|
On July 21 2011 02:23 0c3LoT wrote: I'm just wondering if you've read Ver's "How to Improve" PDF.
I think a lot of what you said in this Guide directly goes against what Ver was saying.
Thanks for mentioning this. I just read through that again, and I would like to highlight some things from that article.
Probably one of the most popular questions posed by new players wanting to improve is where to focus their attention firrst, on strategy, or on mechanics. Unfortunately, this question operates from a flawed premise that mechanics and strategy (in this case meaning knowledge of the game) are separate skills that are not related. The correct answer to this is both. More specifically, your time spent improving should be a balance between theory and practice. Mechanics and game knowledge are inexorably linked together and cannot be completely separated and focused on individually. Therefore they are best worked at synergistically from two angles: 1. Theory is divided into gaining new knowledge by studying pro games as well as going over your own games to refine your play. 2. Practice is both practice against human opponents but in addition, practice in single player is invaluable to get down core skills and should be done first and frequently upon making any major strategy change.
Because Strategy is such a difficult skill to improve overall, there is no real concrete plan for improving at it beyond a certain point other than continuing to understand the game further via studying progames and comparing your own results.
Game sense is primarily built through experience and review. While having a strong theoretical back- ground will help greatly, it may not trigger the appropriate reaction in-game until the experience is there as well.
In other words, you may think you're learning a lot from reading this, but in the end is your game play going to change any? Not likely. The OP has laid out a theoretical framework, but lacks the real-game connections to utilize any of the discussed "strategy." Saying "oh well this is just a high level guide to get you thinking about strategy, it's not necessary meant to have any immediate benefits" is only an excuse to not have to validate your arguments. I'm willing to bet that if you make an effort to find concrete examples to support all your assumptions, you're going to end up having to rework or even completely reject many of them.
Honestly the reason why I'm making such a big deal out of this is because there's a ton of potential for this guide, but in its current state almost none of that potential is being realized.
|
On July 21 2011 03:09 CecilSunkure wrote:You have probably already seen this, but here's the link to my guide on improving for reference.
I think there's a pretty clear difference of intent between a guide on efficiently improving and a theoretical guide seeking to provide a high level overview of strategy in general.
That said I have only read the similar guide from BW (Ver's, as referenced earlier) and not yours, so I should do that.
I think the points that people are making about guides such as this one not having enormous and immediate practical benefit to players (whereas your guide may) is well taken, as are the complaints about standards for [G] posts. But I also think Tee's point that many people's passion for the game comes from an interest in the strategy on a theoretical level is also well taken.
Obviously I'm quite new to the TL forums so it's not for me to say what is proper and what's not in this particular subforum, especially over established and respected posters, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that such a forum could encompass both discussions that are practical (BO guides, tactics and tricks, timings, etc.) and also ones that are theoretical.
In any case, I must respectfully suggest that it seems a little wrong to me to accuse the OP of pretentiousness while at the same time refusing to even read most of the post or actually engage any of the things he says which you disagree with.
Edit: I take it back, I have read your guide, and I got something out of it, so let me say thank you...
|
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.
Some people want to become blue posters. (not this thread specifically) They make a nicely formatted thread but with the insight of a platinum level player.
|
On July 21 2011 03:27 well-named wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2011 03:09 CecilSunkure wrote:You have probably already seen this, but here's the link to my guide on improving for reference. I think there's a pretty clear difference of intent between a guide on efficiently improving and a theoretical guide seeking to provide a high level overview of strategy in general. That said I have only read the similar guide from BW (Ver's, as referenced earlier) and not yours, so I should do that. I think the points that people are making about guides such as this one not having enormous and immediate practical benefit to players (whereas your guide may) is well taken, as are the complaints about standards for [G] posts. But I also think Tee's point that many people's passion for the game comes from an interest in the strategy on a theoretical level is also well taken. Obviously I'm quite new to the TL forums so it's not for me to say what is proper and what's not in this particular subforum, especially over established and respected posters, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that such a forum could encompass both discussions that are practical (BO guides, tactics and tricks, timings, etc.) and also ones that are theoretical. In any case, I must respectfully suggest that it seems a little wrong to me to accuse the OP of pretentiousness while at the same time refusing to even read most of the post or actually engage any of the things he says which you disagree with. I understand the concern and appreciate it, but as I said I was avoiding discussion on the content directly. This is because what mainly urked me was how the post was written, which is what most of my response was about. I even said "from a writer's and reader's standpoint", not "from a player's or strategist's standpoint".
