EPTThe wet dream (sadly, only partly in jest) of miles of siege tank lines just may not belong in SC2. Time to get over it.
Designated Balance Discussion Thread - Page 475
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
aZealot
New Zealand5447 Posts
The wet dream (sadly, only partly in jest) of miles of siege tank lines just may not belong in SC2. Time to get over it. | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On May 03 2013 17:45 Big J wrote: "everyone" is not quite true... When around max, mech is by far strongest already. It's like everything else but supplyefficiency where you may need to fix problems. That is only true if all of the mech stuff is in one place and then there is no chance to defend your bases. The extra efficiency could be balanced with the extra vulnerability due to immobility, but super-efficient units like the Widow Mine arent the way to go. If they made the tank 2 supply you could - theoretically - get a huge and super powerful army, but the drawbacks still remain. The alternative would be to give the Terran the chance to attack with a regular strength army while still having some base defense. Siege Tanks can easily be countered by air anyways and for 10 tanks of 2 supply you could get five more Vikings or five more Marauders ... which isnt that much. | ||
|
Sapphire.lux
Romania2620 Posts
On May 03 2013 18:47 aZealot wrote: Er, no. Incorrect. The demand for mech for the sake of mech is arbitrary and is based on little more than because of that's how it was in BW. It is not "mech for the sake o mech" it is mech for the sake of having more options, more race diversity and a better game overall. On May 03 2013 18:47 aZealot wrote: Positional play of that kind may or may not belong in SC2. If it does, it may evolve in a different form than that it was in BW. Finally, incessant (and boy have they been incessant) demands for Mech from Blizzard may very well destroy SC2 in terms of gameplay and balance, if Blizzard were to make it a priority at the cost of other playstyles and other races. (Thankfully, they have chosen not to.) There is nothing to indicate that 'proper' Mech will necessarily improve this game. Only one way to find out then. You do touch on an important aspect though. "Bad" mech vs "good" mech. I consider the Falling description of mech to be the correct one, or the "good" mech. This is not about nostalgia, it is about what this style achieves. For example: spread out siege lines that control space are by definition "not deathballs". If they are strong enough, they also discurage the oponent from 1a ing his own death ball and instead use multipronged attacks to breack the Terran. So we not only have positioning play, but also multitasking and action all over the map. On the other hand, we have the "bad" mech, the Hellbat/ Thor compositions. They lack all the benefit of the "good" mech that i described aswell as the benefits of bio play. This "bad" mech is indeed detrimental to the game, and it's better to have no mech at all then this. So to claim that mech can break the game/ balance whatever is just bonkers...If it's done correctly, it should greatly benefit everyone, from players to spectators. | ||
|
ETisME
12275 Posts
On May 03 2013 18:24 DemigodcelpH wrote: And BLs force Vikings (which are useless vs Ultras), and Ultras force Marauders (which are useless to BLs), and Infestors force Ghosts, and Swarmhosts force Siege Tank/Raven/Air, and Colossus force Vikings (which are useless to chargelot 20 gateway remax), and HT force Ghosts, and HT + Skytoss forces Thor/Raven or Ghost/Viking. Terran is forced (at the threat of losing) to have the right composition too so your post is not fully inaccurate as there's a lot of forcing going on in every matchup with all races, and if anything Zerg and Protoss are more abusive with forcing Terran to do things because Terran can't tech switch. except BLs and ultras are both in hive tech and no one get ghosts for infestors too. Not to mention swarm host is horrible against bio mine at the moment. The lacking ability for terran tech switch is exactly why bio units are very well all around and mech is able to deal with the unit transition very effectively as long as production is equal due to more cost efficient the units are, unless you lose your entire army and can't remax. which is why Terran always get a mix of both ghosts and vikings at the late game but keep on producing MMM. There is no being forced/forced to get what unit eventually. The forcing however is started FROM terran. Whether Toss get colossus early is based upon what the terran unit composition is, mech or bio etc. On May 03 2013 13:59 vRadiatioNv wrote: They don't have alternatives if Terran can force them into playing a single style lol. You said it yourself, TvP/Z is MMM all day every day and Protoss and Zerg answers to it are very limited. If mech were to get buffed to be viable vs all compositions then Viper + Roach Hydra must be buffed to be viable vs MMMM and Protoss must receive at least 1 other viable composition as well. It's only fair. I am not saying mech needs a buff or not. I am saying Mech NEEDS to be more attractive, it can be a buff in zerg units that deals with bio mine better, it can be a nerf to bio mine style units. If