|
Introduction
In an effort to improve dialogue around balance discussions, I have coined the term “simple-counter fallcy” to describe a trend that has plagued StarCraft its entire lifetime, and has only grown worse in StarCraft II. The “simple-counter fallacy” can also be known as the “just do ‘this” response. For example:
Forum OP: I’m having lots of trouble in my PvZ matchup where the Z overwhelms me with roaches
Forum response: You can just counter that with immortals.
Of coruse the OP would just reply:
Forum OP: But then he makes lings
To which our responder replies:
Forum Response: Just make zealots/colossus
Eventually we get into dialogues with ridiculous tech switches. In no way is the forum responder wrong, since Immortals are effective against roaches and zealots/collosus units are effective against zerglings, but they are ignoring entire aspects of timing and game flow.
![[image loading]](http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/physicists.png)
A similar plight plagues the physicist. xkcd.com
A product of intuition and simplified hard-counter perceptions
The most poisonous aspects of this type of dialogue is that it technically isn’t wrong. In fact, the unit counters fit right into your own intuition. However, human intuition is a pretty unreliable mode for justification. Remember how the archaic sciences believed that the earth was the center of the universe, that the moon was perfectly round, and gravity existed because “earth-type” objects were attracted to one another? That was all from human intuition. Just like science, there are deeper, diverse, and abstract factors effecting factors in balance and strategy.
Strategy discussion in StarCraft II suffers a lot from this simple-counter fallacy discussion since the game revolves around such hard counter systems. Blizzard sort of provoked this type of dialogue with their StarCraft 2 preview during its unveiling. Remember the video where the Immortals “countered” the siege tanks, and then the reapers came and “countered” the immortals? It gave newer players a sense the balance revolved around basic rock-paper-scissors.
![[image loading]](http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/article/790/790186/starcraft-ii-20070519104748162-000.jpg)
I was going to write something relating to the topic but look at those tanks lol
Simple counter fallacy on not so simple concepts
Of course, most veteran StarCraft players are aware of the more diverse and abstract factors that affect strategy and balance. Aspects such as timing, economy, and the aggression/economy tradeoff are just a few points that make StarCraft II a very dynamic and fun game. (Credit has to be given to Blizzard as they also must understand the more complex concepts of strategical balance when designing the game, otherwise SC II may have well been rock-paper scissors!)
Despite some veteran SC players’ knowledge, sometimes even sophisticated discussions may dissolve into gross simplifications. For example, lets say a Zerg player has issues with a general MMM ball. Responses that follow the “simple-counter fallacy” may not just be “just mass ultras”, but it may be “Well just Fast Expand, get an early third, start upgrades early, and keep Terran contained (lol) until you can pump out a sizeable ultra army to supplement your forces.” Though this response is correct, as all those factors would contribute to a sizeable Ultralisk army, the Zerg player will encounter a lot more obstacles when trying to execute the strategy - such as reaper openings, inability to control the early game, and being contained himself.
![[image loading]](http://starcraft.incgamers.com/gallery/data/501/medium/Nydus_Worms_And_Huge_Swarm_copy.jpg)
These are situations theory-crafters legitimately believe in. "Learn to nydus more"
Conclusions
The point is that though sometimes we may need to idealize some situations into ideal conditions in order to discuss them, games will always be diverse and almost completely unique. Of course we can make some generalizations, but I believe that the only distinct way to make judgements is to analyze a set of replays. Replays are the empirical evidence to avoid the “simple-counter fallacy”, since they contain all the timings, player mistakes, map issues, pauses, lag, phone-call interruptions, and macro-issues that may contribute to problems in game.
However, since I never want to take things to extremes, I’m not claiming that the newbies of StarCraft II have to do some soul-searching past their initial intuitions in order to find a truly dynamic strategy to improve their play - sometimes there are simple solutions. However, as people begin to discuss top level games and attempt to discuss balance in a game that revolves around three very dyanmic, diverse, and unique races, it’s just good to be cautious to remember the cliche - nothing is ever what it seems.
