|
Keep "my game is better than yours"-slapfights out of this. If the discussion devolves into simple bashing, this thread will be closed. |
I really like how this discussion has evolved into the balance requirements necessary between strategy and mechanics in an rts game.
I have read some of the early discussion, but missed many pages up until about 70, where I started reading again because the discussion was picked up by others.
I think both sides have merit, and I would like to summarize what I understand.
Yes, SC2 is very mechanically dependant, and as some have pointed, that is because it is played in real time. As well, we agree that there is some strategic depth involved, but some have a difference on that depth. We all enjoy this wonderful game, but many of us have different expectations with LotV. Some of us want the mechanics toned down, while others hope for many more viable strategies.
Archon mode is the answer to some of the balance between s and m (no pun intended), but some question will it be enough.
For new players, SC2 is truly S&M. The mechanics required to play SC2 is so demanding, that many new players are easily turned off. All my friends played SC2, and I was the only one to continue. They all purported the same reason they stopped playing 1v1 or even 2v2+, which was the game is too damn hard. My anecdote is not new, and I am sure many others experienced the same.
Once you break this ceiling though, you realize a depth of strategy involved in SC2. As you gain skills in mechanics, you realize how strategy is truly involved. However, in SC2 and many other games, your mechanics can only take you to certain levels of strategy. No one here could say they could perform mechanically equal to INnoVation, so none of us can perform his strategy equally. Its not just about performance, but decision making also. That doesn't mean we can't try, but we will most certainly not even come close to him.
There is a second realization in the balance between s and m for SC2. This realization doesn't come from playing the game, but from spectating. You realize that the most optimal strategies and counter-strategies aren't that numerous, and that most games evolved into the same composition. The game varies during the evolution, but it ultimately comes down to very predictable outcomes.
We saw this at the end of WoL in ZvT, and we are seeing it in HotS.
That second realization is that the depth of strategy in SC2 is incredibly deep, but the depth of optimal strategy is rather shallow.
However, all is not lost. The meta for HotS is not quite stale, and I think the pros are creating newer and crazier strategies for all of us to employ. HotS is almost figured out by players like INno and Life, but we aren't quite there.
I think that is why Blizzard is eager to test radical changes. I don't think they want the meta to become stale this early, so they want to test crazy ideas with hopes of keeping HotS meta fresh and varied. Until, of course, they are ready to start LotV beta.
So lets not worry about the fate of rts games, or even SC2. Lets worry about providing adequate input and feedback to Blizzard when some of us get into LotV beta test, and keep in mind the many balance requirements when building an rts.
|
On February 07 2015 04:43 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2015 02:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:
If your "strategy" is beaten by simply the opponent making more stuff than you--then you did no have a strategy you were just gimping yourself an it is only something relevant vs other self-gimpers.
There is only one Good strategic gameplay in all leagues below masters--make more than the opponent. All other strategies before masters is bad/null/hindering to your development as a player. For you to pursue those avenues of game play is to literally be training yourself to be ba at the game and you will get stuck at gold/plat/Diamond wondering why you can never rank up even though you know all the right strategies.
You are implying that having a strategy takes away from having better mechanics. But both of those have effort-reward curves and with most things it has diminishing returns. I agree that spending your effort on improving mechanics does vastly out-value doing the same on improving strategy. However after spending a certain amount of effort on mechanics, due to diminishing returns it becomes attractive to get a little bit better strategically as well. Example to make it clear if it isn't: + Show Spoiler +1 point of effort spend on
mechanics: gives you 9% better production. Now with diminishing returns the next point of effort gives you 6% more production. Another point of effort gives you 3% more production.
strategy: gives you a 5% better composition.
Now with diminishing returns the next point of effort gives you a 2% better composition. Another point of effort gives you a 1% better composition.
So if you have 3points of effort, it is best to spend 2 on training mechanics and 1 on training strategy because that makes for the maximum of attainable efficiency (20% compared to everything on mechanics being 18%).
So I think having a certain amount of strategic knowledge is pretty much needed to rank up. It is plainly better to build hellions against zerglings than vikings. But as this shows, reaching certain strategic soft limits (so when the returns on efforts get really low) is quite easily attainable, while with mechanics you get faster returns if you are low on skill, and later on the returns are quite better than spending a comparable amount on strategy because the soft limit is much higher.
