|
Keep "my game is better than yours"-slapfights out of this. If the discussion devolves into simple bashing, this thread will be closed. |
On February 05 2015 05:55 TMG26 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2015 04:10 lestye wrote:On February 05 2015 03:11 Elroi wrote:On February 04 2015 23:38 Endymion wrote:On February 04 2015 21:20 Mikau wrote:On February 04 2015 21:07 KingAlphard wrote:On February 04 2015 21:04 maartendq wrote:On February 04 2015 20:21 ejozl wrote:
It's also real time and most of the strategy in sc2 is there because of this aspect. Attacking at multiple fronts, taking advantage of a busy opponent etc. Sure, but why does that need to happen at a breakneck speed? Age of Empires and C&C were also real-time but a lot more manageable in terms of gamespeed. Why is the speed something bad? I find games like AOE boring because they're so slow, you play a game for more than a hour and it feels like you've done nothing. The speed element makes the games more thrilling and it highlights the ability of a player to make decisions in a very short period of time. That's what you and the dozen remaining BW/SC2 players think, but if we want the genre to be sustainable we have to find a middle ground that will attract casuals too. "dozens of remaining BW players" you do know that fish has ~150 people in its ladder channels during peak hours and it's incredibly easy to find normal melee 1v1s on fighting spirit or 2v2s/3v3s/4v4s on super/hunters/fs/python right? even if you can't speak korean, iccup has tons of people to play with as well.. it's actually easier/faster to find a high level game of broodwar nowadays than it is to deal with HOTS' matchmaking fiasco. That said, rts doesn't need to be dumbed down for casuals, casuals will come an go as they please.. We can decrease gamespeed for them or let them play team melee, but look at what "casuals" and appealing to them did to starcraft 2... Where is it's longevity that everyone used to talk about since it appealed to a "much larger more mainstream" audience? We're not even to our 3rd iteration of it and HOTS and its legacy left such a sour taste in everyone's mouth that the game is basically dead compared to the competitive scene of BW... Take away blizzard's "esport" funding (which will inevitably happen when their "obligation" to sustain sc2's cometitive scene goes away in their minds) and you'll see just how dead the game is... I don't even hate SC2, but WoL was a much better game than hots.. edit~ i dont have a bone to chew with sc2 players, it's with sc2's shitty dev team that i don't like. starcraft's scene isn't dying, it's alive and well, the majority of them just don't have a game to play as a result of horrible design decisions. I'm sure if they were given a competent game with a new coat of polish they would come back from mobas and play the better rts instead. but i mean... do you really want chat channels? do you really want clans? do you really want to pay blizzard more money for cosmetics? do you really want custom leagues? do you really want in game tournament options? do you really want do not disturb? do you really want a client that doesnt bug the fuck out 24/7? do you really think swarm hosts are a problem? the list goes on and on and on. It is interesting to compare sc and cs i think. A couple of years ago bw and 1.6 competed over which game was the premier e-sport. A competition that bw won. Now look at sc2 and cs:go. cs:go literally has ten times more people watching than sc2. And the major thing that happened was that blizzard made a completely different game while valve just made minor changes to an already winning concept. The day that blizzard makes a sc3 that tries to repeat what made bw into such a great game to begin with I think we will have a big RTS e-sport again. Maybe its not even that sc2 is a worse game (although I am convinced it is inferior in most ways to its predecessor), just the fact that blizzard made a game that most bw fans hate because it is so different and at the same time forced it down our throats by making it impossible to send bw matches on television, really estranged the new game from such a big part of its fanbase from the start. To be fair, CS:GO is way inferior to 1.6 in a lot of ways as well. The big obstacle is, that CS:GO wasn't in a genre that's dead. FPS have ALWAYS been super popular. You have FPS selling millions and millions of copies every year, you don't have that in RTS. I think the only 2 "traditional" RTS that have sold more than 4 million copies (base game) in the entire genre history is Starcraft and Starcraft II (Very Possible Warcraft III, not solid figures on how # copies sold) But it is not inferior by a margin as big as sc2 and bw. also everything else CS:GO brings into changes the tide. You can now simply get your 4 friends and click a button and play against another team. Instead of navigating through IRC to find a PCW. Also, more weapons are relevant now. CS:GO changed a lot from when it was first released, Valve listens to the community and the pros a lot.
