| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland11915 Posts
On October 15 2013 01:46 Grumbels wrote: "I can see the combinations as well as Alekhine, but I cannot get to the same positions." ~Rudolf Spielmann. Alekhine was world champion in chess for 15+ years. Yeah exactly. That's a great quote btw. | ||
|
Sissors
1395 Posts
On October 15 2013 02:15 Qwyn wrote: Well without anything more concrete to give I can only stand on my own opinions, which aren't worth much. The lack of unit diversity you mention ISN'T a problem though! The game has always been like this. It's about unit DEPTH, not the amount of units used... I'd say that ZvT is only evolving to be more complex and nuanced. Sure some break up might be good, but these sorts of pressures are only good in the long run. If bio-mine gets phased out it will be to mine-based mech, and I "pray to God" that this does not happen. It's like infestor broodlord for both sides. There's this idea that somehow compositons get stale and that things should be mixed up...do that enough and people will always want to go back to the core of the MU...It's highly mechanical (high influence of player skill), and I would say the opposite of ZvP (which after a certain point, plays to reads and chance/luck). I just don't think that's right. ZvT has the most action of any MU barring PvP/TvP over a longer period of time and sustained constantly, it is asymettric and has a high mechanical skillcap. How that can compare to ZvP I have no idea. As I said, compared to ZvP of WoL, by hell it's more interesting than it was, but other than that... That it is action packed is imo literally the only good thing about TvZ these days. In WoL it was by far my favourite matchup, even with the infestor crap fest. Because it wasn't just mechanics. It was alot of positioning, tactics, etc. Imo watching pure mechanics is simply terribly boring if that is all there is. Awesome splits are nice to see a few times, but when the matchup is always a stream of 4M towards the zergs fourth it really gets boring. TvP is a bit less worse, but has also the issue it is always the same. TvT luckily still is largely positioning and tactics and not just mechanics. (It is supposed to be a strategy game also). But then you must also have liked WoL PvZ? That also has no strategy whatsoever and purely who could get slight advantages in the fight, since it was always 2-base immortal all-ins. I hated that matchup. But to my surprise lately I am realising it is now actually my favourite matchup to watch. Again because it isn't just mechanics, but it is largely positioning and strategy that determines the winner. The players actually have the option to think and be creative instead of doing the same thing every single game. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On October 15 2013 00:58 XXXSmOke wrote: 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. What we have is a difference in definitions. Mechanics or mechanical play, to me, is the physical actions you take without thinking. You don't think about how to move a pawn like you don't think about how to land a mule--you just do it because that's part of mechanics. Strategy or strategic play, to me, is when you think of what to do because you know it is the best coarse of action, aka strategy. Thinking ahead, by definition, is strategy. Moving pawns, by definition, is mechanics. | ||
|
ETisME
12275 Posts
On October 15 2013 02:15 Qwyn wrote: Well without anything more concrete to give I can only stand on my own opinions, which aren't worth much. The lack of unit diversity you mention ISN'T a problem though! The game has always been like this. It's about unit DEPTH, not the amount of units used... I'd say that ZvT is only evolving to be more complex and nuanced. Sure some break up might be good, but these sorts of pressures are only good in the long run. If bio-mine gets phased out it will be to mine-based mech, and I "pray to God" that this does not happen. It's like infestor broodlord for both sides. There's this idea that somehow compositons get stale and that things should be mixed up...do that enough and people will always want to go back to the core of the MU...It's highly mechanical (high influence of player skill), and I would say the opposite of ZvP (which after a certain point, plays to reads and chance/luck). I just don't think that's right. ZvT has the most action of any MU barring PvP/TvP over a longer period of time and sustained constantly, it is asymettric and has a high mechanical skillcap. How that can compare to ZvP I have no idea. As I said, compared to ZvP of WoL, by hell it's more interesting than it was, but other than that... Actions are there, interactions are there but why people don't enjoy it? The actions are the same throughout entire game due to the same unit composition. And not to mention these widow mine and bait fire sniping mines etc micro are