| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12559 Posts
On October 14 2013 23:28 XXXSmOke wrote: (for those of you that dont know chess tactics is basically like mechanics in sc2) What? It isn't at all, tactics in chess would probably be called gimmicks in SC2. Could you stop comparing SC2 with the games I've grown up playing and doing it totally wrong, please?^^ | ||
|
cenk_unger
49 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On October 15 2013 00:00 cenk_unger wrote: I hate chess because most people never try chess variants such as gothic chess or 3d chess. Chess players are the most bland, unexciting folk I have ever met on the internet. In fairness to them, 3d chess is a cluster fuck that, at times, players have to go "oh wait, my kings been in check the last 4 turns because of that random bishop over there... Should we back track start over or just pretend that never happened?" | ||
|
Headshot
United States1656 Posts
| ||
|
XXXSmOke
United States1333 Posts
On October 14 2013 23:37 Thieving Magpie wrote: @xxxsmoke Being able to think x moves ahead is strategy, not mechanics. Absolutely not....... do you ever hear any gm say "well my strategy in the game was to out think him"........... Strategy in chess in case you did not know is ......... Imbalances, and opening theory and piece usage to name a few. | ||
|
KeksX
Germany3634 Posts
On October 15 2013 00:16 Headshot wrote: All I know is that one of the casters during the finals yesterday called Naniwa's micro "legendary" because he was pulling hurt Void Rays to the back. That is what really spoke to me about the current state of Starcraft 2. Im sorry but this shows exactly why this discussion is useless. You post a quote, uncomplete and with relevant context missing, dont even mention who said it and the make a big conclusion you dont even tell us. You expect a decent discussion out of this? You expect constructive posts after this? You people will never learn. Your subjective "arguments" and sensationalist opinions are not helping at all. Xeris made a decent post and instead of using it as a basis you just shit on whatever topic is hot in sc2. You, my friend, are the true indication of the current state of sc2. | ||
|
DusTerr
2520 Posts
On October 15 2013 00:16 Headshot wrote: All I know is that one of the casters during the finals yesterday called Naniwa's micro "legendary" because he was pulling hurt Void Rays to the back. That is what really spoke to me about the current state of Starcraft 2. so you're saying casters over-hyping is what's wrong with sc2? | ||
|
ETisME
12889 Posts
On October 14 2013 23:44 Dingodile wrote: Before 50mutas popped, your army looked solid, then suddenly not anymore because nobody has expected that someone is buildung 50mutas or 17ultras. would 17 roaches or 17 corruptor be better than 17 ultras? Would you expect 17 drones or 17 overlords as well?[/QUOTE] Maybe 17 coruppters into broodlords or 17 infestors?[/QUOTE] if he built 17 corruptors, how does he defend his bases without any ground units? if he built 17 infestors, he won't even have any units to support them while you still got a huge army. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On October 15 2013 00:21 XXXSmOke wrote: Absolutely not....... do you ever hear any gm say "well my strategy in the game was to out think him"........... Strategy in chess in case you did not know is ......... Imbalances, and opening theory and piece usage to name a few. I have two 1st place regional trophies from when I used to play chess competitively. You are mistaking book knowledge with actual game play. When you sit and think X moves ahead, you are reading their plays and predicting their strategic choices. You then re-evaluate after each move in case he goes off course from your prediction and adapt as you go along, and he is doing the same. That is not mechanics, that is literally what strategy is about. Having a plan of attack, and then changing that plan as new information comes about. Mechanics is having the first few moves automated (ie mechanical play) and having those first few moves dictate the pace of the game. When you open e4, it forces center board play because now you have pieces in the center of the board. After the first few mechanic based moves, the game becomes pure strategy. Mechanics or automated play is about the things you do without thinking. Some players always go e4 not because they are responding to their opponent's moves but because it is the play they are best able to follow up on. Much like there is no strategic element to right clicking minerals in BW, there is no strategic superiority to opening e4 as opposed to other openings. Its just something you do. Its automated, it's mechanical, it's mechanics. Sitting in front of your opponent, predicting his moves, and then amending your moves as new information comes about is what strategy is all about. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
