EPTAPM/mechanics vs strategy - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
| ||
|
Pursuit_
United States1330 Posts
| ||
|
ZerglingTwins
United States850 Posts
Strategy only seems smart at certain point of metagame development, in most case, it is just a lucky hunch. Number of strategies are also limited, will become boring over time. But mechanics represent hard work and more effort, for most games, there is no limit to how good you can be in mechanics, so you can always improve, and trying to be perfect. | ||
|
Windwaker
Germany1597 Posts
and until we have only 1 race in starcraft, its totally pointless to compare it with chess imo. | ||
|
vthree
Hong Kong8039 Posts
No mechanics - turn base strategy game No strategy - might as well play music games where you have to hit certain keys at a specific time. | ||
|
Broodwurst
Germany1586 Posts
Crazy APM are cool and all that but Goody upsetting MMA is just awesome. | ||
|
Fenrax
United States5018 Posts
| ||
|
decado90
United States480 Posts
I wish mechanics mattered a bit more in SC2. In BW the game between the top players, and everyone else was so big that if Flash played any foreigner in the world in a bo3, you could comfortably bet your life savings on his victory. Go download the IPL 5 replay pack and open it in SC2gears. A korean hits 200 epm 47 times. A foreigner NEVER hits it a single time. Yet, would you even bet $100 that Taeja or Polt would beat Goswser? Gumioh over Vortix? No, you'd be a fool. Foreigners are the inferior players. In fact, the FAR inferior players. Koreans play hundreds to thousands of more hours and many are laboring for virtually no money while fixated on become the best player they can, while foreigners cry if their pay is a week late and say gems like "if you play more than 8 hours you get burned out and you can't practice anymore". Good mechanics = exciting games. DRG has 80-100+ more epm than the foreign infestor broodlord turtlers and you can see it and his play is much more exciting. Same with other examples like Taeja vs Thorzain or Hero vs hasuobs. One of the main reasons I only watch Koreans. They are more exicting, make less mistakes, and are simply the better and more deserving players. | ||
|
Die4Ever
United States17676 Posts
On December 30 2012 05:41 decado90 wrote: Chess will always exist-- the pinnacle of a strategy game. It is the perfect game and no video game you make will ever compare to it. Chess isn't like Starcraft-- to become a top grandmaster player, a genius IQ is basically required. You know that chess is also a video game right? And so is Go. ![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-IqTlrLw5W_A/TyMaVGJl7WI/AAAAAAAAD4g/RmjQB5SmcUU/s1600/chessmaster-10th-edition-3.jpg) | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3392 Posts
| ||
|
jinorazi
Korea (South)4948 Posts
a lot of "strategy" in starcraft, imo, revolves around common sense and decision making, aside from prepared build and execution. mechanics and decision making is what allows for comebacks, impressive feats. professional bw drew me in because the pros were doing things i could never do mechanically. never once in sc2 have i felt such thing. | ||
|
cvgHuShang
Canada95 Posts
On December 30 2012 03:57 Xophy wrote: ok, so lets count the seconds until this turns into a BW>SC2 thread  honestly, both parts are necessary to create a good rts because they tend to interact with each other. what i think to be important is that there are different occasions when apm is necessary. for example, i really like the new auto-split in hots, and while it clearly (but not really significantly) reduces the apm, it just means we can concentrate on more important things (and on pro-lvl it doesnt matter, because every pro should be able to perform that!). but their are other examples were apm is important and interacts with decision making: if you compare terran bio and terran mech, while bio probably needs more apm to split your units to maximize their cost-effectiveness, mech relies more on the positioning of your units (saying this as a protoss-player, hope it's not THAT wrong), so both things matter. imo, the hardest part is to balance the amount of both "resources" to create an entertaining game. if SC2 does this right, i dont want to decide, there are enough people complaining about too less micro compared to BW. yeah woo, now we can focus on... um... spamming the probes? lol cmon. I think mechanics should be difficult enough so that the player with better mechanics always wins until they have almost mastered them and then it should come down to strategy. I think strategy is a bit too flaky atm. I never played brood war so maybe I would like harder mechanics too but I don't know. I think my mechanics are pretty good. I think equal mechanics but more possibilities for aggression in different places would make you have to be more mechanically sound while providing that extra dynamic to strategy. | ||
|
sM.Zik
Canada2548 Posts
