|
A while back the caster Wolf started using the phrases "tempo-based play" and "tempo advantage" a lot while casting. He used one of these phrases in pretty much every game he cast. He would say the phrase, and then move on, as if his words were meaningful, important, and complete. In this season of the GSL, to my great dismay, I heard Artosis use the word in a similar way. It's also on Liquipedia here.
The word "tempo" is defined to mean the "rate of motion or activity", it is a synonym for "pace" (see Webster). Therefore it is a great word for describing competitive StarCraft play. It is a "fast-paced game" and therefore a "high tempo" game. Professional players routinely hit 300-500 actions per minute (APM) in a game, hence it has a very high "rate of motion or activity."
Indeed it is an "RTS" game, or "real-time strategy". The fact how fast you get things done matters (rather than being turn-based) means that tempo is part of every single game of StarCraft.
When someone has an upgrade advantage, you could call it a "tempo advantage". But if you only call it a "tempo advantage" and don't mention upgrades, it is ambiguous as to what the tempo advantage is. So why wouldn't you just call it an upgrade advantage? What if one player has an upgrade advantage, while his opponent has higher tech units. Which one has the "tempo advantage"? Well they both have a tempo advantage, just not the same one. It's far more descriptive to say one player has an upgrade advantage, and the other player has a high-tech unit advantage. Just saying someone has a "tempo advantage" is ambiguous.
"Tempo-based play" is even worse. All play in StarCraft relates to tempo. Everyone is trying to "get ahead" of his opponent. Every single goal a player has in the game in competitive play is only meaningful in the context of where he is relative to his opponent at a given moment in time.
|
|
|
Thanks Elentos, I will post a message there.
|
|
|
Maybe he has been watching too much chess games. Gaining a "tempo" in chess is basically being one move ahead of your opponent. In Starcraft 2 it would maybe translate into being enough ahead that the onus is on the opponent to make something to equalize the game.
|
On March 30 2018 04:10 iLose4u wrote:
Maybe he has been watching too much chess games. Gaining a "tempo" in chess is basically being one move ahead of your opponent. In Starcraft 2 it would maybe translate into being enough ahead that the onus is on the opponent to make something to equalize the game.
This, this is exactly what I assumed it meant as soon as I heard it.
This whole complaint thread makes no sense if you've learnt any non-negligible amount of chess 
I guess I often see it as having the ability to dictate play and get advantages. For example if you are mid-map and your opponent is at home, with armies of the same strength, provided you both have roughly equal mobility, you have a tempo advantage. Same for if you are getting up tech and your opponent isn't aware.
|
United States33075 Posts
Artosis started using the term as far as I can recall, using the term in the way Magic the Gathering or Chess does.
What he basically means when he says "tempo" is actually "initiative" as commonly understood by most people. IMO, tempo is really just jargon that could(should?) be easily replaced with "initiative."
That said, competitive games warping an everyday word to mean something game-specific isn't that odd (if tempo bothers you, look up "equity" and how it's used in Poker).
|
France12758 Posts
I didn't follow many english casts recently, does he mean "momentum" when he uses tempo?
|
Tempo is definitely an acceptable term. As Waxangel mentioned, it exists in MTG or Chess. Like, a cheesy rush is not a tempo build, nor is a greedy macro opener. If you send in a reaper first, then a hellion runby, then a drop, and keep your opponent off their game while you macro up behind that, that's a tempo style.
Agreed, it could be replaced with "initiative", but "tempo" is pretty commonly understood I'd say.
|
When I was first getting into card games (specifically Hearthstone) people used the term tempo all the time and I never had a really good feel for what it meant. After playing much more you start to understand it, and now I also use it in other circumstances/games. I don't blame them for mixing it into casts, as it's probably a great (and convenient) description, but it will definitely be confusing to people that don't play games where it's common, or never get a clear explanation. Above post touches on it pretty well. "Being in charge" so to speak, rather than being on the back foot and constantly defending. Having the "tempo" and being in control of the pace of the game and the opponent's options, which will keep your opponent on the defensive and pressure them to pay attention to more things, be paranoid about what's coming, etc. Force them to respond to you, rather than doing whatever they want or pressuring you back. It sounds obvious like "well of course you want to do that" but people win from a defensive position / turtling all the time, just depends on the player, race, map, and random game-to-game stuff. It's a good way to describe who's in control (or making a play to "take" control) without also implying that they're necessarily winning.
|
I understood what he meant by "tempo", but it may be a better idea to just use a world like initiative or "X advantage" since it's a more commonly understood term.
|
I agree a 'tempo advantage' is a type of initiative that enables one player to dictate/force where their opponent is looking/reacting and hence the control the 'pace' of the game. It is certainly comparable with the notion of being a move ahead in turn based games. Maru, TY, and Gumiho are masters of this.