Hitboxes, movement, and sound are completely fucked in CS:GO and outclassed by 1.6
CS:GO has made incredible improvements since its launch in 2012, but it's still inferior to 1.6 in a lot of ways.
|
On May 14 2014 05:13 -HuShang- wrote:
Basicall you want nexus wars eh? It's in the arcade
I thought the same thing when i read it.
|
On February 05 2015 00:25 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2015 23:43 The_Red_Viper wrote:On February 04 2015 23:30 StreetWise wrote:On May 14 2014 05:37 Cheren wrote:On May 14 2014 05:34 ShiaoPi wrote:
so you want Warcraft IV? :DDD I think a WC4 would be much more successful than WC3, the modern audience is already very used to heroes in competitive games, that was a pretty new concept when WC3 came out. As someone who has gone back to WC3 from SC2 I agree that WC4 could be a great way to meet the requirements in the OP. As mentioned, WC3 was somewhat ahead of its time. The market is ready for this type of a game. Oh god pls no :/ I don't want an rts which is like a moba, NOOOOOOOOOO But i guess it would be better than no rts at all, haha WC3 is not a RTS that is like a MOBA, it's a RTS that has hero units (and I mean micro-able, interesting, balanced, who gains power over time, hero units, not MoCore/Mothership-like hero units). It's literally a genius concept : tried and true RTS mechanics (workers, ressources, buildings, support units,...), with an emphasis on some specific units (that evolve over time ; that is greatly lacking in SC2 imo) to make the fights more exciting, in-fight micro-centered and less "big red blob clashes with big blue blob. Laser and shots are exchanged. Big red blob disappears. Big blue blob disappears too".
Meh i just don't like heroes in an rts game.
I like the starcraft concept way too much^^
But again, i guess i could work with it if it was the only rts around, i just prefer the sc way.
|
On February 04 2015 20:01 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2015 17:47 L_Master wrote:On February 04 2015 17:22 maartendq wrote:On February 04 2015 14:05 L_Master wrote:On November 25 2014 20:44 maartendq wrote:On November 25 2014 20:35 FrozenProbe wrote:I want to win because I outthought my opponent, not because I can click faster than he does. So, play a turn-based strategy game.. something like a little game like Chess should be better for you Or any non-blizzard RTS will do. No need to be all hardcore here, I don't think I'm the only one who likes it when games are decided on whether or not I managed to cast an EMP in that one split second. Blizzard RTS are extremely light on strategy and tactics, they're all about minute unit control. I can't speak for SC2 as I haven't played it enough, but this is nothing but a massive heap of nonsense if we are talking about BW. Why you would post stuff like that without having experience with a game is beyond me. The problem with Brood War (and Starcraft 2) is the skill floor. A player needs a certain level of mechanical skill (often expressed in APM) before strategy comes in play at all. What's the point having thought out a good strategy if your opponent's macro is micro just makes it plain obsolete, or not looking at your army at the wrong second may cause you to lose it? Everything needs to be done manually in Starcraft, from production to telling each unit which enemy unit to shoot. And all of this would actually be quite ok if it weren't for the fact that the standard speed of Starcraft 2 is 'faster'. Sure, you don't need 100 apm to enjoy the game, but if you want to be even slightly competitive - which most people want to be - the closer you are to that number the better. Blizzard designed Starcraft 2 to be a hardcore RTS, and has now noticed that casuals are flocking en-masse to the slower, more friendly MOBA games. No matter what they try for LOTV, they will not get that flood of casuals which they would like. The future of RTS for me lies in games like Grey Goo. RTS in which production is largely automated and can be done entirely using hotkeys (so no return to base to select buildings) and a focus on battles with units that do not require a high degree of micro-management. Absolutely not. If two 40 apm guys play each other the one that makes the better strategic decisions is almost certain to come out the victor. What you're saying only holds if there is a large skill gap, in which case sure. I certainly could beat my casual friends with mass scouts in BW even if they tried to execute a proper build. But in that case I'm winning because my level of mechanical skill is so much greater than theirs it overwhelms better strategical decisions. If both players mechanics are similar, i.e. casual players competing against each other mechanics will not be a major player, strategy will, because their mechanical skill is equal (non existant?). Example: Perhaps the most obvious example would be cycling, which has a huge amount of tactical stuff involved in most races. Less fit people are also able to hang with more fit people because of drafting, so it isn't just the fittest person wins. Now at some level (analogous to a very large mechanical discrepancy) a fitter cyclist could ride away from someone even if they were drafting efficiently and positioning themselves well in the bunch. In other words, mechanics would override tactics/strategy. However, cycling tends to be done within categories and thus you are racing people of similar capability and able to enjoy the full range of tactics available to racing. Same goes for starcraft and playing people of similar rank/league/skill than you. This is where my opinion differs from yours. I find that superior strategical thinking should be able to trump superior mechanical skill. After all, we're talking about real time strategy games here, not real time micromanagement. This is the main reason why I don't play SC2 all that much anymore. I realised I am so preoccupied with micro and macro that I no longer have the time to think about strategy.
It does.
Unless the person with the mechanical skill is orders of magnitude better in mechanical skill than the player with better strategical decisions. If the mechanical skill of the players is within a reasonable discrepancy the player that makes better decisions strategically will win.
