Game Theory and Starcraft 2 - Page 3

On July 09 2011 04:20 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:


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).

On July 09 2011 00:30 00Visor wrote:
I feel that a lot of viewers/fans and quite some pro gamers and casters have a wrong understanding of Game Theory and how it applies to Starcraft 2.
I am a math student and poker player so this aspect of the game catches my interest a lot.

Not being predictable
This is one of most obvious topics. And most players and viewers understand this to some extent.
If you are predictable, your opponent doesn't need to scout a lot and can prepare and counter you early and easy. One good example is Idra who always went for the long macro game and was beaten by cheese or players who macroed very hard as well because they didn't have to fear big attacks. Now Idra mixes in a lot of timing attacks (some call them all-in) and that proves to be quite successful.
A good pro gamer should be able to play every style: cheese, gimmicky things, timing attacks, allins as well as macro games. Then your opponent has to prepare and fear everything. If you never cheese, your opponent can just play very greedy and will get an economic lead. Many pros don't do cheese (maybe pride?) at all and many fans really "hate" cheese. Some say it`s to risky and good players shouldn't play risky. I will cover in another topic why this is wrong.
Most koreans understand this and mix in cheese, as well as players like especially Naniwa. (who has one of the best game theory understandings imo)

Cheese needs to be there
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.

Playing safe/risky 1
Does risky/safe play exist in Starcraft 2? And if yes, is it bad?
The first question is debatable, because there are 2 interpretations:
- risky/safe in respect to preparing for gimmicky/cheesy stuff or executing these
- risky/safe in respect to the result of the game
These interpretations are entirely different, but often seen as the same.
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.
If the possible outcomes are only win and loose, there is no possible risky strategy (e.g. Tennis). If you know you win 60% by playing standard and 70% by playing some cheesy/gimmicky strategy, than this is all which defines your expectation and variance. How can the latter one be more risky?
That especially applies to BoX matches, where there is the question if a player should play safe or risky if he is in the lead or behind. Well he just has to look at the actual game and you should play that style which will most likely win it for him. He can't play defensive like in Soccer.

Playing safe/risky 2
Now I talk about the first interpretation. "Risky play" like cheese, all-ins, (and also fast expos) and "safe play". Many pros and viewers think that optimal play should be safe, for example Tyler critized MC for not playing very safe and risk too much.
It may be true when you are facing far worse players. Then you win the game propably 90-95% by playing safe and be more risky wouldn't be beneficial.
But when facing other pros - and the level at the top is very close - it is not true.
First of all (and worst) you are predictable if you never play risky AND always play safe. Your opponent doesn't need to do some risky play then, he can play greedier and unsafe and outmacro you.
Playing safe will slow down your macro and cost a lot. Even against worse players this will get you behind quite often. So you have to "cut some corners".
The critique of risky play is often that you rely on a build order win rather than micro/macro. This may be true but if you are confident that is improves your winning%, why not?
I don't like the term "allin" used in this context, because it means (like in poker) that you either win or loose. But often the game still continues and even if the allin didn't end the game, it did do enough economic damage. (in fact many intelligent pros don't expect to end the game with an "allin" but do enough damage).
Battles are often decided by a few additional units. That`s the reason it is important to cut some corners to get more units or pull workers to win a battle which would leave you behind if you don't do economic damage. (and the reason why so called "all-ins" are so strong)
Even against worse players some pros choose to not play very "safe" and end the game rather quickly. They are so confident with their micro and that the early attack will almost never leave them behind. A good example is Naniwa`s run at MLG Dallas. He proxy gated and 4gated almost every game. And went 24-0. So was this risky play?