|
Admirable effort but far too wordy and flowery. Tee, you must distill your thoughts into much less words. The shorter something is the more likely they are to read it. I found the amount of words didnt match the amount value in your writing. Brevity please old chap.
My thoughts on SC2 strategy:
1. SC2 is an arms race - one must strive for more units, better units and bigger economy. 2. SC2 has elements of Rock, Paper, Scissors - one must be aware of which units are the best counters for which units. For example, marines are the counter for voidrays. Banelings are the counter for mass marines. 3. SC2 games occur in different maps. You must know the terrain and where there are things to take advantage of, i.e choke points.
|
I despise when people say Starcraft has Rock Paper Scissors gameplay. The unit dynamics are not so simplistic that Unit X automatically beats Unit Y. There is almost never a situation where only 1 kind of unit is fighting 1 kind of unit. It depends on a huge number of different factors, such as army control, relative army sizes, supporting units/spells, positioning, production capacity, upgrades, etc.
The classic example would be of course, the Lurker vs Marine dynamic from BW, but for SC2 examples we can say Ghosts counter High Templar with Cloak and EMP, and High Templar counter Ghosts with Feedback and Archons (I love that these units counter each other, such an awesome dynamic).
To say it's Rock Paper Scissors is absolutely idiotic. Just because some units do better against certain units, does not mean that it is an absolute, and is inherently inaccurate because the units will almost never fight alone. Marines dropped behind a mineral line could be in such good positioning that banelings are not the "counter" to them, or have such control as to be picked up by the medivac before being hit, or be behind maruaders/tanks, or be in such small numbers as to make banelings inefficient. If I want to counter banelings with marines, I can. Just because the banelings do better against marines than other units does not mean that it is blatantly a win to build them against marines. The game is not so black and white, BioTech, it is a wide spectrum of factors and possibilities.
|
Fyrewolf
re-read my post and dont misquote me you cranky Yankee. I said there are elements of R, P, S. Elements! That means its similar too R, P, S.
I'll repeat. There are elements of Rock, Paper, Scissors in SC2 and marines are probably the best counter to void rays. And then the colossus is usually the best counter to marines. And vikings are usually the best counter to colossus. So if you scan and see your zerg enemy has some roaches then get some marauders.
I think youre on your own old chap to deny that there arent elements of R, P, S in SC2.
|
Elements of R P S is that each one of those 100% counters the other, and only 1 of them fights 1 at a time. I would deny that elements of R P S are in SC2, based on my examples of how much other factors come into play.
Being more effective against something does not mean the same thing as being R P S or even having elements of R P S. Just because some units strengths/weaknesses might be effective against other units weaknesses/strengths does not mean it has elements of R P S.
Zerglings are more mobile than marines and can use this to be more effective against them, marines can stim and do lots of dps for low cost, they can use this to be effective against them. Units can flip flop in effectiveness based on the situation and army sizes, or like ghosts and hts, counter each other. What about Stalkers vs Roaches? What if Protoss has Blink? What if Roaches have Burrow? What if Force Fields get set up? What if there is Creep underneath?
The unit dynamics just aren't even close to being like/similar to/having elements of R P S, they just aren't that simple
|
|
On July 20 2011 10:20 Fyrewolf wrote: Elements of R P S is that each one of those 100% counters the other, and only 1 of them fights 1 at a time. I would deny that elements of R P S are in SC2, based on my examples of how much other factors come into play.
Being more effective against something does not mean the same thing as being R P S or even having elements of R P S. Just because some units strengths/weaknesses might be effective against other units weaknesses/strengths does not mean it has elements of R P S.
Zerglings are more mobile than marines and can use this to be more effective against them, marines can stim and do lots of dps for low cost, they can use this to be effective against them. Units can flip flop in effectiveness based on the situation and army sizes, or like ghosts and hts, counter each other. What about Stalkers vs Roaches? What if Protoss has Blink? What if Roaches have Burrow? What if Force Fields get set up? What if there is Creep underneath?
The unit dynamics just aren't even close to being like/similar to/having elements of R P S, they just aren't that simple
Maaaate, never have I read such nonsense. You interpret things very narrowly and literally. That is YOUR interpretation old chap - not mine. I qualified my statement saying its similar to RPS, and you twist things. I'm a 1400 Diamond terran so I'm no goose at this game.
