• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 15:08
CEST 21:08
KST 04:08
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
[ASL20] Ro24 Preview Pt2: Take-Off7[ASL20] Ro24 Preview Pt1: Runway132v2 & SC: Evo Complete: Weekend Double Feature4Team Liquid Map Contest #21 - Presented by Monster Energy9uThermal's 2v2 Tour: $15,000 Main Event18
Community News
Weekly Cups (Aug 18-24): herO dethrones MaxPax6Maestros of The Game—$20k event w/ live finals in Paris31Weekly Cups (Aug 11-17): MaxPax triples again!13Weekly Cups (Aug 4-10): MaxPax wins a triple6SC2's Safe House 2 - October 18 & 195
StarCraft 2
General
Aligulac - Europe takes the podium A Eulogy for the Six Pool Geoff 'iNcontroL' Robinson has passed away Weekly Cups (Aug 18-24): herO dethrones MaxPax 2v2 & SC: Evo Complete: Weekend Double Feature
Tourneys
Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament Maestros of The Game—$20k event w/ live finals in Paris Esports World Cup 2025 WardiTV Mondays RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series
Strategy
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 488 What Goes Around Mutation # 487 Think Fast Mutation # 486 Watch the Skies Mutation # 485 Death from Below
Brood War
General
ASL20 - worst advertising ever... BSL Polish World Championship 2025 20-21 September BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ ASL Season 20 Ro24 Groups Flash On His 2010 "God" Form, Mind Games, vs JD
Tourneys
[ASL20] Ro24 Group F [ASL20] Ro24 Group D [Megathread] Daily Proleagues [IPSL] CSLAN Review and CSLPRO Reimagined!
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Fighting Spirit mining rates [G] Mineral Boosting Muta micro map competition
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread General RTS Discussion Thread Dawn of War IV Path of Exile
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine The year 2050 European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread
Fan Clubs
INnoVation Fan Club SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread
Sports
2024 - 2026 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
High temperatures on bridge(s) Gtx660 graphics card replacement Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment"
TL Community
The Automated Ban List TeamLiquid Team Shirt On Sale
Blogs
RTS Design in Hypercoven
a11
Evil Gacha Games and the…
ffswowsucks
Breaking the Meta: Non-Stand…
TrAiDoS
INDEPENDIENTE LA CTM
XenOsky
[Girl blog} My fema…
artosisisthebest
Sharpening the Filtration…
frozenclaw
ASL S20 English Commentary…
namkraft
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 1169 users

PC Gamer Editorial - Page 8

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 6 7 8 9 10 17 Next All
Xeofreestyler
Profile Blog Joined June 2005
Belgium6771 Posts
May 03 2008 22:14 GMT
#141
On May 04 2008 07:07 MyLostTemple wrote:
i'm going to respond to this in my cast.


yeah baby!
Graphics
teamsolid
Profile Joined October 2007
Canada3668 Posts
Last Edited: 2008-05-03 23:36:38
May 03 2008 22:31 GMT
#142
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.

You are retarded. Sorry, I don't have to be polite like I was as a guest on the PCG forums.

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. 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".

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.

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.
EchOne
Profile Blog Joined January 2008
United States2906 Posts
May 03 2008 22:47 GMT
#143
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.
面白くない世の中, 面白くすればいいさ
teamsolid
Profile Joined October 2007
Canada3668 Posts
May 03 2008 22:58 GMT
#144
EchOne:

Great post, have you tried pasting this on the PCG forums? If not, would you mind if one of us does for you?
Last Romantic
Profile Blog Joined June 2006
United States20661 Posts
May 03 2008 23:22 GMT
#145
teamsolid they don't respond to good comments

orome and klogon continue to go unnoticed. meh. I give up.
ㅋㄲㅈㅁ
maybenexttime
Profile Blog Joined November 2006
Poland5602 Posts
Last Edited: 2008-05-03 23:30:58
May 03 2008 23:28 GMT
#146
On May 04 2008 07:58 teamsolid wrote:
EchOne:

Great post, have you tried pasting this on the PCG forums? If not, would you mind if one of us does for you?


Unfortunately, I don't think we're going to see any reasonable posts from PCG forumers. ;;

edit: Also this Dan guy seems like a coward. He labeled a constructive criticism as 'hate mail' and then backed out of the discussion. T___T
teamsolid
Profile Joined October 2007
Canada3668 Posts
Last Edited: 2008-05-03 23:32:26
May 03 2008 23:29 GMT
#147
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.

They might not respond, but plenty of people have been reading them at least (5000+ views of that thread). I'm sure many of them silently agree with the good posts somewhat (if they read them). And the only guy who really has to understand the argument is Dan, who wrote the article.

Also, it's the troll's fault (fncz) for pissing them off (making them even more antagonistic/less willing to accept our points), attracting attention and diluting out the good posts.
Klogon
Profile Blog Joined November 2002
MURICA15980 Posts
May 03 2008 23:34 GMT
#148
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.


