|
On February 22 2012 07:06 Squeegy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 06:52 koonst wrote:
i belive the focus of sc2 is more of a thinking mans game u are more able to explore all the avenues availible to you.
you can better micro. drop. harass. position and defend more! because your more free to do so .
But you don't have to worry about macroing things in tic-tac-toe either. If game requires less mechanical skill, it does not follow that it requires more strategical skill.
There's also no macro in chess as long as we're making irrelevant comparisons.
Edit: just to clarify, there's not correlation either way between mechanical depth and strategical depth. Another way of looking at it would be comparing <insert real world team sport> player and coach. Only one demands any mechanical effort (athletic in this case), but no one doubts that the coach has more strategic issues to handle.
|
It's all relative. If the skill ceiling is sufficiently high enough than a game is as hard as your opponent. In Starcraft 2 strategy is more important in comparison to mechanics (currently). At a high level a lot of games still depend more on correctly guessing what your opponent is doing than executing something better than him. Brood War does have a great deal of strategy, which is highly complex and ever evolving, but it does not have as much significance as macroing and microing well. I don't know whether this makes Starcraft 2 more of a strategical game than Brood War, it depends on how you want to interpret the word "strategical". In such cases it's usually better to give up on the discussion and find terms that aren't confusing.
|
On February 22 2012 08:03 Wuster wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 07:06 Squeegy wrote:On February 22 2012 06:52 koonst wrote:
i belive the focus of sc2 is more of a thinking mans game u are more able to explore all the avenues availible to you.
you can better micro. drop. harass. position and defend more! because your more free to do so .
But you don't have to worry about macroing things in tic-tac-toe either. If game requires less mechanical skill, it does not follow that it requires more strategical skill. There's also no macro in chess as long as we're making irrelevant comparisons. Edit: just to clarify, there's not correlation either way between mechanical depth and strategical depth. Another way of looking at it would be comparing <insert real world team sport> player and coach. Only one demands any mechanical effort (athletic in this case), but no one doubts that the coach has more strategic issues to handle.
How so is it an irrelevant comparison? He said that less macro implied more strategy. I showed that it is not the case. You can have no macro at all and still not much strategy.
|
Less technical requirement allows more strategy. It doesn't matter how much macro there is in tic-tac-toe, because that game is solved. However, if you made it so that chess players had to perform 100 pushups before each move do you think the grandmasters could still win? No, of course not. What if it was only 10 pushups? They would still win, but not always. There would be a natural push toward muscular grandmasters.
It's a sliding scale, and it's not at all clear where a game should be. You could say that SC2 takes less strategy than BW (I don't personally play either game) but it certainly wouldn't be because macro is easier.
|
On February 22 2012 08:20 Grumbels wrote:
It's all relative. If the skill ceiling is sufficiently high enough than a game is as hard as your opponent. In Starcraft 2 strategy is more important in comparison to mechanics (currently). At a high level a lot of games still depend more on correctly guessing what your opponent is doing than executing something better than him. Brood War does have a great deal of strategy, which is highly complex and ever evolving, but it does not have as much significance as macroing and microing well. I don't know whether this makes Starcraft 2 more of a strategical game than Brood War, it depends on how you want to interpret the word "strategical". In such cases it's usually better to give up on the discussion and find terms that aren't confusing.
SC2 have too much variant of builds and strategy to make it fully rewarding on skills. One player can defeat another but might not be more skilled. In SC2, scouting doesn't matter as much as BW. I am speaking as a fellow Zerg player. In BW, the Terran and Protoss have to go constantly check on the number of the larvaes the Zerg is saving to determine which tech tree the Z is forgoing. But with the introduction of Larvae Injects, it doesn't really matter anymore. For Terran, you got yourself the mules which would boost your economy by that much making other races completely in the dark as to when a push will happen especially for Zergs. And for Protoss, the Warpgate ability is taking the definition of Cheese to a whole level.
A lesser player can easily abuse these aspects and gain an insurmountable advantage. In BW, you don't get that because the majority of winning factors is strictly based on your ability to execute. This is what makes SC2 a much more volatile game.
|
On February 22 2012 08:27 Squeegy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 08:03 Wuster wrote:On February 22 2012 07:06 Squeegy wrote:On February 22 2012 06:52 koonst wrote:
i belive the focus of sc2 is more of a thinking mans game u are more able to explore all the avenues availible to you.
you can better micro. drop. harass. position and defend more! because your more free to do so .
