Re:Game theory article from a professional Starcraft player/...
by endtime on Monday September 05, 2011 @01:17AM
(#2961243)
The game is played at a high level, sure, but I'd call this a slight exaggeration. 1% of a player's income is less than a single worker even in the late game (when most players have around 70 workers), and a single worker kill never really makes a huge difference.
Re:Game theory article from a professional Starcraft player/...
by jarin on Monday September 05, 2011 @01:45AM
(#2961290)
Killing a single mining worker can make a difference very early in the game if they're using a very timing-heavy strategy, but that's really only at the very tip-top levels of play.
Re:Game theory article from a professional Starcraft player/...
by jtchang on Monday September 05, 2011 @02:42AM
(#2961410)
Depends when the kill is. A single worker from your initial 6? Big problem.
Re:Game theory article from a professional Starcraft player/...
by endtime on Monday September 05, 2011 @03:08AM
(#2961449)
You can't even get a scout worker to your opponent's base before they're up to 9-10 workers or more on most maps. Anyway, killing one worker of 6 is 17% of someone's economy, not 1%.
Re:Game theory article from a professional Starcraft player/...
by algorias on Monday September 05, 2011 @08:26AM
(#2961999)
Killing a worker early is subject to compound interest, so that 17% (or 10% more realistically) of an early worker kill is going to grow exponentially all game long.
Re:Game theory article from a professional Starcraft player/...
by endtime on Monday September 05, 2011 @08:49AM
(#2962051)
>an early worker kill is going to grow exponentially all game long.
That's a very unrealistic claim, though yes, losing a worker very early can have a measurable effect. But that pretty much never happens, outside of all-in cheeses like 6 pool or proxy 2 rax/gate.
Are you defending the original claim that games are decided over affecting 1% of one's opponents economy?
Re:Game theory article from a professional Starcraft player/...
by jasonlotito on Monday September 05, 2011 @09:35PM
(#2963789)
> the original claim that games are decided over affecting 1% of one's opponents economy?
The original claim wasn't that the game was decided over 1% of someones economy. Rather, that games were decided over many small advantages gained, things like affecting someones economy by 1%. You do that 5-10 times throughout the game, and that's a good 5-10% of their economy.
Re:Game theory article from a professional Starcraft player/...
by endtime on Tuesday September 06, 2011 @11:10PM
(#2968180)
Well that's not actually how games are decided these days. It's often something like "did Z have queens blocking his ramp before the blue flame hellions got there?" or "did P get scout the tech lab on the starport and put down a robo in time?", even at the pro level. A lot of other games end with a two-base timing attack (e.g. fast blink stalkers). Good games will have some eco harass, but more along the lines of dropping 8 marines and killing several workers, or totally taking out an expo with infested terrans. I don't think I've ever seen a single worker kill be significant, or even multiple instances of similarly small magnitude. The APM and attention it costs to harass often isn't worth killing a single worker.
There's a lot of depth to SC2, but I think it's a mischaracterization to say that it's a game of such tiny advantages, at least at the level it's played today.
The interesting thing about starcraft is that it's played _so_ much (in s. korea is a profession, kids actually go to live in "pro houses" were they play all day), that the game has/is evolving to a point where every little thing matters. In the highest levels, you can't really fight a straight up battle and hope to win, it's a game of getting little advantages (like removing %1 of his income) and trying to get ahead, and push those advantages much later on. Increasing your economy, building up you army, the execution and management of your units in the fight, everything counts.