|
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
Um, the area you are playing on is a map? That's like saying i'm not talking about a cow, I'm talking about a heifer. Really? This is the end result of how stupid the argument is comparing the two...
But you know what, I conceed you are correct:
Where the vulture is good at locking down a bridge via mines and nothing else, the hellion doesn't lock down a single bridge, it only locks down 3-4 expos worth of area, without it's medivac help. You win, your opinion is now fact and BW is better because of spider mines.
|
On July 15 2011 01:23 CidO 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 Um, the area you are playing on is a map? That's like saying i'm not talking about a cow, I'm talking about a heifer. Really? This is the end result of how stupid the argument is comparing the two... But you know what, I conceed you are correct: Where the vulture is good at locking down a bridge via mines and nothing else, the hellion doesn't lock down a single bridge, it only locks down 3-4 expos worth of area, without it's medivac help. You win, your opinion is now fact and BW is better because of spider mines.
You're right! Controlling 1 bridge is more impressive than controlling 3-4 expos! I mean, expansions are useless map things that's purely aesthetic--bridges though! Poems are made about bridges!
|
On July 15 2011 01:22 Kanku wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 01:20 lorkac wrote: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:[quote] 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...
I'm agreeing with you. Obviously I know not my ways, I'm so sorry. Let me bow down in shame.
|
If you don't understand how mines render vulture more versatile and serve a different purpose, I would advise you to do watch (or rewatch) some BW TvP.
Or you could continue with your impressive sense for irony.
|
On July 15 2011 01:23 CidO 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 Um, the area you are playing on is a map? That's like saying i'm not talking about a cow, I'm talking about a heifer. Really? This is the end result of how stupid the argument is comparing the two... But you know what, I conceed you are correct: Where the vulture is good at locking down a bridge via mines and nothing else, the hellion doesn't lock down a single bridge, it only locks down 3-4 expos worth of area, without it's medivac help. You win, your opinion is now fact and BW is better because of spider mines.
Well if you don't like the exemple of the vulture we can talk about the lurker...
Maybe it will be easier to understand...
|
On July 15 2011 01:17 lorkac wrote:
Everything you can do in BW you can do in SC2--does that mean that BW is like poker?
Obviously by changing the balance between execution and decision making the nature of the game changes.
When things like hidden information, guessing the strategy of your opponent and mind games is the main skill set it shares with poker and the game switches from mechanics and execution towards decision making it becomes more like poker because suddenly those skills start to play a bigger role in the game. That they also exist in SC BW doesn't mean it never changed. In fact in SC BW those skills are also used. They just play a smaller role. Just like how in chess strategical decision making play a very small role and in the end most of the stuff you do falls under the mechanics/tactics label.
Is chess like poker because you can decide to play an opening you know your opponent does badly against, eventhough it's not your strongest opening?
Does that mean chess is just as similar to poker as RTS?
Isn't chess not a game of hidden information, at least on the board ignoring everything outside the board (which is not something you will ignore on a high enough level just as in poker it is silly to just play just the cards)?
|
On July 15 2011 01:30 Suisen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 01:17 lorkac wrote:
Everything you can do in BW you can do in SC2--does that mean that BW is like poker?
Obviously by changing the balance between execution and decision making the nature of the game changes. When things like hidden information, guessing the strategy of your opponent and mind games is the main skill set it shares with poker and the game switches from mechanics and execution towards decision making it becomes more like poker because suddenly those skills start to play a bigger role in the game. That they also exist in SC BW doesn't mean it never changed. In fact in SC BW those skills are also used. They just play a smaller role. Just like how in chess strategical decision making play a very small role and in the end most of the stuff you do falls under the mechanics/tactics label. Is chess like poker because you can decide to play an opening you know your opponent does badly against, eventhough it's not your strongest opening? Does that mean chess is just as similar to poker as RTS? Isn't chess not a game of hidden information, at least on the board ignoring everything outside the board (which is not something you will ignore on a high enough level just as in poker it is silly to just play just the cards)?
This I agree with. SC2, Chess, Poker and BW are all very similar to each other, none of them being any better than the other.
|
On July 15 2011 01:30 Kanku wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 01:23 CidO wrote: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:[quote] 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 Um, the area you are playing on is a map? That's like saying i'm not talking about a cow, I'm talking about a heifer. Really? This is the end result of how stupid the argument is comparing the two... But you know what, I conceed you are correct: Where the vulture is good at locking down a bridge via mines and nothing else, the hellion doesn't lock down a single bridge, it only locks down 3-4 expos worth of area, without it's medivac help. You win, your opinion is now fact and BW is better because of spider mines. Well if you don't like the exemple of the vulture we can talk about the lurker... Maybe it will be easier to understand...
