EPTOn April 27 2013 00:16 Black[CAT] wrote:
More like blind-folded boxing.
More like blind-folded boxing.
That is too funny, I'm still laughing.
Is SC2 more like GO or Chess? - Page 8
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
dsjoerg
United States384 Posts
That is too funny, I'm still laughing. | ||
|
GolemMadness
Canada11044 Posts
On April 27 2013 13:22 GreenFaction wrote: I disagree. Here are some cool similarities between them: the essence of strategy in both of them involves generating counterplay in the part of the board you are strong and your opponent is weak, maximizing the maneuverability/flexibility of your forces, and balancing security with space control. I think these are just a few of the interesting similarities. Here's another: there seems to be an important sense in which strategical and tactical viewpoints demand to be balanced. In Go, one must know and be able to recognize common tactical sequences involved in Ko, killing a unit (as in the "ladder"), and using the edges and corners of the board. This is like Chess in which the discovered attack, pin, and fork are just basic tactical motifs one must know. But there are also strategical elements: in Chess, weakened squares, king safety, and the general concepts I mentioned in my last post about material, quality, and time. The importance of the corners early, then sides, then middle is one analog in Go. To come back to starcraft, I'm sure it's quite evident that strategy and tactics are closely related to macro/micro. Of course the analogy is not perfect--that's why SC is a fascinating game in its own right! The same thing could be said about tons of things. In hockey, you often generate plays where you're strong and your opponent's weak, maximizing the maneuverability/flexibility of your players and balancing security with space control. Strategy and tactics are not at all related to macro/micro. Tactics are calculating exact sequences of moves that force something which improves your position/gains you material. Micro is your ability to quickly and accurately move units around. Strategy is extremely broad and encompasses a lot of things. Macro is quickly building units/buildings at the right times. To compare these things is a HUGE stretch. | ||
|
GreenFaction
United States82 Posts
On April 27 2013 13:41 GolemMadness wrote: The same thing could be said about tons of things. In hockey, you often generate plays where you're strong and your opponent's weak, maximizing the maneuverability/flexibility of your players and balancing security with space control. Strategy and tactics are not at all related to macro/micro. Tactics are calculating exact sequences of moves that force something which improves your position/gains you material. Micro is your ability to quickly and accurately move units around. Strategy is extremely broad and encompasses a lot of things. Macro is quickly building units/buildings at the right times. To compare these things is a HUGE stretch. I guess you are right that micro/macro really is different than strategy/tactics. Point taken there. Nevertheless, I don't think it diminishes the comparison between Go/Chess and Starcraft to point out that other things are similar to them as well. I would happily agree that hockey shares many of the similarities I've mentioned. Is the idea that because the same thing could be said about tons of things that it is a trivial point--that chess/go and starcraft have no more in common than any games involving strategy? I think the similarities I've pointed out indicate deeper structural similarity relations between chess/go/sc than those I've pointed out. But maybe they don't, who knows? | ||
|
E.L.V.I.S
Belgium458 Posts
On April 27 2013 13:08 GolemMadness wrote: I've never played go, but Starcraft 2 is really nothing like chess at all, other than drying extremely broad comparisons like "they both involve strategy" and "you have a plan at the beginning". You don't have a "plan" when you start a go game  | ||
|
Sorathez
Australia209 Posts
In reality though it's quite different from either. | ||
|
animagne
United Kingdom47 Posts
As far as SC2 goes I feel it's exactly like chess and quite far from go: In GO better general understanding wins (probes and pylons), but in SC2 that doesn't hold the cheese and you might need specific answers for some timings (if we don't take lower leagues into consideration). Go early game is all over the place and (if you are worse than your opponent) it is possible to lose big groups to your opponent, whereas in SC2 if you mined out your natural and lose that infrastructure you are likely not even slightly set back. In chess instead of capturing the board you can consider the area you control, you start with a very small one and you expand control into mid game, whereas in late game you are likely to have less control as more of the board doesn't matter much anymore (which is similar to most matchups in SC2, e.g. harassment might still hurt late game on your tech, but not as much on your mining bases, where you can remake workers fast, but mid game it allows you to get more control of the map). SC2 has roughly defined early game, mid game, late game like chess. Go diverges early game way too fast and too early, whereas in chess and sc2 depending on what your opponent does, your build most likely has some specific answer. While it is possible to tweak sc2 openings it's more likely to be because it isn't a figured out game like chess (as far as early game goes) or even BW. Finally, might I point out that chess has draws and cheeses (everyone who didn't know about it has probably lost at least (or at most) once by turn 5 in chess and the hopefully knows how to defend it)? | ||