Welcome to the forum. I hope you decide to stick around and post more.
Last Romantic
Profile Blog Joined June 2006
United States20661 Posts
Last Edited: 2008-05-03 23:40:04
May 03 2008 23:36 GMT
#149
My eyes bleed due to Graphic's inanity. They bleed copiously, indeed.

HAY GAIZ LETZ USE THESUARUUZ . CAOM OKK?

edit: I'm done. Y'all can have your fun.
ㅋㄲㅈㅁ
Klogon
Profile Blog Joined November 2002
MURICA15980 Posts
May 03 2008 23:40 GMT
#150
Yeah, he must be like really young or really stupid. We don't even use big words... hahahaha....

I've just pretty much not decided to respond until either:

A) Dan replies

B) Somebody worth replying to replies without so much spam getting in the way of it all.

But as it stands, whatever.
Xeofreestyler
Profile Blog Joined June 2005
Belgium6771 Posts
May 03 2008 23:43 GMT
#151
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.
Graphics
NotSupporting
Profile Joined February 2008
Sweden1998 Posts
May 03 2008 23:50 GMT
#152
It's funny how he sais "noobs" to like all korean progamers more or less in his articles.
teamsolid
Profile Joined October 2007
Canada3668 Posts
Last Edited: 2008-05-03 23:54:36
May 03 2008 23:51 GMT
#153
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.

Well, if we convince the guy that he's wrong, at least he'll understand in the future. If we don't, it's very possible that he'll end up stating something similar in the actual review of Starcraft II and give the game a low score for "lack of strategy" (I wouldn't be surprised, since he was the man PCG sent to the Blizzard Invite).

Yes, it's a scary thought, but I bet most of these game journalists all think like him.
Centric
Profile Blog Joined March 2008
United States1989 Posts
May 03 2008 23:55 GMT
#154
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.
Super serious.
teamsolid
Profile Joined October 2007
Canada3668 Posts
May 03 2008 23:58 GMT
#155
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.

The real problem is that Dan's article actually makes sense on the surface, especially to anyone who doesn't actually know the game that well. Many uninformed people will share his opinion, so there's no way he'll actually get any flak from his boss or anything.
Centric
Profile Blog Joined March 2008
United States1989 Posts
May 04 2008 00:04 GMT
#156
Hahahaha...besides, Dan is the Senior Associate Editor at PCG. Can't get much higher than that.
Super serious.
Unentschieden
Profile Joined August 2007
Germany1471 Posts
May 04 2008 00:26 GMT
#157
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.

We don´t have to be polite on TL.net? Are you SHURE? Anyways I


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.

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 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".


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 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.


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 07:31 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.


I have no intention to defend SINS. Flawed as it is I like it for it´s Macro centric gameplay that at least proves that a RTS (ar whatever genre it invented) doesn´t HAVE to rely on unitbabysitting.
Last Romantic
Profile Blog Joined June 2006
United States20661 Posts
May 04 2008 00:29 GMT
#158
Oh, I'm not worried about their bad reviews tanking the game. Didn't SC only get like 7.6 by some 'reputable gaming magazine' when it first came out?

As long as it's a good game, it'll win out in the long run against uneducated opinions.

My actions are purely altruistic; someone on the internet is wrong
ㅋㄲㅈㅁ
teamsolid
Profile Joined October 2007
Canada3668 Posts
Last Edited: 2008-05-04 00:56:22
May 04 2008 00:50 GMT
#159
On May 04 2008 09:26 Unentschieden wrote:
Show nested quote +
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.

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.

I meant that in general terms for the selection of any strategy. Refer to EchOne's post for more detail.

On May 04 2008 09:26 Unentschieden wrote:
Show nested quote +
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".

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.

Yes, the reason that SC isn't as strategical as Chess is because it's not as complex! It has NOTHING to do with the speed it's played at.

On May 04 2008 09:26 Unentschieden wrote:
Show nested quote +
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.


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).

You can't possibly plan that far ahead if you can only guess at what your opponent is doing. Either way, you won't be "critically" thinking (i.e. using all your brain power) like you do in Chess. It will still mainly be selecting/adapting your strategy to your opponent using split-second decision making, much like a general on the battlefield.
Unentschieden
Profile Joined August 2007
Germany1471 Posts
May 04 2008 01:12 GMT
#160
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.

We agree on that.

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.


I think here we are splitting hairs again on the word "strategy". Well I use it like I do since the genre is called "Real Time Strategy" suggesting that the base concept is the application of Strategy in Real Time - but eventually the point is moot, we can also simply call it Tactics or Macro or whatever.

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.


