I will be the first one to admit it, I do occasionally play games as a means to relaxation and I bought StarCraft 2 yesterday. Long story short, playing against other human players on ladder is among the most stressful things I have experienced in a long time. There are thousands of things that can go wrong, am I about to run out of supply? Are all my production facilities currently being utilised? Are there enough workers getting minerals? How about gas? When will the gas and minerals run out? You may have noticed that I was just talking about the economic aspects above. Now add the complexity of an intelligent opponent that is out to kill you and your stress levels are about to go through the roof. StarCraft is multi-tasking decision-making and micro-management heaven (or hell for some of us) and I am not the least bit surprised if coping with the pressure can actually somehow benefit you. It is a fun, but goodness me, Blizzard did make one heck of a complex game.
That's exactly my experience. I occasionally watch big tournaments and a couple of years ago decided to have a go myself. When I was growing up I played a lot of Westwood RTS games so I thought I'd be able to get to a level of basic competency fairly quickly.
I was completely wrong. That game is killer, stressful and mentally exhausting (for me). It became clear to me that either I could make SC2 my full-time pursuit and become passably decent in perhaps a couple of months, or I could stop playing. I chose the latter.
People who make an earnest effort to improve often talk about "ladder anxiety" - the fear of playing ranked games. I didn't understand it at all before trying to play, but I do now - it's a complex fear that combines fear of letting yourself down with fear of being embarrassed in front of a peer and fear of losing some of the rank you've been diligently working up.
I can completely understand how it's a rewarding, challenging pursuit for some people, but for me it draws from the same pool of focus, willpower and determination I use to get actual work down. I'd rather play a twitchy FPS in my downtime that, for me, draws from a different source.
That's the type of experience that is a big turn off for me in games as well. People spend so much time studying the mechanics and economics of the game that eventually, pretty much every match plays out in exactly the same form. For RTS games, the build trees often get set in stone. Deviate from the one feasible tree and you might as well just be giving up because after a few minutes your opponent has just enough units to wipe you (and, since you didn't follow the build tree, you won't be able to counter it in time). For team FPS games, if your team gets good enough, the first few kills almost always determine the winner of the match, because whoever wins the first wave controls map flow. They control weapon drops, ammo drops, and they probably have the spawn points and probabilities memorized too.
I suppose there is a certain mathematical attraction in pushing a game to its limits like that. But I've never been able to actually enjoy playing that way.
There are hundreds of builds you could go that work in certain situations.
And then there are builds that usually don't work in a situation, but some people can use it because of their superior micromanagement or macro.
What you probably mean is the metagame - that definitely exists and constantly changes, but in a best of 3/5/7 setup you'll usually see players use multiple builds, either as a reaction to the build the opponent used in the last game, or due to the map you are playing on and sometimes just to try catching the opponent off guard by doing something unexpected
You could say that for every sport. If anything your avg. Star Craft game is suprising more often then your avg. football or whatever game.
So often you see players doing something strang, and quite often, if you look at Star Craft 1, one change in startagy by one person has huge impact on that matchup. So your avg. match changes a lot, end even if you are in a time where games play out simularly quite often, good players use that and trie to win doing something diffrent.
I wholeheartedly recommend tournament-level magic:the gathering (available online as magic online). The game has mind-blowing depth while not being a clickfest. It's similar to deep board games like chess and go, but the random element and the variability introduced by thousands of available cards make it much more fun IMO.
The drawback I guess is that it can be pretty expensive, but the price is justified by unmatched quality of the gameplay. Plus, if you're good, it doesn't cost anything (you're actually making some money while playing).
I usually don't log in, but your post had some common noob misconceptions about Starcraft and I wanted to clear them up before people take them as fact.
>People spend so much time studying the mechanics and economics of the game that eventually, pretty much every match plays out in exactly the same form.