Interestingly the only place this kind of mechanical really exists is when a total beginner plays against someone that actually understands macro. Once you start hitting an even remotely competitive level (D+, maybe...plat?) the ability to win by mechanics against inferior strategy almost completely evaporates. D+ guys don't lose to B guys because of mechanics, they lose because they make much worse decisions. Plat players don't lose to masters because of mechanics, but because of strategy.
If you aren't okay with a situation in which a massive difference in mechanical skill can overcome a very modest deficit in strategy then you don't want RTS. Real Time by definition means mechanics, and if you want a game in which mechanics has NO bearing on the outcome, you don't want to play RTS in the first place.
Going back to the bike analogy it sounds like you want a game where fitness (mechanics) doesn't matter in any way. In other words motorcycle racing, downhill MTB etc....a completely different sport.
|
On February 05 2015 06:50 L_Master wrote:
Once you start hitting an even remotely competitive level (D+, maybe...plat?) the ability to win by mechanics against inferior strategy almost completely evaporates. D+ guys don't lose to B guys because of mechanics, they lose because they make much worse decisions. Plat players don't lose to masters because of mechanics, but because of strategy.
I totally disagree with this.
I don't know what else to say. Mechanics is absolutely the most important thing in Starcraft by far , despite the fact that strategy/planning/tactics is very important as well.
Most of the important strategy is straightforward and not too difficult to know, such as unit counters and positioning.
|
On February 05 2015 05:59 lestye wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2015 05:55 TMG26 wrote:On February 05 2015 04:10 lestye wrote:On February 05 2015 03:11 Elroi wrote:On February 04 2015 23:38 Endymion wrote:On February 04 2015 21:20 Mikau wrote:On February 04 2015 21:07 KingAlphard wrote:On February 04 2015 21:04 maartendq wrote:On February 04 2015 20:21 ejozl wrote:
It's also real time and most of the strategy in sc2 is there because of this aspect. Attacking at multiple fronts, taking advantage of a busy opponent etc. Sure, but why does that need to happen at a breakneck speed? Age of Empires and C&C were also real-time but a lot more manageable in terms of gamespeed. Why is the speed something bad? I find games like AOE boring because they're so slow, you play a game for more than a hour and it feels like you've done nothing. The speed element makes the games more thrilling and it highlights the ability of a player to make decisions in a very short period of time. That's what you and the dozen remaining BW/SC2 players think, but if we want the genre to be sustainable we have to find a middle ground that will attract casuals too. "dozens of remaining BW players" you do know that fish has ~150 people in its ladder channels during peak hours and it's incredibly easy to find normal melee 1v1s on fighting spirit or 2v2s/3v3s/4v4s on super/hunters/fs/python right? even if you can't speak korean, iccup has tons of people to play with as well.. it's actually easier/faster to find a high level game of broodwar nowadays than it is to deal with HOTS' matchmaking fiasco. That said, rts doesn't need to be dumbed down for casuals, casuals will come an go as they please.. We can decrease gamespeed for them or let them play team melee, but look at what "casuals" and appealing to them did to starcraft 2... Where is it's longevity that everyone used to talk about since it appealed to a "much larger more mainstream" audience? We're not even to our 3rd iteration of it and HOTS and its legacy left such a sour taste in everyone's mouth that the game is basically dead compared to the competitive scene of BW... Take away blizzard's "esport" funding (which will inevitably happen when their "obligation" to sustain sc2's cometitive scene goes away in their minds) and you'll see just how dead the game is... I don't even hate SC2, but WoL was a much better game than hots.. edit~ i dont have a bone to chew with sc2 players, it's with sc2's shitty dev team that i don't like. starcraft's scene isn't dying, it's alive and well, the majority of them just don't have a game to play as a result of horrible design decisions. I'm sure if they were given a competent game with a new coat of polish they would come back from mobas and play the better rts instead. but i mean... do you really want chat channels? do you really want clans? do you really want to pay blizzard more money for cosmetics? do you really want custom leagues? do you really want in game tournament options? do you really want do not disturb? do you really want a client that doesnt bug the fuck out 24/7? do you really think swarm hosts are a problem? the list goes on and on and on. It is interesting to compare sc and cs i think. A couple of years ago bw and 1.6 competed over which game was the premier e-sport. A competition that bw won. Now look at sc2 and cs:go. cs:go literally has ten times more people watching than sc2. And the major thing that happened was that blizzard made a completely different game while valve just made minor changes to an already winning concept. The day that blizzard makes a sc3 that tries to repeat what made bw into such a great game to begin with I think we will have a big RTS e-sport again. Maybe its not even that sc2 is a worse game (although I am convinced it is inferior in most ways to its predecessor), just the fact that blizzard made a game that most bw fans hate because it is so different and at the same time forced it down our throats by making it impossible to send bw matches on television, really estranged the new game from such a big part of its fanbase from the start. To be fair, CS:GO is way inferior to 1.6 in a lot of ways as well. The big obstacle is, that CS:GO wasn't in a genre that's dead. FPS have ALWAYS been super popular. You have FPS selling millions and millions of copies every year, you don't have that in RTS. I think the only 2 "traditional" RTS that have sold more than 4 million copies (base game) in the entire genre history is Starcraft and Starcraft II (Very Possible Warcraft III, not solid figures on how # copies sold) But it is not inferior by a margin as big as sc2 and bw. also everything else CS:GO brings into changes the tide. You can now simply get your 4 friends and click a button and play against another team. Instead of navigating through IRC to find a PCW. Also, more weapons are relevant now. CS:GO changed a lot from when it was first released, Valve listens to the community and the pros a lot. Hitboxes, movement, and sound are completely fucked in CS:GO and outclassed by 1.6 CS:GO has made incredible improvements since its launch in 2012, but it's still inferior to 1.6 in a lot of ways.
