• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 08:28
CEST 14:28
KST 21:28
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
RSL Season 1 - Final Week2[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall10HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0
Community News
Firefly given lifetime ban by ESIC following match-fixing investigation14$25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced6Weekly Cups (June 30 - July 6): Classic Doubles6[BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China9Flash Announces Hiatus From ASL67
StarCraft 2
General
RSL Season 1 - Final Week Firefly given lifetime ban by ESIC following match-fixing investigation The SCII GOAT: A statistical Evaluation TL Team Map Contest #4: Winners Weekly Cups (June 30 - July 6): Classic Doubles
Tourneys
Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament $25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series WardiTV Mondays
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response Simple Questions Simple Answers
Custom Maps
[UMS] Zillion Zerglings
External Content
Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame Mutation # 479 Worn Out Welcome Mutation # 478 Instant Karma
Brood War
General
BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ BW General Discussion Flash Announces Hiatus From ASL [G] Progamer Settings ASL20 Preliminary Maps
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China [BSL20] Grand Finals - Sunday 20:00 CET CSL Xiamen International Invitational
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project Nintendo Switch Thread Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Path of Exile What do you want from future RTS games?
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Positive Thoughts on Setting Up a Dual-Caliber FX
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Summer Games Done Quick 2025! Russo-Ukrainian War Thread
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread [Manga] One Piece [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion NBA General Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Men Take Risks, Women Win Ga…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 629 users

Game Theory and Starcraft 2 - Page 2

Forum Index > SC2 General
Post a Reply
Prev 1 2 3 Next All
xOff
Profile Joined October 2010
United States247 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-07-08 19:28:23
July 08 2011 19:27 GMT
#21
Very true, I have found this out from just playing my same friend over and over in practice games. He plays protoss and every game played 'Standard'. Eventually without really noticing it, I began to cut corners that I wouldn't be cutting normally against other Toss'. I would win consistantly because I felt safe and that he would go macro style like he normally does.

However, a couple days ago he started cheesing me... DT rush etc. and it caught me completely off guard. Now im kept on my toes and not allowed to cut the corners i once did because I know that there is the possibility that hes doing something crazy and not staying predictable as he once was.
Anything can be accomplished through sheer discipline.
R0YAL
Profile Blog Joined September 2009
United States1768 Posts
July 08 2011 19:34 GMT
#22
On July 09 2011 04:20 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 09 2011 02:41 SoKHo wrote:
On July 09 2011 01:15 Cuiu wrote:
i hate the word cheese in association with sc2
and i dont get it wtf has cheese with a game to do
cheese cheeser cheesy wtf
yeah its a slang
but who was that stupid person to call something like that cheese
and than evolve to a insult "nerf you stupid cheeser"
should i be offended or something
omg he called me a cheeser i hope he will die slowly


im not with the community who complains about every early aggressive build
aaa what a lame game he is such a cheeser

wtf thats so stupid
when i see a zerg is going hatch first i trow all i have to break him
i get all my scvs i get all my units
i would take my supply depots when i could
he takes the risk to die to early aggression
so i just attack
when i fail then he is probably the overall better player and i will lose anyway


I think it came from the Korean BW commentators. At least that is where I first heard it. Why do you feel so insulted and hate the word cheese so much? When you all-in a hatch first (which is standard zerg play), every game, you probably won't improve at all. To become a better player, you need to play standard. I like to incorporate cheese in a tournament game.


This is such a twisted view. What is "better"? The only way you can concretely determine performance is by how much you win, which is what performance is. If you can cheese your opponents every game and win the GSL, is that not worth it? Don't consider that maybe you won't be able to play long macro games like the rest, because again, only the results matter. If you cheese every game and win every tournament, are you a good player?

Of course that example is to the extreme, but I hope you get the point. (Look at thebest though, he was quite successful in the super tourny and made much more money than players playing "standard" like idra).

