|
Introduction
In an effort to improve dialogue around balance discussions, I have coined the term “simple-counter fallcy” to describe a trend that has plagued StarCraft its entire lifetime, and has only grown worse in StarCraft II. The “simple-counter fallacy” can also be known as the “just do ‘this” response. For example:
Forum OP: I’m having lots of trouble in my PvZ matchup where the Z overwhelms me with roaches
Forum response: You can just counter that with immortals.
Of coruse the OP would just reply:
Forum OP: But then he makes lings
To which our responder replies:
Forum Response: Just make zealots/colossus
Eventually we get into dialogues with ridiculous tech switches. In no way is the forum responder wrong, since Immortals are effective against roaches and zealots/collosus units are effective against zerglings, but they are ignoring entire aspects of timing and game flow.
![[image loading]](http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/physicists.png)
A similar plight plagues the physicist. xkcd.com
A product of intuition and simplified hard-counter perceptions
The most poisonous aspects of this type of dialogue is that it technically isn’t wrong. In fact, the unit counters fit right into your own intuition. However, human intuition is a pretty unreliable mode for justification. Remember how the archaic sciences believed that the earth was the center of the universe, that the moon was perfectly round, and gravity existed because “earth-type” objects were attracted to one another? That was all from human intuition. Just like science, there are deeper, diverse, and abstract factors effecting factors in balance and strategy.
Strategy discussion in StarCraft II suffers a lot from this simple-counter fallacy discussion since the game revolves around such hard counter systems. Blizzard sort of provoked this type of dialogue with their StarCraft 2 preview during its unveiling. Remember the video where the Immortals “countered” the siege tanks, and then the reapers came and “countered” the immortals? It gave newer players a sense the balance revolved around basic rock-paper-scissors.
![[image loading]](http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/article/790/790186/starcraft-ii-20070519104748162-000.jpg)
I was going to write something relating to the topic but look at those tanks lol
Simple counter fallacy on not so simple concepts
Of course, most veteran StarCraft players are aware of the more diverse and abstract factors that affect strategy and balance. Aspects such as timing, economy, and the aggression/economy tradeoff are just a few points that make StarCraft II a very dynamic and fun game. (Credit has to be given to Blizzard as they also must understand the more complex concepts of strategical balance when designing the game, otherwise SC II may have well been rock-paper scissors!)
Despite some veteran SC players’ knowledge, sometimes even sophisticated discussions may dissolve into gross simplifications. For example, lets say a Zerg player has issues with a general MMM ball. Responses that follow the “simple-counter fallacy” may not just be “just mass ultras”, but it may be “Well just Fast Expand, get an early third, start upgrades early, and keep Terran contained (lol) until you can pump out a sizeable ultra army to supplement your forces.” Though this response is correct, as all those factors would contribute to a sizeable Ultralisk army, the Zerg player will encounter a lot more obstacles when trying to execute the strategy - such as reaper openings, inability to control the early game, and being contained himself.
![[image loading]](http://starcraft.incgamers.com/gallery/data/501/medium/Nydus_Worms_And_Huge_Swarm_copy.jpg)
These are situations theory-crafters legitimately believe in. "Learn to nydus more"
Conclusions
The point is that though sometimes we may need to idealize some situations into ideal conditions in order to discuss them, games will always be diverse and almost completely unique. Of course we can make some generalizations, but I believe that the only distinct way to make judgements is to analyze a set of replays. Replays are the empirical evidence to avoid the “simple-counter fallacy”, since they contain all the timings, player mistakes, map issues, pauses, lag, phone-call interruptions, and macro-issues that may contribute to problems in game.
However, since I never want to take things to extremes, I’m not claiming that the newbies of StarCraft II have to do some soul-searching past their initial intuitions in order to find a truly dynamic strategy to improve their play - sometimes there are simple solutions. However, as people begin to discuss top level games and attempt to discuss balance in a game that revolves around three very dyanmic, diverse, and unique races, it’s just good to be cautious to remember the cliche - nothing is ever what it seems.
Also, I don’t want to take the extreme that balance issues are completely unique to each game played. After analyzing a good set of replays, vods, and personal game experience, we can still make generalized observations to idealize situations for theory-crafting. (I really hate to use this example, but top Zerg players have played a lot of games to observe that their is some sort of weakness in Zerg play They have the replays and experience to back it up, so they feel justified in their claims).
Hopefully, this sheds some light toward improving dialogue in strategical discussions. Ironically, simply being aware and avoiding the “simple-counter fallacy” can improve strategical dialogue among SC2 gamers along with highlighting the deeper aspects of play. I don’t expect this “simple-counter fallacy” to ever disappear from discussions, but hopefully players looking to improve will come to the similar conclusions I have made in this article and keep a more open mind when discussing strategy and balance.
