments and guarantee you, that practicing sequences and technique is not even near a real game situation. the main reason for this is, that you know what your opponent is doing before he is even hitting the ball. This makes the sequence totally unrealistic. OFC, after this kind of training, you need to play real games against real opponents to learn other skills, such as predicting what your opponent is doing, which can only be learned in games, but as i said before, without the isolated practice, you wouldnt even get to this point as you wont be able to hit the ball hard/far enough on long balls, or short enough for short ones. You will also not know the right movement and therefore lose no matter what your opponent is doing. You must practice the different techniques, and you must practice the movement out of the game, or you got no chance at all.
I guess badminton and tabletennis are very comparable in that regard and I also played at at tournmanet level if that is relevant. But badminton/tabletennis in that regard are completely different to Starcraft for two reasons;
1) You can improve your weak areas in Starcraft by playing ladder games (as I did). You can really only improve this in badminton/tabletennis by doing exercises.
2) Many of the custom game exercises aren't very relevant to how you actually play the game. Only a small part of tvz unit control is about splitting marines - It's actually a lot more relevant to control your units properly correctly while not in a battle. In tabletennis/badminton the exercises you perform are a lot more relevant. Basically you will find a much higher correlation between people who are good at exercises in badminton/tabletennis andwho are good in real matches. In sc2 it is much less as specific micro exercises only counts for a minority of the total amount of skills required to win a game.
Furthermore, custom games (due to being controlled by AI) will micro their units differently from how real players will do. I personally haven't seen any custom game exercises which I found particularly usefull for anyone playing the game at a decent level (by that I mean you shouldn't be spending more than 10% of your total playing time on them).
Remember as well that unlike coaching where the coaches efficiency can never be measured according to their skills, we can actually measure the efficiency of players practice method (thus who are good, like Minigun has probably practiced pretty efficiently). And as it seems that every single pro sc2 player barely uses any time doing custom game exercises (less than 10% at least), I believe that it is quite arrogant to claim they are wrong.
Another huge advantage of isolated exercises is, that you can actually practice those keycombinations you are weak at. You can decide what to practice, while a game will not allow you to adjust your training in any way
This is in my opinion the only real exercise which makes a difference. If you need to get used to learning new control groups, it is often times a good idea to use time on it in custom games. But this won't get us anywhere close to the +10% threshold of total time invested in this game. Typically it will take 5-20 minutes in a custom game to get used to new control groups. Then you will never have to spend time on that again.
So the discussion isn't about whether there aren't a few niche uses for custom game exercises, but whether it is worth spending the majority of the time on out.
|
On March 22 2013 21:29 Hider wrote:
1) You can improve your weak areas in Starcraft by playing ladder games (as I did).
Yes you can.. but it takes 10 times longer. Thats called inefficient.
I actually pointed out like.. i dont know.. ~5 times already why it is inefficient.. even in my last post i pointed out why it inefficient, by using well known facts. For some reason people like to ignore all viable arguments that proof them wrong.
and thats the reason i am out of this "discussion" now.. i am tired of writing the same thing 10 times, just to have people quote one line out of 1 full page and say "its wrong".
All i see in this thread, is a few people posting viable arguments and proof of their claims.. and other people telling their opinion, not only ignoring the arguments of other people, but also not posting a single argument themself.
|
I 2nd the above post.
Coaching won't instantly make you better (like a maphack would), but it will increase the rate at which you improve.
So is it worth it? If you want to improve, then yes, definitely.
|
there is soo much information in this thread someone needs to go through it and objectively as possible condense it with all the points about coaching theories, benefits and negatives and make a guide/sticky post.
more focus should be put on the background of the player/coach because really who cares if u won a few tournies if u cant really communicate or connect.
some more talk about mental game and psychology would be the last step but not the least important. which i feel is the least touched on topic in sc2 in general.
lets stop repeating ourselves now.
|
On March 22 2013 16:36 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2013 20:26 Shikyo wrote:On March 21 2013 08:46 ROOTMinigun wrote:On March 21 2013 08:43 Shikyo wrote:On March 21 2013 07:47 ROOTMinigun wrote:On March 21 2013 07:34 JustAGame wrote:On March 21 2013 06:10 ROOTMinigun wrote:
Where are you getting this information?
