|
On October 08 2011 08:48 Icekommander wrote:
My Bronze and Silver friends can all macro just fine - as long as nothing is forcing them to make and adapt important decisions on the fly.
Did you honestly ever check?
I don't have any friends in bronze or silver -- or even in plat -- who macro well in the absence of unexpected actions of my opponents.
This is why you must play in real starcraft conditions - you can't get any decent practise beyond your early build versus the AI
But "real starcraft conditions" is not the same as "ladder". To practice, you want a very controlled environment: You want a practice partner who will repeatedly do the same thing over and over again so you can learn how to deal with that. Then you can instruct him to vary certain parameters and learn to deal with those. At some point you'll be comfortable enough to understand the underlying mechanics without thinking too hard on a conscious level, and you'll be able to adapt to changes more easily.
If you just keep playing random (ladder) opponents, that's still "real starcraft conditions", but you never laid the groundwork to make rapid skill progress. *Especially* if your friends are overwhelmed by unexpected decisions -- I don't see how you expect them to improve rapidly by repeatedly overwhelming them if they still have so many other problems in their gameplay at the same time.
And failure to also improve your SC decision making ability, will hold you back from jumping leagues as surely as bad macro will.
I think we've seen enough examples of people who made a point of 3raxing, 4gating, or even building mass stalkers all the way to diamond/masters. Macro isn't all you need, but it is one of the most important single things. I do not believe you that bad decision making is as critical as bad macro to getting out of bronze and silver.
|
Thanks OP, that was a very interesting read while sitting here bored at work!
|
On October 08 2011 08:53 Exarl25 wrote:
You say they have the exact same mechanical skill-set, but they don't. They may be similar but far from identical, there are important differences. The point has already been brought up but in Starcraft there is no such thing as too fast. The goal of QXC's method is to push yourself beyond your normal limits, play as fast as you possibly can. This makes no sense in the context of a musical instrument, you play at the speed the music is meant to be played, there is no sense in and no need in going faster than that. You hit the notes that are meant to be hit and those notes only, in Starcraft 2 there are almost an unlimited number of notes to be hit and the goal is merely to hit as many as you can. This is why increasing your speed is so important.
This isn't true at all. Musicians do speed drills all the time with scales and such.
|
On October 08 2011 09:03 Bortlett wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2011 08:53 Exarl25 wrote:
You say they have the exact same mechanical skill-set, but they don't. They may be similar but far from identical, there are important differences. The point has already been brought up but in Starcraft there is no such thing as too fast. The goal of QXC's method is to push yourself beyond your normal limits, play as fast as you possibly can. This makes no sense in the context of a musical instrument, you play at the speed the music is meant to be played, there is no sense in and no need in going faster than that. You hit the notes that are meant to be hit and those notes only, in Starcraft 2 there are almost an unlimited number of notes to be hit and the goal is merely to hit as many as you can. This is why increasing your speed is so important.
This isn't true at all. Musicians do speed drills all the time with scales and such.
But music only goes so fast. There are never more notes to hit like there are moves to make in a game of Starcraft.
|
OP speaks truth. Think about it. For most players, the first five minutes (and even the first ten minutes), while perhaps stressful due to fear of cheese, is also the easiest. You know what to do without thinking because every single game you play, you rehearse this aspect. How often do you play thirty minute games?
As with music, you have to practice each section separately, and I don't just mean early game, late game, etc, but resource collection, unit production, army control, etc. That's why UMS customs are perfect for this.
|
Those aren't myths, they're pretty true.
You HAVE to play a ton of games at some point. You CAN pin point specific flaws in your play and tackle them head-on, but you can do so in mass while learning to deal with various opponents. It's obviously more efficient though to say, go into a game against no opponent/no AI to work on mechanics exclusively without the variable of an opponent, first...? There was an article a few months ago that explained how mass games, just like mass practice on an instrument is required to develop extensive muscle memory. Everyone pretty much knows this, but it brought it to light via science.
The reference to practicing music is spot on, though. I've always compared learning SC2 to playing a violin.
|
On October 08 2011 09:06 Exarl25 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2011 09:03 Bortlett wrote:On October 08 2011 08:53 Exarl25 wrote:
You say they have the exact same mechanical skill-set, but they don't. They may be similar but far from identical, there are important differences. The point has already been brought up but in Starcraft there is no such thing as too fast. The goal of QXC's method is to push yourself beyond your normal limits, play as fast as you possibly can. This makes no sense in the context of a musical instrument, you play at the speed the music is meant to be played, there is no sense in and no need in going faster than that. You hit the notes that are meant to be hit and those notes only, in Starcraft 2 there are almost an unlimited number of notes to be hit and the goal is merely to hit as many as you can. This is why increasing your speed is so important.
