|
Hi All,
I'm having a devil of a time getting a post up here with any reasonable relability. I suppose you're lucky; this being the third try, I will make it considerably shorter and more concise. I feel I owe you guys a better explaination of the experiment. Imagine this analog: three ship captains rotate eight hour shifts. At each shift change they, most certainly, do not make a blind change. There is a cross over for "passing the bubble" of the state of the world.
Using Starcraft to represent this transfer, we are attempting to establish the conditions which would make this represtation and presentation more informative and cost effective in terms of time to create, and evaluate. These presentation vary across several axis' including video v stills, and annotation: static v dynmaic. Ideally we want to be able to quantify what makes a presentation good using relative measures of success in the game after taking it over.
Now to the point. I'm going to make this much briefer than the last two time I've written it. You might think "tell me what the enemy has, and I'll be happy". Indeed, some of our subjects have said this as well. One thing I've learned in studying cognitive processes is that our intuitive notions about what we think we do (or in this case 'need' refering to information) are usually wrong to some extent. Example : a subject of ours who did not wacth a presentation (ie: went in blind) went into a battle with several reavers, high templar, and zealots. He lost, badly. why? He assumed psy storm had been reaseached when it had not been. Don't take this example a case proving point, just something to consider.
Now, imagine picking up a game where the presentation informed you that you are ready for to do a Reaver drop. What else do you want to know: from which direction should I enter his base, where are his staic defenses, will he be able to quickly counter them (notice: a very confined, specific, tactical scope). Adversly, if he had been planning to starve the enemy by not letting him expand, the nature of the desired information drastically changes. You want to know where enemy has been moving, what units he has, etc. You might see how this sort of ties to the strategy vs. tatics. This is all a question of the ideal content for the presentation. In my view, it is no where near standard across games. I want to try to figure out what general factors contribute to a player wanting which pieces of information for different games. The little stabs I've taken at it cannot be right as I am no expert at the game, thats why I'm here.
What makes a presentation good; what would you want to know and how? I'm not asking for THE ONE RULE. I'm aking what do you want to know in what type of situations. What makes those situation similar or different on a general level? What would you tell someone if you had to make a presentation?
A good way to think of the value of pieces of information is a cost system. How much of a handicap would you endure to know certain things. . .10 seconds idle time at the beginning to know what units the enemy has?
I've tryed to leave it as wide open as I can as it seems obivous you guys can more than handle it; but remember, the most important things are the thing I can't figure out on my own. Again, thanks alot I appriciate every piece of feedback, and I'll keep you up to date on results if you'd like.
cheers, andy
|
Oh, ilnp, just FYI, This is OBTUSElogic and not OBSOLETElogic. But, If you feel the information I would present is worthless, you are most likely more correct than I, as I even said that I am by no means a true expert at the game.
So, Go Nuts.
|
Andy:
It's hard for different players to relate to others as far as passing information along. You mention how one player "assumed" Psi Storm was researched but found out at a critical juncture it was not -- this is never a mistake I or another good player would make when paying attention. Subtle differences such as hydralisk range or +4 interceptors are easily detectable to a seasoned, focused player (even moreso when put in a situation such as this, where they'd *check*)
If i was passing the buck to a player I trusted, my information would solely be history, and focused almost entirely on what the opponent has. i would trust the person i was passing it to to be competent enough to realize what they have and what they should do, because it would take me very few seconds to establish that for myself ;o
|
ilnp: "this is never a mistake I or another good player would make when paying attention" I couldn't agree more. The last three words are the important part. If you have 5 seconds to establish a knoweldge of them game, attention management is a HUGE issue. This subject, who I assure you is an expert, simply did not have time to attend to a cue that might supply him with that information. I saw him do ["t" -> click] (for each in the group) about 5 times in succession only a few second after he took over, only to yell and get pissed that nothing happened. This is why the bubble is passed in the first place.
Not being omnipotent, which I assume you are not, there is only so much you can see/hear/process in such a short time. A presentation is supposed to extend that preverbial 5 seconds, but still is doesn't make you onmipotent. We need to decide whats important to point your attention to. I hope this is clear.
|
You are overlooking a critical facet of this game's depth, that players cannot play as ideally as they can imagine. They have real time limititations; they must decide what to prioritize (as far as the micromanagement, or "tactics" side goes). Think of it like this: each player as a limited amount of mental resources to spend on tactics. Different tactics have different costs and different benefits. In fact, one could imagine that strategizing and even evaluating tactics takes away from the "tactics" resource pool.