But you don't have to worry about macroing things in tic-tac-toe either. If game requires less mechanical skill, it does not follow that it requires more strategical skill. There's also no macro in chess as long as we're making irrelevant comparisons. Edit: just to clarify, there's not correlation either way between mechanical depth and strategical depth. Another way of looking at it would be comparing <insert real world team sport> player and coach. Only one demands any mechanical effort (athletic in this case), but no one doubts that the coach has more strategic issues to handle. How so is it an irrelevant comparison? He said that less macro implied more strategy. I showed that it is not the case. You can have no macro at all and still not much strategy.
Less thinking = more time to think about strategy. Even in tic tac toe.
Oh you apologists you
|
On February 22 2012 08:33 Redmark wrote:
Less technical requirement allows more strategy. It doesn't matter how much macro there is in tic-tac-toe, because that game is solved. However, if you made it so that chess players had to perform 100 pushups before each move do you think the grandmasters could still win? No, of course not. What if it was only 10 pushups? They would still win, but not always. There would be a natural push toward muscular grandmasters.
It's a sliding scale, and it's not at all clear where a game should be. You could say that SC2 takes less strategy than BW (I don't personally play either game) but it certainly wouldn't be because macro is easier.
I don't understand how a more muscular grandmaster implies a less strategical grandmaster. That is your point, right? It seems to me you can hold the world record in pushups and still be the highest ranked grandmaster.
|
On February 22 2012 08:54 Chunhyang wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 08:27 Squeegy wrote:On February 22 2012 08:03 Wuster wrote:On February 22 2012 07:06 Squeegy wrote:On February 22 2012 06:52 koonst wrote:
i belive the focus of sc2 is more of a thinking mans game u are more able to explore all the avenues availible to you.
you can better micro. drop. harass. position and defend more! because your more free to do so .
But you don't have to worry about macroing things in tic-tac-toe either. If game requires less mechanical skill, it does not follow that it requires more strategical skill. There's also no macro in chess as long as we're making irrelevant comparisons. Edit: just to clarify, there's not correlation either way between mechanical depth and strategical depth. Another way of looking at it would be comparing <insert real world team sport> player and coach. Only one demands any mechanical effort (athletic in this case), but no one doubts that the coach has more strategic issues to handle. How so is it an irrelevant comparison? He said that less macro implied more strategy. I showed that it is not the case. You can have no macro at all and still not much strategy. Less thinking = more time to think about strategy. Even in tic tac toe. Oh you apologists you
So when you think less, you think more about strategy? Even in tic tac toe?! I think we should lobotomize our generals. That will show those insurgents!
|
On February 22 2012 09:04 Squeegy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 08:54 Chunhyang wrote:On February 22 2012 08:27 Squeegy wrote:On February 22 2012 08:03 Wuster wrote:On February 22 2012 07:06 Squeegy wrote:On February 22 2012 06:52 koonst wrote:
i belive the focus of sc2 is more of a thinking mans game u are more able to explore all the avenues availible to you.
you can better micro. drop. harass. position and defend more! because your more free to do so .
But you don't have to worry about macroing things in tic-tac-toe either. If game requires less mechanical skill, it does not follow that it requires more strategical skill. There's also no macro in chess as long as we're making irrelevant comparisons. Edit: just to clarify, there's not correlation either way between mechanical depth and strategical depth. Another way of looking at it would be comparing <insert real world team sport> player and coach. Only one demands any mechanical effort (athletic in this case), but no one doubts that the coach has more strategic issues to handle. How so is it an irrelevant comparison? He said that less macro implied more strategy. I showed that it is not the case. You can have no macro at all and still not much strategy. Less thinking = more time to think about strategy. Even in tic tac toe. Oh you apologists you So when you think less, you think more about strategy? Even in tic tac toe?! I think we should lobotomize our generals. That will show those insurgents!
The game of war is very different from a computer game...
|
On February 22 2012 09:10 ravemir wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 09:04 Squeegy wrote:On February 22 2012 08:54 Chunhyang wrote:On February 22 2012 08:27 Squeegy wrote:On February 22 2012 08:03 Wuster wrote:On February 22 2012 07:06 Squeegy wrote:On February 22 2012 06:52 koonst wrote:
i belive the focus of sc2 is more of a thinking mans game u are more able to explore all the avenues availible to you.
you can better micro. drop. harass. position and defend more! because your more free to do so .
But you don't have to worry about macroing things in tic-tac-toe either. If game requires less mechanical skill, it does not follow that it requires more strategical skill. There's also no macro in chess as long as we're making irrelevant comparisons. Edit: just to clarify, there's not correlation either way between mechanical depth and strategical depth. Another way of looking at it would be comparing <insert real world team sport> player and coach. Only one demands any mechanical effort (athletic in this case), but no one doubts that the coach has more strategic issues to handle. How so is it an irrelevant comparison? He said that less macro implied more strategy. I showed that it is not the case. You can have no macro at all and still not much strategy. Less thinking = more time to think about strategy. Even in tic tac toe. Oh you apologists you So when you think less, you think more about strategy? Even in tic tac toe?! I think we should lobotomize our generals. That will show those insurgents! The game of war is very different from a computer game...