I also feel it's important however, to say that I disagree with his points, and to say that he hasn't provided me a reason to agree with them yet, as it's important for other people reading to hear the opinion of someone they might find reliable. I do it pretty often, that is posting in a thread saying what I feel to be false or inaccurate information in hopes of preventing someone from learning something that is false.
|
On July 21 2011 03:09 CecilSunkure wrote:You have probably already seen this, but here's the link to my guide on improving for reference. I don't really want to read your post, as your forward doesn't really explain why I should it. Why would I want to read your personal notes? Your forward basically says you wrote this thing for yourself, then you say something about ad hominem which makes me think this whole thread is a bunch of pretentiousness from the OP. Not saying it is just you being pretentious, but I am saying your forward makes it look like so. Take a look at my forward. For example in my document my forward does a great job of offering something to the reader, where yours is more like "Hey I wrote this for myself, but I wanna share it and maybe you'll find it interesting". So then I read section 1.1 and find that I disagree with every single thing you wrote. I respect your opinion as your own, but [G] threads are threads written by people that know what they are talking about. In my document I barely wrote about strategy, other than telling people to use strategies developed by professionals. I don't really see why you'd have a better understanding and ability than me on the subject since you don't give me a reason to; provide a reason as to why I should. I won't respond directly to the content, as I heavily disagree with everything I read, but I don't have the time to argue with a bunch of opinions listed in a wall of cryptic text. But I did want to give you some advice on what I did read from a writer's and reader's standpoint.
Why do you disagree? And what advice are you actually giving? Is the advice that he should just leave it to the pro players and not think about strategy himself until he is on a pro team? It is very unclear what you are trying to say. And if you aren't going to read the whole post, then why do you respond? His post is the reasoning as to why you should listen to the subject; you don't read it and then ask him to provide the reasoning he already provided.
The real meat of the post is section 3, and the real introduction is section 2. I would genuinely like to hear what you disagree with. But you can't just say "This is bad" and not back it up. This sort of post is insufficient in providing any insight as to why you disagree, is insufficient in providing any advice as to how to improve it(see Anihc's 2nd post, he does a good job of explaining his position on the guide), and is insufficient in providing what you think in opposition to his post, with insufficient reasoning as to why you think this.
Whether you disagree or agree, not reading the whole post and not providing concrete contribution as to why or any coherent advice, doesn't actually help him improve it. Disagree all you want, but you need to back it up with reasoning.
|
On July 21 2011 03:37 Fyrewolf wrote:Disagree all you want, but you need to back it up with reasoning.
I already did. I stated I don't see why his opinion on the matter should be better than mine, especially since I wrote so little on it. Ver even wrote very little on it. I stated in my guide that as a learner you should almost purely imitate better players, letting them come up with the strategies. I stated this there because I was honest with my deficiencies. He stated the opposite, but provided no backup. The burden of proof is on him since he [implicitly] made the claims, not me.
|
@ OP, I really like your guide because I see good value in what you are saying. Most of the stuff comes from textbook positional chess theories. Personally I have spent good money and time to learn about the information in your post back in my chess days. Some responses in this thread have quality, others are trash. Be humble when dealing with constructive criticism, but ignore the useless junk. The way I draw the line, after using this forum for many years, is if somebody criticizes but does not offer suggestions for improvement, their comments serve little purpose, ignore; however, when someone criticizes, gives good reason, and tells you how you can improve in the future, take notes.
