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.
Point of this thread was not to discuss up-coming patches, but rather to discuss what people feel they "shouldn't" be trying. If 4-gate is dead because a pro said so, and another pro pulls it off, does that mean it's back in action? Not necessarily. The player should find out for themself. Every opinion is relative in this game. Every meta-game is different for each league, so you should be learning what's right for you and your playstyle.
Creativity needs to go hand in hand with viability, there's no point doing a "proxy robo" because it's a pointless risk that doesn't provide enough benefits. You need to understand that the pros play and understand the game so much better than the casual player and all your "creativity" has probably already been done by the pros and subsequently scrapped because it just isn't worth doing. Any good creativity is turned into a build order, and optimised to give great success!
@Bearwidme - I think you're missing my point. Yes, viability is crucial. That goes without being said. However, i don't think that should shape your entire view on the game. That's what happened to me. I believed that the pro players knew all and thus i shouldn't do any thinking for myself. I now know that not to be the case and almsot have to relearn the entire game just to be more creative. We put too much emphasis on what they say, and not enough on what we think. Why should we suppress our own creative thoughts simply because a pro has never mentioned it? And also, the proxy robo example was just an example. I've seen it fail, and i've seen it work. I saw it work on White-Ra's stream one time. It being viable is not the point. The point is to do whatever you think could work, or whatever you would like to do.
@dreamlogistics - Hmm. So are you going to just let the pros do all the thinking when that comes out too? If no one ever thinks but a select few, there will be little improvment and little development in the game as a whole.
There's no such thing as "metagame" in lower leagues, there's just two people who don't have the skill to execute proper builds smashing their mans against each other until someone wins. It's true that there's stuff that works in plat/diamond/masters that doesn't work at the pro level, but that's not because you're playing some different game where new amazing strategies open up, it's just because you and your opponent aren't that good. Abusive builds that force multitask, map awareness, lots of scouting, or super-tight macro from your opponent are highly effective in low leagues because your opponents aren't good enough to deal with it, not because they're "creative" or something.
The reason most people tell you to follow standard builds that pros have come up with is because they work really well and are reactive enough to handle whatever wonky shit your opponent throws at you. If you play standard, scout appropriately, and execute, you will beat every "creative" strategy that a non-GM player can throw at you unless it's some sort of straight build-order loss, which is rare. It's not like the pros don't run into randoms on ladder that try to throw absurd shit at them; they're just good enough to say "hey you're doing something funky, better figure out what's up," scout you, and counter the shit out of it because their standard boring cookie-cutter build gives them enough wiggle room to deal with most any "creative" strategy.
For example, the gas-blocking trick you mention in your OP (it's more of a tactic than a strategy but w/e)... if I pull 3 workers for a couple seconds, your blocking worker is dead as shit, and I can just adjust my build slightly to accommodate the gas being marginally later, which is gonna pay off for me in the end because you lost a worker that I didn't. Cute shit works against people who don't know how to deal with it, but you inevitably hit a brick wall when you're in GM and your opponents have seen everything under the sun 50 times and know how to deal with it without even thinking.
well people discover stuff all the time, but since you only watch pro players its most likely that they will popularize something. I am mostly surprised that pros don't do alot of stuff that doesn't cost many actions but would increase army strength highly.
another problem against creativity is the Blizzard nerf hammer that will fall down upon everything, especially if the race is currently considered the strongest. Also on pro level you have to train something new for a long time, before it actually works, micro/timing and everything has to be way better, before you can beat standard play.
I don't mind really, i play the way i like it and commit taboos like medivac energy if i wanna be aggressive. Or get a raven that will never join fights against zerg, simply because it gives so many resources having that raven out and alive.
@corpuscle Hmm, maybe i didn't affectively get my point across. The point of this thread was not to suggest trying "cute" shit just because it might work. It was to suggest that yes, pro builds are good, but don't be afraid to try something new. Spanishiwa's queen style of zerg play was almost unheard of before he intorduced it. But if he didn't do what he felt he wanted to, we might never see it today. The point of the article is to explore and create. Not to ride the uptight train all the way to boredom. If you live in a straight-jacket forever, you'll never spread your "wings".
This thread is getting a lot of negative outcry. Maybe i should have expected that from the internet, but it was simply meant to show people that you don't HAVE to have such a closed-off mindset.
I've had similar conversations with other friends about starcraft. And at this moment, I wish I had better examples... but without them...
I get the feeling that we discourage new tactics or ideas. One example among my Sc2 friends is when I was watching this cheesy tactic that I thought was an interesting idea. They would quickly dismiss the idea without actually trying to explore the tactic further. And perhaps it is my group that is in the wrong, but I get the feeling that even here, there is a "right" or standard way of play and there is other. It doesn't feel as though innovations can occur, because well the pros didn't do them. I remember the MLG where BFH became common in TvZ; for months I've complained about BFH because of 4v4, 3v3 (to friends). But of course, what does that matter, it was not 1v1. But as we and the nerf showed, there was something to them that just wasn't quite seen yet.
I'm not sure how many examples of this can exist. There are probably units that could be exploited further which is not done so now, but the game does have limits. The one thing I would love to see is community embrace and discuss new ideas instead of hurrying to dismiss new ideas as bad because pros don't do something. And perhaps this happens and I don't see it, I would certainly like to hope so.
I would tend to agree that if i play to learn / win doing normal strats i can't really experiment and have fun unless i want to get smashed completely which is not fun and there fore forces you to play standard which after x amounth of games just isent as fun i supose this is one of the reasons ppl drop levels as well (and not just to smash lower level players).
im not sure u cna really fix it some strategies are just better than others and if you use them u will get ranked higher and then changing to a worse strategy will just give you those losses.
On January 13 2012 17:51 corpuscle wrote: If you play standard, scout appropriately, and execute, you will beat every "creative" strategy that a non-GM player can throw at you unless it's some sort of straight build-order loss, which is rare. It's not like the pros don't run into randoms on ladder that try to throw absurd shit at them; they're just good enough to say "hey you're doing something funky, better figure out what's up," scout you, and counter the shit out of it because their standard boring cookie-cutter build gives them enough wiggle room to deal with most any "creative" strategy.
I would hope the OP wasn't referring to absurd (maybe cheesy) strategies that amateur players may use against the pros. I was thinking that he was referring to new strategies, things that might be less tested but can be very effective. After all build orders evolve as the game changes, so at some point, what you might have called absurd becomes "standard".
I agree with you, and I have had the stance of trying to get as little information in the "how-to-do" line of thinking throughout the years in numerous different fields. It kills out-of-the-box thinking, and forces the user into following a set of rules, which really are helpful for the non-creative thinkers. Those who like to abide by rules, like to put things into boxes with labels on them - simply to make it easier to govern and control. And it is easier being successful following guidelines, than being forced to be creative.
However, I do know that those are merely guidelines on based on experience, in an ever evolving game, and it is really up to one self to stray from guidelines/rules. Unfortunately it limits the way of thinking for many people, and therefore the potential of their development.
I, myself can't/won't, so I find my own awkward way, and play - for me - intuitively. It is also more fun.
Concerning picking up strategies - once successful, then figured out, and forgotten, is still valid, because people forget the counter, or why it was invalid. Ie Kyrix' massbaneling bust style from GSL Season 2 or 3, then dismissed and forgotten. Only for NesTea to pick it up again in the recent up/down matches, and won. Many people just go with what is hot right now, and dismiss things that others have dismissed, not knowing why. Most people are just copy-cats.
On January 13 2012 18:00 Eventine wrote: I get the feeling that we discourage new tactics or ideas. One example among my Sc2 friends is when I was watching this cheesy tactic that I thought was an interesting idea. They would quickly dismiss the idea without actually trying to explore the tactic further. And perhaps it is my group that is in the wrong, but I get the feeling that even here, there is a "right" or standard way of play and there is other. It doesn't feel as though innovations can occur, because well the pros didn't do them. I remember the MLG where BFH became common in TvZ; for months I've complained about BFH because of 4v4, 3v3 (to friends). But of course, what does that matter, it was not 1v1. But as we and the nerf showed, there was something to them that just wasn't quite seen yet.
it's easy to say "hey this unit we should use it more."
it's hard to explain how.
you have to consider: how do i produce enough of these units for this to be effective? how can i transition out of this build so it isn't a 1 trick pony? what is the long term goal? is this less effective than standard? in what circumstances is this more potent? how do i survive common timings/reactions/moves by the other player?
THESE ARE NOT EASY QUESTIONS.
constant scv production, unit production, efficient mechanics and general game competence must always be constant (FROM BOTH PLAYERS).
that's why only professionals are qualified to showcase and revolutionize match ups/styles.
On January 13 2012 18:10 aebriol wrote: It's easy for someone to say "well I always knew blue flame hellions were too strong" ... but coming up with a build that is safe, gives good economy, can defend against counter attacks, incorporate scouting well, etc etc ... most of us don't understand the game well enough to do so.
On January 13 2012 17:51 corpuscle wrote: If you play standard, scout appropriately, and execute, you will beat every "creative" strategy that a non-GM player can throw at you unless it's some sort of straight build-order loss, which is rare. It's not like the pros don't run into randoms on ladder that try to throw absurd shit at them; they're just good enough to say "hey you're doing something funky, better figure out what's up," scout you, and counter the shit out of it because their standard boring cookie-cutter build gives them enough wiggle room to deal with most any "creative" strategy.
