|
Intro
It's monday, so I released a "fun" video today. The series is called "Bronze Science" and it pays homage to Bro Science with a bit more Rhode Island in the accent and a bit heavier satire. I try to bring up common lines of thought with a twist at the end in the hopes of stirring up discussion and potentially helping players to improve their mentality or consider a different perspective. This particular video generated a lot more controversy than I expected it to and seeing that reddit only keeps things around for a day or so, I'd like to continue the conversation here.
Video
Discussion
I'll be editing this section to help outline the major points people are bringing up:
Something like boxing a worker every time it comes out is athleticism for athleticism's sake. The boxing itself isn't a decision. If you have the time to do it, you will box that worker and send it to mine. The decision here comes in when you do not have the time to do both the worker boxing and the another action and you must choose to do one or the other.
Compare that to Injecting Larva in Sc2. Injecting is a different kind of choice because there are other options to consider. Save for transfuses? Spread Creep? Defend the wall instead of injecting? This mechanic still has its root in athleticism. Injecting on time is an important skill for zerg players, especially in the first 9 or so minutes of the game. But it leans more towards decision making than the pure athleticism of boxing workers.
I think any RTS will have both athleticism and decision making aspects. Pure athleticism looks like a multitask game. Pure decision making looks like a game of chess or go. But at what point in the spectrum is too much toward the decision making side? What point is too much toward the athleticism side? and where do broodwar and Sc2 land on the scale?
I think the main thing to discuss is this:
Does athleticism for athleticism's sake have a place in modern eSports?
|
On April 29 2014 09:55 JaKaTaK wrote:
Intro
It's monday, so I released a "fun" video today. The series is called "Bronze Science" and it pays homage to Bro Science with a bit more Rhode Island in the accent and a bit heavier satire. I try to bring up common lines of thought with a twist at the end in the hopes of stirring up discussion and potentially helping players to improve their mentality or consider a different perspective. This particular video generated a lot more controversy than I expected it to and seeing that reddit only keeps things around for a day or so, I'd like to continue the conversation here.
Video
After discussing different opinions on the matter the place I'm at to start things off is this: Something like boxing a worker every time it comes out is athleticism for athleticism's sake. The boxing itself isn't a decision. When the worker comes out, you will box it and do something with it, every time. It taxes the player's ability to do other things making the game more difficult. But not in a way directly related to the game, we could just as easily replace this task with tapping your foot to a certain bpm or running a worker from a neutral zealot on a disconnected part of the map. Compare that to Injecting Larva in Sc2. Injecting is a choice, because there are other options to consider. Save for transfuses? Spread Creep? Defend the wall instead of injecting? This mechanic still has its root in athleticism. Injecting on time is an important skill for zerg players, especially in the first 9 or so minutes of the game. But it leans more towards decision making than the pure athleticism of boxing workers. I think any RTS will have both athleticism and decision making aspects. Pure athleticism looks like a multitask game. Pure decision making looks like a game of chess or go. But at what point in the spectrum is too much toward the decision making side? What point is too much toward the athleticism side? and where do broodwar and Sc2 land on the scale? I think the main thing to discuss is this: Does athleticism for athleticism's sake have a place in modern eSports?
I think your post & your video betray a misunderstanding of the RTS genre. Which is surprising to me, because you already had feedback from the Reddit thread to reflect on. For anyone interested in discussing this topic, I believe you shouldn't specifically address Jak's question because it incorrectly frames the issue.
In Real TIME Strategy games, TIME is Important. More specifically, what you CHOOSE to spend time on is important. . Sending workers to minerals promptly has a profound impact on resource gathering, which in turn has a profound impact on the game.
If I try to send every worker to a mineral patch immediately, I won't have time to do anything else. And the way I play will be very different for someone who doesn't prioritize his time in the same way. If I try to do that against a Terran player who managed to spread minefields on the map, I'll lose badly. If I do it against a Terran who's holed up in his base, while I send waves of Zeal & Dragoons at his tank line, the decision may very well be correct.
