|
On September 20 2013 08:53 Startyr wrote:I really like this article. Masterminds do not rely on build orders or timings and can use their opponent build orders and timings against them. Would you say masterminds are the best innovators in changing the way matchups work? I really like this game of Super Vs Bomber. http://sc2tv.com/cast-videos/tvp-bomber-vs-super/
I'll address all your points you just had a really long post so I shortened it. In that game its composition that wins it for Super, he never ceases colossi production, which is unexpected for Bomber, thus when the main army engagement occurs he has only 8 vikings to deal with 5 colossi. Hence I would label Super in this game as an Architect, he did a build that played on an expectation from Bomber. It was a timing on Super's behalf, as he was moving out before the SCV's were pulled and it appeared timed to upgrade completion.
An Architect comes into a game with preconceived ideals on how to get themselves a dominant advantage or an outright victory. This usually represents it self in build or army composition, this can frequently backfire as your position in the game can be decided on a few large engagements.
Masterminds will enter the game looking for incremental victories that may force more dramatic errors from the opponent. As the Masterminds committal is quite small, its failure will not effect their standing in the game, as otherwise they are playing "safe".
You could say the innovating players fall under the subset of architects. All innovators are architects, but not all architects are innovators. Masterminds may do strange things in games, such as the proxy DT in the Bomber/Rain game but ultimately its for incremental gains and will not change the meta game in a match up.
When we think of Marine/Medivac/Mine against Zerg the Mastermind and Architect react in different manners. This can be illustrated in how Soulkey and Symbol deal with Innovation respectively. Symbol attempted a wide variation in timings in order to attempt to cripple or defeat Innovation before the composition reached a critical mass. While Soulkey waits for innovation to begin pushing and then attempts to weaken the foundation of of the push, Innovations economy. If innovations economy is significantly compromised and he doesn't react appropriately it will have a cascading effect on the push, but each run-by or harass' that fails will not immediately effect Soulkeys position in the game.
|
On September 20 2013 09:35 figq wrote:
I feel like in Starcraft, if you pick random people from the street who "very generally" fit into the three categories, the ones that end up "talented" for playing this game will all be Athletes.
Then among those chosen "street Athletes", if you further subdivide them into those 3 categories... then again only the Athletes among the Athletes shall advance to the next level.
...and so on... and so on...
And somewhere far away down the line of Athletes among Athletes among Athletes... - only then - when you subdivide them again into these 3 categories, they will actually create meaningful 3 categories to put progamers in.
This is why I chose the Korean scene as a focus and not the entire global scene, I believe I state this in the introduction.
|
wonderful article
I had so much fun reading it.
My only criticism is that I wish there would have been more pictures and/or graphs
|
Nice write up. It's interesting to think about which races favor each kind of playstyle. I think most people would agree Terran is the best race for athletes, with Zerg being a pretty good option for them as well. Protoss definitely seems to favor players with an architect style of approaching the game. While I feel Zerg is equally suitable for masterminds and athletes, it's rather lacking for architects since premeditated builds and timings can be more difficult as a Zerg player as a result of your opponent having a large degree of control over your economic timings and unit compositions.
Just for kicks I thought about some players from each race that fit each role:
Mastermind: MVP (T), Rain(P), Leenock (Z)
Architect: Thorzain (T), Naniwa (P), Snute (Z)
Athlete: MMA (T), Huk (P), DRG (Z)
|
On September 20 2013 09:45 Zvonimir wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2013 09:35 figq wrote:
I feel like in Starcraft, if you pick random people from the street who "very generally" fit into the three categories, the ones that end up "talented" for playing this game will all be Athletes.
Then among those chosen "street Athletes", if you further subdivide them into those 3 categories... then again only the Athletes among the Athletes shall advance to the next level.
...and so on... and so on...
And somewhere far away down the line of Athletes among Athletes among Athletes... - only then - when you subdivide them again into these 3 categories, they will actually create meaningful 3 categories to put progamers in.
