|
On December 22 2010 20:30 RaptureLights wrote:
As for the luck factor? Well, that is something to be desired. You could get lucky your opponent forgets about the doom drop they had waiting. You could get lucky they missed a cycle. They could even forget to build that depo, pylon, ovie. There are chance factors of luck in the game as well.
That would be neither luck nor any randomness, it's just pure skill or lack of skill. If i forget to inject larva it's because my skill is too low, not because i had bad luck or you had too much luck.
Well, the only luck factor would be if one of my cats jumps in front of the monitor and i accidently rightclick into your army, but that is no factor of the gameplay.
SC2 has no randomness and no luck to it. If it had either then playing the same game with every click exactly at the same time and same position the outcome would be different. Yes, people say that someone "got lucky" because his dropshipped slipped past detection, but it's actually bad play of his opponent because his detection wasn't good enough.
|
I'm going to say Chess. When people lost in the GSL, it wasn't because of "random luck-based scouting factors", it was because of mistakes that they made. People aren't losing after making "all the correct decisions" like they do in poker.
|
no one attacks in starcraft knowing it has a 60% chance to succeed. In poker, you go all-in heads up on 60-40 odds. starcraft is like chess with fog of war.
|
it's like playing Chess blind-folded. I don't think it's like poker at all.
|
The similarities between SC2 and poker are mainly psychologically related. Sure there are elements of imperfect information, information control, and gambling in SC2, but mechanically it's very different. There aren't well defined odds and you can't really control how much you "bet" in SC2.
Aside from the information aspect of the game though, it's closer to a combination of chess and go than just chess. Unlike chess, and like go, you pretty much start the game with a clean board. The units are like pieces in chess. They are mobile and behave very differently. Buildings are like pieces in go. They can be used for territory control and are placed (constructed) by the player and captured (destroyed) by the opponent.
This isn't a perfect analogy but it's closer than comparing SC2 to just chess and poker.
|
On December 22 2010 18:27 LaLLsc2 wrote:Show nested quote +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
exactly. i'd also like to point out that observers are being made cheaper in the next patch, though it (the patch) is not out yet so that might be changed.
|
On December 22 2010 23:29 Morfildur wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 20:30 RaptureLights wrote:
As for the luck factor? Well, that is something to be desired. You could get lucky your opponent forgets about the doom drop they had waiting. You could get lucky they missed a cycle. They could even forget to build that depo, pylon, ovie. There are chance factors of luck in the game as well.
That would be neither luck nor any randomness, it's just pure skill or lack of skill. If i forget to inject larva it's because my skill is too low, not because i had bad luck or you had too much luck. Well, the only luck factor would be if one of my cats jumps in front of the monitor and i accidently rightclick into your army, but that is no factor of the gameplay. SC2 has no randomness and no luck to it. If it had either then playing the same game with every click exactly at the same time and same position the outcome would be different. Yes, people say that someone "got lucky" because his dropshipped slipped past detection, but it's actually bad play of his opponent because his detection wasn't good enough.
Incorrect. Spawning positions on 4-player maps involves luck. Sending your first worker scout in the right direction and scout at the right timing could also be considered "luck"
|
On another note, the psychological and information aspect of SC2 is probably closer to other card games, like magic, than poker.
In magic for example, your deck differs from your opponent's deck and there isn't really anything to wager. Also, land is both the resource and the resource gather units. This is much closer to the economy mechanic in SC2 than chips in poker.
|
To contribute to the OP...
I don't see this game like poker in any way. In poker you make bets on what you have and what you think the opponent has. This is not Starcraft.
I do see it more like Chess in that it involves a shit ton of strategy and critical thinking.
But really, it's not like Chess, either. More like a mix of chess and soccer (football for Europeans). It requires quick thinking and split-second decision making as well as perspiration and even physical strength to endure a 50 minute game. Which kindof brings up a new topic about how physical Starcraft is... Whenever I'm done with a game, I'm sweating bullets and my adrenaline is oozing, but I don't want to get off topic.
|
more comparable to chess, as you get random cards in poker and have to do something with it. In sc2 you get the units you want, just like in chess. Also you need to prepare to bring out your big units, just like in Chess. (though to add more strategie you have the base system added).
