Yeah, I found this via searching for Day9, and this is an absolutely fantastic article, it really applies to Guild Wars as well. Really brilliant analysis of game design.

OskO

Argentina369 Posts

May 13 2011 13:13 GMT

#82

Very good read.
Got nerd-chills all over my body.

PS: Congratulations for your promotion to Masters (Degree).-

Yurie

11640 Posts

May 13 2011 22:56 GMT

#83

On May 12 2011 03:10 AsianEcksDragon wrote:
What if I play Grubby in War3 a million times? Wouldn't I eventually take a game when I get really lucky with RNG and loots?

After 1 million games you would most likely be a very very very good player. Which could take something like 2/10 or 1/10 games from him. Especially since you have been playing (training) with a that good player.

Desiderium

Belgium29 Posts

May 14 2011 18:54 GMT

#84

I love this article. One of the things I frequently do when thinking about what makes a game like Starcraft great is try to draw parallels to other different games and real life situations. Most people will be familiar with the comparison of starcraft and poker, and I think this article articulated really well what one of the common uniting factors is that makes these things endlessly interesting and what makes for a consistent winner instead of a flash in the pan.

galtdunn

United States977 Posts

May 16 2011 05:25 GMT

#85

Wow the commenters on the first page of this article is almost as impressive as the article itself T.T

Great read tho, loved the mancala analogy to other games. My question would be, is there a way to incorporate that mancala strategy into real life? (mancala games or elsewhere

)

Riku

United States1064 Posts

May 16 2011 13:22 GMT

#86

Awesome article by an awesome guy. Too bad I can be too dense at times to take advantage of a huge lead tossed in my lap, though, eh?

Failsafe

United States1298 Posts

May 20 2011 16:10 GMT

#87

thinking poker, exploiting every advantage EV > 0, may be what you're talking about, but in the case of mixed strategy games such as starcraft what constitutes a marginal advantage may be ambiguous. some players aim for a small advantage in each game, while other players aim to win games by huge margins. i would expect the most successful player to be one with both strong standard play and capable of loose aggressive play, that is, capable of winning or losing games by huge margins.

for instance, i think incontrol's brood war play style could be described as 'greedy, winning or losing by huge margins', but this proved effective in competitive play to the effect that he won a wcg usa finals.

while probably implied by what you wrote, i'm not sure the above is completely obvious

CrumpetGuvnor

Australia302 Posts

May 20 2011 19:18 GMT

#88

Who is this day9 bloke? He seems to have his head screwed on right.

kethers

United States719 Posts

May 21 2011 13:46 GMT

#89

Nice article, gives you a lot to think about for game design =D

Wak.Turtle

29 Posts

May 22 2011 06:14 GMT

#90

man sean, i dont usually read shit thats this long on forums, usually because it is full of dumb shit that doesnt intrust me. This caught my attention thought and entertained my short attention span. awesome read thanks.

Jedclark

United Kingdom903 Posts

May 23 2011 17:09 GMT

#91

This was an excellent article, aside from the MvC2 reference. In games like that, teams will usually have a solid idea of what works, and what doesn't. They rarely just say, "You play your favourite character, and I'll use this guy because he is cool." If they want to go anywhere, they'll have to think, "Hey, X goes with Y because of passive-ability Z." Apart from that, the article was well written and thought out.

Azaiya

United Kingdom33 Posts

May 24 2011 07:24 GMT

#92

Fantastic article Day[9] I found it a very interesting read and completely agree with everything you say. However, I also think there is a 4th dynamic that you have not included and it is just as important as the three you previously mentioned and that is of aesthetics.

Allow me to explain my thinking in simple terms.

Take chess as an example.

We currently play chess with 2 sets of pieces which are easy to differentiate because of the way they are coloured. If those 2 sets of pieces were of similar colour it would make the game incredibly frustrating to play because it would be much harder to determine your position and consequently your strategy.

So whilst I totally agree with everything you say I also do not believe it to be the be all and end all when it comes to competitive game design.

Of course I could give many more examples and would be happy to flesh out my thoughts should you find this avenue of conversation appealing.

-orb-

United States5770 Posts

May 24 2011 07:45 GMT

#93

Ahhhh can't believe I missed this thread the first time around!

Fantastic read... and I think a lot of these things apply to SC2.

The entire section about counters and a fancy multimedia rock-paper-scissors really rings true, and I always find myself wishing I had more options in sc2 to counter whatever my opponent is doing, but it seems you have to have the right unit composition to win and must follow the game's built-in counters instead of having these choices

Edu

Sweden35 Posts

May 24 2011 08:32 GMT

#94

I don't know how so many people could've missed this, including me! This really needs to be shown to the masses, even if it's some years old now! I found it by browsing reddit. A really interesting and well-written article.

Mulu731

United States99 Posts

May 24 2011 19:11 GMT

#95

I love you Day9. =]

Great read!

Chemist391

United States362 Posts

May 24 2011 22:14 GMT

#96

Hm, Day's criticism of specialized counters falling into rock-paper-scissors (the second main argument) sounds pretty familiar...iirc, there was a lot of ire on the SC2beta forums about SC2 being a game of hard-counters, whereas BW was a game of soft(er)-counters. The premise here is that a game of soft-counters allows for greater ambiguity with respect to optimal play.

His third main argument here sounds shockingly like Idra's argument during the now-infamous day9/idra SotG discussion.

Penke

Sweden346 Posts

May 26 2011 16:34 GMT

#97

This is basically my own thoughts on competetive gaming written down on. I specifically liked the part that explains how there are no degrees of winning and that a riskless small victory is usually the most guaranteed victory. Too few people understand this in my opinion, and this is equally the case in most forms of competition. Really good article, I love what you do

Hasuu

Canada178 Posts

May 29 2011 21:38 GMT

#98

Very well written, Day9!

nali_us

United States9 Posts

June 03 2011 18:17 GMT

#99

A good post, and I mostly agree. Something you reference but don't quite focus on is the concept of the "big win"--strategy aside, it's human nature to want to finish strong. Even pros are not immune to the allure that comes with an ego