| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
Guess that makes me a baddy huh bros. Too much work That being said I kinda miss it. I missed being the baddy with 75 apm in C- who would beat you while drunk. Someone, that mod person, said something about playstyle distinguishing a player, so as a Player who never split, i feel like something has been lost. The ability to distinguish myself as a lazy fuck. Down with casuals. brahrahrhaghahrhahrahrhr | ||
|
wanderer
United States641 Posts
On June 03 2010 06:57 G_G wrote: In BW, every high level player split well. They did it in 100% of games, at the same time, everytime. I don't think that qualifies as a reward of superior mechanics when it only serves to level you off with the rest of the players. yes.. yes it does. what you just said contradicts everything i have ever learned about competitive gami.... anything, really. | ||
Arrian
United States889 Posts
On June 03 2010 07:19 pilsken wrote: The question is, does a perfect manual split matter or is the difference so little/not exisiting that you should let the AI do it and don't bother with it. You bring up several points that have nothing to do with worker splitting. Placement of Depots? Yes sure, it's a strategic component how your base is structured, even when just talking about depots. Placement of overlords? Sure, beeing a great scout while your supplyunit makes placement very important. Timing of buildings? Well thats essentially what build orders and strategies are all about. But worker split? I beg your pardon, no. SC2 is not BW. There is no strategic value and no deeper understanding involved. It's just sending your workers to get money. There is no point in making the utmost basic thing in the world complicated. I bet there are millions of things you can improve in your game, which have much much more strategic/tactical value than just establishing basic muscle memory for the ever-same action in the first second of the game. Don't be so stuck in that BW mindset. You misunderstand my examples. The depot example specifically was referring to the placement of depots by the spawn point of the CC which pops the SCV closer to the mineral patches to speed up mining. That is very similar to work splitting as it has the same general idea. The overlord example was specifically referring to positioning on scrap station as pointed out by Day[9] where overlords can check tech from two different directions. And yes, worker split. Obviously, SC2 is not BW. That's not being contested. What I am saying is that SC2 should be more like BW in this respect. I don't want SC2 to be BW with new graphics, in fact, I really like the game. I part ways with a good many people on this board in not complaining about SC2 as it relates to BW. I think it's a really fun, strategic game. But this is one place where I really take issue with its design; I don't think it's complex enough in this respect. I completely agree with you that my game, and most people's, can be improved in far more important ways than worker splitting. I'm not contesting there are far more important things than the worker split, and it's something I've said multiple times iirc. But that's also irrelevant to this discussion. I'm saying that while I don't want it to matter a lot, I do want it to matter more than it does. | ||
|
Arrian
United States889 Posts
| ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
But worker split? I beg your pardon, no. SC2 is not BW. There is no strategic value and no deeper understanding involved. It's just sending your workers to get money. There is no point in making the utmost basic thing in the world complicated. I bet there are millions of things you can improve in your game, which have much much more strategic/tactical value than just establishing basic muscle memory for the ever-same action in the first second of the game. Don't be so stuck in that BW mindset. Its mad amusing to watch an accomplished progamer take like five seconds to start mining after completely screwing up a split after losing two or three matches. Messing up a split puts you back like fifty minerals. Whatever. But it has a far deeper impact both on the player and the audience because it's a simple task set right at the beginning of the game, and is going to put one player at an advantage, and another at a disadvantage, however slight, from there mental states alone, from their ability to preform under pressue and how they take their loses. It says something before anything has been said. edit: spellcheck is balls. | ||
|
Kletus
Canada580 Posts
i) Speed was slowest throughout the whole 1min timer; the timer I used was real-time supplied by the build order tester map VERSION 2.3. ii) This was timed to the second. By that I mean I stopped looking at the minerals once I saw 1:00 so if an scv was JUST about to put in minerals, he gets cut. iii) Race used was terran. iv) For F1 split, I started the split from 6th patch from the bottom. Then just clicked down each patch. 7th scv was placed on the nearest non-occupied patch. Also, I have noticed a pattern with the F1 selection AI and it can probably be done even more efficiently than just clicking down a line; will investigate this later. v) For half split, I split the scvs to the patches 2nd from the top and 2nd from the bottom. 7th scv was placed on the nearest non-occupied patch. vi) For no split, I simply took all my scvs and right-clicked the fifth patch from the bottom, which is the closest and most centered patch on the beta tester map. 7th scv was placed on the nearest non-occupied patch. These are my findings: Minerals @ 1min ![[image loading]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v621/Cletus/excelyo.jpg) The difference between half and none is truly negligible. The difference between F1 and the rest is maybe a couple of milliseconds, just enough for one scv to finish his trip. | ||
|
Buddhist
United States658 Posts
| ||
|
Buddhist
United States658 Posts
