|
On July 15 2011 00:54 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 00:44 Kanku wrote:On July 15 2011 00:39 lorkac wrote: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. 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.
I edited my post concerning the "interesting" part but the conclusion remain the same that's a question of option.
Objectively a vulture gives more options than an hellion so my point stands and don't bring back the nostalgia argument because it's completely irrelevant and dumb.
Also you still didn't proove your point that "SC2 has more potential for being more strategic" the truth is that we don't know yet.
|
The person who authorise the "auto" features in SC2 should be demoted like the SC2 head of Korea. He failed.
I suspect the "older gen" BW players had something to do with these decision. Back when SC2 was in development, Blizz asked BW pros for advice but due to the problem with Kespa, they were only able to reach a few. The problem is all these are slow/slumping players. Of course they would want these "auto" features. Hence what we have now. It's a shame really, BW being a more difficult game never stopped people from enjoying it in their own way. Blizz somehow failed to see that.
As for the "random SC2 champ". I disagree with the OP that we should just "get use to it". It can NEVER be allow to happen. Every and I mean EVERY successful game needs an icon where people look up to.
|
Ooh, also important to realize is how further away the skill ceiling and how bigger the skill spectrum, the more strategies become viable.
In SC BW and SC2 there has to be a theoretically best way to play the game. But as with poker you have to mix up your game. So the easier the game is to execute, the less strategies will be viable. The nearer to perfect your execution has to be, because it is easier for your opponent to have perfect execution, the less important it becomes to play 'bad' strategies that are 'good' because they are unexpected.
And the more and more you are forced into a funnel of set and expected strategies. Not saying this is true for SC2. Just saying this because several people don't seem to understand. which reminds me of the debates in 2007 and 2008 on exactly this.
On July 15 2011 01:01 mmdmmd wrote:
The person who authorise the "auto" features in SC2 should be demoted like the SC2 head of Korea. He failed.
I suspect the "older gen" BW players had something to do with these decision. Back when SC2 was in development, Blizz asked BW pros for advice but due to the problem with Kespa, they were only able to reach a few. The problem is all these are slow/slumping players. Of course they would want these "auto" features. Hence what we have now. It's a shame really, BW being a more difficult game never stopped people from enjoying it in their own way. Blizz somehow failed to see that.
As for the "random SC2 champ". I disagree with the OP that we should just "get use to it". It can NEVER be allow to happen. Every and I mean EVERY successful game needs an icon where people look up to.
This is 99% sure false. Pillars and David Kim struggled to convince the core dev team about the nature of competitive games. This is why Pillars left. David Kim just took the frustration. Pretty sure they listened to no one from the Korean esports scene and the main game design decisions that were made were made by talking to the marketing and market research teams, not former progamers or top amateurs. Like I said, our mechanically bad esports players actually went out of their way to argue against automations. These players actually argued against their own interests.
Blizzard was not at all in touch with either TL or Korea during the whole development cycle. They never tried to get our feedback and when they did they either shrugged it off or were too confused to understand it. Browder recently described that he thought they were 'idiots' or something along that line. People who just wanted to complain for the sake of complaining. But instead he admitted there, he just didn't understand that in competitive RTS sometimes bad is good and good is bad.
|
On July 15 2011 00:49 Suisen wrote:
If you are responding to my comments on chess, you better know what terms mean in chess.
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 things 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.
How is SC2 more similar to Poker?
|
On July 15 2011 00:59 Kanku wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 00:54 lorkac wrote:On July 15 2011 00:44 Kanku wrote:On July 15 2011 00:39 lorkac wrote: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. 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. I edited my post concerning the "interesting" part but the conclusion remain the same that's a question of option. Objectively a vulture gives more options than an hellion so my point stands and don't bring back the nostalgia argument because it's completely irrelevant and dumb. Also you still didn't proove your point that "SC2 has more potential for being more strategic" the truth is that we don't know yet.
edit: delete this, I'm not even going to fan these flames anymore. honestly the opinions expressed by both parties is just... stupid, from BW or SC2 Loyalists. Totally ignoring how intense and precise hellion micro can be, just saying all it has is one attack, while trying to figure out proper placement for mines, yet the vulture's main attack only hits one target. Really?
