|
Author's Note:
+ Show Spoiler +Whatup guys, my name is Evan "FCsTrYKe" Kim. You probably don't know me since I'm a fairly casual gamer and tend to skirt just below the level of people who are starting to go to competitions (most notably a top 75 Red Alert 3 player for what little it's worth). While for the most part I just lurk and listen, I think that this particular forum could benefit from my expertise, which is maximizing the rate at which you progress given any prior experience or amount of time you have to play the game.
Until the beta starts again (and likely continuing past that) I'll be regularly writing articles about approaching the game, deliberate play, open mindedness, and other such fun topics. For easy access, I'll be archiving the posts on fcstryke.blogspot.com but only because I don't feel like clogging up the forums too much.
It should be a fun journey, if only to burn time until the beta comes back instead of mashing your F5 key out of existence.
As a side note, my articles are geared for any player up to the low-mid Diamond level, but should serve as a gentle reminder of good habits for top tier Diamond players.
The Three Pillars of Skill
I started out with a relatively simple goal: To teach people the most effective ways to quickly improve as a player. Unfortunately, it proved many times more difficult than I thought it would, simply because the average gamer has no concept of what actually makes any one player better than another.
So as my flagship, I’m going to discuss the three pillars which together define a player’s overall skill. Every article after this one will assume that you understand these three relatively simple concepts.
The First Pillar: Strategy
As Starcraft 2 is a real time strategy game, it’s easy to assume that everything you do is a strategy. Such is not the case.
By our definition, strategy is actually very specific and is defined as the overarching plan you use to guide your actions in game.
As a simple example, I’m going to use ZvP from the Zerg’s point of view. A typical Zerg strategy is to fast expand, defend the early game with speedlings and hydralisks, and then add in corruptors and broodlords to end the game.
Strategies can be specific (9 pylon 12 gate) or loose (I want to get some early Zealots). They can be static (I’m going to expand exactly at 60 food) or they can be flexible (I’ll expand when I feel safe). Heck, they can even be nonexistent (I have no idea what I’m doing so I’m just gonna make lots of gateways and see how that feels).
Note that I’m not talking about what makes good strategy, I’m only talking about what strategy actually is. Good strategy is a discussion for an entirely different article.
Going hand in hand with strategy is Tactics, which is our second pillar of skill.
The Second Pillar: Tactics
Yes, I understand that everybody has their own definition of tactics. For our purposes, we’ll define tactics as the short term or opportunistic usage of units which maximizes their value.
That’s a pretty vague description, so I’ll just give you some obvious examples:
1. Making sentries is a part of your strategy, but placing good force fields in battle is tactics
2. Forming a build around a certain timing is strategy, but getting into good position for that battle is a tactic
3. Having a marine, marauder, medivac composition is a strategy, but attacking the front and dropping the high ground is a tactic.
Of course, you could be unreasonable and assume that anything can be a strategy (I totally planned on doing X before the game) or that anything can be a tactic (I’m maximizing the units I made by doing a timing attack at this point in time), but I think that with a little common sense you can easily tell the difference.
I probably won’t be doing too many articles on tactics simply because the way in which you use your units is something that requires a lot of finesse and experience. All that’s important is that you understand the distinction between our first pillar strategy and our third pillar, mechanics.
The Third Pillar: Mechanics
Unlike strategy and tactics which are more abstract concepts, mechanics is rather straightforward. We’ll define mechanics as anything you do to make the strategy and tactics in your head actually happen in game.
The first part of mechanics, which I call micro mechanics, has to do with your usage of the keyboard and mouse to make things happen. Smart use of hotkeys, kiting individual units, moving armies, building buildings, and just about anything else you need your keyboard and mouse to do count as micro mechanics.
The second part of mechanics is something I call macro mechanics. Macro mechanics involve the clean execution of strategies because you remember to do things when you’re supposed to. Remembering to make workers (if that’s what you intended), not getting supply blocked, spending your money, and other such things fall under this branch of mechanics.
