EPTDo You Have to be Smart to Play Starcraft? - Page 5
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Grachuus
United States57 Posts
| ||
|
happyness
United States2400 Posts
On September 21 2010 11:14 Reason.SC2 wrote: To be answered we gotta consider the semantic question what does it mean to be smart. To answer that we gotta tackle the metaphysical and epistemic issues surrounding intelligence(smartness) and/or knowledge. Long story short: the question is too vague to lead to a coherent discussion of possible answers. This said, my 2 cents is that you don't *have* to be smart but it is certainly a huge asset: something akin smartness is to pro starcraft like tallness is to pro basketball. This. The OP question is much too vague. The real question: What is intelligence? Are you talking about intelligence you are born with? Can't intelligence be acquired through a lot of practice? Aren't their different kinds of intelligence? And further more what does it mean to be "smart"? An I.Q. greater than 100? Greater than 130? When any one of us started playing starcraft or warcraft or whatever our first RTS was, we were all morons. After a while we learn the concepts and the feel for that game and our RTS knowledge, or intelligence, grows. And once you get to the pro level you know a TON of stuff about the game that your average person just wouldn't see. I'm tired of the BS that "players like Idra who nearly completely rely on mechanics alone" means you don't have to be smart to play sc2. First off, Idra has an incredible game sense and knows how to encounter many strategies and how to react to other "intelligent" players meaning he'd have to be intelligent himself. And second, why is playing a lot of games proof that you don't have to be intelligent? The more games you play, your knowledge of sc2 increases. How is it that pros practicing 12-14 hours a day proof that you don't have to be smart? Great pianists practice 8+ hours a day, does that not make them smart musically? What about great chess players? They have to practice hours every day. If the game basically takes mechanics alone, or you just have to be a "machine to play", why hasn't a good AI come out yet? Computers are much faster than us, and if all it takes is quick mechanics to be good, than there should be an impossibly good AI better than any of us slow humans. | ||
|
iEchoic
United States1776 Posts
On September 21 2010 09:38 Hakker wrote: Now, that discussion has been done to death, but it did lead us into an interesting debate. He claimed that professional Starcraft doesn't take large amounts of intelligence because deficiencies in a players strategic thinking and tactics can be overcome by spamming games and perfecting mechanics. He pointed to the korean style, practicing for 12-14 hours a day, as proof of that concept as well as players like Idra who nearly completely rely on mechanics alone to bring them to the top. Your friend is completely right about this part. Before my school started I played a lot of SC. I played like 6-8 hours a day. I got to the top 100 just because I played a lot. Anybody could have done it. It wasn't Starcraft skill because I didn't play BW and I haven't played a PC rts since AoE. Now that school's started and I can't play that much, I've been dropping down. For me, my skill on this game is pretty much purely a function of how much I play the game. Before this game, I played a game called Halo Wars, which was a really simple RTS with a low mechanics-ceiling. But while at the time I thought it was a bit lame how 'easy' the game was, it was sort of a blessing in disguise. Because the APM/Mechanics part of the game was basically out of the window, the entire differentiating factor between players became purely strategy and mental processes. As a result, the game did not reward you for playing 12 hours a day because you did not improve your mechanics, and the game was a game entirely of thinking - pure talent/intelligence. Shooter games like CoD approach that level. Aiming mechanics are not the pinnacle of skill on CoD4 because people die very quickly. Teamwork and game sense are the most important qualities on that game, and as a result, I believe they are much more intelligence/talent based. Starcraft's mechanics ceiling is too high to ever reach that level, which is why it will always be a time vampire that requires many many thousands of hours to be pro, regardless of your skill level. We see players like WhiteRa who are clearly mentally qualified to be pros being basically forced out by people just because they play more. This isn't good for a competitive game. Food for thought. | ||
|
Krafty
Canada109 Posts
| ||
|
3clipse
Canada2555 Posts
I would say you need either exceptional strategic play or exceptional mechanics to do well in starcraft. Those few that possess both occupy the very highest tier. With the early sc2 scene, I think strategic play is first and foremost in determining how well you do, but this will likely change (ie: boxer no longer able to dominate bw). | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
However, SC:BW was a different story. I've had the chance to discuss strategies, including SC2 ones, with SC1 pros and it is obvious that they put a lot of thought into it. Also, the fact that so many SC1 pros became good poker players is also pointing at them being intelligent. P.S. Being innovative as in finding new purposes of a specific unit does not require as much thinking as utilising the same old unit everyone knows as in positioning and transitions. | ||
