|
On January 06 2011 23:25 Sm3agol wrote:
Pretty sure noone has hit diamond in 50 games if it was their first video game, or even first RTS game. Unless they watched a whole crap load of replays/VODs/day9's/etc, and spend more time watching replays and analyzing their play than actually playing. Even then, it would basically be impossible if you''ve never played a single video game ever.
I hit it in under 90 games and it's my first RTS. The thing is I was used to chess strategical thinking and so I spent a lot of time reading and thinking about the game before ever playing it. Also I watched every replay at the time and tried to figure out why i lost.
|
I feel like if you have played at least 600 games of SC2, and you watch pro videos and try to get advice, you probably have a good understanding of builds and decent game sense. I'm like 90% sure you're problem is that you don't realize how fast SC2 really is. Everyone always says "improve your macro", which is what I needed to get into Diamond. What I didn't realize at first was how to do that. When people say you need better macro, we mean you need to be able to macro faster, not just more efficiently. That doesn't mean your APM needs to be high, someone can macro rather fast, good enough for diamond, with just 60 APM.
Make your macro super fast, like hyperdrive. But on unit micro and army positioning, slow down and take your time. Dont rush yourself into fight because you've been macro'ing like lightning. That was the advice I needed to get from Gold to Diamond, hope it works for you.
P.S. This game is sooo fast it's normal for it to seem stressful. Unless your mid to high diamond, I don't think anyone should always feel really relaxed.
|
I'm by no means anywhere close to diamond material, but I notice I always do better when my main focus is on resource management. A superior economy doesn't necessarily mean you will win, assuming u spend what you harvest, it means most of the time your army will be alot more substantial. I had an opponent mass collosus on me when he knew I had air... Aside from that I'd say it comes down to basics.. reconnaissance, map control, resource control... Fast expansion!  I think some people catch on to that stuff easier than others...
|
Lets just say there are 2 players.. A high level player and a professional progamer. Now for a high level player to become a progamer, what does that player have to do? In other words what is that difference between high level and progamer that make progamers excel more. Is it them extra apm micro/macro they put into it that puts them ahead? The cleverly disguised Build orders (but who can't think of a random build orders these days aint that mfing hard),... or what/?? what is it mf
|
I got into diamond with about 20-40 games. I had beta for about a month (got into diamond after about 2 weeks of beta).
My previous rts experience was C&C (red alert 1-2) and Age of Empires 2. I dabbled with WC3. I never played any RTS competitively, or even against other people. I don't think previous RTS experience had any impact on my progress in starcraft 2, since I never even considered a "build order", "macro", or anything beyond "get the cool units and win".
I learned the most basic stuff from Husky and HD (later got introduced to Day9 which is a LOT better for building game fundamentals). I have trouble understanding the difficulty of getting into diamond when it all boils down to a crisp build order, "decent" macro, and vague intuitions/game sense. Even many diamond players are pretty bad at the game.
There were no long, hard hours of practice for me.
There was a lot of theorycraft and designing my own builds to be safe, strong, and adaptable, which I think contributed to my success (AFTER I was in diamond), but that's a stylistic way to advance.
Maybe the biggest difference between me (under 300 ladder games played, but I can compete on the 2300-2500 diamond level), and the average bronze-gold league player is the quality of practice and the time spent trying to understand the game. I think the theoretical approach is a personality thing though (prefer theoretical frameworks as opposed to specific directions).
If you're practicing bad build orders and bad macro, you'll ingrain bad habits that stick with you and hold you back. If, from the very start, you focus on having a solid foundation, then it's easy to add the fancier stuff later. I also think the ladder system punishes "low quality mass games". Your MMR variance gets vastly decreased and it's much harder to advance if you go 1000/970 instead of 45/40.
|
On January 07 2011 07:00 ilmman wrote:
Lets just say there are 2 players.. A high level player and a professional progamer. Now for a high level player to become a progamer, what does that player have to do? In other words what is that difference between high level and progamer that make progamers excel more. Is it them extra apm micro/macro they put into it that puts them ahead? The cleverly disguised Build orders (but who can't think of a random build orders these days aint that mfing hard),... or what/?? what is it mf
The amount of deliberate practice they have done and taking to the next level/thinking outside the box for practice. Heres an example of thinking outside the box in terms of practice (although I am obviously not a pro).
I bought a spare mouse (razer abyssus) and mousepad (goliathus control) for my work so I could use the exact same mouse settings at work as home when I play. I had trouble with my mouse control playing sc2 since I use my computer for work so much and my mouse settings/feel were completely different so I had kept having to re-adjust every day. Does it matter at the high diamond level? no not really to be honest. Would it matter at a high profile tournament when your already nervous and your hands are inherently shaky and games are competitive/close where one misclick (forcefield) can make you lose the game? I think it so. I also have felt much more comfortable with my mouse and practice my mouse control daily at work.
