|
Strategy gets interesting in the middle game for any "Strategy game". In chess you can´t memorize every strategical situation and it´s solution - even todays supercomputers are not able to do that or they would be unbeatable.
Strategic "Skill" is less pereparing known situations but also reacting to unknown/unexpected ones.
I'd say the last sentence goes hand in hand with memorization. It isn't an absolute, but if you're a Chess grandmaster, chances are you've been in any given situation so that you know how to react. I refuse to believe Chess puts forth a different strategy you haven't encountered before (to a high level player) a good amount of times in late games. The bottom line is it is still their experience that allows them to counter.
Then 99% of all games simply aren´t strategic. Maybe SC:BW is one of these. But SC2 should try to be in the 1% that is so diverse that players can´t simply "solve" strategy by pure memorization.
Why? That kind of game would suck. Who wants to spend time playing a game they can't even get better at by practicing?
|
On January 26 2009 04:54 Unentschieden wrote:
Then 99% of all games simply aren´t strategic. Maybe SC:BW is one of these. But SC2 should try to be in the 1% that is so diverse that players can´t simply "solve" strategy by pure memorization.
The thing about this argument is that these situations are extremely rare in any strategy game. You can never truly get rid of memorization, and high level play will always turn into mostly memorization over time. That's why I feel that the whole "anti-mechanics/memorization" crusade by some gamers is ultimately fruitless.
The only two ways you can get rid of memorization is either by making the game ridiculously complex or by introducing luck into the game. Unfortunately, the former is only delaying the inevitable, and the latter is bad for obvious reasons.
I think SWPIGWANG said it best when he mentioned that "There are no patent laws on strategy". There is nothing inherently special about strategy because no matter how original or unique it is, any person with enough free time can analyze and memorize it within minutes. An effective strategy is effective regardless if the person using it is a genius or a Joe schmoe reading a strategy guide. That's why I mentioned how it's really execution and tactics that makes gamers stand out. Anybody can memorize a strategy, but not everybody can execute it with the proper timing and strength.
|
Then how come Chess works? It has NO element of Luck and the Rules are certainly much less complex than any RTS.
The secret are dynamic strategic situations. "An effective strategy is effective regardless if the person using it is a genius or a Joe schmoe reading a strategy guide." you say. Not exactly. Imagine as Strategy: Build a lot of Lurkers. Is that a good strategy?
Depends - Is the enemy building Marines or Battlecruisers?
Players have to adapt to changing situations - that is the skill. What if the Terran first got lots of Marines but switches later? What if you don´t even notice because you don´t stumble on the Spaceports?
Remember, unlike a Gameplan that you can carefully prepare that the changing Situations limited knowledge about said Situation and time pressure (and everyones beloved multitasking) make finding the right solution a lot harder than "today I´m going to use Siege Tanks and Goliaths".
|
Yeah a game needs fun and skill starcraft has both which is why its so damn good.
|
On January 26 2009 04:54 Unentschieden wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2009 02:54 [DUF]MethodMan wrote:
But in 99% of all games you just don't have to and so you can't perform strategically "outstanding" play, nearly everything has been done before. Then 99% of all games simply aren´t strategic. Maybe SC:BW is one of these. But SC2 should try to be in the 1% that is so diverse that players can´t simply "solve" strategy by pure memorization.
You are vastly underestimating exactly how complex a game would have to be to make this happen. Even Chess is often reduced to simply knowing the optimal move in a given situation at the very highest levels. And what doesn't come up with your chess example is the nearly impossible task of balancing such a complex game with 3 races; any option being more useful than the others in any matchup instantly removes many of the other options from consideration. In fact, I'd be amazed if anyone could accomplish what you're suggesting in a real-time game even with just one match-up.
On January 26 2009 07:55 Unentschieden wrote:
...and the Rules are certainly much less complex than any RTS.
The number of significantly different game states that'll come up in real play is much higher.
|
Since when is building unit A to counter unit B a strategy? It's common sense.
But man, we sure seem to want polar opposite games. For example, one of the only things I can't stand about SC is losing to a gay Zerg's tech switch. Hell, even if I scout it and react accordingly, it just seems like such a meaningless skill to me. I mean, even some casual noob friend who's watching over your shoulder could see the scan show a spire and he'll be like "lol better get some turrets."
|
On January 26 2009 10:05 armed_ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2009 07:55 Unentschieden wrote:
...and the Rules are certainly much less complex than any RTS. The number of significantly different game states that'll come up in real play is much higher.
