Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Everything I know about design I learned playing Starcraft

quizlet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 59 posts

Re: Everything I know about design I learned playing Starcraft

#21

Post by hkmurakami »

Retric wrote: post #18
tolmasky wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find this a funny comparison because StarCraft is at least in part made difficult on purpose , as is the case with any game. In particular, APM/micro/etc are a key aspect that separate the range of skill levels of most players. So while some multitasking aspects in the game would certainly be difficult no matter what, any good UI designer could make StarCraft easier and more accessible to use, but then there wouldn…

As a compeditive sport you can make games random but not easy. However changing the UI Makes different skills useful which shits the balance of power as well as the learning curve. Much like how the ideal GO and Chess players have related but different skills.

Introducing randomness is honestly a poor choice in competitive games. Warcraft 3 random item drop, Starcraft: Broodwar Scarab glitching & high ground random miss percentage, etc all made the competition somewhat less compelling.

Re: Everything I know about design I learned playing Starcraft

#22

Post by noname123 »

Starcraft is important but IMO it's not about APM. But build order, at start of each game, there's a series of steps you need to do like the optimum workers to build, to mine Vespene gas; at which time to send workers to build expansion base, build marines/zerg's etc. And adjusting your strategy depending on map, other races on map and opponent style.

Translated roughly to non-player's words, playing Starcraft is not about winning but about optimizing your action and reaction to the quickest and most efficient. I don't wake up everyday thinking that the project is going to give me a hard time, I already have a builder order to efficiently tackle the problem, e.g., lower expectations for stakeholders early on, debugging the code step-by-step to get a handle, browse reddit for diversions etc.

I will not get frustrated if I can't win against CPU or debug the code, because winning is outside of my control depending on the skill of my opponents, allies and luck etc; I will only evaluate myself on how much I optimized on my build order. And if my build order sucks, I watch my replays and search online for a better one.

It's only I have my build-order deeply ingraned in my mind, that I work on my APM; so I can act/react faster and it comes second nature like driving but doing it faster. The same thing IMO applies to poker, trading and sports. You can't focus on binary outcome of winning or losing because so much variables are outside of your control; it's about focusing on your build order. You are willing to lose the right way over the temptation of winning the wrong way.

A much better expression of this: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=142...

Re: Everything I know about design I learned playing Starcraft

#23

Post by heyheyhey »

hkmurakami wrote: post #20

>In Starcraft, nearly everything has a keyboard shortcut, and can be accessed in milliseconds. Professional players have average APM's of around 300. During intense battles, with their careers on the line, they can get up to 500 or 600. That's almost 10 separate moves per second! EAPM (Effective APM) is more pertinent than raw APM. APM arguments have raged on for more than a decade (since Broodware at the very least)…

Yes, you are correct about "Macro" and "Micro" being antonyms but they are used differently here.

He's talking about a style of play. Generally, "macro" play is going to for the long-game with many bases and huge armies. He calls the opposite of this as "rush." Other synonyms for "rush" are something like "timing attack" or "all-in."

Re: Everything I know about design I learned playing Starcraft

#24

Post by tammer »

Funny. The title gave me the expectation of something I've been thinking about a lot lately, which is in fact the inverse of the article's content.

Mobile apps are video games. The moment someone (apple) designed an app-centric fullscreen OS, the stage was set for the generation of UIs that can become as immersive as good adventure games.

Mailbox is the example that sticks out in my mind currently. Can't really get much more boring than e-mail, but they figured out how to gamify it in a way that mimics the internal consistency of a cult classic title. The 'tutorial' mode of this and other apps gives me a phantom pavlovian feeling of opening the shrink-wrap on old cereal-box-sized CD-ROM packaging.

I think the if we look to video games for inspiration we can produce even more engaging environments in applications designed for productive use. Upon reading the article it looks like games have lessons for designers on both sides of the equation: the design itself, and the design process.

Re: Everything I know about design I learned playing Starcraft

#26

Post by hkmurakami »

heyheyhey wrote: post #23
hkmurakami wrote: post #20

>In Starcraft, nearly everything has a keyboard shortcut, and can be accessed in milliseconds. Professional players have average APM's of around 300. During intense battles, with their careers on the line, they can get up to 500 or 600. That's almost 10 separate moves per second! EAPM (Effective APM) is more pertinent than raw APM. APM arguments have raged on for more than a decade (since Broodware at the very least)…

Yes, you are correct about "Macro" and "Micro" being antonyms but they are used differently here. He's talking about a style of play. Generally, "macro" play is going to for the long-game with many bases and huge armies. He calls the opposite of this as "rush." Other synonyms for "rush" are something like "timing attack" or "all-in."

