The Difference between Koreans and Foreigners or How to get realllllllllllly good
I've learned a lot about the differences between the foreigner and korean scenes in terms of game play / attitude / practice styles / etc in the past 10 months. I write this with a general idea of where I want to go with it but i'm not sure exactly how i will get there. hopefully my thoughts won't come out too garbled. sorry in advance for the lack of commas. i ripped that key out years ago t.t
Foreigners don't practice correctly. They just don't know how. There is a way to practice to become a progamer. While StarCraft is a hugely complex game it is being narrowed down strategically as people get better and better. As I write this I am looking at the Strategy Forum here on TL. Let's look at the way foreigners are trying to learn StarCraft right now:
[Q] DT rush has been scouted? I noticed there are no apm guide threads... [Q] Multitasking [Q] ZvP vs sair/reaver into standard ground army [Q] Ultralisk Defiler Push--TvZ
Totally valid threads. When I started trying to get good I went right to the Strategy & Tactics forum on battle.net. Back then StarCraft was a game almost completely of strategy. Now these threads are much less valuable in 2008. Yes they still will help you but your time would be better spent doing what aspiring Koreans do. You just don't really know what that is or how to approach it. Unfortunately there is very little high level discussion in the foreigner scene. Our scene is the sum of many different countries and languages. Yes we can all talk to each other some but its definitely easier to convey complicated information in your first language.
Now when you play a bunch on ICCup and want to improve ranks it is quite important to know what to do when a DT rush has been scouted. But thats not how you become a progamer level player. Not at all. Low level progamers massively practice basic play against each other. There are basic paths on how a game goes. I will use TvZ to demonstrate this.
Here is how you play TvZ against 3 hatch muta (most common ZvT build):
9 Depot 11 Barracks 14 Depot begin marine production (stop at 6 marines) 19 Command Center 23 Depot 25 Refinery 28 Academy (stim + bat then med when done) 32 Barracks 35 Engineering Bay (+1 attack research when done) 36 Barracks From here it gets more loose. Get range immediately when stim is done. Get comstats before your factory. Get your factory before 60 supply. Build turrets immediately upon your factory starting. Go straight to vessel and get 3 tanks on the way.
That is an exact build order used by one of the best terrans in the world. Every pro terran knows this build and practices the hell out of it. Their training partner zergs in the mean time do the same 3 hatchery muta build over and over. By doing basically the same game OVER AND OVER AND OVER you will memorize it quite well and see the holes in your game. This basic play is the result of countless hours of progamers playing each other and finding the most robust and powerful builds and styles. YES you can bunker rush and SHOULD bunker rush from time to time. Yes BoxeR has probably never done nor will ever do anything like this. But overall this is how you should practice.
As you master this build order in TvZ you will have to learn how to adapt to various things different zergs do. That is the last thing you really need to learn. Because if you know this build inside out and can macro it control it know your timings and everything like that then you are just going to roll people over who do lesser builds.
When you know every in and out of this build then you can truely increase your speed. One of the biggest reasons why progamers are so much faster than foriegners is because they know just what they are going to do. The game is completely mapped out in their mind. So they follow that map as quickly as they can. When you are a player who relies on being clever you simply cannot do that. Sure your APM can go up through hotkey cycling or something like that but that won't really help you as much as what the progamer is doing. Yes you might out think a progamer but he's going to be following a very very solid plan all game very well. He's going to have just about as many units as is possible all the time. His choices in odd situations will almost always be less intelligent than a top foreigner player but he has the extra economy and units to be able to get away with that.
The point of this: Mechanics are more important than any other aspect of the game currently. The game is getting more and more mapped out. You need to be able to follow that map.
On September 14 2008 19:17 Liquid`Drone wrote: the sad thing that you are very much correct about this is prolly the main reason why i no longer play
yep the game used to be more fun for sure. its ok ill write why foreigners will be better than koreans at sc2 until the game stops being patched at some point.
On September 14 2008 19:17 Liquid`Drone wrote: the sad thing that you are very much correct about this is prolly the main reason why i no longer play
yep the game used to be more fun for sure. its ok ill write why foreigners will be better than koreans at sc2 until the game stops being patched at some point.
I'm interested to see how this will turn out. Korea is a big country filled with a bunch of kids who all possess all sorts of playstyles and I'm sure some of them will be very talented at SC2. Of course, the same could be said of the foreigners, with a much bigger player base, but less practice time and the lack of a valid career path.
On September 14 2008 19:32 thunk wrote: I'm interested to see how this will turn out. Korea is a big country filled with a bunch of kids who all possess all sorts of playstyles and I'm sure some of them will be very talented at SC2. Of course, the same could be said of the foreigners, with a much bigger player base, but less practice time and the lack of a valid career path.
you talk as if pro starcraft is a valid career path? come on dude....think
I agree with op although for a terran player mechanics matters even more. At least zergs have zvp, the matchup that still varies a little every game and strategy pays off a bit more. But besides zvp every matchup is basically the same game over and over.
I have to disagree. Every player at high level (no matter foreigner or korean) have pretty good mechanics. Draco, Dreiven - they can keep they minerals down, have right unit combination and so on. But Bisu or Best basically do right decisions. If you look at the game of C+ player and B+ player - their mechanics are pretty equal. Ok maybe little difference but not that influencing game. And then B+ player totally rapes C+, wtf? B+ does right decisions, have better tactics. I am always against saying that SC is only making more units and controlling them better. If this would be right - I could be top player because I can force myself to macro at very good level, and generally play mechanics at top level. But this factor that makes MIStrZZZ 999999999999x better than me is that he have better tactics - he uses his units more effectively, attacking at right moment. He predict enemys situation better, he gets his advantage step by step to the point he can just rape me. Look at the sAviOr vs Dreiven from latest WWI and then watch Mondragon vs Dreiven at TSL. sAviOr did his lair when he had like 180 gas: that mean his mechanics are not so godlike. He was bothered controlling zerglings and forgot to make lair. Look at iloveoov and sAviOr - their APM is like 250! Ah and one more thing about game between Maestro and Dreiven: Zerg basically did PERFECT decision. Every action in StarCraft gives you advantages and disadvantages. For example: I do Nexus First build in PvT. Advantage is great economy. Disadvantages: I am vulnerable to rushes, lack of early aggresion from my side. And good player use disadvantage of enemy build (for example going 2 factories to break or does a lot quicker expand than normal [using lack of enemys aggresion]). This example is reaaaaally basic but shows whole problem. In high level game decision made by players are so advanced, they think a lot and winner is player who has better tactics.
Artosis I respect you as player and commentator (I like you analysis on game - actually only commentator who analyses tactics and decision making in game he commentate) but in this aspect I have to disagree. Sorry.
On September 14 2008 19:32 thunk wrote: I'm interested to see how this will turn out. Korea is a big country filled with a bunch of kids who all possess all sorts of playstyles and I'm sure some of them will be very talented at SC2. Of course, the same could be said of the foreigners, with a much bigger player base, but less practice time and the lack of a valid career path.
you talk as if pro starcraft is a valid career path? come on dude....think
It's about as valid as becoming a profession athlete in the United States. Being a Korean and trying to go Pro in Korean Starcraft. There are very few foreign kids who even got to play in the Korean big leagues.
I agree with NergalSC actually. If you watch games of pros their mechanics (especially macro) are not that much better, if at all better than top foreigners. Constantly better decisions + better map awarness are what puts them ahead every game. But I agree with artosis saying that koreans can play faster with equal apm due to knowing what to do in advance all the time.
Mondragon vs Dreiven Dreiven have one moment when his macro is pretty sloppy, he loses few Zealots for nothing, do not manage to do any bigger harras early on. So why the hell he wins game? He know what Zerg can have. He knew that Mondragon invested a lot in mutas, then he was supposed to do lurkers and a lot of sunkens. His saturation of drones suffered from it. Dreiven remained on two bases for longer time. Slowly built his advantage. He knew when he have to camp and when he have to attack. Generally decision making of Dreiven was better = he won game. Mondragon is also smart player. When I looked at his few replays, he was not that far ahead in mechanics. Sometimes his macro was pretty sloppy but his tactics are stronger than most people on damned Earth - he wins.
sAviOr vs Dreiven sAviOr know what Dreivens advantages and disadvantages are. First game - Andromeda. He knew that attack from front is not good idea. He need hydras to fight reavers but cannot use them to attack directly. Then he does great switch to mutalisks. Does a lot of harras everywhere, while getting drops. He load a lot of hydras to the oerlords and place them in Dreiven main. Polish player have to order some of his reavers to go back to main. Okaaay so at this point sAviOr attacks from the front. GG. So sAviOr showed better strategy thinking. I believe that if sAviOr would play against Best and he would do same build like Dreiven, Best could predict sAviOr options better and prepare for them while using his advantages. OK so lets proceed to the next game. Dreiven played his famous Zealot+Archon combo. sAviOr used maximum of his units - that was ridiculous: he sniped templars, he ran lings to Dreivens base in perfect moment so he have seen what is Dreiven up to. And then he just outplayed him. Not because he have milion APM and never miss overlord. He was basically smarter in this game.
Lets compare two players from foreigner community. First guy is IdrA. Second White-Ra. IdrA is macro player. He concentrates his game on mechanics mostly, his scouting is not so good, he can't predict enemy that well like for example NonY. And other guy - White-Ra. His macro is not so good. He have problems at keeping his money down in many games. His biggest advantage is his strategy. He is one of smartest players. I have to admit that White-Ra wins most games. I respect IdrA of course but White-Ra usually wins games vs IdrA. This is example that great mechanics < strong strategy.
I do not see big difference in mechanics between Draco and for example Kal. But Draco loses to JF in TSL final while Kal wins over JF pretty easily. High level games might look basic - by the book so this is illusion that they play using mechanics only. But this is ONLY illusion.
There is one point when I can agree with you, Artosis. I think that 80% of Terran skill is mechanics. Terran is race that is hard mechanically but simple strategically. But when playing Zerg or Protoss you need more in-game thinking than pure mechanics. Thanx for listening. :D
Here is how you play TvZ against 3 hatch muta (most common ZvT build):
9 Depot 11 Barracks 14 Depot begin marine production (stop at 6 marines) 19 Command Center 23 Depot 25 Refinery 28 Academy (stim + bat then med when done) 32 Barracks 35 Engineering Bay (+1 attack research when done) 36 Barracks From here it gets more loose. Get range immediately when stim is done. Get comstats before your factory. Get your factory before 60 supply. Build turrets immediately upon your factory starting. Go straight to vessel and get 3 tanks on the way.
Ah and I forgot to mention one thing. When I play on ICCup mechanically, using strategies that I do from my memory basically macroing a lot of troops and microing them nicely I play worser than in situation when I concentrate on strategy, tactics and thinking in the game. IMHO player need to have something like 200 APM to play at high level but as I said, you can meet players like that on C/C+ rank. You have decent mechanics but now you have to use your brain. :D
Mechanics is relative, foreigners have good mechanics compared to other foreigners but not to Koreans, mechanics does not equal apm, it's simply multitasking.
Yes I know but one of aspects of the multitasking/mechanics is APM. I do not want to say - C+ do not miss pylon, sometimes misses probe, have problem at defending harras and attack at once. I just wanted to say it shortly. In this case APM meant mechanics. :D
I've been playing sc for 2 months and around 2-3 weeks now(switched from warcraft).I've been training very good thanks to my previous experience in how to train.So far I've achieve rank C in iccup and I've coupe kills of B/B+ players.The best way to practise is to get one pro replay and just study the shit out of him.I've memorized the reactions of other race players so I can figure out what he is teching if he doesn't allow me to scout him, when to attack ,when to place second,third,fourth factory etc. My advise to you is this: If u want to be good at starcraft threat it like a poem that you need to learn.
On September 14 2008 21:20 Morello wrote: I've been playing sc for 2 months and around 2-3 weeks now(switched from warcraft).I've been training very good thanks to my previous experience in how to train.So far I've achieve rank C in iccup and I've coupe kills of B/B+ players.The best way to practise is to get one pro replay and just study the shit out of him.I've memorized the reactions of other race players so I can figure out what he is teching if he doesn't allow me to scout him, when to attack ,when to place second,third,fourth factory etc. My advise to you is this: If u want to be good at starcraft threat it like a poem that you need to learn.
On September 14 2008 21:20 Morello wrote: I've been playing sc for 2 months and around 2-3 weeks now(switched from warcraft).I've been training very good thanks to my previous experience in how to train.So far I've achieve rank C in iccup and I've coupe kills of B/B+ players.The best way to practise is to get one pro replay and just study the shit out of him.I've memorized the reactions of other race players so I can figure out what he is teching if he doesn't allow me to scout him, when to attack ,when to place second,third,fourth factory etc. My advise to you is this: If u want to be good at starcraft threat it like a poem that you need to learn.
This is impossible to get such rank. He probably play for longer time - just wanted to get impressed. One really good player I know (I will not say nickname) said that I am getting skill at rapid rate but still I was not able to get C in 2 months. And this is even more impossible to beat someone on B+ rank after so short period of time playing. To get your hotkeys going like it should, know strategies and so you have to practise at least half year and then you can reach C. He says that you should just remember tactics and play them - this is approach of D+ player. No offense but this is impossible to get C in 2 months.
EDIT: haha now I suddenly realized that B+ is sometimes rank of top on-koreans LOLOL.
Absolutely. Like I've always said, the answer to 99% of questions on the strategy forum - get faster, practice your build more and macro better. Also nice to finally see someone fully explain the APM question, as in, why the progamers are faster and why.
On September 14 2008 21:50 NergalSC wrote: He says that you should just remember tactics and play them - this is approach of D+ player.
actually its the approach of progamers. artosis was not talking out of his ass, like you are, hes speaking from experience of watching progamers practice and talking to their coaches. this is not something thats up for debate, it is reality.
you're right that savior beat dreiven because he plays more intelligently than him. however he also won because has better macro than him. and better micro than him. and better timing than him. comparing players of that difference in caliber is pointless, its just a whole different level. what artosis is talking about is how everything, strategically, is becoming very standardized among progaming and the defining factor among progamers is now execution. hes extending this to foreigners, pointing out that the best way to beat everyone else is to pick solid, basic builds and practice the shit out of them. hes trying to help you. stop spouting bullshit and listen.
Yeah I agree that basic build trained a lot get best result. I agree with many things there but not with this that SC is only mechanics. Even if you play by the book build, still tactic is big factor.
On September 14 2008 21:50 NergalSC wrote: This is impossible to get such rank. He probably play for longer time - just wanted to get impressed. One really good player I know (I will not say nickname) said that I am getting skill at rapid rate but still I was not able to get C in 2 months. And this is even more impossible to beat someone on B+ rank after so short period of time playing. To get your hotkeys going like it should, know strategies and so you have to practise at least half year and then you can reach C. He says that you should just remember tactics and play them - this is approach of D+ player. No offense but this is impossible to get C in 2 months.
EDIT: haha now I suddenly realized that B+ is sometimes rank of top on-koreans LOLOL.
I guess your "good player" friend is the authority. Whatever he says must be true. End of discussion.
The reason I agree with Artosis and not with you Nergal, is that korean's react instinctively on everything they see DUE to having done what Artosis just described 10 hours a day for years and years.
They instinctively know how to react to about every single variation, because they've studied it -- much like top chess players study openings and their variations.
It's not that they necessarily are more creative. But rather korean's have to think less about the "trivialities" of tech switches, base management, timings; and are able to leave more time to effectively make use of their multitasking with superior harass, map control and economy as a result.
What the OP argues essentially IMO is that korean's gain more on instinctively knowing how to act in every situation than does a foreigner from truly being creative and original in a match. The korean's quick reactions to every bit of information levels out any effect that a truly creative play might have had.
The OP isn't necessarily saying korean's are worse at strategy Nergal, but rather that them being better at what we perceive as "strategy" is infact a result of the strict practice regime of a standard strategy and its thousands of different variations. Essentially turning what is "strategy" for foreigners into "mechanics" for koreans.
I can really relate to Artosis' post. I returned to broodwar after a two (or more) year break last fall, and I quickly rushed from C- to B within half a year from persistently using the same standard macro openings against any race and any opponent I would face.
There is no point in practising all-ins if you truly intend on improving in Starcraft. All-ins are better utilised when you truly have got a grasp of the game itself. Not when you're trying to gain a rank from C to C+.
who the hell would not play better if he practices 5-8 hrs per day... plus practices with their fellow progamer teammates... plus the fame in their country, the money prizes, endorsements and televised games...
Hmmm... I agree with most things you said. But still I think that biggest part of SC is strategy. I just do not know what to say. Now I realized that we speak about one thing in two ways. XD IMO strategy cannot exist without mechanics and vice versa. I do not like when someone says that foreigner reactions are better and more clever but they have better mechanics. T.T This is pretty ridiculous for me. You know when you have good strategy to attack in good moment, you can name it strategy but you can name it timing (mechanics...).
On September 14 2008 22:47 NergalSC wrote: LOL I just said my opinion nothing bad I think?
Yeah I agree that basic build trained a lot get best result. I agree with many things there but not with this that SC is only mechanics. Even if you play by the book build, still tactic is big factor.
"One of the biggest reasons why progamers are so much faster than foriegners is because they know just what they are going to do. The game is completely mapped out in their mind. So they follow that map as quickly as they can. " tactics are a result of billions of hours of practice. you play the same general game plan over and over, so you experience all of the likely scenarios and the best responses become engrained in your brain, so you execute them without thought
a foreigner sits there thinking 'what can i do to fuck him up' while he banks 4k minerals with 150 supply and runs his army into mines. a korean does what hes done a thousand times before in practice while keeping his money below 500 and constantly watching his army. now maybe the foreigner makes a better decision for a specific scenario, because he evaluates whats going on and decides what to do based on that. but he still loses because he has a quarter of the army of the korean who acted on similar situations thats hes played over and over.
also, you agree? you just said that that was the thinking of a D+ player
On September 14 2008 22:54 Stimpacked wrote: who the hell would not play better if he practices 5-8 hrs per day... plus practices with their fellow progamer teammates... plus the fame in their country, the money prizes, endorsements and televised games...
What you're saying is obvious, but not related at all to what we're discussing here.
It definitely makes sense, but it's kind of depressing. Hopefully SC2 will be balanced in such a way that it will take a lot longer to find an "optimum" build order for each matchup due to more options.
On September 14 2008 22:54 Stimpacked wrote: who the hell would not play better if he practices 5-8 hrs per day... plus practices with their fellow progamer teammates... plus the fame in their country, the money prizes, endorsements and televised games...
What you're saying is obvious, but not related at all to what we're discussing here.
the topic is the difference between us and koreans(progamers) and that's the main reason...
Um I don't understand. You're saying the difference is that Koreans play the same build order over and over? That's what I do, usually, and I still suck. I can't imagine that any good player is just improvising a new build order every game, most have just one that they prefer.
On September 14 2008 21:50 NergalSC wrote: He says that you should just remember tactics and play them - this is approach of D+ player.
actually its the approach of progamers. artosis was not talking out of his ass, like you are, hes speaking from experience of watching progamers practice and talking to their coaches. this is not something thats up for debate, it is reality.
The reason why I agree with you and Artosis other than that you both know more than anyone else in this thread, is that they pointed out in that episode of National Geographic how the progamer was using the 'memory' parts of his brain, whereas the amateur was using the 'creative' part (iirc).
I also experienced this firsthand playing Sea[shield]. It's a stretch (especially since he offraced) but he didn't beat me with smart choices or anything like that, he just perfectly played by a script, and then later in the game his experience and awesome micro took over. And this was with him more or less screwing around... I can't imagine if he was 100% serious, or playing his main.
I think the principle Artosis talked about is an effect that tapers off towards the lategame.. and that's when the countless hours of extra experience kick in, and continue to give the top Korean player an advantage.
On September 14 2008 23:45 Luddite wrote: Um I don't understand. You're saying the difference is that Koreans play the same build order over and over? That's what I do, usually, and I still suck. I can't imagine that any good player is just improvising a new build order every game, most have just one that they prefer.
Do you get to play 8-10 hours a day with progamers who help you point out things in person? Buddy you think playing like 15 games is alot for you, im sure thats minimal in a progamer house. These guys have access to all 3 match ups and as many games as they want vs TOP PLAYERS. Don't compare your training regiment with a pros lol.
I wonder if foreigners got to have a facility to live and train together if they would get as good as the pros under the same training standards. Obviously there isnt any money in it, but it would be interesting
On September 14 2008 22:47 NergalSC wrote: LOL I just said my opinion nothing bad I think?
Yeah I agree that basic build trained a lot get best result. I agree with many things there but not with this that SC is only mechanics. Even if you play by the book build, still tactic is big factor.
I read the whole thing and never saw artosis say "SC is only mechanics, decision making, timing, etc dont matter"
He's saying mechanics are the MOST important part of the game not the ONLY important part of the game. And it's quite clear if you look at the progression of SC over the years. Go look at a game from 2004 and a game from 2008.
It was actually good team - AMD. They had free hand when to train, when to just do what they want. They get good results but in longer run other teams were way better. Players like Grrrr... and ElkY ended their carrer because of lack of training.
On September 14 2008 23:33 Tadzio00 wrote: Does this mean that playing comp stomps is time well spent?
nony became one of the best foreigners by doing nothing but choosing good builds and newb bashing 24/7 on iccup, just by focusing hardcore on executing perfectly. so yes, if you have the ability to force yourself to play a standard game and push yourself to keep your mechanics as perfect as possible regardless of your opponent, yes you can improve by playing vs computers(assuming you study good players and learn good builds to practice). however it is of course better to play vs better opponents, as they will expose you to more different scenarios and they will push your mechanics naturally.
Like Drone, I gave up BW in large part because the nature of the game was shifting far too much in the direction pure mechanics. It's a trend that has been in place for years and years, maybe as far back as replays in the 1.08 patch (which I thought were so wonderful at the time, but now I agree with Rekrul; they ruined the game), and maybe even further. But it became most noticeable to me when Oov was becoming the dominant player, back around late 2005, when I quit.
At this point, I don't even watch pro games or replays anymore. The game is TOTALLY different than it was back in 2001 or even 2004. It's not about creativity, it's about muscle memory. It's mostly about mechanics. Modern BW is incredibly boring compared to what it used to be. I feel kind of bad for the people who only got into the game after 2005 or so. I can't tell you how much more exciting and varied the game was before that. People played many more strategies - even the pros did - and people had very distinctive styles.
I also really feel sorry for pro-gamers. I hope they enjoy what they are doing, but given the way BW was going, I could hardly stand to play it for 3 hours a day, let alone 10 or 12.
On September 14 2008 23:45 Luddite wrote: Um I don't understand. You're saying the difference is that Koreans play the same build order over and over? That's what I do, usually, and I still suck. I can't imagine that any good player is just improvising a new build order every game, most have just one that they prefer.
Do you get to play 8-10 hours a day with progamers who help you point out things in person? Buddy you think playing like 15 games is alot for you, im sure thats minimal in a progamer house. These guys have access to all 3 match ups and as many games as they want vs TOP PLAYERS. Don't compare your training regiment with a pros lol.
I wonder if foreigners got to have a facility to live and train together if they would get as good as the pros under the same training standards. Obviously there isnt any money in it, but it would be interesting
OK so the main difference is that they play a lot more than me? that's not what his post said but whatever. If the main difference is that they just play a lot more and have better opponents well uh... duh?
On September 14 2008 23:33 Tadzio00 wrote: Does this mean that playing comp stomps is time well spent?
nony became one of the best foreigners by doing nothing but choosing good builds and newb bashing 24/7 on iccup, just by focusing hardcore on executing perfectly. so yes, if you have the ability to force yourself to play a standard game and push yourself to keep your mechanics as perfect as possible regardless of your opponent, yes you can improve by playing vs computers(assuming you study good players and learn good builds to practice). however it is of course better to play vs better opponents, as they will expose you to more different scenarios and they will push your mechanics naturally.
Seems really optimistic to me because I am pretty new player (in comparision to others) and now I have chosen great builds for PvP and PvZ (my PvT builds sux - because I havent seen NonY FPVOD with good standard PvT build ). I like safe, standard and straight-up builds but I do not really have source to get them except NonY VODs. Now I will try to push my mechanics highly and play few good build orders perfectly. Maybe will work.
I'm glad to hear what I'm thinking from a top foreigner. And it's also the reason why I stopped playing a few years ago - SC just didn't seem much about anticipation/strategy/micro anymore, although some people still believe that's not true. But when (at the higher levels) you can follow $goodbuildX and be prepared for just about anything the enemy might throw at you if you only execute it well enough (multitasking/speed), then something elementary is not right anymore. In a strategy game, every strategy should have a weakness - in StarCraft however, there's a standard strategy for each matchup or map which doesn't *have* a particular weakness. It's just all around solid vs. everything, and this means that better mechanics will decide.
I, too, feel bad for people who haven't played the game before 2004 or 2005. It was indeed different. I still watch progamers play (VODs with commentary only), but active competitive gaming or more generally the will to become a lot better at this - hell no.
Oh I actually started to play in... 2007. I love this game but from your "tales" it seems that SC was even better before. Too bad that I have not played it. T.t
On September 14 2008 19:32 thunk wrote: I'm interested to see how this will turn out. Korea is a big country filled with a bunch of kids who all possess all sorts of playstyles and I'm sure some of them will be very talented at SC2. Of course, the same could be said of the foreigners, with a much bigger player base, but less practice time and the lack of a valid career path.
you talk as if pro starcraft is a valid career path? come on dude....think
It is a valid career path... Look at Nal_Ra, Garimto, Kingdom, Iloveoov, fuck I am sure that when Boxer retires he isn't going to open doors for people at WAL-MART. Its just like athletics man you have a period of time when you can compete with your peers but eventually a time comes when you have to go your seperate ways, in this case it means Coaching, Management, Casting or some other form of e-Sports job.
On September 15 2008 00:58 Seraphim wrote: A few questions (to Artosis or Idra):
Would this mean that people should only play one build, and one build only? What would happen to strange builds such as 14 nexus, DT rush, etc.?
Shouldn't the "ultimate build" be map dependent, or is there a one-build-fits-all type of deal?
Could you provide the PvX builds? ^.^ That would be awesome
it could possibly be that they practice EACH of these builds for hours on end... that's how they get good at all those other options and not just have one good build
On September 14 2008 21:20 Morello wrote: I've been playing sc for 2 months and around 2-3 weeks now(switched from warcraft).I've been training very good thanks to my previous experience in how to train.So far I've achieve rank C in iccup and I've coupe kills of B/B+ players.The best way to practise is to get one pro replay and just study the shit out of him.I've memorized the reactions of other race players so I can figure out what he is teching if he doesn't allow me to scout him, when to attack ,when to place second,third,fourth factory etc. My advise to you is this: If u want to be good at starcraft threat it like a poem that you need to learn.
Yeah and I play 1 week and I will soon reach A!!1
Believe it or not its a fact.And u douche please tell me what I win by lie for such thing!?
Anyway I'm ex-Warcraft3 player and I must tell you that I've noticed how bad foreigners train, I'm playing for one not so good team and I've been asking them to practise with me almost non stop and after week and couple of days in I've played only 15-20 games with them.In warcraft the best practise comes from training in ggc(garena) with teammates because the bnet is corrupted with hackers since 9-11 months.Its really easy to progress when you can train one matchup a lot and there are people watching and pointing your mistakes.Of course if u don't have team just ask some better players when you to practise with them and watch your replay for mistakes. I've said it many times and I'll repeat it again ,thanks iMp players and thanks letalis for training with me.
On September 15 2008 00:58 Seraphim wrote: A few questions (to Artosis or Idra):
Would this mean that people should only play one build, and one build only? What would happen to strange builds such as 14 nexus, DT rush, etc.?
Shouldn't the "ultimate build" be map dependent, or is there a one-build-fits-all type of deal?
Could you provide the PvX builds? ^.^ That would be awesome
it could possibly be that they practice EACH of these builds for hours on end... that's how they get good at all those other options and not just have one good build
Doesn't Artosis imply that you should only have one good build and everything else "sucks"?
On September 14 2008 19:14 Artosis wrote: His choices in odd situations will almost always be less intelligent than a top foreigner player but he has the extra economy and units to be able to get away with that.
On September 14 2008 20:04 NergalSC wrote: I have to disagree. Every player at high level (no matter foreigner or korean) have pretty good mechanics. Draco, Dreiven - they can keep they minerals down, have right unit combination and so on. But Bisu or Best basically do right decisions. If you look at the game of C+ player and B+ player - their mechanics are pretty equal. Ok maybe little difference but not that influencing game. And then B+ player totally rapes C+, wtf? B+ does right decisions, have better tactics. I am always against saying that SC is only making more units and controlling them better. If this would be right - I could be top player because I can force myself to macro at very good level, and generally play mechanics at top level. But this factor that makes MIStrZZZ 999999999999x better than me is that he have better tactics - he uses his units more effectively, attacking at right moment. He predict enemys situation better, he gets his advantage step by step to the point he can just rape me. Look at the sAviOr vs Dreiven from latest WWI and then watch Mondragon vs Dreiven at TSL. sAviOr did his lair when he had like 180 gas: that mean his mechanics are not so godlike. He was bothered controlling zerglings and forgot to make lair. Look at iloveoov and sAviOr - their APM is like 250! Ah and one more thing about game between Maestro and Dreiven: Zerg basically did PERFECT decision. Every action in StarCraft gives you advantages and disadvantages. For example: I do Nexus First build in PvT. Advantage is great economy. Disadvantages: I am vulnerable to rushes, lack of early aggresion from my side. And good player use disadvantage of enemy build (for example going 2 factories to break or does a lot quicker expand than normal [using lack of enemys aggresion]). This example is reaaaaally basic but shows whole problem. In high level game decision made by players are so advanced, they think a lot and winner is player who has better tactics.
Artosis I respect you as player and commentator (I like you analysis on game - actually only commentator who analyses tactics and decision making in game he commentate) but in this aspect I have to disagree. Sorry.
The longer the games goes.... the better the koreans macro is more than the foreigners
great thread, i have a friend would always get upset with my with my FD terran, that i use almost every game. And he kept complaining how boring it was vs me... xD.
To the people saying top foreigners have equal mechanics to top pros: You are absolutely wrong. Sure the big game winning moves are strategically superior when watching a pro but they are able to do that BECAUSE they have such good mechanics and multitasking. A top pro is better than a top foreigner in every aspect. Claiming otherwise would be a lie.
On September 15 2008 00:58 Seraphim wrote: A few questions (to Artosis or Idra):
Would this mean that people should only play one build, and one build only? What would happen to strange builds such as 14 nexus, DT rush, etc.?
Shouldn't the "ultimate build" be map dependent, or is there a one-build-fits-all type of deal?
Could you provide the PvX builds? ^.^ That would be awesome
it could possibly be that they practice EACH of these builds for hours on end... that's how they get good at all those other options and not just have one good build
Doesn't Artosis imply that you should only have one good build and everything else "sucks"?
No. You're totally inferring the wrong things from what he said.
