that's going to be offered through Haas. It's a 2-unit class on Thursday nights at 7-9pm in Haas C230. It's going to be a great class, covering the basics of Starcraft, but also with many advanced topics like trends in population dynamics, the "fractal" effect, and other calculations. As a special treat, ToT)Yosh( will be delivering lectures and will be there in person to improve your play.
the first class will be Thurs January 29th Labs are Sat 12pm - 5pm in the bottom floor of Moffitt Library.
edit: Moffitt Library needs a Student ID to get into. However, it should be easy to sneak people in. The Saturday labs will be on AirBears, the best router in the world, and we should have a decent pool of ID's and passwords to get people going.
Hey Nimue! It was nice playing you at the LAN B4 Time III... I can't make any of the Thursdays, but what are the main differences between the Saturday labs and Thursday classes?
The Thursday classes will be pure theory and calculations, or other important trends, analysis or higher level thinking.
Saturday labs are almost purely practical, based on practice, good macro and judicious application of the Reader. In other words, we'll be playing each other; (Read: FIVE HOUR LAN PARTY EVERY WEEK)
edit: anyone can show up, we'd be happy to have as many people as C230 can hold (120). However, only Berkeley students can actually get units for this class.
Oh alright, cool! I can't make any of the Thursdays then, but I'll surely show up to the labs / LANs somewhat regularly when I'm free. Great job in making this class btw ;D
On January 22 2009 15:11 toopham wrote: HOLY FUCKING SHIT!!!! Tell me. how did you guys get a professor to agree to teaching starcraft? He plays too?!!!!
yosh is one of the best foreigner terrans - he's not an actual professor who teaches physics or something lol but he does have a job
The reader is a series of nine essays on Resource Conversion, Army Positioning, and Scouting, Also interspersed are selections from the Art of War by Sun Tzu. It is mostly what is referred to as "Theorycrafting" but is even more general than that; it offers ideas on the pure theory of War and RTS's.
Yes, indeed, Yosh will be teaching it ... well, part of it, at least. The bulk of the lectures will be mine, geared towards a new and rigorous way to approach Starcraft. But Yosh will be talking about some of the more advanced topics like harassment or mind games or what not.
How much of a commitment are we expected to make? I'm taking some pretty heavy classes so I don't know if I can spend 5 hours at a lan party every Saturday =(. Also, do you expect us to be decent at SC to enroll, because I really suck (bnet 1v1 python noobs suck).
How much work went into this? Well, it's been in concept for at least one semester, but I've been working heavily on it for four months, writing lesson plans, getting necessary signatures, writing the textbook, and presenting it to various department officials to approve it.
Time commitment: the labs are completely optional. My goal in the course itself is to practice analytical thinking for SC and life, just with SC examples. So, you're looking at 2 hrs lecture and 1 hr homework each week. Also, SC proficiency is not necessary.
I'll be posting the lectures and certain notes on youtube and my website, www.berkeleystarcraft.com. My math isn't good enough to investigate your "nash equilibrium strategy" for SC, although it is pretty well outlined theoretically in the text. After the class is over, I'll offer the revised text on-line for review. However, I'm quite proud of flux calculations, macro graphs and various time-evolution equations, which, once I am sure I have no mistakes in them, I shall post. But, I have to warn you, the math that goes in is somewhere around upper division university calculus or thereabouts.
How to get a professor to sign off on a "gaming" class? Well, I did a few presentations, one to the sponsoring professor, to demonstrate the rigorousness, analysis and thought that this class can provoke. Then, I submitted various papers to the dean of the business school. After that, registered with various university offices ... it was a pain, trust me.
Would you be able to upload all the notes and lectures? I'd like to follow this from half the continent away
-edit- Will this class share research you did? It seems any sort of rigorous analysis would have been done already by a progaming team or university in Korea. Have you looked at any Korean information on this (I don't imagine a team would share it, but a university should). Also, every analysis of Starcraft I have seen has been a very intuitive one, so it seems many comprimises would have to be made to attach numbers to it, was that the case? And how much do you consider the psychology involved in a match?
I thought about the question Kwidowmaker posed a lot in the past, actually; why hasn't anyone done any research or calculations like I have in the past?
I think the answer is: Starcraft players, especially the pros in Korea start at a very young age, and on top of that, once they do get sucked into Starcraft, do nothing but that. Like I said, the math required is not easy, so the pros wouldn't have learned that kind of math; they would all know it intuitively and solve the equations heuristically.
Then why not the coaches or university students? I think the coaches don't do it because they want to coach the way that they learned in the first place, because they know it works; there's no need to come up with new teaching methods that might or might not work. And the university students might ... bit might ... be kind of stuck in the thinking with which they've been instilled since they first started Starcraft with so long ago. I would say it's almost like a group-think mentality, except the group-think is applicable to the whole country.
What makes me different? I'm a Physics major and my life revolves around numbers. Furthermore, I only started playing SC 3 years ago, and in the beginning a lot was on my own. So, I had no outside influence. Although that made my start very slow, the way I thought about problems was different from someone who might have been taught by a mentor or coach.
I don't mean to diminish the importance of a great coach or teacher; I've had the incredible luck to have been taught by Lore and Yosh. However, even with their influence, I think the way I approach some things is fundamentally different. Well,we'll see; I hope you guys tune in on youtube
On January 23 2009 07:18 Nimue wrote: I thought about the question Kwidowmaker posed a lot in the past, actually; why hasn't anyone done any research or calculations like I have in the past?
I think the answer is: Starcraft players, especially the pros in Korea start at a very young age, and on top of that, once they do get sucked into Starcraft, do nothing but that. Like I said, the math required is not easy, so the pros wouldn't have learned that kind of math; they would all know it intuitively and solve the equations heuristically.
Then why not the coaches or university students? I think the coaches don't do it because they want to coach the way that they learned in the first place, because they know it works; there's no need to come up with new teaching methods that might or might not work. And the university students might ... bit might ... be kind of stuck in the thinking with which they've been instilled since they first started Starcraft with so long ago. I would say it's almost like a group-think mentality, except the group-think is applicable to the whole country.
What makes me different? I'm a Physics major and my life revolves around numbers. Furthermore, I only started playing SC 3 years ago, and in the beginning a lot was on my own. So, I had no outside influence. Although that made my start very slow, the way I thought about problems was different from someone who might have been taught by a mentor or coach.
I don't mean to diminish the importance of a great coach or teacher; I've had the incredible luck to have been taught by Lore and Yosh. However, even with their influence, I think the way I approach some things is fundamentally different. Well,we'll see; I hope you guys tune in on youtube
I have to admit that I'm a little skeptical about how well you'll be able to model it, simply because it hasn't been done yet, and, as you said, you're an outsider looking in. However, the fact that you've got good players on board soothes most worries. Can't wait!
My brother is going to go to this class on Thursday ;D He asks why the labs are in the Moffit Library when there are plenty of better places that don't require student ID, like Dwinelle or residence halls.
Hahaha I'll listen to the lectures when they're posted. Sounds like an interesting plan. I'm at UCLA, so this is out of the question for me, but best of luck!
On January 23 2009 08:29 Superiorwolf wrote: My brother is going to go to this class on Thursday ;D He asks why the labs are in the Moffit Library when there are plenty of better places that don't require student ID, like Dwinelle or residence halls.
Moffitt Library has:
1. Airbears, the best router in the world 2. large flat tables that can be readily re-arranged 3. bright lights above 4. plentiful plugs and electricity 5. white boards for check-out to draw a diagram or chart or whatever 6. a moderate tolerance for noise
Of course your bro's right, there are plenty of good places; can we secure a large room (or many rooms) on sat afternoon in dwinelle? because the chalkboards can be used instead of whiteboards, and has many of the same characteristics moffitt has.
Also, you can play the other people in the class on airbears or iccup, you just won't be there in person for the instant analysis that you can go over with your practice partner or something.
wait so we have to sneak into the lab when we play? lol. hardcore shit sneaking in to play sc. but isn't it not that difficult to get a student id? i got one at dvc and i only took 1 class there... and i got it before i even got into the class.
I will give out course control numbers (CCN's) and course entry code (CEC's) on the first day of class. I like everyone's enthusiasm; we're going to be in for quite a show.
Wow, I wish my university had a class like that. Do you get credits for that lab activity?
Edit: Also, if you guys find a theorem about the perfect number of workers or hatcheries or something like that, please post it, OK? I need all the mathematical help I can get so that I continue to rule the High D-/Low D skill bracket.
From the syllabus: "There will be a final project where students will present and explain their contribution to the Starcraft Community. This may take the form of an essay detailing new theory or calculations, or an in-depth analysis of a significant game. Whichever final project is chosen will be displayed or published on a public forum for peer criticism."
I assume that "public forum" is TL?
EDIT:
Homework Week 3
Fighting Micro
1. A Terran Siege Tank in Siege Mode attacks for 70 damage, has 150 hp, and 1 armor. This means that after two upgrades, a Siege Tank can kill another Siege Tank in two hits instead of three. What are other significant damage combos? Be sure to investigate not just upgrades and numbers of hits, but also unit group combinations. Which numbers are worth noting?
2. When engaging a sunken colony defense with marines/medics, what is the optimal unit positioning when sending to attack? (consider unit formation and which units should be sent in ahead of others)
3. Is it more advantageous to attack in a line or to envelop your opponent’s army? Prove your point using flux calculations.
4. Explain the concept of Lurker or Siege Tank “leap-frogging” and when it is a dangerous threat. Compare when leap-frogging can be used and when all-out move can be used.
5. Discuss how the addition of medics calculates into rates at which Marines die. Be sure to compare the rate at which marines take damage without medics to the rate at which marines take damage without medics present. Assume no external sources of damage (no Stim Packs and no Lurkers)
6. Why is it so important have enough Mutalisks to pass the threshold to kill enemy units (marines, scv’s or medics) in one volley?
Wow, this is going to be the greatest class ever. you guys are so lucky haha.
Obviously the class cannot be a joke and there has to be legitimate materials taught throughout the class - so there has to be some challenging homework. However, keep in mind that the course is a weekly class so you've got a week to complete a few problems and get two replays. The instructor, Nimue, will probably go over all the stuff in the class regardless (as all teachers do), and after the class I doubt it will be difficult at all.
emperor, dropship mudang/hero/mullyang, high templar cheater/monster, siege tank maestro, defiler perfect terran, vulture (you'd have to go way back to understand this one) revolutionist, corsair and dt flower/dreamer, cannon obviously sashin, dt zealot, zealot legend killer/tyrant, no unit connection (i guess one could say mutalisk but that's a product of his micro and there are zergs with better muta control)
emperor, dropship mudang/hero/mullyang, high templar cheater/monster, siege tank maestro, defiler perfect terran, vulture (you'd have to go way back to understand this one) revolutionist, corsair and dt flower/dreamer, cannon obviously sashin, dt zealot, zealot legend killer/tyrant, no unit connection (i guess one could say mutalisk but that's a product of his micro and there are zergs with better muta control)
wouldnt reach be associated with the zealot cuz of that one quote of his
emperor, dropship mudang/hero/mullyang, high templar cheater/monster, siege tank maestro, defiler perfect terran, vulture (you'd have to go way back to understand this one) revolutionist, corsair and dt flower/dreamer, cannon obviously sashin, dt zealot, zealot legend killer/tyrant, no unit connection (i guess one could say mutalisk but that's a product of his micro and there are zergs with better muta control)
wouldnt reach be associated with the zealot cuz of that one quote of his
no
reach's nickname 'mudang toss' comes from his blanket storms, which were a shitload prettier than other protosses were typically pulling off
emperor, dropship mudang/hero/mullyang, high templar cheater/monster, siege tank maestro, defiler perfect terran, vulture (you'd have to go way back to understand this one) revolutionist, corsair and dt flower/dreamer, cannon obviously sashin, dt zealot, zealot legend killer/tyrant, no unit connection (i guess one could say mutalisk but that's a product of his micro and there are zergs with better muta control)
wouldnt reach be associated with the zealot cuz of that one quote of his
no
reach's nickname 'mudang toss' comes from his blanket storms, which were a shitload prettier than other protosses were typically pulling off
reach's high templar were feared by everyone
lololol i can click the center of your units~!~!~! zealot makes more sense
emperor, dropship mudang/hero/mullyang, high templar cheater/monster, siege tank maestro, defiler perfect terran, vulture (you'd have to go way back to understand this one) revolutionist, corsair and dt flower/dreamer, cannon obviously sashin, dt zealot, zealot legend killer/tyrant, no unit connection (i guess one could say mutalisk but that's a product of his micro and there are zergs with better muta control)
wouldnt reach be associated with the zealot cuz of that one quote of his
no
reach's nickname 'mudang toss' comes from his blanket storms, which were a shitload prettier than other protosses were typically pulling off
reach's high templar were feared by everyone
lololol i can click the center of your units~!~!~! zealot makes more sense
and jaedong would probably get the queen
zealot doesnt make more sense. you probably weren't watching pro starcraft back when reach was the top protoss.
and jaedong would get the queen? why, for one game against fantasy where his queen was totally unnecessary? chojja and jju used to make queens and use them in ways that affected the outcome of a game way more
emperor, dropship mudang/hero/mullyang, high templar cheater/monster, siege tank maestro, defiler perfect terran, vulture (you'd have to go way back to understand this one) revolutionist, corsair and dt flower/dreamer, cannon obviously sashin, dt zealot, zealot legend killer/tyrant, no unit connection (i guess one could say mutalisk but that's a product of his micro and there are zergs with better muta control)
wouldnt reach be associated with the zealot cuz of that one quote of his
no
reach's nickname 'mudang toss' comes from his blanket storms, which were a shitload prettier than other protosses were typically pulling off
reach's high templar were feared by everyone
lololol i can click the center of your units~!~!~! zealot makes more sense
emperor, dropship mudang/hero/mullyang, high templar cheater/monster, siege tank maestro, defiler perfect terran, vulture (you'd have to go way back to understand this one) revolutionist, corsair and dt flower/dreamer, cannon obviously sashin, dt zealot, zealot legend killer/tyrant, no unit connection (i guess one could say mutalisk but that's a product of his micro and there are zergs with better muta control)
wouldnt reach be associated with the zealot cuz of that one quote of his
no
reach's nickname 'mudang toss' comes from his blanket storms, which were a shitload prettier than other protosses were typically pulling off
reach's high templar were feared by everyone
I thought it came from the slang word mudang which meant like psychic or witchcraft or something because it always seemed like his storms were psychic because they'd hit freaking everything.
emperor, dropship mudang/hero/mullyang, high templar cheater/monster, siege tank maestro, defiler perfect terran, vulture (you'd have to go way back to understand this one) revolutionist, corsair and dt flower/dreamer, cannon obviously sashin, dt zealot, zealot legend killer/tyrant, no unit connection (i guess one could say mutalisk but that's a product of his micro and there are zergs with better muta control)
wouldnt reach be associated with the zealot cuz of that one quote of his
no
reach's nickname 'mudang toss' comes from his blanket storms, which were a shitload prettier than other protosses were typically pulling off
reach's high templar were feared by everyone
I thought it came from the slang word mudang which meant like psychic or witchcraft or something because it always seemed like his storms were psychic because they'd hit freaking everything.
WHAT. Please post your lectures online. ~.~ This class is an awesome idea. The homework looks great too, although a few of the questions seem like busywork.
What is the specialty of the professor in charge of this course? Which field does this course fall under? Also whoever made that homework is a Flash and Stork hater.
Thanks for putting this class together! I wish we had a class back when I went to school at Cal. I got there too late for D22-soso's class as well =[. Hope it goes well! Keep us updated =).
On January 22 2009 14:44 Superiorwolf wrote: Hey Nimue! It was nice playing you at the LAN B4 Time III... I can't make any of the Thursdays, but what are the main differences between the Saturday labs and Thursday classes?
Hey, Nimue is too busy to look at all these threads filled with questions, so I'll answer some. Saturday labs are optional and is practical lab =D.
Oh yeah, if you guys haven't seen the website yet, don't look at it now (too disgraceful), but if you must to get info and stuff then go for it. I'm working on a new one right now! And to everyone that's been answering homework questions, pm them to me so i can post them on the site; thanks! P.S. many broken links on it =/. New site will be up by the end of the week!
emperor, dropship mudang/hero/mullyang, high templar cheater/monster, siege tank maestro, defiler perfect terran, vulture (you'd have to go way back to understand this one) revolutionist, corsair and dt flower/dreamer, cannon obviously sashin, dt zealot, zealot legend killer/tyrant, no unit connection (i guess one could say mutalisk but that's a product of his micro and there are zergs with better muta control)
wouldnt reach be associated with the zealot cuz of that one quote of his
no
reach's nickname 'mudang toss' comes from his blanket storms, which were a shitload prettier than other protosses were typically pulling off
reach's high templar were feared by everyone
I thought it came from the slang word mudang which meant like psychic or witchcraft or something because it always seemed like his storms were psychic because they'd hit freaking everything.
all my friends who know i play starcraft keep msging me and telling me about "a starcraft class in berekeley, dont you go to a UC?"....
you need to ban the people in the class from TeamLiquid...its basically cheating if they go to this site lol force them to watch old vods to find out for themselves!
On January 29 2009 11:40 krazymunky wrote: all my friends who know i play starcraft keep msging me and telling me about "a starcraft class in berekeley, dont you go to a UC?"....
you need to ban the people in the class from TeamLiquid...its basically cheating if they go to this site lol force them to watch old vods to find out for themselves!
I agree since watching vods can teach them a thing or two. Ban teamliquid, gosugamers, sc2gg, etc...
SK-Gaming and ShackNews picked up the story too. So many idiots flaming.
hahaha some gems from the comments in the Kotaku article posted on the previous page
ThisCharmingMan 2:24 PM
I wonder if they're going to outlaw mind control in the tournament. Everyone knows thats a bullshit Protoss advantage. I would probably fail that class because I'm terrible at micro management.
Omatic 2:30 PM
@ThisCharmingMan:
I doubt it - Mind Control is easily defeated by Terrans using the Sci Vessel's EMP ability (which will leave the Dark Archons with only 25hp, and no energy). Trying to mind control Zerg units is usually a futile gesture, since they're individually weak, and there is no reason to bring drones into battle, so they aren't at risk of being mind controlled unless you leave your base open for a drop.
The game is balanced enough to the point where there's really no need to restrict anything (as long as they're using the latest patch). ThisCharmingMan 3:14 PM
@Omatic: I agree, but camping a few dark archons in your base and taking control of carriers or battlecruisers attacking your fortifications is still kind of a dirty advantage in my opinion. If you hide 12 in your base, you will suddenly have a fleet of your opponents most powerful units. The fact that you can mind control an SCV and build a terran base alongside your protoss forces is also rather cheap. I hope they take away mind control in SC2.
snakepliskin 3:26 PM
@ThisCharmingMan: When you watch most the pro players they never play protoss anyways. And when they do they rarely if ever use mind control.
This class is a UC Berkeley DeCal, meaning you can take it to earn credits towards graduating but you can't take it to fulfill any sort of minor or major degree. Everyone who was wondering about getting a BS degree in starcraft and who weren't kidding needs to understand this.
Cal has a bunch of these DeCals... they're student run courses which had to be approved by a professor.
Superiorwolf: FUCKING PROTOSS 1A2A3A. omg.........storm raped all my chogolings......FUCK Tossnub: I win keke! Studiying Bisu for homework really helped.
After the game both go grab something to eat together. Haha. Seems like a fun course, but is it worth using education $ for Starcraft? =o........Gonna get flamed.
I think people shouldn't be flaming this course. Our DeCal courses don't exactly require people's $ to go on. Its basically a student with a great idea who uses a lecture hall or discussion room sometime when no professors have to use it. It takes about as much $ as it takes for a group of college students to go somewhere and talk about anything. = 0$ i think.
On January 29 2009 13:11 JIJIyO wrote: Lol I can imagine it now.
Superiorwolf: FUCKING PROTOSS 1A2A3A. omg.........storm raped all my chogolings......FUCK Tossnub: I win keke! Studiying Bisu for homework really helped.
After the game both go grab something to eat together. Haha. Seems like a fun course, but is it worth using education $ for Starcraft? =o........Gonna get flamed.
do you not understand how credits work?
on the semester system you pay a flat tuition rate from 12-18 units. most standard courses that fulfill major/minor requirements are 4 units apiece. most people take 4 courses, meaning that they have 2 extra units left over. you might as well use it on something you are highly interested rather than wasting it.
On January 29 2009 13:11 JIJIyO wrote: Lol I can imagine it now.
Superiorwolf: FUCKING PROTOSS 1A2A3A. omg.........storm raped all my chogolings......FUCK Tossnub: I win keke! Studiying Bisu for homework really helped.
After the game both go grab something to eat together. Haha. Seems like a fun course, but is it worth using education $ for Starcraft? =o........Gonna get flamed.
do you not understand how credits work?
on the semester system you pay a flat tuition rate from 12-18 units. most standard courses that fulfill major/minor requirements are 4 units apiece. most people take 4 courses, meaning that they have 2 extra units left over. you might as well use it on something you are highly interested rather than wasting it.
I'm from Canada, and the program I'm taking is different in the way credits are distributed. So, no, I do not understand how credits work. Thanks for telling me how it works though. And from what I read, since this is student run there won't be a cost, which is pretty awesome. Good luck to everyone taking this course!
As someone who wants to see esports grow, this decal sounds really exciting. I wish I was around Cal to see how this turns out.
I just wanted to say, I know someone (actually quite a few people) who have taught decals before. You should expect a HUGE number of people on the first day of class (even more so because this is STARCRAFT). There's no way everyone who wants to take this course can sign up. What did my friend do? He asked people to write a short essay explaining why they should be enrolled over other people.
Just a thought, should the situation come up.
Good luck with this class! Props to you guys for spreading the awesomeness of starcraft in a positive light!
On January 29 2009 13:11 JIJIyO wrote: Lol I can imagine it now.
Superiorwolf: FUCKING PROTOSS 1A2A3A. omg.........storm raped all my chogolings......FUCK Tossnub: I win keke! Studiying Bisu for homework really helped.
