EPTOn September 21 2010 09:48 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
Machine.
Machine.
except he's bad
Do You Have to be Smart to Play Starcraft? - Page 9
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
hifriend
China7935 Posts
except he's bad | ||
|
babyToSS
233 Posts
On September 21 2010 17:04 robertdinh wrote: Idra's decision making stems from conditioned playstyle. Any player can learn that and can make "quick" decisions that have been programmed into them through hundreds if not thousands of games. There is a difference between being conditioned and reacting a way that you have reacted countless times vs similar scenarios before, and getting into a completely unorthodox situation and using your analytical skills and critical thinking to work your way out. Keep in mind a robot can be programmed to make quick choices based on certain parameters. If idra was more of a thinker like some believe, and less of a robot, you would see his playstyle being a bit more varied. As it stands now he is very set in his ways, like a robot. Why do people feel Idra plays like a robot with zero variation? He is a really good and smart player. he has one very good macro build order that he "creatively" uses to hold off every single rush cheese etc. that gets thrown at him. Try laddering up with one good eco build order and see how hard it is to learn all the subtle nuances and timings that allow you to use that build to hold off everything from cheese, 1 base all ins as well as build a solid econ for long macro games (where the better player usually shines). Some people like and appreciate this style of play and it takes way more skill then cutesy 1 base plays that won't work more than one or two times and rely mostly on your opponent making a mistake rather than solid play from your side. Also to downplay someones practice and dedication by saying "oh he just masses many many games and conditions himself" is pretty lame. You can do that with anything -E.g.My friend doesn't have to think much when he plays the guitar because he has conditioned himself from years of practice but that doesn't mean he is not creative and comes up with good music all the time. You can't say, oh he just plays for hours a day so his stuff not creative just programmed shit from all that practice. I have seen robotic mechanical players and they can only do well if their opponent does what they expect them to do and they end up being above average at best E.g. this guy last night called me a "gay wiggler" because I went for an early reaper into fe and was completely thrown off as he was expecting standard 1-1-1 play, another player I know who is top diamond can only win if his opponent does standard 1 base plays etc. Edit: Just to clarify, I agree with you in that you don't have to be Einstein to be good st SC2 but all that experience is for developing a game sense which you can use to make good decisions when you need to. IMO this is a hard point to get to and should not be downplayed (which is how your post comes off as).. | ||
|
robertdinh
803 Posts
On September 21 2010 22:59 babyToSS wrote: Why do people feel Idra plays like a robot with zero variation? He is a really good and smart player. he has one very good macro build order that he "creatively" uses to hold off every single rush cheese etc. that gets thrown at him. Try laddering up with one good eco build order and see how hard it is to learn all the subtle nuances and timings that allow you to use that build to hold off everything from cheese, 1 base all ins as well as build a solid econ for long macro games (where the better player usually shines). Some people like and appreciate this style of play and it takes way more skill then cutesy 1 base plays that won't work more than one or two times and rely mostly on your opponent making a mistake rather than solid play from your side. Also to downplay someones practice and dedication by saying "oh he just masses many many games and conditions himself" is pretty lame. You can do that with anything -E.g.My friend doesn't have to think much when he plays the guitar because he has conditioned himself from years of practice but that doesn't mean he is not creative and comes up with good music all the time. You can't say, oh he just plays for hours a day so his stuff not creative just programmed shit from all that practice. I have seen robotic mechanical players and they can only do well if their opponent does what they expect them to do and they end up being above average at best E.g. this guy last night called me a "gay wiggler" because I went for an early reaper into fe and was completely thrown off as he was expecting standard 1-1-1 play, another player I know who is top diamond can only win if his opponent does standard 1 base plays etc. I'm not downplaying idra's play, I am calling it what it is, extremely conditioned and predictable playstyle. He has a limited arsenal of strats that he will execute, but he is very good within executing those strats. I think a lot of people underestimate how much of an rts can be conditioned into you simply because for them they don't play at that idra-like level so a lot of things that are habit to other players, are still serious decisions they have to consciously make as a game transpires. | ||