repetitive and these trades tend to happen at least 5 times. There is not great widow mine user, and all kr terrans are great at splitting. Honestly unless you are innovation, not a lot of people would be able to tell which is a good terran. When you have such a repetitive actions for all the games, people get bored. Why variety is good? Just watch iem naniwa playing the last two zergs. Life and curious are both very different in their approach to ZvP and even if naniwa is doing the same strategy on the same map, the whole game feels different. And the tech tree gets explored, vipers, swarmhosts, ultra infestor etc all are used in zvp. The engagement are less one sided and more rooms for micro. Watch hero vs Life game, how hero tried to use warp prism sentry block ramp to recover from a slight build order disadvantage and life use lings to force the sentries to stay close to the warp prism and needs to get picked up. Or watch how life split lings and roaches to go to where the warp prism going to drop the low health immortal. Or watch how life reposition his roach hydra against forcefield and use corruptor to snipe mothership core and bait void ray charge. Etcetc | ||
|
cenk_unger
49 Posts
On October 15 2013 01:46 Grumbels wrote: "I can see the combinations as well as Alekhine, but I cannot get to the same positions." ~Rudolf Spielmann. Alekhine was world champion in chess for 15+ years. This quote absolutely NAILED IT 100% for me just like how in Zerg verses protoss,zerg wants to go a tech tree which is countered by an exploitable tech tree of the protoss!!! Dude I'm so pumped up right now can't decide if I want to play chess or starcraft, lol | ||
|
Holy_AT
Austria978 Posts
On October 15 2013 02:36 Thieving Magpie wrote: What we have is a difference in definitions. Mechanics or mechanical play, to me, is the physical actions you take without thinking. You don't think about how to move a pawn like you don't think about how to land a mule--you just do it because that's part of mechanics. Strategy or strategic play, to me, is when you think of what to do because you know it is the best coarse of action, aka strategy. Thinking ahead, by definition, is strategy. Moving pawns, by definition, is mechanics. I agree with this definition and I think that mechanics play a huge part. I would even broaden the term of mechanics more. Mechanics is the basics of the game, its the executional part, its cycling through your production building and producing stuff, machanics is how you execute your micro and macro. Strategics is a long term decission you make (conciously or uncounciously). But it is more or less and active decission on how in a broad term you want to engage this one game. Strategic plans are for example: I want to harass at the beginning of the game instead on focusing purely on my economy to put the economy of my opponent at the backfoot. Therefore I will have an advantage in the midgame where I will ... and so on and on. Tactics for me is how this strategy is implemented. Lets say your strategic goal is: Harass early game: Well what tactics can you use as a terran ? Hellion dropps, minie dropps, some sort of early push and what not. Thats how I would define the term of tactic. And the execution of it is the mechanics. The question is, what is the most powerful aspect in starcraft if you would have to do a ranking. Is it strategy ? Is it tactics ? Is it mechanics ? Of course, there are cases were one aspect beats the other, but generally would say it is mechanics > tactic > strategy This is just my opinion, at least how it feels for me. And I think, that the mechanical demands are to taxing for the casual player and the tactical or even the strategical side of the game is too weak and poorly fleshed out to gain some sort of advantage if you lack in the mechanical part. Lets take Dota for example: Lets say you have players that work together well, that are a team and plan and communicate with each other but who are bad at last hitting and clicking fast and what not. And they are facing opponents who are mechanically really good, last hit well and just execute and dodge and dance with there heroes like hell but they have no plan and no tactics and don't work together really. Of course it is not set in stone who will win this, but one could say, that the mechanical better team will have an advantage in the laning phase but the other team will have the chance to come back and win if they communicate good, take good teamfights and have good tactical play. In starcraft, if your mechanics are not "en pare", in most of the cases you loose horribly and even having plans, tactics and strategical thinking don't even matter in the first place. Starcraft is more like a pyramid, where you cant build the top when your basic fundamental steps show some weakness, where as in Dota it just feels like that the building is more like built on more columns and that you can build higher and better even if your columns are of different height but you can still achieve something although you have instabilities in your "building" where as in starcraft it does not matter if you got parts of the top or the middle part of the pyramid ready if you have flaws at the basis. These are just thoughts for the casual play not for pro play because I think that the problem lies not in the pro play but in the attraction of casual players to the game. | ||
