yeah, getting rid of 5mins of making one worker at a time and staring at your base while counting sheep is soooo terrible!!! bring back the excitement!!! /s
also avilo moaning about having 12 workers to start with is all the validation anyone should need that it was a good change
On April 02 2017 03:49 Charoisaur wrote: Don't really agree. It's not strategic depth but a coin-flip because you have to make potentially game-deciding decisions before having the opportunity of gathering information. PartinG losing a GSL because he guessed wrong in game 7 was bullshit.
It isn't a coin filp. It is a skill.
The Patriots won a Superbowl believing the Seahawks were going to throw a slant based on their formation and the number of timeout Seattle had (Seattle was on the 1 yard line with the best rushing offense in the NFL, everyone thought they would run the ball). The Seahawks did throw a slant, and the Patriots intercepted the ball and won. But it wasn't randomness, it was preparation and calculated risk taking. But if the Seahawks didn't throw a slant and made their formation look like it, they might have been able run the ball in easily, and win the Superbowl.
So it isn't a coin flip at all. That is the kind of decision making that is present in every game, including LOTV (if I build an Oracle and without knowing I have a Stargate you place a Widow Mine in your mineral line, that isn't a coin flip, as Bill Belichick says, something might just not look right). The problem is that LOTV has removed a lot of the decision making from the game, and that is why it is stale.
You have to micro, have to macro, but the behind the scenes is significantly diminished. The preparation and build order planning, the skill I brought to Starcraft, was beating my opponent with preparation before the game began with unique build orders behind the scenes
It's sad that I can't do exactly what Sun Tzu says all warfare is based on: deception, in a strategy game! I used to like to make it look like I'm taking a third and throw an all-in at you. Or make it look like an all-in while I take a hidden base. It forces you to scout, react, and think, not just mindlessly macro and micro. But while you're thinking on your feet, I'm executing a game plan I made long before the game. And that is how I won a lot games in WOL, by out thinking my opponent because I'm not great at micro or macro.
"All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.” ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
And that's why the Patriots win, behind the scenes the players are supported by a system that tries to understand what their opponent is going to do, and the counter it, before the game begins.
And thus, the outcome of that play in the Superbowl, just like Parting's GSL 7 game, was decided before the game began. That isn't a coin flip at all. Stating it is disrespectful to the skill and preparation that goes on behind the scene.
There is a reason we had so most repeat GSL Code S champions in the first year of the GSL, the most volatile of the all years in terms of gameplay. Starsense is real and a skill.
what a disgusting way to think about strategy
as far as Im concerned the only justification for Fog of War is removing it would make the game boring
Is this sarcasm? The whole point of strategy games is decision making based on incomplete information. This is a fundamental aspect of many games, ranging from poker to a variety of video games like RTS, MOBA, FPS. You can even find it in games with so-called "perfect information" like chess and fighting games. It is what distinguishes competitive games played by humans against humans from other genres of puzzles, challenges, feats of skill.
So yeah, "removing it would make the game boring". Starcraft is supposed to be a strategy game, not a comparison of who has the best micro execution. If the game and the players can no longer evolve strategically then what's the point?
The fact that you refer to Poker as a strategy game says everything about how our definitions of strategy clearly differ from one another. Poker is a mathematically trivial gambling game.
That aside, removing Fog of War in StarCraft wouldnt make it a comparison of who has the best micro execution. It would still be about understanding the game strategically and tactically, and mechanics. What would make it boring, though, is how silly the games would play out.
The point of poker is that you can read your opponents and therefore determine the cards they have, which affects your calculations. In this sense it is not mathematically trivial, because your data is based on psychological interpretation using factors as your knowledge of his playing strength, 'tells', patterns, capacity for deception, preparation.
This is also why I mentioned fighting games, as you clearly see the same structure there: the necessity to predict your opponent's actions based on 'tells', or patterns in his movement, because you can't block an attack if you play in a purely reactive manner due to limits to human cognition such as reflexes.
Applying this to Starcraft 2 we discover the following: you are not blind, you have the option to scout and investigate your opponent's behaviors and react appropriately. If you fail to get sufficient information you can invest resources into acquiring more of it (scans, sacrificial scouts etc.). Based on the context of the game (your opponent's strength, history etc.) you can elect to play more safely, or to take more risks. You are not playing a computer who blindly gambles every game with perfect execution.
Maybe you can't win every game, but it's idiotic to pretend like the better player is not statistically favorable in a match with a system like this. Structurally it's sound, but Blizzard needs to secure that all the parts are in working order.
On April 03 2017 03:15 waiting2Bbanned wrote: yeah, getting rid of 5mins of making one worker at a time and staring at your base while counting sheep is soooo terrible!!! bring back the excitement!!! /s
also avilo moaning about having 12 workers to start with is all the validation anyone should need that it was a good change
afaik the balance between tech and economy is different after the 12 worker change. Specifically, you have more income by the time you have to choose your tech options. Also, the time line for tech tends to be linear (e.g. gateway -> cyber core -> twilight council -> blink research), and the build times for all these have been generally increased over the years. This means that the cost is less of a factor than it used to be (higher economy), and the result is that research will come online around the same time for both players. What this means is that investing into tech options is no longer something that can really distinguish builds, hence the annihilation of them as a separate category. (this is more theoretical and based on old analysis though, in any case, if Blizzard were to follow up on it a solution might be to decrease the build time of some tech options by a bit)
On April 02 2017 03:49 Charoisaur wrote: Don't really agree. It's not strategic depth but a coin-flip because you have to make potentially game-deciding decisions before having the opportunity of gathering information. PartinG losing a GSL because he guessed wrong in game 7 was bullshit.
It isn't a coin filp. It is a skill.
The Patriots won a Superbowl believing the Seahawks were going to throw a slant based on their formation and the number of timeout Seattle had (Seattle was on the 1 yard line with the best rushing offense in the NFL, everyone thought they would run the ball). The Seahawks did throw a slant, and the Patriots intercepted the ball and won. But it wasn't randomness, it was preparation and calculated risk taking. But if the Seahawks didn't throw a slant and made their formation look like it, they might have been able run the ball in easily, and win the Superbowl.