if he built 17 corruptors, how does he defend his bases without any ground units? if he built 17 infestors, he won't even have any units to support them while you still got a huge army. Its not actually hard to predict. If he has a lot of bases but his army was cheap units, then you know Broods/Ultras are coming next. You can tell by what upgrades he has, how vehemently he denied the 3rd instead of the 4rth, etc... It's very transparent whether they are going Muta or Ultra or Infestor or Swarm Host. If you actually kept aware of how much money he should have with good scouting, kept on top of what upgrades he's been getting, and kept track of how ling heavy his play is, you can easily figure out what he will poop out of the hatcheries. | ||
|
cenk_unger
49 Posts
On October 15 2013 00:04 Thieving Magpie wrote: In fairness to them, 3d chess is a cluster fuck that, at times, players have to go "oh wait, my kings been in check the last 4 turns because of that random bishop over there... Should we back track start over or just pretend that never happened?" Haha, so true, it erases any confidence you have built up from 2d chess in like the first 10 moves  | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On October 15 2013 00:35 cenk_unger wrote: Haha, so true, it erases any confidence you have built up from 2d chess in like the first 10 moves But you are also correct that it is far more fucking fun to play 3d chess instead of chess. Specifically because of those moments, especially while having beer. Your friend who isn't playing is like "Why doesn't his queen just capture your king?" and you're like "right... that's why I had that pawn there... fuck..." Such good times. | ||
|
cenk_unger
49 Posts
On October 15 2013 00:39 Thieving Magpie wrote: But you are also correct that it is far more fucking fun to play 3d chess instead of chess. Specifically because of those moments, especially while having beer. Your friend who isn't playing is like "Why doesn't his queen just capture your king?" and you're like "right... that's why I had that pawn there... fuck..." Such good times. Haha, I'm glad you agree that it's fun. 2d chess is all about theory, calculating lines, etc.. 3d chess is mainly about having fun and experiencing "wtf" about a dozen times each game when you realize how cool it is that pieces can move in 3d and that the board is in 3d, etc.. It definitely helps to have beers handy--mainly so you can drink them and blame the beers for failing to see illegal moves, lol. | ||
|
XXXSmOke
United States1333 Posts
On October 15 2013 00:32 Thieving Magpie wrote: I have two 1st place regional trophies from when I used to play chess competitively. You are mistaking book knowledge with actual game play. When you sit and think X moves ahead, you are reading their plays and predicting their strategic choices. You then re-evaluate after each move in case he goes off course from your prediction and adapt as you go along, and he is doing the same. That is not mechanics, that is literally what strategy is about. Having a plan of attack, and then changing that plan as new information comes about. Mechanics is having the first few moves automated (ie mechanical play) and having those first few moves dictate the pace of the game. When you open e4, it forces center board play because now you have pieces in the center of the board. After the first few mechanic based moves, the game becomes pure strategy. Mechanics or automated play is about the things you do without thinking. Some players always go e4 not because they are responding to their opponent's moves but because it is the play they are best able to follow up on. Much like there is no strategic element to right clicking minerals in BW, there is no strategic superiority to opening e4 as opposed to other openings. Its just something you do. Its automated, it's mechanical, it's mechanics. Sitting in front of your opponent, predicting his moves, and then amending your moves as new information comes about is what strategy is all about. Congratulations on your first two places........... I as well have chess experience as my job is a full time chess coach so I teach this stuff all day. You have it backwards, playing a move like e4 is a strategical move because the plan of the game is to control the center much like opening 2 rax in TvP is a strategy based on early game pressure. That has nothing to do with mechanics that is a choice you made before the game even started. Mechanics then is executing that 2 rax early pressure once the opening is set. Much like once all of the pieces are out you plan a new strategy but to execute that strategy you must visualize everything that happens and that is where the mechanics come into place. If i go there he goes there ETC. The better you are that mechanic the better the player you are. The correct thing is Strategy guides the mechanics thats where you are mistaken. You are thinking visualization is purely strategy. You seem to think I am throwing strategy completely under the bus which is not the case. In chess you start with the strategy or plan. Then the mechanics aka visualization help you achieve that plan but they are separate things. You cant say my strategy is to visualize ahead of my opponent. You have a set strategy and the mechanics help you execute it.They go hand in hand. But mechanics are what amaze people, I am amazed when a GM sees 20 moves down the line to create a weakness, not when he attacks a weak pawn. | ||