I agree with Anihc in that he says you tried to cover too many things in one guide without much real applications. Each of your section covers an entirely different topic that can be a full guide by itself. Section 1 you talk about strategy vs mechanics, and suggest that one should focus on both instead of pure mechanics. Section 2 you talk about having a general game plan based on achieving one/some of many types of advantages, then convert them into wins. Section 3 you talk about the different types of advantages, (I really like the point that one should not focus on purely economic advantages, too many threads right now go like "I had an economic advantage but I still lost", people need to understand a good economy is only one type of advantage that can be counter balanced by many things.) Section 4 you talk about designing game plans by creating asymmetries in the opening, a great concept that has very deep values, Section 5 you talk about how to dissect a loss by finding out what advantages your opponent had over you that made the game feel imbalanced on your part.
I've read entire books covering these topics for chess. Your guide reads like a table of contents, or an abstract at best. I see value because I've read and understood these concepts already in books, but for someone who is new to these concepts, they need more than a brief summary to take real values home. A great suggestion by Anihc in one of his earlier posts on page one is to take one of your sections and expand it to a full guide, give a lot more examples, and a lot more real game applications.
@Everyone else, while this thread lacks sufficient content, do not dismiss its concepts so readily, they are proven through the ages in chess and have great potential applications in SC2. How many times have you read "I had an army advantage and more workers but I still lost, help?" Such questions cannot be answered without watching the specific replay, and you will then realize that while the player had advantages in army size and economy, he may have lacked in upgrades, or army composition or a variety of other things. The OP's concept that the many different types of advantages need to be understood and be able to switch from one advantage to another is a very solid point that many new users are not familiar with, and for giving concepts that can help people, the guide has value.
Please offer to help the OP in expanding his guide, offer him examples of real game applications that can be added to his guide, and more importantly, offer him encouragement to make his guide better. The amount of thought and effort put into this OP is levels above most new posts currently popping up in this forum, for that, this thread has quality, only needs more guidance and support. Keep your criticisms constructive by offering ways to improve his guide. Avoid one liners such as "this guide is useless".
On July 21 2011 03:26 Anihc wrote: Honestly the reason why I'm making such a big deal out of this is because there's a ton of potential for this guide, but in its current state almost none of that potential is being realized.
This is a perfect example of what the right attitude should be when you post in this forum.
|
On July 21 2011 01:31 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2011 21:49 Tee wrote:On July 20 2011 20:21 Geiko wrote: What audience does this guide target ? After reading it, I haven't really seen anything I didn't already know. Of course, mainly everything you say is true, but how useful is it to people ? I think anyone master or above will find zero use in this guide, and every one under master league should just play more instead of theorycrafting.
