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.
a game with enough depth for both things to be labelled a style, with the best players being able to be very good at both. right now it feels like the mechanical aspect of the game is caped, and that the decision making doesn't have enough depth.
You dont have to be genius or even with average intelligence to play sc2 though. SC2 is designed for everyone and people with bad mechanics can be GM with good strategy or someone with great mechanics with bad strategy can also be GM. You just wont be able to go pro, but you wont necessarily be terrible.
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.
Obviously there has to be a good balance between those two things so both hardcore practice and smart strategic thinking are rewarded with a little bit more emphasis on mechanics (a player with better mechanics should most of the time win).
I certainly think SC2 should be harder mechanically because it makes it more impressive to watch players that master these mechanics but that said it's a strategy game and good decision making/strategy always have and always will be the most important factor in being successful.
IMO APM allows you to pull of more complicated strategies, like multi pronged harass combined with expanding. So APM goes with strategy depth and to reach certain level you need to improve both of it. Still seeing new strategies or new adaptations seem cooler for me. So i vote strategy more.
Being a mechanical monster has its great uses, but if you don't have the creative aptitude alongside it, you're more likely to lose when it comes to facing top tier opponents.
This is why players like Life are a step above a lot of top tier pros.
Importance and depth of strategy is always good imo (in an RTS anyway), I also like combat-micro/apm but macro mechanics shouldn't keep up too much time but be more about strategy than execution
I just recently picked up Company Of Heroes 1+expacs on steam for 13$, as I was playing them i realized how much more important tactical and micro commands were then just "macroing out new units" like sc2, it is def more a micro based game as opposed to a good balance of Brood War where micro (all-ins, reaver drops, storm drops, etc.) can overcome macro, but macro can also over come micro(no use getting 30+ kills on 1 unit only to have it run over by 5 control groups).
Most RTS lend themselves to only 1 very well while the other takes a back seat(Supreme Commander is definitely a good example of a more macro oriented RTS with backseat micro, while Company Of Heroes is more a micro oriented RTS with back seat macro). Brood War is the only game I've ever seen do both correctly, SC2 is getting there but for every step it seems to take, it takes steps back more then it does forward.
That said, you can't execute certain strategies if your mechanics are shit(try executing sair/reaver pvz without constantly baby sitting the shuttle so it doesn't explode to scourge, targeting reaver's shots, running corsairs from scourge and macroing all at the same time. Also this is why a ton of people failed doing the "Bisu Dark Templar FE" build right after he first unveiled it against savior because they'd lose their dark templars to stupid shit and then get over-run because the zerg took a macro advantage.
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.
On December 30 2012 03:50 Toxi78 wrote: a game with enough depth for both things to be labelled a style, with the best players being able to be very good at both. right now it feels like the mechanical aspect of the game is caped, and that the decision making doesn't have enough depth.
The mechanical aspect of the game is faaaar from capped, and just can't be capped. There's just no limit to what you can do mechanically, you've got 130+ supply to micro, there's positionning, scouting, flanking, multi-prong, spells to cast, spells to dodge, injects/mules/chrono boost, doing the most precise macro you can do, It just can't be reached, there's always more to improve on.
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.
It depends on what kind of micro. There is good micro and bad micro. Things like having to select individual buildings to build, or limitations of 'control' that doesn't add to the game itself shouldn't be considered competitive IMO. Of course, all things have limitations, but when it becomes a distraction or barrier before the actual game, I don't think it is relevant to anything other than annoyance. I think skill should mean more than annoying APM and moreso APM that adds to decision making and gameplay.
when I was younger I really liked wc3 and Coh for the microheavy way to play them, nowadays I cant stand CoH, the RNG, the slow way to play it etc, much more prefer mechanics and apm, while it shouldnt be too hard, in an RTS I feel that simply overwhelming somebody needs to be a viable strategy.
Of course I still enjoy microing in sc2, and to be honest I feel that (at least for me) sc2 has the perfect balance between micro and macro (I'd love if the ground army mechanics were improved in order to open up for more micro but hey, cant get everything)
I prefer games where you can micro and need a good strategic decision making. So for my tastes Sc2 is a bit better then bw, but not enough as macro is still rewarded more, then micro. Strategy is in everything though in your macro your micro and your decision making and mechanics of course. So you can't really divide it. It is really important to set the importance of macro and micro in one game. BW is basically just macro and everything else if you have time. Warcraft 3 is alot of micro, but the macro still fills quiet a portion. Dawn of War2 reduced the macro to almost non existance, but still to a point where it matters. All games are quiet good and entertaining. Sc2 sticks to the Broodwar bit of macro being important, but reduces it to a level where micro also plays a role. A Terran won't be able to spend 80% of their control time in their base and macro, they will have to micro in most situations. I think it was good to go this way. (though I also dislike 3 base being optimal) But of course the hardcore macro or micro persons will not find their fun in sc2. But those are the essential design decisions that can barely be altered if a game progressed this far already.
Also I wouldn't call someone less intelligent, that is able to decide if he wants to magic box and move hold position. Or simply attack move or maybe patrol split etc or do some stop targetfire.
Broodwar is more mechanically demanding than SC2. Supreme commander 2 is even less mechanically demanding. In fact with supcom2 you cannot control your armies, and you can make a factory produce an unit continuously for the rest of the game ( infinite queuing, just click once and it'll keep making that unit ).
So when you can't control your army ( no micro ) and macro is close to being non existent then what is left ? Army composition. Nothing more nothing less. I made unit A he made unit B; unit B counters unit A so i guess i lost. I belive what you are thinking about only works in a predeployed game, i'm thinking anything from advance wars to total war. This just doesn't suit the classical RTS genre.
Mechanics. The game is boring as hell if strategy is the only defining feature, strategy should come into play when players have nearly equal mechanics.
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.
flawless macro impresses me way more than a "smart ling-runby" or smth. and until we have only 1 race in starcraft, its totally pointless to compare it with chess imo.
I would prefer SC2 to be a bit harder and require more micro/APM at the absolute top level. Not necessarily as hard as BW, but I don't like that everyone can do thunderstorms and "beautiful fungals".
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.
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.
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.
little more focus on mechanics than strategy. 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.
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.
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.
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
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
Decision making is part of mechanics, from experience and practice, not part of strategy.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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).
Not saying you're completely wrong about strategy in general, in my taste maybe somewhat incomplete.
Thats why they made turn based strategy games, No apm, all decision making and strategy. They are basicly chess. There was a thread like this before, only thing is, there is a reason turn based strategies aren't in e-sports. 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.
100 percent mechanics. Mechanical restrictions do not hinder "strategy..."
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).
Are they not congruent to one another? APM allows you the freedom of more strategical maneuvers because you aren't as constrained physically as someone who has worse mechanics than you.
I think a player should be able to excel at either. Sort of like in quake you had the guys who had amazing map control and moved around the map so fluidly and there were the guys with perfect aim who could hit those perfect shots all the time. Both playstyles are entertaining, and it's really up to what the person prefers. Similarly in Starcraft, someone could have very strong strategic skills and always use very strong builds and has a good gameplan, whereas another player might just use brute force to get the win forcing the other player to make mistakes with constant agression.
People like to knock sc2 because it isn't as mechanically difficult to play as BW but I'd disagree. I think that the changes in the game such as MBS and Automine are more about removing APM from monotonous and uninteresting actions and shifting them towards more interesting actions like increasing the amount of micro in battles and greater army multitasking.
To be honest, SC2 is not that complex. It is way to economy focussed, anybody with some raw understanding of 'growth' will be able to figure out how to manage economy optimal. So the difference between a pro and an amateur is the precision/mechanics of economy management, not so the understanding. On the other hand a lot of strategic/tactical elements are removed:
e.g.
- positional play for zerg (no lurkers) - strategic variance. SC2 forces you to go all-in or all-passive macro. Playstyles in-between will not be successful, because in SC2 early tec cuts too much into your economy, early army is too high a risk because of perfect wall of (you often won't do damage => you are behind => you lose) - injects+mules are bad for the game, - go try the broodwar mod .. it feels way better because of the basic design of the economy. To me it fells like i have more strategic options in that mod because of the modified economy system
On December 30 2012 07:28 BlackPanther wrote: People like to knock sc2 because it isn't as mechanically difficult to play as BW but I'd disagree. I think that the changes in the game such as MBS and Automine are more about removing APM from monotonous and uninteresting actions and shifting them towards more interesting actions like increasing the amount of micro in battles and greater army multitasking.
How is it interesting if everyone can do it?
What is great about requiring players to invest actions in sending workers to mine - selecting buildings and manually building units...is that all the essential actions REQUIRE mechanical investment. Simply having good macro will stress a player.
If you remove these base stressors then everything else in the game that you would consider "important" becomes that much easier.
There are two main parts of mechanical difficulty:
1. The difficulty of performing a single action. 2. The sum difficulty of performing all actions.
If you remove the difficulty in performing a single action (smart casting, no smart-fire, unlimited unit cap) then mechanical difficulty is going to lie in the sum difficulty of performing all actions...which is lessened by things like MBS, automine...
Which leaves you in a situation where "strategies" which require high level mechanics are simply not worth the investment...because the opponent is not stressed.
There are people here saying that there is so much more players can be doing to improve their game...then why aren't they doing it? Because it does not have a good ROI. And why is that? Because baseline actions are so much easier, and the difficulty of individual actions also so much easier, that your opponent is not going to be stressed nearly as much by your "strategy" as you are in executing it.
On December 30 2012 07:28 BlackPanther wrote: People like to knock sc2 because it isn't as mechanically difficult to play as BW but I'd disagree. I think that the changes in the game such as MBS and Automine are more about removing APM from monotonous and uninteresting actions and shifting them towards more interesting actions like increasing the amount of micro in battles and greater army multitasking.
this would make sense if half the units in this game rewarded good micro
On December 30 2012 07:28 BlackPanther wrote: People like to knock sc2 because it isn't as mechanically difficult to play as BW but I'd disagree. I think that the changes in the game such as MBS and Automine are more about removing APM from monotonous and uninteresting actions and shifting them towards more interesting actions like increasing the amount of micro in battles and greater army multitasking.
this would make sense if half the units in this game rewarded good micro
colos, roaches, marauders, good gawd
Marauders? In what universe do marauders not reward good micro?
On December 30 2012 07:28 BlackPanther wrote: People like to knock sc2 because it isn't as mechanically difficult to play as BW but I'd disagree. I think that the changes in the game such as MBS and Automine are more about removing APM from monotonous and uninteresting actions and shifting them towards more interesting actions like increasing the amount of micro in battles and greater army multitasking.
How is it interesting if everyone can do it?
What is great about requiring players to invest actions in sending workers to mine - selecting buildings and manually building units...is that all the essential actions REQUIRE mechanical investment. Simply having good macro will stress a player.
If you remove these base stressors then everything else in the game that you would consider "important" becomes that much easier.
There are two main parts of mechanical difficulty:
1. The difficulty of performing a single action. 2. The sum difficulty of performing all actions.
If you remove the difficulty in performing a single action (smart casting, no smart-fire, unlimited unit cap) then mechanical difficulty is going to lie in the sum difficulty of performing all actions...which is lessened by things like MBS, automine...
Which leaves you in a situation where "strategies" which require high level mechanics are simply not worth the investment...because the opponent is not stressed.
There are people here saying that there is so much more players can be doing to improve their game...then why aren't they doing it? Because it does not have a good ROI. And why is that? Because baseline actions are so much easier, and the difficulty of individual actions also so much easier, that your opponent is not going to be stressed nearly as much by your "strategy" as you are in executing it.
I'm not very interested in taking either side in my own debate, but you make very good points. I guess that having APM be a factor in such a fast-paced game, it adds a new skillset to the game: psychological stability. A player with higher APM can make me fall apart with multi-pronged attacks, but as I learn to control my self under pressure more, I am more able to respond in an immediate and controlled fashion.
So I guess that's another positive of having the game be APM-intensive.
On December 30 2012 07:28 BlackPanther wrote: People like to knock sc2 because it isn't as mechanically difficult to play as BW but I'd disagree. I think that the changes in the game such as MBS and Automine are more about removing APM from monotonous and uninteresting actions and shifting them towards more interesting actions like increasing the amount of micro in battles and greater army multitasking.
this would make sense if half the units in this game rewarded good micro
colos, roaches, marauders, good gawd
Marauders? In what universe do marauders not reward good micro?
what micro? a, click, a, click, a, click?
marines reward micro much more. marauders are a lot more 1aish
the marine is the perfect example of a unit the designers got right in this game
difficulty in expressing what you want in game is necessary, otherwise everyone would play close to perfect and therefore have similar styles and such since they wouldn't specialize in certain styles due to everything being easy to control instead of being better at some things (like drop micro vs macro etc.)
Though I do prefer SC2 over BW because I like the balance of the time spent improving apm/precision/etc and time spent improving game sense/strategy/etc to be better
On December 30 2012 07:28 BlackPanther wrote: People like to knock sc2 because it isn't as mechanically difficult to play as BW but I'd disagree. I think that the changes in the game such as MBS and Automine are more about removing APM from monotonous and uninteresting actions and shifting them towards more interesting actions like increasing the amount of micro in battles and greater army multitasking.
this would make sense if half the units in this game rewarded good micro
colos, roaches, marauders, good gawd
Marauders? In what universe do marauders not reward good micro?
what micro? a, click, a, click, a, click?
marines reward micro much more. marauders are a lot more 1aish
we all know a-click is an exaggeration in almost every situation it's used...
and then your argument is that marines are rewarded more by micro, but that still doesn't address his statement that marauders reward good micro
Just saying, but often the slower players has better micro, since it's more about precision, while fast players will do the micro and also keep macro going. Think of Elfi, who has pretty good micro but he literally cant do both at once ^^
There was a game in PvP where he went phoenix, other P was attacking him, and Apollo was like, okay, he has to deffend this so you will see phoenixes stop being used, which was true
On December 30 2012 07:28 BlackPanther wrote: People like to knock sc2 because it isn't as mechanically difficult to play as BW but I'd disagree. I think that the changes in the game such as MBS and Automine are more about removing APM from monotonous and uninteresting actions and shifting them towards more interesting actions like increasing the amount of micro in battles and greater army multitasking.
this would make sense if half the units in this game rewarded good micro
colos, roaches, marauders, good gawd
Marauders? In what universe do marauders not reward good micro?
what micro? a, click, a, click, a, click?
This is insanely inaccurate, microing a marauder is so much more complex than that.
Because it's actually a, click click, a, click click, a click click.
On December 30 2012 07:27 Najda wrote: I think a player should be able to excel at either. Sort of like in quake you had the guys who had amazing map control and moved around the map so fluidly and there were the guys with perfect aim who could hit those perfect shots all the time. Both playstyles are entertaining, and it's really up to what the person prefers. Similarly in Starcraft, someone could have very strong strategic skills and always use very strong builds and has a good gameplan, whereas another player might just use brute force to get the win forcing the other player to make mistakes with constant agression.
How are those two similar, exactly? Map control and movement in Quake are still execution oriented - obviously some players have a very good feel of it and know exactly where to go, but the whole idea is still being executed by moving quickly and always being in the right place at the right time. It's exciting to see. It's exciting to do. You can still screw up at any point in a blink of a second.
On the other hand, build orders and game plans are boring at best and annoying at worst. The game that stands out very sharply in my mind was when Creator was playing against some Terran (can't remember who) on Ohana - he put 3 Observers on the points of the map where they couldn't be sniped, thus automatically denying any kind of drop or harassment, then he proceeded to play super greedy and defensive until he got a super army and rolled the poor dude over. The game lasted for 20 minutes and there was NOTHING to see - and that game was supposed to be the highest level of competitive Starcraft, and according to the LR thread, a "display of dominance".