People really have these discussions and think one is better than the other? For all of the time / effort / micro to get perfect vulture control you could be spending that on i don't know... finding the perfect angle in 360 degrees around a hellion to make sure you maximize damage out on a single shot?
|
On July 13 2011 14:16 Carkis wrote:
yeah this is all way over thought out especially on the elephant article. You cant blame a brand new game for not holding up to a game of 10years professional. If Hockey v.2 came out and it was the same but you ran instead of skated, then yea a lot of NHLers would destroy Hockey v.2 at the start. And you cant blame a game because it hasnt had time to grow and develop.... Its all so rediculas I hope this chat gets banned (not this article specifically) but the was sc bw vs. sc2 was sort of banned in forums because it was super redundant
This and only this, there's really way too much criticism of this game. While the theoretical "skill cap" on SC2 may actually be lower (and I don't know if it is), the reality is that no one has hit either and these games will realistically always have further challenges for the players. Enjoy them or don't, it's your choice. But arguing over which player set is better is purely semantics.
|
How is SC2 more similar to Poker?
I suppose it would be because of the aspect of "hidden information".
Really? a vulture gives more options than a hellion? Are those options a-move stutter shoot and drop a mine? That's about all I can think of, and the stutter shooting is only hitting one target.
From what I've gathered, minelaying played a big part in Terran strategies in BW.
For my own thoughts:
I think people are making a mistake when they say that SC2 features like multiple building selection or autocasting "lower the skill ceiling". That's not true - the skill ceiling is just as high as, if not higher than, it was in BW. Think of it this way - SC2 doesn't "lower the ceiling". It just "raises the floor". You get a little boost, but there's still quite a way to go by yourself.
|
On July 15 2011 01:05 CidO wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 00:59 Kanku wrote:On July 15 2011 00:54 lorkac wrote:On July 15 2011 00:44 Kanku wrote:On July 15 2011 00:39 lorkac wrote: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. 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. I edited my post concerning the "interesting" part but the conclusion remain the same that's a question of option. Objectively a vulture gives more options than an hellion so my point stands and don't bring back the nostalgia argument because it's completely irrelevant and dumb. Also you still didn't proove your point that "SC2 has more potential for being more strategic" the truth is that we don't know yet. Really? a vulture gives more options than a hellion? Are those options a-move stutter shoot and drop a mine? That's about all I can think of, and the stutter shooting is only hitting one target. Now think about the 360 degree angle the hellion can shoot from, and the angle of the target, then you have to find the perfect angle to shoot the target to maximize damage on surrounding targets. It's like a firebat on the back of a vulture, that doesn't drop mines, but instead extends the range of the firebat and roasts the hell out of mineral lines, zealots and marines. That is what is annoying about these threads. "BW Loyalists" seem to think SC2 will never live up to BW because of X Y Z, and fail to realize how SC2 can or already does live up to it, and "SC2 Loyalists" say A B C things. It sounds silly and all the threads are the same. Yes, BW requires immense control and mechanics to be able to play on a pro level, it requires more "control" than SC2, only because of horrible AI/pathing, now that you eliminate the need to compensate for stupid AI, you are free to explore the boundaries of the game, which some people say have been met, yet new tricks, new standards etc are constantly being found.
Yes my point remain the same, a vulture is good at area controlling(mines) at harassing and a good overall support unit for your mech because it takes the shot so that your tank count is pretty much unchanged.
Now an hellion doesn't give the same area control.
I am not talking about micro possibilities jeez...
|
On July 15 2011 00:54 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 00:44 Kanku wrote:On July 15 2011 00:39 lorkac wrote: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. 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) 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.
But you can do more with vultures because they can be patrol microed and have mines.
The whole brain power per second thing would make a lot of sense if SC2 was exactly the same as BW except with mbs and infinite control groups and automine.
But SC2 is not the same as BW. Perhaps BW units have more strategic potential than SC2 units even with the whole apm/brainpower allocation. Perhaps SC2 units have more strategic potential than BW units.
|
On July 15 2011 01:04 lorkac wrote:
How is SC2 more similar to Poker?
It's in the post. It's more about decision making and mind games. Look, it's just an analogy. If you are familiar with either go or chess and poker, you will know what is meant. If you are not, you won't. Don't think it means more than it does. It's just an analogy.
|
On July 15 2011 01:01 mmdmmd wrote:
The person who authorise the "auto" features in SC2 should be demoted like the SC2 head of Korea. He failed.
I suspect the "older gen" BW players had something to do with these decision. Back when SC2 was in development, Blizz asked BW pros for advice but due to the problem with Kespa, they were only able to reach a few. The problem is all these are slow/slumping players. Of course they would want these "auto" features. Hence what we have now. It's a shame really, BW being a more difficult game never stopped people from enjoying it in their own way. Blizz somehow failed to see that.
