|
What determines who wins in SC2 is who can spend their money better than their opponent. Of course, being in the position where you have a superior army is a major part of strategy games; but in SC2, the best way to have a superior army is to number-crunch your minerals/gas more efficiently than your opponent.
You can cite me instances of pro players who do some crazy micro or strategy and it's really cool and all that jazz, that's not the point. Pro players have such a good grasp of min/maxing their resources that the only way to win in a top game is to use your units more efficiently.
Getting out-macroed is the single most prevalent reason for losing in SC2 for the non-pros. But why is this the case?
Well, first off; there are mechanics in this game that punishes you for not keeping up with the tedium of training your units, workers, supply, or whatever. I fail to see any positive gameplay that is added by forcing players to keep making supply depots. Is it a mineral sink? Do people think that you can harass supply (in before "overlord harass", what about depots?") Is it just scenery? I don't get it. And if it does bring positive gameplay, wouldn't making individual supply buildings more valuable be even better for the game? What about supply depots that cost 175 but give 20 supply? Wouldn't those be worthy of harassing and wouldn't those add another factor for strategies to come into play? Supply is just another way to punish those who are not as efficient at the many tediums of SC2.
Of course, one other way this game is focused on min/maxing resources is how much income you can get from bases and how extraordinarily easy it is to expand. Zerg get inject larva to mass produce drones, Protoss get chrono boost for probes and Terran get MULES. Workers are mass produced and there is no downside to making them at any point in the game. Since both players have such large incomes, it becomes more and more tedious to spend all that income. If you don't, the other person will and you will have a weaker army, and it's not like you can beat a big army with a small one. It's not like you can rush, the maps have such a distance and are intentionally designed to have a narrow choke that is usually always blocked off that the only way a rush can work is if you do a "timing" push, which basically needs to be number crunched and experimented with to see if you have a critical mass to bust through the defense position. The point is that you can't avoid the money game.
I can recall a few losses where my opponent legitimately out-played me, but every other loss was basically the opponent spending his money more efficiently then me. If my opponent can get 10 stalkers in the field when I can only get 6, who is going to win in the long run?
To any newbies out there, I guarantee that you will be 500x better at this game if you practiced spending your money, not getting supply blocked, and number crunching certain strategies and how much money you need at what times. SC2 is not a strategy game, it is number crunching simulator to see who can make the most out of their virtual numbers.
The key to victory in SC2 is to spend your money better than your opponent.
The fun of a strategy game is to decide what units you are going to make and how you are going to use them, not how much money units you can make in a certain timeframe.
|
Katowice25012 Posts
That's the beauty of an RTS game. You need to be nimble with your fingers to accomplish things, it's a perfect combination of chess and piano. If that bugs you, why not just play a turn based game and have that issue solved?
|
Lalalaland34501 Posts
So basically...macro is important?
|
The enjoyment and actual skill of the game comes from outsmarting your opponents, not outmassing them.
Why do you think they have weight divisions in combat sports?
|
Katowice25012 Posts
Okay. So play a turn based game? This is a very solvable problem I am not sure what your issue is.
|
Go ahead and stifle conversation;
Both by moving my thread to a containment board and not actually discussing the point.
Oh, and giving me non-answers.
|
Macro is important, but starcraft is a lot more than just spending your money and not getting supply blocked.
Sure maybe pure macro and not caring about your units or strategy can go long ways if you are in a low division, but you need to have a plan and be able to execute it and adapt if you are going to get better.
I'd say the key to victory in SC2 is to be able to execute your strategy, adapt and use tactics while not slipping in macro.
|
On May 06 2013 09:45 pornguy wrote:
You can cite me instances of pro players who do some crazy micro or strategy and it's really cool and all that jazz, that's not the point. Pro players have such a good grasp of min/maxing their resources that the only way to win in a top game is to use your units more efficiently.
Getting out-macroed is the single most prevalent reason for losing in SC2 for the non-pros. But why is this the case?
The key to victory in SC2 is to spend your money better than your opponent.
The fun of a strategy game is to decide what units you are going to make and how you are going to use them, not how much money units you can make in a certain timeframe.
While I agree with a lot of what you're saying, I don't see it as a flaw in the same way you seem to. Macro will win games at lower levels, but I don't think a mechanical skill-based game should be judged by what low-level players have to do to succeed. A macro-oriented RTS still has plenty of room for strategy, and some of those strategies are based on greed for the sake of macro.
|
Sure maybe pure macro and not caring about your units or strategy can go long ways if you are in a low division
Pure macro will work until you are in the 90th percentile of players.
