|
8748 Posts
On October 10 2009 05:20 BanZu wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2009 03:03 Cloak wrote:
Well, my biggest qualm with censoring games is that it stifles the strategic development of the community. I'd rather the whole community have access to the most diverse repertoire of strategies and tactics, rather than benefit the few who think they're too good to be countered.
The point of motivation on the innovator's part is moot. SC1 already has the replay feature and players like Boxer are still innovating regardless of its existence. Their motivation comes from a lot of things, and that competitive edge is still there. So, it seems like there is no real disadvantage to making all games savable, but plenty to lose if we allow censorship of games. Wtf? The point isn't that he isn't able to come up with new innovative strategies anymore, it's that once he does come up with something ingenious it's quickly broken down, analyzed, and essentially made useless. What's the point of all the effort?
Wait, what are you saying takes a lot of effort? Coming up with a strategy that can be beaten after watching one replay of it, or analyzing a replay and breaking down the strategy it contains to beat it? The latter is a commendable skill that any competitive player needs while the former is no more than a very limited-use gimmick that the majority of competitive players can do without.
One-time-use strategies play a role in competitive play, both for the players and the spectators. But much more important is the role of innovative strategies that are used repeatedly, and adopted by many players, so that the game doesn't grow stale. Devising methods of making one-time-use strategies work better/longer than they should discourages the innovation of much deeper and more impressive strategies.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Any cheese that is useless after one watching of a replay is going to be useless as soon as it's been used in one televised game anyway...?
|
Theres simply no way to do this without it being a complete and utter failure either way.
Any plan has a much higher % chancer of being perfectly executed if your enemy doesnt know about it until the last second of its execution.
But boxer makes it sound like its all about one time unconventional strats, when its about concealing your game.
|
8748 Posts
I think that more information can be gathered from a careful analysis of a televised game than Bisu and Boxer are aware of. A televised game could be as useful as a replay in some cases but, as far as I know, pros don't analyze televised games that closely. In fact the trend at eStro, for games that couldn't be watched live, was to download and watch them at 2x speed.
By taking note of the state of the game and how much time has progressed, builds can be reconstructed and many of the unknowns of a televised broadcast can be figured out by a knowledgable player. Whatever can't be figured out is usually reduced to only a few options and testing can do the rest. But of course this process can't be described just as "watching a televised game" even though the televised game is the only primary source of information. At the end of the process, the same info has been gathered as from watching the replay. In fact, the idea is to create your own replay of the strategy.
So
Watching TV + Analysis = Watching replay
Sometimes the analysis isn't needed to know the counter of the observed strategy. But sometimes strategies that really deserve to be one-time-use strategies go on for repeat appearances with further success because players have a flawed approach for preparing for a match.
|
i agree that strategy by itself can be uncovered by VODs.
however, replays reveal "finger prints" of the player:
- use of hotkey
- exactly when to rest worker production
- everything that happens during the game that would not be captured in VODs
if VODs reveal the general sense of the strategy,
replays give away the nature of the gamer.
|
On October 10 2009 05:20 BanZu wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2009 03:03 Cloak wrote:
Well, my biggest qualm with censoring games is that it stifles the strategic development of the community. I'd rather the whole community have access to the most diverse repertoire of strategies and tactics, rather than benefit the few who think they're too good to be countered.
The point of motivation on the innovator's part is moot. SC1 already has the replay feature and players like Boxer are still innovating regardless of its existence. Their motivation comes from a lot of things, and that competitive edge is still there. So, it seems like there is no real disadvantage to making all games savable, but plenty to lose if we allow censorship of games. Wtf? The point isn't that he isn't able to come up with new innovative strategies anymore, it's that once he does come up with something ingenious it's quickly broken down, analyzed, and essentially made useless. What's the point of all the effort? I'm all for removing replays. I don't see how removing it would be bad for the community because NO ONE will know the specifics of the strategy, only the creator would. It's not like we'll be incredibly behind anyone else in dealing with it. By leaving the analyzing work to us it would be a lot more fun. I feel like I'm arguing against MBS or auto-mine. Grow some balls and learn the game.