As for the "random SC2 champ". I disagree with the OP that we should just "get use to it". It can NEVER be allow to happen. Every and I mean EVERY successful game needs an icon where people look up to.
Yes. Without the Yankees, American Baseball will be ruined forever.
ANd Basketball would have never been invented if it wasn't for Michael Jordan. I mean, yeah, I know, basketball was already around for almost a hundred years before Michael Jordan. But my point still stands! Basketball would be nothing without him!
Nestea and MC winning a GSL every year means nothing as well. MKP getting to the finals all the time--not at all relevant. I mean c'mon, it's not like they're considered consistent, macro, micro players who are always favorites to win wherever they go.
|
On July 15 2011 01:08 Kanku wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 01:05 CidO wrote:On July 15 2011 00:59 Kanku wrote:On July 15 2011 00:54 lorkac wrote:On July 15 2011 00:44 Kanku wrote:On July 15 2011 00:39 lorkac wrote: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. 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. I edited my post concerning the "interesting" part but the conclusion remain the same that's a question of option. Objectively a vulture gives more options than an hellion so my point stands and don't bring back the nostalgia argument because it's completely irrelevant and dumb. Also you still didn't proove your point that "SC2 has more potential for being more strategic" the truth is that we don't know yet. Really? a vulture gives more options than a hellion? Are those options a-move stutter shoot and drop a mine? That's about all I can think of, and the stutter shooting is only hitting one target. Now think about the 360 degree angle the hellion can shoot from, and the angle of the target, then you have to find the perfect angle to shoot the target to maximize damage on surrounding targets. It's like a firebat on the back of a vulture, that doesn't drop mines, but instead extends the range of the firebat and roasts the hell out of mineral lines, zealots and marines. That is what is annoying about these threads. "BW Loyalists" seem to think SC2 will never live up to BW because of X Y Z, and fail to realize how SC2 can or already does live up to it, and "SC2 Loyalists" say A B C things. It sounds silly and all the threads are the same. Yes, BW requires immense control and mechanics to be able to play on a pro level, it requires more "control" than SC2, only because of horrible AI/pathing, now that you eliminate the need to compensate for stupid AI, you are free to explore the boundaries of the game, which some people say have been met, yet new tricks, new standards etc are constantly being found. Yes my point remain the same, a vulture is good at area controlling(mines) at harassing and a good overall support unit for your mech because it takes the shot so that your tank count is pretty much unchanged. Now an hellion doesn't give the same area control. I am not talking about micro possibilities jeez...
A hellion, one of the fastest units in SC2 does not give area control? You can't build them fast and get them to expos, through the use of Medivacs you can't drop harass? Because blue flame hellions don't just destroy slings/hydras at all, right?
Your entire argument against the hellion is
"It doesn't give map control"
Seriously, listen to yourself, one of the fastest units in the game does not give map control with perfect micro. This is how silly some of the arguments sound from both side loyalists.
|
On July 15 2011 01:13 CidO wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 01:08 Kanku wrote:On July 15 2011 01:05 CidO wrote:On July 15 2011 00:59 Kanku wrote:On July 15 2011 00:54 lorkac wrote:On July 15 2011 00:44 Kanku wrote:On July 15 2011 00:39 lorkac wrote: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. 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. I edited my post concerning the "interesting" part but the conclusion remain the same that's a question of option. Objectively a vulture gives more options than an hellion so my point stands and don't bring back the nostalgia argument because it's completely irrelevant and dumb. Also you still didn't proove your point that "SC2 has more potential for being more strategic" the truth is that we don't know yet. Really? a vulture gives more options than a hellion? Are those options a-move stutter shoot and drop a mine? That's about all I can think of, and the stutter shooting is only hitting one target. Now think about the 360 degree angle the hellion can shoot from, and the angle of the target, then you have to find the perfect angle to shoot the target to maximize damage on surrounding targets. It's like a firebat on the back of a vulture, that doesn't drop mines, but instead extends the range of the firebat and roasts the hell out of mineral lines, zealots and marines. That is what is annoying about these threads. "BW Loyalists" seem to think SC2 will never live up to BW because of X Y Z, and fail to realize how SC2 can or already does live up to it, and "SC2 Loyalists" say A B C things. It sounds silly and all the threads are the same. Yes, BW requires immense control and mechanics to be able to play on a pro level, it requires more "control" than SC2, only because of horrible AI/pathing, now that you eliminate the need to compensate for stupid AI, you are free to explore the boundaries of the game, which some people say have been met, yet new tricks, new standards etc are constantly being found. Yes my point remain the same, a vulture is good at area controlling(mines) at harassing and a good overall support unit for your mech because it takes the shot so that your tank count is pretty much unchanged. Now an hellion doesn't give the same area control. I am not talking about micro possibilities jeez... A hellion, one of the fastest units in SC2 does not give area control? You can't build them fast and get them to expos, through the use of Medivacs you can't drop harass? Because blue flame hellions don't just destroy slings/hydras at all, right? Your entire argument against the hellion is "It doesn't give map control" Seriously, listen to yourself, one of the fastest units in the game does not give map control with perfect micro. This is how silly some of the arguments sound from both side loyalists.