This is why I chose the Korean scene as a focus and not the entire global scene, I believe I state this in the introduction. Sure, and I just try to put in perspective how this categorization resonates with *anyone* playing or trying to play SC2, even wider than global scene, just random people who aren't part of the SC2 scene at all. It's not a critique of your definition.
|
On September 20 2013 11:55 KayoDot wrote:
Nice write up. It's interesting to think about which races favor each kind of playstyle. I think most people would agree Terran is the best race for athletes, with Zerg being a pretty good option for them as well. Protoss definitely seems to favor players with an architect style of approaching the game. While I feel Zerg is equally suitable for masterminds and athletes, it's rather lacking for architects since premeditated builds and timings can be more difficult as a Zerg player as a result of your opponent having a large degree of control over your economic timings and unit compositions.
Just for kicks I thought about some players from each race that fit each role:
Mastermind: MVP (T), Rain(P), Leenock (Z)
Architect: Thorzain (T), Naniwa (P), Snute (Z)
Athlete: MMA (T), Huk (P), DRG (Z)
Leenock is the mastermind of Z? Seriously? Did you forget the person who created the universe?
|
This is a very good read. Thanks OP.
|
While I appreciate efforts like that, I feel even as a professional you should not be analyzing a match up your race is not involved in. I feel you make big mistakes analyzing sOs vs INnoVation on Neo Planet S. When you say INnoVation is supposed to punish sOs 3rd base on Neo Planet after a stargate followup, you will rely on the possiblity of sOs not opting to get phoenix.
One risk of taking your chance to drop / pressure. The other is high templars. You can try to harass and drop vs high templars but it will - most of the time - not be worth the costs. The better choice when you hold an advantage in Terran vs Protoss always is the macro approach and get your tech as well. While you might not need vikings and ghosts at all times, it certainly will be benefitial to have them. The reason the tempest were the bigger issue is because he would have transitioned into colossi in addition to his already present zealot/ht. While the Tempest are not as benefitial to zealot/ht , they are really insanely benefitial to colossi. They destroy vikings and zone ghosts that want to get close, he had to either take the chance and try to break him with viking/bio right there or deny economy. He did deny ecomomy while build the supposedly insane Terran army.
Additionally I feel its strange to say INnoVation being mechanically flawless would have lacking ghost control. For reference you can check INnoVation vs MyuNgsiK on Neo Planet S from WCG I believe. When at a huge disadvantage, he shows of his impaccable control with ghost and bio.
In addition - a player can be all of the 3 options. There are players more fitting into one category compared to another, but a good player will be able to deviate. Maru vs INnoVation on BelShir OSL semifinals (or on any map really) shows how much Maru did rely on builds moreso than mechanics while his games (especially the last ones) against Rain show that he simply wanted to power through sporting the abilities of an athlete.
But I would also disagree with a lot of statements in your 3 categories ~~
|
Mastermind vs Mastermind would be the best mirror match up. Too bad no examples of that
Great article though
|
On September 20 2013 16:59 NarutO wrote:
When you say INnoVation is supposed to punish sOs 3rd base on Neo Planet after a stargate followup, you will rely on the possiblity of sOs not opting to get phoenix...
...While you might not need vikings and ghosts at all times, it certainly will be benefitial to have them. The reason the tempest were the bigger issue is because he would have transitioned into colossi in addition to his already present zealot/ht. While the Tempest are not as benefitial to zealot/ht , they are really insanely benefitial to colossi. They destroy vikings and zone ghosts that want to get close, he had to either take the chance and try to break him with viking/bio right there or deny economy. He did deny ecomomy while build the supposedly insane Terran army.
Additionally I feel its strange to say INnoVation being mechanically flawless would have lacking ghost control. For reference you can check INnoVation vs MyuNgsiK on Neo Planet S from WCG I believe. When at a huge disadvantage, he shows of his impaccable control with ghost and bio.
In addition - a player can be all of the 3 options. There are players more fitting into one category compared to another, but a good player will be able to deviate. Maru vs INnoVation on BelShir OSL semifinals (or on any map really) shows how much Maru did rely on builds moreso than mechanics while his games (especially the last ones) against Rain show that he simply wanted to power through sporting the abilities of an athlete.
But I would also disagree with a lot of statements in your 3 categories ~~
The statement that Innovation fails to punish the third probably has more negative connotation than I intended, an alternative could have been that sOs established/secures a quick 3rd base reducing the onus on Innovation.
