EPTfor example, between 2 armies, one might have a 60% to win. this is dependent on how well the players micro their units and where the battle is fought. this is the same thing in poker
Is Starcraft more like chess or poker? - Page 6
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
kthnx
20 Posts
for example, between 2 armies, one might have a 60% to win. this is dependent on how well the players micro their units and where the battle is fought. this is the same thing in poker | ||
|
Playguuu
United States926 Posts
On December 23 2010 04:13 out4blood wrote: Chess is a perfect information game. Poker is a game of hidden information. Starcraft is more like Poker than Chess. How many famous professional Starcraft players go on to Chess careers, and how many go on to Poker careers? There's a lot more money in poker, not necessarily because they are similar, so that's probably not an accurate assumption. Seems to me the only factor a lot of people are considering is how much information you have. So how much do you scout? | ||
|
Layden
United States45 Posts
Both are games of mental dexterity, however there is much more mental work in Poker then there is in starcraft (much more math). Starcraft requires you to make many quick, simple decisions while poker's decisions are much more complex and often as frequent. If you are multi-tabling poker then it's not even close that poker is more complex. Success in poker is measured differently than it is in Starcraft. A sucessful starcraft player is usually measured by the level of opponents that he plays and the level he plays at; meaning the higher skilled more successful players are always playing eachother. In poker that is not necessary true. You can be a winning poker player by playing low-limits, managing your risk, and capitalizing on weaker opponents and be successful by pure volume. There are respected poker plaers who never come close to the stakes played on TV or in the high limit rooms in Las Vegas. Counter to this, a Gold level player is not going to be financially successful in Starcraft, nor will he be seen in the community as successful for being "#1 Gold SC2 player on the NA server." There are numerous reasons I could get into about the differences, but the reason I think that ElkY and Rekrul are successful at poker is the same reason a lot of Msgic: The Gathering kids were very successful in poker in the past 7-8 years: Both activities are inheriently competitive, both require strong mental dexterity and physical dexterity (try 12 tabling for 10-12 hours a day, it'd be similar to 12 hour mass-laddering/practice sessions), both require a strong understanding of risk/reward, and both reward those who consistently make the better decisions. | ||
|
TedJustice
Canada1324 Posts
I like to use the term "choker". Mind you, I'm sure SC2 is going to change a lot when the two expansions are out, and things like all-in's being so strong will probably be fixed. | ||
bkrow
Australia8532 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + /sarcasm .. no likey thread | ||
|
windsupernova
Mexico5280 Posts
| ||
|
MonsieurGrimm
Canada2441 Posts
On December 23 2010 08:14 bkrow wrote: I think it is more like monopoly.. drive around in a little car wearing a top hat trying to get as much property as you can.. totally.. + Show Spoiler + /sarcasm .. no likey thread Actually I think its most like farmville than anything else. | ||
|
Tomken
Norway1144 Posts
| ||
|
Ownos
United States2147 Posts
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. Hit the nail right on the head. But you can prevent most build-order coinflips by playing more safe. Basically, if you go a Protoss, anything that doesn't involve fast obs or hallucination is subject to coinflip-age. Zerg and Terran have no excuse for being surprised. Despite this you see some very high level players deciding to go blind on their build orders. Very painful to watch NSPGenius go fast blink stalkers and get trumped by fast cloaked banshees. | ||
|
HisDudeness
United States17 Posts
| ||
|
SubtleArt
2710 Posts
| ||
|
megagoten
318 Posts
i also want to say poker, but the biggest difference imo is that poker gives you hands, and in starcraft and chess, you make your own hand. starcraft is easier compared to chess because not everyone understands poker. | ||
|
Triscuit
United States722 Posts
On December 22 2010 19:46 ejozl wrote: The actual game is chess, but the mental game is poker. Lets meet in the middle and say it's like Stratego : P I was about to say the same damn thing! | ||
|
LegendaryZ
United States1583 Posts
| ||
|
Pazuzzu
Sweden19 Posts
In poker, there is the psychological factor, the way you want to put pressure on your opponent is key in both game, it is also important to have a fair idea what your opponent does and while you want to hide your own strategy can be recognized from both games. But it is still only loose parallels, to be a good poker player does not make you a capable SC2 players, or vice versa. | ||
|
GoldenH
1115 Posts
SC2 doesn't let you choose between macro/micro, macro is always more important. In chess, every unit counts, in poker, you aren't concerned about individual hands, only your budget. SC2 has no concept of tempo, it is almost impossible to keep it, and if you have it, it is because you have a material advantage. SC1 was very heavy on keeping tempo, like chess. Tempo is easily translated into positional advantage which is absent from SC2. SC2 depends a lot on scouting, and if you can't scout, you're always have a higher win % if you guess what he could be doing instead of accounting for all possibilities. That's more like poker. SC2 has a lot more hard counters (hands beat other hands, instead of like in chess, where you have the same pieces but the position matters much more). and the most important: In chess, you can pretty much open whatever piece you want, but in SC2 and Poker, there is always a 'right' move to make. In pretty much every case I think SC would be better more like chess than poker. | ||
|
bonedriven
258 Posts
On December 23 2010 02:01 Zeroes wrote: chess is sorta like poker at a very high level Some truth in it. | ||
| ||
