|
On December 30 2012 03:47 Bahku wrote:
Would you prefer that an RTS like Starcraft be more focused on APM, or the player's strategy? I had an argument about this many years ago with a friend.
I was saying that SC would be a better game if it wasn't focused on micro (which is essentially clicking speed & precision) and macro, and had more emphasis on the position & decision making of the players involved (like chess).
Thinking about it recently, I've considered a few contrary points, though. APM & mechanics influencing the gameplay is good because it allows players to improve more through practice. A person of below average intelligence, or without a lot of strategic knowledge, can still excel in SC2 through raw practice alone solely by mastering mechanics.
Thoughts?
Both are required for a game to have a high skill ceiling.
|
On December 31 2012 13:41 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2012 03:47 Bahku wrote:
Would you prefer that an RTS like Starcraft be more focused on APM, or the player's strategy? I had an argument about this many years ago with a friend.
I was saying that SC would be a better game if it wasn't focused on micro (which is essentially clicking speed & precision) and macro, and had more emphasis on the position & decision making of the players involved (like chess).
Thinking about it recently, I've considered a few contrary points, though. APM & mechanics influencing the gameplay is good because it allows players to improve more through practice. A person of below average intelligence, or without a lot of strategic knowledge, can still excel in SC2 through raw practice alone solely by mastering mechanics.
Thoughts? Both are required for a game to have a high skill ceiling.
Not really. Chess and Quake are two games with an extremely high skill ceiling, and each of them lacks a lot in terms of mechanics/strategy, respectively. It's more about the depth of each than the balance between them which sets the skill ceiling.
|
People who say there isn't strategy outside of build orders are wrong. First of all, knowing which builds in which situations and WHY, so that you can modify it on the fly to respond to your opponent, is strategy. That's what chess is. You think people don't study 'builds' in chess? Both games are about determining your opponents goals and developing your plan with that in mind.
Starcraft is about exploitative play and that IS strategy. There are no (known) unexploitable strategies like there are in Poker.
|
Jesus more mechanics doesn't mean less strategy you're not trading one for the other
|
On December 31 2012 15:31 GhostKorean wrote:
Jesus more mechanics doesn't mean less strategy you're not trading one for the other
you are trading one for each other if you look it in the way of game deciding factors. Should strategy be 20% / 50% / 70% deciding who to win a game? The rest (80%/ 50% / 30%) will be divided among other deciding factors, which mechanics play a big role.
The OP is talking about a question of game design, which such a question have to be asked. How much do we reward players with heavier mechanical skill and how much do we reward players with strong strategical thinking?
|
On December 31 2012 15:39 Roarer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2012 15:31 GhostKorean wrote:
Jesus more mechanics doesn't mean less strategy you're not trading one for the other you are trading one for each other if you look it in the way of game deciding factors. Should strategy be 20% / 50% / 70% deciding who to win a game? The rest (80%/ 50% / 30%) will be divided among other deciding factors, which mechanics play a big role. The OP is talking about a question of game design, which such a question have to be asked. How much do we reward players with heavier mechanical skill and how much do we reward players with strong strategical thinking?
No you're not. You can have a mechanically difficult game that is deeper strategically than a game that is both weak mechanically and strategically.
The problem here is people think a game with weaker mechanics focuses more on strategy which is true but a game with shit strategic depth can be 100% strategy based but still suck ass.
Another thing people seem to believe is that a mechanically strong player is weak strategically and vice versa.
There is no "mechanics vs strategy" debate because they are completely different things. The OP should be asking if mechanics should matter and this is what you are talking about
Sorry didn't read your post carefully
|
On December 31 2012 14:08 zefreak wrote:
People who say there isn't strategy outside of build orders are wrong. First of all, knowing which builds in which situations and WHY, so that you can modify it on the fly to respond to your opponent, is strategy. That's what chess is. You think people don't study 'builds' in chess? Both games are about determining your opponents goals and developing your plan with that in mind.
