EPTThe Rhino in the Room - Page 28
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Wr3k
Canada2533 Posts
| ||
|
Elefanto
Switzerland3584 Posts
On July 14 2011 23:47 IGotPlayguuu wrote: Seriously, do you think SC2 has more strategies than BW? I'm not saying BW strategy>SC2 strategy, but SC2>BW strategically is just retarded... I want some proof to actually see that SC2>BW strategically The more strategically aspect of BW is just a bit harder to see if you don't have heavily knowledge of the game. In Sc2 most of the strategics comes from unit counters and obvious build orders. While in BW everything is much deeper on the strategic level for an unkown. That said, i don't want to say BW > Sc2 strategically. | ||
|
Kanku
France123 Posts
On July 15 2011 00:00 IGotPlayguuu wrote: I'm not saying that BW>SC2 or taht SC2>BW STRATEGICALLY (which actually you can verify, e.g. chess>tic tac toe strategically). But in this thread there is a bunch of people that are saying that SC2>BW strategically because SC2 has less mechanic (retarded reason, if you are used to macro, you have time to think, and often in pro matches it's the strategy that make you win the game) That's very true peolpe usually forget that good mechanics is JUST A REQUIREMENT to pro bw play not a differential factor... No one has ever win a BW game solely on mechanics (well maybe Jaedong's mutalisk vs some noob  ) | ||
|
MCDayC
United Kingdom14464 Posts
On July 15 2011 00:06 Kanku wrote: That's very true peolpe usually forget that good mechanics is JUST A REQUIREMENT to pro bw play not a differential factor... No one has ever win a BW game solely on mechanics (well maybe Jaedong's mutalisk vs some noob )Loads of people have won BW games solely on mechanics. As have loads of people in SC2. How do you think Idra won in the beta? He had beastly mechanics above most other players at that time. | ||
|
KillerPlague
United States1386 Posts
| ||
|
Kanku
France123 Posts
On July 15 2011 00:10 MCDayC wrote: Loads of people have won BW games solely on mechanics. As have loads of people in SC2. How do you think Idra won in the beta? He had beastly mechanics above most other players at that time. Not at high end level... Obviously IdrA can win vs some scrub relying only on mechanics but probably not vs MC or whoever. | ||
|
lorkac
United States2297 Posts
On July 14 2011 23:47 IGotPlayguuu wrote: Seriously, do you think SC2 has more strategies than BW? I'm not saying BW strategy>SC2 strategy, but SC2>BW strategically is just retarded... I want some proof to actually see that SC2>BW strategically In any given game there X amount of clicks that are made by a player (between his mouse and keyboard) in order to win the game. Of those X clicks, Y% is dedicated to menial tasks while Z% is used for strategic tasks. BW has a bigger Y% than SC2 because BW has more menial tasks. This means that SC2's Z% is larger than BW's Z% mathematically. If you want the cold hard numbers, SC2 has more strategic potential than BW. That's just the cold hard math of it. It's actually physically impossible for this not to be a true statement. A player not reaching the full potential of a game is not the game's fault. BW players have had more time and talent maximizing their Z% score while SC2 pros still struggle with being supply blocked. But since SC2 will always have less menial tasks than BW, it will always have more potential for strategic play than BW. Anyone who doesn't believe this does not believe Mathematics. | ||
|
lorkac
United States2297 Posts
On July 15 2011 00:15 Kanku wrote: Not at high end level... Obviously IdrA can win vs some scrub relying only on mechanics but probably not vs MC or whoever. Their first match at MLG. Idra outclassed MC on pure mechanics and multitasking alone. Then Idra had the MMA moment and proceeded to go on tilt for the rest of the tournament losing to MC 4 times in a row. | ||
|
Kanku
France123 Posts
On July 15 2011 00:22 lorkac wrote: Their first match at MLG. Idra outclassed MC on pure mechanics and multitasking alone. Then Idra had the MMA moment and proceeded to go on tilt for the rest of the tournament losing to MC 4 times in a row. Good try but MC was jetlagged he said it himself. Edit: Concerning your mathematical bullshit it's obvious that you just didn't understand at all the concept of strategy in a rts game. Strategy doesn't affect your amount of clicks (your APM in fact) that's more about doing the right decisions... When we talk about strategy we don't talk at all about mechanics we are just talking about game design... | ||
|
lorkac
United States2297 Posts
On July 15 2011 00:23 Kanku wrote: Good try but MC was jetlagged he said it himself MMA vs Losira in the same MLG finals. Top vs Byun in the first Code A Finals Top vs SC in the first Code A tournament MarineKingPrime vs Kyrix on Shakuras during GSL 2 MMA vs LiquidRet Code A MC vs Puma NASL etc.... | ||
|
emc
United States3088 Posts
