Starcraft 2 discussion thread

[Artemas]

Well, they think the number of times they can click in a minute is a skill too, so....?

[ArmorPierce]

Sigh. Try not being butthurt; your openings are determined by a spreadsheet. If you like that, great, but it's boring as fuck to me. Stofsk and Spyder can get excited about 'we rushed this guy and beat him', but that is just lame to me. Are you going to be butthurt about that, too?

I'm loving how you addressed the ludicrous comparison between chess and fucking SC2 though. Do you honestly, seriously think they're comparable?

There are far more than 5 openings to the game. In fact, for the most part rushing only works on people who have no idea what they are doing in the game. Yes I think that they are both comparable in the fact that they are strategy games that works on standard openings and the game evolves by reacting to your opponent's moves and adjusting accordingly. Your opponent sees that you left a huge gap in your game and shifts his strategy to counter it. The kind of mindset for each game is similar with the biggest difference being one game is real time vs other being turn based.

Wrong. It's both. No one has perfect knowledge of what's going on in the map due to the fog of war, which means timing a push can coincide with luck just as easily as it can with skill. Lots of pro league players have timed a push wrong one game, then perfectly in another.

That is what scouting is for. Yes you can get it wrong.

Every time I hear a gamer go "it's teh skillz" I want to fucking laugh. Luck has way more to do with all competitive games than people like to think. You *cannot* control the situation on a game map in any way that would cripple the other players. That would defeat the purpose of competitive play. Essentially leaving luck and a basic amount of build tree/map location/gameplay formula memorization to the player. But hey, I guess people really think memorizing a build tree is "skill".

Yeah right. If it's more 'luck' than anything, why is it that there are pro gamers at all making 6 digits? Why is it that there are players with 80%+ winning percentages? Memorizing a build tree is the bare minimum you need to do. In fact, you need to memorize the build tree (I'm assuming you mean tech tree) of the other races too. If you mean build order, then you are so far from correct it's not funny and you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Honestly a strict build order only plays a role in the very start of the game and it's very flexible. If you try to follow a set build tree any longer and you will probably lose most of your games.

Honestly the game takes a lot of smarts. Before you are going to make a comment, please get to top ranks and then comment. It's what I did. People commenting "oh it doesn't take any skill" or complaining that they are just not there because of x reason. Want to prove it? Then go ahead, do it and then comment. It will give you a lot more credibility. Another thing I did this for was getting top grades in school. I want to comment about the educations system and such? I decided that I will get top grades so that my words have some credibility to them having actually gone through the experience.

[Zed]

Timing a push wrong, expanding too early or too late, isn't luck. It's skill.

Wrong. It's both. No one has perfect knowledge of what's going on in the map due to the fog of war, which means timing a push can coincide with luck just as easily as it can with skill. Lots of pro league players have timed a push wrong one game, then perfectly in another.

You don't have perfect knowledge of what's going on in the map due to the opponent actively denying scouting. If you don't have enough awareness of what the opponent is doing, then your opponent is actively stopping you. Once again, that's not based on luck.

[Thanas]

There are far more than 5 openings to the game.

Indeed there are, but I really don't see as many as in Chess.

In fact, for the most part rushing only works on people who have no idea what they are doing in the game.

I find myself vulnerable to the MMM rush - meaning the guy pumps out five marauders/marines + 1 tank and just rushes. Any advice? It seems to me that the only good way to counter that is either go for 3 Barracks early or try to get quickly to siegetanks.

Yes I think that they are both comparable in the fact that they are strategy games that works on standard openings and the game evolves by reacting to your opponent's moves and adjusting accordingly.

Heh, but no. By that standard every strategy game would be comparable to chess.

Your opponent sees that you left a huge gap in your game and shifts his strategy to counter it. The kind of mindset for each game is similar with the biggest difference being one game is real time vs other being turn based.

Meh, not really. Chess is mental gymnastics that are far more demanding than SCII.

[CaptHawkeye]

Yeah right. If it's more 'luck' than anything, why is it that there are pro gamers at all making 6 digits? Why is it that there are players with 80%+ winning percentages? Memorizing a build tree is the bare minimum you need to do. In fact, you need to memorize the build tree (I'm assuming you mean tech tree) of the other races too. If you mean build order, then you are so far from correct it's not funny and you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Honestly a strict build order only plays a role in the very start of the game and it's very flexible. If you try to follow a set build tree any longer and you will probably lose most of your games.

