Build Orders

[Nameless]

Is there such as thing in WZ?

A build order (or "build" for short) is an early game strategy that is designed to optimize economy and timing. A build indicates an order in which buildings and units should be produced to maximize efficiency, and to follow a progression of a desired unit combination or to be prepared for a specific offensive or defensive timing.

http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Build_order

Another suggestion I had was development of such things to help those of us who like go research-crazy and develop everything under the sun. Personally, I think this would help cure those afflicted with such a disease, (like me sometimes).

According to NoQ in my Actions Per Minute thread, they're in 'use';

.. Some of the most currently notable include factory-lab-command-factory-factory-gen fastest machinegun rush (sometimes with early cannons) (with one or two extra trucks) and lab-factory-factory-lab-command-gen (and tech directly to halftracks in first lab) (with 5 extra trucks, to compensate late oil hunt start) (usually transitioning to rockets, since you have early engineering anyway).

But I've failed to find any other such materials that could help. Perhaps we could set-up a wiki article/database that outlines their uses, advantages / dis-advantages? Personally I've already begun this monstrosity of a project, but I was hoping that I wouldn't be reinventing the wheel, so to speak.

[aubergine]

I would love to see some guides on build orders. There are certainly several as NoQ has mentioned. There are also some common research paths that work with with certain build orders.

If you want a wiki to collate all the info, create an account on https://warzone.atlassian.net/wiki and then PM me your username on here and I'll create a wiki space for you where you can add as much content (of any type, including files) as you want.

Alternatively, use Trac (the official warzone wiki) but I find it to be rather cumbersome to use unfortunately, which is why I set up that separate wiki site.

[NoQ]

Oops, by re-reading my old-post I now realize I mean 'lacking' as in 'undeveloped' .. but I think you got that already .

Is there a page that outlines such BO's?

We've been trying to document this sort of thing somewhere down there, but it seems to be dead already ... also, i couldn't find the build order specific pages, even though i'm sure there were some

Here is the previous topic with the same name.
There is some build order discussion in the video thread.

Apart from the two i mentioned, i've heard of FRCFR rush build order by Jack_Sheppard that seems to counter both of them on Startup (countering rush by a very quick transition to cannons or halftracks with not much less tanks, countering RFFRC by still keeping the early space=>economy advantage, but not falling back in tech that much), FRCR by Dylan (but i've never seen a detailed explanation), and direct teching gambits: 7-minute tech to flamer borgs and 11-minute tech to the crazy hit-and-run MRA cobra hovers (most popular in FFA matches where it is easy to survive for a while without being rushed, because rushers don't live long).

Most of the theory relies on starting with exactly two trucks.

I didn't see too many high-oil build orders. The only well-defined strategy i'm aware of is 15-minute tech to inferno python hovers: something like RFRRFPRPR (i may be wrong, didn't use it for a while) (thats what first trucks do, others build derricks and gens), first lab -> research module, second lab -> engineering, then use some cannon tanks to shield early borgs from machineguns if necessary (no need to upgrade cannon too much) (gives enough protection to survive for 15 minutes, cause enemy is unable to push, cause flamer borgs fire from behind strong cannon tanks).

[Nameless]

If you want a wiki to collate all the info, create an account on https://warzone.atlassian.net/wiki and then PM me your username on here and I'll create a wiki space for you where you can add as much content (of any type, including files) as you want.

Alternatively, use Trac (the official warzone wiki) but I find it to be rather cumbersome to use unfortunately, which is why I set up that separate wiki site.

What's https://warzone.atlassian.net/wiki ?? Can you explain what it is exactly? Ever since I let my old domain expire, I've been actually looking around for a place to host some of the projects I've developed under the GPL.

Apart from the two i mentioned, i've heard of FRCFR rush build order by Jack_Sheppard that seems to counter both of them on Startup (countering rush by a very quick transition to cannons or halftracks with not much less tanks, countering RFFRC by still keeping the early space=>economy advantage, but not falling back in tech that much), FRCR by Dylan (but i've never seen a detailed explanation), and direct teching gambits: 7-minute tech to flamer borgs and 11-minute tech to the crazy hit-and-run MRA cobra hovers (most popular in FFA matches where it is easy to survive for a while without being rushed, because rushers don't live long).

Most of the theory relies on starting with exactly two trucks.

I didn't see too many high-oil build orders. The only well-defined strategy i'm aware of is 15-minute tech to inferno python hovers: something like RFRRFPRPR (i may be wrong, didn't use it for a while) (thats what first trucks do, others build derricks and gens), first lab -> research module, second lab -> engineering, then use some cannon tanks to shield early borgs from machineguns if necessary (no need to upgrade cannon too much) (gives enough protection to survive for 15 minutes, cause enemy is unable to push, cause flamer borgs fire from behind strong cannon tanks).