I would hope the OP wasn't referring to absurd (maybe cheesy) strategies that amateur players may use against the pros. I was thinking that he was referring to new strategies, things that might be less tested but can be very effective. After all build orders evolve as the game changes, so at some point, what you might have called absurd becomes "standard".
Precisely what i meant. I'm not suggesting that by "creative" you do some kind of cheesey one-base all-in. I'm only saying that for the game to develop and grow, new strategies will be implemented. Just don't be afraid to try implementing them yourself if you find they work.
First off, pros play a lot more games than the rest of us - at least normally. They know what different openings mean, in terms of economy, getting ahead or behind, etc.
When you want to improve on your game, you should therefore find a pro you like, and copy - exactly - what they do for the first 5-6-7 minutes of the game.
That will get you into mid high diamond guaranteed. Simply being able to execute - within 3-4 seconds - the first 6-7 minutes of the common builds pros use in all matchups.
Now that said - what you have done - is just learning how to set yourself up for the midgame. You have removed your inefficient opening that made it impossible for you to have the economy, production buildings, units, upgrades correct.
Then you can basically do whatever you want and learn as you go and be creative - because now you have a good setup to work from.
And ... it's 99.99% (or more) certain that you will not, on your own, come up with a better opening in any matchup than Stephano, Dimaga, NesTea, MMA, MvP, MarineKing, Huk, MC or Oz (some of the better ones out there). It just won't happen. So if you copy their openings exactly, you will be better off than you are at the moment anyway.
But once you have that opening done right ... why, you can be as creative as you like. And it won't just be some gimmicky stuff that won't work well because you neglected your economy behind it ... because you will already have setup a good foundation.
(by exactly I mean: same supply, buildings, workers, units, stuff in production, worker saturation on each base).
It's easy for someone to say "well I always knew blue flame hellions were too strong" ... but coming up with a build that is safe, gives good economy, can defend against counter attacks, incorporate scouting well, etc etc ... most of us don't understand the game well enough to do so.
I don't want to discourage people from trying new stuff either, and I apologize if I came off like a dick (I tend to do that). I just don't want people to think they're being clever and creative by coming up with some gimmicky build that relies on their opponents being bad, which is what 90% of lower-league players who devise their own builds come up with. Spanishiwa was GM already when he came up with his build, and it works and people accepted it because it was proven to be effective against high-level players, not just because it was some bizarre concept that some random diamond dude came up with. I could come up with a million builds that would work in diamond because I can exploit the fact that my opponents aren't hip enough cats to know that I'm doing something weird, but that doesn't make it a viable build, and that means it's actually a bad idea to rely on it if I want to improve.
I feel like a total asshole trying to stifle creativity and all, but really, it's hard to figure out what's working because it's actually brilliant and what's working because your opponent's just a derp. It sucks, but it's the truth. Pretty much anybody that isn't GM or almost GM isn't playing in an intense enough environment for their builds to be truly put to the test (and even then it's flaky), and I don't think it's conducive to improvement to keep doing a build that, for all you know, only works because your opponents aren't on top of their shit.
edit since I don't want to double post:
Precisely what i meant. I'm not suggesting that by "creative" you do some kind of cheesey one-base all-in. I'm only saying that for the game to develop and grow, new strategies will be implemented. Just don't be afraid to try implementing them yourself if you find they work.
I didn't mean cheesy one base allins or anything. At the pro level, things like taking a third/fourth gas at a weird time will tip your opponent off, since there's so much information to be gleaned from seemingly basic things like that. Obviously that doesn't work at lower levels because your opponent might just not know when to take his gas at his natural (I sure don't!), but people who are really fucking good will know what to do about it.
On January 13 2012 17:35 Let it Raine wrote: standard logic is: if pros dont do it, then it sucks.
but that just isnt true. pro zergs still 14 gas 14 pool in zvp, and that sucks.
Yeah i kinda agree with this . Some builds that the pros use aren't effective or are outdated . The 14 gas 14 pool is a good build to all - in after it or play mind games on your opponent . If you are thinking of playing standart with it , it would put you economicaly behind to a forge - nexus before cannon . You sacrifice economy for map control that the protoss won't be fighting for at the time even if you use a more logical gassless 10 or overpool with expand . The players who use 14gas 14 pool either are paranoid of early game rushes or are thinking that are better then their opponents and will sacrifice economy to be safe early game and will end up behind either way .
I suppose the biggest problem is when you are at such a level where you, due to lack of knowledge and experience, can't justify the opinion of pro's. Even then though, I reccomend following their suggestions, as grand majority of them will help your learning process, through which you can then discover bad suggestions - playing without any outside guidance is going to slow that process.
I also wouldn't call it "suppressing creativity", this is purely my opinion, but I don't think you can really create anything awesome if you can't understand the reasons of why the pro is right/wrong, unless you posses an unholy amount of sheer luck. I would call it bad advice.
I disagree. There's plenty of room for creativity.
Every build we have today, is the result of the creativity of starcraft gamers. 99% of us won't develop a groundbreaking new build, but that doesn't stop the average joe from working his way to grandmaster and trialling and testing new builds.
And yes the most successful way to farm wins on the ladder is to execute a mimicked build to perfection but without creativity you can end up losing to stupid things simply because you weren't creative enough to adapt to your enemy.
I think where creativity really shines in sc2 though, is not in the builds but on battlefield tactics. Burrowed banelings, overlord scouting patterns, baiting your opponent into an ambush, that type of stuff. Creativity helps developing the perfect set ups to trap your enemy but it also helps in countering it. Just look at supply depot placement during the HELLion stage of the TvT metagame.
So yeah I would say that sc2 is a game that rewards creativity. What it doesn't reward is doing stupid things on a whim which is sometimes mistaken for "creativity".
@Dracolich70 - I could not have said it better myself. Thank you, sir!
@gamegene -
it's easy to say "hey this unit we should use it more."
it's hard to explain how.
you have to consider: how do i produce enough of these units for this to be effective? how can i transition out of this build so it isn't a 1 trick pony? what is the long term goal? is this less effective than standard? in what circumstances is this more potent? how do i survive common timings/reactions/moves by the other player?
constant scv production, unit production, efficient mechanics must always be constant.
that's why only professionals are qualified to showcase and revolutionize match ups/styles.
That's just the type of thinking i'm trying to stray from. The professionals are absolutely not the only ones qualified to revolutionize match-ups. To assume that is to say that everyone who doesn't make money from this game can't contribute anything to its progress. I, for one, use strategies i have never ever seen pro players use, and they work for me on the ladder. Now, they are meant for specific match-ups, but that doesn't mean i'm wrong for thinking them up and using them. Just because my macro isn't perfect doesn't mean it's not a viable strategy.
On January 13 2012 18:15 Priestt wrote: Just because my macro isn't perfect doesn't mean it's not a viable strategy.
actually that's exactly what it means. if you're playing subpar players, your build works because they're bad, not because your build is viable when both players are good.
On January 13 2012 18:15 Priestt wrote: @Dracolich70 - I could not have said it better myself. Thank you, sir! That's just the type of thinking i'm trying to stray from. The professionals are absolutely not the only ones qualified to revolutionize match-ups. To assume that is to say that everyone who doesn't make money from this game can't contribute anything to its progress. I, for one, use strategies i have never ever seen pro players use, and they work for me on the ladder. Now, they are meant for specific match-ups, but that doesn't mean i'm wrong for thinking them up and using them. Just because my macro isn't perfect doesn't mean it's not a viable strategy.
this is what we call "subjectivity"; results may vary; YMMV (Your Mileage May Vary).
that's not a good thing. if you can win a game versus a player who (in all likelihood) not executing properly it means nothing.
you have to assume your opponent is playing competently.
Just because my macro isn't perfect doesn't mean it's not a viable strategy.
The problem here is that you're wrong, sorry. Stuff that works when executed by a player with sub-optimal macro against another player with sub-optimal macro is not an extensible strategy; you have no way of knowing that it's viable against a player with better macro. Something that works in lower leagues isn't a good strategy, it's an exploit of your opponents' poor mechanics. I could 3rax stim push to diamond (maybe even masters), but it will eventually stop working entirely because my opponents have just seen it too much and it's easily countered. You never ever ever see that build in pro games because despite the fact that it works in low leagues, it's just not viable against an opponent who knows how to scout and react, period.
Obviously there are some undiscovered builds out there, but do you really want to put your stock into practicing something that may or may not work up to a certain level of play? Seems silly to me to practice your way up to xx league and then hit a brick wall when your opponents are good enough.
Gas trick is old bro, works vs all races. Also pretty sure no one thinks they have the game all solved. It's just that lower level players aren't really in a reliable position to make actionable discoveries, so you can go ahead and do so if you want, it's just that 99% of the time you will think you discovered something glorious only to find that either 1) already known or 2) only works cause your opponents suck balls, else they wouldn't be in a low league.
So yes, shit can be found even in low level, but the chances against it are very high, so in the end you have a highly negative EV proposition.
