|
On January 07 2012 20:16 phantaxx wrote:
I've never understood why everyone thinks so much more highly of good mechanics than good strategy and thinking. Is winning because the player was producing constantly and not getting supply blocked really more impressive than a player winning because of tactics and decision making?
Mechanics is much more than not getting supply blocked and producing constantly.
In every (real time) competitive game, it's skill that is valued the highest. In an RTS game, mechanics and execution IS skill. It separates progamers that train 12 hours a day to be able to play at a near superhuman ability and casual ladder players.
If a player can be controlling units at 3 places at the same time while not missing a beat in his macro, that is an impressive display of skill in a classic RTS game.
If a player comes up with some obscure build and timings that make everyone (including his opponent) go WTF and then ends up having better units and simply winning because of that, that's not really anything to write home about.
|
As somebody already pointed out, Goody has already been successful in BW, so you cant blame SC2 for his success.
Goody invests the same amount of time like most of the pros in training, but in his training, playing Games to improve his mechanics is only a very small part. He invests more time in analyzing the current state of the game, and developing the most abusive tactics he can think of. Im not saying that negatively, I highly respect him, for developing this strats. Because of his abusive tactics, people always thought, that Goody would just disappear, whenever a new Patch was released, but its exactly the opposite. Goody is one of the most consistent players, because he has an incredible sense of the game, and therefore can change his tactics aproppriatly very very fast. I just love Goody for being unique, and in my opinion he deserves everything he achieved.
|
On January 07 2012 20:40 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 20:16 phantaxx wrote:
I've never understood why everyone thinks so much more highly of good mechanics than good strategy and thinking. Is winning because the player was producing constantly and not getting supply blocked really more impressive than a player winning because of tactics and decision making? Mechanics is much more than not getting supply blocked and producing constantly. In every (real time) competitive game, it's skill that is valued the highest. In an RTS game, mechanics and execution IS skill. It separates progamers that train 12 hours a day to be able to play at a near superhuman ability and casual ladder players. If a player can be controlling units at 3 places at the same time while not missing a beat in his macro, that is an impressive display of skill in a classic RTS game. If a player comes up with some obscure build and timings that make everyone (including his opponent) go WTF and then ends up having better units and simply winning because of that, that's not really anything to write home about.
If you are searching for something with one build order and always the same timings and thats supports your finger acrobatic affinity you may try cup stacking?
|
just wanted to show some love for goody. gogo.
|
On January 07 2012 20:40 Talin wrote:
If a player comes up with some obscure build and timings that make everyone (including his opponent) go WTF and then ends up having better units and simply winning because of that, that's not really anything to write home about.
It is when he can do it consistently even though people downplay the strategy game as simplistic, because all he does is show how much there is left to learn and practice in the game.
|
Goody plays his openings out in a, not-so-standard way against players. While alot of players will go straight for an expo, he'll invest into units and see if he can punish a player by surprise. This play style is actually very reminiscent of a player we all love, SlayerSBoxeR.
If you compare both players, you can see that they lack in certain part of their game. But they end up winning by outsmarting their opponent in most cases. SlayerSBoxer has better mechanics than Goody, but compared to other Koreans he lacks in that department. Goody is the same way, he lacks mechanically against other Europeans, but he manages to outsmart his opponents in the end.
I feel both players could improve their play mechanically. But both of those players are strong in their area of expertise, and I don't think you can fault their wins because their opponent "made more units".
|
On January 07 2012 20:40 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 20:16 phantaxx wrote:
I've never understood why everyone thinks so much more highly of good mechanics than good strategy and thinking. Is winning because the player was producing constantly and not getting supply blocked really more impressive than a player winning because of tactics and decision making? Mechanics is much more than not getting supply blocked and producing constantly. In every (real time) competitive game, it's skill that is valued the highest. In an RTS game, mechanics and execution IS skill. It separates progamers that train 12 hours a day to be able to play at a near superhuman ability and casual ladder players. If a player can be controlling units at 3 places at the same time while not missing a beat in his macro, that is an impressive display of skill in a classic RTS game. If a player comes up with some obscure build and timings that make everyone (including his opponent) go WTF and then ends up having better units and simply winning because of that, that's not really anything to write home about.