The counter to mass marauders is immortals...the counter to mass immortals is arguably mass marines...how can you argue that this is not similar to RPS. Last night I played a P who got a few colossus and a few sentries but heaps of stalkers. Naturally I got heaps of marauders. I ended up winning, mainly due to some strategic errors on his part and failing to get unit upgrades vs my 1-1 troops.
|
The thing about RPS is that from a game theory perspective, it's a very simple game. It's completely solved and the optimal strategy is simply to choose at random. To the extent that there is further strategy, it's basically just psychological, trying to anticipate whether or not ones opponent is going to choose to deviate from the optimal strategy, and if so, to choose strategy that maximally exploits his deviation.
There is something like this in the tournament metagame in starcraft. Things like choosing to cheese on a giant macro map on g1 of a BoX series, or something like that. But there's really not much of an analogy to be drawn between the relationships between units in SC2 and the relationship between rock, paper, and scissors. And not just because the units' relationships are much more complex, but also because the relationships between units are also not even that meaningful outside of the conceptual framework that makes up the strategy for the rest of the game: The map, positioning, micro, tactics, economy, and everything else.
As far as SC2 being played on different maps, that's pretty easy to generalize since the features that define maps strategically is a fairly small set: chokes, high ground, xel'naga towers, distance, and placement of expansions.
|
The unit dynamics in SC2 can include such things as: 1. Units can flip flop(multiple times) in effectiveness against other units based on the situation. (Marines perfectly split vs Banelings, This would be like if rock beat paper if scissors was played previously)
2. Units can have both strengths and weaknesses against a unit (HT+Ghost, as if paper beat rock and rock also beat paper)
3. Multiple Units fight multiple other units(This is like trying to play three way rock paper scissors, you can't always figure out who wins consistently)
Just having units be Strong or Weak to something is NOT the same thing as having elements of RPS.
Just to note, I agree with your other points, I'm just saying SC2 does not have elements of RPS. At all.
|
On July 20 2011 04:50 Anihc wrote: What is with the recent influx of "guides" that are simply a wall of text with overgeneralizations and very little concrete advice?
Sorry for being harsh but this isn't helpful at all. Try narrowing down your scope and then give specific instructions and examples.
EDIT: To all the posters who think this is good: can you explain exactly how it was helpful for you? Can we please up our standards a bit, long post with decent organization and proper usage of English does not equal good.
Wtf is your problem? Hes clearly spent a lot of time on this and It has helped me and probably a lot of other people out. Even if you think its trash why do you have to bring him down like that.
|
On July 20 2011 12:18 Helicopter- wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2011 04:50 Anihc wrote: What is with the recent influx of "guides" that are simply a wall of text with overgeneralizations and very little concrete advice?
Sorry for being harsh but this isn't helpful at all. Try narrowing down your scope and then give specific instructions and examples.
EDIT: To all the posters who think this is good: can you explain exactly how it was helpful for you? Can we please up our standards a bit, long post with decent organization and proper usage of English does not equal good. Wtf is your problem? Hes clearly spent a lot of time on this and It has helped me and probably a lot of other people out. Even if you think its trash why do you have to bring him down like that.
Show some respect Helicopter-!. He is a blue poster, not some 8 post count nobody. He even asked people to explain how it was helpful to you and you do nothing of the sort. Way to contribute. You can disagree, but show some damn respect!!
|
I almost wish there were an extra classification of posts . . . say [m] for "mentality" or something. A post like this would be a perfect example. It's true that it's light on concrete examples and X,Y,Z instructions and hews closely to theorycrafting. However, discussions on how to approach a game and the meta-considerations that guide all the actions one takes during a game are absolutely useful and should have a place here.
EDIT: My point is that I'm always on the lookout for posts attempting to help people improve their overall game sense and general understanding of why you want to do certain things. That's what the OP attempted to do and while there are legitimate flaws, it's sort of the opposite end of the spectrum from posts that are so rote and narrow as to be useless when the fluidity of a real game comes into play.
|
Great work! Please take Anihc's advice and make this even better. If this gets fleshed out a little more with examples, I will be sending all of my noobie friends here.
|
On July 20 2011 05:25 archonOOid wrote: Why is the sections organized in 1.1/2.1 instead of 1/2? Is this because more content will be added? If, so it's needed. I was especially interested in the section 4.1 but could you develop your thoughts a bit further?