Disclaimer:
+ Show Spoiler +I don't want this to devolve into a balance discussion thread, but rather to discuss how we discuss. Meta I know. Word your examples carefully
|
This should be the 11th TL Commandment.
I think in general people like saying stuff just to say stuff (not just on forums but in any kind of dialogue or conversation). Its important to think before you speak, but it is especially important when it comes to something as intricate as Starcraft, and especially important when it comes to posting on a site where potentially hundreds of people may read it and hundreds of people have already said it.
|
Wow, each time I read something like "just make unit xxx" or "but if I make xxx he will make yyy so it's useless" in a thread I think about what you just said. But I can't express it clearly. Good read sir, thank you.
|
I think Day[9] touched a bit on this... and I agree with it wholly.
I think this has to apply to other topics, such as the balance issues. When someone complains about tanks, a common response we usually get is 'NERF TANKS'. I think we can cut those out of the discussions, right?
I just hope that people will take a bit longer to click the 'post' button and really think about what they're saying.
|
|
|
on a random side note of nydus, if u create a 2 networks and stick all ur units into network 1 and make 2 worms, if the worm from network 2 pops out, are the units in network 1 in there too or none?
|
On September 24 2010 15:09 Leeoku wrote:
on a random side note of nydus, if u create a 2 networks and stick all ur units into network 1 and make 2 worms, if the worm from network 2 pops out, are the units in network 1 in there too or none?
All units are shared in the Nydus network, so they can pop up at any entrance or exit, afaik.
|
These are the kind of posts that should be highlighted by TL from time to time. Instead this kind of great write up which took some time to put together will get buried eventually. Among omg counter x with y.
That being said excellent write up and time you took to put together is much appreciated.
|
I'm really not meaning to be negative - so please don't take this as baseless criticism...
But aren't you simply saying in a long winded way SC2 is a complicated and relatively deep game strategy wise?
You're always going to have extremes in the viewpoints towards a game, from the extreme in-depth such as "You have to consider this timing push for xyz scouting and this other timing rush for abc scouting and then you must consider ijk metagame etc". To simply "Yeah it's zerg 4 gate" on the other end.
There has to be a middle ground for discussion however. You are correct in saying that every game is unique - but if you extrapolate that then you could then say you could never take the experiences of one game into the next. Yes you have to make generalizations, but you're always going too have to in order to be able to discuss the game.
If some Z is saying they are having trouble with marine heavy builds, it's appropriate to say lean towards banlings and infestors. This may ignore specific examples of timing pushes and what not in a single persons replay - however individually discussing 352 examples of TvZ with marine heavy builds isn't exactly practical either...
I just don't see to much of a point towards what you're saying, rather than the obvious statements about SC2 gameplay.
Like I said, sorry if it comes across as negative.
|
On September 24 2010 15:28 Peleus wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
I'm really not meaning to be negative - so please don't take this as baseless criticism...
But aren't you simply saying in a long winded way SC2 is a complicated and relatively deep game strategy wise?
You're always going to have extremes in the viewpoints towards a game, from the extreme in-depth such as "You have to consider this timing push for xyz scouting and this other timing rush for abc scouting and then you must consider ijk metagame etc". To simply "Yeah it's zerg 4 gate" on the other end.
There has to be a middle ground for discussion however. You are correct in saying that every game is unique - but if you extrapolate that then you could then say you could never take the experiences of one game into the next. Yes you have to make generalizations, but you're always going too have to in order to be able to discuss the game.
If some Z is saying they are having trouble with marine heavy builds, it's appropriate to say lean towards banlings and infestors. This may ignore specific examples of timing pushes and what not in a single persons replay - however individually discussing 352 examples of TvZ with marine heavy builds isn't exactly practical either...
I just don't see to much of a point towards what you're saying, rather than the obvious statements about SC2 gameplay.
Like I said, sorry if it comes across as negative.
He's saying that people need to use a little bit more critical thinking when discussing balance, not saying that the game is complicated/deep. In order to have a proper discussion regarding game and race analysis, posts regarding rock-paper-scissors generalizations need to stop being assumed.
Banelings kill marines, yes, and you can generalize that. However, the unique game progression that leads towards the situation where banelings are fighting marines might call for something else entirely from banelings. For example, you wouldn't use banelings against marines if you're assaulting a Marine/Siege tank line- the banelings would die. The average post on Teamliquid, however, will state "just make banelings and those marines are dead"- wherein lies the fallacy of proper critical thinking.
