EPTStarcraft 2 is about who can spend money better - Page 2
| Blogs > pornguy |
|
Swift118
United Kingdom335 Posts
| ||
|
pornguy
13 Posts
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. | ||
|
pornguy
13 Posts
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!" | ||
Firebolt145
Lalalaland34495 Posts
On May 06 2013 10:08 pornguy wrote: 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? | ||
|
LoveBuzz
Canada28 Posts
On May 06 2013 10:06 pornguy wrote: 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. | ||
|
pornguy
13 Posts
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: 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? | ||
|
ieatkids5
United States4628 Posts
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? | ||
|
Firebolt145
Lalalaland34495 Posts
On May 06 2013 10:15 pornguy wrote: 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 ~ | ||
|
pornguy
13 Posts
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. | ||
|
ieatkids5
United States4628 Posts
On May 06 2013 10:19 pornguy wrote: 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. | ||
|
LoveBuzz
Canada28 Posts
On May 06 2013 10:15 pornguy wrote: Can you come up with a more fallacious comment? 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. | ||
|
WalkinDead
88 Posts
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 | ||
Hot_Bid
Braavos36379 Posts
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. | ||
| ||
