Thanks for sharing your thoughts and have a nice day, Gatesleeper.
On the "Artosis Curse", Luck and Liquibet in SC2. - Page 19
Forum Index > SC2 General |
Tabashi
Belgium129 Posts
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and have a nice day, Gatesleeper. | ||
ddrddrddrddr
1344 Posts
On February 25 2013 00:56 Markwerf wrote: lol what a retardedly stupid question you ask... If the better player won 100% of the time competition would be useless as everyone would know what would happen... Randomness makes it interesting.. Also people should stop citing chess as some example of a game without luck and the better player always winning.. That is completely untrue.. Just because chess is an open information boardgame doesn't mean it's without luck.. There is a lot of hidden information in the complexity of the game and the openings. If you've played chess a bit more serious you know you can get lucky your opponent plays an opening variant you've just studied well, you can beat much better players by this happening for example. Also the impact of moves is not all known, sometimes through sheer luck your move ends up working out quite well without you knowing it beforehand, which happens just as much at the pro level too... Some randomness makes it interesting. Like that slim sliver of light that the underdog will win. When it's so much closer to even, it's not a sliver, there's no excitement then. | ||
Blargh
United States2079 Posts
On February 25 2013 00:56 Markwerf wrote: lol what a retardedly stupid question you ask... If the better player won 100% of the time competition would be useless as everyone would know what would happen... Randomness makes it interesting.. Also people should stop citing chess as some example of a game without luck and the better player always winning.. That is completely untrue.. Just because chess is an open information boardgame doesn't mean it's without luck.. There is a lot of hidden information in the complexity of the game and the openings. If you've played chess a bit more serious you know you can get lucky your opponent plays an opening variant you've just studied well, you can beat much better players by this happening for example. Also the impact of moves is not all known, sometimes through sheer luck your move ends up working out quite well without you knowing it beforehand, which happens just as much at the pro level too... It's not randomness, though. You aren't "hoping" they do something (usually). You are playing the best move you can. There are more offensive approaches to chess. Magnus Carlsen (he's highest ranked chess player at the moment I think) used to play a lot more aggressive. It was more risky and lead to more error, but it's not due to randomness that he lost/won. There is a "good move" at every point. There is also a "best move" at every point. The best choice would obviously be to choose the "best" one, but Chess is far more complicated than that, so no one is capable of doing that. Instead, every chess player is thinking everything out and playing what seems to them as the best move they can do. You'd be lucky if they made a blunder, but you aren't lucky for choosing the better moves more of the time. If I went for some silly gambit every game against random people in hopes that SOMEONE would miss it, then I'd be taking huge amounts of risks, relying on my opponent either missing it (blunder) or being stupid (being bad at chess). In this case, I'd be hoping they fall into my trap. A high risk play/opening usually punishes you after it fails to win the game. And at the first point, players don't stay "the best" forever. When you're playing for money (a pro gamer's whole career basically), the last thing you want is to lose due to randomness. Randomness makes it so when a SC2 player does the "best move", they could still lose just out of luck (they cut the wrong corner or got hard countered just out of chance). You call my question retardedly stupid, but I'm afraid it's you, who is retardedly stupid. What a redundant insult. You should have just left it at retarded or just stupid. Also, if you look at WC3, due to how the game was so focused on microing and not so much scouting opponent (SC2!) the top 16/32 were very very consistent. The top 5 was consistent. It wouldn't be crazy to call WC3 a better game due to this. Moon and Grubby were both exceptional players. The only thing that wasn't good about WC3 was race balance. It could have used some work, but 4 races is so much harder to balance than 3. | ||
nomyx
United States2205 Posts
1 out of 10 is only 10%, I still wouldn't trust him myself. | ||
Mongolbonjwa
Finland376 Posts
| ||
nomyx
