So how do I beat the "random factor"?

skyride · 2012-05-24T22:43:36.889506+00:00

I'm probably around your skill level (Plat T) and what you're describing is tough, I've been there. A few things.

You were thinking 2 gate robo as Z? Perhaps I'm missing something :)
In fairness, the replay WOULD help
As a Terran, I find that many zerg opponents sac an overlord around 4-6 minutes, even if I've expanded, just to keep tabs on me. I can't comment on the cost efficiency of it since I don't play Z, but it certainly cuts down the "random factor."
Even in a worst-case ultra-heavy banshee scenario, 2 spores per line is more than enough, and you shouldn't go more than 1 without good reason (seeing double tech lab port with an overlord is really the only acceptable reason I can think of). Spores do sick DPS and the queens should take care of the rest.
Again, I'm only in plat, but I find that my response to the "wtf" factor has vastly improved by the easy steps of macroing like a king (well, as much as I can anyhow) and detaching myself from the situation to prevent panic. It's incredibly important to keep in mind that if they're in your base with medivacs and no expo, they've already overstretched and you're destroying them on harvester count. Focus on transferring drones, surviving, and counter-pushing, which zerg is great at. Lack of panicking wins games.
Run up a ling at the front door to see what pushes back. It's not as good as an overlord/overseer, but it can give you a vague army comp idea.
Beyond that, play a lot of games. The so-called "gamer sense" (if it exists) won't rely on explicit memory of individual games, it will rely on a vague sort of amalgamation of memories of hundreds of games fuzzed together where certain signs are associated with certain results. It's not as much like memorizing for a test, it's more like knowing the feeling in the air when it's going to rain.

ibowls · 3 days

Just a platinum here, but to the best of my understanding, Macro consists (very generally) of always having stuff building to keep your minerals low, while maintaining a high income. Very loosely, the tasks involved in "macro" (As I understand it) are:

1.) Until at least 15 minutes into the game, never stop making harvesters. For most of us below diamond this translates into "never stop making harvesters." At no point should your CCs have that first production tile blank. 2.) Don't get supply blocked. This tends to mean from 2 minutes until your first expansion, always have 1 depot building, and then once you have an expo up, 2 depots at a time, 1 depot per mining base as a rule. Never get supply blocked. 3.) Build production structures commensurate with your number of mining bases. There is some flexibility here for things like spending on upgrades, or spending on more expensive units, but in general 3-4 production structures per mining base. 4.) Always have units training. Always. If you're not getting supply blocked (great!) but it's because you're not training as many units as you can (boo!) then you can trick yourself into thinking your macro is good. 5.) Same sort of self-trickery with queuing units. Queuing another round of units halfway through a production cycle is not a mortal sin (not yet anyways), but you really never ever want to see that 3rd round queued up. Which brings me to the next point. 6.) Keep minerals low without fooling yourself on "empty" expenditures like queuing units up (which give you no immediate good). The first thing to do when you find yourself at max production for a set of bases.... 7.) Expand. You may feel vulnerable, and maybe you are, but expand. Losing or canceling an expo every once in a while isn't as bad as being contained on 2 bases for 15 minutes. Try to keep tabs on where your opponent is and what he is doing. It's often helpful to expand behind a push, even a feint push that isn't meant to kill or seriously wound. You can even expand behind drops. If you get onto 4-5 bases and you still find your minerals creeping up.... 8.) Drop more barracks, or factories, or starports, or turrets or whatever. Hell, its not the worst thing in the world to just start going crazy with planetary fortresses mid-map, bunkers everywhere, tons of orbitals so you can sacrifice SCVs. The bottom line is to make the expenditures useful in some way.

Cat_Recipes · 10 days

Totally agreed. The only time I finish a game having felt completely in control the entire time, my opponent was a league or more below me.

Sinni · 17 days

Came here to say this, dead on man.

BALTIM0R0N · 20 days

I actually wonder if this might be true! Google "Skinner superstitious pigeons" to see another example of "illusion of control" as a result of conditioning.

