|
Calgary25997 Posts
On November 15 2007 03:11 Ghin wrote:
It is reminiscent of a certain song by a 90's canadian pop artist that you are the moderator of the strategy forum and yet have no idea what the word strategy means.
Wow, thanks for that. We try to have a discussion and you end up being a jerkoff.
There's strategy in the game, but I wouldn't call it stratgically deep.
|
please dont insult me, if i sound bitter it is because you are insulting the best RTS of all time, which all of us know and love deeply, by saying it HAS NO STRATEGIC DEPTH.
|
These pro MBS arguments about "strategic depth" only apply if there were no fog of war. With fog of war, unless there is a dominant strategy or expected strategy, games will turn out to be a complete luck fest. Already there are "build order wins" in SC. Hence games must be determined largely by execution and subtle adjustments after scouting kicks in.
With a dominant set of strategies (with their variations of course), a large proportion of skill determination is the mechanical requirements of the game. So are you pro MBS people prepared to let everyone play with maphack?
|
On November 15 2007 03:22 Ghin wrote:
please dont insult me, if i sound bitter it is because you are insulting the best RTS of all time, which all of us know and love deeply, by saying it HAS NO STRATEGIC DEPTH.
I wouldn't exactly call thinking up good build orders strategic depth, and that's really the only strategic part of sc besides making decisions on where and how to attack in split seconds. There isn't really any rts out there that really has strategic depth afaik, don't think you have to be some kind of strategic visionary to be good at sc.
|
|
|
Calgary25997 Posts
|
CA10829 Posts
no one denies that starcraft requires some strategy
what Chill was referring to was that due to the nature of the game being in Real Time, there is less depth than games like chess or go.
|
would you argue that fighting games (good ones) have little strategic depth as well?
|
Calgary25997 Posts
Yes, when compared to turn based games.
|
On November 15 2007 03:34 Aphelion wrote:
These pro MBS arguments about "strategic depth" only apply if there were no fog of war. With fog of war, unless there is a dominant strategy or expected strategy, games will turn out to be a complete luck fest. Already there are "build order wins" in SC. Hence games must be determined largely by execution and subtle adjustments after scouting kicks in.
With a dominant set of strategies (with their variations of course), a large proportion of skill determination is the mechanical requirements of the game. So are you pro MBS people prepared to let everyone play with maphack?
It seems like a valid concern at first, but if you look at it more closely you'll see why this is NOT an argument against MBS at all:
1. It's no different in SC1 already. Maphack gives you a huge advantage if you are at least of decent skill level to execute whatever you're doing reasonably well. Also, maphack makes cheesing or a fast tech rush (think DT) pretty much impossible and at the same time it becomes easier for the maphacker to use these strategies because he knows where you are and what your exact build order is.
2. Since SC2 will also at least require 200 APM, probably more, to play well (WC3 also does, and in SC2 there's more bases and more units to control so it can't be less APM needed), you can be sure that newbies maphacking will still face the same challenges as in SC1: that they can't execute strategies fast/good enough, so the opponent still has a chance.
3. (probably the most important point) A maphack is not part of the game, and is illegal (your CD key can be banned for using it), that's why the game design absolutely should NOT pay attention to any potential hacks. We don't even know what's going to be possible in SC2. Maybe there's a mineral hack possible early on which also totally screws the game regardless of skill level. Maybe there's new kinds of hacks possible with features unimagined so far.
It comes down to this: hacks are not a factor you can rely on and prepare for. It would be extremely stupid to design the game around speculation about hacks.
The ONLY thing that can work is Blizzard paying more attention to hackers, releasing patches more often and really, really keeping up the support for the game.
Maybe they even should have dedicated personnel who can analyze replays and ban CD keys if there was no doubt that they use a hack (like game masters in a MMORPG).
They have the money and manpower needed to do that.
Even if the hacker used a CD key generator or something like that it'll be still be extremely inconvenient for him, thus discouraging him from doing it again.
In SC1, they don't care at all about the situation and support for the game is already growing extremely weak. If there will be no new patch fixing the Z mineral exploit I fear that soon it'll be close to impossible to play on BattleNet. And it's only a question of time until iccup or other things are affected.
|
I think we swerved a bit from the original subject 
Now, Starcraft has less strategic depth than Civ/Heroes games, because turnbased games allow much deeper thought, I agree with that statement. Is it a bad or a good thing that action is preffered to thinking in an RTS is open to debate. I personally think that a good balance between both is required. WC3 is very heavy in thinking compared to SC, because SC is more "I better be sure that I have a metric fuckton of stuff on the board than be sure they are at the right place", especially in lower level games. WC3 doesn't require you to put a heavy amount of brainpower into production. This creates gameplay that is enjoyable to some, but as seen on this forum, very boring for others, that prefer more action.
What I see so far is Blizzard's desire to strike a balance on a game that will be thoughtful, strategical and action packed at the same time, rewarding both speed and brain in equal amounts, and through testing they don't see that happening with SBS. I wouldn't see that happening either with SBS, unless the economic part of the game is much reduced and 3-4 buildings is the max you ever need.
