On October 04 2015 03:17 KrOmander wrote: Great thing about a 1v1 game like Starcraft is that there is no reason to even acknowledge the meta if you don't want. I love to watch better players and take tips, but straight up cookie cutter has always been a boring way to play RTS games.
I don't know why people give so much of a fuck about "the meta" in Starcraft to begin with. This isn't MagicTG where you counter the overall best deck by bringing a supoptimal one for that one task. You are always equipped with the same options in starcraft and you should just play to your best knowledge and skill. Trying to get advantages by making blind assumptions is always going to be a bad way to play this game.
"The meta" in starcraft is just a way to describe what is being played, but has no implications on your play whatsoever.
This is unexpected. There are fairly obvious advantages that come with being familiar with the meta. Its amorphous, of course, and doesn't guarantee anything, but in a game of limited information, understand trends and having an understanding of probabilities certainly helps in the overall scheme of things.
Well, you gotta keep all possibilities in mind. Even if it's unorthodox, but that it's probably because it is weak and you don't need a hard reaction to it. Or with the proper reaction you just flatly win.
Top-level StarCraft involves a lot of calculated risks, when the probability of your opponent doing a specific thing is particularly high, you play differently. Back in the day the PvT meta see-sawed between Templar and Colossus openings, Terrans would see-saw their builds accordingly and if they didn't have knowledge of whether Colossi or Templar were in fashion then they would be at a disadvantage.
On October 04 2015 03:17 KrOmander wrote: Great thing about a 1v1 game like Starcraft is that there is no reason to even acknowledge the meta if you don't want. I love to watch better players and take tips, but straight up cookie cutter has always been a boring way to play RTS games.
I don't know why people give so much of a fuck about "the meta" in Starcraft to begin with. This isn't MagicTG where you counter the overall best deck by bringing a supoptimal one for that one task. You are always equipped with the same options in starcraft and you should just play to your best knowledge and skill. Trying to get advantages by making blind assumptions is always going to be a bad way to play this game.
"The meta" in starcraft is just a way to describe what is being played, but has no implications on your play whatsoever.
This is unexpected. There are fairly obvious advantages that come with being familiar with the meta. Its amorphous, of course, and doesn't guarantee anything, but in a game of limited information, understand trends and having an understanding of probabilities certainly helps in the overall scheme of things.
Well, you gotta keep all possibilities in mind. Even if it's unorthodox, but that it's probably because it is weak and you don't need a hard reaction to it. Or with the proper reaction you just flatly win.
Top-level StarCraft involves a lot of calculated risks, when the probability of your opponent doing a specific thing is particularly high, you play differently. Back in the day the PvT meta see-sawed between Templar and Colossus openings, Terrans would see-saw their builds accordingly and if they didn't have knowledge of whether Colossi or Templar were in fashion then they would be at a disadvantage.
Of course it involves calculated risks. But that's not because of "flavor of the day"-metagame, it's because if a build is weak your opponent is usually not going to play it. And even these calculated risks very often involve a Plan B for "what if he actually does this so that I can manage to not flat-out lose here".
Also promatches are being played in BoX series, so there is an actual metagame going on. On the ladder there isn't. You are playing against someone you don't know and you have only one game to make it count. You just do what you think is in general a good idea in that matchup (or whatever floats your boat).
Like going back to my original point, I don't quite get the fuzz people sometimes make about someone playing a different style that was never really proven to be bad. E.g. when these days someone plays bio TvT or Sky PvZ or when back in the days someone played Mech TvZ. People often make a huge fuzz about it being metagaming and stuff, when it is often just a a solid approach anyways. Maybe not the very best or popular for the time being, but still good enough to make work.
On October 04 2015 03:17 KrOmander wrote: Great thing about a 1v1 game like Starcraft is that there is no reason to even acknowledge the meta if you don't want. I love to watch better players and take tips, but straight up cookie cutter has always been a boring way to play RTS games.
I don't know why people give so much of a fuck about "the meta" in Starcraft to begin with. This isn't MagicTG where you counter the overall best deck by bringing a supoptimal one for that one task. You are always equipped with the same options in starcraft and you should just play to your best knowledge and skill. Trying to get advantages by making blind assumptions is always going to be a bad way to play this game.
"The meta" in starcraft is just a way to describe what is being played, but has no implications on your play whatsoever.
