Quote your first post on TL! - Page 20

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.