Uninstalling.

Zerg Discussion
Prev 1 2 3 5 Next
I assumed the following...

High league players play a lot of games, and probably win less than 60% of their games.

Mid league players who quit probably play less games, and mistake 50% to be a terrible w/l record.

Let's test the theory.

TOOL - 53.2%
Nasreth - 53.8%
Hilary - 50%
ICW (another gold player) - 58%

Some of the diamond and master people I checked were below 40% for the season!

Games played

Hilary - 1500
Nasreth - 1800
TOOL - 4500
BurningStarV - 3200
Comadiroma - 2700
ICW (another gold player) - 500
Hydralinsk - 2400

I am at 33% :) but I have taken this for what it is... a fun thing to do. I do play a non-video game to a near pro level and I will tell you that # of games played and an acceptance that you will lose lots of games are pretty essential to building the mindset of being able to be a competitive SC2 player. Losing is a good thing, losing in big tournaments costs you money. This is why you play as much as possible, and review each and every loss.


+1

took me about 3000 games playing the same race to finally break masters. remember, you are playing a game some people have been playing for years. some people put a lot more effort in than others to get better. i like sc2 because it is probably the hardest game i have ever played to be good at. i love the competition. don't expect to wake up one night and all of a sudden rise to the top. you get there by playing playing playing and playing some more. when you do that you build an index of situations and their outcomes and you just have a gut feeling that you should not engage in a battle, or you should tech switch, or you should try cheese, or you should know when not to over commit to aggression.

I can read my opponent, scout well, macro perfectly, defend perfectly, but I can never attack, and I can never reap any real reward for knowing my opponent's plan (especially when it's most transparent) and playing smarter and harder than they do.


you should change your name to hilarity, because it is f*king hilarious.
06/24/2013 05:12 AMPosted by Nasreth
I think you're probably underestimating what other people are willing to do.


You're absolutely correct, as are others in the thread.

I'll take the responsibility for my own shortcomings. I see now that my efforts are not enough to bring me to a good skill level. I have no basis to support the false self-appraisals I'd seen.

Moreover, I recognize that what it takes (or at least, what I think it takes) to improve as a Zerg/SC2 player is not a fun or rewarding experience for me, and that I likely don't have the desire or capability to do it. Fox and grapes if you like, but just.. giving up.

Sorry for the public outburst. Thread can be deleted or locked.
06/24/2013 04:52 PMPosted by Nasreth
I play Starcraft because it rewards my time and effort with challenging and competitive gameplay.

Hahaha... right. You play Sc2 because you have a limbic addiction :).
For fear of being flamed for stating the obvious here, but isn't all addiction "limbic" in that the neocortex is bypassed and the limbic system overcomes basic impulse control?
06/24/2013 06:25 PMPosted by tEhbAtZ
I play Starcraft because it rewards my time and effort with challenging and competitive gameplay.

Hahaha... right. You play Sc2 because you have a limbic addiction :).


Just because someone does something, doesn't imply addiction.
take a break come back again when you feel like it..its true zerg cant do much..because its design as a counter race..its either all in or defend.

if your atk don't work well or done enough damage you are far behide.


Basically this. Our ability to drop is way too late. Our ability to siege is a joke. Defense requires flawless latency and perfect fungal drops or overwhelming numbers. Getting 3-base kills our unit count and "the swarm" is a JOKE.

Until we get a unit cap increase or our units become cost effective I don't blame you for uninstalling.
Why oh why did I click to view that post.

Looks like thebats learned something new in his psych 201 class today and wants to talk about it with people he doesn't know again.


Actually, I am a entrepreneur CS generalist that specializes in AI R&D. I own my own internet-base company and have personally written code for just about anything you can imagine (video games to particle simulators to DNA sequence matchers).

Its funny - when you develop the logical, objective and mathematical skills needed to do such complex programming you have an innate ability to understand just about anything. Why? Because the complexity of programming is always >= anything else. Law? Piece of cake. Theoretical physics? No problem. Psychology? Rofl, one of the easiest.

So no, Nazereth, I am not a psych major. :)

06/24/2013 07:32 PMPosted by Tamerlane
Just because someone does something, doesn't imply addiction.

You are assuming that I am basing my entire analysis off of "someone doing something". Please Google "fallacy of oversimplification" and "fallacy of assumption".

Trust me, there quite a bit of evidence to support my aforementioned claim.
Why oh why did I click to view that post.

Looks like thebats learned something new in his psych 201 class today and wants to talk about it with people he doesn't know again.


06/25/2013 04:42 PMPosted by tEhbAtZ
mathematical skills needed to do such complex programming


06/25/2013 04:42 PMPosted by tEhbAtZ
innate ability to understand just about anything.


Theoretical physics? No problem.