I also agree with Anihc about upping the standards for TL. The increasing number of bad "guides" is making it very painful to browse TL in search of good BO for X and X. For example, I would love to read a Zealot/Archon guide in PvX but all those that already exist are of (very) poor quality. The guide, as stated in intro, was actually targeted at myself. I wrote it for fun, to nail down my thoughts into a coherent collection of ideas. I wasn't even sure how far I would go, but after writing so much, I decided maybe I would put it up here, see what people thought, who knows, it might help some people. I could have told you that you would have found very little education from the article Geiko, given the understanding you have already demonstrated in your other TL posts. I also doubt it would ever help anyone above masters (i.e. GM), but possibly low masters and below. I read nothing in the forum guidelines prohibiting articles aimed at improving players below GM / masters; but I will concede, that perhaps this post walks a fine line between what was laid out in the strat forum posting guidelines. To that end, it is up to the mods whether or not the content is worthy or not, and I would like to improve and elaborate on the post with more specific examples and actual replays, but that would also tread the same line that the OP did. It is not a build order, it is not a strategy, it is trying to understand the strategic implications at any point in the game, so that if your build order gets messed up, you don't just fall apart. It is entirely possible that this just isn't the place for posts like this, but I wanted to put it somewhere for people to read, and this is what I came up with. As for everyone under master league playing more rather than theorycrafting, I addressed this in the introduction. I actually believe this to be a huge misconception amongst the community that people who want to get better should only practice mechanics. Mainly because that can be very boring, and there is a subset of players who would just quit if they were not allowed to theory craft and improve their strategy somewhat. The analogy, if you will permit it, is to tell scientists to learn a technique for growing cells in culture perfectly, and until they get that perfect, do not worry about learning how to design an experiment, analyze your results etc. No one would get past undergrad because the passion for science is not the passion for running through the motions of sterilizing implements over and over; the passion is in finding the answer to a question by designing an experiment. I believe the passion people feel for starcraft, is the passion for understanding the strategy, not the passion for understanding how to read numbers on a screen and press a series of keys in response. Due to this, I think lower level players should definitely spend time thinking about advantages and strategies, because it will make them play more. How many times have you thought of a new strategy / read a new strategy and gone "man... i realllly wanna get home and try that shit out". It sparks motivation to play more, and therefore increases skill by virtue of increased play. Personally, I want more players playing, and them all to get better; telling them to only focus on mechanics and forget strategy seems like a poor method to achieve that goal. Sorry for the, once again, verbose reply, and if you have any suggestions on how to improve the post, then please let me know. I'm sorry, I reread my original message and it comes off a bit harsh I really respect all the time you put into this post and by no means do I consider what you wrote to be bad (the last part about "bad guides" wasn't aimed at you). I was just questioning the overall orientation that the strat forum should take, in particular the G threads which in my opinion should only be very high level threads (understand : with information useful to very high level players). For example, I've worked a ton on my PvZ FFE into stargate thread but since I'm not a very high level player, I didn't think it deserved a G tag. I also hesitated a lot before putting a G to my PvP strat and put a disclaimer saying it was only a D at high levels. And it really saddens me when I see 10 posts a day with a G tag that look like they took 15 minutes to write (once again, not referring to your thread, but in general) or/and with average to low-level content.
That's cool, I understand where you're coming from. Perhaps [G] was the incorrect tag, [D] would have been better. When it comes to the title, honestly, I wrote the post in word, and didn't think about a title until I had to put it into here, and it felt like an inaccurate title at the time, suggestions on a better title are welcomed.
|
@CecilSunkure Being a blue poster means your words hold more weight than others on the forum, but unless you provide substance in your post (your opinions, reasoning, criticisms, and advice), then there is nothing in your post to hold that weight and you aren't actually contributing. Saying "I Disagree" and not providing anything more is insufficient. His guide is about the concepts and methodology of strategy, not how to specifically create a new strategy, or about ignoring pro players' strategy entirely in favor of creating your own. Posts must also be judged on their merit, I don't know who this poster is, therefore his guide is worthless because I say so is not a valid criticism. You must back it up. Criticizing his introduction for being a bit pretentious in its wording is a valid criticism. I can't see any other coherent points in your posts.
I would genuinely like to hear what you disagree with and why. If you wanted to avoid discussion on the issue, then you shouldn't have posted in the first place. You need a complete response or you risk having a poor quality post. I would like to say though that your guide for improving is an excellent and well done one.
About Ver's words: "Because Strategy is such a difficult skill to improve overall, there is no real concrete plan for improving at it beyond a certain point other than continuing to understand the game further via studying progames and comparing your own results."
This is the kind of guide that takes you to that point. It is not the be all end all strategy guideline guide. It is an introduction to the concepts of strategy, which is a perfectly legitimate subject to learn. It's exactly the same as reading a strategy book about chess or any other strategical endeavor. You can learn quite a bit from it, but experience in application ends up being the final master. That doesn't mean that the information was worthless though. This same argument could be applied to say we shouldn't read the linked guide on how to improve, because we can only really learn by playing.