In fact, too many games end this way, with a player securing a relatively early strategic advantage due to how their builds play out and then either destroying the opponent (which is boring) or throwing the game away (which is terrible). Inversely, the game doesn't give almost any leeway for a faster, mechanical player to abuse a competent enough player.
Strategy plays some part in almost all games in existence. But in a competitive game, it's the display of skill - mostly in terms of some sort of physical ability, that makes most games exciting to play and watch them being played competitively. Strategy isn't a skill, it's just knowledge mixed with decision making and some coin flipping.
Can someone explain to me how there is a gap between mechanics and strategy that can't be conceptually connected somehow in an RTS?
As tautological as it may sound, the distinction between a turn-based and a real-time strategy game is that time flows continuously in an RTS, separate from the actions of each player. It would be absurd to simply push a strategy called "make lings" on a Zerg player because it doesn't explain the context, but more importantly, it doesn't explain the timeline - when to do what. The people arguing "more strategy, less mechanics" don't understand that unique strategy in an RTS is dependent on the existence, limits, and differences in mechanics in players. Why do you think phrases like "tight builds" or "this build is ok if the opponent sucks" or "I don't know what the opponent is doing because his timings are weird" exist?
Furthermore, general strategy (that is, beyond the bare-bones timing stuff) is also almost always focused on attacking at a point where the results of the mechanics the opponent has used is weaker than what you've done so far OR attacking at a time where his mechanics will be unequipped to deal with what you're doing. Would anybody even think about doing multiple -pronged drops if just enough ling/bane/infestors were dispatched to each base in time to defend against the drops? Of course not.
I don't necessarily think I support a game that is more mechanically focused, per se, but I would like to point out that we can't just 'magically' have strategy over mechanics. They are inextricably linked.
On December 30 2012 07:27 Najda wrote: I think a player should be able to excel at either. Sort of like in quake you had the guys who had amazing map control and moved around the map so fluidly and there were the guys with perfect aim who could hit those perfect shots all the time. Both playstyles are entertaining, and it's really up to what the person prefers. Similarly in Starcraft, someone could have very strong strategic skills and always use very strong builds and has a good gameplan, whereas another player might just use brute force to get the win forcing the other player to make mistakes with constant agression.
How are those two similar, exactly? Map control and movement in Quake are still execution oriented - obviously some players have a very good feel of it and know exactly where to go, but the whole idea is still being executed by moving quickly and always being in the right place at the right time. It's exciting to see. It's exciting to do. You can still screw up at any point in a blink of a second.
On the other hand, build orders and game plans are boring at best and annoying at worst. The game that stands out very sharply in my mind was when Creator was playing against some Terran (can't remember who) on Ohana - he put 3 Observers on the points of the map where they couldn't be sniped, thus automatically denying any kind of drop or harassment, then he proceeded to play super greedy and defensive until he got a super army and rolled the poor dude over. The game lasted for 20 minutes and there was NOTHING to see - and that game was supposed to be the highest level of competitive Starcraft, and according to the LR thread, a "display of dominance".
In fact, too many games end this way, with a player securing a relatively early strategic advantage due to how their builds play out and then either destroying the opponent (which is boring) or throwing the game away (which is terrible). Inversely, the game doesn't give almost any leeway for a faster, mechanical player to abuse a competent enough player.
Strategy plays some part in almost all games in existence. But in a competitive game, it's the display of skill - mostly in terms of some sort of physical ability, that makes most games exciting to play and watch them being played competitively. Strategy isn't a skill, it's just knowledge mixed with decision making and some coin flipping.
That was very well said. Thank you for expressing your opinion.
On December 30 2012 08:04 ymir233 wrote: Can someone explain to me how there is a gap between mechanics and strategy that can't be conceptually connected somehow in an RTS?
As tautological as it may sound, the distinction between a turn-based and a real-time strategy game is that time flows continuously in an RTS, separate from the actions of each player. It would be absurd to simply push a strategy called "make lings" on a Zerg player because it doesn't explain the context, but more importantly, it doesn't explain the timeline - when to do what. The people arguing "more strategy, less mechanics" don't understand that unique strategy in an RTS is dependent on the existence, limits, and differences in mechanics in players. Why do you think phrases like "tight builds" or "this build is ok if the opponent sucks" or "I don't know what the opponent is doing because his timings are weird" exist?
Furthermore, general strategy (that is, beyond the bare-bones timing stuff) is also almost always focused on attacking at a point where the results of the mechanics the opponent has used is weaker than what you've done so far OR attacking at a time where his mechanics will be unequipped to deal with what you're doing. Would anybody even think about doing multiple -pronged drops if just enough ling/bane/infestors were dispatched to each base in time to defend against the drops? Of course not.
I don't necessarily think I support a game that is more mechanically focused, per se, but I would like to point out that we can't just 'magically' have strategy over mechanics. They are inextricably linked.
Well said. Higher mechanical difficulty in all aspects of the game allows players to have a FOCUS for their mechanics. What they practice more they will excel at, and the best players will be able to excel at more aspects.
On December 30 2012 08:04 ymir233 wrote: Can someone explain to me how there is a gap between mechanics and strategy that can't be conceptually connected somehow in an RTS?
As tautological as it may sound, the distinction between a turn-based and a real-time strategy game is that time flows continuously in an RTS, separate from the actions of each player. It would be absurd to simply push a strategy called "make lings" on a Zerg player because it doesn't explain the context, but more importantly, it doesn't explain the timeline - when to do what. The people arguing "more strategy, less mechanics" don't understand that unique strategy in an RTS is dependent on the existence, limits, and differences in mechanics in players. Why do you think phrases like "tight builds" or "this build is ok if the opponent sucks" or "I don't know what the opponent is doing because his timings are weird" exist?
Furthermore, general strategy (that is, beyond the bare-bones timing stuff) is also almost always focused on attacking at a point where the results of the mechanics the opponent has used is weaker than what you've done so far OR attacking at a time where his mechanics will be unequipped to deal with what you're doing. Would anybody even think about doing multiple -pronged drops if just enough ling/bane/infestors were dispatched to each base in time to defend against the drops? Of course not.
I don't necessarily think I support a game that is more mechanically focused, per se, but I would like to point out that we can't just 'magically' have strategy over mechanics. They are inextricably linked.
That is very true. But, at least for me the concept "more strategy than mechanics" means: On a line that scales from Chess (hardly any mechanics, a lot of strategy) to Guitar Hero (your strategy is how you hold your hand and where you look with your eyes, from there on it's pure mechanics), I want my RTS closer to Chess than to Guitar Hero. Not saying that I don't like mechanics, I play guitar (the real one ) and complex mechanics are a lot of fun in their own. But I imagine mechanics being somewhat of a "singleplayer"-thing, whilst with strategy I already have to include what my opponent is doing.
Both are needed at all levels of play, However usually good APM and mechanics are used to execute a complex strategy, so having good apm and mechanics without good strategy can sometimes be useless. Though easy standard strategies allow people without exceptional strategies to do good with their mechanics, on the other hand if you combine it with exceptional strategy, you can become an unbeatable player.
Chess itself is more similar to Guitar Hero than you might think - at the highest level it is mostly about intensive learning and training your mind to be able to stretch and iterate over as many combinations as possible, and in the end a computer always wins. It's really a game about good memory and mental agility (or processing power). There's almost no improvisation, creativity and freeform decision making going on that decides the outcome except at very low level. Chess is definitely not an example of a "pure" strategy game, if not for its tradition and theme it's questionable whether it even is a strategy game.
Pure strategy games are almost always a very casual experience - such as Civ series or Paradox games. Strategic depth simply isn't enough of a feature to make for a good competitive game in and of itself. A good competitive game needs to be able to conclusively "measure" the opponents and determine which one of them (or which team) is better at a specific skillset - whether implied or explicitly stated - than the other, and ranked accordingly. In most competitive disciplines, strategy is more of a side-feature that can be used to gain an advantage over the opponent, but the outcome of the match is almost always determined by skill.
atm apm/multitask doesnt win u alot of game cuz there are too little partsof the game were u can pull ahead by using high apm. its much more about timings in early-mid game and about the unitmix in lategame, what is mostly about decicing making.
i hope in hots they bring in alot more aspects to get ahead just by having more apm than ur opp.
I know this sounds stupid but, you don't have to be intelligent to be considered a genius in SC2. It honestly depends on how you're playing and weather or not it can benefit from either or (having high apm or being strategic).
IMO, "bw>sc2" threads about mechanics are kinda stupid because as weve seen Sc2 already is capable of absorbing 100% of the best top pro's mechanics/APM and still its not close to the ceiling. This means the pros with superior mechanics will always have massive advantages over people with inferior mechanics
im starting to think more and more that what made bisu/flash so great wasnt even their mechanics in BW, it was strategy and their mechanics of their mind not mechanics of their hands. which is why bisu in SC2 isnt completely dominating everyone with his mechanics like some thought, IMO thats because the truth is bisu was never really dominating people with his mechanics in BW it was something else entirely. It was about the mind, not the hands, all his peers had equally powerful hands.
So now in SC2 bisu is at the same equal level playing field with his competition when it comes to mechanics, but when it comes to strategy bisu has not cracked the code yet (and maybe he never will. maybe SC2 just has less strategic depth than BW) and bisu doesnt have the strategy advantage over his peers that he once had in BW so thats why bisu isnt completely destroying as predicted.
On December 30 2012 09:36 bankobauss wrote: IMO, "bw>sc2" threads about mechanics are kinda stupid because as weve seen Sc2 already is capable of absorbing 100% of the best top pro's mechanics/APM and still its not close to the ceiling. This means the pros with superior mechanics will always have massive advantages over people with inferior mechanics
im starting to think more and more that what made bisu/flash so great wasnt even their mechanics in BW, it was strategy and their mechanics of their mind not mechanics of their hands. which is why bisu in SC2 isnt completely dominating everyone with his mechanics like some thought, IMO thats because the truth is bisu was never really dominating people with his mechanics in BW it was something else entirely. It was about the mind, not the hands, all his peers had equally powerful hands.
So now in SC2 bisu is at the same equal level playing field with his competition when it comes to mechanics, but when it comes to strategy bisu has not cracked the code yet (and maybe he never will. maybe SC2 just has less strategic depth than BW) and bisu doesnt have the strategy advantage over his peers that he once had in BW so thats why bisu isnt completely destroying as predicted.
mechanics never were related to how fast your hands could move. your hands only move as fast as your mind. the brain is the limitation to apm. even i could just sit here mashing buttons at 700 apm.
On December 30 2012 09:36 bankobauss wrote: IMO, "bw>sc2" threads about mechanics are kinda stupid because as weve seen Sc2 already is capable of absorbing 100% of the best top pro's mechanics/APM and still its not close to the ceiling. This means the pros with superior mechanics will always have massive advantages over people with inferior mechanics
im starting to think more and more that what made bisu/flash so great wasnt even their mechanics in BW, it was strategy and their mechanics of their mind not mechanics of their hands. which is why bisu in SC2 isnt completely dominating everyone with his mechanics like some thought, IMO thats because the truth is bisu was never really dominating people with his mechanics in BW it was something else entirely. It was about the mind, not the hands, all his peers had equally powerful hands.
So now in SC2 bisu is at the same equal level playing field with his competition when it comes to mechanics, but when it comes to strategy bisu has not cracked the code yet (and maybe he never will. maybe SC2 just has less strategic depth than BW) and bisu doesnt have the strategy advantage over his peers that he once had in BW so thats why bisu isnt completely destroying as predicted.
Gumiho had a massive advantage over Vortix? Polt over Goswser? Ryung over Scarlett? Symbol over Snute? MKP over Stephano? MMA over Xlord? Yoda over Huk?
Both are important. I think you can be the best SC2 player ever with just "good" mechanic. Mvp doesn't have outstanding mechanic but his strength lies in his planning,strategies,decision making. That's what defines RTS for me. Oh and mechanic is not somthing you can just carry over from BW to SC2 too. You practice spefic game to be mechanically good at it. Mechanic is muscle memory. It works differently in each game. Bisu is pretty bad in SC2 compare to his fellow progamers and don't say something like "because it's SC2 that made him bad,the game just doesn't let him use his skill." It's not that the game doesn't let him use his skill. He just doesn't have that much of skill in SC2 whether it's mechanic or anything.
On December 30 2012 09:36 bankobauss wrote: IMO, "bw>sc2" threads about mechanics are kinda stupid because as weve seen Sc2 already is capable of absorbing 100% of the best top pro's mechanics/APM and still its not close to the ceiling. This means the pros with superior mechanics will always have massive advantages over people with inferior mechanics
im starting to think more and more that what made bisu/flash so great wasnt even their mechanics in BW, it was strategy and their mechanics of their mind not mechanics of their hands. which is why bisu in SC2 isnt completely dominating everyone with his mechanics like some thought, IMO thats because the truth is bisu was never really dominating people with his mechanics in BW it was something else entirely. It was about the mind, not the hands, all his peers had equally powerful hands.
So now in SC2 bisu is at the same equal level playing field with his competition when it comes to mechanics, but when it comes to strategy bisu has not cracked the code yet (and maybe he never will. maybe SC2 just has less strategic depth than BW) and bisu doesnt have the strategy advantage over his peers that he once had in BW so thats why bisu isnt completely destroying as predicted.
SCII isn't "absorbing" those mechanics. It is already AT the ceiling, so there is no use for them. Pros are not doing more with their units because there is not a good ROI for all the APM investment.
It all comes down to the economic system. The baseline is simple. Thus the game feels too simple. In general because of all the automation actions return less and less and less meaning it is simply not worth it to be fast. Complexity of attack is limited by the simplicity of defense...
The core is difficult to express. Others can say it more eloquently than I can. The issue is that individual actions are so simplistic, and due to automation action cycles so much easier to execute, that complex APM intensive tactics will never be the norm.
Bisu AND Flash are definitely great because of their mechanics...They are both extremely precise which is why they feel "slower" than someone like Jaedong, whose screen seems so hectic due to his style. It is not just about speed, it how players utilize their speed and incorporate it into their style.
On December 30 2012 09:36 bankobauss wrote: IMO, "bw>sc2" threads about mechanics are kinda stupid because as weve seen Sc2 already is capable of absorbing 100% of the best top pro's mechanics/APM and still its not close to the ceiling. This means the pros with superior mechanics will always have massive advantages over people with inferior mechanics
im starting to think more and more that what made bisu/flash so great wasnt even their mechanics in BW, it was strategy and their mechanics of their mind not mechanics of their hands. which is why bisu in SC2 isnt completely dominating everyone with his mechanics like some thought, IMO thats because the truth is bisu was never really dominating people with his mechanics in BW it was something else entirely. It was about the mind, not the hands, all his peers had equally powerful hands.
So now in SC2 bisu is at the same equal level playing field with his competition when it comes to mechanics, but when it comes to strategy bisu has not cracked the code yet (and maybe he never will. maybe SC2 just has less strategic depth than BW) and bisu doesnt have the strategy advantage over his peers that he once had in BW so thats why bisu isnt completely destroying as predicted.
Gumiho had a massive advantage over Vortix? Polt over Goswser? Ryung over Scarlett? Symbol over Snute? MKP over Stephano? MMA over Xlord? Yoda over Huk?
I believe the notion that foreigners must have inferior mechanics may not be as true as many think. Just cuz a korean has much higher APM might not mean his useful APM is much higher than the foreigner. So far theres no real reliable way to measure useful APM, its all just opinions.