It is my opinion that these three elements: Strategy, Tactics, and Mechanics, come together to form the overall skill of a player and that any finer points of play can be classified under one of those three headers. Again, while this article doesn’t have any practical advice, by understanding the pillars of skill, you can better understand my guides to come. If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions, I’d love to hear about them!
|
You seem to have decent knowledge about those things. Iam also a player that is interested in the big picture like you. your strategy section might be a bit simplistic but I assume you wanted it that way.
I'am looking forward to see more of this.
|
My blog honestly isn't anything major or anything, I'm primarily using it as an archive for your convenience. And since blogger is a pretty trusted name, that's the one I chose.
|
is this primarily on 1v1?
cuz i see another pillar which is the pillar of communication/synergy for 2v2 or 3v3/4v4
|
Indeed, this series will be exclusively about 1v1 strategy. I don't know anything at all about 2v2/3v3/4v4 although I assume the same principles apply - there's just an additional layer of imperfect control and knowledge between yourself and your ally which you need to bridge.
|
I always like reading articles like this just to refresh my mind once in a while. You forget the little things every so often.
Maybe adding experience as the foundation of those three pillars. The stronger the 'foundation,' the more resilient the pillars will be.
Anyways, I will follow your articles to come.
|
I am curious on your thoughts around these pillars as themselves. Do you personally believe that a player can become great by perfecting one of these, or are they all prerequisites for becoming great? Surely, if you master all three, then you will become emperor of the universe, but given that you only have a limited amount of time to improve, is your point that you should perfect one of the pillars, or become medicore in all three?
|
On June 17 2010 17:18 NET wrote:
I always like reading articles like this just to refresh my mind once in a while. You forget the little things every so often.
Maybe adding experience as the foundation of those three pillars. The stronger the 'foundation,' the more resilient the pillars will be.
Anyways, I will follow your articles to come.
Hey thanks for the support! I'll actually be talking about experience and playing the game in a later article. It's definitely a super important point in and of itself.
|
On June 17 2010 18:28 Genesis128 wrote:
I am curious on your thoughts around these pillars as themselves. Do you personally believe that a player can become great by perfecting one of these, or are they all prerequisites for becoming great? Surely, if you master all three, then you will become emperor of the universe, but given that you only have a limited amount of time to improve, is your point that you should perfect one of the pillars, or become medicore in all three?
As you'll see in the next article (which I hope to crank out today), I believe that the pillars actually interconnect with each other in a very specific manner and that focusing your energy correctly will allow for super accelerated growth.
Just sit tight, I'd rather not talk too much about it without being able to fully back up my arguments 
|
|
|
Nice post man. Enjoying your analysis.
Coincidentally Day9 daily #136 6/14, which I am currently watching, discusses the concept of Strategy and Tactics.
I'll quote an excerpt:
"So, a strategy is, what's going on from start to finish, its how things link together. Dropping a tank on an opponents high ground is not a strategy; its like a tactic that you can sort of incorporate, but its not a strategy. Doing something like rushing for vikings to harass him, and because you rushed viking you have a factory and a starport available so you can get a tank and then get a medievac to do the drop and you have the viking to protect that high ground and after this you have enough money to get an expansion up and because you also have the factory finished, you can build tanks to defend the expansion, now we're talking about a strategy; all these things linking together over time."
Would I be right in guess that your analysis was directly influence by Day9's? Or maybe you guys are just working on a similar wavelength.
Either way I'm looking forward to more posts.
P.S. Yay for first TL post!
|
There's certainly no denying that Sean has had a huge impact on me as a player (definitely watch his dailies at day9tv.blip.tv), but in this particular case it's only coincidence that our definitions seem to line up so well.
After all, the terms strategy, mechanics, and tactics have been around for quite some time in RTS circles. I'm just making sure that people know what I'm babbling about when I'm discussing these sorts of things.
|
The second part of mechanics is something I call macro mechanics. Macro mechanics involve the clean execution of strategies because you remember to do things when you’re supposed to. Remembering to make workers (if that’s what you intended), not getting supply blocked, spending your money, and other such things fall under this branch of mechanics.
Hehe, I think I remember a day9 daily where he emphasizes the link between mechanics and just good old plain "remembering". It would seem that you draw some inspiration from day9. Not at all that I am saying that this is a bad thing. I myself am a huge fan of him and would use any oppertunity to quote him.