Maybe on ladder, but in a tournament you will never see the same Best of 3 on a map... ever. That's the beauty of a tournament setting - the players are mostly playing each other and trying to metagame one another. On ladder, that's a problem that is solved by new maps in the map pool. Yes, maps get learned and then players will learn if pressure builds or fast expoing are strong on the map, but even then players can metagame their opponent on those maps (like going for a super early all-in on a map that favors macro play). SCOUTING IS THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT SKILL IN THE GAME. Players with phenomenal mechanics like ForGG & MarineKingPrime lose professional games constantly because of their bad scouting, on the same maps, vs the same opponents, because their opponent is doing strategies to counter what they usually do. It doesn't play out the same, ever. (although MKP needs to stop going CC first on the low ground and losing :) )
>Deviate from the one feasible tree and you might as well just be giving up because after a few minutes your opponent has just enough units to wipe you (and, since you didn't follow the build tree, you won't be able to counter it in time).
Starcraft 2 has harder counters than SC:BW did, but SC2 still has maintained the beautiful quality that SCBW did in that you can counter any strategy with a number of options, and each has their benefits and disadvantages to you as the game progresses. It's a commonly stated and completely wrong opinion that the game is so figured out that there are exact responses you must do in certain situations. When you're lower league (Bronze to Diamond) it will help to play more robotically, but as you get better you must be willing to throw your opponent off and respond to what they're doing unexpectedly. It benefits you to have the "knowledge" advantage in that game, unsurprisingly.
I'd like to mention that I've been Masters 8 seasons in a row, so this post comes from someone who has invested a lot of time into the game. Hopefully I didn't come off as too much of an ass but given how complex the game TRULY is, when people try to simplify it and then paint the game negatively for that simplified aspect... well I can't be having that. =]
I've enjoyed watching high level SC2 in GSL for some 3 years and often get the urge to try playing myself but am forced to remind myself how horrible my mechanics are and that no amount of deliberate practice would fix that.
I enjoy and have a reasonable handle on the strategic side and could handle keyboard as a decent typist but the ability to handle the mouse with such focus is something that I am simply unable to do. Let's not even mention that I am almost 40.
Instead, I settle for some quick games of chess something that I can do reasonably well as a master and which does not require 100+ APM (even in 1minute chess).
You should check out the game Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance. It's currently a community driven game, and you can download the multiplayer client at http://www.faforever.com/
In this game strategy is much more important than APM. Some of the top players have less than 60 APM, whereas in Starcraft they have 300. Some of this is due to the community being smaller hence the overall competitiveness being lower, but it's also the nature of the game. The interface is optimized for letting you do as much as possible in a few clicks, unlike Starcraft where you have to micromanage everything. In a way Supreme Commander is like continuous time chess. You win by wit rather than who clicks faster. Like chess you have a king that you need to protect and to win you have to kill the enemy's king.
Its not really much different to other hobbies if your efficient at learning and improving. If you play a few games and then just stop then you wont improve much at all. But if you go back and analyse your play and your decisions at each point in the game you can quickly improve. And most parts of SC2 can be broken down into small parts which can be practiced with repetition, for instance practicing your build order for the first 3 minutes so you can do it without thinking if a huge benefit.
Ive found it not much different to learning guitar to be honest, or any other competitive game like Dota.
Team games like Dota or League of Legends add another problem:
I wouldn't worry that much if I get trashed individually, but when you're a part of a (randomly selected) team and you drag them down, I really get stressed. I worry to the point I haven't played a ranked game yet(I play LOL) , even though I reached Level 30 months ago.
I'm sure there are some groups of casual players that don't mind having a mediocre player (to play in matchmade groups), but I haven't found them yet.
I started playing MOBA games with Dota2 with some friends who had already played LoL and HoN so I was the new guy in a group of 4 so I got carried a fair ammoutn but now I dont care about playing in single matches if someone whines at me for being bad or what ever i just mute them get on with life. I've also made a few friends who I play with now and then.
Ladder anxiety wouldn't be so bad if the SC community weren't so rude. Can't imagine how many times I've played a game really hard, thought it was super close, and have the opponent say "zzz" or "you suck uninstall."
I completely disagree. Playing ladder in Starcraft 2 can be stressful. But that's actually part of the positive effect. You can use it as a learning exercise for keeping your emotions in control, keeping focus in a game, taking a loss in 50% of games, some of these losses being very embarassing.
This game seems to elicit an emotional response in me that is the closest I usually get to "conflict" or "fight/flight".