On July 13 2011 14:14 rift wrote: I completely agree and have been thinking this since the beta began and we saw competitive play. If  Flash  Jaedong  Bisu et cetera switched they would immediately be among the best, but weaker players could take games from them more often than expected.We may never see a true  bonjwa in StarCraft 2. Can anyone honestly see a player completely dominating for over a year?yeah, MC, he has been consistent in almost every tournament which can't be said of a lot of players especially people like MVP and MMA. MC has always usually gotten in top 3 in every major tournament, that's pretty consistent and it's only been a year when the game is so new and things keep changing. Players are changing the game constantly but also blizzard with their mind game patches, they release patch notes before the patch goes live and people start looking at what blizzard is changing and experiments with those things. BW has been around for over a decade now, it's only right that the games and players would be better than in SC2 because this game is just too new. If SC2's popularity lasts 10 years I would be extremely happy | ||
|
Kanku
France123 Posts
On July 15 2011 00:27 lorkac wrote: MMA vs Losira in the same MLG finals. Top vs Byun in the first Code A Finals Top vs SC in the first Code A tournament MarineKingPrime vs Kyrix on Shakuras during GSL 2 MMA vs LiquidRet Code A MC vs Puma NASL etc.... I didn't watch all thoses games so I will just comment on MC vs PuMa on NASL. + Show Spoiler + If you think that PuMa beat MC purely because of his mechanics you're completly wrong and I don't want to waste my time with you anymore. | ||
|
lorkac
United States2297 Posts
On July 15 2011 00:23 Kanku wrote: Edit: Concerning your mathematical bullshit it's obvious that you just didn't understand at all the concept of strategy in a rts game. Strategy doesn't affect you amount of clicks (your APM in fact) that's more about doing the right decisions... When we talk about strategy we don't talk at all about mechanics we are just talking about game design... Fine Let's go there then Game design wise BW has more menial tasks. These tasks requires more attention in order to macro well. The human brain can only pay attention to a limited amount of information at any given time. This value is X. This attention span is split between multiply variables. A.) Menial Tasks B.) Outside Distractions C.) Inner Distractions D.) Strategic Play B and C are relative from player to player so let's assume that they're the same value for now. A.) Menial Tasks D.) Strategic Play SC2 has less menial tasks. BW has more menial tasks. There human brain has a bigger potential to make strategic play in SC2 than in BW because the brain has less menial tasks that it has to pay attention to. Clicks wise, SC2 has more room for strategy. Brains wise, SC2 has more room for strategy. This is the reason why BW folks talk about how awesome and strategic and orgasmic sending SCVs to mine minerals is. Otherwise they'd realize that they have no argument. Maybe we should talk about game design on it's own outside of player capacity. Maybe if we remove players and remove "APM" limits then BW will finally win out over SC2? Let us imagine a supercomputer who can control BW units perfectly and a supercomputer that could control SC2 units perfectly. They both make perfect strategic decisions and perfect macro decisions. Oh wait, when you remove the portion of BW where it is harder to play than SC2 then all you have is old graphics and buggy pathing ai. Oh right, you also have nostalgia. | ||
|
lorkac
United States2297 Posts
On July 15 2011 00:30 Kanku wrote: I didn't watch all thoses games so I will just comment on MC vs PuMa on NASL. + Show Spoiler + If you think that PuMa beat MC purely because of his mechanics you're completly wrong and I don't want to waste my time with you anymore. I was actually talking about game 5 and 6 when MC beat Puma on PURE mechanics alone. MC lost almost all the engagements and still managed to win because he could build more stuff than Puma. MC only lost when he decided to make a big blob of units and slam it into Puma's bunkers. Please, did you even watch that final? | ||
|
Treemonkeys
United States2082 Posts
On July 15 2011 00:00 IGotPlayguuu wrote: I'm not saying that BW>SC2 or taht SC2>BW STRATEGICALLY (which actually you can verify, e.g. chess>tic tac toe strategically). But in this thread there is a bunch of people that are saying that SC2>BW strategically because SC2 has less mechanic (retarded reason, if you are used to macro, you have time to think, and often in pro matches it's the strategy that make you win the game) Okay, sorry, I understand your point. It is retarded to say that for that reason. I think there are some many complexities with both games that no one can say that either way with any correctness. | ||
|
Kanku
France123 Posts
