|
United States7166 Posts
I've spoilered my original post because I'm no longer of the same opinion as I was when I wrote this originally. I've come to realize after discussion and thinking about this topic that the reasons against this idea outweigh the reasons for. Hopefully now people will stop responding in protest of only this OP
+ Show Spoiler [original post] +Back during TSL1, in Legionnaire's interview he said :Q: Right now, give us your thoughts on gameplay. You said everyone got better fast. However, one might also argue that 'creative play' has suffered because of this.A: Agreed. Of course the game always evolves (Stork / Bisu style PvZ etc), but I never would have thought it was possible when I was playing. I think replays killed creativity more than anything else, as it made everyone improve and learn faster than they would have normally. And everyone remembers Boxer's depressing interview last month:[Interview] Boxer on eSports’ past & future 12/14:
Replay is a big problem too. The retirement of old progamers was influenced by replay. Even when Nal_rA and others pulled off an interesting strategy, copying it a day or two after is possible because of replay. As the old progamers went down, fans left. More effort was needed to hold them, but such effort is insufficient nowadays.
"The retirement of old progamers was influenced by replays." Just think about that for a minute. I remember hearing this from other old progamers confirming it as well, one of the protosses was very passionate about it (was it Garimto?). This is the sad truth of Starcraft. Replays make it easy for anyone to copy good/creative builds exactly. It detracts from the strategical/creative element of the game, and promotes cookie-cutter builds with players focusing mostly on mechanics. If you couldn't see your opponent during the game, why should you be able to study everything after? I strongly believe something should be done about this for Starcraft 2 before it takes the same path. Please note of course build orders and strategies will still get out there, but players who come up with really great builds could keep the intricacies and timings hidden if they wished, so other people couldn't just copy it so easily --- My idea is to allow players to have an option to prevent opponents from having vision of them when their opponents watch a replay (basically a fog of war for replays). That way they can still examine their own play, and friends can still enjoy what happened in the game, but the enemy builds cannot be studied and analyzed. *** Please understand and think about how educational and enjoyable replays still are with fog of war on (if you've never done this, go to Allies screen in replay and turn off vision of one player). Everything that interacts between players will be seen anyway. timings of all attacks/pushes etc learned, but base management/economy details will be hidden. perhaps some statistics included in replays could help with this, such as resource gathering rates. To implement this idea so that it could not be circumvented with hacks, replay data must be kept and handled by the server, and not streamed to players during the game like it is for SC1. So after the game, to save replay it would download from the server (or auto-download/save would be a nice feature). Thus the server would need to create multiple replay files for the same game. For each player who has this option enabled, there would need to be a replay without data of his units (unless they're in the opponent's vision radius). This method could also be used to make maphacking virtually impossible by not sending any enemy data inside the fog of war to the client, meaning the server would handle the data (this is how Heroes of Newerth does it, and it works). Note that you could do this regardless of my idea though. This means that the games need to be hosted by Blizzard's servers rather than the players, which I expect to already be planned this way, at least for ladder games. (I think WC3 Bnet ladder games are hosted by servers). Of course special permission for Blizzard admins / tourney admins /etc could be given to let them download replays that have complete vision if necessary. And there will still be things like VODs/observers of course, but we all know how different VODs are from replays, in terms of what you can learn (that goes for observers as well in a sense). Poll: Is this a good idea?( Vote): Yes ( Vote): No ( Vote): Yes, but some changes needed Before you vote No because you think it takes the fun out of watching replays, please scroll to the post with the blue text at the bottom of this page as my response to this argument. In closing, I'd like to quote Garimto's interview: [Interview] Garimto and his thoughts on SC2 - When Starcraft 2 is released, do you intend to return as a progamer? ▲ When Starcraft first came out, the older players did better initially. It's the very same reason why Boxer hyung rose to success and domination - using strategies and builds people never thought of. And as time passed, all the cons were removed and only the good stuff kept coming in, which is why the younger players perform better because their reaction time and speed is faster. But when a game is released, the one who can create the best and most efficient build and strategies can dominate the scene early on. Because of this, I think I have a possibility, which is why I intend to return to progaming when Starcraft 2 is released. And I am not alone either, for many other retired Starcraft progamers share the same sentiments. Starcraft is tough for us, but I believe I have an equal chance at succeeding in Starcraft 2. _________________________________ Counter-arguments: Argument I. This would take a great deal of fun and enjoyment out of watching replays.Response I. It's not as bad as you might expect. Lets take an example from SC1. Lets say you're watching a PvT, where the terran is doing some sort of fast expand and the protoss is going for a fast reaver build. I'd argue that watching the game from one player's perspective is more exciting, interesting, and engaging than having vision revealed for both. If vision is completely revealed, you see both when the robotics goes up, up until the exact timing of the shuttle flying in, as well as the entire defense of terran and how he's going to be able to deal with it. Whereas if you are say watching the protoss, you're in the dark about terran's defenses and cannot easily predict the outcome. If you're watching from the terran's PoV then the shuttle flying in will (probably) be an unexpected surprise, depending on his scouting. And you may not know what's inside either. In any example, when you're watching from 1 player's perspective, you see what he sees, and how he reacts. You get a good look into his thought processes and it becomes a more engaging and interesting experience. Furthermore, all the action will always be between both players so it should be in the vision regardless of who you're watching. The good part is that you cannot always see it coming a mile away either. This is assuming the player enabled the option. I assume many players won't care to protect their replays. However I concede it is nice to be able to switch between perspectives or glance at the other player when you're curious about something. Also note that you can turn fog of war on even without this option being added anyway of course. But once again, my point is that it's not as big of a deal as you might have thought. ___ I was going to add more but I realized this may all have been pointless. Why would Blizzard do this? Seems very unlikely they'd go for it, it's probably never been considered and it's not something they'd understand anyway. Testimony? Look how split the community here is. I'm feeling under the weather and I'm wondering what the hell am I wasting my time on this for, and wasting other people's time as well
|
they would just find a program add on that would allow them to view everything
|
United States7166 Posts
how? did you read the part where I said this could be prevented by letting the server handle everything beforehand? how can a program get data from a replay that isn't there? (like I said, multiple replay files must be created by server)
|
Sweden33719 Posts
I think (just like last thread) that it's a really, really, really bad idea. Replays didn't kill creativity - people just got too fucking good for random bullshit to work. Yeah, replays sped that process up but it would have happened anyway.
Much more important is the fact that watching a replay is FUN, and this way it wouldn't be.
I mean, don't you download replays from TL or other sites? Would it really be nearly as fun to watch them, if you could only see one player...?
|
This would just make everyone more noobish than ever. Also every time a competitive match were played everyone would see those strats anyway so it would get out sooner or later, this just slows the process down a tad.
|
United States7166 Posts
On January 30 2010 05:51 FrozenArbiter wrote: I think (just like last thread) that it's a really, really, really bad idea. Replays didn't kill creativity - people just got too fucking good for random bullshit to work. Yeah, replays sped that process up but it would have happened anyway.
Much more important is the fact that watching a replay is FUN, and this way it wouldn't be.
I mean, don't you download replays from TL or other sites? Would it really be nearly as fun to watch them, if you could only see one player...?
maybe it didn't totally kill creativity, but it certainly made it much easier to find weaknesses in your opponents' build, to find that exact timing or are where he's most weak.
An even bigger issue (that boxer mentioned) is that makes good builds way too easy to copy exactly. It promotes cookie-cutter gameplay builds and discourages people from being creative. This is a huge detriment to the community and to the creative/strategical process of the game, and makes the game more 1-dimensionally focused with mechanics being the main focus and not strategy.
updated main post with this reasoning
|
United States7166 Posts
On January 30 2010 05:56 Klockan3 wrote: This would just make everyone more noobish than ever. are you saying it's better to have players copy some cookie-cutter build orders exactly rather than learn to figure things out on their own? people would still know the general idea of builds and their timings, just not the exact "8 pylon 10 gateway etc" of every single build order. it's not like build orders wouldnt exist, people will still post them online.
Also every time a competitive match were played everyone would see those strats anyway so it would get out sooner or later, this just slows the process down a tad.
is this bad? if a player comes up with this awesome build, he could in effect hide it from being completely analyzed/copied. You know VOD's and observers don't just watch 1 player for the build, it watches the overall game and action.
On January 30 2010 05:51 FrozenArbiter wrote: Much more important is the fact that watching a replay is FUN, and this way it wouldn't be.
I mean, don't you download replays from TL or other sites? Would it really be nearly as fun to watch them, if you could only see one player...? I imagine most people voted No because of this reason, well here's my response:
For one, I said it's an option, and I'd expect a lot of people to not use this option. -- Two, I often get more enjoyment out of just watching 1 player's vision and how he reacts to what he sees, it's nice to see it from 1 player's perspective and turn on the fog of war. -- Three, most of the fun action involves interaction/battling between units, which will all be in vision anyway. Usually when I've enabled vision for only 1 player I only want to see the other player because I have questions on how he's doing something and such (although sometimes it's more fun to watch the other player than the one i'm currently watching)
|
I think this problem wouldn't even exist if it was harder to find 'equilibrium strategies' in Starcraft.
The thing is, every race has the "Standard strategy", and the "cute strategies" and after a while, every serious player will go for the strategy that brings him the highest chance of winning in the longterm. However, if this weren't so, if you had more ways to play the game, I think the game would be much more interesting.
Large percentage of spells in Starcraft isn't used almost at all. It means the game COULD be better(more interesting). If it's too easy to determine your best strategy and your opponent's race's best strategy, the game becomes a competition of speed - who can do the same old thing the fastest and with least mistakes.
EDIT: To expand on my point and relate to the OP: You're suggesting what you're suggesting based on the assumption that SC2 will have the same type of strategic dynamics i.e. every race will eventually end up with a "best strategy", and your suggestion makes sure that the process of discovering it is slowed down. My point on the other hand is, if the metagame and possibilites were more complex, there wouldn't be such a need to slow anything down.
|
I think it'd be simpler just to have reps not available for players to take back in official games. This has its upsides and downsides, and would be detested by the players, buuut...
EDIT Nal_ra said something similar to Boxer about replays killing starcraft in an interview as well. I don't remember which, but I'm pretty sure it's out there. Just a fun fact ^^
|
United States7166 Posts
On January 30 2010 06:39 niteReloaded wrote:
EDIT: To expand on my point and relate to the OP: You're suggesting what you're suggesting based on the assumption that SC2 will have the same type of strategic dynamics i.e. every race will eventually end up with a "best strategy", and your suggestion makes sure that the process of discovering it is slowed down. My point on the other hand is, if the metagame and possibilites were more complex, there wouldn't be such a need to slow anything down.
"makes sure that the process of discovering it is slowed down"
no that's not the purpose of my idea, at least not the major one at all. I said it's mostly to do with copying builds and encouraging creativity and strategic thinking rather than solely mechanics.
|
I've actually thought about this same idea before and think it's a really good one. For those of you who love watching replays the way they are now, players can still allow their view to be shared...there is just an option to not allow it.
On the flipside, SC2 will probably still take a LONG time to get these 'best' standard builds like SC has now. Even if players can copy new build orders exactly after seeing one replay, that strategy/build order could become absolute pretty quickly anyway.