Good that you realize that, that was the message. In chess there are many more different gamestates despite:
Mirrored "factions"
Absolute knowledge of gamestate.
Turn Based.
No resource system.
No production system.
etc...
So why wouldn´t SC2 be able to have strategic depht?
On January 26 2009 10:11 NatsuTerran wrote:
Since when is building unit A to counter unit B a strategy? It's common sense.
Where did that come from? Where was anyone talking about THAT?
|
From Chobotron's interview article with July =P
Advice for players who want to be ProGamers?
I really wanna say to progamer cadidates, "Don't be a progamer, its so hard more than you imagine"
|
Well... in starcraft, 4 different people who use the same strategy (bo and overall unit combinations etc for example) will do it differently, they have different styles, different level of multitasking, different level/style of micro and stuff.
My point is, that you can do the same strategy, but its effectiveness depends on the players skills (opponents too).
Starcraft is not 100% strategy, nor is it 100% mechanics... (Mechanics include micro tactics btw imo).
Chess is basically 100% strategy. Even though you might win people just by memorizing stuff. (but you really need to understand them too).
think about it, if starcraft had no mechanics, who would play it? It would be super boring. if it sort of played itself, just that you had to give orders. Just like if you would just click button "vulture drop" and it would automatically do it etc.
starcraft is a game of speed, mechanics and strategy.
Sc2 would make it be less of speed and more "strategy" which i don't like much. It might be an awesome game, but BW will be more awesome anyways so i will just stick with bw i think.
|
On January 26 2009 17:10 MorningMusume11 wrote:
From Chobotron's interview article with July =P
Advice for players who want to be ProGamers?
I really wanna say to progamer cadidates, "Don't be a progamer, its so hard more than you imagine"
Nothing is easy in life.
Besides i think the progamer life is becoming easier all the time.
Before they had like humane right issues, now its not that bad i think.
|
On January 26 2009 17:02 Unentschieden wrote:
Good that you realize that, that was the message. In chess there are many more different gamestates despite:
Mirrored "factions"
Absolute knowledge of gamestate.
Turn Based.
No resource system.
No production system.
etc...
So why wouldn´t SC2 be able to have strategic depht?
I think Starcraft 2 can have more strategic depth by removing any useless units like SC1 had with the Scout, Queen, etc., and also by making macro have more depth as well.
It's just my overall point is that you're never going to get create situations where memorization is a non-factor. No such thing exists at the pro level, no matter what the game is. Even when changing your strategy on the fly, there's a degree of applying previously memorized knowledge to what you change your strategy to. The most you can ever do is create as many viable options as possible, but I don't think that's really a big issue with Starcraft in general. It could certainly have more, but it definitely has enough to create a pro scene as it is.
|
On January 26 2009 23:17 Spawkuring wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2009 17:02 Unentschieden wrote:
Good that you realize that, that was the message. In chess there are many more different gamestates despite:
Mirrored "factions"
Absolute knowledge of gamestate.
Turn Based.
No resource system.
No production system.
etc...
So why wouldn´t SC2 be able to have strategic depht?
I think Starcraft 2 can have more strategic depth by removing any useless units like SC1 had with the Scout, Queen, etc., and also by making macro have more depth as well. It's just my overall point is that you're never going to get create situations where memorization is a non-factor. No such thing exists at the pro level, no matter what the game is. Even when changing your strategy on the fly, there's a degree of applying previously memorized knowledge to what you change your strategy to. The most you can ever do is create as many viable options as possible, but I don't think that's really a big issue with Starcraft in general. It could certainly have more, but it definitely has enough to create a pro scene as it is.
Queen isn't useless actually. even jaedong has been using it lately.
Scout is kind of useless, because its so expensive, and needs so many upgrades.
If they made scout have speed without teching it, and maybe be a little cheaper, it would rocx
|
Nothing is easy in life.
That's just not true.
Tons of things are very easy, but humans tend to try things they don't find easy, because easy is boring.
|
fantastic write up, i wanna your babies.
|
Compare chess to Swedish chess to see the difference between a game that's largely based on mechanics, and one that's largely based on improvisation. Swedish chess used to pull crowds around us when we'd play at college because the games were so explosive and off the wall, whereas unless someone had a hyped up a game of standard chess to the max, no one would give a shit.
http://www.chessvariants.org/multiplayer.dir/tandem.html
They call it bughouse chess. Whatever works.
|
On January 26 2009 17:02 Unentschieden wrote:
Good that you realize that, that was the message. In chess there are many more different gamestates despite:
Mirrored "factions"
Absolute knowledge of gamestate.