So if you view your statements with the mindset that the mechanic levels of the foreigners were not that much less than the koreans, then that means the koreans didnt have truly cut and dry "superior mechanics" so they did not have the "massive advantage" i talked about which comes from having "superior mechanics". IMO most of the korean dominance is from superior strategy. As for the TvZ games you listed, I feel thats a matchup that highly needs fixing due to extreme strategy limitations in many areas
On December 30 2012 09:36 bankobauss wrote: IMO, "bw>sc2" threads about mechanics are kinda stupid because as weve seen Sc2 already is capable of absorbing 100% of the best top pro's mechanics/APM and still its not close to the ceiling. This means the pros with superior mechanics will always have massive advantages over people with inferior mechanics
im starting to think more and more that what made bisu/flash so great wasnt even their mechanics in BW, it was strategy and their mechanics of their mind not mechanics of their hands. which is why bisu in SC2 isnt completely dominating everyone with his mechanics like some thought, IMO thats because the truth is bisu was never really dominating people with his mechanics in BW it was something else entirely. It was about the mind, not the hands, all his peers had equally powerful hands.
So now in SC2 bisu is at the same equal level playing field with his competition when it comes to mechanics, but when it comes to strategy bisu has not cracked the code yet (and maybe he never will. maybe SC2 just has less strategic depth than BW) and bisu doesnt have the strategy advantage over his peers that he once had in BW so thats why bisu isnt completely destroying as predicted.
SC2 has vastly diminishing returns on effectiveness of mechanics compared to BW or WC3, period. People who have been arguing that a change raises the skill floor but doesn't affect the skill ceiling are ignorant imho, you can't change one without changing the other. In BW the difference between good macro and bad macro is insane to the extent that top tier foreigners couldn't beat top tier Koreans when they did retarded builds like mass firebats (basically the equivalent of mass reapers in sc2). In Warcraft 3 the difference in micro ability between top tier pros and mid tier pros let them win games with next to no units from huge disadvantages because the few units they did make were simply that cost efficient (idk a SC2 equivalent, maybe making 8 Blink Stalkers beat 20-30+ roaches?). In SC2 those kinds of things don't exist, because 12 roaches will always beat 8 Blink Stalkers with decent control, and it isn't nearly as hard to macro so the vast majority of experienced RTS players can do a '12 min roach max out' with maybe a days worth of practice.
Sigh i guess i should rephrase myself. When i said what made bisu/flash great wasnt their mechanics, what i MEANT was I believe at that high level virtually all of the peers of bisu/flash did have similar power when it came to mechanics, so at that ULTRA HIGH LEVEL it was truly strategy and the mechanics of the mind that made champions and victors, not the mechanics of the hands (as they were all roughly equally powerful in that regard)
On December 30 2012 09:36 bankobauss wrote: IMO, "bw>sc2" threads about mechanics are kinda stupid because as weve seen Sc2 already is capable of absorbing 100% of the best top pro's mechanics/APM and still its not close to the ceiling. This means the pros with superior mechanics will always have massive advantages over people with inferior mechanics
im starting to think more and more that what made bisu/flash so great wasnt even their mechanics in BW, it was strategy and their mechanics of their mind not mechanics of their hands. which is why bisu in SC2 isnt completely dominating everyone with his mechanics like some thought, IMO thats because the truth is bisu was never really dominating people with his mechanics in BW it was something else entirely. It was about the mind, not the hands, all his peers had equally powerful hands.
So now in SC2 bisu is at the same equal level playing field with his competition when it comes to mechanics, but when it comes to strategy bisu has not cracked the code yet (and maybe he never will. maybe SC2 just has less strategic depth than BW) and bisu doesnt have the strategy advantage over his peers that he once had in BW so thats why bisu isnt completely destroying as predicted.
SC2 has vastly diminishing returns on effectiveness of mechanics compared to BW or WC3, period. People who have been arguing that a change raises the skill floor but doesn't affect the skill ceiling are ignorant imho, you can't change one without changing the other. In BW the difference between good macro and bad macro is insane to the extent that top tier foreigners couldn't beat top tier Koreans when they did retarded builds like mass firebats (basically the equivalent of mass reapers in sc2). In Warcraft 3 the difference in micro ability between top tier pros and mid tier pros let them win games with next to no units from huge disadvantages because the few units they did make were simply that cost efficient (idk a SC2 equivalent, maybe making 8 Blink Stalkers beat 20-30+ roaches?). In SC2 those kinds of things don't exist, because 12 roaches will always beat 8 Blink Stalkers with decent control, and it isn't nearly as hard to macro so the vast majority of experienced RTS players can do a '12 min roach max out' with maybe a days worth of practice.
From my experience, WC3 is much less mechanically demanding than SC2 mechanically. Even Grubby said this. The pace of it is so slow and that's what made it micro war game. To this day I have never seen SC2 pro that can keep up and does everything perfectly.
For the vast majority of us APM is a complete waste of time. Im 38 years old and my APM is usually 45-50 and yet I made it into SEA Grandmaster and am about to crack NA Master. Im beating guys with APMs in the 200s - why? Superior strategy and meta gameplan.
On December 30 2012 09:36 bankobauss wrote: IMO, "bw>sc2" threads about mechanics are kinda stupid because as weve seen Sc2 already is capable of absorbing 100% of the best top pro's mechanics/APM and still its not close to the ceiling. This means the pros with superior mechanics will always have massive advantages over people with inferior mechanics
im starting to think more and more that what made bisu/flash so great wasnt even their mechanics in BW, it was strategy and their mechanics of their mind not mechanics of their hands. which is why bisu in SC2 isnt completely dominating everyone with his mechanics like some thought, IMO thats because the truth is bisu was never really dominating people with his mechanics in BW it was something else entirely. It was about the mind, not the hands, all his peers had equally powerful hands.
So now in SC2 bisu is at the same equal level playing field with his competition when it comes to mechanics, but when it comes to strategy bisu has not cracked the code yet (and maybe he never will. maybe SC2 just has less strategic depth than BW) and bisu doesnt have the strategy advantage over his peers that he once had in BW so thats why bisu isnt completely destroying as predicted.
SCII isn't "absorbing" those mechanics. It is already AT the ceiling, so there is no use for them. Pros are not doing more with their units because there is not a good ROI for all the APM investment.
Exactly.
If anyone needs an easy proof of this, look up any of Nony, Idra or Sen's games from Brood War, then look at how they play in SC2, then tell me they're investing the same amount of physical effort into them. It's not even close.
It's most apparent in foreigners that were prominent in BW, but even if you look at many of the Kespa guys you're going to notice a lot of mistakes that you wouldn't expect a professional player to be making so consistently (supply blocks, not watching his army, not watching the minimap, not watching the drops etc).
One could say it's because they haven't played enough to get an intuitive grasp of the game to the point where their minds and hands automate a lot of the stuff, but I'd argue that some level of decline in awareness and general skill is fairly obvious in most players that were active and around the same level in both games. And it's not because the sequel is more demanding, it's because people intuitively start phasing out less important things over time.
strategy is irrelevant, especially at lower levels. on my bronze account i used to do compositions determined by dice roll and roll people with stuff like reaper/ghost/BC, just cause they didn't know what they were doing...
On December 30 2012 09:36 bankobauss wrote: IMO, "bw>sc2" threads about mechanics are kinda stupid because as weve seen Sc2 already is capable of absorbing 100% of the best top pro's mechanics/APM and still its not close to the ceiling. This means the pros with superior mechanics will always have massive advantages over people with inferior mechanics
im starting to think more and more that what made bisu/flash so great wasnt even their mechanics in BW, it was strategy and their mechanics of their mind not mechanics of their hands. which is why bisu in SC2 isnt completely dominating everyone with his mechanics like some thought, IMO thats because the truth is bisu was never really dominating people with his mechanics in BW it was something else entirely. It was about the mind, not the hands, all his peers had equally powerful hands.
So now in SC2 bisu is at the same equal level playing field with his competition when it comes to mechanics, but when it comes to strategy bisu has not cracked the code yet (and maybe he never will. maybe SC2 just has less strategic depth than BW) and bisu doesnt have the strategy advantage over his peers that he once had in BW so thats why bisu isnt completely destroying as predicted.
SC2 has vastly diminishing returns on effectiveness of mechanics compared to BW or WC3, period. People who have been arguing that a change raises the skill floor but doesn't affect the skill ceiling are ignorant imho, you can't change one without changing the other. In BW the difference between good macro and bad macro is insane to the extent that top tier foreigners couldn't beat top tier Koreans when they did retarded builds like mass firebats (basically the equivalent of mass reapers in sc2). In Warcraft 3 the difference in micro ability between top tier pros and mid tier pros let them win games with next to no units from huge disadvantages because the few units they did make were simply that cost efficient (idk a SC2 equivalent, maybe making 8 Blink Stalkers beat 20-30+ roaches?). In SC2 those kinds of things don't exist, because 12 roaches will always beat 8 Blink Stalkers with decent control, and it isn't nearly as hard to macro so the vast majority of experienced RTS players can do a '12 min roach max out' with maybe a days worth of practice.
From my experience, WC3 is much less mechanically demanding than SC2 mechanically. Even Grubby said this. The pace of it is so slow and that's what made it micro war game. To this day I have never seen SC2 pro that can keep up and does everything perfectly.
That's the point-- you don't need to.
As aforementioned, even diamond players can do a 12 min roach max. And going from the diamond mechanics that let you max at 12 mins, to Stephano mechanics that get you there at 11:30 simply isn't a very big return rate for the apm investment.
The biggest evidence of this can be seen with protoss. Near perfect macro takes around 100 epm. Some of the slowest pro players play Protoss, and an insanely fast protoss player really doesn't gain that big of an advantage over a slow one like Elfi, Grubby, or hasuobs. PvP is by far the worst matchup in the game in regards to the favored, aka mechanically superior, player's winrate-- look at playhem statistics to support this.
People talk about the Korean-foreign gap closing, but Koreans don't dominate (they are dominating now of course but not nearly like in BW) but the truth is foreigners are only able to compete with Koreans because of how the game is made. Very little reward for perfect macro or micro. Scarlett turtling to 62 infestors gives a much higher rate of return for much less skill than the insane multitasking and unit control Gumiho showed vs Life.
Comparing Sc with chess is like compraring chess with football. Are 2 totally different disciplines.
Sc is a game of skill. You can indeed be more or less smart than your opponent, but almost always skill/excecution/speed-precision win it. There is no way Sc could be more decision based and at the same time still be Sc (don't get me wrong, I love strat based games). And notice that I'm not even talking about Sc2 or Bw, both are games where skill and speed are dominant over deep strategy.
And for the record, chess is a strategy game indeed, but again you need an insane "thoughts per seconds" to succeed besides the strategy (that with internet have become something widelly known, not like in old capa-fischer-karpov times when looking for "hidden books" was something important)
And I say this as a much more strategical/analytical person. I have slow average hands (gaming, writting, whatever), and with top strat-analysis, I can't get beyond high masters due the skill cap.
The two things aren't at odds. APM and attention are finite resources that must be divided across the board. Micro-able unit interactions - for example where Stalkers can endlessly kite stimless marines around - are a tactical consideration not all that different from, say, "+damage to light", only more dynamic and situational. The other player can do things to divide the player's attention whereas a damage bonus would be non-interactive. And there's often an element of decision making in micro, especially as the game becomes more complex. You see this a lot in robust matchups like SC2 TvT and any BW non-mirror where each player's attention is being spread all over and games appear "sloppy". The choice to put attention at this place at this moment rather than the X other places that could make use of it isn't just mechanics, it's strategy. Letting resources pile up as you micro your army, or letting your army get into a bad un-micro'd engagement as you harass, all strategy. Nobody has infinite APM to spend.
You might say that this only the case when the two player's APM is relatively equal, and yes that's partly true, but the less skilled player can still favor easier compositions and employ strategies which offset the disadvantage. How to best minimize your own shortcomings is very much a strategic question.
On December 30 2012 09:36 bankobauss wrote: IMO, "bw>sc2" threads about mechanics are kinda stupid because as weve seen Sc2 already is capable of absorbing 100% of the best top pro's mechanics/APM and still its not close to the ceiling. This means the pros with superior mechanics will always have massive advantages over people with inferior mechanics
im starting to think more and more that what made bisu/flash so great wasnt even their mechanics in BW, it was strategy and their mechanics of their mind not mechanics of their hands. which is why bisu in SC2 isnt completely dominating everyone with his mechanics like some thought, IMO thats because the truth is bisu was never really dominating people with his mechanics in BW it was something else entirely. It was about the mind, not the hands, all his peers had equally powerful hands.
So now in SC2 bisu is at the same equal level playing field with his competition when it comes to mechanics, but when it comes to strategy bisu has not cracked the code yet (and maybe he never will. maybe SC2 just has less strategic depth than BW) and bisu doesnt have the strategy advantage over his peers that he once had in BW so thats why bisu isnt completely destroying as predicted.
SC2 has vastly diminishing returns on effectiveness of mechanics compared to BW or WC3, period. People who have been arguing that a change raises the skill floor but doesn't affect the skill ceiling are ignorant imho, you can't change one without changing the other. In BW the difference between good macro and bad macro is insane to the extent that top tier foreigners couldn't beat top tier Koreans when they did retarded builds like mass firebats (basically the equivalent of mass reapers in sc2). In Warcraft 3 the difference in micro ability between top tier pros and mid tier pros let them win games with next to no units from huge disadvantages because the few units they did make were simply that cost efficient (idk a SC2 equivalent, maybe making 8 Blink Stalkers beat 20-30+ roaches?). In SC2 those kinds of things don't exist, because 12 roaches will always beat 8 Blink Stalkers with decent control, and it isn't nearly as hard to macro so the vast majority of experienced RTS players can do a '12 min roach max out' with maybe a days worth of practice.
From my experience, WC3 is much less mechanically demanding than SC2 mechanically. Even Grubby said this. The pace of it is so slow and that's what made it micro war game. To this day I have never seen SC2 pro that can keep up and does everything perfectly.
That's the point-- you don't need to.
As aforementioned, even diamond players can do a 12 min roach max. And going from the diamond mechanics that let you max at 12 mins, to Stephano mechanics that get you there at 11:30 simply isn't a very big return rate for the apm investment.
The biggest evidence of this can be seen with protoss. Near perfect macro takes around 100 epm. Some of the slowest pro players play Protoss, and an insanely fast protoss player really doesn't gain that big of an advantage over a slow one like Elfi, Grubby, or hasuobs. PvP is by far the worst matchup in the game in regards to the favored, aka mechanically superior, player's winrate-- look at playhem statistics to support this.
People talk about the Korean-foreign gap closing, but Koreans don't dominate (they are dominating now of course but not nearly like in BW) but the truth is foreigners are only able to compete with Koreans because of how the game is made. Very little reward for perfect macro or micro. Scarlett turtling to 62 infestors gives a much higher rate of return for much less skill than the insane multitasking and unit control Gumiho showed vs Life.
Life is still better than Scarlett anyway? So, what's the point? The reason korean dominated more in BW not only comes from the fact that BW is mechanically harder but the foriegner scene back then were not as serious as today.
On December 30 2012 09:45 Wildmoon wrote: Both are important. I think you can be the best SC2 player ever with just "good" mechanic. Mvp doesn't have outstanding mechanic but his strength lies in his planning,strategies,decision making. That's what defines RTS for me. Oh and mechanic is not somthing you can just carry over from BW to SC2 too. You practice spefic game to be mechanically good at it. Mechanic is muscle memory. It works differently in each game. Bisu is pretty bad in SC2 compare to his fellow progamers and don't say something like "because it's SC2 that made him bad,the game just doesn't let him use his skill." It's not that the game doesn't let him use his skill. He just doesn't have that much of skill in SC2 whether it's mechanic or anything.
