|
On January 13 2012 19:08 corpuscle wrote:
Losing with a good build will teach you a lot more than losing with a bad build, because if you lose with a build you know is bad, you just learned that something that's bad is bad, whereas if you lose with a good build, you can find flaws in your execution that explain why you lost
I disagree. First I don't think it's reasonable to even attach the labels "good" and "bad" to build orders. They have no such characteristics; they just define what units you have when. You're just as able to find flaws in your execution of a build that happens to provide the right units at the right time, as one that doesn't (e.g. a SlayerSLadderTroll "mine out the whole map before transitioning to mass raven" build). By at least attempting to execute such a build, you gain some more insight into how the game works.
The fact that you win or lose is also irrelevant in analysing flaws in your play. You still get depots on time, or miss them. You still make cost inefficient decisions or risky decisions, or just don't make decisions (e.g. not responding to a drop properly).
Show nested quote +Hmm it is possible somewhat to improve your mechanics even when you don't play that much. I don't actually practice very much, but I actually do simulate my play quite a lot (for example when trying to fall asleep). It reinforces reflex reactions, so that I think and discover outside the game, then try to put those discoveries into reflex. Your hands are defintely fast enough to outpace your mind in most cases, because your mind isn't 100% set. So, as long as you keep your mind active, and your hands are not clumsy, you really can improve your mechanics. Just gotta simulate the visual input and simulate the thought processes/actions. Seriously? Muscle memory is called muscle memory for a reason. Your brain comes up with certain routines for your muscles through practice (and only through practice), and it eventually becomes second nature to you because your hands "do it without you thinking." ... You don't get better mechanics by lying in bed thinking, ever. That's not what mechanics is.
You can improve mechanics (and other things - decision making, build order memory etc.) this way, and it's a known technique in a variety of sports / activities. (Google "mental play" for piano related stuffs, or "sport visualization" for sports related stuff.) It can take some serious concentration (e.g. for piano if you're visualizing every movement / key press), but that's arguably a good thing, and it can really help.
As for creativity, I agree with the OP. That's not to say that one person in a non- Masters / GM league is going to necessarily invent some ground-breaking technique, but I think understanding WHY things work or don't work is extremely important in the game. I believe that this makes you a "better" player at any level.
People seem to revere pro players in a slightly strange way. I remember watching Sheth's stream, when he was talking to Destiny on Skype. Sheth didn't know that it was possible to shift queue Infested Terrans from an Infestor such that they basically spewed out instantaneously, before Destiny told him. Clearly every pro doesn't know everything there is to know about even their own race.
IMO, being creative (i.e. trying out new things) will never, ever, make someone a worse player at any level (even if they do lose every game).
|
You're right. I have done the same and it's a lot more fun.
I did hate baneling/zergling war in ZvZ so for a while i started to onebase lair and go for nidrus. I know proes can't do this to each other but in plat it sure worked  People don't realize anyone is moving out if your overlords cannot see it 
|
All successful strategies in games or other pursuits are the result of a logical deduction based on maximizing available resources and exploiting weaknesses in your opponent's plan. Over time, certain benchmark builds/strategies become known as "effective" or "not effective" in various scenarios, but there is no law that forces players to rigidly adhere. There are a lot of good players who can copy what others do, but the best players don't just practice strategies developed by others by rote and leave it at that; they seek to understand why they do what they do and seek to improve on it in subtle, yet meaningful ways, and these are the players that are constantly reinventing the scene.
|
On January 13 2012 21:14 Iatrik wrote:
A creative starcraft player won't start to play completly different, just because he's creative.
He uses his creativity to fill certain questions with new answers, he needs to make something work.
Example:
You want to only go Stalker against Terran.
You'll get smashed by Mass Marauders.
Now there's the question: Can i use only stalkers against marauders?
A normal player will just say no.
A "creative" player will search for ways to answer this question in a different way:
"Maybe i can use blink micro to make it work?"
"Maybe i can use blink micro and motherships recall to make it work?"
"Maybe i can avoid fighting the marauders completely?"
"Maybe i can use warp prism micro?"
Once he is able to find a way, he can answer the question with a "yes"
"I can use only stalkers against marauders".
Once you get into higher leagues, it's all about cutting corners.
