|
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.
|
On July 25 2013 20:00 woreyour wrote: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
I wonder if its possible to do a massive retexture of BW models to fit modern resolutions. Like if Kespa managed that somehow, oh man, it would be so sick.
|
On July 25 2013 20:04 mizU wrote:
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.
The more strategy the better! Of course! And there is always speed-chess. But you know, I like marines and zealots and zerglings.
I'm starting to think I may have struck a nerve here. I have played tons of original dota and league, I am definitely not trying to shit on dota and league players.
What I really wish to see are BW games with SC2 graphics I guess. #shallow #yolo
|
im counter arguing your point, rts games can only have so much strategy
imagine a chess game where you moved each piece almost simultaneously on a 3-d plane, while your opponent was doing the same. the opening seconds would be chaotic and essentially impossible.
it's nice to wish for more strategy, but where effects compound due to the factor of the game being in real-time, if any strategy were to be added, it would be very very very minor, like with a new unit or building, something they probably already have in the making for lov
|
On July 25 2013 20:20 mizU wrote:
im counter arguing your point, rts games can only have so much strategy
imagine a chess game where you moved each piece almost simultaneously on a 3-d plane, while your opponent was doing the same. the opening seconds would be chaotic and essentially impossible.
it's nice to wish for more strategy, but where effects compound due to the factor of the game being in real-time, if any strategy were to be added, it would be very very very minor, like with a new unit or building, something they probably already have in the making for lov
Broodwar is real-time. I don't know what you're trying to tell me.
|
???
are you saying brood war has more strategical depth than sc2?
|
On July 25 2013 20:29 mizU wrote:
???
are you saying brood war has more strategical depth than sc2?
From what I've seen so far. Yes.
|
Seriouly, someone needs to make a parody song about this.
It should be like them oldschool 90s techno , euro beats probably?
The singer should have this funky wierd oh so colorful clothing with shades and curly hair. And he'd be rapping on 1 part, slow rap thats like clean and all. Like the style of the video "I got the power", Ace of base style, "dying inside" video or like "dick in a box" newer parody.
I have the tune stuck in my head (last song syndrome). *tugs tugs tugs*
|
i dont really know what to say
bw had a huge skill ceiling because it was a such a hard game to play mechanically, but now that sc2 is easier mechanically, the top pros are there because of a higher understanding of the game, deeper strategy involvement
there's actually a way higher flexibility of plausible builds in all match-ups at the highest level of play in sc2 than there ever was in bw (except maybe at the very beginning like grrrrrrrrrr years)
|
Strategy wise, Sc2 has a lot of openings and strategy to offer. Say Terran, terran can go bio, mech, fast expo and all that harass and units. All of these can be used in all match ups and would still be viable. What more strategy can you want? Whereas in broodwar, if you dont open bio vs zerg your screwed or you need to open mech vs protoss or else your screwed again. Also look at PvP, nowadays it is so good with all that variety, strategy is taken to account in which build order or style is better with which maps. Zerg? well I guess they need to utilize the burrow play or be like Catz.
I just think that in SC2 games are just too fast, to easy to execute because of the large improvement to user interface, AI and pathing that people think it is a strategy problem well in fact it is not.
It is just that players are using the finer, more "standard"/meta style of playing since statistics show that massing up and making sure getting the "right" stuff (true for zerg and protoss) is a better way of playing than making small skirmishes (terran style mostly). As protoss, yes 1 strategy can outright kill you but once it fails you are most likely behind and that is also true to zerg as well. But as you can see strategies evolve an example is scarlet's ling base 14 14 play vs P, Protossess, mother ship recall presure, DT rush to standard openings and warp prism harass.
To add, my observations are people wanted to do the sure win route to win always.
With that said,
P needs them high costing units (mostly with lazers and pew pew) before they can be hard to handle. Great ball of death.
Z needs to macro up drone hard and have a unstoppable surge of units with the resource problem out of the way. Tech switch compo win!
T needs to be harassing constantly, have the advantage of early mid game mules to really cripple the enemy.