In fact, I would argue that how quickly you receive minerals (which is dependent on how quickly you send your workers to mine) has much more of an impact on game then whether you lay a tumor or inject.
|
Northern Ireland27405 Posts
I like that aspect of the game personally and feel it is part of Starcraft's identity/heritage or whatever you want to call it.
Personally I don't really care particularly where the line is drawn in terms of what constitutes monotonous mechanics, as long as the relative level of chops in that regard stays roughly equivalent across the races, which i'm not really sure is the case at all, especially of late.
|
On April 29 2014 10:10 -_- wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2014 09:55 JaKaTaK wrote:
Intro
It's monday, so I released a "fun" video today. The series is called "Bronze Science" and it pays homage to Bro Science with a bit more Rhode Island in the accent and a bit heavier satire. I try to bring up common lines of thought with a twist at the end in the hopes of stirring up discussion and potentially helping players to improve their mentality or consider a different perspective. This particular video generated a lot more controversy than I expected it to and seeing that reddit only keeps things around for a day or so, I'd like to continue the conversation here.
Video
After discussing different opinions on the matter the place I'm at to start things off is this: Something like boxing a worker every time it comes out is athleticism for athleticism's sake. The boxing itself isn't a decision. When the worker comes out, you will box it and do something with it, every time. It taxes the player's ability to do other things making the game more difficult. But not in a way directly related to the game, we could just as easily replace this task with tapping your foot to a certain bpm or running a worker from a neutral zealot on a disconnected part of the map. Compare that to Injecting Larva in Sc2. Injecting is a choice, because there are other options to consider. Save for transfuses? Spread Creep? Defend the wall instead of injecting? This mechanic still has its root in athleticism. Injecting on time is an important skill for zerg players, especially in the first 9 or so minutes of the game. But it leans more towards decision making than the pure athleticism of boxing workers. I think any RTS will have both athleticism and decision making aspects. Pure athleticism looks like a multitask game. Pure decision making looks like a game of chess or go. But at what point in the spectrum is too much toward the decision making side? What point is too much toward the athleticism side? and where do broodwar and Sc2 land on the scale? I think the main thing to discuss is this: Does athleticism for athleticism's sake have a place in modern eSports? This post, and your video, really show how little you understand about RTS. Even after time for reflection, you STILL don't understand. For anyone interested in discussing this topic, PLEASE ignore Jakatak's question. He incorrectly frames the issue. In Real TIME Strategy games, TIME IS IMPORTANT. More specifically, WHAT YOU CHOOSE CHOOSE CHOOSE TO SPEND TIME ON IS IMPORTANT.. Sending worker to minerals promptly has a profound impact on resource gathering, which in turn has a profound impact on the game. If I try to send every worker to a mineral patch immediately, I won't have time to do anything else. And the way I play will be very different for someone who doesn't prioritize his time in the same way. If I try to do that against a Terran player who managed to spread minefields on the map, I'll lose badly. If I do it against a Terran who's holed up in his base, while I send waves of Zeal & Dragoons at his tank line, the decision may very well be correct. How quickly you receive minerals is has much more of an impact on game then whether you lay a tumor or inject..
I apologize for framing the discussion incorrectly. I don't feel all the capitals and personal attacks were necessary. I will attempt to remedy the problem, but it would be much easier if you were working with me to share your knowledge so that we all can benefit and learn.
|
|
|
On April 29 2014 10:19 Onekobold wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2014 10:10 -_- wrote:This post, and your video, really show how little you understand about RTS. Even after time for reflection, you STILL don't understand. For anyone interested in discussing this topic, PLEASE ignore Jakatak's question. He incorrectly frames the issue.
In Real TIME Strategy games, TIME IS IMPORTANT. More specifically, WHAT YOU CHOOSE CHOOSE CHOOSE TO SPEND TIME ON IS IMPORTANT.. Sending worker to minerals promptly has a profound impact on resource gathering, which in turn has a profound impact on the game.