bio mine was weaker for example, ling infestors might make a return, even dimaga ling hydra style might become more popular but ling baneling muta would still be popular. If mech was viable, then Zerg can still choose to play ling muta into ultra, roach hydra viper, swarm host etc. TvZ is too one dimensional right now. The strategy part is lacking while the game becomes a pure challenge of mechanics. Just look at life vs innovation game in the gsl, look at when the vikings were in production, marauders were produced way before any ultras are on the field. I am not saying every units composition needs to be viable at every enemy composition, but a different style, a different TvZ would be better for the game overall, even if terran might still be using the same units. Who knows, maybe a change in mine can change the ratio and numbers of mines that the terran will want thus changing how the entire TvZ hots plays out. And @aZealot. No, it's not because of bw that I want mech, I don't even watch any bw to begin with. it's because I watch tonnes of starcraft and bio mine in tvz or pure bio in tvp since wol can get boring. The worst part is that I am not the only one start feeling this way. The game needs more diversity to be entertaining, and I think mech being viable is one. unless you can somehow think of another terran composition that has any style in mind | ||
|
DemigodcelpH
1138 Posts
On May 03 2013 18:47 aZealot wrote: Er, no. Incorrect. The demand for mech for the sake of mech is arbitrary. A demand based on concrete and proven game theory tested through time, by definition, isn't arbitrary; misusing a word only hurts your own argument. Correct. On May 03 2013 18:47 aZealot wrote:Positional play of that kind may or may not belong in SC2. If it does, it may evolve in a different form than that it was in BW. Healthy strategy game theory indicates a proper (and strong) risk↔reward (and to a lesser extent antecedent↔precedent) ratios; these are concepts that belong in any strategy game because of the fundamental properties in how the genre plays out. On May 03 2013 18:47 aZealot wrote:Finally, incessant (and boy have they been incessant) demands for Mech from Blizzard may very well destroy SC2 in terms of gameplay and balance, if Blizzard were to make it a priority at the cost of other playstyles and other races. This is false dilemma. Logically there is no basis for "one or the other". On May 03 2013 18:47 aZealot wrote:There is nothing to indicate that 'proper' Mech will necessarily improve this game. Proper mech, in spirit, embodies game concepts (area control and positioning) that are healthy for RTS game depth (even more so for Starcraft) and longevity while simultaneously being effective against destructive constructs (that form due to lack of implementation of proper game theory) like "death ball syndrome"; this is directly supported by every tidbit of positional play that Blizzard has thrown at us recently (albeit small) having a positive effect on the game if lots of back and forth and no "deathball, fight, and done" even in long macro games is any metric. On May 03 2013 18:47 aZealot wrote:The wet dream (sadly, only partly in jest) of miles of siege tank lines just may not belong in SC2. Time to get over it. You're going to have to accept sooner or later that proper mech, in spirit, is healthy for SC2 because of the concepts it embodies, and unfortunately "Argument from nothing" in the form of ignoring the counter-evidence isn't a proper rebuttal. Time to get over it. | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On May 03 2013 18:47 aZealot wrote: The wet dream (sadly, only partly in jest) of miles of siege tank lines just may not belong in SC2. Time to get over it. Currently there are two ways to win in SC2: 1. Harrass your opponent to death until you can make it clear to them by pushing with a superior army. 2. Dance two equally big armies around each other until one of the players blinks and the other one pounces and wins. What would be so terrible about having another way to play the game? The way you make it sound is just a spiteful "mehehe ... you BW lovers dont get what you want because SC2 is a new game and should not have crappy old strategies in it". That is a stupid reason ... Give me a valid reason why there should not be another valid strategy in the game. The tools to counter a siege line are already in the game (Viper-abduct and Tempests), so its your turn now to argue the point. Not everyone loves speed and bigger and bigger battles above all. Carefully planning your defenses and then striking from there should be possible. Sadly it isnt atm and that is a loss for a strategy game (which SC2 isnt really IMO ... it is more an action-resource-management game). | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On May 03 2013 19:31 DemigodcelpH wrote: A demand based on concrete and proven game theory tested through time, by definition, isn't arbitrary; misusing a word only hurts your own argument. Correct. Healthy strategy game theory indicates a proper (and strong) risk↔reward (and to a lessor extent antecedent↔precedent) ratios; these are concepts that belong in any strategy game because of the fundamental properties in how the genre plays out. This