EPTIs SC2 too fast? - Page 16
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
Cyro
United Kingdom20326 Posts
On June 08 2016 22:58 Barrin wrote: It should be mentioned that subtle strategy is often lost on the average viewer, whereas quick decisive battles are easier to understand and celebrate. Casters have a lot of control here. Many casters (maybe even most) will miss most of the detail that's not exceedingly obvious (such as a tech path) or just talk for 5 minutes about something random and unrelated to the game. Artosis is one caster that i've noticed being generally better than most others for actually explaining detail to the people who are not staring at the minimap and production tab and already playing the game at a high level. | ||
|
Naracs_Duc
746 Posts
On June 09 2016 11:32 Cyro wrote: Casters have a lot of control here. Many casters (maybe even most) will miss most of the detail that's not exceedingly obvious (such as a tech path) or just talk for 5 minutes about something random and unrelated to the game. Artosis is one caster that i've noticed being generally better than most others for actually explaining detail to the people who are not staring at the minimap and production tab and already playing the game at a high level. This is not from lack of skill or awareness (I mean, partially it is, but not totally) The issue for casters is not about being able to give detailed analysis, as most of the casters know damn well what they are seeing. The issue is that analysis comes with prediction--and prediction comes with being wrong. When you see a line of play, and you know there are 10 ways it could go from there, and based on player history you know he is more likely to do 5 of them--but when casting you have 1-2 seconds to pick one of those 5 as "what the player is trying to do" with full knowledge you have an 80% chance of being wrong. You know what happens when you get it wrong despite knowing it was one of the possible lines of play? You get ridiculed by the community for being a no nothing piece of shit who is a waste of space on the game. Because of that, casters are implicitly taught to be vague and un-committing in their tactical analysis. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On June 10 2016 05:49 Naracs_Duc wrote: This is not from lack of skill or awareness (I mean, partially it is, but not totally) The issue for casters is not about being able to give detailed analysis, as most of the casters know damn well what they are seeing. The issue is that analysis comes with prediction--and prediction comes with being wrong. When you see a line of play, and you know there are 10 ways it could go from there, and based on player history you know he is more likely to do 5 of them--but when casting you have 1-2 seconds to pick one of those 5 as "what the player is trying to do" with full knowledge you have an 80% chance of being wrong. You know what happens when you get it wrong despite knowing it was one of the possible lines of play? You get ridiculed by the community for being a no nothing piece of shit who is a waste of space on the game. Because of that, casters are implicitly taught to be vague and un-committing in their tactical analysis. I mean, you can still analyze the play without committing a prediction, god forbid. This happens all the time in chess where you talk about lines of play. Artosis and Wolf are the only ones I notice who demonstrate the willingness and knowledge base to discuss the choices of the players and their possible options without declaring what will happen next, Artosis more so obviously and Wolf being guilty a lot of failed predictions as well, depending on his mood. Of course sometimes predictions add a lot of drama to the game as well by creating surprise moments when expectations are reversed. But this operates best when the audience member understands the reasoning behind the prediction, based on good explanation, and buys into it. | ||
|
Naracs_Duc
746 Posts
On June 10 2016 06:00 EatThePath wrote: I mean, you can still analyze the play without committing a prediction, god forbid. This happens all the time in chess where you talk about lines of play. Artosis and Wolf are the only ones I notice who demonstrate the willingness and knowledge base to discuss the choices of the players and their possible options without declaring what will happen next, Artosis more so obviously and Wolf being guilty a lot of failed predictions as well, depending on his mood. Of course sometimes predictions add a lot of drama to the game as well by creating surprise moments when expectations are reversed. But this operates best when the audience member understands the reasoning behind the prediction, based on good explanation, and buys into it. I was not saying its not doable, but with the speed of the game people don't always have the time to talk through the possible options. Oftentimes when they are only halfway through a current iteration new variables come into play and they now need to change their analysis and before that analysis is complete more variables changes that. What casters really need is to pause the game and actually have the time to say everything that needs to be said. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20326 Posts
