EPT[Code S] RO4 Day 1 WCS Korea Season 1 2013 - Page 73
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Tournaments |
|
sparklyresidue
United States5522 Posts
| ||
|
RifleCow
Canada637 Posts
| ||
|
Emzeeshady
Canada4203 Posts
| ||
|
bgx
Poland6595 Posts
On May 22 2013 05:05 mishimaBeef wrote: My point is everyone here is just doing string theory type arguments. Without a proper, careful analysis based on game states and action spending, arguing is pointless. Well we are talking in GSL thread right now,  . I love talking about game designs, theorycrafting, analyzes, there were some in last years, however i don't recall one about match up/game stages comparison, i used to be interested in that too. Generally lately there was close to none discussion about BW, outside of BW forum, seems like people are not really that interested in it outside of BW circle. | ||
|
raga4ka
Bulgaria5679 Posts
On May 22 2013 04:25 Die4Ever wrote: Yea seriously, it's not like Flash was engineered in a test tube or something, he was just some kid who came in and was really fucking good. And about you guys arguing about how many actions it takes to rally your workers and stuff, it really doesn't matter because your opponent has to play the same game, so the spare actions go to other things to compete with your opponent, if you don't make use of those spare actions then you lose. Nobody is playing SC2 perfectly. Flash was in 6 consecutive finals in OSL and MSL combined (3 OSLs and 3 MSLs) and won 4 while dominating PL at the same time . No one has ever done this kind of dominance except for Savior . So we have 2 people out of hundrends . You probably never saw Flash or Savior in peak play BW , not to mention Jaedong and the old bonjwas too . Life right now is as good in SC2 as GGplay was in BW and even thats a compliment . Let's not kid ourselves that his achievements is anything close to the BW bonjwas . He has potential , but so does any good player who won a major tournament , but they are like 5 - 10 people that were meaningful in BW's more then a decade of history . | ||
|
Emzeeshady
Canada4203 Posts
| ||
|
bgx
Poland6595 Posts
On May 22 2013 05:21 Emzeeshady wrote: You can't compare BW to SC2 like that. In SC2 there are more tournaments, more travel and more teams. I actually prefer not to compare it aswell, for me there is this big wall between both competitions (not even games, competitions and games, because both are different). I know there is less drama that way but hey, its truth, the competition is different, and Nestea being one of the best SC2 player does not become automatically one of the best BW player and Flash being God Young Ho of BW is not the one in SC2 (automatically), expectations? Sure, but thats different ball. | ||
|
Die4Ever
United States17588 Posts
On May 22 2013 05:19 raga4ka wrote: Flash was in 6 consecutive finals in OSL and MSL combined (3 OSLs and 3 MSLs) and won 4 while dominating PL at the same time . No one has ever done this kind of dominance except for Savior . So we have 2 people out of hundrends . You probably never saw Flash or Savior in peak play BW , not to mention Jaedong and the old bonjwas too . Life right now is as good in SC2 as GGplay was in BW and even thats a compliment . Let's not kid ourselves that his achievements is anything close to the BW bonjwas . He has potential , but so does any good player who won a major tournament , but they are like 5 - 10 people that were meaningful in BW's more then a decade of history . I'm just saying that he's going to be replaced eventually. Don't forget that Nada also has 6 starleague titles. They all get overtaken. edit: I'm not talking about relative strength | ||
|
tedster
984 Posts
The truth of things is that the easier a game is, the more often a small mistake leads to a loss - because the opponent cannot be expected to make mistakes as well. There are a few reasons for this: A. Easier games have smaller standard deviations for the impact of individual actions from the mean, and thus a significant (if small) error is not as likely to be matched by the opponent if skill levels are roughly equal. What I mean by "smaller standard deviation" is that an easy game has a mean weight that can be assigned towards a game win"per decision" or "per relevant action" that is much easier to approach and hover around by a wider body of players, as well as to sustain for longer within an individual game. In a situation where most of the players do not make glaring mistakes on a minute-by-minute basis, a single outlier might end up being the only real error that has a chance of impacting the overall game. Conversely, in a situation where the game is much complex and difficult, the deviation for quality of decisions and execution is much wider on average because there are so many more opportunities where even a very good player will not perform an ideal action at any given moment. B. Less complicated or easier games have less "critical actions", which means individual actions have greater impact on the overall outcome. The reason for this is mathematical; if you only take 10 meaningful actions in a game, then each one has a drastic impact on your mean performance. let's say we're weighting actions on a points scale from 1 to 100. If "average" pro actions are a 75, with 1 being the worst mistake possible, 100 being the absolute best play imaginable at any given time, and 75 being average because most pros are expected to make "good" decisions the vast majority of the time (and bad mistakes have a much bigger potential impact on any game than strong plays), then: -A string of plays consisting of nine 'average' actions (75 point mean) + one 'awful' action (worth, say, 25 points) lowers your overall mean performance to 70. -Conversely, one 'awful ' action in a string of nineteen 'average' actions only lowers the overall mean performance to 72.5. -By doubling our number of meaningful actions (i.e., actions where a good or bad play could be made, not meaningless or trivial actions), we've halved the impact of our mistake. It is important to note that this theoretical weighing doesn't properly weigh for mistakes so significant that they immediately end the game, regardless of the game state beforehand. In situations where this is the case, you could potentially argue that the "harder" game is the one in which a game-ending mistake is easiest to avoid - however, this is primarily the case in games where momentum and lead-changes are not an actual factor, as most strategy games are designed in such a way that mistakes are expected, if not inevitable, to allow for varying game states. This is one of the primary reasons for fog-of-war in RTS games, as the lack of information creates an information gap that players must constantly fight against in order to minimize errors in gameplan, timing, and judgment. To paint a few rudimentary examples (I will try to avoid strawmen here but it's somewhat unavoidable): 1. Tic-tac-toe The mean error frequency for a competent player is literally zero, so this is kind of a dumb example, but still demonstrative. A single error at any point in the game is 100% exploitable because the odds of a competent opponent screwing up in response to your own mistake approaches 0. 2. Chess A much harder version of tic-tac-toe, to say the least, chess still involves the deployment of resources on a grid system in order to force opponents into unwinnable situations. Chess still presents mistakes in decision-making that, though relatively early in a game, can lead to a near-automatic loss against a skilled opponent, simply because at some point the game becomes controllable enough that the players can eliminate all future errors in play and shape likely outcomes based on the state thus far. 3. Go An easy example as it often is used to parallel Starcraft, Go is a game where mistakes are more nebulous and frequent, but also can be accounted for and folded into larger gameplay strategems. At the high levels there are strong plays and weak plays, but even a weak play from a master may not automatically cost them the game as the ability of the other player to capitalize it is never absolute. as they always risk making weak plays of their own by focusing too much on the "error" committed by the opponent. In this way, the complexity and difficulty of Go make the average "pro-level" error less egregious towards the overall state of the game even though making an error in Go is incredibly easy compared to a more simple grid-based game like chess or checkers or tic-tac-toe. Likewise, even a great move from a player won't necessarily win them the game because a single action isn't enough to swing the mean performance of the entire match. Where I'm going with this should be sort of obvious; Starcraft 2 is a game where mistakes constitute both larger deviations from mean play and are also more egregious as a result of taking place in a window of fewer 'critical actions'. There are fewer small engagements, fewer chances to recuperate and re-engage, and fewer map-specific tactics employed and counter-employed in the average match before someone takes a commanding lead. Primarily because mistakes mean so much more in the context of how otherwise efficiently pros are able to command their economies and armies. On the other hand, Broodwar represents a situation where players have countless chances to make small mistakes. Even the process of selecting an army may be done inefficiently in a way that jeopardizes an otherwise clean attack or creates minor deviations from the ideal outcome. A zergling flank may be successful, but due to control inaccuracies may have resulted in twice the casualties or have failed to bring down the shuttle with the reaver. Economic production almost certainly slowed down during that time. Units may have been late in their rallies since they had to be set from each hatchery and there simply wasn't time due to you failing to properly split your troops quite fast enough. These minor hitches are inevitable and will happen to both sides to varying degrees. This is absolutely key to understanding the back-and-forth nature of Broodwar compared to SC2, as no one can play perfectly for even a small stretch of time (even if it looks like it on a broadcast) whereas in SC2 there is a very real danger of making a single mistake that your opponent does not and losing outright. Since in SC2 it is entirely possible to reinforce your troops perfectly and have them all attack as one unit, a mediocre flank or