|
Hey folks, this is my first article related to Starcraft, but it's kind of unique, so if the Starcraft 2 forum isn't the appropriate place for it, feel free to move it!
Introduction
After much consideration, I've decided that Starcraft (and Starcraft 2) are extremely similar to Magic: The Gathering. The two games share many of the different concepts for strategy, mechanics, and the metagame. If you've never played Magic: The Gathering, you might not get too much out of this article, although it's possible that it will provide you with some some insight into essential concepts from both games. Did Blizzard copy ideas from MTG and inject them into the framework for Starcraft? Somehow I doubt it, but in my mind, the similarities are extensive.
Metagame concepts: Johnny, Timmy, and Spike
Back in the early 2000s, Wizards of the Coast invented three archetypes to describe types of players in Magic: The Gathering. The original article describes Johnny, Timmy, and Spike, three different personalities with their own unique play styles. Ironically, I find these archetypes to also perfectly describe Starcraft players. http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr11b
Johnny: Johnny is the "combo" or creative player. This player has decided that the game is a form of self-expression where he can display brilliant knowledge of otherwise little-understood game mechanics. Johnny is almost always innovative, uncovering quirky, overlooked interactions between cards (in Starcraft, interactions between units) that result in mind-blowing wins. He doesn't always win, but when he does, it's usually in a totally unexpected and hard-to-counter way. Additionally, the most unique "cheese" strategies probably fall under Johnny. In professional MTG circles, Asian pro-gamers tend to be predominantly Johnnies, although that's not a hard and fast rule. Incidentally, the same thing applies to Starcraft.
Timmy: Timmy is the power gamer. He plays to have fun, and whether he wins or loses, he always chooses the biggest and flashiest plays over the most strategic ones. Timmy likes to play big: huge armies, huge creatures, and powerful "junk" plays that take forever to set up, but are overwhelming once they get online. In Starcraft, Timmy likes to turtle, he likes to macro to 200/200, and he almost always favors 4v4 over 1v1. Broodwars players remember those huge control groups of Carriers that newbies loved to send out: a purely Timmy move. But don't get the wrong idea. Timmy isn't a total noob, in fact, just the opposite; he understands the macro game perfectly, but he wants to have the most fun possible with the game.
Spike: Spike plays to win, plain and simple. He will always choose the most powerful strategy in the metagame; in MTG, Spike always had that insane $500 deck that steamrolled the local tournament every week. He copied it off the Internet, and he doesn't care about innovating: if it wins, it works. Sometimes Spike can be an asshole about winning, playing mind games with his opponent that fall just short of cheating. But Spike can also be like a martial arts guru: very few people can beat him, but he's a quiet guy, at peace with his superiority. He visits blogs, strategy sites, watches videos, and playtests constantly. In the pro-gaming scene, the Starcraft community (and the MTG community) is full of Spikes.
Mechanical Concepts
Color = Race: Magic: The Gathering is defined by its 5 colors. Each color represents not only an element, but a personality and archetype. Red is the color of scorching fire, unforgiving fury, and might-makes-right; White is the color of zealous justice, but also peace and holiness; Blue is the color of the mind and pursuit of knowledge, but also politics and trickery; Black is the color of ambition and ruthlessness, as well as corruption and decay; Green is the color of verdant growth, animal instinct, and primal wilderness. Although Starcraft only has 3 races, I would imagine that each one can be represented by a color combination from Magic. The Zerg would be Black/Red/Green, for example.
Life Total = Buildings: The ultimate goal of a game of Magic is to play cards that reduce your opponent's life total from 20 to 0, thus winning you the game. (There are other more obscure methods of winning, such as locking down the game to the point where your opponent just quits, but for the sake of comparison, we'll stick to the life total.) In Starcraft, pretend that your number of buildings is equal to your life total. When you hit 0, you lose. So you have to do everything possible to prevent your opponent from hitting your buildings, and that usually means blowing up his stuff, denying his economy, or blocking his attacks in some way. You can also just build more buildings, which is the equivalent of gaining more life in Magic, but if you have no method of protecting yourself, it only delays the inevitable.
Creatures = Units: This comparison should be obvious. In MTG, you attack your opponent with creatures, and that's the predominant way of winning the game. In Starcraft, you attack with units. Many creatures have special abilities that go beyond simply dealing damage, like Flying or Regeneration; the same can be said of units in Starcraft.
Lands = Workers: In order to play cards in Magic: The Gathering, you need Lands. Each color has its own land that produces "mana" (or resources) that can be spent on playing cards. In Magic, a land is an actual, physical card, and it can be destroyed or removed from the game just like anything else. If you remove your opponent's lands, you're probably going to win the game, because he won't be able to do anything. (He's often described as "land screwed" or "mana screwed.") In Starcraft, your workers are like lands in Magic. Sure, they're plentiful, and having more of them is generally better, but if you spend too much time getting workers and not enough time getting anything else, you're going to get overrun.