That is a big myth. When Mvp was dominating, he had the best mechanics as well as decision making.
MKP's micro might have been looked better but that was in expense of his macro. Bomber's macro might have been better but that was in expense of his micro. Mvp was top 3 in micro AND macro which meant he had the best overall 'mechcanics'.
I would rather have a really difficulty game that I suck at if I can watch people master the game. That way I can be in awe of them. In SC2 there is far fewer events in a game that I haven't been able to pull off or rarely seen.
In BW, you could find players that would strive of great macro against another player with great micro and it's like watching the movie 300. Even if the player has a lesser army they still scrap through and have a chance to win. But the game also allows for strategy where a player can get behind in the game early but if the risk pays off they will explode late game and gain a significant lead.
As far as SC2, I prefer the game be much harder mechanically. Sometimes strategy is about making mechanics that are difficult for you easier by careful planning on how you intend to battle your opponent.
On December 30 2012 09:45 Wildmoon wrote: Both are important. I think you can be the best SC2 player ever with just "good" mechanic. Mvp doesn't have outstanding mechanic but his strength lies in his planning,strategies,decision making. That's what defines RTS for me. Oh and mechanic is not somthing you can just carry over from BW to SC2 too. You practice spefic game to be mechanically good at it. Mechanic is muscle memory. It works differently in each game. Bisu is pretty bad in SC2 compare to his fellow progamers and don't say something like "because it's SC2 that made him bad,the game just doesn't let him use his skill." It's not that the game doesn't let him use his skill. He just doesn't have that much of skill in SC2 whether it's mechanic or anything.
That is a big myth. When Mvp was dominating, he had the best mechanics as well as decision making.
MKP's micro might have been looked better but that was in expense of his macro. Bomber's macro might have been better but that was in expense of his micro. Mvp was top 3 in micro AND macro which meant he had the best overall 'mechcanics'.
That's why I said he had good mechanic and he also proved that only Strategy works too. Mvp's real strength still lie in his strategy as you can see how hood his defensive play and timing is.
On December 30 2012 09:45 Wildmoon wrote: Both are important. I think you can be the best SC2 player ever with just "good" mechanic. Mvp doesn't have outstanding mechanic but his strength lies in his planning,strategies,decision making. That's what defines RTS for me. Oh and mechanic is not somthing you can just carry over from BW to SC2 too. You practice spefic game to be mechanically good at it. Mechanic is muscle memory. It works differently in each game. Bisu is pretty bad in SC2 compare to his fellow progamers and don't say something like "because it's SC2 that made him bad,the game just doesn't let him use his skill." It's not that the game doesn't let him use his skill. He just doesn't have that much of skill in SC2 whether it's mechanic or anything.
That is a big myth. When Mvp was dominating, he had the best mechanics as well as decision making.
MKP's micro might have been looked better but that was in expense of his macro. Bomber's macro might have been better but that was in expense of his micro. Mvp was top 3 in micro AND macro which meant he had the best overall 'mechcanics'.
That's why I said he had good mechanic and he also proved that only Strategy works too. Mvp's real strength still lie in his strategy as you can see how hood his defensive play and timing is.
Uhm... when he had the best mechanics he was the best player in the world. Now he's not even a top 15 player...
I think SC2 needs more difficulty in mechanics/APM so we can see play that varies more from player to player. Pros right now rarely miss production enough that it matters even after the early game and battles seem too mathematical.
I'd like to see the BW comebacks and players that specialize in micro vs macro again. In sc2 we don't quite have that yet.
On December 30 2012 09:36 bankobauss wrote: IMO, "bw>sc2" threads about mechanics are kinda stupid because as weve seen Sc2 already is capable of absorbing 100% of the best top pro's mechanics/APM and still its not close to the ceiling. This means the pros with superior mechanics will always have massive advantages over people with inferior mechanics
im starting to think more and more that what made bisu/flash so great wasnt even their mechanics in BW, it was strategy and their mechanics of their mind not mechanics of their hands. which is why bisu in SC2 isnt completely dominating everyone with his mechanics like some thought, IMO thats because the truth is bisu was never really dominating people with his mechanics in BW it was something else entirely. It was about the mind, not the hands, all his peers had equally powerful hands.
So now in SC2 bisu is at the same equal level playing field with his competition when it comes to mechanics, but when it comes to strategy bisu has not cracked the code yet (and maybe he never will. maybe SC2 just has less strategic depth than BW) and bisu doesnt have the strategy advantage over his peers that he once had in BW so thats why bisu isnt completely destroying as predicted.
SC2 has vastly diminishing returns on effectiveness of mechanics compared to BW or WC3, period. People who have been arguing that a change raises the skill floor but doesn't affect the skill ceiling are ignorant imho, you can't change one without changing the other. In BW the difference between good macro and bad macro is insane to the extent that top tier foreigners couldn't beat top tier Koreans when they did retarded builds like mass firebats (basically the equivalent of mass reapers in sc2). In Warcraft 3 the difference in micro ability between top tier pros and mid tier pros let them win games with next to no units from huge disadvantages because the few units they did make were simply that cost efficient (idk a SC2 equivalent, maybe making 8 Blink Stalkers beat 20-30+ roaches?). In SC2 those kinds of things don't exist, because 12 roaches will always beat 8 Blink Stalkers with decent control, and it isn't nearly as hard to macro so the vast majority of experienced RTS players can do a '12 min roach max out' with maybe a days worth of practice.
From my experience, WC3 is much less mechanically demanding than SC2 mechanically. Even Grubby said this. The pace of it is so slow and that's what made it micro war game. To this day I have never seen SC2 pro that can keep up and does everything perfectly.
I agree, except in the case that mechanics in WC3 had exponential returns while mechanics in SC2 have diminishing returns. "Excellent" mechanics in SC2 don't make nearly as big of a difference as they did in BW or WC3.
There are exceptions of course, but they only occur in momentary specific scenarios (like marine splitting and tank target firing vs ling flanks and bling spreading / targeting on marines while trying to pick off tanks with muta, stalker (immortal) sentry vs roach ling from protoss side only, ect), whereas in WC3 it was basically all throughout the game that good control could make the same levels of difference. While it didn't take as much multitasking, even very subtle things from the best WC3 pro let them get landslide advantages over their opponents even when the macro aspect (from an outsiders perspective anyway) looked exactly the same.
Edit: If every single engagement in SC2 could have a vast of a range of outcomes as marine tank vs ling bling muta based purely on how well the units are controlled from both sides, who wouldn't enjoy the game more? BW had this is in Vulture micro, cute Barracks / Depot / Marine vs Zealot sim city, Mutalisk micro, Reaver drops, ect. WC3 had this in far more basic looking ways (4 unit surrounds, pulling back hurt units or denying kills, good use of abilities, ect), but WC3 also had constant action to the extent that Hu would build a Farm (depot) in Ne's base to get scouting information because if Ne took the time to kill it in the early game it would put them behind.
On December 30 2012 09:45 Wildmoon wrote: Both are important. I think you can be the best SC2 player ever with just "good" mechanic. Mvp doesn't have outstanding mechanic but his strength lies in his planning,strategies,decision making. That's what defines RTS for me. Oh and mechanic is not somthing you can just carry over from BW to SC2 too. You practice spefic game to be mechanically good at it. Mechanic is muscle memory. It works differently in each game. Bisu is pretty bad in SC2 compare to his fellow progamers and don't say something like "because it's SC2 that made him bad,the game just doesn't let him use his skill." It's not that the game doesn't let him use his skill. He just doesn't have that much of skill in SC2 whether it's mechanic or anything.
That is a big myth. When Mvp was dominating, he had the best mechanics as well as decision making.
MKP's micro might have been looked better but that was in expense of his macro. Bomber's macro might have been better but that was in expense of his micro. Mvp was top 3 in micro AND macro which meant he had the best overall 'mechcanics'.
That's why I said he had good mechanic and he also proved that only Strategy works too. Mvp's real strength still lie in his strategy as you can see how hood his defensive play and timing is.
Uhm... when he had the best mechanics he was the best player in the world. Now he's not even a top 15 player...
When he didn't have the best mechanic he reached GSL final 2 timesand won IEM.
I prefer "mechanic" in the sense of "dynamic" unit control. Which often is extremely apm intensive but doesn't have to be (ma jae yoon).
I don't care if a sc2 protoss has the best smartest build ever in terms of expansion timings/staying safe if the end result is massing colossi or just having good upgrade timings for chargelot/archon, since there is nothing dynamic about colossi and there isn't a lot of dynamic stuff about chargelot/archon. Nor do I care about a well timed roach max attack.
On December 30 2012 10:58 N.geNuity wrote: I prefer "mechanic" in the sense of "dynamic" unit control. Which often is extremely apm intensive but doesn't have to be (ma jae yoon).
I don't care if a sc2 protoss has the best smartest build ever in terms of expansion timings/staying safe if the end result is massing colossi or just having good upgrade timings for chargelot/archon, since there is nothing dynamic about colossi and there isn't a lot of dynamic stuff about chargelot/archon. Nor do I care about a well timed roach max attack.
Yeah, this is pretty much my thoughts as well. "Strategy" takes a back seat to dynamic, interesting battles that can have a vast range of outcomes based on the control of both sides.
On December 30 2012 09:36 bankobauss wrote: IMO, "bw>sc2" threads about mechanics are kinda stupid because as weve seen Sc2 already is capable of absorbing 100% of the best top pro's mechanics/APM and still its not close to the ceiling. This means the pros with superior mechanics will always have massive advantages over people with inferior mechanics
im starting to think more and more that what made bisu/flash so great wasnt even their mechanics in BW, it was strategy and their mechanics of their mind not mechanics of their hands. which is why bisu in SC2 isnt completely dominating everyone with his mechanics like some thought, IMO thats because the truth is bisu was never really dominating people with his mechanics in BW it was something else entirely. It was about the mind, not the hands, all his peers had equally powerful hands.
So now in SC2 bisu is at the same equal level playing field with his competition when it comes to mechanics, but when it comes to strategy bisu has not cracked the code yet (and maybe he never will. maybe SC2 just has less strategic depth than BW) and bisu doesnt have the strategy advantage over his peers that he once had in BW so thats why bisu isnt completely destroying as predicted.
SC2 has vastly diminishing returns on effectiveness of mechanics compared to BW or WC3, period. People who have been arguing that a change raises the skill floor but doesn't affect the skill ceiling are ignorant imho, you can't change one without changing the other. In BW the difference between good macro and bad macro is insane to the extent that top tier foreigners couldn't beat top tier Koreans when they did retarded builds like mass firebats (basically the equivalent of mass reapers in sc2). In Warcraft 3 the difference in micro ability between top tier pros and mid tier pros let them win games with next to no units from huge disadvantages because the few units they did make were simply that cost efficient (idk a SC2 equivalent, maybe making 8 Blink Stalkers beat 20-30+ roaches?). In SC2 those kinds of things don't exist, because 12 roaches will always beat 8 Blink Stalkers with decent control, and it isn't nearly as hard to macro so the vast majority of experienced RTS players can do a '12 min roach max out' with maybe a days worth of practice.
From my experience, WC3 is much less mechanically demanding than SC2 mechanically. Even Grubby said this. The pace of it is so slow and that's what made it micro war game. To this day I have never seen SC2 pro that can keep up and does everything perfectly.
That's the point-- you don't need to.
As aforementioned, even diamond players can do a 12 min roach max. And going from the diamond mechanics that let you max at 12 mins, to Stephano mechanics that get you there at 11:30 simply isn't a very big return rate for the apm investment.
The biggest evidence of this can be seen with protoss. Near perfect macro takes around 100 epm. Some of the slowest pro players play Protoss, and an insanely fast protoss player really doesn't gain that big of an advantage over a slow one like Elfi, Grubby, or hasuobs. PvP is by far the worst matchup in the game in regards to the favored, aka mechanically superior, player's winrate-- look at playhem statistics to support this.
People talk about the Korean-foreign gap closing, but Koreans don't dominate (they are dominating now of course but not nearly like in BW) but the truth is foreigners are only able to compete with Koreans because of how the game is made. Very little reward for perfect macro or micro. Scarlett turtling to 62 infestors gives a much higher rate of return for much less skill than the insane multitasking and unit control Gumiho showed vs Life.
Life is still better than Scarlett anyway? So, what's the point? The reason korean dominated more in BW not only comes from the fact that BW is mechanically harder but the foriegner scene back then were not as serious as today.
um the foreign scene wasn't serious because they were so bad, not the other way around
On December 30 2012 09:36 bankobauss wrote: IMO, "bw>sc2" threads about mechanics are kinda stupid because as weve seen Sc2 already is capable of absorbing 100% of the best top pro's mechanics/APM and still its not close to the ceiling. This means the pros with superior mechanics will always have massive advantages over people with inferior mechanics
im starting to think more and more that what made bisu/flash so great wasnt even their mechanics in BW, it was strategy and their mechanics of their mind not mechanics of their hands. which is why bisu in SC2 isnt completely dominating everyone with his mechanics like some thought, IMO thats because the truth is bisu was never really dominating people with his mechanics in BW it was something else entirely. It was about the mind, not the hands, all his peers had equally powerful hands.
So now in SC2 bisu is at the same equal level playing field with his competition when it comes to mechanics, but when it comes to strategy bisu has not cracked the code yet (and maybe he never will. maybe SC2 just has less strategic depth than BW) and bisu doesnt have the strategy advantage over his peers that he once had in BW so thats why bisu isnt completely destroying as predicted.
SC2 has vastly diminishing returns on effectiveness of mechanics compared to BW or WC3, period. People who have been arguing that a change raises the skill floor but doesn't affect the skill ceiling are ignorant imho, you can't change one without changing the other. In BW the difference between good macro and bad macro is insane to the extent that top tier foreigners couldn't beat top tier Koreans when they did retarded builds like mass firebats (basically the equivalent of mass reapers in sc2). In Warcraft 3 the difference in micro ability between top tier pros and mid tier pros let them win games with next to no units from huge disadvantages because the few units they did make were simply that cost efficient (idk a SC2 equivalent, maybe making 8 Blink Stalkers beat 20-30+ roaches?). In SC2 those kinds of things don't exist, because 12 roaches will always beat 8 Blink Stalkers with decent control, and it isn't nearly as hard to macro so the vast majority of experienced RTS players can do a '12 min roach max out' with maybe a days worth of practice.
From my experience, WC3 is much less mechanically demanding than SC2 mechanically. Even Grubby said this. The pace of it is so slow and that's what made it micro war game. To this day I have never seen SC2 pro that can keep up and does everything perfectly.
That's the point-- you don't need to.
As aforementioned, even diamond players can do a 12 min roach max. And going from the diamond mechanics that let you max at 12 mins, to Stephano mechanics that get you there at 11:30 simply isn't a very big return rate for the apm investment.
The biggest evidence of this can be seen with protoss. Near perfect macro takes around 100 epm. Some of the slowest pro players play Protoss, and an insanely fast protoss player really doesn't gain that big of an advantage over a slow one like Elfi, Grubby, or hasuobs. PvP is by far the worst matchup in the game in regards to the favored, aka mechanically superior, player's winrate-- look at playhem statistics to support this.
People talk about the Korean-foreign gap closing, but Koreans don't dominate (they are dominating now of course but not nearly like in BW) but the truth is foreigners are only able to compete with Koreans because of how the game is made. Very little reward for perfect macro or micro. Scarlett turtling to 62 infestors gives a much higher rate of return for much less skill than the insane multitasking and unit control Gumiho showed vs Life.
Life is still better than Scarlett anyway? So, what's the point? The reason korean dominated more in BW not only comes from the fact that BW is mechanically harder but the foriegner scene back then were not as serious as today.
um the foreign scene wasn't serious because they were so bad, not the other way around
There weren't so many big tournaments like there are today. You could say that they had no motivation to practice in the first place. BW is harder was one of the reasons not the only reason.
