|
On February 04 2009 05:17 blabber wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2009 04:40 Nylan wrote:
Yosh, Nimue, Lore...not to sound overly grandiose, but you guys now play a very significant role in the future of American E-Sports. If done properly (which, as far as I can gather, it certainly has been), this course could be a very effective tool in making competitive gaming more acceptable. I realize I could be getting a little ahead of myself here, but stilll...given the coverage this has gotten you can't help but get a little excited.
Were I in California and not Utah, I'd totally be all over this. You guys are awesome. :D although it did get a lot of press, I'm sure that people who didn't care about SC and saw the news of the class still don't care about SC
Haha. Not only do people still not care, some of them actually got up in arms about it and called it a waste of educational dollars. But honestly, I think the attention this is getting still helps a bit in terms of turning professional gaming into a more accepted thing in USA, which is a good thing.
|
United States12224 Posts
Sirlin is a smart guy, and a lot of what he says does make sense and has merit. I'll post a reply on his blog shortly, as I think he's missing a lot of the nuances of how APM contributes to a higher level of play.
EDIT: Replied. Hasn't been published yet, but here's a copy of what I wrote:
Sirlin,
You make some valid arguments regarding mechanical requirements. However, I believe you're mistaken about some things.
Actions Per Minute
I. Requirements versus Rhythm
It's been said already in the thread that not every click is a useful one. That is half true, depending on the subject player. A 200-APM player is more likely to have less "useless" clicks, while a 400-APM player is more likely to have a greater number of "useless" clicks. Depending on the progression of the game, the number of "useless" clicks decreases, theoretically benefiting the faster player by virtue of greater multitasking capability. However, there is another aspect which hasn't yet been covered, and that is player rhythm. High-level players believe that artificially increasing their APM makes them more likely to respond faster than if they only performed at their required speed. That is, with practice, it is easier for someone to remain at 400 APM through rhythm clicking (or "practice" clicking) over the course of a game with regards to responding to in-game events than to raise and lower it as the game demands.
This phenomenon can be seen even in Warcraft 3, which has much lighter APM requirements due to a more intuitive UI and reduced emphasis on large unit numbers and base management. Players still "spam click" to be at the top of their rhythm for the duration of the game.
II. Demand
You make a fair argument in favor of multiple building selection and automining. It can be argued that the challenge of macromanagement is not necessarily its physical requirement, but its mental one. That is, even if the actual requirements for macromanagement are eased, it doesn't matter how easy it is if a player forgets to produce more units or is otherwise preoccupied. That is a very good point, one that I hadn't considered. The actual APM demand for base management is relatively little compared to unit management.
However, a side effect of this is visual. In Starcraft, if you have 12 Factories, the only way to produce from all twelve is to center your view (by pressing the control group hotkey twice) on one of the Factories, then manually click on each one and issue a production order. This means that the player has to consciously leave his units unattended for a brief period while these production orders are issued. With a multiple building selection system implemented, the player can issue orders to any number of production facilities without diverting attention from his primary focus (usually his units). Therefore, there is less of a risk of producing units.
III. Action Management
Players must make conscious decisions regarding their actions (with "rhythm clicking" mentioned above as an aftereffect). This argument is less about APM per se and more about speed and multitasking (the two are not always interchangeable as mentioned in Section I). The faster a player is than his opponent, the more he can exploit that speed advantage with attacks on multiple fronts, expanding to another resource node while attacking, or increased efficiency with spellcasters.
StarCraft vs. Street Fighter
The Street Fighter comparison falls short because so many factors in SF are static -- particularly framerate and the fact that a player controls a single character. This dictates the absolute maximum frequency of input commands, thereby enforcing a player speed cap. Section III above does not translate well to SF because there are fewer ways to exploit a speed advantage. That is, a faster player is not allowed additional attacks per strike just by virtue of his speed alone. By contrast, attacks on multiple fronts are possible in Starcraft, and a slower opponent may not be able to withstand it if he is incapable of multitasking as quickly as the attacker.
Additionally, in SF, there are arguably greater negative consequences for performing an action because each action requires a commitment. That is, though almost any action can be performed at any time, initiating a 20-frame move means that your character is incapable of initiating any further action for 20 frames. This doesn't translate well to Starcraft because those 20 frames of "downtime" can be compensated for elsewhere.
I hope you continue to check out these classes and provide additional counterpoints. The debate is interesting to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
you played professionally?
|
I'm in the video XDXDXD - just a cameo though
|
Haha great teaser! I saw Zalfor and yosh and a couple of other people (think I saw phase, maybe my brother and his friends).