Starcraft is about exploitative play and that IS strategy. There are no (known) unexploitable strategies like there are in Poker.
Yup. Army position is also strategy. Things like know when/where to engagement. Setting up baits for things like bane bombs. Pulling stalkers just out of range when you see drops incoming and blinking in the last second. Knowing when to go for that SCV pull. Faking pressure. All of these things fall under strategy.
Also, I think someone already mentioned before. Sometimes your mechanics will dictate your strategy. If you have MKP like marine control, you can just go pure marines vs ling bane and be successful. But if you only have 100APM, your best 'strategy' against ling bane might be making some marauders to tank the banes. That is why some builds/comps that pros do all the time might not be good in silver/gold league.
|
On December 31 2012 16:14 GhostKorean wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2012 15:39 Roarer wrote:On December 31 2012 15:31 GhostKorean wrote:
Jesus more mechanics doesn't mean less strategy you're not trading one for the other you are trading one for each other if you look it in the way of game deciding factors. Should strategy be 20% / 50% / 70% deciding who to win a game? The rest (80%/ 50% / 30%) will be divided among other deciding factors, which mechanics play a big role. The OP is talking about a question of game design, which such a question have to be asked. How much do we reward players with heavier mechanical skill and how much do we reward players with strong strategical thinking? No you're not. You can have a mechanically difficult game that is deeper strategically than a game that is both weak mechanically and strategically. The problem here is people think a game with weaker mechanics focuses more on strategy which is true but a game with shit strategic depth can be 100% strategy based but still suck ass. Another thing people seem to believe is that a mechanically strong player is weak strategically and vice versa. There is no "mechanics vs strategy" debate because they are completely different things. The OP should be asking if mechanics should matter and this is what you are talking about
Everything has strategy. The question is not mechanics OR strategy--but how much mechanics should determine the winner as opposed to brain skills.
Would chess be more fun if each piece weighed 230 lbs? You would need to be physically strong AND mentally strong.
Would street fighter be more fun if it was turn based? Fuck reflexes, its all about move orders!
All competitions have strategy. The question is, should hand speed dictate player skill more than intellect? Should intellect determine player skill more than dexterity? And so on and so forth.
|
On December 31 2012 16:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2012 16:14 GhostKorean wrote:On December 31 2012 15:39 Roarer wrote:On December 31 2012 15:31 GhostKorean wrote:
Jesus more mechanics doesn't mean less strategy you're not trading one for the other you are trading one for each other if you look it in the way of game deciding factors. Should strategy be 20% / 50% / 70% deciding who to win a game? The rest (80%/ 50% / 30%) will be divided among other deciding factors, which mechanics play a big role. The OP is talking about a question of game design, which such a question have to be asked. How much do we reward players with heavier mechanical skill and how much do we reward players with strong strategical thinking? No you're not. You can have a mechanically difficult game that is deeper strategically than a game that is both weak mechanically and strategically. The problem here is people think a game with weaker mechanics focuses more on strategy which is true but a game with shit strategic depth can be 100% strategy based but still suck ass. Another thing people seem to believe is that a mechanically strong player is weak strategically and vice versa. There is no "mechanics vs strategy" debate because they are completely different things. The OP should be asking if mechanics should matter and this is what you are talking about Everything has strategy. The question is not mechanics OR strategy--but how much mechanics should determine the winner as opposed to brain skills. Would chess be more fun if each piece weighed 230 lbs? You would need to be physically strong AND mentally strong. Would street fighter be more fun if it was turn based? Fuck reflexes, its all about move orders! All competitions have strategy. The question is, should hand speed dictate player skill more than intellect? Should intellect determine player skill more than dexterity? And so on and so forth.