So it isn't a coin flip at all. That is the kind of decision making that is present in every game, including LOTV (if I build an Oracle and without knowing I have a Stargate you place a Widow Mine in your mineral line, that isn't a coin flip, as Bill Belichick says, something might just not look right). The problem is that LOTV has removed a lot of the decision making from the game, and that is why it is stale.
You have to micro, have to macro, but the behind the scenes is significantly diminished. The preparation and build order planning, the skill I brought to Starcraft, was beating my opponent with preparation before the game began with unique build orders behind the scenes
It's sad that I can't do exactly what Sun Tzu says all warfare is based on: deception, in a strategy game! I used to like to make it look like I'm taking a third and throw an all-in at you. Or make it look like an all-in while I take a hidden base. It forces you to scout, react, and think, not just mindlessly macro and micro. But while you're thinking on your feet, I'm executing a game plan I made long before the game. And that is how I won a lot games in WOL, by out thinking my opponent because I'm not great at micro or macro.
"All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.” ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
And that's why the Patriots win, behind the scenes the players are supported by a system that tries to understand what their opponent is going to do, and the counter it, before the game begins.
And thus, the outcome of that play in the Superbowl, just like Parting's GSL 7 game, was decided before the game began. That isn't a coin flip at all. Stating it is disrespectful to the skill and preparation that goes on behind the scene.
There is a reason we had so most repeat GSL Code S champions in the first year of the GSL, the most volatile of the all years in terms of gameplay. Starsense is real and a skill.
what a disgusting way to think about strategy
as far as Im concerned the only justification for Fog of War is removing it would make the game boring
Is this sarcasm? The whole point of strategy games is decision making based on incomplete information. This is a fundamental aspect of many games, ranging from poker to a variety of video games like RTS, MOBA, FPS. You can even find it in games with so-called "perfect information" like chess and fighting games. It is what distinguishes competitive games played by humans against humans from other genres of puzzles, challenges, feats of skill.
So yeah, "removing it would make the game boring". Starcraft is supposed to be a strategy game, not a comparison of who has the best micro execution. If the game and the players can no longer evolve strategically then what's the point?
The fact that you refer to Poker as a strategy game says everything about how our definitions of strategy clearly differ from one another. Poker is a mathematically trivial gambling game.
That aside, removing Fog of War in StarCraft wouldnt make it a comparison of who has the best micro execution. It would still be about understanding the game strategically and tactically, and mechanics. What would make it boring, though, is how silly the games would play out.
The point of poker is that you can read your opponents and therefore determine the cards they have, which affects your calculations. In this sense it is not mathematically trivial, because your data is based on psychological interpretation using factors as your knowledge of his playing strength, 'tells', patterns, capacity for deception, preparation.
This is also why I mentioned fighting games, as you clearly see the same structure there: the necessity to predict your opponent's actions based on 'tells', or patterns in his movement, because you can't block an attack if you play in a purely reactive manner due to limits to human cognition such as reflexes.
Applying this to Starcraft 2 we discover the following: you are not blind, you have the option to scout and investigate your opponent's behaviors and react appropriately. If you fail to get sufficient information you can invest resources into acquiring more of it (scans, sacrificial scouts etc.). Based on the context of the game (your opponent's strength, history etc.) you can elect to play more safely, or to take more risks. You are not playing a computer who blindly gambles every game with perfect execution.
Maybe you can't win every game, but it's idiotic to pretend like the better player is not statistically favorable in a match with a system like this. Structurally it's sound, but Blizzard needs to secure that all the parts are in working order.
How one can label that which is out of one's control not as coin-flip is beyond me. If you are playing against someone who only ever has 6-pooled, there is no way to know they are going to 6-pool in their next game. You may expect it, you may assume it, you may account for that eventuality when deciding upon your opening of choice, etc however there is no certainty.
The reason why Fog of War can be tolerated is that a game such as StarCraft allows a strategically and mechanichally superior player to overcome bad luck reasonably consistently.
On April 02 2017 03:49 Charoisaur wrote: Don't really agree. It's not strategic depth but a coin-flip because you have to make potentially game-deciding decisions before having the opportunity of gathering information. PartinG losing a GSL because he guessed wrong in game 7 was bullshit.
It isn't a coin filp. It is a skill.
The Patriots won a Superbowl believing the Seahawks were going to throw a slant based on their formation and the number of timeout Seattle had (Seattle was on the 1 yard line with the best rushing offense in the NFL, everyone thought they would run the ball). The Seahawks did throw a slant, and the Patriots intercepted the ball and won. But it wasn't randomness, it was preparation and calculated risk taking. But if the Seahawks didn't throw a slant and made their formation look like it, they might have been able run the ball in easily, and win the Superbowl.
So it isn't a coin flip at all. That is the kind of decision making that is present in every game, including LOTV (if I build an Oracle and without knowing I have a Stargate you place a Widow Mine in your mineral line, that isn't a coin flip, as Bill Belichick says, something might just not look right). The problem is that LOTV has removed a lot of the decision making from the game, and that is why it is stale.
You have to micro, have to macro, but the behind the scenes is significantly diminished. The preparation and build order planning, the skill I brought to Starcraft, was beating my opponent with preparation before the game began with unique build orders behind the scenes
It's sad that I can't do exactly what Sun Tzu says all warfare is based on: deception, in a strategy game! I used to like to make it look like I'm taking a third and throw an all-in at you. Or make it look like an all-in while I take a hidden base. It forces you to scout, react, and think, not just mindlessly macro and micro. But while you're thinking on your feet, I'm executing a game plan I made long before the game. And that is how I won a lot games in WOL, by out thinking my opponent because I'm not great at micro or macro.
"All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.” ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
And that's why the Patriots win, behind the scenes the players are supported by a system that tries to understand what their opponent is going to do, and the counter it, before the game begins.
And thus, the outcome of that play in the Superbowl, just like Parting's GSL 7 game, was decided before the game began. That isn't a coin flip at all. Stating it is disrespectful to the skill and preparation that goes on behind the scene.