If I try to send every worker to a mineral patch immediately, I won't have time to do anything else. And the way I play will be very different for someone who doesn't prioritize his time in the same way. If I try to do that against a Terran player who managed to spread minefields on the map, I'll lose badly. If I do it against a Terran who's holed up in his base, while I send waves of Zeal & Dragoons at his tank line, the decision may very well be correct.
How quickly you receive minerals is has much more of an impact on game then whether you lay a tumor or inject.. yo I think your post would look better if you used more capital letters and bold text
Fair point. I updated my post.
|
Brilliant video. You seem to have grasped the essence of sc2 critics. They don't realise how chess is the ultimate rts. BUt I'm on your side!@
|
I think technical skill is very much important to at least one idea of an esport. Certainly not all of them have to be technically demanding but it's useful to be impressive. It's easier to understand what is impressive about athleticism and mechanical skill, and it also puts pressure on creativity to optimize.
|
As a left handed player I cant tell you how much rebineable hot keys helps me play. Without them I would never have bothered playing the game tbh. To say its something at this day and age shouldn't be in a game is just foolish.
|
Wait, is this supposed to be a serious video and discussion? I honestly can't tell.
|
I was dissapointed with your video.
It wasn't humorous enough, probably because the points it brings up are old and have been discussed to death and don't work as a satire of things unintelligent people mock very well.
Things like OMG VOIDRAYS OP could more easily be funny.
Is it thought-provoking? It perhaps could have been if the issues it brings up satirically were in any way new in concept or perspective.
|
Playing sc2 hurts my arms/wrists/elbows. If it took half the apm to play, you wouldn't hear me complaining. I'd probably ladder ten times as much.
My arms ache just thinking about stutter step micro.
|
Wait, is this supposed to be a serious video and discussion? I honestly can't tell.
The video is obviously sarcastic, but there is some legitimacy to the complaints in it.
My take on it, is athleticism is good for the game, as long as there's also a decision to be made.
If the Queen was only able to Inject, I would hate it and want it removed, however because of the decision part of it, there's a reason for it to exist and so mechanics get to play a part. I don't like Boosting Medivacs, because there's no trade off and so it feels just like a "hit everytime on cooldown button," however that's not entirely true either.
People can say there's less multitasking to be made compared to BW, but honestly this is time you can spend on out multitasking your opponent, attacking multiple places at the same time. Out multitasking your opponent, instead of out multitasking the game.
|
well sc2 replaced moving workers to mine and 12 unit selection with other artificial macro functions like injects. I prefered broodwars more straightforward gameplay. I think the limited unit selection helps make the game strategic, if your units dont clump as much and you can spread out squads of 12 you can place your untis strategically easier. This been talked to death ofc.
|
The video is dumb and undermines the rest of the OP.
The reason StarCraft is successful is not because the game tries to set the pace, but because the players, themselves, can do so far more easily than in other RTS games. You can strech your opponent to his limits in StarCraft 2 because the game gives far more power (and control potential) to mobile units than static defenses, not because it takes you an extra few seconds to box groups of lings to send to a nexus.
Honestly, if the devs went nuts with SC2 and added an auto-cast feature for unit construction, I don't think it would enter CoD-style casual hell. The core of the game, along with what makes it great, are still intact. Even now, people are annihilating their wrists at 300apm in what was supposed to be a game for garbage foreigner noobs who were D with Protoss on ICCuP or something...
|
The video seems to be the same kind of joke as the "Lings of Liberty: The Rise of the Patchzergs" thread back in the day. Everybody finds it shitty and then the author comes out and says it was obviously a joke and only VIP masterrace can understand it.
Regardless, first answer said it well, in an RTS game, time and attention are resources. You know you have a limited number of actions you can do at a given time, and you have to make a choice. More athletic players will be able to make more actions, but not necessarily the ones they needed to do at that time, and I think that's fine.
|
On April 29 2014 10:11 Wombat_NI wrote:
I like that aspect of the game personally and feel it is part of Starcraft's identity/heritage or whatever you want to call it.
Personally I don't really care particularly where the line is drawn in terms of what constitutes monotonous mechanics, as long as the relative level of chops in that regard stays roughly equivalent across the races, which i'm not really sure is the case at all, especially of late.