Do a personal experiment: Save every replay and analyze the game you lost. Did your opponent outmass you?
|
Lalalaland34501 Posts
I'm having difficulty understanding your post.
I can recall a few losses where my opponent legitimately out-played me, but every other loss was basically the opponent spending his money more efficiently then me. If my opponent can get 10 stalkers in the field when I can only get 6, who is going to win in the long run?
If your opponent can get 10 stalkers when you can only get 6, causing him to win the game, it sounds to me like he outplayed you.
|
Lalalaland34501 Posts
On May 06 2013 09:58 pornguy wrote:Show nested quote +Sure maybe pure macro and not caring about your units or strategy can go long ways if you are in a low division Pure macro will work until you are in the 90th percentile of players.
Not purely. Kwark, for instance, has one of the lowest APM's out there but he still did extremely well (I think he broke A- on iCCup once?) due to his strategic choices and thinking. Admittedly, SCBW rather than SC2, but still relevant.
|
Katowice25012 Posts
What conversation? Your complaint is that StarCraft isn't a game where you purely outsmart your opponents, because it has an additional requirement (macro). I am saying that those aspects of it are by design, it's not meant to be a game that is purely about thinking and if it was it wouldn't be in the Real Time Strategy genre, a sub-genre of strategy game that adds components on top of the strategy parts of an army style game. You're saying it's a problem that macro exists, when in reality that's by design.
Also I didn't move this, you can thank a moderator for that.
|
On May 06 2013 09:58 Firebolt145 wrote:I'm having difficulty understanding your post. Show nested quote +I can recall a few losses where my opponent legitimately out-played me, but every other loss was basically the opponent spending his money more efficiently then me. If my opponent can get 10 stalkers in the field when I can only get 6, who is going to win in the long run? If your opponent can get 10 stalkers when you can only get 6, causing him to win the game, it sounds to me like he outplayed you.
You missed the point entirely.
|
Lalalaland34501 Posts
On May 06 2013 10:01 pornguy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2013 09:58 Firebolt145 wrote:I'm having difficulty understanding your post. I can recall a few losses where my opponent legitimately out-played me, but every other loss was basically the opponent spending his money more efficiently then me. If my opponent can get 10 stalkers in the field when I can only get 6, who is going to win in the long run? If your opponent can get 10 stalkers when you can only get 6, causing him to win the game, it sounds to me like he outplayed you. You missed the point entirely.
Then please enlighten me. Is it that you consider 'macro' to be a completely different and unnecessary/not-fun aspect of the game?
|
On May 06 2013 09:58 pornguy wrote:Show nested quote +Sure maybe pure macro and not caring about your units or strategy can go long ways if you are in a low division Pure macro will work until you are in the 90th percentile of players. Do a personal experiment: Save every replay and analyze the game you lost. Did your opponent outmass you?
Think about how many sports there are IRL where people with more athletic talent get a massive advantage.
And as far as the personal experiment, most of my games are lost due to cheese or poor army composition.
|
On May 06 2013 10:02 Firebolt145 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2013 10:01 pornguy wrote:On May 06 2013 09:58 Firebolt145 wrote:I'm having difficulty understanding your post. I can recall a few losses where my opponent legitimately out-played me, but every other loss was basically the opponent spending his money more efficiently then me. If my opponent can get 10 stalkers in the field when I can only get 6, who is going to win in the long run? If your opponent can get 10 stalkers when you can only get 6, causing him to win the game, it sounds to me like he outplayed you. You missed the point entirely. Then please enlighten me.
The point is that by sheer resource min/maxing, one person can have a substantial lead over another without even interacting with that person. This "macro gap" can become extremely wide and requires considerable study and practice merely to become proficient at the many tediums that SC2 requires you to master to play this game properly.
You are asking me to retype my OP.
|
On May 06 2013 10:03 pornguy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2013 10:02 Firebolt145 wrote:On May 06 2013 10:01 pornguy wrote:On May 06 2013 09:58 Firebolt145 wrote:I'm having difficulty understanding your post. I can recall a few losses where my opponent legitimately out-played me, but every other loss was basically the opponent spending his money more efficiently then me. If my opponent can get 10 stalkers in the field when I can only get 6, who is going to win in the long run? If your opponent can get 10 stalkers when you can only get 6, causing him to win the game, it sounds to me like he outplayed you. You missed the point entirely. Then please enlighten me. The point is that by sheer resource min/maxing, one person can have a substantial lead over another without even interacting with that person. This "macro gap" can become extremely wide and requires considerable study and practice merely to become proficient at the many tediums that SC2 requires you to master to play this game properly.