It's not about individually discussing 352 examples of TvZ, but rather discussing how to appropriately react based on the many events leading up to [whatever issue someone is having], which is a unique situation in every game.
|
I think he's saying something akin to if some one asks;
'How do I deal with a fast MM push?'
You answer shouldn't be 'lol bling infestor nub l2p'
Because the OP will just respond 'but I didn't have any/ he'll just build tanks/hells whatever'
then aforementioned poster will just say 'lol scout'
And the circle will just continue.
|
On September 24 2010 15:41 Nokarot wrote:
It's not about individually discussing 352 examples of TvZ, but rather discussing how to appropriately react based on the many events leading up to [whatever issue someone is having], which is a unique situation in every game.
While I hear what you're saying, if you want to give advice specifically in regards to the many events leading up to the "problem", which as you said is unique to every game, then you have to define them. Suddenly you're talking about specific events / configurations rather then generalizations.
My point is this - if you can't extend the general advice given into the thousands of unique variations that you're going to run across, then you're going to struggle no matter what. I suppose in a way I'm arguing the opposite. "Generalized" advice is pretty much all thats useful, because if you need advice more specialized then that, you'll probably never run into that situation again where you can use it.
|
On September 24 2010 15:41 Nokarot wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2010 15:28 Peleus wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
I'm really not meaning to be negative - so please don't take this as baseless criticism...
But aren't you simply saying in a long winded way SC2 is a complicated and relatively deep game strategy wise?
You're always going to have extremes in the viewpoints towards a game, from the extreme in-depth such as "You have to consider this timing push for xyz scouting and this other timing rush for abc scouting and then you must consider ijk metagame etc". To simply "Yeah it's zerg 4 gate" on the other end.
There has to be a middle ground for discussion however. You are correct in saying that every game is unique - but if you extrapolate that then you could then say you could never take the experiences of one game into the next. Yes you have to make generalizations, but you're always going too have to in order to be able to discuss the game.
If some Z is saying they are having trouble with marine heavy builds, it's appropriate to say lean towards banlings and infestors. This may ignore specific examples of timing pushes and what not in a single persons replay - however individually discussing 352 examples of TvZ with marine heavy builds isn't exactly practical either...
I just don't see to much of a point towards what you're saying, rather than the obvious statements about SC2 gameplay.
Like I said, sorry if it comes across as negative.
The average post in the SC2 forum, however, will state "just make banelings and those marines are dead"- wherein lies the fallacy of proper critical thinking.
Fixed 
Seriously though, amazing post that very clearly articulates just what it was that made BW such a great game, and will continue on and do the same for SC2; the fact that just because you have X, unit, and he has Y unit, and Y>X in a straight up fight, DOES NOT mean that you have lost in any substantive way.
Thanks again!
|
I'm a total noob with little experience and I notice this plaguing so many threads, spewed by so many posters. I hope by your bringing awareness (as Day[9] has at times, too) the issue becomes less of a problem. Because right now it's a pretty huge problem.
+1 to this being the 11th Commandment.
|
its been a while since I discussed about discussion, good read. That is exactly why I've been avoiding reading from the Strategy page, >.>
|
Excellent point OP!
A better way to discuss this, especially with regards to early timing pushes, is through replay analysis. For example: "I'm having trouble with early marine/stim pushes." Instead of "make banelings or infestors," it'd be more useful to discuss the timing of said push. What is it viable to have out by that time? When do you need to scout in order to see if such a push will be coming? If you make the correct unit composition, and the enemy doesn't attack, where does that put you?
|
On September 24 2010 15:28 Peleus wrote:
I'm really not meaning to be negative - so please don't take this as baseless criticism...
But aren't you simply saying in a long winded way SC2 is a complicated and relatively deep game strategy wise?
You're always going to have extremes in the viewpoints towards a game, from the extreme in-depth such as "You have to consider this timing push for xyz scouting and this other timing rush for abc scouting and then you must consider ijk metagame etc". To simply "Yeah it's zerg 4 gate" on the other end.
There has to be a middle ground for discussion however. You are correct in saying that every game is unique - but if you extrapolate that then you could then say you could never take the experiences of one game into the next. Yes you have to make generalizations, but you're always going too have to in order to be able to discuss the game.
If some Z is saying they are having trouble with marine heavy builds, it's appropriate to say lean towards banlings and infestors. This may ignore specific examples of timing pushes and what not in a single persons replay - however individually discussing 352 examples of TvZ with marine heavy builds isn't exactly practical either...
