|
http://www.ted.com/talks/alex_wissner_gross_a_new_equation_for_intelligence.html
This talk is interesting as we can see in a very practical way how it is applied in starcraft2. If we observe vast majority the champions of starcraft2 they are very strong in macro games, where they play the reactive role and try to always have as many options available and then deviate depending on their scouting information.
For example flash and innovation as terrans. They always have 1-2 builds and react. The list goes on with players like rain and nestea etc.
The reactive macro play has clearly worked out better in practice when it comes to winning tournaments and now there is a mathematical theory to back it up.
Can we then define reactive macro play as the more intelligent way to play the game?
|
Protoss is the most reactive race by far. If you get ahead, transition into two base all-in. If even transition into all-in of your choice. If your behind transition into all-in of your choice
|
On February 08 2014 03:48 Rescawen wrote:http://www.ted.com/talks/alex_wissner_gross_a_new_equation_for_intelligence.htmlThis talk is interesting as we can see in a very practical way how it is applied in starcraft2. If we observe vast majority the champions of starcraft2 they are very strong in macro games, where they play the reactive role and try to always have as many options available and then deviate depending on their scouting information. For example flash and innovation as terrans. They always have 1-2 builds and react. The list goes on with players like rain and nestea etc. The reactive macro play has clearly worked out better in practice when it comes to winning tournaments and now there is a mathematical theory to back it up. Can we then define reactive macro play as the more intelligent way to play the game?
Not really. Most of the sc2 champs won a lot of those with mixing in timing's cheese builds and some macro play. You can't really play only 1 way in sc2 it does not work at all. And most of the top Tier RTS players in starcraft 1 and stacraft 2 started out winning by pure cheese then mixed in macro games.
Pretty much everyone knows by now the best way to win is to mix it up and apply different styles. Even Rain who plays safe and reactive has no issue hiding tech and doing some kind of early cheese play. You can't always play 1 way.
|
@lingblingbling most all ins are designed to beat the standard macro style, hence this theory still applies. However we rarely see a player that only does all ins and goes far in tournaments.
|
joohyunee
Korea (South)1087 Posts
I think that you can't argue one way or another - just because you have a 200/200 army doesn't mean you can 1a and win the game - you need the big army micro to be able to pull off what they're doing. Flash and innovation were amazing because they did BOTH almost perfectly on a very consistent basis. It's usually their macro that is highlighted (and it should, their mechanics are unreal) but I don't think you can really say much about intelligence from the way the pros play their game - unless your definition of intelligence is win rate, which the "macro style" is much more suited to accomplish than the micro...
I might argue that the micro oriented player (think of Boxer) also needs to be intelligent, because they need to know exactly what their few units are capable of and push those limits, all the while not having perfect information about your opponent and his unit count - in a way, it's a big gamble, because you have to rely on your instincts to help you make that decision, which could very well go either way. I think this is why we see "micro-oriented" players having a less dominant win rate - one mistake and you lose your core army, and if the other player is playing the more macro-oriented style, you're already behind for having made that attack and having it failed.
|
On February 08 2014 03:59 Rescawen wrote:
@lingblingbling most all ins are designed to beat the standard macro style, hence this theory still applies. However we rarely see a player that only does all ins and goes far in tournaments.
Um there are players who win a lot in Korea by only doing all ins and timing. Can't really take that theory to seriously for starcraft 2. Maru started out doing nothing but cheese, even today he does a lot of cheese more than his macro play, but he can play macro if he needed to.
Mc is another player who won most of his major tourneys with all ins and timings.
There are players who win only on their insane unit control over macro. I mean if you been following sc2 since the start, there are massive amounts of players who win off unit control/allins over macro. In the end, you need to learn all styles and mix them up in major tourneys to prevent from being hard countered. There is no 1 way to play, and players been successful doing all types of play styles.
|
Reactive macro play has always been the more intelligent way to play the game. It's simple really:
If you have an all-in build it either always works (meaning its broken), works unless a person can only respond to it blindly or is forced to tailor their build just to counter the all-in and then dies to other stuff (overpowered), or it's counterable through scouting and making adjustments (which means the person performing the all-in is banking on their opponent making a mistake).
The entire premise behind reactive macro play is that you are able to respond to every situation through diligent scouting and, if you don't mess up, should theoretically always come out ahead (ignoring early game BO deficit pre-scouting).
All-ins are useful because they are often designed to punish people that get lazy on scouting, get scouting denied, or punish people that play too greedily. If a person always goes nexus first, you may 6 pool for a free win based on probability. However, it's still gambling. 2 base immortal sentry pvz may be an incredibly strong build and work the majority of the time for someone, but if it's technically able to be held reactively then it's a gamble.
|
Fiddler's Green42661 Posts
On February 08 2014 03:48 Rescawen wrote:http://www.ted.com/talks/alex_wissner_gross_a_new_equation_for_intelligence.htmlThis talk is interesting as we can see in a very practical way how it is applied in starcraft2. If we observe vast majority the champions of starcraft2 they are very strong in macro games, where they play the reactive role and try to always have as many options available and then deviate depending on their scouting information. For example flash and innovation as terrans. They always have 1-2 builds and react. The list goes on with players like rain and nestea etc. The reactive macro play has clearly worked out better in practice when it comes to winning tournaments and now there is a mathematical theory to back it up. Can we then define reactive macro play as the more intelligent way to play the game?