I am about Bronze/Silver, and I don't play for more than half an hour per day on average.
Playing this game has something similar to most sports, arts, and professions: You have to work at it to get better, but without having a snowball's chance in hell of making it to the top of the ladder.
In general, I've found that, long term, if you are playing to win, it's not worth it to focus on the ladder - the MMR system will pit you up against people who are better or worse than you, in order to keep your winrate about even. It makes the game much more stressful than it is fun, though it does also make you think and move faster.
I prefer playing comp stomps (versus AIs) or casual games (like monobattles), something that I would have scoffed at when I was younger (and more competitive).
Starcraft 2 is not about multitasking. Starcraft 2 is about context switching. That was a difficult thing for me to learn. You have a loop of tasks that are your "macro" tasks. Economy -> Supply-> Production -> Tech -> Repeat. When you need to respond to stimuli (Enemy units, drops), you change your loop to controlling your army during battle. Think of yourself as a thread scheduler. What you think is important is most likely not, which is one reason you may be having difficulty.
Think of your day as a programmer like a Starcraft game. You have to do each task well. You likely don't do two tasks at the same time. If you are, you are doing them poorly, so you do one at a time. Then, you context switch into the next task. Perhaps you move from coding to documentation writing. Or from coding to management meetings. You have to be able to see the next chain of tasks and switch the context in your brain.
Add in a response to changing needs (enemy units) and you have a great analogy for many things in life.
All this is very true. I used to play some other RTS games competitively (albeit for no tangible rewards) - Age of Empires II, C&C Generals - and matches can be very stressful. RTS games have so much going on at any given time.
I definitely can see how they would improve intelligence, strategic thinking skills, multi-tasking ability, etc...
But nowadays I like to relax as well, so I mostly just play turn-based strategy (on a FreeCiv kick right now), the odd RTS round in 0 A.D. (against the computer), and I hate to admit it, but I'm having alot of fun with Fez (just bought it for Linux with the latest Humble Bundle).
Firstly the candidates were only selected from people who usually played less than 2 hours a week (interestingly no male candidates were selected due to the lack of ones that fit that criteria). The research was for 40 hours and that's it. There is no talk about the possibility of diminishing returns if you play it for several years, or whether you get brain rot because other parts of your brain go unused.
I'm not saying that Starcraft doesn't make you smart, I'm saying next time link the research and not a Tech Crunch article. If you do play Starcraft the only rationalization you need for playing it is that you enjoy it.
Yes, I think one of the first things you learn playing Starcraft is how much you suck at management. You play and it feels right as your play at your maximum pace. And later in the game or when watching the replay you discover how many mistakes you've made and how many things you just forgot to do and didn't even notice.
Back in the days, I spent an enormous amount of time playing Warcraft III competetively, and was somewhere in the top 100 globally.
There are definitely things that I have learned back then while playing RTS games:
- how to hold a team (clan) together and generally work as a team
- training a _lot_ and working hard on myself
- learning from my own failures (and analyzing my own replays), because in a 1vs1 situation it was always me that fucked up when I lost. I could never explain or rationalize that away.
- dealing with stressful situations and as ridiculous as it may sound, overcoming fears by using builds (changing strategies) I am not comfortable or confident with when all other plans failed.
But I wouldn't go as far as saying that RTS games make you a smarter person.
It's always a question of determination and willingness to work hard, as it is in any other field where you choose to work in.
One factor in RTS games that might help facilitate determination is infrastructure.
In RTS games you have the infrastructure to compete with eachother on equal terms, which you simply can't do in many other fields you might be interested in as a kid because of barriers that prevent you from entering.
I don't doubt that playing Starcraft will build mental abilities. But if someone is playing Starcraft to become smarter, then they should probably think about other activities that will give you the same benefits in a faster and more domain relevant way.
It's a great game. I love watching it. And I support professional players because they provide a source of entertainment. But it's not anything more than that.
30 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 78.5 ms ] threadI was completely wrong. That game is killer, stressful and mentally exhausting (for me). It became clear to me that either I could make SC2 my full-time pursuit and become passably decent in perhaps a couple of months, or I could stop playing. I chose the latter.
