Talk:Gameplay of StarCraft
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 6 April 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| Low | This article is on a subject of Low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0. | |
|
CVG To-do:
|
||
Contents |
[edit] Nomination for Deletion
How can you call this article an "instruction manual". The article discusses the mechanics and the famous/pro gamers who contribute to the game. Yes, this article may sound like an instruction manual at certain points but its merely giving detailed explanations and descriptions. Isn't that what an encyclopedia is supposed to do? To hell with the months of people's efforts for a delete if you still think this is an attempt to teach people how to play. Btw, not trying to discredit whoever posted request for deletion but it seems as if you've been at it at several other articles on wiki after only contributing for what, less than a week? I'd say that's alot for a short period of time... --Nissi Kim 03:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. Wikibooks is a Wikipedia sister-project which is better suited for such things.
Reads like a game guide to me, put up as AFD. 156.34.90.110 22:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Who proposed to delete this article? I'm willing to fight the proposal. And I'm willing to delete that proposal and revert it back to the previous. I'm giving this 3 days for a reply.--Nissi Kim 22:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind, I just did a little scan over the article and I'm taking off the proposal for three reasons: there's relevant information pertaining to the gameplay, statistics, and this isn't an FAQ or a walkthrough strategy guide.
[edit] Professional Maps
Would a list of professional maps be a worthy addition to this entry? X audax 07:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps the ones currently being used in MBC and OGN leagues. It would take too much space to list all maps that have been used in professional competitions. ShardPhoenix 05:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I was thinking more-so of mentioning maps that are quite popular in competitions. For exmaple, Lost Temple, Luna, Gaema Gowon, Nostalgia, P2H, Rush Hour, Ride of Valk., etc. However, it would be nice to make a list of the MBC, OGN, and other leagues and what maps they use. WCG would also be a good idea, since it's a quite important tourney. At least something that would give people an idea of what's played. X audax 23:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Fantastic idea. We can discuss strategies for the map, imablances, interesting tricks, etc.--<font color="green">Etaonish</font> 06:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Please explain KESPA
What is a KESPA rating? It's obviously a ranking system of some sort, but how does it work? How is the ranking achieved? The current link to the KESPA website isn't useful to me, because I can't read any Korean. Could this information be added to this article, or perhaps its own article? Fieari 03:28, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
KeSPA(stands for Korean e-Sports Association) ranking system is used to keep track of players' relative strength. Every tournament is given some rating. Winning it or getting a 2nd or 3rd place gives you some points. The most points are received by winning WCG and OSL Starleague, though WCG has nothing to do with the prestige of OSL and it's competition level. That is the way the players accumlate ratings. Points received for a tournament win are taken after a year, like in tennis. So, the KeSPA rankings actually show the achievements of a player in recent 1 year.
KeSPA ratings are determined by somewhat arbitrary weights, though they are worth including because they are official and there isn't anything better at the moment. (The non KeSPA charts are good, too, though.) Do we have comprehensive enough major tournament results to use a Sonas ELO (chessmetrics.com) in order to come up with a definitive chart? (Edit: registered an account, signing this Xebra314 22:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC))
In answer to my own question, I'm currently in discussion with some people at teamliquid.net (sorry about the spammer that changed NaDa to xebra) to see what kind of tournament data exists. It seems likely there is enough data such that something like chessmetrics.com for Brood War is possible. Obviously this is beyond the purvue of wikipedia, but the current top chart from such a site would be ideal in this article, along with the KeSPA charts, instead of the somewhat arbitrary triple-rankings chart I posted previously. Xebra314 22:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I'd love to see such a thing, since it seems like it would be more objective and accurate than any current ranking system. ShardPhoenix 16:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Explanation of the ranking?
Someone needs to add an in-article explanation of the ranking given at the end to make it clearer. I see how it works, but it isn't obvious at first glance, and it needs to be clarified that linearity is not implied, and that all events are weighted equally (unlike Kespa rankings). ShardPhoenix 13:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
edit: I replaced it with an all-time ranking based on the Kespa syste (I think) ShardPhoenix 14:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I added an explanation of my triple chart. Hopefully I will be able to develop a more satisfying statistical model in the near future. Xebra314 22:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Progaming section
Maybe the Progaming section should be separated from the main article? In my opinion, the progaming system in korea has nothing to do with the Gameplay of Starcraft.
We need like a Professional gaming in South Korea article or Professional Starcraft article.--<font color="green">Etaonish</font> 06:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Make one if you want (it seems like a pretty good idea nad might allow more room for detail in each article). I'd reccomend "professional starcraft", since pro-gaming in Korea could also include Warcraft 3 and other games. ShardPhoenix 14:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] PvZ
"The only matchup that seems to definitively favor a certain side, as at the top level Zerg fares significantly better." I'd say that at the top levels (progamers&amateurs) its pretty much even. If you look at the for example look at the #1 placements in the big leagues, its leans heavily towards t/p
[edit] Is this saying what I think it is?