That's why a clarifier like "beyond a certain point" is there, the point Ver made was that the Game of SC2 is the Instructor of its strategy, and therefore the ultimate place to go learn about strategy is playing it. The game could teach these same concepts of strategy to the players, but that doesn't mean an organized introduction to these concepts isn't beneficial for the players. These concepts can be so subtle, that it takes many many many games before the realization might be reached that an accumulation of small advantages for conversion to a win is the nature of a strategical game. Sun Tzu wrote "The Art of War", but should we refuse to read it and instead use our own experience in war as our teacher? No, the point is that you can learn about the concepts from anywhere, but can only advance beyond them after we study their applications through experience.
@Tee I very much hope you aren't discouraged and do continue this guide with examples and hopefully VODs as you mentioned. Even though the ultimate teacher is our own experience, studying how already experienced players apply these concepts in their games is a more than valid field to analyze and can supplement our own experience for learning. Keep up the good work.
|
On July 21 2011 05:31 Fyrewolf wrote: I would genuinely like to hear what you disagree with and why. If you wanted to avoid discussion on the issue, then you shouldn't have posted in the first place.
On July 21 2011 03:40 CecilSunkure wrote: I stated I don't see why his opinion on the matter should be better than mine, especially since I wrote so little on it.
On July 21 2011 03:40 CecilSunkure wrote: I stated this there because I was honest with my deficiencies. I know I don't understand strategies much beyond copying better players. So, like I keep saying, he needs to detail why his opinions hold value. He can say whatever he wants, but it isn't worth reading unless I know it's true.
I can't actually argue about the specifics of what he said if I'm saying I don't really feel qualified to make those calls. Also, since there's not really an authority on the topic the content is very subjective to interpretation which makes arguing about it like a death trap. So instead I just say he's not showing how his opinions qualified ones.
Basically I know people are going to read threads like this and end up wasting their time. Time will be wasted trying to either apply what is read here, or take lessons learned into games that weren't proper lessons to learn. Posts like this also give people a poor mindset on how to improve. Anihc detailed why this is pretty well.
|
On July 21 2011 05:45 CecilSunkure wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2011 05:31 Fyrewolf wrote: I would genuinely like to hear what you disagree with and why. If you wanted to avoid discussion on the issue, then you shouldn't have posted in the first place. Show nested quote +On July 21 2011 03:40 CecilSunkure wrote: I stated I don't see why his opinion on the matter should be better than mine, especially since I wrote so little on it. Show nested quote +On July 21 2011 03:40 CecilSunkure wrote: I stated this there because I was honest with my deficiencies. I know I don't understand strategies much beyond copying better players. So, like I keep saying, he needs to detail why his opinions hold value. He can say whatever he wants, but it isn't worth reading unless I know it's true. I can't actually argue about the specifics of what he said if I'm saying I don't really feel qualified to make those calls. Also, since there's not really an authority on the topic the content is very subjective to interpretation which makes arguing about it like a death trap. So instead I just say he's not showing how his opinions qualified ones. Basically I know people are going to read threads like this and end up wasting their time. Time will be wasted trying to either apply what is read here, or take lessons learned into games that weren't proper lessons to learn. Posts like this also give people a poor mindset on how to improve. Anihc detailed why this is pretty well.
You need to detail why his opinions don't hold value, with coherent reasoning. I repeat "I don't know who this poster is therefore he is not qualified/his guide sucks" is not a valid criticism. "I Disagree" with no reasoning behind it is not a valid criticism. "It isn't worth reading unless I know it's true" is basically saying his guide is not worth reading because he does not have a blue background too, and not a valid criticism. You must judge the post on its merits, not by its poster, and base actual criticisms on the post. If you do not discuss the opinions in the post and why you think they don't hold value, your post has no substance. If you aren't qualified to make those calls, then how are you qualified to dismiss them? You need to explain why the lessons aren't proper lessons, or a waste of time, or explain what a proper mindset on how to improve actually is (If that were the issue, which it is not the subject of his guide, so it is irrelevant). If you aren't the right person to do this, find another respected poster on teamliquid who is qualified and ask him to argue your case.