On July 15 2011 00:39 lorkac wrote: Fine Let's go there then Game design wise BW has more menial tasks. These tasks requires more attention in order to macro well. The human brain can only pay attention to a limited amount of information at any given time. This value is X. This attention span is split between multiply variables. A.) Menial Tasks B.) Outside Distractions C.) Inner Distractions D.) Strategic Play B and C are relative from player to player so let's assume that they're the same value for now. A.) Menial Tasks D.) Strategic Play SC2 has less menial tasks. BW has more menial tasks. There human brain has a bigger potential to make strategic play in SC2 than in BW because the brain has less menial tasks that it has to pay attention to. Clicks wise, SC2 has more room for strategy. Brains wise, SC2 has more room for strategy. This is the reason why BW folks talk about how awesome and strategic and orgasmic sending SCVs to mine minerals is. Otherwise they'd realize that they have no argument. Maybe we should talk about game design on it's own outside of player capacity. Maybe if we remove players and remove "APM" limits then BW will finally win out over SC2? Let us imagine a supercomputer who can control BW units perfectly and a supercomputer that could control SC2 units perfectly. They both make perfect strategic decisions and perfect macro decisions. Oh wait, when you remove the portion of BW where it is harder to play than SC2 then all you have is old graphics and buggy pathing ai. Oh right, you also have nostalgia. Yeah no that just completely dumb... Is it harder to understand that BW units are MORE INTERESTING (well maybe a bit subjective) ? Just to give an example do you realy believe that an hellion give more room for strategic play than a vulture? That removing from Protoss pretty much all harass capability (reaver) is better in term of strategic depth. Edit:Rewatch the games and then come here say that MC win g5 and g6 solely on mechanics (yes forgetting conc shell has nothing to do with that etc) Also your analysis is plain wrong because you assume that the brain of a well trained BW pro need to think to macro or puting workers back to mine when it is just MECHANICAL actions (you see what I did here?). | ||
|
Slago
Canada726 Posts
On July 14 2011 18:33 Drium wrote: Chill out dude. I didn't say Destiny is bad, he just clearly isn't as good as HuK. Huk has the highest ELO in the international tlpd right now. He is in code S and recently won 2 big tournaments that both had korean players in attendance. In the game you linked Destiny did some ling pressure that was really effective, delaying HuK's 3rd and killing a lot of probes. Shortly after that HuK moved out and lost his whole army. The game continued on for a long time but HuK was never able to come back from his early disadvantage and he lost. That game is an excellent example of the OP's point about SC2 having less opportunities for better players to mechanically outplay lesser ones. but it isn't, huk isn't a great player because of superior mechanics, I don't think anyone would say that, and Destiny has wicked mechanics himself, Day9 even said so, he just makes alot of dumb mistakes, you obviously didn't watch the game, because some ling pressure that does damage early in a thirty minute game isn't the deciding factor, give your head a shake and look at the facts | ||
|
Suisen
256 Posts
Strategy refers about what columns you open, about how you set up or fix pawn chains, about on what side of the board you will play. Execution refers to playing out a theoretically won endgame, which may be very difficult if your opponent plays perfectly.. Chess is 98% tactics. Tactics is calculating moves. What is not tactics is 1 to 5 decisions in a chess game you make that can't be calculated and need to be taken based on intuition. But on a GM level these decisions decide the game. You will see positional games where one player is able to slowly make the opponents position collapse without being able to point out where the loser made a mistake. SC BW is mainly tactics and execution. Execution in chess is mental. How is it not mental in SC RTS? You have to train your mind to think the right way so that you can execute tactics and multitasking properly. It has nothing to do with muscles or anything physical. So how is it different. You develop a 'chess muscle' by doing a lot of calculations and tactical exercise and practicing your endgame execution. How is it different from RTS? Both are about rewiring your brain through intense practice. Both are very different from poker which is about making educated, and calculated, guesses about what your opponent thinks and countering his idea. SC2 is much more in that direction. In a decision making oriented game you can accidentally make the right decision. This happens in poker all the time. You can't accidentally have high level execution in RTS or chess. Also, I don't understand why people quote my post and then don't address the content but just say it's bad. I made a large post. What is your effort? When Blizzard first gave us the info that they would change the rules of the game we as a community predicted how it would change the gameplay. This was disputed by a minority. Freeing up more time would make it easier for top players to play more circles around weaker players, they argued, and make the difference between strong and even stronger players bigger. We see the opposite. Now people believe we now see what was predicted. I agree. The fact that we predicted it speaks to the credit of the community and to our understanding of RTS. We now have the game we have. It is easier to play and for most people now playing SC2 this is essential. They like SC2. They don't like a 12 year old hardcore game with