I just don't see to much of a point towards what you're saying, rather than the obvious statements about SC2 gameplay.
Like I said, sorry if it comes across as negative.
I see where you're coming from, and I would agree I'm sort of preaching to the choir. I'm basically saying "lets have better discussions" and who can disagree with that?
I made a little note in the OP saying to even be careful of extremes when trying to avoid the simple-counter fallacy, since then you would over-analyzing every little detail. I suppose it would have been better to write it in context of balance discussions, which incorporate entire paradigms of play from each race, rather than refer to specific strategies. Though I think the problem still exists in specific strategies, sometimes they can have straightforward solutions which sort of confuse the original point.
I tried to maybe illustrate something a lot more abstract in terms of how the game dynamically plays. Honestly, I hope people just don't read the thread and say "Oh yeah totally that X>Y talk is so annoying I'll never do that." It's easy to say you won't fall for the same fallacies, but the problem with it is that we commit the crime without even realizing it. Maybe we have to accept its inevitability.
I'm not a saint, I've probably committed this simple-counter fallacy numerous times, and I'm sure some progamers have done it too. They don't mean to, but other aspects of the game may seem second nature to us so we assume everyone knows certain conditions when we offer simple solutions.
And don't worry about sounding negative. Skepticism and criticism should always be welcome when attempting to approve dialog.
|
awesome post lol I especially liked the physicist one 
|
I can't help but agree with this entire idea.
My greatest failing while learning SC2 is determining what counter I can build against a certain matchup given my current tech progression. The worst thing that can happen is me not finding a counter and having to change tech somewhere in my build (which is incredibly flimsy as it is).
Realistically, tech switches take time and the higher up in tech you are, the longer a time it takes to switch. I think the real art is figuring out which unit you can currently build - and most notably in what numbers - can fulfill the same role as said unit you can't tech to.
Pratcical experience has shown me that very often scouting information is off or even worse - you scout and he's not doing what you think he's doing and a moment later you end up with a suboptiomal army.
However, learning these kind of off counters or reactions and suboptimal but doable responses is incredibly hard. For me as a new zergie, I'm constantly varying the number of X I have to build to counter something it's not supposed to be good at (e.g. slings vs. marines because I skipped baneling nest).
The other question is ofc. do you need to tech switch after countering whatever it is or does your off-counter fulfill the role well enough that you can just keep on going with the tech you have so far.
My point is this - if you can't extend the general advice given into the thousands of unique variations that you're going to run across, then you're going to struggle no matter what. I suppose in a way I'm arguing the opposite. "Generalized" advice is pretty much all thats useful, because if you need advice more specialized then that, you'll probably never run into that situation again where you can use it.
This is true.
The problem is that these very specialized situations occur far more often than you'd expect because of faield scouting or false predictions. Maybe you can't offer advice for that specific situation but you can attempt to understand what other options you have besides the 'hard' or 'correct' counter for your problem.
Eventually you'll get in a similar situation and realize... "Right... so I don't have X... but Y might just get me out of this alive too... make more Y."
If you're stuck in the hard counter mentality you'd never build Y in the first place. This has happened to me numerous times and getting that thinking out of your head can be a hard thing.
|
In response to everyone saying that this should be the 11th TL commandment - you all flatter me However, I believe that the 3rd commandment - Thou shalt think before posting - pretty much sums it all up.
Please, think before you chime in with your opinion on a given post or series of posts. There will usually be some history behind a given exchange in our forums, so take the time to observe what might really be going on and put the conversation into context before you decide who's "right" and who's "wrong." Above all, take into account who is posting - context is everything. Chirping in with your grossly uninformed opinions will only make you look dumb and irritate the heck out of the people who do know what's going on.
We can't tell you how many little kids we've ripped to shreds because they reacted first instead of thinking. The absolute worst examples are overzealous pinheads who automatically react with righteous indignation when an Admin bans someone for posting something that, to them, seems innocuous - never thinking that we could be banning that guy for a whole bunch of other things and that this may just have been the final straw. There's a reason why we do the things we do around here.
And please don't try to be Freud or Jung. Don't second-guess the motives for why someone wrote something. Only the author knows for sure the "whys." Respond to what's written. Avoid responding with comments filled with half-baked psychoanalytical presumptions about the poster?s imputed agenda or their psych profile. So, for example, when someone writes a detailed post outlining his/her strategy for countering a tank push, feel free to respond to or even criticize the content of the original post - but don't write about how the guy's just trying to impress everyone with his/her knowledge because of an inferiority complex! You don't know that and no one cares. Stop psychoanalyzing - you don't have a license to practice.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