|
Kao
24 Posts
Analogy: you can know how to play the song(BO), but maybe you cant execute cuz you dont have a good multi tasking and speed(mechanics) so i think starcraft u dont need to be more smart than opponent to win, you only need to know BOs and Counters and be able to execute is like MMA you need to know all martial arts this will help you a lot, but only knowledge and technique is the basics to win a fight | ||
ArvickHero
10387 Posts
On September 21 2010 12:08 iEchoic wrote: Your friend is completely right about this part. Before my school started I played a lot of SC. I played like 6-8 hours a day. I got to the top 100 just because I played a lot. Anybody could have done it. It wasn't Starcraft skill because I didn't play BW and I haven't played a PC rts since AoE. Now that school's started and I can't play that much, I've been dropping down. For me, my skill on this game is pretty much purely a function of how much I play the game. Before this game, I played a game called Halo Wars, which was a really simple RTS with a low mechanics-ceiling. But while at the time I thought it was a bit lame how 'easy' the game was, it was sort of a blessing in disguise. Because the APM/Mechanics part of the game was basically out of the window, the entire differentiating factor between players became purely strategy and mental processes. As a result, the game did not reward you for playing 12 hours a day because you did not improve your mechanics, and the game was a game entirely of thinking - pure talent/intelligence. Shooter games like CoD approach that level. Aiming mechanics are not the pinnacle of skill on CoD4 because people die very quickly. Teamwork and game sense are the most important qualities on that game, and as a result, I believe they are much more intelligence/talent based. Starcraft's mechanics ceiling is too high to ever reach that level, which is why it will always be a time vampire that requires many many thousands of hours to be pro, regardless of your skill level. We see players like WhiteRa who are clearly mentally qualified to be pros being basically forced out by people just because they play more. This isn't good for a competitive game. Food for thought. Broodwar is like Basketball, or any other sport, where you must dedicate and train yourself to become anywhere near decent. Starcraft 2 is more like Risk or a board game (checkers/chess), where it requires much less practicing, but relies more on the mental aspect of things. Personally I think Broodwar is much more fulfilling. | ||
|
iEchoic
United States1776 Posts
On September 21 2010 12:18 ArvickHero wrote: Broodwar is like Basketball, or any other sport, where you must dedicate and train yourself to become anywhere near decent. Starcraft 2 is more like Risk or a board game (checkers/chess), where it requires much less practicing, but relies more on the mental aspect of things. Personally I think Broodwar is much more fulfilling. I guess I'm on the other side of the fence, I think the reliance on mechanics makes a game less about strategy and more about repetitive muscle memory techniques that require nothing but time. To take it to the logical extreme, if BW had literally no AI at all, and a worker would grab minerals, stop, wait for a command, return to the CC, stop, wait for a command, and you had to manually micro all of your workers, the game would reach a point where it eventually becomes literally 100% mechanics and 0% thinking as the importance of mechanics elevates above everything else. Starcraft 2 takes less mechanics than BW, but it's still at such a level that it prevents it from being a talent-based game. Otherwise WhiteRa would still be one of the best Protoss players. | ||
|
MegaVolt
28 Posts
There is only a limited set of strategies, if you "out-smart" your opponent most of the time that doesn't mean you were really smart but it just means you experienced the tactic before and you know the counter. Every moron can learn a list of counters. StarCraft simply is not deep enough to allow for real strategy, that's why it has to emphasize mechanics so much, otherwise there wouldn't be any competition (just randomness). If you want real strategy then you'd have to turn SC into a turn based game with a very different resource and unit mechanic. Think chess in space. | ||
|
GenoZStriker
United States2914 Posts
| ||
|
WniO
United States2706 Posts
| ||
|
Comeh
United States18918 Posts
| ||
|
Grobyc
Canada18410 Posts
On September 21 2010 09:43 mOnion wrote: No. Example? Gositerran. This seems like the only exception lol. Other than that, yeah you're generally going to need to be pretty bright to play SC at a high level imo. | ||
|
andeh
United States904 Posts
<3 nalra ducks | ||
|
Blixy213
United States360 Posts
