EPTAvoid "simple-counter fallacy" - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
sixghost
United States2096 Posts
| ||
|
Peleus
Australia420 Posts
I agree with what you're saying - but I suppose my point centres around, "Whats the alternative?" As you said in your original post ... After analyzing a good set of replays, vods, and personal game experience, we can still make generalized observations to idealize situations for theory-crafting. Isn't this still falling prey to the "Simple counter fallacy", but based on evidence? I think a lot of the problem comes from what is practical to discuss. Even replays help little, because as you said yourself, the game is so dynamic. You can identify 10 different mistakes in a game, however in reality if you corrected the first, the rest of the replay would have been vastly different to what it turned out to be. There isn't the ability to drill down further, because it becomes way to specific. Yes, there may be a bit more of a middle ground, however I think there is a decent mix between generalization / specifics in the strategy forums at the moment. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
Why did such a simple idea need such complex sentences to communicate? Now don't get me wrong I'm a fan of eloquence but idk, it seems so needlessly complex OP. I mean, its really very simple. imo, nice effort OP, but I think threads like the one on metagame or troll do a far more effective job at communicating simple ideas to people who somehow didn't get it. The best way to communicate simple ideas for public understanding is heavy use of diagrams, etc. Likely the people who haven't figured out that hard counters are just simplified ways to present basic concepts or elements aren't going to do so from reading this abstraction. | ||
|
Nokarot
United States1410 Posts
On September 24 2010 15:53 Peleus wrote:While I hear what you're saying, if you want to give advice specifically in regards to the many events leading up to the "problem", which as you said is unique to every game, then you have to define them. Suddenly you're talking about specific events / configurations rather then generalizations. My point is this - if you can't extend the general advice given into the thousands of unique variations that you're going to run across, then you're going to struggle no matter what. I suppose in a way I'm arguing the opposite. "Generalized" advice is pretty much all thats useful, because if you need advice more specialized then that, you'll probably never run into that situation again where you can use it. I see where you're going, but I wouldn't say that its all that's useful. The problem with generalized advice is that, if a situation leading up to it nullifies your solution (the "just do X", "but then he'll do Y so I cant", "so just do Z to counter Y instead"), you'll eventually find yourself in a balance debate where someone suggests that ling/baneling > thor/marines > mutalisks > tanks/marauders > banelings > marines (or some such, didn't really put a ton of thought in to that for example sake) and you'll find your generalized advice to be assuming too many things at once, or leading in big circle. Paper covers rock, but rock may have some scissors with him. Using "just build paper vs rock" is assuming too many things. Paper maybe didn't scout rock well enough to see that he had scissors (or couldn't scout well enough because of good building placement and marines killing overlord or something.) Maybe Paper did see the scissors and tried to get a rock of his own, but can't afford it because of early reaper harass. Man I think I'm confusing myself. In short, though, generalized advice has its place. Banelings kill marines, without a shadow of a doubt. What the marines have with them, however, may completely nullify banelings, and suddenly a piece of generalized advice has to fall back on another, equally vulnerable piece of advice. Banelings killing marines suddenly becomes mutas killing tanks after 4 or 5 "just do this, but then he'll do that," and suddenly a replay becomes more necessary than rock paper scissors. | ||
|
shindigs
United States4795 Posts
On September 24 2010 16:20 Peleus wrote: Yeah, I agree with what you're saying - but I suppose my point centres around, "Whats the alternative?" As you said in your original post ... Isn't this still falling prey to the "Simple counter fallacy", but based on evidence? I think a lot of the problem comes from what is practical to discuss. Even replays help little, because as you said yourself, the game is so dynamic. You can identify 10 different mistakes in a game, however in reality if you corrected the first, the rest of the replay would have been vastly different to what it turned out to be. There isn't the ability to drill down further, because it becomes way to specific. Yes, there may be a bit more of a middle ground, however I think there is a decent mix between generalization / specifics in the strategy forums at the moment. I would agree a key issue is what is practical to analyze and discuss. In my opinion, problems get a lot more complicated as you analyze higher level play. My main concern was the state of general theory-crafting, and in the end even denying simple solutions for more abstract alternatives brings up a bunch more issues. Like StarCraft, there doesn't seem to be a simple solution to these discussion problems either! :p On September 24 2010 16:22 Half wrote: I get the feeling that anyone who wasn't aware of this isn't going to read your writing style OP. Why did such a simple idea need such complex sentences to communicate? Now don't get me wrong I'm a fan of eloquence but idk, it seems so needlessly complex OP. I mean, its really very simple. imo, nice effort OP, but I think threads like the one on metagame or troll do a far more effective job at communicating simple ideas to people who somehow didn't get it. An idea that seems second nature to more experienced gamers may still escape other forum users. The other issue, as I stated before, is that we may all read this and say "Yeah this type of dialog is destructive for strategy discussions I would never do that," but the scary thing is that we all fall for it in some way at some time, without us being aware. Its hardwired into some people's minds. They may even be among us right now! AHHHHH | ||