I'm not talking about this in a vacuum.
You can spam ANY unit from bronze until gold and you will do well.
You can spam certain compositions from platinum to Diamond, and you will do well.
Strategy is not relevant until high diamond/masters and that is only ecaude you can't just make more dudes than the other guy. All decision making and plans made other than "make more dudes" from bronze to Diamond is not actually a strategy, but a way to dick around not strategizing. It is choosing to be a bad player so you don't feel bad about not having the mechanics to be good. That is roughly 98% of the player base not having any actual strategic decision making to their credit and about 60% of the player base don't even have a real strategic choice in what unit/comp they want since rah doesn't matter either.
This does not mean that there should be zero mechanics. But right now, 98% of the player base are simply choosing to not do well at sc2 because they are not choosing the one strategy available to them up until masters (which is make more dudes)
|
On February 07 2015 11:08 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2015 04:43 Big J wrote:On February 07 2015 02:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:
If your "strategy" is beaten by simply the opponent making more stuff than you--then you did no have a strategy you were just gimping yourself an it is only something relevant vs other self-gimpers.
There is only one Good strategic gameplay in all leagues below masters--make more than the opponent. All other strategies before masters is bad/null/hindering to your development as a player. For you to pursue those avenues of game play is to literally be training yourself to be ba at the game and you will get stuck at gold/plat/Diamond wondering why you can never rank up even though you know all the right strategies.
You are implying that having a strategy takes away from having better mechanics. But both of those have effort-reward curves and with most things it has diminishing returns. I agree that spending your effort on improving mechanics does vastly out-value doing the same on improving strategy. However after spending a certain amount of effort on mechanics, due to diminishing returns it becomes attractive to get a little bit better strategically as well. Example to make it clear if it isn't: + Show Spoiler +1 point of effort spend on
mechanics: gives you 9% better production. Now with diminishing returns the next point of effort gives you 6% more production. Another point of effort gives you 3% more production.
strategy: gives you a 5% better composition.
Now with diminishing returns the next point of effort gives you a 2% better composition. Another point of effort gives you a 1% better composition.
So if you have 3points of effort, it is best to spend 2 on training mechanics and 1 on training strategy because that makes for the maximum of attainable efficiency (20% compared to everything on mechanics being 18%).
So I think having a certain amount of strategic knowledge is pretty much needed to rank up. It is plainly better to build hellions against zerglings than vikings. But as this shows, reaching certain strategic soft limits (so when the returns on efforts get really low) is quite easily attainable, while with mechanics you get faster returns if you are low on skill, and later on the returns are quite better than spending a comparable amount on strategy because the soft limit is much higher. I'm not talking about this in a vacuum. You can spam ANY unit from bronze until gold and you will do well. You can spam certain compositions from platinum to Diamond, and you will do well. Strategy is not relevant until high diamond/masters and that is only ecaude you can't just make more dudes than the other guy. All decision making and plans made other than "make more dudes" from bronze to Diamond is not actually a strategy, but a way to dick around not strategizing. It is choosing to be a bad player so you don't feel bad about not having the mechanics to be good. That is roughly 98% of the player base not having any actual strategic decision making to their credit and about 60% of the player base don't even have a real strategic choice in what unit/comp they want since rah doesn't matter either. This does not mean that there should be zero mechanics. But right now, 98% of the player base are simply choosing to not do well at sc2 because they are not choosing the one strategy available to them up until masters (which is make more dudes)
You're not even trying to refute arguments anymore. You're just spouting the same nonsense post after post. It honestly doesn't even sound like you play the game. That or you are electing to ignore any of the FACTS presented to you by multiple posters. I'd tell you to go play a different game but I'm positive you already are.
|
Canada11265 Posts
@Thieving
I don't know, maybe that makes sense in a SC2 context, but it makes no sense from a BW context.
Yes, you get the most rapid increase in skill by working on macro, but you make it sound like your mind is just shut off. That Starcraft is a game where you sit in your base and race to make 200 supply the fastest and once you do the game is over.