|
cenk_unger
49 Posts
On October 15 2013 02:36 Thieving Magpie wrote: What we have is a difference in definitions. Mechanics or mechanical play, to me, is the physical actions you take without thinking. You don't think about how to move a pawn like you don't think about how to land a mule--you just do it because that's part of mechanics. Strategy or strategic play, to me, is when you think of what to do because you know it is the best coarse of action, aka strategy. Thinking ahead, by definition, is strategy. Moving pawns, by definition, is mechanics. I agree with this definition and I think that mechanics play a huge part. I would even broaden the term of mechanics more. Mechanics is the basics of the game, its the executional part, its cycling through your production building and producing stuff, machanics is how you execute your micro and macro. Strategics is a long term decission you make (conciously or uncounciously). But it is more or less and active decission on how in a broad term you want to engage this one game. Strategic plans are for example: I want to harass at the beginning of the game instead on focusing purely on my economy to put the economy of my opponent at the backfoot. Therefore I will have an advantage in the midgame where I will ... and so on and on. Tactics for me is how this strategy is implemented. Lets say your strategic goal is: Harass early game: Well what tactics can you use as a terran ? Hellion dropps, minie dropps, some sort of early push and what not. Thats how I would define the term of tactic. And the execution of it is the mechanics. The question is, what is the most powerful aspect in starcraft if you would have to do a ranking. Is it strategy ? Is it tactics ? Is it mechanics ? Of course, there are cases were one aspect beats the other, but generally would say it is mechanics > tactic > strategy This is just my opinion, at least how it feels for me. And I think, that the mechanical demands are to taxing for the casual player and the tactical or even the strategical side of the game is too weak and poorly fleshed out to gain some sort of advantage if you lack in the mechanical part. Lets take Dota for example: Lets say you have players that work together well, that are a team and plan and communicate with each other but who are bad at last hitting and clicking fast and what not. And they are facing opponets who are mechanically really good, lst hit well and just execute and dodge and dance with there heroes like hell but they have no plan and no tactics and dont work together really. Of course it is not set in stone who will win this, but one could say, that the mechanical better team will have an advantage in the laning phase but the other team will have the chance to come back and win if they communicate good, take good teamfights and have good tactical play. In starcraft, if your mechanics are not "en pare", in most of the cases you loose horribly and even having plans, tactics and strategical thinking dont even matter in the first place. Starcraft is more like a pyramid, where you can build the top when your basic fundamental stepps show some weakness, where as in Dota it just feels like that the building is more like built on more columns and that you can build higher and better even if your columns are of different hight but you can still achieve something although you have instabilities in your "building" where as in starcraft it does not matter if you got parts of the top or the middle part of the pyramid ready if you have flaws at the basis. These are just thoughts for the casual play not for pro play because I think that the problem lies not in the pro play but in the attraction of casual players to the game. [/QUOTE] Honestly this is the best non-chess argument I've read all day. Truth is, what games did original starcraft 1 and original brood war have to compete with? There are just too many games which are more fun on different aspects (such as how the pro HOTS players get caught playing DOTA during their downtime at foreign tournaments). Or how the important question about over-saturation of RTS games such as SC2 can keep from suffocating itself? | ||
BigFan
TLADT24920 Posts