That's so dumb I don't talk about MAP CONTROL I talk ABOUT AREA CONTROL you know mines etc
|
On July 15 2011 00:59 Kanku wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 00:54 lorkac wrote:On July 15 2011 00:44 Kanku wrote:On July 15 2011 00:39 lorkac wrote: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. 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. I edited my post concerning the "interesting" part but the conclusion remain the same that's a question of option. Objectively a vulture gives more options than an hellion so my point stands and don't bring back the nostalgia argument because it's completely irrelevant and dumb. Also you still didn't proove your point that "SC2 has more potential for being more strategic" the truth is that we don't know yet.
Gonna agree with the vulture point - you can "do more" strategically with a vulture than with a hellion. Lurkers and scourge had more strategic value as well. (SC2 zerg has little way to lock down a location/airspace which is "interesting" strategically.) Protoss is a little less clearly defined - the warpin mechanic is pretty neat and opens up some neat strategic options (though it's often just a "and now i'll warp in units into his face") but colossi feel... strategically boring (particularly compared to reavers) This might be nostalgia speaking though, but I prefer the strategic concept of "siege units" as granting advantages by being a significantly powerful unit, but at the cost of mobility. Colossi just don't fit that, and neither do... whatever zerg has that was supposed to cover what lurkers did, but doesn't really (some cross between banelings and roaches I guess?)
Space control isn't really the same as map control. Mines and Lurkers both allowed you to seriously restrict pathways in a way that we don't really see in SC2 apart from Siege Tanks.
I actually LIKE vikings strategically, more than goliaths. One of my favorite bits (which doesnt happen particularly often) is when a T player lands his vikings to temporarily avoid confronting enemy air superiority (often another T's vikings)
On the other hand, I do agree that lowering the purely mechanical demands of the game means it's less of a game about mechanics, which I feel forces the game to be more about strategy - and yet we still see pro players lose games on a mechanical level, so clearly not all the players are at this supposedly lower "mechanical skill ceiling" anyway.
|
On July 15 2011 01:11 Suisen wrote:It's in the post. It's more about decision making and mind games. Look, it's just an analogy. If you are familiar with either go or chess and poker, you will know what is meant. If you are not, you won't. Don't think it means more than it does. It's just an analogy.
I do play Chess, I played tournament chess for a few years actually.
My point still stands.
How is SC2 similar to poker? Everything you can do in BW you can do in SC2--does that mean that BW is like poker?
Is it because it's difficult and you like placing arbitrary values on things you deemed of worth based on difficulty? Because I'd understand that classist argument. SC2 does nothing different from BW strategically. Mechanically, BW is just harder but it doesn't actually do anything specifically different. Workers still mine, supply is still made. It's just harder.
If you feel SC2 is like poker because BW is hard and poker is easy so SC2 is like poker--well then your analogy is actually really silly. Logically speaking that is.