The issue could also be because some all-ins are too damn strong which makes it lame but strategy wise I think Sc2 has a lot and we just need to mature and have a great read of those to say we have reach stability. But to give my thoughts, no we dont have a problem with strategy in Sc2 that much I think.
|
On July 25 2013 20:36 mizU wrote:
i dont really know what to say
bw had a huge skill ceiling because it was a such a hard game to play mechanically, but now that sc2 is easier mechanically, the top pros are there because of a higher understanding of the game, deeper strategy involvement
there's actually a way higher flexibility of plausible builds in all match-ups at the highest level of play in sc2 than there ever was in bw (except maybe at the very beginning like grrrrrrrrrr years)
SC2 doesn't have much in terms of strategy aside from builds though. BW has a great deal of positional play over SC2 which is very strategic in a similar way as occupying important squares and lines in chess. How often do you see someone in SC2 deploy a couple of units to protect a location that is not one of his own bases for an extended amount of time?
|
United Kingdom14103 Posts
I was expecting a song
|
On July 25 2013 19:31 mizU wrote:
dota is actually pretty hard mechanically
Are you high?
On July 25 2013 16:50 plogamer wrote:
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.
So how is that a criticism of SC2? Moba's rely on strategy and teamwork as their two pillars because microing one character isn't particularly demanding. Being equally strategic to such a game is surely not a bad thing. To be honest I think SC2 encourages even more complex strategic play than dota. I'm an 80 apm masters toss on Korea and play a macro style. It's definitely not mechanics winning me games (old hands) so it must be something to do with "strategy"!
I feel people complaining about SC2 being less about strategy and more mechanics just suck at both.
On July 25 2013 21:12 spinesheath wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2013 20:36 mizU wrote:
i dont really know what to say
bw had a huge skill ceiling because it was a such a hard game to play mechanically, but now that sc2 is easier mechanically, the top pros are there because of a higher understanding of the game, deeper strategy involvement
there's actually a way higher flexibility of plausible builds in all match-ups at the highest level of play in sc2 than there ever was in bw (except maybe at the very beginning like grrrrrrrrrr years) SC2 doesn't have much in terms of strategy aside from builds though.
Why post if you can't read/understand the game and have nfi what you're talking about?
|
Blizzard has no fucking clue. The only way to make SC2 right is to give it to valve or riot.
DK and DB still after 3.5 years... failing to understand what we really want.
|
United Kingdom14103 Posts
On July 25 2013 21:33 Scarecrow wrote:Are you high?
Ever played Visage, Meepo or Lone Druid?
They're quite hard mechanically, sure the whole game isn't but there are definitely difficult aspects.
|
On July 25 2013 21:48 Targe wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2013 21:33 Scarecrow wrote:On July 25 2013 19:31 mizU wrote:
dota is actually pretty hard mechanically Are you high? Ever played Visage, Meepo or Lone Druid? They're quite hard mechanically, sure the whole game isn't but there are definitely difficult aspects.
Having to control more than 1 unit must be super tough.
|
On July 25 2013 21:48 Targe wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2013 21:33 Scarecrow wrote:On July 25 2013 19:31 mizU wrote:
dota is actually pretty hard mechanically Are you high? Ever played Visage, Meepo or Lone Druid? They're quite hard mechanically, sure the whole game isn't but there are definitely difficult aspects.
My favourite hero is meepo. And Sc2 is definitely much more challenging than dota. Dota is hard for all the animations and small spell timings and working cohesively with your team. Sc2 is a different beast.
|
What's so strategic about moving one group of units in a deathball and clashing it against another?
I think this may be a slightly unfairly harsh and not comprehensive characterization of SC2 gameplay...
(Also there is nothing strategic about that because a deathball army is a tactical choice not a strategic one. The composition of the deathball would be the strategic part.)
|
On July 25 2013 21:12 spinesheath wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2013 20:36 mizU wrote:
i dont really know what to say
bw had a huge skill ceiling because it was a such a hard game to play mechanically, but now that sc2 is easier mechanically, the top pros are there because of a higher understanding of the game, deeper strategy involvement
there's actually a way higher flexibility of plausible builds in all match-ups at the highest level of play in sc2 than there ever was in bw (except maybe at the very beginning like grrrrrrrrrr years) SC2 doesn't have much in terms of strategy aside from builds though. BW has a great deal of positional play over SC2 which is very strategic in a similar way as occupying important squares and lines in chess. How often do you see someone in SC2 deploy a couple of units to protect a location that is not one of his own bases for an extended amount of time?