On June 10 2016 05:49 Naracs_Duc wrote: This is not from lack of skill or awareness (I mean, partially it is, but not totally) The issue for casters is not about being able to give detailed analysis, as most of the casters know damn well what they are seeing. The issue is that analysis comes with prediction--and prediction comes with being wrong. When you see a line of play, and you know there are 10 ways it could go from there, and based on player history you know he is more likely to do 5 of them--but when casting you have 1-2 seconds to pick one of those 5 as "what the player is trying to do" with full knowledge you have an 80% chance of being wrong. You know what happens when you get it wrong despite knowing it was one of the possible lines of play? You get ridiculed by the community for being a no nothing piece of shit who is a waste of space on the game. Because of that, casters are implicitly taught to be vague and un-committing in their tactical analysis. Giving basic play-by-play does not require making wrong predictions. I'm talking about stuff like noting the order of buildings - if somebody built 3 hatches before pool or hatch-gas-pool, if they took gas, if they pulled off gas at 100, 200 or at all. If they opened gate first or nexus first, if they built 1 gate or 2 before the cybernetics core.. if they built extra gateways before or after tech buildings, if specific upgrades are being researched, etcetcetc. This is the sort of thing that you're looking for constantly with scouts when you're actually playing the game, the information that you need to know to make an accurate assessment of the game state to then make all of the important decisions. Back in WOL and HOTS, i disliked but partially understood many casters being alt tabbed out of the game for the first 4 minutes but when it's happening in Legacy even though so much stuff is happening.. When casters let all of this stuff fly by more often than they call any of it out it's so much harder to follow a game in an analytical fashion. You don't have to be scared of making the wrong predictions, just talk about what is happening. If a blind person can have even a vague idea of what's happening in the game then you've done a good job. | ||
|
Bill Murray
United States9292 Posts
| ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
AssyrianKing
Australia2116 Posts
| ||
|
Thinh123456
70 Posts
On June 13 2016 20:21 AssyrianKing wrote: The game speed is fine. Personally I think the game takes off too quickly. The whole thing of taking bases quicker because you are forced to still doesn't sit well with me. I really liked the BWesque idea where mining wasn't so linear/effective, so to maximize the efficiency of mining you had to spread out your workers across multiple bases. This is why TL and many people suggested new economy like DH economy to the game in the beta. Unfortunately, it was not enough to atleast pursuade Blizzard to let us test this economy. | ||
|
swissman777
1106 Posts
On June 10 2016 05:49 Naracs_Duc wrote: This is not from lack of skill or awareness (I mean, partially it is, but not totally) The issue for casters is not about being able to give detailed analysis, as most of the casters know damn well what they are seeing. The issue is that analysis comes with prediction--and prediction comes with being wrong. When you see a line of play, and you know there are 10 ways it could go from there, and based on player history you know he is more likely to do 5 of them--but when casting you have 1-2 seconds to pick one of those 5 as "what the player is trying to do" with full knowledge you have an 80% chance of being wrong. You know what happens when you get it wrong despite knowing it was one of the possible lines of play? You get ridiculed by the community for being a no nothing piece of shit who is a waste of space on the game. Because of that, casters are implicitly taught to be vague and un-committing in their tactical analysis. Yet Canata does it often and accurately. Also, people can "predict" and not say it's certain. That why people say "I think". | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
WhosQuany
Germany257 Posts
On April 15 2016 15:46 Laul wrote: Well that's not 'thoughts' more-so orders. I'm not complaining, no need to be rude. It's not an issue of skill, I'm just asking people what they think of game speed, jeez >.> Well i do think that it is kinda fast, maybe just a bit! But if you do go and make a Custom game with slower speed i dont belive it will be more fun(i just get bored). In BW you had so much to do macro wise that the game speed was perfect imo But in SC2 you have a lot of Automated Macro Mechanics which gives more room for other things to answer you Question yes i do but i wouldn`t change it | ||
|
Naracs_Duc
746 Posts
On June 13 2016 22:26 swissman777 wrote: Yet Canata does it often and accurately. Also, people can "predict" and not say it's certain. That why people say "I think". Being able to find exceptions does not invalidate the whole trend. There are many many casters out there who don't get it right, and hence focus and emphasize other parts of the game. For the most part, that's good, because unless you're already good at this game the actual analysis won't really mean much to you. | ||