I prefer mechanics.. Harder mechanics = game is more fun to watch. You can see some signature moves like jaedong's muta micro in BW, vulture micro and the zealot bomb.
most of the sc2 games don't excite people that much. "good fungals" and 1a battles are just so boring. specially those games that ends with one clash.
On December 30 2012 12:23 SamirDuran wrote: I prefer mechanics.. Harder mechanics = game is more fun to watch. You can see some signature moves like jaedong's muta micro in BW, vulture micro and the zealot bomb.
most of the sc2 games don't excite people that much. "good fungals" and 1a battles are just so boring. specially those games that ends with one clash.
Exactly. BW pros did so many things that I simply conceded I couldn't possibly do because I didn't possess their talent.
While in this game a mid masters player doesn't really have much more to improve in his macro. Not much more he can do to control his broodlord/infestor. Just learn timings, do things a bit faster, practice a ton and walah, any slouch can be a pro gamer.
I think with regards to Terran, it's very easy to differentiate between players with good/average/bad mechanics. Yea you get the benefit of easier mining/unlimited control groups/smart casting, but at the same time you're dealing with faster/more potent forms of AOE. To suggest that mechanics don't matter with Terran is false IMO.
Now if you're talking about Protoss and Zerg, then I definitely agree they need work.
On December 30 2012 03:57 FromShouri wrote: I just recently picked up Company Of Heroes 1+expacs on steam for 13$, as I was playing them i realized how much more important tactical and micro commands were then just "macroing out new units" like sc2, it is def more a micro based game as opposed to a good balance of Brood War where micro (all-ins, reaver drops, storm drops, etc.) can overcome macro, but macro can also over come micro(no use getting 30+ kills on 1 unit only to have it run over by 5 control groups).
Most RTS lend themselves to only 1 very well while the other takes a back seat(Supreme Commander is definitely a good example of a more macro oriented RTS with backseat micro, while Company Of Heroes is more a micro oriented RTS with back seat macro). Brood War is the only game I've ever seen do both correctly, SC2 is getting there but for every step it seems to take, it takes steps back more then it does forward.
That said, you can't execute certain strategies if your mechanics are shit(try executing sair/reaver pvz without constantly baby sitting the shuttle so it doesn't explode to scourge, targeting reaver's shots, running corsairs from scourge and macroing all at the same time. Also this is why a ton of people failed doing the "Bisu Dark Templar FE" build right after he first unveiled it against savior because they'd lose their dark templars to stupid shit and then get over-run because the zerg took a macro advantage.
damn, you could have bought CoH for $1 with HumbleBundle lol. Anyway yeah CoH is extremely multitask-demanding, really nice game indeed and not too macro heavy. However SC2 maps > CoH for viewer wise.
On December 30 2012 03:57 FromShouri wrote: I just recently picked up Company Of Heroes 1+expacs on steam for 13$, as I was playing them i realized how much more important tactical and micro commands were then just "macroing out new units" like sc2, it is def more a micro based game as opposed to a good balance of Brood War where micro (all-ins, reaver drops, storm drops, etc.) can overcome macro, but macro can also over come micro(no use getting 30+ kills on 1 unit only to have it run over by 5 control groups).
Most RTS lend themselves to only 1 very well while the other takes a back seat(Supreme Commander is definitely a good example of a more macro oriented RTS with backseat micro, while Company Of Heroes is more a micro oriented RTS with back seat macro). Brood War is the only game I've ever seen do both correctly, SC2 is getting there but for every step it seems to take, it takes steps back more then it does forward.
That said, you can't execute certain strategies if your mechanics are shit(try executing sair/reaver pvz without constantly baby sitting the shuttle so it doesn't explode to scourge, targeting reaver's shots, running corsairs from scourge and macroing all at the same time. Also this is why a ton of people failed doing the "Bisu Dark Templar FE" build right after he first unveiled it against savior because they'd lose their dark templars to stupid shit and then get over-run because the zerg took a macro advantage.
damn, you could have bought CoH for $1 with HumbleBundle lol. Anyway yeah CoH is extremely multitask-demanding, really nice game indeed and not too macro heavy. However SC2 maps > CoH for viewer wise.
CoH is really really easy, just blob no need for multitasking. And sorry but you have to be a lot faster in bw/sc2.
If APM is spam then it is useless, but if it is put into action then it is a good thing, but dont worry too much about strategies.....as long as you know standard builds like 1 rax fe, 1 gate fe etc, and know your general game plan like going bio or mech or protoss deathball or mass ling/infestor, then you should be ok.
But threads like this tend to become a BW vs SC2 debate.....
Sc2 is too focused into apm/mechanics. Age of Empires is perfect game if you dont count balance in. You need very very good mechanics but also so so much strategy skill.
It should be a good mix of all of that. I used to argue against mechanics at first, but got convinced with time that they are essentially another strategic resourse that you have to spend making even more interesting strategical decisions. They also make this less like chess and more like a sport, thus truly turning it into an "esport", which I consider good - it brings wider ranges of people to the action. A highly intellectual game - while being incredibly interesting to the few who go deep into it - would fail to attract the masses in the way an instinctive-reactive game does.
Personally, I think BW is closer to the perfect mix, perhaps a little too heavy on mechanics, but SC2 has gone way too far from the importance of mechanics compared to what I feel to be the "perfect" mix.
On December 30 2012 18:33 TheBloodyDwarf wrote: Sc2 is too focused into apm/mechanics. Age of Empires is perfect game if you dont count balance in. You need very very good mechanics but also so so much strategy skill.
AOE2, right? Too bad the whole meta revolves around Hun feudal rush.
I don't really think that's a legit example. Certainly a mechanical baseline should be high - but not TOO high. Too high and it becomes difficult for people to execute a simple gameplan.
I still think it should mainly be focused upon macro, not even necessarily micro. If a game is mainly centered around either tactics (which are pretty fast reduced to mindgames) or micro, it becomes far too volatile. Whole games decided by just a 30s engagement because you failed to either anticipate your opponents move shortly before that engagement or you failed to micro in that short engagement. But if the game would be focused around macro, then you might lose the engagement because your macro was lacking the ENTIRE game (short slips of macro can be caught up if you macro better afterwards).
Both. But if it has to be one or the other then I would prefer mechanics/multitask to be more important, which is the direction sc2 is heading towards.
It needs a mix of both, but in my opinion I'd prefer the strategy and map control, by map control I mean something like in DoW (1) and CoH - where there is emphasis on moving troops out and capturing sectors, rather than sitting in base and turtling up all game. Those games are more strategic focused than SC2 is, because quite frankly there is not much strategy in following someone else's build order and A moving your army (this happens in majority of ladder games).
Just imagine a military genius playing SC2 - the only problem is, he is in bronze league because his "Mechanics" aren't good. This is a true story, his name is FireMonkey.
you need both to be an interesting game, how would sc2 be to watch if you just builded army and then just positioned it and youdont need to split and things like that. it would be so boring, its the split who make sc2 fun to watch (not neccisary splits but micro)
lol this game was fine before everyone started maphacking =P. any discussion imo is useless. its like discussing the value of the dallor when every1 has a money printer at home. i had a glimmer of hope and raped through top masters with almost no losses in hots then bam public maphack comes out for hots and im at 3-15 this season =P its a vicious cycle where legit players would either have to maphack themselves or get deranked and trolled by maphackers or just quit. i chose to just quit =P
When a certain race is overpowered, I would say that simply picking that race is better than both apm/mechanics and strategy. Maybe fixing the game is a more important topic than strategy and apm. While SC will always have its hardcore fans, I surely miss the days where it was the biggest Esport! LoL OP!
Love the relationship between micro and strategy, the more complex your strat is the more mechanics you'll need to back it up most likely. Anything not turn based would require APM to be a big part of the game, how else you going to achieve things quicker than your opponent?
Also allows players to display more character in their play, not really that interesting watching people preform same builds, unit control is different player to player and is what I end up remembering after watching a great sc2 match is great engagement / awesome unit control and I don't really care about something like third cc timing for example.
On December 30 2012 19:45 honkeybeef wrote: When a certain race is overpowered, I would say that simply picking that race is better than both apm/mechanics and strategy. Maybe fixing the game is a more important topic than strategy and apm. While SC will always have its hardcore fans, I surely miss the days where it was the biggest Esport! LoL OP!
Lol, do you think Blizzard doesn't want the game to be balanced? Of course they're trying their hardest, it's just an insanely difficult job.
I like both. Instead of micro though, I'd use the word execution. One of the things that keeps a game interesting (video game or not) is the pursuit of mastery over the skills necessary to play it. For example, in (American) Football you need to call the right play AND the players need to execute the play well. Similarly, in Starcraft you have to make the right decisions and execute them well. Either one without the other isn't enough.
On December 30 2012 03:57 FromShouri wrote: I just recently picked up Company Of Heroes 1+expacs on steam for 13$, as I was playing them i realized how much more important tactical and micro commands were then just "macroing out new units" like sc2, it is def more a micro based game as opposed to a good balance of Brood War where micro (all-ins, reaver drops, storm drops, etc.) can overcome macro, but macro can also over come micro(no use getting 30+ kills on 1 unit only to have it run over by 5 control groups).
Most RTS lend themselves to only 1 very well while the other takes a back seat(Supreme Commander is definitely a good example of a more macro oriented RTS with backseat micro, while Company Of Heroes is more a micro oriented RTS with back seat macro). Brood War is the only game I've ever seen do both correctly, SC2 is getting there but for every step it seems to take, it takes steps back more then it does forward.
That said, you can't execute certain strategies if your mechanics are shit(try executing sair/reaver pvz without constantly baby sitting the shuttle so it doesn't explode to scourge, targeting reaver's shots, running corsairs from scourge and macroing all at the same time. Also this is why a ton of people failed doing the "Bisu Dark Templar FE" build right after he first unveiled it against savior because they'd lose their dark templars to stupid shit and then get over-run because the zerg took a macro advantage.
damn, you could have bought CoH for $1 with HumbleBundle lol. Anyway yeah CoH is extremely multitask-demanding, really nice game indeed and not too macro heavy. However SC2 maps > CoH for viewer wise.
CoH is really really easy, just blob no need for multitasking. And sorry but you have to be a lot faster in bw/sc2.
CoH requires a pittance of the raw actions that Starcraft does but does require an awful lot of split attention. Just blob is a good way to smash nubs but once you start hitting good players you get fucked up if you can't handle capping all the fringes and not losing units in stupid ways.
I think the balance in SC2 between mechanics and strategy is good as is. There are tons of games with pure mechanics and much simpler strategy, and tons of games with pure strategy and no mechanics. There aren't many games which combine both.
4 parts (Both players display a good understand of the game and deep strategic thinking)
Mechanics driven game:
I picked these two out of a plethora of unique and interesting games. The strategy driven game that I've posted above displays the fact that with good strategic thinking (and of course mechanics) you can make almost any unit in BW work. A good example is Forgg versus Kal where Kal uses Scouts *Fucking Scouts* viably to defend a 2 fact from Forgg on Colosseum after a 12 nexx. Showing that scouts could actually be used to defend a 2 fact on a map with long rush distances if you are going 12 nexx into 2 base carrier! (Who knew o.O?) And here is the thing he probably practiced using scouts in that situation it wasn't just a spur of the momment thing.
These kinds of things are what sets apart SC2 from BW.
Ohh and if you don't understand how that worked. With scouts Kal forced Goliaths and the siege tank numbers were lower he basically couldn't use the Starport for anything else so that was his best option. It's a lot more complicated than this, but that's the just of it.
Game with Scouts (This win can definitely be attributed to strategy rather than mechanics)
There are a lot more examples of unique things working in unique situations and a sea of games where mechanics shone. Of course both are necessary to win a game of the lovely lovely game that we call BW, but often times one seems more apparent than the other!
Note: I love SC2 and I want it improved for instance I really loved the TvZ match up in summer 2011, but that kinda devolved to something I don't like as much in early 2012 after some silly buffs and nerfs.
MMA vs DRG Blizzard cup finals, anyone!
Ohh and I hope that people actually take the time to read my spoiler because understanding what I have to say will help people understand what direction we need to push Blizzard towards to make the final product of SC2 amazing as fuck we have taken a couple of wrong turns in the last few months, but all that can be fixed with the communities dedication and actually understanding the problems that we face on the road of improving Starcraft 2 as a whole!
I prefer mechanics orientated players (MarineKing) yet the game should not be defined by the mechanics, the mechanics should be sufficiently hard that different strategies can be created through unique uses of units that aren't available to the average player, I saw Bisu's templar build and reavers mentioned earlier in the thread and these are great examples.
On December 30 2012 23:34 thezanursic wrote: Here is the thing SC2 has both I do know a game that puts EVEN more emphasis on that
I picked these two out of a plethora of unique and interesting games. The strategy driven game that I've posted above displays the fact that with good strategic thinking (and of course mechanics) you can make almost any unit in BW work. A good example is Forgg versus Kal where Kal uses Scouts *Fucking Scouts* viably to defend a 2 fact from Forgg on Colosseum after a 12 nexx. Showing that scouts could actually be used to defend a 2 fact on a map with long rush distances if you are going 12 nexx into 2 base carrier! (Who knew o.O?) And here is the thing he probably practiced using scouts in that situation it wasn't just a spur of the momment thing.
These kinds of things are what sets apart SC2 from BW.
Ohh and if you don't understand how that worked. With scouts Kal forced Goliaths and the siege tank numbers were lower he basically couldn't use the Starport for anything else so that was his best option. It's a lot more complicated than this, but that's the just of it.
Game with Scouts (This win can definitely be attributed to strategy rather than mechanics)
There are a lot more examples of unique things working in unique situations and a sea of games where mechanics shone. Of course both are necessary to win a game of the lovely lovely game that we call BW, but often times one seems more apparent than the other!
Note: I love SC2 and I want it improved for instance I really loved the TvZ match up in summer 2011, but that kinda devolved to something I don't like as much in early 2012 after some silly buffs and nerfs.
MMA vs DRG Blizzard cup finals, anyone!
Ohh and I hope that people actually take the time to read my spoiler because understanding what I have to say will help people understand what direction we need to push Blizzard towards to make the final product of SC2 amazing as fuck we have taken a couple of wrong turns in the last few months, but all that can be fixed with the communities dedication and actually understanding the problems that we face on the road of improving Starcraft 2 as a whole!
On December 30 2012 23:43 Targe wrote: I prefer mechanics orientated players (MarineKing) yet the game should not be defined by the mechanics, the mechanics should be sufficiently hard that different strategies can be created through unique uses of units that aren't available to the average player, I saw Bisu's templar build and reavers mentioned earlier in the thread and these are great examples.
I picked these two out of a plethora of unique and interesting games. The strategy driven game that I've posted above displays the fact that with good strategic thinking (and of course mechanics) you can make almost any unit in BW work. A good example is Forgg versus Kal where Kal uses Scouts *Fucking Scouts* viably to defend a 2 fact from Forgg on Colosseum after a 12 nexx. Showing that scouts could actually be used to defend a 2 fact on a map with long rush distances if you are going 12 nexx into 2 base carrier! (Who knew o.O?) And here is the thing he probably practiced using scouts in that situation it wasn't just a spur of the momment thing.
These kinds of things are what sets apart SC2 from BW.
Ohh and if you don't understand how that worked. With scouts Kal forced Goliaths and the siege tank numbers were lower he basically couldn't use the Starport for anything else so that was his best option. It's a lot more complicated than this, but that's the just of it.
