| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
ShaperofDreams
Canada2492 Posts
On August 05 2010 11:09 kzn wrote: Seriously? I'm not sure anyone has made a statement that was more wrong on this site in its entire history. whats your rank? to argue against professional strategists and "monkeys clicking really fast", who both disagree with you, you cant just be a random scrub, like you are. also dont claim to know anything about tl | ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On August 05 2010 11:08 Kezzer wrote: I'll assume those apm numbers are arbitrary. Of course. You must have not read my post, I clearly said that in SC2 there is very little strategy. I don't see how we could know this at this stage in the game's lifetime. Doing 2 things at once =/= strategy. You need maybe 30 APM to execute ANY build order, and most timings are based on what you have and are unrelated to APM. Executing a build order is worthless if you don't have the units to make use of it. Multitasking is not, itself, part of strategy, but it enables strategies that would otherwise be impossible. A hypothetical: Let us imagine a player who has infinite apm. Lets say he's playing Protoss vs a Zerg player, and he scouts fast Roach pressure. In theory, this player could defend against an infinite number of Roaches with 1 stalker purely by abusing range, with his infinite apm. Because he only has to make one stalker, he has a bunch of money with which to do other stuff, which wildly expands the available strategic options for him in that situation. My basic argument is patently true if you actually understand what I'm claiming. I'll say it again, if you're expecting SC2 to have a significant amount of strategy, you're in the wrong place. You're entitled to your opinion, but you haven't made a very convincing case for it so far. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
Which is precisely what I said. No, you said that a game must have less strategic as it becomes more mechanically demanded because of what I just stated. I was pointing out that it was an incomplete portrayal of a whole picture. As a game becomes more mechanically demanding, strategy isn't less relevant or existent. Your second claim doesn't follow from the first. Why exactly not. It may not make it a better game, but it does make it a better esport. It simultaneously increases the interest of spectator games, and provides a more uniform learning curve, instead of a depreciating one. teamliquid REALLY needs a purge. I'd agree with this, if it weren't for that fact that it would be pretty contrary to TLs interests. Face it, TLs changed. SC2s a great game, it isn't as great as BW, but still good nonetheless. SC2 represents an opportunity for the foreign esport scene to grow, and for TL. One I'd laugh if they didn't take. Growth however, comes at a price, and your looking at it. If he said that about any other old game, it wouldn't warrant a ban. And face it, BWs becoming increasingly "just another old game" for many new members here. I don't see how we could know this at this stage in the game's lifetime. Why? Would you be saying the same thing If I said this pertaining to MW2? You're making these statements assuming that SC2 will have a development curve identical to SC1, which would require identical preconditions. SC1 continued to develop strategically over the years precisely because of deep mechanical elements. As people pushed their mechanical skill so the limit, so were they able to master new forms of playstyles which were not previously possible. SC2, patently, does not have the same mechanical depth, so it will also not have the same development curve. | ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On August 05 2010 11:11 ShaperofDreams wrote: whats your rank? to argue against professional strategists and "monkeys clicking really fast", who both disagree with you, you cant just be a random scrub, like you are. Yes, you can. If my argument is wrong, then it is wrong regardless of who made it. If it is right, it is right regardless of who made it. In both cases, it can be identified as right or wrong without reference to who made it. also dont claim to know anything about tl umad? | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
umad? | ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On August 05 2010 11:13 Half wrote: No, you said that a game must have less strategic as it becomes more mechanically demanded because of what I just stated. I was pointing out that it was an incomplete portrayal of a whole picture. As a game becomes more mechanically demanding, strategy isn't less relevant or existent. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that what I meant was that it becomes less strategic on its own strategy/mechanics continuum. Why exactly not. It may not make it a better game, but it does make it a better esport. It simultaneously increases the interest of spectator games, and provides a more uniform learning curve, instead of a depreciating one. The fact that there is more to learn doesn't follow from a mechanics-biased focus of a game. How much there is to learn in a game is a feature independent of the strategy/mechanics focus. | ||