People who make an earnest effort to improve often talk about "ladder anxiety" - the fear of playing ranked games. I didn't understand it at all before trying to play, but I do now - it's a complex fear that combines fear of letting yourself down with fear of being embarrassed in front of a peer and fear of losing some of the rank you've been diligently working up.
I can completely understand how it's a rewarding, challenging pursuit for some people, but for me it draws from the same pool of focus, willpower and determination I use to get actual work down. I'd rather play a twitchy FPS in my downtime that, for me, draws from a different source.
I suppose there is a certain mathematical attraction in pushing a game to its limits like that. But I've never been able to actually enjoy playing that way.
And then there are builds that usually don't work in a situation, but some people can use it because of their superior micromanagement or macro.
What you probably mean is the metagame - that definitely exists and constantly changes, but in a best of 3/5/7 setup you'll usually see players use multiple builds, either as a reaction to the build the opponent used in the last game, or due to the map you are playing on and sometimes just to try catching the opponent off guard by doing something unexpected
So often you see players doing something strang, and quite often, if you look at Star Craft 1, one change in startagy by one person has huge impact on that matchup. So your avg. match changes a lot, end even if you are in a time where games play out simularly quite often, good players use that and trie to win doing something diffrent.
The drawback I guess is that it can be pretty expensive, but the price is justified by unmatched quality of the gameplay. Plus, if you're good, it doesn't cost anything (you're actually making some money while playing).
>People spend so much time studying the mechanics and economics of the game that eventually, pretty much every match plays out in exactly the same form.
Maybe on ladder, but in a tournament you will never see the same Best of 3 on a map... ever. That's the beauty of a tournament setting - the players are mostly playing each other and trying to metagame one another. On ladder, that's a problem that is solved by new maps in the map pool. Yes, maps get learned and then players will learn if pressure builds or fast expoing are strong on the map, but even then players can metagame their opponent on those maps (like going for a super early all-in on a map that favors macro play). SCOUTING IS THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT SKILL IN THE GAME. Players with phenomenal mechanics like ForGG & MarineKingPrime lose professional games constantly because of their bad scouting, on the same maps, vs the same opponents, because their opponent is doing strategies to counter what they usually do. It doesn't play out the same, ever. (although MKP needs to stop going CC first on the low ground and losing :) )
>Deviate from the one feasible tree and you might as well just be giving up because after a few minutes your opponent has just enough units to wipe you (and, since you didn't follow the build tree, you won't be able to counter it in time).
Starcraft 2 has harder counters than SC:BW did, but SC2 still has maintained the beautiful quality that SCBW did in that you can counter any strategy with a number of options, and each has their benefits and disadvantages to you as the game progresses. It's a commonly stated and completely wrong opinion that the game is so figured out that there are exact responses you must do in certain situations. When you're lower league (Bronze to Diamond) it will help to play more robotically, but as you get better you must be willing to throw your opponent off and respond to what they're doing unexpectedly. It benefits you to have the "knowledge" advantage in that game, unsurprisingly.
I'd like to mention that I've been Masters 8 seasons in a row, so this post comes from someone who has invested a lot of time into the game. Hopefully I didn't come off as too much of an ass but given how complex the game TRULY is, when people try to simplify it and then paint the game negatively for that simplified aspect... well I can't be having that. =]
I've enjoyed watching high level SC2 in GSL for some 3 years and often get the urge to try playing myself but am forced to remind myself how horrible my mechanics are and that no amount of deliberate practice would fix that.
I enjoy and have a reasonable handle on the strategic side and could handle keyboard as a decent typist but the ability to handle the mouse with such focus is something that I am simply unable to do. Let's not even mention that I am almost 40.
Instead, I settle for some quick games of chess something that I can do reasonably well as a master and which does not require 100+ APM (even in 1minute chess).
In this game strategy is much more important than APM. Some of the top players have less than 60 APM, whereas in Starcraft they have 300. Some of this is due to the community being smaller hence the overall competitiveness being lower, but it's also the nature of the game. The interface is optimized for letting you do as much as possible in a few clicks, unlike Starcraft where you have to micromanage everything. In a way Supreme Commander is like continuous time chess. You win by wit rather than who clicks faster. Like chess you have a king that you need to protect and to win you have to kill the enemy's king.