(my bold) I thought winning was valued highest?
|
On January 08 2012 07:55 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 20:40 Talin wrote:On January 07 2012 20:16 phantaxx wrote:
I've never understood why everyone thinks so much more highly of good mechanics than good strategy and thinking. Is winning because the player was producing constantly and not getting supply blocked really more impressive than a player winning because of tactics and decision making? Mechanics is much more than not getting supply blocked and producing constantly. In every (real time) competitive game, it's skill that is valued the highest. In an RTS game, mechanics and execution IS skill. It separates progamers that train 12 hours a day to be able to play at a near superhuman ability and casual ladder players. If a player can be controlling units at 3 places at the same time while not missing a beat in his macro, that is an impressive display of skill in a classic RTS game. If a player comes up with some obscure build and timings that make everyone (including his opponent) go WTF and then ends up having better units and simply winning because of that, that's not really anything to write home about. (my bold) I thought winning was valued highest?
whining is the highest valuer for fans.
|
I'm shocked that Goody took 2 games off pro Korean Protosses after playing bio for only a few weeks. If he used a different build in game 3 then he might've taken out JYP. Even MKP was confused by Goody's play, but you can't argue with the results.
|
On January 08 2012 08:20 RoboBob wrote:
I'm shocked that Goody took 2 games off pro Korean Protosses after playing bio for only a few weeks. If he used a different build in game 3 then he might've taken out JYP. Even MKP was confused by Goody's play, but you can't argue with the results.
The results were getting pounded by ReaL, taking a game after a failed dtrush (and even then, it could have gone either way).
Goody has shown some pretty superb play in HSC but that series that confused the korean casters was not it.
|
On January 08 2012 08:03 sAsImre wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2012 07:55 EatThePath wrote:On January 07 2012 20:40 Talin wrote:On January 07 2012 20:16 phantaxx wrote:
I've never understood why everyone thinks so much more highly of good mechanics than good strategy and thinking. Is winning because the player was producing constantly and not getting supply blocked really more impressive than a player winning because of tactics and decision making? Mechanics is much more than not getting supply blocked and producing constantly. In every (real time) competitive game, it's skill that is valued the highest. In an RTS game, mechanics and execution IS skill. It separates progamers that train 12 hours a day to be able to play at a near superhuman ability and casual ladder players. If a player can be controlling units at 3 places at the same time while not missing a beat in his macro, that is an impressive display of skill in a classic RTS game. If a player comes up with some obscure build and timings that make everyone (including his opponent) go WTF and then ends up having better units and simply winning because of that, that's not really anything to write home about. (my bold) I thought winning was valued highest? whining is the highest valuer for fans.
Actually, I've been arguing against Talin and others who hold that view for more than a year, in multiple threads, but thanks for the smarmy rebuke coupled to a snub.
+ Show Spoiler +I'm not usually petty or sarcastic but this debate is worth it to me. I'm sorry you have such a problem with goody though. If you read the thread you'll also see I never indicate I'm a goody fan. Keep hating, I guess; play to your strengths. And if I interpreted the opposite of your intended meaning from your pun, sorry, oops. 
|
On January 08 2012 08:55 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2012 08:03 sAsImre wrote:On January 08 2012 07:55 EatThePath wrote:On January 07 2012 20:40 Talin wrote:On January 07 2012 20:16 phantaxx wrote:
I've never understood why everyone thinks so much more highly of good mechanics than good strategy and thinking. Is winning because the player was producing constantly and not getting supply blocked really more impressive than a player winning because of tactics and decision making? Mechanics is much more than not getting supply blocked and producing constantly. In every (real time) competitive game, it's skill that is valued the highest. In an RTS game, mechanics and execution IS skill. It separates progamers that train 12 hours a day to be able to play at a near superhuman ability and casual ladder players. If a player can be controlling units at 3 places at the same time while not missing a beat in his macro, that is an impressive display of skill in a classic RTS game. If a player comes up with some obscure build and timings that make everyone (including his opponent) go WTF and then ends up having better units and simply winning because of that, that's not really anything to write home about. (my bold) I thought winning was valued highest? whining is the highest valuer for fans. Actually, I've been arguing against Talin and others who hold that view for more than a year, in multiple threads, but thanks for the smarmy rebuke coupled to a snub. + Show Spoiler +I'm not usually petty or sarcastic but this debate is worth it to me. I'm sorry you have such a problem with goody though. If you read the thread you'll also see I never indicate I'm a goody fan. Keep hating, I guess; play to your strengths. And if I interpreted the opposite of your intended meaning from your pun, sorry, oops.