After the game both go grab something to eat together. Haha. Seems like a fun course, but is it worth using education $ for Starcraft? =o........Gonna get flamed.
do you not understand how credits work?
on the semester system you pay a flat tuition rate from 12-18 units. most standard courses that fulfill major/minor requirements are 4 units apiece. most people take 4 courses, meaning that they have 2 extra units left over. you might as well use it on something you are highly interested rather than wasting it.
Yes, at Berkeley we can take a max of 20 units but a normal course load is ~15 units.
BTW Nimue will there be a site on decal.org? I'm assuming that just because its not listed there doesn't mean its not approved?
On January 29 2009 11:40 krazymunky wrote: all my friends who know i play starcraft keep msging me and telling me about "a starcraft class in berekeley, dont you go to a UC?"....
you need to ban the people in the class from TeamLiquid...its basically cheating if they go to this site lol force them to watch old vods to find out for themselves!
LMAO same for me. Since I'm the only guy in my group that plays SC (they don't play cause they're scrubs ), I'm the only one that gets sent the links. At least 5 friends have told me about already
Holy crap, have you guys seen some of these comments?
"Berkeley= another liberal bastion contributing to the dumbing down of America. Whatever happened to Science, Math, and English? Our educational institutions are turning into State fairs and lan parties with hidden Political agendas filling the young minds into thinking they should be the next revolutionary and to go out an protest this and that"
How much more ignorant can you get. Sometimes I wish I were a mutalisk so I could shoot some of these people.
wow the gamespot user base is fucking retarded. they seriously think that this class is replacing math science english and whatever and we are wasting money. /facepalm
On January 29 2009 18:31 Kentor wrote: wow the gamespot user base is fucking retarded. they seriously think that this class is replacing math science english and whatever and we are wasting money. /facepalm
On January 29 2009 13:11 JIJIyO wrote: Lol I can imagine it now.
Superiorwolf: FUCKING PROTOSS 1A2A3A. omg.........storm raped all my chogolings......FUCK Tossnub: I win keke! Studiying Bisu for homework really helped.
After the game both go grab something to eat together. Haha. Seems like a fun course, but is it worth using education $ for Starcraft? =o........Gonna get flamed.
do you not understand how credits work?
on the semester system you pay a flat tuition rate from 12-18 units. most standard courses that fulfill major/minor requirements are 4 units apiece. most people take 4 courses, meaning that they have 2 extra units left over. you might as well use it on something you are highly interested rather than wasting it.
That is a really weird way of doing things. In Canada you only pay for the courses you are taking, not some flat rate bullshit.
Thanks for the tip, we're planning to do something like that. I just hope we dont get as many people as I'm afraid we're gonna get lol, otherwise we'll need a bigger room.
On January 29 2009 15:07 magusmind wrote: As someone who wants to see esports grow, this decal sounds really exciting. I wish I was around Cal to see how this turns out.
I just wanted to say, I know someone (actually quite a few people) who have taught decals before. You should expect a HUGE number of people on the first day of class (even more so because this is STARCRAFT). There's no way everyone who wants to take this course can sign up. What did my friend do? He asked people to write a short essay explaining why they should be enrolled over other people.
Just a thought, should the situation come up.
Good luck with this class! Props to you guys for spreading the awesomeness of starcraft in a positive light!
Man I came into class thinking this was going to be a place to just talk about starcraft, but this is so much more than that. Nimue has clearly put an incredible amount of time and effort into this. First class was just incredible and inspiring. I'm so happy to find a someone who shares not only the great gaming aspects of starcraft, but also the deep philosophical and psychological aspects of competitive gaming in general.
HERE'S TO NIMUE AND AN INCREDIBLY AWESOME UPCOMING SEMESTER WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO YEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This class took me by complete surprise by the fact that prima facie one would expect this to be a laid back excuse to play starcraft. yet it was the complete opposite. It was comprehensive in the philosophical, analytical, and pure gaming aspect of it. Looking forward to the rest. Nimue and others really put a lot of effort into this one.
one of the koreans i used to play with goes to Berkeley now and im pretty sure hes taking the course, thats what my friend said anyway. interesting to see how it all works out. GL guys.
Great first class everyone, i'm really happy about the huge turnout. Even though the class can only allow 62 people (for credits), we hope to see as many as the first day (something like 100+) of you from the starcraft community come and continue auditing the class.
You know, I just realized this today about this and I was pretty surprised about a class about Starcraft.... if I wasn't stuck on east coast in college in D.C., I would definitely attend to this class.....
now now, I know this class is real giving by the information I read and all but then again, I found this site stating it's a hoax....
after reading that... I question myself once again..... what do you guys think? I personally don't think it's a hoax and a real class especially when all the comments here but that site did list a few points....
On January 29 2009 13:11 JIJIyO wrote: Lol I can imagine it now.
Superiorwolf: FUCKING PROTOSS 1A2A3A. omg.........storm raped all my chogolings......FUCK Tossnub: I win keke! Studiying Bisu for homework really helped.
After the game both go grab something to eat together. Haha. Seems like a fun course, but is it worth using education $ for Starcraft? =o........Gonna get flamed.
do you not understand how credits work?
on the semester system you pay a flat tuition rate from 12-18 units. most standard courses that fulfill major/minor requirements are 4 units apiece. most people take 4 courses, meaning that they have 2 extra units left over. you might as well use it on something you are highly interested rather than wasting it.
That is a really weird way of doing things. In Canada you only pay for the courses you are taking, not some flat rate bullshit.
not entirely true, at several canadian universities you pay per course up until you're taking enough courses to be considered a full-time student, and then you pay a flat rate, even if you continue to register for additional courses.
On January 30 2009 17:43 QuickStriker wrote: You know, I just realized this today about this and I was pretty surprised about a class about Starcraft.... if I wasn't stuck on east coast in college in D.C., I would definitely attend to this class.....
now now, I know this class is real giving by the information I read and all but then again, I found this site stating it's a hoax....
after reading that... I question myself once again..... what do you guys think? I personally don't think it's a hoax and a real class especially when all the comments here but that site did list a few points....
Pretty funny if you re-read your own link just now, even Danny Internets realized his wrongdoing
Nice to see how this thing can really happen, I envy you guys
On January 29 2009 13:11 JIJIyO wrote: Lol I can imagine it now.
Superiorwolf: FUCKING PROTOSS 1A2A3A. omg.........storm raped all my chogolings......FUCK Tossnub: I win keke! Studiying Bisu for homework really helped.
After the game both go grab something to eat together. Haha. Seems like a fun course, but is it worth using education $ for Starcraft? =o........Gonna get flamed.
do you not understand how credits work?
on the semester system you pay a flat tuition rate from 12-18 units. most standard courses that fulfill major/minor requirements are 4 units apiece. most people take 4 courses, meaning that they have 2 extra units left over. you might as well use it on something you are highly interested rather than wasting it.
That is a really weird way of doing things. In Canada you only pay for the courses you are taking, not some flat rate bullshit.
Thats is a really weird way of doing things. In Norway you just apply and if ur good enough u get in, not some pay for the courses bullshit
a classic quote from the comments box from a misinformed idiot in a blog (http://www.sirlin.net/blog/2009/1/30/uc-berkeley-starcraft-class-week-1.html)
Nonsense. Starcraft is an amazingly fun RTS game but it is a very arcade-like and simple RTS - the game's limited resolution and scope rewards quick hands rather than quick minds. Any serious RTS gamer would be playing something like Total Annihilation, a game that demands chess-like decision making but on a much larger scale.
On February 02 2009 17:38 GTR-2-Go wrote: a classic quote from the comments box from a misinformed idiot in a blog (http://www.sirlin.net/blog/2009/1/30/uc-berkeley-starcraft-class-week-1.html)
Nonsense. Starcraft is an amazingly fun RTS game but it is a very arcade-like and simple RTS - the game's limited resolution and scope rewards quick hands rather than quick minds. Any serious RTS gamer would be playing something like Total Annihilation, a game that demands chess-like decision making but on a much larger scale.
nimue can you please call this guy out in lecture LOL
Regarding the real StarCraft 2, I don't even know the status. Things like MBS and automine do seem to remove some pointless APM, but I've also heard rumors that new things were added specifically to keep the APM tax high. Things that ensure that players with absurdly high APM still have advantage over players with merely "very high" APM. Why they need such an advantage is still kind of beyond me. Maybe in StarCraft 3 can start with a video camera that records you as you juggle tennis balls right before the match. If you are able to juggle at least 5 balls for 15 seconds, you could start with more minerals so we can make sure "the right people" have an advantage in this "real-time strategy" game.
WTF seriously kick this Sirlin guy out of your class lol
Well, Sirlin isn't really a nobody, he's a game designer who plays games competitively. He's not anywhere in the starcraft scene, but he's certainly very well popular in the fighting game scene. You should give him some credit.
let's say i was a high-level competitive starcraft player (obviously i'm not). i wouldn't make a blog about street fighter making bad arguments such as "in StarCraft 3 can start with a video camera that records you as you juggle tennis balls right before the match"
why? because i have no clue wtf i am talking about, and it is painfully obvious to anyone who knows a thing or two about the game.
sure he's known in the fighting game scene. that doesn't mean i should give him "credit" when he makes horrible arguments like that.
What I think he's trying to say is that too many people are obsessing over the mechanics part of starcraft and just plain forgetting about the more mental aspects of the game. Is the game really about who can have more APM, its more of who knows what to do in a given situation given all the options and priorities they have. Multitasking in starcraft is importantg because you have so much to do, right?. But I think Sirlin sees that its a sorta pointless kind of multi tasking because its a UI limitation. I think he just wants other ways to keep a tax on the brain, rather than having to go back to your base and que up some more units.
EDIT: I realize making macro more complex will inevitably lead to more actions required, but requires more "thinking" or planning. Like in Age of Empires where theres more than two resources. I don't think the game requires more APM but much more planning in expanding and teching and whatnot.
On February 03 2009 14:21 crazie-penguin wrote: What I think he's trying to say is that too many people are obsessing over the mechanics part of starcraft and just plain forgetting about the more mental aspects of the game. Is the game really about who can have more APM, its more of who knows what to do in a given situation given all the options and priorities they have. Multitasking in starcraft is importantg because you have so much to do, right?. But I think Sirlin sees that its a sorta pointless kind of multi tasking because its a UI limitation. I think he just wants other ways to keep a tax on the brain, rather than having to go back to your base and que up some more units.
EDIT: I realize making macro more complex will inevitably lead to more actions required, but requires more "thinking" or planning. Like in Age of Empires where theres more than two resources. I don't think the game requires more APM but much more planning in expanding and teching and whatnot.
i mean, yeah it's obvious what his point is. in fact, it's nothing original. i'm sure you've read (or at least heard of) MBS threads 1 2 and 3 (something like 200+ pages of posts combined). it's material that has been hashed and rehashed a million times over. but one commonality that was accepted by both pro and anti MBS debaters was that the Dune arguments were stupid and had no place in a rational argument.
he fails to realize that in RTS, time is just as much of a resource as minerals and vespene gas. he is also writing from the typical perspective of someone who thinks they can be good at a game by being a strategical mastermind but it is only the "mindless clicking" that prevents them from beating other players.
i just don't get why people don't realize that each time you think of an action like "oh i need to make a marine" you do it. but when people perform actions at a rate 2 or 3 times faster than you it is now somehow magically mindlessly spamming, not thinking at a faster rate.
Its also the way he compares the use of apm to juggling tennis balls which is one of the most retarded things you could say. In Starcraft you can be plenty good with 100 apm but people got to realize that it's not chess, it's in real time and if you're faster than your opponent, you should be rewarded for that. Hopefully that's not mbs-related...
i've been keeping up with Sirlin's forum and I put in my two cents already. I don't like how he seems to think he can make a better game out of SC (with that SC HD Remix nonsense).
I've always had a huge respect for Sirlin and what he has written, but here he just stepped in to something he has no idea of.
On February 03 2009 14:10 Tensai176 wrote: God, sometimes ignorance like that makes me so infuriated. Someone please reply to his comment who will articulate points alot better than I can...
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
He's like a programmer trying to explain the intricacies of the human brain. Sure, it's sort of like a computer, so you may sound profound when you're talking about logic gates and neural networking and parallel processing, but in the end you're not a neurologist and you really don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
On February 05 2009 07:59 TSL-Lore wrote: 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.
He got really frustrated with my comments and said "i think its safe to ignore you now."
I guess he just has to have his way. He doesn't want to listen to anyone about the values of classic Starcraft because he doesn't play it and he thinks he can make it better. It's not exactly the best crowd (people who visit his blog) to argue my point of view so I think Rekrul is right, no need to continue talking to such a fool.
On February 06 2009 03:40 TSL-Lore wrote: He got really frustrated with my comments and said "i think its safe to ignore you now."
I guess he just has to have his way. He doesn't want to listen to anyone about the values of classic Starcraft because he doesn't play it and he thinks he can make it better. It's not exactly the best crowd (people who visit his blog) to argue my point of view so I think Rekrul is right, no need to continue talking to such a fool.
A friend of mine agrees with Sirlin and argues pretty much his same point of view. The argument is that because Starcraft is a game of strategy, no physical limitations should be put in place because that excludes players with weak mechanics and superior strategy, potentially increasing the competitive userbase. The flaw in that argument is that even though SC is a strategy game, there is more to it than strategy alone, and mechanics end up playing a big part. Sirlin likes to take it a step further by creating a hypothetical situation where the game is played with a neural interface and the player can issue orders and see the entire map (excluding the fog of war), and claims that Starcraft played in this way would be just as exciting but would be based entirely on strategic ability. All of the arguments we provided are ignored or hyperbolized (mainly where we claim speed to be a resource) because he refuses to debate outside of the hypothetical arena which he has created.
So really, it's like arguing with a handicap because you have to identify why he's wrong and why you're right. The problem is that he's not wrong (I think he's right that neural Starcraft would still make the game interesting to watch), but there's more to Starcraft than strategy alone, and he refuses to acknowledge this.
lol rekrul. i have to repeat myself, i think he needs to understand that his methods are better put to use in a turn base strategy game. One of the things that makes starcraft a great RTS is that it allows people to show their amazing mechanics with a mouse and keyboard. If you don't liiek that, then just go play chess.
I just wrote a long post on APM in the blog section here. The short version:
I think [Sirlin's] view misses some important points. First, it views APM more as an indicator of finger dexterity as opposed to recognition and fundamental understanding of game situations. Second, I think it's impossible to provide a cap on MUAPM without significantly changing the vision of Starcraft. Third, even "mindless" APM has a purpose: it adds a cost to micro and macro that creates a new resource and an interesting tradeoff. I'll touch on the Dune 2 argument here. Finally, I'll look at whether "mindless" APM adds to the fun of the game or not.
It's a real-time strategy game for a reason. Time is meant to be an important aspect of Starcraft. If we didn't want APM and action management to be a critical factor, we would play turn-based strategy games.
Sirlin is damn right, and Blizzard is designing SC2 in exactly the same mindset. Needing 40 actions to re-rally your 10 Gateways is NOT a strategic decision. The comparison to Street Fighter as absolutley valid. Needing to execute a (too) complex sequence of actions to make a simple move is not needed to make the game any deeper, and the same is true for SC.
Why are you all so fricking focused on APM? Do you really think the game would be less deep and interesting if it only required 200 APM to be played good? Isn't that a flaw in game design then?
I hope Blizzard will prove you all wrong with SC2 and that they will design a great game, that you all like, although it won't reward higher APM as much as does BW...
Edit: Forget this post. Some like chocolate, some like vanilla and even others like extreme high APM. SCBW was always a fun game even when i played it the first time with 9 probes on my 9 mineral patches, only using the mouse and with like 40 apm and it is fun with 200 apm, hotkeys and 25 probes.
I bet all this whining about apm/mbs/am/wtfbbq will stop when SC2 finally comes out and when we all will enjoy a new high quality game provided by our favorite game developers.
I think the inherent flaw is that maintaining a focus on exclusively strategy is a one-dimensional outlook. I'd like Rekrul to expand on what he was saying before about a neural interface causing games to be repetitive and boring, since I believe that would be a fitting response.
people aren't necessarily focused on APM, as a lot of very powerful players dont necessarily have the highest APM (Stork/Savior for example). But making everything automated makes starcraft a completely different game.
On February 06 2009 11:32 Excalibur_Z wrote: I think the inherent flaw is that maintaining a focus on exclusively strategy is a one-dimensional outlook. I'd like Rekrul to expand on what he was saying before about a neural interface causing games to be repetitive and boring, since I believe that would be a fitting response.
Turning the game into more of a slower turn-basedish strategy game will result in games being decided by who can memorize the best builds much like chess. You will not be able to make up for any errors you do make. There will be no amazing things you can do.
The fact that APM is so important in SC is what makes the strategy so advanced. Because the game is so technical every player is playing every situation in a different way due to their own macro/micro and their opponents macro/micro. This creates an infinite amount of scenarios in which players much 'feel' and find the right strategical decision for that situation.
It is only under the stress of having to multitask and do so much shit that we can see a true player's strategical ability put to the test. If you slow the game down any dumb fuck kid like Sirlin can figure out what the best strategical decisions are (thanks to watching a lot of replays, which is what someone like Sirlin would do to get 'good' at a game considering he's too dumb to comprehend the obvious facts of what I've just written in this post.)
If the game is made like this retard wants you're going to end up with games being boring and decided by merely a few mistakes and a few smart moves. Starcraft in its current state are so back and forth simply because it is so easy to make mistakes and so easy to do amazing stuff at the same time, which happens thousands of times per game and why it's entertaining to play and watch.
On February 06 2009 13:53 Rekrul wrote: Seriously who is this Sirlin kid and what rock did he crawl out from under anyways?
LOL.
he seems like an arrogant, condescending asshole. he's like one of those guys who thinks they are good at every game and think they know everything because they are good at one.
Sirlin made Kongai at kongregate.com, wrote some book about fighting game theory (that he tries to ineffectively apply to other genres of games), and worked on Street Fighter 2 Turbo HD. He wrote that "playing to win" article that is pretty popular. I like his attitude when it comes to fighting games, but he really pisses me off when he talks about Starcraft.
He has created this "theory" of how games should work. He can't find out how to fit Starcraft into his theory, and so rather than modifying his theory to apply to Starcraft he'd rather change Starcraft to fit into his theory. The fact that he actually raised his hand and said "what about yomi... the japanese word for--" and then actually just HAD TO SAY "I wrote a book about it and made a card game based on it" made him look like a sperging nerd who can't be taken very seriously outside of his asperger realm of fighting games/card games based on fighting games.
It's also interesting to note that his card game, Kongai, I heard from an unreliable source (don't care to research this), that the top ranked player in that game just made some formula which he uses completely mathematically and it wins for him almost all the time. The game is basically Sirlin's theory in action, and while it is sort of fun, the fact that it focuses so much on YOMI (gotta roll eyes when I type that) makes it pretty boring. The element of reading your opponent in a good fighting game or in Starcraft is fun because so much other stuff is going on, in Kongai it's pretty much the only thing you can do, and therefore it becomes way overplayed and almost random (i.e. "Ok I think he's going to switch out... but he knows I know that... so I'm not going to do that... but he knows etc. etc.)
I wouldn't compare it to chess, because chess does have amazing things, just much harder to understand, and the number of openings that you have to memorize is a lot more than you think. There is no best opening, there is no best line in an opening, but there are mistakes that can be taken advantage of. Chess, and most turn-based board games, are a lot more complicated than you make them seem. This is also the reason why SC shouldn't be dumbed down, it would make the game too simple. It would be like taking WC3, and then taking away the heroes.
On February 06 2009 14:32 terr13 wrote: I wouldn't compare it to chess, because chess does have amazing things, just much harder to understand, and the number of openings that you have to memorize is a lot more than you think. There is no best opening, there is no best line in an opening, but there are mistakes that can be taken advantage of. Chess, and most turn-based board games, are a lot more complicated than you make them seem. This is also the reason why SC shouldn't be dumbed down, it would make the game too simple. It would be like taking WC3, and then taking away the heroes.
Very true, StarCraft is nothing if you take away the mechanics, it just becames a strategy game with no deepness in it, no video game can match chess or go..
http://www.sirlin.net/blog/2009/1/30/uc-berkeley-starcraft-class-week-1.html His first post is his blog, and all the blue comments in the comment boxes are some stupid crap he vomited out of his mouth. Before comments appear though he can choose if he wants to delete them, so he can just be a fag and delete all your posts -_-;;
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
Sirlin actually replyed to this very post:
I just read more of that thread. Personal attacks, personal attacks, and personal attacks. Also some lies about kongai, and more lies about me deleting posts. Does not reflect well on that site. Stick to substantive arguments.
Every single think he said is a straw man argument. 1) Execution in SF is just a formality (debatable), ergo execution in SC is just a formality too. (Wrong cause and effect. Execution is a barrier to strategy generally. SF is only one example. SC is another.) 2) Execution in SC is mindless, there's no skill involved. (Never said this. What I said is that SC's interface has clicks that don't contribute to strategy. Blizzard reduced many of these clicksin War3, but of course that game has lots of problems other than that so it looks bad to even bring up, I know. In any case, I did not say what he said I said.) 3) Time is not a resource, being faster should not be an advantage in a Real Time Strategy game. (Never said. Obviously time is a resource, I've said that probably 10 times in this very thread.) 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. (Way oversimplified to the point of not being what I said at all.)
Next there's "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.""
I don't fail to realize that at all. It's plainly obvious that execution + strategy = ability to win. How much does each component contribute is the question. I think less execution (dear straw man arguers: not none) with a better interface would make the skill tests make more sense for the "strategy" genre.
Very disappointing to see a starcraft website willfully misunderstand a discussion about the game, and then manufacture fake arguments I never said so they can be shot down.
I have always loved SC because of its strategical aspects and have never found APM to be a limiting issue. It's a common trap for SC newbies to think that they know what to do but just can't execute it; dead wrong. Even with someone leaning so far in the extreme spectrum of strategy to mechanics like myself, I still don't feel APM is much of a barrier at all and that if I played enough to be able to fully implement strategy into my play (unconscious decision making/reflexes etc) my apm would naturally increase as this increased.