If the strategy is unable to survive, then it is unable to survive. It's bad because the community doesn't have access to the nuances of the play. Learning is part of the game. Why stifle the communal progression of strategy to let the novelties stay alive a little longer? People are still committed to keeping the competitive edge, so they'll always be innovating. Your argument has way too many holes so you try to deflect by attacking my "skill" at the game.
|
On October 07 2009 07:24 DN2perfectionGM wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2009 03:09 spkim1 wrote:
Absolutely ridiculous suggestion. Keep in mind that Blizzard thoroughly looks at this forum. Posting stupid suggestions like this can mess up their way of thinking and opens up possibilities for making SC2 worse than it is now. They've made enough mistakes of this kind so far, including making people update their copy of Starcraft 2 every once in a while and disabling LAN games. Now you want them to disable replays? Are you trying to drive every future potential SC2 customer away from this game or what? Please think about the consequences before posting this kind of stuff. Blizzard knows more about what they are doing than you do. You think you're so smart that Blizzard should just listen to you, eh? Because they are so gullible that they might look into ideas that you find stupid?
I demand justification for your statement.
Refrain from cowering behind O-almighty-Blizzard and come up with counter-arguments formulated personally. Now. why, exactly, would you mock me by depicting me as some arrogant fool who overestimates his own cerebral capacity? Please indicate directly which part of my argument is flawed, if you can.
Am I wrong in saying that the Team Liquid Forum has in the past influenced Blizzard Entertainment's decisions in developping Starcraft 2?
Can you actually come up with argument on how tightening replay rules will NOT make some people upset?
Can you actually come up with argument on how updating SC2 and buying copies every time you change PC's will NOT piss people off/ will NOT be a pain in the ass?
If you can, good for you. Next time, start by doing that first instead of acting like "Blizzard's pet". Lay off my ass now. Let me express my opinion, and don't turn me into a troll; everyone has a right to opinion, and freedom of expression right? Maybe not where you come from but as for the rest of the world.
Follow Up: Premise: Since TL has shown in the past that it can influence Blizz's decisions in SC2 development.
Premise2/Conclusion1: And, since it is therefore important to be careful about what you suggest in this forum, due to the risk of counter-productiveness being present by complicating things,
Conclusion2: This thread is counter-productive in Blizzard's development of the game as it might make it worse for the reasons given above. Previous experience shows that Blizzard is in a trend where they tend to fiddle with administrative stuff like Battle.net and copies of SC2 and updates. This is a dangerous suggestion that has high chance of making the game experience more disagreeable. We all care about the quality of SC2, reason why we are here, arguing over things. Making efforts to differentiate SC2 from SC1 is great, but this is certainly making it simply worse.
|
1. There are better ways of dissecting Progamers' strategies than replays: commentators thoroughly go through meaningful parts of games after a match is over.
2. FA beautifully rounded point1: broadcasted plays will spoil that strategy's secretiveness anyway.
3. What's wrong with sharing with the world?? Going up ladder by selfishly hiding your tactic? Boy, you're a real winner.
|
On October 12 2009 20:56 spkim1 wrote:
1. There are better ways of dissecting Progamers' strategies than replays: commentators thoroughly go through meaningful parts of games after a match is over.
2. FA beautifully rounded point1: broadcasted plays will spoil that strategy's secretiveness anyway.
3. What's wrong with sharing with the world?? Going up ladder by selfishly hiding your tactic? Boy, you're a real winner.
Boxer himself specifically pointed out that replays allow more much easier and quick dissection of strategy/BO/etc.
|
This is how I see it, you can copy a build order/strategy from an someone, but you aint ever be able to execute it the same way. Therefore I vote No.
|
It's rather interesting. I mean, when the Bisu first used the Bisu build against Savior it was very new, innovative and rather powerful. But very shortly after, the Bisu build became countered and is now practically obsolete. I mean, Bisu himself doesn't really used the Bisu build anymore, he goes Sair/Reaver most of the time. Now, I'm not saying that the build wouldn't have been countered if replays weren't available, but perhaps its lifespan as an extremely viable build against Zerg would've been longer had progamers not been able to dissect the strategy so fast.
At the same time, replays are a part of the game. Figuring out ways to nerf opposing strategies is also part of the game. With that said, replays are also extremely helpful in allow lesser players (like me) learn nuances of the game it would otherwise be harder to experience. Personally, I find replays to be more helpful than harmful...but then again I'm not some progamer who thinks up of amazing metagame changing strategies so... :\
|
Since it only affects the pros, i say yes. Looking at a VOD and a replay is very different and it's lame that a hard-thought strat is fully revealed in just one game.
|
People, get the idea through your thick skulls.
disabling replays is only something that progamers will do. everyone else will still save replays like normal.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On October 25 2009 22:43 4clovers wrote:
People, get the idea through your thick skulls.
disabling replays is only something that progamers will do. everyone else will still save replays like normal.