There is a reason we had so most repeat GSL Code S champions in the first year of the GSL, the most volatile of the all years in terms of gameplay. Starsense is real and a skill.
what a disgusting way to think about strategy
as far as Im concerned the only justification for Fog of War is removing it would make the game boring
Is this sarcasm? The whole point of strategy games is decision making based on incomplete information. This is a fundamental aspect of many games, ranging from poker to a variety of video games like RTS, MOBA, FPS. You can even find it in games with so-called "perfect information" like chess and fighting games. It is what distinguishes competitive games played by humans against humans from other genres of puzzles, challenges, feats of skill.
So yeah, "removing it would make the game boring". Starcraft is supposed to be a strategy game, not a comparison of who has the best micro execution. If the game and the players can no longer evolve strategically then what's the point?
The fact that you refer to Poker as a strategy game says everything about how our definitions of strategy clearly differ from one another. Poker is a mathematically trivial gambling game.
On April 02 2017 03:49 Charoisaur wrote: Don't really agree. It's not strategic depth but a coin-flip because you have to make potentially game-deciding decisions before having the opportunity of gathering information. PartinG losing a GSL because he guessed wrong in game 7 was bullshit.
It isn't a coin filp. It is a skill.
The Patriots won a Superbowl believing the Seahawks were going to throw a slant based on their formation and the number of timeout Seattle had (Seattle was on the 1 yard line with the best rushing offense in the NFL, everyone thought they would run the ball). The Seahawks did throw a slant, and the Patriots intercepted the ball and won. But it wasn't randomness, it was preparation and calculated risk taking. But if the Seahawks didn't throw a slant and made their formation look like it, they might have been able run the ball in easily, and win the Superbowl.
So it isn't a coin flip at all. That is the kind of decision making that is present in every game, including LOTV (if I build an Oracle and without knowing I have a Stargate you place a Widow Mine in your mineral line, that isn't a coin flip, as Bill Belichick says, something might just not look right). The problem is that LOTV has removed a lot of the decision making from the game, and that is why it is stale.
You have to micro, have to macro, but the behind the scenes is significantly diminished. The preparation and build order planning, the skill I brought to Starcraft, was beating my opponent with preparation before the game began with unique build orders behind the scenes
It's sad that I can't do exactly what Sun Tzu says all warfare is based on: deception, in a strategy game! I used to like to make it look like I'm taking a third and throw an all-in at you. Or make it look like an all-in while I take a hidden base. It forces you to scout, react, and think, not just mindlessly macro and micro. But while you're thinking on your feet, I'm executing a game plan I made long before the game. And that is how I won a lot games in WOL, by out thinking my opponent because I'm not great at micro or macro.
"All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.” ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
And that's why the Patriots win, behind the scenes the players are supported by a system that tries to understand what their opponent is going to do, and the counter it, before the game begins.
And thus, the outcome of that play in the Superbowl, just like Parting's GSL 7 game, was decided before the game began. That isn't a coin flip at all. Stating it is disrespectful to the skill and preparation that goes on behind the scene.
There is a reason we had so most repeat GSL Code S champions in the first year of the GSL, the most volatile of the all years in terms of gameplay. Starsense is real and a skill.
what a disgusting way to think about strategy
as far as Im concerned the only justification for Fog of War is removing it would make the game boring
Is this sarcasm? The whole point of strategy games is decision making based on incomplete information. This is a fundamental aspect of many games, ranging from poker to a variety of video games like RTS, MOBA, FPS. You can even find it in games with so-called "perfect information" like chess and fighting games. It is what distinguishes competitive games played by humans against humans from other genres of puzzles, challenges, feats of skill.
So yeah, "removing it would make the game boring". Starcraft is supposed to be a strategy game, not a comparison of who has the best micro execution. If the game and the players can no longer evolve strategically then what's the point?
The fact that you refer to Poker as a strategy game says everything about how our definitions of strategy clearly differ from one another. Poker is a mathematically trivial gambling game.
This is false. The least complex commonly played form of poker, Limit Texas Hold'em was only "kind of" (it's ~close~) solved last year, after years of work in academia. More complex (and more popular) forms of poker such as No Limit Texas Hold'em and Pot Limit Omaha, on the other hand, are, depending on how you calculate it, more complex, and possibly harder to solve than Chess.
edit: Try to think of a game that becomes more complex when each player is given perfect information. Now think of a game that becomes less trivial (more complex) due to withholding information. Now it should be plain to see that the amount of information given to each player at time of play is essential to complexity. (and ~strategy~) If anything, StarCraft would become more trivial with full maphacks.
?
At any given time, it's trivial to calculate the chances of all eventual scenarios.
Because which scenario occurs is out of your control it is by definition gambling.
On April 02 2017 03:49 Charoisaur wrote: Don't really agree. It's not strategic depth but a coin-flip because you have to make potentially game-deciding decisions before having the opportunity of gathering information. PartinG losing a GSL because he guessed wrong in game 7 was bullshit.
It isn't a coin filp. It is a skill.
The Patriots won a Superbowl believing the Seahawks were going to throw a slant based on their formation and the number of timeout Seattle had (Seattle was on the 1 yard line with the best rushing offense in the NFL, everyone thought they would run the ball). The Seahawks did throw a slant, and the Patriots intercepted the ball and won. But it wasn't randomness, it was preparation and calculated risk taking. But if the Seahawks didn't throw a slant and made their formation look like it, they might have been able run the ball in easily, and win the Superbowl.
So it isn't a coin flip at all. That is the kind of decision making that is present in every game, including LOTV (if I build an Oracle and without knowing I have a Stargate you place a Widow Mine in your mineral line, that isn't a coin flip, as Bill Belichick says, something might just not look right). The problem is that LOTV has removed a lot of the decision making from the game, and that is why it is stale.