Seriously though, the problem I have with copying good biulds is that I always end up cutting a probe or something for a second. I always feel like if I played better I don't have to cut a probe for a second to get in that 13 core in PvT, but I can never do it.
people are resistant to this idea because people hate it when they are just excluded from being good. apm and mechanics can be practiced but the perception is that for raw speed and multitask, there are physical limits, kind of like height and coordination in basketball. some people have it, some people don't. the truth is right there in front of you when your opponent is faster and better. whereas strategy seems to be this abstract concept that the everyman thinks he can learn and beat people with. there's something more egalitarian and attractive about strategy trumping speed (ie out-thinking an opponent who has better mechanics).
think of it like a real sport, there are a few exceptions but in basketball in general you need to jump high, be tall, and be coordinated/athletic, and then you can learn about footwork, jump shots, and where to move on defense. sure you can play basketball without the height/speed/jumping ability and even play it very well, but you won't be the best in the world. the same is for SC--you need a base level of handspeed and multitask that to an extent can be practiced (like speed and jump can be trained in basketball) but innately there are different ceilings and limits for everyone. You need these aspects to be elite before even thinking about strategy.
unfortunately this isn't reality. its NOT good when strategy is the biggest part of the game because for computer games, there are easily reachable limits to strategy. yes SC is still evolving but its mainly adjusting to maps and metagame, not the basics. there are few new revolutionary strategies on a basic level--nothing is going to change the "base" tactics of vultures and tanks vs protoss and mm vs zerg.
where players can differentiate themselves is mechanics, speed, etc. that's what makes a sport a sport and a game a game, when certain players are better and no matter what most of the people do, they won't get as good as the best. that's where high skill differentiation comes in. and its good for SC, not bad.
but to sum up, a lot of people hate it that mechanics > strategy because it basically kills any chance of being very good for a large portion of the community. there is always a general sentiment that whats inside (smarts, personality, etc) should matter more than innate outer qualities (physical ability, looks), because you can control one much more than the other. for many players and fans, they see the mechanics as physical, less controllable quality and strategy as "whats on the inside" so they feel its more genuine or fair to win by strategy than pure mechanics, because it means that anyone, even those that aren't fast like themselves, can be great. that's why people love the short players in the NBA, because its hope that anyone can be great at basketball regardless of height. this obviously just isn't true and the few short players are truly rare exceptions to a rule. its a hard reality to face for a lot of people, that they just can't be great.
thus, when people are like "i hope strategy plays a bigger part in SC2" what they are essentially saying is "i want a playing field where the average guy can excel."
i actually want the opposite. i want a game that there are strong strategy elements but the baseline skill indicator is a heavy dose of mechanics. that's what will make the game last a long time in esports and thats what makes the skill differentiation wide. that's what makes it a true sport and not checkers.
all the difficult and great strategies in starcraft are made possible by superior mechanics anyway (see bisu, defiler control, sk terran, etc), not by someone who thinks better than his opponent. you can think like nada just by watching and mimicking his replays, you can't ever play like him though. thats why it doesn't matter how much you try to copy him. i hope this type of "can copy strategically, can't copy mechanically" aspect remains in SC2, because you just CAN'T consistently outstrategize someone every time. innovation only works once, and after that everyone's aware and they are just as smart and will beat you. mechanical separation is needed for longevity and consistency.
On September 14 2008 21:20 Morello wrote: I've been playing sc for 2 months and around 2-3 weeks now(switched from warcraft).I've been training very good thanks to my previous experience in how to train.So far I've achieve rank C in iccup and I've coupe kills of B/B+ players.The best way to practise is to get one pro replay and just study the shit out of him.I've memorized the reactions of other race players so I can figure out what he is teching if he doesn't allow me to scout him, when to attack ,when to place second,third,fourth factory etc. My advise to you is this: If u want to be good at starcraft threat it like a poem that you need to learn.
Yeah and I play 1 week and I will soon reach A!!1
Believe it or not its a fact.And u douche please tell me what I win by lie for such thing!?
Anyway I'm ex-Warcraft3 player and I must tell you that I've noticed how bad foreigners train, I'm playing for one not so good team and I've been asking them to practise with me almost non stop and after week and couple of days in I've played only 15-20 games with them.In warcraft the best practise comes from training in ggc(garena) with teammates because the bnet is corrupted with hackers since 9-11 months.Its really easy to progress when you can train one matchup a lot and there are people watching and pointing your mistakes.Of course if u don't have team just ask some better players when you to practise with them and watch your replay for mistakes. I've said it many times and I'll repeat it again ,thanks iMp players and thanks letalis for training with me.
Be good ,get good or give up
Less talk, more proof.
Artosis is correct he just didn't elaborate everything perfectly, hence the discussion. He's there observing them firsthand anyway.
This should be obvious anyway, just as Chill said.
Morello, nobody cares how good you got in how short a time, because all that matters is how good you are now and whether you'll maintain that ridiculous rate right into the OSL. So I don't see how its a great brag until we see you at the top of some foreigner ladder, because everyone and their mother has "gotten good but didn't play for a long time" as if thats some sort of achievement. Does that make you superior to someone who is just as good but played for 8 years? Absolutely not. Skill is skill and until you're better you're the same.
That said dunno why NergalSC is so resistant and upset that someone can get good in a short period of time. If hes telling the truth, we'll see him winning WCG for his country or at least placing, if hes lying or if he just reached his ceiling really fast, we'll never hear from him again. Only one of these results are impressive and frankly nobody should care right now, he's just another B player amid a sea of B players.
Nonono I do not say I am really good or skilled - but I am not bad as well. But I know how you must be familiar with hotkeys, get a lot of habits, even get basic klowledge - this takes more than 2 months. I can believe him having C, but I do not believe him cutting games from B+ players. Someone on B+ is really skilled and is just better than rookie. But nevermind.
people are resistant to this idea because people hate it when they are just excluded from being good. apm and mechanics can be practiced but the perception is that for raw speed and multitask, there are physical limits, kind of like height and coordination in basketball. some people have it, some people don't. the truth is right there in front of you when your opponent is faster and better. whereas strategy seems to be this abstract concept that the everyman thinks he can learn and beat people with. there's something more egalitarian and attractive about strategy trumping speed (ie out-thinking an opponent who has better mechanics).
i remember thinking that when i read that speed freaks article. "isnt that when you're supposed to think" as if he could have thought up some insane genius strategy to crush the people who knew what they were doing given a minute or two.
it would be nice if people would take hot_bids posts to heart, the stuff hes talking about is the root cause of alot of the dumbass discussions about sc2.
I thought it was fairly common knowledge that the best way to improve is play endless games on the same map/matchup using the same builds and opponents? Fairly sure this is how most of the top foreigners got to where they are now. Players like nony and mondragon obviously practice in this method, the raw mechanics of it comes oozing out in their play style.
wow, Hot_Bid said just exactly what I wanted too! Well, almost. Anyway "mechanics > strategy" is why I've pretty much given up on practicing SC. That makes me a "thinker" I suppose. Love watching pros though, cause only when their mechanics skills are comparable then the scouting, build order and strategy start to be deciding factors. So basically it's like you have to have great mechanics before your strategy skills can be of the most use, not the opposite way. But in the end it's the strategy that makes you the best and that's where Hot_Bid is kinda wrong, cause there are things you cannot train, you're born with it or not. Just like in the game of chess or bridge. Some are good, some don't get it. Hell, you could even train a monkey to execute some build order perfectly, but does it make it a good player ?
Pros and people trying to get better practise the mechanics and basic play first, and then the strategy as like a final step.
Compare Jaedong and Upmagic. Jaedong excelled at zvt and zvz first, matchups where mechanics and small-scale tactics are key. He sucked at zvp for a long time, which requires more strategy. Then after having built up his zerg mechanics to the best in the world, he started focusing more on strategy. Now he's one of the most dominant players around.
Upmagic started off by doing innovative, strategic builds that caught people off guard. He had some reasonably good results for a while, but once people learned to play more cautiously against him and he revealed his strategies, he's not doing so well because he didn't invest the time into building his basic mechanics. His coach Daniel Lee complained about this in one of his commentaries.
Bottom line: if your goal is long-term improvement, you should focus mostly on mechanics in day-to-day practise. Then before important tournaments, etc., work more on strategy as a finishing touch.
On September 15 2008 03:36 khersai wrote: wow, Hot_Bid said just exactly what I wanted too! Well, almost. Anyway "mechanics > strategy" is why I've pretty much given up on practicing SC. That makes me a "thinker" I suppose. Love watching pros though, cause only when their mechanics skills are comparable then the scouting, build order and strategy start to be deciding factors. So basically it's like you have to have great mechanics before your strategy skills can be of the most use, not the opposite way. But in the end it's the strategy that makes you the best and that's where Hot_Bid is kinda wrong, cause there are things you cannot train, you're born with it or not. Just like in the game of chess or bridge. Some are good, some don't get it. Hell, you could even train a monkey to execute some build order perfectly, but does it make it a good player ?
well look at it in terms of separation, ability, and cause
i'm sure many people thought of using dts and corsairs in the way bisu did. i am sure there are plenty of people as creative as he is at making build orders. however, his dt/sair FE opening and harass style is a strategical result of his mechanics. nobody can do it but he can, whereas a large % of the population can at least formulate a strategy like he can. i'm not sure how much of the strat he came up with himself or how much was a result of a combination of coach / players / partners ideas, but conceptually sc strategies aren't very complex. sure, sometimes a truly great strategy comes out that is shocking (see silver build on monty) but my point is you can never rely on innovation, because it only works once and is quickly dissected by opponents just as smart as you are.
sure boxer and savior and nada are born with a level of analytical and strategic ability, and this mental part separates them from others who are just as mechanically talented, but the bottom line is we're talking about people that are all ridiculously fast. if you talk about two guys with equal mechanics, obviously work ethic and a quick brain will separate them.
but how many times have you seen a player with inferior mechanics consistently beat players with better mechanics? its just way too difficult because we're not talking about idiots and geniuses. most of these guys are relatively bright, and can think without being an idiot. sure there are dumb moves by pros and exceptions to the rule, but you're just not going to out-strategize someone to the level you want to without the mechanics to back it up.
it just doesn't happen, not in Korea where mass proteam practice has pros basically prepared for all scenarios and strategies and timings. the line for strategical innovation is just so, so thin, and there's no way someone is going to be able to do it every time.
then look at how many times you've seen someone make up for a deficiency in strategy with superior macro or micro--it happens far more frequently.
So in conclusion: we have player A and player B. Player A is better mechanicaly so he wins. Then we have match between player C and player D. Their mechanics are pretty equal. So player C wins because he is better at strategy. Am I right? Correct me if I am wrong.
yes mechanics are the basic, no matter how you harass/slow him down and you don't have the mechanics/macro to finish him off its useless... well progamers have almost equal mechanics so it all comes down to innovative strategies, precision, and maybe perfection...
Nice thread. First of all, I am with many other players that bailed on the game, though still enjoy it/the scene to some extent, clearly as I am here. I realized I just did not care to work on my mechanics doing the same stuff over and over again for an uncertain end. I know Ret has typed something similar. Surely many have felt this as well.
Clearly mechanics are the basic. Like macro is before micro. Have to have units before you can micro them. What exactly is mechanics basic to though? Strategy is what is being thrown out there by some. It is important to keep in mind that strategy and mechanics are not divorced from each other in game. You use your mechanics (technique) to carry out a certain strategy (game plan). They both matter a lot to winning, but I agree that (in the abstract) mechanics comes first. To get even more subtle here...and this matters to the NergalSC disagreement. Notice that Artosis does not say that strategy does not matter to Koreans. He says that the Koreans have the game plan all mapped out, an that map is becoming more and more standard. What the deal with the foreigners is is something like the typical foreigner not cutting it in mechanics, and also relying on being creative/cleaver/outthinking/whatever in game. I recall something by Nony where he said thaut he tries to get as much of his plan into his head beforehand so it is instantly available to his mechanics...aka...korean style, eh.
Another point to make is that mechanics can be counted on in and out, every game. Strategy is pretty iffy though. Much of the time you just don't have the scouting on your opponent in order to decide what to do correctly. SC is not qite rock paper scissors, but we admit that it has some chancy aspects.
On a point of interest, you (artosis) typed that "there is very little high level discussion in the foreigner scene." Is this statement showing an assumption of high level discussion in the kor scene? Care to talk about this some more? I'm not sure I see this at all going from Daniel Lees commentary, etc. Honestly, from what I see from time to time of progamers talking about deep strategy it has been disappointing. I get the impression they are talking after the fact about why the game went successful/bad for them. Sure, you demonstrated that they have the builds down, but how deep is their strategy discussion, if you get my meaning? Perhaps this rolls into your point somehow. Maybe they don't really discuss it deeply, realizing the nature of the game (or at least what will make them better), and just go and play and adapt.
v reply to bellow: Yea it could be mainly that. Or it could perhaps be more what I suggest...which would be more interesting/revealing alternative. Obviously players still think a lot about strategy whether foreigner or korean, but the point is how much of that discussion is in the scene over there, that is, open discussion. And how does this matter to developing players? Is there a popular korean strategy forum for sc? Or just at an inteam level how much sharing of high level strategy goes on verbally/written? I suspect the answer is not that much. They just talk about it some or 'what works' and play a lot.
On September 15 2008 05:05 Knickknack wrote: On a point of interest, you (artosis) typed that "there is very little high level discussion in the foreigner scene." Is this statement showing an assumption of high level discussion in the kor scene? Care to talk about this some more? I'm not sure I see this at all going from Daniel Lees commentary, etc. Honestly, from what I see from time to time of progamers talking about deep strategy it has been disappointing. I get the impression they are talking after the fact about why the game went successful/bad for them. So just how high level is their strategy discussion? Perhaps this rolls into your point somehow. Maybe they don't really discuss it deeply, realizing the nature of the game (or at least what will make them better), and just go and play and adapt.
Internally (within the pro team) probably a lot... externally, well, it's just like pre- or post-game interviews with sports stars from other sports: rarely interesting, almost always the same talk... "i played well, i hope i'll win it all", "i was nervous and kinda sucked", "after <big obvious mistake> i knew i would win/lose" - great insightful stuff indeed.
This debate is as old as the world and has been settled millennias ago.
The equivalent for the game of Go would be joseki. Everybody agrees that learning josekis (sequences tested by professional Go players; equivalent to SC's standard build orders) is good, but learning when to use them is better. Those who play by the book (joseki) without looking at the whole board get raped by those who do.
This is what happens with amateur players, almost regardless of their rank: they know build orders, but have no clue when to use them, resulting in bizarre, head-scratching build orders. The issue of the game rests mostly on micro and luck.
My favourite example: IefNaij vs Kal. He stuck to his FE build plan despite Kal's rush. He knew he'd be late, he should have known that he needed units ASAP and pressure lest he'd get raped, hence delay his natural expo. The coach had the very same reflex: DON'T EXPAND! Obviously an S-class player wouldn't forgive a mistake of this magnitude. Making matters worse, IefNaij went for a THIRD base right after, a fatal mistake he didn't even survive.
IefNaij is the perfect example of an amateur player with good mechanics, good micro, but poor judgement when facing the unexpected. This is what top-class korean pros have but amateurs haven't.
People who keep bringing up that "at the highest level of Starcraft, games are often decided by strategy" as a means of defending some "strategy first" mindset are missing the point. It's not that "player A with better mechanics beats player B; player C and D with equal mechanics are decided by strategy" because at a typical not-top foreigner level, people have equally terrible mechanics- and really, a lot of the strategy isn't all that good as a result.
On September 15 2008 05:30 onepost wrote: This debate is as old as the world and has been settled millennias ago.
The equivalent for the game of Go would be joseki. Everybody agrees that learning josekis (sequences tested by professional Go players; equivalent to SC's standard build orders) is good, but learning when to use them is better. Those who play by the book (joseki) without looking at the whole board get raped by those who do.
This is what happens with amateur players, almost regardless of their rank: they know build orders, but have no clue when to use them, resulting in bizarre, head-scratching build orders. The issue of the game rests mostly on micro and luck.
My favourite example: IefNaij vs Kal. He stuck to his FE build plan despite Kal's rush. He knew he'd be late, he should have known that he needed units ASAP and pressure lest he'd get raped, hence delay his natural expo. The coach had the very same reflex: DON'T EXPAND! Obviously an S-class player wouldn't forgive a mistake of this magnitude. Making matters worse, IefNaij went for a THIRD base right after, a fatal mistake he didn't even survive.
IefNaij is the perfect example of an amateur player with good mechanics, good micro, but poor judgement when facing the unexpected. This is what top-class korean pros have but amateurs haven't.
The equivalent is fuseki, joseki is more like micro sequences. :[
Everything artosis said in this thread seems blatantly obvious if you have watched any of the Spirit VODs where in the first significant engagement the korean has more units wihout being behind in any other facit of the game if not ahead. No amount of strategy can overcome the pure advantage they are getting from having better mechanics and more solidly executed builds on a consistent basis.
On September 15 2008 00:48 0xDEADBEEF wrote: I'm glad to hear what I'm thinking from a top foreigner. And it's also the reason why I stopped playing a few years ago - SC just didn't seem much about anticipation/strategy/micro anymore, although some people still believe that's not true. But when (at the higher levels) you can follow $goodbuildX and be prepared for just about anything the enemy might throw at you if you only execute it well enough (multitasking/speed), then something elementary is not right anymore. In a strategy game, every strategy should have a weakness - in StarCraft however, there's a standard strategy for each matchup or map which doesn't *have* a particular weakness. It's just all around solid vs. everything, and this means that better mechanics will decide.
I, too, feel bad for people who haven't played the game before 2004 or 2005. It was indeed different. I still watch progamers play (VODs with commentary only), but active competitive gaming or more generally the will to become a lot better at this - hell no.
I think there is an element of BS to people who may have raw talent for SC, but complain that SC doesn't allow them to utilize it properly. It's the same with many sports, where there are so many just as talented people who work for it, and you sit there wondering why they are beating you.
Say there is a race called "Starcraft." It looks like fun and you are the fastest person alive. You breeze past the competition so far with your 50-10 record, but a mile in you stop. Ahead of you is this huge wall with a big sign next to it that reads "Mechanics(and-such)". Below it you read "Affter you climb this wall, there is a down-hill slope and whoever gets the furthest wins." Now, you are not a fantastic climber, but you can totally climb this wall given time. As you wonder if you will climb, others start to catch up. Some immediately read the sign and climb up while others stick around thinking about their options. You start to realize that you are much faster than all these people starting to climb, and certainly if you were up there, you could easily run past any distance anyone would hope to reach. Well aren't you the little Bolt? Are you going to start climbing now? ARE you going to climb at all? If you don't climb up, do you think someone who gets the furthest deserves it. Well of course he does! But, even though you could have gotten further? O_o hmmm
Well yes he does, because the fact that you won't take take the time out to climb that one wall, or you simply don't have the time to isn't his fault. C'est la Vie? Non?
If another race called "Starcraft 2" comes out with a much smaller wall or some tiny hill you can run up, how will that make you feel about the first wall?
I'm just saying that if your a talented lazy american (like myself ;D), you can't master mechanics because you won't. Whether or not your "life" gets in the way. Or you truly aren't the fastest so you won't bother trying, right?
On September 15 2008 05:30 onepost wrote: This debate is as old as the world and has been settled millennias ago.
The equivalent for the game of Go would be joseki. Everybody agrees that learning josekis (sequences tested by professional Go players; equivalent to SC's standard build orders) is good, but learning when to use them is better. Those who play by the book (joseki) without looking at the whole board get raped by those who do.
This is what happens with amateur players, almost regardless of their rank: they know build orders, but have no clue when to use them, resulting in bizarre, head-scratching build orders. The issue of the game rests mostly on micro and luck.
My favourite example: IefNaij vs Kal. He stuck to his FE build plan despite Kal's rush. He knew he'd be late, he should have known that he needed units ASAP and pressure lest he'd get raped, hence delay his natural expo. The coach had the very same reflex: DON'T EXPAND! Obviously an S-class player wouldn't forgive a mistake of this magnitude. Making matters worse, IefNaij went for a THIRD base right after, a fatal mistake he didn't even survive.
IefNaij is the perfect example of an amateur player with good mechanics, good micro, but poor judgement when facing the unexpected. This is what top-class korean pros have but amateurs haven't.
The equivalent is fuseki, joseki is more like micro sequences. :[
yeah basically I talked to Skew a while back and he basically told me the same exact thing and so I did exactly like that (play standard every game nearly) and my play improved like 20fold
sure, i play a shitton of fun games where I do weird shit because tbh I'm not ALWAYS that concerned about getting better. I'd love it, but it's not the biggest deal to me. but when i'm learning, I play standard. 1rax FE, or FD terran or whatever. I mean yeah, sometimes you gotta 2port wraith those zergs just for fun like Lomo[Fou] (except he has the mechanics), but playing standard will get you the skill to do that weirdass 2port build. I like cheese, it's a beautiful part of the game of starcraft, just like standard play. and yeah, i'll always be slower than the C- or D+ guys with all the mechanics because i think too much, but i mean, whatev, that's cool. I mean sure, many of you don't seem to know this, but Flash was known as "cheese terran" before he was the macro monster that he is now, always proxy BBS or someshit. But I bet in the KTF practice house he was 1rax FE every game. Everyone always says he's a "boring macro player" when in 2007 I'd say he was one of the most micro-intensive terrans out there.
I notice a lot of times I have a lot of times better scouting than players otherwise better than me, even sometimes progamers. It's because they don't need it.
tbh i still don't know what "standard play" is in TvT though... I suppose I'll make a thread about it.
basically, learn standard play and then learn cheese.
well, the difference for BW is that knowing a build order is far different than executing it well. we all know the bisu build order against zerg but the level of execution for it varies tremendously.
it's a very advanced strategy that is "easy" to conceptually learn, but the baseline there is still mechanics. if you don't have the mechanics you can't do it, making raw speed and multitask even more important, as it allows you access to more difficult strategies. the bisu example comes to mind and the various 2-hatch aggro zvt strategies that are only made viable by the absurd early game speedling control of jaedong or july.
its hard for me to find an analogy to this, because other non-sports games the physical side of it is entirely accessible to the wide population. ie i can move the pieces just as well as a grand master. exporting this to chess would be that a really good player's pawns somehow can move two spaces instead of the usual one, allowing them strategies and openings that i can understand but can never execute.
another example would be savior vs nal_ra on longinus, nal_ra 9/10 forward gates and savior 12 hatches, myself and just about any other zerg in this situation is forced to build a sunken and defend but savior manages somehow to only use drones and lings to stop the rush with little to no losses, allowing him to eventually win with mutas that are just a few seconds earlier than ra expected.
this sort of strategy is easy to understand and the build order is simple enough. however, its level of difficulty to pull off mechanically is so hard that only a handful of zergs have the early game micro to support it.
yet another example is jaedong versus lucifer, where lucifer 9/10 proxy gates and jaedong sends his first 6 lings to lucifer's undefended main and drone+sunken defends the zeals. yeah its a strategy that is conceptually as simple as it gets, and one that even the most newbie player can understand and practice, but theres no way in hell people will be able to pull it off like jaedong did. it's a creative and risky strategy thats only made possible by mechanics.
About that "people think they could win against a mechanically better enemy by using superior strategy": they won't, and that's the problem. The problem is part of the game (or maybe just the modern maps, or both). Say I use Artosis' "best" build order for TvZ. Now my opponent can be a strategic genius, he simply won't be able to think of anything against this build because there IS NOTHING he can do against it. And that's the problem. The strategically minded people simply can't do it because it's not possible to win (anymore) vs. a solid build. So the only thing you can do is to use that solid build for yourself and try to win through superior mechanics. It was possible several years back when people haven't found the best build yet (it wasn't even sure that such a thing existed - there were multiple builds to choose from, much more than are used today). With increasing mechanical skill however, some of these builds became obsolete, because you could suddenly get away with much greedier/riskier builds without having to fear that something like a ling all-in would kill you (it is of course possible sometimes, but most often it doesn't work). Starcraft has *in theory* all the ingredients necessary to be a complex game with lots of possible strategies (since there many very different units which are all designed to have a strength and a weakness), but in practice only a few units matter, only a few builds matter, and everything else is inferior. That's also why Boxer, rA, Yellow or Casy suck these days: they all are strategically clever players with TONS and TONS of experience (doesn't matter much anymore, too) but they have no chance against the current best solid build order - whatever strategy they come up with, it's automatically inferior. And when they use the standard build, they lose too because they're not as mechanically good as some of the younger progamers.
Come on, guys, you are talking about different things:
Artosis talk about how to practice, Nergal about what makes a good player. And both are right, imho.
I'm a musician. What I do is basically the same than programmers: I practice one same piece as many hours a day as I can to play it better and better. And I practice exactly the same way Artosis said: repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat. And more you repeat, more you master every detail (even if after, a week, it was good enough for you) and, finally, you get much more flexible which give you the possibility of changing something cuz you feel inspired or to deal with unexpected situation, like stress. Some player play amazing in their room, then they go on stage and fail miserably. Why? Cause the situation was a bit different, and because they had not practice enough, they couldn't react properly. You want to change somthing? It's ok, cuz you know so perfectly your piece because of the fucking huge amount of hours you have spend on it that nothing can happen to you.
Then, a good player is not someone who plays always the same, but the most intelligent, the most sensitive etc etc... To be able to do something with your intelligence and sensitivity, however, you have to practice a shitload of hours, doing the same and the same.
For Starcraft it's a bit the same. You have repeated a game map with the same BO three thousand times, then you don't even think about it. You want to change something? To make a variation? To harass differently? To react to an odd build? No problem, cuz beacuse you have done the exact same game 3000 times, you won't make any mistakes by changing something on which you can concentrate.
Now, if you havn't practice a lot the same build what will happen is that, yes, you know how to react to this DT rush, but while doing it, you'll forget about building a SD at 36, you won't build scv or, if your opponent is smart, you won't find the time to deal with another threat, and you won't harass during this time. Or you will wanna make an odd build, but you won't know very well when to take your second expo.
Then, and where Nergal is perfectly right is that what makes the difference between a very solid player and a champion is that the champion will have this solidity through practice, but will also be able not to be expected in his move, to show imagination and smart tactic etc etc...
That's called talent. For being really good, you need both: practice and talent.
Menhuin, a great violinist said: "Art is 1% inspiration and 99% transpiration."
What are you talking about? if the strategy player's mechanics are just slightly worse he can definitely win many games. If you call cheese strategy, then boxer is a perfect example of beating better mechanics by doing something unexpected. No amount of mechanics will allow you to kill dark templars if they catch you off guard but then going dark templars doesn't take a genius. You can't possibly expect to go up against someone who practices 10 hours a day and think to yourself you're better at either strategy or mechanics because that's just not true. You have to put at least half the effort to win and if you do then you probably will, just not very often.
Artosis is probably right. Like any sport, the best players spend enormous amounts of time practicing stuff that seems boring and tedious. Only when their mechanics are super strong do they then start dominate with unique strategies. It's analogous to game design maybe... everybody has ideas that they think are super awesome (strategy, innovation), but to actually make something great they have to take care of programing, interface design, sound, script etc etc (mechanics, experience). Doesn't matter how brilliant your ideas are if you're unable to execute them.
What's wrong with having a solid build that can't be countered early game? It just means you can't find the counter and kill someone early. I don't like the idea of every build having a counter-build early on because that could put the game more to luck, whether it be scouting positions, or just randomly picking a better build.
Besides, if the game lasts into the mid-game, isn't that where the beautiful tactics of Starcraft really start coming in? I mean, I'm sure we can all agree we'd rather have Boxer and Yellow play straight up 20+ min games than just bunker rushes. I guess for variety's sake you could argue that having early game madness every so often is nice. But we have that from time to time, even with the "best" TvZ build being discovered.
On September 15 2008 08:20 teh.pwnerer wrote: What's wrong with having a solid build that can't be countered early game? It just means you can't find the counter and kill someone early. I don't like the idea of every build having a counter-build early on because that could put the game more to luck, whether it be scouting positions, or just randomly picking a better build.
Besides, if the game lasts into the mid-game, isn't that where the beautiful tactics of Starcraft really start coming in? I mean, I'm sure we can all agree we'd rather have Boxer and Yellow play straight up 20+ min games than just bunker rushes. I guess for variety's sake you could argue that having early game madness every so often is nice. But we have that from time to time, even with the "best" TvZ build being discovered.
Every build does have a counter hence build order wins. Some are just OKAY against everything.
Would be nice with more build orders like the one mentioned by artosis in order to practice like this. If anyone could snatch someone from the korean forums or something, that would be great. Thinking about third nexus timing, gateway timings and such in PvT, PvZ etc.
On September 15 2008 08:20 teh.pwnerer wrote: What's wrong with having a solid build that can't be countered early game? It just means you can't find the counter and kill someone early. I don't like the idea of every build having a counter-build early on because that could put the game more to luck, whether it be scouting positions, or just randomly picking a better build.
Besides, if the game lasts into the mid-game, isn't that where the beautiful tactics of Starcraft really start coming in? I mean, I'm sure we can all agree we'd rather have Boxer and Yellow play straight up 20+ min games than just bunker rushes. I guess for variety's sake you could argue that having early game madness every so often is nice. But we have that from time to time, even with the "best" TvZ build being discovered.
Every build does have a counter hence build order wins. Some are just OKAY against everything.
What I'm getting at is that early game build order wins don't do much for the art of SC gameplay, and hence why I have no problems with solid builds extending into the midgame.
Does this thread mean that mods can finally start perm banning people who post APM questions adn threads?
Oh, and there is no strategy at a high level, just mechanical decision making based on what you can and can't scout. Thats why pro's who get caught off guard by innovative strategies can look pretty foolish.
On September 15 2008 06:11 baronsb wrote: Everything artosis said in this thread seems blatantly obvious if you have watched any of the Spirit VODs where in the first significant engagement the korean has more units wihout being behind in any other facit of the game if not ahead. No amount of strategy can overcome the pure advantage they are getting from having better mechanics and more solidly executed builds on a consistent basis.
Wrong. Modern Starcraft strategy is all about hindering and delaying the opponent's macro until either: =>he collapses under the sheer weight of harassment (think Jaedong's mutalisks ZvT in 2007, when the terran player just braced himself and tried to last as long as he could); --or-- =>you get ahead and outmacro him (think Bisu's corsairs+dt PvZ, where the objective isn't necessarily to go for the kill but to get ahead in tech while reigning the zerg's). This is why we focus so much energy upon contains, killing harmless units like workers and overlords, and denying expansions: to delay mining, tech and unit production. In short, to hinder the opponent's macro. The basics.