I think Sirlin might also find it interesting that 2 out of the 4 greatest SC players have had some of the lowest APM's in progaming and did not have particularly great mechanics to support their play(iloveoov and Savior). Their strategy and intelligence was just that much better than everyone elses. To be frank, iloveoov's mechanics were straight up mediocre for the most dominating player in history. But that was irrelevant because his deep insights completely flipped the understanding we had about the game, and he was second to none in psychological understanding.
But even for people like Bisu or Jaedong who can boast of 400 apm, they do that well because they have the strategy to make use of that extra apm; it's far harder than it sounds to create situations where they can actually make full use of that APM advantage (i,e Sair/dt PvZ, Bisu's recent game vs Flash on Destination).
I doubt this will be resolved to anyone's satisfaction though and certainly not through the methods we are attempting to do so (blatant attacks arguing argue back blah blah); it just seems a head butting situation. May as well lay the facts out there and let them find the answer themselves, if they choose to, and let this be.
hello, can someone please make sure sirlin gets this:
Dear Sirlin,
I know you like fighting games. Fighting games are kinda cool. But be careful when commenting about a genre you have no idea about. The very fact that you could even suggest that lessening the physical tasks required to play optimally (APM/mechanics etc etc) would raise the strategy level of the game is ridiculous.
First of all why are you even talking about genres? Starcraft is not part of a 'real time strategy' or 'strategy' genre. Starcraft is starcraft and nothing can compare to it because it is unique in the fact that its the only game ever invented to not only require such intense physical skills (APM/mechanics) but an even deeper sense of knowledge of strategy and even further the ability to apply that knowledge in the right situations. Starcraft is Starcraft and to classify it with any other 'strategy' game is a joke. Warcraft 3 is a joke. Command and Conquer is a joke. Age of Empires is a joke. Etc Etc. And don't try to brush me off thinking I'm just another overzealous Starcraft fan. I'm not. I've played all those games and talked to countless pros that have played those games on a top competitive level and guess what they all say: "yeah my game sucks SC is way better." THEY ADMIT IT!
In all your idiocy you are kinda right on a certain level when you say 'lessening the mechanics will make it more of a strategical game.' This will be very true. But only true at the very beginning or maybe the first 6 months-yearish. As with all new strategy games players will continuously come up with all sorts of new strategies that they can use to outsmart and outwit their opponents. If Starcraft2 is made how you want it to be a lot of geniuses that would have otherwise failed because they have no dextrous skills will be owning it up with their brilliant strategies. This will only last a year. After a while everyone will know the optimal strategies and your brilliant creators of strategies will now be average joe schmoes. Now you could try to argue that with non-stop new maps to use new strategies on the brilliant players will always have their edge. But I'm going to tell you right now your argument would be null and void. When you play starcraft you have many limitations based on what matchup you're playing and the type of map it is. Even if you keep drastically changing maps the general limitations will always remain the same and players will have to do similarish-type opening builds and the game simply won't be fun. It will only be interesting for the first year or so due to strategies still being discovered + constant balance changes by Blizzard forcing people to adapt.
Starcraft in all its complexity is a vey simple game. Every unit and/or unit combination crushes certain combinations and can be crushed by other certain combinations (other than late tech monster tech combos obviously). If everything is so easy to do (you don't have to macro like crazy and fly around everywhere making sure to take care of everything) and everyone knows which units in which amounts at what times are best against certain races and situations (due to replays expediting the learning curve for everyone) what will games be decided by? Perhaps by imbalance, perhaps by luck, perhaps by brutal small mistakes that can't be made up for. Is that fun? No.
The first year will be fun, yes, after that no one will give a fuck about the game anymore and it certainly won't be a good spectator sport. The reason why the strategies in starcraft are so complex are because of the multitude of unique situations that come up due to differences in players' mechanical ability as well as strategical ability. This is true on all levels of play from complete newbie to top-tier pros. Two newbs play eachother one of them has better mechanics and can pump more units and expand faster but the other guy is more strategically advanced so he makes the right units at the right times...vwalla we have a good game.
I mean listen to yourself. You are ranting that if you dumb down the APM/mechanics requirements it will be a better strategy game. Okay LOL suuuure man... In that case the player with a better strategical grasp / more experience will always win. There will be no way for the lesser player to win right? Thats why Starcraft is interesting....some guy that watches a lot of replays and studies the game a lot but is really slow can get raped by some idiot with high APM and good macro. This is what drives players to improve their strategies AND mechanics. Also...as much strategy as there is in Starcraft...a high % of the strategies are straight up GAMBLING/RISK build orders. Do you even realize this? Because starcraft is such a fast paced game and relies on players making split second executive decisions players are able to take huge risks to try and win. STRATEGY in starcraft is a non stop series of calculated risks taken by players and will only work when taking place in a high paced mechanics oriented game. Often times its not a STRATEGY at all, it's just one player doing an all-in build hoping to get lucky lol (or he thinks he can predict his opponents build).
What the fuck is a strategy to you anyways? Go Corsair DT against zerg to kill the overlord and expand safely? LOL is that a strategy? WOW WHAT A SICK STRATEGY!!!! SO BRILLIANT. No. The strategy is to use your insane high APM to execute the build with perfect timing so that you can harass overlords and wiggle that little fucker into zerg's main. Ooops he had it blocked! Oh well I have an expansion up and running now time to frantically figure out what he's doing so I can quickly pump out the precise strategically correct unit combination that will allow me to come behind from this small deficit and seal my next expansion all the while sick microing my shuttle with dt/ht in it to harass to get my edge back. <-- If all your probes go directly to minerals and you can select infinite units on whatever keys and mass macro from all your gates would this be hard? No. Should it be hard. Yes. The very fact that SC requires sick mechanics and strategy is why we have progamers and starcraft on TV. It is only when a player is completely stressed by all the tasks he must complete by clicking everywhere to pull off the strategies he intends on doing that we can see who has real talent and who doesn't. Thats why PRO sc is so fun to watch as well...these guys are so fast and clean that they can execute brilliant new strategies and unreal timing attacks with raw perfection all the time due to their insane mechanics. This is why even the best of the best rarely break a win % higher than 70%. We would never see this if they all could just easily macro by pressing two keys. There wouldn't be a difference between Mumyung and Jaedong. Games will either be one sided because one player is smarter and more strategically advanced or games will be even and decided by some simple mistake rather than decided by some brilliant combo two sided attack. And that, would be a huge problem.
I mean...are you even aware of the fact that Savior has a low APM compared to other pro-gamers? His revolutionary defiler use and muta control alone parted the sea of progamers as he earned himself the title of Bonjwa. Do you even play Starcraft? Do you even know who Park-Jung-Suk is? WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU? LOL.
We are Starcraft players. Every game we play we are simply rolling the dice with our strategies based on limited information, but we know that the faster and more efficiently we play with our good execution the higher our chances get. Sometimes the dominos fall perfectly and we win. Sometimes AVGJOE27 on USWest is actually a smurfing Korean monster pro and he picks up our dominos and eats them then laughs at us. Sometimes we practice countless hours for months straight only to forget zealot speed at the WCG Grand Finals and lose the most important game of our lives. Even though we thought we were the best one there we fall short of our dreams and expectations. Do we blame the game? Fuck no. Do we whine about how it's not fair because the other guy was too fast? Fuck no. We are Starcraft players. We take it like men and only blame no one but ourselves.
If we, the foreign players that have gotten butt-raped by Koreans because of their superior APMs countless times in competitions where it counts don't cry about how it's not fair for people with superior mechanics to have such an edge, then what gives a bone headed fighting game nerd like you the right to do so? Just do everyone a favor and shut the fuck up. I can't believe I just wasted my time writing all this obvious common sense shit.
I mean fuck it man...Make starcraft easier to play? LOL THEY SHOULD MAKE IT HARDER TO PLAY.
This isn't the Special Cyber Olympics. THIS IS STAAAAAAAAAAARCRAFT.
I mean...are you even aware of the fact that Savior has a low APM compared to other pro-gamers? His revolutionary defiler use and muta control alone parted the sea of progamers as he earned himself the title of Bonjwa. Do you even play Starcraft? Do you even know who Park-Jung-Suk is? WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU? LOL.
hahahahah awesome
And yeah I've played war3 at a high US level, and I've admitted countless times that SC is the better game, and it's not even close. NOTHING compares to SC
How is this Sirlin guy proposing to make mechanics not a factor for strategies like 4 way drops ala Boxer, lockdowning 15 bcs, EMPing arbiters, EMPing HTs, reaver sair, or any other number of "advanced strategies" that REQUIRE high APM? The mechanics are what set the game apart. Just because you can think of a superior strategy doesn't mean you SHOULD win. If your strategy is good, but their defense is better due to their ability to micro their units, does it mean they should lose because their "strategy" was inferior because they did not explicitly expect what was coming?
It's not like you have to be some gosumaster 500 APM insane player to make your superior strategies work. There is simply a baseline. Look at people like Testie. Look at people like Kwark, with 100 APM. Superior strategy, timing, understanding of the game, experience, etc, do play a massive role in SC. Do you really think 130 APM is too much for you to manage? You'll only lose with superior strategies to a better-mechanically player if that player is just MILES above you mechanically. Of course a 300 APM D player will beat a 50 APM D- player. If it's even remotely close, then your superior strategy works. High APM rewards you at HIGH levels of play versus other players of comparable strategical knowledge, not ALL the time. If you execute a DT rush with perfect timing PvP, no amount of APM is going to save him. SC is so complex because it's about finding a balance of these things - is it better to control your remaining 5 MM or to go and macro your 12 rax (even a slow mouse clicker will only take 2 seconds to macro 12 rax, I don't really think that macroing even as it is is a huge mechanic problem). Only at the highest levels when you have to combine micro and macro simultaneously does this become a problem at all.
Anyways, as has been said countless times, it's pointless for some jackass who knows absolutely nothing about the competitive SC scene and probably wouldn't pass D- to be talking about SC at any level of play. Someone who hasn't invested significant time into this game and followed to pro scene, seen VODs, seen FPVODs, etc, isn't going to be plausibly knowledgeable whatsoever. For him to suggest that he can actually IMPROVE the greatest "RTS" of all time is laughable.
I was going to make more arguments but even as I was writing what I wrote here I can already tell what arguments will be used against what I'm saying and I just don't feel like arguing about it. He clearly wants everyone at the top level to be even regardless of mechanical ability, which is stupid. In SC you can get up to A+ even with 120 APM, like Testie was in his prime, but you can't get to progamer level, and that's what makes SC so good.
anyways, Sirlin already said in his book or whatever about player styles that he was the type of player who doesn't have good mechanics or dexterity, as other players do, and he never really won any tournaments (although he does make it to the top ranks often). He makes up for this with his good timing, and strategy which is to find the simplest safest way to win and abuse it to hell. (Honda's ichio throw in SF:ST) for example.
And here is the ultimate response to Sirlin's ideas for sc2. How about this Sirlin, Why not make a single button for every single move that a character does in SF? Command moves, special moves, UOH, Throws, Taunts, Dashes, Specials, etc. And why stop there, why not make a single button that does the basic combos that everyone already knows anyways? Imagine how even more imbalanced akuma would be if his entire move set (probably the most out of all characters in any game) were 1 button. You would literally have over 30 hotkeys here. Now give single presses for Dash Demon, Kara Demon, BnB, etc. It's ridiculous. You know how fucking pro I would be if all I had to do was memorize a bunch of hotkeys and timings? And I suck, I just started playing last year.
You forget that half the game is actual physical skill and hand/eye coordination. You learn this, it gets embedded in your brain, players of all sports/games 'get in the zone' and often times it's so trained into them that they don't even have to think, their body takes over. Physical skill whether you like it or not is important in video games. Without this, the game is just chess.
Back to the topic of Week 2, I think there is an underlying agenda here to get random people into learning the game to ultimately benefit the discovery of new exploits/abilities that have been there all along but have not been found.
Feng said; "Sometimes a dragoon will miss on it's attack, Anyone who finds out how to make a dragoon miss an SCV at least 50% of the time will automatically pass the class".
Wow i watched first week and i must say that you are doing quite good Nimue
Yosh seems to lack a bit of self-confidence, but i guess it is just a matter of time
Oh and die Sirlin and <3 Rek, i completly agree with you. This retardo should play civ, chess or make his own game ( "with no stupid interface" ) but starcraft is a sport and it has physical requirements. I don't think it is the best strategy game ever because there are so many different kinds ( turn based, etc .. ) and it is just a matter of personal taste however it is probably the best RTS ever made.
Like usual, most of you are jumping all over what I can only say are entirely agreeable arguments for anyone outside of the Starcraft to community to be making about this game. Think about your perspective on sports games for instance. What if someone told you that calling the right play in a basketball game was 80% of the path to win? The other 20% was the talent of your players. You couldn't do anything against a team of talented players running the right play against your defense. In reality, sports games have a lot to do with the player's reaction time, skill, and time management skills.
I don't think it is a stretch for someone to make observations about the class they are taking without completely understanding what they are doing.
Mechanics set the bar higher and give use something to aspire to, and gameplay level will always be increasing. Without mechanics, gameplay will stagnate and level off after the first year of the game's release. There's something in Starcraft about trying to do everything at once (harassing w/ sairs while pushing Z's third, dropping his nat and sneaking a DT into his main while maintaining perfect macro) that other games don't have. With Starcraft, you have a goal that seems feasible but in reality is nearly impossible to reach, which is what attributes to its longevity. It's not just about who has the best strategy but who has best execution as well.
I think the problem Sirlin has with Starcraft is that it doesn't fit his definition of a "strategy" game so he tries to modify it to fit the definition. He doesn't grasp the fact that Starcraft is superior to other RTS games BEACUSE it's so different.
i dont want to change the discussion focus, nor troll, or anything like this.
i realy felt great when i read this, blizzard created more than a game with brood war, they will have to spend all their creativity and imagination to make star2 reach the place brood war is now, cheers for pardo and blizzard designers
(Yes, this is my post here and I'm posting here because I found a link to this discussion on sirlin.net. No, I am not sirlin.)
I do think there is some fanboyism in this argument. It is natural since this is a starcraft site, but most people here think they are being objective. This is how I see it : The biggest argument I've seen here is that taking away APM advantages takes away from the skill of the game. Its true! You people are acting like he said 'Remove any strategic option from the game that isn't technically simple / requires a high APM in order to achieve'. HE DID NOT SAY THAT. What he would like, is for operations that can be made easier using a slightly different interface to be made easier. Unit construction comes to mind : If a terran built 6 barracks and wanted to pump out 6 marines fast (1 from each barracks) he would have to either hotkey 6 different barracks or perform around 13 actions (go to location hotkey + click each barracks with mouse then marine shortcut). In the heat of the battle, especially while microing units that are currently fighting, you need to be good technically. (Feel free to reply with 'If you cant do that then go play simpler games' etc).
Here's an option that blizzard can add in SC2 (Don't know if they did) : Group buildings. If you group a few buildings together (that you obviously built for the same task) to a shared hotkey, it should be possible to select the group, press M (or whatever) six times, and one marine would start being produced from each barracks. Much easier. 7 Actions, but only 2 'sets of same action', instead of 12/13 originally. Updating the rally point of the 6 barracks (which you'd probably want to change all of them if you change one) will also become a much easier task.
I honestly believe that changes like these do not take any depth away from the game. They just make it easier to do things that are strategically just one action, but translate to much more in the game. I think that this is the point that Sirlin was steering to as well.
Please try to see what he's really trying to say rather than escaping to "He's an APM hater because he's too sloppy for the game he sucks".
edit: ok i'll elaborate. [Noman] that idea you talked about with building groups is one that has been talked about a lot before. Type MBS in the search bar and you might be able to find some threads about it (there have been lots of discussions on this).
I haven't really been following this discussion tooo much though. I popped in for Rekrul's post and the week 1 video of the class but from what I understand Sirlin (I guess this could be true for our wonderful friends at PCGamer as well) is basically saying he wants a lot of the "fluff" and needless clicking taken out of starcraft so there is more of an emphasis on your game plan and strategy than the mechanical aspect of the game.
We are trying to explain that since he doesn't play starcraft at a high enough level he can not understand the importance and value it brings to the game and why it must be kept as opposed to removed by interface "features" like MBS/Automine/Increased selection cap.
On February 07 2009 01:29 [Noman] wrote: (Yes, this is my post here and I'm posting here because I found a link to this discussion on sirlin.net. No, I am not sirlin.)
I do think there is some fanboyism in this argument. It is natural since this is a starcraft site, but most people here think they are being objective. This is how I see it : The biggest argument I've seen here is that taking away APM advantages takes away from the skill of the game. Its true! You people are acting like he said 'Remove any strategic option from the game that isn't technically simple / requires a high APM in order to achieve'. HE DID NOT SAY THAT. What he would like, is for operations that can be made easier using a slightly different interface to be made easier. Unit construction comes to mind : If a terran built 6 barracks and wanted to pump out 6 marines fast (1 from each barracks) he would have to either hotkey 6 different barracks or perform around 13 actions (go to location hotkey + click each barracks with mouse then marine shortcut). In the heat of the battle, especially while microing units that are currently fighting, you need to be good technically. (Feel free to reply with 'If you cant do that then go play simpler games' etc).
Here's an option that blizzard can add in SC2 (Don't know if they did) : Group buildings. If you group a few buildings together (that you obviously built for the same task) to a shared hotkey, it should be possible to select the group, press M (or whatever) six times, and one marine would start being produced from each barracks. Much easier. 7 Actions, but only 2 'sets of same action', instead of 12/13 originally. Updating the rally point of the 6 barracks (which you'd probably want to change all of them if you change one) will also become a much easier task.
I honestly believe that changes like these do not take any depth away from the game. They just make it easier to do things that are strategically just one action, but translate to much more in the game. I think that this is the point that Sirlin was steering to as well.
Please try to see what he's really trying to say rather than escaping to "He's an APM hater because he's too sloppy for the game he sucks".
Hi, welcome to TL. This feature has been added to SC2, to the dismay of many (as well as the joy of many others ).
The reason it's not universally heralded as great is that it greatly reduces the physical aspect of production, essentially allowing you to do all production from afar, meaning you never have to leave the sight of your army (while in SC you have to constantly dart across the map, keeping track of expansions and buildings). Removing physical skill components gives players less room to differentiate themselves, so in order for the game to not get shallower you will need some form of replacement (ie you need to have something else you can do with all this free time). Many people are not convinced that SC2 has this yet, so ideas like this one are proposed.
Making the UI better is fine, to a point, but this is Starcraft - a physical game, and if you are going to take something away you better add something new for me to do..
Personally I'm not gonna judge MBS (multiple building selection) as bad (although I started off as a fervent opponent of it) until I've played the game for an extensive period of time - it's entirely possible that the game will have just as much room for better players to differentiate themselves, and that the game will be just as difficult.
No one recorded the second class? And GamePro didn't show up? Wtf, is there a way to tell them that they FAIL... Class one was the most viewed video of the week on their site, how the fuck can they not show up? Idiotpage much?...
On February 06 2009 14:24 systranerror wrote: Sirlin made Kongai at kongregate.com, wrote some book about fighting game theory (that he tries to ineffectively apply to other genres of games), and worked on Street Fighter 2 Turbo HD. He wrote that "playing to win" article that is pretty popular. I like his attitude when it comes to fighting games, but he really pisses me off when he talks about Starcraft.
He has created this "theory" of how games should work. He can't find out how to fit Starcraft into his theory, and so rather than modifying his theory to apply to Starcraft he'd rather change Starcraft to fit into his theory. The fact that he actually raised his hand and said "what about yomi... the japanese word for--" and then actually just HAD TO SAY "I wrote a book about it and made a card game based on it" made him look like a sperging nerd who can't be taken very seriously outside of his asperger realm of fighting games/card games based on fighting games.
It's also interesting to note that his card game, Kongai, I heard from an unreliable source (don't care to research this), that the top ranked player in that game just made some formula which he uses completely mathematically and it wins for him almost all the time. The game is basically Sirlin's theory in action, and while it is sort of fun, the fact that it focuses so much on YOMI (gotta roll eyes when I type that) makes it pretty boring. The element of reading your opponent in a good fighting game or in Starcraft is fun because so much other stuff is going on, in Kongai it's pretty much the only thing you can do, and therefore it becomes way overplayed and almost random (i.e. "Ok I think he's going to switch out... but he knows I know that... so I'm not going to do that... but he knows etc. etc.)
Yeah its really easy to tell hes very arrogant and wants to take as much credit as he can about those things he "designed." I especially like how his webpage has that nav bar that says "GAMES I DESIGNED AND BALANCED" and street fighter HD remix is listed. Then i look at the changes he made to the game and its just making hadukens easier to execute on the damn controller. How the hell is that a game that YOU DESIGNED? what an arrogant bastard.
Nimue talked a bit about unit animations in starcraft at yesterday's lecture and actually asked Sirlin if he could explain what unit animations are and why they might be important. Sirlin says "isn't it self explanatory?" .. yeah, you're real smart man.
Anyways, back to the original topic, its unfortunate that lecture 2 wasn't recorded. It was a good lecture.
Although there's a ton of Sirlin bashing in this forum, his report on lecture 2 is pretty accurate and non biased. So even though we dont have a recording, you can read it and get an idea of what the class was about.
Sirlin just keep the "this is a straw-man argument" instead of debate the arguments in a proper manner. I lost my respect for that guy. What happens when you get a pro with 300-400 APM and removes the need of going to the base to queue new units? If you have MBS, these pros will be EVEN BETTER, and will steamroll everyone with lower APM, because he can use this extra APM to micro even better, to expand more and so on. Automine is ok IMO, queue buildings too(like in war3. I know we have it in starcraft, but you need to queue after it starts the first building). Like everyone said here, starcraft is all about efficiency. If someone can use their time better than you, you deserves to lose. And how can you improve efficiency? With higher APM.
hello, can someone please make sure sirlin gets this
For someone so good at Starcraft, Rekrul is really bad at the internet... or are you using the more skill intensive DNS free internet the kids these days are touting.
try www.sirlin.net. then you can actually see what opinions you are disagreeing with
Personally I'm not gonna judge MBS (multiple building selection) as bad (although I started off as a fervent opponent of it) until I've played the game for an extensive period of time - it's entirely possible that the game will have just as much room for better players to differentiate themselves, and that the game will be just as difficult.
