EPTPC Gamer Editorial - Page 14
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Unentschieden
Germany1471 Posts
| ||
|
omgbnetsux
United States3749 Posts
On May 06 2008 06:21 Unentschieden wrote: No Thanks for keeping the last two thread pages consistent. | ||
Xeofreestyler
Belgium6771 Posts
(Going back to the speed chess analogy, both players have equal time on the clock, but they are forced to make hasty decisions that will almost always lose to someone with a reasonable amount of time to consider his moves.) Does this dan know anything about anything? Strategic thinking is formed with experience. Has he ever even seen a grandmaster playing chess? :/ He should get off his ass and do something else beside writing his dumbass articles. Jeez. | ||
|
ktp
United States797 Posts
| ||
|
BlackStar
Netherlands3029 Posts
The chess analogy; the more time given, the less mistakes are made. So with a lot of time tactical errors are rare of nonexistent. Games are won on positional play or on strategy. Or, most often, a game is drawn. If it's a rapid game then there is more room for mistakes. If you play bad positionally it's not that bad of a deal. There might be a tactical mistake by your opponent. This is why in rapid you can play openings that one cannot play in normal super GM games. Same is true in Starcraft. If you slow down the game there is less room for different kinds of strategy. But because less tactical/micro mistakes are made and play is nearer to perfect, there is deeper strategy. This means that you don't need to be that good to get a deep strategical game either. The game itself doesn't change. But with a slower speed, some strategies that are viable now will no longer be viable as they are easily defended/countered. | ||
|
Danger_Duck
Burkina Faso571 Posts
On May 06 2008 05:59 Doctorasul wrote: I want Blizzard to invest 0.00001% of the profit they'll get in the first week after the SC2 launch and buy PCGamer magazine, then make Dan play a game vs a regular SCer on slowest. If he can't win with his brilliant strategies vs a mere click-fester he gets kicked in the nuts and thrown in the street, never to be seen in the world of journalism again. I dunno dude. If I was put in that position, I may GG out when I realize that what coulda been a 5-pool->game ending is still my first drone coming back with its first 8 minerals...who would have the patience for that after playing on fastest for so long? | ||
|
Highways
Australia6103 Posts
| ||
|
EmeraldSparks
United States1451 Posts
Hurry somebody download them all before all the precious posts die. | ||
|
TheOvermind77
United States923 Posts
Give him a break and stop being so superior. | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
Most Starcraft players want BOTH strategy and hand dexterity to matter. | ||
|
prOxi.swAMi
Australia3091 Posts
On May 06 2008 11:41 TheOvermind77 wrote: Remember when you first played starcraft? Ok On May 06 2008 11:41 TheOvermind77 wrote: And I sure as hell know that I didn't play it on fastest because that speed was crazy. Not me On May 06 2008 11:41 TheOvermind77 wrote: Give him a break and stop being so superior. I think when any journalist writes an article, especially about a topic they're so inept with, they should expect all kinds of criticism. He knows it comes with the job, we're allowed to keep being 'so superior' and he should deal with that because it's his job | ||
|
teamsolid
Canada3668 Posts
On May 06 2008 11:41 TheOvermind77 wrote: And I sure as hell know that I didn't play it on fastest because that speed was crazy. It's just you. I took a 4-5 yr break from SC (and I sucked before and after I came back) but I wouldn't dream of playing on any speed other than Fastest. | ||
|
Umbrella
Taiwan936 Posts
On May 06 2008 11:41 TheOvermind77 wrote: Take some perspective, people. Act like you haven't been playing starcraft for years and that you don't know BO's and counters like the back of your hand. Remember when you first played starcraft? I do. And I sure as hell know that I didn't play it on fastest because that speed was crazy. Give him a break and stop being so superior. Same here 0.o When I started brood war I didn't even know about different speeds and always played the default one (fast or normal... don't remember). It was not until I lanned with my friend and he said to change the speed to fastest, then everything was so quick 0.o. | ||
|
InterWill
Sweden117 Posts
On May 06 2008 04:37 LetMeBeWithYou wrote: InterWill is the most retarded person to pretend to be smart. Quit posting, dickhead. Well played. The sarcasm is truly brutal on this board. I get it, you want to prove my point - that some people will go to great lengths to attack the person rather than their actual arguments - but while your aim is spot on, your choice of vocabulary feels a bit over the top. | ||
|
Showtime!