But the way to approach creativity will remain the same:
"Can i get away with Twilight-Tech only against Zerg?"
"Do i really need Colossus and Templar to fight Terran?"
People that answer this kind of question in a new way, are said to be "creative".
Like Kiwikaki using Blink in PvZ with a Mothership to recall.
Like Adelscott only using Gateway Units in PvT.
Creativity is just requestion answers, we take for granted.
This is a really good post. Creativity does not have to be the "LULZ IM GOING VIKING RAVEN" ridiculous and obviously poorly designed strategies. It is simply a reordering or re-answering of a question. You're all making the assumption that the OP is trying to win with build orders. He is trying to win with superior mechanics and ability. The fact of the matter is that it does not matter if your solutions are viable for high level play this instant. What matters is that you have the ability to solve problems that are being given to you. Certainly, one may be more efficient or easier to you, but that does not mean it is easier or better for everyone. I don't think the OP is saying that someone in gold needs to be making these game breaking strats that will win a pro every GSL this year; he is saying that rewording and reordering problems to create new solutions is a good thing and should be experimented with. Sure, if you really want to make GM and be hailed as a regular in the Playhem dailies, this may not be for you. But blasting someone for attempting to make their own solutions to problems in a situation where other solutions exist is absolutely ridiculous. An example here can be seen with a simple algebra problem. 2x - 2 = 0. As we all know from grade school, the efficient and proper way to solve this problem is to add the two across and divide by two. However, maybe someone has a difficult time visualizing that (I know it is hard to believe so make up your own ridiculously difficult problem if you would like). Instead, they see this as a simple issue of dividing the entire thing by two then adding the one over or even subtracting the 2x then dividing by negative two. Certainly these are not quite as easy or initially obvious, but they lead to an adequate solution. Assuming that all creativity is done for the sake of being creative is wrong. Creativity is a rewording and reordering of something that you are having problems with.
|
Look at it this way: If SC2 was a class in school, it would certainly be more closely related to maths than to art. Those two classes represent two opposite sides of a spectrum, art oftentimes encourages a maximum of creativity while maths wants you to be as efficient (and therefore use no creativity which obviously complicates the process of finding a solution) as possible. In maths, only the very best mathematicians we know of today came up with something innovative and new, and pushed math to a new level. Similar, if you're not an outstanding player who knows everything about the game, it simply makes no sense to try and be creative when it's much more efficient to copy from someone who is way more skilled than you in order to be successful. Of course you can always be creative for creativity's sake but SC2 is a game in which you either win or lose, you sadly don't get bonus points for doing anything beyond that.
|
I have to say that this argument is flawed from both sides. I think that creativity is very useful, but only when trying to problem-solve, or get that little extra edge over your opponent. If you have flawed mechanics at all, your creativity should not be going towards getting little edges, but rather getting decent multitask. Personally I think that creativity is awesome at all leagues, but only when they have a problem that they need to solve, for example, how does a lower level player defeat a terran who makes a lot of marauders? Void rays are a really good answer at a lower level for a terran who isn't capable of solving the new problem of void rays. Personally as a Masters level player, creativity for me has been much more subtle, like solving problems like how do I not die if I want to tech after a reaper expand, so I get 1 fast tank, which has helped a lot. A more extravagant example of this is that after noticing that zealots with any upgrades are really good, I got a reactor factory after my reactor starport and start cranking out hellions. The great creativity in starcraft comes down to the problem solving, not the coolest or funniest way to cheese someone.
|
This is a really good post. Creativity does not have to be the "LULZ IM GOING VIKING RAVEN" ridiculous and obviously poorly designed strategies. It is simply a reordering or re-answering of a question. You're all making the assumption that the OP is trying to win with build orders. He is trying to win with superior mechanics and ability. The fact of the matter is that it does not matter if your solutions are viable for high level play this instant. What matters is that you have the ability to solve problems that are being given to you. Certainly, one may be more efficient or easier to you, but that does not mean it is easier or better for everyone. I don't think the OP is saying that someone in gold needs to be making these game breaking strats that will win a pro every GSL this year; he is saying that rewording and reordering problems to create new solutions is a good thing and should be experimented with. Sure, if you really want to make GM and be hailed as a regular in the Playhem dailies, this may not be for you. But blasting someone for attempting to make their own solutions to problems in a situation where other solutions exist is absolutely ridiculous. An example here can be seen with a simple algebra problem. 2x - 2 = 0. As we all know from grade school, the efficient and proper way to solve this problem is to add the two across and divide by two. However, maybe someone has a difficult time visualizing that (I know it is hard to believe so make up your own ridiculously difficult problem if you would like). Instead, they see this as a simple issue of dividing the entire thing by two then adding the one over or even subtracting the 2x then dividing by negative two. Certainly these are not quite as easy or initially obvious, but they lead to an adequate solution. Assuming that all creativity is done for the sake of being creative is wrong. Creativity is a rewording and reordering of something that you are having problems with.
