7 ms·

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

by ninjin 13y ago

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.

Mikeb85 13y ago
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).
gabemart 13y ago
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.
- aspensmonster 13y ago
  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.
  - DominikR 13y ago
    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
  - nickik 13y ago
    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.
  - lgieron 13y ago
    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).
cclogg 13y ago
Get a Warcraft 3 custom-map LAN group going. Funnest times ever :)
bayesianhorse 13y ago
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.
debacle 13y ago
Yes, most people who play Starcraft II have something called "Ladder Anxiety." 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 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).
dota168 13y ago
Same with me but with Warcraft 3. After 2 games, i'm so burned out and mentally tired to play another game.
jamra 13y ago
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.
Fourplealis 13y ago
Last version I played online was Brood War (years ago) and it was like chess on steroids.

by ninjin 13y ago

Mikeb85 13y ago

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).

gabemart 13y ago

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.

aspensmonster 13y ago
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.
- DominikR 13y ago
  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
- nickik 13y ago
  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.
- lgieron 13y ago
  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).

cclogg 13y ago

Get a Warcraft 3 custom-map LAN group going. Funnest times ever :)

bayesianhorse 13y ago

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.

debacle 13y ago

Yes, most people who play Starcraft II have something called "Ladder Anxiety." 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 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).

dota168 13y ago

Same with me but with Warcraft 3. After 2 games, i'm so burned out and mentally tired to play another game.

jamra 13y ago

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.

Fourplealis 13y ago

Last version I played online was Brood War (years ago) and it was like chess on steroids.