Let's put it this way. If you scv-marine all-in every game in the first few minutes, how can you improve your skill? Even if you are winning 100% of the time you are still not improving, there are almost no variables to improve on with an scv-marine all-in.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
turdburgler
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
England6749 Posts
July 08 2011 19:39 GMT
#23
this isnt actually game theory, its just theory on the game : o


i am disapoint
Cuiu
Profile Joined March 2011
Germany410 Posts
July 08 2011 19:56 GMT
#24
On July 09 2011 02:41 SoKHo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 09 2011 01:15 Cuiu wrote:
i hate the word cheese in association with sc2
and i dont get it wtf has cheese with a game to do
cheese cheeser cheesy wtf
yeah its a slang
but who was that stupid person to call something like that cheese
and than evolve to a insult "nerf you stupid cheeser"
should i be offended or something
omg he called me a cheeser i hope he will die slowly


im not with the community who complains about every early aggressive build
aaa what a lame game he is such a cheeser

wtf thats so stupid
when i see a zerg is going hatch first i trow all i have to break him
i get all my scvs i get all my units
i would take my supply depots when i could
he takes the risk to die to early aggression
so i just attack
when i fail then he is probably the overall better player and i will lose anyway


I think it came from the Korean BW commentators. At least that is where I first heard it. Why do you feel so insulted and hate the word cheese so much? When you all-in a hatch first (which is standard zerg play), every game, you probably won't improve at all. To become a better player, you need to play standard. I like to incorporate cheese in a tournament game.


because is a stupid term for a video game what wants to be mainstream

omg he called me a cheeser i hope he will die slowly
/ironic

i don´t care what standard for a zerg is
it is standard for me to all in a hatch first zerg so what?
when he thinks that he can defend a all in
yeah do it
but when not
don´t complain about flipping coins then you flip it first

i don´t think that you don´t improve when you are a early aggression player
you will improve in that what you do
lolsixtynine
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States600 Posts
July 08 2011 20:03 GMT
#25
On July 09 2011 01:38 Barrin wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 09 2011 01:18 Mordoc wrote:
Good post, I don't think it'll be some revelation for most posters, but it was a good read.


Safe>Cheesy>Greedy>Cheesy

wtf?

Cheesy>Greedy
AND
Greedy>Cheesy?

can't have it both ways...







Anyways, if anyone wants to learn more about Game Theory: http://academicearth.org/courses/game-theory

You're welcome.



Don't be so hard on him for an obvious typo. The point is it's rock-paper-scissors. Cheese > Greedy > Safe > Cheese
00Visor
Profile Blog Joined February 2011
4337 Posts
July 08 2011 20:06 GMT
#26
Some quality posts here. Great to see.
And yeah, I apologize if you were awaiting actual applied game theory. That would be a nice approach, but would keep a lot of people out of the discussion.

On July 09 2011 01:44 Milkis wrote:
http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=204175

You might be interested in this


Thanks. I`ll watch it.

On July 09 2011 01:43 Thereisnosaurus wrote:
While this shows a decent understanding of game theory it doesn't show a decent understanding of the realities of professional starcraft. For one, suggesting that a game of professional starcraft is single iteration zero sum is a wee bit foolish. A starcraft 2 game is more like a single game (within a set, match, tournament and season) of tennis than anything else. The player must take into account, for example

> optimum revealing of information such as build orders, micro ability, tricks and tactics in order to gain maximum advantage over the game, match, tournament or series of tournaments.

> optimum expending of energy reserves to gain the optimum win chance in a certain scenario where energy is not infinite over the course of a match, a tournament or series of tournaments.

>Score as a resource expendable to gain advantages in future series. playing a super risky cheese even knowing you will lose guaranteed if it gives you a percieved advantage in future games and doesn't eliminate you may be a worthwhile trade if it can be made

> metagame/career winnings. If say player X plays standard and wins 90% of tournaments gaining Y money and player A plays flashy, crazy tactic based games and wins 10% of tournaments gaining B money, but also C from endorsements, sponsorships, streaming and canned fan drool, if B+C > Y then player A can be said to 'win' at SC2 over player X if money is the only score system. This states that playing risky/cheese strategies that have a lower percentage chance of winning a single non iterated game may actually be more valuable to a player in an iterated scenario, so the highest %win chance strategy within a game is not always the best strategy.

