Protecting replays with the fog of war - Page 6
Forum Index > SC2 General |
Oxygen
Canada3581 Posts
| ||
Drium
United States888 Posts
On October 08 2009 13:41 Lysdexia wrote: I've posted my opinion already, but it wasn't a very detailed explanation so here's a better one: Open information is always good for a competitive game, and for starcraft replays are essential to open information. Open information increases the quality of play as a whole by incentivizing preparation and increasing general knowledge about the game. The reason there's a higher incentive for preparation is pretty simple: more accessible information lets players know what to prepare for. Without replays it would be much more difficult to analyze a build and come up with a response. This is magnified in a game like starcraft where a strategy can have a huge number of small nuances that would be near impossible to discover without a replay. People who say open information decreases strategy are very myopic. The players who came up with counters to boxer's shenanigans were just as "creative". In fact they were employing more strategy because they had to create something to beat a specific build, not a generic strategy that could work against anything if it wasn't properly dealt with. There's a name for this process. It's called the strategic evolution of the game. People analyze things that other people are doing and come up with ways to beat them, and as a result our collective knowledge of the game increases, as does the quality of games at all levels (as spectators we care about the quality of pro games). All of the sweet strats people marvel over don't just materialize out of thin air. Someone analyzed what other people were doing and tried to come up with a way to beat it. This is only possible through openly accessible information. Lack of information is what drives people towards generic strategies. Without information there's no incentive to prepare specific strategies because there's no way of knowing 1. if people are actually using the strategy you're preparing against and 2. all of the little nuances and tricks that could fuck up your prepared strat. The really exiting, high quality games played in the pro scene are frequently the ones where players prepared strategies specifically for that game, on that map, against that player. Without the ability to create such strategies, generic strats (either standard play or a universally applicable cheese) would be the only option. I mean, just think about it. If before playing someone you had the opportunity to analyze their last 20 games to see what they did, and you had pro level knowledge to figure out what to do against that, would you do that or just roll with whatever standard thing you would do absent that information? This is magnified at the pro level where people know who they're playing farther in advance and have more time to sit around (with their coaches) and create strategies. If after looking at all this information it turns out the player thinks playing standard is the best option then obviously that's what people will do, but having the information there dramatically increases the possibility for a new or unique strategy. And quality of play will still be higher just by virtue of the fact that everyone knows more about the game generally as well as more about the current metagame. The other problem with the claim that open information decreases strategy is it relies on a flawed view of what strategy is and how strategy actually affects the outcomes of games. Creating a strategy in starcraft is basically figuring out a goal then looking at what stuff you have available and deciding how best to use it to achieve that goal i.e. I want to kill my opponent fast so I'll build gateways in their main. This is obviously strategy, but not all or even most aspects of strategy can be reduced to this. In fact this process is very far removed from how most games are actually decided. In order to understand how strategy is actually applied to real games, we need to take a step back in terms of what we think of when we think of "what stuff you have available". In the example I gave the stuff was gateways and the fact that you can build them in your opponent's main. In actual games this stuff is the range of strategies a player can use. Instead of saying "I want to kill my opponent fast" and then looking at all the potential choices they could make with regards to units and buildings and the placement of those buildings and arriving at building gateways in your opponent's main as a good way to achieve that goal, players say "I want to kill my opponent fast, so I will use the strategy of proxying gateways". The difference may seem subtle but it's very important. When a player is deciding what to do in a particular game the set of "stuff" is NOT all of the units and buildings and various things you can do with them, it's the set of strategies you know. The buildings and units and such are of course the building blocks of those strategies, but that is unimportant to how players make strategic decisions in actual games. So the strategic decision is not "I am going to build gateways in my opponents main", the strategic decision is "I am going to (use the strategy called) proxy 9/9 gate". In terms of it's relevance to actual games and deciding their outcomes, strategy is the decisions you make about your build (drawn from a set of builds you have previously learned, not created out of thin air) before the game and how you adapt in the game. Once we start looking at strategy from this perspective it's obvious that more accessible information is essential for strategy. With more information players will have a wider range of potential builds, have more knowledge about when to use what build, and have more knowledge about how to adapt that build in a game. Players knowing more builds from having watched replays of them or from creating a build to counter one they studied a replay of increases the number of strategic options players have, increasing the strategic depth of the game and the amount of strategic knowledge necessary to compete at a high level. | ||
RodrigoX
United States645 Posts
This i think allows for the education(of yourself) to take place and elim the random people getting your replay. And then pros could have their replays locked and be checked on a regular basis for replays of other gamers (besides their own teammates) like people checking for roids. I mean this would be like Football for instance. A team can watch film of the other team but they wont know their playbook. You can still study a player but you cant know exactly what they do to do it. | ||
potchip
Australia260 Posts
On a related note, I have always thought to reduce hack, it might be a good idea to force recording of everything, selects and screen movements and all (as an option at viewing point) so that hacker is restricted to what they can benefit (minimap only) as selecting, or looking at FoW as recorded will be pretty obvious. | ||
-fj.
