|
On July 21 2011 07:12 CecilSunkure wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2011 06:56 Fyrewolf wrote: I'm not shifting the burden of proof. The mere fact that Starcraft has a Slippery Slope is proof of the need to accumulate advantages. The entire history of strategical thought is against you. You have yet to make a post of substance with a single valid criticism. "I Disagree" is not a valid criticism. You need to contribute, not just make unverifiable statements that amount to "Because I said so". You won't listen because of your own thickheadedness and have refused to even speak about the post for discussion.
I've provided coherent arguments, I've quoted Artosis, I've linked to professional game balancers. Do I need to go digging around for strategy books online to provide more proof? So far you have provided nothing in the way of reasoned discussion about this. If you aren't going to make a post of substance or contribute, then don't post. It's not about burden of proof, it's about having a coherent and cohesive case for your side. You have been found lacking. I have criticisms about the guide too. However I have seen more than sufficient evidence arguing for the accumulation of advantages being a key factor in Strategy, and you have provided insufficient evidence to the contrary. You want evidence? Okay. Here it goes. Here is my coherent reasoning with cited sources: OP, you provided no qualifications to back your claims, and never explained how you know what you know. I cannot myself argue against the content because I myself don't really feel sufficient, so for now I'm considering your content inaccurate due to the lack of sources/qualifications and clear applications to play.* * Source
I don't respect your highlighted status anymore.
|
What Cecil is saying is kind of mean, but true.
The reason replays are always required in this forum is because no amount of theorycrafting will ever compensate for lack of in game experience, and the replays serve as evidence for those that don't agree with the thread content.
When you are making a pure strategy post without showing any ingame applications, we can just either believe you, or not. When we don't who you are, where you got your game knowledge etc... we have no reason to believe you.
The same thing applies IRL, when you publish a scientific paper, you can either -provide some experiment results and detailed experimentation protocols -have some damn good credential and/or sources.
Also, as IRL, when you post a strategy thread here, people will judge whether they are interested in the thread or not from the first paragraph. This is usually where you put your credentials, etc...
What cecil is saying is that if he has no reason to believe you, and your introduction doesn't provide proof that your thread is well documented, he won't read it because there is no way to know if the content is correct or not.
If you want to improve on this, i would suggest improving the introduction, defining clearly what you aim to do and how you know what you are talking about. What people should expect from this guide etc...
|
On July 21 2011 07:12 CecilSunkure wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2011 06:56 Fyrewolf wrote: I'm not shifting the burden of proof. The mere fact that Starcraft has a Slippery Slope is proof of the need to accumulate advantages. The entire history of strategical thought is against you. You have yet to make a post of substance with a single valid criticism. "I Disagree" is not a valid criticism. You need to contribute, not just make unverifiable statements that amount to "Because I said so". You won't listen because of your own thickheadedness and have refused to even speak about the post for discussion.
I've provided coherent arguments, I've quoted Artosis, I've linked to professional game balancers. Do I need to go digging around for strategy books online to provide more proof? So far you have provided nothing in the way of reasoned discussion about this. If you aren't going to make a post of substance or contribute, then don't post. It's not about burden of proof, it's about having a coherent and cohesive case for your side. You have been found lacking. I have criticisms about the guide too. However I have seen more than sufficient evidence arguing for the accumulation of advantages being a key factor in Strategy, and you have provided insufficient evidence to the contrary. You want evidence? Okay. Here it goes. Here is my coherent reasoning with cited sources: OP, you provided no qualifications to back your claims, and never explained how you know what you know. I cannot myself argue against the content because I myself don't really feel sufficient, so for now I'm considering your content inaccurate due to the lack of sources/qualifications and clear applications to play.* * Source
So you are playing the unqualified card again? Why are you posting if you can't contribute?