Mana = Minerals/Gas: As previously mentioned, in Magic: The Gathering, lands produce mana, which is the resource that you spend to play creatures and other cards. Mana is an abstract concept; there's nothing in-game that actually represents mana, and so it isn't something that can be attacked or destroyed on a regular basis. Similarly, in Starcraft, minerals and gas are your currency resources, produced by workers who mine for you. They're represented by a counter in the upper right corner of the screen; minerals and gas are very important, but there's nothing your opponent can do to take them away from you. (For simplicity's sake, ignore the fact that in Magic, mana goes away if you don't spend it on anything.)
Turns = Supply: In a general sense, turns in MTG are merely a way of keeping track of who performs what action, and in what order. As a result, turns are like a timeline of events, by which we can determine things that happened (or should have happened) during the game. You can say, "on turn 6 I played this huge creature, and then I won the game by turn 8." Starcraft gives us the concept of supply, which on an abstract level is very similar to taking turns in a card game. You can't accomplish very much if it isn't your turn. Likewise, if you haven't reached a specific amount of supply, you're "supply blocked" and have to wait until you get more. Players in Starcraft tend to keep track of game time and events in terms of supply, just like with turns in Magic: "at 13 supply I built a hatchery; at 28 supply I pushed out to scout a little bit."
Card Advantage = Macro: In pro Magic: The Gathering circles, a particular term called "card advantage" has become popular. Basically, card advantage is simply the mechanical aspect of having more stuff (more cards) than your opponent and thus, in a favorable position to win the game regardless of what else is going on. There are many different ways to gain card advantage: there are cards that simply draw you more cards, for example. But there are also effects commonly referred to as "2-for-1," where you get two or more benefits out of a single investment. Card advantage is almost identical to the Starcraft concept of macro, or simply making sure that you have more stuff than your opponent at any given time. Note that this advantage doesn't guarantee you a win, but it definitely helps. (Note that in Starcraft, destroying a full dropship, or blowing up a Lair, would be considered a solid "2-for-1.")
Strategic Concepts
Decklist = Build: In MTG, obviously it's impossible to play without a deck. The deck represents on paper your entire strategy for winning, and it contains all the tools necessary to do so. But a deck doesn't do anything by itself; it has to be played, and executed correctly in order to succeed, and you have to be in the right state of mind. In Starcraft, a build isn't to be confused with a build order: the build itself, like the decklist in Magic, is simply your formula, your foundation for winning. You start with an overall idea, and then create a specific order for executing it.
Mana Curve = Build Order: All non-land cards in MTG have a cost, a "mana cost," in order to be played. A good deckbuilder designs his decklist with a specific timing for which cards are meant to be played, based on the amount of resources he predicts will be available. In Magic, a player knows what he wants to do on every turn, and he knows on approximately which turn he wants to make his game-winning move; if his timing fails, he usually loses. Starcraft follows the same principle with the Build Order. A Starcraft player has a specific plan on what he wants to do on 8 supply, 12 supply, 20 supply, and so on; his gameplay progression follows a natural curve that climbs, peaks, and descends logically. (In MTG, a player's intended mana curve can be thrown off by bad luck, whereas Starcraft depends less on luck and more on reaction time; but the concept is the same.)
The Stack = Micro: "The Stack" is one of the most complicated things to understand for someone who doesn't play magic. Basically, whenever you play a "spell" (a non-land card) in Magic, your opponent has a chance to "respond" with his own spell (there's more to it than that, but that's the basic gist of it.) The opponent's spell "stacks" on top of yours, and everything on top of the stack happens first. This is very similar to the concept of unit micro in Starcraft, in that you have to essentially micro-manage responses to your opponent's plays until there's nothing left for you to do; you've either stopped his advance with your own micro, or you retreat. This balance of plays and responses is an essential part of strategy in MTG, and part of what makes the game so complex, due to the many possible interactions between cards. Similarly, the unit-to-unit responses and counters in Starcraft make it stand out against most other RTS games.
Alpha Strike = All-In: Whenever you've gathered enough forces in Magic, backed up by card advantage, you typically unleash what players call an Alpha Strike. This strike is meant to be a game-winning attack that is extremely difficult for your opponent to counter, at least without irreparable losses to his own forces. Much like an "all-in" in Starcraft, if the attack fails for whatever reason, you're often left with very little on the field and your opponent can easily mop up.
If you have any other ideas, feel free to add them!
|
Nice post. I agree. I remember when Beta first came out I immediatly compared chronoboost (than super overpowered) to skull clamp*.
And Mark Rosewater is my personal hero for the record. Even if he did destroy Magic*.
*Mirridon was awesome :p
|
Interesting read. To bad I could make an analogy of how Blizzard should be more like WoTC with their relation with progaming.
What would be the sideboarding?
The Novice version of the maps are like those Portal sets.
Actually some Blizzard employees and key members are avid MTG players, so I wouldn't be surprised if they used some of the MTG framework to design their games.
|
so basically magic the gathering is similar to every rts on the planet? i dont think any of the concepts are exclusive to starcraft, and i'm sure there are many games that harbor all of them.
|
United States47024 Posts
On June 02 2010 11:11 AlecPyron wrote:
What would be the sideboarding?