On October 15 2013 03:14 cenk_unger wrote: Honestly this is the best non-chess argument I've read all day. Truth is, what games did original starcraft 1 and original brood war have to compete with? There are just too many games which are more fun on different aspects (such as how the pro HOTS players get caught playing DOTA during their downtime at foreign tournaments). Or how the important question about over-saturation of RTS games such as SC2 can keep from suffocating itself? What games? Dune, c&c, Total annihilation to name a few. | ||
|
JustPassingBy
10776 Posts
On September 21 2013 03:40 Xeris wrote: What's the problem: Battle.net isn't as much about community and interaction as it was in Brood War. There's too much emphasis on laddering and it doesn't appeal to casuals. Am I the only one who thinks that the improper implementation of community channels in Bnet is not the only issue why Starcraft 2 is unappealing to casuals? Is it just me, or are there other people who find Starcraft 2 relatively unforgiving, compared to other rts like Starcraft 1, Warcraft 3, Age of Empires 2? I mean, I don't pay attention to the right spot for a few seconds and I am so far behind that it takes a small miracle for me to get back into the game. Whether it be banelings hitting my clumped marines, an oracle or a couple of hellbats left unchecked for several seconds in my mineral line, templars landing a couple of money storms before I can emp. Now, this is nothing about balance as this goes both ways. But is sc2 really that unforgiving compared to the other rts I played, or was I just not invested enough in the other games to notice it? | ||
|
BigFan
TLADT24920 Posts
On October 15 2013 05:32 JustPassingBy wrote: Am I the only one who thinks that the improper implementation of community channels in Bnet is not the only issue why Starcraft 2 is unappealing to casuals? Is it just me, or are there other people who find Starcraft 2 relatively unforgiving, compared to other rts like Starcraft 1, Warcraft 3, Age of Empires 2? I mean, I don't pay attention to the right spot for a few seconds and I am so far behind that it takes a small miracle for me to get back into the game. Whether it be banelings hitting my clumped marines, an oracle or a couple of hellbats left unchecked for several seconds in my mineral line, templars landing a couple of money storms before I can emp. Now, this is nothing about balance as this goes both ways. But is sc2 really that unforgiving compared to the other rts I played, or was I just not invested enough in the other games to notice it? I agree. I think it's also unforgiving. My thoughts on that is tat its due to the changes that Blizzard implemented. For ex, taking the templars storming. With smart casting, you can easily select the control group and spam storm. In BW, you had to manually use each templar otherwise they'll all storm that same location and storms don't add so you lost x amount of storms. This means that your opponent can't just mass storm and you still have a chance to spread your units and emp. This also works in reverse with terran having his ghost together in SCII and mass emp etc... Banelings are kinda like lurkers in BW so I think that was on the same level(lurkers shred marines). Can't say much for hellbats. | ||
|
Shield
Bulgaria4824 Posts
On October 15 2013 05:36 BigFan wrote: I agree. I think it's also unforgiving. My thoughts on that is tat its due to the changes that Blizzard implemented. For ex, taking the templars storming. With smart casting, you can easily select the control group and spam storm. In BW, you had to manually use each templar otherwise they'll all storm that same location and storms don't add so you lost x amount of storms. This means that your opponent can't just mass storm and you still have a chance to spread your units and emp. This also works in reverse with terran having his ghost together in SCII and mass emp etc... Banelings are kinda like lurkers in BW so I think that was on the same level(lurkers shred marines). Can't say much for hellbats. As far as I remember, there was a trick with high templars in BW where you can select several but storm different places at the same time. | ||
|
Xiphos
Canada7507 Posts
On October 15 2013 06:26 darkness wrote: As far as I remember, there was a trick with high templars in BW where you can select several but storm different places at the same time. Magic Box. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On October 15 2013 06:26 darkness wrote: As far as I remember, there was a trick with high templars in BW where you can select several but storm different places at the same time. Its called magic boxing. If they were about 2-4 spaces away from each other they would move in formation, and then fire off storms in the same relative spacing as they were. The same trick is used in mine laying for vultures where you set your vultures in a formation, magic box move them, and then lay pre spread spider mines. It was also a trick used by air units against scourge to prevent aoe death. It was also important when performing mine drags in order to spread out zealots enough to prevent splash death when charging tank lines. etc... | ||