|
ShaperofDreams
Canada2492 Posts
yes arguments are either right or wrong, are you 13? | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
The fact that there is more to learn doesn't follow from a mechanics-biased focus of a game. How much there is to learn in a game is a feature independent of the strategy/mechanics focus. That isn't how a sport, "e" or not works. How much strategic would their be if Football was a deterministic turn based game where ever play worked out the same? What if Basketball was a top down turn based strategy game? A games strategic development is considered as it happens in relation to an esport, not within some vague, hypothetical spectrum. Mechanics is also part of strategy. Time is a resource, and it is a strategy to know how to use it. You cannot isolate these components individually and say "IF WE REMOVE EVERYTHING FROM THE GAME EXCEPT FACTOR X IT REALLY ISNT A VERY GOOD ESPORT". Well no shit. | ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On August 05 2010 11:19 ShaperofDreams wrote: you are so thick. do you know what sources are? the entire site of tl with all of its casters, its pros, its professional matches in both sc1 and sc2 are a big source against you, while you are nothing, and you have nothing, except your own words, which have no weight. yes arguments are either right or wrong, are you 13? You're starting to froth at the mouth, dude. Not everyone agrees with you that all of your "sources" are in your favor. It might come as a shock to you, but thats life. That isn't how a sport, "e" or not works. How much strategic would their be if Football was a deterministic turn based game where ever play worked out the same? What if Basketball was a top down turn based strategy game? I'm not entirely sure where determinism enters into this. Football is certainly a game where mechanics is extremely important, at the demonstrable expense of strategy. Basketball is likewise. If you're saying a good sport is one which commands maximum viewership, then I might be inclined to agree with you, as feats of mechanical skill are more interesting to more people than feats of strategic skill. But that definition of a "good sport" isn't itself any more than an opinion. | ||
ArvickHero
10387 Posts
Just because there's MBS and Automine doesn't mean that it opens up even more strategic potential for SC2, it's still limited by the human limit, which is multitasking. SC2 is no more strategic than BW is. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
I'm not entirely sure where determinism enters into this. Football is certainly a game where mechanics is extremely important, at the demonstrable expense of strategy. Basketball is likewise. If you're saying a good sport is one which commands maximum viewership, then I might be inclined to agree with you, as feats of mechanical skill are more interesting to more people than feats of strategic skill. But that definition of a "good sport" isn't itself any more than an opinion. Certainly not. Either or or. But as we've previously established, SC2 doesn't possess and deeper of a strategy. The strategy is simply more accessible. Meaning it will emerge quicker, but be depleted quicker as well. SC2 does not have an inferior strategic component at a competitive level then does BW. In fact, in many aspects, it requires more. Once you factor an equal amount of strategy+Differing amounts of mechanica skill+Differing entertainment of viewership, its incredibly clear which game comes on top. I've seen vastly far more BW games where a players strategy the deciding factor then SC2 games (no, and not just because I've seen more BW games). Go find me a SINGLE SC2 game where a player preforms an amazing strategy that demonstrates amazing strategic skill. You'll find that it is just as rare as BW. | ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On August 05 2010 11:25 ArvickHero wrote: Kzn, I'm not sure if you understand this at all, but SC2 has the exact same strategic potential and limitations as BW has. Mechanics might be a limiting factor, yes, but there are Progamers that only play w/ 230-300 APM and can still execute every strategy in the book. No, there aren't. There are strategies in "the book" that cannot be executed by a single human player on the planet. They might be shitty, for all we know, because we've never seen them, but they exist. You say the strategies are limited by the mechanics.. but really those Strategies aren't limited by mechanics, but by MULTITASK. If you sucked at multitasking at BW, then you aren't going to be much better at it in SC2. Multitasking is part of your mechanics. Its not a strategic skill. | ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On August 05 2010 11:27 Half wrote: But as we've previously established, SC2 doesn't possess and deeper of a strategy. The strategy is simply more accessible. Meaning it will emerge quicker, but be depleted quicker as well. When did we establish this? O_o | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