KWIKpwn · 20 days

I hear you loud and clear. I completely respect where you're coming from. Thank you for sharing your experiences, best wishes to you.

KWIKpwn · 20 days

First, please let me apologize for any offense I may have brought about. T was not my intent or my wish to belittle anything you have experienced. With that said, I would like to respond to what you have said. It is not to invalidate the intensity of the feelings and sensations you experienced that I say this: there is such a thing as truth, whether or not a given individual knows that truth. Either carbon has 6 electrons or it does not. Either there is a "speed limit" to light or there is not. And, likewise, either there is a secret language of analogy or there is not. Although I can never understand the urgent feeling of its realness in the way that you experienced, I understand that you had that experience. However, as someone who majored in a natural science, you must understand that you have equivocated on the meaning of "evidence." Evidence must be explanatory and predictive. Just because something feels like evidence doesn't mean that it is. Please understand, I know that these convictions cannot be "reasoned" out of, and that is not what I am attempting to do. I am simply asserting what I understand the definition of evidence to be. Evidence should have predictive value; if I say I have evidence that a neural receptor protein spans the cell membrane 7 times, that should allow me to predict that it's mechanism of action is metabotropic not ionotropic. If I say I have evidence that the Israeli military is planning a strike on Iran, predictions are a bit more difficult due to the enormous number of variables in the situation, but it should make me at least slightly more confident that I would find additional confirmatory evidence, like unusual arms buildup or unusual number of training drills, and that I should NOT find Iranian peace delegations into important locations in Israel. Unlike a delusion, which relies on post-hoc rationalization of an event as "meaning" something ("They only let the peace teams in to lull them into a false sense of security") , true evidence should be able to predict future events. Information can only be considered evidence insofar as it allows you to successfully predict future discoveries. (Incidentally, this does mean that the more complex a situation is, the harder it is to say you have evidence regarding it.) Its hardly my intention to debate the "validity" (whatever that vague word might mean) of people's perceptions of the world. I am only pointing out that "evidence" produces results while delusions do not. I did not think this was a controversial point of view, but if I am wrong I genuinely look forward to the conversation. Again, please accept my apologies and my thanks for engaging in a constructive conversation.

KWIKpwn · 20 days

Easy counterpoint: inter-subjective verification. The napoleonic wars took place at the turn of the 19th century, and that's true for everybody. All the "normal" people can go find that out from any number of sources. Reality is relatively similar for people without handicapping mental disorder. This is also externally demonstrable; I could use this knowledge of the time period of the napoleonic wars to hypothesize that there was far greater economic demand for ship-building lumber. This prediction could be borne out by tracking down old cargo manifests or the bookkeeping of tradesmen at that time.

Ask 5 reasonably verbal schizophrenics to explain their conspiracy theories and although there will be some common themes of surveillance and collusion, the details will be wildly different and mutually contradictory. Indeed, the disorganization of thinking is usually severe enough that the theories are SELF-contradictory. Incidentally, this is not unrelated to the mutually contradictory truth claims of various religions.

Cere4lKill3r · 20 days

This might make me a nerd, but hey this is Reddit so here it goes: When I hear this song, all I see is Goku going Super Saiyan and resurrecting a bird.

anutensil · 21 days

Somebody has a serious ends/means problem.

shooooler · 21 days

Since it started with "Hey Frankie" I automatically read it in the voice of "Joey the Rat" from the early seasons f Boy Meets World.

wang-banger · 23 days

This idea is so powerful that I (atheist socialist) and my coworker (conservative catholic) agree wholeheartedly on it.

parallel_unicorn · 24 days

The moment after the dog sees the cat in her box and then looks off blankly into space is classic. I can practically hear the ".....dafuq"

second_prize · 25 days

This song makes me wonder "I wonder if there's neurological involvement or if the vomiting was purely gastrointestinal in origin?"