Your arguments are solid, but you're looking at a very narrow aspect of SC2's metagame of progaming. If those were the only variables around you'd be right, unfortunately, they're not so things are a wee bit more complex than basic game theory can deal with.


You named some additional points which are all right, but I don't think that they contradict mine.

On July 09 2011 02:53 Zocat wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 09 2011 00:30 00Visor wrote:
You can't play Starcraft risky/safe regarding the outcome of a game. Simply because there is only "win" or "loose".
You can't compare it to games like Soccer/Basketball/Hockey or Poker. In most sports there is a time limit. So if you are in the lead, you can play defensive/safe. In Poker you can play risky and risk a lot of chips or play smaller pots.


Imagine the following SC2 situation:
TvP. Your army values are about equal.
You, the T, drop the P's mainbase and start attacking buildings. Do you retreat after killing a pylon / a warpgate or do you push into the probeline and try to kill all the probes?
You can risk your whole drop (a lot of chips) or retreat and take away your small advantage (small pot).

Now imagine you did kill all his probes and got away with your drop. Obviously you have a big economic lead.
You now dont need to proceed with your planned timing attack (against an opponent with equal army value), possibly engaging in a bad position, since over time your advantage will increase. You can now play defensive, setting up good positions when a fight is about to happen.
Since your opponent is behind he has to take risks to make a comeback. And you can exploit those risks. Similiar how in football the team behind has to open up the defense and try to score a goal. And the leading team can exploit the open/free space by utilizing fast counter play.


That`s right as well. But that is the first interpretation. It`s an ingame risk, you do risky moves to make a comeback. But regarding the outcome of the game, you can't risk more than loosing this one game. In soccer you could lose by a higher margin.
obesechicken13
Profile Blog Joined July 2008
United States10467 Posts
July 08 2011 20:18 GMT
#27
Even if safe play is better, warcraft 3 got really boring for me when I noticed commentators started predicting what heroes a player would get, what items they would get, and when they would get them five minutes before they actually did. Variety is necessary for a pro scene to survive.
I think in our modern age technology has evolved to become more addictive. The things that don't give us pleasure aren't used as much. Work was never meant to be fun, but doing it makes us happier in the long run.
Cyber_Cheese
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
Australia3615 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-07-08 22:08:16
July 08 2011 22:07 GMT
#28
On July 09 2011 04:20 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 09 2011 02:41 SoKHo wrote:
On July 09 2011 01:15 Cuiu wrote:
i hate the word cheese in association with sc2
and i dont get it wtf has cheese with a game to do
cheese cheeser cheesy wtf
yeah its a slang
but who was that stupid person to call something like that cheese
and than evolve to a insult "nerf you stupid cheeser"
should i be offended or something
omg he called me a cheeser i hope he will die slowly


im not with the community who complains about every early aggressive build
aaa what a lame game he is such a cheeser

wtf thats so stupid
when i see a zerg is going hatch first i trow all i have to break him
i get all my scvs i get all my units
i would take my supply depots when i could
he takes the risk to die to early aggression
so i just attack
when i fail then he is probably the overall better player and i will lose anyway


I think it came from the Korean BW commentators. At least that is where I first heard it. Why do you feel so insulted and hate the word cheese so much? When you all-in a hatch first (which is standard zerg play), every game, you probably won't improve at all. To become a better player, you need to play standard. I like to incorporate cheese in a tournament game.


This is such a twisted view. What is "better"? The only way you can concretely determine performance is by how much you win, which is what performance is. If you can cheese your opponents every game and win the GSL, is that not worth it? Don't consider that maybe you won't be able to play long macro games like the rest, because again, only the results matter. If you cheese every game and win every tournament, are you a good player?

Of course that example is to the extreme, but I hope you get the point. (Look at thebest though, he was quite successful in the super tourny and made much more money than players playing "standard" like idra).


Yes, you are. If the other people can't survive your onslaught and make it to late game, then why bother letting games get there?

On July 09 2011 05:18 obesechicken13 wrote:
Even if safe play is better, warcraft 3 got really boring for me when I noticed commentators started predicting what heroes a player would get, what items they would get, and when they would get them five minutes before they actually did. Variety is necessary for a pro scene to survive.