This isn't true at all. Musicians do speed drills all the time with scales and such. But music only goes so fast. There are never more notes to hit like there are moves to make in a game of Starcraft.
There will always be faster or more complicated guitar and piano solos that will required increased hand speed. There's no limit.
|
As both a high masters terran player and a young musician with eight years of training who is looking to study music at university next year, I agree with everything this post says, and have thought about writing a guide/discussion about this myself for quite some time.
If anyone has ever committed to practising anything, be it music or some other technical art, to a degree of absolute refinement, you will understand that the best way to reach perfection is to practise what you're doing slowly and methodically until it is absolutely flawless, and THEN focus on increasing the speed. This ensures that you are conducting what you are doing with the utmost efficiency when you actually bring it up to the required degree of technicality.
After self-teaching myself the drums for many years, with my only lessons being from a local teacher who was not really top-standard, I took lessons with a graduate from my state's academy of performing arts. When he actually told me to play what I had already learnt slower, he revealed to me so many flaws that I had not corrected because I had rushed to play fast, and skipped on learning a lot of important details.
When I eventually decide to sit down and start refining my Starcraft play in a similiar way, I can absolutely guarantee I will notice the same things.
|
On October 08 2011 09:10 Tyrant0 wrote:
Those aren't myths, they're pretty true.
You HAVE to play a ton of games at some point. You CAN pin point specific flaws in your play and tackle them head-on, but you can do so in mass while learning to deal with various opponents. It's obviously more efficient though to say, go into a game against no opponent/no AI to work on mechanics exclusively without the variable of an opponent, first...? There was an article a few months ago that explained how mass games, just like mass practice on an instrument is required to develop extensive muscle memory.
The reference to practicing music is spot on, though. I've always compared learning SC2 to playing a violin.
Mass practice is required, but that's not "mass games". Practice isn't the same as playing ladder games.
I linked to one such article in my first-page reply.
|
The music practice method might be more effective.
But, definitely, improving your play by "playing more games" is more fun.
|
On October 08 2011 09:14 bmn wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2011 09:10 Tyrant0 wrote:
Those aren't myths, they're pretty true.
You HAVE to play a ton of games at some point. You CAN pin point specific flaws in your play and tackle them head-on, but you can do so in mass while learning to deal with various opponents. It's obviously more efficient though to say, go into a game against no opponent/no AI to work on mechanics exclusively without the variable of an opponent, first...? There was an article a few months ago that explained how mass games, just like mass practice on an instrument is required to develop extensive muscle memory.
The reference to practicing music is spot on, though. I've always compared learning SC2 to playing a violin. Mass practice is required, but that's not "mass games". Practice isn't the same as playing ladder games. I linked to one such article in my first-page reply.
You have to deal with the random variable, at some point. If you can't execute without being thrown off, you're really only good at playing in a vacuum. You can really focus on various elements of your play in an extremely controlled environment, but it should also come with a lot of ladder games in between.
It's almost comparable to learning the first few parts of a song, then attempting to play them at full speed before moving on.
|
On October 08 2011 09:16 BarbieHsu wrote:
The music practice method might be more effective.
But, definitely, improving your play by "playing more games" is more fun.
If a player wants to become extremely good at something, often they will have to sacrifice fun for a while and turn what they are doing into a technical exercise in order to get better. In the case of people playing SC2 for fun and casual enjoyment, there is no reason to do this. But for progamers, taking an absolute, intense, 'boring' approach to improving technical mechanics will, in future, definitely become the way to go for players who have reached a certain level of skill in their play. If you want to be a top-notch player in the most efficient way possible, it's something you'll have to sacrifice.
At this stage in the development of progaming as a sport and an 'art', many people will choose not to do this because the field is not as competetive as it could be. But in future, this sort of refinement is what will be required of players in order to compete with the best.
|
I agree with most of your post about breaking a piece into sections etc. But I don't understand bashing someone playing an AI opponent in order to learn how to macro better (that is unless the focus of the game is beating the AI, or somehow involves the AI in other ways).
When I start games with the AI, I just think of it as playing a game alone. The AI is a non factor, it's just there for me to be able to start the game. And in the game I work out builds and various timings. Sort of an étude.
|
Can't agree with the macro myth thing but i agree with the others. If you play 30-40 games focusing on always making your money below 400,expand timing and never geting supply blocked and doing 200/200 attacks in each game you will get better at your macro lol.
|
First off, a big thanks to everyone participating in the discussion! Now to the responses...
