|
On March 20 2012 13:21 Demonhunter04 wrote:Rather than saying that mechanics IS strategy I think it's better to say that mechanical skill limits how well you can execute a strategy and, a factor limiting how well your opponent can deal with the strategy. Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 09:56 HardlyNever wrote:
I know I'm going to get flamed to shit for this, but what the hell, why not.
Pro players have not fully utilized/mastered micro in SC2. Yeah, I said it.
No, sc2 doesn't have air unit stacking. No, it doesn't have patrol/attack micro. Even the stop command micro is largely limited to terran bio. It is probably worth mentioning that ALL of these things were, by every indication, complete accidents/flukes in the sc1 engine, and the game was not designed with these things to be purposely used.
If there was one thing I took away from the "Starcraft Master" minigame, it that Blizzard was trying to say "most of you still aren't doing this." Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but that is what I saw. How often do you see a pro player drop micro like is required on the 30th challenge? Basically never (I know someone is going to link a youtube video of some immortal drop, but guess what, that rarely occurs at that level on a regular basis). Even simpler stuff like the banshee "moving shot" is rarely executed flawlessly. ForGG probably has the best SC2 banshee micro I've seen, and he still gets hit by marines.
I know what people are going to say. Micro in BW was more rewarding. Micro in BW had a lot more depth than sc2 micro. Maybe (and only maybe) those things are true. But don't tell me that micro is meaningless in SC2. Not a single pro player has come even close to executing the consistent, top tier micro that the game engine allows for. Of course progamers aren't microing to the fullest potential. I see many of them make silly mistakes like running infestors and templar into the enemy army because they can't even use a different control group or something. The thing about Starcraft Master is that a few of the challenges are actually meant to be done in a far easier fashion than the way you would expect them to be done - in those, less is more. About banshee micro, the reason people get hit by the marines is because the range difference between banshees and marines is only 1, and banshees have a delay before they fire their rockets. And challenge 30, the one with 1 tank 1 medivac vs 3 stalkers, that trick was invented by Boxer a decade ago, but it fell out of use in BW because it is simply an inefficient allocation of APM. Even now, it requires you to 1. select the tank 2. right click the medivac to load 3. press D (i noticed, in challenge 30, there was a bit of a delay preventing me from unloading immediately, completely fucked up my rhythm) and 4. click on the ground to unload, all in the time that stalkers take to shoot (1.44 ingame seconds, 1.04 real seconds), which is roughly 240 EAPM used up by doing that alone.
What the fat?! It is still being used actually. Dont simply say things.
|
The more options an RTS gives the player, the deeper the strategy becomes, assuming that those options are balanced for human competition. An RTS that gives the player many options in all aspects of itself will naturally require a high degree of mechanical speed to make use of those options. For example, squad based RTS games prevent the player from using individual units strategically. Likewise, node based income RTS games remove options for fine tuning your economy to gain small advantages over long periods.
It is often seen backwards; that if a game requires a high degree of physical output, then it must not be cerebral. However, it is that Starcraft simply gives the player so many small-scale strategical options through very dynamic economic structures, very precise individual unit control, and a favor toward soft-counters due to micro management resulting in an incredible diversity of choices. This means that the more cerebral the player becomes about their play, the faster they must be. This is actually a good thing.
Edit:
On March 20 2012 13:21 Demonhunter04 wrote:
1. select the tank 2. right click the medivac to load 3. press D (i noticed, in challenge 30, there was a bit of a delay preventing me from unloading immediately, completely fucked up my rhythm) and 4. click on the ground to unload
1. Press the load hotkey, click the tank
2. Press the unload hotkey, click the medivac.
Edit 2:
On March 20 2012 14:32 mykyoyo wrote:
@the OP: I think you're mixing up tactics and strategy more than anything.
Strategically, you know you have to keep your opponent's income down while increasing your own. There's all sorts of ideas here to beat the other guy. Macro and unit composition is part of your strategy.
Tactically, you're moving your units in ways to make them effective, or *more* effective. These are sorts of things you do to win battles and encounters. Unit micro.
Since time is finite in SC2, your game mechanics, clicking and pressing buttons, may dictate how well you can execute your strategies and tactics.