Sideboarding is hard to draw an analogy to, because you're not required to play the same build all 3/5 games of a Bo3/Bo5. Sideboarding exists because of the fact that competitive play requires you to play the same deck in a Bo3/Bo5, so that matches don't turn into rock/paper/scissors.
|
I don't play MTG but i can see the resemblance that you say, good read.
|
Haha, nice read. I am an avid Magic: Online player, as is Ahzz. I introduced him to the game with the sell that is was as deep as Brood War and was a similarly strategic game (actually, I said it was even deeper and more strategic than Brood War!). It's a great game, if you like Starcraft, you will like MTG.
|
Wow, brilliant post. Being an MTG fanatic, I definitely saw the similarities, but this post went further into the details. Great read.
|
Just got back into Starcraft cause of SC2 Beta and into Magic as well since all my SC friends used to play Magic as well. So much nostalgia. And Diablo III is on the way too lol. Now we just need Counter-strike 2.
|
This was fun to read. I played Magic for the first time in many many years a couple of weeks ago at a booster draft with a couple of friends (we wanted to reminisce in nerdyness). Of course we got destroyed by the regulars who knew the set and all the new rules that had been added since we last played, but it was a lot of fun.
The only thing that stops me from really getting into MTG is that I really don't like the way that whoever spends the most money on cards is going to have an advantage when making a deck. It kind of kills the competitive spirit for me. That's why if I do play I like booster drafts, although those involve a good deal of luck as well. How is MTG online for those who play? Does it take out that $$ factor?
On topic, I definitely see the resemblance to SC in MTG, but I also feel that any well-crafted game would share many of these attributes and similarities.
|
Those are the most general statements ever.
|
One connection you could make is in Magic one of the basic strategic concepts is that if you attack with a creature you can't defend with it after (generally). In sc if you take your whole army and charge the enemy base your not going to be able to defend attacks at your own base.
Also a cards summoning sickness (not being able to attack the turn they come out, but they can defend) is like rush distance. Proxying is like giving your units haste.
|
I had more fun playing MTG than SC2 so far.
MY RED/WHITE ENCHANTMENT BURN DECK!!!!
And my sexy Blue-make you lose your deck Deck. Oh I miss MTG
|
lol
i remember those magic days:
me: tap 3 forest and 2 plains, summon some 5/4 beast.
friend: counterspell.
me: motherfucker, tap 2 forests, 1 plain and summon some 3/2 beast.
friend: counterspell.
me: what a fag... tap 1 motherfucking forest and 1 plain to summon this beast shit
friend: counterspell.
|
mana rush = fastest map perfected
|
Oh the nostalgia..it hurts >.<
|
what? ><
i dont play magic 
|
well, i totally agree with your points, and i think there's a reason that there's so much interchange between the magic, texas hold em, and starcraft scenes, because they rely on very similar resource management concepts, and i think my magic background definitely made me much better at optimizing starcraft builds.
but i think you're missing a key part of your article, which is "why does this comparison help us play starcraft better?" simply making an analogy doesn't accomplish anything if you don't have a point. really the only thing you are suggesting is "play more strategy games if you want to be better at one", which is valid, but is also something that people probably aren't going to do unless they were already interested.
|
On June 02 2010 11:44 fabiano wrote:
lol
i remember those magic days:
me: tap 3 forest and 2 plains, summon some 5/4 beast.
friend: counterspell.
me: motherfucker, tap 2 forests, 1 plain and summon some 3/2 beast.
friend: counterspell.
me: what a fag... tap 1 motherfucking forest and 1 plain to summon this beast shit
friend: counterspell.
and thats when limited bans came in 
|
i disagree. i'm not a johnny, timmy, or spike. maybe that's why i quit playing mtg.
at any rate, did you know that there are a few ums games made for starcraft based on mtg?
|
On June 02 2010 11:44 fabiano wrote:
lol
i remember those magic days:
me: tap 3 forest and 2 plains, summon some 5/4 beast.
friend: counterspell.
me: motherfucker, tap 2 forests, 1 plain and summon some 3/2 beast.
friend: counterspell.
me: what a fag... tap 1 motherfucking forest and 1 plain to summon this beast shit
friend: counterspell.
I have a friend who plays with no creatures(technically I think he has 2). He never wins, but he doesn't care. He'll just counter spell the fuck out of you, and if that fails, chainer's edict x8.
(I've repeatedly seen him chainer's edict to get rid of suntail hawks)
|
The idea wasn't really to outline ways to play Starcraft better, but to try and clarify concepts from Starcraft by filtering them through the lens of a different strategy game.
I suppose if you're good at Magic but bad at Starcraft, you can use these comparisons to understand the game better (much like Happy Gilmore used his knowledge of hockey to improve his golf game, if you want a silly example.)
|
On June 02 2010 11:14 TheYango wrote:Sideboarding is hard to draw an analogy to, because you're not required to play the same build all 3/5 games of a Bo3/Bo5. Sideboarding exists because of the fact that competitive play requires you to play the same deck in a Bo3/Bo5, so that matches don't turn into rock/paper/scissors.
