PC Gamer Editorial - Page 8

On May 04 2008 07:07 MyLostTemple wrote:
i'm going to respond to this in my cast.

On May 04 2008 07:00 Unentschieden wrote:
That Strategy and game speed ARE in a inverse relationship but not 1:1. If you make a game faster strategic elements become less usefull and therefore nonexistant in a competative context. Strategies are per definition time intensive and carry a commitment. Imagine the desicion between teching to BC or teching to Nukes. Currently NEITHER happens. Are both options underpowered or whats the problem?

Slower game can mean more Strategy but simply making it slower is not enough, it isn´t even crucial for it. That is why I used Free For Alls as example. They are not slower but add strategy by making alliances viable. Do you think cease fires in a 1v1 would work in SC?

SC isn´t strategic because it has such a emphasis on "Micro"(Yes 50% Micro is a lot in a Real Time STRATEGY game), the fast gamepace is a sideeffect on that.

On May 04 2008 08:22 Last Romantic wrote:
teamsolid they don't respond to good comments

orome and klogon continue to go unnoticed. meh. I give up.

On May 04 2008 07:47 EchOne wrote:
Unentschieden: The undisputed inverse relationship to game speed is between game speed and decision making time. I believe we can all agree that if events occur more quickly, players have less time to make relevant decisions as more recent events or changes in the battlefield will make many events prior irrelevant. However decision making time does not translate into strategy.

That "strategy" is defined as carrying a time commitment is semantically wrong. Strategy can mean a plan, or the art/science/skill of creating such plan, in executing large-scale military operations. In reality, these operations can take months to formulate. In Starcraft, the evolution of these schemes requires the same. However, as Klogon pointed out, they are not drafted during a game, but rather over the course of millions of games. One does not simply decide to create a new grand strategy on the day of the battle, without circumstantial evidence, just like an attorney does not enter the courtroom without examining all relevant case law. Generals in real life study previous battles, and go into battles with strategies already planned. It is the same in a game.

Where decision making time comes into play is in mental execution of the strategy. Execution involves adaptation. Religiously maintaining the same strategy will not succeed against an opponent that fluidly adapts his plans to defeat yours. Tactical operations can mean smaller-scale operations, but they also consist of those operations that in aggregate comprise a strategic operation. With less decision making time, a player will have less time to consider information and thus will make less informed tactical and strategic decisions.

That a player has less time to consider information has no bearing on the actual depth of strategy in the game itself. It does have bearing on how much someone can process during a single game, but over the course of several games, the strategic depth is not directly affected.

Success comes to those who can process all the events in a single arena, and all the wealth of strategies from previous contests, and respond accordingly, every second of the game.

This is why success is fucking amazing.

Other points: Battlecruisers are used in TvT deadlocks. Nukes are too easily avoided by armies and workers to justify commitment. The number of virtually unavoidable worker kills netted by a 4 vulture drop makes even such a small harass as this more viable.

Even Civilization has team games. Why? FFA is less entertaining for both spectators and players since, especially in video games, you are processing great amounts of uncertain information. It is worse than actual diplomacy since you gain nothing from the medium of text, with which you must interact with other parties. There is, in fact, less actual strategic consideration here and more luck since there is so little to rely on in reading your rivals' intentions.

Also, in these political situations evidence shows that it is both more beneficial to parties and more likely that polarization will occur, creating two blocs (Both World Wars, the Cold War, Peloponnesian Wars). If this is the case, it would be more efficient to begin with teams.

In BWChart you often find a high ratio of Micro:APM. I'm no expert on BWChart so I have no clue on the conclusiveness of this, but I'll offer this skepticism. If it does not differentiate between positioning orders (outside of battle) or worker orders, the number probably exceeds the APM devoted to actual battle orders. Thus it cannot justify a 50% "Micro" weight. I apologize for assuming you used this to justify. I have the feeling that you have nothing to justify this random number, but feel free to prove me wrong.

On May 04 2008 08:43 Xeofreestyler wrote:
Imo that Dan guy should get fired for not doing his job right.

Some are saying that he's "merely stating an opinion". Thats not true. A lot of people read those magazines and a lot of minds are gonna be influenced by someone who is assigned as an article-writer, and thus, should be an authority on the subject.
This guy is just full of crap and thats it, he doesnt know ANYTHING about the subject :/

Also, great post EchOne! I'd like to see that posted on their forum.

On May 04 2008 08:55 Centric wrote:
Would it be more effective overall to write to Dan's boss? If we simply tell Dan how stupid he is, he's not going to do anything about but get all butthurt. If we write to whoever's in charge and explain (tactfully and politely) how Dan has written utter nonsense in their magazine, perhaps something good would come out of it.

Then again, everyone else at PCG could be as confused and uninformed as Dan is.

On May 04 2008 07:31 teamsolid wrote:
You are retarded. Sorry, I don't have to be polite like I was as a guest on the PCG forums.

