On Teamliquid, I frequently come across people with this idea that mechanics kills strategy. They refer to a game without mechanics as being like chess, pure strategy. As a decent chess player, I couldn't help but believe that this is further than the truth.
Strategy, for our purposes, can be easily defined as a series of decisions made to increase the likelihood of a certain event happening. There is NO DEFINITE outcome from strategic decisions. Why is this? Well, here is a strategy in chess.
This is the sicilian defense, in which black responds to e4 with ...c5, with the aim of queenside agression that forces white to defend the aggression, rather than continuing with his kingside attack. At this stage in the game, there is no clear outcome from ...c5 because there are to many variables to be calculated.
Here is the converse of a strategy, a calculation. White knows he has won. Chess has lots of strategy, but also has a lot of simple calculations. In order for a game to have even a higher level of strategy, it must have more variables than can be calculated even with a computer. Here is where mechanics come in. With mechanics, a game has a degree of variability. A game where there are less mechanics in essence has less strategy than one that has more mechanics. There is more gray lines, more big picture things to look at rather than simple A beats B beats C therefor I go D and win.
And here is where SCBW comes in.
Here is one of my favorite games, a TVZ on Tau Cross by the great masters of our age, Flash and Jaedong. There is no simple strategy to beating Flash's unit composition. There is no unit that simply "counters" marines like in so many modern RTS's have built in. In order to respond to Flash, Jaedong must abuse the mobility of Flash's army and take the whole map.
Mechanics, though they are sometimes a larger focus than strategy at a low level, are NOT the underlying factor at higher levels. Flash is forced to make a crucial decision during the middle of the game. Do I keep on attacking or do I try to take more expansions? The answer was not a simple one and mechanics are what makes that question so complex. If Jaedong has the mechanics to hold off the attacks from multiple locations, it will be fruitless to continue attacking. If not, Flash can take out Jaedong's 2 o'clock expansions.
If there had been no mechanics in that game, it would have come down to a simple calculation on whether or not Flash had the units to take out the expansions. It would have been basically math. I have A, he has B, A beats B, therefor I win. Mechanics actually ADD to the strategic element of the game.
I agree, I hate the idea people seem to have gotten that less mechanics = more strategy. I didn't even play BW before, and am only meddling in it now, and even I can see that that is wrong. I haven't watched many BW games either, but it's pretty cool to see macro players, and how it takes excellent mechanics to have good, powerful, macro. In SC2, I just don't get that same feeling watching supposed "macro" players, as it seems that it has shifted the importance from the skill needed to macro like that, to a more general "strategy" driven approach. I might be way off base here, but what I mean is that it's based less off mechanics and skill, and more on build order and passivity.
On March 12 2011 07:43 Mr. Wiggles wrote: I agree, I hate the idea people seem to have gotten that less mechanics = more strategy. I didn't even play BW before, and am only meddling in it now, and even I can see that that is wrong. I haven't watched many BW games either, but it's pretty cool to see macro players, and how it takes excellent mechanics to have good, powerful, macro. In SC2, I just don't get that same feeling watching supposed "macro" players, as it seems that it has shifted the importance from the skill needed to macro like that, to a more general "strategy" driven approach. I might be way off base here, but what I mean is that it's based less off mechanics and skill, and more on build order and passivity.
But that's just my view.
I think you understood exactly what I meant by this post. Thanks for taking the time to read it! edit: I also think your quote is rather clever.
On March 12 2011 07:43 Mr. Wiggles wrote: I agree, I hate the idea people seem to have gotten that less mechanics = more strategy. I didn't even play BW before, and am only meddling in it now, and even I can see that that is wrong. I haven't watched many BW games either, but it's pretty cool to see macro players, and how it takes excellent mechanics to have good, powerful, macro. In SC2, I just don't get that same feeling watching supposed "macro" players, as it seems that it has shifted the importance from the skill needed to macro like that, to a more general "strategy" driven approach. I might be way off base here, but what I mean is that it's based less off mechanics and skill, and more on build order and passivity.