On the subject of colossi you would be correct if at any stage during the 10 minute in game period that Innovation did not have vikings sOs had attempted a transitioned to colossi. As zoning for ghosts its excellent at its role however a) 14 Tempests are likely excessive for that role and b), vikings seem an imperfect solution to dealing with the tempests/high templar composition, due to the range disparity and the fact that vikings will tend to stack making them more vulnerable to storm.
Innovation did act to deny economy for sOs, but sOs in turn did the same and as sOs' composition was being more efficient it was damaging Innovation more than so. I do not believe that Innovation has terrible control with ghosts or vikings, though improvising as he was with his composition in a situation he had not readily expected would have detrimentally effected how refined his control was. Once he reverted to a less costly composition and ultimately more comfortable composition he was able to start stabilising and punishing.
All players will have some aspect of the three types defined in their game-play, in the case of Mirrors (type vs type rather then race vs race) the distinction between the players is probably made more pronounced. So when another athlete faces Innovation, who is widely regarded as the most mechanical player in the world, they will likely revert to one of the other facets of game-play.
If you have any more points you disagree with put them up I'd love to discuss them
|
On September 20 2013 09:35 figq wrote:
I feel like in Starcraft, if you pick random people from the street who "very generally" fit into the three categories, the ones that end up "talented" for playing this game will all be Athletes.
Then among those chosen "street Athletes", if you further subdivide them into those 3 categories... then again only the Athletes among the Athletes shall advance to the next level.
...and so on... and so on...
And somewhere far away down the line of Athletes among Athletes among Athletes... - only then - when you subdivide them again into these 3 categories, they will actually create meaningful 3 categories to put progamers in.
What I'm trying to say is, all progamers (with very few, rare, and never consistently dominant exceptions) are before all Athletes who've been chosen from Athletes etc; and only then they can - somewhat - differentiate into other strategic types.
I guess we could compare with football (aka soccer). All footballers are great athletes, no exceptions. It's required before all else. Then, some of them, shall become Zidanes and Messis - they will seem to play with special finesse and creativity that athleticism can't provide alone. But to reach such privilege at all, they all have had to possess extraordinary athleticism.
I don't know if elfi is really an Athlete.
|
I know how we humans love to classify, but does this really make any sense? I mean, of the 200 or so pro players out there, there might be a few archtypes, but other than that the all players are so complex and all have so many flaws and qualities, I dont think this 3way divide serves any purpose.
|
|
|
fun to read but for me, it is just that you saw that some players like to 1-2 base all-in, some like 3 bases aggressive play style and other like safe macro style. Then you give them cool name.
Your case studies seem completly biase with your categories. For example when Inno adapts his army with MMM against SoS, you don't want to say that he is good in decision making because it's for Masterminds so you just say "it maybe that he never realised this fact, he was forced into a simple composition more by his economic situation " You try to show that his good adaptation is kind of lucky 
Sorry but the fact that he is the most impressive player in mechanics doesn't mean that he can't be one of the best in decision making too.
And most of his recent TvP are SCV pull. It's a timing that exploit certain weaknesses in the current meta-game = architech. But he keeps his sick mechanics. Does it make him an archithlete in TvP?
I also disagree with the merger of micro and macro. It's 2 different things and a lot of players have not the same level in both. Macro is as important for athlete as for mastermind (Soulkey is a beast in macro).