A strategy can depend greatly on premeditated tactics. Knowing you have the mechinical ability to defend a certain early game attack with minimal defenses can result in you taking a very early third and getting away with it. Likewise, having confidence in executing certain tactics during an attack may result in a major strategical decision. Tactics and strategy are semantic words resulting out of a need for convenient communication. They are not so different things.
|
When I first read the title I thought this would be a rather ill-constructed argument but after reading I see what your point was. I don't think that Mechanics are Strategy but I agree with your statement that they open up new options. You give good examples in regards to SupCom2 and it made me think about SC2 without the mechanics portion integrated. Marine splitting was a good choice to include. If there was no such thing, marine styles would be almost pointless at the pro level against Zerg. Early pressure without micro would also be pointless. Who would honestly send a marine and marauder in against a zealot and stalker if the zealot could close the gap. In a way, this actually makes me glad that clumping exists in SC2. Macro mechanics might not be as straining anymore but the system which clumps units can be combated like the BW system with goon ai and the ability to muta stack. There is still the aspect of "fighting the system" to optimize play styles which would otherwise be impossible to use. Magic box with hold position and focus fire was developed as an improvement to a normal magic box. Hold position units abusing the aggro function in the game is also something that has a lot of potential in the future. These tricks are things that are being exploited within the confines of the game and they'll continue to show up as the game ages. With HotS we should see more units added which have micro intensive abilities and the game will mature in response. We still have a long way to go before this machine is worked out. Without all of these interesting finds, mechanics are less useful...it makes sense that SC2 will continue to require more and more mechanically out of players. Without the need to focus on menial tasks, that unused energy/effort can be used elsewhere.
|
Semantically I just can't agree with the idea that mechanics should fall under the strategy category. Mechanics is a physical component of the game that improves with practice, and in that respect there's really not distinction between amazing muta micro and clicking to look at your base (which I would be quite surprised if you considered that strategic).
Obviously mechanics are a means to an end. If you aren't physically fast enough to multitask and hit all your injects on time, you might not have enough units to successfully carry out a timing push. I think that is basically what you are saying-- the more physical skill you have the more success your strategy may have, or the more strategies may be available to you. I agree with this.
However, I hesitate to say that sc2 needs more of this. Right now other things tend to make or break the game for players. I think this is obvious for anyone you might consider who is not a professional player; issues like macro or poor scouting are usually why players lose games in lower leagues. Even at a professional level I don't see that many games where I think to myself-- if only he had microed/multitasked better he would have won. My personal feeling is the reason that these micro/multitasking mechanics play less of a role in sc2 is because people are lazy. If they don't need to explore these options yet to win, then they just keep focusing on other issues. It isn't bad to focus on other things, they are just limiting their strategic options by not expanding their mechanical toolset.
I think there will always be room to improve the mechanical execution of old strategies, but in the future mechanics may be somewhat of a limiting factor to exploring new strategies. At the moment though I think its not that mechanical options aren't there, it's that players aren't exploring them. Thus I don't think it's fair to say that it's the game's fault for not being mechanically challenging/broad/whatever (at this point in time).
(Good examples of underutilized/explored options are of course things like nydus, overseers, drop, burrow-- to use a few zerg specific examples, since that is my race. :D)
EDIT:
On March 20 2012 17:45 bgx wrote:
What i mean is there is no definitive moment in current sc2 gameplay when you have to sacriface something IMPORTANT because of lack of APM. Yes you sacriface some macro or unit control but because many mechanics were automated, clever players will queue their actions in a way they will lose only 5%-10% efficiency.
I think this is a very interesting, but separate topic. I would like to see more game-changing sacrifices in sc2 than all-ining. It certainly does add a certain tension to the game when a player must knowingly make a decision to give up something 'important' for something else-- and then hope they made the correct choice.
|
"Mechanics" are much more abusable part of strategy in professional BW compared to SC2. Actually the vast of current BW metagame was built around using players resources (his tendencies, reflex, apm, multitasking ability, stamina). While this part is also valid in SC2 (a specially in late game) there is always lacking a defenitive punch. What i mean is there is no definitive moment in current sc2 gameplay when you have to sacriface something IMPORTANT because of lack of APM. Yes you sacriface some macro or unit control but because many mechanics were automated, clever players will queue their actions in a way they will lose only 5%-10% efficiency.
While in BW, even when talking about cream of the top you will see many shifts in players presence, Flash and Jaedong are so good not only because they have good mechanics but because they are capable of properly prioritizing their actions. Suddenly such miniscule things as building placement, can make a big difference, player with better placed production ficilities will "outmacro" a faster player, simply because he will have all of them in 1 screen while faster player will lose 5 more actions to produce from the same ammount of buildings. The best BW players not only produce more actions but they are better at molding their own strategy / build order to fit their mechanics, so even if they will be put in a position where they will have to sacriface some actions it will be comparable to only 5-10% of efficiency lost.
Thats why you see certain players affinities to their trademark strategies. Leta is more subject to use 2port vs zerg, Jaedong will muscle out you in long macro game, Flash will turtle into timing, Jangbi will pwn you with templars, Bisu will harass the zerg till he bleed etc. These are stereothypes and players of course will prioritize more optimal strategies over their tendencies however STILL in a grand scheme of things if we look at history of BW and their most notable players all of them presented certain trademark styles.