In BW, at least, I cannot mindlessly spam units- vs Terran I need to be active on the map or they'll expand everywhere. As Protoss there's a bit of a dance to figure out the best time to engage, but trying to stall the their push so they can't camp, but engage when they're not set up and you've got the flank.
And you get stuck- I was working on macro, macro, macro and I got stuck- I was just dying to FD pushes. I needed to stop and practice using my goons to deal with that early push. All the macro in the world wasn't going to help if they push across the map for free and siege my natural.
And you simply cannot spam whatever units you feel like as Protoss vs Zerg. One of my biggest hang-ups was needing better scouting, but then I needed to understand what I was scouting, interpret and predict and counter. Otherwise, I was happily keeping my money down, macro-ing away and dying to a hydra bust, or a 9 pool, or a speedling runby, or a mass ling runby or 2 base muta, or a lurker contain. My lack of understanding the strategy in PvZ became my single biggest hang up in that I could never get off two bases. Yes, my macro still needs work, but I couldn't even get off two bases without figuring out the strategies in the early game.
Furthermore, in BW at least while firstest with the mostest can work, best control and smart play can get you solid leads. Back when I was a 60 apm player, we played big LAN games and one guy was a former Fastest Possible map guy- sickest macro in our group. But I knew his style of fast expanding early and so was I was aggressive with my early zealots and started dropping reavers in his mineral lines. That halted his cannon rushing antics on one of my opponents, put him on the backfoot enough to allow my other allies back into the game. During the entire game he consistently out-macro'd us, but BW allows for tricky tactics that can allow even newby players to get clever against macro opponents. (Unfortunately it was patch 1.14 and it crashed so I have no idea who would've won.)
Now of course my current macro could mop the floor of my 2008 self, but it's not a zero sum improvement- mechanics at the expense of strategy. I had a bit of both then, I have more of both now. You do actually need to do something with these units that you are spamming. All that 'dicking around' actually requires that you make decisions with those units- that's strategy and it is required to win the game. The winning objective is not to see who can hit 200/200 first.
|
On February 07 2015 12:10 Falling wrote:
@Thieving
I don't know, maybe that makes sense in a SC2 context, but it makes no sense from a BW context.
Yes, you get the most rapid increase in skill by working on macro, but you make it sound like your mind is just shut off. That Starcraft is a game where you sit in your base and race to make 200 supply the fastest and once you do the game is over.
In BW, at least, I cannot mindlessly spam units- vs Terran I need to be active on the map or they'll expand everywhere. As Protoss there's a bit of a dance to figure out the best time to engage, but trying to stall the their push so they can't camp, but engage when they're not set up and you've got the flank.
And you get stuck- I was working on macro, macro, macro and I got stuck- I was just dying to FD pushes. I needed to stop and practice using my goons to deal with that early push. All the macro in the world wasn't going to help if they push across the map for free and siege my natural.
And you simply cannot spam whatever units you feel like as Protoss vs Zerg. One of my biggest hang-ups was needing better scouting, but then I needed to understand what I was scouting, interpret and predict and counter. Otherwise, I was happily keeping my money down, macro-ing away and dying to a hydra bust, or a 9 pool, or a speedling runby, or a mass ling runby or 2 base muta, or a lurker contain. My lack of understanding the strategy in PvZ became my single biggest hang up in that I could never get off two bases. Yes, my macro still needs work, but I couldn't even get off two bases without figuring out the strategies in the early game.
Furthermore, in BW at least while firstest with the mostest can work, best control and smart play can get you solid leads. Back when I was a 60 apm player, we played big LAN games and one guy was a former Fastest Possible map guy- sickest macro in our group. But I knew his style of fast expanding early and so was I was aggressive with my early zealots and started dropping reavers in his mineral lines. That halted his cannon rushing antics on one of my opponents, put him on the backfoot enough to allow my other allies back into the game. During the entire game he consistently out-macro'd us, but BW allows for tricky tactics that can allow even newby players to get clever against macro opponents. (Unfortunately it was patch 1.14 and it crashed so I have no idea who would've won.)