Also, I don’t want to take the extreme that balance issues are completely unique to each game played. After analyzing a good set of replays, vods, and personal game experience, we can still make generalized observations to idealize situations for theory-crafting. (I really hate to use this example, but top Zerg players have played a lot of games to observe that their is some sort of weakness in Zerg play They have the replays and experience to back it up, so they feel justified in their claims).
Hopefully, this sheds some light toward improving dialogue in strategical discussions. Ironically, simply being aware and avoiding the “simple-counter fallacy” can improve strategical dialogue among SC2 gamers along with highlighting the deeper aspects of play. I don’t expect this “simple-counter fallacy” to ever disappear from discussions, but hopefully players looking to improve will come to the similar conclusions I have made in this article and keep a more open mind when discussing strategy and balance.
Disclaimer:
+ Show Spoiler +I don't want this to devolve into a balance discussion thread, but rather to discuss how we discuss. Meta I know. Word your examples carefully
|
This should be the 11th TL Commandment.
I think in general people like saying stuff just to say stuff (not just on forums but in any kind of dialogue or conversation). Its important to think before you speak, but it is especially important when it comes to something as intricate as Starcraft, and especially important when it comes to posting on a site where potentially hundreds of people may read it and hundreds of people have already said it.
|
Wow, each time I read something like "just make unit xxx" or "but if I make xxx he will make yyy so it's useless" in a thread I think about what you just said. But I can't express it clearly. Good read sir, thank you.
|
I think Day[9] touched a bit on this... and I agree with it wholly.
I think this has to apply to other topics, such as the balance issues. When someone complains about tanks, a common response we usually get is 'NERF TANKS'. I think we can cut those out of the discussions, right?
I just hope that people will take a bit longer to click the 'post' button and really think about what they're saying.
|
|
|
on a random side note of nydus, if u create a 2 networks and stick all ur units into network 1 and make 2 worms, if the worm from network 2 pops out, are the units in network 1 in there too or none?
|
On September 24 2010 15:09 Leeoku wrote:
on a random side note of nydus, if u create a 2 networks and stick all ur units into network 1 and make 2 worms, if the worm from network 2 pops out, are the units in network 1 in there too or none?
All units are shared in the Nydus network, so they can pop up at any entrance or exit, afaik.
|
These are the kind of posts that should be highlighted by TL from time to time. Instead this kind of great write up which took some time to put together will get buried eventually. Among omg counter x with y.
That being said excellent write up and time you took to put together is much appreciated.
|
I'm really not meaning to be negative - so please don't take this as baseless criticism...
But aren't you simply saying in a long winded way SC2 is a complicated and relatively deep game strategy wise?
You're always going to have extremes in the viewpoints towards a game, from the extreme in-depth such as "You have to consider this timing push for xyz scouting and this other timing rush for abc scouting and then you must consider ijk metagame etc". To simply "Yeah it's zerg 4 gate" on the other end.
There has to be a middle ground for discussion however. You are correct in saying that every game is unique - but if you extrapolate that then you could then say you could never take the experiences of one game into the next. Yes you have to make generalizations, but you're always going too have to in order to be able to discuss the game.
If some Z is saying they are having trouble with marine heavy builds, it's appropriate to say lean towards banlings and infestors. This may ignore specific examples of timing pushes and what not in a single persons replay - however individually discussing 352 examples of TvZ with marine heavy builds isn't exactly practical either...
I just don't see to much of a point towards what you're saying, rather than the obvious statements about SC2 gameplay.
Like I said, sorry if it comes across as negative.
|
On September 24 2010 15:28 Peleus wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
I'm really not meaning to be negative - so please don't take this as baseless criticism...
But aren't you simply saying in a long winded way SC2 is a complicated and relatively deep game strategy wise?