This is unexpected. There are fairly obvious advantages that come with being familiar with the meta. Its amorphous, of course, and doesn't guarantee anything, but in a game of limited information, understand trends and having an understanding of probabilities certainly helps in the overall scheme of things.
Well, you gotta keep all possibilities in mind. Even if it's unorthodox, but that it's probably because it is weak and you don't need a hard reaction to it. Or with the proper reaction you just flatly win.
Top-level StarCraft involves a lot of calculated risks, when the probability of your opponent doing a specific thing is particularly high, you play differently. Back in the day the PvT meta see-sawed between Templar and Colossus openings, Terrans would see-saw their builds accordingly and if they didn't have knowledge of whether Colossi or Templar were in fashion then they would be at a disadvantage.
Of course it involves calculated risks. But that's not because of "flavor of the day"-metagame, it's because if a build is weak your opponent is usually not going to play it. And even these calculated risks very often involve a Plan B for "what if he actually does this so that I can manage to not flat-out lose here".
Also promatches are being played in BoX series, so there is an actual metagame going on. On the ladder there isn't. You are playing against someone you don't know and you have only one game to make it count. You just do what you think is in general a good idea in that matchup (or whatever floats your boat).
Well at higher levels of ladder the metagame is going to emulate the pro level metagame. You may be playing someone you don't know but you can make more accurate assumptions as to what they might do because of the metagame.
For instance Templar openings vs Terran haven't been 'viable' for a long time now, yet there have been a few (probably less than 10 in the last year in Korean games). Because it's so rare the players that opened Templar abused the meta and managed to open with it. The Terran could have had an almost free-win, but instead was on even-footing or a bit behind, but they don't care because the vast majority of the time, playing into the assumption that your opponent is opening Colossus is true. Most of those Templar games probably ended up as Protoss wins but I can't say for sure.
PvP is also super metagame based, there's a lot of risks in openings and understanding the meta lets you mitigate risks a lot.
Whether it's Bo1 or Bo>1 the metagame stays constant because it trascends a single series. Of course playing in a series is a different ballgame and allows you much more freedom to take risks.
And so far you're just talking about builds/unit compositions. The current metagame also involves popular attack locations, cannon rush spots, observer placement, and loaaaads more stuff along those lines.
On October 04 2015 03:17 KrOmander wrote: Great thing about a 1v1 game like Starcraft is that there is no reason to even acknowledge the meta if you don't want. I love to watch better players and take tips, but straight up cookie cutter has always been a boring way to play RTS games.
I don't know why people give so much of a fuck about "the meta" in Starcraft to begin with. This isn't MagicTG where you counter the overall best deck by bringing a supoptimal one for that one task. You are always equipped with the same options in starcraft and you should just play to your best knowledge and skill. Trying to get advantages by making blind assumptions is always going to be a bad way to play this game.
"The meta" in starcraft is just a way to describe what is being played, but has no implications on your play whatsoever.
This is unexpected. There are fairly obvious advantages that come with being familiar with the meta. Its amorphous, of course, and doesn't guarantee anything, but in a game of limited information, understand trends and having an understanding of probabilities certainly helps in the overall scheme of things.
Well, you gotta keep all possibilities in mind. Even if it's unorthodox, but that it's probably because it is weak and you don't need a hard reaction to it. Or with the proper reaction you just flatly win.
Top-level StarCraft involves a lot of calculated risks, when the probability of your opponent doing a specific thing is particularly high, you play differently. Back in the day the PvT meta see-sawed between Templar and Colossus openings, Terrans would see-saw their builds accordingly and if they didn't have knowledge of whether Colossi or Templar were in fashion then they would be at a disadvantage.
Of course it involves calculated risks. But that's not because of "flavor of the day"-metagame, it's because if a build is weak your opponent is usually not going to play it. And even these calculated risks very often involve a Plan B for "what if he actually does this so that I can manage to not flat-out lose here".
Also promatches are being played in BoX series, so there is an actual metagame going on. On the ladder there isn't. You are playing against someone you don't know and you have only one game to make it count. You just do what you think is in general a good idea in that matchup (or whatever floats your boat).
Well at higher levels of ladder the metagame is going to emulate the pro level metagame. You may be playing someone you don't know but you can make more accurate assumptions as to what they might do because of the metagame.