Turn Based.
It's not despite, Chess can have that many playable gamestates because of those factors. It's not that difficult to create many potential gamestates, the task comes in balancing the game so that getting to all of those states is actually possible. Really, the simpler a game is in its core rules the easier that is to do.
Also, you're completely ignoring the fact that Chess has evolved over centuries.
|
On January 26 2009 04:54 Unentschieden wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2009 02:54 [DUF]MethodMan wrote:
But in 99% of all games you just don't have to and so you can't perform strategically "outstanding" play, nearly everything has been done before. Then 99% of all games simply aren´t strategic. Maybe SC:BW is one of these. But SC2 should try to be in the 1% that is so diverse that players can´t simply "solve" strategy by pure memorization.
Wait, you rip this out of context just to make up SC:BW wouldn't be strategic?
I was talking about SC:BW games. You maybe are not aware of the development SC:BW has gone through, when it was released (and many many years after that) you could play freestyle like you want because nearly everyone did it. If you would mind to read my post you would know why this has changed and why most of the SC:BW gamers like this situation, not having to think twice about the strategy to perform.
It's because you can focus on macro/micro which are the main elements of the game nowadays, it will never be Boxertime again where you could surprise your opponent with some very cheesy/genius stuff. SC:BW is nearly 11 fucking years old, what do you expect, daily new innovations strategywise? You could have had that in 2001.
The thing imo is that you can't compare SC:BW to other RTS. Not because it is better, which is a fact. Simply because there was never ever any RTS which showed such longevity and could due to that be examined and "improved" like that. Look at equivalents in other genres, let's take CS. Way back in time you could have never imagined how Progamers nowadays are playing this game while still being on the same maps with same graphics and so on. Of course other things are taking part of that, technological progress in form of broadband and faster PCs and so on. But still people figured out - over years - how to break the game getting the best possible results out of it and !still! are doing so. You just can't compare those games to any 1-2 years-lasting games.
So I guess games like those require other rules than the 0815 games on the market. The best way to simplify how those should look like would be imo: Leave the game(play) open for improvement of itself.
I know Blizzard is trying to do so, but some implements just sound contradictory to that.
I really am in fear for SC2 being some game which you can max out in a forseeable time, like 1-2 years. The most important thing which kills games in my mind is when it is very easy to figure out THE best strategy, even if it is just for 1 MU.
On January 26 2009 07:55 Unentschieden wrote:
Players have to adapt to changing situations - that is the skill. What if the Terran first got lots of Marines but switches later? What if you don´t even notice because you don´t stumble on the Spaceports?
Remember, unlike a Gameplan that you can carefully prepare that the changing Situations limited knowledge about said Situation and time pressure (and everyones beloved multitasking) make finding the right solution a lot harder than "today I´m going to use Siege Tanks and Goliaths".
Any experienced player could pull like 2-3 possible counters on any strat the opponent ist doing. I guess not even the worst D- newbs has to think about what to do when he recognizes the Terran is switching. And if he doesn't notice it is not a fault of the game being not strategic enough, it's the players fault. I really don't like it when people come up and try to blame the game for their losses.
As described, this game is so old, anything has been done before. Maybe not on televised games of progamers but in practice and B.Net Pub/Insert any Ladder it definetly has. Being adaptive on the opponents play is the first thing you have to learn in SC:BW and that is very painful 
|
The "babysitting" opens up opportunities for a more challenging and complete game experience. Macroing so that you have more to micro with leads to an increase in possible strategies, etc, and changes the type of game you're playing. I think people also ignore the fact that how you choose to macro also leads to differences between high and low economy play, both of which are viable strategies.
|
Ppl dont forget that, standard paths > improvisation
strategy is not thinking with ubber 10k IQ and mind tricking your opponent, strategy is a gameplan you have in your mind before joining a battle, Art of War of Sun Tzu for those who never could read it
please, some progamers (especially warcraft ones) have readed it and follow game plans when join their matches.
Also , it is part of the standard gameplay that u have to pay attention to ur opponent to avoid unorthodoxical plays and get ready for "IMPROVISATIONS".