No kidding, Orc blademaster certainly being forefront
The moment you lose confidence in yourself, is the moment the world loses it's confidence in you.
NB
Profile Blog Joined February 2010
Netherlands12045 Posts
July 08 2011 22:21 GMT
#29
i think game thoery is wrong way to go when we try to turn this game into sport. Poker has never made it to Olympic right?
Im daed. Follow me @TL_NB
Yoshi Kirishima
Profile Blog Joined July 2009
United States10325 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-07-08 22:51:32
July 08 2011 22:47 GMT
#30
On July 09 2011 07:07 Cyber_Cheese wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 09 2011 04:20 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
On July 09 2011 02:41 SoKHo wrote:
On July 09 2011 01:15 Cuiu wrote:
i hate the word cheese in association with sc2
and i dont get it wtf has cheese with a game to do
cheese cheeser cheesy wtf
yeah its a slang
but who was that stupid person to call something like that cheese
and than evolve to a insult "nerf you stupid cheeser"
should i be offended or something
omg he called me a cheeser i hope he will die slowly


im not with the community who complains about every early aggressive build
aaa what a lame game he is such a cheeser

wtf thats so stupid
when i see a zerg is going hatch first i trow all i have to break him
i get all my scvs i get all my units
i would take my supply depots when i could
he takes the risk to die to early aggression
so i just attack
when i fail then he is probably the overall better player and i will lose anyway


I think it came from the Korean BW commentators. At least that is where I first heard it. Why do you feel so insulted and hate the word cheese so much? When you all-in a hatch first (which is standard zerg play), every game, you probably won't improve at all. To become a better player, you need to play standard. I like to incorporate cheese in a tournament game.


This is such a twisted view. What is "better"? The only way you can concretely determine performance is by how much you win, which is what performance is. If you can cheese your opponents every game and win the GSL, is that not worth it? Don't consider that maybe you won't be able to play long macro games like the rest, because again, only the results matter. If you cheese every game and win every tournament, are you a good player?

Of course that example is to the extreme, but I hope you get the point. (Look at thebest though, he was quite successful in the super tourny and made much more money than players playing "standard" like idra).


Yes, you are. If the other people can't survive your onslaught and make it to late game, then why bother letting games get there?


Thanks for agreeing ^_^

Let's put it this way. If you scv-marine all-in every game in the first few minutes, how can you improve your skill? Even if you are winning 100% of the time you are still not improving, there are almost no variables to improve on with an scv-marine all-in.


What is skill? Skill doesn't matter as long as you win. If you win, you outplay your opponent. Only the skill needed to defeat your opponent is skill that is actually "used".

What determines improvement? Performance. What determines performance? Winning.

If you are scv rushing every game and winning 100%, you are the perfect player in that sense. You can improve in other aspects of the game, in this extreme situation that would be long macro games, but why give your opponent the chance to win if you can just kill him early?
Mid-master streaming MECH ONLY + commentary www.twitch.tv/yoshikirishima +++ "If all-in fails, all-in again."
Nagu
Profile Joined November 2010
United States13 Posts
July 08 2011 23:06 GMT
#31
Starcraft is an interesting application for game theory. I wrote a final paper/presentation about it but lost it and can't remember all of the points I brought up in it. I had to dumb it down a lot because the professor and other students weren't familiar with RTS games but I felt the point still came across.

To make it work, I simplified strategies based on how aggressive they were and made the assumption that later aggression would beat slightly earlier aggression but much earlier aggression would beat the late one. In other words, cheese > greedy > safe > cheese. I realize this isn't always the case but it made it easier to explain and gets the point across for my other main assumption which was that there is no dominant pure strategy. Essentially Starcraft becomes rock paper scissors.

From there, I went on to diagnose different parts of the game but didn't apply numbers or go into technical details. The game itself was treated as a signaling game with incomplete information on both sides. You want someone to think you're doing a more aggressive strategy so that they think they need to get defense up faster and end up with a weaker late game. I looked at the ladder as an evolutionary game because as a strategy becomes more popular (because it has a higher chance of winning), the strategy that is strong against that becomes more successful and this circle continues endlessly.