Well builds are strategies.
Positional play, I think you are referring to lurkers, tanks and reavers on chokes thing? well SC2 does not have this 1 shot killing unit type. When tanks deal 50 damage or when no amount of terran can walk pass a lurker choke and the reaver, the damn reaver scarab.
the thing is that SC2 units hardly needs positoning because they ball up always as part of their pathing nature. Unlike in BW that you need to really position them correctly else they go loko (Dragoon) walk around the back doing nothing. Sc2 units especially with all range 5-6 can just ball up and shoot.
Maybe map designers can make maps with many walk ways and chokes but with the sc2 game speed it would really be hard to defend againsts zerg. And if we make big ass maps screw you if you are terran or even zerg cause protoss will just warp in and kill you outright ( warp in mechanic destroys defender advantage).
|
On July 25 2013 22:34 woreyour wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2013 21:12 spinesheath wrote:On July 25 2013 20:36 mizU wrote:
i dont really know what to say
bw had a huge skill ceiling because it was a such a hard game to play mechanically, but now that sc2 is easier mechanically, the top pros are there because of a higher understanding of the game, deeper strategy involvement
there's actually a way higher flexibility of plausible builds in all match-ups at the highest level of play in sc2 than there ever was in bw (except maybe at the very beginning like grrrrrrrrrr years) SC2 doesn't have much in terms of strategy aside from builds though. BW has a great deal of positional play over SC2 which is very strategic in a similar way as occupying important squares and lines in chess. How often do you see someone in SC2 deploy a couple of units to protect a location that is not one of his own bases for an extended amount of time? Well builds are strategies. Positional play, I think you are referring to lurkers, tanks and reavers on chokes thing? well SC2 does not have this 1 shot killing unit type. When tanks deal 50 damage or when no amount of terran can walk pass a lurker choke and the reaver, the damn reaver scarab. the thing is that SC2 units hardly needs positoning because they ball up always as part of their pathing nature. Unlike in BW that you need to really position them correctly else they go loko (Dragoon) walk around the back doing nothing. Sc2 units especially with all range 5-6 can just ball up and shoot. Maybe map designers can make maps with many walk ways and chokes but with the sc2 game speed it would really be hard to defend againsts zerg. And if we make big ass maps screw you if you are terran or even zerg cause protoss will just warp in and kill you outright ( warp in mechanic destroys defender advantage).
There also is dark swarm and mines. SC2 introduces a bunch of extra mobility which makes any attempts at controlling key positions foolish. Forcefields let you hold a chokepoint, but they are either impenetrable or do nothing, as opposed to BW where you can try to break fortified positions with micro (vs mines or lurkers for example) or even just a larger army.
|
United Kingdom14103 Posts
On July 25 2013 21:51 Scarecrow wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2013 21:48 Targe wrote:On July 25 2013 21:33 Scarecrow wrote:On July 25 2013 19:31 mizU wrote:
dota is actually pretty hard mechanically Are you high? Ever played Visage, Meepo or Lone Druid? They're quite hard mechanically, sure the whole game isn't but there are definitely difficult aspects. Having to control more than 1 unit must be super tough.
Judging by the fact I can play SC2 better than I can play any of those heroes I'd say yeah.
|
The deathball argument is getting old.
|
Action going on around the map? It's a good thing there's no such thing as:
medivac drops
mutalisk harass
phoenix harass
oracle harass
cloaked banshees
nydus worms
warp prisms
otherwise, your argument would hold up
|
Is it me or did protoss get easier than what it was in WoL? I just started playing again and honestly it feels more simple than what it used to be. I think its the mothership core that makes defending ridiculous. and I agree that strategy is low in this game. I guess you can call your build order your strategy but honestly some of these match ups are : "woop i got lucky opening, its gonna do alot of dmg, you lose."
|
If you want real strategy play a board game.
And not those simple party "strategy" games like risk, but a real war game.
|
On July 26 2013 02:07 catplanetcatplanet wrote:
If you want real strategy play a board game.