Are you calling 1.6 hitboxes good? because they weren't, the headshot register was fucking awful, you are just used to it. The rest yeah, 1.6 is better. But it is still unpractical. CS:GO is a prety good attempt at putting the competitiveness first, you got all the rules in the game, they don't have to be enforced manually. CS:GO is a much better experience, even if the game play is a bit behind 1.6
On February 05 2015 09:37 Xapti wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2015 06:50 L_Master wrote:
Once you start hitting an even remotely competitive level (D+, maybe...plat?) the ability to win by mechanics against inferior strategy almost completely evaporates. D+ guys don't lose to B guys because of mechanics, they lose because they make much worse decisions. Plat players don't lose to masters because of mechanics, but because of strategy. I totally disagree with this. I don't know what else to say. Mechanics is absolutely the most important thing in Starcraft by far , despite the fact that strategy/planning/tactics is very important as well. Most of the important strategy is straightforward and not too difficult to know, such as unit counters and positioning.
Maybe in the latter, since everyone just goes by the traditional macro game into deathball.
It's a mix of the two, one is useless without the other.
|
CSGO is like a 9/10 sequel to the original (now, not at release) with some fresh mechanics that are not necesserally for the better nor the worse.
|
Mechanics always limits strategy since anything you do is countered by the opponent making more (zero strategy by definition) until one player can't out produce the other there is zero strategy. In sc2 there is zero strategy till about masters when production is much less of an issue and the difference is in control and consistency of execution.
Non-RTS players will be stuck at silver/gold while casual RTS players get stuck around gold/platinum. And none of them get to the point where strategic decisions matter because MMR will make them face people with better macro and they have to reinvent the wheel every time they click the quick play button.
Strategy is only present far too high in the game.
BW didn't have auto matching so if you sucked you just kept playing with the same sucky players. Nothing automatically made you faced higher level players at the click of a button. You just learned strategies in your own limited talent pool. SC2 says fuck that and people only ladder where they will ALWAYS be matched against people who macro better than whatever new winning strat they are trying.
That is what people mean when they say that the mechanical requirements of SC2 is too high for casuals.
|
On February 05 2015 06:50 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2015 20:01 maartendq wrote:On February 04 2015 17:47 L_Master wrote:On February 04 2015 17:22 maartendq wrote:On February 04 2015 14:05 L_Master wrote:On November 25 2014 20:44 maartendq wrote:On November 25 2014 20:35 FrozenProbe wrote:I want to win because I outthought my opponent, not because I can click faster than he does. So, play a turn-based strategy game.. something like a little game like Chess should be better for you Or any non-blizzard RTS will do. No need to be all hardcore here, I don't think I'm the only one who likes it when games are decided on whether or not I managed to cast an EMP in that one split second. Blizzard RTS are extremely light on strategy and tactics, they're all about minute unit control. I can't speak for SC2 as I haven't played it enough, but this is nothing but a massive heap of nonsense if we are talking about BW. Why you would post stuff like that without having experience with a game is beyond me. The problem with Brood War (and Starcraft 2) is the skill floor. A player needs a certain level of mechanical skill (often expressed in APM) before strategy comes in play at all. What's the point having thought out a good strategy if your opponent's macro is micro just makes it plain obsolete, or not looking at your army at the wrong second may cause you to lose it? Everything needs to be done manually in Starcraft, from production to telling each unit which enemy unit to shoot. And all of this would actually be quite ok if it weren't for the fact that the standard speed of Starcraft 2 is 'faster'. Sure, you don't need 100 apm to enjoy the game, but if you want to be even slightly competitive - which most people want to be - the closer you are to that number the better. Blizzard designed Starcraft 2 to be a hardcore RTS, and has now noticed that casuals are flocking en-masse to the slower, more friendly MOBA games. No matter what they try for LOTV, they will not get that flood of casuals which they would like. The future of RTS for me lies in games like Grey Goo. RTS in which production is largely automated and can be done entirely using hotkeys (so no return to base to select buildings) and a focus on battles with units that do not require a high degree of micro-management. Absolutely not. If two 40 apm guys play each other the one that makes the better strategic decisions is almost certain to come out the victor. What you're saying only holds if there is a large skill gap, in which case sure. I certainly could beat my casual friends with mass scouts in BW even if they tried to execute a proper build. But in that case I'm winning because my level of mechanical skill is so much greater than theirs it overwhelms better strategical decisions. If both players mechanics