"The master should not look for winning combinations, unless he believed, unless he could prove to himself that he held the advantage." "An advantage could consist ... not only in a single important advantage but also in a multitude of insignificant advantages." "Therefore... in the beginning of the game ignore the search for violent combinations, abstain from violent moves, aim for small advantages, accumulate them, and only after having attained these ends search for the combination - and then with all the power of will and intellect, because then the combination must exist, however deeply hidden." -- Em. Lasker, Manual of Chess, Book IV
"My objection to the "Tactics, tactics, tactics" school of thought is not to say that tactics are not important or that most games are not decided by tactical blows. Indeed, what is often at fault in the game of the club player is a failure to check for their opponent's opportunities in reply.... Seizing the initiative, going for an attack, and having an eye for random chances are probably at least as important as positional judgement in club play. But I would still not wish to call for one type of study as being important - in particular, not for tactics being more important than strategy." - Purdy
“Therefore the intelligent General contemplates both the advantages and disadvantages. Contemplating the advantages, he fulfills his calculations. Contemplating the disadvantages, he removes his difficulties.”
--Sun Tzu “The Art of War”
"The task of the positional player is systematically to accumulate slight advantages and try to convert temporary advantages into permanent ones, otherwise the player with the better position runs the risk of losing it."
--Steinitz
|
On July 21 2011 07:29 Fyrewolf wrote: So you are playing the unqualified card again? Why are you posting if you can't contribute? Just because I cannot contribute in the way you want doesn't mean I cannot.
|
On July 21 2011 07:31 CecilSunkure wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2011 07:29 Fyrewolf wrote: So you are playing the unqualified card again? Why are you posting if you can't contribute? Just because I cannot contribute in the way you want doesn't mean I cannot.
What have you contributed?
|
He has contributed the stance that this is a pure theory craft thread in the guise of a [g] and that it needs some kind of proof in any form for it to have any ability to stand on its on.
|
On July 21 2011 07:34 vaderseven wrote: He has contributed the stance that this is a pure theory craft thread in the guise of a [g] and that it needs some kind of proof in any form for it to have any ability to stand on its on.
And the entire history of strategical thought and theory is proving him wrong. His post quality has gone severely downhill from the start of this thread, and considering it started out incoherent and without substance, that's saying a lot.
“Therefore the intelligent General contemplates both the advantages and disadvantages. Contemplating the advantages, he fulfills his calculations. Contemplating the disadvantages, he removes his difficulties.”
--Sun Tzu “The Art of War”
|
On July 21 2011 07:37 Fyrewolf wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2011 07:34 vaderseven wrote: He has contributed the stance that this is a pure theory craft thread in the guise of a [g] and that it needs some kind of proof in any form for it to have any ability to stand on its on. And the entire history of strategical thought and theory is proving him wrong. His post quality has gone severely downhill from the start of this thread, and considering it started out incoherent and without substance, that's saying a lot. “Therefore the intelligent General contemplates both the advantages and disadvantages. Contemplating the advantages, he fulfills his calculations. Contemplating the disadvantages, he removes his difficulties.” --Sun Tzu “The Art of War” You forgot to respond to my part about clear applications to play, and the part about there being no qualifications stated, implicitly or not, as well as the part about explaining how he knows what he knows.
|
I feel like a certain amount of "evidence" for the ideas in the OP is available just through a very simple process of logical deduction from the bare elements of the gameplay in SC2. The terrain elements in maps, the way economy works, and supply, and the common attribute framework that all the units share. Certainly as evidence you could also refer to things many SC2 teachers or casters talk about when they explain game plans and the ideas behind builds. Certainly Day9 has referenced similar ideas on many occasions in his casts.
At the same time, having re-read the strategy forum guidelines, it does seem clear that this OP doesn't really fit the model for a [G] thread, and doesn't really fit the paradigm of this sub-forum as a whole, which is definitely more geared towards the practical and concrete. However I do think it's a bit of a mistake to think that focus is solely a matter of the practical and concrete being better or more important (it can be, depending on context) but I think it's also just a question of what makes the forum the most readable and useful for the majority of posters. The stringent requirements for providing evidence, replays, and concrete examples helps to keep the noise and balance whines down.
Anyway, it's sort of unfortunate (imo) that this discussion has basically only revolved around whether or not the OP meets the forum criteria or is useful, and less on the actual ideas it contains, but maybe it would better be posted elsewhere as a general discussion thread, rather than a strategy guide. Although I also agree the real benefit from trying to think about the ideas in the OP only comes from figuring out how to apply them in practical play, and it seems reasonable that perhaps some specific application of a specific idea (e.g. turning a positioning advantage into an economic advantage in TvZ) could be the basis for a [G] thread.
|
O dear god. Can a mod just close all these useless "guides" which have been coming out recently? At least take them out of strategy and into general.
|
On July 21 2011 07:37 Fyrewolf wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2011 07:34 vaderseven wrote: He has contributed the stance that this is a pure theory craft thread in the guise of a [g] and that it needs some kind of proof in any form for it to have any ability to stand on its on. And the entire history of strategical thought and theory is proving him wrong. His post quality has gone severely downhill from the start of this thread, and considering it started out incoherent and without substance, that's saying a lot. “Therefore the intelligent General contemplates both the advantages and disadvantages. Contemplating the advantages, he fulfills his calculations. Contemplating the disadvantages, he removes his difficulties.” --Sun Tzu “The Art of War”
See, the problem with this is that majority of the history of strategical thought was thought up and created by strategists who had no place in actually executing the strategies they came up with (i.e. they needed no "mechanical" skill).
StarCraft is a game where the strategist IS the sole executor (and the execution requires lots of "mechnical" skill). Thus, an entirely new paradigm is created from this shift.
Secondly, it seems to me like t/s created this guide in a vacuum - without consulting the various sources on strategy, mechanics, improving, advantages, etc that are out there specifically made for SC2. The problem is when you do that, you can (and most likely will) miss or completely go against certain fundamental concepts that are widely agreed upon.
|
On July 21 2011 07:45 CecilSunkure wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2011 07:37 Fyrewolf wrote:On July 21 2011 07:34 vaderseven wrote: He has contributed the stance that this is a pure theory craft thread in the guise of a [g] and that it needs some kind of proof in any form for it to have any ability to stand on its on. And the entire history of strategical thought and theory is proving him wrong. His post quality has gone severely downhill from the start of this thread, and considering it started out incoherent and without substance, that's saying a lot. “Therefore the intelligent General contemplates both the advantages and disadvantages. Contemplating the advantages, he fulfills his calculations. Contemplating the disadvantages, he removes his difficulties.” --Sun Tzu “The Art of War” You forgot to respond to my part about clear applications to play, and the part about there being no qualifications stated, implicitly or not, as well as the part about explaining how he knows what he knows.
You forgot to read the entire OP before posting, forgot about the fact that this is the beginning overview of an extremely large guide, forgot about the examples already mentioned in the OP that will be expanded upon with more examples and VODs, forgot about the various prominent figures in the scene that have spoken about this concept before like Artosis and Day[9], forgot to actually analyze the merit of the post in favor of bashing the poster, forgot to add any substance to your posts, and forgot how to do an actually good troll post. His qualifications are irrelevant, its about the quality of his post, which is of much higher caliber than yours have been in this thread.
|
On July 21 2011 07:55 0c3LoT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2011 07:37 Fyrewolf wrote:On July 21 2011 07:34 vaderseven wrote: He has contributed the stance that this is a pure theory craft thread in the guise of a [g] and that it needs some kind of proof in any form for it to have any ability to stand on its on. And the entire history of strategical thought and theory is proving him wrong. His post quality has gone severely downhill from the start of this thread, and considering it started out incoherent and without substance, that's saying a lot. “Therefore the intelligent General contemplates both the advantages and disadvantages. Contemplating the advantages, he fulfills his calculations. Contemplating the disadvantages, he removes his difficulties.” --Sun Tzu “The Art of War” See, the problem with this is that majority of the history of strategical thought was thought up and created by strategists who had no place in actually executing the strategies they came up with (i.e. they needed no "mechanical" skill). StarCraft is a game where the strategist IS the sole executor (and the execution requires lots of "mechnical" skill). Thus, an entirely new paradigm is created from this shift.
And this is different from the chess masters who defeated hundreds of players using the mechanical execution of their theorems before they wrote books about how accumulating advantages is the nature of strategy how?
|
On July 21 2011 08:05 Fyrewolf wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2011 07:55 0c3LoT wrote:On July 21 2011 07:37 Fyrewolf wrote:On July 21 2011 07:34 vaderseven wrote: He has contributed the stance that this is a pure theory craft thread in the guise of a [g] and that it needs some kind of proof in any form for it to have any ability to stand on its on. And the entire history of strategical thought and theory is proving him wrong. His post quality has gone severely downhill from the start of this thread, and considering it started out incoherent and without substance, that's saying a lot. “Therefore the intelligent General contemplates both the advantages and disadvantages. Contemplating the advantages, he fulfills his calculations. Contemplating the disadvantages, he removes his difficulties.” --Sun Tzu “The Art of War” See, the problem with this is that majority of the history of strategical thought was thought up and created by strategists who had no place in actually executing the strategies they came up with (i.e. they needed no "mechanical" skill). StarCraft is a game where the strategist IS the sole executor (and the execution requires lots of "mechnical" skill). Thus, an entirely new paradigm is created from this shift. And this is different from the chess masters who defeated hundreds of players using the mechanical execution of their theorems before they wrote books about how accumulating advantages is the nature of strategy how?
Are you really trying to compare the mechanics of a turn-based game like Chess to the mechanics of a real time strategy game like StarCraft?
Mind you, I'm not saying that what these historical strategists have said has no place in SC2, I'm merely concerned with pointing out the fact that the OP seems to sweep mechanics under the rug as if it's trivial compared to strategic thought and insight. When the truth of the matter is, in SC2, mechanics is the foundation upon which all strategies are built. Mechanics is the trunk of the tree, whereas strategy is the different branches & leaves that sprout from the trunk.
|
On July 21 2011 08:05 Fyrewolf wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2011 07:55 0c3LoT wrote:On July 21 2011 07:37 Fyrewolf wrote:On July 21 2011 07:34 vaderseven wrote: He has contributed the stance that this is a pure theory craft thread in the guise of a [g] and that it needs some kind of proof in any form for it to have any ability to stand on its on. And the entire history of strategical thought and theory is proving him wrong. His post quality has gone severely downhill from the start of this thread, and considering it started out incoherent and without substance, that's saying a lot. “Therefore the intelligent General contemplates both the advantages and disadvantages. Contemplating the advantages, he fulfills his calculations. Contemplating the disadvantages, he removes his difficulties.” --Sun Tzu “The Art of War” See, the problem with this is that majority of the history of strategical thought was thought up and created by strategists who had no place in actually executing the strategies they came up with (i.e. they needed no "mechanical" skill). StarCraft is a game where the strategist IS the sole executor (and the execution requires lots of "mechnical" skill). Thus, an entirely new paradigm is created from this shift. And this is different from the chess masters who defeated hundreds of players using the mechanical execution of their theorems before they wrote books about how accumulating advantages is the nature of strategy how?
Well it's different because that chess master actually tested his strategies in hundreds of games before writing his book.
|
On July 21 2011 08:02 Fyrewolf wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2011 07:45 CecilSunkure wrote:On July 21 2011 07:37 Fyrewolf wrote:On July 21 2011 07:34 vaderseven wrote: He has contributed the stance that this is a pure theory craft thread in the guise of a [g] and that it needs some kind of proof in any form for it to have any ability to stand on its on. And the entire history of strategical thought and theory is proving him wrong. His post quality has gone severely downhill from the start of this thread, and considering it started out incoherent and without substance, that's saying a lot. “Therefore the intelligent General contemplates both the advantages and disadvantages. Contemplating the advantages, he fulfills his calculations. Contemplating the disadvantages, he removes his difficulties.” --Sun Tzu “The Art of War” You forgot to respond to my part about clear applications to play, and the part about there being no qualifications stated, implicitly or not, as well as the part about explaining how he knows what he knows. You forgot to read the entire OP before posting, forgot about the fact that this is the beginning overview of an extremely large guide, forgot about the examples already mentioned in the OP that will be expanded upon with more examples and VODs, forgot about the various prominent figures in the scene that have spoken about this concept before like Artosis and Day[9], forgot to actually analyze the merit of the post in favor of bashing the poster, forgot to add any substance to your posts, and forgot how to do an actually good troll post. His qualifications are irrelevant, its about the quality of his post, which is of much higher caliber than yours have been in this thread.
I asked you to clarify first because your first post was vague and incoherent. You refuse. I ask you again what you disagree with and why. You refuse to respond again. I say your posts are lacking of any real substance and I would like to hear some. You get defensive. I call you out for making poor quality posts and ask you to provide your side. You troll post. I bring forth 4 different strategical thinkers to reference and say you haven't contributed. You say you can contribute, but then refuse to do so again and go off on irrelevant tangents.
You are really testing my patience. I am going to go somewhere else for a while.
|
|
I've been reading through the OP and I find a lot of it I don't really agree with. The problem is you speak of examples then you ignore the variance in the races to make a conclusion that isn't really the same as what the examples give. It seems too isolated from the game itself. Like looking at strategy in a bubble instead of within context.
A lot of it is overly wordy too. You go around the concept instead of just going straight to the core.
|
@ Fyrewolf, I agree with most of your arguments, however:
1. whether he is aware or not, the OP discussed some relatively high level concepts in positional chess theories, yet he did not give enough examples and applications for people to understand how his guide can help actual game play in sc2. Quoting chess masters do not help your case, as you cannot expect the average TL user to know what you are talking about. See how many people rejected his concepts altogether simply because they don't get it? Know your audience is the first step to win an argument.
2. When you challenge a highlighted user, watch your tone. Even though I agree with your arguments, it is everyone's natural reaction to become defensive when accused, of anything. Think of how you felt just now reading the phrase "watch your tone", didn't feel good did it? CecilSunkure's post quality has slipped from excellent in first his post to almost unacceptable in the one where he simply quoted the OP as the source of his argument. However, do you not feel that your accusations are partially responsible for causing him to act less rationally? Show him more respect, and in turn you can get better quality responses from him, turn him defensive, and you are guilty of bring down the quality of his posts.
3. CecilSunkure's first post is correct in telling the OP to add credentials so that people can trust his words. The Section 1 of his guide challenges the conventional wisdom of focusing on mechanics before strategy, although his argument has merits, when you post something against the consensus in paragraph 1, you discourage a lot of people from reading further. If I wasn't responding to some of the posts here, I probably wouldn't have read the rest of his stuff after reading Section 1. I think CecilSunkure is at fault for not reading the rest of it before he posted, and I really do expect more from a highlighted user, but what good is the body of a paper if the first paragraph turns people away?
I suggest you soften up your tone, a heated argument does not produce a good arguement. Then again I'm probably ranting for nothing, people seem too busy arguing to read what I've said.
|
On July 21 2011 08:36 w3jjjj wrote:CecilSunkure is at fault for not reading the rest of it before he posted. I skimmed over it, and looked for things like credentials or a section explaining how he knows what he knows, or something on practical applications. I just only read the first bit in detail and gave advice on it from the standpoint of a writer/reader. So I don't really get why you're being so critical when I don't see I did anything wrong.
|
|
|
|