Well, it seems to me that the first order of business would be to do away with the old notation in favor of something more human; instead of "FttRCFFPP" (as taken from the bunker site) we could just say "2 Factory Fast Expand" and let the player screw up the build however he likes.

[aubergine]

What's https://warzone.atlassian.net/wiki ?? Can you explain what it is exactly? Ever since I let my old domain expire, I've been actually looking around for a place to host some of the projects I've developed under the GPL.

It's based on the Atlassian tools - Confluence (wiki), JIRA (bug tracker), Fisheye (DVCS viewer), Crucible (code reviews), etc. It can hook up to Github, bitbucket, SVN and a bunch of other stuff. Atlassian recently bought HipChat so that will likely be appearing soon as well

I finally got an open source account for my OnDemand instance = full set of apps, free hosting forever, unlimited user accounts, etc. So anyone can create accounts on that site - just PM me here on the WZ forums if you want a space/project on there and I'll set you up with your own area that you can do whatever you want in.

I was thinking it might be a good idea to get all the mods and documentation projects in one place as there seems to be a trend of lots of mods getting started but then just fading away. If we had them all in one place then at least other people can easily continue them if the original contributors drift away.

[Nameless]

... I was thinking it might be a good idea to get all the mods and documentation projects in one place as there seems to be a trend of lots of mods getting started but then just fading away. If we had them all in one place then at least other people can easily continue them if the original contributors drift away.

That's a great idea, as for the Atlassian thing I'm gonna hafta look into it; if all else fails I'll just use my old sourceforge account.

[NoQ]

Well, it seems to me that the first order of business would be to do away with the old notation in favor of something more human; instead of "FttRCFFPP" (as taken from the bunker site) we could just say "2 Factory Fast Expand" and let the player screw up the build however he likes.

We'd still need a short notation to explain build orders precisely, like "8 pylon, 10 gateway" ...

[JDW]

We've been trying to document this sort of thing

Why not expand on the existing project documentation itself, instead of having all the information segregated?

[Rman Virgil]

Why not expand on the existing project documentation itself, instead of having all the information segregated?

+ 1

Segregation = Fragmentation = Less likely to grow, evolve and endure.
.

[NoQ]

the existing project documentation

This page seems to be hard to edit (?)

[aubergine]

It could be quickly drafted out in the wiki then once it's in a good state pasted in to the existing guide?

[NoQ]

It could be quickly drafted out in the wiki then once it's in a good state pasted in to the existing guide?

I wonder if the markup language used is the same.

[aubergine]

It doesn't really matter what the markup language is - it's getting the initial text done that's the critical part. Then just copy over as plain text and add any desired wiki markup.

[aubergine]

There's one other thing to think about. While the existing Trac wiki might be properly glued in to this site, is it really that effective? Most of the content on there is very old and outdated, and it's quite difficult to find stuff.

For me there's two problems with the Trac wiki:

1. It uses wiki markup.

I used to love wiki markup, until the wiki I used at work ditched it in favour of a sort of hybrid between wiki markup and rich text editing.

In fact, it was only when I started documenting the JS API that I realised just how much of a difference this made to productivity. Without that sort of editor, there's simply no way I could have got so much done in such a short space of time. My goal wasn't to create lots of content, it just turned out that the JS API is actually much bigger than I realised heh. But I hope you'll agree that the content I have done is of good quality (example of an almost-complete section).

2. It's all in one container

When I first started using wikis about 8 years ago, I loved the way everything was in one place. But since then I've realised that it actually causes lots of problems.

In the wiki I'm using, there can be multiple wiki 'spaces' (example). Each space has a distinct purpose and because of that it keeps everything in there focussed and makes it easier to maintain. It's also very easy (trivial in fact) to link between content in different spaces, and re-use images, etc., from other spaces.

I think it's this lack of separate spaces that is resulting in lots of other sites being spawned because they want their own place to call home. But there's no directory of all those other sites, and when the people behind them move on to other things, they just fade away.

If we had one central place for all the mods and stuff like that, it would make finding stuff much easier and it would help avoid projects disappearing without a trace.

[Rman Virgil]

.

I agree with all that. Have had similar experience since '04 with conventional wiki. Atlassian would work well and clearly address all the issues with the present set-up. Question becomes whose gonna do the migration if the consensus deems it an aggreeable, long-term advantagous transition?

Personally I have become a devotee of DEVONthink Pro. The A.I. algorithms are just so sweet to extending my brain ~ & even growing some myelin, as much time as I invest workin it.

.