And not those simple party "strategy" games like risk, but a real war game.
We should all drop Starcraft and start playing Diplomacy 24/7.
|
Lol sorry for the shit storm I caused on your blog I was just trying to play devil's advocate like how I usually do when I see an opinionated blog/post
|
Was hoping there was a parody video to kill 3 minutes. But no you are wrong. SC 2 has a lot of strategic depth. I will admit there is a point when it looks like it is death ball vs death ball and the game does pretty much end up being a who can hit A for marine fast enough, but the actions leading up to that are stragetic. Dota 2 (i won't say LoL i don't play it and don't care about it) has some deep strats too, but it is all team based and it is harder to get everyone to work together for a common goal. But I wouldn't really compare dota 2 strats to SC 2 strats. They are different.
|
On July 26 2013 05:10 mizU wrote:
Lol sorry for the shit storm I caused on your blog I was just trying to play devil's advocate like how I usually do when I see an opinionated blog/post
It's all good. I started playing BW campaign just now. So refreshing to send my units everywhere on the map~
|
Lol I dont agree with OP's main points at all. In fact...I dont agree with anything stated in the original post....
Maybe at the lower leagues, the mentality of massing a deathball army and engaging with it might be similar to Moba games. But you can't just ignore the build order, greed/cheese, unit comp. decisions made by the higher level players. I think apart from Moba games having stemmed from an RTS game engine, those games and SC2 are as far apart as can be.
One thing that is a bit irrelevant to this thread but I just want to get off my chest: I think in general, the foreign Sc2 casting is terrible. From WOL till now I haven't seen a single caster properly explain the actions and intricacies in a Sc2 game in as much detail and with as much excitement that I myself feels. It doesn't surprise me that threads like this pops up as the majority of viewers don't even know what they are missing out due to the overwhelming scope of boring Sc2 casting.
|
1/5 for lack of song parody and lack of 2nd "don't hurt me"
|
Another one of these silly blogs?
Striking at the heart of the argument presented in the OP (what little of an argument that is presented, at the very least), is the fallacy of claiming that strategy = "constant action taking place in 3 locations."
There is absolutely no reason why multiple fronts is a prerequisite for strategy. Consider the quintessential nature of a battle, taking place on one set battlefield, with two armies. The mere fact that there is only one location and only one set of armies for each side does not magically mean that strategy is nonexistent, as if because they are only in one battlefield the soldiers somehow stumble stupidly towards their enemies, the generals drooling without a thought in their heads.
Also, it's not as if it's any one person who controls multiple battles in a MOBA game, so the "3 strategic battles" comment is silly when you realize that those are 3 separate sets of individuals in those. Yes, they can communicate, but that's an issue of teamwork, not necessarily of strategy.
Plus, previous posters have already addressed the concern that Sc2 only deals with one battle in one place. And on top of that, I understand that it's easy for low level players to just throw up their hands when they lose (or win) with an army and go "zomg deathball!" but even true "deathballs" contain innumerable nuances, and this is coming from a Terran player who feels like he always has to fight an uphill battle against Zerg or Protoss "deathballs."
Furthermore, mechanics IS strategy. Strategy is nothing more than the considerations, arrangements, and implementation of options against the ones present and possible by the opponent. The far more extensive mechanical complexity of SC2 means that you have far greater detail and availability of tactical options given that you control an entire army and economy, versus controlling one champion. This is particularly true when it comes to depth - I'm a fan of all eSports and I love all games, but I much prefer to watch SC2 over LoL (and I've watched a decent amount of LCS) because LoL offers little in terms of precise strategy. At most, teams can choose champion positioning, champion selections that tilt towards ganking, towards hyper carries in the late-game, etc., but they never approach the precision of a meticulously planned build or all-in tailored towards a specific opponent and map in SC2.
|
On July 25 2013 19:52 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2013 19:43 mizU wrote: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.
DotA does have a ton of mechanical complexities. Sure the game looks simple on paper and it looks like it's all about controlling one unit.
In DotA, you have to be map aware, and learn to manage your gold, also know how to maintain creep equilibrium just so that the creeps are always going to be fighting in a spot that is safe for you and doesn't leave you exposed to attacks. The skill of controlling creep waves is pretty much akin to macro.