EDIT: Oh, you already commented on this. Guess I type to slow 
As you'll see in the next article (which I hope to crank out today), I believe that the pillars actually interconnect with each other in a very specific manner and that focusing your energy correctly will allow for super accelerated growth.
Just sit tight, I'd rather not talk too much about it without being able to fully back up my arguments
I am really looking forward to hearing more from you. This is the kind of topic that gets me all worked up and I love to speculate on. Too many players tend to keep their focus on the mechanics and micro and APM so much that they kind of are missing the bigger picture.
|
I think i agree with those being the main elements of being successful at sc2. It's kinda like red, yellow, and blue to the world of color; everything else is built off the core 3 colors.
After reading the post, i started thinking about which one caters to the most "creativity," the thing that really separates good players from bad. In my opinion, the tactics have the most room for originality. When it comes down to strategy, there's only so much you can really do, unless you happen to come up with something crazy and revolutionary (which rarely happens.) I say this because the tried and true build orders are usually "the best," and in high levels of play, screwing up the BO usually results in getting rolled by the enemy.
With tactics, I think there is still much exploring to be done. The options seem limitless. What tactics you employ is basically limited to your creativity. Proxies(not early game, that's usually just gambling), building placements (like bunkers, spine crawlers, cannons, etc), troop micro, and so on really separate a good sc player from the revolutionary players.
Just my 2 cents.
|
The choice of word I used there, "remembering" is most certainly a callback to that daily. The greatest thing about Sean is that he puts so eloquently that which we only knew through intuition (or didn't know at all).
I'm going to try to avoid going over topics that he's gone over, but I'm sure you'll find my writings littered with his influence. Sometimes I just can't think of a better way to say things in a way which makes so much sense.
|
On June 17 2010 19:11 haLs wrote:
I think i agree with those being the main elements of being successful at sc2. It's kinda like red, yellow, and blue to the world of color; everything else is built off the core 3 colors.
After reading the post, i started thinking about which one caters to the most "creativity," the thing that really separates good players from bad. In my opinion, the tactics have the most room for originality. When it comes down to strategy, there's only so much you can really do, unless you happen to come up with something crazy and revolutionary (which rarely happens.) I say this because the tried and true build orders are usually "the best," and in high levels of play, screwing up the BO usually results in getting rolled by the enemy.
With tactics, I think there is still much exploring to be done. The options seem limitless. What tactics you employ is basically limited to your creativity. Proxies(not early game, that's usually just gambling), building placements (like bunkers, spine crawlers, cannons, etc), troop micro, and so on really separate a good sc player from the revolutionary players.
Just my 2 cents.
That's definitely a good observation. There are so many ways to use the units you make which certainly separates the good players from the great.
However I think there's also a lot to be said about creative strategy, which is the topic not of this next article, but one in the future.
|
Nicely written! I look forward to reading more from you.
|
It's about time someone focused on the 'bigger picture' rather than on specific strategies. What many players don't seem to realize is that these two pillars, mechanics and tactics, are just as if not more important than strategy, the first pillar. Truth be told, I can beat an opponent with weaker tactics/mechanics with any strategy I choose (barring the obviously fail cases i.e. mass probes).
So many players are so focused on improving their play with this strategy or that that they lose sight of the big picture. Personally I'm looking forward to what fcstrike has to say about this.
Oh, and for all of those in doubt - I've played against fcstrike and he goes about even with me 1v1 - and I was rank #1 in my diamond league (before and after patch 14). He knows what he's talking about period.
|
Im sorry but this has been known FOREVER. I dont think you said one useful thingt in your post. Im sure pretty much everyone on TL knows what micro/macro is and maybe some people confuse strategy and tactics, but it doesnt matter! I dont understand what the point of all this was besides sharing you vague knowledge of RTS games and give us a definition. Please dont spam TL forums with crap like this....
EDIT: Players know what they have to work on, if I see that both of us have been massing armies till 7 minutes and he has double my army... My macro needs work. If Im playing and and I only make Hellions and my opponent uses Banshees I see Im doing a bad strategy. It does not matter what you want to call it, but yes, those are the pillers... Plus mindgames is another but with a lesser impact.
|
10387 Posts
Where does adaptability/game sense lie under?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