Canada2938 Posts
On May 06 2008 12:18 prOxi.swAMi wrote: I think when any journalist writes an article, especially about a topic they're so inept with, they should expect all kinds of criticism. He knows it comes with the job, we're allowed to keep being 'so superior' and he should deal with that because it's his job theeeeeeeeeey toooooooooooooook aaarrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeee joooooooooooooobs sorry; just had to say it. | ||
|
yare
507 Posts
On May 06 2008 13:30 InterWill wrote: Well played. The sarcasm is truly brutal on this board. I get it, you want to prove my point - that some people will go to great lengths to attack the person rather than their actual arguments - but while your aim is spot on, your choice of vocabulary feels a bit over the top. I believe the actual posts proving your point are your own. You ignore 95% of the posts that use logical statements to develop arguments in a productive manner, and instead focus on the more ill-tempered bandwagon style of posts. You then make generalized statements on how negative all of this thread is by focusing on this one person's post. My suggestion is read the more developed arguments, think about whether you can make a competent counter argument, and then make it. Otherwise, do like the rest of the world and ignore these few posts. The consequence is you are not participating in the discussion, but adding to that 5% of the posts we get to ignore. | ||
|
prOxi.swAMi
Australia3091 Posts
On May 06 2008 13:32 Showtime! wrote: theeeeeeeeeey toooooooooooooook aaarrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeee joooooooooooooobs sorry; just had to say it. not sure i follow... but WELL DONE!  | ||
|
lololol
5198 Posts
On May 06 2008 13:30 InterWill wrote: Well played. The sarcasm is truly brutal on this board. I get it, you want to prove my point - that some people will go to great lengths to attack the person rather than their actual arguments - but while your aim is spot on, your choice of vocabulary feels a bit over the top. Well, people can't attack your actual arguments, because you presented no actual arguments whatsoever. I hope this isn't too complex for you, I really do. | ||
|
InterWill
Sweden117 Posts
On May 06 2008 13:41 yare wrote: I believe the actual posts proving your point are your own. You ignore 95% of the posts that use logical statements to develop arguments in a productive manner, and instead focus on the more ill-tempered bandwagon style of posts. You then make generalized statements on how negative all of this thread is by focusing on this one person's post. My suggestion is read the more developed arguments, think about whether you can make a competent counter argument, and then make it. Otherwise, do like the rest of the world and ignore these few posts. The consequence is you are not participating in the discussion, but adding to that 5% of the posts we get to ignore. While I know that you made up the 95% - 5%-figures on the spot - I must point out that this is an exaggeration which heavily distorts the validity of your post.95-5 is equivalent 19-1, meaning that I should be able to find only one ill-tempered bandwagon style of post per page, with the rest of the posts using logical statements to develop arguments in a productive manner. This thread begins as a flamefest that then somehow evolves into a more mature discussion. My thoughts about game speed and strategy: First of all, I would rather see StarCraft II with only one speed setting. I'm afraid that dividing people into different rule sets will potentially split the community in the long run and I feel that the benefits of multiple speed settings do not overcome the drawbacks. Having stated that, I would like to address some of Dan's points. What happens to strategy as you increase the game speed? All players have a threshold somewhere, increasing the game speed beyond this threshold makes the game almost unplayable. For new players, starting playing at Fastest can feel overwhelming. You struggle to control your units, train units and workers, expanding, teching and scouting. If time is to be considered a resource, which is a good analogy for StarCraft, then a new player is surely losing time with every move she makes. For a new player, this time adds up quickly and as it does it builds up a mountain of frustration. If the game is played on a high enough speed setting, the player might struggle to to perform even basic actions - like producing workers or scouting. And that further adds to the frustration. In this setting, an inexperienced player will feel that strategy is thrown out the window. She is forced to use all of her mental capacity and dexterity just to stay afloat, to stay alive. This applies regardless of the skill level of her opponent. She will not feel that she can keep up worker production, scouting, expanding, teching and producing units. Regardless of whether she wins the game or not, the end result will be determined by whomever made the least amount of mistakes - not who played best. Now, as her skill with the game improves, she will (hopefully) become more proficient with most aspects of the game. Thus losing less time on each action and over time coming to the point where she doesn't feel that the game is one of constant stress to manage basic things like unit production and base management. This is what her aim is. To reach a calm where she will be able to be so proficient in controlling everything that she will have time for other things - like thinking about what to build to counter what, how best to harass the opponent or when to time her expansions. There are a couple of problems with this. 1) Her dream scenario is a fallacy - if she's playing to win she will never achieve the calm she's looking for. She will always find something more to do and scramble to have time to do it. 2) Strategy on the fly - inexperienced players often overestimate their ability to form strategies on the fly. More often than not, strategies formed on the fly are ill thought up and simply not effective. These are the strategies applied when caught by surprise by an unexpected strategy - most players will indeed need some time to think of a proper counter strategy for such unexpected strategies and some further games to perfect the timing of the counter strategies. However, this approach demands that you think of your game plan over several games and not as one game at a time. Now, say she isn't necessarily playing to become the best. Then she will still probably feel that reaching the calm - making the game less stressful - is a prerequisite for fun. This