On May 04 2008 07:31 teamsolid wrote:
You must be a pretty damn slow thinker if it actually takes you time in game to decide whether to tech to BCs or nukes.

On May 04 2008 07:31 teamsolid wrote:
The only situation where active thought processes can truly take a significant amount of time is in a game like Chess, where you have to map out all possible moves from your opponent about 5-10 steps in advance and plan out your moves accordingly. That is the only kind of critical thinking that actually takes "time".

On May 04 2008 07:31 teamsolid wrote:
No RTS will ever achieve this (or even in a real life war), because information obtained from your opponent is imperfect and very limited. Since you only have a snapshot of what your opponent is doing, you can only react based on this limited piece of information.

On May 04 2008 07:31 teamsolid wrote:
In terms of strategy, Sins doesn't even come remotely close to a truly strategical game. It's a much slower-paced game but barely more strategic than SC. It has more tech options to choose from, but once the optimal BO's and unit mixes in various situations in the game have been figured out, the act of choosing the correct path in response to your opponent will not be time consuming at all.

On May 04 2008 09:26 Unentschieden wrote:

Thats why I used it as BAD example! The issue was that in serious play BOTH options are avoided, and as mentioned BC come up only in deadlocks.

On May 04 2008 09:26 Unentschieden wrote:

That´s what I was saying. SC lacks such "chess moves" with huge impacts. And thouse that DO (as in the outcome is more complex than: he can counter/ he can´t) are avoided by the players. BC/Nuke is in CONCEPT a desicion of consequence. Disagreeing is one thing, not comprehending because of it another.

On May 04 2008 09:26 Unentschieden wrote:


That´s the spice. Lack or imperfect information makes it more than choosing the appropiate counter. A good player should be able to analyze the enemy even without accurate information, based on meta-game (the real world) but also scouting results (or lack thereoff) intutition, game knowledge etc.

That or the game is so complex that even IF you have ALL information it´s still hard to predict your enemys moves (like chess).

On May 04 2008 07:47 EchOne wrote:
Unentschieden: The undisputed inverse relationship to game speed is between game speed and decision making time. I believe we can all agree that if events occur more quickly, players have less time to make relevant decisions as more recent events or changes in the battlefield will make many events prior irrelevant. However decision making time does not translate into strategy.

On May 04 2008 07:47 EchOne wrote:
That "strategy" is defined as carrying a time commitment is semantically wrong. Strategy can mean a plan, or the art/science/skill of creating such plan, in executing large-scale military operations. In reality, these operations can take months to formulate. In Starcraft, the evolution of these schemes requires the same. However, as Klogon pointed out, they are not drafted during a game, but rather over the course of millions of games. One does not simply decide to create a new grand strategy on the day of the battle, without circumstantial evidence, just like an attorney does not enter the courtroom without examining all relevant case law. Generals in real life study previous battles, and go into battles with strategies already planned. It is the same in a game.

On May 04 2008 07:47 EchOne wrote:
Where decision making time comes into play is in mental execution of the strategy. Execution involves adaptation. Religiously maintaining the same strategy will not succeed against an opponent that fluidly adapts his plans to defeat yours. Tactical operations can mean smaller-scale operations, but they also consist of those operations that in aggregate comprise a strategic operation. With less decision making time, a player will have less time to consider information and thus will make less informed tactical and strategic decisions.

On May 04 2008 07:47 EchOne wrote:
That a player has less time to consider information has no bearing on the actual depth of strategy in the game itself. It does have bearing on how much someone can process during a single game, but over the course of several games, the strategic depth is not directly affected.

Success comes to those who can process all the events in a single arena, and all the wealth of strategies from previous contests, and respond accordingly, every second of the game.

This is why success is fucking amazing.

On May 04 2008 07:47 EchOne wrote:
Other points: Battlecruisers are used in TvT deadlocks. Nukes are too easily avoided by armies and workers to justify commitment. The number of virtually unavoidable worker kills netted by a 4 vulture drop makes even such a small harass as this more viable.

Even Civilization has team games. Why? FFA is less entertaining for both spectators and players since, especially in video games, you are processing great amounts of uncertain information. It is worse than actual diplomacy since you gain nothing from the medium of text, with which you must interact with other parties. There is, in fact, less actual strategic consideration here and more luck since there is so little to rely on in reading your rivals' intentions.

On May 04 2008 07:47 EchOne wrote:
Also, in these political situations evidence shows that it is both more beneficial to parties and more likely that polarization will occur, creating two blocs (Both World Wars, the Cold War, Peloponnesian Wars). If this is the case, it would be more efficient to begin with teams.

In BWChart you often find a high ratio of Micro:APM. I'm no expert on BWChart so I have no clue on the conclusiveness of this, but I'll offer this skepticism. If it does not differentiate between positioning orders (outside of battle) or worker orders, the number probably exceeds the APM devoted to actual battle orders. Thus it cannot justify a 50% "Micro" weight. I apologize for assuming you used this to justify. I have the feeling that you have nothing to justify this random number, but feel free to prove me wrong.