Tactical effectiveness and even strategic effectiveness in this game are not usually settled in-game, but rather, in how the player's experience levels match up. Players who have developed more sophisticated habits of cautions, of tendencies, etc will be able to perform much better than someone trying to theorize their way through a game. In other words, players match up against eachother in what has happened to them BEFORE the game their playing MUCH MORE than the game they are currently playing. Experience also makes drastic differences on how costly and how effective a player can perform various tactics.
|
|
omg i typed "their" instead of they're. wow. =[
Anyways, quite simply, if a player took over for another player, they shouldn't have to pass along any knowledge other than what they have done (that isn't readily visible) and what they have seen. Beyond that, they'd just be passing along basic knowledge of the game that the other can already be expected to know (i.e. "I saw this, so I expect this or that. I was about to check by doing this.").
|
On June 07 2003 21:27 STIMMY D OKMG FISH wrote: You are overlooking a critical facet of this game's depth, that players cannot play as ideally as they can imagine. They have real time limititations; they must decide what to prioritize (as far as the micromanagement, or "tactics" side goes). Think of it like this: each player as a limited amount of mental resources to spend on tactics. Different tactics have different costs and different benefits. In fact, one could imagine that strategizing and even evaluating tactics takes away from the "tactics" resource pool.
Tactical effectiveness and even strategic effectiveness in this game are not usually settled in-game, but rather, in how the player's experience levels match up. Players who have developed more sophisticated habits of cautions, of tendencies, etc will be able to perform much better than someone trying to theorize their way through a game. In other words, players match up against eachother in what has happened to them BEFORE the game their playing MUCH MORE than the game they are currently playing. Experience also makes drastic differences on how costly and how effective a player can perform various tactics.
wow you couldnt be more wrong
|
One way to characterize the state of the game is a list of advantages and disadvantages: at any given time, each player (unless the game is essentially over anyway) will have some advantage. Often this is characterized in superior tech (or tech that better matches up to the opponent's), superior economy, or a superior standing army. For instance, you might say: "My troop production has been higher for the past 2 minutes, but my opponent has just started his expansion, which will give him a greater economy than me when it finishes." You might conclude then that you should attack right as the exp is finishing, to take full advantage of your increased production but before the expansion starts making a difference (obviously a somewhat rough example). By using an advantage/disadvantage format, you capture both 'strategic' and 'tactical' issues.
Instead of saying, "We're ready for a reaver drop", you would say, "My opponent has a higher troop count and/or more expansions, but I have a reaver and a shuttle." The conclusion would be the same, but in some cases, an advantage/disadvantage listing would be more informative. Furthermore, this lets you know how passive or aggressive to be. There may be do-or-die situations, in which case you need to recognize the necessity to fight under relatively bad odds ("My opponent has equal tech, equal troops, and a lot more economy. Unless I can win a battle now [presumably utilizing superior tactics], I'm going to be screwed in a couple minutes"). Or you may consider your advantages from the other side of the same example, and try to avoid immediate combat while you exploit your superior economy.
I guess this is simply a qualification of knowing the history of the game, by looking at your advantage/disadvantage in several key areas: technology, economy and standing army. You know *if* you want to engage, and if so, how ("I want to use my superior tech to harrass", or "I want to force all out combat" etc)
|
Ilnp:
I don't think you're quite right in your nebulous definitions of strategy and tactics. While I agree that in some cases they can blur together to some extent, it is never so much as you imply.
The best way to look at it is this: strategy is the macro, tactics the micro, and not just in the limited starcraft sense of management, although it certainly applies there. Strategy is the plan, tactics the implementation. Therefore, no action in starcraft is purely one or the other (and in that sense, ilnp, if I understand you properly, I agree with you). Unit placement is tactical, as is spellcasting. Battlefield is also a tactical issue (just for an example that's more abstract than micromanagement).
So it's not correct to say, for example, that getting an expansion is ever only a tactical situation--surely you will need to use tactics if you want the goal of getting an expansion to succeed, but that goal is a strategic one.
It is similarly incorrect to state that strategy must be a static plan, as in a build order, or a general pre-game notion that you'll take your natural. If someone were to try to play with only a pre-ordained strategy, he would get owned pretty hard (think, if you will, about how hard a computer gets owned playing starcraft). Rather, all strategy is dynamic, constantly being revised and updated to accomodate the developing situation of the game. All players, even bad ones, develop strategies on the fly, in game. For example, you see that your opponent has taken his natural and there's a cliff above it. There are some units there, but you compose a force that you deem adequate to overpower his units. There you have two strategic components--first, the strategic objective of taking his cliff, and damaging his economy (and holding territory that would likely have later value); second, the strategic planning of selecting appropriate units. Then comes the implementation of the strategy, i.e., the tactics. This is approach vector, landing area, unit control. For the game to be played well, strategy and tactics must be used in harmony.