Game with Scouts (This win can definitely be attributed to strategy rather than mechanics)
There are a lot more examples of unique things working in unique situations and a sea of games where mechanics shone. Of course both are necessary to win a game of the lovely lovely game that we call BW, but often times one seems more apparent than the other!
Note: I love SC2 and I want it improved for instance I really loved the TvZ match up in summer 2011, but that kinda devolved to something I don't like as much in early 2012 after some silly buffs and nerfs.
MMA vs DRG Blizzard cup finals, anyone!
Ohh and I hope that people actually take the time to read my spoiler because understanding what I have to say will help people understand what direction we need to push Blizzard towards to make the final product of SC2 amazing as fuck we have taken a couple of wrong turns in the last few months, but all that can be fixed with the communities dedication and actually understanding the problems that we face on the road of improving Starcraft 2 as a whole!
lol. scouts.
I know hahaha when I saw that game for the first time I was so impressed and inspired, hahahah!!!
There were a few more progames with scouts (Show boating) in the 14 years life span of professional BW with scouts, but this is the only game that I've seen where scouts were used viably to do something.
Well there was a game with Kolll vs Stork where Stork 3 gate goon scout all-inned him. I might be a protoss, but I felt so bad for the german zerg, ever since then I have despised Stork and his awful ways (He also all-inned in the first game I believe...)
If I missed a game where scouts are used viably go ahead and PM me or just quote and respond.
On December 30 2012 23:43 Targe wrote: I prefer mechanics orientated players (MarineKing) yet the game should not be defined by the mechanics, the mechanics should be sufficiently hard that different strategies can be created through unique uses of units that aren't available to the average player, I saw Bisu's templar build and reavers mentioned earlier in the thread and these are great examples.
On December 30 2012 23:34 thezanursic wrote: Here is the thing SC2 has both I do know a game that puts EVEN more emphasis on that
I picked these two out of a plethora of unique and interesting games. The strategy driven game that I've posted above displays the fact that with good strategic thinking (and of course mechanics) you can make almost any unit in BW work. A good example is Forgg versus Kal where Kal uses Scouts *Fucking Scouts* viably to defend a 2 fact from Forgg on Colosseum after a 12 nexx. Showing that scouts could actually be used to defend a 2 fact on a map with long rush distances if you are going 12 nexx into 2 base carrier! (Who knew o.O?) And here is the thing he probably practiced using scouts in that situation it wasn't just a spur of the momment thing.
These kinds of things are what sets apart SC2 from BW.
Ohh and if you don't understand how that worked. With scouts Kal forced Goliaths and the siege tank numbers were lower he basically couldn't use the Starport for anything else so that was his best option. It's a lot more complicated than this, but that's the just of it.
Game with Scouts (This win can definitely be attributed to strategy rather than mechanics)
There are a lot more examples of unique things working in unique situations and a sea of games where mechanics shone. Of course both are necessary to win a game of the lovely lovely game that we call BW, but often times one seems more apparent than the other!
Note: I love SC2 and I want it improved for instance I really loved the TvZ match up in summer 2011, but that kinda devolved to something I don't like as much in early 2012 after some silly buffs and nerfs.
MMA vs DRG Blizzard cup finals, anyone!
Ohh and I hope that people actually take the time to read my spoiler because understanding what I have to say will help people understand what direction we need to push Blizzard towards to make the final product of SC2 amazing as fuck we have taken a couple of wrong turns in the last few months, but all that can be fixed with the communities dedication and actually understanding the problems that we face on the road of improving Starcraft 2 as a whole!
lol. scouts.
I know hahaha when I saw that game for the first time I was so impressed and inspired, hahahah!!!
There were a few more progames with scouts (Show boating) in the 14 years life span of professional BW with scouts, but this is the only game that I've seen where scouts were used viably to do something.
Well there was a game with Kolll vs Stork where Stork 3 gate goon scout all-inned him. I might be a protoss, but I felt so bad for the german zerg, ever since then I have despised Stork and his awful ways (He also all-inned in the first game I believe...)
If I missed a game where scouts are used viably go ahead and PM me or just quote and respond.
Only time I've ever seen scouts is vs Ai ^^ I agree with what you say about TvZ match up though, I enjoyed playing an watching TvZ a few months ago, easily my favourite match up. Now however I find zeros afraid to leave the investor. Had a game late last night where I ended up winning because he greedily got a third and fourth on very little lings then went straight to infestors. (you have no idea how long it took to write infestors, auto correct was determined to write investors)
On December 30 2012 23:43 Targe wrote: I prefer mechanics orientated players (MarineKing) yet the game should not be defined by the mechanics, the mechanics should be sufficiently hard that different strategies can be created through unique uses of units that aren't available to the average player, I saw Bisu's templar build and reavers mentioned earlier in the thread and these are great examples.
On December 30 2012 23:34 thezanursic wrote: Here is the thing SC2 has both I do know a game that puts EVEN more emphasis on that
I picked these two out of a plethora of unique and interesting games. The strategy driven game that I've posted above displays the fact that with good strategic thinking (and of course mechanics) you can make almost any unit in BW work. A good example is Forgg versus Kal where Kal uses Scouts *Fucking Scouts* viably to defend a 2 fact from Forgg on Colosseum after a 12 nexx. Showing that scouts could actually be used to defend a 2 fact on a map with long rush distances if you are going 12 nexx into 2 base carrier! (Who knew o.O?) And here is the thing he probably practiced using scouts in that situation it wasn't just a spur of the momment thing.
These kinds of things are what sets apart SC2 from BW.
Ohh and if you don't understand how that worked. With scouts Kal forced Goliaths and the siege tank numbers were lower he basically couldn't use the Starport for anything else so that was his best option. It's a lot more complicated than this, but that's the just of it.
Game with Scouts (This win can definitely be attributed to strategy rather than mechanics)
There are a lot more examples of unique things working in unique situations and a sea of games where mechanics shone. Of course both are necessary to win a game of the lovely lovely game that we call BW, but often times one seems more apparent than the other!
Note: I love SC2 and I want it improved for instance I really loved the TvZ match up in summer 2011, but that kinda devolved to something I don't like as much in early 2012 after some silly buffs and nerfs.
MMA vs DRG Blizzard cup finals, anyone!
Ohh and I hope that people actually take the time to read my spoiler because understanding what I have to say will help people understand what direction we need to push Blizzard towards to make the final product of SC2 amazing as fuck we have taken a couple of wrong turns in the last few months, but all that can be fixed with the communities dedication and actually understanding the problems that we face on the road of improving Starcraft 2 as a whole!
lol. scouts.
I know hahaha when I saw that game for the first time I was so impressed and inspired, hahahah!!!
There were a few more progames with scouts (Show boating) in the 14 years life span of professional BW with scouts, but this is the only game that I've seen where scouts were used viably to do something.
Well there was a game with Kolll vs Stork where Stork 3 gate goon scout all-inned him. I might be a protoss, but I felt so bad for the german zerg, ever since then I have despised Stork and his awful ways (He also all-inned in the first game I believe...)
If I missed a game where scouts are used viably go ahead and PM me or just quote and respond.
Only time I've ever seen scouts is vs Ai ^^ I agree with what you say about TvZ match up though, I enjoyed playing an watching TvZ a few months ago, easily my favourite match up. Now however I find zeros afraid to leave the investor. Had a game late last night where I ended up winning because he greedily got a third and fourth on very little lings then went straight to infestors. (you have no idea how long it took to write infestors, auto correct was determined to write investors)
On phone?
I loved playing TvZ in 2011 I just loved it I could play TvZ a day straight, but Blizzard killed it to *balance it* when in fact it was almost perfectly balanced...
52% Winrate in favor of Terran in 2011 summer, right?
And that's actually more balanced than TvZ in BW... Soo we had an amazing match up... it was fun... it was balanced... and Blizzard ruined it...
Stolen from Lalush.
Well it's not to late it could be done and it can be done again. I really hope that Blizzard fixes their mistake and we get a TvZ that is similar to a the 2011 TvZ and of course improve the other match ups. I think it's really important for the community to be very vocal about our complaints even more so than now!
On December 31 2012 00:54 thezanursic wrote: 52% Winrate in favor of Terran in 2011 summer, right?
Yeah... for 1-2months we had those ~50% winrates. Else it was between 54% and 64%. + Show Spoiler +
http://i.imgur.com/XII8M.png
In fact the only reason why people considered TvZ "somewhat balanced" was that the comparison where 60-70% spikes in ZvP and TvP.
Sorry, but TvZ was exactly in the same condition it is right now, just the other way round... Apart from some TvZ Monsters (Nestea, July, Losira, Leenock, later on DRG - now Mvp, Teaja, MKP, Bogus, Ryung), the matchup was/is T/Z favored.
On December 30 2012 23:43 Targe wrote: I prefer mechanics orientated players (MarineKing) yet the game should not be defined by the mechanics, the mechanics should be sufficiently hard that different strategies can be created through unique uses of units that aren't available to the average player, I saw Bisu's templar build and reavers mentioned earlier in the thread and these are great examples.
On December 30 2012 23:34 thezanursic wrote: Here is the thing SC2 has both I do know a game that puts EVEN more emphasis on that
I picked these two out of a plethora of unique and interesting games. The strategy driven game that I've posted above displays the fact that with good strategic thinking (and of course mechanics) you can make almost any unit in BW work. A good example is Forgg versus Kal where Kal uses Scouts *Fucking Scouts* viably to defend a 2 fact from Forgg on Colosseum after a 12 nexx. Showing that scouts could actually be used to defend a 2 fact on a map with long rush distances if you are going 12 nexx into 2 base carrier! (Who knew o.O?) And here is the thing he probably practiced using scouts in that situation it wasn't just a spur of the momment thing.
These kinds of things are what sets apart SC2 from BW.
Ohh and if you don't understand how that worked. With scouts Kal forced Goliaths and the siege tank numbers were lower he basically couldn't use the Starport for anything else so that was his best option. It's a lot more complicated than this, but that's the just of it.
Game with Scouts (This win can definitely be attributed to strategy rather than mechanics)
There are a lot more examples of unique things working in unique situations and a sea of games where mechanics shone. Of course both are necessary to win a game of the lovely lovely game that we call BW, but often times one seems more apparent than the other!
Note: I love SC2 and I want it improved for instance I really loved the TvZ match up in summer 2011, but that kinda devolved to something I don't like as much in early 2012 after some silly buffs and nerfs.
MMA vs DRG Blizzard cup finals, anyone!
Ohh and I hope that people actually take the time to read my spoiler because understanding what I have to say will help people understand what direction we need to push Blizzard towards to make the final product of SC2 amazing as fuck we have taken a couple of wrong turns in the last few months, but all that can be fixed with the communities dedication and actually understanding the problems that we face on the road of improving Starcraft 2 as a whole!
lol. scouts.
I know hahaha when I saw that game for the first time I was so impressed and inspired, hahahah!!!
There were a few more progames with scouts (Show boating) in the 14 years life span of professional BW with scouts, but this is the only game that I've seen where scouts were used viably to do something.
Well there was a game with Kolll vs Stork where Stork 3 gate goon scout all-inned him. I might be a protoss, but I felt so bad for the german zerg, ever since then I have despised Stork and his awful ways (He also all-inned in the first game I believe...)
If I missed a game where scouts are used viably go ahead and PM me or just quote and respond.
Only time I've ever seen scouts is vs Ai ^^ I agree with what you say about TvZ match up though, I enjoyed playing an watching TvZ a few months ago, easily my favourite match up. Now however I find zeros afraid to leave the investor. Had a game late last night where I ended up winning because he greedily got a third and fourth on very little lings then went straight to infestors. (you have no idea how long it took to write infestors, auto correct was determined to write investors)
On phone?
I loved playing TvZ in 2011 I just loved it I could play TvZ a day straight, but Blizzard killed it to *balance it* when in fact it was almost perfectly balanced...
I hate to crush your illusion mate, but the only people who enjoyed TvZ were terrans, every zerg hated TvZ probably even more than how much T hate the matchup nowadays.
On December 31 2012 00:54 thezanursic wrote: 52% Winrate in favor of Terran in 2011 summer, right?
Yeah... for 1-2months we had those ~50% winrates. Else it was between 54% and 64%. + Show Spoiler +
http://i.imgur.com/XII8M.png
In fact the only reason why people considered TvZ "somewhat balanced" was that the comparison where 60-70% spikes in ZvP and TvP.
Sorry, but TvZ was exactly in the same condition it is right now, just the other way round... Apart from some TvZ Monsters (Nestea, July, Losira, Leenock, later on DRG - now Mvp, Teaja, MKP, Bogus, Ryung), the matchup was/is T/Z favored.
you kind of missed the point of his post (by only quoting the first line)
basically he meant that in 2011 TvZ with marine/tank vs ling/bling/muta was FUN and balanced enough to not warrant changes, where as the current TvZ meta is simply not fun.
This discussion has happened many times, and in general, this community vastly underestimates the mechanics:strategy ratio this game has in comparison to other games. Starcraft II is, to be a bit hyperbolic, almost entirely focused on mechanics. It's practically a fighting game with 200 units. The metagame is very stagnant, and the entire strategical domain is restricted within certain transitions and openings. Strategical variation happens within a small window, and is almost always limited to the same compositions, openings, and transitions. A majority of pro players play the same builds in all matchups.
To make the return on strategic development even worse, all strategies are transparent. So if you're the strategical mastermind who pioneered the hellion/banshee play in TvZ, your strategical genius is rewarded for one series, after which, your strategy is out of the bag, and everyone else can use it, so you've gained no more benefit than any other members of your race. It's not a time-effective investment.
Signatures of a mechanics-dominated game: - Cannot compete at top level without incredibly large time investment - Time spent theorizing about the game is far less effective than physically playing it - Best players tend to be younger (all of these apply to Starcraft, these mostly don't apply to Chess and more strategy-centric RTSes like AoE)
Signatures of a strategy-dominated game: - Can compete at top level with less time investment - Time spent thinking/theorizing about the game is roughly as effective practice as physically playing it - Best players tend to be older (none of these apple to Starcraft, they mostly apply to Chess and more strategy-centric RTSes like AoE)
I'm a bit of an RTS fanatic, so I've played everything from AoE to console RTSes to Starcraft seriously. Starcraft has, far and away, the least focus on strategy and the most focus on mechanics of any RTS I've ever played. This community thinks that SC2 is less mechanics focused because Brood War is what it's being compared to, and in that context, it obviously is less mechanically-demanding. But both BW and SC2 exist far to the mechanics side when compared to other games.
I'm not saying that Starcraft 2 doesn't take strategy - it does, and I greatly enjoy watching the metagame shift. I should also point out that the game requires tons of tactical skill. However, the game doesn't reward strategical prowess enough to allow someone to compete on those merits, and in comparison to other RTSes, Starcraft is heavily mechanics-slanted.
Edit: I'm excluding WC3 from this discussion, as it's another Blizzard RTS and is similar in many ways.
On December 31 2012 00:54 thezanursic wrote: 52% Winrate in favor of Terran in 2011 summer, right?
Yeah... for 1-2months we had those ~50% winrates. Else it was between 54% and 64%. + Show Spoiler +
http://i.imgur.com/XII8M.png
In fact the only reason why people considered TvZ "somewhat balanced" was that the comparison where 60-70% spikes in ZvP and TvP.
Sorry, but TvZ was exactly in the same condition it is right now, just the other way round... Apart from some TvZ Monsters (Nestea, July, Losira, Leenock, later on DRG - now Mvp, Teaja, MKP, Bogus, Ryung), the matchup was/is T/Z favored.
you kind of missed the point of his post (by only quoting the first line)
basically he meant that in 2011 TvZ with marine/tank vs ling/bling/muta was FUN and balanced enough to not warrant changes, where as the current TvZ meta is simply not fun.