|
Slago
Canada726 Posts
 | ||
|
QQplay
United States229 Posts
On September 24 2010 14:58 seaofsaturn wrote: This should be the 11th TL Commandment. Thou shalt not speaketh of thy simple counters. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
An idea that seems second nature to more experienced gamers may still escape other forum users. The other issue, as I stated before, is that we may all read this and say "Yeah this type of dialog is destructive for strategy discussions I would never do that," but the scary thing is that we all fall for it in some way at some time, without us being aware. Its hardwired into some people's minds. They may even be among us right now! AHHHHH My point was that you should have communicated it in a simpler form because people who would be prone to easily understanding and utilizing this probably already have. | ||
|
Ownos
United States2147 Posts
| ||
|
EonShiKeno
United States122 Posts
| ||
|
Arby3k
Canada90 Posts
But yea, this is a glaring fact I've noticed while lurking the forums. So many people just post, "Counter with XXX and you'll win :D" Where as, like OP said, the game is so much more than that. The forums really need to evolve past the whole, I know a counter, I'm going to post it, therefore I have added to the discussion. | ||
|
Nazza
Australia1654 Posts
Great post. | ||
|
a176
Canada6688 Posts
If you engage in fruitless arguments with people trying to help you, your thread will be closed and you may be banned from the strategy section. Also to be critical of the OP, I applaud your effort to make a long and well written post, but the post is basically one giant generalization in itself with little to no actual, specific content addressing specific problems. The thing you fail to take into account indepth is the question. Your starting example is a one liner, simple question that will never be accepted as a valid topic in the strategy forum. Your example response is definitely not how most threads go. Not only is it against guidelines, but other players will be extremely quick to ask about the rest of your game and replays and etc and generate a quality thread, otherwise it will get quickly locked. As per the rock-paper-scissors mentality, it exists for a reason. Its not there because players are lazy or stupid (I mean, there are obviously players that are stupid and lazy and didn't really feel like contributing) - those responses exist because they are correct, and they are to the point. Again, because you didn't provide an example of an actual quality question and response, you can't be so quick to judge the methodlogy. To remedy your post: Forum OP: I’m having lots of trouble in my PvZ matchup where the Z overwhelms me with roaches Forum response: Replays? Forum OP: Oh right, here, sorry <replay link> Forum Response: Try these strategies, because of these reasons. The answers could be short one liners, because the replay indicates their game is fine and they could try simple things to improve their game or simple strategies to counter what was observer. Or, they could be longer, if the player has a poor game and needs alot more help rather than just dealing with counters. It totally depends on the replay. The problem you're addressing in your post - random one liners that were posted without even looking at the replay - has a negative effect to strategy contribution and those posts and threads are quickly weeded out by the moderators here (great job guys). | ||
|
Zintis
41 Posts
I really think what everyone is aiming at is "combat efficiency". The whole "counters" concept arises when comparing the strongest available unit composition as a counter, since it's the most efficient at dealing/accepting damage against said units. But despite all the counters out there, adequate numbers will still overwhelm even hard counters- enough ultras will break through immortals, enough lings will kill off hellions. It's a matter of finding the unit mixes available under given economic conditions that sufficiently repel the problematic unit. Counters appear to happen when players are at parity but one selects a particularly strong mix against the other (mass marauders vs. stalkers). Since marauders are stronger and cheaper than stalkers, they appear to counter, whereas they are simply more cost efficient. If the protoss is two-basing and has 2x the # of stalkers, the marauders don't stand a chance. Counters do not exist; except in the campaign mode where you can blow up all the zerg with the artifact in the last mission. It's just a matter of more or less efficient unit selection against what your opponent is making. There is so much discussion on "counters" because more efficient units are a good way to gain leads in match-ups, or help come from behind economically. | ||
|
ZomgTossRush
United States1041 Posts