are similar, i.e. casual players competing against each other mechanics will not be a major player, strategy will, because their mechanical skill is equal (non existant?). Example: Perhaps the most obvious example would be cycling, which has a huge amount of tactical stuff involved in most races. Less fit people are also able to hang with more fit people because of drafting, so it isn't just the fittest person wins. Now at some level (analogous to a very large mechanical discrepancy) a fitter cyclist could ride away from someone even if they were drafting efficiently and positioning themselves well in the bunch. In other words, mechanics would override tactics/strategy. However, cycling tends to be done within categories and thus you are racing people of similar capability and able to enjoy the full range of tactics available to racing. Same goes for starcraft and playing people of similar rank/league/skill than you. This is where my opinion differs from yours. I find that superior strategical thinking should be able to trump superior mechanical skill. After all, we're talking about real time strategy games here, not real time micromanagement. This is the main reason why I don't play SC2 all that much anymore. I realised I am so preoccupied with micro and macro that I no longer have the time to think about strategy. It does. Unless the person with the mechanical skill is orders of magnitude better in mechanical skill than the player with better strategical decisions. If the mechanical skill of the players is within a reasonable discrepancy the player that makes better decisions strategically will win. Interestingly the only place this kind of mechanical really exists is when a total beginner plays against someone that actually understands macro. Once you start hitting an even remotely competitive level (D+, maybe...plat?) the ability to win by mechanics against inferior strategy almost completely evaporates. D+ guys don't lose to B guys because of mechanics, they lose because they make much worse decisions. Plat players don't lose to masters because of mechanics, but because of strategy. If you aren't okay with a situation in which a massive difference in mechanical skill can overcome a very modest deficit in strategy then you don't want RTS. Real Time by definition means mechanics, and if you want a game in which mechanics has NO bearing on the outcome, you don't want to play RTS in the first place. Going back to the bike analogy it sounds like you want a game where fitness (mechanics) doesn't matter in any way. In other words motorcycle racing, downhill MTB etc....a completely different sport.
It depends on what you call strategy. Executing build orders faster than your opponent is not strategy. Building units more efficiently due to better macro mechanics is not strategy. Platinum players will always fall behind to Master players when it comes to production.
A Master player will always be able to defeat a strategically positioned Platinum-level player because of mechanical skill. The league system in SC2 has little to do with the "S" in RTS, but a lot with the "RT". This is solely due to the breakneck speed at which the game is played. And honestly, this is fine. Slowing down a game like Quake 3 or Unreal Tournament would be silly. However, this does limit your potential audience, both in terms of players and viewers. I also do not believe that hardcore RTS games like Starcraft 2 (i.e. strategy games in which the strategy-part barely comes into play until you have achieved a high level of mechanical skill) are the future of RTS games. On the contrary, I would argue that Starcraft 2 is incredibly old-fashioned, and even outdated in certain ways.
Starcraft 2 is a numbers game. Unless your micro (which is a mechanical skill) is of an extremely high level, the bigger army will always beat the smaller one.
|
On February 05 2015 09:37 Xapti wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2015 06:50 L_Master wrote:
Once you start hitting an even remotely competitive level (D+, maybe...plat?) the ability to win by mechanics against inferior strategy almost completely evaporates. D+ guys don't lose to B guys because of mechanics, they lose because they make much worse decisions. Plat players don't lose to masters because of mechanics, but because of strategy. I totally disagree with this. I don't know what else to say. Mechanics is absolutely the most important thing in Starcraft by far , despite the fact that strategy/planning/tactics is very important as well. Most of the important strategy is straightforward and not too difficult to know, such as unit counters and positioning.
this so much you can beat plat players with pure marines/medivacs in every mu if you're a decent master player...
|
On February 05 2015 18:38 sAsImre wrote:
this so much you can beat plat players with pure marines/medivacs in every mu if you're a decent master player...
This because Master and Plat are way too far in skill, get a plat player and tell him to win vs a gold player with only marine medivac, he won't win unless the gold player fails poorly with strategy and positioning. You're implying that having far superior mechanics can win you a game by itself, but I can tell you that even if I've 450++ apm I can't beat a 50 apm mech player that turtle on 3 bases. I'll have to be better into strategy, for sure I'll need both strategy and excecution to win but this is why those games are called Real-Time Strategy games and not only War-Strategy games.