Samoa462 Posts
Another option is to make scouting harder. Hide more tech options in game. Lets say for example that the hydralisk den was at lair tech level and so was the lurker upgrade - it would be impossible to know if the zerg was going to lurkers or speed hydras. But then you get more of a luck and educated guess based game like poker... | ||
starfries
Canada3508 Posts
In Starcraft 2 you might prolong the creative phase for a year if you restrict replays but it's not going to make much of a difference in the end. | ||
Manit0u
Poland17052 Posts
On January 30 2010 05:58 Zelniq wrote: maybe it didn't totally kill creativity, but it certainly made it much easier to find weaknesses in your opponents' build, to find that exact timing or are where he's most weak. An even bigger issue (that boxer mentioned) is that makes good builds way too easy to copy exactly. It promotes cookie-cutter gameplay builds and discourages people from being creative. This is a huge detriment to the community and to the creative/strategical process of the game, and makes the game more 1-dimensionally focused with mechanics being the main focus and not strategy. updated main post with this reasoning First you need someone to come up with a good build before you can copy it. To come up with a new build you need to be creative. Replays don't kill creativity. And copying builds isn't a big issue either. Even now you have replays and people do come up with new builds and you still have prodigies in SC. Let the old pros whine all they want. If I'd come up with some creative build I wouldn't give a shit if someone would be able to see it after the game. Edit: Also, replays help you come up with new strategies since you can see timings better and check out more things (will his scout see me doing this proxy here if he's going to follow standard scouting pattern?). | ||
Blyf
Denmark408 Posts
I can't believe the people dismissing your concerns as if they were ridiculous. I agree completely with you (and Boxer and Bisu for that matter, how can people disagree with these guys??) in that replays reduce important strategical elements in the game. | ||
Unentschieden
Germany1471 Posts
It´s really important to think a few steps further than most Replay censorship supporters seem to. So what if Replays create a enviroment where everyone uses the same strategy and just copys? That is the BEST enviroment BY FAR for creative players. Creative Players are NOT guys that come up with some stupid gimmic that works once and the never again but Players with gameplay experience and analytical skills that know how the game is played and know how to properly exploit that. Boxers complaint that "oldies" suffer due to Replays doesn´t mean that oldies need (or deserve) to have their strategies protected. They don´t suffer because they are being analysed but because Replays enable NEW players to become better faster therefore creating more competition. A stagnant Proscene is pure poison for competitive Gameplay. | ||
[X]Ken_D
United States4650 Posts
On January 30 2010 07:22 Boblion wrote: I think starcraft should not be broadcasted to protect the creativity of the players. THIS lol. Without replays, people can still abuse same old outdated strategy over and over again with much fear of it being discovered. The replay is a great and powerful tool. The more it can show, the better! | ||
Dromar
United States2145 Posts
My biggest concern is that, if you can't see your opponent's build/execution, how can you know he didn't cheat in the match? I didn't see this brought up by other posts, so I thought I'd bring it up. There will undoubtedly be ways to cheat in SC2, even if all the games are hosted on B.net. Also, I agree with Unentschieden's post above. There's always room for creativity in a competitive game, but I think a lot of people mistake a gimmicky build as some type of creative "strategy." | ||
Skaff
United States240 Posts
Starcraft (and hopefully Starcraft 2) is a game that managed to beat a lot of odds and facilitated a highly competitive e-sport scene. With that being said, I think a lot of parallels can be made with the more well known physical sports. I've seen some others make analogy with American Football and I think they are a perfect example. There have been plays which have developed in history which would really throw off a team and allow for some great moments. However, they have been adopted into the ever growing play book that the game has to offer. The same thing can be said about Starcraft and how the game has evolved. In any higher level sport (high school, college, semi-pro, pro) you will see the "replay theme" as a vital part in the training. In football you will see a team practice and then analyze film from there own team and the opponent. The same happens in wrestling, volleyball, soccer, basketball and the list can go on. Does this hurt the value of the game? Heck no. You will also find that many people use there own replays to critique and improve there own game. I am no pro player but if I get beat, I do enjoy the option of seeing why I lost. For example... if I got proxied... giving me insight to one more thing I have to watch out for. Having these replays also allow game imbalances to fully show themselves. XXX race is doing a certain build vs YYY race... and YYY race never wins. If YYY never knows whats coming at him how can they even begin to properly counter it (if even possible). | ||