Micro is for athlete and architect (When Parting did his soul train, it was a well prepared build but without his insane micro he wouldn't get the same succes)
|
|
|
On September 20 2013 19:08 sacade wrote:fun to read but for me, it is just that you saw that some players like to 1-2 base all-in, some like 3 bases aggressive play style and other like safe macro style. Then you give them cool name. Your case studies seem completly biase with your categories. For example when Inno adapts his army with MMM against SoS, you don't want to say that he is good in decision making because it's for Masterminds so you just say "it maybe that he never realised this fact, he was forced into a simple composition more by his economic situation " You try to show that his good adaptation is kind of lucky Sorry but the fact that he is the most impressive player in mechanics doesn't mean that he can't be one of the best in decision making too. And most of his recent TvP are SCV pull. It's a timing that exploit certain weaknesses in the current meta-game = architech. But he keeps his sick mechanics. Does it make him an archithlete in TvP? I also disagree with the merger of micro and macro. It's 2 different things and a lot of players have not the same level in both. Macro is as important for athlete as for mastermind (Soulkey is a beast in macro). Micro is for athlete and architect (When Parting did his soul train, it was a well prepared build but without his insane micro he wouldn't get the same succes)
I watched that Innovation/sOs game about 10 times, looking at when Innovation became aware of his opponents choices, how they both tracked economically and by army size, when the supplies were close and how the units lost count fared between them. The truth is Innovation built and lost his expensive Viking/ghost army twice, before he changed his composition. He may have decided to change composition but it was suspiciously timed with significant strain on his economy. Further it wasn't his decision making that won him the game but rather his suddenly numerous low cost army that first allowed him to stabilise and then to wear through sOs' economy compromising the Protoss players ability to continue producing gas intensive units.
Macro and Micro are the aspects of human interaction with the game environment. Athletes are as they are because they can interact with the game better than others. Soulkey has fantastic mechanics, but he is not as greedy as an Athlete and will often pick a safer build to ensure first and foremost that he does not lose the game. Soulkey's decision making is superb and so I classed him as a Mastermind.
I totally agree, the consistency and strength of Parting's Immortal push and his behaviour in other match-ups I believe label him as an Athlete, it is simply the natural bias of Protoss that may make it seem as though he is an Architect. None of the types are definitive of build or economy size, they are just observations of how players deal with information and tend to take advantages.
|
On September 20 2013 19:08 sacade wrote:
[...]
I also disagree with the merger of micro and macro. It's 2 different things and a lot of players have not the same level in both. Macro is as important for athlete as for mastermind (Soulkey is a beast in macro).
Micro is for athlete and architect (When Parting did his soul train, it was a well prepared build but without his insane micro he wouldn't get the same succes)
People that are truly mechanical gods are good both at micro and macro. If they're good at one and bad at the other, it just means that they aren't fast enough :/
|
On September 20 2013 16:59 NarutO wrote:
While I appreciate efforts like that, I feel even as a professional you should not be analyzing a match up your race is not involved in. I feel you make big mistakes analyzing sOs vs INnoVation on Neo Planet S. When you say INnoVation is supposed to punish sOs 3rd base on Neo Planet after a stargate followup, you will rely on the possiblity of sOs not opting to get phoenix.
I think you're talking to me here NarutO? I only wrote the foreword, the rest is Zvonimir! I think the article is fantastic though and it's definitely a topic which can never be simply "right" or "wrong" but can raise interesting discussion and personally I've found it gives me another lens to analyse players styles.
At first it's very easy to dismiss or argue against the article but as long as we remember that what this article is establishing is 3 common types of thought-patterns that run through particular players than we must remember that despite there being a lot of small pieces of evidence that contradict the existence of 3 seperate categories, we are looking for patterns of behaviour in players. I'd love to see someone apply this analysis to 3 different players across 20-30 consecutive televised matches and see just how much they stick to one category.
It's also very hard to see just how maps and the metagame affect play and so when we see them shifting players out of their normal sphere.
|
I kinda feel it's like Pokemon :D
|
Austria24422 Posts
Now here's the thing. Player example: LiquidHerO (of course.)
HerO excels at outmultitasking opponents and being extremely aggressive with everything he has while defending with minimal units. He keeps this up all game long. A good example of that would be the probably longest macro PvP in WoL against Alicia where he kept being aggressive with prisms and army movement at around 300 average APM even when there's not much to warp in or research, etc. He did this for about 15 minutes straight while trying to form a unit composition that could deal with Alicia's mass skytoss.
But also, in chaotic situations his estimating of what could win him a game and how he could hold on for as long as possible and give himself a chance is second to none. Like, I consider him the best player in the world in pure chaos situations because he will see right through what's going on and figure out exactly what he needs to do. The fewer units and the lower the economy for both players, the better he seems to get. So I feel like there's definitely players who fit in more than one category.
Great read, very interesting!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