You will win with pure marine medivac if your strategy will be better than your opponent, you can outplay your opponent in a lot of different ways, but you can't just brainless amove your marine medivac and win. This would imply a big strategy error from your opponent
|
There absolutely is strategy in lower leagues, strategy is simply a high level plan, you can call it bad strategy a lot of the time but its quite relative, a good strategy is what works and in lower leagues more stuff works.
In a game like SC2 mechanics doesn't open up strategy per se, strategy is something fairly abstract, but it does open up ones ability to execute high level manoeuvres, which high levels strategies might rely on for success.
I think there is a lot of confusion with regards to the concept of strategy, especially with comments like this:
In sc2 there is zero strategy till about masters
A bad strategy is still a strategy but more importantly the effectiveness of a strategy is fairly relative. What works in gold league is a good gold strategy for a gold league player and in a game like SC2 you can't really define a good strategy as the most optimal because that's so hard to pin down. You could argue that the most optimal strategy provides the fastest win, or the highest win ratio, but a high win ratio strategy against a gold league player could involve a strategy which any competent diamond league player will scout and hold off relatively effectively. A good strategy for one person isn't necessarily a good strategy for another, and this also applies to the highest levels, some strategies are better against some players than others depending on that players style. Then there is the whole concept of the meta game which this whole argument conveniently ignores for no good reason.
A lot of this, I think, stems from the separation of strategy and mechanics in this debate when the reality is that one tends to improve with the other, a masters league player has much better mechanics but also a much more nuanced understanding of the game and the two go hand in hand. A good part of any strategy will involve good scouting and good unit positioning so a player with good mechanics will scout well and position units to defect drops etc, but many people in this debate would not count that as 'strategy', but good mechanics don't determine where to put your units, which in anything is a flaw in peoples understanding and the whole idea of splitting this debate into two distinct areas of strategy and mechanics when in reality there are many areas, such as unit positioning which aren't necessarily part of a 'strategy' but aren't strictly entirely mechanical either, a good player can position more but his mechanics don't mean he positions better, but neither does his strategy, they fall somewhere in between. If a masters player made nothing but marine medivac but insisted on attacking with only 10 units at a time while the rest endlessly patrolled for expansions on his side of the map he probably wouldn't succeed much against a player in silver league or even bronze.
All in all I really don't understand this debate as the concepts being debated aren't concretely defined and applied properly.
The common arguments that 'masters player x can beat gold player y with only unit x; therefore mechanics' wrongly assumes that masters player x applies a significantly worse strategy than player y, which is almost never the case. Take Destiny's attempt to prove this by using only Queens, he got up to platinum, all he really did was prove that making only Queens is a reliable strategy up to around platinum league provided your mechanics can support it. To take an extreme example, if you made only workers but spent all your money perfectly you would not win any games, even if your opponent was 100 supply behind and you had impossibly good control you would not beat someone who made 50 supply of marine medivac with stim and combat shield or a bunch of zealots
|
If you scout that your opponent has only mass stalkers und you respond with mass immortals, I dont call it "nice strategy" from immortal player, is just a stupid simple respond. The reinforcement in sc2 is too big, there is no strategy if zerg can reinforce 120supply army within 60sec or Terran produce 40supply MMM all ~40sec nonstop in midgame and ~50 or more supply in lategame.
Thats why 200 vs 200 looks like wave vs wave ten thousand time until someone has no money anymore.
Actually I am shocked about good and bad things, which OP said about sc2 (except the boring one). Is exactly the opposite for me. How can a casual fan understand the game if he/she sees wave vs wave ten thousand times in every game?
|
On February 05 2015 19:12 FrozenProbe wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2015 18:38 sAsImre wrote:
this so much you can beat plat players with pure marines/medivacs in every mu if you're a decent master player... This because Master and Plat are way too far in skill, get a plat player and tell him to win vs a gold player with only marine medivac, he won't win unless the gold player fails poorly with strategy and positioning. You're implying that having far superior mechanics can win you a game by itself, but I can tell you that even if I've 450++ apm I can't beat a 50 apm mech player that turtle on 3 bases. I'll have to be better into strategy, for sure I'll need both strategy and excecution to win but this is why those games are called Real-Time Strategy games and not only War-Strategy games. You will win with pure marine medivac if your strategy will be better than your opponent, you can outplay your opponent in a lot of different ways, but you can't just brainless amove your marine medivac and win. This would imply a big strategy error from your opponent
No one is arguing against the Real Time-aspect, but rather against the mechanical requirement (everything needs to be done manually) and the speed at which it needs to be done.