Sideboarding would be probably be analogous to mind-games and build orders. A lot of sideboards nowadays aren't just "4 cards for this match-up, 4 cards for this match-up and 4 cards for this match-up" and so on. There's a lot of skill in sideboarding in predicting what exactly your opponent will bring in and whether or not your standard sideboard cards are too slow if you're going to be on the draw or are not as useful on the play. For example in the Faeries mirror a while back, the Faerie player on the draw might board out Broken Ambitions because it was too slow to counter the important cards (Bitterblossom).
In Starcraft there's some skill involved in choosing your next build order in a BoX. I see in a lot of live report threads people predicting cheese or not predicting cheese because a certain player is 0-2 or 2-0 ("Effort won't 4 pool now because it's too risky at 0-2").
|
I think comparing MTG to an mmo like WOW would be far more appropriate as Global cooldown translates into your-turn my-turn well. Also many abilities are easy to transfer over.
There are many more reasons why StarCraft is nothing like MTG though. MTG is mostly about Cards you have available and the way you combine them for the match. When your game starts, execution doesn't really do too much. If you have a deck your opponent counters, you cannot adapt and win unless you get lucky. There are some tough decisions of course. But StarCraft is almost entirely about execution. Also Luck is a huge factor in MTG, no matter what fans of the game try to tell me. I watched these finals and like, this best player in the world couldn't get his third land even after 2 mulligans and few turns in. This is just the most extreme example. Far more games get decided by bad beats. StarCraft is purely a game of skill on the other hand.
|
It is funny since I have a destroy land deck, which is basically like mutalisk micro. I also have my unblockable deck (DT rush deck I call it).
|
United States5162 Posts
Magic The Gathering and Starcraft...I feel like I'm back in 6th grade. And back then I was definitely the Timmy player. Now I'm now longer any of the personalities. I'm guess kinda a mold between Johnny and Spike since I think winning and fun are pretty synonymous, but I like to play different styles and not do the same thing over and over again or else it gets boring.
|
On June 02 2010 11:53 dcttr66 wrote:
i disagree. i'm not a johnny, timmy, or spike. maybe that's why i quit playing mtg.
at any rate, did you know that there is are a few ums games made for starcraft that were really fun to play?
So were you a vorthos? He is the 4th type.
|
Ahah love it, amazing read! Coming from a person who has grown up playing Starcraft and MTG, this thread instantly caught my eye.
The Zerg would be Black/Red/Green, for example.
I remember I had a huge argument over myself when I was trying to decide what colours each race was.
What would be the sideboarding?
I think sideboarding can be compared to scouting, and adapting your build depending on what you see to better suit what you are up against. And of course, in a series, bringing in some unexpected 'cards' out to surprise the opponent.
How is MTG online for those who play? Does it take out that $$ factor?
MTG Online still costs quite a bit, it just saves you the shuffling, and makes organizing your collection easier. I suppose you do save some money not buying sleeves, deck boxes and binders!
but i think you're missing a key part of your article, which is "why does this comparison help us play starcraft better?" simply making an analogy doesn't accomplish anything if you don't have a point. really the only thing you are suggesting is "play more strategy games if you want to be better at one", which is valid, but is also something that people probably aren't going to do unless they were already interested.
One thing I think we can take away from this analogy is a mindset that pro-gamers carry when playing games. In MTG, any good player will always keep in mind what their opponent's deck is capable of in any situation - assessing how much mana/lands they have open (untapped/ready to be used), and how many cards they have in their hand. A similar mindset would be beneficial in SC, always considering what your opponent's race is capable of, given the amount of resources/map-control/etc. that they have.
|
be warned: i hate mtg............................................... these ideas are similar to starcraft yes, but /// starcraft is realtime strategy and magic is turn based. also in magic if you get a shit hand you will lose, if you get a beast hand you will win. its not like your starting a match in starcraft and you spawn with 1 drone, 4 overlords and 600 gas, and your opponent starts with 7 drones 50 mins and 1 overlord. you start out with the same shit. if magic you could pick your hand off the bat then yes maybe it would be a little bit closer but its not even close. i played magic for a long time and got sick of going to tourneys only to not have the oldschool expensive cards and just get raped. there is cards in magic that goes, "if you play this card, you win." i would love in starcraft if as soon as you got a certain unit you won. that would be so fun. not.
|
eh these comparisons are so loose... I guess its a creative way to burn 20 minutes writing a post. I did read it after all.
turns = supply? that's an odd theory. Why not game time?
Supply is like a 3rd resource in SC, one you are able to create yourself.
Life total is easier to equate to your ramp in SC than building count.