calm would indeed be easier to reach where the game speed slower. The challenge for Blizzard is to design a game where inexperienced casual players can become proficient enough with the game mechanics, given the game speed, that they feel that they are actually playing a strategic and tactical game - not just fighting to keep life support going. While at the same time assuring that no matter what, playing faster equals playing better. To meet this challenge, Blizzard will be forced to simplify the UI - while introducing macro heavy new mechanics with great risk/reward. Thus making it easier for new players to feel that they're actually playing the game, but harder for those who are playing to win to play perfectly. At present time, sadly their efforts doing the former exceed their efforts doing the latter. On May 06 2008 14:32 lololol wrote: Well, people can't attack your actual arguments, because you presented none. I hope this isn't too complex for you, I really do. But all good StarCraft players know that not attacking is no option in the long run, right? | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On May 06 2008 15:36 InterWill wrote: Like it has been said before. This game is not ONLY about strategy. It's about strategy AND physical hand dexterity. Any new player, regardless of skill level, will and should need both to win against equally skilled players. RTS = Real Time Strategy. Speed is what differ this genre from TBS = Turn Based Strategy (aka. chess). Anyways speed is only meaningful relative to your opponent - there is no exception to this. If you're so slow to the point that you take 10min to build 4 zerglings it won't matter against an enemy who is just as slow and takes 10min to build 1 zealot, and you'll still need the same ratio of speed/strategy at any level.While I know that you made up the 95% - 5%-figures on the spot - I must point out that this is an exaggeration which heavily distorts the validity of your post.95-5 is equivalent 19-1, meaning that I should be able to find only one ill-tempered bandwagon style of post per page, with the rest of the posts using logical statements to develop arguments in a productive manner. This thread begins as a flamefest that then somehow evolves into a more mature discussion. My thoughts about game speed and strategy: First of all, I would rather see StarCraft II with only one speed setting. I'm afraid that dividing people into different rule sets will potentially split the community in the long run and I feel that the benefits of multiple speed settings do not overcome the drawbacks. Having stated that, I would like to address some of Dan's points. What happens to strategy as you increase the game speed? All players have a threshold somewhere, increasing the game speed beyond this threshold makes the game almost unplayable. For new players, starting playing at Fastest can feel overwhelming. You struggle to control your units, train units and workers, expanding, teching and scouting. If time is to be considered a resource, which is a good analogy for StarCraft, then a new player is surely losing time with every move she makes. For a new player, this time adds up quickly and as it does it builds up a mountain of frustration. If the game is played on a high enough speed setting, the player might struggle to to perform even basic actions - like producing workers or scouting. And that further adds to the frustration. In this setting, an inexperienced player will feel that strategy is thrown out the window. She is forced to use all of her mental capacity and dexterity just to stay afloat, to stay alive. This applies regardless of the skill level of her opponent. She will not feel that she can keep up worker production, scouting, expanding, teching and producing units. Regardless of whether she wins the game or not, the end result will be determined by whomever made the least amount of mistakes - not who played best. Now, as her skill with the game improves, she will (hopefully) become more proficient with most aspects of the game. Thus losing less time on each action and over time coming to the point where she doesn't feel that the game is one of constant stress to manage basic things like unit production and base management. This is what her aim is. To reach a calm where she will be able to be so proficient in controlling everything that she will have time for other things - like thinking about what to build to counter what, how best to harass the opponent or when to time her expansions. There are a couple of problems with this. 1) Her dream scenario is a fallacy - if she's playing to win she will never achieve the calm she's looking for. She will always find something more to do and scramble to have time to do it. 2) Strategy on the fly - inexperienced players often overestimate their ability to form strategies on the fly. More often than not, strategies formed on the fly are ill thought up and simply not effective. These are the strategies applied when caught by surprise by an unexpected strategy - most players will indeed need some time to think of a proper counter strategy for such unexpected strategies and some further games to perfect the timing of the counter strategies. However, this approach demands that you think of your game plan over several games and not as one game at a time. Now, say she isn't necessarily playing to become the best. Then she will still probably feel that reaching the calm - making the game less stressful - is a prerequisite for fun. This calm would indeed be easier to reach where the game speed slower. The challenge for Blizzard is to design a game where inexperienced casual players can become proficient enough with the game mechanics, given the game speed, that they feel that they are actually playing a strategic and tactical game - not just fighting to keep life support going. While at the same time assuring that no matter what, playing faster equals playing better. To meet this challenge, Blizzard will be forced to simplify the UI - while introducing macro heavy new mechanics with great risk/reward. Thus making it easier for new players to feel that they're actually playing the game, but harder for those who are playing to win to play perfectly. At present time, sadly their efforts doing the former exceed their efforts doing the latter. But all good StarCraft players know that not attacking is no option in the long run, right? So if you're a new player who just feels like the speed is overwhelming and wanted to use more strategy instead of speed then you're just playing the wrong game. Speed SHOULD matter at ANY skill level. | ||
| ||
