|
I've seen it compared to both. Like chess starcraft is all about strategy, positioning, and predicting your opponents moves. Like poker starcraft has elements of chance, bluff, and hidden information.
So which do you think its more like?
Sluggaslamoo made some good points about SC v SC2
On December 22 2010 18:10 sluggaslamoo wrote:
BW: Heavily influenced by making the most of your units: Chess
Factors:
Easier to defend against cheese and all-ins. Defense is more often than not more powerful than offense.
Worker scouting against Z, worker glitching, map-hack scans, spider-mines, lurkers, tanks. Like chess, you have a lot more information to work with. It then comes down to what you want to do with your units. Going one gate reaver, and losing your shuttle to a turret is the equivalent of losing your queen in the first few moves.
Unit micro can change outcome of the whole game, reavers, dragoons vs tank/mines, wraiths, mutalisk, scourge cloning.
Macro can make up for wrong unit compositions. Hard counters also don't counter as hard.
SC2: Heavily influenced by making the most of limited information: Poker
Factors:
Offense is more often than not more powerful than defense.
Much easier to hide information due to Z being able to kill worker scouts with slow-lings, scans cost money, observers are more expensive and contends with building other necessary units like colossi/immortal.
mules/queens/chrono makes all-ins more powerful.
Early very powerful hard-counters means build-order losses occur much more frequently, couple this with very limited information, many games can feel like a coin-flip.
|
ideally, chess. realistically, poker.
|
it should be like chess, but it is more like poker.
|
I heard it was just a game, like love.
|
It's neither.
Stop trying to make a comparison.
|
Neither. It's its own game.
Also, please put more effort into your threads in the future, this is just sad.
Edit: Much better ^_^
|
its a question, im not trying to write a book or anything. i just wanted to know whether most people thought it was more like chess or poker.
i know it's its own game and not one the same as either of the others(kinda obvious). i was just wondering which is was CLOSER to
|
BW: Heavily influenced by making the most of your units: Chess
Factors:
Easier to defend against cheese and all-ins. Defense is more often than not more powerful than offense.
Worker scouting against Z, worker glitching, map-hack scans, spider-mines, lurkers, tanks. Like chess, you have a lot more information to work with. It then comes down to what you want to do with your units. Going one gate reaver, and losing your shuttle to a turret is the equivalent of losing your queen in the first few moves.
Unit micro can change outcome of the whole game, reavers, dragoons vs tank/mines, wraiths, mutalisk, scourge cloning.
Macro can make up for wrong unit compositions. Hard counters also don't counter as hard.
SC2: Heavily influenced by making the most of limited information: Poker
Factors:
Offense is more often than not more powerful than defense.
Much easier to hide information due to Z being able to kill worker scouts with slow-lings, scans cost money, observers are more expensive and contends with building other necessary units like colossi/immortal.
mules/queens/chrono makes all-ins more powerful.
Early very powerful hard-counters means build-order losses occur much more frequently, couple this with very limited information, many games can feel like a coin-flip.
|
you make good points sluggaslamoo. thanks for your input
ive especially noticed the ease of denying scouts for all races and the increased strength of all ins from the macro mechanics
|
You can't fuck up a single move chess but in sc2 you can.
You can't never be 100% sure what kind of hand your opponent has in poker but if you scout an fe in sc2 it is an fe then.
It doesn't matter how fast or precise you are in chess or poker (ok <5min games in chess maybe kinda)
Even rally driving requires you to think ahead and have good reactions.
So imo it's neither. It's RTS at it's finest.
|
Stupid thread, there's a million similar ones, and not to mention everybody is just going to say neither -.-
|
|
|
Kimaker United States. December 22 2010 18:08.
Neither. It's its own game.
Also, please put more effort into your threads in the future, this is just sad.
These kinds of posts are either a failure of imagination or sheer intellectual laziness. For one, why the need to classify something as one or the other. Life is so big that one thing is definitely bound to be similar to another completely disparate thing.
The OP doesn't even bother to contribute anything where discussion could take off. It just makes vague generalizations and proceeds to go forum shopping. Shame.
|
To me, SC is more like stock trading.
But that's just me.
|
On December 22 2010 18:03 arterian wrote:
It's neither.
Stop trying to make a comparison.
Neither? Id say is poker and chess had a baby its name wound be starcraft II
|
It's more of a coin toss.
|
its like a really complex real time version of chess, i guess.
|
It depends on which starcraft you're referring to really, just as slug outlined. What else is there to discuss?
|
On December 22 2010 18:14 grinTOR wrote:
Stupid thread, there's a million similar ones, and not to mention everybody is just going to say neither -.-
yea there have been a lot of threads on this already. however, he does ask which of the two is sc the most similar to. this is not answerable with yes or no. everyone saying "neither" is pretty much going offtopic by idiotically interpreting the question as a yes/no question.
|
On December 22 2010 18:31 xtfftc wrote:
It's more of a coin toss.
no its more of a coin zerg LOLOLOLOLOL
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