I like the "APM" and you erased it to fix it XD. Can't wait for the whole thing :D
|
I define professionally as: "getting most or all of my sustenance from playing Starcraft," and yes
|
Nimoo hwaiting D:
The number of races cannot exceed three.
|
I hope someone attending this class does their project on maynarding.
It's sort of a given that maynarding workers is effective, but in a lot of cases I wonder if it's true. Specifically, I want to know about situations where the main isn't saturated yet and players still transfer workers. Zerg moving 2-3 drones when they're only sitting on 9-10 in their main or terran 16 CC / protoss 12/14 nexus. People are maynarding just because it's always done, but is there any value in it? What's the optimal maynarding amount factoring in travel time for the popular openings. You can go as in-depth as you like with the math.
|
scooge esp with zerg, the transfer is 100% effective for a couple of reasons.
1) certain mineral patches mine %'s faster
2) zerg larva spawn every 12 seconds, so if you don't balance them out the way one base will become saturated long before another.
3)It looks cool to clone 4 drones to seperate patches.
1 and 2 are just an opinion.
|
On February 04 2009 17:28 Scooge wrote:
I hope someone attending this class does their project on maynarding.
It's sort of a given that maynarding workers is effective, but in a lot of cases I wonder if it's true. Specifically, I want to know about situations where the main isn't saturated yet and players still transfer workers. Zerg moving 2-3 drones when they're only sitting on 9-10 in their main or terran 16 CC / protoss 12/14 nexus. People are maynarding just because it's always done, but is there any value in it? What's the optimal maynarding amount factoring in travel time for the popular openings. You can go as in-depth as you like with the math.
If you 12 hatch, I think you have something like 11/12 drones mining in your main when your second hatchery pops. Since you get maximum efficiency when each drone gets its own patch, I usually maynard two or three drones to my nat, leaving just enough at my main for one drone per patch. I also usually try to fill up new expos quickly by transferring drones instead of letting them just fill up by one hatch - I think getting that extra income earlier helps immensely.
|
CA10824 Posts
|
From what I've seen, all Sirlin's arguments regarding StarCraft come down to:
1) Execution in SF is just a formality (debatable), ergo execution in SC is just a formality too.
2) Execution in SC is mindless, there's no skill involved.
3) Time is not a resource, being faster should not be an advantage in a Real Time Strategy game.
4) Players with worse mechanics are not able to overcome those with better mechanics in StarCraft; better "strategist" should always win vs. worse "strategist" regardless of mechanics.
Not only is his first point completely flawed, but he also completely fails to realize the variety of mental aspects associated with what we call 'mechanics' or 'execution' - aspects such as attention/time management (which allows the players to choose what playstyle they prefer: micro-focused, macro-focused or an all-around one), rhythm (and skills such as knowing how to throw one's opponent out of rhythm), (mental) multi-tasking, etc.
Time is very much a resource in any competitive RTS game - it adds another dimension to the game - you have to outplay the opponent in one more area, develop your skills (a huge range of skillsets). If two games are equally deep in terms of "strategy" but one of them has the "execution" layer on top of that, then it's the deeper game, that has more competitive play potential. It means that depending on one's (and his opponent's) level of execution different strategies are available while others are not.
Sirlin fails to realize that those who excell at StarCraft at any level are most of the time players who have good execution ALONGSIDE good "strategy."
If an RTS game has an unimportant execution layer, it gets solved quickly - a good example is Sins of a Solar Empire.
Last but not least, the better "strategist" can beat the lesser one despite worse mechanics in SC - but that doesn't mean he should neglect mechanics. Being more efficient SHOULD be an advantage.
/rant
|
I think the problem for Sirlin is he is too used to fighting games, which generally have a huge emphasis on rock paper scissors gameplay. The decision making in these games is about recognizing the opponent's patterns and adapting to them. You have to treat each opponent differently. Some might play like a robot, making you think " ok he has done move 3 every time thus far, surely he won't do it again," and yet that is exactly what he does. Or the other example would be someone performing tactically stupid plays which succeed anyways due to expectations.
