|
I think many people here mix the word strategy up with "Build Orders" and "Game Plans". Though those two are instances applied strategy, strategy in RTS means so much more.
It describes the possibilities you have in a game when you have a certain information. For example, if I can scout what my opponent is doing, "more strategy" can mean how much more efficiently I can counteract what I have just scouted.
Basically, the openings/builds/gameplans that people don't like because they force the game to be very passive are usually instances of "not enough strategy". Like Deathball turtle, 6queen openings, 4hellion contains (prequeen), the massing of "catch-all" units (most famously Infestors and Marines) all stem from "not enough strategy" that can counteract them, even though you know it is happening. It leaves the game with very few, very "raw" strategies like mirroring greed or going allin.
|
considering how much people used toh ate TvT i think the community might be more on the APM side of things
|
On January 02 2013 04:36 Forikorder wrote:
considering how much people used toh ate TvT i think the community might be more on the APM side of things
Except TvT didn't have that much strategy. A lot of the time it was "stand-off/repositioning for twenty minutes until someone walks into a tank line and loses/unseiges at a terrible moment and loses."
|
On January 02 2013 04:41 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2013 04:36 Forikorder wrote:
considering how much people used toh ate TvT i think the community might be more on the APM side of things Except TvT didn't have that much strategy. A lot of the time it was "stand-off/repositioning for twenty minutes until someone walks into a tank line and loses/unseiges at a terrible moment and loses."
Why then, in Playhem's research publication as well as the general consensus, is TvT the matchup in which the better players win more often than any other?
|
On January 02 2013 04:45 decado90 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2013 04:41 jdseemoreglass wrote:On January 02 2013 04:36 Forikorder wrote:
considering how much people used toh ate TvT i think the community might be more on the APM side of things Except TvT didn't have that much strategy. A lot of the time it was "stand-off/repositioning for twenty minutes until someone walks into a tank line and loses/unseiges at a terrible moment and loses." Why then, in Playhem's research publication as well as the general consensus, is TvT the matchup in which the better players win more often than any other?
Because this is the Internet where evidence matters less than conviction.
|
I think strategy is more important.
|
Ideally I would want a balance between both but if I were to choose one over the other I would choose to have it be more APM/mechanically based.
I really like clicking buttons 
|
You've created a bit of a false dichotomy. They're not two mutually exclusive concepts. Macro/micro mechanics are what allows you to execute your strategies.
Strategy is all about timings, and how can you expect to hit your timings if you don't have macro mechanics? How can you exploit getting certain early units without being able to adequately micro them? The only exception is if you're going for some cheesy early game strategy which is extremely easy to execute, which in my opinion is about the lowest form of strategy in this game.
|
On January 02 2013 04:45 decado90 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2013 04:41 jdseemoreglass wrote:On January 02 2013 04:36 Forikorder wrote:
considering how much people used toh ate TvT i think the community might be more on the APM side of things Except TvT didn't have that much strategy. A lot of the time it was "stand-off/repositioning for twenty minutes until someone walks into a tank line and loses/unseiges at a terrible moment and loses." Why then, in Playhem's research publication as well as the general consensus, is TvT the matchup in which the better players win more often than any other?
because the better palyer is less likely to do something stupid like walk into a tank line or get caught unsieged at a bad time
|
On January 02 2013 04:58 YumYumGranola wrote:
You've created a bit of a false dichotomy. They're not two mutually exclusive concepts.
Sort of missing the point. Is Brood War a better game because it depended more on mechanics? Would you approve of the removal of depots/ovls/pylons because it allows less mechanically inclined players to execute their strategies easier? Or should spells require a player to press 6 buttons simultaneously instead of just one to make play more impressive?
All of these ask the same question: what should Starcraft be about, at the core? Mechanics, or strategy? It's purely a question of opinion.
|
I want an RTS game that has both. The reason why BW is so amazing is because it demands absurd amounts of apm/mechanics to play at a high level and at the same time it requires so much knowledge and strategy that when you put the two together it creates such an amazing game. I have played RTS games where it was more apm/mechanics and although there's nothing wrong with a game like that, I would definitely prefer a game that has everything mixed into one ^_^
|
|
|
Apm/mechanics and strategy aren't mutually exclusive. How best one mixes the two is up to the individual, and creates a wealth of different styles
|
On January 02 2013 05:11 Bahku wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2013 04:58 YumYumGranola wrote:
You've created a bit of a false dichotomy. They're not two mutually exclusive concepts. Sort of missing the point. Is Brood War a better game because it depended more on mechanics? Would you approve of the removal of depots/ovls/pylons because it allows less mechanically inclined players to execute their strategies easier? Or should spells require a player to press 6 buttons simultaneously instead of just one to make play more impressive? All of these ask the same question: what should Starcraft be about, at the core? Mechanics, or strategy? It's purely a question of opinion.
Agreed.
No one is asking for Nexus wars much like no one is asking to require a dragon punch joystick command to be needed to make a worker.
Strategy will always be present be it chess, quake, or street fighter. All competitive sports require and is defined by strategy. The question is about what should be praised more--the choice/decision of strategy or the execution of strategy. No one would say Kasporov is a strategic noob because chess doesn't require dexterity of hand speed. Much like no one would say tha Daigo is a stupid brute who just button mashes.