Most Spirit VODs against korean pros feature amateurs that either invested a lot into harrass yet were unable to make it pay off, or didn't invest nearly enough, hence the predictable macro steamrolling. Watch these games again.
honestly after watch replay from foreigner and the spirit vod foreigner vs pro gamer . most of the foreigner are NOT playing that smart , people alway say foreigner are slow but they play realy smart . sorry but that just stupid , in many game they just do stupid shit or dont fucking know what they are doing . i mean some of them do mistake worst that me ( im only b+ player ) in fact korean play way more smart that most foreigner .
and yes artosis right about what he say , seriously you can watch some foreigner replay and they never did the same build order , most of them got like 10 build order for every matchup , sorry but again that realy stupid , how you can pratice that much build order ? what you think you are doing? korean pratice the most know and good build order over and over and become better .
also top foreigner got worst mechanics that the B team pro gamer player .
foreigner need :
1- keep 1-2 bo each matchup max and mass pratice them , again and again . 2- try to think , about what you are doing plz , stop think you are playing so smart , you are not. 3- pratice your apm , you will never become good using 100-150 apm 4- starcraft = all about mechanics now , if you dont agree look how boxer suck now . he played smart and got owned . 5- reduce your ego , you suck at starcraft , you are nothing . seriously that crazy how many top foreigner think they are some hot shit ect .
sorry for sound bm here , but that realy what i think still hope that some foreigner will do well in korea one day again , im keeping my hope up .
On September 15 2008 06:47 Hot_Bid wrote: its hard for me to find an analogy to this, because other non-sports games the physical side of it is entirely accessible to the wide population. ie i can move the pieces just as well as a grand master. exporting this to chess would be that a really good player's pawns somehow can move two spaces instead of the usual one, allowing them strategies and openings that i can understand but can never execute.
The comparison with Chess (or Go, or Shogi, whatever) still holds in blitz games. Most people can play a half-decent game of chess, but collapse if they have to play it within 60 seconds.
thus, when people are like "i hope strategy plays a bigger part in SC2" what they are essentially saying is "i want a playing field where the average guy can excel."
i actually want the opposite. i want a game that there are strong strategy elements but the baseline skill indicator is a heavy dose of mechanics. that's what will make the game last a long time in esports and thats what makes the skill differentiation wide. that's what makes it a true sport and not checkers.
all the difficult and great strategies in starcraft are made possible by superior mechanics anyway (see bisu, defiler control, sk terran, etc), not by someone who thinks better than his opponent. you can think like nada just by watching and mimicking his replays, you can't ever play like him though. thats why it doesn't matter how much you try to copy him. i hope this type of "can copy strategically, can't copy mechanically" aspect remains in SC2, because you just CAN'T consistently outstrategize someone every time. innovation only works once, and after that everyone's aware and they are just as smart and will beat you. mechanical separation is needed for longevity and consistency.
how can someone not agree with this?
btw... what does many ppl think strategy is? A big all in?an unexpected cheese? high grounds? drops over drops over drops? at a korean pro level, strategy is more of a psichology warfare ,but some guys are just too biased too accept such evolution level.
On September 15 2008 09:13 Oddysay wrote: first of all sorry for my bad english .
honestly after watch replay from foreigner and the spirit vod foreigner vs pro gamer . most of the foreigner are NOT playing that smart , people alway say foreigner are slow but they play realy smart . sorry but that just stupid , in many game they just do stupid shit or dont fucking know what they are doing . i mean some of them do mistake worst that me ( im only b+ player ) in fact korean play way more smart that most foreigner .
and yes artosis right about what he say , seriously you can watch some foreigner replay and they never did the same build order , most of them got like 10 build order for every matchup , sorry but again that realy stupid , how you can pratice that much build order ? what you think you are doing? korean pratice the most know and good build order over and over and become better .
also top foreigner got worst mechanics that the B team pro gamer player .
foreigner need :
1- keep 1-2 bo each matchup max and mass pratice them , again and again . 2- try to think , about what you are doing plz , stop think you are playing so smart , you are not. 3- pratice your apm , you will never become good using 100-150 apm 4- starcraft = all about mechanics now , if you dont agree look how boxer suck now . he played smart and got owned . 5- reduce your ego , you suck at starcraft , you are nothing . seriously that crazy how many top foreigner think they are some hot shit ect .
sorry for sound bm here , but that realy what i think still hope that some foreigner will do well in korea one day again , im keeping my hope up .
I sort of agree (read my earlier post), especially for the basics. But the foreigners being inconsistent and creative is also a precious asset. Koreans (or all Asians, for that matter) are very conservative and standard, thus predictable, in nearly everything they do, and Starcraft is no exception. Foreigners can play very entertaining games because they come up with creative strategies all the time, and that can catch even a pro with his pants down.
Foreigners have a lot to learn from Korean pros, but the converse is also true. Koreans, facing a devastating strategy, tend to lose slowly but surely again and again, and again, until someone, seasons later, finally decides to try something new (think UpMagic's cloaked wraiths vs Carriers on Katrina, or July's hydra push against Bisu's corsairs+dt build on Blue Storm, or Flash's crazy firebat rush against Jaedong's tentative fast mutalisk build on Colosseum, or Bisu's answer to pre-2007 Protoss' loser PvZ). Foreigners would never allow such losing streaks lying down; they would more eagerly look for a counter, even if that means collapsing more rapidly in the event of failure.
Now, if foreigners could channel this asset instead of playing nearly random, they would become a serious challenge to progamers. The Spirit VODs are proof enough of that.
On September 15 2008 09:35 onepost wrote: Koreans (or all Asians, for that matter) are very conservative and standard, thus predictable, in nearly everything they do, and Starcraft is no exception.
I really like Artosis' insight and think it will produce really nice quality discussion as it already has. For me, I do believe that mechanics will give you a better advantage than solid strategy. You can only get so far with cheese or innovative strategy - in the end you'll have a skill ceiling and people will find out your strategies, etc. Solid strategy of course may grant you wins against people way better than you, however it is much less consistent. Mechanics will give you the consistency to pull off new strategies and be efficient and play strong.
A few questions I have, however. Although players like NaDa have 400+ APM, why do these types of players begin to slump? There hasn't been any significant drops in their APM, so why do they start doing worse? They are still training very hard, so do they just stop adapting?
My other question is how to practice. iCCup doesn't really grant the ability to practice one build vs one build over and over, and clanmates don't have so much time to do so (and they'll find it boring). Every game on iCCup generally features a different build, so it's very hard to train like the Koreans imo at my level and below.
Thanks for the insight Artosis, I really like the discussion this is generating as well
thus, when people are like "i hope strategy plays a bigger part in SC2" what they are essentially saying is "i want a playing field where the average guy can excel."
i actually want the opposite. i want a game that there are strong strategy elements but the baseline skill indicator is a heavy dose of mechanics. that's what will make the game last a long time in esports and thats what makes the skill differentiation wide. that's what makes it a true sport and not checkers.
all the difficult and great strategies in starcraft are made possible by superior mechanics anyway (see bisu, defiler control, sk terran, etc), not by someone who thinks better than his opponent. you can think like nada just by watching and mimicking his replays, you can't ever play like him though. thats why it doesn't matter how much you try to copy him. i hope this type of "can copy strategically, can't copy mechanically" aspect remains in SC2, because you just CAN'T consistently outstrategize someone every time. innovation only works once, and after that everyone's aware and they are just as smart and will beat you. mechanical separation is needed for longevity and consistency.
how can someone not agree with this?
Easy: realize the guy argues against himself. The examples he mentions are paradigm changes in strategy, not mechanics (especially Bisu). Besides, none of these rose to become a champion by copying someone else's mechanics, but inventing their own, therefore the whole argument is irrelevant.
And yes, I myself do hope macro matters less in SC2, and strategy/tactics/micro more. Yet no, I don't think it will advantage the average guys, but the smarter and more creative ones. By the way, this very argument's utter lameness (ph34r d4 n00b!!!!!!!) makes me cringe every time I see it.
On September 15 2008 09:35 onepost wrote: Koreans (or all Asians, for that matter) are very conservative and standard, thus predictable, in nearly everything they do, and Starcraft is no exception.
Are you joking?
Not only do I know my thing, I'm even learning Japanese. Yes, I am serious.
On September 15 2008 09:35 onepost wrote: Koreans (or all Asians, for that matter) are very conservative and standard, thus predictable, in nearly everything they do, and Starcraft is no exception.
Are you joking?
Not only do I know my thing, I'm even learning Japanese. Yes, I am serious.
ya cause all those yellow people look the same and act the same amirite
On September 15 2008 09:35 onepost wrote: Koreans (or all Asians, for that matter) are very conservative and standard, thus predictable, in nearly everything they do, and Starcraft is no exception.
Are you joking?
Not only do I know my thing, I'm even learning Japanese. Yes, I am serious.
On September 15 2008 09:35 onepost wrote: Koreans (or all Asians, for that matter) are very conservative and standard, thus predictable, in nearly everything they do, and Starcraft is no exception.
Are you joking?
Not only do I know my thing, I'm even learning Japanese. Yes, I am serious.
On September 15 2008 09:35 onepost wrote: Koreans (or all Asians, for that matter) are very conservative and standard, thus predictable, in nearly everything they do, and Starcraft is no exception.
Are you joking?
Not only do I know my thing, I'm even learning Japanese. Yes, I am serious.
ya cause all those yellow people look the same and act the same amirite
I think the biggest problem is what people consider strategy and mechanics... I think what most koreans would think of as mechanics differs quite vastly from what foreigners think of strategy. For a foreigner, strategy involves the build order, placement of units, timing, etc. probably. For a Korean, I would assume that strategy would involve...nothing? The thing is that Artosis is saying that a Korean progamer will practice a single build over and over against various opponents and builds until everything about that single build order is clear to him. Strategy implies some sort of thinking and placement and battle of wits. To a Korean, he sees a DT rush, he automatically alters his build to what he has practiced to be the most efficient counter. This isn't strategy to him, this is mechanics. He simply is shifting his mechanics to another pre-practiced mode. Foreigners practice flanking. To Korean progamers flanking is simply a mechanic you do. Forgetting to do it isn't a failure of strategy but a failure of mechanics. Foreigners see this game as a mind game of strategy where they have to think on their feet. Koreans see this game as something where they are just simply executing what they have been working on. Build orders, counters, flanking, timing. This is all mechanical to them. Sure, there is the occasional crazy build order that catches someone off guard the first time. They haven't been able to practice against it yet. A lot of those stunning feats of "strategy" were actually probably mechanics that these gamers practice countless times to the point they know how to get to that point no matter what happens between the beginning and that point. Nal_Ra's stunning strategy to use the Arbiter to recall on an island map? Probably well practiced beforehand against many different strategies, he just executed it. July's 5-pool against Best and Best's subsequent proxy gateway? Probably practiced many times beforehand. Best probably understood well before that a rush build would be likely from July and practiced how he would handle it countless times. We just saw the product of his practice and think "amazing, what an awesome strategy."
If you want to equate this to chess, those chess masters have played so many games, they know your next move based on your previous 5 moves. They have played so much that changing their strategy a little bit doesn't require strategy but rather just natural action.
Btw, Starcraft 2 demos are handed out in Korea like candy...my relatives got like 8 copies of the demo(although, you need a good reason to get a copy). They have a jump on the gun a bit, I wouldn't say foreigners have too much help there.
thus, when people are like "i hope strategy plays a bigger part in SC2" what they are essentially saying is "i want a playing field where the average guy can excel."
i actually want the opposite. i want a game that there are strong strategy elements but the baseline skill indicator is a heavy dose of mechanics. that's what will make the game last a long time in esports and thats what makes the skill differentiation wide. that's what makes it a true sport and not checkers.
all the difficult and great strategies in starcraft are made possible by superior mechanics anyway (see bisu, defiler control, sk terran, etc), not by someone who thinks better than his opponent. you can think like nada just by watching and mimicking his replays, you can't ever play like him though. thats why it doesn't matter how much you try to copy him. i hope this type of "can copy strategically, can't copy mechanically" aspect remains in SC2, because you just CAN'T consistently outstrategize someone every time. innovation only works once, and after that everyone's aware and they are just as smart and will beat you. mechanical separation is needed for longevity and consistency.
how can someone not agree with this?
Starcraft 2 must make sure that longevity is also tied to strategy. You know, like chess. I can watch "replays" of chess grandmasters and still not play as well as they do. The argument can go the other way too. We already have a massive focus on mechanics in Warcraft 2, and more recently also in Starcraft 1 (which is what this thread is about), although SC1 started off being different (fortunately). I don't want SC2 to go down that WC2 path too, so Blizzard needs to innovate, needs to improve upon the current SC model. Will SC2 be a sport if it's again exactly like SC1 with the exact same (ridiculously high) mechanical requirements? Probably, yes. Will it be a strategy game? No.
Thanks Artosis. I've been thinking this for a while. Which is why I have made numerous threads asking for particular build orders. Unfortunately Im usually told build orders are not too important, not to be too frigid. Its bloody hard to find any concrete build orders on tl.net, and im too lazy to skim through replays to find them. Shouldn't we gather all the build orders together [with a brief synopsis on their purpose] and post it somewhere in the strategy section? It would ease new players into Starcraft so much easier.
Obviously that will only go so far, but its a start.
On September 15 2008 09:35 onepost wrote: Koreans (or all Asians, for that matter) are very conservative and standard, thus predictable, in nearly everything they do,
This has got to be the stupidest thing i've seen in a long time. You realize that those asians you call conservative and standard are responsible for a good share of innovations and discoveries in many different fields?
You're implying that the majority of all non-asians AREN'T conservative and standard. Is it supposedly that every single white guy is a non-conformist radical that constantly thinks of awesomely new ways to do things? If anything, that statement can be used as a blanket description of the entire human race, not just koreans.
Just because some guy wrote a book doesn't make it automatically true. Just look at all those political books out there, and how much bullshit is clogged into them.
On September 15 2008 09:35 onepost wrote: Koreans (or all Asians, for that matter) are very conservative and standard, thus predictable, in nearly everything they do, and Starcraft is no exception.
Are you joking?
Not only do I know my thing, I'm even learning Japanese. Yes, I am serious.
Germans are evil Americans are fat British have bad teeth An Australian's best friend a kangaroo
I know English and I took German in school. Trust me, I am also serious. Then again, my knowledge is nothing compared to the wise 10-year-old from Canada.
-----
Yes I am arguing against both sides. Yes I think both sides are stupid. Yes I am a Korean who lived in Korea and immigrated to the States. Yes I have experienced and remember both cultures and their people. Yes there are retards and geniuses in both cultures. No learning Japanese doesn't give you amazing insight into an entire ethnicity and culture. No Asians aren't smarter. Jews might be. (And yes that is also sarcasm. No race is superior to the other.)
On September 15 2008 09:26 Ki_Do wrote: A big all in?an unexpected cheese? high grounds? drops over drops over drops? at a korean pro level, strategy is more of a psichology warfare ,but some guys are just too biased too accept such evolution level.
Strategy is prepared builds for that specific match, ex. bisu vs. savior final, ex. flash vs. stork in GSI and then the other one in bacchus OSL where he doesn't dual armory or flash vs. jaedong with 2hatch muta. Playing standard is a strategy too, it's just not a creative one and it's not designed to target your specific opponent's weaknesses. But it's standard for a reason.
Basically build orders/timings combined with decision making, adapting your build on the fly and also figuring out what your opponent is doing based on limited scouting information.
thus, when people are like "i hope strategy plays a bigger part in SC2" what they are essentially saying is "i want a playing field where the average guy can excel."
i actually want the opposite. i want a game that there are strong strategy elements but the baseline skill indicator is a heavy dose of mechanics. that's what will make the game last a long time in esports and thats what makes the skill differentiation wide. that's what makes it a true sport and not checkers.
all the difficult and great strategies in starcraft are made possible by superior mechanics anyway (see bisu, defiler control, sk terran, etc), not by someone who thinks better than his opponent. you can think like nada just by watching and mimicking his replays, you can't ever play like him though. thats why it doesn't matter how much you try to copy him. i hope this type of "can copy strategically, can't copy mechanically" aspect remains in SC2, because you just CAN'T consistently outstrategize someone every time. innovation only works once, and after that everyone's aware and they are just as smart and will beat you. mechanical separation is needed for longevity and consistency.
how can someone not agree with this?
Starcraft 2 must make sure that longevity is also tied to strategy. You know, like chess. I can watch "replays" of chess grandmasters and still not play as well as they do. The argument can go the other way too. We already have a massive focus on mechanics in Warcraft 2, and more recently also in Starcraft 1 (which is what this thread is about), although SC1 started off being different (fortunately). I don't want SC2 to go down that WC2 path too, so Blizzard needs to innovate, needs to improve upon the current SC model. Will SC2 be a sport if it's again exactly like SC1 with the exact same (ridiculously high) mechanical requirements? Probably, yes. Will it be a strategy game? No.
i disagree. i hope they don't make SC2 like chess, because chess, to be honest, is horrifically boring to watch. strategy in general is boring as fuck. if they want a game as an esport, they better focus on mechanics, because fans like to watch things they cannot do. they like to be amazed. they like to see things that make their jaw drop, something that only the best can do. knowing the timing of a 3 hatch zvt build isn't going to impress someone, muta micro is. large numbers of units being produced is (when only a few people can produce lots of units, not everyone due to MBS).
thats why more pure "strategy" games fail as an esport--they are just not interesting enough nor appealing enough to the casual fan. if everyone could jump 40 inches and dunk a basketball nobody would watch the NBA. nobody is like "wow what a great defensive scheme that team had! they really out-thought their opponents!"
if they want to make esports mainstream, starcraft 1's model of mechanics first is the way to go. thats where you can get the most player separation and skill differentiation.
On September 15 2008 09:35 onepost wrote: Koreans (or all Asians, for that matter) are very conservative and standard, thus predictable, in nearly everything they do, and Starcraft is no exception.
Are you joking?
Not only do I know my thing, I'm even learning Japanese. Yes, I am serious.
And are you a troll or just a colossal retard?
And if you don't get more polite I'm reporting you to admins.
lol! 10 year old reporting the case, the admins are going to spank his ass with a cucumber.
On September 15 2008 09:35 onepost wrote: Koreans (or all Asians, for that matter) are very conservative and standard, thus predictable, in nearly everything they do,
This has got to be the stupidest thing i've seen in a long time. You realize that those asians you call conservative and standard are responsible for a good share of innovations and discoveries in many different fields?
You're implying that the majority of all non-asians AREN'T conservative and standard. Is it supposedly that every single white guy is a non-conformist radical that constantly thinks of awesomely new ways to do things? If anything, that statement can be used as a blanket description of the entire human race, not just koreans.
Just because some guy wrote a book doesn't make it automatically true. Just look at all those political books out there, and how much bullshit is clogged into them.
Quit your barking please... and quit making me say things I have neither written nor meant.
Overall, people in Asia are more socially harmonious than in the West. The individual matters less than the group. In countries such as China and North Korea, Human Rights and critical thinking are nearly foreign concepts. The caste system endures to this day in India. Even in Japan, a very liberal nation, modernism only awkwardly coexists with deeply rooted traditionalism. All of these are grounded facts. I challenge you to open any Asian history or sociology book, any Asian newspaper, any comparative study between the West and the East; it will strike you in the face.
thus, when people are like "i hope strategy plays a bigger part in SC2" what they are essentially saying is "i want a playing field where the average guy can excel."
i actually want the opposite. i want a game that there are strong strategy elements but the baseline skill indicator is a heavy dose of mechanics. that's what will make the game last a long time in esports and thats what makes the skill differentiation wide. that's what makes it a true sport and not checkers.
all the difficult and great strategies in starcraft are made possible by superior mechanics anyway (see bisu, defiler control, sk terran, etc), not by someone who thinks better than his opponent. you can think like nada just by watching and mimicking his replays, you can't ever play like him though. thats why it doesn't matter how much you try to copy him. i hope this type of "can copy strategically, can't copy mechanically" aspect remains in SC2, because you just CAN'T consistently outstrategize someone every time. innovation only works once, and after that everyone's aware and they are just as smart and will beat you. mechanical separation is needed for longevity and consistency.
how can someone not agree with this?
Starcraft 2 must make sure that longevity is also tied to strategy. You know, like chess. I can watch "replays" of chess grandmasters and still not play as well as they do. The argument can go the other way too. We already have a massive focus on mechanics in Warcraft 2, and more recently also in Starcraft 1 (which is what this thread is about), although SC1 started off being different (fortunately). I don't want SC2 to go down that WC2 path too, so Blizzard needs to innovate, needs to improve upon the current SC model. Will SC2 be a sport if it's again exactly like SC1 with the exact same (ridiculously high) mechanical requirements? Probably, yes. Will it be a strategy game? No.
i disagree. i hope they don't make SC2 like chess, because chess, to be honest, is horrifically boring to watch. strategy in general is boring as fuck. if they want a game as an esport, they better focus on mechanics, because fans like to watch things they cannot do. they like to be amazed. they like to see things that make their jaw drop, something that only the best can do. knowing the timing of a 3 hatch zvt build isn't going to impress someone, muta micro is. large numbers of units being produced is (when only a few people can produce lots of units, not everyone due to MBS).
thats why more pure "strategy" games fail as an esport--they are just not interesting enough nor appealing enough to the casual fan. if everyone could jump 40 inches and dunk a basketball nobody would watch the NBA. nobody is like "wow what a great defensive scheme that team had! they really out-thought their opponents!"
if they want to make esports mainstream, starcraft 1's model of mechanics first is the way to go. thats where you can get the most player separation and skill differentiation.
well out-thinking is certainly pretty fucking interesting too though SlayerS_Boxer 3xbunker rush rofl Yellow was probably like "oh shit i bet he's not gonna do that again twice in a row" next game "okay he's DEFINITELY not doing that three times"
thus, when people are like "i hope strategy plays a bigger part in SC2" what they are essentially saying is "i want a playing field where the average guy can excel."
i actually want the opposite. i want a game that there are strong strategy elements but the baseline skill indicator is a heavy dose of mechanics. that's what will make the game last a long time in esports and thats what makes the skill differentiation wide. that's what makes it a true sport and not checkers.
all the difficult and great strategies in starcraft are made possible by superior mechanics anyway (see bisu, defiler control, sk terran, etc), not by someone who thinks better than his opponent. you can think like nada just by watching and mimicking his replays, you can't ever play like him though. thats why it doesn't matter how much you try to copy him. i hope this type of "can copy strategically, can't copy mechanically" aspect remains in SC2, because you just CAN'T consistently outstrategize someone every time. innovation only works once, and after that everyone's aware and they are just as smart and will beat you. mechanical separation is needed for longevity and consistency.
how can someone not agree with this?
Starcraft 2 must make sure that longevity is also tied to strategy. You know, like chess. I can watch "replays" of chess grandmasters and still not play as well as they do. The argument can go the other way too. We already have a massive focus on mechanics in Warcraft 2, and more recently also in Starcraft 1 (which is what this thread is about), although SC1 started off being different (fortunately). I don't want SC2 to go down that WC2 path too, so Blizzard needs to innovate, needs to improve upon the current SC model. Will SC2 be a sport if it's again exactly like SC1 with the exact same (ridiculously high) mechanical requirements? Probably, yes. Will it be a strategy game? No.
i disagree. i hope they don't make SC2 like chess, because chess, to be honest, is horrifically boring to watch. strategy in general is boring as fuck. if they want a game as an esport, they better focus on mechanics, because fans like to watch things they cannot do. they like to be amazed. they like to see things that make their jaw drop, something that only the best can do. knowing the timing of a 3 hatch zvt build isn't going to impress someone, muta micro is. large numbers of units being produced is (when only a few people can produce lots of units, not everyone due to MBS).
thats why more pure "strategy" games fail as an esport--they are just not interesting enough nor appealing enough to the casual fan. if everyone could jump 40 inches and dunk a basketball nobody would watch the NBA. nobody is like "wow what a great defensive scheme that team had! they really out-thought their opponents!"
if they want to make esports mainstream, starcraft 1's model of mechanics first is the way to go. thats where you can get the most player separation and skill differentiation.
I agree that SC2 shouldn't look like chess. Now, can't it be both strategy and mechanics? That's where we're trying to get. If all strategy compares to chess, all mechanics compares to Guitar Hero.
I have taken out the most relevant information i found.
On September 14 2008 19:14 Artosis wrote: The Difference between Koreans and Foreigners or How to get realllllllllllly good
Foreigners don't practice correctly. They just don't know how. your time would be better spent doing what aspiring Koreans do. You just don't really know what that is or how to approach it. Unfortunately there is very little high level discussion in the foreigner scene. Our scene is the sum of many different countries and languages.
Now when you play a bunch on ICCup and want to improve ranks it is quite important to know what to do when a DT rush has been scouted. But thats not how you become a progamer level player. Not at all. Low level progamers massively practice basic play against each other. There are basic paths on how a game goes.
When you know every in and out of [a given build] then you can truely increase your speed. One of the biggest reasons why progamers are so much faster than foriegners is because they know just what they are going to do. The game is completely mapped out in their mind. So they follow that map as quickly as they can. When you are a player who relies on being clever you simply cannot do that. Sure your APM can go up through hotkey cycling or something like that but that won't really help you as much as what the progamer is doing. Yes you might out think a progamer but he's going to be following a very very solid plan all game very well. He's going to have just about as many units as is possible all the time. His choices in odd situations will almost always be less intelligent than a top foreigner player but he has the extra economy and units to be able to get away with that.
The point of this: Mechanics are more important than any other aspect of the game currently. The game is getting more and more mapped out. You need to be able to follow that map.
My comments:
I feel like most players outside of asia focus too much on winning. Most sign on iccup and just try to win games... that is how they judge their competency level.
A: OH, you play BW! are you good, whats your iccup rank? B: Well, I am C- or B+ on my best day.. etc.
Whether you climb iccup due to a BO difference (most likely cheese) and or by winning the 25+ minute game of max pop, max tech slugfesting nothing is worse than playing a game... winning, feeling like you accomplished something, then watching the replay and seeing that your oppenent made so many mistakes (like not expanding never made lurkers, or something) and that you really didnt gain anything by 'winning' that game.
the only advancent in SC comes when you lose, once. losing is instruction. winning means that the other guy phailed to teach you anything. its not very often that players get better by winning. sure, their confidence gets a boost (and SC is ALOT about confidence) but in terms of mechanics and 'how to play', winning usually just makes the player get lazy.
to get better at SC you need a coach, practice partner(s) who are much better than you, better than you, and on par with you. Also, patience and discipline doesn't hurt.
PS Artosis, thank you for all of your hard work playing, commentating and helping to foster a foreign community. Also, I loved your http://www.rtsprofessional.com/ tutorials. What happened to that project?
On September 15 2008 09:35 onepost wrote: Koreans (or all Asians, for that matter) are very conservative and standard, thus predictable, in nearly everything they do, and Starcraft is no exception.
Are you joking?
Not only do I know my thing, I'm even learning Japanese. Yes, I am serious.
And are you a troll or just a colossal retard?
And if you don't get more polite I'm reporting you to admins.
lol! 10 year old reporting the case, the admins are going to spank his ass with a cucumber.
2. THOU SHALL OBSERVE FORUM ETIQUETTE [...] But, flames are generally discouraged and we expect people to have a damn good reason for resorting to harsh language in the forums. This means gratuitous swearing is a no-no. Trolls will be burned, decapitated and banned. [...]
I'm pretty sure this precludes the following: On September 15 2008 09:59 yoshtodd wrote:
On September 15 2008 09:35 onepost wrote: Koreans (or all Asians, for that matter) are very conservative and standard, thus predictable, in nearly everything they do, and Starcraft is no exception.
Are you joking?
Not only do I know my thing, I'm even learning Japanese. Yes, I am serious.
And are you a troll or just a colossal retard?
And if you don't get more polite I'm reporting you to admins.
lol! 10 year old reporting the case, the admins are going to spank his ass with a cucumber.
2. THOU SHALL OBSERVE FORUM ETIQUETTE [...] But, flames are generally discouraged and we expect people to have a damn good reason for resorting to harsh language in the forums. This means gratuitous swearing is a no-no. Trolls will be burned, decapitated and banned. [...]
I'm pretty sure this precludes the following: On September 15 2008 09:59 yoshtodd wrote:
On September 15 2008 11:04 Hot_Bid wrote: thats why more pure "strategy" games fail as an esport--they are just not interesting enough nor appealing enough to the casual fan. if everyone could jump 40 inches and dunk a basketball nobody would watch the NBA. nobody is like "wow what a great defensive scheme that team had! they really out-thought their opponents!"
if they want to make esports mainstream, starcraft 1's model of mechanics first is the way to go. thats where you can get the most player separation and skill differentiation.
I like how this thread has basically turned into a SC2 MBS thread...
On September 14 2008 19:17 Liquid`Drone wrote: the sad thing that you are very much correct about this is prolly the main reason why i no longer play
totally agree w/op and this post; ]
The thing i think people should pay most attention to is the last big paragraph.. You can be a tricky player(I consider myself one) but unless you truly play all the time and know your solid builds and your counter builds you will almost always lose the majority vs an extremely solid simple player. Its just how the game is now
On September 15 2008 09:35 onepost wrote: Koreans (or all Asians, for that matter) are very conservative and standard, thus predictable, in nearly everything they do, and Starcraft is no exception.
Are you joking?
Not only do I know my thing, I'm even learning Japanese. Yes, I am serious.
And are you a troll or just a colossal retard?
And if you don't get more polite I'm reporting you to admins.
lol! 10 year old reporting the case, the admins are going to spank his ass with a cucumber.
2. THOU SHALL OBSERVE FORUM ETIQUETTE [...] But, flames are generally discouraged and we expect people to have a damn good reason for resorting to harsh language in the forums. This means gratuitous swearing is a no-no. Trolls will be burned, decapitated and banned. [...]
I'm pretty sure this precludes the following: On September 15 2008 09:59 yoshtodd wrote:
And are you a troll or just a colossal retard?
I don't see why it would preclude it
Care to explain why it wouldn't preclude it?
I made a sociological argument why Korean progamers play very precise and standard while foreigners play much looser and wilder. I supported my rather trivial and uncontroversial point of view with sound arguments, which are corroborated by both common sense and about as much documented evidence as the Holocaust. I didn't call anybody names even when provoked.
Now if not liking my point of view or being too lazy to read and understand my posts meets the requirements for a damn good reason to use flame, then I don't see why I or anyone with a brain would bother to post on these forums.
On September 14 2008 19:17 Liquid`Drone wrote: the sad thing that you are very much correct about this is prolly the main reason why i no longer play
totally agree w/op and this post; ]
The thing i think people should pay most attention to is the last big paragraph.. You can be a tricky player(I consider myself one) but unless you truly play all the time and know your solid builds and your counter builds you will almost always lose the majority vs an extremely solid simple player. Its just how the game is now
Daniel keeps saying: "Master the basics, folks! The basics!"
Since everyone is talking about chess... the two games interestingly have progressed much in the same way. One of the earliest stars of modern chess, Paul Morphy, had a style that was very flashy (tactical) and he was head and shoulders above everyone else. Over time as the general skill level increased, you saw the emergence of solid defensive styles and slower, positional play. It's like Boxer dazzling everyone in the beginning with his aggressive style, but now the skill level and pool of knowledge has increased such that people no longer lose to pure all out attack. I'm guessing SC2 might go the same way... seeming more "boring" as time goes by and more players rise to become competitors to be the best in the world.
there is a famous game of his where he forces the enemy king all the way forward, until it was on the first rank (behind morphy's pawns), then castles for checkmate!