You have to micro, have to macro, but the behind the scenes is significantly diminished. The preparation and build order planning, the skill I brought to Starcraft, was beating my opponent with preparation before the game began with unique build orders behind the scenes
It's sad that I can't do exactly what Sun Tzu says all warfare is based on: deception, in a strategy game! I used to like to make it look like I'm taking a third and throw an all-in at you. Or make it look like an all-in while I take a hidden base. It forces you to scout, react, and think, not just mindlessly macro and micro. But while you're thinking on your feet, I'm executing a game plan I made long before the game. And that is how I won a lot games in WOL, by out thinking my opponent because I'm not great at micro or macro.
"All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.” ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
And that's why the Patriots win, behind the scenes the players are supported by a system that tries to understand what their opponent is going to do, and the counter it, before the game begins.
And thus, the outcome of that play in the Superbowl, just like Parting's GSL 7 game, was decided before the game began. That isn't a coin flip at all. Stating it is disrespectful to the skill and preparation that goes on behind the scene.
There is a reason we had so most repeat GSL Code S champions in the first year of the GSL, the most volatile of the all years in terms of gameplay. Starsense is real and a skill.
what a disgusting way to think about strategy
as far as Im concerned the only justification for Fog of War is removing it would make the game boring
Is this sarcasm? The whole point of strategy games is decision making based on incomplete information. This is a fundamental aspect of many games, ranging from poker to a variety of video games like RTS, MOBA, FPS. You can even find it in games with so-called "perfect information" like chess and fighting games. It is what distinguishes competitive games played by humans against humans from other genres of puzzles, challenges, feats of skill.
So yeah, "removing it would make the game boring". Starcraft is supposed to be a strategy game, not a comparison of who has the best micro execution. If the game and the players can no longer evolve strategically then what's the point?
The fact that you refer to Poker as a strategy game says everything about how our definitions of strategy clearly differ from one another. Poker is a mathematically trivial gambling game.
This is false. The least complex commonly played form of poker, Limit Texas Hold'em was only "kind of" (it's ~close~) solved last year, after years of work in academia. More complex (and more popular) forms of poker such as No Limit Texas Hold'em and Pot Limit Omaha, on the other hand, are, depending on how you calculate it, more complex, and possibly harder to solve than Chess.
edit: Try to think of a game that becomes more complex when each player is given perfect information. Now think of a game that becomes less trivial (more complex) due to withholding information. Now it should be plain to see that the amount of information given to each player at time of play is essential to complexity. (and ~strategy~) If anything, StarCraft would become more trivial with full maphacks.
?
At any given time, it's trivial to calculate the chances of all eventual scenarios.
Because which scenario occurs is out of your control it is by definition gambling.
Not so trivial. This is an example game from a paper released on the subject.
Solving this game using a standard CFR implementation (2 double-precision floats per canonical infoset-action) would require 1 093 904 897 704 962 796 073 602 182 381 684 993 342 477 620 192 821 835 370 553 460 959 511 144 423 474 321 165 844 409 860 820 294 170 754 032 777 335 927 196 407 795 204 128 259 033 (1.094 × 10138) yottabytes of RAM
As per your comment on anything that is out of one's control being gambling... I don't care how you define gambling, but even if something happening is out of your control, you may just as well adjust to the chances of specific things happening and therefore guarantee yourself better chances of winning a game. This is very much so strategy, and games of imperfect information indeed become super complex because there are so many things you have to prepare for.
On April 02 2017 03:49 Charoisaur wrote: Don't really agree. It's not strategic depth but a coin-flip because you have to make potentially game-deciding decisions before having the opportunity of gathering information. PartinG losing a GSL because he guessed wrong in game 7 was bullshit.
It isn't a coin filp. It is a skill.
The Patriots won a Superbowl believing the Seahawks were going to throw a slant based on their formation and the number of timeout Seattle had (Seattle was on the 1 yard line with the best rushing offense in the NFL, everyone thought they would run the ball). The Seahawks did throw a slant, and the Patriots intercepted the ball and won. But it wasn't randomness, it was preparation and calculated risk taking. But if the Seahawks didn't throw a slant and made their formation look like it, they might have been able run the ball in easily, and win the Superbowl.
So it isn't a coin flip at all. That is the kind of decision making that is present in every game, including LOTV (if I build an Oracle and without knowing I have a Stargate you place a Widow Mine in your mineral line, that isn't a coin flip, as Bill Belichick says, something might just not look right). The problem is that LOTV has removed a lot of the decision making from the game, and that is why it is stale.
You have to micro, have to macro, but the behind the scenes is significantly diminished. The preparation and build order planning, the skill I brought to Starcraft, was beating my opponent with preparation before the game began with unique build orders behind the scenes
It's sad that I can't do exactly what Sun Tzu says all warfare is based on: deception, in a strategy game! I used to like to make it look like I'm taking a third and throw an all-in at you. Or make it look like an all-in while I take a hidden base. It forces you to scout, react, and think, not just mindlessly macro and micro. But while you're thinking on your feet, I'm executing a game plan I made long before the game. And that is how I won a lot games in WOL, by out thinking my opponent because I'm not great at micro or macro.
"All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.” ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
And that's why the Patriots win, behind the scenes the players are supported by a system that tries to understand what their opponent is going to do, and the counter it, before the game begins.
And thus, the outcome of that play in the Superbowl, just like Parting's GSL 7 game, was decided before the game began. That isn't a coin flip at all. Stating it is disrespectful to the skill and preparation that goes on behind the scene.
There is a reason we had so most repeat GSL Code S champions in the first year of the GSL, the most volatile of the all years in terms of gameplay. Starsense is real and a skill.
what a disgusting way to think about strategy
as far as Im concerned the only justification for Fog of War is removing it would make the game boring
Is this sarcasm? The whole point of strategy games is decision making based on incomplete information. This is a fundamental aspect of many games, ranging from poker to a variety of video games like RTS, MOBA, FPS. You can even find it in games with so-called "perfect information" like chess and fighting games. It is what distinguishes competitive games played by humans against humans from other genres of puzzles, challenges, feats of skill.
So yeah, "removing it would make the game boring". Starcraft is supposed to be a strategy game, not a comparison of who has the best micro execution. If the game and the players can no longer evolve strategically then what's the point?
The fact that you refer to Poker as a strategy game says everything about how our definitions of strategy clearly differ from one another. Poker is a mathematically trivial gambling game.