The problem is the UNIT TESTER which everyone abused in the beta. It gave people, and still is giving people, unrealistic goals to reach. Every week there is some post how 50 marines beats 50 immortals, but 100 immortals beat 50 marines (example). Or players trying to compare Units v Units fights based purely on resource count, but not the time to achieve a certain composition, or heck, even the building productions required. Another issue is BAD players giving advice. And i rarely call posters or strategies bad, since the game is still so new, anything could be possible. I constantly see replays to threads with replays starting with "i didn't watch your replay, but you should..." I perfect example would be how to counter mass marauders in the early game PvT. Noobs will post, "get immortals out." Which in theory works, but what if you went 4 gate? you cant go 4 gate into robo/ immortals, you should just micro and get more stalkers/zealots. It's these types of thoughtless pieces of advice that get spread and read all the time. Have you ever wondered why so few of the top 200 players post? because they have to argue rudimentary points about timings that most players either cant or refuse to conceptualize. I think most players,(even me at points) forget about the butterfly effect. This is most apparent with zerg with their choices in hatch/pool/gas timings. Everything through the late game has to be thought with the knowledge of what you did during the midgame, early game, to the opening split. And most "help" threads are just how to fix one issue at one certain point in the game, when in all reality it stems for past events. TL;DR...Go back and read, then contribute to tl | ||
|
nam nam
Sweden4672 Posts
On September 24 2010 16:54 a176 wrote: Most of those things are already outlined in zatic's guidelines. an OP replying to suggestions with negative one liners like in the example is ban-worthy. Also to be critical of the OP, I applaud your effort to make a long and well written post, but the post is basically one giant generalization in itself with little to no actual, specific content addressing specific problems. I think you missed his intentions with his post. The thing you fail to take into account indepth is the question. Your starting example is a one liner, simple question that will never be accepted as a valid topic in the strategy forum. Your example response is definitely not how most threads go. Not only is it against guidelines, but other players will be extremely quick to ask about the rest of your game and replays and etc and generate a quality thread, otherwise it will get quickly locked. As per the rock-paper-scissors mentality, it exists for a reason. Its not there because players are lazy or stupid (I mean, there are obviously players that are stupid and lazy and didn't really feel like contributing) - those responses exist because they are correct, and they are to the point. I really disagree. Most of those responses is NOT correct or to the point. Show me one of those responses that fit your description Again, because you didn't provide an example of an actual quality question and response, you can't be so quick to judge the methodlogy. To remedy your post: Forum OP: I’m having lots of trouble in my PvZ matchup where the Z overwhelms me with roaches Forum response: Replays? Forum OP: Oh right, here, sorry <replay link> Forum Response: Try these strategies, because of these reasons. The answers could be short one liners, because the replay indicates their game is fine and they could try simple things to improve their game or simple strategies to counter what was observer. Or, they could be longer, if the player has a poor game and needs alot more help rather than just dealing with counters. It totally depends on the replay. The problem you're addressing in your post - random one liners that were posted without even looking at the replay - has a negative effect to strategy contribution and those posts and threads are quickly weeded out by the moderators here (great job guys). | ||
|
Aeo
United States113 Posts
Thanks for posting, shindigs. | ||
|
ci_esteban
United States217 Posts
| ||
|
AidanS
39 Posts
There is just no way to throw more stuff at someone and win in many cases. The counters are simply too effective. I worry about how much low gateway stuff I would have to throw against someone with 4 collossi and a handful of gate units. It's simply not possible to have the amount of extra stuff you need to punish teching to counters unless you get in at just the right time. Too late and you get wrecked despite numbers because of a critical mass of BC/Collossi/voids/ultras/tanks. Too early and the defenders advantage that they will have will be more significant and you'll lose. Getting in just at the right time with a bunch of stuff is much harder than turtling till your counters are massed then going for the kill. So if you are new, like me, the "just make unit x" advice tends to be the best. Especially as there are so many counters that you just need to sprinkle in to your army at a low cost to make serveral high tech units worthless. For the low, low cost of 4 vikings you shut out colossi from the match and make switching to air units tricky too. 1 ghost and serveral immortals/templar just became mortals/paperweights. Its not as if just making a few vikings or ghosts is going to be so pricey that you wont have a regular army left because you only need a dab of them. In addition you can get around counters by good unit control but if you are a noob playing noobs then neither of you will have the ability to dodge storms, feedback ghosts and plant sexy forcefields. So just get the right counter works best for me and I guess is why the "just get blah" advice is so prevalent. | ||
|
Piy
Scotland3152 Posts
People should use Nydus's more though :p | ||
| ||