On September 15 2008 12:12 qet wrote: haha yes paul morphy!
there is a famous game of his where he forces the enemy king all the way forward, until it was on the first rank (behind morphy's pawns), then castles for checkmate!
On September 15 2008 12:10 yoshtodd wrote: It's like Boxer dazzling everyone in the beginning with his aggressive style, but now the skill level and pool of knowledge has increased such that people no longer lose to pure all out attack. I'm guessing SC2 might go the same way... seeming more "boring" as time goes by and more players rise to become competitors to be the best in the world.
I hate this attitude that safe play is "boring". Or the related but opposite attitude that cheese is "boring". I think people that feel either way about it completely lack imagination.
On September 15 2008 12:10 yoshtodd wrote: It's like Boxer dazzling everyone in the beginning with his aggressive style, but now the skill level and pool of knowledge has increased such that people no longer lose to pure all out attack. I'm guessing SC2 might go the same way... seeming more "boring" as time goes by and more players rise to become competitors to be the best in the world.
I hate this attitude that safe play is "boring". Or the related but opposite attitude that cheese is "boring". I think people that feel either way about it completely lack imagination.
Safe play leads to very predictable games. While these can be spectacular, they provide with little variations.
Cheese is frustrating for players and a bit disappointing for fans.
I don't find either boring but understand the point of view of those that do.
You wrote: But the foreigners being inconsistent and creative is also a precious asset. Koreans (or all Asians, for that matter) are very conservative and standard, thus predictable, in nearly everything they do, and Starcraft is no exception. Foreigners can play very entertaining games because they come up with creative strategies all the time, and that can catch even a pro with his pants down.
This was discussed earlier. The reason why foreigners are inconsistent and creative is mostly because they practice in a style that differs from the "consistent and standard, thus predictable Koreans(or ALL Asians)." Not because theyre especially creative. In order to react to some unusual build, foreigners probably need to make up something right on the spot. Koreans have it memorized. (Oh yeah.. this was said earlier)
Focusing on this specific statement:
You wrote: Koreans (or all Asians, for that matter) are very conservative and standard, thus predictable, in nearly everything they do, and Starcraft is no exception
Maybe you can make that statement about the general Asian population 1264039268 years ago, but in this day, Asian people have experienced parts of the Western culture, and the same for the reverse.
I made a sociological argument why Korean progamers play very precise and standard while foreigners play much looser and wilder.
An argument alright.. but not a very effective one.
I don't know, I just feel like this thread needs to be derailed more. I mean, I love making broad, useless generalizations about entire civilizations—it's just that there's not enough of it here.
On September 15 2008 12:43 EvoChamber wrote: I don't know, I just feel like this thread needs to be derailed more. I mean, I love making broad, useless generalizations about entire civilizations—it's just that there's not enough of it here.
You wrote: But the foreigners being inconsistent and creative is also a precious asset. Koreans (or all Asians, for that matter) are very conservative and standard, thus predictable, in nearly everything they do, and Starcraft is no exception. Foreigners can play very entertaining games because they come up with creative strategies all the time, and that can catch even a pro with his pants down.
This was discussed earlier. The reason why foreigners are inconsistent and creative is mostly because they practice in a style that differs from the "consistent and standard, thus predictable Koreans(or ALL Asians)." Not because theyre especially creative. In order to react to some unusual build, foreigners probably need to make up something right on the spot. Koreans have it memorized. (Oh yeah.. this was said earlier)
You wrote: Koreans (or all Asians, for that matter) are very conservative and standard, thus predictable, in nearly everything they do, and Starcraft is no exception
Maybe you can make that statement about the general Asian population 1264039268 years ago, but in this day, Asian people have experienced parts of the Western culture, and the same for the reverse.
I made a sociological argument why Korean progamers play very precise and standard while foreigners play much looser and wilder.
An argument alright.. but not a very effective one.
I'd rather not discuss this any further, this having been blown way out of proportions. I believe all this hostility originates from the perception that I have made overblown racist remarks. I meant nothing of the sort. Like all sociological phenomenons, it only applies to a certain extent to an indefinite proportion of people, and is subject to change over time as circumstances change, as you yourself pointed out; it's not an intemporal rule set in stone that applies absolutely to everybody. Just a factor that blends into the equation. Alright? Really, I'm no Nazi. Let's move on to something else, please.
On September 15 2008 12:43 EvoChamber wrote: I don't know, I just feel like this thread needs to be derailed more. I mean, I love making broad, useless generalizations about entire civilizations—it's just that there's not enough of it here.
hey guys racism is fun and exciting !~!!@!#
I resent that generalisation, i am racist and NEITHER fun NOR exciting!!
On September 15 2008 12:10 yoshtodd wrote: It's like Boxer dazzling everyone in the beginning with his aggressive style, but now the skill level and pool of knowledge has increased such that people no longer lose to pure all out attack. I'm guessing SC2 might go the same way... seeming more "boring" as time goes by and more players rise to become competitors to be the best in the world.
I hate this attitude that safe play is "boring". Or the related but opposite attitude that cheese is "boring". I think people that feel either way about it completely lack imagination.
Safe play leads to very predictable games. While these can be spectacular, they provide with little variations.
Cheese is frustrating for players and a bit disappointing for fans.
I don't find either boring but understand the point of view of those that do.
How is cheese disappointing for the fans? Sure, the game is shorter, but the game is more entertaining, which is what brings in people and results.
Tell me, do those crazed Korean girls scream and cheer when they see an awesome SCV + Marine cheese or a Factory being built?
On September 15 2008 12:10 yoshtodd wrote: It's like Boxer dazzling everyone in the beginning with his aggressive style, but now the skill level and pool of knowledge has increased such that people no longer lose to pure all out attack. I'm guessing SC2 might go the same way... seeming more "boring" as time goes by and more players rise to become competitors to be the best in the world.
I hate this attitude that safe play is "boring". Or the related but opposite attitude that cheese is "boring". I think people that feel either way about it completely lack imagination.
Safe play leads to very predictable games. While these can be spectacular, they provide with little variations.
Cheese is frustrating for players and a bit disappointing for fans.
I don't find either boring but understand the point of view of those that do.
How is cheese disappointing for the fans? Sure, the game is shorter, but the game is more entertaining, which is what brings in people and results.
Tell me, do those crazed Korean girls scream and cheer when they see an awesome SCV + Marine cheese or a Factory being built?
You have a point. Once in a while is fun to watch. It adds excitement. Without the possibility of cheese, players would be well too relaxed in the early game.
Now if every match was less than 6 minutes, wouldn't it kill the game? Some people don't like cheese because the game does not unfold. Think Luxury vs Mind in WCG 2008: bunker rush in game 1, 4pool in game 2...
You guys shouldn't really worry about the games getting more boring because of the focus on mechanics and standard play. This only means physical skill has a big chunk of importance, it doesn't mean strategy and creative play has none. It still has some space. It would only be true that standard play necessarily derives into boredom if the game had a small finite amount of possible strategy routes that would all be dessicated to a point where nothing is new after a couple of years of progaming.
But this is, fortunately, not true. Partly because of the complexity of the game and partly because of the flexibility of the maps. I play this game since before 2000 and I watch pro games since WCG ~2002. I've watched defilers go from "wtf is that?" to "he must tech to defilers now". I've seen arbiters go from a funny joke to standard play. The game is 10 years old and we still see new strategies being developed. Many people here could point out some trick that was done in the last couple of months for the first time ever. We're talking about something new in the last couple of months on a game that is 10 years old! When do you really think the time will be where all strategies are dried out and boring? And don't even let me get started on maps. Kespa is brilliant, and abuses the flexibility of the mapping capability of sc to keep the influx of new strategies coming. I would proly would have gotten tired of this game ~7 years ago if we were still playing only LT all the time. But Kespa didn't let that happen.
Now I know many of you might find the current metagame repetitive and boring. But I honestly believe that is only due to you getting tired of the game as a whole. Because I personally still have the same excitement (if not more) watching july brilliantly beating best on the last osl finals 1~2 months ago than I had watching boxer buker rush yellow 3x in a row. I also still have the same excitement watching the wacky BO's people make up for that weirdo plasma map than I had watching Grrr reaver pwn people so hard that they had to patch it.
So I will have to side with the veterans here. Artosis is perfectly right about mechanics being n1 priority and always will be. And Hotbid is 100% right that this actually means a great and exciting game, not otherwise.
And Onepost, you dumbfuck troll derailer piece of shit. Stop fucking such a great thread like this one and turning it into your own personal garbage of totally unrelated shit. If you wanna discuss how profound your vastly damaged intellect can get to, then post a blog about instead screwing with other's threads.
If you find this offensive, you report me to mod you retard bag of crap. They know much better than you to judge what's in place and what's not in this forum. You're the one deserving a fucking ban for derailing a good thread with your shitty personal ramblings. If you don't like this, get the fuck off. I'm sure most of us would love to see you go.
On September 15 2008 11:43 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
On September 15 2008 11:37 onepost wrote:
On September 15 2008 11:07 YanGpaN wrote:
On September 15 2008 10:02 onepost wrote:
On September 15 2008 09:59 yoshtodd wrote:
On September 15 2008 09:48 onepost wrote:
On September 15 2008 09:42 yoshtodd wrote:
On September 15 2008 09:35 onepost wrote: Koreans (or all Asians, for that matter) are very conservative and standard, thus predictable, in nearly everything they do, and Starcraft is no exception.
Are you joking?
Not only do I know my thing, I'm even learning Japanese. Yes, I am serious.
And are you a troll or just a colossal retard?
And if you don't get more polite I'm reporting you to admins.
lol! 10 year old reporting the case, the admins are going to spank his ass with a cucumber.
2. THOU SHALL OBSERVE FORUM ETIQUETTE [...] But, flames are generally discouraged and we expect people to have a damn good reason for resorting to harsh language in the forums. This means gratuitous swearing is a no-no. Trolls will be burned, decapitated and banned. [...]
I'm pretty sure this precludes the following: On September 15 2008 09:59 yoshtodd wrote:
And are you a troll or just a colossal retard?
I don't see why it would preclude it
Care to explain why it wouldn't preclude it?
I made a sociological argument why Korean progamers play very precise and standard while foreigners play much looser and wilder. I supported my rather trivial and uncontroversial point of view with sound arguments, which are corroborated by both common sense and about as much documented evidence as the Holocaust. I didn't call anybody names even when provoked.
Now if not liking my point of view or being too lazy to read and understand my posts meets the requirements for a damn good reason to use flame, then I don't see why I or anyone with a brain would bother to post on these forums.
No one should ever group an entire country/race of people based on some study. If i somehow proved to you that all black people are thiefs and good at basketball it would definatly offend TONS of other people. You're a dumbass for making such a bold and patronizing post in a starcraft forum in which koreans/asians take up a big part of the community.
I'm usually very loose with these generalizations on my race, ONLY when i can sense that they are being light hearted or joking. However i do not feel that with what you're saying.
Thats pretty much excatly how my friends and I practice. I dont know how much but im pretty sure we played like tvz on python over like 5 thousand times each with the same build same strategy pretty much just focusing on our mechanics. Pretty much the terrans go 1 rax fast +1 weap while the zergs goes 3 hatch muta. Pretty much why all of them improved so much. I remember taking a break from sc because of my studies and realized that my friends were on a different level each time i played with and i thought that i could beat them by playing smarter but than i realized it doesnt work that way.
I really hate it when i play iccup and i see some toss player with 70 apm who played over like 100-200 games and still doesnt even know the basic builds. He goes like 7 pylon forge gateway core citadel temp archive. And when his dt rush fails they just leave and repeat the same shit.
This was a very good read. Thanks for taking the time to post this Artosis. I do agree with the OP, Mechanics>Foreigners. But I also believe that when two big names like Jaedong and Bisu clash that there is far more than that. I think when you reach a certain level mechanics "cap off" and you simply are playing a game of chess. But as far as foreigners go, mechanics are what we need to work on the most. + Show Spoiler +
But don't bother saying that in a East channel, you will be called a "fucking newb" if I recall correctly..
I'm quoting this whenever there's a mechanics thread.
On September 14 2008 06:34 ZerG~LegenD wrote: An heavily edited extract from my macro guide:
One key to speed is to always know what you're supposed to do, and knowing it by heart.
The poor player spends a lot of time thinking about what to do, hence he doesn't have time to actually do it. As the poor player grows better he learns how to spend his time; now the problem is to actually do all these things he thought about on beforehand. However, eventually he'll manage, and then he'll start to think about more, not as necessary, though still useful, things to do. Eventually he'll learn to execute these too.
Executing an action is made up of three parts.
1) Remembering what action to do, or possibly figuring it out if it's an familiar situation. The second scenario would drain a LOT of time, something we want to avoid.
2) Remembering how to do the action.
3) Actually doing the action.
While number 3 is made up entirely of muscle memory and hence must be practised in-game, number 1 and 2 may be trained while not playing. Though some imaginations might be needed to relate the memory to the right in-game situation.
Another thing to consider is this: The more time you spend watching your commands being executed, the less time you'll have to give new commands. The efficient player will always be giving commands but will never be watching them being executed. It's a matter of trusting yourself with being able to give commands without miss-clicking.
Oh, and Morello, good luck! What you're trying to do is very doable contrary to popular belif. I knew a guy who went B in half a year. He'd always do the same macro oriented build and keeping a proper macro was the first thing he learnt.
I think most of the strategy and innovation has been pretty well established, and so I agree that fundamental mechanics are the most important aspect of the game. I actually just recognized this recently.
My TvZ is my strongest matchup, and my TvP is by far my weakest, and I always just thought there was something innate about the MU's that was the reason. Then I started thinking about why my tvz was so much better, and I realized its because I break the game into discrete segments (which makes it a whole lot easier to digest and execute to).
For example, vs 3 hatch muta I play pretty much like artosis' example in the op - 1 rax into expo, acad, ebay, 3 rax, and then Phase 1 if you will is complete. Then I step back and say "What is the zerg doing now...is he expanding / massing mutas / transitioning to lurk / quick hive?" and I try to make the appropriate response (push & try to take out his expo / vessel up and wait for irra / pump tanks and move out / vessel out of 2x port). This would be Phase 2, and so on until the game is over.
On the other hand, when I played TvP i would always be uncomfortable because I was worrying about all of the nasty things the toss could do to me and trying to prepare for them all, rather than analyzing a smaller subset of decisions and acting accordingly like I would in tvz. Once I had that epiphany, I feel like I'd finally gotten over the wall that held me back and I feel like I'm improving again.
I think broodwar is insanely similar to chess, although my peak chess rating (in blitz) was much higher then any ladder rank.
My concept and analogy deserves a F E amount of structure and editing to articulate it clearly which I hope to one day but.....
Chess as a sport (some still don't like that term for it, same with E sport) has evolved from a game of very plodding and hodge podge play (basicly any time before about 1500 except) but still very inteligent in most respects to the game philidor, one of the first players considered a chess 'genius' he understood a few of the underlying positional concepts of chess and combined them with his natural powers of memory/rote utilzation and spatial reasoning and a new age was started.
Now the game after the 1550's-1600's was taking a different turn, players were understanding the goals of different openings and their drawbacks and true styles were being formed.
This heighted level of positional understanding (still below even a uscf masters understanding) by the premiere players in the world allowed them to make better use of static and dynamic positional atributes.... which ushered in the romantic age 1700-1890 , which was the most rip raw all out balls out age that chess has known. Many brilliant players emerged during this time, openings like the KGA(kings gambit excepted), danish gambit and the scandianvian along with the greco piano and the bishops opening(evans gambit)..... out of this age the greatest genius was of course Paul morphy (or Boxer.)
Paul like boxer wasn't the first great player or even one of them, he was just the most unique in his creative and calculated aggression and imagination, some of his mate in 5's will puzzle a decent player even to this day. Similarly boxer played on the back of already formulated basics added imagination to the strategy and precision beyond comprehension to his micro (for the time) and created magic, or genius.
As all ages do the romantic age ended, and the age of positional understanding began with willhem stienz (SP) penning the first book on positional chess and going as far as to define the definate characteristics of positional chess and how to make use of them. And chess changed.
Chess continued to undergo many different movements until you have what you have today.
Chess and starcraft are identical except that there historys are much different and the intelect to play the games is.... dramatically different, but the evolution is the same.
Modern chess grandmasters know thousands of opening moves and positions and endgame techniques ect ect that the previous masters never had, the same is true with our S class pro gamers. The techniques to study chess are fully advanced and mastered, as with starcraft.
Now the game of starcraft requires a huge knowledge base and talent along with intensive practice to even maintain a top 15-20 spot for the worlds elite.
The top 10 or 15 chess players in the world are no different. Without constant practice and studying and insane amounts of talent none of them would keep there spot once reaching it.
I could compare them on many deeper levels in a much greater chronological order but the point in looking back and comparing them is this, it is a question to ask yourself.
Does it ruin the game that the Great Masters(whom none of us will ever be in chess or bw) know more or less every bit of availiable knowledge about every aspect of the game(s) and that they are working on openings 15-30 moves deep (in both games) before the game even starts.....
Mastery of Bw is the reason I came back after so many years. Master of Chess is the reason I come back every few years.
I will never be in that top group that I admire, I just enjoy playing on my level and trying to get to the next one and then observing and being able to aptly appreciate what the Great Masters are doing.
I don't miss the strategy of the 1850's, I loved the brilliance of kasparov\karpov more then any other.... I don't miss the strategy from 2001-2003, I love the games of jaedong/flash.
I still love watching chess games from 1850 even thou even I can see alot of mistakes. I still enjoy watching vods/replays of older epic games.
Mechanics made starcraft amazing. Opening Preperation made chess both a science and an art.
Great posts, AttackZerg, ilikestarcraft, Hot_Bid, Artosis (and others). This is turning out to be a great thread.
I recently picked up the book "The Art of Learning" by Josh Waitzkin, who was first a world-class chess player then a world-class martial artist. I haven't read it yet but I bet it'll be relevant. T_T
I recall hearing sentiments by a few chess grandmasters that it's all becoming a giant game of memory. The entire course of a top level game is mapped out until turn 25 or so, when the new "innovation" comes in. Up until that point anything other than the strongest few moves will be punished straight away, because it's all been analyzed to death.
Perhaps another analogy with chess is that it's always been said that games between international masters are more exciting than grandmaster games, because many more positional sacrifices and such are made. Grandmasters see everything coming in advance so they never leave room for such tactics for the other player, and nothing "tricky" ever happens.
Yes many of the main lines go such way, but there are many 'hyper modern' openings that still give way to fresh play and unless a grandmaster draw is saught innovations lead to alot of wild complications.
International masters are like B team players or the very top forigners. If you watched the qaulifers or the msl and osl I think you'd agree those games were more interesting them almost any league games we've seen in maybe 2-3 sessons!
this reminds me of a documentary that was done on xellos on national geographic. they ran some test and proved that what artosis is saying is correct. Progamers don't play with their minds, they know they memorized with their minds AND their muscles. They have such high apm because they don't need to think of what to do that will slow them down. They just do it. Foreigners do play with their minds and are doing thinking up the right "tactics" and strategies, but this thinking slows them down. Their apm might just be as high, but not for the same reasons. actions are actions good or bad. Progamers just use their apm so efficiently. So in the sense of mass gaming of the same game and knowing the standard play extremely well, that kind of mechanics is very important at the progaming level.
the mechanics you see in foreigners are not the same
i played A LOT of koreans (iccup) and i always thought i was owned on mechanics even when i did smarter strategy /builds. Koreans are really "school book" players and really rarely creative. Thats why i don t have a lot of fun when i play against them.
A RTS should obviously be about both mechanics and strategy. If one part of it becomes obsolete with increasing skill level, then the game needs to be "re-balanced". This thread shows that SC1 lost strategy. Even if you like mechanics more, you should be able to see that this is a bad thing. Smart players are constantly getting owned by the fast ones, the "Pimpest Plays" series got increasingly boring over time, and stuff like that should show that mechanics should not be everything, but just part of the whole.
On September 15 2008 20:15 0xDEADBEEF wrote: A RTS should obviously be about both mechanics and strategy. If one part of it becomes obsolete with increasing skill level, then the game needs to be "re-balanced". This thread shows that SC1 lost strategy. Even if you like mechanics more, you should be able to see that this is a bad thing. Smart players are constantly getting owned by the fast ones, the "Pimpest Plays" series got increasingly boring over time, and stuff like that should show that mechanics should not be everything, but just part of the whole.
No. As a game moves towards being solved, mechanics become more important. There's going to be ideal builds, if you try to avoid it you end up with War3 where there are ideal builds and mechanics don't matter as much because you've tried to shift the game away from the inevitable.
The posts that only state an irrelavant and or redundent "this is whats wrong with bw" can just quote eri from page one.
Actually this whole way of practicing is required to become and maintain the highest levels because of the incredible strategic depth. Without clear and concise thinking/planning generals would lose wars in the most pathetic fashions.
The artistry is in the tactics/micro.
The top few players in the world conduct battle so much better then the rest its rediculous.
And micro has always been a huge part of bw strategy, much as it still is today.
Boxer,Jaedong, july,flash,luxury,bisu garmito, don't just think of good strategys, they develop their strategys too their strengths
Is jaedongs muta micro intensive games any different then boxers mnm micro games?.....
Both are an example of stellar mechanics.
Is boxers legendary dropship micro different or cooler then bisus insane sair/dt - sair/reaver micro?
Oh and about 'pimpest plays' there are at least 2-3 replays on this site alone that are better then some of the pimpest plays that have been put forward..... pimpest plays was very micro based in the begining also .......
The reason BW is amazing to observe is because we know what it takes to pull of the stuff they do. We know how hard it is to produce from a massive amount of barrackses, factories, gateways, while being in a battle, we know how hard it is to perfectly clone irradiates in a short time, we know how hard it is to micro those mutalisks good while spending cash, and we know how difficult it is to perfectly mudang storm 4-5 storms at once. We know the hours of practice required to do this and that's why we admire them.
Those reasons is why it's E-Sport - because it does take fast hands to pull of the stuff you see, and it does require much practice to get fast hands. If anyone could get the same skill with equal amount of practice it wouldnt be a "sport" or a "competition one would devote job-like time to".
Remember if E-Sport is going to grow - the practice-element has to be there or else noone would bother being progamers because they could easily compete with less practice which wouldnt exactly make the progaming scene grow.
Also, people are underestimating the role mechanics played back in the day. The reason Slayer and Boxer were amazing back then wasnt solely because they "outsmarted" their opponents. Obviously they also had excellent handspeed which gave them an adventage. They werent going high econ builds, but that changed later thanks to more economybased maps and refined BOs(read:iloveoov(pioneered FE TvZ/TvP), rA(pioneered FE PvZ) savior(introduced 3 hatch muta macro style ZvT)
And to the poster who said pimpest plays being increasingly boring; Do you think any random chump could have executed what Boxer did in 2001/2 when he lockdowned all those BCs, or blinded all those observers ? Or the insane multitask Nada showed when he was dropping(and controlling) with 4 different dropships at 4 different bases at once against a zerg ? Or H.O.T cloninig 90 scourges on different 10 different BCs ? Reachs maelstroms vs Chojja ? Or Bisus inyourface gateways vs Pokju@Peaks ? Were these such a amazing strategies ? Or were they simply possible because the players who did them had the ability to execute what they were trying to do flawlessly ? Micro like this is were the handspeed is the most required. Anyone can learn to cycle through their production facilities and reinforce their troops without much precision. Godly micro and multitask = Handspeed I tell you, and it's stuff like the previous mentioned moves that are impressing, because its visible and can easily be grasped for the casual viewer.
The amount of games decided by mechanics as opposed to strategy has continously risen since 1998, and thats probably why the game has lasted this long. I think that when SC2 comes mechanics will become more evident in this age of time as the players are now more aware of the physical dexterity needed to compete. In addition to that every experienced competitive gamers handspeed having increased through playing competitive online games, for example SC1, throughout the years - meaning young players dont automatically get an adventage through superior handspeed and reflexes.
To put it simple: For the game to be interesting to watch over a longer period of time, the matches has to be decided by a greater portion of mechanics than strategy.
A growing E-Sport with strong focus on mechanics or just another strategy game for the casual player, I guess thats the question then.
Ive read many of these posts, and agree mostly with Hot_Bid eventhough he always pulls the basketball analogy in discussions like this
On September 15 2008 16:20 TeNken.1 wrote: I think most of the strategy and innovation has been pretty well established, and so I agree that fundamental mechanics are the most important aspect of the game. I actually just recognized this recently.
My TvZ is my strongest matchup, and my TvP is by far my weakest, and I always just thought there was something innate about the MU's that was the reason. Then I started thinking about why my tvz was so much better, and I realized its because I break the game into discrete segments (which makes it a whole lot easier to digest and execute to).
For example, vs 3 hatch muta I play pretty much like artosis' example in the op - 1 rax into expo, acad, ebay, 3 rax, and then Phase 1 if you will is complete. Then I step back and say "What is the zerg doing now...is he expanding / massing mutas / transitioning to lurk / quick hive?" and I try to make the appropriate response (push & try to take out his expo / vessel up and wait for irra / pump tanks and move out / vessel out of 2x port). This would be Phase 2, and so on until the game is over.
On the other hand, when I played TvP i would always be uncomfortable because I was worrying about all of the nasty things the toss could do to me and trying to prepare for them all, rather than analyzing a smaller subset of decisions and acting accordingly like I would in tvz. Once I had that epiphany, I feel like I'd finally gotten over the wall that held me back and I feel like I'm improving again.
I think this is why my tvp isnt on the level as my tvz
And to the poster who said pimpest plays being increasingly boring; Do you think any random chump could have executed what Boxer did in 2001/2 when he lockdowned all those BCs, or blinded all those observers ? Or the insane multitask Nada showed when he was dropping(and controlling) with 4 different dropships at 4 different bases at once against a zerg ? Or H.O.T cloninig 90 scourges on different 10 different BCs ? Reachs maelstroms vs Chojja ? Or Bisus inyourface gateways vs Pokju@Peaks ? Were these such a amazing strategies ?
Actually, more than half of these you mentioned were amazing strategies. It shows that strategy and innovation matter as much as mechanics. Thank you for arguing my point.
What you're forgetting though is that SC became hugely popular in a time where mechanics weren't yet as important (1998-2001). In Korea, it exploded and became so mainstream that it became a real e-sports. In the rest of the world though, it did not really. WC3 is also still more successful world-wide (doesn't really matter if most people play DotA or whatever; most people play UMS, BGH or FMP in SC too). There was also news about SC declining in Korea (or at least not growing anymore). This could very well be related to the fact that it's 95% mechanics that matter these days. Not style anymore, not experience, not cleverness. Just speed/multitasking while following standard build orders. Of course this can't go on forever like this. It's boring when almost every game is the same basically. In order to again become the once great StarCraft that it was, the strategy aspect must be increased, the game must be redesigned with the current huge mechanical skill level many players have in mind. Players should be rewarded for being very fast of course, but they should just as well be rewarded when adapting well to their opponent or playing well strategically and tactically -- and this can ONLY be accomplished when there is no such thing as one build order which is superior to every other build order -- because this completely eliminates strategy (what good is trying to pull something off when you KNOW beforehand that it's inferior to standard play?) and forces every player to compete in mechanics alone.
This is why I love players like Chalrenge. He has shown numerous times that it's ENTIRELY POSSIBLE to throw S class progamers off their game with early game builds which forces his opponent to think consciously. He inspire me to always keep on trying different types of builds to make the game more interesting. And yes, his mechanics sucks balls in comparison with a lot of the people he beat.
For example: Chalrenge vs Free on Blue Storm. Chalrenge executes a cannon/gate rush with both buildings to block the entrance so nothing can get out. Free doesn't know how to respond at all and tries to tech to 2 gate goons which could be the most stupid approach ever against this type of build.
Chalrenge vs Bisu on Katrina SE. Also a good example. Everyone makes an early nex after 2gate in PvP on this map. Bisu must have played against it a thousand times. But even though he knew something was up, he couldn't counter the allin because his confidence and experience against this type of build was lacking.
This doesn't prove Artosis post entirely wrong (or actually, I agree with most of the post, but I don't agree with the people saying that BW is becoming a dull game with only mechanical play), because in a lot of cases better 'mechanics' wins the game, yet I'd say there's still a very long way before progamers become fully bulletproof against different kind of openings and strategies. Truth is, even though you say that you can practise a build and learn to defend against different types of openings and allins - you don't improve against cannonrush if your opponent goes 14 nex. Obviously. Do you understand where I'm going with this? Straight-up macro builds will become more and more common but there is a point where people forget (or rather - are rusty at) how to counter strange builds again. And this goes for progamers too. I think it has already begun to happen to a certain degree. For instance, 1 base PvZ openings has become popular again, even at progamer level. 6 pool / 4 pool is used a lot, maybe even more than before. I don't think that the game will ever evolve to the point where standard mechanics win every single game even in progaming. I believe that the game is still very interesting and challenging to play, even if I do not aim to 'perfect' my basics as much as many koreans do.
The interesting thing is that when I tried the Chalrenge-Blue Storm build a lot on ICCup - when it was new and unused - I surprisingly came to the conclusion that overall better players (mainly top foreigners and B koreans) were often worse at countering it than your random C level newbie.
You could argue that korean's way of practising is better, but the thing is, that method doesn't work if you only have a couple of hours a week to practise. Let me elaborate: Imagine you're learning glossary. The korean method is to read them, write them, read them, write them until you know them perfectly. This is very intensive and time consuming and requires you to do it the same day, if you tried to just read them once a day you wouldn't learn much at all. The foreigner method is to give the words connections to be able to memorize them, so that if we look at the paper we start to think about the connection to the word to be able to write it down. This isn't time consuming at all, it only requires you to think actively. Obviously there are memory factors and different learning methods for different people which separates the skill level but this is generally speaking.
Artosis, you are suggesting us to either read the glossary once a day, or to have as much time on our hands as the progamers. There's a reason why foreigner method works for foreigners and korean method works for korean.
Flash 4 port happened a few days ago BEER... its completely amazing to do that against zerg... starcraft is still awesome to watch, no one complains about that, if it werent it should be already dead when oov revolutioned
On September 16 2008 00:55 Ki_Do wrote: Flash 4 port happened a few days ago BEER... its completely amazing to do that against zerg... starcraft is still awesome to watch, no one complains about that, if it werent it should be already dead when oov revolutioned
So? 9 out of 10 games he wouldn't do that and go standard instead, which is in accordance to what Artosis wrote.
Concering the discussion about ultra mechanics, losing the interest in the game (besides poker):
In my experience (e.g., Volleyball - I played competitively for 15 years) every sport that is performed over an extended period of time with sufficient determination (e.g., money) evolves such as that only a handful players will be able to reach the top; the large mass of amateur players will not even get past something which will develeop itself into a "basic mechanics" barrier (as seen from the viewpoint of the professionals/coaches).
This is the way of things, the probably hardest part is coming to realize that most of us will never make it even near the top. This is perhaps especially hard on us, as Starcraft is a mere game, and (and perhaps not few of us play because they do not compete so well in realer areas of life).