|
figq
12519 Posts
TLO always insists on the fact that his creativity is the result of practice. So it's not "smart vs practice", it's rather "smart via practice". Applies to other areas of life as well. | ||
|
REDBLUEGREEN
Germany1903 Posts
| ||
|
GaMeOfFeAr
United States26 Posts
On September 21 2010 23:02 robertdinh wrote: I'm not downplaying idra's play, I am calling it what it is, extremely conditioned and predictable playstyle. He has a limited arsenal of strats that he will execute, but he is very good within executing those strats. I think a lot of people underestimate how much of an rts can be conditioned into you simply because for them they don't play at that idra-like level so a lot of things that are habit to other players, are still serious decisions they have to consciously make as a game transpires. I would agree with you, if the Zerg race itself wasn't geared towards a mechanical, predictable play style in order to survive the various cheeses that Terran and toss can throw at us. Idra is doing very well with what he has to work with, a reactive race with limited "creative" options, which are all easily countered by general strategies from the other races. | ||
|
robertdinh
803 Posts
On September 21 2010 23:21 GaMeOfFeAr wrote: I would agree with you, if the Zerg race itself wasn't geared towards a mechanical, predictable play style in order to survive the various cheeses that Terran and toss can throw at us. Idra is doing very well with what he has to work with, a reactive race with limited "creative" options, which are all easily countered by general strategies from the other races. Well if you know idra's history throughout sc2 and bw you know that he has never been known as a creative player. Also even within zerg's limits he further limits himself whereas some great players are capable of doing any strat under the sun. | ||
|
babyToSS
233 Posts
On September 21 2010 23:02 robertdinh wrote: I'm not downplaying idra's play, I am calling it what it is, extremely conditioned and predictable playstyle. He has a limited arsenal of strats that he will execute, but he is very good within executing those strats. I think a lot of people underestimate how much of an rts can be conditioned into you simply because for them they don't play at that idra-like level so a lot of things that are habit to other players, are still serious decisions they have to consciously make as a game transpires. Ok I can understand that. I guess we are saying the same thing in different words. Yeah his general play is predictable but that comes with trying to learn a standard BO inside out. What I appreciate about his play is how many things he can deal with using the limited amount of strats that he knows well and his build still allows powering econ. I feel he is the kind of player who will not invest in coming up with something new if he already has a tool that can deal with some situation. I like it, it is a minimal style of play and it is very effective. I think it is quite creative atleast in the part of coming up with the limited tools and their uses from the build to stop all sorts of shit. I am sure once the game matures and most optimal BOs are figured out, a lot of the better players will be doing the same thing too. | ||
|
Mylin
Sweden177 Posts
On September 21 2010 23:21 GaMeOfFeAr wrote: I would agree with you, if the Zerg race itself wasn't geared towards a mechanical, predictable play style in order to survive the various cheeses that Terran and toss can throw at us. Idra is doing very well with what he has to work with, a reactive race with limited "creative" options, which are all easily countered by general strategies from the other races. Alot of people remember his BW days though when they bring this up and well he was sort of known for lacking in game sense and decision making but having great mechanics. | ||
|
OPSavioR
Sweden1465 Posts
| ||
|
Wodenborn
United States15 Posts
On September 21 2010 15:03 Half wrote: Look, you don't really understand how this works :/. Queens do have strategic choice. I can either make a creep tumor or spawn larvae at every cooldown. If for some reason I had a strategy that involved making a lot of creep tumors for whatever reason, I could do so. That is strategic choice. What it isn't is it isn't an intuitive strategic choice. I'm not spamming creep tumors because I know doing so is not optimal. You seem to only value intuitive strategic choices. These intuitive strategic choices can only exist because of mechanics. Only when the game cannot be turned into a structure and you have a split second to preform calculations will you be making intuitive strategic choices. The queen spawn larvae, is not an intuitive choice. So what? It increases the mechanical demand of the game in a very intuitive (in this context I mean intuitive as in the sense: "Easy to pick up and understandable and relevant for new players) way, which increases the overall intuitive depth