But that's just my view.
I think you understood exactly what I meant by this post. Thanks for taking the time to read it! edit: I also think your quote is rather clever.
Anyone who thinks less mechanics equals more strategy is so far gone it's best just to pat them on the head while saying 'whatever you say, sweetie.' Sometimes I'll turn on an SC2 stream just to see if the game as changed, and it'll be a master league player, and he'll be making so many basic strategy mistakes I'll wonder how he even got there. Then he attacks with his ball of death, it beats the enemy's ball of death, and I realise... It didn't even matter that he was too nooby to check for expos, that he was too nooby to know his opponent did an all in and clearly didn't have a hidden expo now, 5 minutes after he should have checked. All he had to do was a move and macro his army. The fact that a player like that isn't punished for being completely clueless kind of says to me that the strategy elements of SC2 are not as important as they were in BW. I suppose at the highest level of SC2 there will be a few subtle instances where strategy gains a player the advantage, but it seems much less important than it was in BW, where even if your macro was awful, if you were smart you could still win vs dumber players.
On March 12 2011 07:52 Chef wrote: Anyone who thinks less mechanics equals more strategy is so far gone it's best just to pat them on the head while saying 'whatever you say, sweetie.' Sometimes I'll turn on an SC2 stream just to see if the game as changed, and it'll be a master league player, and they'll be making so many basic strategy mistakes I'll wonder how they even got there. Then they attack with their ball of death, it beats the enemies ball of death, and I realise... It didn't even matter that he was too nooby to check for expos, that he was too nooby to know his opponent did an all in and clearly didn't have a strong army. All he had to do was a move and macro his army. The fact that a player like that isn't punished for being completely clueless kind of says to me that the strategy elements of SC2 are not as important as they were in BW. I suppose at the highest level of SC2 there will be a few subtle instances where strategy gains a player the advantage, but it seems much less important than it was in BW, where even if your macro was awful, if you were smart you could still win vs dumber players.
I admire your blog so much Chef! When I was writing this I was trying to write like I see you doing. Thanks for your input. I also agree completely with what you are saying.
Great post, etheovermind. Bookmarked. I'm not as eloquent with my words as I would like to be, so the next time I come across this argument I'm going to EZmode direct people to this post because you laid it out perfectly
On March 12 2011 08:01 Mr. Wiggles wrote: So just a question, but do you think anything could be changed or added in the expansions in SC2 that could ameliorate this situation?
Where do you think the root of the problem lies?
I believe that there would need to be some "comeback" units. Units at the highest tier that when used properly would allow someone to come back from almost any situation. Ex. defiler, hold-lurkers, reavers. This should also include getting rid of smart-cast. 12 unit select and MBS will probably never go and I don't think its crucial that they do though it would make the game a bit better IMO.
On March 12 2011 08:05 Bobo_XIII wrote: Great post, etheovermind. Bookmarked. I'm not as eloquent with my words as I would like to be, so the next time I come across this argument I'm going to EZmode direct people to this post because you laid it out perfectly
Thanks so much! Response to those types of arguments are exactly what I was hoping this would be used for.
On March 12 2011 08:01 Mr. Wiggles wrote: So just a question, but do you think anything could be changed or added in the expansions in SC2 that could ameliorate this situation?
Where do you think the root of the problem lies?
I believe that there would need to be some "comeback" units. Units at the highest tier that when used properly would allow someone to come back from almost any situation. Ex. defiler, hold-lurkers, reavers. This should also include getting rid of smart-cast. 12 unit select and MBS will probably never go and I don't think its crucial that they do though it would make the game a bit better IMO.
Yeah, I'd also like to see more units like that. It seems there is almost a scarcity of units that greatly reward and scale well with good use and control at the moment. I feel there was a lot of strategy in those units too, because they were very key to the match in their usage. They also promoted lots of positional play, that I think lacks a bit in the current game.