On October 08 2011 08:50 bmn wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2011 08:40 Hapahauli wrote:On October 08 2011 08:17 arbitrageur wrote:
This is not music. This is starcraft. Your claims require music training to be a useful analogue, but you While you didn't finish your post, I think I know where you're going. You can make the case that a musical instrument (in this case, Piano) and Starcraft have the exact same mechanical skill-set. - Both require the same muscles in the hand and fingers.
- Both use the same mechanical motion (action of fingers pressing down on keys).
- Both emphasize muscle memory and dexterity over power
- The list goes on...
Given these and other unmentioned similarities, why can't we draw similarities between the practice methods of Piano and Starcraft? If the two are mechanically identical, why can't we practice them the same way. (Please note that I'm comparing mechanical similarities, and not tactical/emotional/etc. similarities.) First of all, they are not mechanically identical, "actions of fingers pressing down on keys" is a huge oversimplification of the things involved, and it doesn't cover mouse actions. You can't play starcraft at a high level without a mouse or similar device. Touch-typing is closer to playing Starcraft mechanically than Piano is; writing e-mails in a web browser is even closer, but nobody is arguing that you practice the same way because of that. It has nothing to do with the mechanical properties. It is all about learning a skill, and that is where the similarities are. Music, and the piano in particular, is not special here; you can also draw on other things like programming, or mechanically completely unrelated things like chess. There is a lot in common in the practice methods of world-class chess players and violinists, but this is not because of any mechanical similarity. It is because training a skill efficiently requires certain conditions to be met, it is the demands of the learning process that leads to the similar requirements, not the activity itself.
I completely agree. Very well said.
On October 08 2011 08:48 Icekommander wrote:
In my opinion, the main difference between music and Starcraft is the requirement of decision making(and the randomness implied by that). Unless you are performing improvisation, at no point in performing music are you required to do anything other than a completely planned approach. This makes it very easy and simple to break down music into smaller components, or else slow it down to half the speed.
But it is impossible to do that with Starcraft, beyond the very early stages of the game. Your carefully planned build comes to a screeching halt when he drops four hellions in your base and begins wrecking probes. Therein lies the difficulty in Starcraft. My Bronze and Silver friends can all macro just fine - as long as nothing is forcing them to make and adapt important decisions on the fly. Even changes and decisions that don't require immediate attention, can and will wreck havok on your macro cycles. Suddenly, those fourteen corrupters mean you have to stop making colossus. Or he is going mass queens into Ultralisk - what the hell do you do to counter that? This is why you must play in real starcraft conditions - you can't get any decent practise beyond your early build versus the AI
Decision making is IMO the single most important aspect of Starcraft, and one that is neglected beyond belief in terms of practise - and also one that simply isn't found in music. There is no musical equivalent for choosing when/where to throw down forcefields, or how to deal with that baneling bust that just appeared at your front door. You have already decided when you will hit your piano keys, and nothing is going to change that.
This is also where your criticism of qxc goes wrong. He isn't somebody picking up a sheet of music for the first time. He is already the guy playing at jazz clubs. He (and anyone following his methodology should as well) can already easily press the buttons to macro at 50% increased speed - but the question is, can you make the correct macro decisions, at 50% increased speed?
In Summary: OP's idea is good for the early game and really specific builds/problems, but the decision making element of starcraft makes it significantly different from music, and is an issue the OP fails to address. And failure to also improve your SC decision making ability, will hold you back from jumping leagues as surely as bad macro will.
I think you are focusing on largely irrelevant differences rather than focusing on the key idea. The idea of learning a skill, no matter the difference, is fundamentally the same. The reason I don't address the differences is because they are irrelevant to my suggestions.
Now to your argument:
For one, I highly doubt your Bronze and Silver friends have remotely close to acceptable macro. I, for one, have many flaws in my macro (even without enemy interference), yet I'm a diamond Zerg. I'd even argue that Master and GM players have a lot of work to do in their macro - do you think that most people can build as many units as fast as Bomber in a practice environment?
As for "unplanned events," how can one expect to reply correctly to a crisis situation without being mechanically solid in your build? If you can execute your build in a closed environment without thinking, you'll have more mental energy to focus on strategic decisions and crisis management. After all, if I'm actively trying to remember to place supply depots and build SCVs, how likely do you think I'll be able to notice a drop at the edge of my main?
Lastly, qxc may be a professional player, but can we macro as well as a top Korean? Even qxc has a lot of work to do in his macro, and I think he'd be the first to tell you. As for the effectiveness of "50% increased speed," well what's the point of that? Do you want to learn how to execute your build in an unrealistic environment? Is that even practical? In my opinion, not at all.