Most maps tend to follow a T > Z > P > T pattern.
What does this sentence mean? Is it talking about spatial position (i.e. Terrans on the end, Zerg and Protoss in the middle), advantage (how does that make sense) or something else? Am I missing the obvious? Jweed 03:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
It means advantage, ie that on average Terran beats Zerg a bit more often than vice versa on a "typical" map, etc. ShardPhoenix 13:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC) 13:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Statistics?
"Statistically, Terran wins about 50.2% of the games." Huh? What is the source of these figures? How/when were these win percentages derived? Was it really done with such accuracy that a 0.2% differential is conclusive?
These stats are from PGTour, analysing the results of several tens of thousands of games. It would be nice to get some more up-to-date and referencable stats though. 13:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Armor?
What does armor and armor upgrades do?
Each point of armor reduces damage done to that unit by 1, although units always do at least 0.5 damage per attack. Armor upgrades increase the armor of the relevant units (imporant, since most units have little or no armor to start with) ShardPhoenix 05:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Stats
Someone recently updated the stats to use Lost Temple stats from season 7 of PGT. This is a good idea but I think it would be better to use a weighted average over all reasonably popular maps rather than just one map (especially since LT is no longer the most popular competitive map). If no-one else does this I'll do it when I'm not busy. ShardPhoenix 18:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Great job on the article. --- my suggestions
First of all, compliments to the author.
I'd like to express two opinions on this article. 1. the content of this article is broad, maybe it can be break down into two or more articles. 2. I have to disagree on the "Most maps tend to follow a T > Z > P > T pattern." The stats retrieved from PGT LT2.4 placed immediately below the statement showed T > P @ 50.5%, other 2 match-ups showed T>Z @ 52.1% and Z>P @ 53.4%, all three stats shows good balance between three races. I looked at 11 Ongamenet Starleagues from 2002-2005 (from NATE to So1), overall result shows: TvZ 131-102, 56.2% for T 2005 (IOPS, EVER2005, So1) 42-34, 2004 (NHN Hangame, Gillette, Ever2004) 28-17, 2003 (Panasonic, Olympus, Mycube) 36-32, 2002 (NATE, SKY2) 25-19 TvP 62-67, 48.06% for T 2005 (T>P----->) 26-16, 2004 20-31, 2003 9-13, 2002 7-7 PvZ 44-48 47.83% for P 2005 (P>Z----->) 12-10, 2004 12-17, 2003 12-12, 2002 8-9 Given the percentage, and the number of maps played, I'd say three races are well-balanced, following a slight pattern at best.
[edit] Pro Ranking
I moved the unformatted chart data here. --Voidvector 21:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- I have moved all ranking data here, they are not relevent to the article. Also they are out of date. --Voidvector 23:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
All-time professional Starcraft tournament placings
(Table current with results through 18 November 2005)
On the second chart, the total is the total number of top 4 finishes, which can be calculated by summing the digits from the previous chart.
1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th Place Finishes
The following chart lists the top players in a special rating system. The rating system uses a point accumulation based on tournament finishes, where first, second, third, and fourth place finishes in a professional tournament is worth 1000, 100, 10, and 1 point respectively. For example, NaDa's rating of 6510 is attained by 6 first-place finishes, 5 second-place finishes, and 1 third-finishes.