What kind of exercises do you give your students ? There isn't better exercises for starcraft 2 than queing up ladder games. I'll totally disagree with this. Of course my example will be from Brood War, but in it I was a 60 APM player who knew some things and the general idea of how to play but still was really really bad. After like 300 games of iccup I still didn't improve much at all, so I decided to just practice APM and multitasking. After about a week of just wanting to become faster and faster and learn to control units and macro at the same time, my APM went up to around 250 and after a while I went up to C-rank with like a 21-3 w/l(Had never even been near C before that) and so on. Mass laddering wouldn't have helped with that at all(or maybe it would have by spending like 20 times the amount of time), it was very specific training to improve a very specific point. Mass laddering is in my opinion ONLY useful if you do them to practice a specific point. After you reach it and it becomes natural (<- important), you are to stop laddering, gain a new specific focus, practice it 1v0, and then focus on improving it while laddering . The above is entirely my opinion. Everyone is allowed to disagree. I am not saying that I am objectively correct at all. I do heavily disagree with mass ladder being even close to a good way to improve, though. The tricks I'm talking about are mental tricks to -remember- making probes and pylons, not useless things like saving 5 minerals by building pylon x with a specific probe I had 60 apm when I first started this game. How did I improve this? I laddered and now I have around 250-300. If you are wanting to improve one thing specifically than ofc just going to a custom game or whatever is going to improve that. But most people I am talking about don't have the time to specifically set aside for "increasing apm". Overall laddering is going to be the best use of their time. Hmm, I've seen some of your games played-figures. I imagine it's in the tens of thousands by now? let's just assume it's 10000. That's hmm... 1000 hours. I am going to argue that if a player does specialized training exercises for 900 hours and plays ladder for 100 hours after that, they're going to improve at a faster rate than if they had only played ladder for 1000 hours. Practicing a specific thing with a teammate for example does count as specialized training. It also doesn't stop there. If you lose to something, you see what you lost to. You see why you lost. Can your build not deal with it? If it cannot, look for his build order flags(or if he sucks, recreate it and figure them out). After identifying them, see how you can scout them and prepare for the build, optimally the second the attack would hit. An easy old example for ZvP, I died to a 1gas 4gate back in like 2011. So I went and tried to perfect the build, figured that it can hit at 5:55 or whatever it was if you do the build perfectly, and then had my build have barely enough to defend at 5:55 after scouting the build order flags that show what he's doing(unit x or building x or lack of them at time y). After that I never lost to that build again mostly because no one actually did do it perfectly. I also believe that this is far more efficient than just grinding ladder after you lose. A second example although I haven't actually done this: Let's say you lose in ZvT against a double medivac Marine drop, one at the main and one at the natural. Instead of going "FUCK NOOB CHEESER BG" -> ragequit into the next game and losing to this again, you can do the exact same thing. Look for the build order flags, figure out how to scout it, figure out when it hits when it's done perfectly, and have enough to stop it when it's done perfectly. Something like having seperate control groups of Zerglings that still are enough to take them on if the marines are dropped in the same place or something, I don't know in specific. After that You just practice yourself to mentally prepare for it when you scout the flags(if you cannot pinpoint it you want to have another flag branch or just need to prepare for multiple options), and after this you will hopefully never lose to that thing again, and never need to type "FUCK NOOB CHEESER BG" for example. JAG's post above mine is really nice by the way. If its the case that spezialised mechanical-training is so much better that ladder-training, why isn't there a single example of a player who is just really really good today, that barely plays 1on1's? I agree with Minigun that the best way to practice mechanics is to mass ladder games as it is very time efficient. Secondly there is no saying that you can't focus on improving a certain part of your play by playing ladder games. For instance I think I went from 50 SQ to 95+ SQ in 4-5 months by just playing a bit of ladder games (wasn't massing them, just a couple on a daily basis), and I would have games where I never missed scv's. That got me very close to GM in spring 2011, however then I hit a wall as my unit control wasn't good enough. This took me quite a bit of time, but I slowly began changing my build orders (less defensive more aggresive) in a way to put me into more microbased situations. At that time my SQ probably declined to 85 or something like that, but I could clearly notice that my unit control improved. I never got to GM though as terrans being nerfed set me back unfortunately, but looking back, I doubt that custom game exercises would have had any noticeable effect on my gameplay. Even though I barely played in 2012, I am still a much stronger allround player than I ever was without any glaring holes in my play. For some people custom games might be a decent idea, but I still believe that gold+ players should primarily que que up ladder games. Playing like 5-10 minutes of "custom game exercise" followed by 5 minute break, "then 5-10 minutes of custom game" exercise is simply a too time inefficient method. Often times custom games are a lot more boring than ladder and since there is no one who forces you to play these exercises during the whole time you sit on the chair, you will simply not spend your time very inefficient since most people are too undisciplined. Some people may think that I could have used some custom games to improve my unit control, however these people are likely ladderchair pro's, as unit control is alot about positioning your units in relation to the map and how your opponent moves. Again not saying you can't spend 10 minutes once a day splitting marines against banelings, but it should be 90% ladder games, 10% custom games and as you get better and better the amount of custom games you play should decrease.
Using badminton/other sports as an argumentThis isn't valid as you will play against other human beings and often times you will be put into somewhat realistic game situations. In Sc2 on the other hand the situations you face in custom games aren't as similar as thus you face in a real game. Secondly, a big part of the reason why you train specialised exercises in physical sports is to train your weak area's, which you would otherwise try to find ways to circumvent using them in a real match. For instance when I played tabletennis my backhand tehnique wasn't optimal, so if I only matches, I would simply overuse my forehand to optimize my short-term winning chances. However, Sc2 isn't like that way, as most people (including me) are willing to give up short-term wins in order to improve over the longer haul by 1) Not allining, 2) Not playing overly defensively/turtling.
I've skimmed through this whole topic and found your reply as a very realistic response in comparison to the others. If we also take other subjective aspects in discussion, we may also find that our temperamental behaviour may help us or bring up a big disadvantage. For example being a much more tensed guy, when it comes to important moments and decisions, I develop an anxious behaviour which can also help me further, because it forces me to fix my mechanics and put up a more fluid playing style. From this, you can expect what you're opponent is doing, much more easily, at least I've found myself feeling empathic with everyone I play.