Yes, so I would have called it "Macro-style", "200/200 style", "late-game oriented play", "turtle-style" or any number of expression that would distinguish playstyle and gameplan from the specific terminology: Macro. "Macro" on its own is a misnomer imo.

Also, I don't think "timing attack" is an appropriate synonym for "rush", since timing attacks tend to occur in the early-mid game (typically off of two bases) whereas "rushes" happen within the first few minutes of the game: 7-pool, 2-rax proxy, etc.

In that vain, "all-ins" can occur at any stage in the game (though typically when a cheesy rush or committed early mid-game timing attack occurs at a heavy expense on economy) so it's not an appropriate counter-term either.

Re: Everything I know about design I learned playing Starcraft

#27

Post by gchpaco »

Retric wrote: post #18
tolmasky wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find this a funny comparison because StarCraft is at least in part made difficult on purpose , as is the case with any game. In particular, APM/micro/etc are a key aspect that separate the range of skill levels of most players. So while some multitasking aspects in the game would certainly be difficult no matter what, any good UI designer could make StarCraft easier and more accessible to use, but then there wouldn…

As a compeditive sport you can make games random but not easy. However changing the UI Makes different skills useful which shits the balance of power as well as the learning curve. Much like how the ideal GO and Chess players have related but different skills.

The evidence of systems like Relic RTSes (Company of Heroes, Dawn of War, etc) indicates that even when you make the system easier to use, micro skills just shift to something else. In DoW2, for example, the skills that in SC2 make controlling a bunch of marines and macroing even possible make for sophisticated flanks and clever lures that are IMHO far more interesting to watch. Very sophisticated grenade play, specialized suppression mechanics, and doing five different things at the same time with your units is actually expected at high levels of play, whereas I can count the number of times I've seen a major flanking maneuver in SC2 on the fingers of both hands.

Re: Everything I know about design I learned playing Starcraft

#28

Post by methodover »

baak wrote: post #5

I used to hear this argument from WoW players a lot. "It's skills you use in every business management, so it's just like work!" Go ahead and list it on your resume if you believe it.

For my current job, in the interview I mentioned my love of StarCraft 2. My interviewers loved it. (It was a web programming job.)

If I were an employer, I'd give you major points for being good at StarCraft 2. It's a tough game. To do well, you need a fast, strategy-oriented mind, and you need to be dedicated. Being good at StarCraft shows that you're passionate about difficult problems and that you're smart and fast enough to solve them well.

Those are good skills for a programmer, IMO.

Re: Everything I know about design I learned playing Starcraft

#29

Post by sliverstorm »

heyheyhey wrote: post #23
hkmurakami wrote: post #20

>In Starcraft, nearly everything has a keyboard shortcut, and can be accessed in milliseconds. Professional players have average APM's of around 300. During intense battles, with their careers on the line, they can get up to 500 or 600. That's almost 10 separate moves per second! EAPM (Effective APM) is more pertinent than raw APM. APM arguments have raged on for more than a decade (since Broodware at the very least)…

Yes, you are correct about "Macro" and "Micro" being antonyms but they are used differently here. He's talking about a style of play. Generally, "macro" play is going to for the long-game with many bases and huge armies. He calls the opposite of this as "rush." Other synonyms for "rush" are something like "timing attack" or "all-in."

The way I like to think of it is, "macro" play is attempting to win through advantages in macro. In the same way as "micro" play would be attempting to win through advantages in micro.

Re: Everything I know about design I learned playing Starcraft

#30

Post by alanfalcon »

hkmurakami wrote: post #26
heyheyhey wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, you are correct about "Macro" and "Micro" being antonyms but they are used differently here. He's talking about a style of play. Generally, "macro" play is going to for the long-game with many bases and huge armies. He calls the opposite of this as "rush." Other synonyms for "rush" are something like "timing attack" or "all-in."

Yes, so I would have called it "Macro-style", "200/200 style", "late-game oriented play", "turtle-style" or any number of expression that would distinguish playstyle and gameplan from the specific terminology: Macro. "Macro" on its own is a misnomer imo. Also, I don't think "timing attack" is an appropriate synonym for "rush", since timing attacks tend to occur in the early-mid game (typically off of two bases) where…

But macro is what it's called in the community.
Post reply on HN