This is a very good interpretation of my original post. People seem to think i'm telling them to come up with some ground-breaking stategy, or to use something cheesy. I'm not. I'm simply telling people to not be afraid to problem solve or think-outside-the-box. We get so caught up in the builds we know that we're afraid to try something else. If we don't try new things, we won't know how to react to new things.
Oh, and you don't have to have GM macro to come up with something that works. Sure, it might not hold a que to the league above you, but if it gets you to the league above, how is it not viable? The point of the thread is not to ask yourself what will work against a GM player, it's to ask yourself what will work right now? If you find out later that the build no longer works then reanalyze things. This is without a doubt how you should be playing, and how the pros play themselves. If a build no longer works for them, they relook at everything. Why can't we do that ourselves on our own level?
|
Everything Artosis and Tasteless say lives on hallowed ground, and can't be wrong unless they were obviously joking or "had no way of knowing." This is something you must be forced to accept if you want to watch anything they or the people striving to be like them (read: every other GSL caster) are casting.
|
While I mean no offence to the OP, what I experienced in platinum was people with decent mechanics often making strange decisions and responding incorrectly to my "standard" play. I wonder if they're still in platinum today?
The meta game of SC 2 is evolving at this stage, but many strategies have been seen and proven on many occasions at super high level to be terrible. It's not that innovation is terrible, or that players are not creative, it's that the meta game has reached a point where many many things have been tested and retested, and that only some of them are viable. When pro players are in your opinion dismissing something potentially viable, it may be because they misread it as something terrible. Everybody makes mistakes, and Artosis is not a fortune teller.
|
Before you're diamond/masters, the metagame really doesn't matter at all because your opponents won't be able to execute their build well enough for it to matter.
|
There are lots of pro builds that just can't be done effectively at low level.
Going blink over charge in pvt at low level is just bad. The player doesn't have the micro to really use the stalkers, won't have the multi tasking to stay active with them and still macro up, won't have the reaction time to kill medivac in a split second.
Blink obs is a great strat to look at in pvp, but good luck beating a guy with 2+ immortal with stalkers or have the multi tasking to keep pressure on your opponent thruout the game while keeping your macro up.
You gotta figure out what you can and can't do, what you're really good and really bad at and use these strenght. With time your flaws will get better and will open up more options, but you can't just try to emulate a pro level strategy without knowing what it takes to be effective at it
|
Do you really think pros don't try to work out "creative" builds? That is a really naive assumption. and quite disrespectful.
People copy pros because they spend hours and hours playing the game and refining build orders. Why doubt the progress they've made?
edit: not saying you shouldn't try new things, but like others have said - creativity and viability go hand in hand.
that and I don't think the most creative strats are the flashy things like nukes and mothership recall. That's more like "hey I have a lot of money, see what I can do." The smartest thing I've seen lately is JYP mining the far away gases with 4 probes vs DIMAGA on Dual Sight in HSC.
|
Well guys I have been playing Starcraft 2 since the day after Thanksgiving 2011 and now I am High silver. I skipped 30 practice matches (which I regret) and I started off as terran, but now I am Zerg. The thing is I made my own kind of build and it workes for me. I have never seen a pro zerg player do this kind of build. It helps me alot because I usually ling rushed or 4 gated by toss. Another great thing about my build is that it even helps coming back from a economic loss stand point. I had people say that to me all the time after a match.