And those people will rightfully rise up the rankings until they face other players who they can't beat with just sheer macro, at which time, they will have to involve strategy. How is this a problem?
|
Katowice25012 Posts
You need to elaborate before you can be condescending to other people, dude. There are tons of games that are purely about strategy, you could play chess or Axis and Allies or Civilization or XCom if you want that experience. The reason StarCraft is awesome is because while it has some elements of those games, it adds in a time component that varies gameplay by allowing for styles that are based purely on mechanics. You get guys who are really fast but not very smart (by.hero, Luxury) who can win games on brute force alone or dudes who are smart but not very fast (Boxer) who can out-smart people with unusual tactics.
If that's not for you, there is no problem with that, there are tons of games that cater to a different taste. But to say it's a flaw in StarCraft makes no sense, because you want it to be something else.
|
On May 06 2013 10:03 LoveBuzz wrote:
Think about how many sports there are IRL where people with more athletic talent get a massive advantage.
There is a difference.
One is a video game and the other one is a sport. RTS's are about strategy, sports are specifically about atheletic ability. Making sure you build your depots is not really a strategic option.
|
Lalalaland34501 Posts
On May 06 2013 10:06 pornguy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2013 10:03 LoveBuzz wrote:
Think about how many sports there are IRL where people with more athletic talent get a massive advantage.
There is a difference. One is a video game and the other one is a sport. RTS's are about strategy, sports are specifically about atheletic ability. Making sure you build your depots is not really a strategic option.
I consider having good mechanics as essential to Starcraft, and it is one of the things that makes Starcraft such a great game, the fact that you need a good mix of strategy AND mechanics to succeed. If you want to just focus on strategy and forgo mechanics, there are other games like Dawn of War/etc that can appease you.
|
Yes, sc2 is a macro based rts. Obtaining resources to spend on infrastructure and units to overwhelm your opponent is the core of the game. I have no problems accepting this personally.
|
On May 06 2013 10:06 heyoka wrote:
You need to elaborate before you can be condescending to other people, dude. There are tons of games that are purely about strategy, you could play chess or Axis and Allies or Civilization or XCom if you want that experience. The reason StarCraft is awesome is because while it has some elements of those games, it adds in a time component that varies gameplay by allowing for styles that are based purely on mechanics. You get guys who are really fast but not very smart (by.hero, Luxury) who can win games on brute force alone or dudes who are smart but not very fast (Boxer) who can out-smart people with unusual tactics.
If that's not for you, there is no problem with that, there are tons of games that cater to a different taste. But to say it's a flaw in StarCraft makes no sense, because you want it to be something else.
You live in this idyllic world where you cannot see the extreme short comings of the game you are playing. The sad part is that you most likely only lose because the other person out-produced you, as with the vast majority of other players who play this game.
|
On May 06 2013 10:08 Swift118 wrote:
Yes, sc2 is a macro based rts. Obtaining resources to spend on infrastructure and units to overwhelm your opponent is the core of the game. I have no problems accepting this personally.
I'm glad that someone accepts the reality of this game. Whether you like it or not is preference and I can't change that. But at least you are reasonable and realize that it's more about spending money than it is about strategy; which is the main point I wanted to make.
If people said "I like SC2 because it's about using your resources better and out producing your oppponent." I'd respect that. I don't respect "SC2 is not about that! It's about strategy just let me list a bunch of pro players to prove that it's also about strategy and micro!"
|
Lalalaland34501 Posts
On May 06 2013 10:08 pornguy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2013 10:06 heyoka wrote:
You need to elaborate before you can be condescending to other people, dude. There are tons of games that are purely about strategy, you could play chess or Axis and Allies or Civilization or XCom if you want that experience. The reason StarCraft is awesome is because while it has some elements of those games, it adds in a time component that varies gameplay by allowing for styles that are based purely on mechanics. You get guys who are really fast but not very smart (by.hero, Luxury) who can win games on brute force alone or dudes who are smart but not very fast (Boxer) who can out-smart people with unusual tactics.