As a tennis player ( not professional yet ) match anxiety has a "very" bright side on my playing style. In the end, I think that the psychology is very important to analyse, if your emotional intelligence lets you, because all the progress will come from itself after spending the right amount of time analysing and scarcely trying to touch your limits.
The single aspect which depend on you is the attitude. Choosing to be open and accept failure as a way to progress and to get better at your own game, can open many doors for you. As a perfectionist I've also "bumped" with my head into many walls when practicing my mechanics, but it depends on how you reflect on it later.
Consequently, it's very important to analyze the game mechanics and build orders, spotting your mistakes and so fixing them... But a very important aspect is being ignored and I think many people quit from it because they haven't taken the right amount of time meditating and analysing their choices and mistakes.
Coming back on-topic: I think Starcraft coaching is pretty similiar to any real-life sport coaching. Having an indifferent or even poor coach, won't lead you to a great progress on your way. The latter option of having a supportive and good coach for you can give you a psychological advantage, as the time is very precious and analysing the mistakes on your own will take a lot longer, than if they're analysed by a pro.
|
On March 22 2013 22:48 gronnelg wrote:
I 2nd the above post.
Coaching won't instantly make you better (like a maphack would), but it will increase the rate at which you improve.
So is it worth it? If you want to improve, then yes, definitely.
Very well put indeed.
A student can also benefit from a coach in many more ways than just improving their ladder rank. For instance I believe that simply having dialog with someone about Starcraft (ot any competitive game) alone can be very beneficial. Many gamers don't know anyone in real life that they can chat with about day-to-day theory crafting and strategy. Watch day9 daily 100 were he explains the importance of this in his Starcraft career.
|
On March 22 2013 22:06 JustAGame wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2013 21:29 Hider wrote:
1) You can improve your weak areas in Starcraft by playing ladder games (as I did).
Yes you can.. but it takes 10 times longer. Thats called inefficient. I actually pointed out like.. i dont know.. ~5 times already why it is inefficient.. even in my last post i pointed out why it inefficient, by using well known facts. For some reason people like to ignore all viable arguments that proof them wrong. and thats the reason i am out of this "discussion" now.. i am tired of writing the same thing 10 times, just to have people quote one line out of 1 full page and say "its wrong". All i see in this thread, is a few people posting viable arguments and proof of their claims.. and other people telling their opinion, not only ignoring the arguments of other people, but also not posting a single argument themself.
Ok lets stop this discussion now - I don't agree that you proofed why it is wrong. I agree that there are situations where custom games exercises can be beneficial, however I think you vastly oversimplify a very complicated area. Since this is so complicated I think normal people like you and me can't solve the it from a theoretical point of view. There are simply too many factors which you don't take into account and the badminton vs Sc2 comparison gives me the impression that your PoV is too unnuanced.
The decision on whether to play custom game exercises or 1on1's is simply a trade off on the advantages (if doing something isolated helps you improve faster) or disadvantages (the skills you require from the exercises may have relatively little use in real 1on1 games). There is really no clear saying which one is better, and while the advantages may outdo the disadvantages in badminton, it is likely not the case in Starcraft 2.
Instead, it IMO makes a lot more sense to look at the real world, and if your thesis was correct then we should expect that there would be at least a couple of highly succesful players who plays mostly custom game exercises rather than 1on1's.
But lets just agree to disagree, because this discussion won't bring us any further.
|
On March 24 2013 05:05 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2013 22:06 JustAGame wrote:On March 22 2013 21:29 Hider wrote:
1) You can improve your weak areas in Starcraft by playing ladder games (as I did).
Yes you can.. but it takes 10 times longer. Thats called inefficient. I actually pointed out like.. i dont know.. ~5 times already why it is inefficient.. even in my last post i pointed out why it inefficient, by using well known facts. For some reason people like to ignore all viable arguments that proof them wrong. and thats the reason i am out of this "discussion" now.. i am tired of writing the same thing 10 times, just to have people quote one line out of 1 full page and say "its wrong". All i see in this thread, is a few people posting viable arguments and proof of their claims.. and other people telling their opinion, not only ignoring the arguments of other people, but also not posting a single argument themself. Ok lets stop this discussion now - I don't agree that you proofed why it is wrong. I agree that there are situations where custom games exercises can be beneficial, however I think you vastly oversimplify a very complicated area. Since this is so complicated I think normal people like you and me can't solve the it from a theoretical point of view. There are simply too many factors which you don't take into account and the badminton vs Sc2 comparison gives me the impression that your PoV is too unnuanced. The decision on whether to play custom game exercises or 1on1's is simply a trade off on the advantages (if doing something isolated helps you improve faster) or disadvantages (the skills you require from the exercises may have relatively little use in real 1on1 games). There is really no clear saying which one is better, and while the advantages may outdo the disadvantages in badminton, it is likely not the case in Starcraft 2. Instead, it IMO makes a lot more sense to look at the real world, and if your thesis was correct then we should expect that there would be at least a couple of highly succesful players who plays mostly custom game exercises rather than 1on1's. But lets just agree to disagree, because this discussion won't bring us any further.