We're all saying the same thing in the end lol and there's no answer to that
|
Imagine all the great war generals, like Adolf Hitler, Napoleon Bonaparte, Alexander the great, Hannibal, Genghis Khan, they all had strategies for war, however they needed the military force and army to execute them (in this case mechanics). In order to execute strategy you need to be able to fund it/back it up with mechanics. BAM thread done end of story case closed lights out end of the line end of the road door shut cat's in the bag done.
|
It's not fair that Chess pros can keep track of so many more moves than me. My mind isn't fast enough and my mental mechanics aren't genetically advantageous enough to keep up with them. If only I didn't have to do it all in my head, I could come up with so many amazing strategies! I blame my lack of mental mechanics in moving pieces around in my head and keeping track of everything for all of my loses.
Hey, I have a brilliant solution! Chess pros should play on computers, not those out-dated wooden boards, and the program will light the squares green or red for which pieces are being defended or attacked. Yes, and each player can step through future moves before choosing one and see it all unfold visually. That way people without the ability to process moves in their skull blob quickly will have a fighting chance against Chess players who have better mechanics than them. Chess would be so much more interesting that way I think.
|
On December 31 2012 17:40 FireMonkey wrote:
Imagine all the great war generals, like Adolf Hitler, Napoleon Bonaparte, Alexander the great, Hannibal, Genghis Khan, they all had strategies for war, however they needed the military force and army to execute them (in this case mechanics). In order to execute strategy you need to be able to fund it/back it up with mechanics. BAM thread done end of story case closed lights out end of the line end of the road door shut cat's in the bag done.
So in the Vietnam war, the US should have rolled over anything in their way according to this logic, because they clearly had the "mechanics" to back it up? Didn't work out that well against a few people hiding in the bushes doing "micro" then?
|
2774 Posts
On December 31 2012 17:40 FireMonkey wrote:
Imagine all the great war generals, like Adolf Hitler, Napoleon Bonaparte, Alexander the great, Hannibal, Genghis Khan, they all had strategies for war, however they needed the military force and army to execute them (in this case mechanics). In order to execute strategy you need to be able to fund it/back it up with mechanics. BAM thread done end of story case closed lights out end of the line end of the road door shut cat's in the bag done.
I'm just going to tell you outright, Adolf Hitler wasn't particularly a great war general at all in fact he was one of the main reasons why his "masterful" plan failed or whatever you want to call it, but lets not deteriorate this into a discussion about him, shall we? 
Anyways, I kind of find the general amount of real strategy and the thought behind it a bit lacking in SC2 and on the high level.
This is probably mainly because of the fact that people simply can't think of strategy meanwhile trying to keep a control of everything else. I don't really think strategy should be more rewarding though, I mean it's amazing to see somebody able to micro at intense speeds and succeed because of it. I don't know really, perhaps we'll get these players who excel at both micro¯o and strategy? If that's even possible to do properly I don't know.
|
On December 31 2012 17:56 Kuni wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2012 17:40 FireMonkey wrote:
Imagine all the great war generals, like Adolf Hitler, Napoleon Bonaparte, Alexander the great, Hannibal, Genghis Khan, they all had strategies for war, however they needed the military force and army to execute them (in this case mechanics). In order to execute strategy you need to be able to fund it/back it up with mechanics. BAM thread done end of story case closed lights out end of the line end of the road door shut cat's in the bag done. So in the Vietnam war, the US should have rolled over anything in their way according to this logic, because they clearly had the "mechanics" to back it up? Didn't work out that well against a few people hiding in the bushes doing "micro" then?
Yeah but the Vietcong's strategy and build order was better. It's like when terran try and attack zerg with MMM, usually if the zerg A-moved the army it would lose, instead, if you burrow under it and get it by surprise the zerg would win. The use tried to 1A MMM the vietnamese, so the vietcong used burrow and caught them by surprise.
|
On December 31 2012 18:02 Nixer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2012 17:40 FireMonkey wrote:
Imagine all the great war generals, like Adolf Hitler, Napoleon Bonaparte, Alexander the great, Hannibal, Genghis Khan, they all had strategies for war, however they needed the military force and army to execute them (in this case mechanics). In order to execute strategy you need to be able to fund it/back it up with mechanics. BAM thread done end of story case closed lights out end of the line end of the road door shut cat's in the bag done. I'm just going to tell you outright, Adolf Hitler wasn't particularly a great war general at all in fact he was one of the main reasons why his "masterful" plan failed or whatever you want to call it, but lets not deteriorate this into a discussion about him, shall we?