Mechanics/ and proper usage of it (efficiency) is a hidden part of BW strategy on a first glance. Ver in his article about Savior's brilliance made a good highlights about his tendency to exploit his opponents mechanics(who many of them were way faster players than him!). The trademark drop while your opponent attack is a most evident use of forcing opponents to make a split second judgement which in most cases will be sub optimal (because of human nature), which will result in a complete turnaway in a game flow. There is no player in BW who is immune to "tricks", however the faster the player and/or smarter the exploitable gap is that much smaller.
There are many examples of Flash brilliance in proper usage of his "resources", for example he will almost never go out of his usual apm range (300-350) but you will never see him get "outmultitasked" even by 100-200 apm faster players. It is because he closes the "gaps" with proper game sense, he will send a scout or scan in an exact right moment and he will prepare for it, he will construct the whole flow of the game so even his faster opponent will look slower than him even if the numbers says the otherwise.
edit:
I agree that Mechanics on paper are not a strategy, if we assume all players have infinite actions so the human --> game relation has no "lag" yes, however in all levels of gameplay many physical influentions are part of choice or prioritizations which leans to strategy (because its a matter of choice). If we commend marathonists or cyclists for the proper use of their stamina (and refer to it as a tactic or a plan) why wouldnt we a bw players/sc2 players.
|
OP you are way off with this one. Mechanics means the player's use of the input devices and game interface to issue orders to the units in the game.
Also analogous to the way you transform an algorithm from human language into machine understandable language.
There is your inner world, the game world, and in between them an interface that transforms one into the other.
While it is true that better mechanics means you have more tactical options, and therefore more strategical options, this does not make mechanics strategy. I would say, in order to sound smart and be convoluted of course, that strategy can be in a very restricted way a function of mechanics, but mechanics cannot be a function of strategy.
|
Canada11258 Posts
While it is true that better mechanics means you have more tactical options, and therefore more strategical options
I think that's more or less what I'm arguing, but that doesn't fit so well for a title. Or rather, good tactical options in an RTS forces a higher mechanical level. More tactical option allows for a greater diversity in strategic play. People want great strategy, but if the tools are gone in order to make it mechanically easier, the strategy suffers as a result.
However, I hesitate to say that sc2 needs more of this. Right now other things tend to make or break the game for players. I think this is obvious for anyone you might consider who is not a professional player; issues like macro or poor scouting are usually why players lose games in lower leagues. Even at a professional level I don't see that many games where I think to myself-- if only he had microed/multitasked better he would have won. My personal feeling is the reason that these micro/multitasking mechanics play less of a role in sc2 is because people are lazy. If they don't need to explore these options yet to win, then they just keep focusing on other issues. It isn't bad to focus on other things, they are just limiting their strategic options by not expanding their mechanical toolset.
I'm not sure I can agree with this. Particularly the lazy part. Yes there are the FruitDealers of the world, but there is a lot of very hard working and experimental players that have taken up SC2. A JulyZerg is going to try to muta micro- turns out it doesn't work so well. We catch glimpses of it like early game stalker micro vs marines. And the concussion shells shuts it down. But as it currently stands, it doesn't exist to the same extent as in BW. Not that we should be looking for parallel micro options. But there's just less of it overall.
At the risk of stirring the pot a bit. However, I hesitate to say that sc2 needs more of this. I could be over-interpreting things, but I hear rumblings that SC2 does need for more of this.
Day9's baseball vs frisbee
Idra's constant griping about the game
Destiny's That being said, the "strategy" aspect of Starcraft 2 is insanely lacking. I've given up trying to convince casuals of that, but I'd gladly discuss that aspect with any other pro gamer, and I'm pretty certain they'd agree with me.
Nestea on State of the Game Ep 64 1:43:00
"I feel like, from fans? and other players. Whenever I play WoL,
whenever I see it, it's pretty much all same. Same builds, almost.
Same styles. Over and over. And it seems like we... reach end of Wings of Liberty
And I just hope Heart of Swarm comes as soon as possible."
I don't think you could argue Nestea is just being lazy.
And again, if the issue is 'give it more time.' Well, that's just stating the importance of having even more interesting micro option that feed into the greater strategy.
It takes mechanics to do and intelligence to apply which is why I see the interrelation between two rather than one being the hindrance of the other.
|
Allow me to introduce a topic I read up (one of those bronze league blogs).
Knowledge vs Skill.
Using your supreme commander 2 game as an example, provided that you had the knowledge of counters and what to do, you would be very decent at that game. Simply because the game requires no 'skill' to play, this is because the nature of the game does not require 'refined actions'.