a missed production cycle is so difficult to overcome because when it does eventually happen to one of the players, the other player may have not really made any mistakes at all during that engagement. The game has a high chance of spiraling out of control. In many ways, SC2 is more similar to chess, in that playing from a losing position is more about desperation and maybe trying to force some sort of breakout play or equilibrium state (in chess you might be fighting for a draw), BW is closer to Go in that less-than-ideal plays will certainly happen, pieces will be cut off and territory ceded, but the game remains winnable and interactive due to the higher overall complexity and difficulty of making a perfect play. [b]tl;dr: Think of it like this: in an RTS, be it BW or SC2, where two players' armies come together, a mistake MUST be made eventually - one of the players should not have engaged, or could have flanked better, or should have had a different unit mix, or should have targetted a different unit first... something. The less difficult actions that exist to balance this inevitability, the more likely that mistake = game loss. SC2, in its current state, tends to follow the 1 real mistake = game loss paradigm much closer than BW. | ||
|
Figgy
Canada1788 Posts
On May 22 2013 03:44 Batisterio-PiB wrote: Have you played BW and watched Flash playing BW? Life wouldnt take a game of Flash in 1 year of training. BW -> SC2 is much, much easier than SC2 -> BW. And how much BW do you think Life has played? Absolutely zero. To say he wouldn't be a prodigy is way beyond your understanding. He simply became the best SC2 player in the world during his first month out of school. In a year of straight training there is a very good chance he'd topple Flash in BW with ease. No one is even close to on par with his multitasking atm. | ||
|
Schelim
Austria11528 Posts
| ||
|
Jmanthedragonguy
Canada1202 Posts
On May 22 2013 05:55 Figgy wrote: And how much BW do you think Life has played? Absolutely zero. To say he wouldn't be a prodigy is way beyond your understanding. He simply became the best SC2 player in the world during his first month out of school. In a year of straight training there is a very good chance he'd topple Flash in BW with ease. No one is even close to on par with his multitasking atm. I dunno, a BW Bisu's multitasking is nuts. If you ever watch one of his FPV, its mind boggling ~.~ | ||
|
raga4ka
Bulgaria5679 Posts
On May 22 2013 05:55 Figgy wrote: And how much BW do you think Life has played? Absolutely zero. To say he wouldn't be a prodigy is way beyond your understanding. He simply became the best SC2 player in the world during his first month out of school. In a year of straight training there is a very good chance he'd topple Flash in BW with ease. No one is even close to on par with his multitasking atm. There are facts and there are opinions , based on bias . The fact is that Flash was God , and had the best results over anyone in 10 years of history . Life isn't the best player at the moment , probably the best zerg , but even that is debateable with SoulKey's results . Innovation wiped the floor with him so even if his multitasking is the best it doesn't actually mean shit when he is out of the GSL . | ||
|
Iodem
United States1173 Posts
| ||
|
ACrow
Germany6583 Posts
Not worth watching, it's a really lackluster series. Soulkey was far outplaying Sos, the only game somewhat worth watching was game 5, but mostly due to weirdness, not due to actual good play (Soulkey didn't handle the Skytoss very well at all). The Akilon Wastes game that Sos won was due to Soulkey for some reason leaving his 3 o'clock base protected by only Swarm Hosts without any static defense to speak of (while the middle of the map was drowned in unused spines). That way Soulkey lost a big chunk of SHs needlessly - two times, which lost him the game. The last game is one worth watching though. Soulkey plays a nice defense against the two base one immortal, one colossus push that is so common nowadays, using the choke in front of the natural really well in combination with two spores. That was cute. Game afterwards is drawn out, with Soulkey again using the chokes of the map really well to buy time. Sos lets himself die to a counter attack of like 8 roaches while being stalled at the third of Soulkey. Overall one of the more disappointing GSL half finals to date. As a Protoss I'm especially disappointed, Sos was true to his reputation as a gimmicky player. | ||
|
Account252508
3454 Posts
| ||
|
RogerChillingworth
2781 Posts
On May 22 2013 05:11 Emzeeshady wrote: I am not really sure the matches were worth talking about... Yeah. While watching, I nearly thought the match was fixed. Terrible play from sOs in the first several games, then they seemed to "switch seats" to allow soulkey to suck huge ass for the next several games. Nothing to glean, nothing to gain. Just terrible play totally unworthy of the ro4. But I think it's a sure-fire thing that Symbol vs. innovation will provide some decent games. Hoping... | ||
|
mishimaBeef
Canada2259 Posts
edit: and how you don't snipe that hatch in game 7 is beyond me | ||
|
MountainDewJunkie
United States10340 Posts
| ||
|
asdfOu
United States2089 Posts
| ||
| ||