The way I found to cope with this (at least in Volleyball), distance yourself a bit of too competitive thoughts, find like-minded people, and ENJOY the game. If you embrace that you play as a past-time (and not to prove yourself), then you will see that playing is about the FUN, not WINNING, or frantically improving.
In an environment like that, people will -back to Starcraft- again play funny strats such as Nuke rushes, mass scouts or whatever, simply because all involved will cherish this much more than a simple repetition of "the one BO I almost got perfect mechanics for".
In real life, I play table soccer now and then, and there is nothing more boring than a player, that knows a shot perfectly, and incessantly demonstrates this. The guy that tries something different everytime, even when he fails 80% of the time, makes for a much more interesting partner/opponent.
Understand this, live this, and you will be one step closer to maturity :-) And have more fun.
I'm probably pointing out the obvious, this is prob the most important thread in the strat forums now. Mechanics are necessary more than ever, just like artosis says, the game is mapped out so much, most openings are known, so you must have the mechanics to keep up in unit production or your strategy will not matter if you have no army to support your strategy.
I think the main idea is not to abuse 1 build over and over, but that foreigners in general need to mass practice the standard builds so that our mechanics are perfected to the point where we can then use the "tricky builds" to gain that initial advantage early game...but then follow through on our advantage with clean mechanics. So many times in foreigner vs progamer games or really just any game with one player vs a better mechanical player, the weaker mechanical player may gain some advantage through their build (perhaps DT gheyness?) but then 100% lose their advantage because they are not practiced enough in the basic mechanics to allow follow through on their macro to win the game. (if you want a clear example of this, look @ strelok vs Mind spirit VOD. Strelok played well and had a GREAT early game, and technically after the contain it should have been "auto-win," just from pure macro but Mind is an S class progamer with S CLASS MECHANICS/MACRO and was able to come back).
It's understandable why some people say SC going the way of mechanics is boring: they can't keep up, or do not like the idea that there are the talented players and those that work hard enough to master the mechanics of the game ALONG with the mental strategical part of the game.
Everyone can learn strategy, and be a genious, but can we execute? Metaspace, you're post talks about your previous passion for volleyball and losing interest for a variety of reasons, but then you went that route of "I'll just play for fun." As foreigner SC players looking to get into the korean scene, and professional e-sports period...we do not want to die and roll over like that imo. We have to WANT to master the basic mechanics of starcraft, not shy away from the notion that any of us are capable of getting that good. And people that start to claim the game is getting "boring" from mechanics being so important are the ones that collectively end up dissuading others from even trying to go down that road of mastering the mechanics and getting very good.
attackzerg's chess analogy, and boxer being analogous to paul morphy is completely on the dot. To be honest, we're all very lucky that starcraft ended up having so much depth that it is at the point where players strive to master the mechanical part of the game. It creates skill differentiation which is good, especially in a sport/e-sport.
If you look at games like cnc3/cnc3kaneswrath, they reached the epitome of mechanics and build order especially, 2WEEKS-1MONTH into the metagame. The "standard" and most efficient cnc3 build is known and mastered 1-2 weeks after any patch is released lol. Starcraft has taken 10 YEARS to get to the point of having "standard builds" and 10 YEARS to get to the point where we are even talking about mastering a mechanical part of a game...and it still has room for innovation in playstyles, especially since we get so many new maps.
this thread really should open up the eyes of a lot of people, especially those D- iccup n00bs who go fast DT every game and think they are improving -.- lol
Artosis has good point. Compare Sea to UpMagic. Who`s better? Sea. Why? Because he is a macro player, very solid and straight up, go, check out some of his televised games. What he does? Nearly the same things over and over. And he is fucking good with those builds. And UpMagic, he is winning few games here and there with some cocky builds, fucking good cheeses, like vs Anytime @ Rev.Temple, etc. I not mean he is bad, he`s a progamer hell, but Sea is just so much better than him cause he has better basics, and because of that better than Up in nearly every aspects of the game.
This has already been mentioned here, still, Artosis is right and it makes the predicament of casual players quite grim and depressing. I have only played for 2 years (almost) and I am considering cutting down the amount of time I spend in SC b/c of this. Though it is good for high level play and e-sports, that is why it is so enjoyable to watch.
On September 15 2008 02:00 Hot_Bid wrote: people are resistant to this idea because people hate it when they are just excluded from being good. apm and mechanics can be practiced but the perception is that for raw speed and multitask, there are physical limits, kind of like height and coordination in basketball. some people have it, some people don't. the truth is right there in front of you when your opponent is faster and better. whereas strategy seems to be this abstract concept that the everyman thinks he can learn and beat people with. there's something more egalitarian and attractive about strategy trumping speed (ie out-thinking an opponent who has better mechanics).
think of it like a real sport, there are a few exceptions but in basketball in general you need to jump high, be tall, and be coordinated/athletic, and then you can learn about footwork, jump shots, and where to move on defense. sure you can play basketball without the height/speed/jumping ability and even play it very well, but you won't be the best in the world. the same is for SC--you need a base level of handspeed and multitask that to an extent can be practiced (like speed and jump can be trained in basketball) but innately there are different ceilings and limits for everyone. You need these aspects to be elite before even thinking about strategy.
unfortunately this isn't reality. its NOT good when strategy is the biggest part of the game because for computer games, there are easily reachable limits to strategy. yes SC is still evolving but its mainly adjusting to maps and metagame, not the basics. there are few new revolutionary strategies on a basic level--nothing is going to change the "base" tactics of vultures and tanks vs protoss and mm vs zerg.
where players can differentiate themselves is mechanics, speed, etc. that's what makes a sport a sport and a game a game, when certain players are better and no matter what most of the people do, they won't get as good as the best. that's where high skill differentiation comes in. and its good for SC, not bad.
but to sum up, a lot of people hate it that mechanics > strategy because it basically kills any chance of being very good for a large portion of the community. there is always a general sentiment that whats inside (smarts, personality, etc) should matter more than innate outer qualities (physical ability, looks), because you can control one much more than the other. for many players and fans, they see the mechanics as physical, less controllable quality and strategy as "whats on the inside" so they feel its more genuine or fair to win by strategy than pure mechanics, because it means that anyone, even those that aren't fast like themselves, can be great. that's why people love the short players in the NBA, because its hope that anyone can be great at basketball regardless of height. this obviously just isn't true and the few short players are truly rare exceptions to a rule. its a hard reality to face for a lot of people, that they just can't be great.
With the risk of sounding pretentious, I will throw this musing out there:
I have thought a lot about this lately; it is interesting how the synthetic worlds (computer games, etc) humans build up reflect our real world so much. Why is that? Is it intentional or does it just happen as a result of it being man-made? Are humans following patterns on a sub-conscious level that they cannot, or do not want to, get out of?
people are resistant to this idea because people hate it when they are just excluded from being good. apm and mechanics can be practiced but the perception is that for raw speed and multitask, there are physical limits, kind of like height and coordination in basketball. some people have it, some people don't. the truth is right there in front of you when your opponent is faster and better. whereas strategy seems to be this abstract concept that the everyman thinks he can learn and beat people with. there's something more egalitarian and attractive about strategy trumping speed (ie out-thinking an opponent who has better mechanics).
i remember thinking that when i read that speed freaks article. "isnt that when you're supposed to think" as if he could have thought up some insane genius strategy to crush the people who knew what they were doing given a minute or two.
it would be nice if people would take hot_bids posts to heart, the stuff hes talking about is the root cause of alot of the dumbass discussions about sc2.
Yeah, simply sticky his post in the SC2 forum and lock the whole thing. The End.
On September 15 2008 18:41 Wonders wrote: I recall hearing sentiments by a few chess grandmasters that it's all becoming a giant game of memory. The entire course of a top level game is mapped out until turn 25 or so, when the new "innovation" comes in. Up until that point anything other than the strongest few moves will be punished straight away, because it's all been analyzed to death.
Perhaps another analogy with chess is that it's always been said that games between international masters are more exciting than grandmaster games, because many more positional sacrifices and such are made. Grandmasters see everything coming in advance so they never leave room for such tactics for the other player, and nothing "tricky" ever happens.
I think you guys all all missing the point of chess. I personally know several International Masters and FIDE Masters. They have told me that chess right now is divided up into two sections. Some openings (i.e. Sicilian Defense, Ruy Lopez) really are analyzed to the point of being ridiculously hard for players who play by feeling (like me) to beat. You just can't make the right move every time.
However, in the end, the person with greater strategical oversight and depth of thought along with a nice tactical ability will be able to win out over the person who memorizes positions because while the moves he makes might not be THE BEST moves, they still have a foundational understanding of the game that the other person lacks.
In addition, you have to remember that in chess, you can change the opening of the game into one that you might have neccesarily prepared better or that you might have thought out better. Superficially, it might appear similar to the special BOs that people prepare for matches in SC, but when you observe this in depth, the difference is that a lot of times in chess, there is no subjectively good move, it just depends on your temperament. If you want to defend, you can play passively, if you want to attack, you can gambit, etc. On the other hand, in SC for example, it is very difficult to play, for example, aggressive in PvT, and not be punished for it. Tanks and vultures with mines set up on a ramp is just too hard to push into. Thus, you play by the character of the races, not your own temperament.
Just my thoughts on this, might post an additional one later.
Wow... Artosis reports exactly what he's seen, and people disagree lol. This should really be a non-issue. People disagreeing with HB are exactly the kind of people he's describing.
Well for my stand-point I think everyone can be as good as the pro-gamers except for lack of funding (koreans has e-sport which pay their progamers to play that's why almost all of them wants to be at the big league, then China themselves are actually getting better because they have their own e-sport) and of course, I understand that all of us here has different talent levels. (Like Lebron James, Kobe Bryant and Kevin Garnett whom are built for basketball, then there is Charles Barkley, criticize for his body built but with sheer determination he succeeded in becoming one of the most legendary ballers of all-time). All these athletes or progamers make living out of their happy lives.
If only North America, Europeans or even us guys here in the APAC region has these type of funding and talent then we can defeat or at least match the talents those Koreans have.
Now to make a clear point, right now SC:BW is like this.
NBA = Koreans Euroleague = China No Leagues = Rest of the World.
I hope this somehow clear things out. If we just had some type of league which will fund us then there will be talented young people who are willing to throw away their books/studies and just play starcraft for them to have fun and get alot of money then we should be as good as them.
On September 16 2008 01:50 Metaspace wrote: Understand this, live this, and you will be one step closer to maturity :-) And have more fun.
and not be as good, but i understand what you're saying
Yes, but so what? After what avilo wrote I fear I did not make myself clear.
99,99% of us will never become "as good". As in any other competitive sport; because of not enough time, physical/talent reasons and so on.
No reason to quit the game though, like some oldtimers here said they did. Know, and accept your place, of course strive to get better, but don't put too much weight on it. Enjoy the game and your level. If the people you play with beat you everytime with the same build due to heavy mechanics training, do not quit. Instead, play with other people, that relish fun and creativity more then simple winning. If YOU play with friends and are better mechanically, make the game more interesting and fun for both of you by experimenting to an extent that chances of winning are even.
(BTW I never quit Volleyball, just quit the leagues to find like-minded people to play in the mixture of fun and ambition I like).
On September 16 2008 01:50 Metaspace wrote: Concering the discussion about ultra mechanics, losing the interest in the game (besides poker):
In my experience (e.g., Volleyball - I played competitively for 15 years) every sport that is performed over an extended period of time with sufficient determination (e.g., money) evolves such as that only a handful players will be able to reach the top; the large mass of amateur players will not even get past something which will develeop itself into a "basic mechanics" barrier (as seen from the viewpoint of the professionals/coaches).
This is the way of things, the probably hardest part is coming to realize that most of us will never make it even near the top. This is perhaps especially hard on us, as Starcraft is a mere game, and (and perhaps not few of us play because they do not compete so well in realer areas of life).
The way I found to cope with this (at least in Volleyball), distance yourself a bit of too competitive thoughts, find like-minded people, and ENJOY the game. If you embrace that you play as a past-time (and not to prove yourself), then you will see that playing is about the FUN, not WINNING, or frantically improving.
In an environment like that, people will -back to Starcraft- again play funny strats such as Nuke rushes, mass scouts or whatever, simply because all involved will cherish this much more than a simple repetition of "the one BO I almost got perfect mechanics for".
In real life, I play table soccer now and then, and there is nothing more boring than a player, that knows a shot perfectly, and incessantly demonstrates this. The guy that tries something different everytime, even when he fails 80% of the time, makes for a much more interesting partner/opponent.
Understand this, live this, and you will be one step closer to maturity :-) And have more fun.
Disagree.
I'm trying since 3 month to learn how to play better, learning basic BOs and working on my apm and mechanics, and I can tell you: better you play, funnier the game is.
When you master the game at a certain level, then you start to do consistently original strategies.
A step even further to maturity is to understand that to have a lot of fun, you have to make a lot of efforts.
On September 16 2008 19:18 Biff The Understudy wrote: Disagree.
I'm trying since 3 month to learn how to play better, learning basic BOs and working on my apm and mechanics, and I can tell you: better you play, funnier the game is.
When you master the game at a certain level, then you start to do consistently original strategies.
A step even further to maturity is to understand that to have a lot of fun, you have to make a lot of efforts.
I am talking about when you have reached your plateau. Not while you are still easily improving. I.e. when only hardcore training for hours and hours per week will make you better, and then even only some.
On September 16 2008 09:09 meathook wrote: This has already been mentioned here, still, Artosis is right and it makes the predicament of casual players quite grim and depressing. I have only played for 2 years (almost) and I am considering cutting down the amount of time I spend in SC b/c of this. Though it is good for high level play and e-sports, that is why it is so enjoyable to watch.
It should not be news to any of you that you will never be on the level of the korean progamers. I do believe you can compete in the foreign scene without having those superior mechanics, apm, etc whatever. So if that's your goal, no need to give up.
Ah, there really is nothing like pointing out the flaws of others is there?
Its hard to understand why people would spend 5 paragraphs to prove that someone who plays for 5 hours a week will never be as good as someone who plays for a living. You know, i wonder why it upsets people so much that many Starcraft players arent at the level of professional players. Look through these last few pages, there are countless times where someone is saying "these players think they can get good but they cant" or "this proves that only certain people can be great at Starcraft". And thats just weird. Who cares? If a million dudes out there think they want to try to get good because its fun who really cares if they never will. Let them find that on their own. Why snuff out any hope for them to believe that they can do well? Maybe they wont even even get to C rank. WHO CARES. Worry about your own skill level. Worry about your own iccup rank. The OP is brilliant but to be honest im surprised it took this long for someone to point out that habituation is the cornerstone of this game. Habituation is the cornerstone of everything that takes skill. Sometimes you just gotta let people live in blissfull ignorance. If joe blow out there takes a look at SC and thinks "wow what a great game, i think i can try to win with strategy and outsmarting my opponent" that is natural and normal. No one looks at it and goes "wow cant wait to spend 14 hours a day practicing my drone splits". Why ridicule these people? Why mock the people who desire more strategic elements and less robotic elements? It seems like anytime anyone says "jeez i wish it wasnt so set in stone who will win" they are accused of wanting easier wins. Maybe its just that the game people think they are playing isnt really the game they are playing. The hardcore truths of SC are not evident to the average player. It is human instinct to want to try to be skilled though outsmarting an opponent. If it is misguided belief then oh well so what. Its strange how desiring more from something makes you inferior in this world of Starcraft. "God i wish there was less speed and more strategy"- STFU noob you just want free wins cause you think youre smarter than everyone so you should be granted free wins. "Man im kinda getting bored of cookie cutter games and i wish it was more like the Boxer-era playstyle"- STFU noob you cant be good at starcraft unless you are a 12 year old korean robot who has zero life outside practicing all his life away with a team and coaches.
All im saying is who cares let people suck. Let people think they can try to win. If they are living in a dream world well just let them. Id rather say to someone who thinks they can get good "go, i hope you do well, good luck" instead of "stfu noob you have no idea how to even get good". This whole site is nothing but STFU NOOB in a million varieties.
OK that is a little long of a read. Ill sum it up faster here;
Starcraft is an ingenious game. There is nothing like it and it could probably go on forever. But if i gotta be Idra just to win a few id rather be dead.
There's lots of people out there than want to just be "naturally exceptional." They believe that through their speed, talent, or smarts, that they have the special edge over the rest. There's tons of these people in StarCraft, and videogames in general, because its difficult to point out exactly what makes you a champion.
Well, Artosis' life has been revolving around this game in Korea and he's uncovered the mystery of what makes a champion. Intense, repetitive, organized practice. Over and over. Hard work.
The statement in bold is what 90% of this forum doesn't want to hear. Until now, no one wanted to accept the possibility that, just like everything else in life, those that put more time and effort are the ones who come out on top.
For some, this reveals that their dream of becoming a progamer is outside the realm of possibilty due to the limitations of time and resources. Oh well, there's always Poker! That's easy right?
Nothing in the op is meant to hurt foreigners or worse players. The facts are just being stated. You can still have fun while you suck at the game in a broader sense.
Anyways, I agree completely. Although I have not witnessed this for myself, it makes a lot of sense. Like any other game of strategy, superior mechanics and basics win out more often than not. In chess or other board games, both sides have access to the same moves and mechanics. What sets sc apart is that there is often a gap in mechanics. When mechanics are equal, superior strategy will win. I can go into a game of sc and have a gameplan to follow, but superior mechanics will always completely dominate me.
We're not ridiculing people, as far as I can see. We are just making comments about common misconceptions.
And regarding new standard build orders being invented, a lot of that, imho, is based on maps. If progamers play the same map too often, the style of play often becomes stale and predictable (python comes to my mind). This is why new maps are always being cycled. It's kind of like a TCG, or MMO, in some cases. Things are constantly restricted/nerfed, and players have to adapt to the new circumstances. Adaptation is key at the beginning of a format or map's lifetime, but after a while superior mechanics come back. Some maps compliment a player's natural style. This is why we sometimes see players go through rises and slumps.
On September 17 2008 02:42 ForVengeance wrote: STFU noob you cant be good at starcraft unless you are a 12 year old korean robot who has zero life outside practicing all his life away with a team and coaches.
I think this sums it up! this is the best way to describe why we aren't as good as those guys...
On September 14 2008 20:04 NergalSC wrote: I have to disagree. Every player at high level (no matter foreigner or korean) have pretty good mechanics. Draco, Dreiven - they can keep they minerals down, have right unit combination and so on. But Bisu or Best basically do right decisions. If you look at the game of C+ player and B+ player - their mechanics are pretty equal. Ok maybe little difference but not that influencing game. And then B+ player totally rapes C+, wtf? B+ does right decisions, have better tactics. I am always against saying that SC is only making more units and controlling them better. If this would be right - I could be top player because I can force myself to macro at very good level, and generally play mechanics at top level. But this factor that makes MIStrZZZ 999999999999x better than me is that he have better tactics - he uses his units more effectively, attacking at right moment. He predict enemys situation better, he gets his advantage step by step to the point he can just rape me. Look at the sAviOr vs Dreiven from latest WWI and then watch Mondragon vs Dreiven at TSL. sAviOr did his lair when he had like 180 gas: that mean his mechanics are not so godlike. He was bothered controlling zerglings and forgot to make lair. Look at iloveoov and sAviOr - their APM is like 250! Ah and one more thing about game between Maestro and Dreiven: Zerg basically did PERFECT decision. Every action in StarCraft gives you advantages and disadvantages. For example: I do Nexus First build in PvT. Advantage is great economy. Disadvantages: I am vulnerable to rushes, lack of early aggresion from my side. And good player use disadvantage of enemy build (for example going 2 factories to break or does a lot quicker expand than normal [using lack of enemys aggresion]). This example is reaaaaally basic but shows whole problem. In high level game decision made by players are so advanced, they think a lot and winner is player who has better tactics.
Artosis I respect you as player and commentator (I like you analysis on game - actually only commentator who analyses tactics and decision making in game he commentate) but in this aspect I have to disagree. Sorry. APO PANTOZ KAKODAIMONOZ Mood:
thunk United States. September 14 2008 20:11. Posts 1606 PM Profile Blog Quote On September 14 2008 19:42 PobTheCad wrote: Show nested quote + On September 14 2008 19:32 thunk wrote: I'm interested to see how this will turn out. Korea is a big country filled with a bunch of kids who all possess all sorts of playstyles and I'm sure some of them will be very talented at SC2. Of course, the same could be said of the foreigners, with a much bigger player base, but less practice time and the lack of a valid career path.
you talk as if pro starcraft is a valid career path? come on dude....think
It's about as valid as becoming a profession athlete in the United States. Being a Korean and trying to go Pro in Korean Starcraft. There are very few foreign kids who even got to play in the Korean big leagues. This space would much more elucidating and profound if I could remember Tasteless quotes.
KlaCkoN Sweden. September 14 2008 20:27. Posts 176 PM Profile Blog Quote I agree with NergalSC actually. If you watch games of pros their mechanics (especially macro) are not that much better, if at all better than top foreigners. Constantly better decisions + better map awarness are what puts them ahead every game. But I agree with artosis saying that koreans can play faster with equal apm due to knowing what to do in advance all the time.
dongfeng September 14 2008 20:28. Posts 19 PM Profile Quote i think the point is that progamers are able to take a build and play it so many times so they are able to adapt optimally to any situation
NergalSC Poland. September 14 2008 20:30. Posts 85 PM Profile Blog Quote So I have decided to show examples:
Mondragon vs Dreiven Dreiven have one moment when his macro is pretty sloppy, he loses few Zealots for nothing, do not manage to do any bigger harras early on. So why the hell he wins game? He know what Zerg can have. He knew that Mondragon invested a lot in mutas, then he was supposed to do lurkers and a lot of sunkens. His saturation of drones suffered from it. Dreiven remained on two bases for longer time. Slowly built his advantage. He knew when he have to camp and when he have to attack. Generally decision making of Dreiven was better = he won game. Mondragon is also smart player. When I looked at his few replays, he was not that far ahead in mechanics. Sometimes his macro was pretty sloppy but his tactics are stronger than most people on damned Earth - he wins.
sAviOr vs Dreiven sAviOr know what Dreivens advantages and disadvantages are. First game - Andromeda. He knew that attack from front is not good idea. He need hydras to fight reavers but cannot use them to attack directly. Then he does great switch to mutalisks. Does a lot of harras everywhere, while getting drops. He load a lot of hydras to the oerlords and place them in Dreiven main. Polish player have to order some of his reavers to go back to main. Okaaay so at this point sAviOr attacks from the front. GG. So sAviOr showed better strategy thinking. I believe that if sAviOr would play against Best and he would do same build like Dreiven, Best could predict sAviOr options better and prepare for them while using his advantages. OK so lets proceed to the next game. Dreiven played his famous Zealot+Archon combo. sAviOr used maximum of his units - that was ridiculous: he sniped templars, he ran lings to Dreivens base in perfect moment so he have seen what is Dreiven up to. And then he just outplayed him. Not because he have milion APM and never miss overlord. He was basically smarter in this game.
Lets compare two players from foreigner community. First guy is IdrA. Second White-Ra. IdrA is macro player. He concentrates his game on mechanics mostly, his scouting is not so good, he can't predict enemy that well like for example NonY. And other guy - White-Ra. His macro is not so good. He have problems at keeping his money down in many games. His biggest advantage is his strategy. He is one of smartest players. I have to admit that White-Ra wins most games. I respect IdrA of course but White-Ra usually wins games vs IdrA. This is example that great mechanics < strong strategy.
I do not see big difference in mechanics between Draco and for example Kal. But Draco loses to JF in TSL final while Kal wins over JF pretty easily. High level games might look basic - by the book so this is illusion that they play using mechanics only. But this is ONLY illusion.
There is one point when I can agree with you, Artosis. I think that 80% of Terran skill is mechanics. Terran is race that is hard mechanically but simple strategically. But when playing Zerg or Protoss you need more in-game thinking than pure mechanics. Thanx for listening. :D
NergalSc I totally agree with you
Korean pros have WAAY better thinking and timing etc in sc, just uncomparable to foreigners
On September 17 2008 08:58 Phoned wrote:TUntil now, no one wanted to accept the possibility that, just like everything else in life, those that put more time and effort are the ones who come out on top.
Not true. Tall and beautiful people are the ones who come out on top. I suppose if you're tall, beautiful, and hard working you've got the world tied around your finger.
On September 17 2008 08:58 Phoned wrote:TUntil now, no one wanted to accept the possibility that, just like everything else in life, those that put more time and effort are the ones who come out on top.
Not true. Tall and beautiful people are the ones who come out on top. I suppose if you're tall, beautiful, and hard working you've got the world tied around your finger.
not true. those with rich parents most often come out on top. that or your dad's a mason.
On September 17 2008 08:58 Phoned wrote: There's lots of people out there than want to just be "naturally exceptional." They believe that through their speed, talent, or smarts, that they have the special edge over the rest. There's tons of these people in StarCraft, and videogames in general, because its difficult to point out exactly what makes you a champion.
Well, Artosis' life has been revolving around this game in Korea and he's uncovered the mystery of what makes a champion. Intense, repetitive, organized practice. Over and over. Hard work.
The statement in bold is what 90% of this forum doesn't want to hear. Until now, no one wanted to accept the possibility that, just like everything else in life, those that put more time and effort are the ones who come out on top.
For some, this reveals that their dream of becoming a progamer is outside the realm of possibilty due to the limitations of time and resources. Oh well, there's always Poker! That's easy right?
Right? =/
You put it much better than I ever could.
I guess why people eceptionally do not like to hear the above bold words is because they probably only came to dedicate so much time of their life to a game in the first place because they were not motivated in investing in hard work in the real life. :-)
Yup, I knew playing 100+ straight TvZ games on Bluestorm was the right idea.
Strategy and mechanics go hand and hand. It has been that way for every sports. Without the mechanics (aka fundamentals), executing certain strategies would either too difficult or impossible. Korea has always been ahead on mechanics since that's what they often practice even during the Grrr era.
In the fighting game, Street Fighter, it is the same with Japan dominating in mechanics. Foreigners lose on mechanics before they even get to the strategy part. Despite the lack of arcade, the excuses is a lack of competition, but that's only a partial truth. Mechanics can be practice solo and often time people are too lazy to do it. What use to feel like casual fun, now feels like work. In SF3 3rd Strike, foreigners often complain about how less skillful parries are, but why does Japan dominate despite parries? A SF3 match can be a short 2-3 minute yet I watch through 40 minutes of Japanese tournament footage where instead of parries doing big damage, it was punished.
I think the problem with that tyranid is that the players who's mechanics are the best can use 'standard' play so much more effectively that anything else lessens there odds of winning. I could be wrong but I can't imagine jaedong completely switching to a 9pool super aggressive julyzerg style unless he had no other option ... why would he standard macro gets him more wins.
u need mechanics to set strategy in motion... mechanics importance grows exponentialy the more complex ur strategy is... its lame to expect anyone to perform any strategy anytime...
The discussion can be compared to real life sports or science. Why a 10 year old genius boy cant beat an average 70 y/o Physicist? The older one experienced many things the boy is yet to see, he knows how things work due years of practice, the viability of the boy's creativity is limited to the "mechanics"... other example is that, its easy to know how to correct the worlds problems, global warm,violence,drugs... but it is easy to do?
On September 17 2008 21:05 AttackZerg wrote: I think the problem with that tyranid is that the players who's mechanics are the best can use 'standard' play so much more effectively that anything else lessens there odds of winning. I could be wrong but I can't imagine jaedong completely switching to a 9pool super aggressive julyzerg style unless he had no other option ... why would he standard macro gets him more wins.
That was actually my point. Pros rely on mechanics because they have the best chance of winning through safe play. And that is why progaming is so bland at the moment compared to say 2006.
On September 17 2008 08:58 Phoned wrote:TUntil now, no one wanted to accept the possibility that, just like everything else in life, those that put more time and effort are the ones who come out on top.
Not true. Tall and beautiful people are the ones who come out on top. I suppose if you're tall, beautiful, and hard working you've got the world tied around your finger.
There is also something which is called the brain, if you ever heard about it.
On September 17 2008 21:05 AttackZerg wrote: I think the problem with that tyranid is that the players who's mechanics are the best can use 'standard' play so much more effectively that anything else lessens there odds of winning. I could be wrong but I can't imagine jaedong completely switching to a 9pool super aggressive julyzerg style unless he had no other option ... why would he standard macro gets him more wins.
That was actually my point. Pros rely on mechanics because they have the best chance of winning through safe play. And that is why progaming is so bland at the moment compared to say 2006.
On September 17 2008 20:30 Boblion wrote: Strategy and mechanics in SF ? oO I don't think it is a good comparison.
How is it not a good comparison? You disagree that you need a high level of mechanics in order to compete at a top level of SF? It's an arcade game, using a joystick that pivots, and 6 buttons for moves. Each player has a WIDE variety of general moves, and of course big combos. I guarantee that you could play street fighter daily for hours, until the end of the year, and still not hold a candle to a top player who has very good mechanics.
It is NOT easy to pivot a 360degree joystick while hitting the right buttons at the exact right time. That needs a high level of mechanics, an insanely high level at that.
So, I don't understand why you would say they are a bad comparison. Yes, they are different, but at the core they are exactly the same. Hand speed / co-ordination, and split second timing.
In conclusion, I believe you are wrong for stating that.
On September 14 2008 20:04 NergalSC wrote: I have to disagree. Every player at high level (no matter foreigner or korean) have pretty good mechanics. Draco, Dreiven - they can keep they minerals down, have right unit combination and so on. But Bisu or Best basically do right decisions. If you look at the game of C+ player and B+ player - their mechanics are pretty equal. Ok maybe little difference but not that influencing game. And then B+ player totally rapes C+, wtf? B+ does right decisions, have better tactics. I am always against saying that SC is only making more units and controlling them better. If this would be right - I could be top player because I can force myself to macro at very good level, and generally play mechanics at top level. But this factor that makes MIStrZZZ 999999999999x better than me is that he have better tactics - he uses his units more effectively, attacking at right moment. He predict enemys situation better, he gets his advantage step by step to the point he can just rape me. Look at the sAviOr vs Dreiven from latest WWI and then watch Mondragon vs Dreiven at TSL. sAviOr did his lair when he had like 180 gas: that mean his mechanics are not so godlike. He was bothered controlling zerglings and forgot to make lair. Look at iloveoov and sAviOr - their APM is like 250! Ah and one more thing about game between Maestro and Dreiven: Zerg basically did PERFECT decision. Every action in StarCraft gives you advantages and disadvantages. For example: I do Nexus First build in PvT. Advantage is great economy. Disadvantages: I am vulnerable to rushes, lack of early aggresion from my side. And good player use disadvantage of enemy build (for example going 2 factories to break or does a lot quicker expand than normal [using lack of enemys aggresion]). This example is reaaaaally basic but shows whole problem. In high level game decision made by players are so advanced, they think a lot and winner is player who has better tactics.