And I consider that high compliments. :)

expenguin · 27 days

Toonami was, for lack of a better word, the vehicle for the shows. It was Cartoon Network's programming block (comparable to TGIF if you remember that) during which they would show various anime and action/adventure western cartoons with anime influences. Many people here (myself included) have such fond memories of it because it introduced us to anime, and when it went away, so did the vast majority of classic anime shows. For that reason, it wasn't simply like taking the shell away, the whole block of programming was gone, and it would be awesome to see it come back, even if it was just once a week.

Daveykush · 1 month

One of the biggest problems with the analogy is that "legible" is two incredibly different things in biological and literary terms. In literature language is purely symbolic. If you leave a book full of symbols (say, Shakespeare for example) on the ground, nothing will happen to it, and it will. It do anything to the world around it. Symbols require a conscious person to understand them before they can do anything.

DNA (and it's presumptive biological precursors) have more direct, immediate effects on the world. They do not need to be "understood" because the effects they have are small physical changes (like inducing a chemical reaction that turns sugar into energy plus a few byproducts).

This means that even the tiniest of changes can be "latched onto" by simple natural selection. It seems almost certain that the initial "code" (whatever it was) started as a single translation between a chemical set of instructions and it's product. To briefly use the flawed symbolism metaphor, it would be like starting a language with only a symbol of a bird to represent the verb "to fly." It wouldn't be terribly hard for a single "translation" of this sort to arise by chance, and thrive. From there, mutations could then raise the number of translations in the code.

The key is to remember that each individual piece of the translation puzzle would have evolved to some degree independently from the others; it's not so much imagining an entire alphabet springing into existence full form simultaneously, it's more like watching water drip onto rocks for a million years until one of the rocks looks like an "O".

i-wont-dance · 1 month

I call shenanigans on this. I saw Queen with Paul Rodgers, and as much respect as I have for Rodgers, it just wasn't a good fit. He's simply no Mercury and I would much prefer an awesome lifelike hologram of the big man himself.

auggie · 1 month

Let me lead off by saying that you and I are basically in the same position and I agree with you. I too understand the use of conception as an intuitive marking point for life, although I disagree with it. With that said, I see your "reducto ad absurdum" and raise you a "bald assertion" (not on your part, but on the part of the pro-life sect). I was not, of course, attempting to suggest that any position one wishes to hold on the definition of "life" is automatically valid. Quite the opposite in fact, my example was meant to illustrate the inherently arbitrary nature of choosing a point based on what feels intuitively reasonable or based solely on the authority of what a moral leader says (or indeed choosing any single point at all). The issue has to involve a discussion where both sides present valid logical arguments. To conclude: thank you for your kind and clear conversation on what is typically a fiery issue. Much respect to you!

auggie · 1 month

To play devil's advocate and turn it back around on you, try this on for size. Much like FSM is an attempt to show the arbitrary ridiculousness of deities, this bill is meant to show the arbitrary ridiculousness of selecting a particular point in time as the "beginning of life."

The Republican here might say "This bill is silly, I don't personally believe in the definition of 'life' you are using" and a pro-choice advocate might say "exactly, that's an excellent point, and I pray you remember it"

reidhasguitar · 1 month

Former Burger King employee of many years here.

1.) This is way more about laziness than anything else. There's a small lame little divider between the fry portion of the heating bin and the onion ring portion. If stuff crosses over...meh? What do we care? Burger King actually capitalized on the laziness about 6 years ago by labeling these rogue onion rings "ringers" and putting blurbs about them on fry cartons. Smart move; if the customer thinks your laziness is endearing...run with that man!!! 2.) We had to put down separate fries for people with severe gluten allergies since the fries spend so much time intermingling with the breaded onion rings.

rubxcubedude · 1 month

Also a plat Terran here; until recently TvT was my worst matchup, but some changes to scouting and a switch back to an old reliable build now make this matchup my highest win-rate.