Now of course my current macro could mop the floor of my 2008 self, but it's not a zero sum improvement- mechanics at the expense of strategy. I had a bit of both then, I have more of both now. You do actually need to do something with these units that you are spamming. All that 'dicking around' actually requires that you make decisions with those units- that's strategy and it is required to win the game. The winning objective is not to see who can hit 200/200 first.
This is something that is inherently different between sc2 and BW.
That's actually because of limiting factors creating a balance between unit control and macro mechanics in BW compared to SC2 that occurs in both upper leagues and lower leagues.
You can make 200 supply, but you don't necessarily have the ability to use 200 supply.
You can control 200 supply, but you don't necessarily have the ability to make 200 supply.
In BW the strategic choice came from the fact that you have options on things to leverage. Do I leverage micro, or do I leverage macro. Choosing to execute one did not cancel out the other. This meant you could focus on making cool strategic moves, and those moves could beat people with more supply than you. But someone with good micro can also be beaten if he is too inefficient with his production. You can focus on purely strategic moves, or you can focus on purely mechanical moves and both sides have an about even chance of winning.
In SC2 the choice is gone. You need to be able to make X supply by Y time or you will lose no matter what other decisions you make. No amount of micro tricks will stop 200 supply worth of marines A-Moved vs your 160 supply of (whatever). This is why strategy doesn't not occur until masters (as I keep repeating). Making mechanics more important than strategy.
|
I know we shouldn't bring up other games in this thread, but has anyone been watching the DAC in Dota this week? The production value isn't amazing (atleast for the English stream), yet it's attracting 500K+ people watching over all language streams, and the prize pool is over 3 million dollars. It's not even the biggest tournament of the year. TI5 will probably have 10 million dollars in the prize pool, and these e-sport heroes will be legit millionaires. Has noone noticed that YYF's Chinese Dota stream has nearly a million viewers at peak hours? Not 300 viewers, or 400, or 10K viewers, but a million. For those of us who have been around online games 15 years or so it's pretty ground breaking to see e-sports finally becoming so big.
I play SC2, but I've enjoyed watching many of the games (Secret vs VG the most recent) and consider them extremely good entertainment both for serious players and for casuals. The games in that genre are never completely identical as the drafts and team strategies change all the time, and then individual players can do all sorts of plays to affect the outcome greatly.
It's hard to compare the entertainment value of an 1on1 RTS game to that. I'm not sure it's at all even possible. There's just much less going on in a Starcraft game, and many of the games are repetitions of each other. In early parts of the game the casters dont even have anything to talk about, and there's no pre-game hype about what possible strategies or playstyles might come out. The skill requirement at an elite level Broodwar game could quite possibly be higher than it is for an elite level MOBA game for a single player, but it doesn't really make a difference in whether the game is spectator friendly or not.
One thing I'll mention though which keeps getting ignored like it's not an issue at all, is that the game needs serious top level competitors from western countries, in order to keep the large masses in western countries interested in watching it. It doesn't matter if the Chinese or the Koreans are the best, but every now and then a championship has to go to a westerner in order to keep mainstream appeal in the west. The ideal situation is that Asia, Europe and Americas are evenly matched and champions come from all over. Otherwise the game will be in a slow decline in the weak continents and eventually becomes a fringe game.
|
On February 07 2015 12:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:
In SC2 the choice is gone. You need to be able to make X supply by Y time or you will lose no matter what other decisions you make. No amount of micro tricks will stop 200 supply worth of marines A-Moved vs your 160 supply of (whatever). This is why strategy doesn't not occur until masters (as I keep repeating). Making mechanics more important than strategy.
I've lost games to stupid shit like DTs or Banshees despite an early lead. Am I bad at the game? Probably but I certainly lost for reasons other than a lack of X supply at Y time. Also, anyone with basic knowledge of the SC2 could stop 200 supply worth of marines with 160 supply of whatever. Just because you keep repeating nonsense doesn't make it true. Strategy is employed at all levels of play. It's just not to your liking.
|
On February 07 2015 13:01 Footler wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2015 12:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:
In SC2 the choice is gone. You need to be able to make X supply by Y time or you will lose no matter what other decisions you make. No amount of micro tricks will stop 200 supply worth of marines A-Moved vs your 160 supply of (whatever). This is why strategy doesn't not occur until masters (as I keep repeating). Making mechanics more important than strategy.