For instance Templar openings vs Terran haven't been 'viable' for a long time now, yet there have been a few (probably less than 10 in the last year in Korean games). Because it's so rare the players that opened Templar abused the meta and managed to open with it. The Terran could have had an almost free-win, but instead was on even-footing or a bit behind, but they don't care because the vast majority of the time, playing into the assumption that your opponent is opening Colossus is true. Most of those Templar games probably ended up as Protoss wins but I can't say for sure.
PvP is also super metagame based, there's a lot of risks in openings and understanding the meta lets you mitigate risks a lot.
Whether it's Bo1 or Bo>1 the metagame stays constant because it trascends a single series. Of course playing in a series is a different ballgame and allows you much more freedom to take risks.
And so far you're just talking about builds/unit compositions. The current metagame also involves popular attack locations, cannon rush spots, observer placement, and loaaaads more stuff along those lines.
Understanding the meta is nothing more than knowing the builds and how to play with and against them in Starcraft. You can play whatever way you want and if it was such a successful way to play it would soon be happening everywhere. Congratz, you figured something out, that's actually really cool. But whether the meta is blink stalkers or phoenixes in PvZ, I still kind of have to play the same way. I have to consider the canonrushes and the maps and stuff, but that's all just knowing how to play the game. That's not "I didn't bring Patron because everyone is countering Patron" metagaming.
On October 04 2015 03:17 KrOmander wrote: Great thing about a 1v1 game like Starcraft is that there is no reason to even acknowledge the meta if you don't want. I love to watch better players and take tips, but straight up cookie cutter has always been a boring way to play RTS games.
I don't know why people give so much of a fuck about "the meta" in Starcraft to begin with. This isn't MagicTG where you counter the overall best deck by bringing a supoptimal one for that one task. You are always equipped with the same options in starcraft and you should just play to your best knowledge and skill. Trying to get advantages by making blind assumptions is always going to be a bad way to play this game.
"The meta" in starcraft is just a way to describe what is being played, but has no implications on your play whatsoever.
This is unexpected. There are fairly obvious advantages that come with being familiar with the meta. Its amorphous, of course, and doesn't guarantee anything, but in a game of limited information, understand trends and having an understanding of probabilities certainly helps in the overall scheme of things.
Well, you gotta keep all possibilities in mind. Even if it's unorthodox, but that it's probably because it is weak and you don't need a hard reaction to it. Or with the proper reaction you just flatly win.
Top-level StarCraft involves a lot of calculated risks, when the probability of your opponent doing a specific thing is particularly high, you play differently. Back in the day the PvT meta see-sawed between Templar and Colossus openings, Terrans would see-saw their builds accordingly and if they didn't have knowledge of whether Colossi or Templar were in fashion then they would be at a disadvantage.
Of course it involves calculated risks. But that's not because of "flavor of the day"-metagame, it's because if a build is weak your opponent is usually not going to play it. And even these calculated risks very often involve a Plan B for "what if he actually does this so that I can manage to not flat-out lose here".
Also promatches are being played in BoX series, so there is an actual metagame going on. On the ladder there isn't. You are playing against someone you don't know and you have only one game to make it count. You just do what you think is in general a good idea in that matchup (or whatever floats your boat).
Well at higher levels of ladder the metagame is going to emulate the pro level metagame. You may be playing someone you don't know but you can make more accurate assumptions as to what they might do because of the metagame.
For instance Templar openings vs Terran haven't been 'viable' for a long time now, yet there have been a few (probably less than 10 in the last year in Korean games). Because it's so rare the players that opened Templar abused the meta and managed to open with it. The Terran could have had an almost free-win, but instead was on even-footing or a bit behind, but they don't care because the vast majority of the time, playing into the assumption that your opponent is opening Colossus is true. Most of those Templar games probably ended up as Protoss wins but I can't say for sure.
PvP is also super metagame based, there's a lot of risks in openings and understanding the meta lets you mitigate risks a lot.
Whether it's Bo1 or Bo>1 the metagame stays constant because it trascends a single series. Of course playing in a series is a different ballgame and allows you much more freedom to take risks.
And so far you're just talking about builds/unit compositions. The current metagame also involves popular attack locations, cannon rush spots, observer placement, and loaaaads more stuff along those lines.