Ultimately, I think that it'd be best for the game to have an option to not allow replays to show your POV.
|
United States7166 Posts
On January 30 2010 06:48 ploy wrote: I've actually thought about this same idea before and think it's a really good one. For those of you who love watching replays the way they are now, players can still allow their view to be shared...there is just an option to not allow it.
it's nice to finally get someone verbally supporting me.
On the flipside, SC2 will probably still take a LONG time to get these 'best' standard builds like SC has now. and what's wrong with that? One of the most interesting parts of Starcraft is how it has constantly evolved throughout it's lifetime, and it seems it's finally closing in on builds and focused on mechanics and quick decisions, though maps can and often encourage new builds. So what's wrong with stretching out the lifetime of the strategic process of the game? If you could go back in time would you rather pros reached the level they're at now much sooner? where would they be at now then? the games would stagnate and start to become less interesting if they were so similar
|
I agree. The point I was trying to make with how long it would take to get to the level of optimal builds we see in SC today is that even with replays, this may very well still happen. You'd just see a stronger sense of trends on the way to where SC is now.
I don't think replays will speed up overall innovation in the context of meta strategy, but they will increase the amount of strategy copying and decrease the amount of thinking players will have to do. If you can't think of good build/strategies yourself, just go find replays of a top player and copy exactly what they do.
|
I think starcraft should not be broadcasted to protect the creativity of the players.
|
What a worthwhile post, Boblion. As if seeing a broadcasted game or VOD is even comparable with watching a replay in terms of copying build orders/strategies. Go away.
Then again, only a few starcraft legends think replays hurt the game....what do they know, right?
|
I think that the Super Bowl should not be televised so that creative plays like fumblerooskis and the statue of liberty can be as viable as they were the first time they were used.
|
This might come as a news flash to some people, but it isn't replays that promote cookie-cutter gameplay. It's the desire to win. In ANY game where there are more efficient strategies, players will gravitate towards them as quickly as possible - and this is a good thing.
It is the responsibility of the game designers to reward multiple viable strategies - including high-risk, high-reward strategies (like cheese and timing attacks in BW) to ensure the game is rounded enough to support this natural convergence.
Cutting out replays is beyond stupid because it artificially makes the game more difficult to learn, understand, and observe. I don't care how creative your barracks-before-depot build is if I can't fucking see it and understand it - and if it's good, it's going to be discovered eventually anyway. I understand the frustration of being a great player and losing out to the newer, mechanically driven stars, but to intentionally dumb down the overall knowledge level of the entire community is selfish and stupid and comes from players wishing to maintain an edge without having to put in the same practice time as other players.
|
I think this would be an awesome idea ... as an option in the progaming scene maybe... As FrozenArbiter said watching reps is fun . but this way progamers could protect their replays and we could still watch the ones that were willingly released.
|
United States7166 Posts
On January 30 2010 07:22 Boblion wrote: I think starcraft should not be broadcasted to protect the creativity of the players.
On January 30 2010 07:55 Pyrrhuloxia wrote: I think that the Super Bowl should not be televised so that creative plays like fumblerooskis and the statue of liberty can be as viable as they were the first time they were used. I think that unit AI should be removed and unit selection limited to 1 max so that there can be less automation and more apm needed. oh wait, wrong thread.
point is, your posts are so completely nonsensical as an argument, of course some middle ground must be achieved. Who said the spectator experience is unimportant? did you even read my post completely? stop trolling my thread with your petty ignorant posts, people like you make me SICK
|
Alright, my last post was a little smart alecky, sorry. But, honestly, why should we get upset that people are learning how to play the game better? There are people worried that SC2 won't have enough macro, and other people worried that SC2 will be too macro oriented because people will learn builds from replays (at least I hope these are two separate groups of people...).
Leagues can keep their reps secret if they want (like kespa) and teams can keep their reps secret, too (like estro). If you don't want people getting your strategies, then you can practice only with people on your team and play others in leagues that only release VODs, like the korean leagues. I really think the game should at least include the option. I think that replays should stick around because they help people ease into the game by copying. No one can reach the top ranks by copying alone, though. All the best players learn to "play by feel" and don't stick to any single build order.
Additionally, this would be terrible for the development of ESPORTS. Real sports haven't been ruined by the lack of fog of war. Look at tennis: there aren't a bunch of crazy strategies for that game - yet it has lasted for over a century. If the game needs crazy strategies to be fun to watch, then the core game is poorly made. Starcraft is still as fun to watch as ever, and we continue to see new styles. The lack of creativity recently shown by map makers is contributing to stagnancy much more than replays. And still, the maps are okay, Flash is starting a new deny-the-third TvZ movement, zergs are two basing more than just a few months ago, Jangbi came up with a fast 3 base strat on Neo Moon Glaive, etc. The ratings for the last OSL final were great. Starcraft is not sick. Boxer is wistful for the past he dominated, but it isn't coming back. The best players will have to be able to macro and micro and think on the fly and be creative instead of just a few of those things. I think creative players should have fun with SC2, but we should be able to learn from that and see how smart those plays really are by dissecting them in replays.
|
United States7166 Posts
On January 30 2010 08:03 tedster wrote: This might come as a news flash to some people, but it isn't replays that promote cookie-cutter gameplay. It's the desire to win. In ANY game where there are more efficient strategies, players will gravitate towards them as quickly as possible - and this is a good thing.
It is the responsibility of the game designers to reward multiple viable strategies - including high-risk, high-reward strategies (like cheese and timing attacks in BW) to ensure the game is rounded enough to support this natural convergence.
Cutting out replays is beyond stupid because it artificially makes the game more difficult to learn, understand, and observe. I don't care how creative your barracks-before-depot build is if I can't fucking see it and understand it - and if it's good, it's going to be discovered eventually anyway. I understand the frustration of being a great player and losing out to the newer, mechanically driven stars, but to intentionally dumb down the overall knowledge level of the entire community is selfish and stupid and comes from players wishing to maintain an edge without having to put in the same practice time as other players. What is this I don't even
Do I need to seriously respond to this post? "I don't care how creative your barracks-before-depot build is if I can't fucking see it and understand it" Oh, I think you'll be seeing, or should I say experiencing the barracks-before-depot build just fine, if you know what I mean. LOL why do you need to "fucking see it and understand it" completely? can't you study the timing of when it comes and figure out the counter yourself? or did you mean you want to "fucking copy it"
what a joke, seriously you people are ruining my thread
"but to intentionally dumb down the overall knowledge level of the entire community is selfish and stupid and comes from players wishing to maintain an edge without having to put in the same practice time as other players." i like how analyzing your every opponent's action, timing, and build order is equivalent to "dumb down the overall knowledge level of the entire community." Imagine if there was no fog of war in SC1, players in games always had vision of the entire map. Then if SC2 was coming out and I suggested fog of war IN-GAME, would you say it's "dumbing down the overall knowledge level of the entire community" as well? This is slightly unfair comparison but the point should be clear enough
|
On January 30 2010 07:32 ploy wrote: What a worthwhile post, Boblion. As if seeing a broadcasted game or VOD is even comparable with watching a replay in terms of copying build orders/strategies. Go away.
Then again, only a few starcraft legends think replays hurt the game....what do they know, right? Because you think that the replays of the pros are often leaked ?
People watch the pros trying a new strat on TV then top foreigners and top Kor amateurs try to do the same things and THEN the average noobie can get their replays. Pros get copied by people watching Vods.
|
United States7166 Posts
how does this have anything to do with my idea boblion? I've addressed this already, of course builds will still be figured out and copied but not as easily and completely. it would greatly slow the process
and btw this still does not explain the god awful post you made that he is referring to
|
I think even having the option is a bad idea because it will split players into both camps and make it harder to match up. Blizzard can block the map hacking by not distributing replay data until the end of the match regardless of whether the replays are fogged. I don't think players are entitled to the secrecy of builds they use against me. Even in OSL/MSL people get to look at the replay to see what they lost from. How are players supposed to improve if they can't even figure out what they were up against? This will just encourage enclaves of good players tucked away in team houses while people trying to improve by themselves might not even learn to correlating scouting info with certain builds because they won't be able to determine for sure how many gates or facs or whatever they are up against without complex math. Security through obscurity doesn't work, it just limits the amount of people who learn to those with special knowledge and connections. It would probably allow for much more hacking, too. Blizzard hasn't been able to prevent all hacking in WoW even though it is through a central server. With replays, TSL admins can prove certain people are cheating but with no replay, we will never know if certain people are cheating. We will always be worried that Blizzard is missing certain exploits. Look at the recent SC patch debacle when certain pauses were put in the code for no good reason - one of TL's coders (Rich, I think) figured out the problem and a fix very quickly. And the community has always been ahead of Blizzard in anti-hack. Map hack might be fixed but many have correctly noted that you still have to be decent to win with map hack - other hacks that would be made easier to hide due to no replay would be even more egregious than map hack.
|
On January 30 2010 08:18 Zelniq wrote:
Do I need to seriously respond to this post? "I don't care how creative your barracks-before-depot build is if I can't fucking see it and understand it" Oh, I think you'll be seeing, or should I say experiencing the barracks-before-depot build just fine, if you know what I mean. LOL why do you need to "fucking see it and understand it" completely? can't you study the timing of when it comes and figure out the counter yourself? or did you mean you want to "fucking copy it"
Please calm down and respond seriously.
Look at aggressive TvZ in SC - the zerg doesn't have the units to spare to send a drones all over the map looking for exactly how the build works. That will mean that they lose just to find out how they lost... These early aggression builds that people tend to interpret as more creative than more complicated and creative macro builds often cannot be scouted unless a worker is sent out unreasonably early.
|
United States7166 Posts
On January 30 2010 08:26 Pyrrhuloxia wrote: I think even having the option is a bad idea because it will split players into both camps and make it harder to match up. Blizzard can block the map hacking by not distributing replay data until the end of the match regardless of whether the replays are fogged. I don't think players are entitled to the secrecy of builds they use against me. Even in OSL/MSL people get to look at the replay to see what they lost from. How are players supposed to improve if they can't even figure out what they were up against? This will just encourage enclaves of good players tucked away in team houses while people trying to improve by themselves might not even learn to correlating scouting info with certain builds because they won't be able to determine for sure how many gates or facs or whatever they are up against without complex math. Security through obscurity doesn't work, it just limits the amount of people who learn to those with special knowledge and connections. It would probably allow for much more hacking, too. Blizzard hasn't been able to prevent all hacking in WoW even though it is through a central server. With replays, TSL admins can prove certain people are cheating but with no replay, we will never know if certain people are cheating. We will always be worried that Blizzard is missing certain exploits. Look at the recent SC patch debacle when certain pauses were put in the code for no good reason - one of TL's coders (Rich, I think) figured out the problem and a fix very quickly. And the community has always been ahead of Blizzard in anti-hack. Map hack might be fixed but many have correctly noted that you still have to be decent to win with map hack - other hacks that would be made easier to hide due to no replay would be even more egregious than map hack.