Artosis I respect you as player and commentator (I like you analysis on game - actually only commentator who analyses tactics and decision making in game he commentate) but in this aspect I have to disagree. Sorry. APO PANTOZ KAKODAIMONOZ Mood:
thunk United States. September 14 2008 20:11. Posts 1606 PM Profile Blog Quote On September 14 2008 19:42 PobTheCad wrote: Show nested quote + On September 14 2008 19:32 thunk wrote: I'm interested to see how this will turn out. Korea is a big country filled with a bunch of kids who all possess all sorts of playstyles and I'm sure some of them will be very talented at SC2. Of course, the same could be said of the foreigners, with a much bigger player base, but less practice time and the lack of a valid career path.
you talk as if pro starcraft is a valid career path? come on dude....think
It's about as valid as becoming a profession athlete in the United States. Being a Korean and trying to go Pro in Korean Starcraft. There are very few foreign kids who even got to play in the Korean big leagues. This space would much more elucidating and profound if I could remember Tasteless quotes.
KlaCkoN Sweden. September 14 2008 20:27. Posts 176 PM Profile Blog Quote I agree with NergalSC actually. If you watch games of pros their mechanics (especially macro) are not that much better, if at all better than top foreigners. Constantly better decisions + better map awarness are what puts them ahead every game. But I agree with artosis saying that koreans can play faster with equal apm due to knowing what to do in advance all the time.
dongfeng September 14 2008 20:28. Posts 19 PM Profile Quote i think the point is that progamers are able to take a build and play it so many times so they are able to adapt optimally to any situation
NergalSC Poland. September 14 2008 20:30. Posts 85 PM Profile Blog Quote So I have decided to show examples:
Mondragon vs Dreiven Dreiven have one moment when his macro is pretty sloppy, he loses few Zealots for nothing, do not manage to do any bigger harras early on. So why the hell he wins game? He know what Zerg can have. He knew that Mondragon invested a lot in mutas, then he was supposed to do lurkers and a lot of sunkens. His saturation of drones suffered from it. Dreiven remained on two bases for longer time. Slowly built his advantage. He knew when he have to camp and when he have to attack. Generally decision making of Dreiven was better = he won game. Mondragon is also smart player. When I looked at his few replays, he was not that far ahead in mechanics. Sometimes his macro was pretty sloppy but his tactics are stronger than most people on damned Earth - he wins.
sAviOr vs Dreiven sAviOr know what Dreivens advantages and disadvantages are. First game - Andromeda. He knew that attack from front is not good idea. He need hydras to fight reavers but cannot use them to attack directly. Then he does great switch to mutalisks. Does a lot of harras everywhere, while getting drops. He load a lot of hydras to the oerlords and place them in Dreiven main. Polish player have to order some of his reavers to go back to main. Okaaay so at this point sAviOr attacks from the front. GG. So sAviOr showed better strategy thinking. I believe that if sAviOr would play against Best and he would do same build like Dreiven, Best could predict sAviOr options better and prepare for them while using his advantages. OK so lets proceed to the next game. Dreiven played his famous Zealot+Archon combo. sAviOr used maximum of his units - that was ridiculous: he sniped templars, he ran lings to Dreivens base in perfect moment so he have seen what is Dreiven up to. And then he just outplayed him. Not because he have milion APM and never miss overlord. He was basically smarter in this game.
Lets compare two players from foreigner community. First guy is IdrA. Second White-Ra. IdrA is macro player. He concentrates his game on mechanics mostly, his scouting is not so good, he can't predict enemy that well like for example NonY. And other guy - White-Ra. His macro is not so good. He have problems at keeping his money down in many games. His biggest advantage is his strategy. He is one of smartest players. I have to admit that White-Ra wins most games. I respect IdrA of course but White-Ra usually wins games vs IdrA. This is example that great mechanics < strong strategy.
I do not see big difference in mechanics between Draco and for example Kal. But Draco loses to JF in TSL final while Kal wins over JF pretty easily. High level games might look basic - by the book so this is illusion that they play using mechanics only. But this is ONLY illusion.
There is one point when I can agree with you, Artosis. I think that 80% of Terran skill is mechanics. Terran is race that is hard mechanically but simple strategically. But when playing Zerg or Protoss you need more in-game thinking than pure mechanics. Thanx for listening. :D
NergalSc I totally agree with you
Korean pros have WAAY better thinking and timing etc in sc, just uncomparable to foreigners
the op explains why their thinking is so much better because ITS ALL THEIR THINKING ABOUT! they dont have to even consider where to place their turrets, when to add facts, when to get upgrades, etc etc because it is all ingrained in their play after so much dedicated practice while foreigners are trying to nail their expo timings, korean pros are thinking about harassing and scouting, and still nail their expo timings to a T
Not exactly the greatest analogy but it seems to me like how in order to play many sports, the foundation of practice is both conditioning and fundamentals. You ever grow up playing a sport like hockey? What does most of practice entail? Skating lines, sprint drills, endurance, stick-handling, passing, etc. It's only once those things are at a level that you can start worrying about things like when and how to forecheck, neutral zone traps, dump and chase, etc.
How can you argue that the fundamentals (especially in practice sessions) aren't the most important?
Yo not to sound like and idiot, but I am thinking that I practice enough to where i should be good at this game, well better then I am... I think maybe i am practicing the wrong bo's, is there like somewher where all the stanrd BO;s of MUS are listed in a manner such as artosis listed in the OP? Beacuse then it would be like now i KNOW what to do...just have to prefect doing it right?
I think the major difference between foreigners and koreans is...First off obviously there is more koreans playing then foreigners. Im guessing up to 10x more koreans play starcraft than foreigners. The foreigner scene needs more role models here in U.S.A to motivate more americans. That is the main reason. We are all human beings and just like Koreans if U.S.A developed a big enough network with starcraft as korea has done over the years. We will advance in the game dramatically. Instead of scientist studying how to cure cancer they would be studying...how to defeat a 14 nexus(LOLZ!). Lets be thankful we put our country to good use. Sadly, starcraft is not the most popular game here in america. For us to almost alienate koreans for being so good at starcraft is retarded. Some people do this in other things also. For example sports sometimes "black people are only ones good at this sport blah blah" The majority of black people play that sport is the reason. Why? Because they dont have as many role models for other careers, like the variety of role models white people have. Another example would be the skill difference of somone who snow boards in chicago compared the skill of somone who only snowboards when they visit chicago. The one whos around it all the time will be the better one. Obviously you can break these theories down into more complex situations but in all its still the same Also, im not being racist im just supporting examples of ethnicity goal comparisons in relation to starcraft and the reasoning of such dramatic skill differences in foreigners and koreans.
If you have strong mechanics, you are more capable of thinking strategically at the overall picture without subconsciously thinking about whether you mess up with your build order, you will remember to macro instinctively, remember to get an expo when you win a key battle, group units better, etc. Some top foreigners do not use the most efficient build orders for their strategies(even without harassment).
Mechanic is probably the most important fundamentals of SC, and once you master it, you can work on creating your own strategies and adapting to the map. A player with strong mechanics can be almost like a robot and still do very well just by copying builds and strategies.
Also, the Koreans practice for so long per day, no foreigner can match their playtime or have the same quality and variety of practice partners or advice from other senior players. When you think about it, foreigners winning vs B team pro-gamers is still quite an accomplishment. Smart goal oriented practice sessions + good mentors + long hours of hard work/practice + good mechanics + micro + talent + intelligent decision making = good pro-gamers, regardless of race.
On September 20 2008 18:17 nezera wrote: what "mechanics" mean? sorry noob question
Your speed and/or multitasking capability.
If you feel you're bad at this, you need better mechanics. And every non-progamer SHOULD feel that he's bad at this, because he is. Otherwise there would be no need for Korean progamers to play at APM levels of over 300 or even over 400.
Mechanics of course directly influences macro and to a lesser extent micro too (since micro is not ONLY reliant on speed, it also relies on your tactics, unit placement, spell/mouse accuracy, timing and stuff like that).
On September 15 2008 02:00 Hot_Bid wrote: people are resistant to this idea because people hate it when they are just excluded from being good. apm and mechanics can be practiced but the perception is that for raw speed and multitask, there are physical limits, kind of like height and coordination in basketball. some people have it, some people don't. the truth is right there in front of you when your opponent is faster and better. whereas strategy seems to be this abstract concept that the everyman thinks he can learn and beat people with. there's something more egalitarian and attractive about strategy trumping speed (ie out-thinking an opponent who has better mechanics).
think of it like a real sport, there are a few exceptions but in basketball in general you need to jump high, be tall, and be coordinated/athletic, and then you can learn about footwork, jump shots, and where to move on defense. sure you can play basketball without the height/speed/jumping ability and even play it very well, but you won't be the best in the world. the same is for SC--you need a base level of handspeed and multitask that to an extent can be practiced (like speed and jump can be trained in basketball) but innately there are different ceilings and limits for everyone. You need these aspects to be elite before even thinking about strategy.
unfortunately this isn't reality. its NOT good when strategy is the biggest part of the game because for computer games, there are easily reachable limits to strategy. yes SC is still evolving but its mainly adjusting to maps and metagame, not the basics. there are few new revolutionary strategies on a basic level--nothing is going to change the "base" tactics of vultures and tanks vs protoss and mm vs zerg.
where players can differentiate themselves is mechanics, speed, etc. that's what makes a sport a sport and a game a game, when certain players are better and no matter what most of the people do, they won't get as good as the best. that's where high skill differentiation comes in. and its good for SC, not bad.
but to sum up, a lot of people hate it that mechanics > strategy because it basically kills any chance of being very good for a large portion of the community. there is always a general sentiment that whats inside (smarts, personality, etc) should matter more than innate outer qualities (physical ability, looks), because you can control one much more than the other. for many players and fans, they see the mechanics as physical, less controllable quality and strategy as "whats on the inside" so they feel its more genuine or fair to win by strategy than pure mechanics, because it means that anyone, even those that aren't fast like themselves, can be great. that's why people love the short players in the NBA, because its hope that anyone can be great at basketball regardless of height. this obviously just isn't true and the few short players are truly rare exceptions to a rule. its a hard reality to face for a lot of people, that they just can't be great.
This post was freaking awesome and sums up my thoughts exactly.
On September 15 2008 02:00 Hot_Bid wrote: people are resistant to this idea because people hate it when they are just excluded from being good. apm and mechanics can be practiced but the perception is that for raw speed and multitask, there are physical limits, kind of like height and coordination in basketball. some people have it, some people don't. the truth is right there in front of you when your opponent is faster and better. whereas strategy seems to be this abstract concept that the everyman thinks he can learn and beat people with. there's something more egalitarian and attractive about strategy trumping speed (ie out-thinking an opponent who has better mechanics).
think of it like a real sport, there are a few exceptions but in basketball in general you need to jump high, be tall, and be coordinated/athletic, and then you can learn about footwork, jump shots, and where to move on defense. sure you can play basketball without the height/speed/jumping ability and even play it very well, but you won't be the best in the world. the same is for SC--you need a base level of handspeed and multitask that to an extent can be practiced (like speed and jump can be trained in basketball) but innately there are different ceilings and limits for everyone. You need these aspects to be elite before even thinking about strategy.
unfortunately this isn't reality. its NOT good when strategy is the biggest part of the game because for computer games, there are easily reachable limits to strategy. yes SC is still evolving but its mainly adjusting to maps and metagame, not the basics. there are few new revolutionary strategies on a basic level--nothing is going to change the "base" tactics of vultures and tanks vs protoss and mm vs zerg.
where players can differentiate themselves is mechanics, speed, etc. that's what makes a sport a sport and a game a game, when certain players are better and no matter what most of the people do, they won't get as good as the best. that's where high skill differentiation comes in. and its good for SC, not bad.
but to sum up, a lot of people hate it that mechanics > strategy because it basically kills any chance of being very good for a large portion of the community. there is always a general sentiment that whats inside (smarts, personality, etc) should matter more than innate outer qualities (physical ability, looks), because you can control one much more than the other. for many players and fans, they see the mechanics as physical, less controllable quality and strategy as "whats on the inside" so they feel its more genuine or fair to win by strategy than pure mechanics, because it means that anyone, even those that aren't fast like themselves, can be great. that's why people love the short players in the NBA, because its hope that anyone can be great at basketball regardless of height. this obviously just isn't true and the few short players are truly rare exceptions to a rule. its a hard reality to face for a lot of people, that they just can't be great.
This post was freaking awesome and sums up my thoughts exactly.
On September 15 2008 02:00 Hot_Bid wrote: people are resistant to this idea because people hate it when they are just excluded from being good. apm and mechanics can be practiced but the perception is that for raw speed and multitask, there are physical limits, kind of like height and coordination in basketball. some people have it, some people don't. the truth is right there in front of you when your opponent is faster and better. whereas strategy seems to be this abstract concept that the everyman thinks he can learn and beat people with. there's something more egalitarian and attractive about strategy trumping speed (ie out-thinking an opponent who has better mechanics).
think of it like a real sport, there are a few exceptions but in basketball in general you need to jump high, be tall, and be coordinated/athletic, and then you can learn about footwork, jump shots, and where to move on defense. sure you can play basketball without the height/speed/jumping ability and even play it very well, but you won't be the best in the world. the same is for SC--you need a base level of handspeed and multitask that to an extent can be practiced (like speed and jump can be trained in basketball) but innately there are different ceilings and limits for everyone. You need these aspects to be elite before even thinking about strategy.
unfortunately this isn't reality. its NOT good when strategy is the biggest part of the game because for computer games, there are easily reachable limits to strategy. yes SC is still evolving but its mainly adjusting to maps and metagame, not the basics. there are few new revolutionary strategies on a basic level--nothing is going to change the "base" tactics of vultures and tanks vs protoss and mm vs zerg.
where players can differentiate themselves is mechanics, speed, etc. that's what makes a sport a sport and a game a game, when certain players are better and no matter what most of the people do, they won't get as good as the best. that's where high skill differentiation comes in. and its good for SC, not bad.
but to sum up, a lot of people hate it that mechanics > strategy because it basically kills any chance of being very good for a large portion of the community. there is always a general sentiment that whats inside (smarts, personality, etc) should matter more than innate outer qualities (physical ability, looks), because you can control one much more than the other. for many players and fans, they see the mechanics as physical, less controllable quality and strategy as "whats on the inside" so they feel its more genuine or fair to win by strategy than pure mechanics, because it means that anyone, even those that aren't fast like themselves, can be great. that's why people love the short players in the NBA, because its hope that anyone can be great at basketball regardless of height. this obviously just isn't true and the few short players are truly rare exceptions to a rule. its a hard reality to face for a lot of people, that they just can't be great.
This post was freaking awesome and sums up my thoughts exactly.
Nice post Artosis. Im loving the discussion here. Oh and this can be applied to other games as well, of course other games aren't starcraft, not all of it can be applied.
On December 23 2008 14:19 Creationism wrote: is it jus me or did someone bump a post of 2 months to say "good post" lol
certain bumps are fine, especially if the thread was a good one to start with. we have new users coming in every day, so it doesn't hurt to let them see some of the great discussions TL users have had in the past.
Bump² This is entirely true, what hotbid said, and artosis too What bother many ppl here is that they still think that the game have to be decided only during the match up, with the flow, like if they had uber hardcore 15k IQ, but even thus it would require hardcore apm and mechanics to be able to follow up their own mind, but without a plan, you are lost, this is part of the human condition, also you have success in life when you have a well decided,strong , solid plan for anything you want to do
All of u just watch stork vs draco in wcg 2008. They started out the same and It shows progamer has better decision making. Not necessarily mechanics. Foreigners have insane APM also.
On December 26 2008 03:20 Baddieko wrote: All of u just watch stork vs draco in wcg 2008. They started out the same and It shows progamer has better decision making. Not necessarily mechanics. Foreigners have insane APM also.
It seems like a lot of people seem to be missing the point of the OP. APM does not equate to mechanics. You can have awesome APM macroing, microing, moving armies here and there, but none of the actions are as efficient as they can be compared to a pro Korean gamer. Mechanics, in a sense, is about apm efficiency. Some guy can have 250 apm microing mutas, and making more mutas, while the pro Korean, who is carrying out his strat, knowing the timing of the mutas, spends 50apm defending, 100apm macroing, and the rest on moving along with his game plan (the main focus of the post, imo) without needing to think what to do next at all, since he's probably done mm vs muta while going on with his plan like 50,000 times during practice. Then again, this post is sort of reality to begin with, so there isn't much room for debate.
Sweet, this got bumped. I've lurked these forums for a long, long time. This is a nice post that puts eloquent words to formless ideas that were bumping around in my head.
intresting.. ok im off to train basics with zerg aswell
i know this one base mutalisk build vs other z i know somewhat 3 hatch muta against terran player ( many times i cant excecute it well because many terrans make bunker rushes and weird ass strategys) but in my opinion theres no basics/standart way to play against protoss.. could some of u tl'ers provide me any modern standart ZvP strategies
It is as with anything - if you want to pass your exam you do the basic questions over and over and over and then try a couple more that require some problem solving and then you can adapt what you know so well into completing the more challenging questions. The basic problems become so burned into your mind that you can do it on the back of an envelope while riding the train to work.
Applying what you said there to this slight analogy is just like mapping the game out in your brain. Of course SC is very dynamic but freeing up your mind from duties (which now as a D or C player require a lot of concentration to get right) by repeating them endlessly you can utilise your full strategic/creative/tactical potential.
Any other typical builds for other matchups that you know and suggest we practice to improve?
I am interested in this as I find it is hard to practise crazy tactics if your mechanics are not very good. How can you proxy crazy hatcheries in their main if you can't accurately get the same timing every time - it would only work as often as you play perfectly! This is what I feel many players need to take to unlock that creativity into something useful instead of just pimp plays, and I want to know some good builds as I have a couple mates who are at my SC level who would make prime practice partners
Here is how you play TvZ against 3 hatch muta (most common ZvT build):
9 Depot 11 Barracks 14 Depot begin marine production (stop at 6 marines) 19 Command Center 23 Depot 25 Refinery 28 Academy (stim + bat then med when done) 32 Barracks 35 Engineering Bay (+1 attack research when done) 36 Barracks From here it gets more loose. Get range immediately when stim is done. Get comstats before your factory. Get your factory before 60 supply. Build turrets immediately upon your factory starting. Go straight to vessel and get 3 tanks on the way.
Man, you own! Good Job
Would it be possible for someone to post this for each race each matchup? I'm trying to teach my friend to play, he's sticking with Zerg, and all of my training has been learning about Protoss, so I have only a vague idea of what his bo looks like. This is exactly what I wanted us to do, just both of us play the same standard BO's over and over until he learns to properly macro and keep up with me. Otherwise, I get tempted to counter his bo and he gets tempted to try really crappy sneaky stuff.
If you don't wanna do all, someone who can say with the same confidence Artosis has about TvZ on what the most standard basic popular ZvP and PvZ bos are. Us chobos trying to practice greatly appreciate it. (I could use the PvT one too =P).
On September 17 2008 20:30 Boblion wrote: Strategy and mechanics in SF ? oO I don't think it is a good comparison.
How is it not a good comparison? You disagree that you need a high level of mechanics in order to compete at a top level of SF? It's an arcade game, using a joystick that pivots, and 6 buttons for moves. Each player has a WIDE variety of general moves, and of course big combos. I guarantee that you could play street fighter daily for hours, until the end of the year, and still not hold a candle to a top player who has very good mechanics.
It is NOT easy to pivot a 360degree joystick while hitting the right buttons at the exact right time. That needs a high level of mechanics, an insanely high level at that.
So, I don't understand why you would say they are a bad comparison. Yes, they are different, but at the core they are exactly the same. Hand speed / co-ordination, and split second timing.
In conclusion, I believe you are wrong for stating that.
I made a thread a little while ago about comparing Sirlin's SF2 and SC2. The conclusion we came to was that SF2 doesn't have deep mechanics, but very deep mindgames, and BW has very deep mechanics and maybe less mindgames, so it wasn't a good fit. However, SF3 does fit to bw because something that makes SF2 players shy away from SF3 is the deep mechanics. I'm not good at SF3 not because I don't have decent mindgames (I'm pretty decent at SF2), but because I'm unwilling to train hard in SF3 knowing that 4 is coming soon, so ya, any game that has both deep mechanics and, obviously, serious strategy that breaks games is generally comparable to bw.
TvP 5 Fac push: (this starts with FD) 9 depot 11 barracks 11 gas 15 fac 16 depot addon tank mines 22 depot vulture 30 depot 31-32 CC 33 tank 34 engineering bay 35-36 siege tank 4-5 turrets around base (CC finished so no depot until 42) tank 44 Fac 46 Depot
Here is where the 5 fac part comes into play. 49 addon 50 2nd gas, armory, acadamy 51 depot
-***as soon as your acadamy is finishing stop scv production and get scanners -***as soon as your armory is finishing stop tank production and make 3 more factories, get +1 attack and then as soon as you can make 2 goliaths in your addon factories and begin getting all your upgrades (vult speed first then GOL RANGE) make a lot of depots because you are going to pump 2 rounds of vultures immediately when your 3 extra factories are completed.
From here you should have about 7-8 tanks (there are more tanks in there than i wrote down), 4 gols, 4-6 marines and 10 vultures.
Rally your 5 factories outside of your base, expo while you push and attempt to kill the protoss. This build is ridiculously good against reaver builds.
a varation of this build is to not expo as you push and add a 6th factory while you push and have the ability to reinforce your army easily (while taking a later expo).
Its not very standard among low level players because its hard to do correctly (the timings are very very precise and you have to adapt well with what they are doing to keep the timing up) but i prefer to either do this or double expo on maps with close nat and 2nd expos because the tosses will most likely double expo if they are. On maps like medusa i like to go fact port expo.
In the national geographic doccumentry on pro starcraft in Korea, they analyze Xellos brain and compare it with a common players in an attempt to figure out why progamers are so good at Starcraft. They found out that while the common player used lobes in his brain associated with vision, Xellos was mostly using the brain lobe associated with memory. I think that proves Artosis's point about practice styles. Koreans practice so much that Starcraft becomes mere muscle memory, like playing the piano or any other instrument.
Ps. I did not read all the pages in this thread so I dunno if it has been posted already.
The underlying factor in SC is mechanics. Look at Stork,Bisu,Best's mechanics, they have the highest level of mechanics right now in Korea. Only need to play safe and take into midgame to ensure high chance of winning. Its the execution of play speaks the most. Player with poorer mechanics often try cheesy builds to throw their higher opponents off guard in a series.
On January 02 2009 11:17 Ra.Xor.2 wrote: In the national geographic doccumentry on pro starcraft in Korea, they analyze Xellos brain and compare it with a common players in an attempt to figure out why progamers are so good at Starcraft. They found out that while the common player used lobes in his brain associated with vision, Xellos was mostly using the brain lobe associated with memory. I think that proves Artosis's point about practice styles. Koreans practice so much that Starcraft becomes mere muscle memory, like playing the piano or any other instrument.
Ps. I did not read all the pages in this thread so I dunno if it has been posted already.
Wow that's interesting. I might even start playing in my mind before sleep to enhance that muscle memory!
On January 02 2009 11:17 Ra.Xor.2 wrote: In the national geographic doccumentry on pro starcraft in Korea, they analyze Xellos brain and compare it with a common players in an attempt to figure out why progamers are so good at Starcraft. They found out that while the common player used lobes in his brain associated with vision, Xellos was mostly using the brain lobe associated with memory. I think that proves Artosis's point about practice styles. Koreans practice so much that Starcraft becomes mere muscle memory, like playing the piano or any other instrument.
Ps. I did not read all the pages in this thread so I dunno if it has been posted already.
Wow that's interesting. I might even start playing in my mind before sleep to enhance that muscle memory!
well, really what the study shows is how progamers/top tier people think about the game. An easy example is the novice player visually looking at this screen to remember the current location of say a reaver and a shuttle, whereas the professional player sets aside temporary memory to remember to re-focus his attention back on the shuttle after it's crossed a certain distance.
The novice would tell it to go somewhere and forget about it because he has not trained his memory enough to deal with multiple things he needs to keep track of, and the pro knows where everything is within the game while not needing to physically see it on his screen.
This is how good players can re-focus their attention and multi-task in multiple places on the map at once, by using hotkeys and their short-term memory in an organized and practiced fashion to juggle between tasks.
On January 02 2009 11:17 Ra.Xor.2 wrote: In the national geographic doccumentry on pro starcraft in Korea, they analyze Xellos brain and compare it with a common players in an attempt to figure out why progamers are so good at Starcraft. They found out that while the common player used lobes in his brain associated with vision, Xellos was mostly using the brain lobe associated with memory. I think that proves Artosis's point about practice styles. Koreans practice so much that Starcraft becomes mere muscle memory, like playing the piano or any other instrument.
Ps. I did not read all the pages in this thread so I dunno if it has been posted already.
Wow that's interesting. I might even start playing in my mind before sleep to enhance that muscle memory!
well, really what the study shows is how progamers/top tier people think about the game. An easy example is the novice player visually looking at this screen to remember the current location of say a reaver and a shuttle, whereas the professional player sets aside temporary memory to remember to re-focus his attention back on the shuttle after it's crossed a certain distance.
The novice would tell it to go somewhere and forget about it because he has not trained his memory enough to deal with multiple things he needs to keep track of, and the pro knows where everything is within the game while not needing to physically see it on his screen.
This is how good players can re-focus their attention and multi-task in multiple places on the map at once, by using hotkeys and their short-term memory in an organized and practiced fashion to juggle between tasks.
oh and bump -.-
LOLOL. For some reason, I thought all people knew how to do that but were just too slow or something and couldn't keep up with themselves in one way or another. I have been focusing alot of my multitasking to try to improve it and that's mainly what I have been doing. It IS just like playing the piano and thats where I got the idea form originally
On January 02 2009 07:03 Hypnosis wrote: TvP 5 Fac push: (this starts with FD) 9 depot 11 barracks 11 gas 15 fac 16 depot addon tank mines 22 depot vulture 30 depot 31-32 CC 33 tank 34 engineering bay 35-36 siege tank 4-5 turrets around base (CC finished so no depot until 42) tank 44 Fac 46 Depot
Here is where the 5 fac part comes into play. 49 addon 50 2nd gas, armory, acadamy 51 depot
-***as soon as your acadamy is finishing stop scv production and get scanners -***as soon as your armory is finishing stop tank production and make 3 more factories, get +1 attack and then as soon as you can make 2 goliaths in your addon factories and begin getting all your upgrades (vult speed first then GOL RANGE) make a lot of depots because you are going to pump 2 rounds of vultures immediately when your 3 extra factories are completed.
From here you should have about 7-8 tanks (there are more tanks in there than i wrote down), 4 gols, 4-6 marines and 10 vultures.
Rally your 5 factories outside of your base, expo while you push and attempt to kill the protoss. This build is ridiculously good against reaver builds.
a varation of this build is to not expo as you push and add a 6th factory while you push and have the ability to reinforce your army easily (while taking a later expo).
too often is it asked whether there are any foreigners as good as koreans. I think it should be asked if there are any koreans who play like foreigners. ie maybe b team
On January 24 2009 21:50 stack wrote: too often is it asked whether there are any foreigners as good as koreans. I think it should be asked if there are any koreans who play like foreigners. ie maybe b team
If there is one, they probably make him change style and play PROPERLY.
There's no korean style and foreigner style.
There's only the proper way and the distorted way.
Koreans go for the style that will win games in the largest possible % of games, suited for their mechanical abilities.
Foreigners do the same, but because their mechanical abilites are inferior, when these two styles clash, foreigners get some puny win percentage.
This isn't a korean people thing its a korea thing. Koreans know how to practice things. It's not just starcraft, or even just video games its everything. Did you see the badminton olympics? Koreans won it. Do you know why korean musicians tend to be very good? Because the ones who can't practice for 4 or more hours stop playing. Being very good and very well practiced at something is a cultural value in Korea. Taekwondo -> a lot of practice -> koreans kick ass at it. For the rest of the western world at least a black belt in a martial art is either BS or the person is seen as a wierdo or an outcast. For someone like a progamer its something more than that.
In Korea video gaming is not disdained or seen as somehow devoid of cultural value its a new art and a well respected hobby even sponsored by organizations like IT companies (SKT) and banks (Shinhan). Getting those sponsorships in America (which wouldn't happen because there aren't any real tournaments at the local or national level) would be like getting sponsored by IBM and Citigoup (although maybe anymore you'd be sponsoring them). Think about the liklihood of that.
Sorry for the book by the way. But I think this is sort of interesting. Video games promote things like quickness of thought, guile, practice, and multitasking. All things that would help in the real world more than the things that sports (not that I have anything against them I'm a better fencer and basketball player than I am a starcraft player) promote physicality, aggressive personality, captainship. I think the first list in today's world is more viable than the second list. Who knows. Just venting to be honest.
On March 04 2009 13:09 s.ilk wrote: For the rest of the western world at least a black belt in a martial art is either BS or the person is seen as a wierdo or an outcast.
lol what? i think i can safely that your perception of norms in the "western world" is ... what am i saying, you have no perception of norms.
Relative to the skill levels of other older players, people like Tsunami have already proven that superior strategy and tactics can win over textbook styles and godlike mechanics. Tsunami once told me that people saw his win against AranG as a fluke, that AranG wasn't trying, since Tsunami wasn't a famous player in Korea and wasn't worth trying for. Tsunami also told me that they played a large series of games on various maps, and that Tsunami actually won about half of those games. He told me that him and his buddy 1st~Goblin had studied the game enough to where they could compare it to chess. Completely mapped out. I question that, seeing as how modern day strategy is much different from how players played back then. But I CAN tell you this: If mechanics were everything, he surely would have lost much easier to players like AranG and FroZ, who were much faster players.
I've practiced like this ever since this thread was posted as much as I can and I've gotten a lot lot better. Sure, I'm still D.... but that's just because 1) I don't have talent, and 2) I don't play enough. But I feel and see improvement. Thanks Artosis!
The importance of stable play and the importance of stable play existing is an amazing thing. Tricks aren't deep gameplay or good strategy by themselves. Stable solid play is where depth is.
Gotta thank Artosis for being one of the two people to put me on the path of finding this out.
On March 05 2009 01:33 BruceLee6783 wrote: Relative to the skill levels of other older players, people like Tsunami have already proven that superior strategy and tactics can win over textbook styles and godlike mechanics. Tsunami once told me that people saw his win against AranG as a fluke, that AranG wasn't trying, since Tsunami wasn't a famous player in Korea and wasn't worth trying for. Tsunami also told me that they played a large series of games on various maps, and that Tsunami actually won about half of those games. He told me that him and his buddy 1st~Goblin had studied the game enough to where they could compare it to chess. Completely mapped out. I question that, seeing as how modern day strategy is much different from how players played back then. But I CAN tell you this: If mechanics were everything, he surely would have lost much easier to players like AranG and FroZ, who were much faster players.
I can tell you this: In chess' infancy, tricky gambit-players like Morphy were effective. Not anymore.
You can draw similar conclusions about infant Brood War.
On March 05 2009 01:36 IdrA wrote: nobody had godlike mechanics and the textbook styles were horribly flawed at the time tsunami was playing
Well... it seems that people with awesome mechanics lose (badly) to people who play good mind games, theses days.