Battles, war, arent math, your mind doesnt have the same ilimited room to fly around with mindfucks(sorry, the dirty word) as it would have with equations.
You have to pay with money and time for your creations, also there is no guarantee that it will work due to lucky factors, cause if you try something that was never done, even by you, be sure that the result of the matchup will be there only by luck, more advanced strategies cant be created in a fraction of seconds, and if the opponent find a way to defuse ur "improvisation" that fast , thats cause you dont have 10k Ubber Hardcore IQ
Lets try to avoid utopias, chess is tbs sc is rts
2cents =/
|
On January 27 2009 15:06 [DUF]MethodMan wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2009 04:54 Unentschieden wrote:On January 26 2009 02:54 [DUF]MethodMan wrote:
But in 99% of all games you just don't have to and so you can't perform strategically "outstanding" play, nearly everything has been done before. Then 99% of all games simply aren´t strategic. Maybe SC:BW is one of these. But SC2 should try to be in the 1% that is so diverse that players can´t simply "solve" strategy by pure memorization. Wait, you rip this out of context just to make up SC:BW wouldn't be strategic? I was talking about SC:BW games. You maybe are not aware of the development SC:BW has gone through, when it was released (and many many years after that) you could play freestyle like you want because nearly everyone did it. If you would mind to read my post you would know why this has changed and why most of the SC:BW gamers like this situation, not having to think twice about the strategy to perform. It's because you can focus on macro/micro which are the main elements of the game nowadays, it will never be Boxertime again where you could surprise your opponent with some very cheesy/genius stuff. SC:BW is nearly 11 fucking years old, what do you expect, daily new innovations strategywise? You could have had that in 2001.
I didn´t say SC:BW wasn´t strategy, thats just you. I just said maybe, everyone has a own opinion about that.
Creativity is dead in SC:BW, all that is left is to squeze in another Action per Minute? Is that your point?
I´m not questioning you, I just don´t like it.
On January 27 2009 15:06 [DUF]MethodMan wrote:
The thing imo is that you can't compare SC:BW to other RTS. Not because it is better, which is a fact. Simply because there was never ever any RTS which showed such longevity and could due to that be examined and "improved" like that. Look at equivalents in other genres, let's take CS. Way back in time you could have never imagined how Progamers nowadays are playing this game while still being on the same maps with same graphics and so on. Of course other things are taking part of that, technological progress in form of broadband and faster PCs and so on. But still people figured out - over years - how to break the game getting the best possible results out of it and !still! are doing so. You just can't compare those games to any 1-2 years-lasting games.
Didn´t you just say the opposite in the above paragraph? About gameplay being stale, all strategies and inovations explored?
On January 27 2009 15:06 [DUF]MethodMan wrote:
So I guess games like those require other rules than the 0815 games on the market. The best way to simplify how those should look like would be imo: Leave the game(play) open for improvement of itself.
I know Blizzard is trying to do so, but some implements just sound contradictory to that.
I really am in fear for SC2 being some game which you can max out in a forseeable time, like 1-2 years. The most important thing which kills games in my mind is when it is very easy to figure out THE best strategy, even if it is just for 1 MU.
Really, do tell what you mean with "improvement of itself"? Don´t patch and let the community agree on a balance modification?
On January 26 2009 07:55 Unentschieden wrote:
Players have to adapt to changing situations - that is the skill. What if the Terran first got lots of Marines but switches later? What if you don´t even notice because you don´t stumble on the Spaceports?
Remember, unlike a Gameplan that you can carefully prepare that the changing Situations limited knowledge about said Situation and time pressure (and everyones beloved multitasking) make finding the right solution a lot harder than "today I´m going to use Siege Tanks and Goliaths".
Any experienced player could pull like 2-3 possible counters on any strat the opponent ist doing. I guess not even the worst D- newbs has to think about what to do when he recognizes the Terran is switching. And if he doesn't notice it is not a fault of the game being not strategic enough, it's the players fault. I really don't like it when people come up and try to blame the game for their losses.
As described, this game is so old, anything has been done before. Maybe not on televised games of progamers but in practice and B.Net Pub/Insert any Ladder it definetly has. Being adaptive on the opponents play is the first thing you have to learn in SC:BW and that is very painful [/QUOTE]
The first thing you have to learn is to get your peons to work and that is torture.
Countering your opponent I´d say is satisfying, even moreso If you manage to counter his counter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