If that's not for you, there is no problem with that, there are tons of games that cater to a different taste. But to say it's a flaw in StarCraft makes no sense, because you want it to be something else. You live in this idyllic world where you cannot see the extreme short comings of the game you are playing. The sad part is that you most likely only lose because the other person out-produced you, as with the vast majority of other players who play this game.
When you have an opinion/viewpoint that 99% of the community doesn't share, you are either misguided/mistaken or you are an unappreciated genius. Which do you think is more likely?
|
On May 06 2013 10:06 pornguy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2013 10:03 LoveBuzz wrote:
Think about how many sports there are IRL where people with more athletic talent get a massive advantage.
There is a difference. One is a video game and the other one is a sport. RTS's are about strategy, sports are specifically about atheletic ability. Making sure you build your depots is not really a strategic option.
I want to agree, but having played other competitive video games, there is always a mechanical skill barrier, and at low levels, that is usually what decides games, because it is so fundamental. If you can't dribble a ball properly, it doesn't matter how well you know basketball. If you can't use advanced movement in quake, you are gonna get circles run around you, even if you can time items perfectly. Don't get me started on fighting games.
Starcraft just happens to be a macro-based RTS, and if you feel that doesn't allow you to appreciate the strategic aspect of the game, I understand and would encourage you to either practice macro or try a different game.
|
On May 06 2013 10:10 Firebolt145 wrote:
When you have an opinion/viewpoint that 99% of the community doesn't share, you are either misguided/mistaken or you are an unappreciated genius. Which do you think is more likely?
Can you come up with a more fallacious comment?
On May 06 2013 10:11 LoveBuzz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2013 10:06 pornguy wrote:On May 06 2013 10:03 LoveBuzz wrote:
Think about how many sports there are IRL where people with more athletic talent get a massive advantage.
There is a difference. One is a video game and the other one is a sport. RTS's are about strategy, sports are specifically about atheletic ability. Making sure you build your depots is not really a strategic option. I want to agree, but having played other competitive video games, there is always a mechanical skill barrier, and at low levels, that is usually what decides games, because it is so fundamental. If you can't dribble a ball properly, it doesn't matter how well you know basketball. If you can't use advanced movement in quake, you are gonna get circles run around you, even if you can time items perfectly. Don't get me started on fighting games. Starcraft just happens to be a macro-based RTS, and if you feel that doesn't allow you to appreciate the strategic aspect of the game, I understand and would encourage you to either practice macro or try a different game.
Dribbling and Quake movement has gameplay value. Supply, in it's current form, does not. It seems that Blizzard intentionally designed SC2 with macro in mind, even though people don't watch SC2 for the macro, but the micro. Mechanical requirements for games are fine as long as they carry a gameplay value. It's impressive to spin a soccer ball on your finger while playing a video game, but does it add any gameplay value?
That was a ramble, but the main point is that people don't care what you build or how much of it you build, it's how you use it. Same goes for spectators and players. If this point is true, then wouldn't de-emphasizing on macro and putting more emphasis on micro make the game better?
|
If people said "I like SC2 because it's about using your resources better and out producing your oppponent." I'd respect that. I don't respect "SC2 is not about that! It's about strategy just let me list a bunch of pro players to prove that it's also about strategy and micro!"
what? no one is saying that. it's obvious that SC2 requires both strategy and mechanics. who is arguing otherwise?
|
Lalalaland34501 Posts
On May 06 2013 10:15 pornguy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2013 10:10 Firebolt145 wrote:
When you have an opinion/viewpoint that 99% of the community doesn't share, you are either misguided/mistaken or you are an unappreciated genius. Which do you think is more likely? Can you come up with a more fallacious comment?
When originally reading your argument I thought you were trying to tell us we were wrong for enjoying the game the way it is because we don't understand it, and that was what I was ridiculing. After reading your latest post I now realise you're simply telling us that we misunderstand where the skill is from Starcraft, but if we like it that way, then whatever it's our choice. I have no problem with the latter, so carry on, I shall bow out of this thread ~
|
what? no one is saying that. it's obvious that SC2 requires both strategy and mechanics. who is arguing otherwise?
Except the strategy part is quite minimal. That is the point we are discussing.
Reading comprehension helps you understand conversations.
|
On May 06 2013 10:19 pornguy wrote:Show nested quote +
what? no one is saying that. it's obvious that SC2 requires both strategy and mechanics. who is arguing otherwise?