On June 03 2010 07:34 Kletus wrote: + Show Spoiler + Okay, a couple of things to note: i) Speed was slowest throughout the whole 1min timer; the timer I used was real-time supplied by the build order tester map VERSION 2.3. ii) This was timed to the second. By that I mean I stopped looking at the minerals once I saw 1:00 so if an scv was JUST about to put in minerals, he gets cut. iii) Race used was terran. iv) For F1 split, I started the split from 6th patch from the bottom. Then just clicked down each patch. 7th scv was placed on the nearest non-occupied patch. Also, I have noticed a pattern with the F1 selection AI and it can probably be done even more efficiently than just clicking down a line; will investigate this later. v) For half split, I split the scvs to the patches 2nd from the top and 2nd from the bottom. 7th scv was placed on the nearest non-occupied patch. vi) For no split, I simply took all my scvs and right-clicked the fifth patch from the bottom, which is the closest and most centered patch on the beta tester map. 7th scv was placed on the nearest non-occupied patch. These are my findings: Minerals @ 1min The difference between half and none is truly negligible. The difference between F1 and the rest is maybe a couple of milliseconds, just enough for one scv to finish his trip. Nice. I'm happy that you found the F1 split superior, because like I said before, I want a reason to keep doing it, it's fun and looks cool :3. | ||
|
Kletus
Canada580 Posts
On June 03 2010 07:39 Buddhist wrote: Nice. I'm happy that you found the F1 split superior, because like I said before, I want a reason to keep doing it, it's fun and looks cool :3. Honestly, whatever the outcome I would keep doing F1 only because it looks sweet and it makes me feel super gosu. | ||
|
Doc Daneeka
United States577 Posts
| ||
|
Bibdy
United States3481 Posts
Its hard to argue that a perfect split isn't going to net you SOME kind of advantage over someone who wastes the time of 5 workers moving that extra distance before they start mining. This new system is just less punishing on complete newbies who don't realize that splitting your workers up nets more resources than sending all four to a single spot (using SCBW as a reference). | ||
|
numberThirtyOne
United States294 Posts
On June 03 2010 07:39 Buddhist wrote: Nice. I'm happy that you found the F1 split superior, because like I said before, I want a reason to keep doing it, it's fun and looks cool :3. Looks like you already had 2 reasons.  | ||
|
bias-
United States410 Posts
Say that to a Zerg who loses only one ling instead of two or three when doing a runby on a building cannon/s, or a bunker that completes just in time, or a zeal that gets there just in time allowing that last hit on the sunken to save a zealot, letting his shield recharge. The ramifications from a perfect split could be huge, and was essential. It really wasn't hard. Not to show off because this is basic, but in BW this generally always works: 1) build worker 2)select 4 send to 'far patch' (select 2 higher than closest or 2 lower than closest patch) 3) select first 2 scvs ('first' being the two that spawned closest to patches, left two or right two) 4) send those to closest patch, select manually or de-select one and send it to patch right next to patch selected with first two 5) the other two scvs are still going to the 'far patch' you selected, still, so send the 'third one' to the patch next to the first one you selected. It's about 4 'task' actions in ~ 4 seconds (100 APM required within the first minute, not even if you're like Flash at the start) 9 actions total (building + selecting scvs + selecting mineral patches). Within 20 minutes I think any SC2 new-to-the-game player can split perfectly 80% of the time, maybe less if you spawn with patches below your 'town hall.' After this initial 'burst' (not even really hard) of action, you have all the time in the world relative to the rest of the game to think about strategy, starting positions, and possibilities. In the end I feel this finding reinforces people's desire to be lazy and to not practice mechanics at all. Not the mention the rest of the game that generally requires less (and moves arguably a bit slower, especially with animations), so I feel it's only compounding the problem. Detailed enough? | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On June 03 2010 07:29 Arrian wrote: You misunderstand my examples. The depot example specifically was referring to the placement of depots by the spawn point of the CC which pops the SCV closer to the mineral patches to speed up mining. That is very similar to work splitting as it has the same general idea. The overlord example was specifically referring to positioning on scrap station as pointed out by Day[9] where overlords can check tech from two different directions. And yes, worker split. Obviously, SC2 is not BW. That's not being contested. What I am saying is that SC2 should be more like BW in this respect. I don't want SC2 to be BW with new graphics, in fact, I really like the game. I part ways with a good many people on this board in not complaining about SC2 as it relates to BW. I think it's a really fun, strategic game. But this is one place where I really take issue with its design; I don't think it's complex enough in this respect. I completely agree with you that my game, and most people's, can be improved in far more important ways than worker splitting. I'm not contesting there are far more important things than the worker split, and it's something I've said multiple times iirc. But that's also irrelevant to this discussion. I'm saying that while I don't want it to matter a lot, I do want it to matter more than it does. Still I think there are important distinctions between the different things you mention. Building the depot or positioning the overlord still involves a strategic decision because there's a trade-off. Putting a supply depot in a given location means you aren't putting it elsewhere. The worker split is completely irrelevant strategically. It's a 100% decision. It's ALWAYS better to split once you learn to do it. I really agree that the small stuff should matter and add up, it's what really makes the game interesting to keep playing. I just think that in the particular case of a worker split it's a very acceptable loss (good even) since there's 0 strategic element to it and it comes at the start of the game when 100% of your attention can be focused on it. By all means say that you miss having any cool small tricks or that some small stuff should be more interesting. I just think you should pick your battles. A small mechanic test with 0 strategic element is not the type of battle I'd recommend picking. | ||