Thorzain's gasless FE into mass marine has worked absolute wonders for me. This should be particularly helpful for you if you're having trouble with 2 port banshee. By the time the banshees show up you should be getting double scans and 5 marines per round, so you can afford to stash some in both mineral lines while your ebay goes down (usually around 6:30-6:45 for me). The beauty of this is that if you scout it properly around 5:30 you know you can safely commit marines to mineral lines because you're opponent just can't have the gas to have siege production in any dangerous numbers. Early siege is this build's toughest matchup, and you rely on aggressive scouting to see their push timing and catch them unsieged. If they make it to your natural with 2+ tanks you're in a lot of trouble. At that point I recommend gathering your forces, pulling at least 10 scvs (remember how far ahead this build puts you over a 1base tank push) and hope for the best.

The good news is that against any kind of early bio push or flashy early drop play this build cleans up because you simply have superior macro potential. Just be sure to get a bunker or two if you see 3+ rax, and think about turrets (or at least base-edge depots) if you see 2rax-fac-port. In my experience almost anyone going for 2 rax and a port without an expo is going to drop you. 1-1-1, expect a push to the edge of your base with some kind of contain or elevator drop.

GL HF out there!

ScTerranNeedsHelp · 1 month

High Plat Terran here. I also favor the gasless 1rax FE into pure bio-ball. The thor tech seems like a whole lot of sunk resources for not much gain, at least the way it's used here. Better to sink those resources into +1, combat shields, stim, concussive, and a couple medivacs. In my experience, those are what make the ~11 minute bio push so deadly.

Like you, I find that if I show up ~11-12 minutes and they have 1 or 2 colossi out it's an entirely different ballgame. If you run into this problem frequently enough, it may be worth pushing out with an "expeditionary" force around the time you're throwing down your factory (for me this is around 7:00-7:30).

Do not salvage your bunkers as you are leaving, especially if you don't have good scouting information. The 3 most common things (in my experience) that you will find when you do this: a 4gate push, in which case, retreat to bunkers. Sentry-heavy expand or tech, in which case snipe what you can but don't stim and don't let your army get separated. The goal here is to pull back to reinforcements and medivacs. The last thing you might see is a gas-light (read: few sentries) build that is rushing colossus. Your bio ball has a strong chance of dealing crippling damage at this point. As other posters have said, the goal is often not to kill with this attack (although it can happen) but to force your opponent to burn resources on zealots and stalkers for defense, rather than dumping them into 3+ colossi/HTs.

My most frequent TvP wins come against protoss who go fast expand and don't quite have the resources to go colossus by 11min, so I just find 1-2 immortals instead.

MyLifeInRage_ · 1 month

The original post had a number of logical flaws, but your method of pointing them out could have been better. Your technique was to belittle him personally and ask "what this has to do with anything," but I don't think that's a helpful question. I think it's pretty clear that he was attempting to raise awareness of his religion under a misapprehension of why most atheists do not believe in god. In fairness to his position, many atheists do spend their time attacking (rightfully) the unsavory characteristics of the Judeo-Christian god. It may not have been readily obvious to him that many atheists (myself included) base their disbelief on a simple lack of evidence or logical coherence, rather than a personal dislike of the god in question. I understand that atheists are often making a rhetorical point about the logical consistency of a "loving" god who sends you to hell, but again, you can see how this could be interpreted as a simply "I don't like that god" without the full context. I think it may have been more helpful to simply point out that his god is as improbable as any of the nastier ones, and that ironically enough, the niceness of this god does more to suggest his NON-existence than his existence; this god is far more in line with modern progressive ideals, and his invention shows a clear cultural shift from old testament ideas of god. He is as transparently "human" as the others for this obvious man-made quality. Pointing out the OPs inaccuracies is enough; he does not appear to have been writing maliciously, it seems that he simply misunderstood (and understandably so, given much of the content of r/atheism) the reason most of us have for being atheists.

snowy247 · 1 month

Haha well I've never seen Boardwalk Empire, but I have seen The Island, so... I'm not sure how else I could have identified it ;)

(I seem to remember him being a sort fo maintenance man who Ewan McGregor's character meets in the bowels of the "city".)

snowy247 · 1 month

I'm an atheist and I love this quote, but I think it's disingenuous to attribute it to Steve Buscemi. This is something his character said in "The Island."

LastBaron

TROPHY CASE

LastBaron

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login