Let me rephrase. Obviously if i'm playing a horrible player, a strat that isn't so good will work on them. That's not my point. My point is to try whatever works for you. If you do a build in gold and it works, and you get to platinum and you find out it's no longer viable, then maybe you should try something else. Corpuscle, you're so focussed on what works for pro players that you aren't thinking outside the box whatsoever. I don't know about you, but i would much rather practice a build that works until it's deemed no longer viable than practice the same boring cookie-cutter build over and over and ride that train.
And ... it's 99.99% (or more) certain that you will not, on your own, come up with a better opening in any matchup than Stephano, Dimaga, NesTea, MMA, MvP, MarineKing, Huk, MC or Oz (some of the better ones out there). It just won't happen. So if you copy their openings exactly, you will be better off than you are at the moment anyway.
Just so you know, HuK is not a creative player. Great player, and he can execute a build like the dickens, but he copies other builds that people come up with. Most pros are like that. Not every pro is a fucking genius. I don't believe for a second that less than 1% of the starcraft community should be coming up with everything. How is that any different than an autocracy?
If you're below Masters you should ABSOLUTELY NOT be trying to come up with your own ideas.
It's like martial arts. You don't sign up for a fucking martial arts class, walk up to the instructor on the first day and be all like, "hey man, these kata are like sooo limiting people's creativity man, I have lots of new ideas about how not to get stabbed in a street fight, they toootally work when I practice them against my 7 year old sister!"
You shut the fuck up and repeat the kata (what has been discovered to work through massive amounts of trial and error derived from the collective experience of hundreds of people way more badass than you will ever be) 1000 times a day for years. Then, once you have your black belt, you can BEGIN to experiment with some variations - because by then you actually have some real understanding of the fundamental mechanics.
This assumes, of course, that you are interested in achieving your HIGHEST POTENTIAL. If you just want to fuck around on ladder for your own amusement or to make yourself feel clever and feed your ego by coming up with your own "personal strats" while ultimately remaining trapped in mediocrity, then hey, do whatever you want.
On January 13 2012 18:36 Lakona wrote: Umm, no. This attitude is stupid. Sorry.
If you're below Masters you should ABSOLUTELY NOT be trying to come up with your own ideas.
It's like martial arts. You don't sign up for a fucking martial arts class, walk up to the instructor on the first day and be all like, "hey man, these kata are like sooo limiting people's creativity man, I have lots of new ideas about how not to get stabbed in a street fight, they toootally work when I practice them against my 7 year old sister!"
You shut the fuck up and repeat the kata (what has been discovered to work through massive amounts of trial and error derived from the collective experience of hundreds of people way more badass than you will ever be) 1000 times a day for years. Then, once you have your black belt, you can BEGIN to experiment with some variations - because by then you actually have some real understanding of the fundamental mechanics.
I focus on what the pros do because I don't want to be able to beat people who are bad, I want to be able to beat people who are really good. If something beats people in my league but not people in the league above me, it's a shit strategy that only works because I'm bad and my opponents are bad. I think it's a really flawed approach to assume that your opponent isn't going to be good and you can beat him/her because of it; I would rather assume that my opponent is the best player in the entire world and they make no mistakes, because that way I know that when I rank up and play someone who isn't floating 2k/1k when my timing attack hits, I still have a chance of it working.
edit: this is sort of tangential but am I the only one who watches a replay of themselves winning and gets pissed when I realize my opponent was just really bad? seriously, it sucks.
You are talking about human nature. Humans are ultimatly lazy creatures who would prefer to have someone walk them through something in order to gain the imminate benefits rather then discover and create for themselves, and even if they attempted it there is always a chance of failure. I for one do not have time to breakdown the game and invent multiple tactics and strategies just like I dont have the time to study medicine and become a doctor in order to treat my headache and muscle pains. As for the game, pro players used warcraft 3 and starcraft brood war as their blueprint for creating the meta-game. When they relised that stalkers were not dragoons then the game started to evolve, they did not create build orders for the sake of inventing something new, they made them in order to win and do their jobs.
On January 13 2012 18:29 Priestt wrote: Just so you know, HuK is not a creative player. Great player, and he can execute a build like the dickens, but he copies other builds that people come up with. Most pros are like that. Not every pro is a fucking genius. I don't believe for a second that less than 1% of the starcraft community should be coming up with everything. How is that any different than an autocracy?
What? Why would you want bad players coming up with builds that are not reliable/accountable? In all likelihood no one is going to want copy bad players either way.
And there actually IS a lot of creativity/preference in the upper levels. But it's EXTREMELY subtle (doing flashy retarded shit is retarded almost all of the time).
As a Terran player I notice strange little quirks players will do: making a reactor at a strange timing to conserve minerals for a hellion timing/expansion, using 3 reaper hit squads in the late game to clear our proxy pylons, get a thor early to make up for the lack of air control. It might not be obvious, but creativity is there if you're willing and capable/savvy enough to look for it.
On January 13 2012 18:36 Lakona wrote: Umm, no. This attitude is stupid. Sorry.
If you're below Masters you should ABSOLUTELY NOT be trying to come up with your own ideas.
It's like martial arts. You don't sign up for a fucking martial arts class, walk up to the instructor on the first day and be all like, "hey man, these kata are like sooo limiting people's creativity man, I have lots of new ideas about how not to get stabbed in a street fight, they toootally work when I practice them against my 7 year old sister!"
You shut the fuck up and repeat the kata (what has been discovered to work through massive amounts of trial and error derived from the collective experience of hundreds of people way more badass than you will ever be) 1000 times a day for years. Then, once you have your black belt, you can BEGIN to experiment with some variations - because by then you actually have some real understanding of the fundamental mechanics.
This assumes, of course, that you are interested in achieving your HIGHEST POTENTIAL. If you just want to fuck around on ladder for your own amusement or to make yourself feel clever and feed your ego by coming up with your own "personal strats" while ultimately remaining trapped in mediocrity, then hey, do whatever you want.
Holy fuck this guy does not mince words. Cold and hard. Kudos.
If you're below Masters you should ABSOLUTELY NOT be trying to come up with your own ideas.
It's like martial arts. You don't sign up for a fucking martial arts class, walk up to the instructor on the first day and be all like, "hey man, these kata are like sooo limiting people's creativity man, I have lots of new ideas about how not to get stabbed in a street fight, they toootally work when I practice them against my 7 year old sister!"
You shut the fuck up and repeat the kata (what has been discovered to work through massive amounts of trial and error derived from the collective experience of hundreds of people way more badass than you will ever be) 1000 times a day for years. Then, once you have your black belt, you can BEGIN to experiment with some variations - because by then you actually have some real understanding of the fundamental mechanics.
This is exactly the type of thinking that is detrimental to the community. To believe that you can only begin to use the right side of your brain once you have hit masters is OUTRAGEOUS. I am shocked and appalled that you even believe that.
Oh, and your karate analogy is bullshit. How many different forms of kung fu are there? Can you tell me that? Each one of them has their own form of fighting and defense. Just because the katas in shito ryu are different than in shotokan, doesn't make either one wrong.
On January 13 2012 18:29 Priestt wrote:How is that any different than an autocracy?
There seems to be a trend recently of people relating politics to SC where it just doesn't work :S
Noone is saying that only pros should make builds. You're perfectly welcome to go on ladder in any league and do whatever the fuck you like. (EDIT: Without cheating, obviously) You paid for the game just like we did.
The thing is, though, that 99% (yay for making up numbers!) of builds suck. I can Ultra rush if I want to, but that doesn't stop it being awful. That's why people look to pros for guidance on what to do, because pros understand better than we do what is good and what has potential to be good if worked on.
To compare the SC2 scene to an autocracy is frankly laughable.
I think there's a lot of truth in the OP. It is very easy to mimic a pro's build without understanding why it works. Ultimately you can try and copy the pro's play, but that doesn't really teach you how to play, it just teaches you how to execute a one-dimesional build. The only way you will understand why the pro's do things a certain way is by trying it other ways to see what happens. If you don't try other things, then your game knowledge will be shallow and unable to deal with out of the ordinary situations.
Game knowledge is a big part of winning any game, just as important as mechanics. If all you do is hammer out specific, linear builds, then you will lose to people with the same mechanics who actually understand the game.
I didn't read most of the replies, only the OP, and I felt this way too, even with BW. However, I play the game for my entertainment. I don't aim to get good, or become a pro player. I just play to have fun, and I learned the game not from watching replays or vods, but rather through just getting online and play. I was able to have alot of fun, and funnily enough, as I progressed, my style was gradually looking similar to the pro's as far as what works and which counters what, etc..
Point I'm trying to say is: yeah, I went the long road experimenting on my own to reach the same destination that I would have if I was religiously watching and copying strategies from replays/vods. But I'm proud to say that every minute that I played SC, it was with enjoyment, not with repetitious practice that would become too laborous and boring for something that's supposed to give me entertainment.
While some would argue that it's more fun when you're good, I beg to differ. It's more fun when you can do whatever you want, whenever you want, and however you want. That's how I play my games, and that's how I think people should too.
If you're below Masters you should ABSOLUTELY NOT be trying to come up with your own ideas.
It's like martial arts. You don't sign up for a fucking martial arts class, walk up to the instructor on the first day and be all like, "hey man, these kata are like sooo limiting people's creativity man, I have lots of new ideas about how not to get stabbed in a street fight, they toootally work when I practice them against my 7 year old sister!"