Sure if I run out of buildings I lose, but you don't start off with 20 buildings in SC. Life in MTG serves as a buffer so just because the other guy has 2 creatures or a burn spell i don't lose immediately. And you can extend this buffer by gaining life (many control decks are based around that)
the only thing I can think of that gives you that kind of buffer is the ramp/choke outside your base. Such that those 6 zerglings can't blow up all your shit.
|
On June 02 2010 12:10 OneFierceZealot wrote:
be warned: i hate mtg............................................... these ideas are similar to starcraft yes, but /// starcraft is realtime strategy and magic is turn based. also in magic if you get a shit hand you will lose, if you get a beast hand you will win. its not like your starting a match in starcraft and you spawn with 1 drone, 4 overlords and 600 gas, and your opponent starts with 7 drones 50 mins and 1 overlord. you start out with the same shit. if magic you could pick your hand off the bat then yes maybe it would be a little bit closer but its not even close. i played magic for a long time and got sick of going to tourneys only to not have the oldschool expensive cards and just get raped. there is cards in magic that goes, "if you play this card, you win." i would love in starcraft if as soon as you got a certain unit you won. that would be so fun. not.
Well, your opening hand is based on two main factors. Luck, and how you built your deck. Deckbuilding/testing can be compared to practice in SC, playing multiple games to make your play and deck as efficient as possible, and to try to erase any weaknesses. The well-built deck will win more games then a poorly-built deck, even considering luck, similar to how a player who dedicates a lot of time to practice will - although giving up a few games here and there - win the majority of his games. (There are also mulligans, that reward consistant decks.)
Taking your disclaimer in mind, I can see where you're coming from, but you've had a pretty bad experience with Magic in general. Consistancy, and efficient play is rewarded in MTG, as well as SC.
|
I'm kinda a Timmy, although I don't prefer 4v4 over 1v1, and I don't try to use stupid units, I play zerg and just feel that it's very comfortable to get into a macro fight.
|
For me, the biggest similarity between the two is the competitive spirit that they inspire in me. I've played a lot of games but only M:tG and SC2 have really made me feel like, "I have to get better!"
Unfortunately, I've never been a very good Spike in either game. I'm not quite ruthless enough.
|
United States47024 Posts
On June 02 2010 12:21 Cow wrote:
Well, your opening hand is based on two main factors. Luck, and how you built your deck. Deckbuilding/testing can be compared to practice in SC, playing multiple games to make your play and deck as efficient as possible, and to try to erase any weaknesses. The well-built deck will win more games then a poorly-built deck, even considering luck, similar to how a player who dedicates a lot of time to practice will - although giving up a few games here and there - win the majority of his games. (There are also mulligans, that reward consistant decks.)
Taking your disclaimer in mind, I can see where you're coming from, but you've had a pretty bad experience with Magic in general. Consistancy, and efficient play is rewarded in MTG, as well as SC.
To be fair, at a mid-level of play in MtG, deckbuilding is not a necessary skill, as it's very easy to just take a list that has won somewhere else (provided that you have the requisite funds). From there the act of *playing* the deck is one of simply doing it against the various decks you might see. There are some mindgames involved, but generally the act of execution is of relatively low difficulty in comparison to SC. I've seen a school of thought floated that in high-level constructed, the only relevant skills are sideboarding and mulligans, and the rest is just playing out your hands (limited is, of course, a whole different ballgame).
|
Magic is like starcraft in that they are both competitive games and share the same things that all competitive games share( metagame and whatnot )
Magic is NOT like starcraft in what really matters, the actual gameplay and how decisions affect the game.
You see, in magic, particularly in the most popular tournament format( type 2 ), there is a very, very small amount of things you can do to actually change the outcome of the game. Most of the decisions you make are spelled out for you. Play your cards as they curve.
Many times in magic the game is decided immediately after the cards are shuffled. The ordering of the cards on top of your deck will have decided how the game plays out from start to finish. Once a moderate level of playskill is reached, the game is decided mostly by luck. The play options are just too limited. The guy who got 10 lands stacked on top of his deck will lose to the guy who gets 10 threats instead, assuming both players have passed a basic skill threshold.
In starcraft, at least in a balanced starcraft, the winner is decided mostly by who plays better. Who had more effective APM decides the winner. You are faced with dozens of macro decisions all the time, each with risks and rewards, on top of having your micro ability tested every battle.
In balanced starcraft, there is pretty much always something you as a player could have done better to win the game. In magic, perfect play will often see you losing simply because you drew the wrong cards.
This is why I think magic is in fact not at all like starcraft mechanically.
|
On June 02 2010 12:38 TheYango wrote:
To be fair, at a mid-level of play in MtG, deckbuilding is not a necessary skill, as it's very easy to just take a list that has won somewhere else (provided that you have the requisite funds). From there the act of *playing* the deck is one of simply doing it against the various decks you might see. There are some mindgames involved, but generally the act of execution is of relatively low difficulty in comparison to SC. I've seen a school of thought floated that in high-level constructed, the only relevant skills are sideboarding and mulligans, and the rest is just playing out your hands (limited is, of course, a whole different ballgame).
Mhm, I definitely see where you're coming from, and agree with it to some degree. Netdecking is ridiculously popular right now, to my dismay.