It's not the example he dislikes
|
I still think you can make this skill ceiling unreachable. The macro ceiling is lowered, true. But the emphasis is thus put on outsmarting your opponents (strategy) and tactics (micro). Sure, this is a different kind of skill. But we are seeing good players make the game harder executing more complicated attacks and positioning, which ups the level of multitasking. Whether you enjoy this style or the broodwar style is up to you.
|
On July 15 2011 01:43 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 01:30 Kanku wrote:On July 15 2011 01:23 CidO wrote: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:
[quote]
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 Um, the area you are playing on is a map? That's like saying i'm not talking about a cow, I'm talking about a heifer. Really? This is the end result of how stupid the argument is comparing the two... But you know what, I conceed you are correct: Where the vulture is good at locking down a bridge via mines and nothing else, the hellion doesn't lock down a single bridge, it only locks down 3-4 expos worth of area, without it's medivac help. You win, your opinion is now fact and BW is better because of spider mines. Well if you don't like the exemple of the vulture we can talk about the lurker... Maybe it will be easier to understand... It's not the example he dislikes
Well if you don't understand that this concept is clearly not as important (like almost useless) in sc2 as he was in BW (god even day9 say that it is the case in his daily concerning happy vs socke on tal darim from not so long ago I believe) I can't do anything for you.
|
On July 13 2011 14:25 Primadog wrote:
This article is terrible.
It is terrible because it consists entirely of conjectures and false analogies with no evidence or data to back it up. The central premise: that the skill ceiling is low, completely counters all existing tournament results everywhere. The one "evidence" you point to, that foreigners are beating koreans (on rare occasions), relies on a false pretext that all koreans necessarily are better than all foreigners.
Elephant was bad, but this was infinitely worse. There are plenty of resources available if you know or bother to look to which to back your assertions, but no effort were made. Shame on you.
I like you.
These topics are getting tiring, just watch the GSL... the level of gameplay is rapidly increasing (atleast in Korea) to the point where it's nearing BW standards of multitasking and battles/drops.
Ontop of that, people need to stop having their head up their arses about pro-bw players... Nada, SlayerS_Boxer, July, they're in SC2, it's not the players being idiots, it's the game being only a year old.
|
Kyrgyz Republic1462 Posts
One can still see the top players in SC2 make pretty bad mistakes, both in decision making and micro/macro. I just don't understand why people are making such claims that imply that they know exactly how high the SC2 skill ceiling is when current pros obviously have a lot of room for improvement.
|
On July 15 2011 01:50 Kanku wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 01:43 lorkac wrote:On July 15 2011 01:30 Kanku wrote:On July 15 2011 01:23 CidO wrote: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:
[quote]
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 Um, the area you are playing on is a map? That's like saying i'm not talking about a cow, I'm talking about a heifer. Really? This is the end result of how stupid the argument is comparing the two... But you know what, I conceed you are correct: Where the vulture is good at locking down a bridge via mines and nothing else, the hellion doesn't lock down a single bridge, it only locks down 3-4 expos worth of area, without it's medivac help. You win, your opinion is now fact and BW is better because of spider mines. Well if you don't like the exemple of the vulture we can talk about the lurker... Maybe it will be easier to understand... It's not the example he dislikes Well if you don't understand that this concept is clearly not as important (like almost useless) in sc2 as he was in BW (god even day9 say that it is the case in his daily concerning happy vs socke on tal darim from not so long ago I believe) I can't do anything for you.
I do understand. It's mostly entertaining me
that you didn't understand why he said what he said.
The vulture is totally awesome at zone control. The hellion sucks at zone control. Both of these are true statements. The fact that you were comparing two units with different uses is what was hilarious.
It's like saying chargelots play the same as speedlots. Or that thors play the same as Goliaths.