Oh shut up. You didn't even read me right. Hint: I never said their was *no skill* in a game. I said its over rated.

Honestly the game takes a lot of smarts. Before you are going to make a comment, please get to top ranks and then comment. It's what I did.

THAT is your response? "You're not allowed to talk about the game until you demonstrate LEET SKILLZ" Are you still curious as to why I find gamers touting their so called skills hilarious?

People commenting "oh it doesn't take any skill" or complaining that they are just not there because of x reason. Want to prove it? Then go ahead, do it and then comment. It will give you a lot more credibility. Another thing I did this for was getting top grades in school. I want to comment about the educations system and such? I decided that I will get top grades so that my words have some credibility to them having actually gone through the experience.

You're the one that flipped into a butt-hurt rage because I find the entire concept of game skills hilarious. Note: I said "hilarious" not "non existent" but thanks for proving my point.

[hongi]

There's luck and chance involved, but I think it's pretty rare when luck is the single most important factor in a win (although I don't deny that this can happen). An experienced player uses their experience to react to bad or good luck. It's just part of the bag of skills that you're supposed to have.

[ArmorPierce]

There are far more than 5 openings to the game.

Indeed there are, but I really don't see as many as in Chess.

This is true

I find myself vulnerable to the MMM rush - meaning the guy pumps out five marauders/marines + 1 tank and just rushes. Any advice? It seems to me that the only good way to counter that is either go for 3 Barracks early or try to get quickly to siegetanks.

Not a Terran player, I'm a Zerg player. As a Zerg player mmm rush is countered first by lings and banelings and then mutlisk when you are able to get it and drawing out the mm from the tanks, and killing them separately if able to.

Yes I think that they are both comparable in the fact that they are strategy games that works on standard openings and the game evolves by reacting to your opponent's moves and adjusting accordingly.

In some level I guess that could be argued

Meh, not really. Chess is mental gymnastics that are far more demanding than SCII.

It is yes but a part of it is the difference between a turn based and a realt time game. It draws from the the same repository of skills. Regardless, the point was that chess has a bunch of standard openings and standard strategies that

Oh shut up. You didn't even read me right. Hint: I never said their was *no skill* in a game. I said its over rated.

YOU ARE WRONG. If skill is a small part of it, prove it. How do you suppor this claim. Why is it that there is such a large difference of skill between top players and casual players? Go pick up the game, get to top rank and then get back to me. I see people all the time saying things like eve online experience > than skill points, which I find laughable.

THAT is your response? "You're not allowed to talk about the game until you demonstrate LEET SKILLZ" Are you still curious as to why I find gamers touting their so called skills hilarious?

You are making a bunch of unfounded unsupported claims that are wrong. It's the same kind of comments that I find people making in many areas of life where they themselves are not good at.

[CaptHawkeye]

YOU ARE WRONG. If skill is a small part of it, prove it. How do you suppor this claim. Why is it that there is such a large difference of skill between top players and casual players? Go pick up the game, get to top rank and then get back to me. I see people all the time saying things like eve online experience > than skill points, which I find laughable.

How about YOU prove that significant skill is even required? And don't give me any of that "oh geez memorize a couple of tech trees" bull shit. It's a video game for fuck's sake. The skill required to do any task in the game is so tiny by it's very nature since it has to be learned in a reasonable amount of time. Like the kind of time someone would be willing to invest in a game IE: not that long.

How are you supposed to control what the other player decides to do? How are you supposed to know you're not going to futz right into a situation in which he has the advantage or disadvantage? You don't. Because if it could be decided like that the very nature of a balanced game would be defeated. You can influence things, but you cannot control the overall flow a game's outcome any more than he can.

You are making a bunch of unfounded unsupported claims that are wrong. It's the same kind of comments that I find people making in many areas of life where they themselves are not good at.

[ArmorPierce]

How about YOU prove that significant skill is even required?

The fact that there are professional players being paid 6 digits proves this. The fact that the vast majority of players are unable to get to the professional level demonstrates this. The fact that a higher ranked player will consistently beat lower ranked players. Your turn. Show me how it's all mostly luck

And don't give me any of that "oh geez memorize a couple of tech trees" bull shit. It's a video game for fuck's sake. The skill required to do any task in the game is so tiny by it's very nature since it has to be learned in a reasonable amount of time. Like the kind of time someone would be willing to invest in a game IE: not that long.