The problem lies in the fact that Starcraft is NOTHING like this. The so called yomi examples I gave are not a part of Starcraft at all in individual games. It is apparent that Sirlin enjoys the yomi portion of gameplay almost exclusively; he even asked to add yomi to the list of required skills in SC during the Berkeley class he attended. The only examples of yomi in SC are things like boxer's 3X bunker rush. But you must keep in mind that this was done in a best of series. Starcraft is a game based on individual matches. In this regard, there are no mindgames other than studying your opponent's record and making assumptions. Anything else like screwing with an opponent's head with a shuttle is not a major part of the game, and is instead a small advantage you can pick up on. On the contrary, fighter games MUST be played in a best of series due to the sheer probability of luck granting an easy win.
This is where you see the main difference between Sirlin's train of thought and that of the Starcraft veteran. Fighting games are an art. Nothing is set in stone; your opponent has patterns but is still changing. On the other hand, Starcraft is a science. Everything is known and mapped out about the game. When you see people on teamliquid.net posting comments about the last pro game they saw, you NEVER see people saying "well they are progamers; they must know much better than me." On the contrary, you will always see people making comments such as "Player A should have harassed more, player A needed a better unit composition, or player A should have attacked when _______." Everyone who is fairly decent at the game knows what should be done. Player A knew exactly why he was losing, without the need of a replay. His opponent did not surprise him as he might in a fighting game. The game is a science and is thus based on mechanics at the highest level of play. Artosis' thread on how Koreans differ from foreigners explains this. How Koreans have turned what used to be strategy into common scientific knowledge.
|
I'm starting to post a lot on his comments and am now getting his attention. I just don't think he's played enough competitive starcraft (if any at all) to boast about wanting to redesign the game to make it better.
|
On February 04 2009 21:54 maybenexttime wrote:
From what I've seen, all Sirlin's arguments regarding StarCraft come down to:
1) Execution in SF is just a formality (debatable), ergo execution in SC is just a formality too.
2) Execution in SC is mindless, there's no skill involved.
3) Time is not a resource, being faster should not be an advantage in a Real Time Strategy game.
4) Players with worse mechanics are not able to overcome those with better mechanics in StarCraft; better "strategist" should always win vs. worse "strategist" regardless of mechanics.
Not only is his first point completely flawed, but he also completely fails to realize the variety of mental aspects associated with what we call 'mechanics' or 'execution' - aspects such as attention/time management (which allows the players to choose what playstyle they prefer: micro-focused, macro-focused or an all-around one), rhythm (and skills such as knowing how to throw one's opponent out of rhythm), (mental) multi-tasking, etc.
Time is very much a resource in any competitive RTS game - it adds another dimension to the game - you have to outplay the opponent in one more area, develop your skills (a huge range of skillsets). If two games are equally deep in terms of "strategy" but one of them has the "execution" layer on top of that, then it's the deeper game, that has more competitive play potential. It means that depending on one's (and his opponent's) level of execution different strategies are available while others are not.
Sirlin fails to realize that those who excell at StarCraft at any level are most of the time players who have good execution ALONGSIDE good "strategy."
If an RTS game has an unimportant execution layer, it gets solved quickly - a good example is Sins of a Solar Empire.
Last but not least, the better "strategist" can beat the lesser one despite worse mechanics in SC - but that doesn't mean he should neglect mechanics. Being more efficient SHOULD be an advantage.
/rant
His views on SC as well as fighting games are flawed for that same reason regarding execution. The amount of people who can't understand or appreciate the execution requirements of these games never cease to amaze me. Execution is a fundamental part of what these games are, without it they essentially just become a board game. The point you made about requiring both the execution and strategy is exactly what distinguishes competitive games from non-competitive ones, what allows for the evolution of the Starcraft scene into basically a sport as it has in Korea, and what keeps the game fun to play and watch by providing much greater depth to all who enjoy it. It's saddens me that almost all games created these days cater to the majority who can't appreciate this fundamental aspect of competitive gaming. The only real hope I see for competitive gaming currently is from Korea with Starcraft and from the Japanese fighting game community currently. I can only hope that both continue to be successful to promote the production of more competitive games which have become somewhat of a dying breed. Even in Japan the newer fighting games have some dumbed-down mechanics, and Starcraft II appears to be doing similar things clearly to target the much larger pool of non-competitive players.
|
United States20661 Posts
I believe a Princeton student did an extensive study on resource gathering rates. It was quite interesting; I don't know if it's still available though.
|
On February 05 2009 09:25 Last Romantic wrote:
I believe a Princeton student did an extensive study on resource gathering rates. It was quite interesting; I don't know if it's still available though.
Yeah I remember this, there was a lot of data and analysis on the "Neo Forte" solution to requiring less workers per patch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