|
Shield
Bulgaria4824 Posts
 | ||
|
imBLIND
United States2626 Posts
Seeing pros move a giant army doesn't make you look in awe in SC2; what I see is "pfft I can do that too." And then people say "oh he's got a bunch of units," and everyone I know goes "he just does it 10 seconds quicker." Now I'm not inferring that there is no skill involved in SC2; what I'm saying is that there is no note-worthy skill in SC2 that is worth watching. | ||
|
Xiphos
Canada7507 Posts
On October 15 2013 10:37 imBLIND wrote: Magic boxing was also the reason why ground units clumped up and did stupid shit. It was an unintended glitch of the engine that created a limiting factor on how big of an army you're allowed to have; if you didn't micro all your control groups properly, your army wouldn't be any stronger than a well micro'd force smaller than yours. Seeing pros move a giant army doesn't make you look in awe in SC2; what I see is "pfft I can do that too." And then people say "oh he's got a bunch of units," and everyone I know goes "he just does it 10 seconds quicker." Now I'm not inferring that there is no skill involved in SC2; what I'm saying is that there is no note-worthy skill in SC2 that is worth watching. Ouch, what a tough pill to swallow. | ||
|
flashimba
225 Posts
On October 15 2013 10:37 imBLIND wrote: Magic boxing was also the reason why ground units clumped up and did stupid shit. It was an unintended glitch of the engine that created a limiting factor on how big of an army you're allowed to have; if you didn't micro all your control groups properly, your army wouldn't be any stronger than a well micro'd force smaller than yours. Seeing pros move a giant army doesn't make you look in awe in SC2; what I see is "pfft I can do that too." And then people say "oh he's got a bunch of units," and everyone I know goes "he just does it 10 seconds quicker." Now I'm not inferring that there is no skill involved in SC2; what I'm saying is that there is no note-worthy skill in SC2 that is worth watching. What about larva inject, creep spread, chronoboost? Nothing like watching a good pro juggle these while pumping out a gazillion units. | ||
|
Xiphos
Canada7507 Posts
On October 15 2013 14:19 flashimba wrote: What about larva inject, creep spread, chronoboost? Nothing like watching a good pro juggle these while pumping out a gazillion units. Well macroing as a Zerg in BW comparing to SC2 still takes more action per minutes. | ||
|
BigFan
TLADT24920 Posts
On October 15 2013 14:19 flashimba wrote: What about larva inject, creep spread, chronoboost? Nothing like watching a good pro juggle these while pumping out a gazillion units. Xiphos is right. Once you get to late game with 5-6 bases and multiple inbase hatcheries, imagine having to go to each base and manually click on the hatchery then select the larvae and make units from it. Larva inject in a way simplifies the macro since even though you have to remember to inject larva, you get 7 larvae so that's 4 more larva than usual. With 3 bases, instead of 9 larva, you have 21 larva which is equivalent to 7 hatcheries lol. This doesn't include any inbase hatchery or more bases XD Creep spread adds to APM activity but I think someone mentioned its about 17 or so at best. Chronoboost can create some interesting timings but it's not a must aside from making probes out faster(and upgrades too for a timing attack). You can chronoboost from the minimap, same with larva inject which is what I used to do | ||
|
Xiphos
Canada7507 Posts
On October 15 2013 14:34 BigFan wrote: Xiphos is right. Once you get to late game with 5-6 bases and multiple inbase hatcheries, imagine having to go to each base and manually click on the hatchery then select the larvae and make units from it. Larva inject in a way simplifies the macro since even though you have to remember to inject larva, you get 7 larvae so that's 4 more larva than usual. With 3 bases, instead of 9 larva, you have 21 larva which is equivalent to 7 hatcheries lol. This doesn't include any inbase hatchery or more bases XD Creep spread adds to APM activity but I think someone mentioned its about 17 or so at best. Chronoboost can create some interesting timings but it's not a must aside from making probes out faster(and upgrades too for a timing attack). You can chronoboost from the minimap, same with larva inject which is what I used to do As an addendum, I've wrote a piece on SC2 vs BW zerg mechanics comparison here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=370433 | ||
| ||
|
|
Replay Cast
SOOP
SKillous vs Spirit
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
PiG Sty Festival
Serral vs TriGGeR
Cure vs SHIN
The PondCast
Replay Cast
PiG Sty Festival
Clem vs Bunny
Solar vs Zoun
Replay Cast
Korean StarCraft League
PiG Sty Festival
herO vs Rogue
ByuN vs SKillous
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