You're always going to have extremes in the viewpoints towards a game, from the extreme in-depth such as "You have to consider this timing push for xyz scouting and this other timing rush for abc scouting and then you must consider ijk metagame etc". To simply "Yeah it's zerg 4 gate" on the other end.
There has to be a middle ground for discussion however. You are correct in saying that every game is unique - but if you extrapolate that then you could then say you could never take the experiences of one game into the next. Yes you have to make generalizations, but you're always going too have to in order to be able to discuss the game.
If some Z is saying they are having trouble with marine heavy builds, it's appropriate to say lean towards banlings and infestors. This may ignore specific examples of timing pushes and what not in a single persons replay - however individually discussing 352 examples of TvZ with marine heavy builds isn't exactly practical either...
I just don't see to much of a point towards what you're saying, rather than the obvious statements about SC2 gameplay.
Like I said, sorry if it comes across as negative.
He's saying that people need to use a little bit more critical thinking when discussing balance, not saying that the game is complicated/deep. In order to have a proper discussion regarding game and race analysis, posts regarding rock-paper-scissors generalizations need to stop being assumed.
Banelings kill marines, yes, and you can generalize that. However, the unique game progression that leads towards the situation where banelings are fighting marines might call for something else entirely from banelings. For example, you wouldn't use banelings against marines if you're assaulting a Marine/Siege tank line- the banelings would die. The average post on Teamliquid, however, will state "just make banelings and those marines are dead"- wherein lies the fallacy of proper critical thinking.
It's not about individually discussing 352 examples of TvZ, but rather discussing how to appropriately react based on the many events leading up to [whatever issue someone is having], which is a unique situation in every game.
|
I think he's saying something akin to if some one asks;
'How do I deal with a fast MM push?'
You answer shouldn't be 'lol bling infestor nub l2p'
Because the OP will just respond 'but I didn't have any/ he'll just build tanks/hells whatever'
then aforementioned poster will just say 'lol scout'
And the circle will just continue.
|
On September 24 2010 15:41 Nokarot wrote:
It's not about individually discussing 352 examples of TvZ, but rather discussing how to appropriately react based on the many events leading up to [whatever issue someone is having], which is a unique situation in every game.
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.
|
On September 24 2010 15:41 Nokarot wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2010 15:28 Peleus wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
I'm really not meaning to be negative - so please don't take this as baseless criticism...
But aren't you simply saying in a long winded way SC2 is a complicated and relatively deep game strategy wise?
You're always going to have extremes in the viewpoints towards a game, from the extreme in-depth such as "You have to consider this timing push for xyz scouting and this other timing rush for abc scouting and then you must consider ijk metagame etc". To simply "Yeah it's zerg 4 gate" on the other end.
There has to be a middle ground for discussion however. You are correct in saying that every game is unique - but if you extrapolate that then you could then say you could never take the experiences of one game into the next. Yes you have to make generalizations, but you're always going too have to in order to be able to discuss the game.
If some Z is saying they are having trouble with marine heavy builds, it's appropriate to say lean towards banlings and infestors. This may ignore specific examples of timing pushes and what not in a single persons replay - however individually discussing 352 examples of TvZ with marine heavy builds isn't exactly practical either...
I just don't see to much of a point towards what you're saying, rather than the obvious statements about SC2 gameplay.
Like I said, sorry if it comes across as negative.
The average post in the SC2 forum, however, will state "just make banelings and those marines are dead"- wherein lies the fallacy of proper critical thinking.
Fixed 
Seriously though, amazing post that very clearly articulates just what it was that made BW such a great game, and will continue on and do the same for SC2; the fact that just because you have X, unit, and he has Y unit, and Y>X in a straight up fight, DOES NOT mean that you have lost in any substantive way.
Thanks again!
|
I'm a total noob with little experience and I notice this plaguing so many threads, spewed by so many posters. I hope by your bringing awareness (as Day[9] has at times, too) the issue becomes less of a problem. Because right now it's a pretty huge problem.
+1 to this being the 11th Commandment.
|
its been a while since I discussed about discussion, good read. That is exactly why I've been avoiding reading from the Strategy page, >.>
|
Excellent point OP!