I could say that vultures aren't as powerful as hellions because it takes vultures too long to kill a mineral line even though it's not the vulture's fault that it doesn't have AoE. It would be a silly statement to say and completey irrelevent in the grand scheme of the Starcraft franchise.
|
I think that the BO3 format does not suit the starcraft 2 scene. It is too easy for a less mechanically skilled player to take the torch in 1 or 2 games. I feel like BO7+ would allow for the best to stay in their top positions for longer.
|
On July 15 2011 02:09 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 01:50 Kanku wrote:On July 15 2011 01:43 lorkac wrote:On July 15 2011 01:30 Kanku wrote:On July 15 2011 01:23 CidO wrote: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:
[quote]
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 Um, the area you are playing on is a map? That's like saying i'm not talking about a cow, I'm talking about a heifer. Really? This is the end result of how stupid the argument is comparing the two... But you know what, I conceed you are correct: Where the vulture is good at locking down a bridge via mines and nothing else, the hellion doesn't lock down a single bridge, it only locks down 3-4 expos worth of area, without it's medivac help. You win, your opinion is now fact and BW is better because of spider mines. Well if you don't like the exemple of the vulture we can talk about the lurker... Maybe it will be easier to understand... It's not the example he dislikes Well if you don't understand that this concept is clearly not as important (like almost useless) in sc2 as he was in BW (god even day9 say that it is the case in his daily concerning happy vs socke on tal darim from not so long ago I believe) I can't do anything for you. I do understand. It's mostly entertaining me that you didn't understand why he said what he said. The vulture is totally awesome at zone control. The hellion sucks at zone control. Both of these are true statements. The fact that you were comparing two units with different uses is what was hilarious. It's like saying chargelots play the same as speedlots. Or that thors play the same as Goliaths. I could say that vultures aren't as powerful as hellions because it takes vultures too long to kill a mineral line even though it's not the vulture's fault that it doesn't have AoE. It would be a silly statement to say and completey irrelevent in the grand scheme of the Starcraft franchise.
Are you kidding me?
Design-wise the vulture is not that different from the hellion but it assure more roles and effectiveness as nothing to do with that(well I mean not in this case vulture are still exeptional at harrassing expo)
And that's retarded to not understand that I used the vulture as an exemple to explain that a whole aspect of the game was removed: "zone control" like you call it.
And yes that's relevent in the grand sheme of things because we are arguing about strategy...
|
Siege tanks, burrowed banelings, forcefields, concussive shell, creep spread, dark Templars, etc...
And that's only counting what's being used in the current metagame.
Broodwar has what--3 units fo zone of control? Siege tank, Lurker, um... Reaver? Dark Templar?
|
On July 15 2011 02:23 lorkac wrote:
Siege tanks, burrowed banelings, forcefields, concussive shell, creep spread, dark Templars, etc...
And that's only counting what's being used in the current metagame.
Broodwar has what--3 units fo zone of control? Siege tank, Lurker, um... Reaver? Dark Templar?
Ok I'm done with it...
The same exemples have already been used on page 19 and were easily coutered in the next pages.
So be it, I'm done arguing about obvious things.(again it seems you disagree with the most respected forumgoers concerning the decrease in "zone control" (read day9)...)
|
Unlike in SC1 where having strong mechanics was 80% of the game, in SC2, while definitely still important, it is not as big of an indicator of success. In other words, there is a lot more randomness involved. Stuff such as imperfect information, much more powerful 1 base play, smaller maps, the fact that there is no single "stable opening" for each matchup, and rock/paper/scissor build order loses means that players that are mechanically superior can often lose to worse players.
So yes, there will never be a SC2 bonjwa. The game is too random for that.
|
Edit : @lorkac
Your last sc2 examples don't work. For BW you forgot mines and dark swarm I'd say. Also note that BW zone control is way more efficient than what's left in sc2.
As for vulture being less efficient than hellion at harass, I'm a bit speechless, because the difference must be marginal (plus mine do help harrasment a lot).
Edit : I don't know in which world sc1 mechanics are 80% of the game...
|
On July 15 2011 02:28 Kanku wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 02:23 lorkac wrote:
Siege tanks, burrowed banelings, forcefields, concussive shell, creep spread, dark Templars, etc...
And that's only counting what's being used in the current metagame.
Broodwar has what--3 units fo zone of control? Siege tank, Lurker, um... Reaver? Dark Templar? Ok I'm done with it... The same exemples have already been used on page 19 and were easily coutered in the next pages. So be it, I'm done arguing about obvious things.(again it seems you disagree with the most respected forumgoers concerning the decrease in "zone control" (read day9)...)
you were the guy who brought it up.
You not liking the zone control that is available does not mean it's not there. Once again, that's opinion pretending to be fact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