What really worries me is that we have all of these typically less knowledgable players who consider replacing the difficult execution aspect of the game with more abilities or strategies or neat looking spells or new race-specific content(without the purpose of increasing multitasking) as equivalent. They will argue that the game will become just as easy to differentiate yourself from others with, although by outstrategizing your opponent instead of also having an execution component to it.
To me all this accomplishes is taking out a crucial aspect of the game that has kept Starcraft the exciting, fast paced, and ever growing competitive game it is. There is so much room for improvement the game will never get stagnant unless the player does.
I think the typical gamer would agree with a lot of the decisions that make the game easier to play, although I think they would be making a mistake not only for the competitive players but for themselves. Of course an easier game will be faster to pick up but Starcraft has never been a game new players couldn't mess around in and enjoy. Requiring good execution at competitive level play will obviously make the game more fun to competitors, and possibly even make the game more fun to even the average player (even if they wouldn't have guessed it beforehand). Sadly removing or dumbing it down would completely shoot the hopes of any scene that could reach the level of SC imo, and would likely remove the line between "competitive" playing and casual playing.
On February 07 2009 01:29 [Noman] wrote: (Yes, this is my post here and I'm posting here because I found a link to this discussion on sirlin.net. No, I am not sirlin.)
I do think there is some fanboyism in this argument. It is natural since this is a starcraft site, but most people here think they are being objective. This is how I see it : The biggest argument I've seen here is that taking away APM advantages takes away from the skill of the game. Its true! You people are acting like he said 'Remove any strategic option from the game that isn't technically simple / requires a high APM in order to achieve'. HE DID NOT SAY THAT. What he would like, is for operations that can be made easier using a slightly different interface to be made easier. Unit construction comes to mind : If a terran built 6 barracks and wanted to pump out 6 marines fast (1 from each barracks) he would have to either hotkey 6 different barracks or perform around 13 actions (go to location hotkey + click each barracks with mouse then marine shortcut). In the heat of the battle, especially while microing units that are currently fighting, you need to be good technically. (Feel free to reply with 'If you cant do that then go play simpler games' etc).
Here's an option that blizzard can add in SC2 (Don't know if they did) : Group buildings. If you group a few buildings together (that you obviously built for the same task) to a shared hotkey, it should be possible to select the group, press M (or whatever) six times, and one marine would start being produced from each barracks. Much easier. 7 Actions, but only 2 'sets of same action', instead of 12/13 originally. Updating the rally point of the 6 barracks (which you'd probably want to change all of them if you change one) will also become a much easier task.
I honestly believe that changes like these do not take any depth away from the game. They just make it easier to do things that are strategically just one action, but translate to much more in the game. I think that this is the point that Sirlin was steering to as well.
Please try to see what he's really trying to say rather than escaping to "He's an APM hater because he's too sloppy for the game he sucks".
On February 06 2009 14:24 systranerror wrote: Sirlin made Kongai at kongregate.com, wrote some book about fighting game theory (that he tries to ineffectively apply to other genres of games), and worked on Street Fighter 2 Turbo HD. He wrote that "playing to win" article that is pretty popular. I like his attitude when it comes to fighting games, but he really pisses me off when he talks about Starcraft.
He has created this "theory" of how games should work. He can't find out how to fit Starcraft into his theory, and so rather than modifying his theory to apply to Starcraft he'd rather change Starcraft to fit into his theory. The fact that he actually raised his hand and said "what about yomi... the japanese word for--" and then actually just HAD TO SAY "I wrote a book about it and made a card game based on it" made him look like a sperging nerd who can't be taken very seriously outside of his asperger realm of fighting games/card games based on fighting games.
It's also interesting to note that his card game, Kongai, I heard from an unreliable source (don't care to research this), that the top ranked player in that game just made some formula which he uses completely mathematically and it wins for him almost all the time. The game is basically Sirlin's theory in action, and while it is sort of fun, the fact that it focuses so much on YOMI (gotta roll eyes when I type that) makes it pretty boring. The element of reading your opponent in a good fighting game or in Starcraft is fun because so much other stuff is going on, in Kongai it's pretty much the only thing you can do, and therefore it becomes way overplayed and almost random (i.e. "Ok I think he's going to switch out... but he knows I know that... so I'm not going to do that... but he knows etc. etc.)
Yeah its really easy to tell hes very arrogant and wants to take as much credit as he can about those things he "designed." I especially like how his webpage has that nav bar that says "GAMES I DESIGNED AND BALANCED" and street fighter HD remix is listed. Then i look at the changes he made to the game and its just making hadukens easier to execute on the damn controller. How the hell is that a game that YOU DESIGNED? what an arrogant bastard.
Nimue talked a bit about unit animations in starcraft at yesterday's lecture and actually asked Sirlin if he could explain what unit animations are and why they might be important. Sirlin says "isn't it self explanatory?" .. yeah, you're real smart man.
Anyways, back to the original topic, its unfortunate that lecture 2 wasn't recorded. It was a good lecture.
Yes he is arrogant. But don't bash him more than he deserves. Tha nav bar says "Games I have designed and balanced". He Balanced Street Fighter HDR, not designed it completely and i don't think that he ever took credit for designing SF (and now don't get into semantics saying "it says designed AND balanced", yes it does, but anything else sounds stupid or is too long...it's just a fricking webpage...). Also there is more than he did than only making moves easier, he adjusted timings of attacks and stuff that you can't really know about if you are not into that game (the same goes for starcraft, someone who has no idea about the game has no right to say "make Siege Tanks more expensive, they are imba", thats just stupid).
But yes, the more i read on his page, the more i think he is a total arrogant bastard. But that doesn't make him a bad game designer and he has some really interesting stuff on hist page, which i am thankful that he shared it. I would never want to have to do anything personal with him or work with him. That would be a pain in the ass.
So just leave him be, discussing with him won't get you anywhere because he thinks he is always right. Read his oppinions about stuff, and take them as those. He has no impact on StarCraft game design/development, so just let him think that APM is bad for a RTS, and have your own oppinion. Saying stuff like "rip him another..." just makes you look like an 11 year old...
Yeah, I agree with Error Ash. I actually had a discussion with him in comments on his Week 1 blog and it didn't end well, but I never resorted to name calling. He actually called me a jackass and started to ignore me because I made a comment on how the companies Apple and Google shouldn't make the user interface for Starcraft, but that Blizzard should. Not sure why he took that so personally. He definitely thinks he is always right though... very annoying.
Don't take sirlin too seriously he thinks he has a "time stopping power" that he uses in fighting games.
So if I had zero real practice, why would I think I was more able to win than ever? Because I had a trick up my sleeve. Not winning the whole thing makes for a pretty lame story, but that's what we're stuck with. The trick: perceiving that time has slowed down.
I have always relied on this ability. How is it that my low strongs in SF Alpha 2 seem to beat other people's low strongs? How is it that my dragon punches seemed to hit other dragon punches (doing them 1 or 2 frames later means you can hit theirs...).
I was able to use my time-power. During a few critical moments, time passed very slowly, and I was even able to notice a couple times when I simulated what might happen if I did X, decided that I didn't like the simulation's answer, then did something else and was successful.
Why did he lose a tournament? Because his power stopped working
The next day, I did play Nuki on stage. I was not worried at all, and believed that I would beat him for sure. Playing in front of a huge audience does not rattle me, so that would not be a factor. I thought Vega was a more logical choice, but I felt Bison was a better choice for some reason I couldn't explain. Character choice wouldn't matter much anyway, it would be a battle of timing and who could see through the fog of double-blind. So I played Nuki...but...at normal speed. I don't know, I just couldn't get it going. No slow-time, no super power from me. Our rounds were close, but Nuki defeated me pretty handily.
Does anyone ever get the urge to compare Starcraft to (American) football? I don't know much about football, but based on the way people talk about it, it sounds like it's a very strategic game through formations/playcalling etc.
Maybe that analogy sucks, but to me I feel like removing APM would be like an NFL where the players aren't all ~300 lbs and lift weights :s
People seem to think that just because there is the term "strategy" in the genre title that it can't have any physical components. Starcraft wouldn't be as great as it is without its fast pace.
This stuff just pisses me off :s sorry for rambling
So if I had zero real practice, why would I think I was more able to win than ever? Because I had a trick up my sleeve. Not winning the whole thing makes for a pretty lame story, but that's what we're stuck with. The trick: perceiving that time has slowed down.
I have always relied on this ability. How is it that my low strongs in SF Alpha 2 seem to beat other people's low strongs? How is it that my dragon punches seemed to hit other dragon punches (doing them 1 or 2 frames later means you can hit theirs...).
I was able to use my time-power. During a few critical moments, time passed very slowly, and I was even able to notice a couple times when I simulated what might happen if I did X, decided that I didn't like the simulation's answer, then did something else and was successful.
Why did he lose a tournament? Because his power stopped working
The next day, I did play Nuki on stage. I was not worried at all, and believed that I would beat him for sure. Playing in front of a huge audience does not rattle me, so that would not be a factor. I thought Vega was a more logical choice, but I felt Bison was a better choice for some reason I couldn't explain. Character choice wouldn't matter much anyway, it would be a battle of timing and who could see through the fog of double-blind. So I played Nuki...but...at normal speed. I don't know, I just couldn't get it going. No slow-time, no super power from me. Our rounds were close, but Nuki defeated me pretty handily.
On February 07 2009 04:02 Intervigilium wrote: Sirlin just keep the "this is a straw-man argument" instead of debate the arguments in a proper manner. I lost my respect for that guy. I also think that small dogs are larger than elephants!
Are Strawman arguments debating in a proper manner. Also, seeing as everyone knows small dogs are smaller than elephants, you are wrong. you really have two options now. call me on misquoting you horribly or "debate the arguments in a proper manner" and simply admit you were wrong to make such a falicious claim.
Also, for those who don't know: HDR was a lot more than a simple 'easier move inputs.' The game had a lot of paradigm shifting mechanic changes, such as giving characters who normally flat out lost to fireball characters, more options. The idea was never to balance the game; a top tier ST char should still be top tier in HDR, but it was meant to flatten the band. A good example is allowing bottom tier character cammy's 'spinng back fist.' to pass through fireballs. she's still bottom tier, but beating her actually requires some thought. Now it's like she's playing rock paper scissors with a negative expected value. before she was just playing Rock/Scissors with negative expected value. Ryu still wins, but he doesn't win because he only ever chooses rock.
While HDR is not exactly Street Fighter:Brood Wars, it's obvious how small changes can provide a lot more options for a game. Think of terrans without medic and terrans with medic. I wouldn't say any HDR changes are that drastic (jab headbutt passing through fireballs help though : P )
Sirlin definitely did a lot to make HDR a great game. Imagine if one of the Korean progamers had game design experience, the community would definitely want him helping on SC2. Sirlin basically was there making sure the game transitioned well and would work out for the community. An example I can pull out of my ass would be how they managed widescreen implementation; they basically made it pan and zoom if you wanted to play in widescreen. This allowed people who "just wanted their whole screen used" to do that, and people who cared about seeing the proper amount of the game at once to do that with bars on the side. I think Sirlin probably made sure things like this got through and that designers didn't cater too much to "causal players" demands or expectations. Without a player who cared about the ST scene and played at a high-level himself on the team it could have turned out really shitty.
The problem I have with Sirlin is that he doesn't have this use for Starcraft as he's never really played it. His game design experience is valid and his "playing to win" attitude is good; I just don't think he really understands Starcraft as much as he'd like to admit. It would be humbling for someone who is a game designer and a big name in one community to be just another sub D rank player with ideas that won't work in another community. I think if he just learns more about Starcraft and plays more himself he will hopefully revise some of his views, because frankly this idea of "you can't play SC at a high level with less than 250APM, therefore only those with a certain physical ability can play" is total bullshit. The biggest hinderance to having effective 250+APM is not physical ability it's multitasking and knowing what to do with those actions.
I'm watching the lecture now. It's really interesting. Not bad at all for a first time teaching/presenting material in front of a large group. A little shaky which makes it kind of nerve-wracking to follow, but Alan's a true pioneer in doing this and can only mean great things for esports in the future. Congrats!
lol at someones phone going off. kick their ass out
Part of the problem here IMO is that you guys are taking Sirlin's arguments out of context and using them for what you want them to be. And then bashing them with sheer volume of words. Maybe I'll just single out Rekrul since everyone else seems to be as well.
Putting retards in their place? Well said. Do you really think this is what you did?
All that's being done here is people are taking a general statement and using specific examples (and a lot of useless chatter) to combat it. This takes discussions way off track which means that while it'll be about whatever you make it out to be, the point is lost.
In general, nothing Rekrul said has any practical meaning. There's no reason why APM is needed, just specific examples of when it gives an advantage. There's no proof that such a game will get boring after one year, that's just speculation based on other games. There was no link to those games having a lower APM or anything like that. There was no substance in his argument. Or maybe I missed it amid all the banter. I'm not sure.
In addition, Sirlin's arguments were taken out of context and adjusted accordingly. Does he ever say that APM should be removed? I'd like to see it. Does APM need to be reduced? I don't know the answer to that, but did he say that directly?
I like Seku's post a lot and some of the questions it raises. I was most interested when he said...
"To me all this accomplishes is taking out a crucial aspect of the game that has kept Starcraft the exciting, fast paced, and ever growing competitive game it is. There is so much room for improvement the game will never get stagnant unless the player does."
Most people agree that removing the physical capabilities of Starcraft would make it a boring game. I disagree that it would be boring, but it certainly wouldn't be Starcraft. However, people seem to be proposing that Starcraft would be better if the game were harder to play. Can you imagine the APM needed if you weren't able to select groups of units?
But again, that's just a specific example of a general point. The point is that there is nothing wrong with making a game easier to play. You don't have to sacrifice APM requirements to do this. The best design IMO would be one where anyone can do any strategy easily, but the people who train themselves physically can execute it more efficiently or accurately.
"The best design IMO would be one where anyone can do any strategy easily, but the people who train themselves physically can execute it more efficiently or accurately."
I completely disagree here.
One of the most interesting aspects of learning StarCraft is the fact that as you get better at mechanics and start to understand things better, the spectrum of strategies you can employ changes - it's neither wider nor narrower, it's just different.
he actually did say APM needs to reward players less. He never responds when people tell him players like stork and savior can top with less APM.. it's like he's got selective hearing, or in this case, selective sight.
On February 07 2009 04:02 Intervigilium wrote: Sirlin just keep the "this is a straw-man argument" instead of debate the arguments in a proper manner. I lost my respect for that guy. I also think that small dogs are larger than elephants!
Are Strawman arguments debating in a proper manner. Also, seeing as everyone knows small dogs are smaller than elephants, you are wrong. you really have two options now. call me on misquoting you horribly or "debate the arguments in a proper manner" and simply admit you were wrong to make such a falicious claim.
On February 07 2009 07:32 Scamp wrote: All that's being done here is people are taking a general statement and using specific examples (and a lot of useless chatter) to combat it. This takes discussions way off track which means that while it'll be about whatever you make it out to be, the point is lost.
...It's called rebuttal... If you make the general statement "there's no such thing as a black cow," am I not allowed to give you a specific example of a black cow to disprove you?
On February 07 2009 07:32 Scamp wrote: In general, nothing Rekrul said has any practical meaning. There's no reason why APM is needed, just specific examples of when it gives an advantage. There's no proof that such a game will get boring after one year, that's just speculation based on other games. There was no link to those games having a lower APM or anything like that. There was no substance in his argument. Or maybe I missed it amid all the banter. I'm not sure.
So even if no other RTS has the success and longevity that Starcraft has had and the thing that differentiates Starcraft from other RTSs is its higher mechanical demand still means we can't draw any conclusions from this?
On February 07 2009 07:32 Scamp wrote: In addition, Sirlin's arguments were taken out of context and adjusted accordingly. Does he ever say that APM should be removed? I'd like to see it. Does APM need to be reduced? I don't know the answer to that, but did he say that directly?
Things that ensure that players with absurdly high APM still have advantage over players with merely "very high" APM. Why they need such an advantage is still kind of beyond me.
And what do you mean by "APM should be removed?" Make Starcraft into a movie?
On February 07 2009 07:32 Scamp wrote: I like Seku's post a lot and some of the questions it raises. I was most interested when he said...
"To me all this accomplishes is taking out a crucial aspect of the game that has kept Starcraft the exciting, fast paced, and ever growing competitive game it is. There is so much room for improvement the game will never get stagnant unless the player does."
Most people agree that removing the physical capabilities of Starcraft would make it a boring game. I disagree that it would be boring, but it certainly wouldn't be Starcraft. However, people seem to be proposing that Starcraft would be better if the game were harder to play. Can you imagine the APM needed if you weren't able to select groups of units?
On February 07 2009 00:34 Saracen wrote: Mechanics set the bar higher and give use something to aspire to, and gameplay level will always be increasing. Without mechanics, gameplay will stagnate and level off after the first year of the game's release. There's something in Starcraft about trying to do everything at once (harassing w/ sairs while pushing Z's third, dropping his nat and sneaking a DT into his main while maintaining perfect macro) that other games don't have. With Starcraft, you have a goal that seems feasible but in reality is nearly impossible to reach, which is what attributes to its longevity. It's not just about who has the best strategy but who has best execution as well.
I think the problem Sirlin has with Starcraft is that it doesn't fit his definition of a "strategy" game so he tries to modify it to fit the definition. He doesn't grasp the fact that Starcraft is superior to other RTS games BEACUSE it's so different.
On February 07 2009 07:32 Scamp wrote: But again, that's just a specific example of a general point. The point is that there is nothing wrong with making a game easier to play. You don't have to sacrifice APM requirements to do this. The best design IMO would be one where anyone can do any strategy easily, but the people who train themselves physically can execute it more efficiently or accurately.
If this is true, then why would you? It seems that you're advocating a game that's accessible to the casual player yet competitive at the same time, which is basically what everyone wants. In the end, that's what everyone wants, but we're disagreeing on how to achieve this. The thing is, what you're saying already applies to a certain extent to Starcraft. Anyone can go sair/reaver but few people have the ability to execute it well. Why change something that already works, especially if by changing it you compromise the competitiveness and longevity of the game? ...But that's a tangent from the topic of Sirlin-bashing because he gives us gems like this:
Nonsense. Starcraft is an amazingly fun RTS game but it is a very arcade-like and simple RTS - the game's limited resolution and scope rewards quick hands rather than quick minds. Any serious RTS gamer would be playing something like Total Annihilation, a game that demands chess-like decision making but on a much larger scale.
On February 07 2009 04:02 Intervigilium wrote: Sirlin just keep the "this is a straw-man argument" instead of debate the arguments in a proper manner. I lost my respect for that guy. I also think that small dogs are larger than elephants!
Are Strawman arguments debating in a proper manner. Also, seeing as everyone knows small dogs are smaller than elephants, you are wrong. you really have two options now. call me on misquoting you horribly or "debate the arguments in a proper manner" and simply admit you were wrong to make such a falicious claim.
Also, I think I have sand in my vagina
hello sirlin. please go fuck yourself.
hey there intervaginal, (pardon my spelling... i am canadian), you seem to be confused. sirlin's name is david sirlin. i am simon. he has no qualms expressing himself, and doesn't exactly hide behind a handle. i'm sure if he wanted to sass you out, he would.
anyway, glad you're stepping up your game. it's a good thing starcraft doesn't test your ability to convey an argument...
@OP: sorry to derail the post. i sadly assumed this actually was a thread about sirlin's article, and not the class it's self. huge props on presenting the subject matter with a professional and even handed approach. makes me wish i was in the bay area *sigh*
anyway, glad you're stepping up your game. it's a good thing starcraft doesn't test your ability to convey an argument...
yeah, attacking my argument like that is really a great way to show your ability to convey an argument. props to you, kiddo. just like your little friend sirlin, who cannot debate in a proper manner, you need to attack the argumentator and avoid the argumentation. please die.
On February 07 2009 08:03 TSL-Lore wrote: he actually did say APM needs to reward players less. He never responds when people tell him players like stork and savior can top with less APM.. it's like he's got selective hearing, or in this case, selective sight.
Forgive me, but I don't understand this argument at all. Rekrul brought up Savior as well, and I don't see why. So Savior and Stork can do well at the highest level with a lower APM. Then why is the ability to go at 400 APM important?
Savior and Stork are two of the most popular players ever. So having a higher APM certainly doesn't affect things in terms of fans.
Savior and Stork are also arguably two of the most studied players ever. So having a lower APM doesn't seem to reduce the strategy.
I just don't see how pointing out players that do incredibly well despite having a lower APM proves anything other than how ridiculous APM isn't really needed.
Saracen, the statement "there is no such thing as a black cow" is not a general statement.
Secondly, is the success of Starcraft because of it's higher mechanical demand? I see no evidence of this being so. Also, I bet that if other RTS games had the fanbase and support that Starcraft has then ridiculous mechanics would be developed for those games too.
What I mean by "APM should be removed" is that some people seem to be arguing like Sirlin said to take out APM completely, and I don't think he's said anything remotely to that effect.
Changing something that works can also be referred to as changing something that's good into something better. I see no evidence that making certain things easier to do will change the competitiveness and longevity of the game. If it does, I would certainly be against it. But I see nothing wrong with giving the option to having things done an easier way especially if it still leaves the option for improvement.
But I guess we all seem to want the same thing. Why is it so hard to express ideas?
ok, please stop bashing sirlin here. if you want to bash him, bash him on his blog. I don't think he reads these, so it's like forming a coalition of Bush-haters in like Russia or somewhere ... Bush isn't gonna get the message.
also, please preserve your own dignity by proposing actual arguments, not random personal attacks like "I think I have sand in my vagina" or "please go fuck yourself." Believe it or not, it doesn't add anything to the discussion.
finally, Sirlin does have good thoughts, albeit from a different background. It is that background that prevents him from seeing our point of view. Like Lore said, his commentary of the second week seems more acceptable.