There are other types of initiative in the game though - for example having map control, an upgrade or unit composition advantage. Some of these are by design - like Terran getting having 3/3 giving them the initiative to hit during hive transitions, others are forced. Day 9 called this 'having the ball'
|
But it does really come down to being able to force your opponents to react to you, and through application of that pressure, keeping them constrained to a particular style of play, or tech path. So, wouldn't a more accurate, less vague, term be, "Constraining Pressure-based play with consecutive engagements"? 
|
I hate when I'm playing and another player interrupts my tempo. Fully triggered.
|
"Initiative advantage" sounds weird. I guess casters could always explain what tempo means every now and then right after they use the term to clarify a bit.
|
I guess I often see it as having the ability to dictate play and get advantages
What he basically means when he says "tempo" is actually "initiative"
Force them to respond to you
I agree a 'tempo advantage' is a type of initiative that enables one player to dictate/force where their opponent is looking/reacting and hence the control the 'pace' of the game.
it does really come down to being able to force your opponents to react to you
So this is useful context and it clearly means *something* to you. But is there more to the definition? Because what we have so far is still somewhat problematic...
For example, being "a turn ahead", "in control of the game", "in charge", and "dictating the pace of this game" and "forcing his opponent to react" are all potentially useful casting phrases. So say we replace all of those with phrases using "tempo". My first question is: is that an improvement? Is the language now *more* or *less* descriptive of what's going on in the game? Is it more or less precise? Because to me those don't *all* mean the same thing. In particular, being "a turn ahead" is quite different from forcing your opponent to look/react.
My second question is that you guys have referenced chess, Magic, and Hearthstone as the origin of this word, and said the meaning is consistent with use there. But those are turn-based games. What makes you think the term "tempo", given its meaning and connotations, translates clearly and unambiguously from a turn-based game to a real-time strategy game?
And then there's this question of whether it means you're winning:
It's a good way to describe who's in control (or making a play to "take" control) without also implying that they're necessarily winning.
If you're "a turn ahead" aren't you necessarily winning? I mean, you're not guaranteed a win, but you're definitely ahead, that's what "a turn ahead" says. How can you be "a turn ahead" in StarCraft without being ahead? The other definitions about forcing your opponent to react seem significantly different -- those don't necessarily mean you're winning, right? But if you're a turn ahead you're definitely winning. So how is this term clear? Or does this not really relate to the chess definition that well?
And then there's this:
a cheesy rush is not a tempo build
Well it forces your opponent to react to you, and dictates the pace of the game, so how is it not a tempo build by the definitions people made here?
And then there's the issue of how these definitions fit the matchups in StarCraft.
a reaper first, then a hellion runby, then a drop
Maru, TY, and Gumiho are masters of this
So in the competitive meta Terran (when versus Zerg or Protoss) is the default owner of tempo in the early game, unless they give it up or their opponent seizes control through a rush or proxy or nydus or other non-standard play? Think about ZvT, for example, in standard play the Zerg is always defensive in the early game while the Terran sends reapers, hellions, liberators, and drops, and possibly a push across the map. So it would be unusual for Zerg to *ever* have the "tempo advantage" by these definitions in the early game in standard play. So casting that uses the word "tempo" should take that context into account, right? For example, a caster might notice a Zerg making extra lings at the start, and say "By default, Terran has the tempo advantage at the start of the game in standard play; here we see the Zerg attempting to wrest control from him early on." Yes?
But in general what does this mean for the balance of the races and the dynamics of the matchups? If you believe this "tempo" to be so significant and meaningful and accurate, you can describe how it pertains to different phases, openings, builds, timing attacks, maps, etc., of all the different matchups, right? Would you say Zerg is weak in ZvT because they don't typically own the tempo unless they can get to the late game? Do game results bear this out? Is "tempo" an interesting term when Terran is not in the game?
Also, does "tempo" necessarily imply "aggressive"? It seems like it does from most of what you guys said. One person said a macro opening was not tempo. What about a super-greedy opening? Two command centers on the low ground at the start? It is a type of initiative and it does force some type of reaction from your opponent: generally either greed of their own or an attempt to punish. But is it not "tempo" because it's not aggressive?
And how is your definition consistent with the use in Liquipedia?
