This may sound like a troll thread to others. Many may ask if I what I will ask in the next sentences isn't a joke thread. However I am very curious...
...If SC:BW is a completed game.
Some may say it is, but I am sure many will say it is not. But me a low class C player wonders...
The metagame, the current trends, and the maps changing frequently. This is why SC:BW is such a beautiful game because of it's never ending variants and it's infinite potential.
Shall we debate whether SC:BW is a complete game or not (obviously in the pro scene where the players train themselves more than 8+ hours a day) I would like to ask why some players are more successful than others.
Is it because they don't train as hard? Is it because you did not expect a 'cheese' or a certain build? Maybe because they don't have a deep insight of the game? Is it because of external factors such as being nervous in live games? Is it bad luck or the opponent team happened to read your lineup precisely having snipers snipe you?
Skill difference (mechanics, macro, micro, strategic points, map control, unit composition, build orders, timings, etc) in the proscene is paper thin and there are a lot of factors that may affect why someone is better than others. We may not know why an upset happens or why a certain player loses to someone in a very close game though we may think of excuses. But we will exclude these factors and I would like you guys brainstorm why in a close game a certain player wins.
Humankind is bound to mistakes, and when someone says "A" player had a perfect game I am skeptic in why "B" player couldn't play as well as "A" player. Wonder if such a perfect play is possible.
The reason why I made this thread is basically because this enigma appeared while watching ZerO vs Flash in the Korean Air OSL in 2010 (and because I had the time lol)
Where Flash abused the defensive nature of the Terran and took control of the map with turrets, tanks, goliaths, and mines slowly pushing and expanding while ZerO, having a powerful economy, could never hold the slow mech push.
This is an old game, and the map influenced the outcome. But was there any way of ZerO having won this? Why don't we see unorthodox builds frequently against an established "A" build counters "B" build in "C" map? And why bonjwas exist?
This happens a lot in chess where game analysis and insight is very important.
Had ZerO used different units (eg: Lurkers under swarm while protecting 1' o clock on the high lands, Guardians + plague, scourge + queen into infesting the damaged CC at 1' o clock delaying the expo, etc) could he won?
to say if it's "complete" or not requires a definition of complete. I could bring up my favorite scarab or dragoon AI, which is so broken that one could simply refuse to call the game "complete" because of such bugs. Yes these bugs are a factor in making those units balanced, which is why you can't just go and fix those, but they are still bugs. Does a game with bugs deserve to be called complete? So it really depends on what you count in for your definition of completion.
You're ignoring a lot of his post, MisterD. He's got more questions which are much harder to answer. I think it's surely a combination of all these factors, OP, and I'm sorry I don't have a more intelligent answer to give you. Experience, motivation, luck and confidence all play their roles in deciding the winner of a match. No one of those factors is the be all and end all, but each one contributes. Flash is so strong because he seems to have every facet in spades. Zero is a type of player who is quite good but sometimes just doesn't see the move he is supposed to make (and I'm reminded of another game vs Flash where all he needed was mutas, but then reminded of another still where he defeated Flash with queens. A great deal of StarCraft is about inspiration, but inspiration only occurs as a result of all these aforementioned factors.
You're over analyzying things. It's just a game like any other. I think the closest parallels you could have to starcraft would be chess/tennis/football(soccer). The game is what it is, the physics are determined by the engine, etc. It is up to the players to play strategies or execute certain moves that will lead to (or have the highest probability) of achieving a victory. In chess players use opening theory to both get an advantage on the clock and make their opponent play into their own preparation, where they might move a piece 10 moves later that will give them a very big advantage. In starcraft players have opening builds that are designed to give them a good position going into midgame (or if their position is so strong they might win early), but obviously cheese is designed to counter the macro play which is why players use macro builds but also realize they need to micro/defend against cheeses, because defending a cheese will give you a very big advantage. The basic thing is to get your opponent out of his comfort zone, and make him play into your own. In tennis some player serve fast and direct, others rely on slow spin. When you go up to the net to make a shot you're giving yourself a lot of space to out-manuever your opponent or make a shot out of his reach, but you're also leaving yourself open to a counterattack (this is true in football/soccer as well). In soccer you can win games by both playing aggressive and making a lot of shots (Brazil), or by defending well and scoring one lucky goal (Spain). Always there is a fine line or a balance between attack and defense, between speed and spin, between macro and cheese. Each of these games have something called a defender's advantage, are dynamic and there are many many different ways or approaches to win, even though the ultimate goal is to win every game. The diversity of ways to win makes it beautiful.
You ask very interesting broad questions, that are very hard to answer. I'll give my humble opinion on some.
I'd say the main difference between Flash and other players, (and probably with Bisu and other PvZer, although his multitasking his incredible, or Light's incredible strength in TvZ...) is their understanding of the game. Why are they better at this than others is hard to say, but I'd say it's a question of talent and mindset, both before and during the match.
As for this precise game, I'm pretty sure that ZerO could have done a better job than what he did. Indeed, why his engame conduct of battle is absolutely top-notch, as shown in his first attempt to destroy Flash's position. Nevertheless, his following attacks are not as well executed, as it is indeed very hard to execute.
Different unit composition, tech switches, queens, lurkers and all might have helped. But I really think ZerO's overall strategy was flawed : he only really tried to break the front at one point, head on. He never tried diversion manoeuvers, never tried to spread Flash thin, and as good as the map his for this kind of turtling, he really allowed Flash to have only one front to defend.
I'm pretty sure Flash cut some defenses from the left side of the map to help defend the right side, and Zero never punished him for it.
I also believe that ZerO let Flash put up his defense far too easily, maybe because he was too afraid to commit, or maybe because he was too confident in his exceptionnal late game mechanics.
Anyway, I'm worse than you at BW, so don't take this too seriously^^
On February 07 2012 02:39 MisterD wrote: to say if it's "complete" or not requires a definition of complete. I could bring up my favorite scarab or dragoon AI, which is so broken that one could simply refuse to call the game "complete" because of such bugs. Yes these bugs are a factor in making those units balanced, which is why you can't just go and fix those, but they are still bugs. Does a game with bugs deserve to be called complete? So it really depends on what you count in for your definition of completion.
Everything stops to be "broken" when the mechanism behind it is unveiled and understood. Regarding Scarab and dragoon AI.
On February 07 2012 02:39 MisterD wrote: to say if it's "complete" or not requires a definition of complete. I could bring up my favorite scarab or dragoon AI, which is so broken that one could simply refuse to call the game "complete" because of such bugs. Yes these bugs are a factor in making those units balanced, which is why you can't just go and fix those, but they are still bugs. Does a game with bugs deserve to be called complete? So it really depends on what you count in for your definition of completion.
Everything stops to be "broken" when the mechanism behind it is unveiled and understood. Regarding Scarab and dragoon AI.
You ask interesting questions but you probably didn't try to answer them very hard yourself. There are a lot of things Zero could have done better. Mainly use zerglings for better scouting to attack at the weakest point. No human micros perfectly in big engagement, so there's always room for improvement in that respect too.
Was there anything humanly possible Zero could have done, that would have made a difference? I don't think anyone imagined this kind of play was humanly possible when the game came out so it's anyone's guess where the limits of human performance lie.
EPT
ZerO vs 
Flash in the Korean Air OSL in 2010 (and because I had the time lol)