Can't believe the number of ass lickers Rekrul has lol. Sirlin doesn't know SC too well, he's trying to put his thoughts on the game coming from a fighting perspective ON HIS PERSONAL BLOG NOT ON A FORUM WHERE HE HAS so many fans, how about explaining it to him there instead of writing down a post in front of the fanbois Rekrul?
Also
On February 07 2009 09:29 Nimue wrote:
finally, Sirlin does have good thoughts, albeit from a different background. It is that background that prevents him from seeing our point of view. Like Lore said, his commentary of the second week seems more acceptable.
and
On February 07 2009 09:11 Scamp wrote: I just don't see how pointing out players that do incredibly well despite having a lower APM proves anything other than how ridiculous APM isn't really needed. But I guess we all seem to want the same thing. Why is it so hard to express ideas?
On February 07 2009 09:11 Scamp wrote: Forgive me, but I don't understand this argument at all. Rekrul brought up Savior as well, and I don't see why. So Savior and Stork can do well at the highest level with a lower APM. Then why is the ability to go at 400 APM important?
It's a matter of play styles (reserved a la Stork or metagame approach a la sAviOr vs. multi-tasking heavy Bisu or micro heavy Casy), how you move around the map (minimap vs. hotkeys - 0 "actions" vs. dozens of them), efficiency (useless "surplus" APM that doesn't give you any advantage and can even be a hinderance, a bad habit), etc.
Savior and Stork are two of the most popular players ever. So having a higher APM certainly doesn't affect things in terms of fans.
True. I don't think girls really dig APM as some people like to think.
Savior and Stork are also arguably two of the most studied players ever. So having a lower APM doesn't seem to reduce the strategy.
At that level certainly not (however, it can make certain play styles less effective - e.g. at first, other Protoss players had trouble mimicking Bisu's style vs. Zerg).
I just don't see how pointing out players that do incredibly well despite having a lower APM proves anything other than how ridiculous APM isn't really needed.
It shows that Sirlin's argument about higher APM giving a massive advantage, and high APM being essentially required to compete was flawed.
Saracen, the statement "there is no such thing as a black cow" is not a general statement.
OK, "cows can't be black." Fine?
Secondly, is the success of Starcraft because of it's higher mechanical demand? I see no evidence of this being so. Also, I bet that if other RTS games had the fanbase and support that Starcraft has then ridiculous mechanics would be developed for those games too.
If it wasn't for physical demands, StarCraft would've been solved years ago. The fact that progamers constatly try to become more and more efficient and improve their mechanics allowed the game to keep evolving over the years. Imagine the fact that Bisu revolutionized PvZ almost a DECADE after SC's release because he was thriving to push the limits.
If it wasn't for the physical aspect of StarCraft, people would've discovered that going FE in TvZ can be much better than 2 Rax one base or that SKTerran is so efficient within a couple of years. The game would get solved and get boring.
What I mean by "APM should be removed" is that some people seem to be arguing like Sirlin said to take out APM completely, and I don't think he's said anything remotely to that effect.
He argues that physical demands should be de-emphisized so that there's more focus on "stratetegy" in a "strategy game."
This train of thought is stupid becuase it dumbs the whole game down by diminishing the importance of one aspect of the game. If you want more focus on "strategy" - add "strategy" to the game and not take something out... Otherwise, you're just dumbing down the game...
And as for his sticking to the names of the genres. "Strategy games should have little physical demands because they're about strategy" - that like saying Valve should deliberately dumb down CS because it involves extensive tactics, and the name "FPS" (or better yet: "shooters") doesn't mention tactics anywhere - beyond retarded.
Changing something that works can also be referred to as changing something that's good into something better. I see no evidence that making certain things easier to do will change the competitiveness and longevity of the game. If it does, I would certainly be against it. But I see nothing wrong with giving the option to having things done an easier way especially if it still leaves the option for improvement.
Yeah, because making the game one dimensional (heavy focus on micro), diminishing physical demands (see above) and removing fundamental StarCraft skillsets (like attention management) will make the sequel better...
(irony)
But I guess we all seem to want the same thing. Why is it so hard to express ideas?
I definitely do not want the same thing as Sirlin. he wants a dumbed down game so that it meets his weird definition of what RTS should be.
Talking about Savior and Stork proves that APM isn't really needed.. you are correct, which is precisely why Starcraft's UI doesn't need to be drastically changed and automated because it's already fine. That's why people bring it up to argue against Sirlin. Anywho, let's drop the whole discussion and talk abuot what awesome examples we used in week 2's lecture. Boxer's blindspot to show the effectiveness of dropship/medic/comsat/wraith all together anyone?
On February 07 2009 09:11 Scamp wrote: Forgive me, but I don't understand this argument at all. Rekrul brought up Savior as well, and I don't see why. So Savior and Stork can do well at the highest level with a lower APM. Then why is the ability to go at 400 APM important?
Savior and Stork are two of the most popular players ever. So having a higher APM certainly doesn't affect things in terms of fans.
Savior and Stork are also arguably two of the most studied players ever. So having a lower APM doesn't seem to reduce the strategy.
I just don't see how pointing out players that do incredibly well despite having a lower APM proves anything other than how ridiculous APM isn't really needed.
You could play a fighting game landing every 1 or 2 frame link by hitting the button once, or you could double tap like almost any player with that level of execution does. Sure you could play slower in starcraft and be close to as effecient but it is quite clear that keeping your speed up definitely helps keep the player active and makes it EASIER for them in the long run (just like learning how to double tap or TK correctly etc would make it easier and more fun to play a fighting game). Yes it is hard to keep a constant 300apm but it's silly that people argue about it who can't seem to grasp that the difficulty of getting to the level you could actually utilize 300apm dwarfs the physical requirements completely. Just like I wouldn't want a scrub asking to have fighting game inputs or combo timing changed as they can't fully understand or appreciate the system, it's silly for Sirlin or anyone else in that position to do the same to Starcraft, if not more so.
Nimue has requested that the thread get back on track so to that effect I will address one final thing and then withdraw from arguing any more of these points here.
On February 07 2009 09:41 maybenexttime wrote: I definitely do not want the same thing as Sirlin. he wants a dumbed down game so that it meets his weird definition of what RTS should be.
This is what happens when you put words in other people's mouths. Certainly you can disagree with things he is saying but one thing he certainly doesn't want to do is to dumb down the game.
On February 07 2009 10:14 Seku wrote:Yes it is hard to keep a constant 300apm but it's silly that people argue about it who can't seem to grasp that the difficulty of getting to the level you could actually utilize 300apm dwarfs the physical requirements completely. Just like I wouldn't want a scrub asking to have fighting game inputs or combo timing changed as they can't fully understand or appreciate the system, it's silly for Sirlin or anyone else in that position to do the same to Starcraft, if not more so.
I'm starting to understand why people bring up Savior and Stork a little more now, but a lot of the arguments that go along with it still don't add up. It seems people think that a big part of the strategy and beauty of the game comes from training yourself and utilizing tactics that only come about due to high APM, when from what I can see this is only a little bit of the strategy.
I can see how it could take away some of the fun and strategy if the mechanics in the game were neutered so that they were far easier to do but eliminated some of the options you had. But I still can't see any problems with making the game easier to play (provided you can still do everything).
I can also understand how having physical requirements is needed for a sport. (Or, in this case, an e-sport.) There is no such thing as a sport that everyone has an equal chance at if you take away all the training. (In other words, natural talent matters.) Starcraft is no different. But the higher you set the bar the more exclusive the sport becomes.
Finally, new ideas or different points of view shouldn't be scoffed at so readily and in such a hostile manner. Yes, I wouldn't want a scrub to tell me how a fighting game should go if I were a fighting game master, but I should be able to explain to the scrub why things are better my way without getting offended or using any personal attacks. If the scrub doesn't want to see things my way, he shouldn't have to.
Note that being good at the game (or in this case, a master) doesn't give me any right to tell other people how to play the game.
Thanks to all the people who gave me respectful replies. Let's try to get this thread back on track and then play some more Starcraft.
But the higher you set the bar the more exclusive the sport becomes.
Thats the point, dumbass.
At first Rekrul's use of personal insults is off-putting. But there is something likeable about his straightforwardness. He's obviously done something right to earn some kind of following. I mean, he just posts up requests for people to do for him and they do it!
Lemme explain a few things to you, hopefully in a way your puerile manner can comprehend. Exclusive isn't always a good thing, but I guess I didn't explain myself so well. Every popular sport/game starts with a simple premise. Throw a ball into a hoop. Hit a puck into a goal. Shoot everyone on the other team. A few structural changes may come, but the premise is simple.
It's simple so everyone can play. This expands the fan base. Everyone can play and enjoy what the game has to offer. They can even try to do advanced stuff they see the pros do, just not very well. (Need a boost to dunk, for example.) The point is, though, that the elite do the advanced stuff as a derivative of the basic simple game.
It's better if the players take the game to an extreme level instead of having an extreme level thrust upon the players. Otherwise you neuter your fan base. This is what I was trying to say.
But maybe you got that already. You know your Starcraft, I don't know if you agree. The post below you agrees. I just don't know the extent of your comment due to your brashness.
That's my point, simpleton.
Re: Edit. Next post below.
Keep it simple. Your point is that there are many levels of play because it is so hard to play? The difficulty of the game isn't the reason why a game has so many levels. It's one of several reasons, and in my opinion the worst one. It is a reason, though. I won't deny that.
Do you realize that by making the interface less APM needy that it opens up the possibility for options you couldn't do before? I don't think taking away people's advantages by having insane APM is a good thing for competition. I think, however, that if the things that are needlessly complicated were made easier that it would open up lots of new things that you would be able to accomplish with all the extra APM that are freed up.
Worst case scenerio is I'm very wrong and people would just go back to playing the old way.
The interesting thing about your analogy about changing the hoop to four feet off the ground is that it really wouldn't help short people play the game at all.
And do try to be a little more creative. I already called you a simpleton, you should come up with something different when you retort.
On February 07 2009 11:27 Scamp wrote: Nimue has requested that the thread get back on track so to that effect I will address one final thing and then withdraw from arguing any more of these points here.
On February 07 2009 09:41 maybenexttime wrote: I definitely do not want the same thing as Sirlin. he wants a dumbed down game so that it meets his weird definition of what RTS should be.
This is what happens when you put words in other people's mouths. Certainly you can disagree with things he is saying but one thing he certainly doesn't want to do is to dumb down the game.
On February 07 2009 10:14 Seku wrote:Yes it is hard to keep a constant 300apm but it's silly that people argue about it who can't seem to grasp that the difficulty of getting to the level you could actually utilize 300apm dwarfs the physical requirements completely. Just like I wouldn't want a scrub asking to have fighting game inputs or combo timing changed as they can't fully understand or appreciate the system, it's silly for Sirlin or anyone else in that position to do the same to Starcraft, if not more so.
I'm starting to understand why people bring up Savior and Stork a little more now, but a lot of the arguments that go along with it still don't add up. It seems people think that a big part of the strategy and beauty of the game comes from training yourself and utilizing tactics that only come about due to high APM, when from what I can see this is only a little bit of the strategy.
I can see how it could take away some of the fun and strategy if the mechanics in the game were neutered so that they were far easier to do but eliminated some of the options you had. But I still can't see any problems with making the game easier to play (provided you can still do everything).
I can also understand how having physical requirements is needed for a sport. (Or, in this case, an e-sport.) There is no such thing as a sport that everyone has an equal chance at if you take away all the training. (In other words, natural talent matters.) Starcraft is no different. But the higher you set the bar the more exclusive the sport becomes.
Finally, new ideas or different points of view shouldn't be scoffed at so readily and in such a hostile manner. Yes, I wouldn't want a scrub to tell me how a fighting game should go if I were a fighting game master, but I should be able to explain to the scrub why things are better my way without getting offended or using any personal attacks. If the scrub doesn't want to see things my way, he shouldn't have to.
Note that being good at the game (or in this case, a master) doesn't give me any right to tell other people how to play the game.
Thanks to all the people who gave me respectful replies. Let's try to get this thread back on track and then play some more Starcraft.
But the higher you set the bar the more exclusive the sport becomes.
Thats the point, dumbass.
At first Rekrul's use of personal insults is off-putting. But there is something likeable about his straightforwardness. He's obviously done something right to earn some kind of following. I mean, he just posts up requests for people to do for him and they do it!
Lemme explain a few things to you, hopefully in a way your puerile manner can comprehend. Exclusive isn't always a good thing, but I guess I didn't explain myself so well. Every popular sport/game starts with a simple premise. Throw a ball into a hoop. Hit a puck into a goal. Shoot everyone on the other team. A few structural changes may come, but the premise is simple.
It's simple so everyone can play. This expands the fan base. Everyone can play and enjoy what the game has to offer. They can even try to do advanced stuff they see the pros do, just not very well. (Need a boost to dunk, for example.) The point is, though, that the elite do the advanced stuff as a derivative of the basic simple game.
It's better if the players take the game to an extreme level instead of having an extreme level thrust upon the players. Otherwise you neuter your fan base. This is what I was trying to say.
But maybe you got that already. You know your Starcraft, I don't know if you agree. The post below you agrees. I just don't know the extent of your comment due to your brashness.
That's my point, simpleton.
You're right about that stuff but what you don't realize is that in Starcraft things can only be taken to such a pro-extreme level with all the APM-needy-limitations in place. It's just not realistic to create such a deep strategical game where theres _always_ something someone can do to outwit the opponent. This would require too many units, too many factors and would be impossible to balance. The speed is what keeps the game competitive on extremely high levels.
You compare it to sports. Learning to play basketball is more simple than 'throw the ball into a hoop.' Anyone that knows how to play basketball has spent countless hours learning it on a team in school as a kid, learning it from Dad as a kid, or watching it on TV or w/e. Just shooting around with your friends or playing a game of horse/around the world are indeed things that take not much learning at all but thats really the same in starcraft. Two utter newbs can have the time of their lives playing eachother in a long drawn out newbie game where they barely even get an expansion. Or you could compare that to Use Map Settings games or w/e.
In starcraft1 there is no extreme level thrusted upon players. Thats why we still have games on USWEST called shit like "Team Epic) clan recruitment!" and its a clan full of complete newbies (compared to me I mean) still enjoying the game playing all the time even recruiting people into their clans! You've got those newbs. You've got the even newb'er newbs who play one game every couple months vs. their friends who also don't play at all and have fun. They dont click fast, they don't play competitively, they are still having fun. We have guys like alot of TL.nettrs that play a lot but aren't that good cause they are slow or dumb or both but they can still rock on the newbs. They love the game too. We have countless ICCupers. We have WCG level players. We have Korean amateurs, we have Korean semi pros, we have Korean pros, and we have the Korean elite. There are so many different levels of play that can all be enjoyed in starcraft _BECAUSE_ it is so hard to play. You just have to play against the right people.
A team of 6'6 black guys play against a team of 6'0 white guys. The black guys can rebound and dunk easily. They dont practice at all they are just big fast and strong. Then you have the team of short guys who practice all the time work on their plays and their shots. The black guys demolish them anyways. This is very similar to someone with high APM that isn't very smart owning a smarter but way slower opponent. It's just the way the games work and it's very comparable. Thats why basketball has different leagues and levels so that the teams competing against eachother are around the same level and we have good entertaining games. The same is in starcraft. We have foreigner tournaments (well used to its died out except wcg mostly unless you count online stuff)...we have tournaments like Courage in Korea for amateurs...different qualifying leagues all the way up to the Starleague.
Making Starcraft less APM needy would be like taking the hoop down to 4 feet so short people have a chance in basketball.
Will there be scripts or something like that for the StarCraft class? I would really love to get a little bit more detail on the stuff that you discussed last week. I read Sirlins Blog and it is good, but i want moooooore
-_- my brother doesn't/can't send me because he doesn't know how I'll get in in the first place and also because his SC isn't working on his computer atm so he is fixing that
actually, you guys didn't miss much. There were several comments after class that the material was too basic for them. So, next week, I think I'm gonna turn it up a lot, skip the simple "what is a dragoon" "how much health does an Archon have" kind of stuff and go straight for the heavy stuff.
We did have a short discussion about animation frames and the process to learn how to exploit them.
On February 08 2009 18:56 Nimue wrote: actually, you guys didn't miss much. There were several comments after class that the material was too basic for them. So, next week, I think I'm gonna turn it up a lot, skip the simple "what is a dragoon" "how much health does an Archon have" kind of stuff and go straight for the heavy stuff.
We did have a short discussion about animation frames and the process to learn how to exploit them.
Be careful that you make sure that you don't leave half your class in the dust because of the comments of a few.
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL that class is hilarious
On February 08 2009 18:56 Nimue wrote: actually, you guys didn't miss much. There were several comments after class that the material was too basic for them. So, next week, I think I'm gonna turn it up a lot, skip the simple "what is a dragoon" "how much health does an Archon have" kind of stuff and go straight for the heavy stuff.
We did have a short discussion about animation frames and the process to learn how to exploit them.
Be careful that you make sure that you don't leave half your class in the dust because of the comments of a few.
Yea, as you should know, it's pretty normal that in the beginning of classes only very basic stuff is discussed, so that all are on the same level when you start doing the hard stuff.
Yes, I'm from Sirlin.net. No, I'm not Sirlin. Yeah, I'm kinda late in this comment.
I will make one statement that agrees with Sirlin (In my first two paragraphs), and then one clarification that I think will appease most of your discontents with what he's said (The rest of my post).
I just want to point out that saying that Starcraft should remove some of it's unncessary clicks and keystrokes by streamlining its UI doesn't necessairly mean that Starcraft should become a "STRATEGY (in real-time)" game. It needs to be strategy AND real-time. The challenge of Starcraft isn't just choosing the right play, it's making all the important decisions you must make at the extremely rapid pace you must make them at, while splitting your attention between 10 different places on the map all at once.
I believe that any given string of actions in a game represent one larger decision. Imagine this: Player A moves his screen to see the location where all his gateways are built, selects them one by one, pressing z after selecting 6 of them, and pressing d after selecting the other 4. That is the long way of saying "Player A decided to build 6 zealots and 4 dragoons." The in-game representation of that is "move screen - click, z (times six) - click, d (times four)." That requires a movement of the screen, ten clicks, and ten keystrokes. (There is also an implied movement of the screen at the end, because looking at the gateways while they're building isn't too useful.) We all know that in SC2 that decision will be ten keystrokes -"0zzzzzzddd", which is over 50% more efficient than in SC1. (I know the debates over MBS have raged here for hundreds (thousands?) of pages, so I'll try to tiptoe around the subject and just use it as an example instead of making it the brunt of my argument.)
The problem here is that it's hard to give a good reason why building 6 zealots and 4 dragoons should require ten clicks, ten keystrokes, and two screen movements (one explicit, one implied) when it could be just ten keystrokes. Saying the first is somehow better would open up all sorts of ridiculous logical arguments, like arguments that say that Dune 2 is better because you have to select units individually instead of in groups. That is artifical difficulty. Imagine if the ten keystrokes from SC2 is a plain old hoop that you have to jump through. By comparison, SC1 requires you to jump through a flaming hoop, and Dune 2 just plain requires you to walk on open flames. What does it really add to the game that is interesting? That's not a hypothetical question- I believe there is an real-world answer for it that is present in SC1, and I believe there is an potential answer for it that is better than SC1's system.
What makes building six zealots and four dragoons 50% less efficient than "0zzzzzzdddd" interesting is the fact the SC1 system greatly assaults the player's attention-dividing ability and hand speed, the "real-time" part of the RTS genre. If you reduce the amount of APM it takes a Terran player to do the same stuff he already does by half, you free up about 200 APM for him to use elsewhere. There are all sorts of interesting attack methods in SC1 that are based on the concept that it is hard for a player to pay attention to everything that is going on all at once, and have the speed in both physical movement and decision-making to respond to it all. If you split your forces into 3 groups, two "main armies" and one shuttle with a reaver, you can assault your opponent's attention and speed. If you are attacking two of his expansions while reaver dropping his SCV line, you are attacking him on three fronts, while he still has to deal with his 4th front of macromanagement. He may make a critical mistake, like not noticing your reaver drop until all his SCVs are already dead, and if so you have just split his attention in a strategically interesting manner - you are using attention splitting as a strategy to beat him. But if he has 200 APM just freed up with nothing to put it towards, this strategy would not be nearly as effective. By greatly reducing the strains the UI places on his physical speed and attention reserves, all sorts of interesting strategies in Starcraft would be nullified by the fact that your opponent has such deep reserves of attention and speed. You could (almost?) never overwhelm his ability to pay attention to everything and react to it in a reasonable time frame. So what to do?
I feel the answer is that both communities are right in their own way here, and a combination answer best solves the problem. Sirlin is right that desiging a UI to increase APM is artifical and not an interesting way of keeping the players busy. However, pro Starcraft communities are right that attention-splitting and quick decision-making (and as a by-product speed) are the "real-time" component, and are a huge part of what makes Starcraft the best and most successful competitive RTS in gaming history. I think the answer is to cut out all the "unnecessary" clicks - reduce building four zealots to "0zzzz" and increase efficiency by over 5% - and replace all of that "hollow" APM that has been carved out of the game by increasing the Decisions Per Minute (DPM) that the player has to face. While APM is well and good, DPM is the number that the "real-time" component of an RTS should strive to measure. DPM is what drives APM - your APM (or EAPM, for those who spam commands) is a reflection of the number of decisions you make per minute and your speed/efficiency in executing them - the number of decisions you make a minute is what drives you to perform a number of actions that minute.
