|
On January 02 2013 06:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2013 05:55 iEchoic wrote: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.
We're not disagreeing on definitions, just on what he meant. I assumed he meant positioning as in concave, splitting, high-ground advantage, etc. Strategical decisions like you're referring to are very rare in this game, given that all matches eventually devolve into deathball vs deathball (with the exception of perhaps Terran drop play and TvT).
|
On January 02 2013 06:18 monkybone wrote:
There't no fine line between tactics and strategy, both are contextual phrases used in similar circumstances.
Kind of, but in general the more abstract and generalized the plan the closer it leans to strategy. The more specific and detailed the plan, the more it leans towards tactics.
I wouldn't really call "have dudes over there somewhere" a tactic. I would call it a strategy--a bad one, but I would more likely call it that.
Putting on a shotgun play would be akin to strategy, deciding to do a short pass lateral to get past a weak point in the defensive line would be a tactic.
Knowing they're good at stopping running plays makes you decide to take risky long passes more often and short laterals when they spread out too thin is a plan.
|
On January 02 2013 06:27 iEchoic wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2013 06:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 02 2013 05:55 iEchoic wrote: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. We're not disagreeing on definitions, just on what he meant. I assumed he meant positioning as in concave, splitting, high-ground advantage, etc. Strategical decisions like you're referring to are very rare in this game, given that all matches eventually devolve into deathball vs deathball (with the exception of perhaps Terran drop play and TvT).
Got it. I guess I took for his word a bit too literally. But yes, concaves, splits, etc... would be more akin to tactics.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On January 02 2013 06:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:
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.
I disagree with your idea that micro/mechanics take precedence over strategy. i agree that cases (like your apt bane vs marine example) do occur, but a strategic thinker would know about the general skill level of his opponent. if he is gm he would know that a marine split is likely to occur, so , knowing that he lacks the mechanics to make banelings effective he would go for something else that is less mechanically intensive but equally effective, maybe a ling surround and banes from the front, or something like that. army positioning is a really easy (mechanically) way to bring a player with superior mechanics and a less strategic mind down.
alternatively the strategic player could just avoid the problem entirely and go for a counter attack. strategic players have good ovie positioning, good map awareness, and are generally more prepared than a mechanical player for counterattacks, pushes, cheese, etc. this makes a counterattacking / mobile army style really effective for them because you are never directly engaging the opponent, never giving him an opportunity to use his superior mechanics because you are in control of the flow of the game.
this is the way i play, and it works well. its not 100% victory or anything, and im not saying that it is BETTER than mechanically focused play, just different and equally effective.
Tldr: mechanically based play is more powerful in direct engagements, strategically based play is more focused on avoiding these engagements and taking away the opponents mechanical advantage through controling game flow and using counterattack styles or whathaveyou.
[edited for improved format]
|
On January 02 2013 06:38 Gprime wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 02 2013 06:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:
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. I disagree with your idea that micro/mechanics take precedence over strategy. i agree that cases (like your apt bane vs marine example) do occur, but a strategic thinker would know about the general skill level of his opponent. if he is gm he would know that a marine split is likely to occur, so , knowing that he lacks the mechanics to make banelings effective he would go for something else that is less mechanically intensive but equally effective, maybe a ling surround and banes from the front, or something like that. army positioning is a really easy (mechanically) way to bring a player with superior mechanics and a less strategic mind down. alternatively the strategic player could just avoid the problem entirely and go for a counter attack. strategic players have good ovie positioning, good map awareness, and are generally more prepared than a mechanical player for counterattacks, pushes, cheese, etc. this makes a counterattacking / mobile army style really effective for them because you are never directly engaging the opponent, never giving him an opportunity to use his superior mechanics because you are in control of the flow of the game. this is the way i play, and it works well. its not 100% victory or anything, and im not saying that it is BETTER than mechanically focused play, just different and equally effective. Tldr: mechanically based play is more powerful in direct engagements, strategically based play is more focused on avoiding these engagements and taking away the opponents mechanical advantage through controling game flow and using counterattack styles or whathaveyou. [edited for improved format]
Bolded pretty much disproves your argument in that case. The point is that mechanics can overcome strategy, and you're trying to say that a good player will use strategy only when he is deficient at mechanics. Let's not beat around the bush here, core Starcraft strategy is basically build order and counter unit. That's about it. Hidden expansions, etc. are just gimmicks that only work if the opponent makes a mechanical (not scouting) mistake.
Everything else is mechanics. Having the APM to do everything that you need to do when you need to do it. Whether that be scanning for burrowed banelings, microing your marines, expanding at the right times, keeping all the units building, etc. To argue that Starcraft is a game of deep, rich strategy is kind of stupid. You can strategize all you want, but in order to execute any sufficiently advanced strategy, you need to have utter mastery of the mechanics first. Strategy is totally peripheral to actual success.