You don't really gain anything strategy wise from game theory. Pretty much everything is obvious but it lets you tell people how dumb they are for complaining about cheese or other strategies.
djengizz
Profile Joined August 2010
Netherlands42 Posts
July 08 2011 23:45 GMT
#32
On July 09 2011 08:06 Nagu wrote:
You don't really gain anything strategy wise from game theory. Pretty much everything is obvious but it lets you tell people how dumb they are for complaining about cheese or other strategies.

I'm not sure.

I think it's really hard to apply to a game with so many variables and incomplete information and most efforts will probably results in enormous amounts of theory crafting.

However i do think game theory can help us getting a better understanding of the game and make concepts like experience and game sense a little less abstract.

Simple things like translating scouting information in possible strategies your opponent is using and formulating good responses against it can be done using game theory without having to guess about the outcome.
The availability of loads of replays and programs like SC2Gears would maybe make it possible to collect enough data to formulate realistic ranges and compare different strategies and really put a cost on choices.

makmeatt
Profile Blog Joined June 2011
2024 Posts
July 09 2011 10:57 GMT
#33
On July 09 2011 07:47 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
What is skill? Skill doesn't matter as long as you win. If you win, you outplay your opponent. Only the skill needed to defeat your opponent is skill that is actually "used".

What determines improvement? Performance. What determines performance? Winning.

If you are scv rushing every game and winning 100%, you are the perfect player in that sense. You can improve in other aspects of the game, in this extreme situation that would be long macro games, but why give your opponent the chance to win if you can just kill him early?


Skill is a term used to describe your ability as a player to, in fact, win games. But, if you are master of all types of scv allins, then whoever is the master at defending those as well as any other strategy will defeat you. Thus, your skill is inferior to his. Point of his post was that if you want to become a really good player (where 'good' describes the percentage of games won by you against a whole variety of players throughout the whole skill spectrum), 'practicing' your scv allins all the time will take you nowhere.

On a side note, some people seem to have have some skewed understanding of improvement per se, like the only purpose in buying SC2 was to hit grandmasters by everyone. I think the further we discuss it, the further we misinform ourselves.

On July 09 2011 08:06 Nagu wrote:
You don't really gain anything strategy wise from game theory. Pretty much everything is obvious but it lets you tell people how dumb they are for complaining about cheese or other strategies.


Certainly not exactly, and most of the definitions described by game theory won't even apply here, but certain analogies will help to understand and comprehend the reasons behind related scenarios, which is exactly the way to 'gain an edge' over the opponent.
"Silver Edge can't break my hope" - Kryptt 2016 || "Chrono is not a debuff, you just get rekt" - Guru 2016
x6Paramore
Profile Joined April 2011
Canada130 Posts
July 09 2011 13:10 GMT
#34
I completely agree with OPs article. Since there are only two possible outcomes, its hard to really say that one strategy is more viable than another in terms of risk when it comes to equal skill level.
DoubleReed
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United States4130 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-07-09 14:59:19
July 09 2011 14:48 GMT
#35
Sigh, the OP claims to be a math major and yet still uses "Game Theory" incorrectly. Game Theory is about decisionmaking and getting the best possible outcome. Game Theory has extremely little to do with starcraft 2, poker, and gaming in general. It's much closer to economics than video games. Nothing in the OP is even remotely close to Game Theory. There's no "excitement" or "fun" in game theory.

You don't have friggin' Nash Equilibriums in Starcraft 2.
aristarchus
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United States652 Posts
July 09 2011 15:00 GMT
#36
On July 09 2011 23:48 DoubleReed wrote:
Sigh, the OP claims to be a math major and yet still uses "Game Theory" incorrectly. Game Theory is about decisionmaking and getting the best possible outcome. Game Theory has extremely little to do with starcraft 2, poker, and gaming in general. It's much closer to economics than video games. Nothing in the OP is even remotely close to Game Theory.

You don't have friggin' Nash Equilibriums in Starcraft 2.