A better way to discuss this, especially with regards to early timing pushes, is through replay analysis. For example: "I'm having trouble with early marine/stim pushes." Instead of "make banelings or infestors," it'd be more useful to discuss the timing of said push. What is it viable to have out by that time? When do you need to scout in order to see if such a push will be coming? If you make the correct unit composition, and the enemy doesn't attack, where does that put you?
|
On September 24 2010 15:28 Peleus wrote:
I'm really not meaning to be negative - so please don't take this as baseless criticism...
But aren't you simply saying in a long winded way SC2 is a complicated and relatively deep game strategy wise?
You're always going to have extremes in the viewpoints towards a game, from the extreme in-depth such as "You have to consider this timing push for xyz scouting and this other timing rush for abc scouting and then you must consider ijk metagame etc". To simply "Yeah it's zerg 4 gate" on the other end.
There has to be a middle ground for discussion however. You are correct in saying that every game is unique - but if you extrapolate that then you could then say you could never take the experiences of one game into the next. Yes you have to make generalizations, but you're always going too have to in order to be able to discuss the game.
If some Z is saying they are having trouble with marine heavy builds, it's appropriate to say lean towards banlings and infestors. This may ignore specific examples of timing pushes and what not in a single persons replay - however individually discussing 352 examples of TvZ with marine heavy builds isn't exactly practical either...
I just don't see to much of a point towards what you're saying, rather than the obvious statements about SC2 gameplay.
Like I said, sorry if it comes across as negative.
I see where you're coming from, and I would agree I'm sort of preaching to the choir. I'm basically saying "lets have better discussions" and who can disagree with that?
I made a little note in the OP saying to even be careful of extremes when trying to avoid the simple-counter fallacy, since then you would over-analyzing every little detail. I suppose it would have been better to write it in context of balance discussions, which incorporate entire paradigms of play from each race, rather than refer to specific strategies. Though I think the problem still exists in specific strategies, sometimes they can have straightforward solutions which sort of confuse the original point.
I tried to maybe illustrate something a lot more abstract in terms of how the game dynamically plays. Honestly, I hope people just don't read the thread and say "Oh yeah totally that X>Y talk is so annoying I'll never do that." It's easy to say you won't fall for the same fallacies, but the problem with it is that we commit the crime without even realizing it. Maybe we have to accept its inevitability.
I'm not a saint, I've probably committed this simple-counter fallacy numerous times, and I'm sure some progamers have done it too. They don't mean to, but other aspects of the game may seem second nature to us so we assume everyone knows certain conditions when we offer simple solutions.
And don't worry about sounding negative. Skepticism and criticism should always be welcome when attempting to approve dialog.
|
awesome post lol I especially liked the physicist one 
|
I can't help but agree with this entire idea.
My greatest failing while learning SC2 is determining what counter I can build against a certain matchup given my current tech progression. The worst thing that can happen is me not finding a counter and having to change tech somewhere in my build (which is incredibly flimsy as it is).
Realistically, tech switches take time and the higher up in tech you are, the longer a time it takes to switch. I think the real art is figuring out which unit you can currently build - and most notably in what numbers - can fulfill the same role as said unit you can't tech to.
Pratcical experience has shown me that very often scouting information is off or even worse - you scout and he's not doing what you think he's doing and a moment later you end up with a suboptiomal army.
However, learning these kind of off counters or reactions and suboptimal but doable responses is incredibly hard. For me as a new zergie, I'm constantly varying the number of X I have to build to counter something it's not supposed to be good at (e.g. slings vs. marines because I skipped baneling nest).
The other question is ofc. do you need to tech switch after countering whatever it is or does your off-counter fulfill the role well enough that you can just keep on going with the tech you have so far.
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.
This is true.
The problem is that these very specialized situations occur far more often than you'd expect because of faield scouting or false predictions. Maybe you can't offer advice for that specific situation but you can attempt to understand what other options you have besides the 'hard' or 'correct' counter for your problem.