This is basically what I've been saying. JustAGame keeps making bold claims about how people who do specific training in SC2 learn "10 times" faster, with no actual evidence. As far as I can tell, it's merely his anecdotal experience mixed with a heavy dosage of theorycrafting. Most of the players I know who are GM level don't play custom games to practice micro and macro, and I never did when I was in GM. I'll take the anecdotal evidence of myself and dozens of other GM players over one guy who doesn't seem to understand the difference between something that has been proven and a mere conjecture. He's like a platinum player who continues to post walls of text about his theorycrafting in the fact of a bunch of GMs telling him that despite all his logical efforts, he's just wrong.
|
I think coaching would be a lot more effective if the player sent the coach like 5-10 reps per matchups, and than the coach planned out say 9 really focused and planned, over 3 weeks. Maybe something like 3 dedicated matchup coaching sessions. Rather than just on the fly stuff. The coach after the on the fly session probably thinks of a lot of things he should have said etc.
|
On March 24 2013 07:56 iSTime wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2013 05:05 Hider wrote:On March 22 2013 22:06 JustAGame wrote:On March 22 2013 21:29 Hider wrote:
1) You can improve your weak areas in Starcraft by playing ladder games (as I did).
Yes you can.. but it takes 10 times longer. Thats called inefficient. I actually pointed out like.. i dont know.. ~5 times already why it is inefficient.. even in my last post i pointed out why it inefficient, by using well known facts. For some reason people like to ignore all viable arguments that proof them wrong. and thats the reason i am out of this "discussion" now.. i am tired of writing the same thing 10 times, just to have people quote one line out of 1 full page and say "its wrong". All i see in this thread, is a few people posting viable arguments and proof of their claims.. and other people telling their opinion, not only ignoring the arguments of other people, but also not posting a single argument themself. Ok lets stop this discussion now - I don't agree that you proofed why it is wrong. I agree that there are situations where custom games exercises can be beneficial, however I think you vastly oversimplify a very complicated area. Since this is so complicated I think normal people like you and me can't solve the it from a theoretical point of view. There are simply too many factors which you don't take into account and the badminton vs Sc2 comparison gives me the impression that your PoV is too unnuanced. The decision on whether to play custom game exercises or 1on1's is simply a trade off on the advantages (if doing something isolated helps you improve faster) or disadvantages (the skills you require from the exercises may have relatively little use in real 1on1 games). There is really no clear saying which one is better, and while the advantages may outdo the disadvantages in badminton, it is likely not the case in Starcraft 2. Instead, it IMO makes a lot more sense to look at the real world, and if your thesis was correct then we should expect that there would be at least a couple of highly succesful players who plays mostly custom game exercises rather than 1on1's. But lets just agree to disagree, because this discussion won't bring us any further. This is basically what I've been saying. JustAGame keeps making bold claims about how people who do specific training in SC2 learn "10 times" faster, with no actual evidence. As far as I can tell, it's merely his anecdotal experience mixed with a heavy dosage of theorycrafting. Most of the players I know who are GM level don't play custom games to practice micro and macro, and I never did when I was in GM. I'll take the anecdotal evidence of myself and dozens of other GM players over one guy who doesn't seem to understand the difference between something that has been proven and a mere conjecture. He's like a platinum player who continues to post walls of text about his theorycrafting in the fact of a bunch of GMs telling him that despite all his logical efforts, he's just wrong.
Well, I agree with JustAgame that coaches (such as Minigun) can't use anecdoctal evidence from their students in order to proof that their coaching is efficient. There is simply no easy way to measure the effect of a coach and thus we need to use an understanding of the human mind to determine the optimal way to coach. And I fundenmentally agree with JustAgame that coaches should focus on teaching students how to make decisions (which factors matter), rather than just order them what to do (as Minigun does).
However, when the question comes to how we improve our mechanics in the most optimal way, then we have a very reliable way of measuring efficiency by simply looking at how the pro's of today have become so good. Like why would Minigun advice his students to do custom game exercises rather than just massing ladder games? Minigun went from gold league to a pro in like 6 months by massing ladder games. Why isn't there a single individual out there who have become pro by massing custom game exercises?
|
On March 24 2013 07:56 iSTime wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2013 05:05 Hider wrote:On March 22 2013 22:06 JustAGame wrote:On March 22 2013 21:29 Hider wrote:
1) You can improve your weak areas in Starcraft by playing ladder games (as I did).