Do you think changing unit collision size would do much? I think that might help to alleviate some of the "death-ball" moments of the game, and might add a bit more to positioning and micro when engaging.
On March 12 2011 08:01 Mr. Wiggles wrote: So just a question, but do you think anything could be changed or added in the expansions in SC2 that could ameliorate this situation?
Where do you think the root of the problem lies?
I believe that there would need to be some "comeback" units. Units at the highest tier that when used properly would allow someone to come back from almost any situation. Ex. defiler, hold-lurkers, reavers. This should also include getting rid of smart-cast. 12 unit select and MBS will probably never go and I don't think its crucial that they do though it would make the game a bit better IMO.
Yeah, I'd also like to see more units like that. It seems there is almost a scarcity of units that greatly reward and scale well with good use and control at the moment. I feel there was a lot of strategy in those units too, because they were very key to the match in their usage. They also promoted lots of positional play, that I think lacks a bit in the current game.
Do you think changing unit collision size would do much? I think that might help to alleviate some of the "death-ball" moments of the game, and might add a bit more to positioning and micro when engaging.
Increasing collision size would be excellent. In BW, you have these awesome lines of units spread out all over the map and its just so sick.
I was just thinking about this, how mechanics and strategy are inevitably tied together. At the simplest level even cheeses (mostly relatively simple strategies) have a very variable effectiveness that depend greatly on mechanics.
On March 12 2011 08:01 Mr. Wiggles wrote: So just a question, but do you think anything could be changed or added in the expansions in SC2 that could ameliorate this situation?
Where do you think the root of the problem lies?
I believe that there would need to be some "comeback" units. Units at the highest tier that when used properly would allow someone to come back from almost any situation. Ex. defiler, hold-lurkers, reavers. This should also include getting rid of smart-cast. 12 unit select and MBS will probably never go and I don't think its crucial that they do though it would make the game a bit better IMO.
Yeah, I'd also like to see more units like that. It seems there is almost a scarcity of units that greatly reward and scale well with good use and control at the moment. I feel there was a lot of strategy in those units too, because they were very key to the match in their usage. They also promoted lots of positional play, that I think lacks a bit in the current game.
Do you think changing unit collision size would do much? I think that might help to alleviate some of the "death-ball" moments of the game, and might add a bit more to positioning and micro when engaging.
Increasing collision size would be excellent. In BW, you have these awesome lines of units spread out all over the map and its just so sick.
Yeah, that's my favourite thing from starting to watch BW. Like I said, I really hope they add something that promotes positional play, because it's almost rare to see people fighting on multiple fronts or in larger battle lines.
On March 12 2011 08:01 Mr. Wiggles wrote: So just a question, but do you think anything could be changed or added in the expansions in SC2 that could ameliorate this situation?
Where do you think the root of the problem lies?
I believe that there would need to be some "comeback" units. Units at the highest tier that when used properly would allow someone to come back from almost any situation. Ex. defiler, hold-lurkers, reavers. This should also include getting rid of smart-cast. 12 unit select and MBS will probably never go and I don't think its crucial that they do though it would make the game a bit better IMO.
Yes! Completely absolutely agree. Comeback units are part of what MADE brood war appeal to beginners. Massive numbers of kills on key units like archons/reavers/lurkers/tanks when someone wasnt paying attention for just a moment could swing a game one way or the other. You don't see that much in sc2 anymore. Somehow it seems like the developers thought "having less of an effect" is more fun - weaker spells, weaker units. I don't know. Just my opinion. Sc2 is still great to watch, but I doubt I would have gotten into it at all without the lure BW had in watching the korean scene.
Nice blog there, etheovermind, you have enlightened me today . Even though I don't have much experience in sc2 (watched very few games), I agree with etheovermind. The only problem is that it might get labeled as overpowered.