I have read these concepts before in countless strategy books on various subjects, so I already know they are true. For some online resource pertaining to Starcraft, here are two online articles I think have relevance as to why gaining advantage is important in Starcraft because of slippery slope mechanics and converting advantages. http://www.sirlin.net/articles/slippery-slope-and-perpetual-comeback.html http://www.sirlin.net/blog/2009/1/30/uc-berkeley-starcraft-class-week-1.html
If you are going to disagree You. Have. To. Back. It. Up.
|
For those not familar with the concept, "Slippery slope" is a key factor in most strategy games, especially Starcraft. That's why Artosis says "When you're ahead, get more ahead". Slippery slope is the idea that once you lose some advantage, you also lose some of your capability to gain advantages. It gets more and more difficult to catch up the farther behind that you are, because you are more and more limited in what you can actually do.
If you lose a piece in chess, you suddenly have lost power to affect and control space, and have a smaller army to attack with. The more pieces you lose, the less power you have, and eventually it is almost impossible to come back because you simply do not have the power to.
That is why the accumulation of advantages is so important, because once you are behind, you will fall more behind easily, and when you are ahead, you can get more ahead easier.
|
Not a single person would say the idea in the OP is bad inself. Just like no one would say that a [G] thread that said the goal of the game is to win and everything you do in game should be about inning.
What this thread lacks is application. It really fails as Aguirre in this current form because you cannot do anything through defined and provided step by step process.
This is basically a [D] thread and not a [G] in its current form.
I don't those of you that are insulting those that have criticism of this guide. I tend to think it is through some hidden agenda to suggest that strategy is more important than mechanics. I don't know maybe that's wrong.
Regaurdless, it should be simple to see this guide guides you to nothing.
|
On July 21 2011 06:10 Fyrewolf wrote: You. Have. To. Back. It. Up. Not if I disagree with his sources, or qualifications, rather than the content. You're just shifting the burden of proof unfairly on me.
|
On July 21 2011 06:26 CecilSunkure wrote:Not if I disagree with his sources, or qualifications, rather than the content. You're just shifting the burden of proof unfairly on me. This is true. If some brings forth an idea and the community says ok and the proof is?
Then he idea brnger should suplly the proof.
|
On July 21 2011 05:45 CecilSunkure wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2011 05:31 Fyrewolf wrote: I would genuinely like to hear what you disagree with and why. If you wanted to avoid discussion on the issue, then you shouldn't have posted in the first place. Show nested quote +On July 21 2011 03:40 CecilSunkure wrote: I stated I don't see why his opinion on the matter should be better than mine, especially since I wrote so little on it. Show nested quote +On July 21 2011 03:40 CecilSunkure wrote: I stated this there because I was honest with my deficiencies. I know I don't understand strategies much beyond copying better players. So, like I keep saying, he needs to detail why his opinions hold value. He can say whatever he wants, but it isn't worth reading unless I know it's true. I can't actually argue about the specifics of what he said if I'm saying I don't really feel qualified to make those calls. Also, since there's not really an authority on the topic the content is very subjective to interpretation which makes arguing about it like a death trap. So instead I just say he's not showing how his opinions qualified ones. Basically I know people are going to read threads like this and end up wasting their time. Time will be wasted trying to either apply what is read here, or take lessons learned into games that weren't proper lessons to learn. Posts like this also give people a poor mindset on how to improve. Anihc detailed why this is pretty well.