Flash doesn't play reactive in sc2.
Innovation does a bit more, but this was also the guy who only used scv pulls in TvP for months and then died to someone who blindly made 9 cannons.
|
|
|
On February 08 2014 04:06 arcane1129 wrote:
Reactive macro play has always been the more intelligent way to play the game. It's simple really:
If you have an all-in build it either always works (meaning its broken), works unless a person can only respond to it blindly or is forced to tailor their build just to counter the all-in and then dies to other stuff (overpowered), or it's counterable through scouting and making adjustments (which means the person performing the all-in is banking on their opponent making a mistake).
The entire premise behind reactive macro play is that you are able to respond to every situation through diligent scouting and, if you don't mess up, should theoretically always come out ahead (ignoring early game BO deficit pre-scouting).
All-ins are useful because they are often designed to punish people that get lazy on scouting, get scouting denied, or punish people that play too greedily. If a person always goes nexus first, you may 6 pool for a free win based on probability. However, it's still gambling.
This is not how sc2 works. Timing attacks and all ins are not gambling. Korean players study their opponent, and create builds to take them out. There has been some very well planned intelligent timing attacks and all ins for certain players that work very well.
There are certain situations where people make risky choices and gambling, but that can include playing macro vs a certain player or playing to safe ect. Race design, map picks, and current meta all come into play. So you can't apply a theory that says reactive macro play is the most intelligent way to play, a lot of times it's not at all.
|
Yeah, I saw that talk, and though I'm quite skeptical overall about it (it's one of those oversimplifying concepts), it does relate very accurately to a lot of practical phenomena, so it's useful. In terms of esports, it seems we tend to consider the more intelligent strategy to be the one that keeps more options open and "controls" the game as much as possible. In RTS that's the more macro oriented style which goes for late game (the more complex part of the game with more options). In Hearthstone, as another example, that's the control decks - even named similarly to what the guy talked about. Meanwhile, people always see the rush, cheese, rat-doto, OTK etc gimmicky strategies as less intelligent, and they indeed aim to reduce options, in fact to limit options so much that their specific desired way of winning can happen. Eh, in the end, as long as such approaches work often enough, they may still be the more intelligent choice when we look not just one game, but the span of many games, over which they - theoretically - may have good outcomes.
P.S. + Show Spoiler +Also, based on this idea, the intelligent way of approaching intelligence would be to keep the options open, so not aim to lock it into one rigid equation. ;-)
|
On February 08 2014 04:15 LingBlingBling wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2014 04:06 arcane1129 wrote:
Reactive macro play has always been the more intelligent way to play the game. It's simple really:
If you have an all-in build it either always works (meaning its broken), works unless a person can only respond to it blindly or is forced to tailor their build just to counter the all-in and then dies to other stuff (overpowered), or it's counterable through scouting and making adjustments (which means the person performing the all-in is banking on their opponent making a mistake).
The entire premise behind reactive macro play is that you are able to respond to every situation through diligent scouting and, if you don't mess up, should theoretically always come out ahead (ignoring early game BO deficit pre-scouting).
All-ins are useful because they are often designed to punish people that get lazy on scouting, get scouting denied, or punish people that play too greedily. If a person always goes nexus first, you may 6 pool for a free win based on probability. However, it's still gambling. This is not how sc2 works. Timing attacks and all ins are not gambling. Korean players study their opponent, and create builds to take them out. There has been some very well planned intelligent timing attacks and all ins for certain players that work very well. There are certain situations where people make risky choices and gambling, but that can include playing macro vs a certain player or playing to safe ect. Race design, map picks, and current meta all come into play. So you can't apply a theory that says reactive macro play is the most intelligent way to play, a lot of times it's not at all.
Technically there's always an element of gambling because you never 100% know for sure what your opponent is doing until they're committed to a path and have no options to deviate. You can scout 12 rax 12 gas low ground cc from a terran, but there's still a chance he cancels the cc, doesn't use the gas, and makes 3 more rax and pulls wokers. It's dumb, but that's beside the point.
Reactive macro has by far the lowest element of "hope" in starcraft. Korean players that study their opponent and create a specific counter build are still hoping their opponent will play the same way as has been studied. If an all-in is strong on a map or in the meta but can technically be countered reactively if scouted, it's on your opponent, not on you. Any time your play is banking on your opponent doing something without scouting or not playing perfectly, that's gambling. Any time this element of gambling is involved, it is theoretically the "incorrect" way to play the game if everyone played perfectly.