Another big difference I've seen is that many high level players put alot of emphasis on their ladder ranking and winning or losing games. Pro players generally could care less about the ladder or their win/loss ratio and always focus about improving, trying out new builds, learning, pushing themselves outside their comfort zone which is when real improvement happens. Pro players also spend more time watching their own replays, asking the advice of others, discussing the game than high level players.
|
i dont want to derail too much, but how can a person be in bronze with a 35-17 record. Dont say MMR , hes got 67%+ win rate from cheesing every game and you cant tell me MMR is working when he can have such a high win % and still be in the lowest league.
|
I think there's a "natural" feel to it, how fast you learn stuff, builds and metagame, for example take RootMinigun, he says he had zero RTS experience and didnt play the beta and he managed to get to Nr.1 in the USA, whilst lower calibers like me who did play in the beta managed to get stuck in 2kish ( havent played since wow cata came out ^^)
|
Diamond isn't really *that* difficult to get into, and the lower diamond players aren't significantly better than a lot of silver/gold/platinum players. Executing one build solidly is going to get you pretty far.
|
It's really interesting, I was thinking about this too recently, as many of my friends and family members are in silver/gold leagues, and I was playing with them over the holidays and thinking about what separated us (I'm middle diamond, by no means amazing, I just dont have the time) Granted I played a lot of WC3, but I found they all tended to have a very different mindset/approach to the game.
For example the first thing I did when i got SC2 was play single player and just learn all the buildings, look at all the units, see what they do, and try to figure out where I think they would be useful. And if I lose a game, I try to think about where my mistakes are, and how to fix them. I go back and watch the replay and look to find the error, I think analyzing your losses is really important, top players do it too even if you don't have to watch the replay, you need to think about why you lost and how to prevent it next time. Likewise I spent a lot of time comparing build orders and figuring them out and seeing what got me the most economy/units, the fastest (I played in beta at the start, before build orders were more standardized). In comparison I notice my lower league friends go, oh I lost, next game I guess I'll try again and try harder. Rather than really breaking down, specific things to work on. Oh I need to make workers more often, I should smooth out my build order, I missed my timing, I shouldn't have attacked into this position, etc.
|
LOL, i couldn't get past the first page of this thread. I can't get over all the posts that go like "well for me it is just natural", "i am just good at stuff naturally" apparently this is everyone's opportunity to express their greatness. in answer to the question i believe it is a matter of both. in an RTS game, it obviously requires a RTS game sense which doesn't alwasy come naturally, and it takes some time to understand how the game should be played. then there is also the gaming aspect which takes time. you are obviously going to be "natural" if you have played other computer games in the past, or come from a generation of gaming. if you have never played a video game before, it is gonna take some time to get your fingers used to doing what they need to do. there are too many aspects to the game to pinpoint it. i believe that people who claim to be awesome at the very beginning probably hit a cap very quickly and never get to that top tier diamond becuz they find something that works and wins but never truly grasp the entirety of the game. anyone can get to diamond with 1 base all ins and cheesy type srats. but there is more to it than that. it is a complex issue. play to your strenghts and improve your weaknesses.
|
The difference between people who get there in 40 games and people who get there in 500 games is simple. Assuming you guys both have the same background, new to rts, similar apm, etc. They are just being more efficient. After losing instead of going like ^^%% what a noob cannon rusher. They watch the game and see what time the probe got in, figure a way to beat it. I'm sure if you annalyze every game you lose, you will improve drastically. However, with 40 games, at the diamond level I'm pretty sure they are behind and will really start needing more games to improve mechanics and be able to play with higher apm.
I am far from great but I like to think over things and this is what I think is the difference
|
There are also a few things I clearly don't understand. For example:
Even now, if I already have larva stockpiled for making a potential army I find the travel distances between bases too short and if I see my opponent move out from his base and start immideately hatching an army it's often done at a point in time where at least one of my bases has already taken serious damage. Yet, I am consistently being told by people that my larva count is way too high and that I should be keeping it low (as I should be keeping my money apparently). WTF?
If even having enough larva stockpiled means my army gets hatched at the absolute possible last second (and actually does happen way too late on maps like steppes), how the hell am I supposed to make an army when I DON'T have the larva saved? When the travel distance base to base is not longer than ~30 seconds pretty much regardless of map and I keep my larva at say, 3 larva x 3 base for a total of 9 larva, how the hell do I magically go from 9 larva to 30-35 larva AND spawn the army in the span of these 30 seconds?
|
Just got (finally) promoted to Gold (814 games played, 662 games in 1v1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