to them arbitrary and mundane tasks. Also, Blizzard isn't going to change the core gameplay. We have a game where there are always narrow margins and it's hard to make a comeback even against worse players. Playing circles around your opponent just won't happen because by definition you can't crush your opponent strategically because of the nature of strategy vs tactics. That is other other side of the coin of having a mechanically easier game. And most SC2 people will express that this is exactly what they want. Who are we to tell them they are wrong? It's just different from how SC BW was. What annoys me is people that are in denial and think it is either the game being young or Blizzard that is magically going to fix it in HotS. The nature of the game is going to be how it is now. And when people improve the margins will actually becomes smaller and random deviation will actually start to play a bigger role and top players will get closer to going 50/50 vs each other.. The rules of the game changed so the game changed. SC2 is not bad. It's just different. Blizzard catered to casuals and the nature of competitive SC2 is different from SC BW which was an intensely hardcore game. Times have changed and mainstream devs are not going to make a niche game. We had about 1000 to 2000 people watching big events on TL back in the SC BW days. Now this site has up to 50 000. You can't have the best of both worlds. | ||
|
lorkac
United States2297 Posts
On July 15 2011 00:44 Kanku wrote: Yeah no that just completely dumb... Is it harder to understand that BW units are MORE INTERESTING ? Just to give an example do you realy believe that an hellion give more room for strategic play than a vulture? That removing from Protoss pretty much all harass (reaver) capability is better in term of strategic depth. Edit:Rewatch the games and then come here say that MC win g5 and g6 solely on mechanics (yes forgeting conc shell has nothing to do with that etc) I do think BW units are more interesting. The Vulture is still my favorite Starcraft Unit and that was even before I watched Broodwar tournaments. My finding the vulture more interesting than a hellion is a pure subjective opinion and is irrelevant to the overall discourse of strategy and mechanics. My personal opinions of the aesthetics of the game, are also irrelevant. Every strategy that can be done on BW can also be done in SC2 but faster and in a more unforgiving pace. The main thing about BW vs SC2 is that BW is physically and mechanically harder to play because you have to baby a LOT more stuff in BW than SC2. Some people believe that it's important for things to be hard to be impressive. Once again, that's opinion not fact. Some people believe that unit A is more interesting than unit B. That is also just an opinion. If you want to get to the nuts and bolts of it--SC2 has more potential for being more strategic. But a game is only as strategic as you allow it to be. Most SC2 players just puts their army in one hotkey. That is not the fault of the game. That is the fault of the players. Don't let your nostalgia dictate what is or isn't true. | ||
|
Reyis
Pitcairn287 Posts
On July 15 2011 00:39 lorkac wrote: Fine Let's go there then Game design wise BW has more menial tasks. These tasks requires more attention in order to macro well. The human brain can only pay attention to a limited amount of information at any given time. This value is X. This attention span is split between multiply variables. A.) Menial Tasks B.) Outside Distractions C.) Inner Distractions D.) Strategic Play B and C are relative from player to player so let's assume that they're the same value for now. A.) Menial Tasks D.) Strategic Play SC2 has less menial tasks. BW has more menial tasks. There human brain has a bigger potential to make strategic play in SC2 than in BW because the brain has less menial tasks that it has to pay attention to. Clicks wise, SC2 has more room for strategy. Brains wise, SC2 has more room for strategy. This is the reason why BW folks talk about how awesome and strategic and orgasmic sending SCVs to mine minerals is. Otherwise they'd realize that they have no argument. Maybe we should talk about game design on it's own outside of player capacity. Maybe if we remove players and remove "APM" limits then BW will finally win out over SC2? Let us imagine a supercomputer who can control BW units perfectly and a supercomputer that could control SC2 units perfectly. They both make perfect strategic decisions and perfect macro decisions. Oh wait, when you remove the portion of BW where it is harder to play than SC2 then all you have is old graphics and buggy pathing ai. Oh right, you also have nostalgia. seeing your post, you are just dumb and i can see that you have never played broodwar more than a month or so coz you dont know the basics of BW at all. also the logic you have used is not true for a comprasion between sc2 and bw. On July 15 2011 00:39 lorkac wrote: This is the reason why BW folks talk about how awesome and strategic and orgasmic sending SCVs to mine minerals is. Otherwise they'd realize that they have no argument. well; one interesting of the many... edit: spoiled the walloftext | ||
| ||