So why aren't defilers qq'd about? Dark swarms make units practically invulnerable. However in broodwar, there is a good system of give and take. With defilers being good you might think "Oh, I'll just make 'em and go straight to the top", but getting defilers very early leaves you vulnerable with just a few units to defend and actually use the DS. Some units are op but they have a price.
I'm not seeing how your analysis supports your conclusion. It's just risk/reward. If you're playing a tennis match against someone with an incredibly strong forehand you have to strategize to play against the opponent's strengths. If your opponent has better macro than you then you use strategies which don't depend as much on macro. It adds strategy in this same way that playing in different courts, or with different racquets adds strategy. It's just another variable. Instead of 'A beats B', it's 'A beats B if player is above C mechanical skill'. I'm not seeing where the leap is strategy comes from. It's what you had before + knowing your opponent, which real strategy is anyway. Doesn't really change anything. Mechanics has nothing to do with strategy. At the highest level, everyone should have roughly the same strategical tools (if you tell me that Flash is the best SC strategist ever I would be very skeptical). It just determines how hard it is to actually get to the strategical part, and how easy it is to screw up a maneuver that is otherwise strategically sound. Some people like this balance skewed one way, some people the other.
I believe that there would need to be some "comeback" units. Units at the highest tier that when used properly would allow someone to come back from almost any situation. Ex. defiler, hold-lurkers, reavers. This should also include getting rid of smart-cast.
This is an oft-repeated line, but I don't see why. It obviously depends on how this 'comeback' unit is implemented. These units can be used to bury a weakened foe just as easily as they can create comebacks. Smart-cast, again, I'm not seeing the relevance.
On March 12 2011 10:55 Redmark wrote: I'm not seeing how your analysis supports your conclusion. It's just risk/reward. If you're playing a tennis match against someone with an incredibly strong forehand you have to strategize to play against the opponent's strengths. If your opponent has better macro than you then you use strategies which don't depend as much on macro. It adds strategy in this same way that playing in different courts, or with different racquets adds strategy. It's just another variable. Instead of 'A beats B', it's 'A beats B if player is above C mechanical skill'. I'm not seeing where the leap is strategy comes from. It's what you had before + knowing your opponent, which real strategy is anyway. Doesn't really change anything. Mechanics has nothing to do with strategy. At the highest level, everyone should have roughly the same strategical tools (if you tell me that Flash is the best SC strategist ever I would be very skeptical). It just determines how hard it is to actually get to the strategical part, and how easy it is to screw up a maneuver that is otherwise strategically sound. Some people like this balance skewed one way, some people the other.
I believe that there would need to be some "comeback" units. Units at the highest tier that when used properly would allow someone to come back from almost any situation. Ex. defiler, hold-lurkers, reavers. This should also include getting rid of smart-cast.
This is an oft-repeated line, but I don't see why. It obviously depends on how this 'comeback' unit is implemented. These units can be used to bury a weakened foe just as easily as they can create comebacks. Smart-cast, again, I'm not seeing the relevance.
Flash is actually one of the best strategists and that is definitly his strongest point. PROLEAGUE SPOILERS FLASH V JAEDONG + Show Spoiler +
Jaedong tries to rush lurkers. Its almost like Flash has map hacks, He sends a random SCV to the other side of the map where jaedong had hidden his lurkers. In an interview he literally said he just had a feeling something was up
Comeback units make it so the tides of the game switch very rapidly. In an even match up between to evenly matched up players, yes the player who is already winning can use OP units to beat him down but that doesn't mean that the defender can't use them too. I mean, you can use a reaver to beat a zerg but if he just dark swarmed your whole army, and plagued it, can lose your whole army, thus giving the zerg a chance to comeback. If you just try to go for some kind of unit trade, where you kill his workers or something and he kills your army, then its even footing again, thus a comeback has been made.
On March 12 2011 07:31 CrazedManiac wrote: In your second diagram, if it's White to play, he actually wins by Qxh7+.