Similarly to Civ 5, a turn based game. It requires no skill because all you need is knowledge of what to build, how to build and in what cases to attack or defend.
Bring in starcraft 2. It also requires knowledge of units, counters, and builds. However, it requires skill to exert your knowledge. To separates into two attributes:
Physical - construct workers, make units, attack/defend
Mental - developing a strategy to best your opponent
Now believe me, you could get an 8 year old to play a game and simply tell him what to click on the screen and what to press on the keyboard. Then the game requires no skill, therefore, purely knowledge is required, and hence, no mechanics are needed.
Now for good old Brood War. This game is of sheer beauty, it requires an extra level of knowledge and skill to perform well in this game. A person can box every unit in SC2 and tell it to attack a base, but not everyone can move an army smoothly in SC:BW. SC2 has taken alot of skill required (and replaced with mediocre ones).
Examples:
1) Enhanced knowledge of range (siege tanks), there aint no circle around a sieged tank)
2) Enhanced macro skills (to be able to quickly build from 20 gateways and send worker to mine every time)
3) Muta stacking, Reaver dropping
4) Enhanced knowledge of Maps (it's all black at the start)
TL:DR - If you can tell a kid what to click and win a game, then it requires no mechanics (ie: no skill).
|
Where would chess fit in in your model?
Most people know how the pieces move, you can give a 5 year old perfect knowledge of the game, but you will get great variation in chess ability between these 5 year olds. Where does this variability come from? This is where the concept of "depth" of a game becomes useful. One way to approximate this "depth" is to look at the number of possible variations in a game, in relation to how much knowledge the players must have. Here once again chess is an excellent example of a very deep game. An example of a "shallow" game would be something like poker, where you basically have as many game positions as there are rules.(even though the rules naturally come out of probability of drawing each hand)
Few would argue that both sc and sc2 are quite deep. One of the questions implied in the last post is whether or not increasing the mechanical skill to actually play the game increase or decrease the depth of the game.
As most players know, practically any automation in the micro decreases the player's control over the units and decreases depth. There is an exception to this when the mechanical "skill" of the game takes up so much of the player's attention that they are physically unable to execute deeper strategies that may actually be present in the game but are humanly impossible. This seems to be the case in brood wars, where the top players have become more machine than human. The main point here is that possible depth of the game that could in theory be explored by the players is never reached, because 99% of the players are working on their mechanical skills to be able to compete. This is the problem that was attempted to be solved in going from sc to sc2. It is clear that the top players are still machines and it is difficult to say whether or not the changes did more adding or subtracting from the depth, but they did allow more players to actually play the game. Seems like a good decision to me.
This is nowhere near the rape that was done to supcom 1 going to supcom 2. The changes where so drastic that entire concepts where removed in the name of making the game more accessible. The result is a very shallow game in comparison to the original and shouldn't be mention in any comparison to either starcraft or supcom 1. Be happy that blizzard didn't rape sc 1 like that.
|
I completely agree with you that mechanics plays an important role in a RTS game, and shouldn't be relegated to a lower tier than strategy.
However, I disagree that mechanics is strategy. In business terms, mechanics would be what we call "operational effectiveness" or basically, doing similar activities as your competitors, more efficiently (e.g. worker production, supply blocks, battle micro). Strategy, the other side of the coin, consists of doing different activities than your competitors (e.g. build order, unit composition). Both are important factors to the success of a business, or in this case, the game, so rather than say mechanics is strategy, we just need to recognize its importance.
Now, that brings up some interesting questions regarding the diminishing importance of mechanics once everyone reaches the same level, and whether or not the "lower" mechanical ceiling in SC2 will result in gamers hitting that barrier more quickly, but that can be saved for another discussion.
|
Well in bw terms if you have good mechanics you have more strategic options available to you since you can produce more units and micro them well you can control the map more easily, punish your opponent for opening hole in his defence and in the mean time get the necessary economical advantage . So yes I think good mechanics in a game like bw definitely reward the better player .
|
Wow!
This is an incredibly good post that I was unlucky not to come across before.
A post that should be even more in the view of TLers and Blizz, in this unique time where things can still be improved upon before Hots release, This is the reason why I bump it!
As a veteran StarCrafter, I believe it explains a very important point excellently.
Thanks Falling!
|
I had a hard time understanding much of the post but if I'm understanding correctly i think i can add something to this. By adding hard counters to the game like lurkers, cyclones and adepts you remove a lot of the mechanical aspects of the game. I think instead of adding hard counter units like the lurker we can add other units similar to the baneling where there is a certain requirement to micro your army rather than burrow and forget, this is why i think spells like forcefield and blink are so engaging and entertaining while units like the cyclone and lurker are dull and boring because there is little to be done aside from making the correct unit in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
