|
I actually had made a blog with my opinion on this subject not to long ago.
http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=200502
Mechanics add variety and the chance to come back in games. Like someone said, JD's ZVZ was incredible because even when hard counters were used against a specifici strategy, JD could still come back against it. Example. 12 hatch vs 9 pool. Jaedong uses worker micro to keep most of his workers alive till he gets lings. Also, Chess is definitely NOT what anyone really wants in a game like Starcraft. I want fast paced explosions and epic comebacks. I play chess very seriously and I watch it, but it's definitely not a spectator sport.
|
On March 17 2011 08:06 etheovermind wrote:I actually had made a blog with my opinion on this subject not to long ago. http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=200502Mechanics add variety and the chance to come back in games. Like someone said, JD's ZVZ was incredible because even when hard counters were used against a specifici strategy, JD could still come back against it. Example. 12 hatch vs 9 pool. Jaedong uses worker micro to keep most of his workers alive till he gets lings. Also, Chess is definitely NOT what anyone really wants in a game like Starcraft. I want fast paced explosions and epic comebacks. I play chess very seriously and I watch it, but it's definitely not a spectator sport.
So here's my question: why do comeback mechanisms have to be based on mechanics?
Let's say that getting a good position and flanking your opponent wins you battles in SC2 (it doesn't matter whether this is actually accurate). So if some Daejong has incredible mindgames and positioning, is that not the same thing?
Mechanics are mechanics. People attribute things to it which are completely external of mechanics, which are just mechanics. Mechanics can be fun for some people and not fun for some people (which of these people are 'hardcore'/'casual' and which are worth listening to I leave to you). That's all there is.
|
Well no, it wouldn't work, because SC isn't just a strategy based game, it's also mechanic based. Removing that aspect will just make it a whole different game. Like you said, it would be just like chess, with cooler graphics.
|
On March 17 2011 08:11 Redmark wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 08:06 etheovermind wrote:I actually had made a blog with my opinion on this subject not to long ago. http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=200502Mechanics add variety and the chance to come back in games. Like someone said, JD's ZVZ was incredible because even when hard counters were used against a specifici strategy, JD could still come back against it. Example. 12 hatch vs 9 pool. Jaedong uses worker micro to keep most of his workers alive till he gets lings. Also, Chess is definitely NOT what anyone really wants in a game like Starcraft. I want fast paced explosions and epic comebacks. I play chess very seriously and I watch it, but it's definitely not a spectator sport. So here's my question: why do comeback mechanisms have to be based on mechanics? Let's say that getting a good position and flanking your opponent wins you battles in SC2 (it doesn't matter whether this is actually accurate). So if some Daejong has incredible mindgames and positioning, is that not the same thing? Mechanics are mechanics. People attribute things to it which are completely external of mechanics, which are just mechanics. Mechanics can be fun for some people and not fun for some people. That's all there is.
Well lets look at a chess game between Giri and Carlsen
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1604359
(I actually can't see the game because I like the plugin but I hope this is the one I am thinking of)
Carlsen gives up like 10 moves before he loses material, knowing that when he loses that material, Giri will have an unbeatable advantage. Chess is a comeback unfriendly game. I mean, there has been examples of comebacks (the immortal game lol) but in most cases, the other player, if they are top tier players, needs to make a major mistake to lose once he has an advantage. Chess comebacks are usually from lack of material but position advantage. Barely ever, do you see pros with a material AND positional disadvantage win the game.
In the example I gave with JD, I am talking about a moment when literally there are 6 zerglings in his base. You may have the best strategies in the world but you will lose if there is no mechanics at that point. Look at Jinro vs Idra, clash of the titans. Without mechanics, Idra would GG soooo early, knowing there was no way he was going to win. Some people may like that kind of stuff. I don't and I think most people enjoy epic comebacks and no instant win strategy advantage.
|
|
|
A lot of people replying to this seem to think that mechanical play is all that matters; that if you can macro/micro better that automatically leads to a win. I'm sorry, but flat out that is not true. I would like to point out a classic BW game of Yellow vs. Bisu in Proleague, where Yellow pulls out an old school slow-lurker drop into Bisu's main. Bisu, while known for his insane APM/micro/multitasking, was demolished by a great strategy and execution thereof.
BW/SC2 is, first and foremost, a strategy game, and it shows in how it rewards its players. The players who can THINK the most, who have the best strategies and understanding of the game, usually do the best. With that said, the ability to click fast enough to execute said strategy is mechanical skill, and also a huge factor in BW, and less so in SC2.
With that said, an interesting point that a lot of people brought up is the evolution of SC2, as paralleled to BW. I don't think the game can develop much more mechanically; perfect late game play, while not happening now, is very close to being possible (I think. I don't follow the scene close enough to know that well. But, if BW players are able to keep their mins low on 5 bases, then there's no way SC2 players can't.) Anyways, the mechanical skill ceiling is much lower than in BW, and it seems to me that players have much less space to improve on mechanically. This in turn affects the strategical development of SC2. In BW, strategies evolved alongside mechanical skill; players who had stronger mechanics favored late game strategies, and adopted their strategies to get them there. 1 rax CC, forge-nexus, 12 hatching are all signs of this. But, because SC2 is so much less mechanically demanding, the strategies don't have as room to change as they did in BW. So in relation to the development, I don't think there will be as many, or very many at all, huge game changing strategical developments, like the Bisu's forge-nexus and/or corsair/DT revolution. People can already pull mechanically demanding strategies off, and thus will be explored/used much quicker.
One thing I don't like about the relatively perfect mechanics of SC2 players is that there's a lot of emphasis on perfection: you have to play perfect, and are not allowed to make one mistake up to late game, otherwise the game is over. I've seen a lot of games where it takes one missed forcefield, or one delayed round of production (or one misplaced building, eh jinro fans?) is all it takes to lose a game. While these sorts of situations existed in BW, the magnitude of the consequences of the mistake are much larger in SC2 because of the macro mechanics; perfect play vs. 1 mistake play will give overwhelming favor to the perfect player. In BW, it was 500 mistakes vs. 499 mistakes, and the momentary advantage at the time is much less significant than in SC2. I don't like this because it doesn't really show off the skill of the player; everyone can make a little mistake here or there, but to be knocked out of a tournament for it is a little ridiculous to me. There should be more of a chance to recover, to come back through better play, than to just die because of one silly mistake. And of course this doesn't happen in every game, but I do feel that it happens more in SC2 than in BW.
Edit: The difference between chess and removing the mechanics in SC2 is that one is real time and one is not. That makes a pretty big difference IMO. Real time chess where you can move as many pieces as you want as fast as you want? I'll throw in some explosions when pieces get taken. It'll be awesome. (Slow down the game speed; make pieces take time to move places, and it seems fairly close to what I have in mind.)
|
^
if multiple pieces can move at the same time, that would make it not chess lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
