|
What's so strategic about moving one group of units in a deathball and clashing it against another?
SC2 currently is even less strategic than LoL or Dota2. Imagine the deathball as a hero unit that gets better with more economy (akin to farming gold), production (akin to stats/damage/speed) and tech (akin to spells). SC2 currently, is the same as MOBA 1v1.
The difference? Mechanics.
SC2 is much harder because the game makes us jump through so many hoops that having nothing to do with strategy ... aka macro. SC2 is also hard because of micro, which is also mostly mechanical - marine splits for instance. But there's plenty of micro in MOBAs.
At least in games like Dota2 and LoL there is constant action taking place in usually 3 strategic locations - sometimes less, sometimes more; which makes it even more strategic.
I am not saying that Starcraft 2 has no strategy at all. But that it is limited to the rough equivalent of 1v1 in a MOBA game. The bigger difference is the mechanical requirement to play the game.
Blizzard please give me some strategic healing, baby.
  
|
Very sad there's no song parody in here.
|
Never thought of things like this but as I've played starcraft for about 10 years and I can't really disagree with how you're explaining sc2 it makes me sad 
|
On July 25 2013 16:50 plogamer wrote:
What's so strategic about moving one group of units in a deathball and clashing it against another?
SC2 currently is even less strategic than LoL or Dota2. Imagine the deathball as a hero unit that gets better with more economy (akin to farming gold), production (akin to stats/damage/speed) and tech (akin to spells). SC2 currently, is the same as MOBA 1v1.
The difference? Mechanics.
SC2 is much harder because the game makes us jump through so many hoops that having nothing to do with strategy ... aka macro. SC2 is also hard because of micro, which is also mostly mechanical - marine splits for instance. But there's plenty of micro in MOBAs.
At least in games like Dota2 and LoL there is constant action taking place in usually 3 strategic locations - sometimes less, sometimes more; which makes it even more strategic.
I am not saying that Starcraft 2 has no strategy at all. But that it is limited to the rough equivalent of 1v1 in a MOBA game. The bigger difference is the mechanical requirement to play the game.
Blizzard please give me some strategic healing, baby.
i think you are wrong. if SC2 has so little strategy, why can a slow and weak macro/micro player like goody be GM? if micro is so important in SC2, how can koreans win online tournaments with horrible lag?
to quote EG.Xeno: "i guess because it's a strategy game"
|
On July 25 2013 17:03 OmniEulogy wrote:Never thought of things like this but as I've played starcraft for about 10 years and I can't really disagree with how you're explaining sc2 it makes me sad
Why? Starcraft is equally about micro, macro, and build orders. That is why its good not why its bad.
Strategy in starcraft is far more complex than you are giving it credit for. As an example: bio mine in tvz. Bio mine, as a strategy, does not work without the function of micro. Bio mine, as a strategy, is constrained by limitations of macro. Bio mine, as a strategy, has dozens of subtle variations in build orders alone. Also, consider how on maps like belshir vestige bio mine is played very differently than it is on newkirk or whirlwind. A strategy in starcraft is infinitely more complex than many other games because execution is so integral to how the strategy works. Starcraft is so entertaining to watch because no person can execute a strategy perfectly but a few people can execute a strategy exceptionally well.
|
|
|
On July 25 2013 17:33 mothergoose729 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2013 17:03 OmniEulogy wrote:Never thought of things like this but as I've played starcraft for about 10 years and I can't really disagree with how you're explaining sc2 it makes me sad Why? Starcraft is equally about micro, macro, and build orders. That is why its good not why its bad. Strategy in starcraft is far more complex than you are giving it credit for. As an example: bio mine in tvz. Bio mine, as a strategy, does not work without the function of micro. Bio mine, as a strategy, is constrained by limitations of macro. Bio mine, as a strategy, has dozens of subtle variations in build orders alone. Also, consider how on maps like belshir vestige bio mine is played very differently than it is on newkirk or whirlwind. A strategy in starcraft is infinitely more complex than many other games because execution is so integral to how the strategy works. Starcraft is so entertaining to watch because no person can execute a strategy perfectly but a few people can execute a strategy exceptionally well.
Bio mine is not a strategy tho, it's what you use to achieve your strategic goals in the game, which on the small maps in sc2 are well... not very varied.
|
On July 25 2013 17:52 Sated wrote:
"SC2 is much harder because the game makes us jump through so many hoops that having nothing to do with strategy"
And yet there are some people who want SC2 to be more like Brood War...
Brood War at least had multiple simultaneous battles all over the map.
|
|
|
On July 25 2013 18:42 Emzeeshady wrote:
I feel sorry for you
Ouch. 
|
On July 25 2013 17:52 Sated wrote:
"SC2 is much harder because the game makes us jump through so many hoops that having nothing to do with strategy"
And yet there are some people who want SC2 to be more like Brood War...