The basic skills to learn is tiny but vast majority of people can't even do that. What the hell do you even mean by a couple tech trees. Do you mean the research trees? I don't really know what you are trying to say here.

How are you supposed to control what the other player decides to do? How are you supposed to know you're not going to futz right into a situation in which he has the advantage or disadvantage? You don't. Because if it could be decided like that the very nature of a balanced game would be defeated. You can influence things, but you cannot control the overall flow a game's outcome any more than he can.

Wow. Anything that you do has an influence on what the opponent does and if your opponent does not respond correctly they win. Are you suggesting that you are supposed to control what your opponent does? That doesn't even make sense. You can't control it but you can influence it.

You are making a bunch of unfounded unsupported claims that are wrong. It's the same kind of comments that I find people making in many areas of life where they themselves are not good at.

[/quote]
You still haven't done anything to justify your statement that 'skills' play a small part in a game like starcraft 2 and instead it's mostly based on luck. Please justify this statement and explain why there are professional players at all that get paid a lot of money. Otherwise, you are just looking like a troll.

Here is an article of what it takes to become good in a game like starcraft 2 (I wrote it) Maybe it will help you:

In a RTS game, like most other things in life, it takes practice to become good. If you are merely playing over and over again with no idea what you are doing, no goal or objectives you will see yourself soon hitting a wall. You have to practice with an idea of what you are attempting to do and a goal in mind. Becoming good at an RTS game is about adaptability. Doing the same tired old strategy over and over again expecting that it will make you a better player will only take you so far before you hit a wall. In fact, doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results is the definition of insanity. You can perform that one build order perfectly, make sure your macro and micro is perfect but still not be able to win against your opponent using that particular strategy in every situation even though you flawlessly executed it. Making a carbon copy of the build order that you saw your favorite expert player using will not make you an expert player. If you play an instrument, think of it this way; will practicing the one same song over and over again make you a better musician? It will probably make you the best at playing THAT song but you are really limiting yourself by not practicing other songs.

If you see that a certain strategy does not work in a given situation, be creative, change it up!

You have to see your economy as a means to an end, which is to win the game. The parent resource to everything you do or make in the game is time. The minerals and gas that you collect represents increments of time which it took to collect those resources. The faster you collect the resources the more and the faster you can pump out your units. When you are going to attack your opponent, you have to do some quick math in your head. Will you be able to do more damage to your opponent than he does to me? Is the resources I lose (represented by the units which you spent your resources on) worth it? All too many times I see people (myself included) go into a losing battle and fight to the last unit when retreating and regrouping would have been the better idea. Senselessly throwing your units away in a battle that they can't win is usually a bad idea.

Avoid needlessly throwing away resources that does not achieve anything. Avoid battles you cannot win!

Another thing that I've been guilty of in the past is not committing to a certain strategy. For example, I have successfully just beaten back an early push from the enemy. From here I could either eco up or attempt my own push against him. What not to do is is don't become apprehensive and do a half assed push and a half assed boom because you are unsure of which direction to go. Sure, go test the water and if you think you can take your opponent out, continue with the strong push and focus your resources to accomplishing that by focusing on building units rather than drones and hatcheries. If you don't think you can put the hurt on him or take him, then don't! If you defended well from a push and destroyed a bunch of units, you have the advantage. Don't squander it by walking to his base and losing all your units to his army+photon cannons unless you'd be able to do more damage to him than he does to you or take him out! This advice may seem like it contradicts the first piece of advice, but it doesn't. The strategy that you are committing to is something that you commit to in response to the position that you and your opponent is in. You are adapting to the given situation based on the given game.

Set Objectives, follow through, and don't half-ass it!

To take your game to the next level, you have to get into the head of your opponent. What I mean from this is that you should predict what your opponents responses will be to your moves. An example of this would be a game I just previously played against a Protoss player. I attacked towards his main and natural expansion. His troops were split between here and another expansion that he held. After pushing in I pulled back. Why did I do this? I wanted to avoid getting surrounded and to meet his army on my terms. Upon review of the recorded game, it turned out I was right, he was heading with his army to attack my troops from behind and pulled back when he saw I withdrew. He later attempted to engage again at which point I was able to beat it and wipe out his expansion. Ask yourself, what would you do if you were in your opponent's situation? What responses have you seen from other games?

Get into the head of your opponent!

When experts are asked in interviews of what makes them a top player and what differentiates them from others, usually they will give a stock answer of it being due to macro/micro or something like that. The truth is that most experts don't have much of a clue of what separates their ability? Why is this? It's because during their games they don't think too much! That may come as a shock but it is true. Some years ago, there was a study of expert rts players vs rookie rts players looking at which part of the brain each group used. The rookie group made larger use of the logical part of the brain associated with math. In contrast, the expert players used the intuitive part of their brain. This means that the expert players thought less and reacted more while playing the game. Stopping to think takes too long in a real time strategy game. This is not to say you should just do whatever on whim in the game. You have to do things intuitively and correctly. The only way you will be able to become intuitive about the game is practice, practice, practice. Studying charts, trees and replays will only take you so far. You have to actually apply your knowledge so that you can make it come to you like second nature instead of you having to think about it. This is what experts are actually, often unknowingly, refer to when they say they are 'feeling out' their opponent or the game.

Have your strategies and reactions come to you as second nature through practice, practice, practice!

[CaptHawkeye]

You give me an article that you wrote as a counter?

So what? All you've proven is that some guys are better at memorizing the game mechanics than others. That's not exactly hard to do for any game. It hardly quantifies as a "skill" at all. But hey, poor old AP is butt hurt that I said that video games don't take as much skill as people think. He then flew off into a huge diatribe that totally missed my point. I'm so sick of hearing nerds brag about their leet skillz in a game.

But i'm sure you'll take this as a concession or something. Even though I don't think you had any idea what I was saying the whole time.

[Stark]

Arguably the real skill is micro, which is a concrete way you can show superiority over your opponent (instead of 'my timetable is better' and 'i parked a barracks in the choke') and win in inferior situations. I'm not sure it's relevant beyond a certain point where the Econ determines the win.

[ArmorPierce]

You give me an article that you wrote as a counter?

I gave the article to help you figure out the game what it takes to approach the game.

So what? All you've proven is that some guys are better at memorizing the game mechanics than others. That's not exactly hard to do for any game. It hardly quantifies as a "skill" at all.

This is an idiotic statement . It doesn't meet YOUR qualification of having 'skills' skill because of your gut feeling. You still haven't demonstrated how it is mostly luck and instead are changing your argument from mostly luck to it's not a skill anyway.

But hey, poor old AP is butt hurt that I said that video games don't take as much skill as people think. He then flew off into a huge diatribe that totally missed my point. I'm so sick of hearing nerds brag about their leet skillz in a game.

But i'm sure you'll take this as a concession or something. Even though I don't think you had any idea what I was saying the whole time.

I am still not sure what you are saying. You first stated that it's mostly luck without providing any evidence for it and then you changed it not meeting the definition of skill, again without explaining why. It just isn't according to you. I guess people who are good at chess do not have skills at playing chess and it's mostly luck too and it's merely memorizing the mechanics of the game

Arguably the real skill is micro, which is a concrete way you can show superiority over your opponent (instead of 'my timetable is better' and 'i parked a barracks in the choke') and win in inferior situations. I'm not sure it's relevant beyond a certain point where the Econ determines the win.

Yes micro is a skill but not as much as some people make it out to be. Some people have 200+apm but most of that is done by doing repetitive things such as continuously clicking for no reason or selecting the same unit over and over again.

[Zed]

Micro's a very important skill to have in Starcraft, but arguably macro is more important - paying attention to both is arguably the most difficult part about Starcraft. You're supposed to be ensuring that your minerals never go above 500, checking the minimap, ensuring you're building workers all the time, ensuring you've got supply, continue producing units and production structures, while scouting, handling your main army, harassing and denying expansions all along. Learning how to do all these things isn't just a matter of memorizing game mechanics as CaptHawkeye says - it's a matter of developing tacit knowledge, learning habits with your body while simultaneously developing insight in strategy that allows even the tiniest hint to tell you what the opponent is doing (for example: 'the enemy army is too small, therefore he must be expanding', but more subtle).

[ArmorPierce]

What's funny is that capthawkeye is saying that it's just memorizing the game mechanics. Chess mechanics are actually far more simpler, but that's not what makes it a very deep game with a huge variety in skill. I wonder if he feels chess is mostly luck too.

