EPT[Spoilers] Is SC2 too volatile ? - Page 14
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
adeezy
United States1428 Posts
| ||
|
infinity2k9
United Kingdom2397 Posts
Edit: Also marine split against banelings is basically the only example repeated over and over, but even that is less dimensional than mnm vs lurker which it replaced. | ||
|
Sovern
United States312 Posts
On March 17 2011 07:54 Elefanto wrote: God damnit, did you read the post above yours? Posts like this make me rip my hair. First off it's STARCRAFT, not chess. Second, mechanics are not only the things your talking about. Read the thread man, the point is many units are so fucking effective with simply a-click. If your build directly counters your opponent, you can just a-click and win, even if the opponent has better control. It helps nothing. The best example is the Colossus. EVERYONE can use it to fullest potential, while it does ridiculous amount of damage. Theres no realy position required, no micro, nothing. That's were most people want to start, not removing mbs or automining. If my build directly counters my opponents build I'd sure as hell hope that I'd win. Him having better "mechanics" shouldn't give him the win because this is a strategy game, not a mechanics game..... If my opponent blindly follows build orders and fails to scout my build and adapt he deserves to lose. All of the things that I mentioned that SC1 had (no auto mining/no smart casting) are mechanics.....As for this whole idea that scouting is a huge problem early game, that can be remedied by playing aggressive. If your opponent is trying to cheese you, by playing aggressive you can spot his unit composition and possible see his in base structures to see what his build will consist of. | ||
|
Nemireck
Canada1875 Posts
On March 17 2011 08:00 infinity2k9 wrote: The video is very much to do with mechanics, how can you say its not? Controlling units is part of the mechanics. The units in SC2 are simpler to control thereby making the mechanics easier. However i believe there's no need at all to make it simpler in that respect considering how many other parts of the game are easier. Having complex unit compositions viable with many possibilities for control and more skill based abilities available would make me much happier with the game regardless of what else is easier. Edit: Also marine split against banelings is basically the only example repeated over and over, but even that is less dimensional than mnm vs lurker which it replaced. The mechanics are exactly the same. You right-click to move, you a-click to attack. Nothing to do with the mechanics have changed at all. What HAS changed is that units now clump into tight, little balls, and are less prone to go wandering across the map or in random zig-zag patterns because of broken pathing code. That's not mechanics either, that's just a pathing fix wreaking havoc on the behaviours of the units, which is essentially a design change. Sure, some units have different abilities than the ones we saw in BW, but again, that's unit design. The fact that units clump together so tightly, and the fact that SC2 plays at a higher speed than BW makes it much more difficult to perform a lot of the cool micro tricks that are so prevalent in BW, and rewards the use of lazy units with splash damage like collosus, tanks, and banelings. But the mechanics themselves are exactly the same. If splash damage had less radius, and/or there was a little bit more breathing-room between the units, then we'd be watching a game that's much more similar to BW. | ||
|
whatthefat
United States918 Posts
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=78677¤tpage=4#63 | ||
|
infinity2k9
United Kingdom2397 Posts
On March 17 2011 08:05 Sovern wrote: If my build directly counters my opponents build I'd sure as hell hope that I'd win. Him having better "mechanics" shouldn't give him the win because this is a strategy game, not a mechanics game..... If my opponent blindly follows build orders and fails to scout my build and adapt he deserves to lose. NO. You shouldn't win if you're inferior in skill. Go play rock paper scissors or a turn based game. Hot_Bid's posts on the matter are important. The idea that someone should win purely on a strategy they pick is ridiculous, especially when they probably learnt it from a progame or found on the forums, or even generated it on a program these days ffs. Whats the skill in using a strategy someone else made? | ||
|
Iamyournoob
Germany595 Posts
[/QUOTE] If my build directly counters my opponents build I'd sure as hell hope that I'd win. Him having better "mechanics" shouldn't give him the win because this is a strategy game, not a mechanics game..... If my opponent blindly follows build orders and fails to scout my build and adapt he deserves to lose. [/QUOTE] Okay, today I played a game where I proxy-void-rayed a Terran who tried to expand quite early. I chased of his SCV, he tried to scout the front, I denied the scout again. Then he scanned and saw nothing because I had my gateways spread out. He only knew that I wasn't expanding. I rolled over him. Why? Because my strategy was so good? Because I am such a smart player who outthought his opponent and thus won? Or because I just did a cheesy, stupid all-in because I felt like I should try it? Seriously, having the better strategy and such things are fine. But no one wants coinflip situations like this. | ||
|
Dalavita
Sweden1113 Posts