Note that I believe that a 200 IQ 40 APM guy should NEVER be able to beat a solid 200APM guy just on brainpower alone, as EXECUTION should and always will be the main important point of RTS games, and 40 APM execution in Blizzard games is "l0lz0r".
As much as some will claim it will benefit newbies and make the game easier overall, I will have to point out that pro players of SC2 are very likely to not hold the same skillset as SC1 pro players, and I think that's a good thing if pulled right.
I think we should wait a bit before coming to conclusions. Like, waiting for the Beta. Because having MBS on SC2 shouldn't be like strapping MBS over SC1 which would be, I think everybody agree, severely idiotic.
|
On November 15 2007 05:19 Brutalisk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2007 03:34 Aphelion wrote:
These pro MBS arguments about "strategic depth" only apply if there were no fog of war. With fog of war, unless there is a dominant strategy or expected strategy, games will turn out to be a complete luck fest. Already there are "build order wins" in SC. Hence games must be determined largely by execution and subtle adjustments after scouting kicks in.
With a dominant set of strategies (with their variations of course), a large proportion of skill determination is the mechanical requirements of the game. So are you pro MBS people prepared to let everyone play with maphack? It seems like a valid concern at first, but if you look at it more closely you'll see why this is NOT an argument against MBS at all: 1. It's no different in SC1 already. Maphack gives you a huge advantage if you are at least of decent skill level to execute whatever you're doing reasonably well. Also, maphack makes cheesing or a fast tech rush (think DT) pretty much impossible and at the same time it becomes easier for the maphacker to use these strategies because he knows where you are and what your exact build order is. 2. Since SC2 will also at least require 200 APM, probably more, to play well (WC3 also does, and in SC2 there's more bases and more units to control so it can't be less APM needed), you can be sure that newbies maphacking will still face the same challenges as in SC1: that they can't execute strategies fast/good enough, so the opponent still has a chance. 3. (probably the most important point) A maphack is not part of the game, and is illegal (your CD key can be banned for using it), that's why the game design absolutely should NOT pay attention to any potential hacks. We don't even know what's going to be possible in SC2. Maybe there's a mineral hack possible early on which also totally screws the game regardless of skill level. Maybe there's new kinds of hacks possible with features unimagined so far. It comes down to this: hacks are not a factor you can rely on and prepare for. It would be extremely stupid to design the game around speculation about hacks. The ONLY thing that can work is Blizzard paying more attention to hackers, releasing patches more often and really, really keeping up the support for the game.Maybe they even should have dedicated personnel who can analyze replays and ban CD keys if there was no doubt that they use a hack (like game masters in a MMORPG). They have the money and manpower needed to do that. Even if the hacker used a CD key generator or something like that it'll be still be extremely inconvenient for him, thus discouraging him from doing it again. In SC1, they don't care at all about the situation and support for the game is already growing extremely weak. If there will be no new patch fixing the Z mineral exploit I fear that soon it'll be close to impossible to play on BattleNet. And it's only a question of time until iccup or other things are affected.
You lost the point of my post. I'm pointing out that unless mechanics is a major component of skill, the fog of war will make a lot of games a luck fest. This is especially directed to pro-MBSers who think that there aren't enough viable unit mixes or builds in current BW.
|
Strategic depth is not equal to choosing one strategy based on what your opponent is doing and then mindlessly sticking to that.
I don't see how mechanics make the game more or less of a luckfeast in regards to fog of war. Civ 4 has fog of war as well and that doesn't hurt it's strategic depth.
Making decisions without full information is part of the game but it's hardly luck. Most top SC gamers have very good intution and very good scouting. You gather your information, make your assumptions and exectute your decisions. If anything more avalible time means you can scout more, giving your more information, making your guesses on what the enemy is doing more accurate which means you can predict his play even better.
|
There is no difficulty making the correct decision if you are given an eternity to ponder over it. The true mark of a good SC player is his ability to make correct, incremental decisions on the spur of a moment. Mechanics is the constraint which puts a time limit on such decision making.
Good SC players can make good decisions while having maintaining good mechanics because they can think fast and on their feet. Bad players are overwhelmed by the constant amount of tasks and their decision making suffers.
Also. mechanics is instrumental for better players to pull out wins even when cheesed or having the BO countered. Enough in SC is already determined by BO luck. Just look at ZvZ. If you take the mechanical element out, a lot of games will be solely determined by that.
|
ZvZ is more about ling/muta/scourge micro than mechanics (unless you count micro to mechanics, but then we can say that SC2 is going to require a lot of mechanics  ). ZvZ games are usually less than 10 minutes long and players only have 1-3 hatcheries, which means that there is almost no room for mechanics to make a difference. It's all about ling/muta/scourge micro and timing.
About the luck aspect, well that's something I don't know an answer to. Luck always is a part of RTS games with fog of war, also in SC1. I don't know if luck is going to be a bigger factor in SC2. I think no one can really say that at this point.