I am not saying that the pro's are wrong about their builds, but it doesnt hurt to do some of your own stuff. You shouldn't be a sheep and follow the crowd. The builds they do CAN help you get better if you are a lower level player but if you only do one type of build it will start to bite you in the butt later on. The reason why I say that is because for instance you only build ling/infester all the toss have to do is build a crap load of voids and colossus. In essence there is a counter to the pro's builds. They aren't perfect but it works well for them, it doesn't mean it will work well for you.
|
On January 13 2012 17:32 Priestt wrote:Hi all, I have been playing starcraft 2 since around season 3, and in that time i've watched a thousand VODs and streams. Watching builds, and" pro-play" has taught me ton on this game. It has gotten me from the lowest of the low to where i am now. However, what it hasn't taught me is creativity. In fact, if i may be bold, it has suppressed my creativity. Let me explain why. If you watch a casted vod, or a pro's stream, they tend to talk a lot about build orders. I have often heard remarks such as "this build beats this", "that's not a great move" and even "that's just plain wrong". Now, they are quite a bit better than most of us so they are justified to make comments such as those. However, in my opinion, i think those comments should be taken with a grain of salt. I have seen on occasions pro players mention how a specific move in the game is wrong and how it should not be done. Then, the same pro player (on a separate occasion), see the same manuever pulled off in a way they didn't perceive happening and them reverse their stance and trust in it. Now, the point of this thread is not to point out the contradictions in the starcraft community, but rather to point out that not everything is fact. There are things that certain players will speak ill on, and then have their opinions changed. The point i'm trying to make is, don't necessarily take everything you hear as fact. This is extremely detrimental to lower level players (platinum and below). When i first started playing i watched a ton of vods and streams (as i've previously stated), and i truly believed that that was how things needed to be done. At one point i was able to do the 4-gate with my eyes closed, and practiced it so much because others were. However, herein lies the problem. I was too afraid to try anything else or stray from the norm. I was so afraid anything else i tried would be wrong that i simply didn't. It's a huge roadblock for a lot of players. Watching pro players and listening to what they say isn't bad though. It's priceless information that should be tried and mimiced. By mimicing a build you learn a new possibility and a new timing that you didn't know before. But again, when a lower level player mimics a build, often they don't know the build like the pro does. For example, if in a build you should cut probe production at 45 probes, or if the build only works against certain things that the pro scouted, but at no point does the pro mention this, it can often get overlooked. I refer back to my previous statement about taking everything with a grain of salt. It doesn't mean don't try that build. It just means don't be afraid to try new things with it. The pros haven't tried everything. If for example you are following a terran opener that the pro said is only meant to take out the first stalker, don't believe that's the only path to victory. If you take out that stalker and you find that it can also do some additional harassment or damage, why not try it? Why only stick to what you've been told and what you know? Try what you like. Try what feels right. If it feels right to push the toss' base after you take out that stalker and it works, why not try it again? See what it works with, and what it doesn't. Do what ever you feel like doing. It's your game, isn't it? Now, i'm no pro, i'll be the first to admit that. But i do strongly believe that when a player hears a pro say something, they take it as concrete. They are absolutely terrified to move because they feel they can't. Now, again, i believe that watching the pros is awesome. Not only is it good for the growth of the community and the game, but learning new things, and mimicing successful builds is good for improvement. Just try new things. Don't only do what you perceive to be strong, and don't think that anything else is not strong. We're still very very early into this game, and not everything has been tested. Not by a long shot. I'm still learning new things today that i haven't seen anyone discuss. For example, did you know that on shakuras (i haven't tested on all maps), if you have your harvester sitting right in the nook of a geyser (bottom left corner - right geyser), they protoss can't build an assimilator until you move? Had that done to me today. Things are constantly being discovered, and you should be the ones discovering them. Less than 1% of the sc2 population are pro players, so why should they be the ones discovering everything? Go into the game, and remember, it's YOUR game. If you want to proxy robo, Go for it! If you want to all-in and bring your scv's, why not (btw, i'm not condoning this - i absoutely fkn hate when T does this to me  )? You can literally try anything you want, so don't be afraid. Creativity is not dead, you just need to relearn how to use it. I hope this post was a little insightful, and gave at least one person some motivation to have some fun and be creative. I'm no player, i just want people to improve. GL HF! - I'm a rank 1 platinum player desperately trying to improve.
