http://www.gamefaqs.com/pc/954989-supre ... faqs/63392

This is the first draft of my SupCom2 guide. It is currently just a guide for beginners to team games. However, this will soon grow into what I hope is a fully comprehensive strategy guide. Yes, it's 18 months too late. But I owe this to the game and the community.

Remember, the content there is currently aimed for extreme beginners. However, suggestions and critique encouraged and welcome.

- V

P.S. Normally I don't allow typos like this to get through, but this was literally a stream of consciousness. I typed for 45-60 minutes straight without stopping for more than a few seconds.

Looks good.

However...

The best advice you can give a new player is to play and learn 1v1s. 1v1 skill translates to team games, and it doesn't go the other way. I've played maybe 5 (not exaggerating) 4v4s in my SupCom2 career, but I still do pretty decent at them. This is because I'm good 1v1. Contrast that with you (no offense). You're good in team games, but rather weak 1v1. So, as a new player, you should prioritize learning 1v1s to get the necessary skills down, then team games. The only real thing you need to learn extra is teamwork, which team games with randoms may not teach you anyway.


Just my two cents.

I support this statement: When you play 1v1, you simply cannot blame your team for losing. In a team game, winning is mainly about group cohesion, while in 1v1, actual skill is more important.. So for actually getting better, you play 1v1.

New people always make too many power plants.

I see you posted a couple build orders for specific scenarios but maybe if you do a section about initial builds you include that 9/10 times you dont need more then 2-3 power in the first 10 minutes or so.

As for teaching noobs, I think 2v2 on small maps like powerderhorn or arctic are the next best thing to 1v1, since you can actually sit on a mic and play with the person while giving them advice. At the same time the map sizes and build orders do not vary too too much from 1v1.

All of these are great points. I'll respond when I get a chance hopefully today or tomorrow. Thanks, keep suggestions coming.

+1

I was thinking also somewhere near the top of the guide you should add a part that tells them how to optimize their settings for multiplayer by:
-enabling '/reverserightclickmode' in the luanch properties
-enabling weapon/intel ranges
-disabling strategic overlay
-enabling always show strategic icons

That's just personal preference imo, I for one have the exact opposite options from what you put there, except the range indicators

Why? Range indicators are extremely useful! Why would someone NOT have them on?

Maybe the way I said it was unclear, but I do have them on

oh wait well... Strategic icons always on is useful

Still reading through, but one thing about the "fast" game speed. Most new players I talked to about "fast" game speed seem to think that setting the game to fast will translate to normal speed once everyone's sim speed starts dropping.

Maybe a simple explanation of sim speed and how that is different from ping and latency?

Very well written so far

Tell those people thats absolutely rediculous: when your cpu can't handle the current speed, it drops to the next acceptable speed. Hence, when playing with adjustable speed, a laggy game plays at the same speed whether you play on 0 or +5... Fast speed only locks it at +x(dunno what exactly) but still slows down at max cpu

Content looks good.

Though, Do you really expect people to read it like that?

It still needs lay-out changes.

It's restricted to ASCII format, but yeah, I'm sure it'll need layout changes. It's still a 0.x version.

What specific changes did you have in mind to improve readability? I'm certainly open to ideas.

Very good point. I actually bring this up in the highlights of my Etiquette section that I'll be adding soon.

It's basically just a bunch of text all cluttered together.

Would be a huge improvement if you could increase letter size of a new chapter and so on. an improved "table of contents" would be nice as well. (like add more detail in it) Bold text and this kind of text in some parts really add up.

When it's finished I might create a PDF for distribution with a better lay-out if you'd like. (might spice it up with images?)

I'm using gamefaqs.org, as that site has high visibility for guides of this nature. And gamefaqs limits you to plain ASCII text. That means no font selection, no text markup, and no size control.

Yes, there needs to be a more detailed ToC - I'm currently writing software to auto-generate it for me along with section numbers. I'll eventually make more distinguishable headers as well.

But no, on gamefaqs.com, it's vanilla text. No formatting or markup.

First, I would like to thank you for making this guide.

Second, my rwo cents worth. I have come to this game from playing FA, so I would like to see a section detailing the changes, and how to react to them. I find that I have no idea of the proper numbers of pgens and mexes I need, and no idea of how to tech well. I am playing skirmish, and I just tend to hold of the enemy while I get experimentals, and then unleash them. However, I feel that this is probably not the best way to play, and if I tried it against a human would probably lead to me getting hammered.

anyway, thanks again for the guide, it is very interesting.

Skill that applies to 1v1 are usually not relevant to team games e.g. In a 1v1 game you would have to micro units so they are hit less than they would be if they were not micro'd. and move them into the appropriate firing range where most of your units are in range but his are not (ctrl. move). These would almost never be applicable in a team game outside of the first 10 minutes minutes where you may not have that many units.
Generally this is correct. 1v1 requires more knowledge of the game and the ability to apply it (skill) than almost all team games would, so there is a possibility to help the player in team games.

I am confused as to why Bas and I were quoted in your post; your ramblings don't really address anything we speak about directly, and your post would stand on it's own just fine without quoting anyone (look at your post with your hand covering the quote section and you will see that I mean).

On to your post though:
Players have to micro in powderhorn/arctic 2v2 games. We are talking about teaching people, right? So saying something along the lines of '2v2 team games aren't good for teaching because only the first 10 minutes is useful' is a really dumb response. Those are the most important 10 minutes a new player will play as they are the most repeated 10 minutes in the game. The point I was trying to make is that it is easier to teach over a mic while playing a 2v2 instead of watching their 1v1 replay to critique, or observing a live game and being forced to 'ghost' their opponents actions to help out.

To put it another way: small map 2v2 games where your bases are spread out or equally spaced (arctic, powderhorn) are more like two side by side 1v1's anyways. They, therefore, make great teaching tools as the games play out very similar (<--key word there) to a 1v1 (or 2 of them happening side by side more accuratly), while allowing you to observe and coach your protege in real time without cheating by ghosting.

This was the intended quote. I was trying to explain how certain skills in 1v1 aren't always relevant in team games.
However, I was still vague enough to not be understood correctly. My scenarios where on maps that required the most teamwork (big maps with the most spawn points).
Here is my logic on the idea that bigger maps with more players = more teamwork: 1v1 requires skill because your only fighting one person who has the same rules and boundries you do (unless you are different factions). You are isolated from everything but your opponent and the only way to win is to play better. In a team game, all of one team is controlled by multiple people, so the more people there are, the more they have to coordinate and play as one person, so the potential isn't wasted.
Just ignore the spelling and grammar errors, it's still legible.

That quote makes much more sense.