|
On August 25 2010 06:13 Tenryu wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2010 06:10 TurpinOS wrote:On August 25 2010 06:04 aru wrote: Can people stop making team sports coaching analogies? They don't really apply to solo sports. In almost all solo sports, the best coaches have extensive experience as actual players that played competitively but their bodies just couldn't keep up. Thus why experience is very important but not everything. If experience was the only criteria when it comes to in-depth knowledge of the game, coaches would simply be useless. (What is the use of someone telling you what you should do when playing is the only thing that matters to get better ?) Again, explain me why proteams in SCBW have coaches (for strategy) when the players are actually more experienced in playing the game. Do you really think the coaches are there for strategy only purposes?
Did I say that ?
My point put simply since I might just not be expressing myself clearly.
Experience gives you knowledge of the game
Saying the opposite though, that knowledge of the game is ONLY gained through experience, is false.
|
I just want to give a shout-out to Chill for literal moderation here. He's the Argument Referee, callin' fouls and takin' names.
I also want to point out something I noticed about Saracen's OP and subsequent posts: you've got a pen by your name, but seem unfamiliar with the proper implementation of paragraphs.
|
Calgary25963 Posts
On August 25 2010 06:20 Whomp wrote: Chill & Sarc I respect and fully agree with your points. However your wasting your time, it really boils down to the mentality of a competitive gamer. My solution is time, seriously shit will just gradually change as those allins peter out or develop and grow into "good" players. Until then the majority of great players will continue to use them as stepping stones to shaping their game.
Leave it to time and their therapists to change them, it's not worth your effort just focus on the good ones... Well, it's not like I'm huffing and puffing because people don't see the situation in the same light as I do. I'm just throwing my opinion out like everyone else.
|
On August 25 2010 06:09 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2010 06:03 Saracen wrote:On August 25 2010 05:53 Dragonsven wrote:On August 25 2010 05:52 Saracen wrote:On August 25 2010 05:30 Scorcher2k wrote:On August 25 2010 05:14 Saracen wrote:On August 25 2010 05:02 Jayrod wrote: While I agree understanding the game doesnt mean you have to be a top player its for different reasons... reasons that make sense. Take a look at ANY professional sport. Even if I have never picked up a basketball in my entire life, I can understand the game, and theoretically could become the greatest basketball strategist in the world. For this reason, its quite possible that a Computer (E) level player could understand Broodwar more than a B+ or something... let alone in starcraft 2. This is not true at all (especially the comparison you made). It's one of the more common sentiments that's floating around these forums, and it's only there to make less-successful players feel better about themselves. But it's really not true. In this game, there's nothing that can replace experience. Not by watching Day[9], not by watching replays, not by watching livestreams. I really don't know what else I can say to convince you of this. All of the top players know this, and its people who believe otherwise that keep them from posting on these forums. Teamliquid is all about promoting open discussion and getting viewpoints from lots of different people. But it's people who believe they are master strategists but who put zero effort into the game that kill discussions. Because even though they think they know what's going on, the truth is they don't. They don't know timings. They don't know production capabilities. They don't know about responding to situations given limited information. The game's a lot different when you're playing it than when you're watching it. So you're saying that it is impossible to study a game in order to understand it? You really need to get the elitism in check. Why are you trying to single out players who by normal standards are good at this game and actually do understand it much better than the vast majority of the population to feel like shit instead of simply focusing on the know-it-alls who assert their opinions as fact. You know, the people crying "boo hoo elitism" are getting even more annoying than the alleged elitists. Yes, I am saying you have to play the damn game in order to understand it. Is it really so hard to come to terms with this concept? Is it really so hard to see that if you don't macro and micro properly, you're not going to be able to comment well on the viability of certain strategies since there are going to be flaws in your experience that dilute your perception of what works and what doesn't? Is it so hard to believe that no matter how many Day[9] dailies or HD/Husky commentaries you watch, you'll never have valuable insight to give unless you actually play the game? Here's I'll give you a little analogy to help you out. Let's say you love computer programming. You read every single book you can get your hands on about it. But you've never touched a computer in your life. Do you honestly think you're going to be able to write good code? Absolutely not. I promise you if you spend one ounce of the time you dedicate to theorycrafting and then whining when your ideas get shot down and complaining about elitism to actually sitting down and playing the game, you would understand what I'm saying. I really hate to break it to you, but there's no such thing as "strategizing on a diamond level" when your mechanics are stuck in silver. Believe it or not, these things go hand in hand. With experience, you gain both, not just one or the other. There's no such thing as mindless macrobots who just pump out units and win but don't understand what they're doing. Nor is there such a thing as a master strategist who is only held back by a lack of fundamentals. You would realize this if you actually played the game. Let me tell you something. I respect bronze, silver, and gold players who work hard to get better at the game. I respect platinum and diamond players who put in an effort. But I absolutely do not respect people who think they can sit back, watch a few "super-in-depth HD/Husky commentaries," and think they're veritable authorities at the game. This post is pretty elitist. Edit: You can tell by the 5 or 6 assertions you make that you mention as fact. Edit 2: Guess I better give an example: "I really hate to break it to you, but there's no such thing as "strategizing on a diamond level" when your mechanics are stuck in silver." I guess Bill Belichick can throw 50 yards. This poster is pretty annoying. Edit: You can tell by the overwhelming proportion of your posts that are useless one-liners or just outright stupid. Edit 2: On July 09 2010 05:17 Dragonsven wrote: There should be an achievement once you reach a year of playtime within the game. The avatar would be like a no smoking sign except instead of a cigarette there would be a vagina. What the fuck is this? Instead of addressing his criticism you address him? I'm pretty appalled by this reply and I'd ask you not to do it again.