On March 17 2011 08:24 Iamyournoob wrote: Okay, today I played a game where I proxy-void-rayed a Terran who tried to expand quite early. I chased of his SCV, he tried to scout the front, I denied the scout again. Then he scanned and saw nothing because I had my gateways spread out. He only knew that I wasn't expanding. I rolled over him. Why? Because my strategy was so good? Because I am such a smart player who outthought his opponent and thus won? Or because I just did a cheesy, stupid all-in because I felt like I should try it? Seriously, having the better strategy and such things are fine. But no one wants coinflip situations like this. Terrans who don't account for proxy void rays against protoss got nothing to complain about when they lose. | ||
|
marcesr
Germany1383 Posts
SC2 is too volatile to become comparable to traditional sports. But excatly the same goes for BW and any other esports game. | ||
|
Buddhist
United States658 Posts
On March 17 2011 06:43 Callous wrote: Yeah fans in other sports may do that, but not when they're talking face to face with the player, that would be silly. Also, I think his main point as that he was acting condescending towards Idra, which is true, and he shouldn't really be acting like that. Anyway, I think if they fixed the game and made it more skill based the volatility of it would for sure go down. I still see people like Boxer, who admittedly isn't that great now, still make quite a few mistakes in terms of mechanics. The skill ceiling for SC2 is still not near peaking in my eyes. Until we can see the positive effects of taking all of those demanding actions out from BW (mbs etc), the ceiling will still be quite high, and so far that level of play hasn't really shone through. ? The point is that the one guy is a fucking retard for making completely inane/irrelevant arguments. Skipdog was making an argument about the topic at hand (the topic of the OP). The guy quoting him was like "HERF DERF, IF YOU'RE SO GOOD, WHY AREN'T YOU IN GSL!? LOLOLOL" | ||
|
Innovation
United States284 Posts
The mechanics are exactly the same. You right-click to move, you a-click to attack. Nothing to do with the mechanics have changed at all. What HAS changed is that units now clump into tight, little balls, and are less prone to go wandering across the map or in random zig-zag patterns because of broken pathing code. That's not mechanics either, that's just a pathing fix wreaking havoc on the behaviours of the units, which is essentially a design change. Sure, some units have different abilities than the ones we saw in BW, but again, that's unit design. The fact that units clump together so tightly, and the fact that SC2 plays at a higher speed than BW makes it much more difficult to perform a lot of the cool micro tricks that are so prevalent in BW, and rewards the use of lazy units with splash damage like collosus, tanks, and banelings. But the mechanics themselves are exactly the same. If splash damage had less radius, and/or there was a little bit more breathing-room between the units, then we'd be watching a game that's much more similar to BW. Pretty sure you either have never played BW or are just trolling. There have been significant changes to base management/unit control mechanics from BW to SC2 that have been debated for well over a year. | ||
|
Sovern
United States312 Posts
On March 17 2011 08:24 Iamyournoob wrote: If my build directly counters my opponents build I'd sure as hell hope that I'd win. Him having better "mechanics" shouldn't give him the win because this is a strategy game, not a mechanics game..... If my opponent blindly follows build orders and fails to scout my build and adapt he deserves to lose. [/QUOTE] Okay, today I played a game where I proxy-void-rayed a Terran who tried to expand quite early. I chased of his SCV, he tried to scout the front, I denied the scout again. Then he scanned and saw nothing because I had my gateways spread out. He only knew that I wasn't expanding. I rolled over him. Why? Because my strategy was so good? Because I am such a smart player who outthought his opponent and thus won? Or because I just did a cheesy, stupid all-in because I felt like I should try it? Seriously, having the better strategy and such things are fine. But no one wants coinflip situations like this. [/QUOTE] He deserved to lose, like the previous poster said if he didn't account for proxy buildings from protoss than he deserved the loss. This is why playing standard is so important. If the terran played standard and played aggressive he could of poked at your front door with units that you wouldn't be able to hold off since you went for void ray cheese and he would of been able to get out a bunker and ebay fast enough to deal with it. Early game aggression is vital to getting good intel. It's the reason why most of the top terran players open tvt with 5 marine 1 hellion pokes, tvp a lot of the top terran players open with 2 rax pressure or a fast reaper to get that crictical intel, tvz 2 rax or hellion pressure will get you the intel. This is all coming from a terrans perspective of course but it applies to the other races too. To be able to get good intel early game you have to be aggressive, bottom line. On March 17 2011 08:18 infinity2k9 wrote: NO. You shouldn't win if you're inferior in skill. Go play rock paper scissors or a turn based game. Hot_Bid's posts on the matter are important. The idea that someone should win purely on a strategy they pick is