EPTNo more bullshit [No MBS] - Page 7
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
freshtowers
Albania64 Posts
| ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
On November 03 2008 01:58 fusionsdf wrote: You cant assume just because one player has really good mechanics that he has no strategy behind them I never said that Jaedong knows nothing about strategy or is stupid. I just said that he is fast and has a nearly flawless execution. I wanted to point out that the main difference between oldschool and young players is mechanics, and with all the new macro maps it is even more true. @ Klackon: it is a fucking RTS not a turn based game; If your opponent has way better mechanics you lose except maybe if you cheese. | ||
|
Gregsen
Germany667 Posts
NO MBS BULLSHIT THANKS | ||
|
KlaCkoN
Sweden1661 Posts
On November 03 2008 02:07 Boblion wrote: I never said that Jaedong knows nothing about strategy or is stupid. I just said that he is fast and has a nearly flawless execution. I wanted to point out that the main difference between oldschool and young players is mechanics, and with all the new macro maps it is even more true. I disagree again, the players of today make much, much better decisions in game than they did when elky played. This isn't saying that elky couldn't have been really good had he played 10 hours a day in a pro team today, of that I have no idea. | ||
|
Senx
Sweden5901 Posts
| ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
On November 03 2008 02:07 Boblion wrote: I never said that Jaedong knows nothing about strategy or is stupid. I just said that he is fast and has a nearly flawless execution. I wanted to point out that the main difference between oldschool and young players is mechanics, and with all the new macro maps it is even more true. yes, mechanics have improved over time, but when two players have the same mechanics, strategy will win the day, and its possible for a good strategy to overcome better mechanics and good enough mechanics to overcome a better strategy. Which is as it should be in my view. I mean lets say its a zvz and its a build order loss. Lets say I went 9pool vs 12 pool or something. It should still be possible for me to overcome if I have better mechanics than the other player. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5823 Posts
On November 03 2008 01:29 FrozenArbiter wrote: Gah I didn't even bring up APM, you brought up APM !! :D Well, you brought up Moon's hands so that was my conclusion.  On November 03 2008 01:38 myIRE wrote: you cant compare wc3 and sc to each other, the direction wc3 took was totaly new, concept of heroes? and really, there r no units that deal "ton" of dmg like in sc, where a marine dies in 2 hits (lolz) , so you cant let ur units in wc3 just stand there and do their job, u need to focus fire. on another note, sc2 isnt even out yet and people are calling for armageddon within "pro-scene" anyhow, like, none of you ever felt annoyed of having to click every rax manualy to build something? like 10 years ago, when pro-gaming wasnt even a term? and spamming all over your screen wasnt the only thing that defined starcraft as "the game"? I played Generals, WC3, DoW, Armies of Exigo and some other games before I even touched SC online, and I wasn't put off by having to manually click each Factory. I guess you're one of those stubborn casual players who refuse to learn to macro or get faster in general by principal. If you ever tried you'd realize that learning that takes like a week at best. The real skill is knowing WHEN to do WHAT - not being able to click on buildings in a rapid fashion (that's actually pretty easy...). Seriously, if you dislike "spamming allover your screen" then you're better off watching a movie and not playing a game of StarCraft. | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
On November 03 2008 02:13 fusionsdf wrote: yes, mechanics have improved over time, but when two players have the same mechanics, strategy will win the day, and its possible for a good strategy to overcome better mechanics and good enough mechanics to overcome a better strategy. Which is as it should be in my view. I mean lets say its a zvz and its a build order loss. Lets say I went 9pool vs 12 pool or something. It should still be possible for me to overcome if I have better mechanics than the other player. I agree with this. | ||
|
Equinox_kr
United States7395 Posts
| ||
|
KlaCkoN
Sweden1661 Posts
On November 03 2008 02:07 Boblion wrote: I never said that Jaedong knows nothing about strategy or is stupid. I just said that he is fast and has a nearly flawless execution. I wanted to point out that the main difference between oldschool and young players is mechanics, and with all the new macro maps it is even more true. @ Klackon: it is a fucking RTS not a turn based game; If your opponent has way better mechanics you lose except maybe if you cheese. Yes. However I have never said otherwise. My original response was provoked by you saying that genious Elky could never beat jaedong just because jaedong is faster. Thus implying that Elky would indeed stand a chance if he was equally fast as jaedong. I said that I have no reason to belive that Elky would make equally good decisions as jaedong in a game of brood war. | ||
|
Juanpe
Uruguay283 Posts
I mean, like it or not, like someone said in other thread about this, RTS tend to evolve and get easier in an inevitably way, but not in a stupid-retarded-easying way like having MBS, automining and shit like that, but yes letting you have 12 units in a battle group instead of 4 for example... so Blizz, if you want your moms playing SCII, create a funny and catching, monthly-patched with new shit Single Player campaign, and leave the fun and competitive side of the game in the Multiplayer campaign for the real soul of the game, the gamers, and cut with this shit of MBS and crap plz... for your and our good, because if this game sucks balls, all of us end losing... | ||
|
MorroW
Sweden3522 Posts
| ||
|
MorroW
Sweden3522 Posts
| ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
So in my opinion mechanics and fast reaction time > strategy nowadays because this game has been quite figured out. However there is also the rock/paper /scissor situations like 3 gates goon vs 2 gates + obs or 5 pool vs Fe. It isnt strategy imo, just some BO gambles. Seriously you guy should understand that Stracraft in itself isnt a really difficult game. Strats are easy to understand ( dropping units being mineral line, making more gates/facts to do a timed attack ) this is why it is also so popular even among noobs. But it is also a fast paced RTS, that is why it is so hard to master and addictive. you can't wait for 1 min think about your next move, you are constantly busy, making units, moving units, making buildings, scouting and so on. That is why you need to be fast and have a good control. If Sc had a slower pace it would have died a long time ago because the game in itself is dull. Speed makes it interesting. | ||