EchOne
United States2906 Posts
That said, the proposed fog of war option isn't completely onerous. After all, circles of competitive players actually interested in improving will transparently share replays among themselves like always. Still, on principle, replay restriction shouldn't be necessary or even helpful. | ||
[-Bluewolf-]
United States609 Posts
On February 09 2010 03:12 Skaff wrote: In any higher level sport (high school, college, semi-pro, pro) you will see the "replay theme" as a vital part in the training. In football you will see a team practice and then analyze film from there own team and the opponent. The same happens in wrestling, volleyball, soccer, basketball and the list can go on. Does this hurt the value of the game? Heck no. I just thought I'd reply to this as I think I've seen this used previously in this thread. How many sports allow their practices to be fully recorded and for said practices to potentially be available to their opponents prior to playing? This thread has nothing to do with tournament play as far as I know. It is obvious such matches would still be recorded and that both opponents would have to allow their point of view. Hence, all analogies should be related to real sports practice (or whatever other game comparisons are used like the one with Magic: The Gathering) just as this deals with practicing Starcraft 2. This has nothing to do with inter-team practice, as in that case both players would allow their point-of-view to be shown as it is optional to protect it. To add my own quick thoughts on the subject as I don't really want to take the time to go into it in detail: + Show Spoiler + For the record, I agree with the OP's suggestion. I used to be able to play 200+ games of Starcraft in a 3 day period during the early days of the game. Each game different, each game against a different unique style. Nowadays, all Starcraft games are played the same and getting more similar by the day. I enjoyed TSL 1, but am struggling to enjoy watching TSL 2 games as I rarely see anything unique. It also extends to War3 - I quit playing that once the "best strats" were publicly available and no one used anything else. Slowing down the speed one can copy builds in practice and thus slowing down the speed one reaches a cookie-cutter set of "best strats" makes the game more fun (in my opinion, at least). | ||
rererebanned
67 Posts
| ||
dextahr
United States47 Posts
As a side note, if Blizzard actually did do this (which I highly doubt they will), it would be very complicated to make it so that it can't be hacked. They would either have to spawn the units in the fog of war before they come onto your screen (which could be glitchy) or make the entire replay a video (not even an option because of size). Blizzard likes to keep replays at a small size, and neither of these options look good for that. Replays are recorded by recording positions, it doesn't record the actual units. I wouldn't expect this even if 80% of the community wanted it. | ||
phyvo
United States5635 Posts
On February 09 2010 22:52 [-Bluewolf-] wrote: I just thought I'd reply to this as I think I've seen this used previously in this thread. How many sports allow their practices to be fully recorded and for said practices to potentially be available to their opponents prior to playing? This is not an analogous situation. Replay fog of war, as you yourself noted, will have little effect on how pro gamers practice with each other. However, it has major implications for the average Joe and how he gets to practice, and if the average Joe is affected then progaming will be affected as a result. Progamers don't grow on trees you know, and honestly why should only progamers be able to get something like the full benefit of replays? Isn't that kind of elitist? To add my own quick thoughts on the subject as I don't really want to take the time to go into it in detail: + Show Spoiler + For the record, I agree with the OP's suggestion. I used to be able to play 200+ games of Starcraft in a 3 day period during the early days of the game. Each game different, each game against a different unique style. Nowadays, all Starcraft games are played the same and getting more similar by the day. I enjoyed TSL 1, but am struggling to enjoy watching TSL 2 games as I rarely see anything unique. It also extends to War3 - I quit playing that once the "best strats" were publicly available and no one used anything else. Slowing down the speed one can copy builds in practice and thus slowing down the speed one reaches a cookie-cutter set of "best strats" makes the game more fun (in my opinion, at least). So if I get in an accident, an ok solution for the doctors is just to slow down the rate at which I bleed to death rather than stitching me up? The OP's solution is the antithesis of creativity since it restricts the tools strategists can use to make new strategies. If the game is not deep enough for you than enhance the bloody strategy and make it a deeper game. Don't go around pining for the "good old days" and slapping shackles on people as if that is actually a solution to the problem. | ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On February 05 2010 21:30 Blyf wrote: Zelniq thanks for a great OP and some very interesting points. I like the solutions you have offered for this very real issue. I