Yes you can.. but it takes times longer. Thats called inefficient. I actually pointed out like.. i dont know.. ~5 times already why it is inefficient.. even in my last post i pointed out why it inefficient, by using well known facts. For some reason people like to ignore all viable arguments that proof them wrong. and thats the reason i am out of this "discussion" now.. i am tired of writing the same thing 10 times, just to have people quote one line out of 1 full page and say "its wrong". All i see in this thread, is a few people posting viable arguments and proof of their claims.. and other people telling their opinion, not only ignoring the arguments of other people, but also not posting a single argument themself. Ok lets stop this discussion now - I don't agree that you proofed why it is wrong. I agree that there are situations where custom games exercises can be beneficial, however I think you vastly oversimplify a very complicated area. Since this is so complicated I think normal people like you and me can't solve the it from a theoretical point of view. There are simply too many factors which you don't take into account and the badminton vs Sc2 comparison gives me the impression that your PoV is too unnuanced. The decision on whether to play custom game exercises or 1on1's is simply a trade off on the advantages (if doing something isolated helps you improve faster) or disadvantages (the skills you require from the exercises may have relatively little use in real 1on1 games). There is really no clear saying which one is better, and while the advantages may outdo the disadvantages in badminton, it is likely not the case in Starcraft 2. Instead, it IMO makes a lot more sense to look at the real world, and if your thesis was correct then we should expect that there would be at least a couple of highly succesful players who plays mostly custom game exercises rather than 1on1's. But lets just agree to disagree, because this discussion won't bring us any further. This is basically what I've been saying. JustAGame keeps making bold claims about how people who do specific training in SC2 learn "10 times" faster, with no actual evidence. As far as I can tell, it's merely his anecdotal experience mixed with a heavy dosage of theorycrafting. Most of the players I know who are GM level don't play custom games to practice micro and macro, and I never did when I was in GM. I'll take the anecdotal evidence of myself and dozens of other GM players over one guy who doesn't seem to understand the difference between something that has been proven and a mere conjecture. He's like a platinum player who continues to post walls of text about his theorycrafting in the fact of a bunch of GMs telling him that despite all his logical efforts, he's just wrong.
Or you could read the proof i posted and point out why this proof is incorrect. The reason you dont do it.. because its correct.. I didnt see a single argument by both of you, while i posted proof multiple times, which was completely ignored.
What you do is insulting and attacking me without prooving anything wrong that i claimed, you didnt quote the proof once and only say "its all wrong". Here is one for you, (its just copy paste out of my earlier post). Proof it wrong or stop talking about me: ( i even made it a litte more simple for you)
1.) Mechanics are mostly about muscle memory.
2.) Muscle memory works like this: you practice what you are doing, meaning: if you do something wrong, you practice something wrong.
Combine 1 and 2 and you get:
-> 3.) Doing something wrong is bad for practicing muscle memory and therefore bad for practicing mechanics.
4.) People with flaws in their mechanics make many mistakes while playing ladder games (the more flaws they have, the more mistakes they make)
Combine 3 and 4 and you get:
Playing ladder games leads to many mistakes, which is bad for practicing muscle memory and therefore bad for practicing mechnics.
=> 5.) Playing ladder games is bad to practice mechanics. (unless the mechanics are already good, but since we talk about practicing them, its unlikely that they are good)
The fact, that there are much more efficient ways to practice, is not accepted in the community because of people like you, who constantly ignore the proof and keep spamming "play a lot". Who would try the more efficient way now, after a blue poster says its bad? No one. You are basically just sitting there and saying " I do it this way, so there is no other way"
There was a time when people thought the world was flat and the middle of the universe.....
(Its also very funny that you know how relevant the exercises are, without even knowing the exercises)
PS: The numbers are not made up.
+ Show Spoiler +The reason it is up to (or even more than) 10 times as fast is this: Take a 15-20 minute game of sc2. The standard player who has weak mechanics, has nothing to do during the first minutes of the game ( You cant practice mechanics without doing anything). Depending on the player and the build, this varies a lot. Once the playxer hits a certain amount of bases, he cant handle all the stuff he needs to and makes a lot of mistakes (If you need proof, open 100 replays of platnium players and see it yourself). Again, this varies depending on the player and the game situation. (remember: Doing something wrong = learning something wrong).
Assuming the player hits 3 bases at 12 minutes and has very little to nothing to do until 6 minutes, he has 6 minutes with little to no practice effect, 6 minutes close to the optimal practice conditions and everything after that is spent at bad practicing conditions, meaning, the player is practicing something wrong. On a 15 minute game this would be about 3 minutes, on a 20 minute game this would be 8 minutes.
(IF the player is better, than he he is above his maximum slightly after.. but therefore also AT his optimum slightly later, for a weaker player its the other way around, so this factor doesnt really matter.)
Assuming "close to" the optimal training conditions is 100% efficiency (although its not... so i even ADD efficiency here)
The game has
6 minutes at 0% efficiency (remember you cant practice while doing nothing)
6 minutes at 100% efficiency ( which is less for real, but cant be calculated, so putting it to 100%)
and 3-8 minutes, learning something wrong.
(Also, the game doesnt allow to focus on your weak mechanics, which is another efficiency reduction that is not included)
15 min game.. efficiency+ = ( 6*0% + 6*100% ) / 15 = 40% ; learning wrong stuff in 3/15 = 20% of the time
20 min game.. efficiency+ = ( 6*0% + 6*100% ) / 20 = 30% ; learning wrong stuff in 8/20 = 40% of the time
It is really hard to tell how to add up those numbers. In some game, the practice will be completely countered by the bad practice, in some games, the bad practice is close to zero.
Assuming that the bad practice has an influence somewhere between 0% and 100%, the resulting total efficiency of the mechanics training is:
15 min game: total efficiency = 40% - 20% to 40% which means between 20% and 40% middle = 30%
20 min game: total efficiency = 30% - 40% to 30% which means between -10% and 30% middle =10% (!)