That's honestly why I quit playing, I have neither the time nor patience to learn such advanced mechanics and prefer games where you have to think rather than just click very fast.
|
On January 02 2013 23:10 deth2munkies wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2013 06:38 Gprime wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 02 2013 06:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:
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. I disagree with your idea that micro/mechanics take precedence over strategy. i agree that cases (like your apt bane vs marine example) do occur, but a strategic thinker would know about the general skill level of his opponent. if he is gm he would know that a marine split is likely to occur, so , knowing that he lacks the mechanics to make banelings effective he would go for something else that is less mechanically intensive but equally effective, maybe a ling surround and banes from the front, or something like that. army positioning is a really easy (mechanically) way to bring a player with superior mechanics and a less strategic mind down. alternatively the strategic player could just avoid the problem entirely and go for a counter attack. strategic players have good ovie positioning, good map awareness, and are generally more prepared than a mechanical player for counterattacks, pushes, cheese, etc. this makes a counterattacking / mobile army style really effective for them because you are never directly engaging the opponent, never giving him an opportunity to use his superior mechanics because you are in control of the flow of the game. this is the way i play, and it works well. its not 100% victory or anything, and im not saying that it is BETTER than mechanically focused play, just different and equally effective. Tldr: mechanically based play is more powerful in direct engagements, strategically based play is more focused on avoiding these engagements and taking away the opponents mechanical advantage through controling game flow and using counterattack styles or whathaveyou. [edited for improved format] Bolded pretty much disproves your argument in that case. The point is that mechanics can overcome strategy, and you're trying to say that a good player will use strategy only when he is deficient at mechanics. Let's not beat around the bush here, core Starcraft strategy is basically build order and counter unit. That's about it. Hidden expansions, etc. are just gimmicks that only work if the opponent makes a mechanical (not scouting) mistake. Everything else is mechanics. Having the APM to do everything that you need to do when you need to do it. Whether that be scanning for burrowed banelings, microing your marines, expanding at the right times, keeping all the units building, etc. To argue that Starcraft is a game of deep, rich strategy is kind of stupid. You can strategize all you want, but in order to execute any sufficiently advanced strategy, you need to have utter mastery of the mechanics first. Strategy is totally peripheral to actual success. That's honestly why I quit playing, I have neither the time nor patience to learn such advanced mechanics and prefer games where you have to think rather than just click very fast.
I think there's more strategy than people give credit for at a high level. Suppose two players both have "perfect" mechanics, know which units counter which, scout perfectly, etc.
Is there anything one player could do to get an edge on the other? Absolutely. Can I think of any in particular? No, and that makes it tempting to say that such advantages don't exist. But the same thing is with chess; there comes a point when you understand the basic "tactics." These are similar to things like dropping, engaging in a choke, or any other method of being guaranteed an advantage if your opponent allows it. Yet knowing all of these tactics doesn't mean that you automatically defeat or have a draw with every opponent in chess. A computer which executes these tactics flawlessly and sees 30 moves ahead can still be beaten by a chess GM, simply because said GM has untold strategic prowess that I couldn't even begin to understand.
I'm sure that the same is possible in SCII as well. I'm sure that you could make a claim about what the best positioning is for an army in a given scenario, and I'm sure someone else could think of a better one than you.
|
people over emphasis strategy/tactics.
how to flank, position, micro, crisis management, etc. are fast decisions based on player's ability and understanding, not strategy imo...i would consider them common sense reaction, such as stalling time with ling run by or muta harass to rebuild army or focus their attention away from your vulnerable main (this isn't some crazy "omg great strategy" but rather a quick decision based on the circumstances).. strategy is pregame preparations, what build to do against what scenario, strategy against player's style, etc.
|
On January 02 2013 23:10 deth2munkies wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2013 06:38 Gprime wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 02 2013 06:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:
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. I disagree with your idea that micro/mechanics take precedence over strategy. i agree that cases (like your apt bane vs marine example) do occur, but a strategic thinker would know about the general skill level of his opponent. if he is gm he would know that a marine split is likely to occur, so , knowing that he lacks the mechanics to make banelings effective he would go for something else that is less mechanically intensive but equally effective, maybe a ling surround and banes from the front, or something like that. army positioning is a really easy (mechanically) way to bring a player with superior mechanics and a less strategic mind down. alternatively the strategic player could just avoid the problem entirely and go for a counter attack. strategic players have good ovie positioning, good map awareness, and are generally more prepared than a mechanical player for counterattacks, pushes, cheese, etc. this makes a counterattacking / mobile army style really effective for them because you are never directly engaging the opponent, never giving him an opportunity to use his superior mechanics because you are in control of the flow of the game. this is the way i play, and it works well. its not 100% victory or anything, and im not saying that it is BETTER than mechanically focused play, just different and equally effective. Tldr: mechanically based play is more powerful in direct engagements, strategically based play is more focused on avoiding these engagements and taking away the opponents mechanical advantage through controling game flow and using counterattack styles or whathaveyou. [edited for improved format] Bolded pretty much disproves your argument in that case. The point is that mechanics can overcome strategy, and you're trying to say that a good player will use strategy only when he is deficient at mechanics. Let's not beat around the bush here, core Starcraft strategy is basically build order and counter unit. That's about it. Hidden expansions, etc. are just gimmicks that only work if the opponent makes a mechanical (not scouting) mistake. Everything else is mechanics. Having the APM to do everything that you need to do when you need to do it. Whether that be scanning for burrowed banelings, microing your marines, expanding at the right times, keeping all the units building, etc. To argue that Starcraft is a game of deep, rich strategy is kind of stupid. You can strategize all you want, but in order to execute any sufficiently advanced strategy, you need to have utter mastery of the mechanics first. Strategy is totally peripheral to actual success. That's honestly why I quit playing, I have neither the time nor patience to learn such advanced mechanics and prefer games where you have to think rather than just click very fast.