I didn't miss that part. I simply chose to only respond to the misleading part of his post.
On December 31 2012 01:11 Gtoad wrote: Disable "auto-mining", get rid of "smart casting." Bam...did it.
Yeah, you did it! You completely drove away the existing playerbase consisting of casual players.
So you mean SC2 should take casual play into consideration? Which means SC2 should be more like LoL, you know, easier for the scrubs like me?
I do not advocate the removal of auto-mining, I think having auto-mining is definitely fine. However smart casting has to go, along with unlimited group selection.
About this last one, IF SC2 somehow rewarded better the players who split their army along multiple control groups, then unlimited selection would be completely fine too, since selecting all army would be detrimental to your play.
Either Blizzard drives SC2 development towards competitive play, or they fall on the casual side. You cannot have both.
On December 31 2012 01:11 Gtoad wrote: Disable "auto-mining", get rid of "smart casting." Bam...did it.
Yeah, you did it! You completely drove away the existing playerbase consisting of casual players.
So you mean SC2 should take casual play into consideration? Which means SC2 should be more like LoL, you know, easier for the scrubs like me?
I do not advocate the removal of auto-mining, I think having auto-mining is definitely fine. However smart casting has to go, along with unlimited group selection.
About this last one, IF SC2 somehow rewarded better the players who split their army along multiple control groups, then unlimited selection would be completely fine too, since selecting all army would be detrimental to your play.
Either Blizzard drives SC2 development towards competitive play, or they fall on the casual side. You cannot have both.
That's why the most popular games like football or basketball are only played by the masses and not by highlevel professionals... Of course you can have both. A game that is easy to learn and fun to be played will get picked up by a lot of players (assuming good marketing). That doesn't mean that it cannot be hard to master.
if every worker required manual mining per every trip, would you be impressed watching pros with their 'mechanics' in a 60 mins long game where nothing happens, or rather bored? i rather see strategy please.
On December 31 2012 03:50 QzYSc2 wrote: if every worker required manual mining per every trip, would you be impressed watching pros with their 'mechanics' in a 60 mins long game where nothing happens, or rather bored? i rather see strategy please.
it'd be only 45more minutes of boredom than your average sc2 game.
I think most of you (and me included) don't even know how deep the strategy in SC2 gets. You see pro games and understand unit compositions and general build orders but when you get someone who is a pro to analyze games, the why and the how and not just the what, people are always astonished at how much more to it there is. It's like poker, sure you can grasp the basics and understand whats sort of going. You can be relatively decent/good and have a better idea than most. You will still only have a surface-level understanding of high level play.
I've won plenty of games against guys spam clicking everywhere with very patient slow macro. Raw APM doesn't translate to success (even guys like goody and elfi don't need high apm and still have good results). Starcraft also doesn't do a good job of counting raw apm of ecm, so if I hold down the z key or something and make 80 lings, suddenly my apm and ecm is incredible. You'll obviously find that high level players are able to do things like that quicker than lower league players and it normally reflects that someone is paying more attention and has the capability to multitask better anyway, but it is much more based on executing strategy over spam clicking and constant micro babysitting like you had to do in broodwar
As others have said- both. Or at least to make it a good spectator sport. If you are looking for pure strategy with no apm requirements, then it must be turn based or something equivalent. As soon as it is in real time, then speed and therefore apm/mechanics comes into play. There is good strategy, but then there is also just being faster than your opponent- faster at building, faster at executing strategies, faster at controlling units, etc. Now unit controls could be so sluggish that the speed of a player is effectively hampered thereby apm doesn't play as great a role as strategy.
However, as I have contended before, the success of a RTS is not simply a strategy game, but a strategy game that combined the twitch control of fighter games in unit control. apm/mechanics sinks like chrono boost or inject larvae are kinda meh. But individual or small group control of units such as marine micro is what pushes a game into a spectacular spectating experience. And SC2 could really use more of that sort of unit control.
Twitch control which is inherently more apm intensive adds to strategy. One doesn't simply make the right counter unit, but instead a group of mutalisks can be used to pick off small groups of marines, workers and turrets. A tactic that can be used as part of the overall strategy to keep the terran pinned to their base while the Zerg expands behind it.
Correctly realized apm/mechanics particularly in unit control (moving shot, hold position micro, carrier micro, chinese triangle, shoot and scoot, marine splits etc) enhances strategy and does not detract or limit strategy.
Imagine a 100m sprint race, and the winner is not the one who get there first but the one who looks most fabulous doing so. Anyways... you need both elements if you want to be top tier and everything raising the skill cap is a good thing.
SC2 is not a complex game. If it had auto build notihng would seperate it from some random stratagy game by any other company other then balance when talking about multiplayer. I think the emphesis should be on the machenics. Simply because that is something that can be learned. So the game cant be played by only geniuses at the highest level. Also stratagy is something you can learn completely wihtout ever playing the game and then you are god at it. You can also play only 1 stratagy per game. Ofc decison making is important but the game isnt complex. I also think the game is better with harder machenics which makes you unable to think you constantly have to do something, so if the game had more deeped you wouldnt be able to just sit there to devise a master plan in the middle of the game.
As many people have already said, both. But I personally enjoy watching when someone with less mechanical clicking speed kills that mechanical monster by out-thinking him, having better and more creative strategy and superior attack positions. Of course if some kid spends 12 hours a day solely on improving his mechanics and optimising the generally known "optimal" builds for his use that is of course impressive and he will be good at that but I think understanding all aspects of the game and being a creative "artist" strategically who comes up with new and surprising stuff has way more value for both the spectators and the game itself than just the ability to execute existing things really well.
iEchoic pretty much nailed it, for 95% of the playerbase you are barely playing against the opponent: most losses are because you screwed up some aspect of the mechanics of the game. It's like giving 2 people a shopping list and telling them to go into the store and get the items and whoever returns first will win. Sure you might run into the other guy and take his attention away for a second but essentially you are almost playing against yourself. Oops you didn't get X upgrade, forgot to build a depot here and there, weren't looking at your marines when they got fungaled because you were placing some rax, etc.
On December 31 2012 06:14 monkybone wrote: People suppress the strategic element of sc2 by a lot here. We all more or less play metagame builds, this is a direct result of a strategic development of the game. What you have learned to do without thinking now is a result of months and months of creative thinking and testing by the very best at this game. But I see this being largely ignored here. Whatever you do without active and creative thinking by yourself is labeled mechanics here.
The Starcraft II metagame is the product of a lot of deep strategic thinking, but none of that strategic thinking is necessary to be good at the game, because you're consuming the product rather you're the one who did the thinking or not. The players who got the farthest with hellion/banshee openings in TvZ, for example, did none of the thinking on the strategical side to create the build, they simply consumed it.
Starcraft II's "strategy" is manifested in the state of the metagame, but that information is free to all, so you don't need to possess the strategic skill to develop the metagame, just to copy it. I love the fact that information in this game is shared so openly (for example, replays allow you to copy a player's exact opening), but it comes at a price.
This is the reason that, in a vast majority of pro games, both players are using well-known and well-understood builds and compositions. There's a lot of skill involved to win those games, but the skills required are tactical and mechanical, not strategical.
On December 31 2012 05:59 Penecks wrote: iEchoic pretty much nailed it, for 95% of the playerbase you are barely playing against the opponent: most losses are because you screwed up some aspect of the mechanics of the game. It's like giving 2 people a shopping list and telling them to go into the store and get the items and whoever returns first will win. Sure you might run into the other guy and take his attention away for a second but essentially you are almost playing against yourself. Oops you didn't get X upgrade, forgot to build a depot here and there, weren't looking at your marines when they got fungaled because you were placing some rax, etc.
I like the shopping cart analogy. Another way to visualize this is that, in games at all skill levels, it's usually clear what the correct course of action is at every point in the game for both players. When post-morteming a loss, the mistake the losing player made is usually immediately clear. Rarely do we see games where people fiercely debate what the cause of the loss is. It's almost always a tactical mistake (i.e. "shouldn't have tried that bio drop on the tanks"), a mechanics mistake ("got marines caught by fungal"), or an aggregate mechanics mistake ("x player microed much better"), etc. This is another sign of a mechanics and tactics-dominated game. Only in games that deviate very far from standard play do we see different discussions.
I picked these two out of a plethora of unique and interesting games. The strategy driven game that I've posted above displays the fact that with good strategic thinking (and of course mechanics) you can make almost any unit in BW work. A good example is Forgg versus Kal where Kal uses Scouts *Fucking Scouts* viably to defend a 2 fact from Forgg on Colosseum after a 12 nexx. Showing that scouts could actually be used to defend a 2 fact on a map with long rush distances if you are going 12 nexx into 2 base carrier! (Who knew o.O?) And here is the thing he probably practiced using scouts in that situation it wasn't just a spur of the momment thing.
These kinds of things are what sets apart SC2 from BW.
Ohh and if you don't understand how that worked. With scouts Kal forced Goliaths and the siege tank numbers were lower he basically couldn't use the Starport for anything else so that was his best option. It's a lot more complicated than this, but that's the just of it.
Game with Scouts (This win can definitely be attributed to strategy rather than mechanics)
There are a lot more examples of unique things working in unique situations and a sea of games where mechanics shone. Of course both are necessary to win a game of the lovely lovely game that we call BW, but often times one seems more apparent than the other!
Note: I love SC2 and I want it improved for instance I really loved the TvZ match up in summer 2011, but that kinda devolved to something I don't like as much in early 2012 after some silly buffs and nerfs.
MMA vs DRG Blizzard cup finals, anyone!
Ohh and I hope that people actually take the time to read my spoiler because understanding what I have to say will help people understand what direction we need to push Blizzard towards to make the final product of SC2 amazing as fuck we have taken a couple of wrong turns in the last few months, but all that can be fixed with the communities dedication and actually understanding the problems that we face on the road of improving Starcraft 2 as a whole!
You were supposed to read the spoiler not the last paragraph below... I noticed that the majority only read the last paragraph. I'll give you guys another chance -.-
I picked these two out of a plethora of unique and interesting games. The strategy driven game that I've posted above displays the fact that with good strategic thinking (and of course mechanics) you can make almost any unit in BW work. A good example is Forgg versus Kal where Kal uses Scouts *Fucking Scouts* viably to defend a 2 fact from Forgg on Colosseum after a 12 nexx. Showing that scouts could actually be used to defend a 2 fact on a map with long rush distances if you are going 12 nexx into 2 base carrier! (Who knew o.O?) And here is the thing he probably practiced using scouts in that situation it wasn't just a spur of the momment thing.
These kinds of things are what sets apart SC2 from BW.
Ohh and if you don't understand how that worked. With scouts Kal forced Goliaths and the siege tank numbers were lower he basically couldn't use the Starport for anything else so that was his best option. It's a lot more complicated than this, but that's the just of it.
Game with Scouts (This win can definitely be attributed to strategy rather than mechanics)
There are a lot more examples of unique things working in unique situations and a sea of games where mechanics shone. Of course both are necessary to win a game of the lovely lovely game that we call BW, but often times one seems more apparent than the other!
On December 31 2012 01:11 Gtoad wrote: Disable "auto-mining", get rid of "smart casting." Bam...did it.
Yeah, you did it! You completely drove away the existing playerbase consisting of casual players.
So you mean SC2 should take casual play into consideration? Which means SC2 should be more like LoL, you know, easier for the scrubs like me?
I do not advocate the removal of auto-mining, I think having auto-mining is definitely fine. However smart casting has to go, along with unlimited group selection.
About this last one, IF SC2 somehow rewarded better the players who split their army along multiple control groups, then unlimited selection would be completely fine too, since selecting all army would be detrimental to your play.
Either Blizzard drives SC2 development towards competitive play, or they fall on the casual side. You cannot have both.
That's why the most popular games like football or basketball are only played by the masses and not by highlevel professionals... Of course you can have both. A game that is easy to learn and fun to be played will get picked up by a lot of players (assuming good marketing). That doesn't mean that it cannot be hard to master.
Oh wow... I take it back then.
I thought competitive games and casual games were mutually exclusive. I guess LoL nailed it then, must be one of the various reasons it currently is the biggest ESPORTS after the BW era.
I thinks there is other game than starcraft if you want to focus on these things OP (not saying there is none in sc2 but they are less developped than some other game ) we need to have starcraft being the APM game because if its not what game would do it ?:D
On December 31 2012 07:32 shid0x wrote: I thinks there is other game than starcraft if you want to focus on these things OP (not saying there is none in sc2 but they are less developped than some other game ) we need to have starcraft being the APM game because if its not what game would do it ?:D
Broodwar is more mechanically demanding than SC2. Supreme commander 2 is even less mechanically demanding. In fact with supcom2 you cannot control your armies, and you can make a factory produce an unit continuously for the rest of the game ( infinite queuing, just click once and it'll keep making that unit ).
So when you can't control your army ( no micro ) and macro is close to being non existent then what is left ? Army composition. Nothing more nothing less. I made unit A he made unit B; unit B counters unit A so i guess i lost. I belive what you are thinking about only works in a predeployed game, i'm thinking anything from advance wars to total war. This just doesn't suit the classical RTS genre.
tldr : read falling's blog.
edit : edited to make it easier to read
i honestly dont care what the rest of the post says :D
Strategy is the boring part of the game which most pros hate. It doesn't require much skill or ability to copy a strategy. There are loads of strategies that you have to have experience against to beat, and it requires lots of experience to be able to adapt to the cheesy strategies on ladder.
When I see protoss doing a warp prism strategy or other unorthodox strat, I just keep thinking what a gimmick it is.
Innovating new strategies takes the backseat for the overwhelming majority of players because it is far more difficult and time consuming than simply honing your skills at a strategy that's already out in the public sphere.
I have been playing the game for over two years and have come up with one, a single tournament build order+strategy; and it took me a couple of hours to develop and another couple of hours to practice. While it was immensely satisfying to succeed and beat a GM player with it, it was just a single game for a specific map that hinged on him doing a specific opening and reacting with his units in a specific way. It was the most satisfaction I've had in the game by far, but took far too long and too much energy to do as often as I would like to-- every day.
If it only took a few minutes to come up with a new build order tailored to doing whatever you wanted, do you think more players would become innovators? I certainly do.
When you simply copy what others are doing, you aren't fully harnessing the technology of the strategy and thus you simply become good at winning with your copy at the current point in time, not 'good at the game' (by my definition at least). This results in forums filled with "what should I do here" questions. When you copy from the top, you don't learn to answer the real questions yourself; you stop playing the game on your own terms and become a slave to the external. I'm completely guilty of this and well aware of the detrimental effects (on both skill and mental state) and as such have been searching for ways to automate innovation ever since.
I think SC2 is worthy of the "strategy" title, you just have to have the mechanical skill to execute your decision tree through to the end. When there are so few strategic innovators you get the appearance that it's all about mechanics... until a new innovation comes out, is executed well, and wipes the floor with everyone else.
It's extremely interesting to compare the SC2 scene to the Magic: the Gathering scene. The way the top 'strategies' filter down to the masses is virtually identical. There are a handful of innovators and everyone else copies. The lower competitive tiers end up in the same situation: copy or die. If you aren't innovating at the top level, you will simply lose to something standard, even if it was executed below top level. I believe that stagnation of a meta-game is more to do with the difficulty of innovation. SC2 is obscenely complex. The sheer number of timings that are out there unexplored is mind boggling. The problem is that people don't have a framework (aside from trial and error) for evaluating the efficacy of these tactical snippets and no efficient method for incorporating them into their game.