Except the strategy part is quite minimal. That is the point we are discussing. Reading comprehension helps you understand conversations.
and civility helps you actually have conversations. but i'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're just having a bad day because of everyone disagreeing with you.
the strategy part is only minimal for lower leagues. it's essential at the top levels. i don't see how this is bad. it's an RTS game.
|
On May 06 2013 10:15 pornguy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2013 10:10 Firebolt145 wrote:
When you have an opinion/viewpoint that 99% of the community doesn't share, you are either misguided/mistaken or you are an unappreciated genius. Which do you think is more likely? Can you come up with a more fallacious comment? Show nested quote +On May 06 2013 10:11 LoveBuzz wrote:On May 06 2013 10:06 pornguy wrote:On May 06 2013 10:03 LoveBuzz wrote:
Think about how many sports there are IRL where people with more athletic talent get a massive advantage.
There is a difference. One is a video game and the other one is a sport. RTS's are about strategy, sports are specifically about atheletic ability. Making sure you build your depots is not really a strategic option. I want to agree, but having played other competitive video games, there is always a mechanical skill barrier, and at low levels, that is usually what decides games, because it is so fundamental. If you can't dribble a ball properly, it doesn't matter how well you know basketball. If you can't use advanced movement in quake, you are gonna get circles run around you, even if you can time items perfectly. Don't get me started on fighting games. Starcraft just happens to be a macro-based RTS, and if you feel that doesn't allow you to appreciate the strategic aspect of the game, I understand and would encourage you to either practice macro or try a different game. Dribbling and Quake movement has gameplay value. Supply, in it's current form, does not. It seems that Blizzard intentionally designed SC2 with macro in mind, even though people don't watch SC2 for the macro, but the micro. Mechanical requirements for games are fine as long as they carry a gameplay value. It's impressive to spin a soccer ball on your finger while playing a video game, but does it add any gameplay value? That was a ramble, but the main point is that people don't care what you build or how much of it you build, it's how you use it. Same goes for spectators and players. If this point is true, then wouldn't de-emphasizing on macro and putting more emphasis on micro make the game better?
This sounds like a personal preference rather than a legitimate criticism. I am personally entertained watching pro players who macro particularly well. I'm not a fan of Terrans, but I do enjoy watching Flash or Innovation play TvZ, where they just keep trading units, but their cost efficiency and macro ability allows them to just run the zerg over. I would argue that it is noticeable when someone just has more stuff, and for someone to do that in a pro match, that shows a real talent.
Also, if you played WoL circa 2010, you would have seen the game before you were allowed to macro. 1-base all-ins were very common, taking a 3rd base was extremely rare, and the maps were tiny. There was a large outcry against it then and that's why so many things were changing in game (and the map pool) such that we find ourselves in the current state of the game. And maybe it was just me being a Zerg, but I really HATED defending against a million and one all-in "strategies" every game while I struggled to hold an expansion.
|
its not really hard to spend money in starcraft. It's called macro. And anyone with a keyboard and a mouse is elegible to get better at it.
I have really good macro. I always keep my mins/gas low, but I only win a portion of my games because my opponents outsmart me or are better at decision making then me. Their macro might be worse, but they still win anyways
|
Braavos36390 Posts
It just sounds like OP wants StarCraft to be something it isn't. He thinks RTS should be more about strategy and less about the mechanical element but it's not. The core of an RTS is that it is a game played with mechanics. The mistake the OP makes is that he believes people who macro better don't deserve the win or that this kind of win shouldn't exist in a "true RTS." It's just what he believes an RTS should be and what the rest (just about everyone else) believes it is.
It's interesting, a lot of people (ie: mostly those who are bad at macro) believe that by removing some or all of the mechanical requirement of starcraft you get more strategies and that "outsmarting" your opponent will be what decides matches. In reality, the opposite is true. No competitive game or RTS can exist without a mechanical requirement of some sort, or the game devolves into copycatting the best strategy and some sort of rock paper scissors guessing game. If you can't out-execute your opponent then you can't consistently beat him. It is very difficult to out-innovate your opponents every time because in today's environment coaches, practice partners, replay analysis, etc your strategies will get analyzed and you will lose, eventually.
Added mechanical ceiling actually adds strategical options. An example would be Bisu in SC1, his DT-corsair strategy isn't new or even super innovative, but it never worked in the proscene before him because nobody could pull it off because of its so ridiculously high skill ceiling. The same is true for a lot of the openings Flash did, he was just so good at positioning and defense that he can take greedy expansions. Remove the mechanical requirements and you remove a lot of the potential innovation and strategy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