Yes, you do have Nash equilibria in sc2. He's using "game theory" correctly. It has plenty to do with poker and sc2. They're too complicated to use actual equations and work out specific probabilities of each build/bet, but you can definitely get some helpful understanding from it, and that's what he's giving. Game theory-wise, for example, it's really easy to see why on the ladder there is no penalty from doing the same build every game (assuming same matchup/map), but horrible problems if you do this in tournaments (or are well-known).
DoubleReed
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United States4130 Posts
July 09 2011 15:06 GMT
#37
On July 10 2011 00:00 aristarchus wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 09 2011 23:48 DoubleReed wrote:
Sigh, the OP claims to be a math major and yet still uses "Game Theory" incorrectly. Game Theory is about decisionmaking and getting the best possible outcome. Game Theory has extremely little to do with starcraft 2, poker, and gaming in general. It's much closer to economics than video games. Nothing in the OP is even remotely close to Game Theory.

You don't have friggin' Nash Equilibriums in Starcraft 2.

Yes, you do have Nash equilibria in sc2. He's using "game theory" correctly. It has plenty to do with poker and sc2. They're too complicated to use actual equations and work out specific probabilities of each build/bet, but you can definitely get some helpful understanding from it, and that's what he's giving. Game theory-wise, for example, it's really easy to see why on the ladder there is no penalty from doing the same build every game (assuming same matchup/map), but horrible problems if you do this in tournaments (or are well-known).


Why do you need to bring game theory into it to suggest this? This is obvious without mathematics.

He claims that cheese/rushing should be in game to prevent everyone from FEing every game. Why is this bad? Why does game theory care? You have to bring in ideas like "excitement" and "fun" to make any sense of anything.
aristarchus
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United States652 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-07-09 15:13:08
July 09 2011 15:12 GMT
#38
On July 10 2011 00:06 DoubleReed wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 10 2011 00:00 aristarchus wrote:
On July 09 2011 23:48 DoubleReed wrote:
Sigh, the OP claims to be a math major and yet still uses "Game Theory" incorrectly. Game Theory is about decisionmaking and getting the best possible outcome. Game Theory has extremely little to do with starcraft 2, poker, and gaming in general. It's much closer to economics than video games. Nothing in the OP is even remotely close to Game Theory.

You don't have friggin' Nash Equilibriums in Starcraft 2.

Yes, you do have Nash equilibria in sc2. He's using "game theory" correctly. It has plenty to do with poker and sc2. They're too complicated to use actual equations and work out specific probabilities of each build/bet, but you can definitely get some helpful understanding from it, and that's what he's giving. Game theory-wise, for example, it's really easy to see why on the ladder there is no penalty from doing the same build every game (assuming same matchup/map), but horrible problems if you do this in tournaments (or are well-known).


Why do you need to bring game theory into it to suggest this? This is obvious without mathematics.

He claims that cheese/rushing should be in game to prevent everyone from FEing every game. Why is this bad? Why does game theory care? You have to bring in ideas like "excitement" and "fun" to make any sense of anything.

He's talking about what good strategy is. I guess you might find it more fun to watch everyone FE every game. It also might be more fun to watch soccer games if both teams just don't bring goalies... but that's not the point of this discussion. As a player, especially at the pro level, your main goal is to win, and that's what he's talking about.

But if your point is "Who cares if it's bad strategy? It's fun to watch" then make that point. Don't insult the OP by claiming he doesn't understand what he's talking about when he does, you don't, and you just make yourself look bad.
DoubleReed
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United States4130 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-07-09 15:25:05
July 09 2011 15:21 GMT
#39
On July 10 2011 00:12 aristarchus wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 10 2011 00:06 DoubleReed wrote:
On July 10 2011 00:00 aristarchus wrote:
On July 09 2011 23:48 DoubleReed wrote:
Sigh, the OP claims to be a math major and yet still uses "Game Theory" incorrectly. Game Theory is about decisionmaking and getting the best possible outcome. Game Theory has extremely little to do with starcraft 2, poker, and gaming in general. It's much closer to economics than video games. Nothing in the OP is even remotely close to Game Theory.

You don't have friggin' Nash Equilibriums in Starcraft 2.