of the game as a whole. Has it ever occurred to you Ruse is poorly balanced for competitive play, or intrinsically unbalance able for competitive play, because lack of mechanics? Mechanics restrict the structuralising of gameplay. As gameplay becomes more structural, minute differences are amplified. As you decrease the role of mechanics, the inherent structure of the game has to become more balanced. Likewise, a game heavily driven by mechanics has a much laxer requirement on balance. Once you approach zero mechanics, you need to be at perfect balance. Sir, you are a genius. I shall endeavor to learn from you. Mechanics create strategies not everyone can use. Units have different properties when micro'd properly or when macro'd up to a critical mass at an early stage of the game. This gives people avenues for advantage beyond abstract strategies, which problematically are easy for any person of similar intelligence to emulate. I can see a pro play, know the strategy, execute it to the best of my ability, and fail miserably. Is the pro smarter than me? Maybe, but the reason I fail is poor execution. The mechanics give me another avenue of improvement. They are mentally stimulating because I'm always trying to develop strategies which fully exploit, but do not overtax, my mechanical ability. | ||
|
Lea
Sweden120 Posts
On September 21 2010 10:28 dave333 wrote: There's always different kinds of intelligence and SC no doubt requires a certain kind of intellect, one that can try to anticipate what your opponent is going to do. Maybe this doesn't happen in SC2 yet (still kind of limited) but there are so many strategies and openers in BW and it takes a good analytical mind to try to predict what your opponent will do and what you should do. A lot of it is game theory, and I'm sure many of the to pros are very good at that in tournaments. This. But ultimately, as others have said, it comes down to the definition of intelligence. However, in everyday speech, intelligence is usually referred to as analytical skill: i.e. the ability to deduce logical conclusions based the evidence at hand. And problem solving is a very huge part of SC. I would also like to give intuition a bit more attention. On the Myers-Briggs profiles, intuition is usually described as the ability to come to deep conclusions about very complex problems. For you people who reguarly experience those "eureka!"-moments out there, you know what I mean. If you don't, well chances are you are just not very intuitive as a person. Intuition and intelligence go hand in hand. Not necessarily, but a great combination of both will lead to innovative gameplay, and people who deploy both well will be those players who can turn the tide of a game that already seemed like a loss. Another aspect of SC gameplay is anticipation. This with combination of intuition is usually what people are referring to with "game sense". What I am trying to say here is that first of all you need some kind of analytical skill. If you are completely void of any ability to analyze your opponent, then you are most likely the kind of person who will just go with the same strategy every time and expect it to win every time even though it won't. After you have analyzed the situation, you need intuition in order to figure out what your opponent is doing. This will give you an ability to anticipate your opponent's actions. All these three variables work in very complex ways in a SC game, and you have to constantly deploy them in order to ensure victory. If your opponent won over you going MMM, the reason why you lost wasn't because your opponent was predictable and went MMM, the reason why you lost was because you failed to analytically deduce this and come up with a solution (counter-army). So does SC require at least some kind of remote analytical, intuitive and anticipative skill? Yes, of course it does. When we see two great players play; what is actually going on is a mind-battle. Like some others have said, multitasking is crucial, especially in large macro-games, but it's still all about outsmarting your opponent, be the one who is better to analytically deduce how to find a good counter to the opponent. But what's important, and what people seem to miss, is that these things can be IMPROVED. Intellectual abilities are not set in stone, even though we may have been lead to think they are. You can train your IQ by studying, similarly, a person can likely train his or her analytical abilities, intuition and anticipation skills over time by simply playing a lot of games. And this will improve as other areas will improve such as high APM etc. This is why we consider skilled players to have a great game sense. They have because they have practiced so much. Of course experience is a variable here, there are after all only so many options a player from each race can do in order to ensure victory, which is limited to the amount of units each race has access to. And again, regardless of what you think is a sport or not, anything you want to excel at requires practice. This is because of the law of diminishing returns: the better you become