Luck is also a subjective thing. Many people who lost a game are already claiming that their opponent just had luck, when in reality he simply made the better decisions respectively played smarter. Situations like that might occur more frequently in SC2, but does that really mean anything? Unless you watch the replay it's going to be hard to tell if there really was luck involved.
The problem is that "strategical skill" can be confused with luck, although it has nothing in common. Mechanical skill can't be confused with luck, but is that really an "advantage"?
Personally I wouldn't care if someone said that I had luck when I know that I simply played better and adapted to whatever he was going to threw at me and countered him nicely.
|
On November 15 2007 05:54 Aphelion wrote:
Mechanics is the constraint which puts a time limit on such decision making.
Personally, I think game speed puts much more of a time limit than mechanics on decision-making. In fact, that's one of the cruder methods of "compensating" for MBS: introduce higher game speeds than fastest. That way you have just as much mental challenge with less physical requirements.
Enough in SC is already determined by BO luck. Just look at ZvZ. If you take the mechanical element out, a lot of games will be solely determined by that.
Smart progamers at least base their initial BOs on what they expect their opponent to do, kind of like a more complex version of RPS. Add to that the ability of the player to scout their opponent's BO and adapt to it, and there's not more "luck" involved than naturally exists in any game of imperfect information.
Also, I'd be very surprised if Blizzard let a single unit combo dominate a MU in SC2 like mutaling does in BW ZvZ; they're cognizant of the competitive potential this time around, and lower physical requirements mean that dominant strategies will be uncovered (and thus fixable) considerably sooner than in BW.
|
On November 15 2007 05:54 Aphelion wrote:
There is no difficulty making the correct decision if you are given an eternity to ponder over it. The true mark of a good SC player is his ability to make correct, incremental decisions on the spur of a moment. Mechanics is the constraint which puts a time limit on such decision making.
Good SC players can make good decisions while having maintaining good mechanics because they can think fast and on their feet. Bad players are overwhelmed by the constant amount of tasks and their decision making suffers.
Also. mechanics is instrumental for better players to pull out wins even when cheesed or having the BO countered. Enough in SC is already determined by BO luck. Just look at ZvZ. If you take the mechanical element out, a lot of games will be solely determined by that.
If you don't have all the facts you can never be certain of making the rigth decision. As stated before (in response to my earlier posts I belive) APM has nothing to do with decision making. I belive Fisheye was used as an example of a player who plays smart in order to win, not fast. Also pure mechanical skill is automated. I don't have to think when translating my decision into commands just like I don't have to think about writing specific letters when I type this out. I just decide I want to do it and I can focus on something else.
Which means that mechanics has nothing to do with the ammounts of decisions you have to make, just with how many you can execute. I can tie one of Boxers hands behind his back and his decision making is not going to suffer from it but he'll most likely loose the game.
|
On November 15 2007 03:34 Aphelion wrote:
These pro MBS arguments about "strategic depth" only apply if there were no fog of war. With fog of war, unless there is a dominant strategy or expected strategy, games will turn out to be a complete luck fest. Already there are "build order wins" in SC. Hence games must be determined largely by execution and subtle adjustments after scouting kicks in. Are you trying to say there AREN'T dominant build orders in Starcraft?
TvP, TvZ, ZvZ are ridiculously static strategically, it's very rare to see anything outside of the box
The only MUs that you see any variance of build orders are PvZ and the occasional zealot rush in PvP
|
Yes, PvZ is the "best" (most versatile, flexible) matchup in SC1.
Followed by TvZ I think... it's true that there's mostly 1 strategy but there's still enough room for different build orders, especially for the Z player, but T can also go metal or fast wraith or something like that.
TvT and ZvZ are really bad, PvP only slightly better.
PvT is OK though, if you don't mind that it's a macro war.
In SC2 I wish that more matchups will be as flexible as PvZ in SC1.
|
On November 15 2007 06:41 Zanno wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2007 03:34 Aphelion wrote:
These pro MBS arguments about "strategic depth" only apply if there were no fog of war. With fog of war, unless there is a dominant strategy or expected strategy, games will turn out to be a complete luck fest. Already there are "build order wins" in SC. Hence games must be determined largely by execution and subtle adjustments after scouting kicks in. Are you trying to say there AREN'T dominant build orders in Starcraft? TvP, TvZ, ZvZ are ridiculously static strategically, it's very rare to see anything outside of the box The only MUs that you see any variance of build orders are PvZ and the occasional zealot rush in PvP
i dont really understand this....in any game ever there are going to be more standard styles of play because of the fact that it works ez/better than others....dont confuse this with lack of strategy in the game...even for chess and GO there are things used in most games because it is just a better choice then the other options you have...If all TvP/TvZ/ZvZ games were really strategically "static" we would just see stalemate games always always....but this is not the case so therefore there must be some person with better strategy(and yes i will admit micro and game experience are included in this) will win...i have a serious problem with people saying there is no strategical depth just because there are alot of similiar strategies being used atm
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