While there is no real physical aspect of the game, other than fast (And sometimes really fast) Movement of the hands, there is defiantly an entertainment/spectator part of view that can put it somewhere near the definition of the word. I disagree with no real intelligence, yes, practiced 12-14 hours a day may help, but if you don't know how to analyze a loss, like myself for a good part of the beta, practice goes nowhere. There is also the curve ball that is in some Proleague games, proxies, all-ins, hidden tech are all things that need to be adjusted too on a dime, which can't be done with success from a half-wit. TL;DR: Practice helps, intelligence is what lets you learn from practice. | ||
|
forgotten0ne
United States951 Posts
| ||
|
d3_crescentia
United States4054 Posts
Where is the argument that practicing very good high level mechanics = good game sense? The same can be said of ANYTHING that needs practice to learn. This is about as old as the hard work vs. natural talent debate - if you've got natural talent it only accelerates your pace of learning. Being smart has nothing to do with it (being smart at all is a myth, but that's a different conversation). Now, does this detract from a game's inherent competitiveness? Does practicing basketball for several hours detract from that game's competitiveness? | ||
|
happyness
United States2400 Posts
On September 21 2010 12:08 iEchoic wrote: Your friend is completely right about this part. Before my school started I played a lot of SC. I played like 6-8 hours a day. I got to the top 100 just because I played a lot. Anybody could have done it. It wasn't Starcraft skill because I didn't play BW and I haven't played a PC rts since AoE. Now that school's started and I can't play that much, I've been dropping down. For me, my skill on this game is pretty much purely a function of how much I play the game. Before this game, I played a game called Halo Wars, which was a really simple RTS with a low mechanics-ceiling. But while at the time I thought it was a bit lame how 'easy' the game was, it was sort of a blessing in disguise. Because the APM/Mechanics part of the game was basically out of the window, the entire differentiating factor between players became purely strategy and mental processes. As a result, the game did not reward you for playing 12 hours a day because you did not improve your mechanics, and the game was a game entirely of thinking - pure talent/intelligence. Shooter games like CoD approach that level. Aiming mechanics are not the pinnacle of skill on CoD4 because people die very quickly. Teamwork and game sense are the most important qualities on that game, and as a result, I believe they are much more intelligence/talent based. Starcraft's mechanics ceiling is too high to ever reach that level, which is why it will always be a time vampire that requires many many thousands of hours to be pro, regardless of your skill level. We see players like WhiteRa who are clearly mentally qualified to be pros being basically forced out by people just because they play more. This isn't good for a competitive game. Food for thought. Did you play Halo wars 6-8 hours a day? When you spend a lot of time on ANYTHING you are going to get good at it. Granted there are limitations, like you probably won't be great in basketball if you are 5 foot 0, but you could still be good. I'll refer to my previous point which is if being good at SC or SC2 were purely/mostly mechanics wouldn't their be a super AI that could beat everybody? If speed and multi-tasking are all that are required to be good then a computer would be unbeatable. It's true that WhiteRa has the intelligence to be mentally qualified and he still does very, very well(last I checked he was in the top 20 in EU). But I also don't think he's necessarily any more mentally qualified than Tester or IdrA, who have the mechanics AND the intelligence to be great at the game. | ||
|
iEchoic
United States1776 Posts
On September 21 2010 12:52 d3_crescentia wrote: Now, does this detract from a game's inherent competitiveness? Does practicing basketball for several hours detract from that game's competitiveness? Basketball has built-in limitations on how much you can practice. Usually your body won't let you practice for more than 6-8 hours, and in addition practicing ceases to be effective after so much practice in a day and you need to give time for your muscles to rest. Even practicing large amounts of time takes a lot of willpower. It is hard as hell to do because your body will physically try to stop you. Starcraft doesn't have those limitations, which is what makes Starcraft a really bad competitive game in my mind. Anybody with no real-life commitments can sit down and play the game 12 hours a day. It takes no willpower, it doesn't physically hurt, and there is no mechanism preventing you from doing so. On September 21 2010 12:56 happyness wrote: Did you play Halo wars 6-8 hours a day? When you spend a lot of time on ANYTHING you are going to get good at it. Granted there are limitations, like you probably won't be great in basketball if you are 5 foot 0, but you could still be good. See above reply - basketball is much different than starcraft. And no, I didn't play Halo Wars 6-8 hours a day - and the people who played mass games never really were top players. That's because the game's mechanics ceiling was very low and you couldn't differentiate yourself from others by getting good mechanically (which takes massing games). I disliked it at the time but I'm starting to like the idea of it more and more when I see the way Starcraft players exploit their lack of real-life commitments for an edge. | ||
| ||