There are many mechanical quirks that separate the pros from your average joe.
You'll also have to learn to adjust your skill and item builds based on what's happening in the game.
And APM isn't all that important as the game's mechanical demands are even more strategic. It's all about getting into the right mindset based on your role in the game. No disrespect to SeleCT cause I think he's a great terran player and was one of my fave SC2 players when I used to follow the game, but he was pretty bad in his stint as a DotA 2 pro.
Sure APM helps a lot with playing some heroes like Invoker, Chen, Meepo, Visage, etc, but I feel like DotA just demands a different set of mechanical skills rather than just being fast.
|
United Kingdom14103 Posts
On July 26 2013 10:01 rebdomine wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2013 19:52 plogamer wrote:On July 25 2013 19:43 mizU wrote: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. DotA does have a ton of mechanical complexities. Sure the game looks simple on paper and it looks like it's all about controlling one unit. In DotA, you have to be map aware, and learn to manage your gold, also know how to maintain creep equilibrium just so that the creeps are always going to be fighting in a spot that is safe for you and doesn't leave you exposed to attacks. The skill of controlling creep waves is pretty much akin to macro. There are many mechanical quirks that separate the pros from your average joe. You'll also have to learn to adjust your skill and item builds based on what's happening in the game. And APM isn't all that important as the game's mechanical demands are even more strategic. It's all about getting into the right mindset based on your role in the game. No disrespect to SeleCT cause I think he's a great terran player and was one of my fave SC2 players when I used to follow the game, but he was pretty bad in his stint as a DotA 2 pro. Sure APM helps a lot with playing some heroes like Invoker, Chen, Meepo, Visage, etc, but I feel like DotA just demands a different set of mechanical skills rather than just being fast.
I'd actually put down last hitting skills as mechanics.
|
On July 26 2013 10:17 Targe wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2013 10:01 rebdomine wrote:On July 25 2013 19:52 plogamer wrote:On July 25 2013 19:43 mizU wrote: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. DotA does have a ton of mechanical complexities. Sure the game looks simple on paper and it looks like it's all about controlling one unit. In DotA, you have to be map aware, and learn to manage your gold, also know how to maintain creep equilibrium just so that the creeps are always going to be fighting in a spot that is safe for you and doesn't leave you exposed to attacks. The skill of controlling creep waves is pretty much akin to macro. There are many mechanical quirks that separate the pros from your average joe. You'll also have to learn to adjust your skill and item builds based on what's happening in the game. And APM isn't all that important as the game's mechanical demands are even more strategic. It's all about getting into the right mindset based on your role in the game. No disrespect to SeleCT cause I think he's a great terran player and was one of my fave SC2 players when I used to follow the game, but he was pretty bad in his stint as a DotA 2 pro. Sure APM helps a lot with playing some heroes like Invoker, Chen, Meepo, Visage, etc, but I feel like DotA just demands a different set of mechanical skills rather than just being fast. I'd actually put down last hitting skills as mechanics.
I actually forgot how hard that was as a beginner until I saw a kid in a LAN cafe, struggling to get last hits as a safelane Phantom Asssassin. Getting 6 last hits in 5 mins, and missing all the creeps under his own tower.
|
United Kingdom14103 Posts
On July 26 2013 10:28 rebdomine wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2013 10:17 Targe wrote:On July 26 2013 10:01 rebdomine wrote:On July 25 2013 19:52 plogamer wrote:On July 25 2013 19:43 mizU wrote: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. DotA does have a ton of mechanical complexities. Sure the game looks simple on paper and it looks like it's all about controlling one unit. In DotA, you have to be map aware, and learn to manage your gold, also know how to maintain creep equilibrium just so that the creeps are always going to be fighting in a spot that is safe for you and doesn't leave you exposed to attacks. The skill of controlling creep waves is pretty much akin to macro. There are many mechanical quirks that separate the pros from your average joe. You'll also have to learn to adjust your skill and item builds based on what's happening in the game. And APM isn't all that important as the game's mechanical demands are even more strategic. It's all about getting into the right mindset based on your role in the game. No disrespect to SeleCT cause I think he's a great terran player and was one of my fave SC2 players when I used to follow the game, but he was pretty bad in his stint as a DotA 2 pro. Sure APM helps a lot with playing some heroes like Invoker, Chen, Meepo, Visage, etc, but I feel like DotA just demands a different set of mechanical skills rather than just being fast. I'd actually put down last hitting skills as mechanics. I actually forgot how hard that was as a beginner until I saw a kid in a LAN cafe, struggling to get last hits as a safelane Phantom Asssassin. Getting 6 last hits in 5 mins, and missing all the creeps under his own tower.