But you can still learn a lot from looking at just your own vision, can't you? is it not enough? think about it, they can still knew enough of what they were up against, it's not like the loss is ever a surprise to a player, you can still see whenever he comes into your vision and analyze all of your own mistakes, timings, etc. though I suppose things like hidden expansions would be hard to figure out, perhaps resource gathering rates could be a stat included in every replay or something.
|
On January 30 2010 08:18 Zelniq wrote: "but to intentionally dumb down the overall knowledge level of the entire community is selfish and stupid and comes from players wishing to maintain an edge without having to put in the same practice time as other players." i like how analyzing your every opponent's action, timing, and build order is equivalent to "dumb down the overall knowledge level of the entire community." Imagine if there was no fog of war in SC1, players in games always had vision of the entire map. Then if SC2 was coming out and I suggested fog of war IN-GAME, would you say it's "dumbing down the overall knowledge level of the entire community" as well? This is slightly unfair comparison but the point should be clear enough
It is a completely unfair comparison. The point of fog of war is to make the collection of intelligence part of the strategy players must consider. The point of attaching DRM to build orders is to maintain the advantage of the monopoly on knowledge held by a few players, even after they put that knowledge into practice. Teams should be able to learn from other teams - bball teams shouldn't be stopped from running the Princeton offense just because someone else ran it first.
|
United States7166 Posts
On January 30 2010 08:30 Pyrrhuloxia wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2010 08:18 Zelniq wrote:
Do I need to seriously respond to this post? "I don't care how creative your barracks-before-depot build is if I can't fucking see it and understand it" Oh, I think you'll be seeing, or should I say experiencing the barracks-before-depot build just fine, if you know what I mean. LOL why do you need to "fucking see it and understand it" completely? can't you study the timing of when it comes and figure out the counter yourself? or did you mean you want to "fucking copy it"
Please calm down and respond seriously. Look at aggressive TvZ in SC - the zerg doesn't have the units to spare to send a drones all over the map looking for exactly how the build works. That will mean that they lose just to find out how they lost... These early aggression builds that people tend to interpret as more creative than more complicated and creative macro builds often cannot be scouted unless a worker is sent out unreasonably early. lets say you DO have vision and you find his proxy raxes. so what are you going to do? you still need to find some way to defend it in time, yet you can do that exact same thing with just your own vision. everything that kills you will be in your vision. all attacks, etc. you dont need to send out workers unreasonably early all over the map to figure out the build, you dont need that knowledge
|
On January 30 2010 08:25 Zelniq wrote: how does this have anything to do with my idea boblion? I've addressed this already, of course builds will still be figured out and copied but not as easily and completely. it would greatly slow the process
It won't slow anything because the players who are the first to copy pros ( Top amateur Kors or top foreigners ) are already used to copy build orders from VODs. Who cares if joe2456 from East who is C- on iccup can't get replays anymore. Wait he will still get replays of his favourite foreigners from gg.net and copy their builds. The only thing which will change is that he won't be able to see what the other guy is doing. But guess what joe2456 won't go to the OSL final so i doubt people care.
On January 30 2010 08:25 Zelniq wrote: and btw this still does not explain the god awful post you made that he is referring to The only thing awful in this thread is your idea.
Look at others sports or chess.
|
United States7166 Posts
On January 30 2010 08:36 Pyrrhuloxia wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2010 08:18 Zelniq wrote: "but to intentionally dumb down the overall knowledge level of the entire community is selfish and stupid and comes from players wishing to maintain an edge without having to put in the same practice time as other players." i like how analyzing your every opponent's action, timing, and build order is equivalent to "dumb down the overall knowledge level of the entire community." Imagine if there was no fog of war in SC1, players in games always had vision of the entire map. Then if SC2 was coming out and I suggested fog of war IN-GAME, would you say it's "dumbing down the overall knowledge level of the entire community" as well? This is slightly unfair comparison but the point should be clear enough
It is a completely unfair comparison. The point of fog of war is to make the collection of intelligence part of the strategy players must consider. The point of attaching DRM to build orders is to maintain the advantage of the monopoly on knowledge held by a few players, even after they put that knowledge into practice. Teams should be able to learn from other teams - bball teams shouldn't be stopped from running the Princeton offense just because someone else ran it first. that's what im trying to say. i'm not saying to remove replays completely, i'm arguing that you can still learn enough from watching your side of the replay. and no the point of "attaching Digital Rights Management to build orders" is not to maintain a monopoly of knowledge held by a few players, but to discourage incessant, thoughtless build-order copying and to discourage players from relying mostly on just their mechanics and how well they can execute builds.
|
On January 30 2010 08:31 Zelniq wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2010 08:26 Pyrrhuloxia wrote: I think even having the option is a bad idea because it will split players into both camps and make it harder to match up. Blizzard can block the map hacking by not distributing replay data until the end of the match regardless of whether the replays are fogged. I don't think players are entitled to the secrecy of builds they use against me. Even in OSL/MSL people get to look at the replay to see what they lost from. How are players supposed to improve if they can't even figure out what they were up against? This will just encourage enclaves of good players tucked away in team houses while people trying to improve by themselves might not even learn to correlating scouting info with certain builds because they won't be able to determine for sure how many gates or facs or whatever they are up against without complex math. Security through obscurity doesn't work, it just limits the amount of people who learn to those with special knowledge and connections. It would probably allow for much more hacking, too. Blizzard hasn't been able to prevent all hacking in WoW even though it is through a central server. With replays, TSL admins can prove certain people are cheating but with no replay, we will never know if certain people are cheating. We will always be worried that Blizzard is missing certain exploits. Look at the recent SC patch debacle when certain pauses were put in the code for no good reason - one of TL's coders (Rich, I think) figured out the problem and a fix very quickly. And the community has always been ahead of Blizzard in anti-hack. Map hack might be fixed but many have correctly noted that you still have to be decent to win with map hack - other hacks that would be made easier to hide due to no replay would be even more egregious than map hack. But you can still learn a lot from looking at just your own vision, can't you? is it not enough? think about it, they can still knew enough of what they were up against, it's not like the loss is ever a surprise to a player, you can still see whenever he comes into your vision and analyze all of your own mistakes, timings, etc. though I suppose things like hidden expansions would be hard to figure out, perhaps resource gathering rates could be a stat included in every replay or something. No, I can't learn a lot just from looking at my own vision. Maybe C level and above players can, but noobs like me can't learn shit if fog of war is around. And C-level players are probably 1% of all people who've played starcraft. It's not just hidden expansions but order of building placement, number of unit production buildings, etc. All of those could lead to a result that is damn hard to determine without seeing what is going on. Incredibly hard if the other player is good at denying scouts. Additionally, there would be far fewer C level players without replay. C-level players might be able to know "this number of units means fake double, this number means real double" but the progress of that information to common knowledge would be way harder without replays. The way games are is that certain strategies are "standard" and thus good in all sorts of situations. Other are "cheesy" in that they usually work only if they aren't understood in advance. So limiting the diffusion of knowledge will indeed allow more unstrategic strategies to be viable for longer, but not much longer if VODs are still available. And I'm not convinced that we would have more fun if starleague finals still consisted of 3 bunker rush wins rather than 5 long "standard" "uncreative" macro games. Part of the fun of creative builds is that they might only work once: replays didn't stop GGPlay from winning on Monty Hall, Fantasy from beating Stork on Plasma, Boxer from doing that crazy m&m tvt with proxy depots, or any other number of the creative builds that continue to appear on new maps. I think the biggest change if replays are fogged are that more players will stop appreciating cheese / creative builds and the balance will shift farther towards people getting even more pissed when they lose to them because now they can't even see wtf happened to be better prepared to not lose to it again.
|
United States7166 Posts
On January 30 2010 08:39 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2010 08:25 Zelniq wrote: how does this have anything to do with my idea boblion? I've addressed this already, of course builds will still be figured out and copied but not as easily and completely. it would greatly slow the process
It won't slow anything because the players who are the first to copy pros ( Top amateur Kors or top foreigners ) are already used to copy build orders from VODs. Who cares if joe2456 from East who is C- on iccup can't get replays anymore. Wait he will still get replays of his favourite foreigners from gg.net and copy their builds. The only thing which will change is that he won't be able to see what the other guy is doing. But guess what joe2456 won't go to the OSL final so i doubt people care. this is a valid point in that you can often copy the general build order idea or figure it out/fill in the holes by watching VODs, but televised VODs are still way less common than replays and it would definitely slow down the copying of build orders. i'm not entirely sure what your joe2456 example meant, do you mean he can get replays who dont turn this option on? yes that is true so the people that dont care can be copied sure, but those who do care will be much harder to copy.
Show nested quote +On January 30 2010 08:25 Zelniq wrote: and btw this still does not explain the god awful post you made that he is referring to The only thing awful in this thread is your idea. Look at others sports or chess. well there's no fog of war in chess so I don't see how that applies. and there's no fog of war in sports either afaik!
|
United States7166 Posts
On January 30 2010 08:48 Pyrrhuloxia wrote: wall of text a good point about the newbie's perspective. 99% of the players will fall in this category even after the game has been out for some time. although a large percent of those newbies won't even really make any use out of vision of their opponents in replays even if it was available. so really you're only talking about newbies who understand the game well enough to make sense out of what the opponent's doing to win and what to do to stop it. Additionally, newbies will theoretically and hopefully be playing other newbies, which means they probably won't even enable that option anyway. what do they care if someone sees them in replays? there are things that could be done to prevent this from being a problem, to help newbies out in general, etc. my idea isn't like some final version, it's just an idea and probably needs changing.
|
On January 30 2010 08:42 Zelniq wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2010 08:36 Pyrrhuloxia wrote:On January 30 2010 08:18 Zelniq wrote: "but to intentionally dumb down the overall knowledge level of the entire community is selfish and stupid and comes from players wishing to maintain an edge without having to put in the same practice time as other players." i like how analyzing your every opponent's action, timing, and build order is equivalent to "dumb down the overall knowledge level of the entire community." Imagine if there was no fog of war in SC1, players in games always had vision of the entire map. Then if SC2 was coming out and I suggested fog of war IN-GAME, would you say it's "dumbing down the overall knowledge level of the entire community" as well? This is slightly unfair comparison but the point should be clear enough
It is a completely unfair comparison. The point of fog of war is to make the collection of intelligence part of the strategy players must consider. The point of attaching DRM to build orders is to maintain the advantage of the monopoly on knowledge held by a few players, even after they put that knowledge into practice. Teams should be able to learn from other teams - bball teams shouldn't be stopped from running the Princeton offense just because someone else ran it first. that's what im trying to say. i'm not saying to remove replays completely, i'm arguing that you can still learn enough from watching your side of the replay. and no the point of "attaching Digital Rights Management to build orders" is not to maintain a monopoly of knowledge held by a few players, but to discourage incessant, thoughtless build-order copying and to discourage players from relying mostly on just their mechanics and how well they can execute builds. I really think this build-order copying is a myth. Every build has weak points if scouting isn't used to respond to opponents and change if necessary. If you want creative builds, you should pray that replays remain open and that players follow them rote like you fear, because that kind of play is what opens the door to creative builds meant to snipe that kind of robotism. Flash is no robot - if you look closely, he is constantly changing things based on what he sees. Idra is no robot either, he knows to scout before putting down the nat cc, for instance. It is true that learning mechanics / build orders is more efficient / effective in starcraft than learning more "creative" things until you are really good at mechanics. But this has been a strength of Starcraft as an esport relative to, say, WC3 or Command and Conquer games. And, SC2 might make creativity more viable. So I think we should at least wait till beta testing before we decide that SC2 will be less friendly to creative players than SC1 (which I maintain has been and continues to be friendly to creative players). I don't think shifting things too far in the "creative" direction is that great, though. The value of creativity is partly dependent on the fact that many things are not viable. Look at TurN's recent builds, for instance. They might be exciting, but part of the Terran style springs from the fact that such aggressive builds have a small window of working. If anything goes for any of the races, they might blend together. Additionally, Protosses tended to suck in the early age of starcraft. Now that the game has been figured out more, the three races seem a lot more equal in terms of success. Without replays, strategies take longer to disperse and Blizzard might end up making balance changes that are unnecessary and even harmful because an existent response doesn't get passed around.