Eventually you'll get in a similar situation and realize... "Right... so I don't have X... but Y might just get me out of this alive too... make more Y."
If you're stuck in the hard counter mentality you'd never build Y in the first place. This has happened to me numerous times and getting that thinking out of your head can be a hard thing.
|
In response to everyone saying that this should be the 11th TL commandment - you all flatter me However, I believe that the 3rd commandment - Thou shalt think before posting - pretty much sums it all up.
Please, think before you chime in with your opinion on a given post or series of posts. There will usually be some history behind a given exchange in our forums, so take the time to observe what might really be going on and put the conversation into context before you decide who's "right" and who's "wrong." Above all, take into account who is posting - context is everything. Chirping in with your grossly uninformed opinions will only make you look dumb and irritate the heck out of the people who do know what's going on.
We can't tell you how many little kids we've ripped to shreds because they reacted first instead of thinking. The absolute worst examples are overzealous pinheads who automatically react with righteous indignation when an Admin bans someone for posting something that, to them, seems innocuous - never thinking that we could be banning that guy for a whole bunch of other things and that this may just have been the final straw. There's a reason why we do the things we do around here.
And please don't try to be Freud or Jung. Don't second-guess the motives for why someone wrote something. Only the author knows for sure the "whys." Respond to what's written. Avoid responding with comments filled with half-baked psychoanalytical presumptions about the poster?s imputed agenda or their psych profile. So, for example, when someone writes a detailed post outlining his/her strategy for countering a tank push, feel free to respond to or even criticize the content of the original post - but don't write about how the guy's just trying to impress everyone with his/her knowledge because of an inferiority complex! You don't know that and no one cares. Stop psychoanalyzing - you don't have a license to practice.
Thanks.
|
Good post. This is one of the biggest problems with the strategy forum.
|
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 ...
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.
|
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.
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.
|
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.
|
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 ... Show nested quote +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.
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
|
This guy is completely right
|
On September 24 2010 14:58 seaofsaturn wrote:
This should be the 11th TL Commandment.
Thou shalt not speaketh of thy simple counters.
|
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.
|
TL;DR version: You can't compare units in a vacuum.
|
Great post! It's nice to see someone make a point that actually contributes to moving forward as a community.
|
This.
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.
|
learn2nydus, nub.
Great post.
|
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.
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).
|
[Agrees with OP, trying to further define the point]
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.
|
Great post, sums everything why i don't comment on the strat forums too much these days.
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
|
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. Show nested quote +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. 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).
|
I'm right there with you. Sometimes it seems like "top level Diamond" players are advising us to build every tech building and unit ever. Much more effective to learn to use what you do have efficiently.
Thanks for posting, shindigs.
|
OMG. Thank God you made such a great post about this. I see this SOOOOO frequently and it is so annoying whenever people do it I can't even argue with it. When people turn SC2 into rock-paper-scissors it makes me cringe.
|
Honestly I think that there is no counter fallacy, at least with poorer players in silver/bronze like myself.
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.
|
Really good post.
People should use Nydus's more though :p
|
On September 24 2010 16:49 EonShiKeno wrote:
Great post! It's nice to see someone make a point that actually contributes to moving forward as a community.
As long as the community spare time to read it that is.
|
On September 24 2010 19:17 AidanS wrote:
Honestly I think that there is no counter fallacy, at least with poorer players in silver/bronze like myself.
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.
This belief is precisely why you will remain in bronze! Read and UNDERSTAND what the OP is trying to tell you, and accept it as truth. You actually kind of submitted to it anyway. Talking about the fact that you just cant throw enough stuff at X. The answer to your problem, and almost all bronze to platinum IS NOT the lack of unit counter knowledge.
|
On September 24 2010 19:17 AidanS wrote:
Honestly I think that there is no counter fallacy, at least with poorer players in silver/bronze like myself.
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.