Yes, you do have Nash equilibria in sc2. He's using "game theory" correctly. It has plenty to do with poker and sc2. They're too complicated to use actual equations and work out specific probabilities of each build/bet, but you can definitely get some helpful understanding from it, and that's what he's giving. Game theory-wise, for example, it's really easy to see why on the ladder there is no penalty from doing the same build every game (assuming same matchup/map), but horrible problems if you do this in tournaments (or are well-known).


Why do you need to bring game theory into it to suggest this? This is obvious without mathematics.

He claims that cheese/rushing should be in game to prevent everyone from FEing every game. Why is this bad? Why does game theory care? You have to bring in ideas like "excitement" and "fun" to make any sense of anything.

He's talking about what good strategy is. I guess you might find it more fun to watch everyone FE every game. It also might be more fun to watch soccer games if both teams just don't bring goalies... but that's not the point of this discussion. As a player, especially at the pro level, your main goal is to win, and that's what he's talking about.

But if your point is "Who cares if it's bad strategy? It's fun to watch" then make that point. Don't insult the OP by claiming he doesn't understand what he's talking about when he does, you don't, and you just make yourself look bad.


No, that's not my point. My point is when I read this:


From a game theory standpoint, cheese needs to be there. If there was no danger of early attacks, there would be no need to build units and every player would just expo first. We could then skip the first 5 minutes of the game. In my oponion it also makes the game more interesting and challeging because it adds this mind game aspect, makes scouting important and provides different types of games. I even enjoy most cheeses (esp. from good players) because they show some action in the first minutes of the game and still often transition into a standard game.


It shows the OP doesn't make sense. From a Game Theory standpoint, cheese does NOT need to be there. Does it add variety? Does it add excitement? Sure. But what the hell does that have to do with game theory? There is no game theoretic reason why cheese needs to be in the game. That's not what Game Theory is.

It only begins to make sense when he says "In my opinion" which still has nothing to do with game theory. Game Theory is not about how to make an exciting game.
aristarchus
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United States652 Posts
July 09 2011 15:26 GMT
#40
On July 10 2011 00:21 DoubleReed wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 10 2011 00:12 aristarchus wrote:
On July 10 2011 00:06 DoubleReed wrote:
On July 10 2011 00:00 aristarchus wrote:
On July 09 2011 23:48 DoubleReed wrote:
Sigh, the OP claims to be a math major and yet still uses "Game Theory" incorrectly. Game Theory is about decisionmaking and getting the best possible outcome. Game Theory has extremely little to do with starcraft 2, poker, and gaming in general. It's much closer to economics than video games. Nothing in the OP is even remotely close to Game Theory.

You don't have friggin' Nash Equilibriums in Starcraft 2.

Yes, you do have Nash equilibria in sc2. He's using "game theory" correctly. It has plenty to do with poker and sc2. They're too complicated to use actual equations and work out specific probabilities of each build/bet, but you can definitely get some helpful understanding from it, and that's what he's giving. Game theory-wise, for example, it's really easy to see why on the ladder there is no penalty from doing the same build every game (assuming same matchup/map), but horrible problems if you do this in tournaments (or are well-known).


Why do you need to bring game theory into it to suggest this? This is obvious without mathematics.

He claims that cheese/rushing should be in game to prevent everyone from FEing every game. Why is this bad? Why does game theory care? You have to bring in ideas like "excitement" and "fun" to make any sense of anything.

He's talking about what good strategy is. I guess you might find it more fun to watch everyone FE every game. It also might be more fun to watch soccer games if both teams just don't bring goalies... but that's not the point of this discussion. As a player, especially at the pro level, your main goal is to win, and that's what he's talking about.

But if your point is "Who cares if it's bad strategy? It's fun to watch" then make that point. Don't insult the OP by claiming he doesn't understand what he's talking about when he does, you don't, and you just make yourself look bad.


No, that's not my point. My point is when I read this:


Show nested quote +
From a game theory standpoint, cheese needs to be there. If there was no danger of early attacks, there would be no need to build units and every player would just expo first. We could then skip the first 5 minutes of the game. In my oponion it also makes the game more interesting and challeging because it adds this mind game aspect, makes scouting important and provides different types of games. I even enjoy most cheeses (esp. from good players) because they show some action in the first minutes of the game and still often transition into a standard game.