Going on 'auto-pilot' definitely does happen when playing MTG at a lower level of play, or when you're just playing a quick game. It can also be deck specific, since the level of play needed for control and combo, as opposed to general aggro/midrange/beatdown is noticeably higher. However, at higher levels of play, or in some match-ups, your game can be won by 'outplaying' (or out-thinking) the opponent. SC is definitely a lot more tasking execution-wise (as is dealing in real-time as opposed to turn based), but the similarity still holds.
|
United States47024 Posts
On June 02 2010 13:05 Cow wrote:
Going on 'auto-pilot' definitely does happen when playing MTG at a lower level of play, or when you're just playing a quick game. It can also be deck specific, since the level of play needed for control and combo, as opposed to general aggro/midrange/beatdown is noticeably higher. However, at higher levels of play, or in some match-ups, your game can be won by 'outplaying' (or out-thinking) the opponent. SC is definitely a lot more tasking execution-wise (as is dealing in real-time as opposed to turn based), but the similarity still holds.
"Out-thinking" is a very vague term when applied to MtG. The thing is, due to the relatively small number of card types in a deck (if you run 24 lands, and mostly 4-ofs, you're only really playing with 6-7 relevant cards for the majority of the game), there are a relatively small number of truly unique game states. For most situations that an unpracticed player might say requires thinking, an experienced tournament player can simply practice the matchup (since any particular meta usually breaks down to a small number of reasonable decks), and work out the most reliable choice. From there, one just plays out the relevant scenarios.
The problem breaks down to the fact that in a system where the card pool is essentially reset every year, it's virtually impossible for designers to create scenarios in a game such that choices have multiple viability (e.g. that there are multiple "correct" plays to make in a given game state). There will be times where the "correct" choice results in a loss, but those are just going to be times that the odds didn't work out for you. The SC2 analogy is that while there are games where a clutch Transfusion might win you the game, that doesn't mean you should be saving energy for Transfusion instead of using Spawn Larva on every cooldown. At a high level, MtG breaks down to a lot of "Spawn Larva"-type decisions.
It's worth noting that this applies primarily to T2 and block constructed. Limited adds a whole new dimension, and the eternal formats often avoid this sort of closed state by the fact that a vastly larger card pool makes it much harder to test a particular meta reliably.
|
On June 02 2010 12:51 Carthage wrote:Once a moderate level of playskill is reached, the game is decided mostly by luck.
If you follow(ed) high level Magic you'd know that this is simply untrue. It is easy to say that a lot of Magic is based on luck but if you look at the records of some of the top players in the game it's obvious that they have more going for them than luck. It's just like poker, really.
|
On June 02 2010 12:51 Carthage wrote:
Magic is like starcraft in that they are both competitive games and share the same things that all competitive games share( metagame and whatnot )
Magic is NOT like starcraft in what really matters, the actual gameplay and how decisions affect the game.
Thank you. The OP's parallel's are really bad, only the general gaming concepts apply because they cross every boundary (not to mention his understanding of those seems pretty shallow).
You see, in magic, particularly in the most popular tournament format( type 2 ), there is a very, very small amount of things you can do to actually change the outcome of the game. Most of the decisions you make are spelled out for you. Play your cards as they curve.
Many times in magic the game is decided immediately after the cards are shuffled. The ordering of the cards on top of your deck will have decided how the game plays out from start to finish. Once a moderate level of playskill is reached, the game is decided mostly by luck. The play options are just too limited. The guy who got 10 lands stacked on top of his deck will lose to the guy who gets 10 threats instead, assuming both players have passed a basic skill threshold.
This is true... but that's why top players don't like type 2! Or constructed, generally. (EDIT: If you don't know any, please don't try to debate this point.) If you ask 9/10 high level players whether they prefer draft or constructed, they'll say draft, because the level of luck is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay lower, both in game and with good/bad matchups.
Just to draw another parallel, constructed is like a sc tournament where you have to choose one build order when you enter, and can't change it up from game to game.
|
On June 02 2010 13:26 TheYango wrote:
"Out-thinking" is a very vague term when applied to MtG. The thing is, due to the relatively small number of card types in a deck (if you run 24 lands, and mostly 4-ofs, you're only really playing with 6-7 relevant cards for the majority of the game), there are a relatively small number of truly unique game states. For most situations that an unpracticed player might say requires thinking, an experienced tournament player can simply practice the matchup (since any particular meta usually breaks down to a small number of reasonable decks), and work out the most reliable choice. From there, one just plays out the relevant scenarios.
The problem breaks down to the fact that in a system where the card pool is essentially reset every year, it's virtually impossible for designers to create scenarios in a game such that choices have multiple viability (e.g. that there are multiple "correct" plays to make in a given game state). There will be times where the "correct" choice results in a loss, but those are just going to be times that the odds didn't work out for you. The SC2 analogy is that while there are games where a clutch Transfusion might win you the game, that doesn't mean you should be saving energy for Transfusion instead of using Spawn Larva on every cooldown. At a high level, MtG breaks down to a lot of "Spawn Larva"-type decisions.
It's worth noting that this applies primarily to T2 and block constructed. Limited adds a whole new dimension, and the eternal formats often avoid this sort of closed state by the fact that a vastly larger card pool makes it much harder to test a particular meta reliably.