Yes and what happens when I play vs someone with replays disabled in the ladder? I can't save my own game? Fuck that shit.
|
On October 25 2009 23:48 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2009 22:43 4clovers wrote:
People, get the idea through your thick skulls.
disabling replays is only something that progamers will do. everyone else will still save replays like normal. Yes and what happens when I play vs someone with replays disabled in the ladder? I can't save my own game? Fuck that shit.
Make it an option for non-ladder games only. That way you know its a non-replay game prior to picking it.
Problem solved.
|
On October 11 2009 05:45 DN2perfectionGM wrote:
i agree that strategy by itself can be uncovered by VODs.
however, replays reveal "finger prints" of the player:
- use of hotkey
- exactly when to rest worker production
- everything that happens during the game that would not be captured in VODs
if VODs reveal the general sense of the strategy,
replays give away the nature of the gamer.
You sorely underestimate how much a smart player/person can deduce from watching a VOD. VOD's are still real time so you know exactly when an attack will come and exactly how many units the person had.
Nal_Ra.... would be able to tell you exactly how many probes you have, when you built your gateway, and your general build order simply from the amount of freaking zealots he sees sitting at the front of your base. He can do that because he's DONE it before and explained to the crowd how he came to that situation.
Nal_Ra and a slew of other progamers have such a huge grasp on the exact intricacies of the game that they only really need fragments of a VOD to figure out builds.
Hotkeys are pretty much preference. Rest worker production will be known by how many units you have as per my explanation above.
VODs capture just about every important moment in a game nowadays as it stands.
This will make no difference. Take replays away and the real innovative players that grasp the concept of the game will still be able to completely dissect strategies as they do now.
|
On October 26 2009 02:01 Jayme wrote:
You sorely underestimate how much a smart player/person can deduce from watching a VOD. VOD's are still real time so you know exactly when an attack will come and exactly how many units the person had.
Nal_Ra.... would be able to tell you exactly how many probes you have, when you built your gateway, and your general build order simply from the amount of freaking zealots he sees sitting at the front of your base. He can do that because he's DONE it before and explained to the crowd how he came to that situation.
Nal_Ra and a slew of other progamers have such a huge grasp on the exact intricacies of the game that they only really need fragments of a VOD to figure out builds.
Hotkeys are pretty much preference. Rest worker production will be known by how many units you have as per my explanation above.
VODs capture just about every important moment in a game nowadays as it stands.
This will make no difference. Take replays away and the real innovative players that grasp the concept of the game will still be able to completely dissect strategies as they do now.
your point is valid. Though inconvenient, VOD can reveal a lot about the player, when carefully analyzed. So even innovative strategies only available on VOD can be broken down at a similar pace as they are now. This may require a careful scrutinizing however, especially when dealing with large database.
But it is still true that disabling replay can help in tournaments, where this will prevent the opponent from viewing the replay right after a game in a series. The option also still applies every other situation that does not deal with VOD's.
|
United States47024 Posts
On October 26 2009 10:03 DN2perfectionGM wrote:
But it is still true that disabling replay can help in tournaments, where this will prevent the opponent from viewing the replay right after a game in a series. The option also still applies every other situation that does not deal with VOD's.
The thing is, why would you WANT that? Analyzing replays within a set is a skill. Having the option to do so encourages players not to play the same build all 3-5 games of a set. Having the immediate option to watch your replay before the next game encourages more intelligent analysis and more variation of play within a set, so I fail to see how it's bad.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On October 26 2009 01:02 L wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2009 23:48 FrozenArbiter wrote:On October 25 2009 22:43 4clovers wrote:
People, get the idea through your thick skulls.
disabling replays is only something that progamers will do. everyone else will still save replays like normal. Yes and what happens when I play vs someone with replays disabled in the ladder? I can't save my own game? Fuck that shit. Make it an option for non-ladder games only. That way you know its a non-replay game prior to picking it. Problem solved.
Honestly I don't think anyone should ever be able to decide whether I save a replay of MY game or not. If they ask me not to, I'd consider it but probably save it anyway if I have a reason to.
Honestly, I think this whole discussion is silly - there's at least two people involved in a game, why should one party be able to tell the other he can't save the replay? Meh.
|
I agree with FA here. Just say you are in a game following your own personal standard build ehh all of a sudden your oponent does a tech switch to which you react in a way in which you have never reacted before and find that it was so effective that you wish to learn from your own play. Why should your oponent be able to decide that you can not save your replay. Replays can be used to improve your own playstyle as much as they can be used to analyse an oponents build.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