Do not forget, that mutiple times during the calculation, the efficiency has been rounded up, which means the real values are below this. This doesnt include the lost time for queueing, it doesnt include the fact, that you cannot focus on weaker mechcanics while playing (low flexibility) and it assums that "close to the optimum" means "at the optimum".
Good exercises have close to 100% efficiency, as they are done at the optimal conditions all the time, the only "wasted" time is needed for setting up the exercise, which can be ignored since its less than 1% (at least for the exercises i give my students). This makes real exercises AT LEAST 3,33 times more efficient and can be up to (and even more than) 10 times as efficient. The real value depends on various factors like: Average playstyle, own skill level, average opponent skill level etc..
*Edit*
However, when the question comes to how we improve our mechanics in the most optimal way, then we have a very reliable way of measuring efficiency by simply looking at how the pro's of today have become so good
Not too long ago people who were building computers needed large room for a computer that wasnt even as good a cell phne is today. They were even claiming that there is "a worldwide market for only 5 computers" (see spoiler in the end). See were we are today... And ask yourself.. how did we get there ? The answer is: by doing something new.. more efficient and better. Just imagine we would still do things the way our grandparents did them...
+ Show Spoiler +
|
United States4883 Posts
On March 24 2013 09:16 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2013 07:56 iSTime wrote:On March 24 2013 05:05 Hider wrote:On March 22 2013 22:06 JustAGame wrote:On March 22 2013 21:29 Hider wrote:
1) You can improve your weak areas in Starcraft by playing ladder games (as I did).
Yes you can.. but it takes 10 times longer. Thats called inefficient. I actually pointed out like.. i dont know.. ~5 times already why it is inefficient.. even in my last post i pointed out why it inefficient, by using well known facts. For some reason people like to ignore all viable arguments that proof them wrong. and thats the reason i am out of this "discussion" now.. i am tired of writing the same thing 10 times, just to have people quote one line out of 1 full page and say "its wrong". All i see in this thread, is a few people posting viable arguments and proof of their claims.. and other people telling their opinion, not only ignoring the arguments of other people, but also not posting a single argument themself. Ok lets stop this discussion now - I don't agree that you proofed why it is wrong. I agree that there are situations where custom games exercises can be beneficial, however I think you vastly oversimplify a very complicated area. Since this is so complicated I think normal people like you and me can't solve the it from a theoretical point of view. There are simply too many factors which you don't take into account and the badminton vs Sc2 comparison gives me the impression that your PoV is too unnuanced. The decision on whether to play custom game exercises or 1on1's is simply a trade off on the advantages (if doing something isolated helps you improve faster) or disadvantages (the skills you require from the exercises may have relatively little use in real 1on1 games). There is really no clear saying which one is better, and while the advantages may outdo the disadvantages in badminton, it is likely not the case in Starcraft 2. Instead, it IMO makes a lot more sense to look at the real world, and if your thesis was correct then we should expect that there would be at least a couple of highly succesful players who plays mostly custom game exercises rather than 1on1's. But lets just agree to disagree, because this discussion won't bring us any further. This is basically what I've been saying. JustAGame keeps making bold claims about how people who do specific training in SC2 learn "10 times" faster, with no actual evidence. As far as I can tell, it's merely his anecdotal experience mixed with a heavy dosage of theorycrafting. Most of the players I know who are GM level don't play custom games to practice micro and macro, and I never did when I was in GM. I'll take the anecdotal evidence of myself and dozens of other GM players over one guy who doesn't seem to understand the difference between something that has been proven and a mere conjecture. He's like a platinum player who continues to post walls of text about his theorycrafting in the fact of a bunch of GMs telling him that despite all his logical efforts, he's just wrong. Well, I agree with JustAgame that coaches (such as Minigun) can't use anecdoctal evidence from their students in order to proof that their coaching is efficient. There is simply no easy way to measure the effect of a coach and thus we need to use an understanding of the human mind to determine the optimal way to coach. And I fundenmentally agree with JustAgame that coaches should focus on teaching students how to make decisions (which factors matter), rather than just order them what to do (as Minigun does). However, when the question comes to how we improve our mechanics in the most optimal way, then we have a very reliable way of measuring efficiency by simply looking at how the pro's of today have become so good. Like why would Minigun advice his students to do custom game exercises rather than just massing ladder games? Minigun went from gold league to a pro in like 6 months by massing ladder games. Why isn't there a single individual out there who have become pro by massing custom game exercises?
If I may add in a little bit to this discussion, from the point of view of a musician who spends 3+ hours practicing every day: JustAGame has many valid points, and the badminton comparison is not bad at all. Especially for lower level players, it's really important to spend some time practicing perfecting mechanics, because perfect practice makes perfect. I personally train with custom games just repeating builds and economic benchmarks to perfect my macro so that I can focus on other things like microing and decision making in-game. I definitely believe this is a more time-efficient way to practice, as well as a good way to construct well-refined builds.
Ladder has its specific applications, too. In ladder, you learn micro, decision-making, damage control, and map control - things you can't learn in custom games. However, as important as these things are, the most important thing in SC2 is having a solid mechanical background in macro; therefore, I recommend that all players play custom games to improve their level of macro.