You shut the fuck up and repeat the kata (what has been discovered to work through massive amounts of trial and error derived from the collective experience of hundreds of people way more badass than you will ever be) 1000 times a day for years. Then, once you have your black belt, you can BEGIN to experiment with some variations - because by then you actually have some real understanding of the fundamental mechanics.
This is exactly the type of thinking that is detrimental to the community. To believe that you can only begin to use the right side of your brain once you have hit masters is OUTRAGEOUS. I am shocked and appalled that you even believe that.
Oh, and your karate analogy is bullshit. How many different forms of kung fu are there? Can you tell me that? Each one of them has their own form of fighting and defense. Just because the katas in shito ryu are different than in shotokan, doesn't make either one wrong.
His point is not that either one is wrong, only that to think coming up with your own builds while you still suck at the game (sorry, but if you're plat you suck really bad) is either
1) You don't care that you're almost certainly wasting your time if you actually plan on improving.
2) You're playing for fun and don't give a shit that you're wasting your time
Now I don't care if you're playing for fun, that's fine, but if you actually think you're not wasting your time by trying to do all your own builds at such a low level, then I've got nothing I can say I guess, if you can't see the obvious.
Really though, it's hard to appreciate how absolutely terrible one's mode of analysis and thinking is until one reaches higher levels. Then you look back and are like, wow, I was such a retard back then. Can't even begin to think right. You can get lucky sure, anyone can get lucky, but your EV is highly negative.
On January 13 2012 18:44 Authweight wrote: I think there's a lot of truth in the OP. It is very easy to mimic a pro's build without understanding why it works. Ultimately you can try and copy the pro's play, but that doesn't really teach you how to play, it just teaches you how to execute a one-dimesional build. The only way you will understand why the pro's do things a certain way is by trying it other ways to see what happens. If you don't try other things, then your game knowledge will be shallow and unable to deal with out of the ordinary situations.
Game knowledge is a big part of winning any game, just as important as mechanics. If all you do is hammer out specific, linear builds, then you will lose to people with the same mechanics who actually understand the game.
No, what you do is watch a lot of replays of pros doing the build you're doing, and see how they react to various things from their opponent. If you blindly try to copy a pro replay past a certain point, yeah, you're a stupid copycat who has no idea what they're actually doing, but nobody is saying to do that. When people say "imitate the pros" they mean that you should carefully observe their reactions to various builds and adjust your play accordingly, rather than just go "mma drops at 10:30 in this game therefore i will always drop at 10:30 always."
Obviously whatever is fun to you is what you should be doing. That being said, adapting builds is how you become better. You might start with a build, then find out that if your opponent opens gas you need to make an adjustment to keep safe. After playing a build 20-50 times, watching replays and learning the triggers to set you on a deviation from the original you'll have a solid build. The reason people take pro player builds is that to a certain extent they've already done alot of the fine tuning, although you wont necessarily understand the reason yourself till you play with it. But it will take much less time to plug the holes in a well known pro level build then one you make up yourself.
Now if you want to get creative thats fine, but just remember that it takes alot of work to make a new build. It isnt as simple as theorycrafting a couple units and a timing together, it will take quite a few games to learn what its good vs what it will die against and how to scout such that you pick up the information you need that will be relevant to your build. That being said, i have crafted my own builds, that are not based on pro level plays. I'm a creative? I don't feel like it cause i've practiced all my builds at least 50 times to plug the holes.
Quite simply if you want to be creative and your not top level, your doing it for fun and you will not improve as fast as a tested build.
There are a whole lot of ignorant replies to this, and i don't have enough time to address them all.
First of all, the post was not to address what build orders people were following. You can follow whatever build order you feel like doing. If you prefer to repeat the same 4-gate no brain build every single game, go right ahead. No sweat off my back. It's completely up to you. What i was TRYING to get accross, but obviously to no avail, is that don't assume that the 4-gate is going to work all the time. Don't think it is the greatest thing on the fucking earth. Don't be afraid to try new things. Maybe instead of one assimilator 4-gate try a two assimilator 4-gate. I don't fucking care. Just don't be afraid to embrace your imagination.
Second, if you read a post designed to help motivate and encourage people (lower level players) to enjoy the game they're playing and not to get too stressed and caught up with winning/losing, why the fuck would you bash it if you don't agree with it? Now, i know i'm beating a dead horse by scolding the internet, but come on, people. If you're a master's player, why the fuck do you give a shit what bronze players are doing, anyways? It's fucking unbelievable the outcry this has gotten. I'm horrified at how ignorant this community can be.
You know if Ray Lewis plays linebacker different than I want him to, and I'm the defensive coordinator I ask him about it. If its a high school kid I tell him to play it like he is told and stick to fundamentals. Honestly your creativity at below high high masters just getting lucky when you win because your playing players that don't have the overall knowledge to react to any situation like a professional player. Yah its awesome to learn cool new small tricks, but your not going to change the matchups at lower levels.
On January 13 2012 18:51 Priestt wrote: There are a whole lot of ignorant replies to this, and i don't have enough time to address them all.
First of all, the post was not to address what build orders people were following. You can follow whatever build order you feel like doing. If you prefer to repeat the same 4-gate no brain build every single game, go right ahead. No sweat off my back. It's completely up to you. What i was TRYING to get accross, but obviously to no avail, is that don't assume that the 4-gate is going to work all the time. Don't think it is the greatest thing on the fucking earth. Don't be afraid to try new things. Maybe instead of one assimilator 4-gate try a two assimilator 4-gate. I don't fucking care. Just don't be afraid to embrace your imagination.
Second, if you read a post designed to help motivate and encourage people (lower level players) to enjoy the game they're playing and not to get too stressed and caught up with winning/losing, why the fuck would you bash it if you don't agree with it? Now, i know i'm beating a dead horse by scolding the internet, but come on, people. If you're a master's player, why the fuck do you give a shit what bronze players are doing, anyways? It's fucking unbelievable the outcry this has gotten. I'm horrified at how ignorant this community can be.
Have at 'er!
The amount of indignation is over the top lol. Pretty sure just about everyone said that if you're going to make builds for the fun of it, then go ahead.
I also think most of those posters thought that you implied that your making your own builds is actually time-efficient in terms of improvement. Pretty sure that's the point that most ppl who have a bone to pick have been picking, not that it's wrong to make your own builds for the fun and enjoyment of it, because obviously there's nothing wrong with that.
I'm not bashing anyone, go ahead and be "creative" if you want. There's nothing wrong with coming up with your own builds, it's a fucking game and at the end of the day we're all playing for fun. You can win a lot of games by coming up with a nifty build all on your own, and if you do, more power to you. You just probably won't advance very far if you come up with something that works at low level and try to apply it as you rank up, because the game changes completely the higher and higher you get. If you really want to improve rapidly, copying pro strategies/builds is the way to go, but if you want to win a lot of games at your current level, it definitely works well to come up with your own build. You can play to your own strengths and come up with something that you can do well, and that's a great way to approach the game, if a bit short-sighted. Just don't expect it to propel you to GM.
I'll just respond to that... sc2 is not that open to creativity other then subtle deviations in builds and trickery play, hence why sc2 is not that good of a rts game... it's just the only rts game out there.
If you're below Masters you should ABSOLUTELY NOT be trying to come up with your own ideas.
It's like martial arts. You don't sign up for a fucking martial arts class, walk up to the instructor on the first day and be all like, "hey man, these kata are like sooo limiting people's creativity man, I have lots of new ideas about how not to get stabbed in a street fight, they toootally work when I practice them against my 7 year old sister!"
You shut the fuck up and repeat the kata (what has been discovered to work through massive amounts of trial and error derived from the collective experience of hundreds of people way more badass than you will ever be) 1000 times a day for years. Then, once you have your black belt, you can BEGIN to experiment with some variations - because by then you actually have some real understanding of the fundamental mechanics.
This is exactly the type of thinking that is detrimental to the community. To believe that you can only begin to use the right side of your brain once you have hit masters is OUTRAGEOUS. I am shocked and appalled that you even believe that.
Oh, and your karate analogy is bullshit. How many different forms of kung fu are there? Can you tell me that? Each one of them has their own form of fighting and defense. Just because the katas in shito ryu are different than in shotokan, doesn't make either one wrong.
nope..
what you said is bullshit..
his point is, if you are below masters, you obviously don't understand the game well enough or aren't mechanically sound enough to make your own *creative* little builds.
that is, you have to know the game well enough to make better use of creativity.
Of course you can still use the right side of your brain before that, but are the build orders you come up with gonna be as efficient or effective than what pros have spent countless hours perfecting? Obviously not.
As for the karate analogy, it's not bullshit. There are tons of schools of martial arts, but they aren't just made up by some random creative kid who knew next to nothing about fighting. A good portion of them evolved from other known schools of martial arts. And that's the parallel. You don't just come up with some creative bs out of nowhere.
You start from the beaten path, and as you gain more experience and knowledge with whatever you are doing, you deviate from that accordingly. And you simply shouldn't follow everything a pro says to the word. SC2 is a dynamic game, things are different in every match. You can't just follow every detail of a certain build all the time.