That aside, removing Fog of War in StarCraft wouldnt make it a comparison of who has the best micro execution. It would still be about understanding the game strategically and tactically, and mechanics. What would make it boring, though, is how silly the games would play out.
The point of poker is that you can read your opponents and therefore determine the cards they have, which affects your calculations. In this sense it is not mathematically trivial, because your data is based on psychological interpretation using factors as your knowledge of his playing strength, 'tells', patterns, capacity for deception, preparation.
This is also why I mentioned fighting games, as you clearly see the same structure there: the necessity to predict your opponent's actions based on 'tells', or patterns in his movement, because you can't block an attack if you play in a purely reactive manner due to limits to human cognition such as reflexes.
Applying this to Starcraft 2 we discover the following: you are not blind, you have the option to scout and investigate your opponent's behaviors and react appropriately. If you fail to get sufficient information you can invest resources into acquiring more of it (scans, sacrificial scouts etc.). Based on the context of the game (your opponent's strength, history etc.) you can elect to play more safely, or to take more risks. You are not playing a computer who blindly gambles every game with perfect execution.
Maybe you can't win every game, but it's idiotic to pretend like the better player is not statistically favorable in a match with a system like this. Structurally it's sound, but Blizzard needs to secure that all the parts are in working order.
How one can label that which is out of one's control not as coin-flip is beyond me. If you are playing against someone who only ever has 6-pooled, there is no way to know they are going to 6-pool in their next game. You may expect it, you may assume it, you may account for that eventuality when deciding upon your opening of choice, etc however there is no certainty.
The reason why Fog of War can be tolerated is that a game such as StarCraft allows a strategically and mechanichally superior player to overcome bad luck reasonably consistently.
You're using coin-flip as a derogatory word, but I think it would be very foolish to dismiss all random behavior in games like this. Given sufficient random events, parity is the overwhelmingly likely possibility. Every successful competitive game is rife with randomness (or at least actions you could not predict), its advantages are manifold including creating more excitement for viewers, more options for players, deeper strategies. It is part of the wider idea that you want players to be able to react to unpredictable events, because that is what shows true skill. Anyone can memorize an opening, but not everyone can respond well to an unexpected move.
The pitfalls of "coin flips" in SC2 are well known, of course, but it's an implementation problem. Honestly, the fact that you would so casually dismiss a core aspect of RTS gameplay just tells me you don't know what you're talking about and are distracting from more useful discussion.
On April 02 2017 03:49 Charoisaur wrote: Don't really agree. It's not strategic depth but a coin-flip because you have to make potentially game-deciding decisions before having the opportunity of gathering information. PartinG losing a GSL because he guessed wrong in game 7 was bullshit.
It isn't a coin filp. It is a skill.
The Patriots won a Superbowl believing the Seahawks were going to throw a slant based on their formation and the number of timeout Seattle had (Seattle was on the 1 yard line with the best rushing offense in the NFL, everyone thought they would run the ball). The Seahawks did throw a slant, and the Patriots intercepted the ball and won. But it wasn't randomness, it was preparation and calculated risk taking. But if the Seahawks didn't throw a slant and made their formation look like it, they might have been able run the ball in easily, and win the Superbowl.
So it isn't a coin flip at all. That is the kind of decision making that is present in every game, including LOTV (if I build an Oracle and without knowing I have a Stargate you place a Widow Mine in your mineral line, that isn't a coin flip, as Bill Belichick says, something might just not look right). The problem is that LOTV has removed a lot of the decision making from the game, and that is why it is stale.
You have to micro, have to macro, but the behind the scenes is significantly diminished. The preparation and build order planning, the skill I brought to Starcraft, was beating my opponent with preparation before the game began with unique build orders behind the scenes
It's sad that I can't do exactly what Sun Tzu says all warfare is based on: deception, in a strategy game! I used to like to make it look like I'm taking a third and throw an all-in at you. Or make it look like an all-in while I take a hidden base. It forces you to scout, react, and think, not just mindlessly macro and micro. But while you're thinking on your feet, I'm executing a game plan I made long before the game. And that is how I won a lot games in WOL, by out thinking my opponent because I'm not great at micro or macro.
"All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.” ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
And that's why the Patriots win, behind the scenes the players are supported by a system that tries to understand what their opponent is going to do, and the counter it, before the game begins.
And thus, the outcome of that play in the Superbowl, just like Parting's GSL 7 game, was decided before the game began. That isn't a coin flip at all. Stating it is disrespectful to the skill and preparation that goes on behind the scene.
There is a reason we had so most repeat GSL Code S champions in the first year of the GSL, the most volatile of the all years in terms of gameplay. Starsense is real and a skill.
what a disgusting way to think about strategy
as far as Im concerned the only justification for Fog of War is removing it would make the game boring
Is this sarcasm? The whole point of strategy games is decision making based on incomplete information. This is a fundamental aspect of many games, ranging from poker to a variety of video games like RTS, MOBA, FPS. You can even find it in games with so-called "perfect information" like chess and fighting games. It is what distinguishes competitive games played by humans against humans from other genres of puzzles, challenges, feats of skill.
So yeah, "removing it would make the game boring". Starcraft is supposed to be a strategy game, not a comparison of who has the best micro execution. If the game and the players can no longer evolve strategically then what's the point?
The fact that you refer to Poker as a strategy game says everything about how our definitions of strategy clearly differ from one another. Poker is a mathematically trivial gambling game.
This is false. The least complex commonly played form of poker, Limit Texas Hold'em was only "kind of" (it's ~close~) solved last year, after years of work in academia. More complex (and more popular) forms of poker such as No Limit Texas Hold'em and Pot Limit Omaha, on the other hand, are, depending on how you calculate it, more complex, and possibly harder to solve than Chess.
edit: Try to think of a game that becomes more complex when each player is given perfect information. Now think of a game that becomes less trivial (more complex) due to withholding information. Now it should be plain to see that the amount of information given to each player at time of play is essential to complexity. (and ~strategy~) If anything, StarCraft would become more trivial with full maphacks.