is false dilemma. Logically there is no basis for "one or the other". Proper mech, in spirit, embodies game concepts (area control and positioning) that are healthy for RTS game depth (even more so for Starcraft) and longevity while simultaneously being effective against destructive constructs (that form due to lack of implementation of proper game theory) like "death ball syndrome"; this is directly supported by every tidbit of positional play that Blizzard has thrown at us recently (albeit small) having a positive effect on the game if lots of back and forth and no "deathball, fight, and done" even in long macro games is any metric. You're going to have to accept sooner or later that proper mech, in spirit, is healthy for SC2 because of the concepts it embodies, and unfortunately "Argument from nothing" in the form of ignoring the counter-evidence isn't a proper rebuttal. Time to get over it. I have a few questions regarding the science you are implying/referring to. Which professor, book or theorem are you referring to? Is the field "healthy game theory" a part of the scientific field of mathematical/economical game theory? Where can I find the prove to the above theorem and how is its exact formulation (the one that you refer to for justifying the demand for mech)? How are the terms "healthy", "positional", etc. defined? What are those "fundamental properties of the genre" you talk about? | ||
|
vRadiatioNv
United States139 Posts
On May 03 2013 19:10 ETisME wrote: except BLs and ultras are both in hive tech and no one get ghosts for infestors too. Not to mention swarm host is horrible against bio mine at the moment. The lacking ability for terran tech switch is exactly why bio units are very well all around and mech is able to deal with the unit transition very effectively as long as production is equal due to more cost efficient the units are, unless you lose your entire army and can't remax. which is why Terran always get a mix of both ghosts and vikings at the late game but keep on producing MMM. There is no being forced/forced to get what unit eventually. The forcing however is started FROM terran. Whether Toss get colossus early is based upon what the terran unit composition is, mech or bio etc. I am not saying mech needs a buff or not. I am saying Mech NEEDS to be more attractive, it can be a buff in zerg units that deals with bio mine better, it can be a nerf to bio mine style units. If bio mine was weaker for example, ling infestors might make a return, even dimaga ling hydra style might become more popular but ling baneling muta would still be popular. If mech was viable, then Zerg can still choose to play ling muta into ultra, roach hydra viper, swarm host etc. TvZ is too one dimensional right now. The strategy part is lacking while the game becomes a pure challenge of mechanics. Just look at life vs innovation game in the gsl, look at when the vikings were in production, marauders were produced way before any ultras are on the field. I am not saying every units composition needs to be viable at every enemy composition, but a different style, a different TvZ would be better for the game overall, even if terran might still be using the same units. Who knows, maybe a change in mine can change the ratio and numbers of mines that the terran will want thus changing how the entire TvZ hots plays out. And @aZealot. No, it's not because of bw that I want mech, I don't even watch any bw to begin with. it's because I watch tonnes of starcraft and bio mine in tvz or pure bio in tvp since wol can get boring. The worst part is that I am not the only one start feeling this way. The game needs more diversity to be entertaining, and I think mech being viable is one. unless you can somehow think of another terran composition that has any style in mind I agree with pretty much everything you say except that bolded part isn't technically true. All that is "needed" in a game like Starcraft is balance. As long as MMMM is perfectly balanced with Ling Muta Ultra that's all that is really needed per se. Of course we all know it makes the game more boring. I have a feeling Blizzard doesn't want to buff mech because they're having a difficult time just balancing 1 style vs 1 style lol. As soon as you start buffing mech to be more viable and buffing other compositions any balance there is now will change dramatically. It's not just a matter of "let's make tanks 2 supply". But yeah, I agree with you, the current state of TvZ is very stale and predictable and I would welcome changes to make alternate builds viable. I just think Blizzard is too afraid to make big changes atm since win rates are so close. :x | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