the longer it takes for you to improve. There are individual differences here, some may take more time than others, but the diminishing returns still remains true. As a real life example from my own experiences, it took me a couple of months to understand the basics of guitar playing by practicing once in a while and seeing my teacher once a week. It took me a year to learn barré chords and two years to play three strings somewhat all right. Due to lack of practice, I still don't feel I play the guitar sufficiently. I am stuck at the 2-year skill level, more or less. Sure, I can play the first riffs in Episode 666 by In Flames like they do it at the same speed, but I can't really do more than that. If I would continue practice, I would ultimately be able to play most of the song, but I didn't. I only practiced the first riffs. That's the law of diminishing returns. If I had continued to practice my guitar playing much more than what I did, I would be much better and way more skilled now and would probably be able to play songs like Episode 666 without any real problems. But I didn't. Why I am mentioning all this is that it is important to understand. If you really want to be really good at anything in life you have to practice regularly and a lot. I want to take a Ph.D. title in social anthropology, this requires me to read huge piles of books on various subjects in order to accumulate sufficient knowledge in order to be classified as a scientist, along with a great analytical ability, of course. You don't have to be book smart in order to be smart. Some people might be completely unable to put their skills in practice outside the context where they were learnt in the first place. How often do you need to use maths (especially stuff more advanced than arithmetics) in order to get by in your every day life? Not that often. Being good at SC is the same thing. | ||
|
mierin
United States4943 Posts
| ||
|
robertdinh
803 Posts
On September 22 2010 00:06 mierin wrote: Your list kinda threw me off. Brilliant players like TLO, Nada, Boxer...then MorroW in the same sentence? MorroW pretty much wins by doing BOs better than the other player. Isn't morrow better than TLO though? | ||
|
ppshchik
United States862 Posts
However SC2 mechanics are way easier than those of BW, so mechanics aren't as important given the MBS and huge ass groups of armys attack move. | ||
|
Energin
Canada89 Posts
The things that really sabotage people; the things that keep them from improving, are toxic mindsets. People who blame losses on game imbalance and cheese, wasting their effort raging against them instead of trying to analyze how they could've defeated it and where they went wrong. In my experience, less intelligent people are more likely to take on a toxic mindset and start raging, but I've also seen otherwise smart people do it as well. | ||
|
Energin
Canada89 Posts
On September 21 2010 23:08 figq wrote: How to put it better - you don't have to be smart to be smart. TLO always insists on the fact that his creativity is the result of practice. So it's not "smart vs practice", it's rather "smart via practice". Applies to other areas of life as well. except everyone that's ever met TLO says he's a total genius. | ||
|
Endorsed
Netherlands1221 Posts
| ||
|
Chairman Ray
United States11903 Posts
| ||
|
MinoMino
Norway1103 Posts
Condition: He's on X bases with Y units of type Z. Response: Make A units of type B. However, this is simply unrealistic for any human to perfect, because there's virtually an infinite number of possible situations. The above example only has three conditional factors, but just try thinking about the number of in-game factors, the number of values each factor could have and even metagame factors. Also, a response could have their own conditions as well, such as "Make A units of type B, but make C if he tech switches to D" and so on. No one is ever going to get even remotely close to such an extensive set of conditions and responses. We just have to generalize our conditions. A thinking player, or "smart" if you will, will iterate through different responses, created on-the-fly or already known ones, by evaluating them and ultimately deciding on the best response. I think it's safe to say that it's also unrealistic to rely solely on this method, as no human being could possibly iterate fast enough to find the best response. Generalization must also take place by choosing a response that seems like the best one, because time's primarily the limiting factor here. I think top of the top players will have approximately equally good condition/response play, but being "smart" is what pulls one player ahead of the other. This post is mostly directed at those stating either "yes" or "no". It really depends on whether people can reach good enough levels of condition/response play that makes "smart" play obsolete (because I'm pretty sure it's not the other way around), and I don't think we can measure that. Alright, I'm done. tl;dr: In theory, no. In reality, perhaps, but inconclusive. That is, using the definition of smart presented in the first paragraph. | ||
| ||