I've lost games to stupid shit like DTs or Banshees despite an early lead. Am I bad at the game? Probably but I certainly lost for reasons other than a lack of X supply at Y time. Also, anyone with basic knowledge of the SC2 could stop 200 supply worth of marines with 160 supply of whatever. Just because you keep repeating nonsense doesn't make it true. Strategy is employed at all levels of play. It's just not to your liking.
I actually agree with him on almost all his points. I'm a casual player, and I'm always in master league, but I never finish in the top10 of it. I was hanging around #5 for a while but then dropped off.
As an average player that plays for fun only, I can say the strategy that wins 99% of the games, is making more stuff than your opponent. In short, your strategy is to have a good economy for the whole game, and to keep producing units with it, and then using those said units to fight and trade advantageously or atleast evenly. Expand, protect your bases, harass the enemy economy if you want, but in the end march your larger army to his base and end the game.
If anyone asks me how I became a 'master league' player I'd just say I just kept playing untill I managed to control my units decently and could always build a good economy while dealing with unit interactions without becoming overwhelmed. In short, I became a master league player when my mechanics improved to a master league level. Not because I became strategically better, or because I got some deeper knowledge of the game -- Simply because I control my base and my units better and understand the fundamental importance of the game economy and that the one with more money and therefore more units usually wins.
I guess at the professional or otherwise elite level there's more mindgames involved, but compared to other competitive e-sports the actual strategy required in SC2 is minimal. The elite players are just mechanically very good at executing the few strategies in their playbook.
|
On February 07 2015 13:11 xyzz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2015 13:01 Footler wrote:On February 07 2015 12:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:
In SC2 the choice is gone. You need to be able to make X supply by Y time or you will lose no matter what other decisions you make. No amount of micro tricks will stop 200 supply worth of marines A-Moved vs your 160 supply of (whatever). This is why strategy doesn't not occur until masters (as I keep repeating). Making mechanics more important than strategy.
I've lost games to stupid shit like DTs or Banshees despite an early lead. Am I bad at the game? Probably but I certainly lost for reasons other than a lack of X supply at Y time. Also, anyone with basic knowledge of the SC2 could stop 200 supply worth of marines with 160 supply of whatever. Just because you keep repeating nonsense doesn't make it true. Strategy is employed at all levels of play. It's just not to your liking. I actually agree with him on almost all his points. I'm a casual player, and I'm always in master league, but I never finish in the top10 of it. I was hanging around #5 for a while but then dropped off. As an average player that plays for fun only, I can say the strategy that wins 99% of the games, is making more stuff than your opponent. In short, your strategy is to have a good economy for the whole game, and to keep producing units with it, and then using those said units to fight and trade advantageously or atleast evenly. Expand, protect your bases, harass the enemy economy if you want, but in the end march your larger army to his base and end the game. If anyone asks me how I became a 'master league' player I'd just say I just kept playing untill I managed to control my units decently and could always build a good economy while dealing with unit interactions without becoming overwhelmed. In short, I became a master league player when my mechanics improved to a master league level. Not because I became strategically better, or because I got some deeper knowledge of the game -- Simply because I control my base and my units better and understand the fundamental importance of the game economy and that the one with more money and therefore more units usually wins. I guess at the professional or otherwise elite level there's more mindgames involved, but compared to other competitive e-sports the actual strategy required in SC2 is minimal. The elite players are just mechanically very good at executing the few strategies in their playbook.
Yes but you are not simply making more units. You are making the decision to make the right units, position them correctly, not take bad engagements, etc. You may not be building the EXACT counter to what your opponent has but you do your best based on what has transpired in the game so far. These are all strategical decisions. What you feel like you are focusing on may be your macro or just building lots of units but you are still constantly making decisions.
|
On February 07 2015 13:31 Footler wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2015 13:11 xyzz wrote:On February 07 2015 13:01 Footler wrote:On February 07 2015 12:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:
In SC2 the choice is gone. You need to be able to make X supply by Y time or you will lose no matter what other decisions you make. No amount of micro tricks will stop 200 supply worth of marines A-Moved vs your 160 supply of (whatever). This is why strategy doesn't not occur until masters (as I keep repeating). Making mechanics more important than strategy.