|
_Major
United States107 Posts
One of the posters here said something like, (I'm paraphrasing) "Speed feels fine when I win, and too fast when I lose." I totally agree with that! And here are three reasons why: 1) The speed/pacing isn't the same for every game; it is a characteristic of the matchup and the units in play (e.g. ZvZ is pretty different from TvT). 2) The speed/pacing isn't constant either because the units in play and the state of the map aren't constant. 3) Having the initiative means setting the tempo and keeping your opponents at least one step behind. This is why game speed is the defining component of any SC2 strategy. Every decision you make could be boiled down to speed. Do I want to speed up the pace of this game (direct aggression/offensive tech)? Maintain the speed (build/expand)? Or slow it down(harass/defensive tech)? Some want to end the game in round 1; some want to stretch it out to the middle rounds before going for a knockout; others want to go the full 12 rounds. When you're in the shit, you find out what your opponent wants to do and then you adjust your plan to account for thier strategy. How you use your army to affect the speed of the game is mostly a tactical decision. The direction to actively change or maintain the speed of the game is where the strategy comes in. | ||
|
ilililililililiii
United States93 Posts
| ||
|
imp42
398 Posts
1) One concept is about how much a player is rewarded for one additional action. The best example here are the maximum number of units per control group allowed in bw and sc2. In bw you have to control groups of max. 12 units separately = big reward. In sc2 you can move all units with 1 command (2 actions: select, move). Therefore giving much less reward for players using 2 control groups, although it is still beneficial. The more he is rewarded per additional action, the faster (as in more actions per time) a player will play. 2) The other concept is about how fast things happen in the game. How long does it take for one medivac full of marines to take out a hatchery? How many seconds does it take for a battle between two fully maxed armies to finish? These two concepts are not the same, rather the latter influences the former. If a battle happens too fast, the reward for an additional action like microing a single unit diminishes to the point that it is not worth it. This is what other posters have described as "more speed = less control". I argue that: - concept 1 is what makes a game great and distinguishes good from bad players. - concept 2 just increases variance (read: chance), thereby narrowing the gap between good and bad players. Unfortunately, Blizzard seems to push concept 2, which negatively influences concept 1 | ||
|
Inazuma
17 Posts
Right now, it is hard to have good macro at low to mid tier levels of play because things build so fast, players forget to build workers, supplies, train units, etc. Obviously this lowers the skill cap of multitasking... | ||
|
_Major
United States107 Posts
On July 28 2016 03:44 imp42 wrote: I get the impression that many readers/posters confuse two concepts when talking about "speed". + Show Spoiler + 1) One concept is about how much a player is rewarded for one additional action. The best example here are the maximum number of units per control group allowed in bw and sc2. In bw you have to control groups of max. 12 units separately = big reward. In sc2 you can move all units with 1 command (2 actions: select, move). Therefore giving much less reward for players using 2 control groups, although it is still beneficial. The more he is rewarded per additional action, the faster (as in more actions per time) a player will play. 2) The other concept is about how fast things happen in the game. How long does it take for one medivac full of marines to take out a hatchery? How many seconds does it take for a battle between two fully maxed armies to finish? These two concepts are not the same, rather the latter influences the former. If a battle happens too fast, the reward for an additional action like microing a single unit diminishes to the point that it is not worth it. This is what other posters have described as "more speed = less control". I argue that: - concept 1 is what makes a game great and distinguishes good from bad players. - concept 2 just increases variance (read: chance), thereby narrowing the gap between good and bad players. Unfortunately, Blizzard seems to push concept 2, which negatively influences concept 1 The 2nd concept doesn't exist in a vacuum. The value and opportunity costs of the units have to be factored in too. Superior control (upgrading, supporting, and microing units to increase their lifespans) will still be worth it, because favorable tradeoffs are the key to keeping/taking the iniative. Superior control is also what opens the door for more advanced strategies like gambits because strategic sacrifices can be pulled off convincingly. | ||
| ||