Understanding the meta is nothing more than knowing the builds and how to play with and against them in Starcraft. You can play whatever way you want and if it was such a successful way to play it would soon be happening everywhere. Congratz, you figured something out, that's actually really cool. But whether the meta is blink stalkers or phoenixes in PvZ, I still kind of have to play the same way. I have to consider the canonrushes and the maps and stuff, but that's all just knowing how to play the game. That's not "I didn't bring Patron because everyone is countering Patron" metagaming.
I think the main issue isn't that we have macro mechanics, it's that they're very dull/uninteresting to use and cause a lot of design-related issues such as : *lightning-quick comp switches as Zerg *silly chrono timings and all-ins as Protoss *late game bullshit with multi-MULEs as Terran
It's fine to have MMs and to want a harder game, but you oughtta make the boosters interesting to use and more embedded in what people usually call "mechanical skills". Take, once again, BW as an example : the game didn't have any artificial way to add macro skills but unit production was still infinitely harder (and the learning-curve that much steeper) than SC2's because of how the UI worked.
On October 04 2015 07:28 KrOmander wrote: Maybe TLO does not find Zerg lategame injects and the ability/luxury to spread creep as difficult as you try and make out?
He probably doesn't find early and midgame terran macro as difficult as I do as well. So what?
What you miss is that it can more or less objectively be measured that zerg macro in early and midgame would be alot easier than that of P/T when macro mechanics were removed (I think everyone agrees here).
But as well I think it is safe to say that with macro mechanics in place the lategame macro of zerg is more diffucult than that of P/T.
@Zains ok, we can leave it to that
Disagreeing on the lategame zerg macro tho. Another aspect of that is that the production of zerg is scattered around the map which requires alot of attention as your units spawn left and right and can easily be picked out before they group up. Even on pro level you see players fail frequently while doing this and in general I got the feeling that spreading creep and injecting is taking too much quality away that could be used better. Anyway the current solution with queeing injects is kind of perfect. Hence now should be discussed to what extend macro mechanics are required, beneficial or detrimental.
No I wasn't comparing your play with TLO, what I was trying to say is that maybe TLO doesn't see an issue where you see one with your remarks on Zerg macro having additional punishing macro mechanics in late game.
TLO's core argument that macro mechanics forces interesting choices because there is a limit to a player's attention so that prioritization is required is an argument to remove macro mechanics, not to keep them.
Since human attention is finite, if it's not wasted on mindless clicking then that attention needs to be used more effectively in other areas of the game in order to win. TLO's argument that macro mechanics aren't mindless clicking because attention is finite, forcing prioritization, is fallacious. If we were to accept this, nothing would be mindless clicking. If you had to click the reactor to use the 2nd production queue, or if you had to click medivacs for each heal because it's not auto-cast, or click each unit individually to order them to move/attack then that also wouldn't be mindless clicking because you are forced to prioritize these actions in a time where your attention is required, such as when you're getting harassed.
So this notion from TLO of what determines mindless clicking is everything else but that click itself is absurd, and exactly backwards. What determines whether injects or manual cast medivac heals is mindless isn't everything else, but the action itself. It's about choice. If it's virtually always better to cast injects or medivac heals than not, then requiring it to be manually clicked is mindless clicking, because it's not a choice, it's a artificial UI gimmick designed to frustrate and hinder your attempts to implement the choices that you want to make.
TLO's claim is that these mindless clicks forces people into making interesting choices. But removing these mindless clicks would force people into making even more interesting choices or else they will lose.
paralleluniverse, i agree. It's just need-to-do mechanics. No need to mind about them, just pay attention and click them. They give no choice in play. Blizzes just dont want to remove their "innovations" and to rebalance the game. And pros like tlo mostly think others lower-apm ppl will overrun them with same-class macro and less multitask (coz it goes easier w/o macro-mechs).
Yeah, multitask and planning clicks priotity is important things for rts genre at all, but there are other ways to feel it up: Splitting armies is one of them; Increasing need of extra mining bases is second one (it can be forced by removing macro mechanics and super-effective harass units).
On October 04 2015 03:34 Lexender wrote: I would write a wall of text but I think this video sums up my opinion better.
This is a beautifully on-point video, therefore I'm posting it again on your behalf.