wasted my 4000th post on arguing, how fitting
|
On January 30 2010 08:42 Zelniq wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2010 08:36 Pyrrhuloxia wrote:On January 30 2010 08:18 Zelniq wrote: "but to intentionally dumb down the overall knowledge level of the entire community is selfish and stupid and comes from players wishing to maintain an edge without having to put in the same practice time as other players." i like how analyzing your every opponent's action, timing, and build order is equivalent to "dumb down the overall knowledge level of the entire community." Imagine if there was no fog of war in SC1, players in games always had vision of the entire map. Then if SC2 was coming out and I suggested fog of war IN-GAME, would you say it's "dumbing down the overall knowledge level of the entire community" as well? This is slightly unfair comparison but the point should be clear enough
It is a completely unfair comparison. The point of fog of war is to make the collection of intelligence part of the strategy players must consider. The point of attaching DRM to build orders is to maintain the advantage of the monopoly on knowledge held by a few players, even after they put that knowledge into practice. Teams should be able to learn from other teams - bball teams shouldn't be stopped from running the Princeton offense just because someone else ran it first. that's what im trying to say. i'm not saying to remove replays completely, i'm arguing that you can still learn enough from watching your side of the replay. and no the point of "attaching Digital Rights Management to build orders" is not to maintain a monopoly of knowledge held by a few players, but to discourage incessant, thoughtless build-order copying and to discourage players from relying mostly on just their mechanics and how well they can execute builds. I think the Boxer quote supports the idea that players like Boxer should be able to maintain their monopoly on knowledge of how to execute certain builds in order to further their success past where it would go if their builds were fully understood. It is the necessary corollary to preventing build-order copying. When you prevent build-order copying by fogged replays you also prevent creative players of other races from analyzing Boxer-type builds in order to craft new responses. You also prevent creative players of the same race from evolving the ideas further or working the new ideas into older strategies.
|
United States7166 Posts
well I'd like to argue that your reasoning for Flash/idra/etc not being robots is invalid. (not that I think they're robots!! i dont !) let me point example to a build order I just read from Stylish's (A- Swedish terran) guide, the popular tvz build:
1. TvZ 9 minute Push (This compared to other standard TvZbuilds are explained on page 32.) A. Build Order: - Hide Spoiler - 9 supply 11 rax 12 scout 16 supply 18 cc 22 supply 23 refinery 25 rax 32 academy 38 supply 38 ebay 48 supply 48 factory 52 refinery 54 supply 56 comsats 58 supply 60 starport 64 supply + turrets 70 science facility This strategy counter 3hatch muta into 3rd exp and hive. If he hasn't started upgrading to hive when you scan before you move out, add another vessel instead of dropship and move out when vessel is finnished. But before that scan again, if he still hasn't started hive wait for the 2-1 upgrade and move out with a huge army towards his natural. Hotkey 1 2 3 4 5 and use the rest manually. for more details listen to the commentary
point being is this is but one example where build orders involve scouting and branching off to pre-developed reactions based on what they scout. it's not like they just use their brain and make the good decision based on logic and understanding, any player can just "oh if they went 2 hatch then change the build to Y. if 3 hatch then continue X" of course this is when reacting to common builds/openings, not something weird. in those cases yes you may need to use your brain and show some good decision making
|
On January 30 2010 05:51 FrozenArbiter wrote: I think (just like last thread) that it's a really, really, really bad idea. Replays didn't kill creativity - people just got too fucking good for random bullshit to work. Yeah, replays sped that process up but it would have happened anyway.
Much more important is the fact that watching a replay is FUN, and this way it wouldn't be.
I mean, don't you download replays from TL or other sites? Would it really be nearly as fun to watch them, if you could only see one player...?
+1 to this.
I highly disagree with "hiding" strategies for the sake of keeping them hidden for some time longer. It benefits ONLY the player who developed the strategy.
To me when it comes to strategy games, I want to see the strategy pushed to the limit. I want to see it evolve, I want to see top level play. "hiding" strategies seems counterproductive to making a strategy game.
|
United States7166 Posts
On January 30 2010 09:03 Pyrrhuloxia wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2010 08:42 Zelniq wrote:On January 30 2010 08:36 Pyrrhuloxia wrote:On January 30 2010 08:18 Zelniq wrote: "but to intentionally dumb down the overall knowledge level of the entire community is selfish and stupid and comes from players wishing to maintain an edge without having to put in the same practice time as other players." i like how analyzing your every opponent's action, timing, and build order is equivalent to "dumb down the overall knowledge level of the entire community." Imagine if there was no fog of war in SC1, players in games always had vision of the entire map. Then if SC2 was coming out and I suggested fog of war IN-GAME, would you say it's "dumbing down the overall knowledge level of the entire community" as well? This is slightly unfair comparison but the point should be clear enough
It is a completely unfair comparison. The point of fog of war is to make the collection of intelligence part of the strategy players must consider. The point of attaching DRM to build orders is to maintain the advantage of the monopoly on knowledge held by a few players, even after they put that knowledge into practice. Teams should be able to learn from other teams - bball teams shouldn't be stopped from running the Princeton offense just because someone else ran it first. that's what im trying to say. i'm not saying to remove replays completely, i'm arguing that you can still learn enough from watching your side of the replay. and no the point of "attaching Digital Rights Management to build orders" is not to maintain a monopoly of knowledge held by a few players, but to discourage incessant, thoughtless build-order copying and to discourage players from relying mostly on just their mechanics and how well they can execute builds. I think the Boxer quote supports the idea that players like Boxer should be able to maintain their monopoly on knowledge of how to execute certain builds in order to further their success past where it would go if their builds were fully understood. It is the necessary corollary to preventing build-order copying. When you prevent build-order copying by fogged replays you also prevent creative players of other races from analyzing Boxer-type builds in order to craft new responses. You also prevent creative players of the same race from evolving the ideas further or working the new ideas into older strategies. "When you prevent build-order copying by fogged replays you also prevent creative players of other races from analyzing Boxer-type builds in order to craft new responses. " Creative players, im assuming they are also ones that understand the game fairly well and are experienced, will be able to come up with creative counter-reactions without needing to get full vision of their opponent anyway. same thing with creative players of the same race, provided they have some idea of what the general build idea is
|
United States7166 Posts
On January 30 2010 09:13 Marimokkori wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2010 05:51 FrozenArbiter wrote: I think (just like last thread) that it's a really, really, really bad idea. Replays didn't kill creativity - people just got too fucking good for random bullshit to work. Yeah, replays sped that process up but it would have happened anyway.
Much more important is the fact that watching a replay is FUN, and this way it wouldn't be.
I mean, don't you download replays from TL or other sites? Would it really be nearly as fun to watch them, if you could only see one player...? +1 to this. I highly disagree with "hiding" strategies for the sake of keeping them hidden for some time longer. It benefits ONLY the player who developed the strategy. To me when it comes to strategy games, I want to see the strategy pushed to the limit. I want to see it evolve, I want to see top level play. "hiding" strategies seems counterproductive to making a strategy game. ALL of this will happen even if players don't get full vision of their opponents. We all want to see strategy pushed to the limit. Top level play will always be evolving, advancing.. new strategies emerging and being shown, etc. my idea does not change this
|
I dunno, I think build orders are inevitable and they don't bother me that much. One thing that would might be gone if a lot of players put on fog are those funny replays like the 2v2v2v2 rep shown in Day 9's 50 episode. Like when that one player puts his CC a mile from the minerals when he could have put it right where it is supposed to go. I suppose the part where purple rebuilds might be funnier if it was fogged up but fog can be turned on for comedic effect in sc1 reps.
|
United States7166 Posts
I dunno, I think build orders are inevitable and they don't bother me that much. One thing that would might be gone if a lot of players put on fog are those funny replays like the 2v2v2v2 rep shown in Day 9's 50 episode. Like when that one player puts his CC a mile from the minerals when he could have put it right where it is supposed to go. I suppose the part where purple rebuilds might be funnier if it was fogged up but fog can be turned on for comedic effect in sc1 reps. well for example this idea could only say apply to ladder games, not custom 2v2v2v2 and such fun ones. like i said, this idea is very open and welcome to changes
|
Just give the OPTION to disable replays.
|
United States7166 Posts
do you mean so the opponent cant save a replay at all? that's no good, how can they learn from their mistakes and such? where's the fun in that.
btw, in case you didn't read it, my idea is to have an option for this not mandatory
|
Obviously noone wants maphacking, but seriously... this idea would not fly.
|
Replays are not the problem, if pro games can be spectated than their strategies can be copied almost perfectly anyways from vods.
|
Can't believe so many people voted yes.
|
Perhaps have a cutoff for replay fog of war? Like gold league and beyond?
|
United States7166 Posts
makes sense but not sure if they'd go for it, as it's a bit strange to arbitrarily make some cutoff point where fog doesn't matter.
also that reminds me
why'd I make this post? i feel like the chances of this happening are pretty slim unfortunately. I doubt Blizzard devs would go for it
|
Bad idea.
Quoting a bunch of programmers also doesn't mean you're right.
|
United States7166 Posts
Before I leave this thread I'd like to say a big THANKS to everyone who just said it's a bad idea without explaining further.
Also I'd like to give a shoutout to icemac from Hong Kong for keepin it real, layin down the law!
|
I'd be inclined to agree with this notion if EVERY pro-gamer agreed with this. The opinion of a huge majority of pro-gamers is something I can trust, but a few here and there, no.
EDIT: I also think that replay analysis in its self adds an aspect to competitive gaming. Both in how you analyse yourself and how others play against you.
|
It would be very difficult to implement this without making it possible for third party programs to view the opponent. The stuff about the server keeping replay information and saving different copies doesn't really help because the replay still has to have the opponent's actions in order to correctly recreate the game. The only realistic way I can think of to do this would be for replays to be stored serverside - Blizzard would have to dedicate space on battle.net to store every game's replay, and then you'd have to be logged into bnet with your account to watch your replays. There'd be no way for you to distribute replays to friends, etc. I think any system to protect the privacy of a player's builds will do far more damage than it's worth.
|
perhaps the best solution would be to have vods available for pro games, so we can see their bases and get a glimpse, but not have their replays released. couldn't that easily be controlled?
|
i admire your passion to save e-sports
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On January 30 2010 11:45 Zelniq wrote: makes sense but not sure if they'd go for it, as it's a bit strange to arbitrarily make some cutoff point where fog doesn't matter.
also that reminds me
why'd I make this post? i feel like the chances of this happening are pretty slim unfortunately. I doubt Blizzard devs would go for it Your idea is 1039502950395x times better than disabling replays completely, but I still feel that being able to enjoy watching the replay of a close game you just played, together with some friends, outweighs the... extra year or whatever a lack of detailed replays would give you.