On May 03 2013 19:31 DemigodcelpH wrote: + Show Spoiler + On May 03 2013 18:47 aZealot wrote: Er, no. Incorrect. The demand for mech for the sake of mech is arbitrary. A demand based on concrete and proven game theory tested through time, by definition, isn't arbitrary; misusing a word only hurts your own argument. Correct. On May 03 2013 18:47 aZealot wrote:Positional play of that kind may or may not belong in SC2. If it does, it may evolve in a different form than that it was in BW. Healthy strategy game theory indicates a proper (and strong) risk↔reward (and to a lesser extent antecedent↔precedent) ratios; these are concepts that belong in any strategy game because of the fundamental properties in how the genre plays out. On May 03 2013 18:47 aZealot wrote:Finally, incessant (and boy have they been incessant) demands for Mech from Blizzard may very well destroy SC2 in terms of gameplay and balance, if Blizzard were to make it a priority at the cost of other playstyles and other races. This is false dilemma. Logically there is no basis for "one or the other". On May 03 2013 18:47 aZealot wrote:There is nothing to indicate that 'proper' Mech will necessarily improve this game. Proper mech, in spirit, embodies game concepts (area control and positioning) that are healthy for RTS game depth (even more so for Starcraft) and longevity while simultaneously being effective against destructive constructs (that form due to lack of implementation of proper game theory) like "death ball syndrome"; this is directly supported by every tidbit of positional play that Blizzard has thrown at us recently (albeit small) having a positive effect on the game if lots of back and forth and no "deathball, fight, and done" even in long macro games is any metric. On May 03 2013 18:47 aZealot wrote:The wet dream (sadly, only partly in jest) of miles of siege tank lines just may not belong in SC2. Time to get over it. You're going to have to accept sooner or later that proper mech, in spirit, is healthy for SC2 because of the concepts it embodies, and unfortunately "Argument from nothing" in the form of ignoring the counter-evidence isn't a proper rebuttal. Time to get over it. Can you actually explain the concepts you are referring to? You keep using words like healthy, strong, proper, fundamental. One of my pet peeves in game design discussions is that people have their issues they feel strongly about and then upgrade them to become Fundamental Rules of Game Design as decreed by The Powers That Be. | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On May 03 2013 23:26 Grumbels wrote: Can you actually explain the concepts you are referring to? You keep using words like healthy, strong, proper, fundamental. One of my pet peeves in game design discussions is that people have their issues they feel strongly about and then upgrade them to become Fundamental Rules of Game Design as decreed by The Powers That Be. Personally I would interpret the "second paragraph" [beginning with "Healthy strategy game theory ..."]: A game which is not based upon balancing risk and reward is more based upon chance, i.e. who pulls the trigger first on an engagement of armies. A really good example of mistakes made by Blizzard with HotS are the relatively safe harrassment units which are now in the game: the Oracle, the Mutalisk, the Hellbat-speed-Medivac-drop. They offer a pretty good reward with a rather low risk factor and yet Blizzard feels they havent made the Oracle fast enough. They dont see the problem of Mutalisk regeneration creating terrible mass-Mutalisk games which drag on but are decided with one engagement anyways. They dont see the abusiveness of a turbo-boosted Medivac when used as a dropship and even added the "Hellbats can be healed" bit to make it safer. None of these have any drawback and you basically HAVE TO add heavy anti-air around your bases to prevent it and make sure you dont lose outright. Sure enough the pros can handle it without a ring of turrets around their bases, but what about the not-so-quick? They are screwed and consequently this design of SC2 is "not healthy" because only a small minority of players can actually play the game at its full potential while the others get stupid games where they lose to "overpowered" units which are beyond their capability to defend against. There is no drawback to most of the stuff which Blizzard added and they think they can solve everything by buffing. That is as smart as solving traffic jams by driving faster through a city + Show Spoiler + ... which would be the correct way of keeping the traffic flowing if you apply the laws of hydrodynamics to it which Daniel Bernoulli created ... The second to last paragraph from DemigodcelpH shows a really good example of where power is balanced by a drawback ... siege line mech with space control (for longer than a few minutes). Strategies like this sadly do not work in SC2 due to the total focus on big and tight clumps of units for maximized dps density in those clumps and instead there are several abilities - which are partially necessary - to minimize risk and maximize reward: Forcefield, Blink, Fungal Growth. Blizzard should KNOW from their experience with WoW PvP that any crowd control spell is a terrible idea for such a fight and they specifically nerfed the durations of these spells in WoW and added diminishing returns. In SC2 they do not seem to care and yet the problem is the same. tl;dr There is not enough risk in SC2 and units have only strengths and no achilles heels / drawbacks like the Siege Tank has. Especially the new units excel at this "only good stuff" design and this is bad design, because it gives the active player too many advantages in addition to the general movement and unit selection easy mode of handling. | ||
|
DemigodcelpH
1138 Posts