|
On July 15 2011 01:16 sylverfyre wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 00:59 Kanku wrote:On July 15 2011 00:54 lorkac wrote:On July 15 2011 00:44 Kanku wrote:On July 15 2011 00:39 lorkac wrote: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. 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. I edited my post concerning the "interesting" part but the conclusion remain the same that's a question of option. Objectively a vulture gives more options than an hellion so my point stands and don't bring back the nostalgia argument because it's completely irrelevant and dumb. Also you still didn't proove your point that "SC2 has more potential for being more strategic" the truth is that we don't know yet. Gonna agree with the vulture point - you can "do more" strategically with a vulture than with a hellion. Lurkers and scourge had more strategic value as well. (SC2 zerg has little way to lock down a location/airspace which is "interesting" strategically.) Protoss is a little less clearly defined - the warpin mechanic is pretty neat and opens up some neat strategic options (though it's often just a "and now i'll warp in units into his face") but colossi feel... strategically boring (particularly compared to reavers) This might be nostalgia speaking though, but I prefer the strategic concept of "siege units" as granting advantages by being a significantly powerful unit, but at the cost of mobility. Colossi just don't fit that, and neither do... whatever zerg has that was supposed to cover what lurkers did, but doesn't really (some cross between banelings and roaches I guess?) I actually LIKE vikings strategically, more than goliaths. One of my favorite bits (which doesnt happen particularly often) is when a T player lands his vikings to temporarily avoid confronting enemy air superiority (often another T's vikings) On the other hand, I do agree that lowering the purely mechanical demands of the game means it's less of a game about mechanics, which I feel forces the game to be more about strategy - and yet we still see pro players lose games on a mechanical level, so clearly not all the players are at this supposedly lower "mechanical skill ceiling" anyway.
Well the truth is that no one can say if strategically SC2 will be deeper than BW because it has nothing to do with mechanics but more with unit design and race mechanics but we should be optimistic after all SC2 has still two addons to go.
|
On July 15 2011 01:14 Kanku wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 01:13 CidO wrote:On July 15 2011 01:08 Kanku wrote:On July 15 2011 01:05 CidO wrote:On July 15 2011 00:59 Kanku wrote:On July 15 2011 00:54 lorkac wrote:On July 15 2011 00:44 Kanku wrote:On July 15 2011 00:39 lorkac wrote: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. 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. I edited my post concerning the "interesting" part but the conclusion remain the same that's a question of option. Objectively a vulture gives more options than an hellion so my point stands and don't bring back the nostalgia argument because it's completely irrelevant and dumb. Also you still didn't proove your point that "SC2 has more potential for being more strategic" the truth is that we don't know yet. Really? a vulture gives more options than a hellion? Are those options a-move stutter shoot and drop a mine? That's about all I can think of, and the stutter shooting is only hitting one target. Now think about the 360 degree angle the hellion can shoot from, and the angle of the target, then you have to find the perfect angle to shoot the target to maximize damage on surrounding targets. It's like a firebat on the back of a vulture, that doesn't drop mines, but instead extends the range of the firebat and roasts the hell out of mineral lines, zealots and marines. That is what is annoying about these threads. "BW Loyalists" seem to think SC2 will never live up to BW because of X Y Z, and fail to realize how SC2 can or already does live up to it, and "SC2 Loyalists" say A B C things. It sounds silly and all the threads are the same. Yes, BW requires immense control and mechanics to be able to play on a pro level, it requires more "control" than SC2, only because of horrible AI/pathing, now that you eliminate the need to compensate for stupid AI, you are free to explore the boundaries of the game, which some people say have been met, yet new tricks, new standards etc are constantly being found. Yes my point remain the same, a vulture is good at area controlling(mines) at harassing and a good overall support unit for your mech because it takes the shot so that your tank count is pretty much unchanged. Now an hellion doesn't give the same area control. I am not talking about micro possibilities jeez... A hellion, one of the fastest units in SC2 does not give area control? You can't build them fast and get them to expos, through the use of Medivacs you can't drop harass? Because blue flame hellions don't just destroy slings/hydras at all, right? Your entire argument against the hellion is "It doesn't give map control" Seriously, listen to yourself, one of the fastest units in the game does not give map control with perfect micro. This is how silly some of the arguments sound from both side loyalists. That's so dumb I don't talk about MAP CONTROL I talk ABOUT AREA CONTROL you know mines etc
Yes. Control of the map is not at all similar to controlling a tiny portion of the map. Yes yes, I see your logic. Impregnable.
|
If you are going to compare SC2 with SC BW then better use the same definition of 'pro players' in your comparison. Most of what the SC2 community now calls 'pro players' we would call top foreigners aka amateurs. I even see Tasteless call himself a former SC BW pro nowadays.