On October 08 2011 08:53 Exarl25 wrote:
...The point has already been brought up but in Starcraft there is no such thing as too fast. The goal of QXC's method is to push yourself beyond your normal limits, play as fast as you possibly can. This makes no sense in the context of a musical instrument, you play at the speed the music is meant to be played, there is no sense in and no need in going faster than that. You hit the notes that are meant to be hit and those notes only, in Starcraft 2 there are almost an unlimited number of notes to be hit and the goal is merely to hit as many as you can. This is why increasing your speed is so important.
For even the fastest progamers there are so many things left undone in a game of SC2. That's the problem QXC is attempting to solve and it's a problem that no musician has ever experienced
You're missing the point. So what if there is no "top speed;" that doesn't change the validity of practicing mechanics with a certain method. As a Starcraft player, you get the additional luxury of setting your own top speed.
|
Have to agree about how a musician would go about learning a new song.... i've made videos for my guitar students that use almost the exact technique you outline in the OP. However, if once i know a piece by heart, i usually practice it at a faster speed than i would perform it.... so in essence i'm doing what QXC is talking about....
I don't know where i fall on this one, for a silver player i would recommend taking it slow and breaking it down to one thing at a time.... for a diamond or higher player i think QXC's regiment might work pretty well
|
On October 08 2011 09:21 LaLuSh wrote:
I agree with most of your post about breaking a piece into sections etc. But I don't understand bashing someone playing an AI opponent in order to learn how to macro better (that is unless the focus of the game is beating the AI, or somehow involves the AI in other ways).
When I start games with the AI, I just think of it as playing a game alone. The AI is a non factor, it's just there for me to be able to start the game. And in the game I work out builds and various timings. Sort of an étude.
I interpreted that post as focused on beating a computer, and I think we both agree that trying to beat a computer is a waste of time.
In your case, you're not really playing an AI. You're essentially playing a single-player map. I have absolutely no objections with that.
I think we may be interpreting that quote differently.
|
I just love how Sc2 can be compared to music in this way. I did play brood war myself (I was young) and I would say I began to take Sc2 a bit more seriously and I wanted to do well after I settled with the Zerg race.
I find it very difficult to improve by just playing over and over. With over 6000 games played myself since day 1 I am still luring around the mid diamond level and unable to improve.
My handpseed/apm are all very poor and my timings are still quite off.
My micro is also very poor and my mouse control is aweful.
These problems don't (at least for me) seem to solve themselves with hours and hours of practice.
|
Interesting topic. I play piano, and yes, I play it seriously, if Prokofiev's second piano concerto is serious enough.
I generally disagree with what's said about how to learn a new piece - the fastest way to learn a piece is to play it as close as possible to what is going to be the performance tempo. You probably have noticed that you begin to use different muscles when you take a certain piece much slower than it originally is suppose to be. And when that happens, all the slow practicing efforts are going vain.
If there is one thing that is common in piano playing and starcraft, it is that they're both an act that happens over time, and by that speed (or tempo) actually matters. Going back to the music learning, I find it irony that so many of the hard practicers just simply mess up once they're on the stage either because they're so scared or they've never experienced the real stages. Smaller the difference between your practice and your actual goal, the better you improve.
|
On October 08 2011 09:37 Lisitsa wrote:
Interesting topic. I play piano, and yes, I play it seriously, if Prokofiev's second piano concerto is serious enough.
I generally disagree with what's said about how to learn a new piece - the fastest way to learn a piece is to play it as close as possible to what is going to be the performance tempo. You probably have noticed that you begin to use different muscles when you take a certain piece much slower than it originally is suppose to be. And when that happens, all the slow practicing efforts are going vain.
If there is one thing that is common in piano playing and starcraft, it is that they're both an act that happens over time, and by that speed (or tempo) actually matters. Going back to the music learning, I find it irony that so many of the hard practicers just simply mess up once they're on the stage either because they're so scared or they've never experienced the real stages. Smaller the difference between your practice and your actual goal, the better you improve.
If you want to learn a piece as quick as possible, you can sight-read it. Unfortunately, quality and accuracy may suffer.
If you want to learn a piece quickly and accurately, you play slowly.
Its great to see that you take piano seriously, but every professional practices slowly. You simply cannot learn a piece accurately without careful practice. Even Rachmaninoff was famous for how absurdly slow he practiced, despite his god-given virtuosity. Even your namesake (Valentina Lisitsa) practices slowly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