I don't really believe that it was as simple as "oh, replays were introduced and damn, all those idiots suddenly got as good as me", either....
|
United States3824 Posts
That was an awsome Garmito quote btw.
|
I like this idea as an option, especially in top-level competitive play. This would give a player the ability to hide his exact build from everyone else, and avoid the day-after copycats as mentioned. At the same time the player could still see his own replay for analysis. Right now there is huge motivation for players to save new builds for only the most important matches.
I'd hope in 99% of games this option would not be exercised by the players though, as it's more beneficial for all parties to see the full replay in a random Bnet ladder match.
|
|
United States7166 Posts
I guess I haven't given up completely. I just updated the main post with this variant of the original idea: "Perhaps a good way to change this idea is to only allow this option for players at the high/very high ranks of the ladder, thereby making 98% games have normal, full vision replays."
On January 30 2010 14:12 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2010 11:45 Zelniq wrote: makes sense but not sure if they'd go for it, as it's a bit strange to arbitrarily make some cutoff point where fog doesn't matter.
also that reminds me
why'd I make this post? i feel like the chances of this happening are pretty slim unfortunately. I doubt Blizzard devs would go for it Your idea is 1039502950395x times better than disabling replays completely, but I still feel that being able to enjoy watching the replay of a close game you just played, together with some friends, outweighs the... extra year or whatever a lack of detailed replays would give you. I don't really believe that it was as simple as "oh, replays were introduced and damn, all those idiots suddenly got as good as me", either.... on the bottom of page 1 (as well as the red/green part at the bottom of my OP) I tried to argue that you can still enjoy replays with my idea, with friends. I tried to argue that it's even more fun to watch 1 player rather than both, I often prefer watching replays this way. btw are they still not going to allow us to watch replays with friends on bnet? if so then I really, really dislike that Rob Pardo guy for thinking nobody uses this feature....................
|
I don't think the idea is good, I even believe that there's a little bit of hypocrisy in all these claims asking for more strategy. Blizzard RTS always had a nervous playstyle, a limited number of units/ressources, and simple-minded/old-school rules. If you want to play a game where copycats wouldn't be able to beat you, you should maybe try another one rather than asking Blizzard to retrograde the replay feature present in the first game. I've seen the same kind of concerns when people were talking about MBS and auto-mine, exept mecanic-wise.
Starcraft2: Wings of Liberty wouldn't be figured out in 2 days, 99% of the players will either try to play it like Starcraft or play it without the Starcraft basis, there will be a great opportunity for smart players to dominate the scene at this time. Not to mention the 2 expansions, they will also reward inventive players.
|
gotta realize that everything boxer says these days has to be taken with a grain of suck
|
On January 30 2010 15:30 SerpentFlame wrote:
Saying you think replays should be included in starcraft 2 is not the same as claiming you know more about starcraft just because progamers dislike replays. Wanting/not wanting replays doesn't necessarily have a right/wrong answer. It just depends how you look at things and if you think the overall positives outweigh the negatives. It's not an absolute like the fact that all terran players are camping noobs.
Btw I really do wonder if pros know more about sc or not. Like I would LOVE to see some interviews where a few known pros are asked about the campaign story, that'd be awesome to see if they have a clue or not. I bet they wouldn't.
|
No, this will encourage people to make even more maphacks.
|
Germany2896 Posts
It is far too late in development to make that decision now. If they still use the same kind of net code they used with sc1 and wc3(and which about every other RTS uses) then what you suggest is not technically feasible. And personally I think making this decision is about as bad as their decision to ban LAN.
|
The idea that replays hurts the game is just rediculous. It's just a bunch of whining that their cute little cheese build orders don't work now that players have learned as much as they have about the game.
Don't let them fool you into thinking that they can't be creative because of replays. They can't be creative because they aren't good enough to pull off creative builds. Even if they were at the same level as progamers today there simply isn't an infinite number of feasible strategies in starcraft. But does there need to be? There are already tons of really unique builds and we still see new ones every now and then. And alot of times when we do see these knew creative strategies they aren't boxer style all in cheeses. They are solid adaptable strategies like the fantasy build; where you can do it 100 games in a row and it will work every time. It doesn't matter if your enemy knows you're doing it, because it's an adaptable build and has reliable mechanics to it. Fantasy doesn't give a fuck if everyone has seen 1000 replays of that build because it will work anyway. That's is a motherfucking strategy.
That's what pisses me off about this and makes Boxer and the others look like the dipshits(in regards to this subject) they are.
The argument isn't about preventing people from analyzing the strategy you came up with last week using replays and preparing a counter to it before you can use it again. At a competitive level any of the players know enough about the game to be able to understand the build and prepare a counter for it without a replay simply by using their fucking brain for a few minutes. What it comes down to is that they want to retard the rate at which players learn the game so they don't get left in the dust by newer players that are smarter and faster than they are.
You could eliminate replays right now and Flash and Jaedong would still rape the shit out of any of these old school progamers in their prime and any cute little cheeses they come up with because via a combination of being smart and/or faster they are simply better players. They can deal with every situations because they are good thinkers and can prepare for the possibilities of what you are doing and react with scouting and build order, not because they knew ahead of time what you were doing.
All limiting replays would do is slow the learning rate of the players, and that is not the solution. If you want more unique strategies you need to [add/change] [units/mechanics] in the game, and that's all there is to it.
|
Pulling off a one hit wonder and live off the royalties for the rest of your life is more creative than creating and evolving new music continuously?
If e-sports is to be taken seriously it is necessary to reach as high level as possible as fast as possible, and not allow for gimmicky play to be rewarding for a longer period of time.
|
I think its a good idea considering i get tired of watching "progamers" do the same stuff over and over again...like its actually really boring to watch replays/games on youtbe/FPVODs/commentaries.....i mean In my opinion I just get tired of BUILDCRAFT.
but thats just me. meh.
|
On January 30 2010 05:51 FrozenArbiter wrote: I think (just like last thread) that it's a really, really, really bad idea. Replays didn't kill creativity - people just got too fucking good for random bullshit to work. Yeah, replays sped that process up but it would have happened anyway.
Much more important is the fact that watching a replay is FUN, and this way it wouldn't be.
I mean, don't you download replays from TL or other sites? Would it really be nearly as fun to watch them, if you could only see one player...? This is how I feel. It is difficult to argue against the fun factor because you cannot change viewing pleasure with arguments. I want to see both players, which will give me the most satisfaction. If I am forced to only watch one player, then it won't be nearly as much fun watching replays as it ought to be. Thus I think it is a horrible idea to tamper with replays in your suggested fashion.
|
Replays should be allowed. However, the replays of progamers should be banned. For those arguing that it is boring seeing progamers play the same stuff, do note that there is only a limited amount of units per race. And as people have said it, its a real time strategy game. So if someone who has been known to the community through the use of unconventional play has his replay released, there would be no way he would be able to bounce back in the progaming scene. Replays should be allowed for players to learn their mistakes and also appreciate the play of better players, but if it reached a point where strategies that took u a long time to hone and master was deciphered within days of its debut, how would that person feel? It totally kills any initiative to create and perfect strategies already
if there are progamers who would wish to release their replays to teach the community im all for it since it helps people to learn better
|
I don't know if this has been said already, but specific build orders and timings can often be examined by the television coverage, FPVOD's etc. So why the big fuss about replays? They only add a little bit of extra info anyway. This actually levels the playing field a bit concerning opponent analysis.
|
Would be cracked in a minute, and you can't disallow people to crack their program when they are not playing.
|
I think the faster the game advances and the more people learn the new, cutting-edge builds, the better. Why on earth would you want to HOLD BACK the progression of the metagame? I think people who are already good just want to hold back other player so they can stay on top, which is understandable, but I think most people would like to see the highest level play possible; replays move us toward this goal.
|
10 some years in and we're still seeing new builds and innovative play. You may as well not even have a replay system if you're going to fog one of the players out.
I vehemently hope Blizzard ignores this idea.
Btw I really do wonder if pros know more about sc or not. Like I would LOVE to see some interviews where a few known pros are asked about the campaign story, that'd be awesome to see if they have a clue or not. I bet they wouldn't.
I'm not sure there's even a completely localized version of the campaign available in korean.
|
On January 30 2010 08:58 Pyrrhuloxia wrote: [If you want creative builds, you should pray that replays remain open and that players follow them rote like you fear, because that kind of play is what opens the door to creative builds meant to snipe that kind of robotism.
This is an important point. 'Standard' play actually encourages creative counters. If you knew exactly what your opponent was doing, you could respond with a build that exploits its weaknesses. That will continue to add interesting innovations to the game long after the builds have been technically perfected: see Jaedong's 3 hatch before pool vs terran fast expand.
Replays allow the community to have access to strategies sooner, both amateur and professional communities. But if they then become 'standard', new counters will arise and the cycle will continue.
I believe replays actually foster more creativity and speed up the evolution of the meta game rather than the opposite.
|
Like others said, the meta-game might be more restricted and less likely to utter in a new paradigm as time goes on, but it won't be completely solved if Blizzard is competent. Likely there will keep being new ways to attack old problems, new tricks, build orders and so on to get an advantage with even if the changes become more subtle. Some restriction of replays meant to protect creative players will do more than postponing the moment "correct play" becomes standard by a few months, if it's implemented to address concerns Boxer and others have. It might allow advanced players (pro, semi-pro, but also any group of competent people organizing tournaments and taking the game seriously (TSL?)) to distinguish themselves by creative plays for longer than at the one game they'll debut their innovation.
Implementing this idea would be disastrous however. It would take away the ability of players to think for themselves and would force them towards 'guides', and the wisdom of forums dedicated to game strategy. If you can't look at the replay and learn what you did wrong, that's like a giant sign of "we don't care about you, love, Blizzard".
I think that if you accept the central idea that innovation has some sort of copyright, where the person who thought of it should get some sort of prolonged benefit for some yet to be determined amount of time then there are betters ways to implement it.
I don´t accept this, though. If e-sports for starcraft II is to be like an actual sport, you want to see the best players using the most advanced plays. Imagine watching a final between two players where you know the zerg will lose because he isn't aware of the new counter to his game plan by his terran opponent. Any intermediate approach where the other player is allowed to know something, but not everything is so random as well. Just let him watch all the games by replay/videostream and let him think of a counter, it's more fair that way.
Some of the people being in favor of this idea must have this totally warped notion of their own importance, and must completely obsess about the health of e-sports. Content to associate with the elitist culture of korean pro-gaming, as opposed to having a fun game to play, seriously. o.o
|
great idea for programers... terrible idea for my self and noobies who can't think of a shit
|
There is no reason whatsoever to impede the dissemination of strategy in SC2 any more than in SC1.