Here is a video commentary of a (very long) 4v4 game: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qg_z-pIcUJo
The same for me. I love watching SC2 games - but playing myself? Nah, I'm a sucker even at bronze levels.
The time investment (and the stress) needed to get even remotely competitive in the bronze ladders is just too much for me.
Ive found it not much different to learning guitar to be honest, or any other competitive game like Dota.
I wouldn't worry that much if I get trashed individually, but when you're a part of a (randomly selected) team and you drag them down, I really get stressed. I worry to the point I haven't played a ranked game yet(I play LOL) , even though I reached Level 30 months ago.
I'm sure there are some groups of casual players that don't mind having a mediocre player (to play in matchmade groups), but I haven't found them yet.
This game seems to elicit an emotional response in me that is the closest I usually get to "conflict" or "fight/flight".
I am about Bronze/Silver, and I don't play for more than half an hour per day on average.
Playing this game has something similar to most sports, arts, and professions: You have to work at it to get better, but without having a snowball's chance in hell of making it to the top of the ladder.
There's even an article on Liquipedia (Team Liquid is one of the most prominent teams in the professional Starcraft scene) about anxiety during play:
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Dealing_with_anxiety
In general, I've found that, long term, if you are playing to win, it's not worth it to focus on the ladder - the MMR system will pit you up against people who are better or worse than you, in order to keep your winrate about even. It makes the game much more stressful than it is fun, though it does also make you think and move faster.
I prefer playing comp stomps (versus AIs) or casual games (like monobattles), something that I would have scoffed at when I was younger (and more competitive).
After 2 games, i'm so burned out and mentally tired to play another game.
Think of your day as a programmer like a Starcraft game. You have to do each task well. You likely don't do two tasks at the same time. If you are, you are doing them poorly, so you do one at a time. Then, you context switch into the next task. Perhaps you move from coding to documentation writing. Or from coding to management meetings. You have to be able to see the next chain of tasks and switch the context in your brain.
Add in a response to changing needs (enemy units) and you have a great analogy for many things in life.
I definitely can see how they would improve intelligence, strategic thinking skills, multi-tasking ability, etc...
But nowadays I like to relax as well, so I mostly just play turn-based strategy (on a FreeCiv kick right now), the odd RTS round in 0 A.D. (against the computer), and I hate to admit it, but I'm having alot of fun with Fez (just bought it for Linux with the latest Humble Bundle).
Firstly the candidates were only selected from people who usually played less than 2 hours a week (interestingly no male candidates were selected due to the lack of ones that fit that criteria). The research was for 40 hours and that's it. There is no talk about the possibility of diminishing returns if you play it for several years, or whether you get brain rot because other parts of your brain go unused.
I'm not saying that Starcraft doesn't make you smart, I'm saying next time link the research and not a Tech Crunch article. If you do play Starcraft the only rationalization you need for playing it is that you enjoy it.
Not ready to play ladder yet but I'm motivated to get there :)
Just play unranked if ladder is too stressful.
There are definitely things that I have learned back then while playing RTS games:
- how to hold a team (clan) together and generally work as a team
- training a _lot_ and working hard on myself
- learning from my own failures (and analyzing my own replays), because in a 1vs1 situation it was always me that fucked up when I lost. I could never explain or rationalize that away.
- dealing with stressful situations and as ridiculous as it may sound, overcoming fears by using builds (changing strategies) I am not comfortable or confident with when all other plans failed.
But I wouldn't go as far as saying that RTS games make you a smarter person. It's always a question of determination and willingness to work hard, as it is in any other field where you choose to work in.
One factor in RTS games that might help facilitate determination is infrastructure.
In RTS games you have the infrastructure to compete with eachother on equal terms, which you simply can't do in many other fields you might be interested in as a kid because of barriers that prevent you from entering.
It's a great game. I love watching it. And I support professional players because they provide a source of entertainment. But it's not anything more than that.
The key point is that playing SC2 seems to improve skills beyond the activity itself. Not a lot of activities have been shown to do that.