That was my original response to you, to which you replied "THAT WAS MY POINT HURF DURF". Multitasking is part of your mechanics. Its not a strategic skill. This is once again, objectively wrong, or semantics. You may be given a choice between two options. You can only preform one. Which do you pick? That is strategy. | ||
|
ArvickHero
10387 Posts
On August 05 2010 11:28 kzn wrote: No, there aren't. There are strategies in "the book" that cannot be executed by a single human player on the planet. They might be shitty, for all we know, because we've never seen them, but they exist. Multitasking is part of your mechanics. Its not a strategic skill. Same goes for SC2. Strategies in BW are limited by multitask, which is also the case in SC2. Both have the same strategic potential and limits, which is only limited by multi-task. BTW I didn't say multitasking was a strategic skill, you have poor reading skills. | ||
|
huameng
United States1133 Posts
On August 05 2010 11:19 ShaperofDreams wrote: yes arguments are either right or wrong, are you 13? The point is that they are right or wrong regardless of who is saying them, so what does his skill level matter? On August 05 2010 11:19 Half wrote: Mechanics is also part of strategy. Time is a resource, and it is a strategy to know how to use it. I think this is the biggest reason why lowering the mechanical requirement actually hurts strategy, finding the best way to use your time becomes less important the lower the mechanics needed. | ||
|
ShaperofDreams
Canada2492 Posts
On August 05 2010 11:28 kzn wrote: No, there aren't. There are strategies in "the book" that cannot be executed by a single human player on the planet. They might be shitty, for all we know, because we've never seen them, but they exist. Multitasking is part of your mechanics. Its not a strategic skill. any strategies that are in the book but not realistically usable are just bad strategies, and they will exist in sc2 equally, because the human mind will always think beyond human capability. reaver corsair is a bad strategy for a 50 apm player in bw. to play sc2 at a top level (assuming it gets competitive) you will need the same amount of apm\multitasking, which is the max amount that it is possible to have. having more than 450 apm consistently is not possible without some phenomenon, and its not like there aren't hundreds trying for 12 hours a day. | ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On August 05 2010 11:31 Half wrote: That was my original response to you, to which you replied "THAT WAS MY POINT HURF DURF".[ No, it wasn't. Your original response to me only established that mechanical requirements eliminate certain strategies from the total pool of possible strategies. This does not mean that all strategies will be depleted quicker, and it certainly doesn't mean it will happen quicker in SC2 than SCBW - if anything, it means the opposite. This is once again, objectively wrong, or semantics. You may be given a choice between two options. You can only preform one. Which do you pick? That is strategy. You are talking about the decisionmaking portion of Multitasking. This is not what I am talking about. If you have 1200apm, you can produce units (let us say this costs 100apm) and do 1100apm of other stuff as well. If you have 400apm, you can only do 300apm of other stuff. Multitasking involves the making of decisions, which is a strategic skill, but it also involves executing as many decisions as possible, which is a mechanical skill. | ||
|
KumquatExpress
United States344 Posts
Fact is, no one has 1200 apm, every one of them being used for something different and useful. If you have 400 apm, good for you. You can always use that 400 apm more cleanly, or raise that 400 apm in order to have better execution and multitasking. Also, since you said Multitasking involves the making of decisions, which is a strategic skill, but it also involves executing as many decisions as possible, which is a mechanical skill. doesn't that equate multitasking with decisions and execution thereof?Thus, more APM = more multitasking = more decisions = more strategy which I think refutes your original strategy/mechanics continuum idea. | ||
|
Mr.Eternity
United States143 Posts
Most of these posts are saying the exact same thing over and over | ||
| ||
Maestros of the Game
Playoffs - Round of 8
ShoWTimE vs herOLIVE!
TBD vs Serral
TBD vs Zoun
[ Submit Event ] |
|
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games tarik_tv27575 gofns20409 Mlord591 FrodaN590 Hui .346 mouzStarbuck220 KnowMe206 Khaldor178 ToD126 ArmadaUGS108 Trikslyr48 SortOf43 NeuroSwarm37 B2W.Neo17 fpsfer  1 |
|
BSL Team Wars
Afreeca Starleague
Snow vs Sharp
Jaedong vs Mini
Wardi Open
OSC
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Afreeca Starleague
Light vs Speed
Larva vs Soma
PiGosaur Monday
LiuLi Cup
RSL Revival
Maru vs Reynor
Cure vs TriGGeR
The PondCast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