?
At any given time, it's trivial to calculate the chances of all eventual scenarios.
Because which scenario occurs is out of your control it is by definition gambling.
Not so trivial. This is an example game from a paper released on the subject.
As per your comment on anything that is out of one's control being gambling... I don't care how you define gambling, but even if something happening is out of your control, you may just as well adjust to the chances of specific things happening and therefore guarantee yourself better chances of winning a game. This is very much so strategy, and games of imperfect information indeed become super complex because there are so many things you have to prepare for.
You dont seem to understand what trivial means in a mathematical sense.
All in all I dont really think we disagree much at all - our choice of words and definitions simply appear to be different.
On April 02 2017 03:37 Chris_Havoc wrote: This article expalins a lot of why I haven't liked LOTV since day 1.
12 starting workers and the forced aggression/harassment that resulted from it removed so many different variables from the early and even mid games.
I feel the 12 worker start is the worst change sc2 has ever seen. I never felt like I had to sit and wait for things to get going in the older versions. It was just the right amount to allow you to ease into the game and get warmed up. Now it feels like I have to take a base all the time instead of doing the things I feel the game should be about. They ruined the macro/micro/mechanics balance at a fundamental level in my opinion.
On April 02 2017 03:49 Charoisaur wrote: Don't really agree. It's not strategic depth but a coin-flip because you have to make potentially game-deciding decisions before having the opportunity of gathering information. PartinG losing a GSL because he guessed wrong in game 7 was bullshit.
It isn't a coin filp. It is a skill.
The Patriots won a Superbowl believing the Seahawks were going to throw a slant based on their formation and the number of timeout Seattle had (Seattle was on the 1 yard line with the best rushing offense in the NFL, everyone thought they would run the ball). The Seahawks did throw a slant, and the Patriots intercepted the ball and won. But it wasn't randomness, it was preparation and calculated risk taking. But if the Seahawks didn't throw a slant and made their formation look like it, they might have been able run the ball in easily, and win the Superbowl.
So it isn't a coin flip at all. That is the kind of decision making that is present in every game, including LOTV (if I build an Oracle and without knowing I have a Stargate you place a Widow Mine in your mineral line, that isn't a coin flip, as Bill Belichick says, something might just not look right). The problem is that LOTV has removed a lot of the decision making from the game, and that is why it is stale.
You have to micro, have to macro, but the behind the scenes is significantly diminished. The preparation and build order planning, the skill I brought to Starcraft, was beating my opponent with preparation before the game began with unique build orders behind the scenes
It's sad that I can't do exactly what Sun Tzu says all warfare is based on: deception, in a strategy game! I used to like to make it look like I'm taking a third and throw an all-in at you. Or make it look like an all-in while I take a hidden base. It forces you to scout, react, and think, not just mindlessly macro and micro. But while you're thinking on your feet, I'm executing a game plan I made long before the game. And that is how I won a lot games in WOL, by out thinking my opponent because I'm not great at micro or macro.
"All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.” ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
And that's why the Patriots win, behind the scenes the players are supported by a system that tries to understand what their opponent is going to do, and the counter it, before the game begins.
And thus, the outcome of that play in the Superbowl, just like Parting's GSL 7 game, was decided before the game began. That isn't a coin flip at all. Stating it is disrespectful to the skill and preparation that goes on behind the scene.
There is a reason we had so most repeat GSL Code S champions in the first year of the GSL, the most volatile of the all years in terms of gameplay. Starsense is real and a skill.
what a disgusting way to think about strategy
as far as Im concerned the only justification for Fog of War is removing it would make the game boring
Is this sarcasm? The whole point of strategy games is decision making based on incomplete information. This is a fundamental aspect of many games, ranging from poker to a variety of video games like RTS, MOBA, FPS. You can even find it in games with so-called "perfect information" like chess and fighting games. It is what distinguishes competitive games played by humans against humans from other genres of puzzles, challenges, feats of skill.
So yeah, "removing it would make the game boring". Starcraft is supposed to be a strategy game, not a comparison of who has the best micro execution. If the game and the players can no longer evolve strategically then what's the point?
The fact that you refer to Poker as a strategy game says everything about how our definitions of strategy clearly differ from one another. Poker is a mathematically trivial gambling game.
That aside, removing Fog of War in StarCraft wouldnt make it a comparison of who has the best micro execution. It would still be about understanding the game strategically and tactically, and mechanics. What would make it boring, though, is how silly the games would play out.
The point of poker is that you can read your opponents and therefore determine the cards they have, which affects your calculations. In this sense it is not mathematically trivial, because your data is based on psychological interpretation using factors as your knowledge of his playing strength, 'tells', patterns, capacity for deception, preparation.
This is also why I mentioned fighting games, as you clearly see the same structure there: the necessity to predict your opponent's actions based on 'tells', or patterns in his movement, because you can't block an attack if you play in a purely reactive manner due to limits to human cognition such as reflexes.
Applying this to Starcraft 2 we discover the following: you are not blind, you have the option to scout and investigate your opponent's behaviors and react appropriately. If you fail to get sufficient information you can invest resources into acquiring more of it (scans, sacrificial scouts etc.). Based on the context of the game (your opponent's strength, history etc.) you can elect to play more safely, or to take more risks. You are not playing a computer who blindly gambles every game with perfect execution.
Maybe you can't win every game, but it's idiotic to pretend like the better player is not statistically favorable in a match with a system like this. Structurally it's sound, but Blizzard needs to secure that all the parts are in working order.
How one can label that which is out of one's control not as coin-flip is beyond me. If you are playing against someone who only ever has 6-pooled, there is no way to know they are going to 6-pool in their next game. You may expect it, you may assume it, you may account for that eventuality when deciding upon your opening of choice, etc however there is no certainty.
The reason why Fog of War can be tolerated is that a game such as StarCraft allows a strategically and mechanichally superior player to overcome bad luck reasonably consistently.
