|
|
Just finished, great article. Really liked the part about the skills and their transferability. A really intriguing interview! Great job
|
I've been waiting for this ever since I first saw you post about it! Sounds great, reading now.
EDIT: Excellent article, all gloriously printed on one page with no "NEXT" clicking. Upson makes a lot of good points, and I'm glad to see such a well researched piece that paints SC2 in a unique and very positive light.
|
Thanks for link, great read. Love how the game we love playing is contributing to real scientific fields.
|
Seems good. Will read now. Edit with comments after
User was warned for this post
Edit: Wasn't aware that reserving posts was against the rules. I apologize.
Anyways, I really likes this article. It makes me happy to think that scientists have actually taken interest in Starcraft.
|
|
Awesome article. I really like the idea of using replays in cognitive psychology experiments. Such great data available and it's just sitting there waiting for someone to make use of it.
I also liked this bit of the article:
In a paper published this year, cognitive scientist Joshua Lewis and colleagues at the University of California – San Diego analyzed what actions players took in 2000 games to see if certain capabilities stood out as hallmarks of success. Unlike previous studies, which tested participants before and after they played games to see if their behaviors changed, the approach taken by Lewis and colleagues allowed them to look for specific differences in what players are doing and perceiving.
They tracked several measures, including how many actions players took per minute and the distances between the locations where actions occurred across the map. Not surprisingly, they found that players who made the most moves tended to win. Of more interest was the second calculation. Distributing actions more widely across a map, which the authors argue reflects a player’s ability to distribute attention, also correlated highly with winning.
Now the question is whether people can learn to divide their attention more effectively. Professional Starcraft players belong to teams, with coaches and practice schedules, and they devote the majority of their time to developing their abilities. “If there is some methodology for building up multitasking skills, we might be able to figure out a way to train people to better distribute their attention,” Lewis says. “Maybe these teams have learned that implicitly.”
|
i woulda loved to study something in that field.. too bad it's not in my area
|
This is really cool! Anything that helps give SCII more exposure and credibility is a good thing. Really fitting title to the article as well, the idea that starcraft can be refined to quasi-science seems like something the korean commentators have articulated since the beginning.
btw, i couldn't help but notice how terrible that spore positioning was in the screenshot with the voids shooting the hatchery.
|
damn, nice to see e-sports being so cool =D
|
Yey, glad a survey we filled out produced results for once!
|
This sort of thing is good for e-sports. I would like to see actual scientific research reports come to fruition, I am doing my honours in psychology this coming year but looking at sc2 would be just a little bit too much for one year. We will see later. But yes well written article. It is the sort of thing you can show to someone with some academic background without being laughed at. Or to an ignorant parent only to leave them baffled, in denial, or otherwise appreciative xD
|
Awesome read. We need more actual writers in our community. The way he explained sc2 in layman's terms is pretty well thought out.
|
Basically they found APM and multitasking were the most strongly associated with winning. This suggests that mechanics are still the most important thing for a player in SC2.
|
|
This is a very interesting read. Sort of speed read through it but very interesting.
|
Good read I really enjoyed it.
|
Very interesting to see how the author describes the game to people who might not be familiar at all with video games. Funny thing is, in his description of the game's complexity he didn't even paint the whole picture. For one thing, he neglected the concept of the minimap, map control and map awareness. I would think that aspect would be crucially important to any scientist studying, among other things, the brain's "mechanisms of attention" with respect to Starcraft.
|
A good article for people who maybe have little understanding of the game, or are outsiders. Not much meat and potatoes though for someone who pretty much knows what it takes to be good at the game. I'd like to see more information on the actual research being done, but obviously that isn't all out yet.
|
Very interesting, love that this research is starting now and can grow with the game.
And a Liquipedia link in a Scientific American article! Too cool!
|
|
|
|