Jedo wrote:Yeah I agree with this. The problem with the article is that it assumes that all these games are perfectly balanced, and there is no move that is unfair. However this is most certainly not the case, and in many games (brawl I'm lookin at you) banning moves or sometimes even characters is the only way to keep those things from completely breaking the game.
Want to post more, but not much time. Mainly just wanted to at least respond to this.
The author makes the point in the article that deals with this; he does not expect every game to be perfectly balanced. His main point in this regard is that if a game is not "fixed" in a way that makes it more balanced and only the "broken" parts are used, then people are going to naturally move away and abandon the game. If a game is that broken, it will fade out and no longer be played.
Toge wrote:Edit: Oh yeah, Starcraft example! Two newbies are playing Terran versus Zerg. Terran makes 30 siege tanks. Zerg makes 30 hydralisks. Siege tanks are put on top of cliff in siege mode. Hydralisks are ball'd up and begin rushing towards the cliff. Siege tanks crush hydralisks mercilessly. "Terran is overpowered!!!"
* Lopsided strategies that are almost impossible to beat. Think of Tic-Tac-Toe: you can play it as a cheap diversion, but nothing else.
* Those that are very powerful, but can be countered by a simple learned behavior. Some hamete might work this way--they lead to a bad result if your opponent plays a simple line. Call these one-dimensional strategies. These strategies are worst where the simple line is hard to discover, but simple to execute. An analogy: suppose you had to state as a necessary, but insufficient condition to win a Go game. Anyone could tell you the code, but maybe no one does. It's not that there's a conspiracy against you, it's just that it's sort of random whether someone does tell you. This would be bad.
There are conceivable hamete like that--they can be refuted by simple variations that are easy to remember, but nonetheless hard to discover. The worst such things would be ones that could fool top-level players who are unfamiliar with them (I believe chess has such openings).
That the second kind of strategy is rare is a good thing about Go. Your knowledge develops organically--seeking out and memorizing variations is relatively less important, and the type of strength that makes you good at the game overall is often the same strength that allows you to defeat one-dimensional strategies.
This is a tiring endless discussion that has been rehashed many times. But since this argument was borne out of Starcraft examples, I feel compelled to add the following.
In Broodwar's 12 year's of history, there have been many strategies that have been considered cheap, cheesy or overpowered. Even years after Broodwar had a thriving, professional scene, there would be strategies at the very top levels of play that made people angry and complain about imbalance. Then, after a few years, those strategies would be demonstrated to be inferior or obsolete. Likewise, builds that were considered to be "cheese" were refined and now considered standard.
In 2002 (four years after release of BW), 2 gate zealot pressure was standard against Zerg. Top protosses won Starleagues with that build. Today, 2 gate is almost unheard of in professional play, and usually regarded as a cheesy, desperate attempt by a weaker player to steal a win. When Nal_ra did his forge first fast expand in PvZ in 2004, it was simply another one of the his "Dreamer" builds, something only he could do, and that was fundamentally risky and unsound if tried by a mere mortal. For the last 3 years, 99% of PvZs start with a refined version of his fast expansion.
Before 2004, 2 factory or factory / starport builds with a wall-in were normal in TvP. Then, Midas introduced his Fake-double build with early marines to fast expansion that dominated the matchup in various forms for the next 3-4 years. Today, the basic Terran build still looks like that, but wall-ins have been incorporated based upon map choice and player style. And after 5 years or so, the old 2 factory or factory - starport builds have made a comeback on certain maps, albeit quite refined.
Before 2006, the hallmark of ZvT was the focus on lair play. Hive tech was thought to be overly expensive, too late, and impractical. After several Zerg legends have come and gone within the assumptions of that era, today, almost every Zerg game plan is about getting to hive for defiler tech while maintaining a good position before that. What used to be an after thought is now the main spearhead of Zerg strategy.
In 2008, Idra (and no, he was never a top professional in SC) bitched about the then common fast reaver to 2 base carrier build with which Protosses like Stork abused Terrans at the top levels of play. (This was not the only time, or thing, that Idra bitched about). Then Flash's fast double armory was popularized and he very nearly obsoleted Carriers from the matchup. This was already after 10 years of intensive strategical innovation by professionals.
I heard a story a couple years ago (admittedly not confirmed), that when Korean professional SC players practice in house, they cheese each other ALL THE TIME. 4 pools and proxy gates were apparently extremely common. I don't believe these players considered any all-in strategy to be "cheap", "dishonest" or "should be banned". The "cheese" informs and improves their standard play. If there were no cheese, what is standard wouldn't be standard. If your "standard build" consistently fails to withstand a cheese strategy, then I'd argue that you are the one cheesing, not your opponent.
So, I think it doesn't pay to complain about cheese, hamete, or dishonest strategies. It reeks of poor sportsmanship, doesn't help you improve, and most importantly, simply isn't borne out by facts in the history of games. If you have the time to complain, go practice more and win.
Of course one doesn't complain about cheap play. One stops playing the game. There are many poorly designed games, some of which people play casually, but which no one studies and plays competitively, because they are unbalanced. That there is professional go and professional starcraft are strong indications that there is not too much cheese.
Compare chess and go: much study in chess is stultifying and useless study of openings. There are traps that have no value except for scoring a win against a clueless opponent--yet they will trick stronger players who have not studied them. Many people are turned off from serious chess play because of this.
Good game play arises out of ability, not out of memorizing individual lines that can be written down.