You're using coin-flip as a derogatory word, but I think it would be very foolish to dismiss all random behavior in games like this. Given sufficient random events, parity is the overwhelmingly likely possibility. Every successful competitive game is rife with randomness (or at least actions you could not predict), its advantages are manifold including creating more excitement for viewers, more options for players, deeper strategies. It is part of the wider idea that you want players to be able to react to unpredictable events, because that is what shows true skill. Anyone can memorize an opening, but not everyone can respond well to an unexpected move.
The pitfalls of "coin flips" in SC2 are well known, of course, but it's an implementation problem. Honestly, the fact that you would so casually dismiss a core aspect of RTS gameplay just tells me you don't know what you're talking about and are distracting from more useful discussion.
Reading is hard? If you read what I actually wrote you would have realized that I dont disagree with you. I literally wrote removing Fog of War would be a worse evil than keeping it. Somehow that statement makes you think I dismiss Fog of War???
As far as these unpredicted moves you're mentioning go, obviously you are not a good player who understands the game if you dont make adjustments as more information is available to you when adjustments make sense.
On April 02 2017 03:49 Charoisaur wrote: Don't really agree. It's not strategic depth but a coin-flip because you have to make potentially game-deciding decisions before having the opportunity of gathering information. PartinG losing a GSL because he guessed wrong in game 7 was bullshit.
It isn't a coin filp. It is a skill.
The Patriots won a Superbowl believing the Seahawks were going to throw a slant based on their formation and the number of timeout Seattle had (Seattle was on the 1 yard line with the best rushing offense in the NFL, everyone thought they would run the ball). The Seahawks did throw a slant, and the Patriots intercepted the ball and won. But it wasn't randomness, it was preparation and calculated risk taking. But if the Seahawks didn't throw a slant and made their formation look like it, they might have been able run the ball in easily, and win the Superbowl.
So it isn't a coin flip at all. That is the kind of decision making that is present in every game, including LOTV (if I build an Oracle and without knowing I have a Stargate you place a Widow Mine in your mineral line, that isn't a coin flip, as Bill Belichick says, something might just not look right). The problem is that LOTV has removed a lot of the decision making from the game, and that is why it is stale.
You have to micro, have to macro, but the behind the scenes is significantly diminished. The preparation and build order planning, the skill I brought to Starcraft, was beating my opponent with preparation before the game began with unique build orders behind the scenes
It's sad that I can't do exactly what Sun Tzu says all warfare is based on: deception, in a strategy game! I used to like to make it look like I'm taking a third and throw an all-in at you. Or make it look like an all-in while I take a hidden base. It forces you to scout, react, and think, not just mindlessly macro and micro. But while you're thinking on your feet, I'm executing a game plan I made long before the game. And that is how I won a lot games in WOL, by out thinking my opponent because I'm not great at micro or macro.
"All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.” ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
And that's why the Patriots win, behind the scenes the players are supported by a system that tries to understand what their opponent is going to do, and the counter it, before the game begins.
And thus, the outcome of that play in the Superbowl, just like Parting's GSL 7 game, was decided before the game began. That isn't a coin flip at all. Stating it is disrespectful to the skill and preparation that goes on behind the scene.
There is a reason we had so most repeat GSL Code S champions in the first year of the GSL, the most volatile of the all years in terms of gameplay. Starsense is real and a skill.
what a disgusting way to think about strategy
as far as Im concerned the only justification for Fog of War is removing it would make the game boring
Is this sarcasm? The whole point of strategy games is decision making based on incomplete information. This is a fundamental aspect of many games, ranging from poker to a variety of video games like RTS, MOBA, FPS. You can even find it in games with so-called "perfect information" like chess and fighting games. It is what distinguishes competitive games played by humans against humans from other genres of puzzles, challenges, feats of skill.
So yeah, "removing it would make the game boring". Starcraft is supposed to be a strategy game, not a comparison of who has the best micro execution. If the game and the players can no longer evolve strategically then what's the point?
The fact that you refer to Poker as a strategy game says everything about how our definitions of strategy clearly differ from one another. Poker is a mathematically trivial gambling game.
This is false. The least complex commonly played form of poker, Limit Texas Hold'em was only "kind of" (it's ~close~) solved last year, after years of work in academia. More complex (and more popular) forms of poker such as No Limit Texas Hold'em and Pot Limit Omaha, on the other hand, are, depending on how you calculate it, more complex, and possibly harder to solve than Chess.
edit: Try to think of a game that becomes more complex when each player is given perfect information. Now think of a game that becomes less trivial (more complex) due to withholding information. Now it should be plain to see that the amount of information given to each player at time of play is essential to complexity. (and ~strategy~) If anything, StarCraft would become more trivial with full maphacks.
?
At any given time, it's trivial to calculate the chances of all eventual scenarios.
Because which scenario occurs is out of your control it is by definition gambling.
Not so trivial. This is an example game from a paper released on the subject.
Solving this game using a standard CFR implementation (2 double-precision floats per canonical infoset-action) would require 1 093 904 897 704 962 796 073 602 182 381 684 993 342 477 620 192 821 835 370 553 460 959 511 144 423 474 321 165 844 409 860 820 294 170 754 032 777 335 927 196 407 795 204 128 259 033 (1.094 × 10138) yottabytes of RAM
As per your comment on anything that is out of one's control being gambling... I don't care how you define gambling, but even if something happening is out of your control, you may just as well adjust to the chances of specific things happening and therefore guarantee yourself better chances of winning a game. This is very much so strategy, and games of imperfect information indeed become super complex because there are so many things you have to prepare for.
You dont seem to understand what trivial means in a mathematical sense.
All in all I dont really think we disagree much at all - our choice of words and definitions simply appear to be different.
So what exactly do you mean? You said something vague and then every time something takes a reasonable interpretation of your comment you respond by saying that we are all speaking a different language.
Also, something being "trivially mathematically solvable" is an absolutely irrelevant statement given realistic constraints. If poker is "trivially solvable", but it will just take 1000000000000000000000000 years to calculate all to the end, then it has no bearing on the world we live in.
Fighting over jargon is the coolest. Poker is considered "nontrivial" in all the scholarly articles I found in a few minutes of searching. What you got?