Ah, well in that case let's only lobotomize the players.
|
I never understood how a strategy game that is less about strategy and more about mechanics can be better. I don't know anything about brood war and therefore never watch it but I still believe what he said, so could someone explain this to me?
Could it be that there are just not enough strategical master minds in SC2, and people just do generic uninteresting games most of the time that still only rely on mechanics and unit composition (and the occasional harrassement)?
Or do people actually prefer mechanical difficulty? That I will never understand, even if you try to explain.
|
I agree, and i think the guys at blizzard should take note. With two more expansions and unlimited patching there is no reason this game couldn't develop a higher skill ceiling. Just be prepared to hear a lot of whining if the game is ever patched to make it tougher and more mechanical
|
On February 22 2012 07:06 Squeegy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 06:52 koonst wrote:
i belive the focus of sc2 is more of a thinking mans game u are more able to explore all the avenues availible to you.
you can better micro. drop. harass. position and defend more! because your more free to do so .
But you don't have to worry about macroing things in tic-tac-toe either. If game requires less mechanical skill, it does not follow that it requires more strategical skill.
convenient u use tic tac toe rather than smth like chess.
|
Yep, the skill cap in sc2 is way too low.
There still is tiers of skill level, such as certain foreigner are better than the rest, and koreans in general being the best in general. However, once you get to that top level, its hard to become consistent over that flock of high tier pros, and so you have the code s -> code b rotation, because games seem won on coin flips far too many times for comfort.
I think part of the problem is that blizzard promotes this style unfortunately. There is only 3 races to balance, why not balance them all for late game army scenario, and nerf the effectiveness of all ins and build order wins. Instead blizzard balances it differently, a good example would be protoss late game being ultimate, and constant nerfing of terran late game-- ultimately promoting coin flippy games.
There is also too much snow balling in this game in which you get caught in one bad second, and it is almost impossible to come back from, unless you are protoss with many warpgates up... They need to promote victory to be won on more factors then a split second engagements... fix the above and then we can give tools to create sc2 first bonjwa 
|
On February 22 2012 09:47 starcraftred wrote:Yep, the skill cap in sc2 is way too low. There still is tiers of skill level, such as certain foreigner are better than the rest, and koreans in general being the best in general. However, once you get to that top level, its hard to become consistent over that flock of high tier pros, and so you have the code s -> code b rotation, because games seem won on coin flips far too many times for comfort. I think part of the problem is that blizzard promotes this style unfortunately. There is only 3 races to balance, why not balance them all for late game army scenario, and nerf the effectiveness of all ins and build order wins. Instead blizzard balances it differently, a good example would be protoss late game being ultimate, and constant nerfing of terran late game-- ultimately promoting coin flippy games. There is also too much snow balling in this game in which you get caught in one bad second, and it is almost impossible to come back from, unless you are protoss with many warpgates up... They need to promote victory to be won on more factors then a split second engagements... fix the above and then we can give tools to create future bonjwa's
Because a balanced late game and weak all-in/build order wins is easy to do right? Man people are so....
You're obviously under the assumption that the nerf kills late game potential and makes the game more of a coin flip. In blizzard's eye that's not the case. Try leaving your biased opinions out of the conversation.
|
On February 22 2012 08:27 Squeegy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 08:03 Wuster wrote:On February 22 2012 07:06 Squeegy wrote:On February 22 2012 06:52 koonst wrote:
i belive the focus of sc2 is more of a thinking mans game u are more able to explore all the avenues availible to you.
you can better micro. drop. harass. position and defend more! because your more free to do so .
But you don't have to worry about macroing things in tic-tac-toe either. If game requires less mechanical skill, it does not follow that it requires more strategical skill. There's also no macro in chess as long as we're making irrelevant comparisons. Edit: just to clarify, there's not correlation either way between mechanical depth and strategical depth. Another way of looking at it would be comparing <insert real world team sport> player and coach. Only one demands any mechanical effort (athletic in this case), but no one doubts that the coach has more strategic issues to handle. How so is it an irrelevant comparison? He said that less macro implied more strategy. I showed that it is not the case. You can have no macro at all and still not much strategy.
ur comparison IS irrelevant cus hes comparing how different levels of macro affects strategy between 2 similar games while ur comparison is between starcraft and tic tac toe. the assumption that the only difference between sc1 and sc2 are its macro mechanics. if u can accept that, then it's obvious that when macro becomes less important, strategy becomes more important (if u want to win). any example can be if you clone a fighter to fight himself. if both fighters are not allowed to work out and increase their physical condition and are also not allowed to train exercises or martial arts techniques, then the determining factor would be luck and strategy (all mental).