This method of practice has accelerated me from gold to masters in a year.
At the highest levels, players play a lot of custom games within team houses to work on improving strategy, metagame, etc., through the feedback of another pro player. There's a reason why players who mass ladder as their only practice (like Kas or Minigun or DeMuslim) aren't on the top tiers of SC2. I don't doubt that they are talented, but engaging in custom games under the supervision of a coach definitely makes players overall better.
<3<3
|
On March 25 2013 05:32 SC2John wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2013 09:16 Hider wrote:On March 24 2013 07:56 iSTime wrote:On March 24 2013 05:05 Hider wrote:On March 22 2013 22:06 JustAGame wrote:On March 22 2013 21:29 Hider wrote:
1) You can improve your weak areas in Starcraft by playing ladder games (as I did).
Yes you can.. but it takes 10 times longer. Thats called inefficient. I actually pointed out like.. i dont know.. ~5 times already why it is inefficient.. even in my last post i pointed out why it inefficient, by using well known facts. For some reason people like to ignore all viable arguments that proof them wrong. and thats the reason i am out of this "discussion" now.. i am tired of writing the same thing 10 times, just to have people quote one line out of 1 full page and say "its wrong". All i see in this thread, is a few people posting viable arguments and proof of their claims.. and other people telling their opinion, not only ignoring the arguments of other people, but also not posting a single argument themself. Ok lets stop this discussion now - I don't agree that you proofed why it is wrong. I agree that there are situations where custom games exercises can be beneficial, however I think you vastly oversimplify a very complicated area. Since this is so complicated I think normal people like you and me can't solve the it from a theoretical point of view. There are simply too many factors which you don't take into account and the badminton vs Sc2 comparison gives me the impression that your PoV is too unnuanced. The decision on whether to play custom game exercises or 1on1's is simply a trade off on the advantages (if doing something isolated helps you improve faster) or disadvantages (the skills you require from the exercises may have relatively little use in real 1on1 games). There is really no clear saying which one is better, and while the advantages may outdo the disadvantages in badminton, it is likely not the case in Starcraft 2. Instead, it IMO makes a lot more sense to look at the real world, and if your thesis was correct then we should expect that there would be at least a couple of highly succesful players who plays mostly custom game exercises rather than 1on1's. But lets just agree to disagree, because this discussion won't bring us any further. This is basically what I've been saying. JustAGame keeps making bold claims about how people who do specific training in SC2 learn "10 times" faster, with no actual evidence. As far as I can tell, it's merely his anecdotal experience mixed with a heavy dosage of theorycrafting. Most of the players I know who are GM level don't play custom games to practice micro and macro, and I never did when I was in GM. I'll take the anecdotal evidence of myself and dozens of other GM players over one guy who doesn't seem to understand the difference between something that has been proven and a mere conjecture. He's like a platinum player who continues to post walls of text about his theorycrafting in the fact of a bunch of GMs telling him that despite all his logical efforts, he's just wrong. Well, I agree with JustAgame that coaches (such as Minigun) can't use anecdoctal evidence from their students in order to proof that their coaching is efficient. There is simply no easy way to measure the effect of a coach and thus we need to use an understanding of the human mind to determine the optimal way to coach. And I fundenmentally agree with JustAgame that coaches should focus on teaching students how to make decisions (which factors matter), rather than just order them what to do (as Minigun does). However, when the question comes to how we improve our mechanics in the most optimal way, then we have a very reliable way of measuring efficiency by simply looking at how the pro's of today have become so good. Like why would Minigun advice his students to do custom game exercises rather than just massing ladder games? Minigun went from gold league to a pro in like 6 months by massing ladder games. Why isn't there a single individual out there who have become pro by massing custom game exercises? If I may add in a little bit to this discussion, from the point of view of a musician who spends 3+ hours practicing every day: JustAGame has many valid points, and the badminton comparison is not bad at all. Especially for lower level players, it's really important to spend some time practicing perfecting mechanics, because perfect practice makes perfect. I personally train with custom games just repeating builds and economic benchmarks to perfect my macro so that I can focus on other things like microing and decision making in-game. I definitely believe this is a more time-efficient way to practice, as well as a good way to construct well-refined builds. Ladder has its specific applications, too. In ladder, you learn micro, decision-making, damage control, and map control - things you can't learn in custom games. However, as important as these things are, the most important thing in SC2 is having a solid mechanical background in macro; therefore, I recommend that all players play custom games to improve their level of macro. This method of practice has accelerated me from gold to masters in a year. At the highest levels, players play a lot of custom games within team houses to work on improving strategy, metagame, etc., through the feedback of another pro player. There's a reason why players who mass ladder as their only practice (like Kas or Minigun or DeMuslim) aren't on the top tiers of SC2. I don't doubt that they are talented, but engaging in custom games under the supervision of a coach definitely makes players overall better. <3<3
Demuslim and Kas are both top 5 foreign terrans. Simply put, the reason they have not performed better during WOL is a race question. There are probably of dozens of patch zergs who have performed better while only playing ladder as well. I think espeically Demuslims mechanics are absolutely phenomenal, and since we were only talking about how to improve mechanics, I guess those two examples are great examples of why massing ladder games are great at improving mechanics. But yeh you can accomplish the same thing by playing custom 1on1's.