Chess is also about Mind games, may it be that you fake the shaky hands so the opponent things you are nervous, or that you make a bad looking move that gives you an advantage later on. So a pokerface would also be important in chess.
Guess the biggest problem on this question is that pokar and chess are quiet similar to each other.
But since i like chess more its chess.
|
Limited information and deception is what makes it like poker. Everything else feels like chess to me. Neither of those two games account for the army-economy building and balance that Starcraft require.
|
I don't think SCII should be compared to chess or poker...
It's a completely different game.
|
being a professional poker player I can tell you neither SC2 or Chess has made me cry or brought me to my highest highs or lowest lows, poker has. Poker is its own world, you cant compare to games that dont have swings like it. Maybe if the GSL was a 10k buying tourney then we could see some emotion.
|
It's like Poker, except if you're terran, you can scan.
But in all seriousness, it's not like either of them. In Chess, you know what your opponent is doing at all times, and it's up to you to understand what he's planning and counter it while he counters you. It's a game of foresight without deception. In Poker, you don't know what your opponent has. You only know what you have, and you make your decisions based only on your knowledge of probability. There's no countering and reacting to your opponent.
SC2 is like SC2. It's its own genre.
|
It has similar thematic elements to Chess positioning, tempo, development ect. It also has common themes with Poker's randomness, but thats largely the lack of early scouting and the huge variety of builds flying about at the moment, in 4 years time that will be alot less variety.
Alot of people seem to be missing the point of this thread. The point isn't to say something like "There are knights in Chess that are good early game, and SC2 has stalkers that are good early and they kind of look like Knights". The point is to say what strategic elements the games have in common.
In chess the better player almost always wins, in Starcraft it definitly isn't that way at the moment. Chess is a good model for what elements an RTS should deliver, poker certainly is not. I don't think Starcraft 2 is too much like either at the moment, but it should definitly work towards maintaing the core strategic concepts in chess, not the odds manipulation of poker, and hoping you get lucky a few games in a row.
Example of someone who plays SC2 like it's Chess; Gretorp, Jinro, Idra, MC
Example of people who play it like it's poker: Most Koreans in GSL R64
|
On December 23 2010 00:11 CherubDown wrote:
To contribute to the OP...
I don't see this game like poker in any way. In poker you make bets on what you have and what you think the opponent has. This is not Starcraft.
I do see it more like Chess in that it involves a shit ton of strategy and critical thinking.
But really, it's not like Chess, either. More like a mix of chess and soccer (football for Europeans). It requires quick thinking and split-second decision making as well as perspiration and even physical strength to endure a 50 minute game. Which kindof brings up a new topic about how physical Starcraft is... Whenever I'm done with a game, I'm sweating bullets and my adrenaline is oozing, but I don't want to get off topic.
In Sc2 you bet all the time. Every single investment is a bet based on your limited information. Every time you build a marauder you have an EV for that unit. Same goes for workers, building, teching, attacking, bunkers etc. etc. Whatever you put your money in you expect it to be worth more than the investment for you to eventually win the game.
Poker is basicly risk taking based on limited information. Same as Sc2.
|
|
|
Neither, its better than both ^^
|
I don't think that sc2 is a "bet" game.
On the highest level, I think macro/micro/strategy/experience will win against unexpected lucky coinflips.
Like in poker, players have to calculate the risks they are taking, but this is (i.m.o.) closer to chess than to poker, because it rather depends on "solid-sc2-skills" like experience, strategies, bo's, micro/macro than on "bluffing".
What I think is the biggest difference to both chess and poker is the lack of informations. You DO know what KK or Ace 10 is approximately worth. You do see what there is on the table (or on the board) but in sc2, you got to get those informations.
Are 40 Colossi good? - Well it depends!
|
both really
the game is a lot about exploiting the opponents mistakes really
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
