|
|||
After a short hiatus, the one and only Michael 'baka' Lau is back with his Checkmate article series. This one is about tactics vs. strategy. ![]() It has been a while since I’ve written an article – partially due to a completely saturated summer schedule and also due to the occasional “Writer’s block” that writers get when their minds are off in another world. But, with the constant encouragement and curiosity of my faithful readers that are kind enough to request another issue, I now announce the continuation of this series. But, a new start requires a new introduction. In this issue, we’ll sidetrack from the agenda and tackle the postulates of “gaming." We will ask ourselves – what is the difference between strategy and tactics? However, let’s first re-introduce the purpose of this series: Counter-Strike, like chess, is more than just the taking of opponent’s pieces (taking down the offense or defense), reading the situations (in-game communication), and experience. Although these attributes are key essentials to being relatively ‘good’ at the game, what makes some teams and/or individuals better than others is the use of mind games as well as understanding the philosophy behind the different variations and openings (Offensive and Defensive setups). This series is not just aimed at amateur and intermediate Counter-Strike teams. In fact, this article specifically aims at higher-tier teams that are in the ‘Invite’ levels. These teams often display talented players and outstanding communication. Their individual thinking and team play reflects experience and excellent game sense. However, as explained earlier, that is insufficient; most of these teams have strategies that only mimic the shadows of smart-playing. Their game lacks awareness in the psychology and philosophy of thinking smart. Then again, this series is not only opinion-based but also completely subjective. It simply amplifies the relations between counter-strike and chess, but does not provide proof and factual evidence. All in all, it is just another perspective we can use when playing the game. With all that set aside, it is time to explain what to expect from this journey. This series consists of an uncertain number of sections, as time goes by, ideas form and my fingers type. The sections are neither ordered in relations of importance nor chronologically ordered. They are all just faculties within themselves that contribute to the whole picture. What I can reveal however, are the current topics that are actively involved in my head and in this series. Below are some of these topics, with a little description as a teaser. The Ultimate Weapon - ‘Predicting’ Part 1 – … the ability to predict is a powerful weapon that more than often will determine the outcome of the game… Mind Sets: Offense is the Best Defense – You start off with the leet krew model. Are you now the offense or the defense? Think carefully before you answer this... The Art of Probability – Probability is an art, like other aesthetics it does not provide answers but simply an image or map that allows it to be analyzed and acted upon… Tactics vs. Strategy – This article Game Theory – John Nash? Charles Darwin? Prisoner’s Dilemma? What have all these have to do with the game? Mind Sets: Estimation – They say don’t underestimate your enemy? I say don't overestimate them! Openings & Variations – The opening move in chess determines your style of play, the pistol round in counter-strike determines your opponents mind set of your style of play… manipulate them to think what you want them to think… The Ultimate Weapon - ‘Predicting’ Part 2 – Back to step one! Time to upgrade our weapon with everything we now know. Ok! Let us move on… |






User Comments
http://www.gotfrag.com/cs/story/30530/ #1
http://www.gotfrag.com/cs/story/30749/ #2
http://www.gotfrag.com/cs/story/30986/ #3
I have never played any game at as high of a competitive level as I've played Counter-Strike, and only now do I realize how mental other games are (like physical sports or chess) and how similar ideas come to play in them all. Because Counter-Strike has little or no heritage in the way of formal analysis, I've always seen one of my goals to improve this state of affairs as best I can.
I wouldn't mind having a discussion with you since you seem to have similar goals, and you also seem well educated on the topic of psychology of games. I am interested in writing so-inclined pieces for Gotfrag but I find it particularly difficult to construct Counter-Strike from first principles with no education of game theory and sports psychology (but I'm working on getting educated).
Now on to my critique. The first part of your article where you divide the game of Counter-Strike into strategy and tactics (and further subdivisions) left me a bit unfulfilled, because you did not elaborate on your ideas, but perhaps you didn't have enough space in the article or had an interest in keeping it concise. As far as your analysis that philosophy and mind-games differentiate high level players from the rest, I would tend to agree if the game of Counter-Strike was as well mapped out as opening variations in Chess. But in a game as new as Counter-Strike, new ideas that give you a slight metagame advantage over your opponent (new flash angle, new spam spot, in short, new tactic) can win a crucial round and turn around the momentum of an entire match. Innovation to break the chain of prediction and counter-prediction will endlessly win you rounds, and only knowledgeable, experienced players have the resources necessary to innovate constantly while they play.
Anyway good job on the article, I'm greatly interested in seeing the next installments.
2.h4!!>?>?!?!??
gj
It's one thing knowing and another thing understanding. Knowledge is the most powerful tool we have :)
#27
B2C !!!
Maturity/Immaturity does not correlate with intelligence, one is a rites of passage, the other is the product of education.
Especially #19 (cole-) to make such a generalization as to say: "where half your readers have ADD" really makes other question your intelligence.
It's important that a writer's work is criticized and evaluated, but leave the readers out of this - don't discriminate someone with a mole on their face when there's a pebble in your eye. :)
You should have read their main points and not quoted single lines and used that. They have a valid point. The article was good and definitely something this community needs, but it was much wordier than it needed to be, and that made it lack content. You could have said four times as much with the same space. I majored in English for a few years before switching and although I still struggle with a lot of concepts, being so verbose isn't needed anywhere, let alone in a video game community.
It would be the equivalent of me writing a quantitive economics growth paper in relation to the average gamer on Gotfrag. Do you really think people will catch the important parts if I made it wordy as you did? Certainly, as you said, maturity doesn't necessarily correlate to intelligence, but I don't see many news agencies go into concepts the average layperson probably won't understand.
However, the same news papers/sites have columns for it's writer's to relay their bias and subjective views. Some viewers enjoy these columns as it's an art. In fact, it's meant to be an art - an aesthetic for many to unveil.
Granted that I may have failed in reflecting important parts and explaining certain details. But it is my style of writing - some read it for interest and curiousity, some don't. I write with the intention of tickling the former.
mo
It is true that many high experienced playes might already have knowledge of this but if you think of it, i dought that many of them even thought to bring it up when they were considering strats or thinking "moves" through.
very good article
More Pages
Submit Comments
Registered Users Only
In order to post comments, you must be a registered member. If you have not registered, it's free and easy!