|
RogerChillingworth
Chad3131 Posts
| ||
|
GeneticToss
Canada188 Posts
On April 27 2013 14:43 E.L.V.I.S wrote: You don't have a "plan" when you start a go game I have to disagree, you do have a plan (for example, if you are black : going for the low chinese opening, playing cross corners, if you are white: approaching his corner instead of taking one to stop him from setting up a kobayashi or something etc.) Depending on the opponent you might even have a more specific plan. Naturally as the game progresses your plan changes as well. | ||
|
dynwar7
1983 Posts
Starcraft 2 is Starcraft 2. Not chess, not GO. | ||
|
zanga
659 Posts
For me SC2 is more like poker, perhaps with less luck, but still a significant amount of luck as far as I can perceive for when you're playing at the highest level - and of course unfortunately based on current balance of the game. It makes it more boring for me when luck, balance and random occurence causes wins. Regardless it's hard to compare SC2 to a simple game, because it is not. It is not like "Running 100m", or high jumping, where there are very very few variables, randomness and luck. SC2 is highly advanced, which unfortunately also brings in all the "randomness luck factors". So I suppose, maybe slightly comparable to some other board game, but probably not.. | ||
|
Spidinko
Slovakia1174 Posts
On April 27 2013 13:22 GreenFaction wrote: I disagree. Here are some cool similarities between them: the essence of strategy in both of them involves generating counterplay in the part of the board you are strong and your opponent is weak, maximizing the maneuverability/flexibility of your forces, and balancing security with space control. I think these are just a few of the interesting similarities. Here's another: there seems to be an important sense in which strategical and tactical viewpoints demand to be balanced. In Go, one must know and be able to recognize common tactical sequences involved in Ko, killing a unit (as in the "ladder"), and using the edges and corners of the board. This is like Chess in which the discovered attack, pin, and fork are just basic tactical motifs one must know. But there are also strategical elements: in Chess, weakened squares, king safety, and the general concepts I mentioned in my last post about material, quality, and time. The importance of the corners early, then sides, then middle is one analog in Go. To come back to starcraft, I'm sure it's quite evident that strategy and tactics are closely related to macro/micro. Of course the analogy is not perfect--that's why SC is a fascinating game in its own right! He said other than extremely broad comparisons lie "they both involve strategy" and here you come and try to contradict him with another broad comparison. | ||
|
budar
175 Posts
| ||
|
HolydaKing
21254 Posts
| ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3486 Posts
| ||
|
graNite
Germany4434 Posts
| ||
|
eronica
175 Posts
| ||
|
Account252508
3454 Posts
| ||
|
E.L.V.I.S
Belgium458 Posts
On April 27 2013 15:58 GeneticToss wrote: I have to disagree, you do have a plan (for example, if you are black : going for the low chinese opening, playing cross corners, if you are white: approaching his corner instead of taking one to stop him from setting up a kobayashi or something etc.) Depending on the opponent you might even have a more specific plan. Naturally as the game progresses your plan changes as well. Ok maybe fuseki can be called a plan but well... for me a plan is a "I will win the game this way", fuseki don't make you win game x) | ||
|
Ballack
Norway821 Posts
While you can make comparisons between SC2 having incomplete information and the better you are, the more information you can decipher, in Poker the depth and variation I think is of a grander scale. Now I haven't played SC2 at a professional level (not poker either for that matter, so I can't say that for sure, but I think a lot of people overestimate the amount of strategy in comparison to Macro/Micro in SC2 based of off how much easier it is than BW. Macro/Micro are things that does not apply to Poker in any way, and that is one of, if not the most deciding factor as to whether or not you will win a Starcraft 2 game. I wouldn't say the comparion is totally out of whack though. At the very highest levels, metagame plays a large role in both Poker and SC2, but for 99% of the people playing Poker, it's almost all about math, which is not the case for SC2. | ||
|
Scootaloo
655 Posts
| ||
| ||