Agreed Chill. Saracen makes many, many quality posts, he's also in the NA Top 200 players list output by Blizzard. He knows what he's talking about, and I completely agree. Currently I'm still in high-Platinum (been doing a lot of team play with IRL friends, but still try to get solo games in) but I was mid-Diamond in Beta. I'm a pretty solid player and I have capable micro and macro, but the fact of the matter is these two things alone are relatively easy to achieve. Like Saracen also points out I face countless people in high Plat like me even low-mid Diamond and they have atrocious macro and micro (Bronze/Silver level), and being that while mine is solid be far from top-notch that clearly shows just how bad some player's really is. I still lose games to these players, and the answer is quite simple, while I do have good micro and macro my game sense, ability to transition from rush / early timing push (i.e. before Hydras for example versus Zerg), on the fly decision making, and scouting are still rather lackluster. Once I get to late game I can macro 3 and 4 bases well, but my area where I need to improve in most is in the transitioning. Most games I lose are because I cannot switch from whatever opening rush I did to the correct macro layout for the given race (I play random) without leaving myself vulnerable to counter-attack. I get better daily but the point with all this is quite simple, if you theorycraft a build go play it, play it 50,60, 100 times even, and save all the replays, and record how well you did with it. Then and only then come on the forum and discuss it, because despite your skill level you will have the ability to support what you are saying with evidence.
I know it might seem unfair to some, and when one gets a really strong win its hard to believe that while one may have even played perfectly or near pro-level in one game or even twenty games, you are overall a bad player. Thats the realization everyone needs to accept before they can improve. Saracen was not trying to offend anyone, but rather point out the obvious, if you are X rank in X league and a pro comes into a discussion, or at the least someone who is known to be a very good player and they say 'you did this wrong' you did it wrong.
My friends are silver players, and I constantly try to get them up to my level so we can then work on getting truly good at the game together. They often refuse my advice and lose the game as a result, I would not make this same mistake. My strongest race is probably Protoss and if I were to get the advice of a high-level player - lets say Nony I would believe him. For example say I do a 4 warp all-in Zeal, if Nony says to me 'thats a bad spot for your proxy pylon' or 'you mined too much gas' or 'your core was late' and so on. Guess what? They were.
|
On August 25 2010 06:24 iEchoic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2010 06:23 heyoka wrote:Believe it or not, SC1 knowledge is not required to be knowledgeable about the game. In fact, SC1 is the simplest, most kiddy pc RTS I've literally ever played. It got popular because it was accessible to all, similar to the way Halo did. This is the best thing I've ever read in the forums. Thank you Saracen, thank you so much. Two resources, pre-defined base slots, max mineral saturation, 3 races. I expect to get hated on this, but it's the truth. The game became very competitive but it's one of the simplest pc RTSes ever made. Care to disagree?
Two resources, predefined base slots, max mineral saturation, 3 races, unlimited unit and building selection, ai that is not buggy, smartcasting
Yeah this totally sounds like sc2 is not EXACTLY like sc1 complexity wise. Sc1 is much more complex than sc2 specifically because of the limitations that the AI and the unit selection goes. It becomes a lot more mechanically demanding and therefore it gives the game depth because where you spend that apm of urs actually starts to matter.
|
On August 25 2010 06:15 iEchoic wrote: Anyone with the ability to extract social cues from written media can tell this is sort of "I'm a veteran and you're not" rubbing-your-face-in-shit kind of post. Everyone denying it is either completely unable to socialize using written media or just playing dumb.