True that is why I never said that SC lacks Strategy. But the actuall difficulty in the adaption is the amount of commitment to the original strategy - SC has very little challenge or difficulty for the player when he has to adapt. Obviously very high level play has no room for error.
I will again use the BC/Nuke relationship as EXAMPLE-actuall implementation in gameplay is irrelevant here.
Imagine the game processing to the point where a Terran player has the option to tech to either Nukes or BCs. Our player now has to consider what he knows about his enemy to deice to either:
Tech to nukes
Tech to BC
Tech to both even though it will take longer
Keep usinc "conventional" means
Collect more information
something else

Of course, if our Player is good he won´t need long to make that desicion, he will have collected the information he needs before from the current match itself. The skill/strategic depht comes in how hard it actually is to make the right desicion (not how long how every naysayer suggests).
Yes, that means that a so called "solved" game where you can just google the right desicion has no strategic depht, and thats where Blizzard could really shine, by making it so complex that it isn´t reasonably solvable - or they simply patch it each time someone solved it (yeah right).

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.


Exactly - but to make the right strategy more difficult than tic-tac-toe the game needs to reward and punish the application or lack of strategy/tactics/... . Imho you get too far in SC by the pure application of "brute force", meaning the plain optimisation of your BO, Macro cycles and basic micro(hotkeys FTW). Adaption is not needed if it´s enough to drown your enemys in Crystal Meth Marines - but maybe I have simply bad(?) luck with my opponents.

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.


Agreed on all points. I have to admit though that I imagined FFAs with people you already know-FFAs with strangers are truly a elaborate form of russian rulette.

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.


I don´t have a justification-thats why I used it in the first place! It is essentially a forum mantra that SC has a perfect balance of Micro and Macro, everyone simply repeats it, no one deems is necessary to support that claim. Just check any thread with "MBS" in the title (warning: may be hazardous to state of mind!) Maybe I´m already to long on this forum, so feel free to regard that claim as what it is: a claim.
Prev 1 6 7 8 9 10 17 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 4h 53m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
mouzHeroMarine 475
UpATreeSC 122
ProTech94
goblin 53
BRAT_OK 41
JuggernautJason34
MindelVK 16
StarCraft: Brood War
Britney 24552
Calm 3221
Bisu 866
Larva 322
Shuttle 180
Mong 91
Hyuk 79
Soulkey 78
Dewaltoss 72
Killer 49
[ Show more ]
Aegong 26
Rock 22
ajuk12(nOOB) 21
soO 19
Sacsri 10
HiyA 10
NaDa 5
Beast 1
Dota 2
Fuzer 244
Pyrionflax92
LuMiX1
League of Legends
Reynor59
Counter-Strike
fl0m4215
flusha119
Heroes of the Storm
Liquid`Hasu273
Other Games
Grubby1702
FrodaN869
Lowko322
IndyStarCraft 168
C9.Mang0122
Trikslyr48
markeloff46
ZombieGrub4
fpsfer 1
trigger1
Organizations
StarCraft 2
angryscii 24
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 17 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• StrangeGG 8
• Reevou 1
• IndyKCrew
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• sooper7s
• intothetv
• Kozan
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
StarCraft: Brood War
• Pr0nogo 5
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
League of Legends
• TFBlade951
Counter-Strike
• imaqtpie836
Other Games
• WagamamaTV349
• Shiphtur142
Upcoming Events
Replay Cast
4h 53m
The PondCast
14h 53m
WardiTV Summer Champion…
15h 53m
herO vs MaxPax
Clem vs Classic
Replay Cast
1d 4h
LiuLi Cup
1d 15h
MaxPax vs TriGGeR
ByuN vs herO
Cure vs Rogue
Classic vs HeRoMaRinE
Cosmonarchy
1d 20h
OyAji vs Sziky
Sziky vs WolFix
WolFix vs OyAji
BSL Team Wars
1d 23h
Team Hawk vs Team Dewalt
BSL Team Wars
1d 23h
Team Hawk vs Team Bonyth
SC Evo League
2 days
TaeJa vs Cure
Rogue vs threepoint
ByuN vs Creator
MaNa vs Classic
Maestros of the Game
2 days
ShoWTimE vs Cham
GuMiho vs Ryung
Zoun vs Spirit
Rogue vs MaNa
[ Show More ]
[BSL 2025] Weekly
2 days
SC Evo League
3 days
Maestros of the Game
3 days
SHIN vs Creator
Astrea vs Lambo
Bunny vs SKillous
HeRoMaRinE vs TriGGeR
BSL Team Wars
3 days
Team Bonyth vs Team Sziky
BSL Team Wars
3 days
Team Dewalt vs Team Sziky
Monday Night Weeklies
4 days
Replay Cast
5 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
5 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSLAN 3
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
HCC Europe

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
BSL 20 Team Wars
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 3
BSL 21 Qualifiers
ASL Season 20
CSL Season 18: Qualifier 1
Acropolis #4 - TS1
CSL Season 18: Qualifier 2
SEL Season 2 Championship
WardiTV Summer 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025

Upcoming

CSL 2025 AUTUMN (S18)
LASL Season 20
BSL Season 21
BSL 21 Team A
Chzzk MurlocKing SC1 vs SC2 Cup #2
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
EC S1
Sisters' Call Cup
IEM Chengdu 2025
PGL Masters Bucharest 2025
Thunderpick World Champ.
MESA Nomadic Masters Fall
CS Asia Championships 2025
Roobet Cup 2025
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.