For example, the actions required to build 10 zealots is 20 actions - 10 clicks, 10 keystrokes. SC2 will cut the clicks out and reduce that to 10 keystrokes. If that's all you do for one minute, your APM in SC1 is 20, and APM in SC2 is 10. However, your DPM in both games is only 1 - you made the one decision to build 10 zealots, and that's it. (That might be oversimplifying it - let's assume for example's sake that you have nothing building in any of the gateways at the moment, and they're all in one location so you don't have to consider where. If those two aren't given then your DPM might be higher than 1.) At this rate, a 20 DPM player in SC1 would have an APM of 400. (I know that this only applies to macro and not to troop movement; again, it's for examples sake, and I think if we drew out a more fleshed-out real-game example this would certainly still hold true, though the numbers used in the example might be different). A 20 DPM player in SC2 would have an APM of 200. However, the lowered APM in SC2 gives us room to design the game in order to increase the number of decisions the player faces per minute. Since we freed up 200 APM, the equivilent of 20 DPM in SC2 conversion rates, we can add another 20 DPM, and in fact we must add 20 DPM in order maintain the speedy-decision-making component of the "real-time" part of Starcraft, Futhermore, more DPM means more strategic decisions the player must face at each turn, which means there are more opportunities to increase the weight on the "strategy" side of the game. The end result would be that three of the four main attributes that Starcraft measures to determine your success - decision-making-speed, attention-dividing, and strategy - would recieve increases in their overall contribution to the winner of the game, while the hand-speed limitations would remain.
This post has already been long as hell, so I'll spare you another lengthy outro paragraph. To sum it up quickly: "Requiring high APM, and therefore high hand speed, is just an unfortunate side effect of attempting to require high DPM. The goal of any RTS should be to ensure that the APM and hand-speed it requires to sufficiently test the player's attention-splitting abilities should remain as decision-full as possible, or in other words, represent a high DPM. A high DPM increases both the strategic and real-time aspects of the game. The fact that it requires good mechanics is just an unfortunate side effect of the fact that we cannot plug the game directly into our brains."
There's also no way I'm going to thoroughly proofread something this long when I'm not being graded on it or paid for it, so I'm sorry if there's any tyops. Feel free to ask any questions you want, I'll check this thread every now and again. Also feel free to flame away, it doesn't bother me. I anticipate a wave of "WHATS YOUR KESPA RANK? IF IT'S BELOW 20 YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO TALK" - I am not the best SC player in the world, but I would find it hard to refute this analysis, unless you don't want to grant me the few axioms I have taken here. (Namely, I think they are that Starcraft measures decision-making speed, attention-splitting, and strategy primarily, and hand speed secondarily; that achieving higher necessary DPMs required to play at the competitive level is always a good goal for an RTS game, and that the DPM should be what is filled out to test speed and not the APM; and that increasing your APM is pointless if the increased number of actions still represents the same DPM)
On February 10 2009 18:24 MJAnoname wrote: Yes, I'm from Sirlin.net. No, I'm not Sirlin. Yeah, I'm kinda late in this comment.
I will make one statement that agrees with Sirlin (In my first two paragraphs), and then one clarification that I think will appease most of your discontents with what he's said (The rest of my post).
I just want to point out that saying that Starcraft should remove some of it's unncessary clicks and keystrokes by streamlining its UI doesn't necessairly mean that Starcraft should become a "STRATEGY (in real-time)" game. It needs to be strategy AND real-time. The challenge of Starcraft isn't just choosing the right play, it's making all the important decisions you must make at the extremely rapid pace you must make them at, while splitting your attention between 10 different places on the map all at once.
I believe that any given string of actions in a game represent one larger decision. Imagine this: Player A moves his screen to see the location where all his gateways are built, selects them one by one, pressing z after selecting 6 of them, and pressing d after selecting the other 4. That is the long way of saying "Player A decided to build 6 zealots and 4 dragoons." The in-game representation of that is "move screen - click, z (times six) - click, d (times four)." That requires a movement of the screen, ten clicks, and ten keystrokes. (There is also an implied movement of the screen at the end, because looking at the gateways while they're building isn't too useful.) We all know that in SC2 that decision will be ten keystrokes -"0zzzzzzddd", which is over 50% more efficient than in SC1. (I know the debates over MBS have raged here for hundreds (thousands?) of pages, so I'll try to tiptoe around the subject and just use it as an example instead of making it the brunt of my argument.)
The problem here is that it's hard to give a good reason why building 6 zealots and 4 dragoons should require ten clicks, ten keystrokes, and two screen movements (one explicit, one implied) when it could be just ten keystrokes. Saying the first is somehow better would open up all sorts of ridiculous logical arguments, like arguments that say that Dune 2 is better because you have to select units individually instead of in groups. That is artifical difficulty. Imagine if the ten keystrokes from SC2 is a plain old hoop that you have to jump through. By comparison, SC1 requires you to jump through a flaming hoop, and Dune 2 just plain requires you to walk on open flames. What does it really add to the game that is interesting? That's not a hypothetical question- I believe there is an real-world answer for it that is present in SC1, and I believe there is an potential answer for it that is better than SC1's system.
What makes building six zealots and four dragoons 50% less efficient than "0zzzzzzdddd" interesting is the fact the SC1 system greatly assaults the player's attention-dividing ability and hand speed, the "real-time" part of the RTS genre. If you reduce the amount of APM it takes a Terran player to do the same stuff he already does by half, you free up about 200 APM for him to use elsewhere. There are all sorts of interesting attack methods in SC1 that are based on the concept that it is hard for a player to pay attention to everything that is going on all at once, and have the speed in both physical movement and decision-making to respond to it all. If you split your forces into 3 groups, two "main armies" and one shuttle with a reaver, you can assault your opponent's attention and speed. If you are attacking two of his expansions while reaver dropping his SCV line, you are attacking him on three fronts, while he still has to deal with his 4th front of macromanagement. He may make a critical mistake, like not noticing your reaver drop until all his SCVs are already dead, and if so you have just split his attention in a strategically interesting manner - you are using attention splitting as a strategy to beat him. But if he has 200 APM just freed up with nothing to put it towards, this strategy would not be nearly as effective. By greatly reducing the strains the UI places on his physical speed and attention reserves, all sorts of interesting strategies in Starcraft would be nullified by the fact that your opponent has such deep reserves of attention and speed. You could (almost?) never overwhelm his ability to pay attention to everything and react to it in a reasonable time frame. So what to do?
I feel the answer is that both communities are right in their own way here, and a combination answer best solves the problem. Sirlin is right that desiging a UI to increase APM is artifical and not an interesting way of keeping the players busy. However, pro Starcraft communities are right that attention-splitting and quick decision-making (and as a by-product speed) are the "real-time" component, and are a huge part of what makes Starcraft the best and most successful competitive RTS in gaming history. I think the answer is to cut out all the "unnecessary" clicks - reduce building four zealots to "0zzzz" and increase efficiency by over 5% - and replace all of that "hollow" APM that has been carved out of the game by increasing the Decisions Per Minute (DPM) that the player has to face. While APM is well and good, DPM is the number that the "real-time" component of an RTS should strive to measure. DPM is what drives APM - your APM (or EAPM, for those who spam commands) is a reflection of the number of decisions you make per minute and your speed/efficiency in executing them - the number of decisions you make a minute is what drives you to perform a number of actions that minute.
For example, the actions required to build 10 zealots is 20 actions - 10 clicks, 10 keystrokes. SC2 will cut the clicks out and reduce that to 10 keystrokes. If that's all you do for one minute, your APM in SC1 is 20, and APM in SC2 is 10. However, your DPM in both games is only 1 - you made the one decision to build 10 zealots, and that's it. (That might be oversimplifying it - let's assume for example's sake that you have nothing building in any of the gateways at the moment, and they're all in one location so you don't have to consider where. If those two aren't given then your DPM might be higher than 1.) At this rate, a 20 DPM player in SC1 would have an APM of 400. (I know that this only applies to macro and not to troop movement; again, it's for examples sake, and I think if we drew out a more fleshed-out real-game example this would certainly still hold true, though the numbers used in the example might be different). A 20 DPM player in SC2 would have an APM of 200. However, the lowered APM in SC2 gives us room to design the game in order to increase the number of decisions the player faces per minute. Since we freed up 200 APM, the equivilent of 20 DPM in SC2 conversion rates, we can add another 20 DPM, and in fact we must add 20 DPM in order maintain the speedy-decision-making component of the "real-time" part of Starcraft, Futhermore, more DPM means more strategic decisions the player must face at each turn, which means there are more opportunities to increase the weight on the "strategy" side of the game. The end result would be that three of the four main attributes that Starcraft measures to determine your success - decision-making-speed, attention-dividing, and strategy - would recieve increases in their overall contribution to the winner of the game, while the hand-speed limitations would remain.
This post has already been long as hell, so I'll spare you another lengthy outro paragraph. To sum it up quickly: "Requiring high APM, and therefore high hand speed, is just an unfortunate side effect of attempting to require high DPM. The goal of any RTS should be to ensure that the APM and hand-speed it requires to sufficiently test the player's attention-splitting abilities should remain as decision-full as possible, or in other words, represent a high DPM. A high DPM increases both the strategic and real-time aspects of the game. The fact that it requires good mechanics is just an unfortunate side effect of the fact that we cannot plug the game directly into our brains."
There's also no way I'm going to thoroughly proofread something this long when I'm not being graded on it or paid for it, so I'm sorry if there's any tyops. Feel free to ask any questions you want, I'll check this thread every now and again. Also feel free to flame away, it doesn't bother me. I anticipate a wave of "WHATS YOUR KESPA RANK? IF IT'S BELOW 20 YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO TALK" - I am not the best SC player in the world, but I would find it hard to refute this analysis, unless you don't want to grant me the few axioms I have taken here. (Namely, I think they are that Starcraft measures decision-making speed, attention-splitting, and strategy primarily, and hand speed secondarily; that achieving higher necessary DPMs required to play at the competitive level is always a good goal for an RTS game, and that the DPM should be what is filled out to test speed and not the APM; and that increasing your APM is pointless if the increased number of actions still represents the same DPM)
Good stuff. you're very good at explaining. I didnt bother reading about the MBS debate or even read up on all the details about SC2 so I'm far behind on this, but your reasoning seems very good.
If blizzard really is putting a lot of decision making factors in SC2 that requires higher apm then I guess MBS is just to let the players use that extra "200 APM" for somewhere else that is needed in SC2. And thus in the end you can still go for reaver drop while attacking the front to use ur opponent's limited APM to ur advantage.
The problem is this : If we free up the macro side of the game, the balance will undeniable shift. This is what we do not want, we want the balance between micro and macro to stay roughly the same. If the balance shifts towards micro the game will become something ala wc3, where the macro decision making does not require enough attention to actually having the player overloaded. This is what makes SC so great, the capacitiy of attention or "thoughts per minute" needed to play a "perfect" game of starcraft is in some situation more than players currently can handle, and this is where the game comes down to prioritation, shall i focus on micro or shall i focus on macro, aswell as thinking about your strategy at the same time.
A game like wc3 for instance has almost no macro.
However, this is not solely due to the UI interface, because wc3 was limited in other ways(max food supply reduced, less resources availible(gold mine vs mineral field)).
I think what most people are afraid of is to see SC2 turn into something like wc3, when we start deviating from what is the "tried and tested" formula.
The thing is that since it's a successor in a franchise, it should try to keep the elements which peopled liked about its predecessor, so that you can keep the fanbase($$$). At the same time you also want to incorporate new features so that you can attract a new crowd, and expand your market.
If you take away or change those elements, you get some people that adapt, and some that get alianated.
a real test of the game to determine whether or not APM makes a game better or not is to slow the game speed, that makes APM less relevant because it lengthens the "minute."
but then everyone from UMS to BGH to FMP players play on fastest, even if they have low APM. so everyone's determined that they like faster speed, it's the standard, that's how the game unfolded competitively and it's what people like. you can't really argue against the people. they wouldn't choose a worse form of the game.
On February 10 2009 18:24 MJAnoname wrote: Yes, I'm from Sirlin.net. No, I'm not Sirlin. Yeah, I'm kinda late in this comment.
I will make one statement that agrees with Sirlin (In my first two paragraphs), and then one clarification that I think will appease most of your discontents with what he's said (The rest of my post).
I just want to point out that saying that Starcraft should remove some of it's unncessary clicks and keystrokes by streamlining its UI doesn't necessairly mean that Starcraft should become a "STRATEGY (in real-time)" game. It needs to be strategy AND real-time. The challenge of Starcraft isn't just choosing the right play, it's making all the important decisions you must make at the extremely rapid pace you must make them at, while splitting your attention between 10 different places on the map all at once.
I believe that any given string of actions in a game represent one larger decision. Imagine this: Player A moves his screen to see the location where all his gateways are built, selects them one by one, pressing z after selecting 6 of them, and pressing d after selecting the other 4. That is the long way of saying "Player A decided to build 6 zealots and 4 dragoons." The in-game representation of that is "move screen - click, z (times six) - click, d (times four)." That requires a movement of the screen, ten clicks, and ten keystrokes. (There is also an implied movement of the screen at the end, because looking at the gateways while they're building isn't too useful.) We all know that in SC2 that decision will be ten keystrokes -"0zzzzzzddd", which is over 50% more efficient than in SC1. (I know the debates over MBS have raged here for hundreds (thousands?) of pages, so I'll try to tiptoe around the subject and just use it as an example instead of making it the brunt of my argument.)
The problem here is that it's hard to give a good reason why building 6 zealots and 4 dragoons should require ten clicks, ten keystrokes, and two screen movements (one explicit, one implied) when it could be just ten keystrokes. Saying the first is somehow better would open up all sorts of ridiculous logical arguments, like arguments that say that Dune 2 is better because you have to select units individually instead of in groups. That is artifical difficulty. Imagine if the ten keystrokes from SC2 is a plain old hoop that you have to jump through. By comparison, SC1 requires you to jump through a flaming hoop, and Dune 2 just plain requires you to walk on open flames. What does it really add to the game that is interesting? That's not a hypothetical question- I believe there is an real-world answer for it that is present in SC1, and I believe there is an potential answer for it that is better than SC1's system.
What makes building six zealots and four dragoons 50% less efficient than "0zzzzzzdddd" interesting is the fact the SC1 system greatly assaults the player's attention-dividing ability and hand speed, the "real-time" part of the RTS genre. If you reduce the amount of APM it takes a Terran player to do the same stuff he already does by half, you free up about 200 APM for him to use elsewhere. There are all sorts of interesting attack methods in SC1 that are based on the concept that it is hard for a player to pay attention to everything that is going on all at once, and have the speed in both physical movement and decision-making to respond to it all. If you split your forces into 3 groups, two "main armies" and one shuttle with a reaver, you can assault your opponent's attention and speed. If you are attacking two of his expansions while reaver dropping his SCV line, you are attacking him on three fronts, while he still has to deal with his 4th front of macromanagement. He may make a critical mistake, like not noticing your reaver drop until all his SCVs are already dead, and if so you have just split his attention in a strategically interesting manner - you are using attention splitting as a strategy to beat him. But if he has 200 APM just freed up with nothing to put it towards, this strategy would not be nearly as effective. By greatly reducing the strains the UI places on his physical speed and attention reserves, all sorts of interesting strategies in Starcraft would be nullified by the fact that your opponent has such deep reserves of attention and speed. You could (almost?) never overwhelm his ability to pay attention to everything and react to it in a reasonable time frame. So what to do?
I feel the answer is that both communities are right in their own way here, and a combination answer best solves the problem. Sirlin is right that desiging a UI to increase APM is artifical and not an interesting way of keeping the players busy. However, pro Starcraft communities are right that attention-splitting and quick decision-making (and as a by-product speed) are the "real-time" component, and are a huge part of what makes Starcraft the best and most successful competitive RTS in gaming history. I think the answer is to cut out all the "unnecessary" clicks - reduce building four zealots to "0zzzz" and increase efficiency by over 5% - and replace all of that "hollow" APM that has been carved out of the game by increasing the Decisions Per Minute (DPM) that the player has to face. While APM is well and good, DPM is the number that the "real-time" component of an RTS should strive to measure. DPM is what drives APM - your APM (or EAPM, for those who spam commands) is a reflection of the number of decisions you make per minute and your speed/efficiency in executing them - the number of decisions you make a minute is what drives you to perform a number of actions that minute.
For example, the actions required to build 10 zealots is 20 actions - 10 clicks, 10 keystrokes. SC2 will cut the clicks out and reduce that to 10 keystrokes. If that's all you do for one minute, your APM in SC1 is 20, and APM in SC2 is 10. However, your DPM in both games is only 1 - you made the one decision to build 10 zealots, and that's it. (That might be oversimplifying it - let's assume for example's sake that you have nothing building in any of the gateways at the moment, and they're all in one location so you don't have to consider where. If those two aren't given then your DPM might be higher than 1.) At this rate, a 20 DPM player in SC1 would have an APM of 400. (I know that this only applies to macro and not to troop movement; again, it's for examples sake, and I think if we drew out a more fleshed-out real-game example this would certainly still hold true, though the numbers used in the example might be different). A 20 DPM player in SC2 would have an APM of 200. However, the lowered APM in SC2 gives us room to design the game in order to increase the number of decisions the player faces per minute. Since we freed up 200 APM, the equivilent of 20 DPM in SC2 conversion rates, we can add another 20 DPM, and in fact we must add 20 DPM in order maintain the speedy-decision-making component of the "real-time" part of Starcraft, Futhermore, more DPM means more strategic decisions the player must face at each turn, which means there are more opportunities to increase the weight on the "strategy" side of the game. The end result would be that three of the four main attributes that Starcraft measures to determine your success - decision-making-speed, attention-dividing, and strategy - would recieve increases in their overall contribution to the winner of the game, while the hand-speed limitations would remain.
This post has already been long as hell, so I'll spare you another lengthy outro paragraph. To sum it up quickly: "Requiring high APM, and therefore high hand speed, is just an unfortunate side effect of attempting to require high DPM. The goal of any RTS should be to ensure that the APM and hand-speed it requires to sufficiently test the player's attention-splitting abilities should remain as decision-full as possible, or in other words, represent a high DPM. A high DPM increases both the strategic and real-time aspects of the game. The fact that it requires good mechanics is just an unfortunate side effect of the fact that we cannot plug the game directly into our brains."
There's also no way I'm going to thoroughly proofread something this long when I'm not being graded on it or paid for it, so I'm sorry if there's any tyops. Feel free to ask any questions you want, I'll check this thread every now and again. Also feel free to flame away, it doesn't bother me. I anticipate a wave of "WHATS YOUR KESPA RANK? IF IT'S BELOW 20 YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO TALK" - I am not the best SC player in the world, but I would find it hard to refute this analysis, unless you don't want to grant me the few axioms I have taken here. (Namely, I think they are that Starcraft measures decision-making speed, attention-splitting, and strategy primarily, and hand speed secondarily; that achieving higher necessary DPMs required to play at the competitive level is always a good goal for an RTS game, and that the DPM should be what is filled out to test speed and not the APM; and that increasing your APM is pointless if the increased number of actions still represents the same DPM)
Good writeup and arguments. Was a pleasure to read and i quoted it just so that some more people may actually read, understand and think about it (*coff*Rekrulandhismob*coffcoff*).
I can't believe that anyone would still ask why it should be changed after readin this, except for this reason:
On February 10 2009 23:32 ruXxar wrote: The problem is this : If we free up the macro side of the game, the balance will undeniable shift. This is what we do not want, we want the balance between micro and macro to stay roughly the same. If the balance shifts towards micro the game will become something ala wc3, where the macro decision making does not require enough attention to actually having the player overloaded. This is what makes SC so great, the capacitiy of attention or "thoughts per minute" needed to play a "perfect" game of starcraft is in some situation more than players currently can handle, and this is where the game comes down to prioritation, shall i focus on micro or shall i focus on macro, aswell as thinking about your strategy at the same time.
A game like wc3 for instance has almost no macro.
However, this is not solely due to the UI interface, because wc3 was limited in other ways(max food supply reduced, less resources availible(gold mine vs mineral field)).
I think what most people are afraid of is to see SC2 turn into something like wc3, when we start deviating from what is the "tried and tested" formula.
The thing is that since it's a successor in a franchise, it should try to keep the elements which peopled liked about its predecessor, so that you can keep the fanbase($$$). At the same time you also want to incorporate new features so that you can attract a new crowd, and expand your market.
If you take away or change those elements, you get some people that adapt, and some that get alianated.
I just hope I won't be one in the latter group.
EDIT : On topic,
Real shame second class didn't get recorded Q.Q
Thats why Blizzard is adding macro-mechanics (like the gas mechanic, i know you don't like it, but they are trying out stuff because they know about this exact issue...), thats why people actually make good macro-mechanic suggestions in these and other forums, thats why sc-legacy started their macro-mechanic contest some time ago and THAT is why whining about MBS/AM is not constructive at all.
I think in these two posts i quoted, almost everything important about MBS/AM and APM/DPM has been said. Blizzard are the best game developers in the world, they will find macro mechanics that are fun, make sense and are interesting for all of us!
Back on Topic: When will the video for class 3 be up? And are there more summaries of class 2 than the one on Sirlin.net? I want more, moooore, MOOOOOREEEEE ^^
Thanks for the positive feedback to everyone who's commented thus far. Seems like the mob who was on this thread earlier hasn't checked it yet. Anyways,
On February 10 2009 19:32 toopham wrote: Good stuff. you're very good at explaining. I didnt bother reading about the MBS debate or even read up on all the details about SC2 so I'm far behind on this, but your reasoning seems very good.
If blizzard really is putting a lot of decision making factors in SC2 that requires higher apm then I guess MBS is just to let the players use that extra "200 APM" for somewhere else that is needed in SC2. And thus in the end you can still go for reaver drop while attacking the front to use ur opponent's limited APM to ur advantage.
Thanks for the compliment.
And I also think that you can agree with my analysis and still think that SC2 will be a poorly designed game. I'm just saying that it would be beneficial to cut out all that "hollow" APM and replace it with something more substantial, APM that represents more DPM... I make no guarantee whether SC2's changes will actually accomplish that goal or not.
I'm not really a professional RTS designer, so I have no clue exactly how you would accomplish doing something like that. Speeding up the game is tempting, but then you aren't really increasing the quantity of decisions the player faces, you are just shortening the minute. Increasing the maximum unit count is also tempting, but I'm not really sure how if that would really cause a big enough increase in decisions made to fill the gap things like MBS and AM will create.