Surely definitions changed but you need to compare the same thing. Not saying such a comparison would be meaningful then, but at least you will have removed an obvious flaw.
|
On July 15 2011 01:18 Kanku wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 01:16 sylverfyre wrote:On July 15 2011 00:59 Kanku wrote:On July 15 2011 00:54 lorkac wrote:On July 15 2011 00:44 Kanku wrote:On July 15 2011 00:39 lorkac wrote: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. 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. I edited my post concerning the "interesting" part but the conclusion remain the same that's a question of option. Objectively a vulture gives more options than an hellion so my point stands and don't bring back the nostalgia argument because it's completely irrelevant and dumb. Also you still didn't proove your point that "SC2 has more potential for being more strategic" the truth is that we don't know yet. Gonna agree with the vulture point - you can "do more" strategically with a vulture than with a hellion. Lurkers and scourge had more strategic value as well. (SC2 zerg has little way to lock down a location/airspace which is "interesting" strategically.) Protoss is a little less clearly defined - the warpin mechanic is pretty neat and opens up some neat strategic options (though it's often just a "and now i'll warp in units into his face") but colossi feel... strategically boring (particularly compared to reavers) This might be nostalgia speaking though, but I prefer the strategic concept of "siege units" as granting advantages by being a significantly powerful unit, but at the cost of mobility. Colossi just don't fit that, and neither do... whatever zerg has that was supposed to cover what lurkers did, but doesn't really (some cross between banelings and roaches I guess?) I actually LIKE vikings strategically, more than goliaths. One of my favorite bits (which doesnt happen particularly often) is when a T player lands his vikings to temporarily avoid confronting enemy air superiority (often another T's vikings) On the other hand, I do agree that lowering the purely mechanical demands of the game means it's less of a game about mechanics, which I feel forces the game to be more about strategy - and yet we still see pro players lose games on a mechanical level, so clearly not all the players are at this supposedly lower "mechanical skill ceiling" anyway. Well the truth is that no one can say if strategically SC2 will be deeper than BW because it has nothing to do with mechanics but more with unit design and race mechanics but we should be optimistic after all SC2 has still two addons to go.
This I agree with completely.
|
On July 15 2011 01:20 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 01:14 Kanku wrote:On July 15 2011 01:13 CidO wrote:On July 15 2011 01:08 Kanku wrote:On July 15 2011 01:05 CidO wrote:On July 15 2011 00:59 Kanku wrote:On July 15 2011 00:54 lorkac wrote:On July 15 2011 00:44 Kanku wrote:On July 15 2011 00:39 lorkac wrote: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. 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. I edited my post concerning the "interesting" part but the conclusion remain the same that's a question of option. Objectively a vulture gives more options than an hellion so my point stands and don't bring back the nostalgia argument because it's completely irrelevant and dumb. Also you still didn't proove your point that "SC2 has more potential for being more strategic" the truth is that we don't know yet. Really? a vulture gives more options than a hellion? Are those options a-move stutter shoot and drop a mine? That's about all I can think of, and the stutter shooting is only hitting one target. Now think about the 360 degree angle the hellion can shoot from, and the angle of the target, then you have to find the perfect angle to shoot the target to maximize damage on surrounding targets. It's like a firebat on the back of a vulture, that doesn't drop mines, but instead extends the range of the firebat and roasts the hell out of mineral lines, zealots and marines. That is what is annoying about these threads. "BW Loyalists" seem to think SC2 will never live up to BW because of X Y Z, and fail to realize how SC2 can or already does live up to it, and "SC2 Loyalists" say A B C things. It sounds silly and all the threads are the same. Yes, BW requires immense control and mechanics to be able to play on a pro level, it requires more "control" than SC2, only because of horrible AI/pathing, now that you eliminate the need to compensate for stupid AI, you are free to explore the boundaries of the game, which some people say have been met, yet new tricks, new standards etc are constantly being found. Yes my point remain the same, a vulture is good at area controlling(mines) at harassing and a good overall support unit for your mech because it takes the shot so that your tank count is pretty much unchanged. Now an hellion doesn't give the same area control. I am not talking about micro possibilities jeez... A hellion, one of the fastest units in SC2 does not give area control? You can't build them fast and get them to expos, through the use of Medivacs you can't drop harass? Because blue flame hellions don't just destroy slings/hydras at all, right? Your entire argument against the hellion is "It doesn't give map control" Seriously, listen to yourself, one of the fastest units in the game does not give map control with perfect micro. This is how silly some of the arguments sound from both side loyalists. That's so dumb I don't talk about MAP CONTROL I talk ABOUT AREA CONTROL you know mines etc Yes. Control of the map is not at all similar to controlling a tiny portion of the map. Yes yes, I see your logic. Impregnable.
Can you stop sounding dumb on purpose please?
Mutalisk give you map control I don't think they give you control of an area on the map nor do hellions...
If you really think the two concepts are the same I can't do anything for you...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