I've lost games to stupid shit like DTs or Banshees despite an early lead. Am I bad at the game? Probably but I certainly lost for reasons other than a lack of X supply at Y time. Also, anyone with basic knowledge of the SC2 could stop 200 supply worth of marines with 160 supply of whatever. Just because you keep repeating nonsense doesn't make it true. Strategy is employed at all levels of play. It's just not to your liking. I actually agree with him on almost all his points. I'm a casual player, and I'm always in master league, but I never finish in the top10 of it. I was hanging around #5 for a while but then dropped off. As an average player that plays for fun only, I can say the strategy that wins 99% of the games, is making more stuff than your opponent. In short, your strategy is to have a good economy for the whole game, and to keep producing units with it, and then using those said units to fight and trade advantageously or atleast evenly. Expand, protect your bases, harass the enemy economy if you want, but in the end march your larger army to his base and end the game. If anyone asks me how I became a 'master league' player I'd just say I just kept playing untill I managed to control my units decently and could always build a good economy while dealing with unit interactions without becoming overwhelmed. In short, I became a master league player when my mechanics improved to a master league level. Not because I became strategically better, or because I got some deeper knowledge of the game -- Simply because I control my base and my units better and understand the fundamental importance of the game economy and that the one with more money and therefore more units usually wins. I guess at the professional or otherwise elite level there's more mindgames involved, but compared to other competitive e-sports the actual strategy required in SC2 is minimal. The elite players are just mechanically very good at executing the few strategies in their playbook. Yes but you are not simply making more units. You are making the decision to make the right units, position them correctly, not take bad engagements, etc. You may not be building the EXACT counter to what your opponent has but you do your best based on what has transpired in the game so far. These are all strategical decisions. What you feel like you are focusing on may be your macro or just building lots of units but you are still constantly making decisions.
That might be true in long macro games in higher level of play. But honestly in lower leagues (dia and below) you can beat a lot of people just by perfectly executing a strategy. Back in WoL my PvZ was terrible so I decided to do a 2base +2 blink all-in every single game, and heck my micro wasn't on Zest level either; but once I managed to get the timing right to +-20 seconds, I was destroying zergs at my level, even if my blink micro wasn't perfect.
You could probably say the same for terran's 1/1/1 back in WOL; you could destroy up to plat protoss just by executing that build perfectly, unless you screwed up bad and got surrounded by zealots before your tanks managed to seige up.
Even when you are not doing a 2-base all-in, you can destroy your opponent purely by having a superior macro, and didn't get wrecked by any harrassment. Having 200 supply vs 160 supply makes huge difference in SCII, because unlike BW the engagements are fast and brutal. If you watch the difference in quality of game between silver and diamond, the major difference will be their macro capability, not their decision making. A silver terran who watches lots of pro games might know what build the protoss is going when he scouts it; but can he actually make enough units to stop it in time?
|
On February 07 2015 13:51 Estancia wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2015 13:31 Footler wrote:On February 07 2015 13:11 xyzz wrote:On February 07 2015 13:01 Footler wrote:On February 07 2015 12:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:
In SC2 the choice is gone. You need to be able to make X supply by Y time or you will lose no matter what other decisions you make. No amount of micro tricks will stop 200 supply worth of marines A-Moved vs your 160 supply of (whatever). This is why strategy doesn't not occur until masters (as I keep repeating). Making mechanics more important than strategy.