To be at the top, you need awesome mechanics, plus awesome strategic skills. There is not a "mind over mechanics" or "mechanics over mid stuff". You need both.
I can tell you this: In chess' infancy, tricky gambit-players like Morphy were effective. Not anymore.
You can draw similar conclusions about infant Brood War.
Chill, if you really want to compare with chess, weird and original opening like Alekhin defense:
1. e4 Cf6 2. e5 Cd5.
have been developped very late (1972, Bobby Fischer vs Spassy at Reykjavik), and are still used from time to time.
Now, you talk about Murphy. What about the Karpov variante of the spanish opening, which start with Murphy's variante?
Nobody who know chess would say that the game is less alive, less quickly evolving than before. It requires probably more imagination and unpredictability than a century ago.
On March 05 2009 02:52 Chill wrote: I disagree with your first statement. Solid mechanics beats solid tactics 9 times out of 10 in StarCraft.
Probably. Solid mechanics plus solid tactics make a really competitive player. Only mechanics don't, imo. If you wanna be realllllllllllly good, as Artosis say, you better be more than a starcraft robot.
Oh, I remembered about Murphy so I edited my last post :p
On March 04 2009 13:09 s.ilk wrote: This isn't a korean people thing its a korea thing. Koreans know how to practice things. It's not just starcraft, or even just video games its everything. Did you see the badminton olympics? Koreans won it. Do you know why korean musicians tend to be very good? Because the ones who can't practice for 4 or more hours stop playing. Being very good and very well practiced at something is a cultural value in Korea. Taekwondo -> a lot of practice -> koreans kick ass at it. For the rest of the western world at least a black belt in a martial art is either BS or the person is seen as a wierdo or an outcast. For someone like a progamer its something more than that.
In Korea video gaming is not disdained or seen as somehow devoid of cultural value its a new art and a well respected hobby even sponsored by organizations like IT companies (SKT) and banks (Shinhan). Getting those sponsorships in America (which wouldn't happen because there aren't any real tournaments at the local or national level) would be like getting sponsored by IBM and Citigoup (although maybe anymore you'd be sponsoring them). Think about the liklihood of that.
Sorry for the book by the way. But I think this is sort of interesting. Video games promote things like quickness of thought, guile, practice, and multitasking. All things that would help in the real world more than the things that sports (not that I have anything against them I'm a better fencer and basketball player than I am a starcraft player) promote physicality, aggressive personality, captainship. I think the first list in today's world is more viable than the second list. Who knows. Just venting to be honest.
You are wrong in your analogy with musicians because: 1- Koreans are good because they practice 10 hours a day but so do the chinese and japanese. How do you explain that only koreans dominate starcraft? 2- Koreans are good technically but mostly don't understand shit about what they are playing and therefore are bad musicians. You would tell me that it's subjective, but that's what 99% of people I know think. 3- Russians, Ukrainians and stuff are wayyyy better than koreans.
I still remember how silly were the games against top european players like sven or others, where he would get his ass handed, usually in a very humiliating fashion.
Tsunami builded up a legend surronding himself with his website. A legend that would go as far as Useast low tier 13 years old nubs, that were reading his strategy guide.
On March 05 2009 03:13 Chill wrote: I'm talking about Morphy, not Murphy. Maybe that's who you're talking about too, not sure. Anyways it was just a tangential point
lol sorry, I always have a problem at spelling name. Actually, I have always been thinking it was Murphy... Yeps, we talk both about Paul Morphy, ninnteenth century player.
I know it was not a big point, but I find sad that people consider that everything becomes flat and mechanical... in chess or in starcraft.
Isn't for example the Fantasy build the most beautifull, original and elegant strategy ever?
On March 05 2009 03:23 Boonbag wrote: I kind of loled at the tsunami thing.
I still remember how silly were the games against top european players like sven or others, where he would get his ass handed, usually in a very humiliating fashion.
Tsunami builded up a legend surronding himself with his website. A legend that would go as far as Useast low tier 13 years old nubs, that were reading his strategy guide.
Actually tsnunami was a pretty sick gamer at the time.
At one point I had 1.3k of his replays. He had 20 games matches back in 1.08/1.09 with alot of good players. I recently redownloaded one of his replays against arang. 1 hour and 7 minute game. Pure camp bastard zerg. 227 apm vs 97 that game. Yeah complete joke
how can anyone really argue this? the idea of practicing mechanics does not mean that you simply become a robot that does the same build every game for next two years with no concern for the other player. it is simply so that there is a steamline flow in your game. you really think that the difference between you and the lowest teir programer is that they have better STRATEGIES than you?
On March 05 2009 02:52 Chill wrote: I disagree with your first statement. Solid mechanics beats solid tactics 9 times out of 10 in StarCraft.
Probably. Solid mechanics plus solid tactics make a really competitive player. Only mechanics don't, imo. If you wanna be realllllllllllly good, as Artosis say, you better be more than a starcraft robot.
I don't think anyone is arguing that anyone should just be a robot, and nobody is arguing that "only mechanics make a really competitive player."
This happens a lot, someone writes (truthfully) that mechanics are often more important than strategy or tactics, and then someone comes in and says "but you can't just be a mechanical robot!" when nobody even argued that in the first place. Of course if you take anything to the extreme its bad.
On March 05 2009 05:15 Creationism wrote: how can anyone really argue this? the idea of practicing mechanics does not mean that you simply become a robot that does the same build every game for next two years with no concern for the other player. it is simply so that there is a steamline flow in your game. you really think that the difference between you and the lowest teir programer is that they have better STRATEGIES than you?
Sure not.
I always have this comparison with musicians as I'm a musician myself.
To be a good musician, you need a good technic, means practicing a shitload etc etc... 99% of your efforts go to gaining "good mechanics" as we would say in SC world.
Then, when you have your technic set up, you use it to do some music. Because that's what you are here for.
What people go to listen is the music, not the technic. A technical player is a bad one.
To go back to Starcraft, I think mechanics are just a medium. You need good mechanics to use your others qualities: strategy, game sense, intelligence, creativity. That's theses quality which will make you good or bad.
Obviously, if you don't have sufficient mechanics to exploit them, they are wortheless.
I remember July saying that a BO5 was mostly about mind game. I believe that if there is not a big skill gap between two players, the game is mostly about mind, strategy, and intelligence. As an example, Idra vs F91 seemed completely unbalanced, altough I don't think F91 is a much better player than Idra in terms of mechanics.
Don't flame me people, I'm sure we all agree!
I don't think anyone is arguing that anyone should just be a robot, and nobody is arguing that "only mechanics make a really competitive player."
I'd like to agree with that but I've read so many times the contrary...
On March 04 2009 13:09 s.ilk wrote: This isn't a korean people thing its a korea thing. Koreans know how to practice things. It's not just starcraft, or even just video games its everything. Did you see the badminton olympics? Koreans won it. Do you know why korean musicians tend to be very good? Because the ones who can't practice for 4 or more hours stop playing. Being very good and very well practiced at something is a cultural value in Korea. Taekwondo -> a lot of practice -> koreans kick ass at it. For the rest of the western world at least a black belt in a martial art is either BS or the person is seen as a wierdo or an outcast. For someone like a progamer its something more than that.
In Korea video gaming is not disdained or seen as somehow devoid of cultural value its a new art and a well respected hobby even sponsored by organizations like IT companies (SKT) and banks (Shinhan). Getting those sponsorships in America (which wouldn't happen because there aren't any real tournaments at the local or national level) would be like getting sponsored by IBM and Citigoup (although maybe anymore you'd be sponsoring them). Think about the liklihood of that.
Sorry for the book by the way. But I think this is sort of interesting. Video games promote things like quickness of thought, guile, practice, and multitasking. All things that would help in the real world more than the things that sports (not that I have anything against them I'm a better fencer and basketball player than I am a starcraft player) promote physicality, aggressive personality, captainship. I think the first list in today's world is more viable than the second list. Who knows. Just venting to be honest.
You are wrong in your analogy with musicians because: 1- Koreans are good because they practice 10 hours a day but so do the chinese and japanese. How do you explain that only koreans dominate starcraft? 2- Koreans are good technically but mostly don't understand shit about what they are playing and therefore are bad musicians. You would tell me that it's subjective, but that's what 99% of people I know think. 3- Russians, Ukrainians and stuff are wayyyy better than koreans.
how the heck do you know most dont understand wat they are playing? that is pure bs and i believe you should get killed for saying something like that. of course korea musicians know what they are doing. of course korean musicians can improvise. do you think they are handicapped or something in that area? stfu.
On March 04 2009 13:09 s.ilk wrote: This isn't a korean people thing its a korea thing. Koreans know how to practice things. It's not just starcraft, or even just video games its everything. Did you see the badminton olympics? Koreans won it. Do you know why korean musicians tend to be very good? Because the ones who can't practice for 4 or more hours stop playing. Being very good and very well practiced at something is a cultural value in Korea. Taekwondo -> a lot of practice -> koreans kick ass at it. For the rest of the western world at least a black belt in a martial art is either BS or the person is seen as a wierdo or an outcast. For someone like a progamer its something more than that.
In Korea video gaming is not disdained or seen as somehow devoid of cultural value its a new art and a well respected hobby even sponsored by organizations like IT companies (SKT) and banks (Shinhan). Getting those sponsorships in America (which wouldn't happen because there aren't any real tournaments at the local or national level) would be like getting sponsored by IBM and Citigoup (although maybe anymore you'd be sponsoring them). Think about the liklihood of that.
Sorry for the book by the way. But I think this is sort of interesting. Video games promote things like quickness of thought, guile, practice, and multitasking. All things that would help in the real world more than the things that sports (not that I have anything against them I'm a better fencer and basketball player than I am a starcraft player) promote physicality, aggressive personality, captainship. I think the first list in today's world is more viable than the second list. Who knows. Just venting to be honest.
You are wrong in your analogy with musicians because: 1- Koreans are good because they practice 10 hours a day but so do the chinese and japanese. How do you explain that only koreans dominate starcraft? 2- Koreans are good technically but mostly don't understand shit about what they are playing and therefore are bad musicians. You would tell me that it's subjective, but that's what 99% of people I know think. 3- Russians, Ukrainians and stuff are wayyyy better than koreans.
how the heck do you know most dont understand wat they are playing? that is pure bs and i believe you should get killed for saying something like that. of course korea musicians know what they are doing. of course korean musicians can improvise. do you think they are handicapped or something in that area? stfu.
Instead of insulting me, consider the fact that if I decided to become a japanese musician, I wouldn't be very good, even if I could acquire a very impressive technic.
People who play the best Elgar are English, people who play the best Tchaikovsky are Russians, people who play the best Debussy are French. Why? Because they have lived and grown up were the music have been written, and they know instinctvely what it's talking about, in which cultural context, and which emotion it carries. You can't play amazingly Debussy if you don't know Paris and the French countriside, cuz Debussy describes something you can find there only. Now, you can play decently Debussy even without knowing France, but because your country has a very similar culture and you know a lot about french culture (you have read the litterature, you know the history, you've met plenty of French, and therefore, you have a precise idea of what Debussy talk about in his music).
Now, you were born in Seoul, which is a place amazingly far and with an amazingly different culture than Europe or States, with other rules, an other history, other aesthetic canons, etc etc etc, and practiced ten hours a day since you are 8, you can become the most amazing technician, you don't know what you are talking about. You haven't grown up in the cultural context matching with the music you play, it's impossible to be perfectly convincing as an artist.
There is a stereotype of the asian musician which is someone who plays perfectly and exactly like a robot. Obviously it's not always the case, but there is a good reason why this stereotype exist.
Hope it's not too offensive, hu?
Now, there is amazing asian musicians, but most of them have been educated in Europe or States (Yo-yo Ma etc...)
Again, do you think a european guy could match asian musician if he was trying to play there music? Come on... You can't, as a westerner, even appreciate asian traditional music, cause you don't have the cultural and musical references.
There is absolutely nothing racist in what I'm saying. I just think culture is something specific to a place. And that being an artist is much more than playing well an instrument or being inspired. An artist exist in a context.
On March 05 2009 03:13 Chill wrote: I'm talking about Morphy, not Murphy. Maybe that's who you're talking about too, not sure. Anyways it was just a tangential point
Isn't for example the Fantasy build the most beautifull, original and elegant strategy ever?
But it's not like he tried it a few times and said "This build is perfect." No, he probably practiced it for 10 hours a day against every opening. Strategy alone does not win games. Mechanics alone do not win games. You need at least a good combination of both to succeed.
And about all this musician stuff and Asian cultures. Don't all the crappy white bands go to Japan to make money when they fail here? Is it because Japan doesn't produce good musicians or is it because, not trying to be racist here, I heard this once, that they are kind of obsessed with white people? I heard the measure to how good looking you are is how white you look.
On March 05 2009 03:13 Chill wrote: I'm talking about Morphy, not Murphy. Maybe that's who you're talking about too, not sure. Anyways it was just a tangential point
Isn't for example the Fantasy build the most beautifull, original and elegant strategy ever?
But it's not like he tried it a few times and said "This build is perfect." No, he probably practiced it for 10 hours a day against every opening. Strategy alone does not win games. Mechanics alone do not win games. You need at least a good combination of both to succeed.
We agree perfectly.
That's why, sadly, it's more efficient to do always the same builds when you don't have ten hours a day to practice... and that's why foreigner will always suck in terms of both level and entertainement compared to top koreans.
Instead of insulting me, consider the fact that if I decided to become a japanese musician, I wouldn't be very good, even if I could acquire a very impressive technic.
People who play the best Elgar are English, people who play the best Tchaikovsky are Russians, people who play the best Debussy are French. Why? Because they have lived and grown up were the music have been written, and they know instinctvely what it's talking about, in which cultural context, and which emotion it carries. You can't play amazingly Debussy if you don't know Paris and the French countriside, cuz Debussy describes something you can find there only. Now, you can play decently Debussy even without knowing France, but because your country has a very similar culture and you know a lot about french culture (you have read the litterature, you know the history, you've met plenty of French, and therefore, you have a precise idea of what Debussy talk about in his music).
Now, you were born in Seoul, which is a place amazingly far and with an amazingly different culture than Europe or States, with other rules, an other history, other aesthetic canons, etc etc etc, and practiced ten hours a day since you are 8, you can become the most amazing technician, you don't know what you are talking about. You haven't grown up in the cultural context matching with the music you play, it's impossible to be perfectly convincing as an artist.
There is a stereotype of the asian musician which is someone who plays perfectly and exactly like a robot. Obviously it's not always the case, but there is a good reason why this stereotype exist.
I think there is a lot of evidence in the world to disprove this claim, which, in my opinion, is fairly ignorant [though I'm glad you're aware of elgar and the like].
Beauty and musical inner ear is something that can be trained, modeled after, and more importantly you can be born with it. Are there a lot of robots of music? Yes. This is obvious. Just because some cultures have heavier practice mechanisms does not mean the culture produces inferior musicians, as you seem to want to claim, due to the fact that a guy from Seoul wasn't born in France or whatever.
However, I think that largely, you're incorrect. I don't really feel the need to elaborate on this, so I'm going to drop One name, and let you run with the rest: Van Cliburn. I'm sure you've heard of him, and if you haven't, you really shouldn't be making the claims you're making.
He is an American born pianist. He was taught in the style of Russian Romantics. He played Tchaikovsky better than any Russian in the first ITC judged by Communists [we know the historical tensions here]. No experience with Communism's horrors. None at all.
Are you calling this man a fluke, then? [I understand he's talented, but I'm saying the background can be taught. Yes it's not as good as experiencing the situation, but it still let's people produce powerful performances. And I would wonder if Van Cliburn was Russian, would he be better? I don't think so. Either way, being taught and just saying Asian == Robot Music Man are vastly different things... There is potential in all people who have the zeal and training environment (with talent)]
-----
In regards to this metaphor for Starcraft, it would appear the metaphor kind of holds up. However, I agree with the notion that in today's generation, mechanics [and innovations of generations before this and current] are what dominate the play. Instinct and game sense are the musicians interpretation and breath in the game.
I disagree with saying foreigners are less capable [in your version of the music analogy]. We simply don't have the environment. It's the fact that they have the facility to practice all day, not worry about work or life or whatever, against amazing people for X hours in a day that lets this happen.
How many foreigners play in the NFL versus natural born citizens? Same deal imo. [lol, I know people hate the sports analogy and I'm not a fan either. I hope I'm steering clear from it with this point. Not comparing NFL to Starcraft by skill. Only environment :: love by nation]
On March 05 2009 18:53 Elian wrote: I think there is a lot of evidence in the world to disprove this claim, which, in my opinion, is fairly ignorant [though I'm glad you're aware of elgar and the like].
You don't need to be that condescendant, thanks
Your whole post is a bit annoying as you seem to think I'm wrong anyway and you know much better than me about everything.
Beauty and musical inner ear is something that can be trained, modeled after, and more importantly you can be born with it. Are there a lot of robots of music? Yes. This is obvious. Just because some cultures have heavier practice mechanisms does not mean the culture produces inferior musicians, as you seem to want to claim, due to the fact that a guy from Seoul wasn't born in France or whatever.
You didn't understand. I don't say that korea produce inferior musicians for mechanical reasons or whetever. I say that you canno't play western music as well as someone who has been educated were it has been written. You can't understand really Mozart if you don't know and feel a shitload about Austria, the XVIII century, all the philosophical, cultural and artistic background of his music. Which is very hard being born in Seoul. If not impossible.
However, I think that largely, you're incorrect. I don't really feel the need to elaborate on this, so I'm going to drop One name, and let you run with the rest: Van Cliburn. I'm sure you've heard of him, and if you haven't, you really shouldn't be making the claims you're making.
He is an American born pianist. He was taught in the style of Russian Romantics. He played Tchaikovsky better than any Russian in the first ITC judged by Communists [we know the historical tensions here]. No experience with Communism's horrors. None at all.
Are you calling this man a fluke, then? [I understand he's talented, but I'm saying the background can be taught. Yes it's not as good as experiencing the situation, but it still let's people produce powerful performances. And I would wonder if Van Cliburn was Russian, would he be better? I don't think so. Either way, being taught and just saying Asian == Robot Music Man are vastly different things... There is potential in all people who have the zeal and training environment (with talent)]
I know Van Cliburn. You said yourself he was taught by russian masters. Plus he probably had a very precise idea of russian world and culture. So what?
Ok, it's not a golden rule. You can play amazingly Tchaikovsky and be american. You can play amzingly Mozart and be British. It's not black and white.
But sorry, you can't play Haydn properly if you have never left east asia. Unless you are someone extraordinary. The same way that you cannot play properly chinese traditional music if you don't know China and chinese culture. It's too far culturally. Too far philosophically. Too far.
I don't understand, it's common sense!
In regards to this metaphor for Starcraft, it would appear the metaphor kind of holds up. However, I agree with the notion that in today's generation, mechanics [and innovations of generations before this and current] are what dominate the play. Instinct and game sense are the musicians interpretation and breath in the game.
I disagree with saying foreigners are less capable [in your version of the music analogy]. We simply don't have the environment. It's the fact that they have the facility to practice all day, not worry about work or life or whatever, against amazing people for X hours in a day that lets this happen.
We don't disagree. I've never said the contrary. I would even say that we say exactly the same. TT
People. You can disagree with someone and stay friendly. I've never intend to offend anyone. If I did, my apologies. If not, let's be a bit more civilised in this discussion, plz...
Well, I suppose we're off to the wrong foot so let me apologize. I guess I got heated [even though in no part does your argument actually target me, musically], so, let me start over.
Still, we differ. I think you are underestimating the globalization of music a bit. A century ago, I would agree with you completely, however, I think with the idea that there are so many models for today's music and so many teachers from all across the world celebrating the music of the worlds' people, that I think that so long as the place is cultivated with that knowledge [this includes East Asia, I would say], then it can transfer from master to student. This relationship is so widespread that I think a vast majority of people in different cultures are effected.
In the event that someone was totally unaware of the culture and had a sheet of music from Mozart on the piano they've played, well... yes. I'd imagine they wouldn't capture the appropriate stylings of an era. My argument is these can be taught in the right environment, to all sorts of people.
That's the main reason why I used Van Cliburn as an example [and seriously, if you haven't heard his recording of Piano Concerto No 1 (Tchai), it is amazing! I recommend it.].
At any rate, I apologize for the tone.. you're right, it's not necessary, and really, not how I am. I guess I'm defending the artists who learn enough about an era and use their minds to produce expressive music [or not so much, depending on the era], without necessarily having a taste for it themselves.
You know, the point is that I'm a bit skeptical about globalisation in terms of music (in fact, I'm a bit skeptical about globalisation anyway). For sure, pop music is almost the same all around the world, and it's just a fact that everybody understand tonal music (a century ago, Mozart would have almost just been noise for a random chinese guy).
I believe that compared to fifty years ago, most of today's artist are at best mediocre, including lot of top soloist. The fact is that we are much more ignorant than fifty years ago for everything concerning culture. What someone educated in Seoul can understand of Mozart is not less that what, anyway, most of westerners can also, because we don't have the education anymore necessary to understand it properly neither.
(I'm a bit pessimistic.)
So in a certain extand (due to globalization) and in today's standards (which, artistically are very low), yes, someone coming from a completely different culture can be "good".
But honestly, I mean... Have you listen to Lang Lang, for example? It's so bad that it makes me feel like crying. This guy compleeeetely miss the point. Same for Sarah Chang. Same for Midori... etc etc etc...
You know, I remember Vengerov (that I don't like, but anyway), when he was recording Saint Saens n°3 and Lalo Symphony Espagnole. He was learning French, and was spending most of his tour time in France, cause he thought it was absolutely necessary to make a good recording. I listened to him in Paris and he talked in French to the audience (was dreadfull.) (Well... at the end, the recording is awfull too, but anyway, you got my point.)
I can agree with standards dropping and such, and globalization certainly takes some of the seriousness out of a work. A few days ago I listened to...Shostakovich Waltz No 2 played by.... ugh, I forget his name. It was the happiest recording I've ever heard. It made NO sense to me at all.
I think some musicians simply have the problem with that serious and gravity and treat it as pop [i.e pure mechanics as you describe]...but still I think that many can see past that, or so I hope with a good educational background/attitude. Anyway, I think we've derailed this thread long enough. Thanks for the debate
-------
Now back to your regularly scheduled Starcraft Strategy Discussion.
On March 05 2009 19:55 Elian wrote: I can agree with standards dropping and such, and globalization certainly takes some of the seriousness out of a work. A few days ago I listened to...Shostakovich Waltz No 2 played by.... ugh, I forget his name. It was the happiest recording I've ever heard. It made NO sense to me at all.
I think some musicians simply have the problem with that serious and gravity and treat it as pop [i.e pure mechanics as you describe]...but still I think that many can see past that, or so I hope with a good educational background/attitude. Anyway, I think we've derailed this thread long enough. Thanks for the debate
-------
Now back to your regularly scheduled Starcraft Strategy Discussion.
Oops I had almsot forgotten that we were in the Strategic forum, on a thread opened by Artosis.
- Both mechanics and strategy are important, of course. - You need mechanics to perform strategically. (you can have the greatest mind, and know all the tactics, units, strategies. If you don't know that left clicking a unit selects it, you won't be able to play). - Without strategy, your mechanics will be useless (you can be the fastest son of a b i t c h, if you do only workers, you lose). - In a match where the players have a same level of mechanics, the one with the better strategy win. - Not necessarily will the player with better mechanics win, his chances are higher though.
On March 04 2009 13:09 s.ilk wrote: This isn't a korean people thing its a korea thing. Koreans know how to practice things. It's not just starcraft, or even just video games its everything. Did you see the badminton olympics? Koreans won it. Do you know why korean musicians tend to be very good? Because the ones who can't practice for 4 or more hours stop playing. Being very good and very well practiced at something is a cultural value in Korea. Taekwondo -> a lot of practice -> koreans kick ass at it. For the rest of the western world at least a black belt in a martial art is either BS or the person is seen as a wierdo or an outcast. For someone like a progamer its something more than that.
In Korea video gaming is not disdained or seen as somehow devoid of cultural value its a new art and a well respected hobby even sponsored by organizations like IT companies (SKT) and banks (Shinhan). Getting those sponsorships in America (which wouldn't happen because there aren't any real tournaments at the local or national level) would be like getting sponsored by IBM and Citigoup (although maybe anymore you'd be sponsoring them). Think about the liklihood of that.
Sorry for the book by the way. But I think this is sort of interesting. Video games promote things like quickness of thought, guile, practice, and multitasking. All things that would help in the real world more than the things that sports (not that I have anything against them I'm a better fencer and basketball player than I am a starcraft player) promote physicality, aggressive personality, captainship. I think the first list in today's world is more viable than the second list. Who knows. Just venting to be honest.
You are wrong in your analogy with musicians because: 1- Koreans are good because they practice 10 hours a day but so do the chinese and japanese. How do you explain that only koreans dominate starcraft? 2- Koreans are good technically but mostly don't understand shit about what they are playing and therefore are bad musicians. You would tell me that it's subjective, but that's what 99% of people I know think. 3- Russians, Ukrainians and stuff are wayyyy better than koreans.
how the heck do you know most dont understand wat they are playing? that is pure bs and i believe you should get killed for saying something like that. of course korea musicians know what they are doing. of course korean musicians can improvise. do you think they are handicapped or something in that area? stfu.
Instead of insulting me, consider the fact that if I decided to become a japanese musician, I wouldn't be very good, even if I could acquire a very impressive technic.
People who play the best Elgar are English, people who play the best Tchaikovsky are Russians, people who play the best Debussy are French. Why? Because they have lived and grown up were the music have been written, and they know instinctvely what it's talking about, in which cultural context, and which emotion it carries. You can't play amazingly Debussy if you don't know Paris and the French countriside, cuz Debussy describes something you can find there only. Now, you can play decently Debussy even without knowing France, but because your country has a very similar culture and you know a lot about french culture (you have read the litterature, you know the history, you've met plenty of French, and therefore, you have a precise idea of what Debussy talk about in his music).
Now, you were born in Seoul, which is a place amazingly far and with an amazingly different culture than Europe or States, with other rules, an other history, other aesthetic canons, etc etc etc, and practiced ten hours a day since you are 8, you can become the most amazing technician, you don't know what you are talking about. You haven't grown up in the cultural context matching with the music you play, it's impossible to be perfectly convincing as an artist.
There is a stereotype of the asian musician which is someone who plays perfectly and exactly like a robot. Obviously it's not always the case, but there is a good reason why this stereotype exist.
Hope it's not too offensive, hu?
Now, there is amazing asian musicians, but most of them have been educated in Europe or States (Yo-yo Ma etc...)
Again, do you think a european guy could match asian musician if he was trying to play there music? Come on... You can't, as a westerner, even appreciate asian traditional music, cause you don't have the cultural and musical references.
There is absolutely nothing racist in what I'm saying. I just think culture is something specific to a place. And that being an artist is much more than playing well an instrument or being inspired. An artist exist in a context.
On March 04 2009 13:09 s.ilk wrote: This isn't a korean people thing its a korea thing. Koreans know how to practice things. It's not just starcraft, or even just video games its everything. Did you see the badminton olympics? Koreans won it. Do you know why korean musicians tend to be very good? Because the ones who can't practice for 4 or more hours stop playing. Being very good and very well practiced at something is a cultural value in Korea. Taekwondo -> a lot of practice -> koreans kick ass at it. For the rest of the western world at least a black belt in a martial art is either BS or the person is seen as a wierdo or an outcast. For someone like a progamer its something more than that.
In Korea video gaming is not disdained or seen as somehow devoid of cultural value its a new art and a well respected hobby even sponsored by organizations like IT companies (SKT) and banks (Shinhan). Getting those sponsorships in America (which wouldn't happen because there aren't any real tournaments at the local or national level) would be like getting sponsored by IBM and Citigoup (although maybe anymore you'd be sponsoring them). Think about the liklihood of that.
Sorry for the book by the way. But I think this is sort of interesting. Video games promote things like quickness of thought, guile, practice, and multitasking. All things that would help in the real world more than the things that sports (not that I have anything against them I'm a better fencer and basketball player than I am a starcraft player) promote physicality, aggressive personality, captainship. I think the first list in today's world is more viable than the second list. Who knows. Just venting to be honest.
You are wrong in your analogy with musicians because: 1- Koreans are good because they practice 10 hours a day but so do the chinese and japanese. How do you explain that only koreans dominate starcraft? 2- Koreans are good technically but mostly don't understand shit about what they are playing and therefore are bad musicians. You would tell me that it's subjective, but that's what 99% of people I know think. 3- Russians, Ukrainians and stuff are wayyyy better than koreans.
how the heck do you know most dont understand wat they are playing? that is pure bs and i believe you should get killed for saying something like that. of course korea musicians know what they are doing. of course korean musicians can improvise. do you think they are handicapped or something in that area? stfu.
Instead of insulting me, consider the fact that if I decided to become a japanese musician, I wouldn't be very good, even if I could acquire a very impressive technic.
People who play the best Elgar are English, people who play the best Tchaikovsky are Russians, people who play the best Debussy are French. Why? Because they have lived and grown up were the music have been written, and they know instinctvely what it's talking about, in which cultural context, and which emotion it carries. You can't play amazingly Debussy if you don't know Paris and the French countriside, cuz Debussy describes something you can find there only. Now, you can play decently Debussy even without knowing France, but because your country has a very similar culture and you know a lot about french culture (you have read the litterature, you know the history, you've met plenty of French, and therefore, you have a precise idea of what Debussy talk about in his music).
Now, you were born in Seoul, which is a place amazingly far and with an amazingly different culture than Europe or States, with other rules, an other history, other aesthetic canons, etc etc etc, and practiced ten hours a day since you are 8, you can become the most amazing technician, you don't know what you are talking about. You haven't grown up in the cultural context matching with the music you play, it's impossible to be perfectly convincing as an artist.
There is a stereotype of the asian musician which is someone who plays perfectly and exactly like a robot. Obviously it's not always the case, but there is a good reason why this stereotype exist.
Hope it's not too offensive, hu?
Now, there is amazing asian musicians, but most of them have been educated in Europe or States (Yo-yo Ma etc...)
Again, do you think a european guy could match asian musician if he was trying to play there music? Come on... You can't, as a westerner, even appreciate asian traditional music, cause you don't have the cultural and musical references.
There is absolutely nothing racist in what I'm saying. I just think culture is something specific to a place. And that being an artist is much more than playing well an instrument or being inspired. An artist exist in a context.
im not fucking korean.
And? Thanks for your precious addition to the argument.
This whole thing about music I don't really get. As long as you're playing exactly what the sheet of paper says aren't you playing correctly? If you're playing it exactly as it's written isn't that how it was originally played? How does one evoke a different mood when playing the exact same piece of music?
On March 06 2009 07:09 J7S wrote: I think the matter is quite simple:
- Both mechanics and strategy are important, of course. - You need mechanics to perform strategically. (you can have the greatest mind, and know all the tactics, units, strategies. If you don't know that left clicking a unit selects it, you won't be able to play). - Without strategy, your mechanics will be useless (you can be the fastest son of a b i t c h, if you do only workers, you lose). - In a match where the players have a same level of mechanics, the one with the better strategy win. - Not necessarily will the player with better mechanics win, his chances are higher though.