Exactly the opposite :D What GoOdy does is exceptionnal because his game sense isn't something you can study. If you look at his games in fpov you can see that (or I'm fucking blind) it's pure gamesense in late/mid game because he doesn't scount that much. Or he has every possible timings in his brain. Contrarty to what Talin wrote I think that what GoOdy is really worth writing about it. Because every player who tried to mech like him, even with way better mechanics failed utterly.
I remember Kas failing hardcore against Catz in his showmatch when fans asked him to play "GoOdy style" while the rest of t he series was one sided.
I should have quoted Talin directly, my point would have been clearer sorry, it's just that fans prefer to whine about something if they don't understand it, or just because it doesn't suit their taste. And it's not specific to sc2, you just have to read the LR for SKT vs KT yesterday...
|
On January 07 2012 20:40 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 20:16 phantaxx wrote:
I've never understood why everyone thinks so much more highly of good mechanics than good strategy and thinking. Is winning because the player was producing constantly and not getting supply blocked really more impressive than a player winning because of tactics and decision making? Mechanics is much more than not getting supply blocked and producing constantly. In every (real time) competitive game, it's skill that is valued the highest. In an RTS game, mechanics and execution IS skill. It separates progamers that train 12 hours a day to be able to play at a near superhuman ability and casual ladder players. If a player can be controlling units at 3 places at the same time while not missing a beat in his macro, that is an impressive display of skill in a classic RTS game. If a player comes up with some obscure build and timings that make everyone (including his opponent) go WTF and then ends up having better units and simply winning because of that, that's not really anything to write home about.
Would you say BeSt was thinking this while July enjoyed his OSL win?
What about Jangbi after Luxury beat him?
Idra while Nony enjoyed his 10k check?
|
On January 08 2012 07:55 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 20:40 Talin wrote:On January 07 2012 20:16 phantaxx wrote:
I've never understood why everyone thinks so much more highly of good mechanics than good strategy and thinking. Is winning because the player was producing constantly and not getting supply blocked really more impressive than a player winning because of tactics and decision making? Mechanics is much more than not getting supply blocked and producing constantly. In every (real time) competitive game, it's skill that is valued the highest. In an RTS game, mechanics and execution IS skill. It separates progamers that train 12 hours a day to be able to play at a near superhuman ability and casual ladder players. If a player can be controlling units at 3 places at the same time while not missing a beat in his macro, that is an impressive display of skill in a classic RTS game. If a player comes up with some obscure build and timings that make everyone (including his opponent) go WTF and then ends up having better units and simply winning because of that, that's not really anything to write home about. (my bold) I thought winning was valued highest?
You can win in a million different games, but only those that require high level of skill become competitive enough AND stay competitive for a long time. winning is only as meaningful as the game itself is challenging on a fundamental level. In order to be challenging, it must strain your basic physical and mental ability as much as possible. How much a win (and by extension, a game) is valued depends exclusively on how difficult that win was to attain.
Strategy is only theory, depth of strategic options doesn't really contribute to the skill cap and the difficulty. Most of the strategic thought doesn't even happen during the game itself, it's more so a part of preparation. There has to be an inherent level of difficulty to executing these strategies, with complex strategies that have a big pay-off being all the more difficult to execute.
The fact that many SC2 players can win games on a professional level without clean execution and high level control, and even win against players who are much more proficient in those categories, is not a good thing for a competitive game.
That said, I can see why people would see it as a good thing. It caters to the casual audience that makes up for majority of any fanbase, and makes casual players look better than they really are, and feel better about themselves.
On January 08 2012 09:28 Fontong wrote:
Would you say BeSt was thinking this while July enjoyed his OSL win?
What about Jangbi after Luxury beat him?
Idra while Nony enjoyed his 10k check?