|
Dave[9]
United States2365 Posts
| ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5823 Posts
I think SC2 should stay that way. It's not like it'll get figured out right after release. It'll take years to get to the point SC1 did, albeit slightly less due to players having plenty of SC1 experience. Creative play will reign supreme for several years after release unless the game is somehow broken. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5823 Posts
On November 03 2008 02:36 Dave[9] wrote: in expressing my political freedom, id like to say i voted...no. KILL HIM!!! ARghHGHGhgh!!ONE <leads the mob to stone Dave[9]> | ||
NonY
8751 Posts
On November 03 2008 01:33 Boblion wrote: There is a reason why geniuses like Grrr, Slayer, Elky cant win vs Jaedong. It is not because they are dumb or lack of strategy. It is because they are too slow. And i'm quite sure that they all have an higher IQ than Jaedong. This apm/mechanics vs strategy debate is so retarded. It is like people who say that for example Hopkins is a boxing champion only because of his technical skills. Yea he is an artist but he is also a fucking beast. But you haven't contradicted anything I've said. I agree that physical ability is required. I think all top players hit a similar level of physical ability and then strategy determines the majority of games. I'm a firm supporter of comparisons to sports like American football or basketball. All of the athletes need a minimum level of physical ability to even compete but strategy and preparation from the coaches and the team as a whole are what determine the outcome of most games. A casual and uninformed spectator has no chance of discerning the strategy going on but the physical ability will immediately catch their eyes. Obviously the trained professional athletes could trounce some fatties without using an ounce of intelligence, but when competing against each other, decision-making and strategy are the only ways to overcome. The casual spectator misses that and simply thinks that the stronger, faster, more accurate guy always wins. I'd wager that Grrrr, Slayer, and Elky would admit that even if they had equal physical ability to Jaedong, it'd take them quite a bit of training to put those abilities to good use. I don't know what you mean by the IQ comment exactly... Are you saying that if all physical ability was equal, and only the intellectual part of BW mattered, then Jaedong would never win against Grrrr, Slayer, and Elky? You yourself are choosing to make this debate "retarded" by forming arguments with such wild speculations. The debate can be meaningful and effective if nonsense can be avoided. To sum it up, we can imagine that there are definitive levels of BW skill: Top progamer, bottom progamer, top Korean amateur, top non-Korean amateur, bottom non-Korean amtaeur, typical iCCup player, typical b.net player, newbie. The levels are separated by physical skill. In other words, a higher level can beat a lower level by doing a mundane strategy simply because of significantly superior mechanics. But when players of the same level play each other, most of the games are determined by strategy/tactics/other 'thinking' parts of the game. I see this as the perfect model for a sport or an e-sport. The physical skill BW requires has been proven to work already so I advocate SC2 requiring a similar amount of physical skill. ("If it aint broke, don't fix it" argument). | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
 About my IQ comments, i guess this isnt the accurate word. I wanted to say that the oldschool players used to be really smart and creative. | ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
On November 03 2008 02:31 Boblion wrote: The main problem is that you can have lot of strategy knowledge with experience and without being "active". I think that people around D+/ C level know already a lot about this game. But if you want to be the best being smart won't be the most important thing at first. You will have to train 10 hours a day to get flawless mechanics because having good ideas and cheese wont always save you + if you rely to much on Dt cheese you will make Idra cry about imbalances :p. So in my opinion mechanics and fast reaction time > strategy nowadays because this game has been quite figured out. However there is also the rock/paper /scissor situations like 3 gates goon vs 2 gates + obs or 5 pool vs Fe. It isnt strategy imo, just some BO gambles. Seriously you guy should understand that Stracraft in itself isnt a really difficult game. Strats are easy to understand ( dropping units being mineral line, making more gates/facts to do a timed attack ) this is why it is also so popular even among noobs. But it is also a fast paced RTS, that is why it is so hard to master and addictive. you can't wait for 1 min think about your next move, you are constantly busy, making units, moving units, making buildings, scouting and so on. That is why you need to be fast and have a good control. If Sc had a slower pace it would have died a long time ago because the game in itself is dull. Speed makes it interesting. this in my opinion is solved by automatchmaking and a fairly deep but balanced game. SC2 provides more options - cliffwalkers, high yield minerals, destructable barriacades (and honestly no one has complained about these despite them being new, its not like we hate everything they've changed) - for strategy (mbs doesnt improve strategy, it just makes it more important compared to macro). So if you are really good at abusing what should be deeper strategies, you will be able to beat players slightly better than you in terms of mechanics. Which means with automatchmaking you will still have a pretty good chance of winning, youi will just be relying more on strategy than some players. In competitive play, we expect our idols to be macro gods, we expect them to keep pushing the bounds of mechanics. I mean you have to look at the older players. Boxer, nada, stork, much, free have all improved their macro over the years. Mechanics is just taught by playing. So I dont think any strategical gods would be locked out of progaming, they would just have to practice until their mechanics improve. | ||
| ||