He had bad decision making, but his officers were top notch.
Anyways, back to the point, this game has mechanics, it's one of the things it makes it starcraft. You can make good RTS not being as demanding mechanically speaking, but it wouldn't be starcraft. We like our button smashing.
|
In my opinion there are pros who have really good mechanics (usually Koreans). And then theres players who dont have as good mechanics and concentrate more on good strategies (For example Naama /elfi). So its pretty even but ofc you can have both and be really good (see Mvp).
|
On December 31 2012 15:39 Roarer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2012 15:31 GhostKorean wrote:
Jesus more mechanics doesn't mean less strategy you're not trading one for the other you are trading one for each other if you look it in the way of game deciding factors. Should strategy be 20% / 50% / 70% deciding who to win a game? The rest (80%/ 50% / 30%) will be divided among other deciding factors, which mechanics play a big role. The OP is talking about a question of game design, which such a question have to be asked. How much do we reward players with heavier mechanical skill and how much do we reward players with strong strategical thinking?
No you are not trading one for the other. You can make games that scale better with skill and games that don't scale well with skill because they have a low skill ceiling.
Let's say Starcraft 2 would have 50%:50% and the absolute skill needed to win against Taeja would be 10 000 skill points.
Then you play something like WiiDance and it is 10%: 90% and the absolute skill to beat the latin world dance champions Riccardo Cocchi & Yulia Zagoruychenko is only 1 000 skill points because for some reason skill doesn't scale well in that game. You can easily do the calculations that Starcraft 2 still needs 4100 more mechanical skill points, even though the ratio is way lower.
|
I am a prime example that good decision making and strategy outweight mechanics.
Platinum league taking on Diamonds, and I only hotkey my nexus and my robo. Everything else is grab and move.
Now, that being said, if I had better mechanics and better hotkeying, I surely would be in Diamond league, possibly tackling master leaguers.
But strategy is more important, and good decision making.
|
On December 31 2012 17:55 G_G wrote:
It's not fair that Chess pros can keep track of so many more moves than me. My mind isn't fast enough and my mental mechanics aren't genetically advantageous enough to keep up with them. If only I didn't have to do it all in my head, I could come up with so many amazing strategies! I blame my lack of mental mechanics in moving pieces around in my head and keeping track of everything for all of my loses.
Hey, I have a brilliant solution! Chess pros should play on computers, not those out-dated wooden boards, and the program will light the squares green or red for which pieces are being defended or attacked. Yes, and each player can step through future moves before choosing one and see it all unfold visually. That way people without the ability to process moves in their skull blob quickly will have a fighting chance against Chess players who have better mechanics than them. Chess would be so much more interesting that way I think.
When people talk of mechanics--they are talking about supposedly tedious complexities that are things you don't waste brain power on.
You don't think "now is the time to make a worker" you simply have the muscle memory to make a worker.
You don't think "now is the time to make a depot" you simply have the muscle memory to make depots.
Chess "thinking in many moves" is exactly what they are talking about when they say strategy. Decision making, planning, thinking moves ahead. If they were not limited by their dexterity they would do better. If they wanted to play a physical past time they'd rather play basketball than a videogame. They want the game to be more cerebral and not simply a way for nerds to feel like they have physical prowess.
That is what they mean when they say they want it to depend more on strategy. They are not saying only mechanics or only strategy. All things have strategy. But what should be praised? Button mashing or strategic planning?
|
Mechanics can carry you to mid-high masters, no more. At least it's the case for me. Being a Broodwar player and not giving a ton of attention to strategy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
