Determining whether a strategy is successful and determining the player's thought process are two completely different things...a strategy can work and can even be replicated but that doesn't mean you understand why it works...seeing what works and what doesn't is easy, but pinpointing why a strategy works is not always apparent...
Imagine two pro players, an Advent and a Vasari, going head on as frontliners in a 5v5...the Advent rushes with Halcyons, disciples, and seekers in a classic tier 0 rush while the Vasari starts with Skirantras and kanraks...the two fleets clash, and the Advent starts to bring in defense vessels coupled with additional disciples while the Vasari starts reinforcing with skirmishers...
After a brutal battle the Advent player is slowly driven off...how did the Vasari win? Easy...he did whatever it is that he did that can be seen in the replay. Why did the Vasari win? That's a tougher question to answer...
Maybe it's because those skirmshers were great counters to seekers, or maybe because they were counters to the defense vessels, or maybe because they are counters to both...but you can't be entirely sure just from watching the replay...
Here would be the part where you'd argue "A player who actually understands the game would know that LFs counter both scouts and flak"...and you would be correct...so let's grant our replay viewer a decent knowledge of the game...
But even with a decent knowledge of ship counters, the truth may be that even though in theory skirmishers are better than kanraks against seekers, that is only part of the puzzle because they aren't the only two ships involved...
Perhaps when faced against disciples and seekers, simply sticking to kanraks might be the best way to go as your SC can be used to tackle the seekers...but, when you go against defense vessels, you no longer have SC to use as counters, making skirmishers your only counter and therefore essential...
Or maybe it's that seekers/defense can't threaten caps while disciples can, and so priority on eliminating the disciples and saving your caps outweighs losing the fleet battle slightly...
Or perhaps it depends on whether the Halcyons have fighters or bombers...
Or perhaps it depends on your ability to get certain techs quickly (like higher level PMs and charged missiles)...
Or perhaps skirmishers are the best option regardless of whether you fight seekers and defense...or perhaps skirmishers are good when the Advent is 50/50 on seekers/disciples, but when its 30/70 then your SC are good enough and there's no point in wasting time with skirmishers (and the associated weapon tech upgrades)...
Maybe building skirmishers was a proactive move to counter defense vessels (which presumably would come later) and not specifically for dealing with the seekers (of which maybe there are better strategies), but since the Advent brought both you can't really be sure...
There are a hundred different reasons why that Vasari player could have won, many of which have nothing to do with fleet composition...all you know for certain is that given the same map, same starting position, and same opponent following the same decision tree, that replay is a recipe for victory...
Knowing why the Vasari won in that specific case is crucial, because the point is to apply what you learned to help you play better...if the "lesson" you learn is that skirmishers are good against seekers and defense, you may be missing out on all the above caveats mentioned previously...pinning down the exact parameters that justify using skirmishers (and how many to use) is difficult and cumbersome...that's not to say you can't develop some general rules or make some broad conclusions, but to make highly accurate and narrowed conclusions for debatable choices affected by many complex variables is nigh impossible if you are only using replays...
Knowing the final cause, the primary reasoning behind any given player's move, is the most efficient way to learn and sadly it is not fully captured in a replay...multiple pros have stated on these forums that they played extensively with other pros and were "coached" so to speak on what to do and when to do it...simply put, hearing from JJ himself when to build skirmishers is more efficient and less prone to error than cross-referencing various replays with similar outcomes but different sets of parameters...
That's not to say you can't make educated guesses, "connect the dots", or combine observations from many different replays...but there are some decisions that simply are too difficult to fully understand...even with multiple replays, generating a highly accurate, detailed, and in-depth decision tree that accounts for every situation is going to be difficult if not damn near impossible...your human brain is going to develop that decision tree a lot better with actual game-experience than with just replays...
For complicated decisions like the one I have describe above, a replay is simply not going to give you absolute certainty about what works and why you should do what...ultimately, you will have to test your new found "knowledge" and see if the conclusions you made from watching a replay are right...replays can help or speed up the process, but only game experience with good players is going to give you the pro-level decision tree that you need...
I will admit that in my first post I probably should have for clarity included the world alone so it would read "watching replays alone ultimately is not going to help you come anywhere close to being a pro"...that is certainly what I was thinking and I can see how someone other that me would not interpret it that way...nevertheless, it is a point I clarified at the beginning of post 23 so it should have been quite clear where I stand long before these ridiculous and spiteful tirrades...
Replays must be coupled with extensive game experience: they alone are not enough. That claim in and of itself I don't think is particularly contentious, but I go one step farther and believe that game experience is more important than replays...I fully believe a player can learn more by playing the actual game, talking with actual players, and working with the actual game files and they will ever learn from replays....
A replay is only going to show you what a player did, and not why or how...if you completely and absolutely understand every aspect of a replay then you wouldn't be learning anything from it...if you are so good that you can with 100% accuracy explain why a player does each and every little thing they do and how they use the UI and keyboard/mouse all through a replay, then you are God and why the hell are you wasting time watching replays if you aren't learning anything new?
What you should also clear up in that brain of yours is the fact that ICO is human players and playing against Human players is better than playing against the AI. LAN is clearly Human player that you underestimate.
I have absolutely no idea why you have included this. I have never claimed the AI to be better than good human players...I have never claimed that ICO players are better than LAN players and in no way have implied such a belief...I'm sorry if I didn't make a specific comment regarding the friends you play with (which would be hard since I don't know any of them)...either you really just liking making things up or you can't keep your shit straight...I'm just going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this is the 2nd time you've confused me with someone or made a false assumption...
And for what it's worth...
Cmon wrath89.. You still pissed off with me for taking at cheap shot at your dear old friend seleuc-etc? You gotta let that 1 go. Don't see you asking about Qu4r's writing and dancing around trivial things such as LRM.
Really? You slam on a modder who isn't even involved in this thread, then you slam on a guy who has been perfectly reasonable and civil the entire time (I'd even point out he's disagreed with me on most nearly everything I've said)...Qu4r at least has a reputation on ICO and is entertaining, but you are just being an ass for no reason...I get that you think I'm a retard idiot with down syndrome, and this being the internet I can even understand why you feel compelled to tell me so in every way possible...but bashing random people for the hell of it is just silly...