Are you inside my head?
|
On April 29 2014 18:01 ZenithM wrote:
The video seems to be the same kind of joke as the "Lings of Liberty: The Rise of the Patchzergs" thread back in the day. Everybody finds it shitty and then the author comes out and says it was obviously a joke and only VIP masterrace can understand it.
He was serious about zerg being broken, the satire was his proposal at the end.
|
On April 29 2014 18:21 PineapplePizza wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2014 18:01 ZenithM wrote:
The video seems to be the same kind of joke as the "Lings of Liberty: The Rise of the Patchzergs" thread back in the day. Everybody finds it shitty and then the author comes out and says it was obviously a joke and only VIP masterrace can understand it. He was serious about zerg being broken, the satire was his proposal at the end.
Only the satire looked like 80% of whine threads, only with cool pictures ;D
|
No, it does not. The athleticism part should be fun.
Ideally everything you do in a RTS should be a decision to be interfered with with the amount of tedious actions reduced to the minimum. In my opinion the focus of RTS' should be the conflict (micro) instead of the buildup (macro). It is multiplayer after all so the game should be about interactions instead of just actions. Athleticism should be about micro and multitasking with macro more as a tool than a necessity.
I'd like macro to be about getting more, not about sustaining the things you already have. I dislike the kind of macro where you have to babysit your base to get the 100% out of it. I don't think it's fun or interesting to click every single building to build units or to periodically come back to my base to send a worker to mine/cast a spell on all my production to get maximum efficiency (which is the reason I don't play starbow). It's not a choice, it's necessary. There is no interaction. It feels like I'm playing alone.
I prefer to just build more bases&production or upgrade because building more can be observed and reacted to. I can't prevent my opponent from using macro mechanics. I can try to tax his multitasking to point where he can't manage it anymore but it's really not up to me. Using macro mechanics give no incentives to other guy to do anything; it is assumed that they are properly used. On the other hand if you build an extra base you stretch your defenses and I can send units over to look for openings.
On April 29 2014 09:55 JaKaTaK wrote:
Injecting is a different kind of choice because there are other options to consider. Save for transfuses? Spread Creep? Defend the wall instead of injecting?
I disagree that queen management is about choices. The way I see it there are only 2 choices about queens. When to build them and how many. After that there is only 1 optimal way to do things which depends on information. What you are talking about is making an educated guess. It is not the same as having a choice. The former is based on information in the current game, the latter is done before the game even starts.
You wouldn't ever plant a bunch of creep tumors right in front of a group of hellions because your build demands it or when you know an all-in is coming. Just like you will always choose defending the wall over injecting because not dieing right now is more important than having slightly more production a little later. Of course you can choose to do all those things but the most likely result will be your loss. Most recent example: Jaedong vs Impact game 3 DH Bucharest. I bet you anything he would've liked to trade a few injects or his 3rd base for his queen being in the correct spot.
On April 29 2014 09:55 JaKaTaK wrote:
But at what point in the spectrum is too much toward the decision making side? What point is too much toward the athleticism side? and where do broodwar and Sc2 land on the scale?
I think it is too much on the decision making side when the decision itself becomes more important than the quality of execution kinda like deciding to go broodlord+infestor in WoL because the only way to fuck that up was letting your PC die. On the other hand there is too much athleticism when the thing you want to do lacks any choice whatsoever meaning it stops feeling like a game and more like a task which is what those macro mechanics are.
Starcraft 1+2 have way too much of that athleticism for athleticism's sake thing, Company of Heroes/Warhammer 40k focuses everything on micro and decisionmaking, there is no repetitive task at all while games like Age of Empires and C&C Generals have a better balance of things (I'm not talking about actual game balance) than the CoH/W40k but only Supreme Commander got it just right in my opinion. Though that game does have problems in presentation which is a bigger deal than it sounds like. Finally we have Total Annihilation which, when you want athleticism for athleticism's sake, is the ultimate game because it also has everything else, too, in a good ratio I'd say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