Just sayin'
Can't the rook kill the queen?
Play it out, man, you'll see.
I agree with the OP, but as far as the discussion is concerned, i'd like know what people's idea of "mechanics" is. Just making sure. this might be a "metagame" argument where it gets to 20-30 pages of discussion until people realize that they define "metagame" differently.
anyway, as far as chess mechanics is concerned, a good chess strategy benefits from some mechanics as well, such as tempo (or timing your moves to to create the most probability of executing an opening to victory, mostly this would require suspending a benefit now for a greater one later) and sequencing (getting around the natural movements of your pieces to delay or hasten a particular strategic advantage).
still may i point out, BW is not exactly chess since u don't have complete information about your opponent.
Mechanics is how well you move the mouse and press the buttons on the keyboard. Your mechanics limit the number of things you can do when a game isn't 'easy.' Mechanical limitations are what force you to make decisions about where you spend your concentration, which is an element that add very obviously to strategy. However, there is also a point to make that even if you have more time to think about strategy (because you are not busy with mechanics), does not necessarily mean a game is more strategical. It just makes the strategy aspect of the game simpler and easier to handle.
That is what I think mechanics usually refers to, but I may not be understanding the OP since it doesn't quite add up to me.
On March 12 2011 10:55 Redmark wrote: I'm not seeing how your analysis supports your conclusion. It's just risk/reward. If you're playing a tennis match against someone with an incredibly strong forehand you have to strategize to play against the opponent's strengths. If your opponent has better macro than you then you use strategies which don't depend as much on macro. It adds strategy in this same way that playing in different courts, or with different racquets adds strategy. It's just another variable. Instead of 'A beats B', it's 'A beats B if player is above C mechanical skill'. I'm not seeing where the leap is strategy comes from. It's what you had before + knowing your opponent, which real strategy is anyway. Doesn't really change anything. Mechanics has nothing to do with strategy. At the highest level, everyone should have roughly the same strategical tools (if you tell me that Flash is the best SC strategist ever I would be very skeptical). It just determines how hard it is to actually get to the strategical part, and how easy it is to screw up a maneuver that is otherwise strategically sound. Some people like this balance skewed one way, some people the other.
I believe that there would need to be some "comeback" units. Units at the highest tier that when used properly would allow someone to come back from almost any situation. Ex. defiler, hold-lurkers, reavers. This should also include getting rid of smart-cast.
This is an oft-repeated line, but I don't see why. It obviously depends on how this 'comeback' unit is implemented. These units can be used to bury a weakened foe just as easily as they can create comebacks. Smart-cast, again, I'm not seeing the relevance.
Flash is actually one of the best strategists and that is definitly his strongest point. PROLEAGUE SPOILERS FLASH V JAEDONG + Show Spoiler +
Jaedong tries to rush lurkers. Its almost like Flash has map hacks, He sends a random SCV to the other side of the map where jaedong had hidden his lurkers. In an interview he literally said he just had a feeling something was up
Comeback units make it so the tides of the game switch very rapidly. In an even match up between to evenly matched up players, yes the player who is already winning can use OP units to beat him down but that doesn't mean that the defender can't use them too. I mean, you can use a reaver to beat a zerg but if he just dark swarmed your whole army, and plagued it, can lose your whole army, thus giving the zerg a chance to comeback. If you just try to go for some kind of unit trade, where you kill his workers or something and he kills your army, then its even footing again, thus a comeback has been made.
IMO I think that's just "star sense" or experience. If I wanted to look at Flash's strategy at his greatest, I'd look at his TvZ deny 3rd expo strategy (which could not be done without proper mechanics FYI, and 2 hatch muta couldnt be done without proper mechanics), or the double armory on Katrina which allowed Terran to fight carriers on that map, or just in general his TvT play.