The key to keeping tempo is scouting and anticipating what your opponent is going to make.
"scouting and anticipating what your opponent is going to make" is passive and reactive play. It is the opposite of "forcing your opponent to react to you." So again, how is this term clear and meaningful?
One more question: what are the correct ways to use "tempo" in your view? Like how do I use it in a sentence? Can I say Dark "gains a tempo" against Maru, like in chess? Is it "a tempo", or "the tempo"? Is he gaining a turn, or are the two of them fighting over the same thing and there's only one of those things to fight over? Do you own tempo? Or own "the tempo"? Or have "a tempo"? Can you say someone "has two tempoes" because they're two turns ahead? If "tempo" implies control, then it would be redundant to say "control the tempo", right?
|
Rockaday99, I respect your high-level understanding of the English language. I am glad for your scholarly discourse on the troglodyte phrase, "Tempo Advantage". Thank you for your contribution to the community.
|
On March 31 2018 01:32 ThunderJunk wrote:
Rockaday99, I respect your high-level understanding of the English language. I am glad for your scholarly discourse on the troglodyte phrase, "Tempo Advantage". Thank you for your contribution to the community.
What I've enjoyed most about this thread, is this comment came from a user named ThunderJunk. 🤣
|
One way you could look at tempo in a general game is that it is a measure of how much you've done in the game at a given time. This definition, even if it's fairly loose, seems to imply that having a tempo advantage allows you to force a reaction from your opponent; if you're doing more in the game, he's definitely going to want to do something about it or he will lose.
Now what exactly does "doing more" mean? As others have, mentioned the use of the term "tempo" in Starcraft probably came from card games that (as far as I know) got it from chess. Losing a tempo in chess means doing something in one more move than you could have, i.e. after losing a tempo your pieces are in a position that they could have been in one turn earlier. That's a precise definition and actually, even as you start to define gaining tempo in chess, it gets just slightly abstract because gaining a tempo means doing something in one move fewer which begs the question "fewer than what?". In any case, being ahead in tempo means that you have moved your pieces more efficiently than your opponent. This efficiency can be used to force your opponent to play more defensively because you've had more time to set up an offensive position than he has had to react to it.
Unlike chess, card games such as Magic or Hearthstone have no limit to how many moves you can make each turn. That means that you can gain tempo simply by making more moves than your opponent. It gets more complicated than that, however, since you can also gain tempo by making more efficient use of your available resources such as mana, the ability to attack, cards in your hand, etc. Notably, you can gain tempo by consistently getting more (or bigger) creatures on the board than your opponent without spending too many cards. Having a stronger board then allows you to deal damage to your opponent until he reacts to it.
In Starcraft, we once again have the ability to simply do more stuff than our opponents so why is tempo generally used for builds that are aggresive but not overly so and often seek to gain map control more than anything? Well, in my opinion you could absolutely say that one lower level player in a mirror match gains tempo simply by executing the same build better than his opponent but having better executing than your opponent isn't really a strategy, and in any case it doesn't happen to a meaningful extent in pro games so defining tempo as literally doing more or being more efficient doesn't make much sense.
I'd argue that a more useful notion of tempo in Starcraft is the potential for efficiency or tactics. If a terran player has a reaper and 4 hellions out against a zerg that doesn't have ling speed, he can use this fairly modest investment to do significant damage if his opponent slips up. This is not a big tempo advantage, and the zerg here isn't actually forced into a response other than micro but he certainly can't force the terran to do anything unless he first responds to the threat. In a general sense, map control is good for tempo because even if you don't have much potential for damage, having map control means that your opponent has none.
If the game goes on and terran goes into mech via a hellbat/cyclone push while zerg builds an unscouted spire and gets out a handful of mutas before right before the push hits, he stands at a serious tempo advantage. Terran has to respond at home so he doesn't lose his entire economy and he also has a pretty expensive army with very little anti-air on the opposite side of the map. Now, maybe the terran can suicide his army and get some decent economic damage for a fairly efficient trade but in any case the potential for zerg to be very efficient with the mutas forces terran to react. Tech switches that don't get scouted are very high tempo plays because if your opponent doesn't have the answer, your potential for damage with even a few of the units you switched to can be extreme.
|
There are loads of words and phrases that casters use that don't neccessarily make sense. Such as claiming that mining your minerals faster is a disadvantage because you now have to expand to a new base. Or "differential" instead of "difference". Sometimes individual casters have their own personal vernicular and it spreads across to other casters of the same game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