On December 30 2012 03:51 sCCrooked wrote: From an extreme bias towards liking BW as "the best RTS ever", I find that having incredibly difficult mechanics while having incredibly intricate strategy is beyond mind-blowing. If either is too easy, the game itself becomes easy-street. Which is unfortunately the goal of todays game, to be easy and accessible to anyone. | ||
|
Insoleet
France1806 Posts
On December 30 2012 04:09 iamho wrote: Honestly for either BW or SC2, you don't need to have a high level of strategic understanding to be a good player. Most everyone just mimics pro players blindly and follow BOs created by other players. The only matchups that actually require strategic skill for non-pros are zvz/tvt in BW and tvt in SCII. Also, I don't want to turn this into SC2 vs BW but its worth noting that SC2 strategy revolves more around superior builds, timing attacks, and army composition; whereas I feel BW strategy is more focused on psychological maneuvering and army positioning. Not to say that one type is necessarily better than the other, but its a reflection of SCII's "deathball-winner-takes-all" gameplay in most non-tvt matchups. You are so so so so wrong Just watch stephano's games He always return the game in his favor thanks to epic decision making He actually doesnt have awesome mechanics... But his decisions are beyond most of top players | ||
|
ZerglingTwins
United States850 Posts
On December 30 2012 05:56 Insoleet wrote: You are so so so so wrong Just watch stephano's games He always return the game in his favor thanks to epic decision making He actually doesnt have awesome mechanics... But his decisions are beyond most of top players Decision making is part of mechanics, from experience and practice, not part of strategy. | ||
|
Bahku
United States182 Posts
On December 30 2012 06:04 ZerglingTwins wrote: Decision making is part of mechanics, from experience and practice, not part of strategy. Huh? Decision making is practically the definition of strategy if I'm not mistaken. Please tell my why you feel this way. | ||
|
ZerglingTwins
United States850 Posts
On December 30 2012 06:05 Bahku wrote: Huh? Decision making is practically the definition of strategy if I'm not mistaken. Please tell my why you feel this way. Strategy is the thing you prepared before the start of the game, and the big game picture you proceeded with the game. Decision making is the instant reaction responding to opponent's moves or weakness. | ||
|
Yorbon
Netherlands4272 Posts
On December 30 2012 06:08 ZerglingTwins wrote: Well, isn't it possible that a split minute decision is of strategic importance? For example, scouting a very unorthodox build might be able to trigger the decision to become very defensive instead of aggressive. To elaborate, see it like this: given the known information at this point (scouting the build), i see my current strategy x (for example: aggressive opening) will not be the best; therefore, my gameplan from now on, will center around strategy y (for example: defensive, focussing on reaching late game).Strategy is the thing you prepared before the start of the game, and the big game picture you proceeded with the game. Decision making is the instant reaction responding to opponent's moves or weakness. Not saying you're completely wrong about strategy in general, in my taste maybe somewhat incomplete. | ||
|
Aqualoung
22 Posts
For someone who doesn't know the game inside out, its far too boring, games are hours (days?) long. There are no "casuals" who can sit and watch a 12 hour Heroes of Might and Magic game. I always loved turn based strategies because I could just play that game after 6 months and still be as good as before when I remember game units.I hope they will invent a turn based strategy that is a viable e-sport. | ||
|
Qwyn
United States2779 Posts
They promote it. StarCraft 2 isn't really a "strategy game..." in the sense of game-defining decisions. It has always been about the minutiae. Why? Because the overall flow of most games is going to be the same. With a higher level of mechanical requirement, the more you can influence the game and create your own style. What you choose to prioritize - how you choose to do things leads to players having an "aggressive style..." or a strong "macro" style... Lower the mechanical requirement, and the more players begin to look the same. The less you can differentiate yourself or do unique things from the next player. APM is not a static number that shows how much a player can do. It's not just about that number, but how players choose to use their APM that defines them. A high APM player with most of it invested in micro....or macro...multitasking...or for the very best all 3. And it is also situation dependent... Because of SC2's lowered mechanical ceiling that cannot exist, and thus all players look the same out side of unit composition (about the most "strategy" you're going to get...since with a lower mechanical ceiling and poor unit design most units are used the same way). | ||
| ||