Nasareth, don't forget that a degree in CS automatically makes you an expert in all things RTS, and pretty much makes you a master of mathematics and theoretical physics. I imagine when batz looks at his unranked ladder games all he sees is lines of green machine code running down the screen like in the Matrix. He is basically Neo, and his opinion is fact.
06/25/2013 06:30 PMPosted by TechNo
a degree in CS automatically

I never said I had a degree. In fact getting a degree shows main-stream influence and therefore their thinking suffers from tree-stagnation. If you have the intellect to figure things out on your own, its its best to steer clear of that path.

06/25/2013 06:30 PMPosted by TechNo
makes you an expert in all things RTS

Have you ever implemented a FOW calculation algorithm? You know - Multithreaded hilbert R-Trees with SSE accelerated polygon collision testing? No? Maybe you have implemented something simple, like marching cubes + transvoxel algorithm? No?

Oh. Well, when you've implemented the engine and internal mechanics behind an RTS game you tend to have a good understanding of RTS games and how they work.

06/25/2013 06:30 PMPosted by TechNo
looks at his unranked ladder games all he sees is lines of green machine code

Hahaha... Not quite, and you have no idea (for a glimpse of an idea see: http://www.red3d.com/cwr/steer/Unaligned.html).

06/25/2013 06:30 PMPosted by TechNo
mathematics and theoretical physics

CS contributes to ones ability to logic though extremely complex problems, which is a handy skill for either mathematics and/or physics. Furthermore, CS has application in both math and physics--implementing say, a real-time physics simulator in code is far more complex than the physics the application is based off of. Ergo, programming+physics is more complex than physics.

Consider the following: I have two numbers: A and B. I want to calculate the result of A minus B without using a subtraction operation, and without knowing the values of A or B beforehand. How would you solve this problem? This is a very, very basic programming problem. Its popped up a number of times for me and is an order of a magnitude simpler than what I deal with on a hourly basis.

Surely someone here knows the answer?

06/25/2013 06:30 PMPosted by TechNo
He is basically Neo, and his opinion is fact.

That would be called dogmatism. There are many logical flaws that plague such a pattern of thinking. My recommendation: Steer clear of it ;).
06/25/2013 07:18 PMPosted by tEhbAtZ
a real-time physics simulator in code is far more complex than the physics the application


Not always true

You are assuming that I am basing my entire analysis off of "someone doing something". Please Google "fallacy of oversimplification" and "fallacy of assumption".

Trust me, there quite a bit of evidence to support my aforementioned claim.


I don't think diagnosing a person through limited conversation on an internet forum, without training, is medically sound.

06/25/2013 07:18 PMPosted by tEhbAtZ
Ergo, programming+physics is more complex than physics.

Does this matter? This doesn't mean a CS background will give you a physics understanding.

It's not universally true that performing any physics simulation is more difficult than the physics involved. Very complicated physics can be modeled with basic algorithms.
06/25/2013 07:41 PMPosted by Tamerlane
Not always true

Please, provide an instance where it is not true.

06/25/2013 07:41 PMPosted by Tamerlane
I don't think diagnosing a person through limited conversation on an internet forum, without training, is medically sound.

Its called context modelling, my friend. If more information is presented then the predictive model is updated to assure a more accurate production. Until such information is presented the best possible prediction must be chosen from the current data-set.

06/25/2013 07:41 PMPosted by Tamerlane
This doesn't mean a CS background will give you a physics understanding.

"I learned how to program ... therefore I totally get the Newtonian laws now!". /facepalm. Nice try at a straw man. I claimed that the skills acquired from CS makes it much, much easier to understand other subjects. You twist it to "learn CS and now you understand physics!". How old are you again? :)

06/25/2013 07:41 PMPosted by Tamerlane
It's not universally true that performing any physics simulation is more difficult than the physics involved.

You are wrong. Period. It is universally true. The complexity of adapting X to work in the special case of binary code is X+complexity-of-binary-code which is guaranteed to be > the complexity of X. Consider the acceleration of a vehicle in a simple locomotion scheme. The math is simple: Velocity = Velocity + ((Direction * Acceleration) * DeltaTime) / Mass. Position = Position + (Velocity * DeltaTime).

Consider the C++ code:
class Vector3 {
public:
f64 x, y, z;
public:
Vector3();
Vector3(f64 xArg, f64 yArg, f64 zArg);
~Vector3();

inline f64 length() const {
return sqrt(x * x + y * y + z * z);
}
};