On December 31 2012 04:05 zefreak wrote: I think most of you (and me included) don't even know how deep the strategy in SC2 gets. You see pro games and understand unit compositions and general build orders but when you get someone who is a pro to analyze games, the why and the how and not just the what, people are always astonished at how much more to it there is. It's like poker, sure you can grasp the basics and understand whats sort of going. You can be relatively decent/good and have a better idea than most. You will still only have a surface-level understanding of high level play.
It's kind of like in English when you read a book, any normal person would read a page from a book and say what happened. However, an English teacher will go off about all these themes and meanings behind each sentence.
It seems like some people are treating strategy as being just another word for build order followed by an attack timing. Mechanics is why that's not the case, which in RTS is essentially the level of player agency there is. How many knobs each player has to fiddle with to execute strategies. Played competitively the speed at which those knobs are fiddled will sky rocket to the point where input speed itself can appear to determine the outcome of games, but even those losses can be viewed as strategic in nature. A strategy which depends on multi-tasking abilities you don't have, or which assumes that your units as are powerful as your opponent's in small engagements when your micro is worse, is a losing strategy. There's no separating questions of strategy from you and your opponent's ability to interface with the board, whether those are set rules or individual limitations.
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 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.
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 15:31 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
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 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 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?
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 17:40 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 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 15:31 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.
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.
I much prefer strategy to mechanics, though I feel that mechanics are emphasized in both Starcraft games to varying degrees of success. Being able to think about strategy in the face of constantly changing information is a skill that translates well to life, being able to keep your minerals low...not so much.
I honestly have begun to prefer Turn-based strategy games more recently from the 4x like Civilization 5 (with G&K) and Alpha Centauri to the tactical like X-COM and Final Fantasy Tactics. It's all about risk management and long term planning in those games, and that's what I like.
I'm not saying there's no place for mechanics, I'm just saying I prefer games that are more about thinking and adapting and less about APM.
On December 31 2012 21:17 Grimmyman123 wrote: 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.
What sorts of strategies do you feel give you the advantage?
I'm the same, my mechanics are pretty horrible, I play at about 90 average APM but I still win most games in plat/diamond fairly easily simply through decisionmaking. It doesn't really depend on certain strategies for me, I try just about every build I see in GSL. But knowing where your strengths are with certain strategies + playing your cards right are really interesting to play and to watch in my opinion. Of course coupled with mechanical difficulty, it becomes all the more impressive.
On December 31 2012 21:17 Grimmyman123 wrote: 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.
What sorts of strategies do you feel give you the advantage?
I'm the same, my mechanics are pretty horrible, I play at about 90 average APM but I still win most games in plat/diamond fairly easily simply through decisionmaking. It doesn't really depend on certain strategies for me, I try just about every build I see in GSL. But knowing where your strengths are with certain strategies + playing your cards right are really interesting to play and to watch in my opinion. Of course coupled with mechanical difficulty, it becomes all the more impressive.
Nothing really matters when you aren't at pro level because no one knows what they are doing.
Go download IPL 5 replay pack. Koreans hit 200 epm 47 times, while foreigner never hit it a single time. Koreans comprised the top 12. Low apm is just too much of a disadvantage at pro level.
Know who has the highest apm in the foreign scene? Stephano. Know who's the best foreigner?
Know how many foreign Terrans hit 200 epm? 0.
Doesn't really matter for Protoss though, The Koreans have much higher apm than the foreigners still, but it isn't the end all be all like it is with Terran or Zerg. Hopefully that changes in HOTS. Strategy is still very important, but do you really think things like infestor broodlord turtle or collosos turtle are good for the game? They reward inferior players far too much.
On December 31 2012 21:17 Grimmyman123 wrote: 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.
What sorts of strategies do you feel give you the advantage?
I'm the same, my mechanics are pretty horrible, I play at about 90 average APM but I still win most games in plat/diamond fairly easily simply through decisionmaking. It doesn't really depend on certain strategies for me, I try just about every build I see in GSL. But knowing where your strengths are with certain strategies + playing your cards right are really interesting to play and to watch in my opinion. Of course coupled with mechanical difficulty, it becomes all the more impressive.
Nothing really matters when you aren't at pro level because no one knows what they are doing.
Go download IPL 5 replay pack. Koreans hit 200 epm 47 times, while foreigner never hit it a single time. Koreans comprised the top 12. Low apm is just too much of a disadvantage at pro level.
Know who has the highest apm in the foreign scene? Stephano. Know who's the best foreigner?
Know how many foreign Terrans hit 200 epm? 0.
Doesn't really matter for Protoss though, The Koreans have much higher apm than the foreigners still, but it isn't the end all be all like it is with Terran or Zerg. Hopefully that changes in HOTS. Strategy is still very important, but do you really think things like infestor broodlord turtle or collosos turtle are good for the game? They reward inferior players far too much.
I highlighted everything I found weird in that post. So basically... executing strategy should take skill, mechanics, whatever you wanna call it. If say I do a DT expand vs a 1 rax FE terran, how do I play my cards right to burn as much economy as possible, snipe as much as possible, how do I transition to be safe, what advantage do I want to achieve with this build, etc. That's cool to see. Of course it has to be difficult to some extent, otherwise every scrub could do it. Which they can't. The only people who I've seen do this particular build really really well are HerO and Rain. But that's just an example.
The highest APM in the foreigner scene was Dignitas.Merz btw. He retired a few months ago. He was a foreign terran, played around average 300 apm. Not sure what that was in eapm but his apm was as high as korean terrans, even higher at times.
I personally like to see people outthink each other, not just mindless "who clicks faster wins". Why? Because as long as the game is balanced (no comment on that), it'll reward the smarter player.
Generally speaking to apply complex strategies you need to have good APM and mechanics. People talking about winning in platinum or diamond through strategy because they play protoss and their race just allows being slow with a deathball don't really prove any point. I love seeing multiprong attacks, like Rain's multi prong Storm drops, Snute crazy runbyes(runbies? not sure \o/), MVP perfect drop play, with 2 drops + one frontal attack going on exactly at the same time and both drops being microed.. Camping your base to make templars and colossus and a moving isn't winning through strategy, it's winning because it still works at your level and/or your race standard play allows it. And also because focusing heavily on macro requires 0 APM and is the best way to win at lower levels.
Real complex strategies in my opinion are the one that involve a lot of army movements, because first it's hard to keep up mentally, but also physically. You have to split your army right to not overcomit to harass that'll fail and lose you the game, you have to synchronize your attacks (and thus remember you have drops flying while macroing and microing your main army), and to micro on several fronts. And of course not screw up your build meanwhile, and keep your macro up.
That's why I think mechanics and strategy are linked in RTS, at least in well designed one, where harass and multiprong attacks are rewarded. Top strategies should always involve harass and/or little group of units roaming the map.
Gaining advantages through smart build orders is strategy, but still require APM and mechanics to make it work. You can try and do the smartest build ever, if your macro slips every time you move your units, you won't get anything from it.
You'd be surprised to know how few Korean Terrans do that as well...
If you do have the stats, I would be interested to see it.
It's hard to tell because GSL doesn't release replays and players like Gumiho you don't have to even check to know they are playing extraordinarily fast. But from IPL and what I've seen:
Taeja hits well over 200 nearly every game he plays. ditto Yoda, Marineking, Byun, and Dream.
Also note, that Zerg epm is inflated over Terrans. 200 EPM for Terran is equivalent to 220+ epm from Zerg. 180+ epm (still higher than all foreign Terrans) is where most top Korean Terrans find themselves.
The most 1 sided matchup in this game is Foreign Terran vs Korean Zerg, and it's because they simply aren't fast enough. ( See Lucifron vs Life or Thorzain vs any Korean Z)
On January 02 2013 03:49 Nimix wrote: Generally speaking to apply complex strategies you need to have good APM and mechanics. People talking about winning in platinum or diamond through strategy because they play protoss and their race just allows being slow with a deathball don't really prove any point.
Has absolutely nothing to do with protoss though. There's a ton of multitasking-oriented builds for protoss as well, just watch any HerO game ever.
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?
I think a combination of both is what makes sc2 a unique and excellent RTS. A friend once said to me "sc2 is the best rts. Even is blizz is bad at balance, the game design itself is unbeatable, and even if sc2 sucks, rts is hard to get right and to balance, and every other one is worse."
This balance between macro and micro si what makes sc so great. macroing while splitting marines. Large tech switches, expanding behind a 6pool. Taking out either one would hinder strategy. APM is just a biproduct of this dual-natured strategy, and it adds a higher skill ceiling for those who wish to become excellent or better at the game. Or for those who look for a challenging game that also has depth.
apm and mechanics. ultimately, u could have the sickest strat in the world, but if u dont have the apm to pull it off, you go nowhere.
this really reminds me of the bisu build in BW. amazing build, very creative, one of the best PvZ builds ever, but if u dont have the apm to control your sair/reaver/dt properly, you dont go anywhere in that build.
the cool strats will come with the apm and mechanics. once u have those skills down, you are able to create those cool builds and strats and actually pull them off.
Let me explain why Starcraft is a mechanics-dominated game very succinctly:
On RTSes, I love to sit and theorize. At random hours throughout the day, and at night before bed, my mind chugs through builds, build permutations, tactical decisions, army composition permutations, timings and strategical theories. On other RTSes, the time spent doing this improved my skill as much as playing the game. On Starcraft, this time is not even close to as effective as grinding out games.
That is why Starcraft is more of a "real time" game and less of a "strategy" game.
You'd be surprised to know how few Korean Terrans do that as well...
If you do have the stats, I would be interested to see it.
It's hard to tell because GSL doesn't release replays and players like Gumiho you don't have to even check to know they are playing extraordinarily fast. But from IPL and what I've seen:
Taeja hits well over 200 nearly every game he plays. ditto Yoda, Marineking, Byun, and Dream.
Also note, that Zerg epm is inflated over Terrans. 200 EPM for Terran is equivalent to 220+ epm from Zerg. 180+ epm (still higher than all foreign Terrans) is where most top Korean Terrans find themselves.
The most 1 sided matchup in this game is Foreign Terran vs Korean Zerg, and it's because they simply aren't fast enough. ( See Lucifron vs Life or Thorzain vs any Korean Z)
This has got to be some of the most fucked up retard math I've ever seen. EPM is EPM for all races. Slower doesn't necessarily mean bad unless you're talking about the top of the top of pro level where the fluidity of doing everything in rhythm is so important.
You'd be surprised to know how few Korean Terrans do that as well...
If you do have the stats, I would be interested to see it.
It's hard to tell because GSL doesn't release replays and players like Gumiho you don't have to even check to know they are playing extraordinarily fast. But from IPL and what I've seen:
Taeja hits well over 200 nearly every game he plays. ditto Yoda, Marineking, Byun, and Dream.
Also note, that Zerg epm is inflated over Terrans. 200 EPM for Terran is equivalent to 220+ epm from Zerg. 180+ epm (still higher than all foreign Terrans) is where most top Korean Terrans find themselves.
The most 1 sided matchup in this game is Foreign Terran vs Korean Zerg, and it's because they simply aren't fast enough. ( See Lucifron vs Life or Thorzain vs any Korean Z)
This has got to be some of the most fucked up retard math I've ever seen. EPM is EPM for all races. Slower doesn't necessarily mean bad unless you're talking about the top of the top of pro level where the fluidity of doing everything in rhythm is so important.
He's saying that the APM between T and Z isn't directly comparable, so when assessing the skill level of foreigners, you can't compare foriegn Z APM to foreign T APM.
I've been playing Terran for years and my APM is higher with Zerg. Smash larva inject on some hatcheries and press szzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz and you've just massively boosted your apm with no effort.
You'd be surprised to know how few Korean Terrans do that as well...
If you do have the stats, I would be interested to see it.
It's hard to tell because GSL doesn't release replays and players like Gumiho you don't have to even check to know they are playing extraordinarily fast. But from IPL and what I've seen:
Taeja hits well over 200 nearly every game he plays. ditto Yoda, Marineking, Byun, and Dream.
Also note, that Zerg epm is inflated over Terrans. 200 EPM for Terran is equivalent to 220+ epm from Zerg. 180+ epm (still higher than all foreign Terrans) is where most top Korean Terrans find themselves.
The most 1 sided matchup in this game is Foreign Terran vs Korean Zerg, and it's because they simply aren't fast enough. ( See Lucifron vs Life or Thorzain vs any Korean Z)
This has got to be some of the most fucked up retard math I've ever seen. EPM is EPM for all races. Slower doesn't necessarily mean bad unless you're talking about the top of the top of pro level where the fluidity of doing everything in rhythm is so important.
He's saying that the APM between T and Z isn't directly comparable, so when assessing the skill level of foreigners, you can't compare foriegn Z APM to foreign T APM.
I've been playing Terran for years and my APM is higher with Zerg. Smash larva inject on some hatcheries and press szzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz and you've just massively boosted your apm with no effort.
My APM across my Terran, Zerg, and Protoss are nearly identical. Different races require different things focused on, speed and accuracy in mechanics is universal and if you're actually good at the multi-task, should remain just about constant.
If you want true strategy then play a turn based strategy game, especially chess. If you want a little strategy mixed with a lot of action and speed, play real-time strategy. The two will never be alike, so don't bother trying.
You'd be surprised to know how few Korean Terrans do that as well...
If you do have the stats, I would be interested to see it.
It's hard to tell because GSL doesn't release replays and players like Gumiho you don't have to even check to know they are playing extraordinarily fast. But from IPL and what I've seen:
Taeja hits well over 200 nearly every game he plays. ditto Yoda, Marineking, Byun, and Dream.
Also note, that Zerg epm is inflated over Terrans. 200 EPM for Terran is equivalent to 220+ epm from Zerg. 180+ epm (still higher than all foreign Terrans) is where most top Korean Terrans find themselves.
The most 1 sided matchup in this game is Foreign Terran vs Korean Zerg, and it's because they simply aren't fast enough. ( See Lucifron vs Life or Thorzain vs any Korean Z)
This has got to be some of the most fucked up retard math I've ever seen. EPM is EPM for all races. Slower doesn't necessarily mean bad unless you're talking about the top of the top of pro level where the fluidity of doing everything in rhythm is so important.
He's saying that the APM between T and Z isn't directly comparable, so when assessing the skill level of foreigners, you can't compare foriegn Z APM to foreign T APM.
I've been playing Terran for years and my APM is higher with Zerg. Smash larva inject on some hatcheries and press szzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz and you've just massively boosted your apm with no effort.
My APM across my Terran, Zerg, and Protoss are nearly identical. Different races require different things focused on, speed and accuracy in mechanics is universal and if you're actually good at the multi-task, should remain just about constant.
Okay, but it's a fundamental fact about the game that it's easier to have higher APM (just numerically, not talking about skill) with Zerg. Your keyboard auto-refresh rate when pressing 's' and then holding a key down is higher than how fast you can manually warp-in or press a production key, no matter how fast you are - and zerg units are also cheaper, so you're making more of them. Larva inject is also a mechanic that is easy to get 700+ burst APM over a half-second or so with. Terran and Protoss macro mechanics don't allow you to do this (good luck swapping buildings or producing units with that kind of APM).
There's no need to defend against this statement, it's not a statement of skill, just numbers.
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.
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 04:36 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 04:36 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.
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 04:36 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 ^_^
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?
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)
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 05:39 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.
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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 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:
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
![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-IqTlrLw5W_A/TyMaVGJl7WI/AAAAAAAAD4g/RmjQB5SmcUU/s1600/chessmaster-10th-edition-3.jpg)
) and complex mechanics are a lot of fun in their own. But I imagine mechanics being somewhat of a "singleplayer"-thing, whilst with strategy I already have to include what my opponent is doing.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nlIiD.png)
Stolen from Lalush.