As is the case for both MTG and SC, there are scenarios where - when encountered - a set number of ways are chosen that optimally play out that scenario. I can relate to you remarking on the number of unique game states involved in high level MTG games, but I feel the same situation applies to SC. Although, yes, there are definately 'more' unique scenarios in SC, there is an overall larger pool of situations. This is because SC is an RTS, while MTG is turn-based, so naturally, MTG will have fewer. SC as a whole still has those limited unique game states when looked at from a broader view. The MTG to SC comparison isn't perfect so there will definitely be some significant differences, but when you compare an RTS to a turn-based game, you're bound to have to scale everything down to a similar level to make the comparison that much more fun to do.
Regarding your SC2 analogy, the first thing that came to mind for me is that in MTG there is usually a clear use when playing with a card. Stone Rain is meant to be targetted at your opponent's lands, for example. But there are a few rare situations where doing something unorthodox with a card (comparing it to you using Tranfusion instead of the accepted Spawn Larva), is more beneficial to your play. I can't come up a great example right now off the top of my head, the best one so far being: Using Pariah on your opponent's Platinum Angel, and then using (lol)Lava Axe on yourself to kill it. Not sure if that example was good enough to get the idea across properly, but we'll have to see ahah.
|
I think the whole thing is a bit of a stretch, especially the part describing the typical three types of gamers. Many people play competitive games at many levels of intensity for many different reasons.
|
On June 02 2010 13:27 Kultcher wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2010 12:51 Carthage wrote:Once a moderate level of playskill is reached, the game is decided mostly by luck. If you follow(ed) high level Magic you'd know that this is simply untrue. It is easy to say that a lot of Magic is based on luck but if you look at the records of some of the top players in the game it's obvious that they have more going for them than luck. It's just like poker, really.
High level magic is basically one's ability to not make stupid plays after playing for 10 hours straight, combined with getting some good matchups and some good draws at key moments.
They really don't have much more going for them other than being able to go to a whole lot of events.
I do follow high level magic. Pros are mostly just confirmation bias. The pro who wins a couple events in a year is still regarded as an amazing player when he wins again 3 years later, despite horrible placings in the many other events they enter. You'll see players like Jon Finkel placing in the top 8 a few times, accompanied with many placings outside of the top 100.
You can't dominate magic with play skill like you can with starcraft. The game is simply not designed that way.
Poker is different from magic in that it is a game that gives the player a great deal of control that magic cannot offer. It allows the player to minimize their losses with bad hands and maximize their winnings with good hands when the player knows what they are doing. Poker can go on for a very long time as well, letting the better player gradually pull ahead. Magic has no such features outside of deck construction. Constructed tournament Magic is sort of like going to a poker tournament where you only get to play maybe a couple dozen hands.
|
On June 02 2010 10:59 accaris wrote:
Johnny: Johnny is the "combo" or creative player. This player has decided that the game is a form of self-expression where he can display brilliant knowledge of otherwise little-understood game mechanics. Johnny is almost always innovative, uncovering quirky, overlooked interactions between cards (in Starcraft, interactions between units) that result in mind-blowing wins. He doesn't always win, but when he does, it's usually in a totally unexpected and hard-to-counter way. Additionally, the most unique "cheese" strategies probably fall under Johnny. In professional MTG circles, Asian pro-gamers tend to be predominantly Johnnies, although that's not a hard and fast rule. Incidentally, the same thing applies to Starcraft.
guys that play like that in Starcraft tend to suck.
|
The three "archetypes" display a severe lack of understanding about the sc community.
The part about Timmy who likes to turtle because he wants to have the most FUN is ... What is the fun in spending 20 minutes making carriers and then roll your opponents? Thats the opposite of fun. Unique builds that are risky =|= korean play
|
On June 02 2010 14:31 Carthage wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2010 13:27 Kultcher wrote:On June 02 2010 12:51 Carthage wrote:Once a moderate level of playskill is reached, the game is decided mostly by luck. If you follow(ed) high level Magic you'd know that this is simply untrue. It is easy to say that a lot of Magic is based on luck but if you look at the records of some of the top players in the game it's obvious that they have more going for them than luck. It's just like poker, really. High level magic is basically one's ability to not make stupid plays after playing for 10 hours straight, combined with getting some good matchups and some good draws at key moments. They really don't have much more going for them other than being able to go to a whole lot of events. I do follow high level magic. Pros are mostly just confirmation bias. The pro who wins a couple events in a year is still regarded as an amazing player when he wins again 3 years later, despite horrible placings in the many other events they enter. You'll see players like Jon Finkel placing in the top 8 a few times, accompanied with many placings outside of the top 100.
Yeah I hear the argument that there must be a ton of skill because the same people have t8ed over and over again...
to which you can reply
A) Billy Moreno making t8 once is a strong argument against skill
B) If you flipped a coin for each match, given the number of tournaments something weird would be going on if there weren't a lot of repeat high finishers.
I wanna repeat though that limited is legitly skillful, at least compared to constructed.
|
I approve of this analogy I agree with the Red/Black for Zerg. Those are my favorite colors in Magic and my favorite race in SC. How do you see the green? Ultralisk?
Terran probably a great bit of blue (defense), white (Bio) and some green (Thors, siege tanks and BC's are huge Timmy units).