But there is a constant fight here on TL that is actually a SC2 v BW debate in disguise that wants to suggest that one is more relevant than the other. Here's the truth, SC2 is one of the more mechanically demanding new gen games of our time period. Most games released now are not as demanding as SC2. Is it true that you needed faster reflexes and better muscle memory in BW? Yes. But that is also true for Street Fighter and I don't see anyone suggesting that Flash is a noob for not having beat Filipino Champion in a fighting game. Is it true that its more difficult to APM your way out of bad decision making in SC2 compared to BW? Yes, but that type of shit happens in chess all the time and is why most games of chess is forced to end I a stalemate as they do a massive BoX.
There are games that need more button mashing than BW.
There are games that need less button mashing than SC2.
Trying to argue that there is a "right" amount of button mashing in a game is silly.
Are American football players worse athletes than futbol players because they don't run as much? Are soccer players less athletic than sprinters because they don't run as fast?
It's overall a silly argument.
|
We have both. Some players are good at one (micro/macro or strategy) and can beat other players who also may lack in the other. But players who are able to do it all are the ones that reign at the top. One of the biggest strengths of any of the tip-top players is that they take the best possible engagements. Not just attack at the right time, or the right place, but at a position that they have an advantage and limits their opponents options for them to engage favorably. IE. they have the units needed (macro), they position their units in the most favorable position or least favorable position to engage for their opponent (strategy), and they execute (micro).
|
On January 02 2013 05:39 Prplppleatr wrote:they position their units in the most favorable position or least favorable position to engage for their opponent (strategy)
This is an example of tactics, not strategy.
|
I think that multitasking and mechanics alone can get you to mid/top masters without any in-depth knowledge of timings or builds. But at the very high levels it is strategy that matters the most. For the average player this fact might be discouraging. For example I quit Sc2 because I just couldn't act fast enough and got crushed by opponents with higher apm. I noticed that even though I was trying hard, I couldn't go past 80-90 apm. Some people are just able to multitask better. Even though practice can make you better, everyone has his own limits.. Pro players keep practicing in order to reach those limits and that's why competitive Sc2 is so fun to watch. If it was just a strategy vs strategy battle it would be boring to watch, just like chess.
|
On January 02 2013 05:55 iEchoic wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2013 05:39 Prplppleatr wrote:they position their units in the most favorable position or least favorable position to engage for their opponent (strategy) This is an example of tactics, not strategy.
its actually strategy. Tactics would be more akin to what those units actually do once the fight happens. Placement and allocation of forces falls more in the realm of strategy.
Strategy would be something like:
"I'll send my such and such experts here while my main force hits here, I will retreat when such and such happens and I hope that I deal such and such amount of damage before the fight ends"
Tactics would be more like:
"Hey, you go there and snipe the guard while bobby enters the window over here, he'll unlock the door to let Marc through while Jacob and I shoot at those guys over there to provide general cover. Once you guys are in, you know your orders."
But positioning your general army in location X because your opponent is in position Y is much closer to strategy.
Think about it like this.
Plan:
I will make a sandwhich.
Strategy:
I'll grab bread and put stuff in it, then I'll eat it.
Tactics:
The bread and stuff is in the fridge, so I'll go there first.
|
|
|
On January 02 2013 06:09 kyriores wrote:
I think that multitasking and mechanics alone can get you to mid/top masters without any in-depth knowledge of timings or builds. But at the very high levels it is strategy that matters the most. For the average player this fact might be discouraging. For example I quit Sc2 because I just couldn't act fast enough and got crushed by opponents with higher apm. I noticed that even though I was trying hard, I couldn't go past 80-90 apm. Some people are just able to multitask better. Even though practice can make you better, everyone has his own limits.. Pro players keep practicing in order to reach those limits and that's why competitive Sc2 is so fun to watch. If it was just a strategy vs strategy battle it would be boring to watch, just like chess.
The higher the tier of players the less mechanics matter and more the illusion that "the game is based on strategy" begins.
For example, Korean pros can split marines to make banelings only be cost effective versus marines as opposed to being hard counters to marines.
In order for Marines to be an acceptable strategy versus banelings you need to have the raw mechanics to make it work. This means that (in the case of Marines versus Banelings) mechanics takes priority over strategy. A lot of SC2 is exactly that. Sure you can say abstract things such as "immortals counter roaches" and it sounds like it should work. That is until you realize that Parting using immortals against roaches uses perfect forcefields, warp prism micro, and zealot positioning to make it work. Without the mechanics to do that--Parting's famous immortal play could be countered by low masters players. So while strategically speaking Immortals *do* counter roaches, it still requires a lot of mechanical skill before that actually manifests itself.
SC2, as it is, despite being ridiculed by BW fans for being ez-mode, requires a LOT of mechanical skill before any of the supposed "hard counter strats" actually hard counter anything. SC2, as a videogame right now, is a game that depends more on mechanical skill than it does strategy because most of its units require a decent level of micro for them to perform up to task.
Is it more micro than it takes to control Zangief versus Sagat? No. But that would be true for BW units as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