- Pro teams already impede strategy dissemination by practicing within the team. If anyone wants to hide a strategy they can do that as well. The rest of us can enjoy learning effectively from the pool of released replays.
- The idea that the Boxer era was somehow "better" than the modern era is dubious. At the very least, it's a matter of taste.
- Preparing against "standard" builds is what makes creativity possible, and creative builds are still created frequently. They just aren't so cheesy anymore. Whether this is bad for spectators is also a matter of opinion.
- There are only so many units and buildings in SC to be creative with and some of them downright suck, so of course you'll see a lot of the same units being used in race match-ups.
- You're ignoring the fact that Blizzard will be balancing SC2. A unit's usefulness will change forcing BO changes. Eventual balance will also help diversity be even greater than in SC1 by making fewer completely sucky units in ways maps cannot.
- Expansion packs mean new units, which means that the game will most likely not become "stale" in any way for at least 2 years.
If Blizzard were to do a really good job in map pools, balance, and new expansion units I believe SC2 would be more strategically diverse and complicated than SC1 by far. Better replay analysis can only help this process.
|
Unless Blizzard decides to write an encrypted protocol, this is just gonna get hacked. Considering the frequency of packets sent in such a busy game, I doubt the development team will be happy introducing LAG for the sake of this philosophy.
|
I don't support this idea. I think most progamers are too good nowadays to let a little thing like fog-of-war prevent them from figuring out the build. Mostly it would affect new players and slow down their learning.
Even if the opponent's base isn't visible, progamers would be able to reverse engineer and guess the build just by looking at the timing. In his casts Day[9] is always pointing out subtleties of the build orders even if he hasn't been looking at the base, so any progamer would have no problem doing it. If they're really interested in using the build, then they'd spend a bit of time perfecting it on their own, which would be the case whether or not they knew the build order from the replay. So if someone is actually intent on copying a build it wouldn't take very long whether or not they can see the base. It would only stop new players who need the cookie cutter formulas to do the build and aren't able to optimize the build themselves.
|
Pointless, when said pro uses his uber strat in a televised game everyone will study it and copy it anyway.
Many support garimto's opinion because they think that the reason we see less strategic plays is because players become immune to them once they are used because of replays, and thats partially correct.
But trying to prevent people from studying and getting prepared against all in strats is lame.
The main reason why old programmers retire is because they are competing with passionate kids that are willing to sacrifice much more than them in order to stay at the top.
Innovation can still happen, and in SC2 it will be much easier to create tricky things with all the APM freed up.
On the end of the day, fog of war wouldnt make a difference, people will always be able to crack builds, and high level solid strats will always be something that is really well defended against all kinds of cheese, once a player uses once cheese, everyone will adapt defending that into their build and so on.
Thats how we got where we are, and thats how SC2 will work as well.
You are only delaying the sun from rising.
Let the old time pros whine as much as they want, it wont make em right.
|
The way I want it (which obviously is the bets and only right way ):
- In all games each player is only able to record their own data, unless both players agree otherwise in the lobby
- tournament casters can create server replays that contain all data, but which are enchrypted and only can be replayed on sc2 installations with the right key installed
- it is the tournaments hosts responsibilty to prevent leaks, a question of reputation
- cast replays can be created, from server and from player replays, that only show what the caster/commentator decided to show
- an audiotrack for cast replays would be a nice bonus
- directly creating video files/streams (theora is good for both, and also license free) from cast replays would be a nice bonus too
|
Umm... Having the data under fog of war being sent only to the server doesn't necessarily mean that you wouldn't be able to watch replays with full vision of both players. The simplest solution is that it's not the player's client that's saving the replay but the server that is sending the replay to both participants after the game is over (during the post-battle screen with stats for example, when you have the option to 'save replay'). I really can't see how anyone could vote 'No' on this one or even think that you would be able to save replays with only one player's vision...
Edit: And to the guy above me: In AMM lobby will only be available in the custom games, not ladder.
|
United States47024 Posts
A couple ideas against this that haven't been raised:
1) Having fog of war over your opponent makes it impossible for you to track his actions and make sure he isn't hacking. Given that a non-negligible amount of hacking will probably be detected by player-submitted feedback, and not just by automated anti-hacking utilities, this does a lot in making the game more conducive to hacking.
2) It's already the case that replays from pro-games are not released. What you lose from this in pro-games is that you take out the ability of a player to analyze his games mid-series and figure out his opponent. It actually encourages LESS creative play in set games, because a player can run the same cheesy build order 3-5 times, and because the opponent has both never seen it before and doesn't have the chance to look at it after the first game, he can fall to it again. IMO at higher-levels, mid-series replay analysis is important to creating dynamic series games, and has arguably contributed to some of the great series comebacks we've seen.
|
United States40772 Posts
Replays are an essential part of the game. There is still a huge amount of strategic depth and metagame going on in bw if you know where to look. It's not at all cookie cutter. Yes, the players at the top all have superb mechanics but when they play against each other the mechanics are equal and not a factor. You can get by vs amateurs by mechanics alone (as we saw when Free apesmashed Garimto's comeback) but strategy is still what wins you starleagues.
I think you have to distinguish between basic strategy shit like build orders which are easy to mimic from a replay and the more advanced stuff.
|
bad idea. People forget that nal_ra isnt old school. He became a pro long after replays were out. Boxer was dominant in 1.08 (when replays were out). This concept of replays killing creativity is bogus. More people watching games and being overall better players kills these people's builds. Boxer's shit doesnt work as much because hes using it on televsion and people from all the teams are probably recording/watching it and making a mental note of the stuff he tried. Not to mention people try shit like that all the time in practice im sure. Pro teams and more people playing at a high level which means they can analyze play better makes cute shit not work as much anymore. It has nothing to do with replays.
|
United States32480 Posts
nope, boxer needs to be dragged into the future, kicking and screaming if needed ;p
|
The old players are full of crap. They can't keep up because it's incredibly hard to stay motivated for so long with such fierce competition.
Not to mention I don't think creativity is getting less at all, just look how incredibly much the game has changed in the last 3 years. Hell last year alone we've seen all kinds of interesting stuff from Flash, Zero, Leta and others.
|
On January 30 2010 08:15 Pyrrhuloxia wrote: Alright, my last post was a little smart alecky, sorry. But, honestly, why should we get upset that people are learning how to play the game better? There are people worried that SC2 won't have enough macro, and other people worried that SC2 will be too macro oriented because people will learn builds from replays (at least I hope these are two separate groups of people...).
Leagues can keep their reps secret if they want (like kespa) and teams can keep their reps secret, too (like estro). If you don't want people getting your strategies, then you can practice only with people on your team and play others in leagues that only release VODs, like the korean leagues. I really think the game should at least include the option. I think that replays should stick around because they help people ease into the game by copying. No one can reach the top ranks by copying alone, though. All the best players learn to "play by feel" and don't stick to any single build order.
Additionally, this would be terrible for the development of ESPORTS. Real sports haven't been ruined by the lack of fog of war. Look at tennis: there aren't a bunch of crazy strategies for that game - yet it has lasted for over a century. If the game needs crazy strategies to be fun to watch, then the core game is poorly made. Starcraft is still as fun to watch as ever, and we continue to see new styles. The lack of creativity recently shown by map makers is contributing to stagnancy much more than replays. And still, the maps are okay, Flash is starting a new deny-the-third TvZ movement, zergs are two basing more than just a few months ago, Jangbi came up with a fast 3 base strat on Neo Moon Glaive, etc. The ratings for the last OSL final were great. Starcraft is not sick. Boxer is wistful for the past he dominated, but it isn't coming back. The best players will have to be able to macro and micro and think on the fly and be creative instead of just a few of those things. I think creative players should have fun with SC2, but we should be able to learn from that and see how smart those plays really are by dissecting them in replays.
But its not like you can view a replay of a tennis match, slow it down and copy exactly how to move your arms from every possible angle. Or you cant see how the other person is reacting to something another player is doing. In Tennis VODS, you can only see what the camera is showing. You cant zoom in to the player's face or anything.
but I knida agree with people above me for the most part. There is still creativity in today's games. I havent seena game where its completely cookie cutter from early to mid to late game in a while. I think the only reason people think things were more strategic back then was because the number of games broadcasted back then was very very low, so you didnt get to see as much, but I bet there were cookie cutter builds back then too, its just that no one ever really saw them.
However, I agree Professional games' replays shouldnt be saved at all.
|
the old progamers went down because they couldn't adapt, (and maybe because they couldn't keep up mechanically with newer ones)
mechanics won't be as demanding in SC2 though, which should help some. less mechanical demand should mean mechanics will be less of a cause of a pro-gamer falling from grace from handspeed slowing down due to age
regarding copying strats from replays, I think the best ones will adapt, and if you fail to adapt you don't really deserve to be at the top any longer compared to someone who can adapt
|
Even if this was a good idea, which it isn't, it would be a waste of time to implement since it will be easily undone by 3rd party programs.
|
United States7166 Posts
You guys have been making a lot of good points, and after thinking about this for some time I've come to realize the flaws in some of the reasoning and am no longer confident this idea is the right solution, and if one is even necessary at all.
|
lol at this poll. This can only happen in the world of gaming. So people are seriously saying that we should keep strategies, via replays, secret so that some players can feel they are special a bit longer before their ass is discovered?
LOOOOL
what next, you want copyrights of your strategies and sue people using them?
|
Those of you saying replays should hide data- how much of a build do you realistically think that would hide? All you really do is slow down the rate at which imbalances and bugs are identified, making for a much worse game as well as destroying it as a spectator.
|
On February 03 2010 07:33 ix wrote: Those of you saying replays should hide data- how much of a build do you realistically think that would hide? All you really do is slow down the rate at which imbalances and bugs are identified, making for a much worse game as well as destroying it as a spectator. this
|
taking other people's strategies is a part of every single competitive game and there's basically nothing that can be done about it within the realm of reason. I've been at least semi-competitive about magic and smash bros: melee and have observed the same sort of thing in both of those communities.
magic players will use each others decks the tourney after they have a good performance.
smash players will copy the tech skill and strategies seen from watching other smashers.
it's just how competition works. you see someone else do something impressive or cool or effective, and you'll naturally be drawn to figuring out how to do it and whether you should incorporate it into your game. this leads to everyone getting better and eventually as new viable strategies become more and more difficult to devise, the competitive scene favors those with better mechanics/technique/decision making/whatever over those who have creativity. sucks for the creative people out there, but it's the natural evolution of competitive games so I really doubt blizzard would waste their time on the huge pain in the ass of a feature that is finding out how to hide your opponents actions (without impacting what he's doing) from you in the replay.
|
This is a highly debatable topic. The same problem exists for Magic: The Gathering with "netdecks". Basically the top tier decks are available to the public to see and everyone copies them... and the innovation lies around beating those decks (as opposed to thinking outside the box and making a brand new one) and it really frustrates a lot of people, especially casual players. In any case, it would be extremely hard to actually protect the replays and the builds.
|
Netdecking is inevitable and, if the game has a functioning metagame, which recent Magic Standard seems to have, isn't the be all and end all, the skill lies in the choice of deck/strategy and the execution. How long do you think lists would remain secret if they weren't published? Anyone who has played a novel deck could tell you 40-50 of the cards right away. There is still room for deck innovation, it's just really hard as with Starcraft innovation because the strategic space has been heavily explored and is well understood. This is inevitable and unavoidable, retarding progress toward this state doesn't make the game deeper, it just means your cheese build works for a little longer and average players are terrible, infact for everyone but the elite the game becomes far worse as there is no sanely established metagame and things are mostly just a mess of safety vs cheese.
|
Please don't compare SC to a game with a high element of chance.