Not really agree to that.
The best (and oftentimes ONLY) good advice at those levels is just to say "learn to macro better" and "learn how/when you can get an expo up". All other things you can do is really just a bronze player trying to stay in bronze and still having fun with it (nothing wrong with that at all btw, but if you're looking for advice to actually improve, then that's the best anyone can give you when you're stuck in gold/silver/bronze (even plat most of the time))
|
On September 24 2010 14:40 shindigs wrote:
Despite some veteran SC players’ knowledge, sometimes even sophisticated discussions may dissolve into gross simplifications. For example, lets say a Zerg player has issues with a general MMM ball. Responses that follow the “simple-counter fallacy” may not just be “just mass ultras”, but it may be “Well just Fast Expand, get an early third, start upgrades early, and keep Terran contained (lol) until you can pump out a sizeable ultra army to supplement your forces.” Though this response is correct, as all those factors would contribute to a sizeable Ultralisk army, the Zerg player will encounter a lot more obstacles when trying to execute the strategy - such as reaper openings, inability to control the early game, and being contained himself.
Zerg : I have an issue with MMM ball
Terran : Make ultralisks
Zerg : But if Terran pushes before my ultraliks I'm dead
Terran : Yes you're dead hahahahahaha
=> not a simple-counter fallacy
Joke aside, great post, it's easy to tell someone to do something, but harder to do it in game.
|
This relies on first people knowing HOW TO ASK a question. I admit, I'm far from being even an amateur at this game, but I am slowly recognizing through replays, casts, and D9Ds about the all the depth of the meta game.
I think we should first address the Forum OP. His question SHOULD NOT BE:
"Hi. I'm Protoss. I need help with Roaches."
Because then the NATURAL (and obvious) RESPONSE would of course be:
"Get Immortals. They counter Roaches".
It should be:
"Hi. I'm Protoss. I go for a one warp gate one robo fast expand build. My macro is sorta decent but I keep falling to very early Roach pressure, specifically when it comes when my expansion is opening up. I didn't harass and played very passively. My expansion starts at about 40 food and by the time it is halfway done I have a few sentries and a mix of about 4 zealots and 4 stalkers. How do I deal with 15-16 Roaches? He seems to go all in?" (Keep in mind that this is a hypothetical situation and made just for example's purpose)
This OP allows a person to analyze the different aspects of the problem. Here the guy is trying to fast expand in general but falls to QUICK roaches, NOT MASS ROACHES which seems to be a common assumption. People who know how to deal with this can analyze whether the guy should have this many units, or whether there seems to be some other problem with his unit composition, or whether he should have better micro.
As people who respond to the OP we should demand a better explanation of the issue. We should not be lazy and say 'counter with immortals', we should ask 'when does the attack come? How many units do you have? How many does he have? Does he have something else like Roach-Hydra? Can you handle the first push, but fall to later pushes? Does the push cripple or kill you? Can you show me a replay of this? What is your opening? When the attack comes what structures do you have in your base? Did the Zerg do anything beforehand to you or did you do anything to the Zerg?' This forces the OP to think as well and relate other CRITICAL parts of the problem he is forgetting to tell. It makes him a better player KNOWING that there are other aspects than simple counters AND THAT HE SHOULD QUESTION OTHER ASPECTS OF HIS GAME.
Also don't use the word 'counter'. Day 9 explains in one of his dailies that counter is actually two concepts rather than one. If e.g you get Mutas, you FORCE (1) the Terran to get loads of turrets. Terran NEEDS to get those turrets else he will die (or a Thor or a lot of marines). But on the other hand there is the RESPONSE (2). For e.g if your Terran opponent gets lots of marines, you can RESPOND well to that composition by getting collosi. These two concepts take into consideration timing. For example, the first Muta attack (usually 6) requires one strat, and delayed Muta (which creates about 12-20) requires another.
|
hmm, simply speaking, I think, usually what people mean, when asking question like "what could've been done against x here" is: "What unit do I make so I can attack his army head on and win?", where sometimes the answer is simply "Don't attack his army head on, but do something else, that will give you the win later"..
|
On September 24 2010 19:17 AidanS wrote:
Honestly I think that there is no counter fallacy, at least with poorer players in silver/bronze like myself.