Attacking on multiple fronts isn't strategy. It's just using your superior mechanics to outmuscle your opponent. Strategy is about long-term planning, not on the spot improvisation as a reaction to what you see your opponent do. Starcraft 2 is to RTS what Quake 3 arena and Unreal Tournament are to FPS: twitch-based games.
|
On February 05 2015 19:12 FrozenProbe wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2015 18:38 sAsImre wrote:
this so much you can beat plat players with pure marines/medivacs in every mu if you're a decent master player... This because Master and Plat are way too far in skill, get a plat player and tell him to win vs a gold player with only marine medivac, he won't win unless the gold player fails poorly with strategy and positioning. You're implying that having far superior mechanics can win you a game by itself, but I can tell you that even if I've 450++ apm I can't beat a 50 apm mech player that turtle on 3 bases. I'll have to be better into strategy, for sure I'll need both strategy and excecution to win but this is why those games are called Real-Time Strategy games and not only War-Strategy games. You will win with pure marine medivac if your strategy will be better than your opponent, you can outplay your opponent in a lot of different ways, but you can't just brainless amove your marine medivac and win. This would imply a big strategy error from your opponent
If you have 450apm vs 50apm we are talking about above Innovation level of play against the mechanics of a silver player. You are going to win that easy peasy, probably with your first marine poke and long before your opponent even gets to two bases.
|
On February 05 2015 22:09 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2015 19:12 FrozenProbe wrote:On February 05 2015 18:38 sAsImre wrote:
this so much you can beat plat players with pure marines/medivacs in every mu if you're a decent master player... This because Master and Plat are way too far in skill, get a plat player and tell him to win vs a gold player with only marine medivac, he won't win unless the gold player fails poorly with strategy and positioning. You're implying that having far superior mechanics can win you a game by itself, but I can tell you that even if I've 450++ apm I can't beat a 50 apm mech player that turtle on 3 bases. I'll have to be better into strategy, for sure I'll need both strategy and excecution to win but this is why those games are called Real-Time Strategy games and not only War-Strategy games. You will win with pure marine medivac if your strategy will be better than your opponent, you can outplay your opponent in a lot of different ways, but you can't just brainless amove your marine medivac and win. This would imply a big strategy error from your opponent Attacking on multiple fronts isn't strategy. It's just using your superior mechanics to outmuscle your opponent. Strategy is about long-term planning, not on the spot improvisation as a reaction to what you see your opponent do. Starcraft 2 is to RTS what Quake 3 arena and Unreal Tournament are to FPS: twitch-based games.
Attacking from multiple fronts and flanking is like the most basic strategy around. It's something you have to plan for, gain intel/vision where the weakness in your enemy is and move units out (at the risk of being overrun your main army) , deny map vision to pull of as well.
You don't "twitch" attack multiple fronts. It's something you plan for.
|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
The easiest calculation of your life gives you the conclusion that just typing something (wikipedia reports 175 CPM being average) with a very little amount of clicking will send you over 200 APM which is well over what is required to play very decent starcraft. Since we all here, by definition, have the ability to type on the forums, it's safe to say that the problem with producing good starcraft doesn't come from being physically unable to click/keypress that fast. It comes from the inability to make the decisions that result in those clicks at the required speed. And decisions are closer to strategy than anything else. This whole "strategy should matter more than mechanics" argument repeats over and over again for years on all the gaming forums in the world, and it produces horrible monster games when game developers actually listen to it (well, say a small dev team hit the nail by making an RTS in a popular offline universe, and then they start wondering how to make it into a real multiplayer game with patch 1.3).
Wake up, people, you won't be able to beat anyone good "if only mechanics didn't matter that much", that's just a sorry excuse. The reality is that good players don't just click, they think faster than you, which is a direct consequence of their experience in the game and there's nothing wrong with experienced people beating new people in any kind of sport.
|
The main problem I see with mechanics is to have good foundations.
Most players start playing a game like starcraft with little to no information on how to practice mechanics and they get to have bad habits.
It is very hard to change them after some time.
This is common due to the fact that at the early stages of learning a new game, winning often reinforces bad habits, especially at lower levels.
|
On February 06 2015 02:23 iloveav wrote:
The main problem I see with mechanics is to have good foundations.
Most players start playing a game like starcraft with little to no information on how to practice mechanics and they get to have bad habits.
It is very hard to change them after some time.
This is common due to the fact that at the early stages of learning a new game, winning often reinforces bad habits, especially at lower levels.