On May 03 2013 20:12 Big J wrote: I have a few questions regarding the science you are implying/referring to. Which professor, book or theorem are you referring to? Is the field "healthy game theory" a part of the scientific field of mathematical/economical game theory? Where can I find the prove to the above theorem and how is its exact formulation (the one that you refer to for justifying the demand for mech)? How are the terms "healthy", "positional", etc. defined? What are those "fundamental properties of the genre" you talk about? On May 03 2013 23:26 Grumbels wrote: Can you actually explain the concepts you are referring to? You keep using words like healthy, strong, proper, fundamental. One of my pet peeves in game design discussions is that people have their issues they feel strongly about and then upgrade them to become Fundamental Rules of Game Design as decreed by The Powers That Be. And one of my pet peeves are people who, instead of returning with a proper response, come back with "I don't agree with you and I can't say why, but I can just assert you're wrong anyways because everything is subjective". RTS, as a genre, is a sub genre of strategy video games which focuses primarily on autonomous decision-making and is hence as a result governed by game theory; no game in the RTS genre can escape this as the paradigm demands it. There are defining traits of the genre: economy, supply, and logistics. And then there are meta laws for example: a small map pushes the game towards the tactical end of the spectrum, and a large map pushes the game toward the strategic end of the spectrum; this meta law is intuitively and consciously understood by all regular RTS players and designers because of how Euclidean geometry functions. Similarly, because of how meta laws function in that they are the direct result of fundamentals inherited from higher order laws such as game theory and geometry (simulation of area 2D or 3D) we have a certain amount of constants. By extension of these governing laws the ability to control area away from your base (positional play) is, fundamentally, healthy for the genre because it expands both strategic and tactical options while lack of area control stagnates them. A direct example of this is, in a theoretical game where it is impossible to control any area and all units are homogenous, players would have no incentive to move out on the map (outside of build order loss) until "capped out" (in the context of SC2) on supply; this is because the principle of strategic attenuation dictates that if Player A and Player B are making units at an even rate, and Player A goes to attack Player B, Player A will be at a disadvantage because of how strategic attenuation functions therefore incentive to keep your army on the map roaming and accomplishing objectives is greatly reduced; although different types of units and race mechanics can influence strategic attenuation it still remains a primary law in any game that is largely governed by Euclidean geometry which, not coincidentally, includes just about every RTS including SC2; this was commonly seen in WoL where players would sit around, max out, dance a little bit, fight, and then game over. This is why the principles that embody proper mech are commonly requested in SC2 because they embody concepts of strong game theory that increase play depth and diversity, and not only is this backed by how the genre inherently functions (and by the most successful competitive RTS game in history if having a thriving competitive scene at a national level for 12 years without stagnation is any metric, however that's just an anecdote). Higher order laws cannot be violated. Corollary to "space control": An optimal implementation of area control potential is supplemented with the potential to subvert it depending on player ability, however from the perspective of game-play depth a game with an incomplete or weak implementation of area control, especially from a fundamental non-unit level such as high ground mechanics, will still have more depth than a game with none. Not because nostalgia. Not because of arbitrary whim. Not because of personal preference. Crying about these things over and over are disrespectful to the genre, and show an immense lack of understanding. You may hate it, but you're going to have to accept it. Proper mech has not been requested for all of SC2 history because of any whim. Simply put, and as I've stated earlier: On May 03 2013 18:47 DemigodcelpH wrote: Only someone who doesn't understand deeper game depth concepts would arbitrarily mark Falling's post as "nostalgia" (a bit earlier in this thread) or would be ignorant as to why properly done positional play (and a less steroided economic system, however this is another topic) would (and has to some extent with the little positional based tidbits added in HotS) improve this game significantly. Grumbels isn't on to much other than argumentum ad lapidem. Please don't shit on things you don't understand just because you don't like them. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On May 04 2013 06:00 DemigodcelpH wrote: And one of my pet peeves are people who, instead of returning with a proper response, come back with "I don't agree with you and I can't say why, but I can just assert you're wrong anyways because everything is subjective". RTS, as a genre, is a sub genre of strategy video games which focuses primarily on autonomous decision-making and is hence as a result governed by game theory; no game in the RTS genre can escape this as the paradigm demands it. There are defining traits of the genre: economy, supply, and logistics. And then there are meta laws for example: a small map pushes the game towards the tactical end of the spectrum, and a large map pushes the game toward the strategic end of the spectrum; this meta law is intuitively and consciously understood by all regular RTS players and designers because of how Euclidean geometry functions. Similarly, because of how meta laws function in that they are the direct result of fundamentals inherited from higher order laws such as game theory and geometry (simulation of area 2D or 3D) we have a certain amount of constants. Lol what? Supply? A defining trait of the genre? CnC 1,2,3? CnC RA 1,2,3? CnC Generals? Dune 2000? No, supply is not defining. Neither is economy: CnC 4, World in Conflict. Logistics... sure. Logistics is part of basically every game that simulates part of the reality (boardgames, shooters, simulators, sports - unlike non reality simulating games like flipping coins or RockPaperSissors). Of course it is part of RTS games as well. Though I'm no expert in game theory, I don't think the word tactic exists/differs in game theory from the word strategy, so I don't know why you bring it up in the context of game theory. Well, I get how Euclidean geometry functions. However, I also know that we have principles like warp gates, infinite range abilities/attacks, different speeds, teleportation... in RTS games, and it's pretty easy to come up with a theoretical RTS game in which the map sizes don't matter at all for gameplay. Not to mention the above... I still don't know what "tactics" means in the context of game theory. Like, the idea behind "tactics" in real war is the coordination of your forces in a certain Skirmish. However, when using game theory to optimize your strategy in an RTS game, it would already dictate any coordination for any scenario of possible events, hence, there is no such thing as customizable "tactics". I could go on about how you just keep on mixing up what game theory does and what Starcraft theorisation has come up with. In the end it comes down to that you just use the name of a scientific theory that has the word "game" in it as a scientific poster boy for terms and theories that have been made 99% for Starcraft 1 & 2 alone. Theories that might hold for many similiar games - but not necessarily. As can be seen by SC:BW-->SC2 alone and how many concepts from BW simply don't hold in the SC2 enviroment. Moving away from game theory and coming back to positional play and under the assumption that it is healthy and good: Of course it can be exciting and I'm all for "making it worth" to hold positions and fight for them. But it's not like the viability of a unit that needs to siege automatically introduces that. The game/map has to be right for that. Like, in SC2 I can easily see why it is so hard to balance: you get three bases and have an extreme amount of positional control over them, where you basically get inpenetrable with hardcore positional units. Your opponent can take the map - but he does get little benefit from it due to the supply cap. And no matter how much more economy he gets, in the end he will be capped very fast and the 3basing player as well. So the game must be balanced for those units to not crush the opponent in the high supply, as you can basically reach that uncontested and your opponent does not really get good advantages over it. So there is an inherent problem in SC2 with "area control through power units". That, that you actually don't use them for spread out area control, but instead just to survive until the supply limit wins the game for you. That's why a lot of people don't like mech in SC2, as it often just behaves like any other deathball-turtle "I win if I survive long enough" style. | ||
|
DemigodcelpH
1138 Posts
On May 04 2013 07:28 Big J wrote: Lol what? Supply? A defining trait of the genre? CnC 1,2,3? CnC RA 1,2,3? CnC Generals? Dune 2000? No, supply is not defining. Neither is economy: CnC 4, World in Conflict. CnC 4 is a RTT game which differs from RTS. The rest of those games exhibit the traits in one way or another. On May 04 2013 07:28 Big J wrote:Though I'm no expert in game theory, I don't think the word tactic exists/differs in game theory from the word strategy, so I don't know why you bring it up in the context of game theory. On May 04 2013 07:28 Big J wrote:not to mention the above... I still don't know what "tactics" means in the context of game theory. As you don't understand the basics (this is not a personal attack as you're admitting it) you're not qualified to comment on this subject, and for the these reasons (and kettle logic) the rest of your post falls apart unfortunately. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On May 04 2013 08:32 DemigodcelpH wrote: CnC 4 is a RTT game which differs from RTS. The rest of those games exhibit the traits in one way or another. As you don't understand the basics (this is not a personal attack as you're admitting it) you're not qualified to comment on this subject, and for the these reasons the rest of your post falls apart unfortunately. Didn't know that they made their own genre out of such games, fair point. In which way CnC features supplies I don't know, but you can surely tell me... So I take it you are an expert in game theory and know the definition of the word "tactics" as you say it's being used in game theory and you can tell me? Because what I was saying should be interpreted as: "I have had my fair share of game theory, but I haven't specialized in it. In the basics of game theory as I know them, there is no definition for the term "tactics"." But as it seems like you know that this term exists, you can surely tell me the mathematical definition of it. | ||
|
DemigodcelpH
1138 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On May 04 2013 08:51 DemigodcelpH wrote: Back when Day[9] used to do podcasts before he started his web show he did a nice piece on tactics vs. strategy. You can start there. looooool... that has nothing to do with game theory. As I said. You have no clue at all about game theory. You use the term tactics from warfare and then tell us how RTS is part of game theory and the tactics in it work in game theory etc... There is no term tactics in game theory. You have no clue what you are talking about. This is game theory: http://books.google.at/books?id=xLRRzAHxplAC&printsec=frontcover&hl=de#v=onepage&q&f=false What you refer to is not game theory, it's starcraft related design theory or whatevery new term you want to call it. | ||
|
DemigodcelpH
1138 Posts
| ||
|
tadL
Croatia679 Posts
On May 04 2013 01:48 Rabiator wrote: They are screwed and consequently this design of SC2 is "not healthy" because only a small minority of players can actually play the game at its full potential while the others get stupid games where they lose to "overpowered" units which are beyond their capability to defend against. I just play games that are designed this way. So it means something if you are able to handle it. You have something to improve and people to look up till you can beat them. This gives me joy! I stopped with games that went your path and I completly ignore games/platforms that are designed this way. That I am a minority is ok for me. I don't dodge the challenge and people who are doing it are anyway a waste in a community. And they are a thread for good high quality games as you can see by all EA games basicly and the upcoming ones. Just because I have problems to hit fastballs I don't go to the MLB and cry over and over till they just put in a rule that says "no fastballs" to make the game more accessible for the "majority" what is just different word for being lazy. Sry this is just what i always understand. There are games out that are so casual. In RTS EA has for sure a game that has what you are searching. | ||
|
convention
United States622 Posts
On May 04 2013 09:26 DemigodcelpH wrote: You're equivocating (unintentionally, or either likely simply not comprehending) which is a fallacy, and confusing this with higher order governing from a meta perspective. Please read my post. He's the one using very specific language. Compare that to your most recent post: "higher order governing from a meta perspective". I'd have to say you are the one that is throwing out words that have little to no meaning in the discussion. Or my favorite excerpt: "...this meta law is intuitively and consciously understood by all regular RTS players and designers because of how Euclidean geometry functions. Similarly, because of how meta laws function in that they are the direct result of fundamentals inherited from higher order laws such as game theory and geometry (simulation of area 2D or 3D) we have a certain amount of constants." And you really think he is the one using ambiguous language? | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On May 04 2013 09:26 DemigodcelpH wrote: You're equivocating (unintentionally, or either likely simply not comprehending) which is a fallacy, and confusing this with higher order governing from a meta perspective. Please read my post. always love that part. Discuss, discuss, discuss. Then point out that you actually weren't saying that to begin with and "read my post". Which one? The one that answer to my "where can I find that theory" with "RTS is part of game theory"? The one that states that "tactics vs strategy from day9" is a video about game theory? The one that fails to define the term "tactics" in the mathematical context of game theory, after I asked you multiple times as you told me that I cannot discuss game theory with you without knowing that term, when there clearly is no such term in game theory? please, instead of hiding behind fancy words with a very squishy meaning that you can interprete in whatever way you like ("meta", "higher order governing"), why don't you go ahead and simply acknowledge that you never read a book on game theory or heard a lecture on it and therefore confused it with the starcraftrelated theories, because starcraft is a game and you thought "if it is a game and I have a theory that's related to it, this must be game theory". | ||
| ||