In Brood War, there are plenty of incentives to have multiple smaller fights at different fronts. You have to choose which fights you take, which you try to stall and which you try to win. It's the complete opposite of deathballs.
|
5/5 for the title. That's some bitching ass shit right here.
|
On July 25 2013 19:11 spinesheath wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2013 17:52 Sated wrote:
"SC2 is much harder because the game makes us jump through so many hoops that having nothing to do with strategy"
And yet there are some people who want SC2 to be more like Brood War... In Brood War, there are plenty of incentives to have multiple smaller fights at different fronts. You have to choose which fights you take, which you try to stall and which you try to win. It's the complete opposite of deathballs.
I have nothing against mechanical challenge. Broodwar had it and is stilled hailed as -the- RTS of all time. And your post perfectly clarifies my position. Thank you spinesheath.
|
cute title
sorry but the biggest difference is that sc2 is a solo game and that dota and league are played with teams
dota is actually pretty hard mechanically
|
On July 25 2013 16:57 Bibbit wrote:
Very sad there's no song parody in here.
I had some HIGH hopes....
|
On July 25 2013 19:31 mizU wrote:
cute title
sorry but the biggest difference is that sc2 is a solo game and that dota and league are played with teams
dota is actually pretty hard mechanically
Dota might be hard mechanically for some people, but nowhere nearly as hard as Starcraft 2.
If 1 person was playing with 5 heroes in dota against another 1 person with 5 heroes, that game would be closer to BW than SC2 in terms of strategic depth.
|
On July 25 2013 19:38 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2013 19:31 mizU wrote:
cute title
sorry but the biggest difference is that sc2 is a solo game and that dota and league are played with teams
dota is actually pretty hard mechanically Dota might be hard mechanically for some people, but nowhere nearly as hard as Starcraft 2. A team that communicates and functions as one is really quite a feat to manage. Let's try this, imagine 1 person playing with 5 heroes in dota against another 1 person with 5 heroes. That game would be closer to BW than SC2 in terms of strategic depth.
are you just measuring mechanical difficulty with multi-tasking?
because there are deeper mechanics involved in dota, and i think you might be over stating the difficulty that sc2 has.
sure multi tasking in sc2 is somewhat hard, but most of the tasks are repetitive and can really be done without much thought, where as even if your attention is on your only character (which isnt always the case, chen creep micro, item usage etc.) even the opening laning stage is difficult
|
On July 25 2013 19:43 mizU wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2013 19:38 plogamer wrote:On July 25 2013 19:31 mizU wrote:
cute title
sorry but the biggest difference is that sc2 is a solo game and that dota and league are played with teams
dota is actually pretty hard mechanically Dota might be hard mechanically for some people, but nowhere nearly as hard as Starcraft 2. A team that communicates and functions as one is really quite a feat to manage. Let's try this, imagine 1 person playing with 5 heroes in dota against another 1 person with 5 heroes. That game would be closer to BW than SC2 in terms of strategic depth. are you just measuring mechanical difficulty with multi-tasking? because there are deeper mechanics involved in dota, and i think you might be over stating the difficulty that sc2 has. sure multi tasking in sc2 is somewhat hard, but most of the tasks are repetitive and can really be done without much thought, where as even if your attention is on your only character (which isnt always the case, chen creep micro, item usage etc.) even the opening laning stage is difficult
I would define mechanics as macro and micro, as I already mentioned. Dota doesn't have macro. Whereas, Starcraft has plenty of micro too - dota and it's predecessors were inspired by spells in starcraft and warcraft games.
And the fact that macro can be repetitive and done without much thought is exactly the reason why I argue that Starcraft should have more strategic depth. I use dota and league for constrast, because between the three, only Starcraft is called a real-time strategy game.
/edit
APM requirements to meet macro and micro demands would be a decent test of mechanical difficulty. What is the average APM for professional dota and league players? Not saying APM = overall skill, but rather mechanical speed.
|
hmmm so disapointed no song with this. I read the title in a "singing" way.
"What is LoV, Blizz dont hurt me, dont hurt me, No more!" tet tet tet.. (some techno tunes and shit)
What is LoV? (What is LoV?) Du Du Dont hurt me, Dont hurt me, No more (no more). *drop the base* Tugs tugs tugs tugs!
Anyway, who else think SC2 should bring back the only 12 units per control group, remove auto mining and rally to mineral. Add shitty AI to units, add DRAGOON AI to be exact (no need for Mamacore), Wider scale maps (probably), some shitty map design and my favorite: The reaver shooting mechanism to the current state?
Well Blizzard, by all means. Lets just make it like a month long April fools event and lets hear them bitches have to say
|
sc2 is really the only game that measures apm, i'd be curious to ask you what their eapm is and then compare that to a dota player's
why do you think that sc2 is lacking in strategic depth? how much strategy is really needed?
the fact that it is mechanically difficult spawns from the fact that it's real time, not turn based, so i think you're looking for deeper strategy in a game that inherently can only possess so many levels
chess is ridiculous if you were to compare it, but it's turn based.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