This is how it came off whether it was intended or not.
|
sc1 is the end-all to RTS games, with the exception of sc2.
Please do not even bring up Age of Empires, that game is so terrible and boring. Way to simple, 0% mind activation.
|
On August 25 2010 02:39 TSL-Lore wrote: Indeed, I have noticed this surge of players as well.. The kind who have absolutely no idea what to do when their 4-gate all-in gets crushed. I've played several Protoss on the ladder (around 800-900 diamond, as SaracenS was referring to) who did some form of 4-gate, which gets utterly crushed by a counter build I've devised involving +1 metabolic Lings.
Then, they'd leave the game without GGing and I meet them again on the ladder immediately. I say "gl, hf" and they say "STFU NOOB" and proceed to do the same 4-gate build. Then I crush it again with the same counter-build response and ask them "if you know it won't work, why do you do it again" and they once again respond with a bunch of tears/rage. Yet, these players are making it into 800.. 900 even 1000 ranges (as some are slightly favored or even with me at 950). I'm amazed as to how far this kind of play can get you. I hope SaracenS is right in that SC2 is a deep enough game where players who don't truly understand the game will stagnate, while other players who really take the time and have the discipline will move on.
Can you tell me more about this build?
It sounds pretty cool and I still have trouble against 4-gates.
|
On August 25 2010 06:24 iEchoic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2010 06:23 heyoka wrote:Believe it or not, SC1 knowledge is not required to be knowledgeable about the game. In fact, SC1 is the simplest, most kiddy pc RTS I've literally ever played. It got popular because it was accessible to all, similar to the way Halo did. This is the best thing I've ever read in the forums. Thank you Saracen, thank you so much. Two resources, pre-defined base slots, max mineral saturation, 3 races. I expect to get hated on this, but it's the truth. The game became very competitive but it's one of the simplest pc RTSes ever made. Care to disagree?
LOL If this isn't the greatest sarcasm to be written on a Starcraft forum, what is?
Oh halo wars and CnC, obviously you guys are the superior games, its just that I'm too stupid to see the depth in you guys. I'm sure if we really tried we can put starcraft on controllers too.
|
On August 25 2010 05:52 Saracen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2010 05:30 Scorcher2k wrote:On August 25 2010 05:14 Saracen wrote:On August 25 2010 05:02 Jayrod wrote: While I agree understanding the game doesnt mean you have to be a top player its for different reasons... reasons that make sense. Take a look at ANY professional sport. Even if I have never picked up a basketball in my entire life, I can understand the game, and theoretically could become the greatest basketball strategist in the world. For this reason, its quite possible that a Computer (E) level player could understand Broodwar more than a B+ or something... let alone in starcraft 2. This is not true at all (especially the comparison you made). It's one of the more common sentiments that's floating around these forums, and it's only there to make less-successful players feel better about themselves. But it's really not true. In this game, there's nothing that can replace experience. Not by watching Day[9], not by watching replays, not by watching livestreams. I really don't know what else I can say to convince you of this. All of the top players know this, and its people who believe otherwise that keep them from posting on these forums. Teamliquid is all about promoting open discussion and getting viewpoints from lots of different people. But it's people who believe they are master strategists but who put zero effort into the game that kill discussions. Because even though they think they know what's going on, the truth is they don't. They don't know timings. They don't know production capabilities. They don't know about responding to situations given limited information. The game's a lot different when you're playing it than when you're watching it. So you're saying that it is impossible to study a game in order to understand it? You really need to get the elitism in check. Why are you trying to single out players who by normal standards are good at this game and actually do understand it much better than the vast majority of the population to feel like shit instead of simply focusing on the know-it-alls who assert their opinions as fact. You know, the people crying "boo hoo elitism" are getting even more annoying than the alleged elitists. Yes, I am saying you have to play the damn game in order to understand it. Is it really so hard to come to terms with this concept? Is it really so hard to see that if you don't macro and micro properly, you're not going to be able to comment well on the viability of certain strategies since there are going to be flaws in your experience that dilute your perception of what works and what doesn't? Is it so hard to believe that no matter how many Day[9] dailies or HD/Husky commentaries you watch, you'll never have valuable insight to give unless you actually play the game? Here's I'll give you a little analogy to help you out. Let's say you love computer programming. You read every single book you can get your hands on about it. But you've never touched a computer in your life. Do you honestly think you're going to be able to write good code? Absolutely not. I promise you if you spend one ounce of the time you dedicate to theorycrafting and then whining when your ideas get shot down and complaining about elitism to actually sitting down and playing the game, you would understand what I'm saying. I really hate to break it to you, but there's no such thing as "strategizing on a diamond level" when your mechanics are stuck in silver. Believe it or not, these things go hand in hand. With experience, you gain both, not just one or the other. There's no such thing as mindless macrobots who just pump out units and win but don't understand what they're doing. Nor is there such a thing as a master strategist who is only held back by a lack of fundamentals. You would realize this if you actually played the game. Let me tell you something. I respect bronze, silver, and gold players who work hard to get better at the game. I respect platinum and diamond players who put in an effort. But I absolutely do not respect people who think they can sit back, watch a few "super-in-depth HD/Husky commentaries," and think they're veritable authorities at the game.