The increased worker start, as well as macro boosters, needlessly increase the complexity of the game. They increase complexity in a way that demands 0 APM, it has nothing to do with being able to spare that set of clicks to Inject my Hatchery. It's all about the mental burden the game puts on you, and how many things you have to manage per second of gameplay. Increasing the starting worker count and having macro mechanics that boost the economy do nothing but increase the pace of the game. The result is players have less time to manage the same number of tasks they would have without those things.
StarCraft should be focusing on is depth, not its complexity, and people often fallaciously equate the two without understanding them fully. Increasing complexity simply raises the mental barrier-of-entry, the minimum APM and mental juggling you need to perform to even begin to compete. Increasing depth, on the other hand, raises the mental skill ceiling, putting the strategy in real-time strategy. It creates myriad ways to play based on different maneuvers the players can devise, and is empowered by the mind games that result from the existence of these choices.
Having to maintain a slightly higher APM for Injecting is not a choice, and it's not an alternate way to play. It's a barrier-of-entry mechanic that has no bearing on the strategic depth of the game, and the fact that it's an economy booster to top it off increases the complexity of the game further, by speeding the game up and burdening the players even more. Players who have practiced these mechanics understandably feel attached to the proficiency they feel in them, but the creation of a sunk cost is no reason to abandon the pursuit of perfection for this game.
I completely and wholeheartedly agree. I didn't expect that. I thought that I would at least have a minor nitpick.
Having to maintain a slightly higher APM for Injecting is not a choice, and it's not an alternate way to play. It's a barrier-of-entry mechanic that has no bearing on the strategic depth of the game
Drop the false dichotomy. It can be a barrier of entry, while also having a "bearing on the strategic depth of the game". It is in fact a barrier of entry, but once that barrier has been breached, it makes the game more interesting. If you are busy spreading creep and injecting larvae, and the terran moves around, you'd better make sure that your mutalisks aren't idling in a bad spot. You can pull your mutalisks backwards while you go home to macro, but this makes them less effective, since you are wasting their time. If you are good at reading the situation, then you may be able to get away with sending your mutalisks from harassment point A to harassment point B while macroing, then moving back to control your mutalisks. However, if you misread, and the Terran has a marine squad in between A and B, then you are screwed.
If you are uncertain, you can sacrifice creep spread for more attention to your mutalisks, in case of an ambush. People who value perfect macro over the possibility of hurting their opponent can even choose a style of play that doesn't involve harassment. The point is that apm, when you need enough of it, becomes a limited resource that players must choose how to spend. If there is enough apm to do every thing, then there is no choice.
Furthermore, sneaking in attacks while the opponent is busy macroing wouldn't occur if people would never be busy macroing. They would always be ready for the attack. I like that there is a defender's advantage, and an attacker's advantage. The defender's advantage is obvious, so I don't need to describe it. The attacker's advantage is the advantage of knowing when there will be a battle, and being ready for it. With the ability to do every thing at the same time, the attacker's advantage becomes meaningless.
Just like the video you used says - Depth is purchased with complexity, and it is preferable to have as much depth as possible with as little complexity as possible. The unavoidable implication of this is that the more complexity you are willing to tolerate, the more depth you are rewarded with. I am advocating for keeping the depth given by the extra complexity of apm requirements. If you want a delicious meal, some one is going to have to put in time and effort in to not only preparing that meal, but also honing his skills and acquiring the necessary knowledge. The truly sweet and worthwhile things in life, are those that are hard to reach.
well wrote TLO, i played different zvp and zvz styles in hots got me to masters on eu but so many people told me it wasnt viable or it was just plain bad. even though it worked i always wondered was i doing it wrong or can i play these styles?
On October 03 2015 23:22 Jaedrik wrote: I think he's very off on the "play any way you want" philosophy. If one wants to win, they better have their macro booster use down to spades. Macro, in general, is far more important in this game at most levels of play, so, no there really isn't a depth of playstyle diversity as he claims. How I wish it were, but, alas...
Edit: However, I do agree that micro in this game is shallow in itself, but he suggests other things need to be hard so that pros make mistakes in the relatively simple system because their attention is focused elsewhere. Instead, I say make micro deep itself, rather than make other things complex to add mistakes.
This goes further against his "more difficult = better," because we should carefully distinguish between difficulty created by depth, and difficulty created by complexity. Sometimes, it's hard to distinguish, but I'd say his prognosis / rhetoric leans too far to the complexity side instead of the depth side.