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.
I agree that unit composition counters are a key aspect of learning the game, but as you improve you begin to notice that losing a game wasn't a matter of "oh I should have just had this unit at this time". It also is about putting yourself into a position where you can produce certain units with minimal fear of being attacked by a counter-strategy to yours.
The reason why bronze/silver players are told to just learn to macro and scout is because the very basics of macro and scouting can allow yourself to be in a very good position against lower level opponents in order to produce the units and execute the strategies you need.
|
I certainly think it exists and I'm in silver (1v1).
I fall victim to this repeatedly, as happened in a game before.
Rather than relying on macro and zlings/crawlers until lair tech I tried to get the 'right unit' too quickly against a very poorly executed 4gate push and nearly got myself killed. Sure, I had all the 'right' units. But I didn't have enough of them as teching up was too damned expensive. Had I done the usual thing I'd have had at least 30% more drones AND units - and not lost my natural to the damned push.
Fancy things *seem* to work well in bronze and silver but playing as a zerg I'm really seeing how marcoing alone wins more games than anything else - mainly because this is the only way to win reliably at my skill level as zerg.
It makes my skin crawl every time I play a T or P getting the 'right unit mix' but stuck on one base to tech up. You simply cannot win on one base vs. a comparable opponent who has three or four times as many bases, regardless of which units you have.
Sure, counters are important and they can decide a game. But it's your game plan that has to get you to the counter, not a quick tech switch in the middle of doing something else. It will just slow you down in my experience.
Real world example: You go 14 gas/pool 15 hatch. Your enemy is doing your everyday mech push with a few helions but doens't have as many bases as you (have seen this many times).
For whatever reason I figure mass zerglings + crawler will suffice to protect myself till mutas. So yeah, you loose a lot of zerglings but you live till mutas, then begin counter-harrass, to which he builds marines.
The response is building blings and eventually rolling him over.
Now at a low level, this tactic STILL WILL WORK even though helions counter zerglings. Why? The fancy micro needed for helions (not so fancy but you do need to micro) will deter from macro - and macro begins to slip. The apparently hard counter turns entirely useless if the other person gets to three bases and you are still stuck on one with 15 workers.
If you'd left the helions aside, gone for normal macro and a regular MM(M) push you might have won... but the dedication towards doing something fancy distracted you from the basic mechanics of SC2's macro and lost you in the end - even though you roasted 60 zerglings and lost 10 helions in the process.
|
I just wanted to point out that a fallacy is a flaw in reasoning, and when someone tells you a 1 liner to 'do this' it isn't necessarily a fallacy. It's just him being unhelpful.
But otherwise, I agree. People who simply answer to 'get this' or 'do this' generally don't understand the scope of the question and are just trying to get their post count up, or annoy others.
|
On September 25 2010 03:35 Pandonetho wrote:
I just wanted to point out that a fallacy is a flaw in reasoning, and when someone tells you a 1 liner to 'do this' it isn't necessarily a fallacy. It's just him being unhelpful.
The fallacy at hand is a straw man.
OP: I'm having trouble dealing with X (say a roach rush)
Responder: Then get immortals (which counters roaches as a unit but in no way counters the situation.)
So the responder simplifies (read: changes) the OPs problem and solves it with a simple solution.
I completely agree with the OP, but I think that another major component needs to addressed:
Don't respond to threads with posted replays without watching the replays.
I can't stand when people just want to post stuff without actually taking a look at what a posters problems are. And I'd say in general it leads to the kinds of simplified responses that the OP is talking about.
|
On September 24 2010 15:08 Barrin wrote:
The 11th commandment should be to never use the following "words" (not actual words):
-Strategical
-Metagame
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