I think I understand what you are saying, in so much as my opening statement is not strong, and I understand the concept behind a strong opening statement when writing, but until I have improved the article a lot more, I won’t add a strong opening statement. The foreword is there as a disclaimer essentially to state that it is a work in progress. And it is not as much focused toward strategy development as it is to recognizing the advantages you and your opponent possess given your chosen strategy, and how to go about using that knowledge for better decision making.
As to why you should read the rest of the post, it’s unlikely to teach you anything; but I would really appreciate it if you would read it and give me feedback so I can make it better as I’m sure you would have some very insightful improvements to make.
As to backing up my claims or proving to you that I’m worth listening to, I’m unsure as to how you wish me to do that if you won’t read past the first 2 sections, but hopefully I’ll be able to in time by improving the article.
|
On July 21 2011 06:33 Tee wrote: As to backing up my claims or proving to you that I’m worth listening to, I’m unsure as to how you wish me to do that if you won’t read past the first 2 sections, but hopefully I’ll be able to in time by improving the article. Just state why what you said is accurate. Basically talk about how you know what you know, and your qualifications. As of now what you wrote is just a list of your opinions.
|
On July 21 2011 03:26 Anihc wrote: Honestly the reason why I'm making such a big deal out of this is because there's a ton of potential for this guide, but in its current state almost none of that potential is being realized.
thanks, I'll take what you have said on board and try to rework it based on your suggestions (and others), hopefully it will live up to the potential. I had no one to bounce ideas off when writing this, but posting it has given me some good direction, so that's at least something that has come from it
|
I'm not shifting the burden of proof. The mere fact that Starcraft has a Slippery Slope is proof of the need to accumulate advantages. The entire history of strategical thought is against you. You have yet to make a post of substance with a single valid criticism. "I Disagree" is not a valid criticism. You need to contribute, not just make unverifiable statements that amount to "Because I said so". You won't listen because of your own thickheadedness and have refused to even speak about the post for discussion.
I've provided coherent arguments, I've quoted Artosis, I've linked to professional game balancers. Do I need to go digging around for strategy books online to provide more proof? So far you have provided nothing in the way of reasoned discussion about this. If you aren't going to make a post of substance or contribute, then don't post. It's not about burden of proof, it's about having a coherent and cohesive case for your side. You have been found lacking. I have criticisms about the guide too. However I have seen more than sufficient evidence arguing for the accumulation of advantages being a key factor in Strategy, and you have provided insufficient evidence to the contrary.
Edit: Yes, CecilSunkure, I am calling you out for making poor quality posts in this thread that don't actually contribute anything. I am more than willing to hear your arguments for your side, but this means you actually have to provide those arguments. Discussion is a two way street.
|
On July 21 2011 06:56 Fyrewolf wrote: I'm not shifting the burden of proof. The mere fact that Starcraft has a Slippery Slope is proof of the need to accumulate advantages. The entire history of strategical thought is against you. You have yet to make a post of substance with a single valid criticism. "I Disagree" is not a valid criticism. You need to contribute, not just make unverifiable statements that amount to "Because I said so". You won't listen because of your own thickheadedness and have refused to even speak about the post for discussion.
I've provided coherent arguments, I've quoted Artosis, I've linked to professional game balancers. Do I need to go digging around for strategy books online to provide more proof? So far you have provided nothing in the way of reasoned discussion about this. If you aren't going to make a post of substance or contribute, then don't post. It's not about burden of proof, it's about having a coherent and cohesive case for your side. You have been found lacking. I have criticisms about the guide too. However I have seen more than sufficient evidence arguing for the accumulation of advantages being a key factor in Strategy, and you have provided insufficient evidence to the contrary. You want evidence? Okay. Here it goes. Here is my coherent reasoning with cited sources:
OP, you provided no qualifications to back your claims, and never explained how you know what you know. I cannot myself argue against the content because I myself don't really feel sufficient, so for now I'm considering your content inaccurate due to the lack of sources/qualifications and clear applications to play.*
*Source
|
|
|
|