Hello all! I've recently written a long article on how to improve at SC2 1v1 efficiently! Yay! However I'd really love some feedback on the writing. I know most if not none of you can provide feedback on the content, but if you could perhaps read a section and provide some feedback on that section as a reader with "virgin eyes" I would greatly appreciate it!

Just realize that I haven't yet finished this, as it's a rough draft. Please halp! Here is a sneak peak at the table of contents.



v Download Link v
http://www.mediafire.com/?e6omr1d989fp4fd

Downloading it, very interested. Thanks!

Put something about how you shouldn't pick a cheese build as your standard.

It's only cheese if you lose to it. I personally welcome any cannon rushes and 6 poolers. Easy wins tbh.

Edit: Also. why is it .txt? no .doc? It's painful enough to read internet text in a browser but then to have to be forced to read it in notepad also? Sort that out please.

Reading it now. Will post more crits/suggestions once I'm finished.

I think this definition is wrong. The ability a player has to translate what they want to have happen in the game into the necessary actions? That is more what I would loosely term 'skill'. But more accurately, 'skill' in assigning and using 'the user-interface', like control groups, hotkeys, waypoints etc. Mechanics is more about how the game itself actually works, ie. Marauders gain a bonus vs Armored units and therefore are good against Roaches. So, 'skill' is a combination of knowledge of the game units etc, and ones ability to use the user-interface.

Okay, I was going to post more to do with the language used but it's burning my eyes to read it in notepad. One general crit for the first 4 sections I skim-read is that you seem to 'over-egg the pudding' with a lot of what you are saying. Often repeating yourself in newer and more exciting ways to get your point across. A lot of this repetition should be cut out and it will make your 'guide' or 'tutorial' that you are writing a lot more focussed and to the point - and therefore a lot more functional.

A key example of this repetition is in 4.01 (the philosophy). You state that macro is the integral component of SC2. Then you later say that it is luckily the easiest to improve with this in brackets: (and arguably the most important). You then restate the definition which you already gave before.

Sorry if this sounds harsh but I do a lot of proof-reading for university papers (and although my writings/ramblings here at SEN are hardly indicative of my grasp of English, I like to think I know my shit).

It is a common mistake with many writers that they know what they want to say, but they go about saying it in the wrong ways. Take a step back, write down one sentence that you want to convey to the reader, and then emphasize this sentence with arguments and evidence. For example:

"An ideal opening build will involve gaining adequate scouting information from your opponent and involve you learning how to adapt to this information." Then you can go on and argue about the linked PvT builds at TL.

Anyways its a good start, I'll read more of it and try offer more helpful crits.

Post has been edited 4 time(s), last time on Apr 2 2011, 8:40 pm by Cardinal.

Thanks, I appreciate it! I'll try to fix those things soon.

... The point is to get players to pick viable good strategies. The reason I said to put in it to not pick a cheese strategy as your main is because... you can't get good just doing cheese.

Isn't the point of the document to outline GOOD WAYS to become good at starcraft? I never said that a cheese was unfair, actually I said quite the contrary. I implied that cheeses are bad in higher-level play.

You should write it in Word. Having to scroll horizontally is incredibly annoying.

Copy+paste.

Or Format> Word Wrap.

Being able to transition seamlessly from a 6 or 7 pool into any mid and late game Zerg strategy is pretty viable. Sure, it fails hard on large maps where 14 pool / 15 hatch is safer. But on Xel'Naga Caverns or Metalopolis (with correct spawning locations), an early batch of zerglings can offset your opponents' workers quite nicely if he is unprepared. If he is proud, he will just rage quit too, giving you a quick +20 points . Vs. Terran, a 6 or 7 pool into a baneling bust of his frontdoor is also a pretty viable tactic. You get early map control and if you are quick about it you can have his front door down before he has siege tanks/medivacs/banshees out.

And let us not get in to the definition of cheese either. 6pool, cannon rush, proxy gateways, proxy pylon + chronoboosting warp tech, fast hidden dark shrine, hidden dual stargates for fast voidray harass, 2 barracks marine & scv all-in, worker rush, bunker rush, thor & scv all in, 7 or 5 roach rush with queen all-in.... They are all viable strategies - and I agree with what you're saying, more or less, stepping into a game and going immediate 6-pool is a gamble, or going for immediate forge and cannon rush is a gamble because you don't gain any intelligence about your opponent. Not all strategies (or races even) allow for this style of play and you must adjust your build to cater for it. Whether it is actively sacrificing overlords, going fast robo, or spending less on mules and more on scans.

And most of what the document (from what I gathered out of it at least) implies is scout and counter, adapt (short term) and control, learn and adjust (long term)

Edit: reading the document in more detail now.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Apr 3 2011, 12:41 am by Cardinal.

This may come as a surprise to you, but Microsoft Word is able to open .txt files. You should try it some time!

ORLY!