Why would you want to ruin a spectators fun? Competition is much more fierce with replays, those with the passion and dedication to win, will.
|
I think it's good the way SC has become. When both players are using 'near-perfect' builds and strategies, it just makes it even more difficult to guess who will win, so it's more exciting! Also, I love seeing just how far people can really push this game. Like flash with his gas pre-loaded SCVs after super-fast CC. New shit still happens in StarCraft yo! I love when someone like jaedong or flash is so damn good at starcraft it creates this aura of like "jee how long can this guy go for? who will knock him down?!" it's really exciting
|
Awful idea. Replays are the single best tool to help new players and even veterans find holes, flaws in their strategy, and improve on them. You can see what you did wrong, why your efforts didn't work, and what you can do different next time.
And come on, there's a huge difference between viewing a build order on a replay and executing flawlessly. Starcraft is more than mindlessly memorizing build orders and always will be. Creativity has died down in this game because its 10-11 years old and most of the best strategies for the average player have already been discovered, and there isn't much more to know about the game even at a high level.
|
I really like this idea. It allows replays, but if you want to remain a competitive player with a unique strategy, you have a simple and effective way to protect it without spoiling someone's right to his own replay.
|
I posted this is a previous replay thread. tldr replays increase both creativity and quality in games at all levels of play.
On October 08 2009 13:41 Lysdexia wrote: I've posted my opinion already, but it wasn't a very detailed explanation so here's a better one:
Open information is always good for a competitive game, and for starcraft replays are essential to open information.
Open information increases the quality of play as a whole by incentivizing preparation and increasing general knowledge about the game. The reason there's a higher incentive for preparation is pretty simple: more accessible information lets players know what to prepare for. Without replays it would be much more difficult to analyze a build and come up with a response. This is magnified in a game like starcraft where a strategy can have a huge number of small nuances that would be near impossible to discover without a replay.
People who say open information decreases strategy are very myopic. The players who came up with counters to boxer's shenanigans were just as "creative". In fact they were employing more strategy because they had to create something to beat a specific build, not a generic strategy that could work against anything if it wasn't properly dealt with. There's a name for this process. It's called the strategic evolution of the game. People analyze things that other people are doing and come up with ways to beat them, and as a result our collective knowledge of the game increases, as does the quality of games at all levels (as spectators we care about the quality of pro games).
All of the sweet strats people marvel over don't just materialize out of thin air. Someone analyzed what other people were doing and tried to come up with a way to beat it. This is only possible through openly accessible information.
Lack of information is what drives people towards generic strategies. Without information there's no incentive to prepare specific strategies because there's no way of knowing 1. if people are actually using the strategy you're preparing against and 2. all of the little nuances and tricks that could fuck up your prepared strat. The really exiting, high quality games played in the pro scene are frequently the ones where players prepared strategies specifically for that game, on that map, against that player. Without the ability to create such strategies, generic strats (either standard play or a universally applicable cheese) would be the only option.
I mean, just think about it. If before playing someone you had the opportunity to analyze their last 20 games to see what they did, and you had pro level knowledge to figure out what to do against that, would you do that or just roll with whatever standard thing you would do absent that information? This is magnified at the pro level where people know who they're playing farther in advance and have more time to sit around (with their coaches) and create strategies.
If after looking at all this information it turns out the player thinks playing standard is the best option then obviously that's what people will do, but having the information there dramatically increases the possibility for a new or unique strategy. And quality of play will still be higher just by virtue of the fact that everyone knows more about the game generally as well as more about the current metagame.
The other problem with the claim that open information decreases strategy is it relies on a flawed view of what strategy is and how strategy actually affects the outcomes of games.
Creating a strategy in starcraft is basically figuring out a goal then looking at what stuff you have available and deciding how best to use it to achieve that goal i.e. I want to kill my opponent fast so I'll build gateways in their main. This is obviously strategy, but not all or even most aspects of strategy can be reduced to this. In fact this process is very far removed from how most games are actually decided.
In order to understand how strategy is actually applied to real games, we need to take a step back in terms of what we think of when we think of "what stuff you have available". In the example I gave the stuff was gateways and the fact that you can build them in your opponent's main. In actual games this stuff is the range of strategies a player can use. Instead of saying "I want to kill my opponent fast" and then looking at all the potential choices they could make with regards to units and buildings and the placement of those buildings and arriving at building gateways in your opponent's main as a good way to achieve that goal, players say "I want to kill my opponent fast, so I will use the strategy of proxying gateways".
The difference may seem subtle but it's very important. When a player is deciding what to do in a particular game the set of "stuff" is NOT all of the units and buildings and various things you can do with them, it's the set of strategies you know. The buildings and units and such are of course the building blocks of those strategies, but that is unimportant to how players make strategic decisions in actual games.
So the strategic decision is not "I am going to build gateways in my opponents main", the strategic decision is "I am going to (use the strategy called) proxy 9/9 gate". In terms of it's relevance to actual games and deciding their outcomes, strategy is the decisions you make about your build (drawn from a set of builds you have previously learned, not created out of thin air) before the game and how you adapt in the game.
Once we start looking at strategy from this perspective it's obvious that more accessible information is essential for strategy. With more information players will have a wider range of potential builds, have more knowledge about when to use what build, and have more knowledge about how to adapt that build in a game.
Players knowing more builds from having watched replays of them or from creating a build to counter one they studied a replay of increases the number of strategic options players have, increasing the strategic depth of the game and the amount of strategic knowledge necessary to compete at a high level.
|
My idea would be to sort of copy right replays. Only the players who played would be able to view said replay. Replays cant be seen by other IP addresses or CDkeys. They would be unable to be Downloaded or Uploaded to anywhere.
This i think allows for the education(of yourself) to take place and elim the random people getting your replay.
And then pros could have their replays locked and be checked on a regular basis for replays of other gamers (besides their own teammates) like people checking for roids.
I mean this would be like Football for instance. A team can watch film of the other team but they wont know their playbook. You can still study a player but you cant know exactly what they do to do it.
|
I don't think it is implementable. To only show what you see, and not storing the full game data (otherwise people can just 'hack' the replay anyway to see everything and it will not be detectble), th replay is supposed to only record your actions and those of the opponent that you had seen in the game. This means the replay must not reuse game engine (eg make unit A appear at spot x, y), instead replay is a Video capture only. This will have size implications.
On a related note, I have always thought to reduce hack, it might be a good idea to force recording of everything, selects and screen movements and all (as an option at viewing point) so that hacker is restricted to what they can benefit (minimap only) as selecting, or looking at FoW as recorded will be pretty obvious.
|
more kinds of units / map features seems like a better way to foster creative play, but creative play and competitive balance do not fit well together, no matter how you do it.
Another option is to make scouting harder. Hide more tech options in game. Lets say for example that the hydralisk den was at lair tech level and so was the lurker upgrade - it would be impossible to know if the zerg was going to lurkers or speed hydras. But then you get more of a luck and educated guess based game like poker...
|
In a game that's been around as long as Starcraft there isn't going to be as much creative play. It's becoming more like chess where most openings have been figured out and it comes down to outthinking the opponent (with the added element of imperfect information). I would argue that it's actually better that way even though it might not be as entertaining to watch for people who don't understand the strategies.
In Starcraft 2 you might prolong the creative phase for a year if you restrict replays but it's not going to make much of a difference in the end.
|
On January 30 2010 05:58 Zelniq wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2010 05:51 FrozenArbiter wrote: I think (just like last thread) that it's a really, really, really bad idea. Replays didn't kill creativity - people just got too fucking good for random bullshit to work. Yeah, replays sped that process up but it would have happened anyway.
Much more important is the fact that watching a replay is FUN, and this way it wouldn't be.
I mean, don't you download replays from TL or other sites? Would it really be nearly as fun to watch them, if you could only see one player...? maybe it didn't totally kill creativity, but it certainly made it much easier to find weaknesses in your opponents' build, to find that exact timing or are where he's most weak. An even bigger issue (that boxer mentioned) is that makes good builds way too easy to copy exactly. It promotes cookie-cutter gameplay builds and discourages people from being creative. This is a huge detriment to the community and to the creative/strategical process of the game, and makes the game more 1-dimensionally focused with mechanics being the main focus and not strategy. updated main post with this reasoning
First you need someone to come up with a good build before you can copy it. To come up with a new build you need to be creative.
Replays don't kill creativity. And copying builds isn't a big issue either. Even now you have replays and people do come up with new builds and you still have prodigies in SC. Let the old pros whine all they want. If I'd come up with some creative build I wouldn't give a shit if someone would be able to see it after the game.
Edit: Also, replays help you come up with new strategies since you can see timings better and check out more things (will his scout see me doing this proxy here if he's going to follow standard scouting pattern?).
|
Zelniq thanks for a great OP and some very interesting points. I like the solutions you have offered for this very real issue.
I can't believe the people dismissing your concerns as if they were ridiculous. I agree completely with you (and Boxer and Bisu for that matter, how can people disagree with these guys??) in that replays reduce important strategical elements in the game.
|
Strategies that don´t survive Replays are not good they are cheese.
It´s really important to think a few steps further than most Replay censorship supporters seem to. So what if Replays create a enviroment where everyone uses the same strategy and just copys? That is the BEST enviroment BY FAR for creative players. Creative Players are NOT guys that come up with some stupid gimmic that works once and the never again but Players with gameplay experience and analytical skills that know how the game is played and know how to properly exploit that.
Boxers complaint that "oldies" suffer due to Replays doesn´t mean that oldies need (or deserve) to have their strategies protected. They don´t suffer because they are being analysed but because Replays enable NEW players to become better faster therefore creating more competition.
A stagnant Proscene is pure poison for competitive Gameplay.
|
On January 30 2010 07:22 Boblion wrote: I think starcraft should not be broadcasted to protect the creativity of the players. THIS lol.
Without replays, people can still abuse same old outdated strategy over and over again with much fear of it being discovered. The replay is a great and powerful tool. The more it can show, the better!
|
I think it's an interesting idea, but I'd have to go with no.
My biggest concern is that, if you can't see your opponent's build/execution, how can you know he didn't cheat in the match? I didn't see this brought up by other posts, so I thought I'd bring it up. There will undoubtedly be ways to cheat in SC2, even if all the games are hosted on B.net.
Also, I agree with Unentschieden's post above. There's always room for creativity in a competitive game, but I think a lot of people mistake a gimmicky build as some type of creative "strategy."
|
I've read though quite a few of the responses and I am still surprised how many people actually voted "yes".