Again, I'm not saying all-ins, timing attacks, calculated risks/gambles, or studying opponents don't have a place. Obviously they do, and a big one at that. That doesn't mean reactive macro isn't still theoretically the most intelligent and reliable way to play the game.
|
Is this going to turn into one of those threads where we all try to convince each other that playing SC2, or being good at it, makes us more intelligent?
|
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On February 08 2014 05:02 Pewpz wrote:
Is this going to turn into one of those threads where we all try to convince each other that playing SC2, or being good at it, makes us more intelligent?
I don't know, is it going to be one of those threads where people show up to tell everyone that SC2 makes you stupid but their game (be it BW, WC3 or SoaSS) actually makes you intelligent?
|
On February 08 2014 05:09 Zealously wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2014 05:02 Pewpz wrote:
Is this going to turn into one of those threads where we all try to convince each other that playing SC2, or being good at it, makes us more intelligent?
I don't know, is it going to be one of those threads where people show up to tell everyone that SC2 makes you stupid but their game (be it BW, WC3 or SoaSS) actually makes you intelligent?
Shit, I don't know. I'm kinda eager to find out, though. Those are always entertaining.
|
zzz i waited the entire video to hear the word "starcraft"....then i re-read the thread. ug so misled T_T
|
You guys are right, doing only macro builds and no cheese at all is the most intelligent way to play
because it increases your options, right?
|
mensa members play only honorable 20 min no rush macro games
unlike those cheesing peasants that probably do nothing but play big game hunters all day
|
First of all, the thread title is slightly misleading.
Now to continue the discussion, if we are to accept the definition of intelligence from Wissner, than all the pros, regardless of their playstyle, play intelligently.
Let me explain. Wissner defined intelligence as maximizing the potential options, but also mentioned bottlenecking yourself in the short-term to increase the options in the long-term.
If you study the pros, they always scout. Scouting lets you know what are your options. Those that rely on macro games will play a little bit reactive. They will scout and wait until you push out. Once the threat comes knocking, they will have decided on the best course of action.
Those that rely on all in/cheese/timings will create calculated decisions based on timing and the opponent. This will limit their options in the short term, but with the calculated risk of gaining an advantage (ie. more options) later on.
Intelligent play is not dependant on macro/timings. Intelligent play is knowing your options and/or creating favourable options.
Generally speaking, all the pros do this.
|
On February 08 2014 03:59 Rescawen wrote:
@lingblingbling most all ins are designed to beat the standard macro style, hence this theory still applies. However we rarely see a player that only does all ins and goes far in tournaments.
ye ye. Stardust, PartinG
|
Yea in a way I understand how it relates, i don't know that it necessarily applies to SC very well, I think a lot of wins especially in finals where there is preparation the player uses a lot of cleverly crafted and very narrow timings, that in my mind are just looking to snub their opponent not necessarily keep their options open to react to everything accordingly. If instead of talking about pro players and tournaments you related it to the ladder where you are not studying your opponents style and in all likelihood don't even know them, it might apply slightly more as you may be more inclined to keep your options open (or go for a timing =/ )
Also although it is an interesting concept, using one equation to try and encapsulate the essence of AI is far to simple of a solution.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/05/a-grand-unified-theory-of-everything.html , this talks about the project (company) that the presenter is working on. I thought he was just talking about someone else's theory but he clearly is going on ted to promote his own theory to get more publicity for the company that he made based on it.
|
On February 08 2014 05:25 suicideyear wrote:
mensa members play only honorable 20 min no rush macro games
unlike those cheesing peasants that probably do nothing but play big game hunters all day
I sure you, everyone who has been at top 50 GM have enough IQ to be at Mensa.
(except protosss players)
|
Interesting watch. Thanks for sharing.
|
On February 09 2014 08:50 Fuzer wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2014 05:25 suicideyear wrote:
mensa members play only honorable 20 min no rush macro games
unlike those cheesing peasants that probably do nothing but play big game hunters all day I sure you, everyone who has been at top 50 GM have enough IQ to be at Mensa. (except protosss players)
EDIT: Just going to let it go...
|
On February 09 2014 08:28 Executor1 wrote:Yea in a way I understand how it relates, i don't know that it necessarily applies to SC very well, I think a lot of wins especially in finals where there is preparation the player uses a lot of cleverly crafted and very narrow timings, that in my mind are just looking to snub their opponent not necessarily keep their options open to react to everything accordingly. If instead of talking about pro players and tournaments you related it to the ladder where you are not studying your opponents style and in all likelihood don't even know them, it might apply slightly more as you may be more inclined to keep your options open (or go for a timing =/ ) Also although it is an interesting concept, using one equation to try and encapsulate the essence of AI is far to simple of a solution. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/05/a-grand-unified-theory-of-everything.html , this talks about the project (company) that the presenter is working on. I thought he was just talking about someone else's theory but he clearly is going on ted to promote his own theory to get more publicity for the company that he made based on it.
Yep. Sounds like BS and like the positivity ratio hoax.
If they claim that this can be used to trade stocks, then why aren't people already getting rich off of using this in the stock market? And if it works, then why isn't everyone using it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