This is how I see it.
But a person lacking strategic depth can win. You simply need to learn a build, practice it perfectly, have really good mechanics, and you can get a high rank on iccup and beat decent players. SC is a strategy game, but the sophisticated strategy that goes into SC is mostly played back stage.
The evolution of the metagame, of the thousands of different builds, and the creation of such brilliant new ideas.. These don't happen while you play Starcraft. These happen over a long period of time and they slowly evolve the game.
SC is a strategy game, but when it comes to actual execution, it comes down to mechanics, execution and decision making. The decision making isn't "In the little time I have to decide, how can I adapt to this situation I have never seen before?" The decision making is "Of the various counters I have to the strategy he displays, which one is best suited to this particular scenario."
When you get down to it, at a high level, SC isn't really a strategy game anymore. Not in the way it is glorified to be when you start out watching. SC strategy doesn't happen behind a keyboard and mouse, it happens behind a replay progress bar and a pen+paper. The strategy comes in creating new builds that counter what your opponent will do.
When you see some brilliant new build in progames, it almost always works. I loved watching Jaedong get raped by a couple BC's as it was totally unexpected, he had no idea how to react and he started playing terribly. The new brilliant builds like the Fantasy build, were meticulously crafted over tons of man hours, and practiced extensively. And when you see a Zerg face the fantasy build now, knowing exactly how to play against it, it's because they took an equal amount of time practicing against it.
When you actually play Broodwar, the game comes down to mechanics, execution and decision making based on your experience. When you see your opponent doing a certain strategy, you quickly run over the counters that you know and choose one.
A lot of slower players like to convince themselves that if they're clever enough, they can win games regardless of low apm and a general lack of practice or ability. But the truth is, being clever doesn't win you games. Being clever will help you create builds and tactics. Being clever helps you analyze replays more effectively.
Speed, execution and the experience to base your decisions on, that's what wins you games.
On March 06 2009 18:34 nataziel wrote: This whole thing about music I don't really get. As long as you're playing exactly what the sheet of paper says aren't you playing correctly? If you're playing it exactly as it's written isn't that how it was originally played? How does one evoke a different mood when playing the exact same piece of music?
No.
I'll show you:
Three times the same piece. They all do exactly what's written (which is very vague, cuz what is written is very vague: musical notation is a little fragment of all the choices the player do). A violin sound is something incredibly complexe: you have hundred of settings: quality of the tone, speed of the bow, pressure, attack, evolution of the note, vibrato, evolution of the vibrato, intonation, articulation, dynamic, etc etc etc... that's one symbol on the sheet of paper.
Theses three express three different mood, characters, they understand the piece completely differently. The aesthetic and artistic content is completely opposite. But it's the same piece. None of them is wrong. They are all extremely good interpretation. You like or you don't, but you can't say one is less right than the other (although Heifetz is outdated).
An artist is not a robot, that's why you can't have a successfull imitation of an instrumentalist with a computer.
The goal of an artist is not to play perfectly, it's to express what he think is relevant and what he feels and know from the piece of music.
On March 06 2009 07:09 J7S wrote: I think the matter is quite simple:
- Both mechanics and strategy are important, of course. - You need mechanics to perform strategically. (you can have the greatest mind, and know all the tactics, units, strategies. If you don't know that left clicking a unit selects it, you won't be able to play). - Without strategy, your mechanics will be useless (you can be the fastest son of a b i t c h, if you do only workers, you lose). - In a match where the players have a same level of mechanics, the one with the better strategy win. - Not necessarily will the player with better mechanics win, his chances are higher though.
This is how I see it.
But a person lacking strategic depth can win. You simply need to learn a build, practice it perfectly, have really good mechanics, and you can get a high rank on iccup and beat decent players. SC is a strategy game, but the sophisticated strategy that goes into SC is mostly played back stage.
The evolution of the metagame, of the thousands of different builds, and the creation of such brilliant new ideas.. These don't happen while you play Starcraft. These happen over a long period of time and they slowly evolve the game.
SC is a strategy game, but when it comes to actual execution, it comes down to mechanics, execution and decision making. The decision making isn't "In the little time I have to decide, how can I adapt to this situation I have never seen before?" The decision making is "Of the various counters I have to the strategy he displays, which one is best suited to this particular scenario."
When you get down to it, at a high level, SC isn't really a strategy game anymore. Not in the way it is glorified to be when you start out watching. SC strategy doesn't happen behind a keyboard and mouse, it happens behind a replay progress bar and a pen+paper. The strategy comes in creating new builds that counter what your opponent will do.
When you see some brilliant new build in progames, it almost always works. I loved watching Jaedong get raped by a couple BC's as it was totally unexpected, he had no idea how to react and he started playing terribly. The new brilliant builds like the Fantasy build, were meticulously crafted over tons of man hours, and practiced extensively. And when you see a Zerg face the fantasy build now, knowing exactly how to play against it, it's because they took an equal amount of time practicing against it.
When you actually play Broodwar, the game comes down to mechanics, execution and decision making based on your experience. When you see your opponent doing a certain strategy, you quickly run over the counters that you know and choose one.
A lot of slower players like to convince themselves that if they're clever enough, they can win games regardless of low apm and a general lack of practice or ability. But the truth is, being clever doesn't win you games. Being clever will help you create builds and tactics. Being clever helps you analyze replays more effectively.
Speed, execution and the experience to base your decisions on, that's what wins you games.
That's a bit sad, but you are probably right.
I would add mind game, at least when you play more than one game with the same player. The build you chose, what you think your opponent will do. I think at very high level, mind game is still at least 50% of what give you the victory... Don't you think so?
I mean, BW is so rock/paper/scissor, especially match up like tvt or zvz...
On March 06 2009 07:09 J7S wrote: I think the matter is quite simple:
- Both mechanics and strategy are important, of course. - You need mechanics to perform strategically. (you can have the greatest mind, and know all the tactics, units, strategies. If you don't know that left clicking a unit selects it, you won't be able to play). - Without strategy, your mechanics will be useless (you can be the fastest son of a b i t c h, if you do only workers, you lose). - In a match where the players have a same level of mechanics, the one with the better strategy win. - Not necessarily will the player with better mechanics win, his chances are higher though.
This is how I see it.
But a person lacking strategic depth can win. You simply need to learn a build, practice it perfectly, have really good mechanics, and you can get a high rank on iccup and beat decent players. SC is a strategy game, but the sophisticated strategy that goes into SC is mostly played back stage.
The evolution of the metagame, of the thousands of different builds, and the creation of such brilliant new ideas.. These don't happen while you play Starcraft. These happen over a long period of time and they slowly evolve the game.
SC is a strategy game, but when it comes to actual execution, it comes down to mechanics, execution and decision making. The decision making isn't "In the little time I have to decide, how can I adapt to this situation I have never seen before?" The decision making is "Of the various counters I have to the strategy he displays, which one is best suited to this particular scenario."
When you get down to it, at a high level, SC isn't really a strategy game anymore. Not in the way it is glorified to be when you start out watching. SC strategy doesn't happen behind a keyboard and mouse, it happens behind a replay progress bar and a pen+paper. The strategy comes in creating new builds that counter what your opponent will do.
When you see some brilliant new build in progames, it almost always works. I loved watching Jaedong get raped by a couple BC's as it was totally unexpected, he had no idea how to react and he started playing terribly. The new brilliant builds like the Fantasy build, were meticulously crafted over tons of man hours, and practiced extensively. And when you see a Zerg face the fantasy build now, knowing exactly how to play against it, it's because they took an equal amount of time practicing against it.
When you actually play Broodwar, the game comes down to mechanics, execution and decision making based on your experience. When you see your opponent doing a certain strategy, you quickly run over the counters that you know and choose one.
A lot of slower players like to convince themselves that if they're clever enough, they can win games regardless of low apm and a general lack of practice or ability. But the truth is, being clever doesn't win you games. Being clever will help you create builds and tactics. Being clever helps you analyze replays more effectively.
Speed, execution and the experience to base your decisions on, that's what wins you games.
That's a bit sad, but you are probably right.
I would add mind game, at least when you play more than one game with the same player. The build you chose, what you think your opponent will do. I think at very high level, mind game is still at least 50% of what give you the victory... Don't you think so?
I mean, BW is so rock/paper/scissor, especially match up like tvt or zvz...
Oh yeah, mind games of course. I just meant in the context of Strategy. But I consider mind games to be "tactics" that you learn as you get better. Those tactics are in your disposal and can be used whenever.
As for things like mind games, winning mind set, intimidation.. All of these are also very important to competition in any way, and all of these just directly affect your ability to macro/micro/decision making, etc..
As for Strategy though... It's sad to realize but at the same time, it's not too sad. Yes BW is very, very mechanical. A lot of wins are based on a bit of good micro, a good performance in general, good timing... But very little actual "Strategy."
I don't mind it really. I still love what competitive SC is. I still like it's a fantastic skill with such a high ceiling. I also think SC2 will require the same general skill sets, just with slightly less mechanics.
On March 06 2009 07:09 J7S wrote: I think the matter is quite simple:
- Both mechanics and strategy are important, of course. - You need mechanics to perform strategically. (you can have the greatest mind, and know all the tactics, units, strategies. If you don't know that left clicking a unit selects it, you won't be able to play). - Without strategy, your mechanics will be useless (you can be the fastest son of a b i t c h, if you do only workers, you lose). - In a match where the players have a same level of mechanics, the one with the better strategy win. - Not necessarily will the player with better mechanics win, his chances are higher though.
This is how I see it.
But a person lacking strategic depth can win. You simply need to learn a build, practice it perfectly, have really good mechanics, and you can get a high rank on iccup and beat decent players. SC is a strategy game, but the sophisticated strategy that goes into SC is mostly played back stage.
The evolution of the metagame, of the thousands of different builds, and the creation of such brilliant new ideas.. These don't happen while you play Starcraft. These happen over a long period of time and they slowly evolve the game.
SC is a strategy game, but when it comes to actual execution, it comes down to mechanics, execution and decision making. The decision making isn't "In the little time I have to decide, how can I adapt to this situation I have never seen before?" The decision making is "Of the various counters I have to the strategy he displays, which one is best suited to this particular scenario."
When you get down to it, at a high level, SC isn't really a strategy game anymore. Not in the way it is glorified to be when you start out watching. SC strategy doesn't happen behind a keyboard and mouse, it happens behind a replay progress bar and a pen+paper. The strategy comes in creating new builds that counter what your opponent will do.
When you see some brilliant new build in progames, it almost always works. I loved watching Jaedong get raped by a couple BC's as it was totally unexpected, he had no idea how to react and he started playing terribly. The new brilliant builds like the Fantasy build, were meticulously crafted over tons of man hours, and practiced extensively. And when you see a Zerg face the fantasy build now, knowing exactly how to play against it, it's because they took an equal amount of time practicing against it.
When you actually play Broodwar, the game comes down to mechanics, execution and decision making based on your experience. When you see your opponent doing a certain strategy, you quickly run over the counters that you know and choose one.
A lot of slower players like to convince themselves that if they're clever enough, they can win games regardless of low apm and a general lack of practice or ability. But the truth is, being clever doesn't win you games. Being clever will help you create builds and tactics. Being clever helps you analyze replays more effectively.
Speed, execution and the experience to base your decisions on, that's what wins you games.
That's a bit sad, but you are probably right.
I would add mind game, at least when you play more than one game with the same player. The build you chose, what you think your opponent will do. I think at very high level, mind game is still at least 50% of what give you the victory... Don't you think so?
I mean, BW is so rock/paper/scissor, especially match up like tvt or zvz...
Oh yeah, mind games of course. I just meant in the context of Strategy. But I consider mind games to be "tactics" that you learn as you get better. Those tactics are in your disposal and can be used whenever.
As for things like mind games, winning mind set, intimidation.. All of these are also very important to competition in any way, and all of these just directly affect your ability to macro/micro/decision making, etc..
As for Strategy though... It's sad to realize but at the same time, it's not too sad. Yes BW is very, very mechanical. A lot of wins are based on a bit of good micro, a good performance in general, good timing... But very little actual "Strategy."
I don't mind it really. I still love what competitive SC is. I still like it's a fantastic skill with such a high ceiling. I also think SC2 will require the same general skill sets, just with slightly less mechanics.
Well, in this case I agree with you completely.
What you are actually saying is that the game became actually mature. Being good is not anymore about having the good idea (wow, nobody ever thought about this sneaky dt rush) and a lot of luck, but rather to have amazing skill, great mind, ability to take decisions and read your opponent's game... and a lot of practice. Somehow it's much more interesting.
On March 06 2009 07:09 J7S wrote: I think the matter is quite simple:
- Both mechanics and strategy are important, of course. - You need mechanics to perform strategically. (you can have the greatest mind, and know all the tactics, units, strategies. If you don't know that left clicking a unit selects it, you won't be able to play). - Without strategy, your mechanics will be useless (you can be the fastest son of a b i t c h, if you do only workers, you lose). - In a match where the players have a same level of mechanics, the one with the better strategy win. - Not necessarily will the player with better mechanics win, his chances are higher though.
This is how I see it.
But a person lacking strategic depth can win. You simply need to learn a build, practice it perfectly, have really good mechanics, and you can get a high rank on iccup and beat decent players. SC is a strategy game, but the sophisticated strategy that goes into SC is mostly played back stage.
The evolution of the metagame, of the thousands of different builds, and the creation of such brilliant new ideas.. These don't happen while you play Starcraft. These happen over a long period of time and they slowly evolve the game.
SC is a strategy game, but when it comes to actual execution, it comes down to mechanics, execution and decision making. The decision making isn't "In the little time I have to decide, how can I adapt to this situation I have never seen before?" The decision making is "Of the various counters I have to the strategy he displays, which one is best suited to this particular scenario."
When you get down to it, at a high level, SC isn't really a strategy game anymore. Not in the way it is glorified to be when you start out watching. SC strategy doesn't happen behind a keyboard and mouse, it happens behind a replay progress bar and a pen+paper. The strategy comes in creating new builds that counter what your opponent will do.
When you see some brilliant new build in progames, it almost always works. I loved watching Jaedong get raped by a couple BC's as it was totally unexpected, he had no idea how to react and he started playing terribly. The new brilliant builds like the Fantasy build, were meticulously crafted over tons of man hours, and practiced extensively. And when you see a Zerg face the fantasy build now, knowing exactly how to play against it, it's because they took an equal amount of time practicing against it.
When you actually play Broodwar, the game comes down to mechanics, execution and decision making based on your experience. When you see your opponent doing a certain strategy, you quickly run over the counters that you know and choose one.
A lot of slower players like to convince themselves that if they're clever enough, they can win games regardless of low apm and a general lack of practice or ability. But the truth is, being clever doesn't win you games. Being clever will help you create builds and tactics. Being clever helps you analyze replays more effectively.
Speed, execution and the experience to base your decisions on, that's what wins you games.
Nintu, I think you are mostly right. Just see if you don't agree with me on this: - Choosing a build order is strategy. - Knowing what to counter a build order is strategy. - Adapting to your opponent is strategy. - Making decisions based on what happens in the game is strategy.
All of this, is part of the mind work you need in order to play good in any level. A player lacking strategy depth can win of course. But will be able to adapt, to improvise, to make good decisions? He can get high on ICCUP you say, but how high?
In the end, I think that we're all saying the same thing. Regards,
this example with music is really really bad and ignorant in my opinion. If you take this serious then of course americans would be the best SC games obvioulsy BroodWar is an American game.
On March 06 2009 22:40 polarwolf wrote: this example with music is really really bad and ignorant in my opinion. If you take this serious then of course americans would be the best SC games obvioulsy BroodWar is an American game.
lol
Read before posting. Your post is irrelevant.
The whole music think was pretty much off-topic. It started when I don't know who said koreans were good in music for the same reasons than in starcraft. Nobody said there were an analogy between the cultural specificities (which imo make the task impossible for purely asian musicians) and starcraft.
That's why I'm scared at Chill's reaction when he'll read the whole thing.
On March 06 2009 22:40 polarwolf wrote: this example with music is really really bad and ignorant in my opinion. If you take this serious then of course americans would be the best SC games obvioulsy BroodWar is an American game.
In ender's shadow, Bean finds a space sim game in battle school. He is obviously a genius and knows all the best strats for any given situation. What does he do first though? He learns how to control the game most efficiently. He practices microing each ship really fast and multitasking. If Bean needs mechanics, you need mechanics.
On September 14 2008 19:14 Artosis wrote: [One of the biggest reasons why progamers are so much faster than foriegners is because they know just what they are going to do. The game is completely mapped out in their mind.
Bleh, this thing about foreigners playing smarter than koreans and whatever is just crap. A very basic proof of this is build orders, plenty of foreigner reps have some really crappy build orders, even when they are standard, they are emulated badly, and developing, perfectioning or even just understanding a build order demands a lot of thought.
Like, that moonshine vs sarens rep, sure the guys are great mechanically so it eventually turned into a good game,. but the BOs just sucked. The zerg took his gas late, made his mutas late and didnt even produce 9 at a single time. The terran of course overcompensated and made his first tank at something ridiculous like 10 minutes into the game.
Now about the argument of mechanics > creativity, well.. this isnt a real yes or no question, i mean, theres a limit to how dumb your opponent can be, and that someone is playing smart doesnt mean they were born with some god given gift of starcraft, it always takes practice, but some people seem to think practice only hones mechanics, while being 'naturally talented' whatever the hell that means, is actually better.
This is a great topic which reassures me about my plans. I am a gamer who plays a lot and consider myself a top player in Street Fighter. Foreign students land in my house in New York and they play Starcraft. Koreans of course. They are better than me but I made a bet that I could beat them in Starcraft in 4 months. "Beat me in starcraft? No way. I am average in Korea but I've played for years", says my Korean friend. Since I have no life at the moment, I can devote my time to playing Starcraft.
I will train by practicing all of the abilities that are required of my strategies. Controlling units. using hotkeys, setting hotkeys, managing multiple screens. If I have mastery over myself, i can do anything I chose with speed and accuracy.Tap tap click tap tap click click tap click tap click. That is my keyboard and mouse in one second. Well, not now of course because I suck.
I win gg. Wait there's more! I have to play against another person. I am god like at controlling my army but I don't know what to do. If my mechanics are much better than my opponent, I can just react to what he does and counter him.
If they match my mechanics, I have to out think them or out guess them. That means I need to know what he knows. If he's missing strategy I can use mechanics while pressuring him with something he doesn't know which I know better. If I can't find that weakness, I move on to using my knowledge about what he likes best, 2nd best 3rd best and so on. He has mechanics linked to his mind and if i can understand his mechanics I can counter him exactly by predicting his next move. The higher in number and more firmly rooted mixups the harder it is to predict. But if I need to predict my opponent to win, it probably means I need to improve my mechanics as strategy turns into mechanics if practiced enough. . It all comes down to improving your mechanics and gaining advantage faster while balancing it. I will be spending my time doing just that. Hopefully I can beat my Korean friend in time.
It doesn't matter if your friend is korean or not. Ask what his rank is in iccup. If he's D, I'm pretty sure you can beat him if you practice, if he's C, it gets unlikely. B, well I don't think so. A, don't even think about it.
Tell me how it goes though. Although I don't see you winning if your friend is C level and up.
What is "execution"? Can it not be thought of as a series of strategical decisions? I think the mistake many people here are making is that they define strategy as simply a set of builds and counter-builds. But actually strategy is much more than just that. I would advise everyone to watch this short video clip that FConnectionUK has subtitled:
A lot of foreigners would look at such a game and say, "Well, Flash defended the attack because his execution/micro was just so good!" But why were his execution and micro so good? Was it not because he was making very calculated strategical decisions?
My point is, there is still a lot of strategy to be found in StarCraft at a high level of play; many of us noobie foreigners simply lack the understanding to acknowledge much of it. We look at something brilliant and call it simply good mechanics, when in fact those "good mechanics" are largely a result of subtle strategical decision making.
On March 08 2009 11:25 GreenTea321 wrote: This is a great topic which reassures me about my plans. I am a gamer who plays a lot and consider myself a top player in Street Fighter. Foreign students land in my house in New York and they play Starcraft. Koreans of course. They are better than me but I made a bet that I could beat them in Starcraft in 4 months. "Beat me in starcraft? No way. I am average in Korea but I've played for years", says my Korean friend. Since I have no life at the moment, I can devote my time to playing Starcraft.
i'm curious, define "top player" at street fighter. and for that matter, WHICH street fighter. 2? 3? 4?
I think you'll find that getting good at Starcraft will be harder than you expect.
In my state, few people can match me and one, I think, beats me from my experience of tournaments and going to the arcade. Haven't played around the world yet. I play 2 3 and 4. My friend doesn't know what iccup is. I'm not sure either but he says I won't beat him in 4 months even if I play all the time. Time will tell.
On March 08 2009 12:23 NeVeR wrote: What is "execution"? Can it not be thought of as a series of strategical decisions? I think the mistake many people here are making is that they define strategy as simply a set of builds and counter-builds. But actually strategy is much more than just that. I would advise everyone to watch this short video clip that FConnectionUK has subtitled:
A lot of foreigners would look at such a game and say, "Well, Flash defended the attack because his execution/micro was just so good!" But why were his execution and micro so good? Was it not because he was making very calculated strategical decisions?
My point is, there is still a lot of strategy to be found in StarCraft at a high level of play; many of us noobie foreigners simply lack the understanding to acknowledge much of it. We look at something brilliant and call it simply good mechanics, when in fact those "good mechanics" are largely a result of subtle strategical decision making.
On March 08 2009 12:23 NeVeR wrote: What is "execution"? Can it not be thought of as a series of strategical decisions? I think the mistake many people here are making is that they define strategy as simply a set of builds and counter-builds. But actually strategy is much more than just that. I would advise everyone to watch this short video clip that FConnectionUK has subtitled:
A lot of foreigners would look at such a game and say, "Well, Flash defended the attack because his execution/micro was just so good!" But why were his execution and micro so good? Was it not because he was making very calculated strategical decisions?
My point is, there is still a lot of strategy to be found in StarCraft at a high level of play; many of us noobie foreigners simply lack the understanding to acknowledge much of it. We look at something brilliant and call it simply good mechanics, when in fact those "good mechanics" are largely a result of subtle strategical decision making.
While it's true that the S-class progamers know about such small details and react well in such situations (have the right amount of units where they need to be), you're overrating it a bit, and also the analysis from the guy could be slightly wrong (or at least: there are other equally plausible explanations).
You are overrating this because: It was just one dropship with 4 vults, and although this cost Flash mining time, he doesn't need to bring all his units just to stop 4 vults. Furthermore, he only had to send 1 tank because 2 new tanks rolled out of his factories the moment his one tank arrived at the scene, so in the end he had 3 tanks up there anyway, and his natural was also secure because he didn't send all of his initial tanks up there. The coach didn't take the 2 new tanks into account at all, and I can almost guarantee you that Flash knew that the 2 tanks he ordered were almost finished (at this rather early stage in the game, all progamers have enough free APM to spam select their factories and monitor the status every few seconds).
And the second point is: if you see 1 dropship dropping 4 vults you know this is not a full-scale attack (in a TvT), but merely a harassment, and to defend against a harass you do not send your whole army which would leave you open for a real attack on a different position (in this case: the front) - this is very common sense and has nothing to do with genius or something. Every S class gamer knows what to take care of in the early to mid game.
And the timing of Flash's supply depot which allowed him to "scout" the dropship early was just a fluke - in fact he should have built a depot there *earlier* already to have extended vision for the whole game. Because if you don't know that a dropship is coming right now and you send an SCV to the corner of your base and just then you scout the dropship unloading its is pure luck (although a certain amount of timing skill/knowledge also plays a role, e.g. if you anticipate the build your opponent is doing and you think to yourself "with the build he's doing, he MIGHT send a dropship at approximately THIS time, so I'll better check... oh wow there is one!" - but this depends on a large amount of luck too (e.g.: what if the opponent delays his drop shortly just to make Flash think he's not going to drop?) - so in the end it pays off to build the depot as early as possible to have advantage of the extended vision, instead of trying to send an SCV *right* when you think the opponent might drop now.
So you see, there are always lots of different aspects and angles to be taken into account, and you (and the coach) only focus on one which (coincidentally *g*) happens to let his own Flash (and the game of Starcraft as a whole) stand in a better light. I don't see this action as being overly genius, it's something all S class progamers can pull off and do in several games. And I'd give Flash less credit for building that depot up there too late (although it happened to be JUST in time, this sort of timing is nothing you should rely upon, as explained above. And maybe it was no "timing skill" at all - maybe he was just building it there because he needed another depot without thinking at all that the opponent could drop right now. In the end we don't know for 100% sure what Flash thought to himself during that game).
On March 08 2009 12:23 NeVeR wrote: What is "execution"? Can it not be thought of as a series of strategical decisions? I think the mistake many people here are making is that they define strategy as simply a set of builds and counter-builds. But actually strategy is much more than just that. I would advise everyone to watch this short video clip that FConnectionUK has subtitled:
A lot of foreigners would look at such a game and say, "Well, Flash defended the attack because his execution/micro was just so good!" But why were his execution and micro so good? Was it not because he was making very calculated strategical decisions?
My point is, there is still a lot of strategy to be found in StarCraft at a high level of play; many of us noobie foreigners simply lack the understanding to acknowledge much of it. We look at something brilliant and call it simply good mechanics, when in fact those "good mechanics" are largely a result of subtle strategical decision making.
While it's true that the S-class progamers know about such small details and react well in such situations (have the right amount of units where they need to be), you're overrating it a bit, and also the analysis from the guy could be slightly wrong (or at least: there are other equally plausible explanations).
You are overrating this because: It was just one dropship with 4 vults, and although this cost Flash mining time, he doesn't need to bring all his units just to stop 4 vults. Furthermore, he only had to send 1 tank because 2 new tanks rolled out of his factories the moment his one tank arrived at the scene, so in the end he had 3 tanks up there anyway, and his natural was also secure because he didn't send all of his initial tanks up there. The coach didn't take the 2 new tanks into account at all, and I can almost guarantee you that Flash knew that the 2 tanks he ordered were almost finished (at this rather early stage in the game, all progamers have enough free APM to spam select their factories and monitor the status every few seconds).
And the second point is: if you see 1 dropship dropping 4 vults you know this is not a full-scale attack (in a TvT), but merely a harassment, and to defend against a harass you do not send your whole army which would leave you open for a real attack on a different position (in this case: the front) - this is very common sense and has nothing to do with genius or something. Every S class gamer knows what to take care of in the early to mid game.
And the timing of Flash's supply depot which allowed him to "scout" the dropship early was just a fluke - in fact he should have built a depot there *earlier* already to have extended vision for the whole game. Because if you don't know that a dropship is coming right now and you send an SCV to the corner of your base and just then you scout the dropship unloading its is pure luck (although a certain amount of timing skill/knowledge also plays a role, e.g. if you anticipate the build your opponent is doing and you think to yourself "with the build he's doing, he MIGHT send a dropship at approximately THIS time, so I'll better check... oh wow there is one!" - but this depends on a large amount of luck too (e.g.: what if the opponent delays his drop shortly just to make Flash think he's not going to drop?) - so in the end it pays off to build the depot as early as possible to have advantage of the extended vision, instead of trying to send an SCV *right* when you think the opponent might drop now.
So you see, there are always lots of different aspects and angles to be taken into account, and you (and the coach) only focus on one which (coincidentally *g*) happens to let his own Flash (and the game of Starcraft as a whole) stand in a better light. I don't see this action as being overly genius, it's something all S class progamers can pull off and do in several games. And I'd give Flash less credit for building that depot up there too late (although it happened to be JUST in time, this sort of timing is nothing you should rely upon, as explained above. And maybe it was no "timing skill" at all - maybe he was just building it there because he needed another depot without thinking at all that the opponent could drop right now. In the end we don't know for 100% sure what Flash thought to himself during that game).
Didn't you post in this thread when it was first made and took it as an example that brood war was strategically solved and didn't develop anymore? =p Kind of funny because the game now plays very differently to how it was played when artosis made this topic.
Your post about flash is also a bit strange. Mind clearly stated that he didn't lose _one_ game in practice performing that build, so apparantly you are wrong about it beeing an "obvious" choice to leave two tanks behind. And Flash does the kind of "lucky" scouting seen here quite often with mnm versus incoming muta, svcs versus drops etc. If it was nothing but flukes he would be the luckiest man alive imo.
On March 08 2009 23:32 KlaCkoN wrote: Your post about flash is also a bit strange. Mind clearly stated that he didn't lose _one_ game in practice performing that build, so apparantly you are wrong about it beeing an "obvious" choice to leave two tanks behind. And Flash does the kind of "lucky" scouting seen here quite often with mnm versus incoming muta, svcs versus drops etc. If it was nothing but flukes he would be the luckiest man alive imo.
On September 14 2008 19:14 Artosis wrote: [One of the biggest reasons why progamers are so much faster than foriegners is because they know just what they are going to do. The game is completely mapped out in their mind.
Zomg what did the legendary Legionnaire said? it's been editted!!~~!~!~!~
I think the definitions of strategy, mechanics, and tactics are different meanings for everyone. Everyone is at different levels in their game and have different experiences which leads to confusion. I think it would best be solved by: before trying to prove your point, you define what strategy, mechanics or any type of word such as that means. For me, mechanics is everything you do that you've memorized which you need very little or no attention to complete. Some people might think of mechanics as only controlling your units. Some only your economy and building. Some might think of mechanics as the fundamentals. Others might interprete it in different depths and different widths.
I think it's best to define your meaning before trying to prove your word which you only feel but cannot explain. Their feeling with a word mismatches what I feel with a word and since I don't understand what they feel I apply my view and then we are all confused.
The best way to practice in my opinion is to learn the most important deciding factors in a game(Starcraft: keep minerals low, control keyboard+mouse well, understand the opponent) First figure out one of the main fundamentals you lack in,such as mouse speed, and practice using mouse speed in many different ways until you can do it with your eyes closed or to where you are happy and don't need to think as much. As you master the different fundamentals, you start to combine them and create higher layers and levels of fundamentals such as hot keying anything on the screen. You combine mouse and keyboard fundamentals. The best can control their units to fight with effective micro while looking at their minimap for drops while understanding their opponent better than they understand themselves. And this is as instantaneous as you know the answer to 2+2 is.
Ill also mention that I think having a high spirit while playing will help you learn quicker or help you do any activity since it activates the brain to act faster thus you can focus much more than if you are yawning while practicing. We don't remember boring things We remember intense and vibrant things. People might claim it makes you act stupid but I say it makes you act stupid quicker.
On July 16 2009 08:31 yggdrasil wrote: I have no commas too. And I practise throughout!
Lol what is this i dont even...
I just read the OP and it was almost exactly the same as what we tell people to do in the strategy forum right now (mass practice one BO!). Wierd how its only a year old, you wouldn't think things would change that much that quickly.