Vector3::Vector3() : x(0), y(0), z(0) { }
Vector3::Vector3(f64 xArg, f64 yArg, f64 zArg) : x(xArg), y(yArg), z(zArg) { }
Vector3::~Vector3() { }

inline const Vector3 operator * (const Vector3 &a, const Vector3 &b) {
return Vector3(a.x * b.x, a.y * b.y, a.z * b.z);
}

inline const Vector3 operator * (const Vector3 &a, const Vector3 &b) {
return Vector3(a.x + b.x, a.y + b.y, a.z + b.z);
}

inline const Vector3 operator * (const Vector3 &a, const f64 b) {
return Vector3(a.x * b, a.y * b, a.z * b);
}

s32 main(S32 argc, cc8 ** argc) {
Vector3 Position, Velocity, Direction(0, 0, 1);
f64 DeltaTime, Mass = 1.0, Acceleration = 1.0;

while(true) {
Velocity = Velocity + ((Direction * Acceleration) * DeltaTime) / Mass.
Position = Position + (Velocity * DeltaTime);
}

return 0;
}


Clearly the code is far more complex than the math. And, TBH, that code is a 5 minute hack-job that shouldn't ever be used in a practical application. In a practical application a vehicle locomotion scheme could easily exceed 10k lines of code, while the math fits in one paragraph. The complexity of the math pails in comparison to the complexity of the code required to use the math in a practical application.
06/25/2013 08:08 PMPosted by Nasreth
Now look at what you've done.

Don't you know it ;)
06/25/2013 07:18 PMPosted by tEhbAtZ
In fact getting a degree shows main-stream influence


And main stream knowledge, with knowledge passed down from people in the field. Just because you get a degree doesn't mean you aren't able to think critically, or build on what has been discovered in your field.

06/25/2013 07:18 PMPosted by tEhbAtZ
If you have the intellect to figure things out on your own, its its best to steer clear of that path.


You can daydream all day that you are Will Hunting if you want. Hey maybe you are, this is the internet after all where we can pretend to be smarter, more athletic, and more popular than we actually are. Most of the really intelligent people I meet don't strike me as the type of people who post in anonymous video game forums about how smart they are.

Have you ever implemented a FOW calculation algorithm? You know - Multithreaded hilbert R-Trees with SSE accelerated polygon collision testing? No? Maybe you have implemented something simple, like marching cubes + transvoxel algorithm? No?


I don't quite see what SSE accelerated polygon collision testing has to do with viable counters to a 2 base immortal sentry all-in, but I suppose I will have to take your word for it.

I could spend 20 minutes thinking up really abstract sounding things that only people in my field would understand too, but I don't think that would strengthen my arguments.

I understand how electricity works, and electricity governs all computing technology, does that mean I have an innate understanding or all things computational!?!?!?! Whoa... Suddenly everything I type looks like this: http://hackertyper.com/

This is a very, very basic programming problem. Its popped up a number of times for me and is an order of a magnitude simpler than what I deal with on a hourly basis.


Why are you bringing up something that is taught in the first week of any introductory CS class? You are talking about how complex programming and high level physics is, and then instantly jump into something at trivial as 1's compliment. What are you going to tell me next, you wrote a C++ program that said "hello world"?

I am going to bow out of this thread now and go play around with hackertyper (it's pretty fun). Like I said, I have never met an intelligent person that went out of their way to brag to an online gaming community how smart they are. Best to steer clear of that path.
06/25/2013 08:04 PMPosted by tEhbAtZ
Clearly the code is far more complex than the math


Except it's not. It's long, yes, but it's very basic code. Adding vectors in C++ is not particularly complex

#include <iostream>
using namespace std;

#include "linalg.hpp"
using namespace cpt;

int main()
{
double m1 = 1, m2 = 2, m3= 1;

Matrix<double,2> M(3, 3);
M(0,0) = m1;
M(1,1) = m2;
M(2,2) = m3;
cout << "M =\n" << M;

double k12 = 1, k23 = 1;
double Lagrange[3][3] = {
{ k12, -k12, 0 },
{ -k12, k12 + k23, -k23 },
{ 0, -k23, k23 }
};
Matrix<double,2> K(3, 3);
for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++)
for (int j = 0; j < 3; j++)
K(i,j) = Lagrange[i][j];
cout << "K =\n" << K;

Matrix<double,1> eigenvalues = solve_eigen_generalized(K, M);

cout << "Eigenvalues =\n" << eigenvalues << endl
<< "Eigenvectors =\n" << K;

}


Here is a (relatively simple code) to calculate the eigenvectors and eigenvalues of a linear triatomic molecule. The physics (and math, in this case) are considerably more complex. Performing the actual operations if you know the rote formula, but the underlying mathematical concepts are fairly complex

linalg.hpp is a basic linear algebra library (C++ Matrix Objects adapted from Stroustrup's Matrix.h and MatrixIO.h)

Another example would include many FFT algorithms, or finite difference schemes, in order to solve various PDEs. For example, schroedinger's equation.

That isn't to say CS isn't incredibly hard (and in many cases has it's own unique problems to solve that are just as hard), but it's not by definition. And in most cases, you would need the prerequisite physics background in order to code something unless someone gave you the proper equations.

I can only assume you were posting scary looking code and random specialized knowledge in the hope that no one actually had experience with it.
I dont think you have a right to blame the game when you're not at least platinum league...

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum