Skip to content

Comment on Game theory article from a professional Starcraft player/caster.parent

Comments

> 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.

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.

AboutSource Built by g1lg1l

Hackerly is an independent reader for Hacker News, built on the public HN API. Not affiliated with Y Combinator.