What about every foreigner that was getting eaten alive by Korean amateurs, or compared to AI difficulty?
All of the people you mentioned (and all of current / recent BW progamers) ARE mechanically proficient to the point where you can't call any of them bad or average at it.
Among progamers, ALL of which play on an extremely high level and have superior fundamentals, some will be better and some will be worse, and many of them will resort to trickier strategies and metagaming in order to win, that's fine and normal. On their level it's often not the mechanics that actually decide the games. But the point is that you still have to actually reach that level of skill in order to stand any chance at all. Reaching that level is incredibly difficult and, for most people, impossible.
Someone like iloveoov can say that strategy and mind games are most important in BW, and from HIS perspective that might be the case. However, the fact is that he was still the most mechanically dominant player of his time.
|
On January 08 2012 09:31 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2012 09:28 Fontong wrote:
Would you say BeSt was thinking this while July enjoyed his OSL win?
What about Jangbi after Luxury beat him?
Idra while Nony enjoyed his 10k check? What about every foreigner that was getting eaten alive by Korean amateurs, or compared to AI difficulty? All of the people you mentioned (and all of current / recent BW progamers) ARE mechanically proficient to the point where you can't call any of them are bad or average. Among progamers, ALL of which play on an extremely high level and have superior fundamentals, some will be better and some will be worse, and many of them will resort to trickier strategies and metagaming in order to win, that's fine. On that level it's often not the mechanics that actually decide the games, but you still have to actually reach that level in order to stand any chance at all, and reaching that level is incredibly difficult. Someone like iloveoov can say that strategy and mind games are most important in BW, and from HIS perspective that might be the case. However, the fact is that he was the most mechanically dominant player of his time.
What about every foreigner that was getting eaten alive by Korean amateurs? I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
|
I did explain what I was trying to say in the rest of the post. -_-
|
On January 08 2012 10:09 Talin wrote:
I did explain what I was trying to say in the rest of the post. -_-
Well, it doesn't make much sense unfortuntely. Koreans had all the practice advantages in the world in BW and so had all the advantages in the games they played. This includes build orders and mechanics.
|
On January 08 2012 10:29 Fontong wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2012 10:09 Talin wrote:
I did explain what I was trying to say in the rest of the post. -_- Well, it doesn't make much sense unfortuntely. Koreans had all the practice advantages in the world in BW and so had all the advantages in the games they played. This includes build orders and mechanics.
How is that even relevant though?
The external factors don't really matter to this topic at all. The important thing is that when you put a player with (foreign) amateur level mechanics against a player with progamer level mechanics, the former will simply not win. More importantly, even if he somehow does snatch one win in a blue moon, he certainly won't win continuously, no matter how brilliant his builds and strategies may be.
Besides, if you don't like the comparsion to foreigners, consider Boxer and Nal_rA past their prime. They didn't fall off the top because they stopped being smart or because younger players suddenly got smarter - they fell behind because they couldn't keep up with players that were becoming too good for them.
|
On January 08 2012 10:43 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2012 10:29 Fontong wrote:On January 08 2012 10:09 Talin wrote:
I did explain what I was trying to say in the rest of the post. -_- Well, it doesn't make much sense unfortuntely. Koreans had all the practice advantages in the world in BW and so had all the advantages in the games they played. This includes build orders and mechanics. How is that even relevant though? The external factors don't really matter to this topic at all. The important thing is that when you put a player with (foreign) amateur level mechanics against a player with progamer level mechanics, the former will simply not win. More importantly, even if he somehow does snatch one win in a blue moon, he certainly won't win continuously, no matter how brilliant his builds and strategies may be. Besides, if you don't like the comparsion to foreigners, consider Boxer and Nal_rA past their prime. They didn't fall off the top because they stopped being smart or because younger players suddenly got smarter - they fell behind because they couldn't keep up with players that were becoming too good for them.
I'm still not getting your comparisons. You are comparing amateur mechanics to pro mechanics and pros at the tail end of their career to pros at their prime.
Goody is a pro playing pros and is presumably not out of his prime by any means, especially since the SC2 proscene is so new.
|
It's nice to see that mechanics aren't everything in a RTS game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