Can't really seem to define Protoss in colors...
I guess you could draw this analogy with quite a few games with a lot of depth but I can correlate a lot to this one.
|
Awesome post, great read!
I loved playing around with my MTG cards 
|
On June 02 2010 14:56 Grend wrote:
The three "archetypes" display a severe lack of understanding about the sc community.
The part about Timmy who likes to turtle because he wants to have the most FUN is ... What is the fun in spending 20 minutes making carriers and then roll your opponents? Thats the opposite of fun.
I actually have a sc-friend I used to call Timmy because he plays like that. His favorite way of playing would be without an opponent so he can build his base exactly like he wants while building a 200/200 army of "cool" units. None of that bio crap. He plays against the very easy computer, kills him off except the extractor and keeps on playing.
He used to spend hours in Starsiege: Tribes building defenses all over the base.
I'm thinking of making him a simple UMS / tower defese style map which gives you half an hour to get your tech and defenses up, before waves of enemies advance. I don't think he would actually play anything else.
You could call Timmy the 'casual' player if you want. You've probably never seen them because even IF they are on the ladder it would be quite low AND they don't show up on TL. No 'casual' gamers here
|
On June 02 2010 11:56 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2010 11:44 fabiano wrote:
lol
i remember those magic days:
me: tap 3 forest and 2 plains, summon some 5/4 beast.
friend: counterspell.
me: motherfucker, tap 2 forests, 1 plain and summon some 3/2 beast.
friend: counterspell.
me: what a fag... tap 1 motherfucking forest and 1 plain to summon this beast shit
friend: counterspell.
I have a friend who plays with no creatures(technically I think he has 2). He never wins, but he doesn't care. He'll just counter spell the fuck out of you, and if that fails, chainer's edict x8. (I've repeatedly seen him chainer's edict to get rid of suntail hawks)
I play a psychatog deck in tournaments back in the day, i did fairly well with a few first places in local ones. it only ran three creature cards. man, i miss the tog.
|
![[image loading]](http://i45.tinypic.com/25f5c9y.jpg)
Anyway, as far as the analogy, it works for a lot strategy games (as some have mentioned). And the gamer archetypes are more varied than that.
|
On June 02 2010 16:32 TryThis wrote:
I play a psychatog deck in tournaments back in the day, i did fairly well with a few first places in local ones. it only ran three creature cards. man, i miss the tog.
Psychatog was a beast
Low creature decks, what about Tooth and Nail? It basically had units it actually used (Not counting Sakura Tribe Elder)
|
As a (formerly) pretty competitive Magic player, I found this a very interesting read.
On June 02 2010 11:14 TheYango wrote:Sideboarding is hard to draw an analogy to, because you're not required to play the same build all 3/5 games of a Bo3/Bo5. Sideboarding exists because of the fact that competitive play requires you to play the same deck in a Bo3/Bo5, so that matches don't turn into rock/paper/scissors.
I'd say something like a tech switch would be a sideboard. Opponent's going all in Marauder? I'll sideboard into my Void Ray tech. Opponent overcommited to Immortals? I'll side in my devastating Circle of Protection: Red Ghosts.
|
This article is totally not for Magic the Gathering players, because they already know what is what in M:tG. Furthermore, you create a metaphore but you do not use it to provide any conlusions or to give any insights.
|
Spike is the one most worthy of respect.
To be Spike you have to understand your deck, even if you netdecked it. Great artists steal. The same goes for SC2.
|
Those concepts are more cutesy. Everyone likes to win, everyone likes big explosions and everyone likes being creative and inventing things, so what's the point of the personality types?
|
i dont think most of the kids here remember the last of the real sets like URZA block. i hope i am wrong.
|
On June 02 2010 17:19 nihoh wrote:
Spike is the one most worthy of respect.
To be Spike you have to understand your deck, even if you netdecked it. Great artists steal. The same goes for SC2.
The Spikes in the MTG world tend to be extremely easy to hate in my experience. Its the type of gamer i respect the less.
PD: Also, Urza block was crappy in both balance and design. The only good thing of it are the memories lol.
|
On June 02 2010 11:44 fabiano wrote:
lol
i remember those magic days:
me: tap 3 forest and 2 plains, summon some 5/4 beast.
friend: counterspell.
me: motherfucker, tap 2 forests, 1 plain and summon some 3/2 beast.
friend: counterspell.
me: what a fag... tap 1 motherfucking forest and 1 plain to summon this beast shit
friend: counterspell.
me: tap 15 mountains, use Meteor shower
friend: tap 1 more plz
me: can't, used them all
friend: countered
me:... brb, getting my axe
Curse those Blue players 
|
Dude... Magic is so old school, love it haha<3
|
Please stop, I know it all started with the Chess-analogy, but this is getting out of hand..
Starcraft =\= MTG, Chess, Yo-Gi-Yu, Bowling..
MTG has more in common with Solitare than Starcraft... And I bet none would like that analogy
|
Sorry for hate-post, I do not mean to codecend on any MTG-fans out there, Im sure it's a great game
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