I came.
Why is elitism shunned upon? If you're on teamliquid, guess what, you're probably already in the top 20% of SC2 players. The simple fact that you're on this site trying to learn at all will put you leaps and bounds above others. I guess we're all eltists because we're not actually tanking our ratings to hang around in bronze lever games and give pointers to people. We're trying to learn and be better at the game and which to discuss the finer points of strategy with other GOOD players... Fuck our elitest views. I'm gonna' go hang out on b-net chat rooms for my strategy advice... oh wait.
|
iEchoic has valid points from his perspective, but he simply hasn't followed the SC1 scene closely enough to understand that the complexity is in the details. Total Annihilation had like a billion units per race, but does that automatically make it a better game?
|
On August 25 2010 02:19 Saracen wrote:
qxc: Have invite only topics. For example, create a TvZ discussion thread and only allow top tier Terrans and Zergs to post in it. Assuming people actually participated, it could be pretty interesting. It’s tough to defend a point when I’ve got bronze players telling me what I’m saying is wrong every other line.
I would LOVE to see this happen. Make it as a show if you will. Once per month, open up a new thread and allow only pro players to post in it. I believe it will help out the community to understand better the issues with the game and it can also help Blizzard gather some relevant feedback about the state of their game.
|
I don't really get what you're trying to say here. Just have some humility? That's a lesson for life in general, the world would be a better place with more humility that's for sure.
But if you're trying to bash on non-pro points of view then I don't really see any merit in that, here's why:
Starcraft is such a beautifully diverse game there's many ways to win. Most questions don't have just one answer. It's more about HOW you do it, than WHAT you do.
A great example is Queens in BroodWar. To the enthusiast analysing the units it appears Queens are strong. Ensare is really powerful, the Queen can fly so surely it can position itself and you have everything except the upgrade since you need the nest to get hive. But Progamers don't use Queens because they can't control so many units at once (with the notable exception of Jaedong and a few other Zergs). But that doesn't mean Queens are bad and the guy who said Queens could be effective was wrong. I'm sure if you wanted you could learn to use Queens and use it on ICCUP to great effect.
Now of course there are some comments that are just plain wrong; but there's also a lot of comments that you think "well I don't agree with that, but it could possibly be true".
|
Hyrule18968 Posts
I'm a 56 point Platinum (with 430 bonus pool!), who's only read the OP, and I say: Why not have a procorner board viewable by all, postable by some? I think it's a great idea.
|
On August 25 2010 06:32 cive wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2010 06:24 iEchoic wrote:On August 25 2010 06:23 heyoka wrote:Believe it or not, SC1 knowledge is not required to be knowledgeable about the game. In fact, SC1 is the simplest, most kiddy pc RTS I've literally ever played. It got popular because it was accessible to all, similar to the way Halo did. This is the best thing I've ever read in the forums. Thank you Saracen, thank you so much. Two resources, pre-defined base slots, max mineral saturation, 3 races. I expect to get hated on this, but it's the truth. The game became very competitive but it's one of the simplest pc RTSes ever made. Care to disagree? LOL If this isn't the greatest sarcasm to be written on a Starcraft forum, what is? Oh halo wars and CnC, obviously you guys are the superior games, its just that I'm too stupid to see the depth in you guys. I'm sure if we really tried we can put starcraft on controllers too.