You're a platinum player.
there is no need for you to analyze deeply and there is no secret super strat or creativity that you need to worry about.
Only thing you need to improve is multitasking/macro.
If you can macro you can simply overpower your opponents and make it all the way to low masters.
|
On January 14 2012 05:04 xshadowb wrote:
Well guys I have been playing Starcraft 2 since the day after Thanksgiving 2011 and now I am High silver. I skipped 30 practice matches (which I regret) and I started off as terran, but now I am Zerg. The thing is I made my own kind of build and it workes for me. I have never seen a pro zerg player do this kind of build. It helps me alot because I usually ling rushed or 4 gated by toss. Another great thing about my build is that it even helps coming back from a economic loss stand point. I had people say that to me all the time after a match.
I am not saying that the pro's are wrong about their builds, but it doesnt hurt to do some of your own stuff. You shouldn't be a sheep and follow the crowd. The builds they do CAN help you get better if you are a lower level player but if you only do one type of build it will start to bite you in the butt later on. The reason why I say that is because for instance you only build ling/infester all the toss have to do is build a crap load of voids and colossus. In essence there is a counter to the pro's builds. They aren't perfect but it works well for them, it doesn't mean it will work well for you.
If anything, having skipped practice matches was a good thing. The game speed is too low and doesn't end up helping in the long run, and in my opinion is hurtful since it programs you to be slow from the get-go. Just keep playing and practising safe, standard play, and executing similar builds and you'll improve. The game relies upon scouting information to "counter" the build of the opponent, since a counter for every unit type exists. Being comfortable with your macro mechanics will allow for better information gathering and unit control over time. The problem with playing "the build" to the tee is that you often run into completely different circumstances. This is why not every build is concrete, and rather, some are a product of the situation they were used in using specific styles. Having a strong understanding of your race's economy and being able to alter your plan or respond to a situation without looking like a chump on macro is what separates the pros from most players. It's a product of their hard work. Using their builds is part of helping yourself understand the game better, but is never the ONLY way to play.
|
People pick one build and stick to it because they want to develop mechanical skills that are required to play this game at a high level, multitasking, micro, macro, accuracy with your mouse etc things like this are all very important and hard to develop and improve on if you keep switching strategies up. Having creative builds and strategies is nice but they are useless if you don't have the game mechanics to even execute them.
|
Pros are creative all the time, but at a higher level than most people view. A no-name player might switch up and do drastic things and will see immediate success and viability because they're playing against players making lots of mistakes. So even a rough idea can work so long as you also play better than your opponent.
For a pro it's much harder and even small changes have vast effect on how they play. Since their opponents make far fewer mistakes, there's much less room for error. A good idea that's executed in a rough build is going to get crushed. It's not until the pro can refine such a thing that it stands a chance.
So basically trying new things as a pro has a huge opportunity cost which is why things develop slowly for pros. They are creative, and will make small adjustments all the time, but with such a high cost of changing play styles it's always going to be more of a slow crawl to innovate new things.
As for everyone else, generally lower level players don't understand the thinking behind decisions. So it's often recommended to listen to/copy pros because by copying them you can understand why they do the things they do and learn the actual forces at play in a game of Starcraft.
|
I think a lot of people here are assuming that everyone will eventually reach Masters or GM. Most people will never play a pro or even player that's so much better than you that you can't make "creative" strategies work. Day9 encourages people to try different builds with limitations all the time and he's an adamant believer that learning>winning when you're not the cream of the crop. In lower leagues it's all about experience and someone who tries to imitate a "pro build" will either dedicate themselves to learning it and move up or do a terrible job and lose to anything they don't expect so there's nothing wrong in using unorthodox play so long as you're willing to adapt as you reach a higher skill level.
|
I dont understand how most of the guys jsut disagree with you (my only explanation would be trolling^^). In my opinion you're totaly right. I'd say to any player that he just had to try if something works instead of thinking about it or trying to find out if a pro says its good. In germany we say: trying is better then studying ( I hope it's transalted right )
|
pssh clearly you aren't watching a boss stream like mine www.twitch.tv/limenade where creativity is key which results in a lot of losing lol do everything and anything on ladder you can think of on ladder is my policy. Usually about 2-3% of what you try will actually work out lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