I do agree with what I think was your larger point. Generally speaking, a presentation would be most effective if it were to focus on giving information rather than strategic recommendations, as strategies must be developed by the player according to his personal preferences and intuitions rather than fixed and followed. One of the things that sets apart good players from mediocre ones is that good players know how to adapt and drop a strategic path if it isn't working.
|
On June 08 2003 04:48 Sevaur wrote: One way to characterize the state of the game is a list of advantages and disadvantages: at any given time, each player (unless the game is essentially over anyway) will have some advantage. Often this is characterized in superior tech (or tech that better matches up to the opponent's), superior economy, or a superior standing army. For instance, you might say: "My troop production has been higher for the past 2 minutes, but my opponent has just started his expansion, which will give him a greater economy than me when it finishes." You might conclude then that you should attack right as the exp is finishing, to take full advantage of your increased production but before the expansion starts making a difference (obviously a somewhat rough example). By using an advantage/disadvantage format, you capture both 'strategic' and 'tactical' issues.
Instead of saying, "We're ready for a reaver drop", you would say, "My opponent has a higher troop count and/or more expansions, but I have a reaver and a shuttle." The conclusion would be the same, but in some cases, an advantage/disadvantage listing would be more informative. Furthermore, this lets you know how passive or aggressive to be. There may be do-or-die situations, in which case you need to recognize the necessity to fight under relatively bad odds ("My opponent has equal tech, equal troops, and a lot more economy. Unless I can win a battle now [presumably utilizing superior tactics], I'm going to be screwed in a couple minutes"). Or you may consider your advantages from the other side of the same example, and try to avoid immediate combat while you exploit your superior economy.
I guess this is simply a qualification of knowing the history of the game, by looking at your advantage/disadvantage in several key areas: technology, economy and standing army. You know *if* you want to engage, and if so, how ("I want to use my superior tech to harrass", or "I want to force all out combat" etc)
wow you are extremely wrong too
|
On June 08 2003 06:09 threshy wrote: Ilnp:
I don't think you're quite right in your nebulous definitions of strategy and tactics. While I agree that in some cases they can blur together to some extent, it is never so much as you imply.
The best way to look at it is this: strategy is the macro, tactics the micro, and not just in the limited starcraft sense of management, although it certainly applies there. Strategy is the plan, tactics the implementation. Therefore, no action in starcraft is purely one or the other (and in that sense, ilnp, if I understand you properly, I agree with you). Unit placement is tactical, as is spellcasting. Battlefield is also a tactical issue (just for an example that's more abstract than micromanagement).
So it's not correct to say, for example, that getting an expansion is ever only a tactical situation--surely you will need to use tactics if you want the goal of getting an expansion to succeed, but that goal is a strategic one.
It is similarly incorrect to state that strategy must be a static plan, as in a build order, or a general pre-game notion that you'll take your natural. If someone were to try to play with only a pre-ordained strategy, he would get owned pretty hard (think, if you will, about how hard a computer gets owned playing starcraft). Rather, all strategy is dynamic, constantly being revised and updated to accomodate the developing situation of the game. All players, even bad ones, develop strategies on the fly, in game. For example, you see that your opponent has taken his natural and there's a cliff above it. There are some units there, but you compose a force that you deem adequate to overpower his units. There you have two strategic components--first, the strategic objective of taking his cliff, and damaging his economy (and holding territory that would likely have later value); second, the strategic planning of selecting appropriate units. Then comes the implementation of the strategy, i.e., the tactics. This is approach vector, landing area, unit control. For the game to be played well, strategy and tactics must be used in harmony.
I do agree with what I think was your larger point. Generally speaking, a presentation would be most effective if it were to focus on giving information rather than strategic recommendations, as strategies must be developed by the player according to his personal preferences and intuitions rather than fixed and followed. One of the things that sets apart good players from mediocre ones is that good players know how to adapt and drop a strategic path if it isn't working.
while i agree with the reiterations you made of ilnp's point (cuz as much as i hate to always admit it, but he is right), your explanations of strategy and tactics are just flat out stupid. essentially what u said is "building units is strategy, and attacking with those units is tactics." you havent even set a definition for either.
|
Err, Marshall, that's not at all what I said. I imagine that's why you quoted my whole post instead of the bits of it that seemed salient when you supposedly read it so closely as to authorize such asperity.
What I said is that strategy is creating plans and tactics is implementing them. That doesn't limit strategy to creating units, although it is true that tactics is largely about using units (I suppose that structure placement falls into tactics most of the time).
|
threshy ... go read the definitions andy gave for tactics and strategy, then go read my post on page 1, everything should be much clearer to you then because you still dont get it
|
|
|
|