Starcraft (and hopefully Starcraft 2) is a game that managed to beat a lot of odds and facilitated a highly competitive e-sport scene. With that being said, I think a lot of parallels can be made with the more well known physical sports. I've seen some others make analogy with American Football and I think they are a perfect example. There have been plays which have developed in history which would really throw off a team and allow for some great moments. However, they have been adopted into the ever growing play book that the game has to offer. The same thing can be said about Starcraft and how the game has evolved.
In any higher level sport (high school, college, semi-pro, pro) you will see the "replay theme" as a vital part in the training. In football you will see a team practice and then analyze film from there own team and the opponent. The same happens in wrestling, volleyball, soccer, basketball and the list can go on. Does this hurt the value of the game? Heck no.
You will also find that many people use there own replays to critique and improve there own game. I am no pro player but if I get beat, I do enjoy the option of seeing why I lost. For example... if I got proxied... giving me insight to one more thing I have to watch out for.
Having these replays also allow game imbalances to fully show themselves. XXX race is doing a certain build vs YYY race... and YYY race never wins. If YYY never knows whats coming at him how can they even begin to properly counter it (if even possible).
|
Lysdexia's post on page 6 was well put, and I agree with it entirely. Stymieing knowledge doesn't nurture creativity.
That said, the proposed fog of war option isn't completely onerous. After all, circles of competitive players actually interested in improving will transparently share replays among themselves like always. Still, on principle, replay restriction shouldn't be necessary or even helpful.
|
On February 09 2010 03:12 Skaff wrote: In any higher level sport (high school, college, semi-pro, pro) you will see the "replay theme" as a vital part in the training. In football you will see a team practice and then analyze film from there own team and the opponent. The same happens in wrestling, volleyball, soccer, basketball and the list can go on. Does this hurt the value of the game? Heck no.
I just thought I'd reply to this as I think I've seen this used previously in this thread.
How many sports allow their practices to be fully recorded and for said practices to potentially be available to their opponents prior to playing?
This thread has nothing to do with tournament play as far as I know. It is obvious such matches would still be recorded and that both opponents would have to allow their point of view. Hence, all analogies should be related to real sports practice (or whatever other game comparisons are used like the one with Magic: The Gathering) just as this deals with practicing Starcraft 2. This has nothing to do with inter-team practice, as in that case both players would allow their point-of-view to be shown as it is optional to protect it.
To add my own quick thoughts on the subject as I don't really want to take the time to go into it in detail: + Show Spoiler + For the record, I agree with the OP's suggestion. I used to be able to play 200+ games of Starcraft in a 3 day period during the early days of the game. Each game different, each game against a different unique style. Nowadays, all Starcraft games are played the same and getting more similar by the day. I enjoyed TSL 1, but am struggling to enjoy watching TSL 2 games as I rarely see anything unique. It also extends to War3 - I quit playing that once the "best strats" were publicly available and no one used anything else. Slowing down the speed one can copy builds in practice and thus slowing down the speed one reaches a cookie-cutter set of "best strats" makes the game more fun (in my opinion, at least).
|
If replays were protected in this way, someone would make a hack to unprotect them, making watching replays less convenient (probably would have to be done single player).
|
I think that the replays are too much part of the game to take them away. Starcraft would not be as much fun if you couldn't watch the replays with your friends after. It changes the game, sure, but is it really for the worse?
As a side note, if Blizzard actually did do this (which I highly doubt they will), it would be very complicated to make it so that it can't be hacked. They would either have to spawn the units in the fog of war before they come onto your screen (which could be glitchy) or make the entire replay a video (not even an option because of size). Blizzard likes to keep replays at a small size, and neither of these options look good for that.
Replays are recorded by recording positions, it doesn't record the actual units. I wouldn't expect this even if 80% of the community wanted it.
|
On February 09 2010 22:52 [-Bluewolf-] wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2010 03:12 Skaff wrote: In any higher level sport (high school, college, semi-pro, pro) you will see the "replay theme" as a vital part in the training. In football you will see a team practice and then analyze film from there own team and the opponent. The same happens in wrestling, volleyball, soccer, basketball and the list can go on. Does this hurt the value of the game? Heck no.
I just thought I'd reply to this as I think I've seen this used previously in this thread. How many sports allow their practices to be fully recorded and for said practices to potentially be available to their opponents prior to playing?
This is not an analogous situation. Replay fog of war, as you yourself noted, will have little effect on how pro gamers practice with each other.
However, it has major implications for the average Joe and how he gets to practice, and if the average Joe is affected then progaming will be affected as a result. Progamers don't grow on trees you know, and honestly why should only progamers be able to get something like the full benefit of replays? Isn't that kind of elitist?
To add my own quick thoughts on the subject as I don't really want to take the time to go into it in detail: + Show Spoiler + For the record, I agree with the OP's suggestion. I used to be able to play 200+ games of Starcraft in a 3 day period during the early days of the game. Each game different, each game against a different unique style. Nowadays, all Starcraft games are played the same and getting more similar by the day. I enjoyed TSL 1, but am struggling to enjoy watching TSL 2 games as I rarely see anything unique. It also extends to War3 - I quit playing that once the "best strats" were publicly available and no one used anything else. Slowing down the speed one can copy builds in practice and thus slowing down the speed one reaches a cookie-cutter set of "best strats" makes the game more fun (in my opinion, at least).
So if I get in an accident, an ok solution for the doctors is just to slow down the rate at which I bleed to death rather than stitching me up?
The OP's solution is the antithesis of creativity since it restricts the tools strategists can use to make new strategies. If the game is not deep enough for you than enhance the bloody strategy and make it a deeper game. Don't go around pining for the "good old days" and slapping shackles on people as if that is actually a solution to the problem.
|
United States47024 Posts
On February 05 2010 21:30 Blyf wrote: Zelniq thanks for a great OP and some very interesting points. I like the solutions you have offered for this very real issue.
I can't believe the people dismissing your concerns as if they were ridiculous. I agree completely with you (and Boxer and Bisu for that matter, how can people disagree with these guys??) in that replays reduce important strategical elements in the game. I find this post amusing, because it shows that you very clearly didn't read the thread. If you actually bothered to do so, you'd know that Zelniq already conceded the point to the other side: that what is lost from having such a solution outweighs what is gained.
On February 09 2010 22:52 [-Bluewolf-] wrote: How many sports allow their practices to be fully recorded and for said practices to potentially be available to their opponents prior to playing?
How do you think progamer replays get leaked onto the internet to begin with? No one hacks the practice computers at SKT house. They don't magically appear on the internet. Some practice partner or team member has to have access to the to leak the replays. If players truly didn't want their replays to get out, they wouldn't get out.
|
On February 11 2010 04:36 phyvo wrote: This is not an analogous situation. Replay fog of war, as you yourself noted, will have little effect on how pro gamers practice with each other.
However, it has major implications for the average Joe and how he gets to practice, and if the average Joe is affected then progaming will be affected as a result. Progamers don't grow on trees you know, and honestly why should only progamers be able to get something like the full benefit of replays? Isn't that kind of elitist?
Nah, you are the one being elitist. Not everyone has a little "practice circle" - especially new players. You basically screw their competitive chances from the get-go.
A little story for ya. In 2005, I played a game called Warhammer 40k: Dawn of War for WCG USA. Due to being new to the community, I was not part of any of the elite practice circles, and could only get one good Space Marine player to play me (mainly because we were in the same time zone as most players were European). I played others in the games ladder - but I don't count them as I rarely struggled in those game after awhile.
The brackets were posted ahead of time, and my first round opponent was the only Space Marine player in the entire tournament (someone I had beaten previously with my ladder smurf while automatching). About 10 minutes before my match at WCG USA, another player informed me that the Space Marine player I had practiced with had provided all my replays to my opponent. Of course, I decided not to believe him as my only option, and hence did my own strategy as usual only to watch him play as if he had a maphack on (or basically, he had me timed down to the second).
In short, as a new player, I was utterly screwed. I didn't have an elite circle of friends and wasn't even able to play on the ladder on my "real handle" as any of his elite circle of friends I would play would provide him with my replay. In the end, he got it anyway due to my desperation for an opponent, but being able to block my point of view would have given me some chance.
It isn't uncommon either. In 2006 when I was a part of the community and had built my own "elite circle", one of my practice partners begged me for replays for an opponent he would play in WCG Germany. It would have been all to easy for me to eliminate many of that player's strategic options with a few clicks of my mouse and he wouldn't even know it.
But hey, whatever. As I said before, just my opinion on the subject, and one could argue either way on the second part you quoted. I prefer a game where one must develop their own strats and counters, you like a game where one must study replays and either build an elite circle of friends to keep strats from being countered or play standard every game. Different tastes.
|
On February 11 2010 05:09 [-Bluewolf-] wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2010 04:36 phyvo wrote: This is not an analogous situation. Replay fog of war, as you yourself noted, will have little effect on how pro gamers practice with each other.
However, it has major implications for the average Joe and how he gets to practice, and if the average Joe is affected then progaming will be affected as a result. Progamers don't grow on trees you know, and honestly why should only progamers be able to get something like the full benefit of replays? Isn't that kind of elitist? Nah, you are the one being elitist. Not everyone has a little "practice circle" - especially new players. You basically screw their competitive chances from the get-go.
THAT'S MY POINT.
If you remove replays "practice circles" are all that little Joes have, if they even have that.
Think about it. Progamers already play on teams, but Joes will play on ladder. As a result, Progamers will get the full advantage from team replays while average Joes will *not*. You are hindering their learning compared to progamers. Even if some Joe asks for help on some forums or from what team mates they have, other people will not be able to help them as much because they will not know what the opponent is doing.
So don't fling that elitist crap at me, normal replays only empower the average Joe.
I prefer a game where one must develop their own strats and counters, you like a game where one must study replays and either build an elite circle of friends to keep strats from being countered or play standard every game. Different tastes.
Again you miss my point. Whatever game you play, people will begin to play more effective strategies over time. This is called getting better at the game, and it will eventually happen regardless of whether or not you hide replays in fog of war.
Again, the OP's suggestion only delays SC2 from becoming the type of game that you hate.
That said, why are you not suggesting making the game DEEPER in the first place?
|
On February 09 2010 22:52 [-Bluewolf-] wrote: How many sports allow their practices to be fully recorded and for said practices to potentially be available to their opponents prior to playing?
How many sports teams allow their opponents to their practice in the first place?
I bet every pro team records their practices and studies them, at least to some degree. If you're practicing against another team, you bet they're going to be recording it.
Similarly in SC you and your practice partners get to save replays. There has been discussion of a public replay database or somesuch, but that is not what is being discussed here so I'll assume that does not exist. Your opponent does not practice against you = they only get your replays if you or your practice partners give them out.
I don't see how you can use this argument to say that replays should have any sort of limitation on who can view them/how much people can view.
---
If you do not have a trustworthy group of practice partners, that sucks for you. Yes that seriously hinders your chances of being good competitively. I see nothing wrong with this though.
---
Personally I agree with many that replays should be fully available to both parties in the game, for reasons already mentioned so I see no need to repeat them.
|
|
|
|