Yep, the sections were made that way simply because that is the convention I have grown accustomed to writing in. I definitely plan to expand on section 4 in future.
On July 20 2011 06:29 Fyrewolf wrote: I would like to make a point about 3.4 though: "3) If you have an economic advantage, and an army advantage (1a,b,c ; 2a,b,c) and everything else is equal; your opponent has very little chance unless you mess up. Other advantages exhibit varying levels of dynamic play."
While it is certainly not desirable to be behind in both economy and army while being equal in other advantages, it can be offset by other advantages, most notably tech and more specifically, cloak and detection.
Definitely true, therefore the qualifier 'all else being equal'. I should adjust it to demonstrate that clearer. Essentially the point I'm trying to make is that once you have these two in the bag, your road to victory is clear and a loss should only result from sloppy play (assuming roughly equal tech etc). the point that you can still die to a lack of detection raises an excellent strategical idea, in that when you are ahead and both players know it, you want to buy safety, as most players will take risks (such as DTs) to come back from being behind. so detection solidifies your advantage. will definitely put that in somewhere
|
On July 20 2011 05:03 well-named wrote:
That however would be something better left to the subject of [G]Advantages and Strategy in SC2 Part II: Intermediate Concepts and Part III: Advanced Strategy).
thanks for the input, would definitely like to write those at some stage
|
On July 20 2011 07:17 Anihc wrote: I think you guys are misunderstanding my criticism here. I don’t necessarily disagree with anything in the guide, it’s just that there is so much fluff that I have trouble figuring out how to apply it to an actual game. It’s a fun read and all but reading theory doesn’t translate to better Starcraft playing. I know that there are some examples but it’s really not enough. If you make statements 1 2 3, I expect to see multiple examples for each of those statements. Instead there are 10 statements and then 5 examples to try to cover all of them.
So here’s some concrete suggestions:
1. Narrow down your scope. Really the meat of your guide is just section 3, why not make that your entire guide? Then you can have a separate section for each of the different types of advantages you can get, and how to play out that advantage correctly to win.
2. More examples. Every time you make a proposition, back it up with evidence. What would be even better is if you used an example from a real game that demonstrated the point you were trying to make. Include links to replays, vods, etc.
3. Include analysis of actual games or build orders. This is what I mean by specific instruction or advice. For example, talk about MC’s 1 gate expand build in PvZ where he chronoes out 3 zealots. This gives him an initial army advantage which can allow him to safely scout, put pressure on the Zerg, and let him set up his own expansion, which then gives him an economic advantage. Using a specific example like that is much better than just randomly saying “oh if you have an army advantage you can then expand and translate it into an economic advantage.”
Yes I know that’s asking for a lot, but when you title your guide something really broad like “Advantages and Strategy in SC2,” you better deliver. Right now it just seems like an unfinished work from your collection of thoughts.
Firstly, thanks for taking the time to read my guide and further time to write coherent constructive criticism. And you're definitely right about the fluff, sometimes I tend to be a bit verbose when I write, and I read through things a few times to try and trim them down and distill my thoughts into a coherent argument. Sections 1 and 2 could definitely be almost skipped by most players and I should definitely make an effort to make them more concise when I get the time.
point 1: I just felt that the guide would be quite bare and lack background if this was the entire guide. But you're right, the meat of the guide is here, and this is the section (along with 4) i plan on expanding rather than shrinking.
point 2: I would love to put this in, essentially time constraints were the problem. i.e. I didn't want to spend too much time writing the guide if no-one liked it anyway. But as some people seemed to have found it useful or at least an enjoyable read; I will endeavor to include links (preferably vods) in future
point 3: my response is similar to point 2; once again, you're right, that would be awesome to add in, I just didn't have time to nail down specific examples if no one cared that's a solid example though, might flesh that out and use that at some stage
It is somewhat unfinished, and I would have loved it to be perfect from the get go, but I weighed up waiting for a finished product and gauging interest.
|
Yeah people have to realize that when you lose it is probably not because of balance unless you have top Grandmasters, and even in there I doubt that is a factor at all. The Zerg vs Protoss upgrade analogy is understood but awkward, as double Evolution is by far more common than double Forge in PvZ, so theoretically Zerg can always kill Protoss with their upgrade advantage.