I do like the idea of what they're doing with unit mobility, like units that can go up and down cliffs, as well as pylon warping and nydus worms. It seems like your base is going to be much more susceptable to attack from directions other than the front door in SC2, whereas in SC1 you usually see more shuttle harassment than head-on bulldog-style attacks. I'm thinking that might have some way of increasing the number of decisions, by forcing you to think about how you (and your opponent!) could take the battle to new fronts in unexpected locations with very little warning before the fact. I'm not sure if that really raises the DPM or just divides attention, though. I think it'd be interesting to see gameplay tests run to see how it effects the game in that sense.
I agree with MJAnoname that doing 5z click z click z click z click z is redundant compared to 0zzzzz. It wastes time and it's not something even a player with good and fast decision making would benefit from. However, 5z click z click z click z click z isn't going to take much longer than 0zzzz. Both takes less than 1 second, so the player isn't saving much time. In sc1, the player is forced to take attention away from the battle to macro though. While you can do 0zzzz and micro in the battle. so that might impact the game.
I just want to point out that saying that Starcraft should remove some of it's unncessary clicks and keystrokes by streamlining its UI doesn't necessairly mean that Starcraft should become a "STRATEGY (in real-time)" game. It needs to be strategy AND real-time. The challenge of Starcraft isn't just choosing the right play, it's making all the important decisions you must make at the extremely rapid pace you must make them at, while splitting your attention between 10 different places on the map all at once.
I believe that any given string of actions in a game represent one larger decision. Imagine this: Player A moves his screen to see the location where all his gateways are built, selects them one by one, pressing z after selecting 6 of them, and pressing d after selecting the other 4. That is the long way of saying "Player A decided to build 6 zealots and 4 dragoons." The in-game representation of that is "move screen - click, z (times six) - click, d (times four)." That requires a movement of the screen, ten clicks, and ten keystrokes. (There is also an implied movement of the screen at the end, because looking at the gateways while they're building isn't too useful.) We all know that in SC2 that decision will be ten keystrokes -"0zzzzzzddd", which is over 50% more efficient than in SC1. (I know the debates over MBS have raged here for hundreds (thousands?) of pages, so I'll try to tiptoe around the subject and just use it as an example instead of making it the brunt of my argument.)
The problem here is that it's hard to give a good reason why building 6 zealots and 4 dragoons should require ten clicks, ten keystrokes, and two screen movements (one explicit, one implied) when it could be just ten keystrokes. Saying the first is somehow better would open up all sorts of ridiculous logical arguments, like arguments that say that Dune 2 is better because you have to select units individually instead of in groups. That is artifical difficulty. Imagine if the ten keystrokes from SC2 is a plain old hoop that you have to jump through. By comparison, SC1 requires you to jump through a flaming hoop, and Dune 2 just plain requires you to walk on open flames. What does it really add to the game that is interesting? That's not a hypothetical question- I believe there is an real-world answer for it that is present in SC1, and I believe there is an potential answer for it that is better than SC1's system.
--MJAnoname
Ooookaaaaay, welcome to two years ago.
What makes building six zealots and four dragoons 50% less efficient than "0zzzzzzdddd" interesting is the fact the SC1 system greatly assaults the player's attention-dividing ability and hand speed, the "real-time" part of the RTS genre. If you reduce the amount of APM it takes a Terran player to do the same stuff he already does by half, you free up about 200 APM for him to use elsewhere. There are all sorts of interesting attack methods in SC1 that are based on the concept that it is hard for a player to pay attention to everything that is going on all at once, and have the speed in both physical movement and decision-making to respond to it all. If you split your forces into 3 groups, two "main armies" and one shuttle with a reaver, you can assault your opponent's attention and speed. If you are attacking two of his expansions while reaver dropping his SCV line, you are attacking him on three fronts, while he still has to deal with his 4th front of macromanagement. He may make a critical mistake, like not noticing your reaver drop until all his SCVs are already dead, and if so you have just split his attention in a strategically interesting manner - you are using attention splitting as a strategy to beat him. But if he has 200 APM just freed up with nothing to put it towards, this strategy would not be nearly as effective. By greatly reducing the strains the UI places on his physical speed and attention reserves, all sorts of interesting strategies in Starcraft would be nullified by the fact that your opponent has such deep reserves of attention and speed. You could (almost?) never overwhelm his ability to pay attention to everything and react to it in a reasonable time frame. So what to do?
–MJAnoname
You’re also missing the fact that the side effect of SBS & manual-mining is the variety of playstyles and negative feedback mechanic associated with expanding (the more you expand, the more overwhelmed with the macro side of the game you get, rendering you more vulnerable the the player who’s behind economically).
“If you reduce the amount of APM it takes a Terran player to do the same stuff he already does by half, you free up about 200 APM for him to use elsewhere.”
It’s not really the APM per se – it’s the attention requirements of various tasks (in this case macro-related).
I feel the answer is that both communities are right in their own way here, and a combination answer best solves the problem. Sirlin is right that desiging a UI to increase APM is artifical and not an interesting way of keeping the players busy. However, pro Starcraft communities are right that attention-splitting and quick decision-making (and as a by-product speed) are the "real-time" component, and are a huge part of what makes Starcraft the best and most successful competitive RTS in gaming history. I think the answer is to cut out all the "unnecessary" clicks - reduce building four zealots to "0zzzz" and increase efficiency by over 5% - and replace all of that "hollow" APM that has been carved out of the game by increasing the Decisions Per Minute (DPM) that the player has to face. While APM is well and good, DPM is the number that the "real-time" component of an RTS should strive to measure. DPM is what drives APM - your APM (or EAPM, for those who spam commands) is a reflection of the number of decisions you make per minute and your speed/efficiency in executing them - the number of decisions you make a minute is what drives you to perform a number of actions that minute.
–MJAnoname
It’s not like the idea is new – we’ve already established that two years ago... The problems is that SBS & manual-mining have several really positive side effects, and MBS/auto-mining remove those.
The divide between being either “pro-MBS” or “anti-MBS” (providing you’re familiar with arguments of both sides, which Sirlin looks completely oblivious of, by the way) is determined by how skeptical towards the new macro mechanics’ success they are. The latter are very skeptical and would rather see MBS and/or auto-mining removed (and thus the game keep that ‘ “hollow” APM’) than risk the game (SC2) being less skillful and much more one dimensional (micro-focused), whereas the former believe preserving those positive side effects with new (attention-demanding) macro mechanics (this time ‘round in form of conscious gameplay design choices) is after all possible.
(There are also those who believe the physical aspect of StarCraft should be the one emphasized on, while the mental side is just an addition. From what I understand, this is what e.g. NatsuTerran wants. Those are a small minority, though.)
For example, the actions required to build 10 zealots is 20 actions - 10 clicks, 10 keystrokes. SC2 will cut the clicks out and reduce that to 10 keystrokes. If that's all you do for one minute, your APM in SC1 is 20, and APM in SC2 is 10. However, your DPM in both games is only 1 - you made the one decision to build 10 zealots, and that's it. (That might be oversimplifying it - let's assume for example's sake that you have nothing building in any of the gateways at the moment, and they're all in one location so you don't have to consider where. If those two aren't given then your DPM might be higher than 1.) At this rate, a 20 DPM player in SC1 would have an APM of 400. (I know that this only applies to macro and not to troop movement; again, it's for examples sake, and I think if we drew out a more fleshed-out real-game example this would certainly still hold true, though the numbers used in the example might be different). A 20 DPM player in SC2 would have an APM of 200. However, the lowered APM in SC2 gives us room to design the game in order to increase the number of decisions the player faces per minute. Since we freed up 200 APM, the equivilent of 20 DPM in SC2 conversion rates, we can add another 20 DPM, and in fact we must add 20 DPM in order maintain the speedy-decision-making component of the "real-time" part of Starcraft, Futhermore, more DPM means more strategic decisions the player must face at each turn, which means there are more opportunities to increase the weight on the "strategy" side of the game. The end result would be that three of the four main attributes that Starcraft measures to determine your success - decision-making-speed, attention-dividing, and strategy - would recieve increases in their overall contribution to the winner of the game, while the hand-speed limitations would remain.
–MJAnoname
Your example is a gross oversimplification, but I’ll bear with you.
However, you’re, again, beating a dead horse here. What you’re saying has been established like two years ago.
This is what happens when you cut in into a discussion without familiarizing yourself with the topic beforehand. This is exactly what Sirlin did, and the reason why he completely misrepresented the points of the “anti-MBS” crowd, arguing against arguments from right after the initial announcement, making himself look like an arrogant douche in the process.
The fact that it requires good mechanics is just an unfortunate side effect of the fact that we cannot plug the game directly into our brains .
–MJAnoname
I disagree here.
The UIs we’re using in modern games are in my opinion much better than plugging the game directly into our brains.
The reason for that is the fact that, currently, we let our subconsciousness take care of a variety of tasks (we subconsciously issue orders by pressing keys and moving our mouse – keeping up with popcap, for instance), while we’re using our conscious mind for more involving problems (designing a proper Swarm push with late-game Zerg, e.g.).
In brain-computer UI all those tasks we currently do subconsciously (like “mindlessly” building Supply Depots, etc.) would have to be conscious decisions, severely taxing our DPM.
If blizzard really is putting a lot of decision making factors in SC2 that requires higher apm then I guess MBS is just to let the players use that extra "200 APM" for somewhere else that is needed in SC2. And thus in the end you can still go for reaver drop while attacking the front to use ur opponent's limited APM to ur advantage.
–toopham
Not “somewhere else” but in BASE, or at least doing macro/base related tasks.
On February 11 2009 22:25 maybenexttime wrote: Ooookaaaaay, welcome to two years ago.
I'd like to think that I took my analysis a little further than the mere inclusion of MBS/AM. My point was never to try and say that MBS/AM are inherently good; I think that, even if I totally botched my analysis of MBS/AM and the effects on APM / DPM, my point would not necessairly be invaidated. My key point is that I also tried to show that high APM requirements should result from a large number of decisions that the player is forced with; in other words, that DPM is what should be measured, not APM.
On February 11 2009 22:25 maybenexttime wrote:You’re also missing the fact that the side effect of SBS & manual-mining is the variety of playstyles and negative feedback mechanic associated with expanding (the more you expand, the more overwhelmed with the macro side of the game you get, rendering you more vulnerable the the player who’s behind economically).
At the same time, if both players have the same APM or eAPM, which is often true on the pro circut (I'd be interested in the eAPM of players like Savior/Stork, I don't have that info but I bet it'd be nearer to their actual APM than high APM players and very close to the eAPM of high-APM players), then I don't see how that becomes interesting. Both players will have the ability to manage the same number of expansions as each other, so neither player will have an advantage in this regard. Also, in-game limitations on how much you can expand will become more important too, like how much supply your worker units take up, or if you are trying to expand too fast, spending too many resources on expanding and falling too far behind in the size of your army.
I don't think this is something you choose either; I've never been a pro SC player again, but I don't think they make the decision whether to expand based on their APM limitations, but instead on whether the decision to expand is strategically appropriate at the time, and they just learn to deal with the APM expanding takes up.
On February 11 2009 22:25 maybenexttime wrote:“If you reduce the amount of APM it takes a Terran player to do the same stuff he already does by half, you free up about 200 APM for him to use elsewhere.”
It’s not really the APM per se – it’s the attention requirements of various tasks (in this case macro-related).
I'm using the player's APM to represent their attention. It's just easier because APM has a quantity attached to it, so it's easier to use and more concrete when used in examples. The real thing here, that I think we both agree with, is that attention-splitting and quick decision-making are primary skills that the game tests, and that it tests hand-speed only because it must in order to test the other two (Because we can't hook the computer up to our brains, so we have to have the hand speed to physically convey all our decisions to the computer).
On February 11 2009 22:25 maybenexttime wrote:It’s not like the idea is new – we’ve already established that two years ago... The problems is that SBS & manual-mining have several really positive side effects, and MBS/auto-mining remove those.
What I'm trying to get at is that game designers, Blizzard in this case, should design their games so that this isn't an either/or scenario. You seem to be saying that you either stick with SBS and MM and keep the positive attention-splitting benefits it comes with, or that you go with ABS and AM and lose those benefits. Blizzard should be trying to find ways to design the game in order to keep both ABS + AM and include other game mechanics that test attention-splitting, and hopefully test quick decision-making as well. In other words, Blizzard needs to find ways to keep ABS + AM and fill in the attention that the removal of SBS + MM freed up with other gameplay mechanics that will test the player's attention-splitting in place of SBS + MM - and hopefully these skills will also test quick decision-making and not just be taking out one piece of "hollow" APM and replacing it with another equally hollow piece. I don't think this is impossible.
On February 11 2009 22:25 maybenexttime wrote:The divide between being either “pro-MBS” or “anti-MBS” (providing you’re familiar with arguments of both sides, which Sirlin looks completely oblivious of, by the way) is determined by how skeptical towards the new macro mechanics’ success they are. The latter are very skeptical and would rather see MBS and/or auto-mining removed (and thus the game keep that ‘ “hollow” APM’) than risk the game (SC2) being less skillful and much more one dimensional (micro-focused), whereas the former believe preserving those positive side effects with new (attention-demanding) macro mechanics (this time ‘round in form of conscious gameplay design choices) is after all possible.
Hey, I'm all for experimentation. Worst case scenario is that SC2 sucks and the competitive / pro scene sticks with SC1, which is still, in my opinion, the best RTS made to date.
On February 11 2009 22:25 maybenexttime wrote:(There are also those who believe the physical aspect of StarCraft should be the one emphasized on, while the mental side is just an addition. From what I understand, this is what e.g. NatsuTerran wants. Those are a small minority, though.)
I never understood this line of thinking and probably never will.
On February 11 2009 22:25 maybenexttime wrote:Your example is a gross oversimplification, but I’ll bear with you.
However, you’re, again, beating a dead horse here. What you’re saying has been established like two years ago.
This is what happens when you cut in into a discussion without familiarizing yourself with the topic beforehand. This is exactly what Sirlin did, and the reason why he completely misrepresented the points of the “anti-MBS” crowd, arguing against arguments from right after the initial announcement, making himself look like an arrogant douche in the process.
I've kept up with the argument a bit, but I'm not at the competitive level in SC1, so I haven't been monitoring it as closely as a lot of you have been. Still, I'm familiar with all the terms involved and I'm aware of the gameplay mechanics when I do play. I was just using MBS/AM because it's a convienient way to give a real-life example involving the concepts that are really the core of my argument, namely that DPM is more important.
I'm not going to be so arrogant as to say that it's impossible I mis-analyzed the effect of MBS and AM. I don't see where or how I did it, but I've been shown to be wrong before when I could have sworn I was right, so it's entirely possible I've done it again. Just keep in mind that my argument wasn't really supposed to be about MBS / AM, it's about DPM and how the goal of a good RTS game should be to maximize DPM.
The fact that it requires good mechanics is just an unfortunate side effect of the fact that we cannot plug the game directly into our brains .
–MJAnoname
I disagree here.
The UIs we’re using in modern games are in my opinion much better than plugging the game directly into our brains.
The reason for that is the fact that, currently, we let our subconsciousness take care of a variety of tasks (we subconsciously issue orders by pressing keys and moving our mouse – keeping up with popcap, for instance), while we’re using our conscious mind for more involving problems (designing a proper Swarm push with late-game Zerg, e.g.).
In brain-computer UI all those tasks we currently do subconsciously (like “mindlessly” building Supply Depots, etc.) would have to be conscious decisions, severely taxing our DPM.
We're getting into the field of phyisology here, so I'll make this brief and try to just use what little I know; I've taken bachelor level psychology classes on physiology but nothing past the 300 level. I'd guess that, in the same way you create shortcuts in your brain that change actions like "Click on four gateways and hit Z after selcting each one" into "Build four zealots", you would learn to use your new UI better and over time those decisions would become subconcious again.
I think we're getting a little off-topic from the point I was really trying to make, though, unless this links to it in some unforseen way.
If blizzard really is putting a lot of decision making factors in SC2 that requires higher apm then I guess MBS is just to let the players use that extra "200 APM" for somewhere else that is needed in SC2. And thus in the end you can still go for reaver drop while attacking the front to use ur opponent's limited APM to ur advantage.
–toopham
Not “somewhere else” but in BASE, or at least doing macro/base related tasks.
One of the things I was really trying to say, however, is that there's no reason for that APM / attention to be tied up specifically in base when we can design into our games other, more interesting things for us to be doing with that APM / attention. It's possible to still have a 400 APM game that requires much less mundane, "hollow" APM. If there is a need to force the player to take his screen away from his armies at times (And I'd agree that there is), then we should be looking for ways to design something more interesting to force him to draw his screen away.
On February 08 2009 18:56 Nimue wrote: actually, you guys didn't miss much. There were several comments after class that the material was too basic for them. So, next week, I think I'm gonna turn it up a lot, skip the simple "what is a dragoon" "how much health does an Archon have" kind of stuff and go straight for the heavy stuff.
Have you ever taught a class, before?
There's always a huge variance in how students perform. There will always be students who are bored out of their minds by your slow pace, and students who can't keep up: it's impossible to please everyone.
And remember that people are much more likely to complain when you're doing something they don't like, than to thank you when you're doing everything right. Furthermore, people are much less likely to complain if you're going to fast (because they'll embarass themselves as being the "dumb students") than if you're going too slow.
(Once I attended a class where literally 90%+ of the students didn't understand anything going on in the lectures, including myself. After the first week, I went to talk to the professor about it and she thought that everyone was understanding perfectly because no one had complained to her yet. )
So imo you're jumping too quickly to the conclusion that you should speed up.
Maybe try to get a better feel for what level your students are at? I'm afraid I can't give many suggestions, since I've never taught a class before. But I think explicitly asking "does anyone think I'm going too slow?" is a bad idea, because no one would want to tell you that they're one of the slowest students in the class even in private, let alone in front of the rest of the class.
First of all, thx a lot Nimue for this fantastic course, I'm from Spain and I'm following it by videos and summaries. I'm not a good SC player but I like it a lot and I also studying physics, so I have a solid mathematical base. I was expecting the second class video , that was a pity. Btw, I've read that US peoploe can afford the reader but, what about foreigners like me?. I don't mind paying for it of course, but I think it would be far more easy to send it in PDF than printing it and send it across the world xD. I'm really niterested in getting it. Thx for the time.
On February 12 2009 01:48 MJAnoname wrote: I'd like to think that I took my analysis a little further than the mere inclusion of MBS/AM. My point was never to try and say that MBS/AM are inherently good; I think that, even if I totally botched my analysis of MBS/AM and the effects on APM / DPM, my point would not necessairly be invaidated. My key point is that I also tried to show that high APM requirements should result from a large number of decisions that the player is forced with; in other words, that DPM is what should be measured, not APM.
I'm not trying to be offensive or anything - I'm just pointing out that these things have been brought up two years ago, just look up previous MBS, auto-mining and/or macro (mechanics) discussions on TeamLiquid, GosuGamers, WCReplays, SCLegacy, etc.
You're beating a dead horse here.
On February 12 2009 01:48 MJAnoname wrote: At the same time, if both players have the same APM or eAPM, which is often true on the pro circut (I'd be interested in the eAPM of players like Savior/Stork, I don't have that info but I bet it'd be nearer to their actual APM than high APM players and very close to the eAPM of high-APM players), then I don't see how that becomes interesting. Both players will have the ability to manage the same number of expansions as each other, so neither player will have an advantage in this regard. Also, in-game limitations on how much you can expand will become more important too, like how much supply your worker units take up, or if you are trying to expand too fast, spending too many resources on expanding and falling too far behind in the size of your army.
I'm not sure whether you're disagreeing with me here or what. I'm not arguing with you here. I'm simply adding the side effects of SBS/manual-mining you forgot to mention in your list (in the paragraph about splitting attention I quoted). ;]
As for eAPM, it's probably true what you're saying. However, the eAPM (yes, there actually is a specific programme that counts one's eAPM) is not an accurate measurement of anything by itself.
E.g. consider a situation such as this one:
You go for old school 2 Rax into containment vs. Zerg in order to expand later on. The Zerg goes for standard 12 Hatch FE and opts for Lurker opening to break your containment. In order to manage your base/expo and stay fully aware of what's happening to your M&M force outside the Zerg's natural, you constantly shift screens between your units and bases.
You can do this in two ways (more or less) - by double clicking appropriate hotkeys OR using the minimap/location keys. The former boosts your APM significantly whereas the latter does not affect it at all - it's a matter of preference/habits.
What's more, neither regular APM nor eAPM measure the validity of such actions, which can be either pointless spam or conscious screen changing. I'm sure you can find plenty of other such examples within the game.
On February 12 2009 01:48 MJAnoname wrote: I don't think this is something you choose either; I've never been a pro SC player again, but I don't think they make the decision whether to expand based on their APM limitations, but instead on whether the decision to expand is strategically appropriate at the time, and they just learn to deal with the APM expanding takes up.
I've never implied that this negative feedback dynamic influenced the decision making on top level (although, it does on lower level, where players don't necessarily meet the APM requirements).
What I meant is simply that the more you expand, the more demanding the macro side of the game gets, rendering you more vulnerable to attacks from the player with less things to do on the macro side (since he can pay more attention to micro, having less other things to do, kinda self-explanatory, isn't it?).
On the other hand, in SC2, managing several bases requires more or less as much attention as managing just one or two. It means there's no timing window where the opponent, who's behind economically, can overwhlem your multi-tasking abilities.
On February 12 2009 01:48 MJAnoname wrote: I'm using the player's APM to represent their attention. It's just easier because APM has a quantity attached to it, so it's easier to use and more concrete when used in examples. The real thing here, that I think we both agree with, is that attention-splitting and quick decision-making are primary skills that the game tests, and that it tests hand-speed only because it must in order to test the other two (Because we can't hook the computer up to our brains, so we have to have the hand speed to physically convey all our decisions to the computer).
Yes, I do agree here.