Agreed, but if a player does not want to reach a high level of play then I do not see the harm in them playing a more strategic game or whatever. They just should not be mad when someone who has practiced hard on their mechanical skill slaps them around in game just by sheer out producing them ^^
I would like to see some more modern RTS games that have more simplified macro mechanics but giving players more opportunity for engagements and such and also some that focus more on economy/base building. We are not far enough into video gaming and especially not RTS to say that there is a definitive way the genre should be.
|
On February 05 2015 03:11 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2015 23:38 Endymion wrote:On February 04 2015 21:20 Mikau wrote:On February 04 2015 21:07 KingAlphard wrote:On February 04 2015 21:04 maartendq wrote:On February 04 2015 20:21 ejozl wrote:
It's also real time and most of the strategy in sc2 is there because of this aspect. Attacking at multiple fronts, taking advantage of a busy opponent etc. Sure, but why does that need to happen at a breakneck speed? Age of Empires and C&C were also real-time but a lot more manageable in terms of gamespeed. Why is the speed something bad? I find games like AOE boring because they're so slow, you play a game for more than a hour and it feels like you've done nothing. The speed element makes the games more thrilling and it highlights the ability of a player to make decisions in a very short period of time. That's what you and the dozen remaining BW/SC2 players think, but if we want the genre to be sustainable we have to find a middle ground that will attract casuals too. "dozens of remaining BW players" you do know that fish has ~150 people in its ladder channels during peak hours and it's incredibly easy to find normal melee 1v1s on fighting spirit or 2v2s/3v3s/4v4s on super/hunters/fs/python right? even if you can't speak korean, iccup has tons of people to play with as well.. it's actually easier/faster to find a high level game of broodwar nowadays than it is to deal with HOTS' matchmaking fiasco. That said, rts doesn't need to be dumbed down for casuals, casuals will come an go as they please.. We can decrease gamespeed for them or let them play team melee, but look at what "casuals" and appealing to them did to starcraft 2... Where is it's longevity that everyone used to talk about since it appealed to a "much larger more mainstream" audience? We're not even to our 3rd iteration of it and HOTS and its legacy left such a sour taste in everyone's mouth that the game is basically dead compared to the competitive scene of BW... Take away blizzard's "esport" funding (which will inevitably happen when their "obligation" to sustain sc2's cometitive scene goes away in their minds) and you'll see just how dead the game is... I don't even hate SC2, but WoL was a much better game than hots.. edit~ i dont have a bone to chew with sc2 players, it's with sc2's shitty dev team that i don't like. starcraft's scene isn't dying, it's alive and well, the majority of them just don't have a game to play as a result of horrible design decisions. I'm sure if they were given a competent game with a new coat of polish they would come back from mobas and play the better rts instead. but i mean... do you really want chat channels? do you really want clans? do you really want to pay blizzard more money for cosmetics? do you really want custom leagues? do you really want in game tournament options? do you really want do not disturb? do you really want a client that doesnt bug the fuck out 24/7? do you really think swarm hosts are a problem? the list goes on and on and on. It is interesting to compare sc and cs i think. A couple of years ago bw and 1.6 competed over which game was the premier e-sport. A competition that bw won. Now look at sc2 and cs:go. cs:go literally has ten times more people watching than sc2. And the major thing that happened was that blizzard made a completely different game while valve just made minor changes to an already winning concept. The day that blizzard makes a sc3 that tries to repeat what made bw into such a great game to begin with I think we will have a big RTS e-sport again. Maybe its not even that sc2 is a worse game (although I am convinced it is inferior in most ways to its predecessor), just the fact that blizzard made a game that most bw fans hate because it is so different and at the same time forced it down our throats by making it impossible to send bw matches on television, really estranged the new game from such a big part of its fanbase from the start.
I agree with your whole post, but the bolded part in particular is very true.. I've heard big broodwar "status icons" tell me that "BW had been declining since the match fixing scandal anyways and was due to die," but there are a lot of other BW players that felt personally victimized by blizzard's anti kespa legal behavior in 2009 and 2010, and that sc2 was forced and not "picked up as an esport" because it genuinely deserved to kill broodwar..
I completely agree with the latter argument and I feel the initial death of broodwar was ABSOLUTELY premature, and nothing makes me happier than to see its rebirth in sonic and ksl etc.
However, I feel that all of this would be completely irrelevant if starcraft 2 was actually a superior game to broodwar. if blizzard had fucked over kespa in 2009/2010, and then dropped a game that would have killed broodwar with its superior mechanics and depth of skill, then I would have welcomed it with open arms.. However, in my opinion sc2 wasn't the game that it acted like it was (in the fact that it attacked broodwar directly and indirectly with forced blizzard spending on tourny pools, clearly in an attempt to extend the longevity of the game in 2012/13'/14').
To this day, I want something to genuinely kill broodwar. I want an RTS that is so good that it makes me never want to open mca64launcher again, an RTS that will make me throw away other aspects of my life just to be more exposed to it.. I have no "special" love for broodwar, my love is for the pinnacle of RTS and competition, which bw has historically held and continues to hold. When a superior product comes along, i will recognize it as such, but thus far i dont think one has come out.. maybe starbow but it's hard to access because it's just a mod
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