|
Kletus
Canada580 Posts
On June 03 2010 07:42 Bibdy wrote: I think you should take this data with a grain of salt, by the way. Having identical minerals at a certain moment would be identical results even if you have 6 workers who had just delivered their minerals, versus 6 workers who are just about to deliver an extra batch. Its hard to argue that a perfect split isn't going to net you SOME kind of advantage over someone who wastes the time of 5 workers moving that extra distance before they start mining. This new system is just less punishing on complete newbies who don't realize that splitting your workers up nets more resources than sending all four to a single spot. Agreed, it's only a couple milliseconds. At best I would say it will help you defend against or execute cheese. At the same time, remember that I was just "clicking down the mineral line" with F1. The F1 selection AI automatically picked the top one each time, then the bottom, then 2nd from top etc. It's something I'll look into for sure because I'm curious. | ||
|
pilsken
Germany441 Posts
Now of course this doesn't work in sc2 for lots and lots of reasons, since the mineral line and all it's implications on harassing, defending, buildingplacement etc. is an important (_and_ strategic) part of sc2. But for me there seems to be no point to have a) the most basic thing in the game beeing overly complicated b) people getting rewarded for _purely_ mechanical abilites. All the macroing, microing and tactics we do, may they be mechanically as demanding as possible, have always a thought component, always a part where your brain has to take part. This is just not the case with worker splitting. Another argument is, that there is also no decisionmaking in how to split your workers. It's not like if i do move A it'll be better say at 5 mins and if i do move B it'll be better at 10 mins. It's just split right or go fuck yourself. No game should be demanding in that way. In some cases you can not avoid it (when you have to overcome the weaknesses of an AI f.e.), but BW is so full of these issues it was absolutely necessary Blizzard got rid of it. | ||
|
Jusciax
Lithuania588 Posts
| ||
|
Twist-O-Fate
Canada38 Posts
On June 03 2010 03:29 mOnion wrote: and another terrible player moves up in the ranks due to Blizzard's pathetic blessing. Fantastic. this is like the saddest thing ever. LOL If everyone in the ranks have this same advantage, why would this terrible player surpass anyone, or move up from where he was? Show me one player that was being held back by splitting problems....Drama Queens abound these days; saddest thing ever. | ||
|
Arrian
United States889 Posts
On June 03 2010 07:46 Logo wrote: Still I think there are important distinctions between the different things you mention. Building the depot or positioning the overlord still involves a strategic decision because there's a trade-off. Putting a supply depot in a given location means you aren't putting it elsewhere. The worker split is completely irrelevant strategically. It's a 100% decision. It's ALWAYS better to split once you learn to do it. I really agree that the small stuff should matter and add up, it's what really makes the game interesting to keep playing. I just think that in the particular case of a worker split it's a very acceptable loss (good even) since there's 0 strategic element to it and it comes at the start of the game when 100% of your attention can be focused on it. By all means say that you miss having any cool small tricks or that some small stuff should be more interesting. I just think you should pick your battles. A small mechanic test with 0 strategic element is not the type of battle I'd recommend picking. Ah, but there is connection. In 'A Legacy of Distinction' I wrote: A game that is pure is one that has at its core the essence of strategy. Undoubtedly, there is no way for a real-time strategy game to be purely strategy; some technical component must accompany and complement the strategic one. But the physical component should not be considered irrelevant to competitive purity—competitive purity stresses strategic advantages over technical prowess, but technical ability is also a major factor. The prevailing idea behind a purity of competition is that, in the end, the better player must be the one to win, whether or not the play of the victor is defined by technical rather than strategic prowess. The favoring of strategy over technical ability is not a slight to the value of technical play, but rather it is meant to disqualify a game that permits the player who button-crunches faster and harder to always be the victor. Technical ability and strategic execution are very different functions for a player, as different as the functions of the parts of the brain that control these activities. Without technical ability, the execution of a strategy will inevitably fail. Without a strategy, technical ability is useless. This is to point out that these two must act together; they must be completely and consciously coordinated. It is difficult to quantify or investigate which of these skills is more important to the outcome of a game, and it ought not be a concern for the player. In StarCraft, as in other competitive games, it is the fundamentals of strategy and technical ability that prove most important. Flashy hand motions or micro gimmicks are superficial and irrelevant to game outcome if the fundamentals of strategy and technique are not in place. So bascially, we pretty much agree, except I believe that the split is one of those things that prevent a strategy from being executed to its fullest, and that is an interesting property of a build order: some miscue on the part of the player unrelated to his mental idea of the strategy can impede its success. | ||
|
exezelot
United States26 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
CSO Contender
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Online Event
Esports World Cup
ByuN vs Astrea
Lambo vs HeRoMaRinE
Clem vs TBD
Solar vs Zoun
SHIN vs Reynor
Maru vs TriGGeR
herO vs Lancer
Cure vs ShoWTimE
Esports World Cup
Esports World Cup
Esports World Cup
CranKy Ducklings
|
|
|
EPT