But I'm not comfortable with using APM for the easiness' sake. It leads to people like Sirlin raving about us being allegedly obsessed with APM, when in fact we're understanding the game on a higher abstract level than him, discussing gameplay dynamics he's not even aware of (unless FrozenArbiter was successful at explaining them to him).
On February 12 2009 01:48 MJAnoname wrote: What I'm trying to get at is that game designers, Blizzard in this case, should design their games so that this isn't an either/or scenario. You seem to be saying that you either stick with SBS and MM and keep the positive attention-splitting benefits it comes with, or that you go with ABS and AM and lose those benefits. Blizzard should be trying to find ways to design the game in order to keep both ABS + AM and include other game mechanics that test attention-splitting, and hopefully test quick decision-making as well. In other words, Blizzard needs to find ways to keep ABS + AM and fill in the attention that the removal of SBS + MM freed up with other gameplay mechanics that will test the player's attention-splitting in place of SBS + MM - and hopefully these skills will also test quick decision-making and not just be taking out one piece of "hollow" APM and replacing it with another equally hollow piece. I don't think this is impossible.
No, I'm not - you're taking this out of context, read the paragraph below for explanation.
It was just an introduction to the divide paragraph. And, as a matter of fact, I'm one of the more active theorycrafters who try to come up with a new macro mechanic that doesn't exclude MBS/AM from the game. ;]
I completely agree with the latter part of your post. It's just that there are people who don't think it's possible (e.g. the mechanics could dillute the core gameplay experience, according to some of them), and deem SBS/MM as the "lesser evil" (in other words: "positive side effects of SBS/MM over positive effects of MBS/AM").
On February 12 2009 01:48 MJAnoname wrote: Hey, I'm all for experimentation. Worst case scenario is that SC2 sucks and the competitive / pro scene sticks with SC1, which is still, in my opinion, the best RTS made to date.
I'm all for experimentation too. Although, I don't think the pro scene would stick to BW - we'd rather have two crippled scenes (I can't imagine sponsors not going for the novelty factor, new hype, etc.).
On February 12 2009 01:48 MJAnoname wrote: I never understood this line of thinking and probably never will.
I used to think like "anti-MBS" people, but the suggestions for new macro mechanics have been increasingly better, so I've started to have hope.
On February 12 2009 01:48 MJAnoname wrote: I've kept up with the argument a bit, but I'm not at the competitive level in SC1, so I haven't been monitoring it as closely as a lot of you have been. Still, I'm familiar with all the terms involved and I'm aware of the gameplay mechanics when I do play. I was just using MBS/AM because it's a convienient way to give a real-life example involving the concepts that are really the core of my argument, namely that DPM is more important.
I'm not going to be so arrogant as to say that it's impossible I mis-analyzed the effect of MBS and AM. I don't see where or how I did it, but I've been shown to be wrong before when I could have sworn I was right, so it's entirely possible I've done it again. Just keep in mind that my argument wasn't really supposed to be about MBS / AM, it's about DPM and how the goal of a good RTS game should be to maximize DPM.
There's no disagreement here. I'm simply saying that people have already come to the same conclusions as you two years ago. You didn't mis-analyze anything -it's just that your analysis is nothing new. That's all.
On February 12 2009 01:48 MJAnoname wrote: We're getting into the field of phyisology here, so I'll make this brief and try to just use what little I know; I've taken bachelor level psychology classes on physiology but nothing past the 300 level. I'd guess that, in the same way you create shortcuts in your brain that change actions like "Click on four gateways and hit Z after selcting each one" into "Build four zealots", you would learn to use your new UI better and over time those decisions would become subconcious again.
I'm talking more about things like subconscious routines you do thanks to muscule memory (like my Supply Depot example - not the action of pressing the hotkeys, but rather the fact that you routinously build additional Depots every so often, whenver needed).
I'm no expert (just a high school student ^^) but I'm not sure if learning any such routines for brain-computer UI would be possible due to the fact that your thoughts essentially take the place of the combination of both thoughts and muscule memory. It's just a hunch, though. ;]
On February 12 2009 01:48 MJAnoname wrote: I think we're getting a little off-topic from the point I was really trying to make, though, unless this links to it in some unforseen way.
Agreed, was just digressing here. ^___^
On February 12 2009 01:48 MJAnoname wrote: One of the things I was really trying to say, however, is that there's no reason for that APM / attention to be tied up specifically in base when we can design into our games other, more interesting things for us to be doing with that APM / attention. It's possible to still have a 400 APM game that requires much less mundane, "hollow" APM. If there is a need to force the player to take his screen away from his armies at times (And I'd agree that there is), then we should be looking for ways to design something more interesting to force him to draw his screen away.
Well, the reason for tying it specifically to base (or just anywhere where you can do "macro tasks" and thus not pay attention to your units) is that it allows for a variety of playstyles. Sure, you could design new unit-related attention-demanding tasks, but you'd just end up with a micro-centered game with no variety of playstyles (same as with MBS/AM but no mechanics), so why even bother?
And, as you've said yourself, those tasks should reward you for changing the screen from your units, and your base is the most natural aspect of the game that can take up your attention aside from your units.
am I the only one who thinks this dumb MBS debate should STAY IN THE SC2 FORUM ? fuck it's so tiresome to read, and there are such long drawn out posts it's fucking hard to skip enormous walls of text to read few line posts that actually pertain to something not related to SC2.
lol wtf hapened to this thread? How did it turn into an essay writing contest about all the topics that have been argued to death already about SC2? Never mind, don't answer that question; it will just cause more of it.
Anyway, Nimue, I don't know if you noticed, but one of the guys you had writing on the board DIDN'T know any of the Archon's stats... so there are clearly some people in the class that need at least some basics. Just gotta find the right mix.. or use some of the other tactics I mentioned last week.
On February 12 2009 06:25 f10esqftw wrote: lol wtf hapened to this thread? How did it turn into an essay writing contest about all the topics that have been argued to death already about SC2? Never mind, don't answer that question; it will just cause more of it.
My b, homie.
Like I said, I never really wanted it to be about MBS/AM but instead about other things (Decisions Per Minute). MBS/AM was just the most convenient and natural example that I could think of.
Maybe it could work with something else in the game, like auto surround, but that would just open up a whole new box of worms and still have the same back-and-forth arguments in it.
I don't have time to really respond right now, maybe later. Sorry, can't keep the GF waiting.
GJ Nimue and co. for making this all possible. It's too bad that those following online missed the second lecture, but that's OK, stuff happens. I look forward to watching lecture #3!
I think Nimue doesn't need to spend too much time teaching things like all the stats that an Archon has. Remember, he only has 2 hours a week. People who don't know all the stats of all the units can refer to the game manual or the game itself (much like physics students have to read the book to get the basics... the professor will lecture about more abstract or important topics).
The trouble with leaving the noobs to their own devices is that they are exactly the type of people who probably wouldn't fire up starcraft just to learn all of the unit's stats, and actually wouldn't care too much to get better at the game. Unfortunately, the class isn't designed for those people.
I think I have a good idea how to bring people up to speed quickly and be able to go over some of the more advanced topics at the same time. Hope it works out.
On February 13 2009 03:08 TSL-Lore wrote: I think Nimue doesn't need to spend too much time teaching things like all the stats that an Archon has. Remember, he only has 2 hours a week. People who don't know all the stats of all the units can refer to the game manual or the game itself (much like physics students have to read the book to get the basics... the professor will lecture about more abstract or important topics).
The trouble with leaving the noobs to their own devices is that they are exactly the type of people who probably wouldn't fire up starcraft just to learn all of the unit's stats, and actually wouldn't care too much to get better at the game. Unfortunately, the class isn't designed for those people.
If the staff could handle it or more people are willing to teach a new course and call it Introduction to Starcraft. It could be even distributed online to attract more people into the main course and perhaps have them buy a supplementary book to go with it, much like how other universities give out "free" online courses (and sucker them into buying the book :p).
Haha, i don't think there's ever been a DeCal at UC Berkeley that has an introduction to it's course that is ALSO a DeCal. That would be pretty cool though.
Haha, i don't think there's ever been a DeCal at UC Berkeley that has an introduction to it's course that is ALSO a DeCal. That would be pretty cool though.
intro to chess + chess intro to cubing + cubing
however, intro to starcraft definitely will not get passed by the sponsors ... seriously, lack of depth and rigorousness.
well I play more fighting games than Star Craft so I suppose what I say may not make sense or be accurate to the situation. What Sirlin is saying, Or trying to say at least, is that a strategy game is basically a battle of wits, we just use the game as sort of an intermediary to find out whoever is better ( which is true, although I won't disagree that I find him an annoying person).
I think things like MBS are good things though, reducing redundant actions will only make good players better in the long run. and if putting in MBS reduces the best of players to the chaff then maybe Starcraft wasn't as good a game as you thought in the beginning.
The real problem is that you would need to find a balance between the number of clicks required to get a positive return. you'd not be happy if every time you sent your miners to gather resources, you THEN had to order them to drop it off at the base, and then go back out to the mineral deposits to get more minerals. But the player who could do that and still play the game would certainly be the best of SC players right? I guess it's all looking at where to draw the line rather than a strict right or wrong idea.
Although I'd hate for SC to become something like Smash brothers so maybe i'm completely wrong.
On February 07 2009 04:44 TSL-Lore wrote: Yeah, I agree with Error Ash. I actually had a discussion with him in comments on his Week 1 blog and it didn't end well, but I never resorted to name calling. He actually called me a jackass and started to ignore me because I made a comment on how the companies Apple and Google shouldn't make the user interface for Starcraft, but that Blizzard should. Not sure why he took that so personally. He definitely thinks he is always right though... very annoying.
He called you a jackass because you were being a jackass. That was a stupid comment, reminiscent of the average teenage 'tard trying to debate anything and thinking they're 10x cleverer than they really are. If you had a real argument you wouldn't have to resort to such sophistry.
In general, I don't think Sirlin is 100% right (especially in his desire to cap the useful actions-per-minute possible), but he's a smart person and many of the arguments against him amount to appeals to emotion, appeals to tradition, or argument from ridicule.
Can we get back on topic and not mention that guy's name again? I'd like to know more info on the whole SCV dodging dragoon fire and if anyone has messed around with that as well as the math behind maynarding.
Haha, i don't think there's ever been a DeCal at UC Berkeley that has an introduction to it's course that is ALSO a DeCal. That would be pretty cool though.
intro to chess + chess intro to cubing + cubing
however, intro to starcraft definitely will not get passed by the sponsors ... seriously, lack of depth and rigorousness.
Cubing is so awesome.
I would take a Go/Baduk DeCal, I think. Abstract strategy is so... cool.
On February 14 2009 05:39 raohthekenoh wrote: well I play more fighting games than Star Craft so I suppose what I say may not make sense or be accurate to the situation. What Sirlin is saying, Or trying to say at least, is that a strategy game is basically a battle of wits, we just use the game as sort of an intermediary to find out whoever is better ( which is true, although I won't disagree that I find him an annoying person).
I think things like MBS are good things though, reducing redundant actions will only make good players better in the long run. and if putting in MBS reduces the best of players to the chaff then maybe Starcraft wasn't as good a game as you thought in the beginning.
The real problem is that you would need to find a balance between the number of clicks required to get a positive return. you'd not be happy if every time you sent your miners to gather resources, you THEN had to order them to drop it off at the base, and then go back out to the mineral deposits to get more minerals. But the player who could do that and still play the game would certainly be the best of SC players right? I guess it's all looking at where to draw the line rather than a strict right or wrong idea.
Although I'd hate for SC to become something like Smash brothers so maybe i'm completely wrong.
I thought i'd point out where you went wrong and where you went right. Read what other people have said in this thread and you will find out why your wrong just a quick question if starcraft wasnt as good a game as you thought then why is it the most watched and played game today? after ten years?
On February 14 2009 05:39 raohthekenoh wrote: well I play more fighting games than Star Craft so I suppose what I say may not make sense or be accurate to the situation. What Sirlin is saying, Or trying to say at least, is that a strategy game is basically a battle of wits, we just use the game as sort of an intermediary to find out whoever is better ( which is true, although I won't disagree that I find him an annoying person).
I think things like MBS are good things though, reducing redundant actions will only make good players better in the long run. and if putting in MBS reduces the best of players to the chaff then maybe Starcraft wasn't as good a game as you thought in the beginning.
The real problem is that you would need to find a balance between the number of clicks required to get a positive return. you'd not be happy if every time you sent your miners to gather resources, you THEN had to order them to drop it off at the base, and then go back out to the mineral deposits to get more minerals. But the player who could do that and still play the game would certainly be the best of SC players right? I guess it's all looking at where to draw the line rather than a strict right or wrong idea.
Although I'd hate for SC to become something like Smash brothers so maybe i'm completely wrong.
I thought i'd point out where you went wrong and where you went right. Read what other people have said in this thread and you will find out why your wrong just a quick question if starcraft wasnt as good a game as you thought then why is it the most watched and played game today? after ten years?
Read what other people have said in this thread about STFU ABOUT THAT.
Anyway, hopefully if people are going to the labs.. maybe that would be a good time for them to play around and learn the basics.
I can't wait anylonger without SC classes, I wonder why no one of the students make reviews, scan the texts, or record the classes. maybe is all just a big joke? I know not but..
On February 17 2009 14:14 Zalfor wrote: we're having difficulty finding a server for the videos // actually getting the videos done.
Why not use Youtube? And what do you mean by "getting the videos done" ? If you have recorded the lesson then it shouldn't be a problem to upload them, no? And if you need help i am sure there will be plenty of guys with experience on video editing in this forum
On February 14 2009 05:39 raohthekenoh wrote: well I play more fighting games than Star Craft so I suppose what I say may not make sense or be accurate to the situation. What Sirlin is saying, Or trying to say at least, is that a strategy game is basically a battle of wits, we just use the game as sort of an intermediary to find out whoever is better ( which is true, although I won't disagree that I find him an annoying person).
I think things like MBS are good things though, reducing redundant actions will only make good players better in the long run. and if putting in MBS reduces the best of players to the chaff then maybe Starcraft wasn't as good a game as you thought in the beginning.
The real problem is that you would need to find a balance between the number of clicks required to get a positive return. you'd not be happy if every time you sent your miners to gather resources, you THEN had to order them to drop it off at the base, and then go back out to the mineral deposits to get more minerals. But the player who could do that and still play the game would certainly be the best of SC players right? I guess it's all looking at where to draw the line rather than a strict right or wrong idea.
Although I'd hate for SC to become something like Smash brothers so maybe i'm completely wrong.
I thought i'd point out where you went wrong and where you went right. Read what other people have said in this thread and you will find out why your wrong just a quick question if starcraft wasnt as good a game as you thought then why is it the most watched and played game today? after ten years?
well if you had read what I said I didn't say starcraft wasn't as good a game as I thought it was (you have no idea what I think of SC) I was simply saying that if you put in MBS and a bunch of really good players aren't so good anymore, then the game probably didn't have as much depth as you thought it did.
People still play and watch Smash Brothers Melee stuff and it's been... about 8 years now, and people still watch Super Turbo Matches and it's been around for OVER 10 years. I don't really think time makes it into a good game automatically. And that's not to say that it's not a good game, that is to say that if your only argument that it is good is that lots of people play it, that's a pretty crummy argument.
Even if only 2 people played SC, it wouldn't make it a bad game, it may be the most technically deep and wonderful game in the world but just not played enough. Most people who trash things like MBS do it completely arbitrarily because thats what the good players tell them, or people they think are good players tell them. Like I said, you wouldn't want to manually control all your units to mine minerals and then manually move them back to base, but if you could do that and still build up your army you'd really be a great player at SC.
I wouldn't want the computer to do everything for me, but when it's something as trivial as putting units on the board, I'd like the convenience of being able to build from them simultaneously and setting rally points.
If they removed the "unnecessary clicking" from the game I don't think the pros would just suddenly be unseated. Strategy continues to evolve, and knowing a strategy, and knowing how to precisely input a strategy are two different things entirely and what is probably what really separates pros and everyone else. if some Monster APM player finds that he can't compete in SC2 at all, then he really wasn't implementing the strategy part of the strategy game.
APM should be a huge asset in combat, in base building, I'd err on the side of convenience. Wow and I said all that without even being rude to you.
On February 14 2009 05:39 raohthekenoh wrote: well I play more fighting games than Star Craft so I suppose what I say may not make sense or be accurate to the situation. What Sirlin is saying, Or trying to say at least, is that a strategy game is basically a battle of wits, we just use the game as sort of an intermediary to find out whoever is better ( which is true, although I won't disagree that I find him an annoying person).
I think things like MBS are good things though, reducing redundant actions will only make good players better in the long run. and if putting in MBS reduces the best of players to the chaff then maybe Starcraft wasn't as good a game as you thought in the beginning.
The real problem is that you would need to find a balance between the number of clicks required to get a positive return. you'd not be happy if every time you sent your miners to gather resources, you THEN had to order them to drop it off at the base, and then go back out to the mineral deposits to get more minerals. But the player who could do that and still play the game would certainly be the best of SC players right? I guess it's all looking at where to draw the line rather than a strict right or wrong idea.
Although I'd hate for SC to become something like Smash brothers so maybe i'm completely wrong.
I thought i'd point out where you went wrong and where you went right. Read what other people have said in this thread and you will find out why your wrong just a quick question if starcraft wasnt as good a game as you thought then why is it the most watched and played game today? after ten years?
well if you had read what I said I didn't say starcraft wasn't as good a game as I thought it was (you have no idea what I think of SC) I was simply saying that if you put in MBS and a bunch of really good players aren't so good anymore, then the game probably didn't have as much depth as you thought it did.
People still play and watch Smash Brothers Melee stuff and it's been... about 8 years now, and people still watch Super Turbo Matches and it's been around for OVER 10 years. I don't really think time makes it into a good game automatically. And that's not to say that it's not a good game, that is to say that if your only argument that it is good is that lots of people play it, that's a pretty crummy argument.
Even if only 2 people played SC, it wouldn't make it a bad game, it may be the most technically deep and wonderful game in the world but just not played enough. Most people who trash things like MBS do it completely arbitrarily because thats what the good players tell them, or people they think are good players tell them. Like I said, you wouldn't want to manually control all your units to mine minerals and then manually move them back to base, but if you could do that and still build up your army you'd really be a great player at SC.
I wouldn't want the computer to do everything for me, but when it's something as trivial as putting units on the board, I'd like the convenience of being able to build from them simultaneously and setting rally points.
If they removed the "unnecessary clicking" from the game I don't think the pros would just suddenly be unseated. Strategy continues to evolve, and knowing a strategy, and knowing how to precisely input a strategy are two different things entirely and what is probably what really separates pros and everyone else. if some Monster APM player finds that he can't compete in SC2 at all, then he really wasn't implementing the strategy part of the strategy game.
APM should be a huge asset in combat, in base building, I'd err on the side of convenience. Wow and I said all that without even being rude to you.
Heres the thing, SC has struck a balance between macro and micro, thats why it is such a good rts game and there are not many out there, i honestly dont mind if they change the balance between the races through units and spells and such but when you start to take away or in this case add things that are changing the mechanics of the game a little too much then i dont think its a good idea, if you change it too drasticly which is what mbs is doing then it isnt starcraft it becomes something else,
they failed to record class 2. Class 3 was recorded and will be posted shortly. Class 4 was also recorded but not all of it (camera ran out of batteries)
On February 18 2009 08:54 raohthekenoh wrote: well if you had read what I said I didn't say starcraft wasn't as good a game as I thought it was (you have no idea what I think of SC) I was simply saying that if you put in MBS and a bunch of really good players aren't so good anymore, then the game probably didn't have as much depth as you thought it did.
It isn't about making good players bad, it is about removing the criteria for what makes players good. There becomes a great squishing of the skillset.
If you lower the basketball hoop to 7 feet, all of a sudden being tall isn't that big of a deal.
I was going to try to make it to class 4 tonight.. but I was already running late, and when I got on the freeway it was doing it's parking lot impersonation. So rather than sit in traffic for 3 hours and arrive when the class was just ending, I stayed home.
i think it went very well. The first hour was mostly derivations and calculus. The 2nd hour was about zerg and terran army movement and why its important. We looked at a few replays and analyzed them. Sirlin wrote up a summary here:
We have the raw footage from the second video available for upload. my webmaster should have it ready in a few hours.
The only problem: it's 9 gb for 40 minutes. I'm looking for a volunteer to compress it down to the 300mb it should be and send it back to us or something.
On February 18 2009 08:54 raohthekenoh wrote: People still play and watch Smash Brothers Melee stuff and it's been... about 8 years now, and people still watch Super Turbo Matches and it's been around for OVER 10 years. I don't really think time makes it into a good game automatically. And that's not to say that it's not a good game, that is to say that if your only argument that it is good is that lots of people play it, that's a pretty crummy argument.
Did you seriously just call the best objective measurement of a game's success and greatness -- its sustained popularity over a long period of time -- "a pretty crummy argument"?
I guess I'll answer it here instead of in the other thread (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=90919) apparently I don't have enough "rights" or something to comment on that one.
Anyways, sorry for the misleading. I tried it a couple times myself, and indeed it no longer works. However, I swear, back in like 1.14 or something like that, it worked at least once. Sirlin did not get anything wrong or misunderstand anything; any mistakes that he posts are my own.
Maybe I'll keep searching for a way to make it work -.-
Right after seeing this I thought it was awesome. My question though is that I will be a Berkeley freshman this year and would like to take this class, but where would I find the info on it if it is being held again?
You will find it in DeCALs if it is going to happen this year, but there's a somewhat likely chance it won't happen for the next fall semester because the teacher and co-teacher just graduated. Maybe Robert or someone can take over, but I dunno
In the class he keeps mentioning a reader, i.e. a book, where the equations he talks about are derived? Since the video misses some introduction to notation (eg Lecture 4), some of the equations are unclear from the video. Does anyone have a copy of the book in some digital form?
EPT![[image loading]](http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/9965/dsc03812zr2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.thetechlounge.com/files/news/images/1233293855_berkeley-nuclear-free.jpg)
)