no, i am not trying to say that a good player will use strategy only when he is deficient in mechanics. i am saying that you can be equally good specializing at strategy, and being lax on mechanics as you can specializing in mechanics being lax on strategy. obviously you wont be as good as you can be without both, so this idea really only applies to lower levels. i feel like you didn't read the second half of my post where i talked about positioning and counterattacking styles, but thats okay because i think that you are actually correct anyways. at high levels of play, mechanics are more important, because there's only so much positioning and trickiness can do when you have less shit.
i still think that positioning and map control are as important as micro though.
but good macro kinda beats everything/
|
On January 03 2013 05:29 jinorazi wrote:
people over emphasis strategy/tactics.
how to flank, position, micro, crisis management, etc. are fast decisions based on player's ability and understanding, not strategy imo...i would consider them common sense reaction, such as stalling time with ling run by or muta harass to rebuild army or focus their attention away from your vulnerable main (this isn't some crazy "omg great strategy" but rather a quick decision based on the circumstances).. strategy is pregame preparations, what build to do against what scenario, strategy against player's style, etc.
I don't think that's the case. I think of strategy as just being clever/intelligent ways to gain an advantage, that others might not notice given the same situation.
Although most "strategies" in a game are known before the game (and usually invented by others), I think there are decisions to be made during the game itself that will give one player an advantage, depending on their strategic prowess.
|
I would actually like SC2 to be more strategically oriented. APM comes with practice, once you've executed enough strategies and tactics. As far as SC2 is concerned, it is more of a tactical game rather than strategic because of all the hard counters. To give you an example, you must have the knowledge that immortal counters all factory units, and have the APM to be building these immortals while defending a harassment, or harassing your enemy to distract him and keep him busy so you can concentrate on your economy.
Tactics are a part of strategy. For example, your strategy could be to send waves of marines and tanks towards an undefended zerg expansion. A tactic you can employ to make your strategy successful would be to distract your opponent with a small drop on another expansion before making your final move with tanks & marines. Distracting your opponent is your tactic, but your main strategical motive is to destroy the expansion. Both are deeply intertwined.
Strategy always implies a long term plan, whereas tactics are usually something you do on the spot.
|
I think SC2 as of now are pretty taxing both mechanics-wise and smart/strategies-wise. You absolutely need both, and I would add 2 more elements, albeit somewhat less important:
1. Enagaement skills
2. Star-Sense / Crisis management
..and a little bit of luck
When a player comes on the scene, one can tell how her/his focus has been on to that point. If you have no mechanics, you will be brute-forced to death no matter how brilliant your strategies are. Likewise, if you're dumb, people will easily "figure out" your rigid macro style.
Case study: ByunPrime v. (oGs)TOP
I remember back then how Artosis hyped oGsTOP being the best macro best mechanic never missing scv production yada yada yada.. But when I saw their games it was so clear that Byun was much smarter player. His preparation was usually impeccable and his tactical maneuver and crisis-management were some of the best. On the other hand, oGsTOP was more of brute-force macro but his plays were.. dumb. Bad decision makings, bad rally points, bad map awareness, etc.
From then on, we know how things developed. Byun is by far my favorite Terran today. oGsTOP has been completely out of the scene for so long and frankly I do not miss him.
A similar but slightly different example would be: Liquid_Hero v. CreatorPrime. Hero is incredibly smart and tends to lead Protoss trends ahead of others, but I think his fundamentals are below those of Creator's. However, Hero did not neglect training his mechanics so he can hang around at the top, unlike oGsTOP who did not show any intelligent "sparks" in his play from what I can remember. (not counting downright cheeses)
In this game you definitely need both the mechanics and strategies. Plus, you need a good game sense to read your opponent and react properly and catch them off-guard. And you should be able to handle pressure situation without panicking, and must learn how to minimize damage when it's inevitable.
I frankly think both the mechanics and strategies are equally important, and both of which can be improved by quality trainings. At this point, emphasizing one over the other seems meaningless.
Edit: You could see some today's examples too - see IM_Happy. He seems like a great macro terran, but he just doesn't have the "it" factor and the intelligence that other top players demonstrate. He was successful to a degree in the past, but his case proves strong macro can get you only to a certain point. You need both solid mechanics and learned intelligence in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