You have to decide what the most efficient counter or action to do all the time, and this is exactly where creativity gets limited. What's the most efficient counter to mass roaches for protoss early on? Immortals. If that's not possible, you go to the next best thing, and so on. That's what SC2 is all about, efficiency and viability. You could tech to phoenix or w/e for creativity, sure, but is it as efficient and viable? Those are the questions you have to ask yourself all the time.
On January 13 2012 18:44 Authweight wrote: I think there's a lot of truth in the OP. It is very easy to mimic a pro's build without understanding why it works. Ultimately you can try and copy the pro's play, but that doesn't really teach you how to play, it just teaches you how to execute a one-dimesional build. The only way you will understand why the pro's do things a certain way is by trying it other ways to see what happens. If you don't try other things, then your game knowledge will be shallow and unable to deal with out of the ordinary situations.
Game knowledge is a big part of winning any game, just as important as mechanics. If all you do is hammer out specific, linear builds, then you will lose to people with the same mechanics who actually understand the game.
No, what you do is watch a lot of replays of pros doing the build you're doing, and see how they react to various things from their opponent. If you blindly try to copy a pro replay past a certain point, yeah, you're a stupid copycat who has no idea what they're actually doing, but nobody is saying to do that. When people say "imitate the pros" they mean that you should carefully observe their reactions to various builds and adjust your play accordingly, rather than just go "mma drops at 10:30 in this game therefore i will always drop at 10:30 always."
I feel like watching replays, while useful, will not garner as much improvement as actually playing the game. Getting general ideas and timings from replays is great, but if you spend tons of time watching replays then your mechanics will suffer compared to the person who learned by doing. Besides, I think there's a really important value of game knowledge as its own thing, and experience and experimentation are the things that will give you deep game knowledge. Watching replays and streams will help this a little bit, but active learning and experimentation have a very important place in the learning process as well.
And remember, there's nothing wrong with losing, especially when you're trying new things. Some of the replies I've seen in this thread act almost as though there's something morally wrong with doing a bad build. I advocate deliberately doing builds you know are bad, so you understand why they're bad. We all know carriers are bad. But the process of forcing yourself to use carriers can teach you a lot about how the game works, and might even tell you if there are occasional circumstances in which carriers are ok. If carriers can be used in GSL games, then there's certainly no reason not to try them out in ladder matches.
On January 13 2012 18:57 Technique wrote: Only read the title, but...
I'll just respond to that... sc2 is not that open to creativity other then subtle deviations in builds and trickery play, hence why sc2 is not that good of a rts game... it's just the only rts game out there.
There's quite a lot of room for creativity. Problem is that if you use the same maps for a year, then obviously the room for early game creativity drops off. Anything too often worn becomes dull after all.
Also the really creative builds tend to be really mechanically demanding haha, such little room for error. They are really beautiful to watch when they work, but can just as easily not work and thus maybe not suitable for tourney play. For example ForGG's game 1 vs Leenock. Crazy build, but it was quite obvious even his mechanics weren't up to the task to follow through in the late midgame.
On January 13 2012 18:51 Priestt wrote: There are a whole lot of ignorant replies to this, and i don't have enough time to address them all.
First of all, the post was not to address what build orders people were following. You can follow whatever build order you feel like doing. If you prefer to repeat the same 4-gate no brain build every single game, go right ahead. No sweat off my back. It's completely up to you. What i was TRYING to get accross, but obviously to no avail, is that don't assume that the 4-gate is going to work all the time. Don't think it is the greatest thing on the fucking earth. Don't be afraid to try new things. Maybe instead of one assimilator 4-gate try a two assimilator 4-gate. I don't fucking care. Just don't be afraid to embrace your imagination.
Second, if you read a post designed to help motivate and encourage people (lower level players) to enjoy the game they're playing and not to get too stressed and caught up with winning/losing, why the fuck would you bash it if you don't agree with it? Now, i know i'm beating a dead horse by scolding the internet, but come on, people. If you're a master's player, why the fuck do you give a shit what bronze players are doing, anyways? It's fucking unbelievable the outcry this has gotten. I'm horrified at how ignorant this community can be.
Have at 'er!
If you want to screw around and have fun, then go right ahead, no one's stopping you. What everyone is saying that your promotion of "creativity" in order to win is completely wrong. Is it fine to try 2-gas 4-gate? Sure, go ahead. If you are playing to win and want to get to a high level, then no. Play it standard, play it safe. Getting up to high masters and having the mechanics and game knowledge to do the weird add-on timings or weird tech-up route is what allows you to be creative. Coming up with terrible builds and making them work only at platinum is what makes them so bad. Maybe the reason you're stuck at Plat is because you can't get over the mindset that you're somehow on level footing with people that play this game for eight hours a day, refining builds. You're not. Get good first, then make stuff later.
Finally, I'm just gonna say I feel like your idea of "creative" is slightly off. Not everything is as revolutionary is the Bisu build was, or the transition somewhere along the line from crazy baneling busts to calculated drone play. The pros do show their creativity: just in smaller ways.
On January 13 2012 18:15 Priestt wrote: Just because my macro isn't perfect doesn't mean it's not a viable strategy.
actually that's exactly what it means. if you're playing subpar players, your build works because they're bad, not because your build is viable when both players are good.
And what does that matter to him, exactly? If a player at level X can beat other players at level X with a certain strat, then how exactly is the strategy invalid? It works at the level it was intended for. Once you start hitting players that are good enough to hold your attack, you take a second look at it and figure out if you can improve it somehow or need a bigger change in style - you know, actually strategizing instead of just copying playstyles off liquipedia.
You could maybe make an argument about a longer learning process by having to learn 'bad' strats, then relearn 'good' ones later on (as your level rises), but I think the effect is fairly minor. Learning a new build or playstyle is peanuts compared to the learning process associated with the general SC2 skills: awareness, macro, game sense and execution. Those are typically the ones that are going to dictate your general skill level.
On January 13 2012 18:44 Authweight wrote: I think there's a lot of truth in the OP. It is very easy to mimic a pro's build without understanding why it works. Ultimately you can try and copy the pro's play, but that doesn't really teach you how to play, it just teaches you how to execute a one-dimesional build. The only way you will understand why the pro's do things a certain way is by trying it other ways to see what happens. If you don't try other things, then your game knowledge will be shallow and unable to deal with out of the ordinary situations.
Game knowledge is a big part of winning any game, just as important as mechanics. If all you do is hammer out specific, linear builds, then you will lose to people with the same mechanics who actually understand the game.
No, what you do is watch a lot of replays of pros doing the build you're doing, and see how they react to various things from their opponent. If you blindly try to copy a pro replay past a certain point, yeah, you're a stupid copycat who has no idea what they're actually doing, but nobody is saying to do that. When people say "imitate the pros" they mean that you should carefully observe their reactions to various builds and adjust your play accordingly, rather than just go "mma drops at 10:30 in this game therefore i will always drop at 10:30 always."
I feel like watching replays, while useful, will not garner as much improvement as actually playing the game. Getting general ideas and timings from replays is great, but if you spend tons of time watching replays then your mechanics will suffer compared to the person who learned by doing. Besides, I think there's a really important value of game knowledge as its own thing, and experience and experimentation are the things that will give you deep game knowledge. Watching replays and streams will help this a little bit, but active learning and experimentation have a very important place in the learning process as well.
And remember, there's nothing wrong with losing, especially when you're trying new things. Some of the replies I've seen in this thread act almost as though there's something morally wrong with doing a bad build. I advocate deliberately doing builds you know are bad, so you understand why they're bad. We all know carriers are bad. But the process of forcing yourself to use carriers can teach you a lot about how the game works, and might even tell you if there are occasional circumstances in which carriers are ok. If carriers can be used in GSL games, then there's certainly no reason not to try them out in ladder matches.
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.
p.s. Carriers are damn great in the right composition and time.
On January 13 2012 19:03 Authweight wrote: I feel like watching replays, while useful, will not garner as much improvement as actually playing the game. Getting general ideas and timings from replays is great, but if you spend tons of time watching replays then your mechanics will suffer compared to the person who learned by doing. Besides, I think there's a really important value of game knowledge as its own thing, and experience and experimentation are the things that will give you deep game knowledge. Watching replays and streams will help this a little bit, but active learning and experimentation have a very important place in the learning process as well.
And remember, there's nothing wrong with losing, especially when you're trying new things. Some of the replies I've seen in this thread act almost as though there's something morally wrong with doing a bad build. I advocate deliberately doing builds you know are bad, so you understand why they're bad. We all know carriers are bad. But the process of forcing yourself to use carriers can teach you a lot about how the game works, and might even tell you if there are occasional circumstances in which carriers are ok. If carriers can be used in GSL games, then there's certainly no reason not to try them out in ladder matches.
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
also I don't know how you turned "watch a ton of replays" into "watch replays instead of practicing," obviously playing the game will help more than watching what the pros do, but there's a balance.
edit:
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." For example, if you notice a drop killing your probes, and you think "oh shit he's dropping, okay, what do I do, oh, grab my army and pull my probes, got it!" you already lost 10 probes for no reason because the guy who's gotten dropped 10 billion times has already pulled his probes, sent a part of his army over, and warped in 4 stalkers before he even knew what was happening.
You don't get better mechanics by lying in bed thinking, ever. That's not what mechanics is.
On January 13 2012 17:32 Priestt wrote: - I'm a rank 1 platinum player desperately trying to improve.