United States2205 Posts
On February 25 2013 03:18 Mongolbonjwa wrote: As long as there is fog of war, RTS-games are inherently doomed to be very much luck based compared to chess for an example, or some traditional sports. speaking about fog of war and RTS games, has there ever been an RTS without fog of war? | ||
Blargh
United States2079 Posts
On February 25 2013 03:25 nomyx wrote: speaking about fog of war and RTS games, has there ever been an RTS without fog of war? Hm, I'm not sure if there has been. Maybe some spaceship RTS. Sins of a Solar Empire? Not sure if that even fits under the RTS category. It's more of a just plain strategy kind of game, but I suppose it's in real time too, so literally speaking, I guess so! Though, I think there are other elements of "randomness" or lack of knowledge. WC3 had FoW, but scouting was not nearly as difficult as in SC2. It was much less focused on that element. | ||
Mongolbonjwa
Finland376 Posts
| ||
nomyx
United States2205 Posts
On February 25 2013 03:37 Mongolbonjwa wrote: Scouting should be easier It is in HotS at least. A lot of zergs have been going for early overlord speed (in the GSTL for instance), terrans with reapers if they keep them alive (and they also have scans if they wish to use them), and protoss can scout when they poke with the MsCore push / Oracle ability (which I haven't seen used in) | ||
osiris17
United States165 Posts
| ||
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
Almost completely attributable to macro mechanics. Warp gates as well, mules to a lesser extent, however they still provide an extreme amount of income. Look at BW, you don't mine out your main until super far into the game, you mine it out so fast in SC2... | ||
bbm
United Kingdom1320 Posts
| ||
kafkaesque
Germany2006 Posts
If some of the top UEFA-teams meet, can analysts and sportscasters adequately predict the outcome? Are there ever any mindblowing performances? Lets say the best teams in Champions League are Manchester, Barcelona and Rome (I don't know if they are, just a fictional example), are they consistently in the top 3 of the league and would people go insane if Rome lost against Cologne? | ||
Figgy
Canada1783 Posts
Of course the top 32 in the world can take games off each other. But you can't forget that we have clear favourites as well (Life, old Mvp, DRG etc. etc.). To win the GSL they need 7 victories. The question you need to ask yourself isn't whether Life is the best in the world, but if you think it's ridiculously unreasonable to win 7 sets in a row against people who are pretty much confirmed to be in the top 32 best on the planet. Of course it's ridiculously unreasonable. That's why we have different GSL champions, and upsets. Don't even bother bringing up Chess. You put the top 32 best in the world in a major tournament and it's the exact same thing. The top player changes all the time, however the best usually remain consistent. #1 ELO will not beat #32 #31 #16 #15 #8 #4 #2 in a row consistently, and that's why we have different tournament winners all the time in every major competition where thousands of serious competitors compete. | ||
Taters_
Finland123 Posts
| ||
Facultyadjutant
Sweden1876 Posts
Infact one did a long post about it a while ago and it refuted the notion that good players often lose to bad players | ||
Mongolbonjwa
Finland376 Posts
| ||
edlover420
349 Posts
On February 25 2013 03:25 nomyx wrote: speaking about fog of war and RTS games, has there ever been an RTS without fog of war? Warcraft I had fog of war eventually but after you've revealed a certain area it stayed revealed; you saw everything what was happening | ||
neptunusfisk
2286 Posts
I recently watched a few finals with Boxer and it was actually boring. Compared to the last OSL, the earlier ones felt like bad a-move turtling parties. And at times, races and strats have seemingly been OP and impossible to counter, but yet it all evened out in the end and even protosses won OSLs. I'm trying to say that SC2 will eventually be ridiculous. When everything is figured out and all the small things that can be done are being done, we will see great games. I'm actually a bit sad that WoL has to go, because crap, imagine Innovation and Squirtle but even farther in the same direction.. | ||
Cel.erity
United States4890 Posts
In chess, a game far more skill-rewarding than SC2 (or basically anything else), it is the same way. Despite being a game with virtually no luck, the top players still rarely win against each other, and draws are the expected outcome. It's my opinion that this is a good thing in both games because it means the competition has risen to a very high level. | ||
| ||