Starcraft 64.. amazing game.. not -_-
|
I doubt a lot of the pros will want to do that since it is their job to be ahead of the curve and if they posted their thoughts/builds or whatever else that would kind of ruin it.
|
On August 25 2010 06:26 iEchoic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2010 06:25 arb wrote:What were you D- iccup? If so then i think you can make a case for that. Anyone who says "Broodwar is the most simple and kiddy rts" they've ever played was either a FMP player d- iccup, or played one game against the AI then gave up because it was too hard. Or think games such as empire earth or age of empires even come close to Starcraft in terms of skill or complexity. data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/77e98/77e98be67f263e78995d632fb850d627ce97d99f" alt="" Never played SC1, I tried it out and didn't like the simplicity of it. AoE had 4 resources, multiple ways to collect each resource, no pre-defined expansion slots, tons more units, etc. I'm not saying SC didn't take skill. It took loads of skill. I'm just saying that people need to stop acting like SC1 is the end-all to RTS games. Wrapping your head around a game like AoE or EE was literally 50 times harder than SC1 or SC2. AoE? He's joking or trolling us right?
|
On August 25 2010 06:27 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2010 06:15 Zato-1 wrote:On August 25 2010 05:53 Chill wrote:On August 25 2010 05:44 Zato-1 wrote:On August 25 2010 02:19 Saracen wrote: You see, there's a huge difference between how much you win and how much you understand the game. Points and ranking are a good indicator of how much you win, but they do jack shit when it comes to reflecting your game knowledge. Thank you. Thank you so much. Arguing about who's right and who's wrong based on who has the bigger Diamond e-peen cannot end well. The best way to tell someone who knows what he's talking about from someone who doesn't, sadly, requires the reader to know a good deal about the game himself, so he can discriminate between promising ideas, facts, and complete bull. Which is why it's somewhat cyclic. If you first look within and decide you don't have good game knowledge, then you can find someone who does and try to use their comments / replies as a barometer. If I disagree with something but someone I respect agrees with it, then I'm probably going to take another look. This leads back to humility. It's not that hard to look inside and say you don't know anything. I just wish people would stop inflating their egos and consider that they don't know everything, they haven't experienced everything, they haven't solved the game, and there are many, many better players out there. True. Then again, TL changed with the influx of new members since the SC2 beta, and will likely continue changing; in a sea of rumbustious posts and threads, being meek will likely mean people will pass you over and instead reply to the more controversial or boisterous posts- leading to an arms race for attention, for seeking to make your posts seem more important. When there are tides of people available to contradict you, I can see why some would prefer to settle arguments by appealing to authority- "My rank is higher than yours". I guess my point is, humility won't come around by itself. It's easier to be humble AND relevant when you have a special icon; other people must get the impression that you have to choose between one or the other. Being loud will get you attention in the short run; being humble and constantly backing a founded opinion with evidence will get your respect in the long run. You know, this is actually a pretty good point. I think I'd like to see this explained in the TL.net Ten Commandments somewhere, probably under Forum Etiquette; being loud doesn't pay in the long run. It would be nice if people were generally more respectful, and only chose to be forceful when they have math, replays, or some other good evidence to back them up.
|
On August 25 2010 06:35 tofucake wrote: I'm a 56 point Platinum (with 430 bonus pool!), who's only read the OP, and I say: Why not have a procorner board viewable by all, postable by some? I think it's a great idea.
Saracen touched upon this already, he said it has to with the image the website would project if they had an "exclusive" forum. I guess they feel better of just being inclusive and dealing with the negative that comes with it.
|
On August 25 2010 06:26 iEchoic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2010 06:25 arb wrote:What were you D- iccup? If so then i think you can make a case for that. Anyone who says "Broodwar is the most simple and kiddy rts" they've ever played was either a FMP player d- iccup, or played one game against the AI then gave up because it was too hard. Or think games such as empire earth or age of empires even come close to Starcraft in terms of skill or complexity. data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/77e98/77e98be67f263e78995d632fb850d627ce97d99f" alt="" Never played SC1, I tried it out and didn't like the simplicity of it. AoE had 4 resources, multiple ways to collect each resource, no pre-defined expansion slots, tons more units, etc. I'm not saying SC didn't take skill. It took loads of skill. I'm just saying that people need to stop acting like SC1 is the end-all to RTS games. Wrapping your head around a game like AoE or EE was literally 50 times harder than SC1 or SC2.
Complexity doesn't make a game harder. If complexity made a game harder then I'd develop an RTS game with 50 resources. Then it'll be the all time RTS. The thing about AoE is that even though there were 4 resources I've never seen the game as very complex. The reasoning is it doesn't take much to get good at the game specifically because it's not mechanically demanding. I can leave a bunch of people to go and build a castle and then go away and micro my army. Then when the battle is done I go back and the guy is still building the castle. Now all I have to do is reseed my farms and train up more troups. Whereas in scbw and sc2 the micro is much more intensive and if you don't macro while your army is fighting then you fall behind. AoE is simple and I've never found it entertaining to play because the games last like 40 minutes minimum.
|
|
|
|