This have got to be a bald faced lie.
All the stuff you are writing about 'detrimental to the community' and 'not letting it stop us from using our imagination' etc ... just proves that you are not here to improve and get better.
If you wanted to improve, you should focus on how to improve - there are several guides on this forum for that purpose.
If you want to be creative, do whatever you want. It doesn't matter. You will however be improving slower than if you copied some professionals.
The time to be creative is when you are knocking on the door to GM league. Because that's when you are actually starting to play against good players, and you can get actual feedback on your creativity on whether or not it's viable.
Playing platinum? I am sure that master players could win 9 / 10 matches in platinum just making one unit + economy (and queens for zerg) and upgrades. Marine, roaches, and stalkers. And declaring before the game starts what they would be doing ... so whatever stupid shit works in platinum, it's an absolute waste of time practicing it, because what you should be practicing, is the builds that will be viable in masters league and beyond. And that you simply can't test and figure out for yourself when you are not playing against those players.
... as for Huk not being creative ... no he is not TLO ... who is the better player again?
On January 13 2012 19:10 aebriol wrote: ... as for Huk not being creative ... no he is not TLO ... who is the better player again?
And even TLO admits it himself:
Roboteddy : Do you wish non-standard creative play were more usual and feasible? Do you think it would be possible to design an RTS that encourages it? TLO : I think everything can be made possible in a complex enviromnent, the misconception is that you can make up for bad mechanics with creativity. If you want to be succesful your mechanics have to be on the highest level (something I want to achieve eventually).
On January 13 2012 19:03 Authweight wrote: I feel like watching replays, while useful, will not garner as much improvement as actually playing the game. Getting general ideas and timings from replays is great, but if you spend tons of time watching replays then your mechanics will suffer compared to the person who learned by doing.
Fastest way I have ever improved, is when I do the following: - Write down an exact timing guide for what NesTea or Idra or Stephano is doing in one specific matchup. - Include workers, rally points, buildings, production, in game time. upgrade timings, drones on / off gas. - Include starter worker micro (like doubling up on close mineral patches, and when they don't). - Include scouting pattern, overlord scouting patterns, and timings. - Practice against very easy AI until I can duplicate what they are doing for the first 5-6-7 minutes of the game (or until I see clear deviations, for example when big attacks start, etc).
It might not be very fun, it certainly isn't creative, but it's a certain way to improve your game an incredible amount in just 3-4 hours real time. Unless you are already above low masters.
I prefer doing it with NesTea, because he often have opening builds that can deviate at a later point in time - especially in ZvT. Watching his games against MvP at Blizzcon was quite illuminating.
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." For example, if you notice a drop killing your probes, and you think "oh shit he's dropping, okay, what do I do, oh, grab my army and pull my probes, got it!" you already lost 10 probes for no reason because the guy who's gotten dropped 10 billion times has already pulled his probes, sent a part of his army over, and warped in 4 stalkers before he even knew what was happening.
You don't get better mechanics by lying in bed thinking, ever. That's not what mechanics is.
I've done the basic mechanics enough times that I can develop newer ones and have them ingrained to a fairly decent extent without ever having practiced them much. In this sense I can improve even when I've been away from actively playing the game for a bit. Of course I have to play to actually smoothen it out.
I do a large number of runs of many different scenarios, to prepare myself mentally for how I should react, what sequence of basic mechanics, so that I iron down the path. Thus when I actually have to execute based on some trigger, I don't have to think about it, I've already determined the path I must take before the game began.
On January 13 2012 18:51 Priestt wrote: There are a whole lot of ignorant replies to this, and i don't have enough time to address them all.
First of all, the post was not to address what build orders people were following. You can follow whatever build order you feel like doing. If you prefer to repeat the same 4-gate no brain build every single game, go right ahead. No sweat off my back. It's completely up to you. What i was TRYING to get accross, but obviously to no avail, is that don't assume that the 4-gate is going to work all the time. Don't think it is the greatest thing on the fucking earth. Don't be afraid to try new things. Maybe instead of one assimilator 4-gate try a two assimilator 4-gate. I don't fucking care. Just don't be afraid to embrace your imagination.
Second, if you read a post designed to help motivate and encourage people (lower level players) to enjoy the game they're playing and not to get too stressed and caught up with winning/losing, why the fuck would you bash it if you don't agree with it? Now, i know i'm beating a dead horse by scolding the internet, but come on, people. If you're a master's player, why the fuck do you give a shit what bronze players are doing, anyways? It's fucking unbelievable the outcry this has gotten. I'm horrified at how ignorant this community can be.
The real issue is that creativity doesn't work if it's not well supported.
Sc2 is a strategy game: by definition, some strategies are better than others and you may never know if what you are trying is a good or a bad choice, unless your experience or the results say otherwise. Pros are that way because they play the game more than you and at a deeper level. More likely, they have already tried most of your stuff and then concluded that there's something better.
If you want to try new strategies, why not? Assuming that you try them with some reasoning, practice will tell you if they are worth.
Ages ago WhiteRa strongly implemented the warp prism in his playstyle. At first people thought it was crazy or simply unproductive, but it worked. It was working even before the patch... then the patch came out and even koreans realised that it was a great idea. I mean, look at Hero. It this case, creativity worked. Lately, WhiteRa is trying it with carriers in PvZ: will it work? Time will tell.
Once Spanishiwa popularized a gasless build that got the majority of the zerg a huge boner. At first it worked, then people figured out how to counter it and at the current moment people then to avoid it since it doesn't work anymore. An example of how creativity may work for a while but then countered by other creativity.
At an MLG, TLO tried to defeat Idra with a one base seven rax push and failed hard. I don't think I've ever seen something like that again. Probably it was a build that wanted to provide a great aggression, but at the same time required too much economic support. Or he wanted to rewrite most of the Terran timings to throw the opponent off, we may never know. In this case, creativity didn't work.
The point is that creativity isn't worthless. But exactly like in other games or sports, it requires a solid ground to stand on. You can't expect to build some proxies and pretend that you opponent doesn't scout, exactly like you can't pretend to go fast 2CC without your opponent putting on some pressure. It's just the reality of facts, but once you combine your common sense, your creativity and a good macro/micro... why not?
About one year ago, my favourite player was a korean zerg named ArgosZenith. This guys was a strong Nydus user and I remember watching him winning a game with a proxy hatch cancel into queen's creep spread, to build a ton of spine crawlers in from of a toss' main. Back at then it was really cool, but on the long run it didn't work.
On a side, you are right: creativity, ALONE, doesn't work.
I'm not sure Eriador would approve the ignorance there has been on this topic... :p FYI he was one badass to try playing Queens in BW (almost the most useless unit in sc1, but not anymore as we're seeing them more and more). My point is, even if that doesn't work in higher level, why do you care so much ? Let them try and see how far they can go...
What pisses me off so much is the one that know "everything" because they read all the books (read every strategy forums and pro's analysis) and want to argue that this one is right or wrong. We are curious people. If a player told us that it's wrong, it simply won't cut it. Especially for the most curious ones :p
Edit : This pretty much summed it up what i was thinking reading this thread
On January 13 2012 18:15 Priestt wrote: Just because my macro isn't perfect doesn't mean it's not a viable strategy.
actually that's exactly what it means. if you're playing subpar players, your build works because they're bad, not because your build is viable when both players are good.
And what does that matter to him, exactly? If a player at level X can beat other players at level X with a certain strat, then how exactly is the strategy invalid? It works at the level it was intended for. Once you start hitting players that are good enough to hold your attack, you take a second look at it and figure out if you can improve it somehow or need a bigger change in style - you know, actually strategizing instead of just copying playstyles off liquipedia.
You could maybe make an argument about a longer learning process by having to learn 'bad' strats, then relearn 'good' ones later on (as your level rises), but I think the effect is fairly minor. Learning a new build or playstyle is peanuts compared to the learning process associated with the general SC2 skills: awareness, macro, game sense and execution. Those are typically the ones that are going to dictate your general skill level.
Please let your ego aside and try to read this post without any slight bias if you can because that's where most pros went throught it.
On January 13 2012 17:35 Let it Raine wrote: standard logic is: if pros dont do it, then it sucks.
but that just isnt true. pro zergs still 14 gas 14 pool in zvp, and that sucks.
hey tell us what is better! i dont know
It doesn't suck, it's just that later gas is a little more economical against Forge-FE without aggression (which is most games on pro level).
14g 14pool has several advantages:
It's better against gateway first openings with any type of zealot-stalker pressure. It's better against pretty much any opening besides forge-FE. It prevents P from going nexus before forge on smaller maps. It's better for denying scouting and searching the map for proxy pylons. It transitions well to a roach-bust, and forces P to build 2 cannons and sentries if they want to be safe.
I think its easy for not pros to be creative. I personally just start a game and then think of something I wanna do. I dont know any build orders, but I just make what I wanna do. When I wanna make Carriers in a PvZ I just do it, with no timeing in mind, I just make a starport get air attack upgrades, because I know that they are awesome for carrier and then I push out when I feel its good. When you have good mechanics and micro you can win even low master without build orders. So the skills on these levels are nothing that can prevent creative play*, but in the pro scene its way harder because when u use your idea for example warpprisme in PvP or your new build for example ice fisher the hole sc2 scene will talk about and they will find a way to counter hit or at least decrease the edge you had the first time. So u still need the skills of a pro to be in the pro scene and just being a creative player isnt enougth to close the gap. For example I made the this Funday Monday in ladder matches and had no Stalkers and Zelots in a PvP or no Mariens and Bashnees in a TvT.