can't believe the people dismissing your concerns as if they were ridiculous. I agree completely with you (and Boxer and Bisu for that matter, how can people disagree with these guys??) in that replays reduce important strategical elements in the game. I find this post amusing, because it shows that you very clearly didn't read the thread. If you actually bothered to do so, you'd know that Zelniq already conceded the point to the other side: that what is lost from having such a solution outweighs what is gained. On February 09 2010 22:52 [-Bluewolf-] wrote: How many sports allow their practices to be fully recorded and for said practices to potentially be available to their opponents prior to playing? How do you think progamer replays get leaked onto the internet to begin with? No one hacks the practice computers at SKT house. They don't magically appear on the internet. Some practice partner or team member has to have access to the to leak the replays. If players truly didn't want their replays to get out, they wouldn't get out. | ||
[-Bluewolf-]
United States609 Posts
On February 11 2010 04:36 phyvo wrote: This is not an analogous situation. Replay fog of war, as you yourself noted, will have little effect on how pro gamers practice with each other. However, it has major implications for the average Joe and how he gets to practice, and if the average Joe is affected then progaming will be affected as a result. Progamers don't grow on trees you know, and honestly why should only progamers be able to get something like the full benefit of replays? Isn't that kind of elitist? Nah, you are the one being elitist. Not everyone has a little "practice circle" - especially new players. You basically screw their competitive chances from the get-go. A little story for ya. In 2005, I played a game called Warhammer 40k: Dawn of War for WCG USA. Due to being new to the community, I was not part of any of the elite practice circles, and could only get one good Space Marine player to play me (mainly because we were in the same time zone as most players were European). I played others in the games ladder - but I don't count them as I rarely struggled in those game after awhile. The brackets were posted ahead of time, and my first round opponent was the only Space Marine player in the entire tournament (someone I had beaten previously with my ladder smurf while automatching). About 10 minutes before my match at WCG USA, another player informed me that the Space Marine player I had practiced with had provided all my replays to my opponent. Of course, I decided not to believe him as my only option, and hence did my own strategy as usual only to watch him play as if he had a maphack on (or basically, he had me timed down to the second). In short, as a new player, I was utterly screwed. I didn't have an elite circle of friends and wasn't even able to play on the ladder on my "real handle" as any of his elite circle of friends I would play would provide him with my replay. In the end, he got it anyway due to my desperation for an opponent, but being able to block my point of view would have given me some chance. It isn't uncommon either. In 2006 when I was a part of the community and had built my own "elite circle", one of my practice partners begged me for replays for an opponent he would play in WCG Germany. It would have been all to easy for me to eliminate many of that player's strategic options with a few clicks of my mouse and he wouldn't even know it. But hey, whatever. As I said before, just my opinion on the subject, and one could argue either way on the second part you quoted. I prefer a game where one must develop their own strats and counters, you like a game where one must study replays and either build an elite circle of friends to keep strats from being countered or play standard every game. Different tastes. | ||
phyvo
United States5635 Posts
On February 11 2010 05:09 [-Bluewolf-] wrote: Nah, you are the one being elitist. Not everyone has a little "practice circle" - especially new players. You basically screw their competitive chances from the get-go. THAT'S MY POINT. If you remove replays "practice circles" are all that little Joes have, if they even have that. Think about it. Progamers already play on teams, but Joes will play on ladder. As a result, Progamers will get the full advantage from team replays while average Joes will *not*. You are hindering their learning compared to progamers. Even if some Joe asks for help on some forums or from what team mates they have, other people will not be able to help them as much because they will not know what the opponent is doing. So don't fling that elitist crap at me, normal replays only empower the average Joe. I prefer a game where one must develop their own strats and counters, you like a game where one must study replays and either build an elite circle of friends to keep strats from being countered or play standard every game. Different tastes. Again you miss my point. Whatever game you play, people will begin to play more effective strategies over time. This is called getting better at the game, and it will eventually happen regardless of whether or not you hide replays in fog of war. Again, the OP's suggestion only delays SC2 from becoming the type of game that you hate. That said, why are you not suggesting making the game DEEPER in the first place? | ||
| ||