Also please be aware that I do not disagree that bronze-silver players can benefit from playing macromaps. But once you get to a decent level it is highly limited what you can get out of playing custom maps exercises. Massing games is simply a vastly superior way of practicing mechanics for most players.
Justagame: Long post, but what your doing is absolutely insane and I already told you I won't reply further.I can make a math question proofing why I have the best personality in the world by using some insane assumptions, but really such a math question doesn't make sense at all.
|
On March 25 2013 05:46 Hider wrote:
Justagame: Long post, but what your doing is absolutely insane and I already told you I won't reply further.I can make a math question proofing why I have the best personality in the world by using some insane assumptions, but really such a math question doesn't make sense at all.
And yet you do reply and offend me over and over again. I wrote a bolt section, i left it there for you to proof it wrong.you just showed that you are not able to.. why even bother answering or using my name in your post if you cant post a single argument or proof my argument wrong?
If i post the eveidence, you ignore it, if i post the math behind a number its "theory crafting" (how to explain a number without math ?).. if i post that every student i had went to master league within 3 month or less, its worthless experience or "made up".
Lets face the truth, you dont even know how to do good isolated exercises, and still you constantly and blindly bash on me without a single argument to back you up. All you say is "massing games is good". I gave you the chance to proof me wrong, you couldnt do it, so leave me alone now.
|
On March 25 2013 06:03 JustAGame wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 05:46 Hider wrote:
Justagame: Long post, but what your doing is absolutely insane and I already told you I won't reply further.I can make a math question proofing why I have the best personality in the world by using some insane assumptions, but really such a math question doesn't make sense at all. And yet you do reply and offend me over and over again. I wrote a bolt section, i left it there for you to proof it wrong.you just showed that you are not able to.. why even bother answering or using my name in your post if you cant post a single argument or proof my argument wrong? If i post the eveidence, you ignore it, if i post the math behind a number its "theory crafting" (how to explain a number without math ?).. if i post that every student i had went to master league within 3 month or less, its worthless experience or "made up". Lets face the truth, you dont even know how to do good isolated exercises, and still you constantly and blindly bash on me without a single argument to back you up. All you say is "massing games is good". I gave you the chance to proof me wrong, you couldnt do it, so leave me alone now.
Where I exactly did I offend you over and over? I stated that you try to simplify something that is very complex (no you can't do math exercises on this - I think that would be very obivous because your basing it on assumptions which you don't know whether they are true or not). And I also said that we would never agree on this so I would not discuss further. I think you are bit too offensive on me - Please read my previous posts once again because I don't feel like I have been offensive. I have just tried to express my point of views. I clearly stated that its a trade off between 2 factors and neither of us knows the truth thus I rely on "empirical evidence" rather than theoretical.
|
Justagame is so right. Ladder is inefficient.
simple scenario;"x wants better marine splitting vs banes"
--> ladder, gets to practice splitting if opponent is zerg and if opponent makes banes. If splitting fails miserably you die instantly. = almost no time invested into practicing splitting, yep very efficient way to improve.
--> custom game, marine split challenge. efficient spending of time to improve splitting. Omg this sounds insane?!~~ lol just lol.
If you want gosu marine control it's just stupid to mass ladder games to achieve that goal. It's far more efficient to spamm custom games/retake control with a friend/ teammate and play the same situation over and over again. How else does flash play a ridiculous amount of games a day? Ladder? Nah I'd say customs with teammate's.
It's like playing guitar or piano. If you want to improve efficiently you do repetitive exercises to improve that specific technique.
Demuslim and Kas are both top 5 foreign terrans.
Foreign = noob league in comparison with Koreans.
|
Foreign = noob league in comparison with Koreans.
Thats missing the point.
Also regarding splitting marines, I adressed that previously. Once again you guys simplify what mechanics are really about. Having great tank/marine control is a lot more than just marine splitting it self which is why I believe there is a trade off.
|
On March 25 2013 06:44 Hider wrote:Thats missing the point. Also regarding splitting marines, I adressed that previously. Once again you guys simplify what mechanics are really about. Having great tank/marine control is a lot more than just marine splitting it self which is why I believe there is a trade off.
And you are true, but practicing the splitting out of the game and the rest in the game is simply more efficient than practiting everything in the game at once.
And going even further, practicing splitting out of the game, then practicing the full army movement against a skilled opponent (or even better, mutiple different opponents) in isolated exercises, and doing it in games after (to add the pressure etc), you are even more efficient.
But.. i offer you the only proof you will accpet:
You play (what ever time you play per day right now) for one week and monitor your effective apm, to see how much it improved.
After that i give you exercises that you do 50% of your total play time, while playing the other 50% of the time.
Again you monitor your eAPM improvements over that one week.
You will see, that your eAPM increase (that is the best way to measure small improvements in your mechanics or even the only way i know of), will be about 3-4 times as much as with the pure playing.
(Why 3-4 times? Becasue only 50% time spend on isolated exercises, so its high effectiveness is halfed.)
So .. are you in ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