* For example I played the funday monday on the ladder with more wins then loses. One PvP without Zelots and Stalkers and one TvT with no marines and banshees. In a pro game this will be impossible to win.
@MavivaM Spanishiwa still uses the ice fisher build I think or a build which is similar.
On January 13 2012 17:43 Bearwidme wrote: Creativity needs to go hand in hand with viability.
I think this quote pretty much epitomises the perfect retort to the OP comments. Although I do agree that what we see is not always the most creative and that it does not mean that other avenues of play are not viable. Personally, there probably is alot of creative play out there doing very well, just as of yet, its still underground! --> positive logic!!!
There is nothing wrong with creativity and experimenting. But unless you can't execute a build properly, you should not really focus on anything else if you want to improve your game. It's fundamental.
It's like focusing on how to make U-turns before you learn how to operate the break/throttle/clutch when learning how to drive.
On January 13 2012 20:32 Starcraft2Germany wrote: I think its easy for not pros to be creative. I personally just start a game and then think of something I wanna do. I dont know any build orders, but I just make what I wanna do. When I wanna make Carriers in a PvZ I just do it, with no timeing in mind, I just make a starport get air attack upgrades, because I know that they are awesome for carrier and then I push out when I feel its good. When you have good mechanics and micro you can win even low master without build orders. So the skills on these levels are nothing that can prevent creative play*, but in the pro scene its way harder because when u use your idea for example warpprisme in PvP or your new build for example ice fisher the hole sc2 scene will talk about and they will find a way to counter hit or at least decrease the edge you had the first time. So u still need the skills of a pro to be in the pro scene and just being a creative player isnt enougth to close the gap. For example I made the this Funday Monday in ladder matches and had no Stalkers and Zelots in a PvP or no Mariens and Bashnees in a TvT.
* For example I played the funday monday on the ladder with more wins then loses. One PvP without Zelots and Stalkers and one TvT with no marines and banshees. In a pro game this will be impossible to win.
@MavivaM Spanishiwa still uses the ice fisher build I think or a build which is similar.
I agree with this. Starcraft is a game that is meant to be played for fun. Using strict build orders and strict strategies will give you the best chance at winning, but only by a small amount. To the pros, however, that small amount is critical, and they have to do what works best and is proven to work best. Even on the ladder, where they can be more creative (and many are) Most pros stick to practicing what they need for the big tournaments etc.etc. where it really matters.
I disagree completely with the OP. Following tried-and-true build orders do not limit your creativity; they improve it. Only by doing what works can you begin to understand the game; once your understanding of the game improves, so will your ability to invent new, viable builds. It's like this:
I'm new to this game --> Practice standard BOs --> get good and understand the game --> realize the weaknesses of standard builds and design new builds to exploit these weaknesses
It should not be like this:
I'm new to this game --> I'm going to be "creative" --> engineer retarded builds that work only on players just as bad as me --> conclude that creativity is a lost art
You should realize that every new innovative, ground-breaking build is not just one guy trying out random things. They are built on the back of hundreds of hours of testing and refining.
You're absolutely free to play the game the way you want. But if you decide to muck around in plat with your crazy builds, at least show some respect to the people practicing standard builds to improve. Ironically they are the people who are going to come up with the new viable builds, not you.
On January 13 2012 18:11 corpuscle wrote: I don't want to discourage people from trying new stuff either, and I apologize if I came off like a dick (I tend to do that). I just don't want people to think they're being clever and creative by coming up with some gimmicky build that relies on their opponents being bad, which is what 90% of lower-league players who devise their own builds come up with. Spanishiwa was GM already when he came up with his build, and it works and people accepted it because it was proven to be effective against high-level players, not just because it was some bizarre concept that some random diamond dude came up with. I could come up with a million builds that would work in diamond because I can exploit the fact that my opponents aren't hip enough cats to know that I'm doing something weird, but that doesn't make it a viable build, and that means it's actually a bad idea to rely on it if I want to improve.
I feel like a total asshole trying to stifle creativity and all, but really, it's hard to figure out what's working because it's actually brilliant and what's working because your opponent's just a derp. It sucks, but it's the truth. Pretty much anybody that isn't GM or almost GM isn't playing in an intense enough environment for their builds to be truly put to the test (and even then it's flaky), and I don't think it's conducive to improvement to keep doing a build that, for all you know, only works because your opponents aren't on top of their shit.
Precisely what i meant. I'm not suggesting that by "creative" you do some kind of cheesey one-base all-in. I'm only saying that for the game to develop and grow, new strategies will be implemented. Just don't be afraid to try implementing them yourself if you find they work.
I didn't mean cheesy one base allins or anything. At the pro level, things like taking a third/fourth gas at a weird time will tip your opponent off, since there's so much information to be gleaned from seemingly basic things like that. Obviously that doesn't work at lower levels because your opponent might just not know when to take his gas at his natural (I sure don't!), but people who are really fucking good will know what to do about it.
This, the majority of builds made by lower league people is based on exploiting the standard openings of the race you designed it against. However they pretty commonly have no fallback for if the opponent plays different to how you would expect. At the pro level other than random cheese all ins builds, even ones that specifically exploit one opening, have to be able to transition to deal with other things the opponent can throw at you. Working out an optimal solution to everything your opponent could do against your build is a waste of time until higher levels, better to just let the pros do that legwork for you.
On January 13 2012 17:35 Let it Raine wrote: standard logic is: if pros dont do it, then it sucks.
but that just isnt true. pro zergs still 14 gas 14 pool in zvp, and that sucks.
Why does 14 14 suck in ZvP ?
Cus every protoss at the moment will FFE on any map or die trying, there is little use for rushing out the speed upgrade when your not going to be in a fight until like 8+ mins.
I believe creativity is somewhat different things for a low-level player and a pro-level player. A low-level player is playing creatively when he proxies, tries to go nexus first on 18 supply or other "outside the box" things. A pro-level player tries to be creative in order to achieve an extra probe after 5 minutes of play. Or get an upgrade 20 seconds earlier.
The difference is in the margins. Low-level players have much larger margins while pro-level players are much more optimized to start with.
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.
I mean you can go waving that creativity flag however you want but if you aren't pro yourself then sadly your ideas for creative play will probably get completely destroyed by an actual pro. That's just the sad truth, we're not as good as we think we are. Pros don't often go for creative play because its just too much of a risk. I mean Leenocks shenanigans vs MC cost him a game.
On January 13 2012 21:05 ShotgunMike wrote: I believe creativity is somewhat different things for a low-level player and a pro-level player. A low-level player is playing creatively when he proxies, tries to go nexus first on 18 supply or other "outside the box" things. A pro-level player tries to be creative in order to achieve an extra probe after 5 minutes of play. Or get an upgrade 20 seconds earlier.
The difference is in the margins. Low-level players have much larger margins while pro-level players are much more optimized to start with.
The difference is that most low-level players make up stuff on the spot, like "in this game, I'm gonna this build and see how it goes". Wow it worked. I'm gonna do this from now on. I'm creative, yay!
A pro might look at a replay and think like "If he opens this way, on this maps and he scouts me opening this way, I can probably get away with skipping this tech and go straight for this non-standard thing that will catch him off guard. I'll tighten this build in a BO-tester a few times and then I'll work through the common variations with a practice partner. If it holds up, it could be a build to do once in a while in a BoX-series".
Creativity at its apex in SC:BW was minute timings and constant shifting of styles via scouting the opponent. Of course there are wrong moves, and such wrong moves exist for a reason: restriction. You need restrictions and rules and cast-iron timings that simply can't be done normally to make a game, well, a game.
Of course, there's also BoxeR type creativity in seeing so far ahead of your opponent and setting a gamble so far and away insane that nobody could ever have seen it... but such creativity is also based upon predicting the so called "lack of creativity" created by the boring macro style. Creativity ala TLO shouldn't really exist far into a game unless it's filled with undue bugs and odd ends. (Points to the first one to point out the game of BoxeR's that I'm referencing :DDD)
It's not so much that creativity is lost, simply that creativity is much harder to see and appreciate than it was in teh days where EMP'ing a CC and nuking was the godliest thing in the world.
I figure tons of pros at some point tried these creative things you speak of, but found out it wasn`t viable at their level of play. So it is likely you won`t see it often in tournament matches, but more likely on their stream when laddering. Pros always refine their games and builds so most differences is very subtle.
On January 13 2012 17:35 Let it Raine wrote: standard logic is: if pros dont do it, then it sucks.
but that just isnt true. pro zergs still 14 gas 14 pool in zvp, and that sucks.
Why does 14 14 suck in ZvP ?
Cus every protoss at the moment will FFE on any map or die trying, there is little use for rushing out the speed upgrade when your not going to be in a fight until like 8+ mins.