I think people in general underestimate how far you can get with unconventional play as long as you UNDERSTAND your strategy.
You can have someone perform a superficially professional looking build, but if he copied it from a vod and has no clue why some choices were made from what cues, then it will be a more frustrating and probably less effective build than if you made something your own and really understood it inside out (of course learning a pro build inside out is great too).
This is critical for me. I'm typically higher masters, gotten to low GM around 6x total throughout the history of SC2 (although I've taken seasons off). About 2x I've gotten there, I've been random. I don't all-in, but I create my own strategies, often viewed as cheesy because they are nonstandard, but always somewhat macro oriented. Knowing my builds in and out will often throw my opponent off their own build, which I use to get me advantages. I know often what to do because I play unorthodox so much to respond to a variety of instances, where my opponent typically will respond suboptimal. It's ok, because I'm not a pro, nor do I want to be one. I do it because I have fun.
I want to suggest that there are two ways of looking at the inclusion or removal of the mechanics, and that would be from a player perspective, or a spectator one.
As a player I don't loathe the mechanics, I don't find them particularly interesting but I can deal with them and they offer room to improve by unquestionably making the game more complicated and provide more depth. But as a spectator, I find the time spent on those tasks boring beyond belief.
Macro mechanics are great, but I don't think the ones currently in game are the choices that are optimal for an exciting game as an esport. When Jaedong transitions with 60 mutas, its awesome, and I know that means hes been injecting like a beast for the entire game, but up until that point, the injects are near invisible to the viewer. As an esports fan I find the current mechanics uninspiring.
On October 04 2015 10:22 KrOmander wrote: No I wasn't comparing your play with TLO, what I was trying to say is that maybe TLO doesn't see an issue where you see one with your remarks on Zerg macro having additional punishing macro mechanics in late game.
This is not about opinion or subjective experience but about measurable data and the relative difficulty when comparing races with each other and within themselves.
Assumption TLO) Demanding macro is beneficial.
Assumption 1) The difficulty of Z macro is increasing linearly (injects, creep) and exponentially (scattered production) with the amount of bases the player has and therefore with the amount of time played in a game.
Assumpiton 2) The difficulty of T macro is decreasing to a minimum level and it stays there once the production and supply is built in the course of a game, no matter how many bases T is on.
It is of no importance if TLO finds Z lategame macro less difficult than me in this sense. What matters is if the lack of demanding lategame T macro (relative to (a) T early/mid game macro and (b) Z lategame macro) has a detrimental impact on SC2 or not and the increasing demands of Z lategame macro have a beneficial impact or not.
TLO is stating that the lack of demanding macro in general would be detrimental to SC2 without specyfying it reasonably and without looking at all cases. He solely explains that the MM automating would be detrimental to Z game (they would only have a significant impact on Z) and gave some good reasons. But he doesn't explain why the diminishing macro demands of T have no detrimental effect on SC2 lategame in the exact same sense as auto MM would be detrimental to Z, and one must doubt that a) this is generally speaking the case at all and b) he included all factors. If he did explain that and other missing links, then his theory could become congent. And that is what I was pointing at in previous posts.
p.s: This refers to discussion one page up. I myself think that the solution blizzard has found now is kind of perfect and it is important to discuss what beneficial/detrimental impacts lowered/reduced MM can have on SC2.
I need to add one thing:
I think it would greatly help if TLO stated what exactly is a reasonable macro demand level of Z with manual injects in his point of view. Is it Z on 3 base, 4 base, 5 hatch, 6 hatch, 8 hatch, 20 hatch? The beneficial effect he is talking of is not infinite. I am sure and it is obvious that injecting 20 hatches (in a fictitious metagame) would be more detrimental than beneficial. Why didn't TLO report about when the limits are reached and exceeded in his point of view?
How many hatches a Z has to supply in order to equal T macro demands in early/midgame while terran is still building production and supply and in lategame once this is done?
When debating and evaluating automated MM these are important things to talk about imo. The denial of automated MM was brought up in the context of balance as Z macro would become siginificantly easier compared to that of T/P. Then we need to figure out what roughly is balanced. And these are the things that can constructivly help blizzard to get faster and better decisionmaking when analysing current state vs. to be in future patches.
EPT
.