Last hitting under tower is hard
|
I believe you are more mistaken with comparing Strategy to micro.
The problem here is that anybody can build a deathball and wreck face causing weaker oppenants to be able to beat higher level oppenants.
The real problem here is everybody can pull off a decent deathball and proceed to 1a it into you.
Where as if SC2 actually had more ahem BW cough mechanics you wouldnt have this problem because you could actually rely on superior mechanics as a win condition.
IMO RTS should be 80% mechanics and 20% strategy. If you get an RTS with to much strategy than it just becomes like chess and while chess is a great game tat is definately not what makes an exciting RTS.
|
Northern Ireland24676 Posts
Kind of a bit sick of the game to play at least, especially as a Protoss. Enjoy watching the pros do their thing, but would like a bit more. Not sure WHAT I want tbh, but I've been binging on BroodWar VoDs and there seems to be a lot more interesting things going on.
That or I'm just a bit bored of gaming in general.
|
On July 26 2013 11:47 XXXSmOke wrote:
The problem here is that anybody can build a deathball and wreck face causing weaker oppenants to be able to beat higher level oppenants.
The real problem here is everybody can pull off a decent deathball and proceed to 1a it into you.
Just no, weaker players lose most of the time. If the gap is significant then they have almost no chance. 'Anybody' can build a deathball but whether they win or not is almost always down to mechanical skill and strategy.
|
Just watch a lategame SC/BW game and you will know what people mean by stuff like "multiple battles" or "deathballs" and all this stuff.
Seriously, just watch some lategame ZvP or ZvT... These are pure Meatgrinders and stuff is happening all over the map because basically, in every MU there was one race that just had the head on (WAY) stronger army ("the Deathball").
People bring up the "Deathball-Argument" again and again because it's just a fact. In SC2 every race seems to have its own "deathball" which it can and wants to create from 3 saturated bases and this just makes for a boring game.
+SC2 has tiny armies compared to SC/BW so it's often just not a good choice to not have your full force fighting, you have to be damn sure you will do massive damage if you decide to spend 20-30 supply on something else than the "main" battlefront.
Or just search Lalush's posts on TL and on Reddit...
|
I think it depends on what you consider strategy. I think strategy is knowing when t attack, when to defend, where to be, what to bring, what to make, what to buy, and when to do it. In that case, startcraft is swimming in strategy. Of course, there are predefined strategies; build orders. I suppose you could discredit a lot of starcraft due to build orders. I mean, they are a strategy, sure, but you probably didn't come up with it, you ight just be doing it blind. In which case, stacraft has no strategy for the first 10 minutes of the game.
Interesting topic, I think.
|
I really hate the deathball argument for sc2 because it just isn't true. For every pro game you can find where the outcome was decided by one fight I can show you two games where it isn't.
|
On July 26 2013 20:10 InfCereal wrote:
I think it depends on what you consider strategy. I think strategy is knowing when t attack, when to defend, where to be, what to bring, what to make, what to buy, and when to do it. In that case, startcraft is swimming in strategy. Of course, there are predefined strategies; build orders. I suppose you could discredit a lot of starcraft due to build orders. I mean, they are a strategy, sure, but you probably didn't come up with it, you ight just be doing it blind. In which case, stacraft has no strategy for the first 10 minutes of the game.
Interesting topic, I think.
I think strategy is everything the player can manipulate to give them self a better chance of winning. Grand master players in chess mimic openers down to the sequence, does that make chess any less strategic?
EDIT: I think this whole arguments stems from confusion about terminology. In a real time strategy game, everything is strategy. It's a strategy game. To simplify the discussion, different aspects of strategy are given different names, but that doesn't make them any less strategic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