I recently remember posting about a PL game vs Mind where Flash was heavily at a disadvantage and Mind was teched to BCs much faster than him at the rate where Flash would easily have lost. In a OMG moment Flash scanned Mind's base then dropped most some of his army in Mind's base to snipe 1. Mind's Armories 2. Mind's Physics Lab. The result? Flash was even/ahead on upgrades and research AND Mind had to rebuild his Physics Lab. Flash then slowly fought back knowing that Mind could not fully use the BC's he had just invested in, then beat out Mind on BC army and won the game. THAT is strategy.
On March 12 2011 11:12 etheovermind wrote: Flash is actually one of the best strategists and that is definitly his strongest point. PROLEAGUE SPOILERS FLASH V JAEDONG + Show Spoiler +
Jaedong tries to rush lurkers. Its almost like Flash has map hacks, He sends a random SCV to the other side of the map where jaedong had hidden his lurkers. In an interview he literally said he just had a feeling something was up
The thing about flash is, he's not the savviest in interviews. He tried to be cool about it but he just looks more and more arrogant. If you saw the game, he scanned the den and didnt see a single hydra that late in game. Its not starsense even, just routine scout to see whats up. JD lost that because he miscalculated the attack and runby and had to recover be double expoing.
OK sorry I misunderstood Flash in that thing. When I was watching the game, I hadn't noticed that flash had scanned the den. In response to mechanical definitions, I basically define mechanics as the ability to control units.
Mechanics is how well you move the mouse and press the buttons on the keyboard. Your mechanics limit the number of things you can do when a game isn't 'easy.' Mechanical limitations are what force you to make decisions about where you spend your concentration, which is an element that add very obviously to strategy. However, there is also a point to make that even if you have more time to think about strategy (because you are not busy with mechanics), does not necessarily mean a game is more strategical. It just makes the strategy aspect of the game simpler and easier to handle.
To reiterate or maybe say for the first time, I mean that challenging mechanics add to the overall variability of play, leading to strategies being more abstract rather than definite calculations.
On March 12 2011 11:12 etheovermind wrote: Flash is actually one of the best strategists and that is definitly his strongest point. PROLEAGUE SPOILERS FLASH V JAEDONG + Show Spoiler +
Jaedong tries to rush lurkers. Its almost like Flash has map hacks, He sends a random SCV to the other side of the map where jaedong had hidden his lurkers. In an interview he literally said he just had a feeling something was up
The thing about flash is, he's not the savviest in interviews. He tried to be cool about it but he just looks more and more arrogant. If you saw the game, he scanned the den and didnt see a single hydra that late in game. Its not starsense even, just routine scout to see whats up. JD lost that because he miscalculated the attack and runby and had to recover be double expoing.
Yeah, but imo starsense really comes from good scouting info. You can sense what a player is doing by judging what you can see from say, a scan or a scouting unit. You can also check places in the map for proxies or hidden tech routinely. This is what I see when flash plays.
On March 12 2011 11:12 etheovermind wrote: Flash is actually one of the best strategists and that is definitly his strongest point. PROLEAGUE SPOILERS FLASH V JAEDONG + Show Spoiler +
Jaedong tries to rush lurkers. Its almost like Flash has map hacks, He sends a random SCV to the other side of the map where jaedong had hidden his lurkers. In an interview he literally said he just had a feeling something was up
The thing about flash is, he's not the savviest in interviews. He tried to be cool about it but he just looks more and more arrogant. If you saw the game, he scanned the den and didnt see a single hydra that late in game. Its not starsense even, just routine scout to see whats up. JD lost that because he miscalculated the attack and runby and had to recover be double expoing.
Yeah, i thought it was genius when he just walked his lurkers past the first bunkers into the main
Then i realized that he just lost when he walked them ALL THE WAY INTO THE CORNER WTF
EPT![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/5d8S8.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/dOPQ0.jpg)
. Even though I don't have much experience in sc2 (watched very few games), I agree with etheovermind. The only problem is that it might get labeled as overpowered.