You mean like killing them as they try to expand? I don't know if I agree that 14 gas 14 pool sucks. it does keep the protoss guessing, "will he all in or will he expand?". sure hatch first give you a better economy, but it is riskier and also makes the protoss skimp on defence. Meaning that 14 gas 14 pool is acraully good, but you need to know why it is good. it is good because it is easy to transison to roach allins or banling busts or similar if you see that the protos is not properly defended.
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).
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.
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
In order to be really creative (not gimmicky), you need to be a master of the fundamentals first. Whether it's soccer, composing, tennis, math etc. you aren't going to be able to generate true strategies and creative ideas without first mastering the basics and understanding the fundamentals behind what you are doing.
The literal definition of "Creativity" is the use of imagination or original ideas. No where in that definition is the term "mastery". Mastery of anything has nothing to do with creativity. You don't have amazing literal skills to come up with a creative novel. How does that makes sense? Thinking of a way to deal with a problem that no one has thought of before has nothing to do with mastery.
In this game, being a masters or grandmaster player is irrelevant when it comes to being creative. If, for example, the norm of a specific build is to build 2 gates, a twilight, another gate, and then a robo for blink stalkers with obs, and i find a way to achieve this build in an order that better suits my goal, is that not being creative?
i think it just depends on what you are playing for- playing to get good (like masters) or are you playing for purely fun. For fun no reason not to just do w/e you want and have fun, but if you wanna improve then just focusing on solid strategies and getting good macro is what you should focus on.
I feel like creativity is often a euphemism for "lucky win." People like to say that foreigners are creative and Koreans all play the same precise, boring, macro style. And then a foreigner will win and everyone will hype up the "creative play." It's not that it's creative. It's that it's bad and is unstable. I'm not hating on foreigners, by the way, it's just an example, but just because something wins a game or a tournament before getting totally figured out and falling into irrelevancy doesn't mean there was anything meritorious or genius about it. It was just an unrefined style that happened to play on the fact that people don't expect it. As styles become more refined, we'll see fewer weird gimmicky plays and more of the solid style that Koreans tend to love.
Beginners in almost everything look at professionals and try to mimic what they do because it is a nice way to learn, it provides them with a nice model of comparison. The beauty is that it does make it easier to learn about mistakes. I am not saying that when you start to learn how to do something that messing around with it on your own is not good, on the contrary it is a great way to discover little things you might now have figured out by watching a professional do it. However if you want to learn how to become better at something then it is almost always a good idea to know what works and what does not, now taking time to figure out why something works or doesn't is always good but there is nothing wrong with a starcraft player for example learning that a 4 port build off 1 base is bad and never trying it out.
The part that comes with learning anything when you're just starting is to have a solid foundation while also exploring and learning from your own mistakes. The problem comes when new players come out of the gate trying really odd things then wondering why they are losing or wondering why they are not progressing at a 'normal' level. That is why new players in starcraft always hear over and over to try to mimic pro player builds, it's because it helps us teach them more effectively.
Think of it like learning how to play the drums. Nothing bad is going to happen if you start by playing the drums without an instructor or by researching aspects of drumming like technique, how to get certain sounds from hitting things a certain way or what have you, but it would probably be in your best interest to learn the basics. Once you know the basics then I personally don't see anything wrong with trying things out on your own and doing things your own way, but it is definitely more helpful to just tell a beginner drummer that playing with drum sticks is the best idea so he doesn't sit there and play with something like carrots :-P.
EDIT: My novel really applies to people who are trying to improve, if you wanna play or do something just for fun then by all means be as creative and as non-conventional as you would like! ^_^
The literal definition of "Creativity" is the use of imagination or original ideas. No where in that definition is the term "mastery". Mastery of anything has nothing to do with creativity. You don't have amazing literal skills to come up with a creative novel. How does that makes sense? Thinking of a way to deal with a problem that no one has thought of before has nothing to do with mastery.
In this game, being a masters or grandmaster player is irrelevant when it comes to being creative. If, for example, the norm of a specific build is to build 2 gates, a twilight, another gate, and then a robo for blink stalkers with obs, and i find a way to achieve this build in an order that better suits my goal, is that not being creative?
What he means is, in Starcraft in order to be creative and not gimmicky that is, that the strategy you come up is actually reliable, you must first master the fundamentals, because otherwise you might create a gimmicky build that works if the opponent is playing blindfolded.
The literal definition of "Creativity" is the use of imagination or original ideas. No where in that definition is the term "mastery". Mastery of anything has nothing to do with creativity. You don't have amazing literal skills to come up with a creative novel. How does that makes sense? Thinking of a way to deal with a problem that no one has thought of before has nothing to do with mastery.
In this game, being a masters or grandmaster player is irrelevant when it comes to being creative. If, for example, the norm of a specific build is to build 2 gates, a twilight, another gate, and then a robo for blink stalkers with obs, and i find a way to achieve this build in an order that better suits my goal, is that not being creative?
9.99/10 if you're lower leveled you're not going to be more efficient than the given "right" build order. that or you chose the wrong build order/style, or not adapting correctly. also depends on if you have a "correct" goal in mind.
also for thousandth time: your opponent's "playing like shit" mechanics/decision making can lead to false success. (it was more him then you, or a combo of you both fucking up).
we are speaking very broad terms, and games are very complex/delicate at higher levels of thought.
Its lovely if you try new things out, but make sure it works, cuz thats all it matters, and i seriously doubt any of us can make a much more efficient opening than the pros.
if kiwi didn't have mechanics, he would literally never win a game against a real player. you can be creative, but that doesn't mean you're not awful. (please not, i'm not saying kiwi is awful, i'm saying his mechanics in addition to his weird play makes him)
mastery, or at least high proficiency, is critical to substantive and rapid creativity because you need to know where the current boundary is to step outside of it. You can see this in many different fields such as arts, sports, etc. Look at PvZ in BW, where it you can clearly see the discontinuity between the pre- and post- Bisu build eras. I would also agree that SC2's faster pace leaves smaller windows for creativity. You can brute force creativity through trial and error, but be prepared for a lot of dead ends.
On January 16 2012 08:17 Priestt wrote: The literal definition of "Creativity" is the use of imagination or original ideas. No where in that definition is the term "mastery". Mastery of anything has nothing to do with creativity. You don't have amazing literal skills to come up with a creative novel.
You can't express your "creative" ideas in a novel if you refuse to learn grammar first. Sure you can make up your own but no one else will be able to read it. What you're proposing is like saying never read any books because then you can't write creatively.
I see two divergent philosophies being introduced in this thread: "Playing to win at all costs" and "playing to explore the game mechanics". As much as I love David Sirlin's writing, it seems like he's almost done some of these communities a disservice because tucked in the back of his book on "Playing to Win" is a section explaining that you have to play in order to experiment, play in order to be creative, and play in order to develop context for unexpected situations. You have to do both in order to become a skilled player. (Unless you're IdrA, then you never learn the theory behind the actual units and build orders and never escape the confines of mid-level professional StarCraft.) And yet, all people want to discuss when they parrot his philosophy is the three words perched on the top of the book.
Yes, you'll get much better much more quickly by executing build orders which are considered "strong" in professional play, which are only strong at the time because build orders that counter them have not been developed yet. If a player wants to move past mid-Diamond with that build order and be competitive with players past that point, it's crucial to understand why they do that. And if possible, there's nothing wrong with experimenting and tweaking that build order to more properly suit what occurs in the level of play that player is currently in.
On January 13 2012 18:36 Lakona wrote: If you're below Masters you should ABSOLUTELY NOT be trying to come up with your own ideas.
I've never heard of Bill Roper being in Master League at any point, and I would take his opinion on StarCraft over just about anyone who has ever posted on this message board.
The biggest argument against creativity is that you will simply create strats that beat bad players. E.g using colossus to counter a marine push in bronze. It is simply easier to learn from pros and to know that the strats you practice will work at all levels of play provided you are good enough at executing it. Think 4gate, it is an amazing build and will kill most plat level players and below if executed correctly. However pros don't do it cause it sucks and better players will stomp it.
True creativity in Starcraft comes from an incredible understanding of the game and in being able to test out builds against a player playing optimally. The amount of time this takes an the need for access to high level players means that creativity will unfortunately come mainly from pro players.
To put it bluntly any original builds you or I come up with are most likely crap we would both just waste our time and shift our style of play into a direction where it will simply run into a wall where it fails when you play against good players
On January 16 2012 12:05 ReignFayth wrote: anybody can be extremely creative, but when it doesn't win you games, wtf is the point?
Most people can't though. Being creative is actually creating something new. Most people will and only does what they've seen been done before. Creativity isn't a common trait but it exists, otherwise we'd still be in the stone age. But saying that "anybody can be extremely creative" simply isn't true. I agree with the what's the points if it doesn't win you games part though. But I guess people can have different goals in the game. Some play only to have fun. Some play only to win. Some only thinks it's fun to win.
I don't believe that. I believe that, yes, some people are more creative than others, but that doesn't mean that most people can't come up with their own ideas. Specifically with/for sc2. If someone were to come up with their own variation of a build, that would be creativity. Creativity in this post generally has a negative connotation. I simply want people to not feel restricted by the "norm". Don't be afraid to try new things. Even if a strategy is out of date, try it out and figure out for yourself why it's out of date. Don't just assume that it's out of date because you've heard that before.
The moral is: Don't be afraid to experiment just because you've been told not to.
EPT
)? 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.