Except in the common losing a battle situation, in the top levels, to gain an advantage is to also open up a disadvantage in your play. As mentioned, if I want to hope to receive an advantage opening Dark Templars, my Tech and army will greatly suffer. There are common ones such as a 6 pool, and more advanced ones such as opening Blink. If you try to hide an expansion, your army will be weaker and your timing window will grow scarier and wider during the next few minutes.
Converting an advantage, as you mentioned, is actually a lot harder than it sounds. Obviously trying to aggrandize your economic advantage sounds safe and normal, but a counter "fuck it I hope this works" all in may actually kill you. If your army can still kill it while taking economic advantages, you should have saved yourself some time and just killed him instantly. Leading on to my next point, it irritates me how bad players can identify serious advantages, and try to expand instead of just straight up killing them. For example, if a Zerg Roach all-ins you and kills off about 2 Sentries and a Probe while losing all his Roaches, some players try to just stay and tech to Colossi, while a standard 6 gate timing would just finish him off. Some users may say that you cannot be sure of their army size and may lose your advantage. My main point is a SERIOUS advantage, with that you should definitely have map awareness and be alert of how large his army is.
|
The idea of "special users you cannot argue with" is pretty hilarious. I would of course address some of the inaccuracies in Anhic's criticism, but since he is one of the golden few I will bide my tongue.
As to the OP :
I had long considered the broad triumvirate of economy, tech and units but I feel like you have gotten into some excellent detail about these strategies. Their is definitely room to expand your guide, but the very core of it is excellent and portable; it is strategic understanding that goes beyond simple pro gamer copying or race specific build order.
In many ways SC 2 has improved over SC 1 for the casual gamer (something I have never considered myself, as far as SC is concerned). Because of the game mechanics, how it macros for you, 'average joes' have a chance to compete based upon strategic understanding alone.
Criticism is extremely valuable - if t is warranted. Perhaps it is a little verbose in places (intelligent people tend to ramble on) but worthwhile criticism would be pointing out specific strategical aspects he raised that were inaccurate.
|
On July 20 2011 16:18 BestZergOnEast wrote: The idea of "special users you cannot argue with" is pretty hilarious. I would of course address some of the inaccuracies in Anhic's criticism, but since he is one of the golden few I will bide my tongue.
Please share, I insist What is inaccurate in my criticism?
|
I'd love to know them. The reason I haven't posted or argued with Anihc are (In order of importance):
I don't see any inaccuracies He's right I agree with him
So I haven't posted. He's got blue posts. As I agree with him I'm sure whatever I have to say can be better represented by him.
So don't go off saying he's a special user. It doesn't matter. There are still way too many guides, usually MUCH worse than this one, in the strategy forum. Worse yet, they never last. They reach at best 10 pages then disappear, to be replaced with another.
As the good random general guide to starcraft poster said,
"Make sure to clean out your ears and brush your teeth! You never know when a clog of earwax may happen and cost you those precious seconds when the game says your workers are under attack!!"
Listen to Anihc.
|
On July 20 2011 16:33 Probe1 wrote:I'd love to know them. The reason I haven't posted or argued with Anihc are (In order of importance): I don't see any inaccuracies He's right I agree with him
So I haven't posted. He's got blue posts. As I agree with him I'm sure whatever I have to say can be better represented by him. So don't go off saying he's a special user. It doesn't matter. There are still way too many guides, usually MUCH worse than this one, in the strategy forum. Worse yet, they never last. They reach at best 10 pages then disappear, to be replaced with another. As the good random general guide to starcraft poster said, "Make sure to clean out your ears and brush your teeth! You never know when a clog of earwax may happen and cost you those precious seconds when the game says your workers are under attack!!"Listen to Anihc. I am not saying he is wrong, but I am sure you guys wouldn't be all referring to him and praising him if he wasn't a highlighted user.
|
|
|
|