however, u can only say that strategy is more important in sc2 than in sc1 in order to win. u CANT directly compare strategy b/w the 2 games and say that the strategy in sc2 is actually better than sc1. it is possible that there are more strategy options in sc1's units so that even though macro is really important, there might be more strategic possibilities.
so ur right in that there isnt more strategy necessarily in sc2 than sc1 but hes right in that strategy is more important in sc2 than sc1 just like strategy is in fact more important in tictactoe than sc1.
|
On February 22 2012 09:31 Grackula wrote:
I never understood how a strategy game that is less about strategy and more about mechanics can be better. I don't know anything about brood war and therefore never watch it but I still believe what he said, so could someone explain this to me?
Could it be that there are just not enough strategical master minds in SC2, and people just do generic uninteresting games most of the time that still only rely on mechanics and unit composition (and the occasional harrassement)?
Or do people actually prefer mechanical difficulty? That I will never understand, even if you try to explain.
Well
1. Different people like differen things
2. There's evidence to suggest that sc2 doesn't have the strategical level of bw, even if it doesn't focus as much on mechanics.
And yeah, if you're going to say I don't understand why but I haven't watched any of it.... Then that means you need to go watch it. You'll understand then
|
This article makes perfect sense. Lower skill ceiling less chance for better players to be dominant. I play alot of starcraft 2 and it really does feel coinflippy sometimes.
I'm not bashing the game i just feel like the worse player can win way too much in SC2 and i feel the one of the major flaws of SC2 Is Deathball mechanic. Once Protoss Army becomes so big it becomes almost unstoppable. This is why i love watching ZvZ and ZvT instead of Any Protoss match-up.
Something about the Protoss race doesn't seem right Colossus, HT, Immortal, mass zealot, stalker seems unstoppable late game vs most compositions (especially Terran armies).
I understand Terrans frustrations against this but something bothers me about the deathball of Protoss too much HP and powerful AOE abilities something doesn't feel right about it.
I hope HOTS fixes this stuff.
|
On February 22 2012 07:52 Silentenigma wrote:
Reason why sc2 is worse than bw as a spectator is sc2 has no fun units.No units that give you excitement.Sc2 is all about
making a huge army and get better position than your opponent.Usually only one fight decides the winner.
On the other hand BW has units that turn the tide of game instantly if used cleverly.It is always great to see a protoss
killing 10 15 workers with single reaver shot.It s great to see perfect storms against zergs.These units are exciting units.Even
though you are behind you can always come back if you cast the perfect storm or if you use your reavers perfectly.These
things give BW more much value than SC2.
SC2 is so dull to watch compared to BW.
It is not really useful to talk about this when you
Haven't learned to really watch starcraft 2. In example, i used to not like any
Matchup tvt, tvz, and pvt. Now i understand the basic tenants of all the matchups.
Starcraft 2 becomes interesting when you look at the greed, army positioning, micro, and thr opportunities capitalized
Or not of players. Banelings and siege tanks are fun units. Stalkers and hellions are fun units.
Basically, i think you haven't truely learned to appreciate sc2
Also, why do you type like this?
On topic: i think that this article is wrong at the moment. People do dominate the scene, and the skill ceiling is quite obviously way above where players are.
|
On February 22 2012 12:55 Bippzy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 07:52 Silentenigma wrote:
Reason why sc2 is worse than bw as a spectator is sc2 has no fun units.No units that give you excitement.Sc2 is all about
making a huge army and get better position than your opponent.Usually only one fight decides the winner.
On the other hand BW has units that turn the tide of game instantly if used cleverly.It is always great to see a protoss
killing 10 15 workers with single reaver shot.It s great to see perfect storms against zergs.These units are exciting units.Even
though you are behind you can always come back if you cast the perfect storm or if you use your reavers perfectly.These
things give BW more much value than SC2.
SC2 is so dull to watch compared to BW. It is not really useful to talk about this when you Haven't learned to really watch starcraft 2. In example, i used to not like any Matchup tvt, tvz, and pvt. Now i understand the basic tenants of all the matchups. Starcraft 2 becomes interesting when you look at the greed, army positioning, micro, and thr opportunities capitalized Or not of players. Banelings and siege tanks are fun units. Stalkers and hellions are fun units. Basically, i think you haven't truely learned to appreciate sc2 Also, why do you type like this? On topic: i think that this article is wrong at the moment. People do dominate the scene, and the skill ceiling is quite obviously way above where players are.
Err, banelings and helions are awful units though. They are completely controlled by the hard counter concept and have very specific and defined roles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