| Rank | Player | Finishes |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | NaDa | 6510 |
| 2 | Boxer | 5620 |
| 3 | Yellow | 4722 |
| 4 | iloveOOv | 4021 |
| 5 | JulyZerg | 3100 |
| 6 | Nal_rA | 2112 |
| 7 | Gorush | 2111 |
| 8 | TheMarine | 2020 |
| 8 | Xellos | 2020 |
| 10 | Grrrr... | 2010 |
| 11 | Garimto | 2000 |
| 12 | Reach | 1411 |
| 13 | Kingdom | 1101 |
| 14 | [GG99]Slayer | 1000 |
| 14 | Anytime | 1000 |
| 14 | FreeMura | 1000 |
| 14 | IPXZerg | 1000 |
| 14 | Mumyung | 1000 |
| 14 | Ogogo | 1000 |
| 14 | Sync | 1000 |
| 21 | I.LOVE_STAR | 300 |
| 22 | ChoJJa | 213 |
| 23 | H.O.T.-Forever | 200 |
| 23 | TheBoy | 200 |
| 25 | V-Gundam | 110 |
| 25 | Zeus | 110 |
| 27 | Goodfriend | 103 |
| 28 | Elky | 101 |
| 29 | [pG]Fisheye | 100 |
| 29 | Jinnam | 100 |
| 29 | Midas | 100 |
| 29 | PRO_NT.SONJJANG | 100 |
| 29 | Skelton | 100 |
| 34 | Junwi | 12 |
| 35 | Chrh | 11 |
| 35 | Silent_Control | 11 |
| 37 | Black | 10 |
| 37 | IntoTheRain | 10 |
| 37 | KoS | 10 |
| 37 | Ssamjang | 10 |
| 41 | Jju | 1 |
| 41 | Oddysay | 1 |
| 41 | Pusan | 1 |
| 41 | Tss)Issac | 1 |
Unformatted chart data:
1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th Place Finishes Total Number of Top 4 Finishes Average of Previous Rankings Rank Player Finishes Rank Player Total Rank Player Average 1 NaDa 6510 1 Yellow 15 1 Boxer 2 2 Boxer 5620 2 Boxer 13 1 NaDa 2 3 Yellow 4722 3 NaDa 12 1 Yellow 2 4 iloveOOv 4021 4 iloveOOv 7 4 iloveOOv 4 5 JulyZerg 3100 5 Reach 7 5 Nal_rA 6 6 Nal_rA 2112 6 ChoJJa 6 6 JulyZerg 7 7 Gorush 2111 6 Nal_rA 6 7 Gorush 7.5 8 TheMarine 2020 8 Gorush 5 8 Reach 8.5 8 Xellos 2020 9 Goodfriend 4 8 TheMarine 8.5 10 Grrrr... 2010 9 JulyZerg 4 8 Xellos 8.5 11 Garimto 2000 9 TheMarine 4 11 Grrrr... 11.5 12 Reach 1411 9 Xellos 4 12 Kingdom 13 13 Kingdom 1101 13 Grrrr... 3 13 ChoJJa 14 14 [GG99]Slayer 1000 13 I.LOVE_STAR 3 13 Garimto 14 14 Anytime 1000 13 Junwi 3 15 I.LOVE_STAR 17 14 FreeMura 1000 13 Kingdom 3 16 Goodfriend 18 14 IPXZerg 1000 17 Chrh 2 17 [GG99]Slayer 19.5 14 Mumyung 1000 17 Elky 2 17 Anytime 19.5 14 Ogogo 1000 17 Garimto 2 17 FreeMura 19.5 14 Sync 1000 17 H.O.T.-Forever 2 17 IPXZerg 19.5 21 I.LOVE_STAR 300 17 Silent_Control 2 17 Mumyung 19.5 22 ChoJJa 213 17 TheBoy 2 17 Ogogo 19.5 23 H.O.T.-Forever 200 17 V-Gundam 2 17 Sync 19.5 23 TheBoy 200 17 Zeus 2 24 H.O.T.-Forever 20 25 V-Gundam 110 25 [GG99]Slayer 1 24 TheBoy 20 25 Zeus 110 25 [pG]Fisheye 1 26 V-Gundam 21 27 Goodfriend 103 25 Anytime 1 26 Zeus 21 28 Elky 101 25 Black 1 28 Elky 22.5 29 [pG]Fisheye 100 25 FreeMura 1 29 Junwi 23.5 29 Jinnam 100 25 IntoTheRain 1 30 Chrh 26 29 Midas 100 25 IPXZerg 1 30 Silent_Control 26 29 PRO_NT.SONJJANG 100 25 Jinnam 1 32 [pG]Fisheye 27 29 Skelton 100 25 Jju 1 32 Jinnam 27 34 Junwi 12 25 KoS 1 32 Midas 27 35 Chrh 11 25 Midas 1 32 PRO_NT.SONJJANG 27 35 Silent_Control 11 25 Mumyung 1 32 Skelton 27 37 Black 10 25 Oddysay 1 37 Black 31 37 IntoTheRain 10 25 Ogogo 1 37 IntoTheRain 31 37 KoS 10 25 PRO_NT.SONJJANG 1 37 KoS 31 37 Ssamjang 10 25 Pusan 1 37 Ssamjang 31 41 Jju 1 25 Skelton 1 41 Jju 33 41 Oddysay 1 25 Ssamjang 1 41 Oddysay 33 41 Pusan 1 25 Sync 1 41 Pusan 33 41 Tss)Issac 1 25 Tss)Issac 1 41 Tss)Issac 33
[edit] Protoss v Zerg
" - A very demanding matchup for the Protoss player, as at the pro-level Zerg fares noticeably better. "
Not disputing the fact. Just need someone explain it.
[edit] Tech Trees
Has anyone thought about including tech trees and/or sumarries of them? They seem awfuly key to gameplay to me. FerralMoonrender 23:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Too awfully key, if you ask me. WP:NOT. Zeratul En Taro Adun!So be it. 00:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