[Stark]

Since both players can see the same board and the only unknown is the enemy plan, you'd have to be pretty stupid to suggest that.

[ArmorPierce]

Since both players can see the same board and the only unknown is the enemy plan, you'd have to be pretty stupid to suggest that.

If you scout you are able to see your enemy plan too you know.

[Stofsk]

Since both players can see the same board and the only unknown is the enemy plan, you'd have to be pretty stupid to suggest that.

If you scout you are able to see your enemy plan too you know.

Not always. Some pro league players have won by hiding things from their opponents, and others have lost for the exact same reason.

The difference is chess has the whole board open for both players, there is no fog of war. It is not remotely comparable unless you can play a game of Starcraft 2 with no fog of war, which I assume you cannot. Saying you can scout the enemy is not the same thing. That's an active measure which can be countered, and things like luck may be important - like choosing one particular part of the map to use a scanner sweep in, where you spot some hidden starports or whatever. In one of the games I posted above, I got rushed by a protoss player who set up a pylon and gateway where my natural expansion was. I set up a sensor tower, and as luck would have it his forward base was just outside the radius. That was pure luck. If I had placed the tower somewhere else, I would have seen him well before he was ready to make his move.

In chess, you literally cannot prevent your opponent from seeing what you are doing.

[Stark]

Did someone just equate 'seeing the board' with 'scouting is a huge part of the player interaction with the game'?

PS these things are not the same.

[ArmorPierce]

Yes, starcraft 2 throws in an addition dynamic into the game which is fog of war which chess does not have. What does that have to do with it being simple game mechanic wise yet very deep strategy wise which capthawkeye is suggesting (simple game mechanics = no skills)? Or is that not a response to that?

If you mean that you just don't like fog of war, there are other ways to scout out what your opponent is doing with missing buildings or missing out. I wrote up a article that I am working on right now (unfinished) for zerg. I will post it if anyone wants to see it but it's kind of outdated need to update it with current strats and such.

No... chess is not starcraft 2 if that's what is the point of your post. Are you saying that starcraft 2 would be fine with standard openings and standard counters if it did not have fog of war?

[Stark]

Hawkeye isn't saying 'no skill'. He's saying a) the 'skill' isn't really and b) luck is a major element.

[Crossroads Inc.]

OK ok.. Enough of the rest of that nonsense... I need people to play with!!!

I am sick and tired of loosing games playing with random people because more often then not I get some guy who doesn't know what he is doing.

Last game we lost, and just barely, because the third player in our 3v3 evidently spent his entire time covering the map in creep tumors... Yeah...
The game before that, the other player, after a very successful hit on the enemy base, left to defend me as I got hit. Most of my base was destroyed, but the other guy made it through with a seizable army... Which he then sat on.. and did nothing with. I told him three times he should finish off the other player we hit, and he kept saying "Im just building up again.

You can see where this guys... We get hit by Banshees and flyers... He has NO AA defense, and Im still rebuilding. Game over.

So yeah.. please PLEASE someone out there give me your name and lets team up so I know I have someone competent

[Thanas]

So yeah.. please PLEASE someone out there give me your name and lets team up so I know I have someone competent

You know we have a thread dedicated to that, yes?

[Crossroads Inc.]

Yes I know we do... But I have not seen anyone from that thread online :/

[ArmorPierce]

Hawkeye isn't saying 'no skill'. He's saying a) the 'skill' isn't really and b) luck is a major element.

If that's what he's arguing, the skill used on online rts games is not real skill, that's still wrong. You can use that argument for just about anything else. It takes no skill to play basketball, soccer, chess, anything basically. What is your criteria of a skill then?

The 'luck' being a major element, from his post it seems like he thinks it's the biggest elment, is wrong. If that was the case, why is there such a large variety of skill levels for a game that has hundreds of thousands or millions of players? Why are there professional gamers that are making 6-digit income. How is it that there are functional rankings at all?

In any competition involving a person versus another person, you cannot completely control what they do, only influence them. Whenever you go up against a person, there is a element of luck involved. Remember kobe getting a dunk on by that college basketball player? Are we going to now claim that basketball is mostly based on luck?

[Stark]

You really harp on professional players, huh? You do know that the money earned by top-tier players is fust a function of the money to be made from their performance, right? It's not an objective measure of 'skill'. You know how much top-tier hopscotch players make? NOTHING, because nobody pays to watch/sponsorship.