|
ETisME
12889 Posts
SC2 mechanics is about how well you control your units as well as macro behind etc. then things like "if I go there he goes there" should be tactics, no? why would that be mechanics (in SC2 definition) I mean you playing faster doesn't mean you are going to get a triple flank just because you play fast. you have to use tactics to get the enemy into that location and then goes in with the flank | ||
|
JustPassingBy
10776 Posts
On October 15 2013 01:10 ETisME wrote: I am not understanding this at all. SC2 mechanics is about how well you control your units as well as macro behind etc. then things like "if I go there he goes there" should be tactics, no? why would that be mechanics (in SC2 definition) I mean you playing faster doesn't mean you are going to get a triple flank just because you play fast. you have to use tactics to get the enemy into that location and then goes in with the flank The best tactic is useless if you don't have the mechanics to carry it out well enough though. Your mechanics determine which tactics are viable for you. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7032 Posts
| ||
|
Velouria
United States78 Posts
On October 14 2013 13:21 jkim91 wrote: Of course, it is subjective because I said it "feels" like a design flaw, not it "is" a design flaw. Regarding your points, my question to you are as follows, -Do people actually need "sped-up" gameplay in an RTS? -Regarding tournaments, do the spectators need to some more games, rather than just a few, good ones? -Should luck/gambling factor play such a large role in a strategy game when skill should be more considered? If so, why? In addendum, "it will only keep getting better. This is a fact." I'm not quite sure I agree. People have not always praised Blizzard for what they have done with SC2 and from my perspective, I don't think they will change much in the future as well. The pros will come up with something, but I don't believe this is enough to make a game "better". Yeah, good points - my overall point is that SC2 has kept getting better from an overall perpective, pros are playing higher level games, the space between pros and joes is growing, the maps are stronger, the spectating / streams / replays are better. There is also about half the all in strategies as pros now try to gain small edges in the metagame while keeping their overall strategy. The one problem that still erks me is WCS, there is really only dreamhack and a few smaller tourneys to compete with WCS. And despite losing MKP and Stephano, we have up and coming talent all over as well as, (for better or worse) the drama queens like Destiny and Idra are both gone. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7032 Posts
On October 15 2013 01:22 Velouria wrote: Yeah, good points - my overall point is that SC2 has kept getting better from an overall perpective, pros are playing higher level games, the space between pros and joes is growing, the maps are stronger, the spectating / streams / replays are better. There is also about half the all in strategies as pros now try to gain small edges in the metagame while keeping their overall strategy. The one problem that still erks me is WCS, there is really only dreamhack and a few smaller tourneys to compete with WCS. And despite losing MKP and Stephano, we have up and coming talent all over as well as, (for better or worse) the drama queens like Destiny and Idra are both gone. Videos like this one are what made SC2 grow: atrocious level of play, but entertaining drama. The community craves drama I do think. | ||
|
ETisME
12889 Posts
On October 15 2013 01:18 JustPassingBy wrote: The best tactic is useless if you don't have the mechanics to carry it out well enough though. Your mechanics determine which tactics are viable for you. the option of tactics is limited for a player's tactical mind as well. for example, bomber can do a HSM medivac suicide move and only him has done it so far because no others have the tactical mind like he has. honestly this is just arguing for the balance between rewarding a faster player or a more tactical and strategic player. Right now he is arguing for 80% should be for a better mechanic player, but by mechanics, he means a player who can execute a game plan better, not a player who can play faster, which sounds to me, that is a better tactical player because faster doesn't mean you are executing better. | ||
| ||
[ Submit Event ] |
|
|
|
PiGosaur Cup
Patches Events
The PondCast
INu's Battles
Percival vs TBD
TBD vs herO
OSC
Replay Cast
OSC
BSL: Ladder Tournament
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Patches Events
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