It shows the OP doesn't make sense. From a game theory standpoint, cheese does NOT need to be there. Does it add variety? Does it add excitement? Sure. But what the hell does that have to do with game theory? There is no game theoretic reason why cheese needs to be in the game. That's not what game theory is.

It only begins to make sense when he says "In my opinion" which still has nothing to do with game theory.

He's not talking about game design. He does add a little personal opinion that cheese makes the game more interesting. But the game theory he's giving is about why it's optimal strategy to play with cheese sometimes. He's making an argument about why it's part of correct play. A pro who never cheeses is playing badly. That's the point he's making. Game theory doesn't say anything about game design. It says something about how you play the game once it's designed. And that's what he's (primarily) talking about.
Prev 1 2 3 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
RSL Revival
10:00
Season 1: Playoffs Day 5
Clem vs ReynorLIVE!
Crank 1372
Tasteless1193
ComeBackTV 1140
IndyStarCraft 171
Rex154
3DClanTV 112
IntoTheiNu 69
LiquipediaDiscussion
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Crank 1372
Tasteless 1193
IndyStarCraft 171
Rex 154
Lowko86
StarCraft: Brood War
Calm 28078
Sea 24335
Rain 7226
Bisu 3055
Jaedong 1531
Hyuk 794
Light 750
Pusan 645
firebathero 464
Mini 441
[ Show more ]
actioN 331
Stork 293
Zeus 276
EffOrt 237
Backho 168
Hyun 155
Soulkey 121
ToSsGirL 117
Snow 73
Mind 61
hero 61
JYJ40
Shinee 37
sas.Sziky 35
sSak 34
Rush 33
Aegong 30
Sea.KH 29
JulyZerg 25
Icarus 21
Sharp 17
yabsab 15
Sacsri 15
Noble 14
ajuk12(nOOB) 13
Free 10
IntoTheRainbow 10
Movie 9
SilentControl 8
ivOry 5
Hm[arnc] 4
sorry 4
Dota 2
Gorgc9009
XaKoH 459
XcaliburYe303
syndereN37
League of Legends
singsing1832
Counter-Strike
x6flipin636
flusha303
allub253
markeloff60
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor160
Other Games
tarik_tv22153
B2W.Neo1045
shahzam667
crisheroes559
DeMusliM481
Fuzer 307
Liquid`RaSZi162
RotterdaM151
Pyrionflax145
QueenE21
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick29273
StarCraft: Brood War
lovetv 10
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 13 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• C_a_k_e 268
League of Legends
• Nemesis2526
• Stunt487
Upcoming Events
OSC
32m
Replay Cast
11h 32m
RSL Revival
21h 32m
Classic vs Cure
FEL
1d 3h
OSC
1d 7h
RSL Revival
1d 21h
FEL
1d 23h
FEL
2 days
CSO Cup
2 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 days
Bonyth vs QiaoGege
Dewalt vs Fengzi
Hawk vs Zhanhun
Sziky vs Mihu
Mihu vs QiaoGege
Zhanhun vs Sziky
Fengzi vs Hawk
[ Show More ]
Sparkling Tuna Cup
2 days
RSL Revival
2 days
FEL
3 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
3 days
Bonyth vs Dewalt
QiaoGege vs Dewalt
Hawk vs Bonyth
Sziky vs Fengzi
Mihu vs Zhanhun
QiaoGege vs Zhanhun
Fengzi vs Mihu
Replay Cast
4 days
Replay Cast
6 days
The PondCast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2025-07-07
HSC XXVII
Heroes 10 EU

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL 2v2 Season 3
Acropolis #3
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
Championship of Russia 2025
RSL Revival: Season 1
Murky Cup #2
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters
CCT Season 2 Global Finals
IEM Melbourne 2025

Upcoming

2025 ACS Season 2: Qualifier
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSL Xiamen Invitational
CSL Xiamen Invitational: ShowMatche
2025 ACS Season 2
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
K-Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
SEL Season 2 Championship
FEL Cracov 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
Underdog Cup #2
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.