ridiculous, especially when they probably learnt it from a progame or found on the forums, or even generated it on a program these days ffs. Whats the skill in using a strategy someone else made? What level do you play at? I'm curious because mainly at the lower levels do strict build orders account for wins. At the higher levels of play most of the time players win off of decision making, strong fundamentals, good scouting, macro/micro, and adapting their build to their opponents build. Only terrible players just blindly follow a strategy and don't adapt to their opponents strategy. The best players play standard and they all adapt. If Jinro opens 2 rax expand against a protoss and scouts a fast twilight council with a low number of sentry's at his front do you think that hes just going to blindly ignore the great possibility that his opponent is going 1 base dts? Or is he going to just keep following his original strategy of getting MnM's and medivacs? Of course hes going to adapt, get detection and ebay upgrades while getting a raven......only bad players lose to a straight up strategy. | ||
|
XsebT
Denmark2980 Posts
On March 17 2011 08:15 whatthefat wrote: Regarding "mechanics vs. strategy", this pretty much covers it: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=78677¤tpage=4#63 hotbid is so ahead of his time.  I hadn't read those post before, thanks a lot for linking to them! | ||
|
GriMeR
United States148 Posts
| ||
|
Buddhist
United States658 Posts
On March 17 2011 08:15 whatthefat wrote: Regarding "mechanics vs. strategy", this pretty much covers it: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=78677¤tpage=4#63 The interesting thing, though, is this: Has anyone actually hit their own cap in physical ability (the physical ability applied to gaming)? For example, say my maximum apm right now is 50. Say I train for 5 years to get my APM higher, and I get it all the way to 300. What if I train for another 5 years? Maybe I could get it up to 400. The thing is, at some point, I'm not going to need to use all of that APM in a real game of SC2 (or BW for that matter). I just can't imagine a normal human, without physical or mental disabilities, who is unable to achieve 500 burst APM. 500 APM is more than enough for any game of SC. I'm willing to bet that you could take any human without disabilities and train them to hit the physical skill cap of SC2. In fact the idea of being unable to do that seems ridiculous. The only problem is, most people don't have the time, effort, or motivation to put into doing that. Not even I do yet, as hard as I try to convince myself, and it kind of sucks. So a human may be born with factors he can't change (like height, and physical limits in speed), but I think each person's physical limits are far higher than the highest you'd ever want/need for SC2. Soooo I guess all I'm saying is that Idra's post is completely correct, though I didn't intend to do so. Edit: And obviously what hot bid was saying is true. I think any intelligent person has understood the fact since SC1 beta: Strategy doesn't come into play unless you can execute it, and that requires mechanics. I'm only arguing that any human without disabilities can handle the highest level of mechanics, given enough effort to learn it. | ||
|
OhYess
Canada41 Posts
| ||
|
silencesc
United States464 Posts
| ||
|
Angra
United States2652 Posts
| ||
|
Rashid
191 Posts
On March 17 2011 08:15 whatthefat wrote: Regarding "mechanics vs. strategy", this pretty much covers it: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=78677¤tpage=4#63 I don't care if a TL mod wrote that, the article is flawed. He speaks that basketball teams who have better physical advantage, such as height, speed, faster reaction, would trump over another basketball team who have lesser of those characteristics. This is simply not true; a team that is not well co-ordinated or doesn't have any smart plays will have a terrible disadvantage against another team that does. I do not know anything about basketball, but in football, the Brazilian football team has among the most talented players in world who are known to lean more on their feet and less on their head, yet they keep losing to lesser skilled teams simply because they get outplayed by smarter, more co-ordinated football teams And seriously, people don't like mechanics > strategy is not because of some deep seeded ego that we all can be the best. People don't like it simply because in a real-time strategy game, most people would rather focus on the STRATEGY part more than the real-time. Why does the focus have to be on REAL-TIME? Why can't a game's victor be decided more on outplaying your opponent using strategy, wits, and deception, instead of who can manage 5 buildings each in separate hotkeys or who can cast lockdown the fastest by selecting 3 ghosts individually. 99% of people who bought and play Starcraft 2 didn't play it because they think they can be the best in the world. They bought it because it's the sequel to one of the best RTS games ever made, the game that they played when they were kids, and hoping to have tons of fun with the game with out having any old-skool elitism get in the way. | ||
|
Trang
Australia324 Posts
If there was a Proleague in SC2, then it wouldn't seem so bad if somebody like MVP got knocked out of a tourney early, because he would still be playing in next weeks' matches, and therefore be given a chance to continue to show his dominance. | ||
| ||