On April 02 2017 03:49 Charoisaur wrote: Don't really agree. It's not strategic depth but a coin-flip because you have to make potentially game-deciding decisions before having the opportunity of gathering information. PartinG losing a GSL because he guessed wrong in game 7 was bullshit.
It isn't a coin filp. It is a skill.
The Patriots won a Superbowl believing the Seahawks were going to throw a slant based on their formation and the number of timeout Seattle had (Seattle was on the 1 yard line with the best rushing offense in the NFL, everyone thought they would run the ball). The Seahawks did throw a slant, and the Patriots intercepted the ball and won. But it wasn't randomness, it was preparation and calculated risk taking. But if the Seahawks didn't throw a slant and made their formation look like it, they might have been able run the ball in easily, and win the Superbowl.
So it isn't a coin flip at all. That is the kind of decision making that is present in every game, including LOTV (if I build an Oracle and without knowing I have a Stargate you place a Widow Mine in your mineral line, that isn't a coin flip, as Bill Belichick says, something might just not look right). The problem is that LOTV has removed a lot of the decision making from the game, and that is why it is stale.
You have to micro, have to macro, but the behind the scenes is significantly diminished. The preparation and build order planning, the skill I brought to Starcraft, was beating my opponent with preparation before the game began with unique build orders behind the scenes
It's sad that I can't do exactly what Sun Tzu says all warfare is based on: deception, in a strategy game! I used to like to make it look like I'm taking a third and throw an all-in at you. Or make it look like an all-in while I take a hidden base. It forces you to scout, react, and think, not just mindlessly macro and micro. But while you're thinking on your feet, I'm executing a game plan I made long before the game. And that is how I won a lot games in WOL, by out thinking my opponent because I'm not great at micro or macro.
"All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.” ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
And that's why the Patriots win, behind the scenes the players are supported by a system that tries to understand what their opponent is going to do, and the counter it, before the game begins.
And thus, the outcome of that play in the Superbowl, just like Parting's GSL 7 game, was decided before the game began. That isn't a coin flip at all. Stating it is disrespectful to the skill and preparation that goes on behind the scene.
There is a reason we had so most repeat GSL Code S champions in the first year of the GSL, the most volatile of the all years in terms of gameplay. Starsense is real and a skill.
what a disgusting way to think about strategy
as far as Im concerned the only justification for Fog of War is removing it would make the game boring
Is this sarcasm? The whole point of strategy games is decision making based on incomplete information. This is a fundamental aspect of many games, ranging from poker to a variety of video games like RTS, MOBA, FPS. You can even find it in games with so-called "perfect information" like chess and fighting games. It is what distinguishes competitive games played by humans against humans from other genres of puzzles, challenges, feats of skill.
So yeah, "removing it would make the game boring". Starcraft is supposed to be a strategy game, not a comparison of who has the best micro execution. If the game and the players can no longer evolve strategically then what's the point?
The fact that you refer to Poker as a strategy game says everything about how our definitions of strategy clearly differ from one another. Poker is a mathematically trivial gambling game.
That aside, removing Fog of War in StarCraft wouldnt make it a comparison of who has the best micro execution. It would still be about understanding the game strategically and tactically, and mechanics. What would make it boring, though, is how silly the games would play out.
The point of poker is that you can read your opponents and therefore determine the cards they have, which affects your calculations. In this sense it is not mathematically trivial, because your data is based on psychological interpretation using factors as your knowledge of his playing strength, 'tells', patterns, capacity for deception, preparation.
This is also why I mentioned fighting games, as you clearly see the same structure there: the necessity to predict your opponent's actions based on 'tells', or patterns in his movement, because you can't block an attack if you play in a purely reactive manner due to limits to human cognition such as reflexes.
Applying this to Starcraft 2 we discover the following: you are not blind, you have the option to scout and investigate your opponent's behaviors and react appropriately. If you fail to get sufficient information you can invest resources into acquiring more of it (scans, sacrificial scouts etc.). Based on the context of the game (your opponent's strength, history etc.) you can elect to play more safely, or to take more risks. You are not playing a computer who blindly gambles every game with perfect execution.
Maybe you can't win every game, but it's idiotic to pretend like the better player is not statistically favorable in a match with a system like this. Structurally it's sound, but Blizzard needs to secure that all the parts are in working order.
How one can label that which is out of one's control not as coin-flip is beyond me. If you are playing against someone who only ever has 6-pooled, there is no way to know they are going to 6-pool in their next game. You may expect it, you may assume it, you may account for that eventuality when deciding upon your opening of choice, etc however there is no certainty.
The reason why Fog of War can be tolerated is that a game such as StarCraft allows a strategically and mechanichally superior player to overcome bad luck reasonably consistently.
You're using coin-flip as a derogatory word, but I think it would be very foolish to dismiss all random behavior in games like this. Given sufficient random events, parity is the overwhelmingly likely possibility. Every successful competitive game is rife with randomness (or at least actions you could not predict), its advantages are manifold including creating more excitement for viewers, more options for players, deeper strategies. It is part of the wider idea that you want players to be able to react to unpredictable events, because that is what shows true skill. Anyone can memorize an opening, but not everyone can respond well to an unexpected move.
The pitfalls of "coin flips" in SC2 are well known, of course, but it's an implementation problem. Honestly, the fact that you would so casually dismiss a core aspect of RTS gameplay just tells me you don't know what you're talking about and are distracting from more useful discussion.
Reading is hard? If you read what I actually wrote you would have realized that I dont disagree with you. I literally wrote removing Fog of War would be a worse evil than keeping it. Somehow that statement makes you think I dismiss Fog of War???
The point is that there is sound theoretical justification for having hidden information in the game, and you haven't demonstrated an appreciation of this. If you remove fog of war as a mechanic, and the concept of hidden information in general, you are changing the game in a very fundamental way that will completely alter gameplay and in my opinion destroy the game. It's not just that removing it would break the balance and lead to "silly games", the point is that it is categorically a bad idea because you've just annihilated the border between e.g. chess and poker.
Poker where you can see all the cards is not fun, it's not just different, it's broken beyond repair and it can't be saved.
EPT