I've lost games to stupid shit like DTs or Banshees despite an early lead. Am I bad at the game? Probably but I certainly lost for reasons other than a lack of X supply at Y time. Also, anyone with basic knowledge of the SC2 could stop 200 supply worth of marines with 160 supply of whatever. Just because you keep repeating nonsense doesn't make it true. Strategy is employed at all levels of play. It's just not to your liking. I actually agree with him on almost all his points. I'm a casual player, and I'm always in master league, but I never finish in the top10 of it. I was hanging around #5 for a while but then dropped off. As an average player that plays for fun only, I can say the strategy that wins 99% of the games, is making more stuff than your opponent. In short, your strategy is to have a good economy for the whole game, and to keep producing units with it, and then using those said units to fight and trade advantageously or atleast evenly. Expand, protect your bases, harass the enemy economy if you want, but in the end march your larger army to his base and end the game. If anyone asks me how I became a 'master league' player I'd just say I just kept playing untill I managed to control my units decently and could always build a good economy while dealing with unit interactions without becoming overwhelmed. In short, I became a master league player when my mechanics improved to a master league level. Not because I became strategically better, or because I got some deeper knowledge of the game -- Simply because I control my base and my units better and understand the fundamental importance of the game economy and that the one with more money and therefore more units usually wins. I guess at the professional or otherwise elite level there's more mindgames involved, but compared to other competitive e-sports the actual strategy required in SC2 is minimal. The elite players are just mechanically very good at executing the few strategies in their playbook. Yes but you are not simply making more units. You are making the decision to make the right units, position them correctly, not take bad engagements, etc. You may not be building the EXACT counter to what your opponent has but you do your best based on what has transpired in the game so far. These are all strategical decisions. What you feel like you are focusing on may be your macro or just building lots of units but you are still constantly making decisions. That might be true in long macro games in higher level of play. But honestly in lower leagues (dia and below) you can beat a lot of people just by perfectly executing a strategy. Back in WoL my PvZ was terrible so I decided to do a 2base +2 blink all-in every single game, and heck my micro wasn't on Zest level either; but once I managed to get the timing right to +-20 seconds, I was destroying zergs at my level, even if my blink micro wasn't perfect. You could probably say the same for terran's 1/1/1 back in WOL; you could destroy up to plat protoss just by executing that build perfectly, unless you screwed up bad and got surrounded by zealots before your tanks managed to seige up. Even when you are not doing a 2-base all-in, you can destroy your opponent purely by having a superior macro, and didn't get wrecked by any harrassment. Having 200 supply vs 160 supply makes huge difference in SCII, because unlike BW the engagements are fast and brutal. If you watch the difference in quality of game between silver and diamond, the major difference will be their macro capability, not their decision making. A silver terran who watches lots of pro games might know what build the protoss is going when he scouts it; but can he actually make enough units to stop it in time?
Ok, well I'm just going to concede this pointless debate. Next time I decide to play SC2 I'll be sure to roll some dice to determine what units I build and what positions to move my units into since none of it actually matters. Actually, I'll take it one step further and do the opposite of what would be the correct decision since none of it will make a difference.
|
On February 07 2015 13:01 Footler wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2015 12:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:
In SC2 the choice is gone. You need to be able to make X supply by Y time or you will lose no matter what other decisions you make. No amount of micro tricks will stop 200 supply worth of marines A-Moved vs your 160 supply of (whatever). This is why strategy doesn't not occur until masters (as I keep repeating). Making mechanics more important than strategy.
I've lost games to stupid shit like DTs or Banshees despite an early lead. Am I bad at the game? Probably but I certainly lost for reasons other than a lack of X supply at Y time. Also, anyone with basic knowledge of the SC2 could stop 200 supply worth of marines with 160 supply of whatever. Just because you keep repeating nonsense doesn't make it true. Strategy is employed at all levels of play. It's just not to your liking.
Footler, I totally agree with you, but that doesn't mean you have to be overly aggressive with Magpie.
Sure our views on strategic depth differs from Magpie, but please try to keep a level of respect to all posters. It serves no purpose to call his opinion nonsense, no matter how much he repeats himself.
|
On February 07 2015 14:32 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2015 13:01 Footler wrote:On February 07 2015 12:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:
In SC2 the choice is gone. You need to be able to make X supply by Y time or you will lose no matter what other decisions you make. No amount of micro tricks will stop 200 supply worth of marines A-Moved vs your 160 supply of (whatever). This is why strategy doesn't not occur until masters (as I keep repeating). Making mechanics more important than strategy.
I've lost games to stupid shit like DTs or Banshees despite an early lead. Am I bad at the game? Probably but I certainly lost for reasons other than a lack of X supply at Y time. Also, anyone with basic knowledge of the SC2 could stop 200 supply worth of marines with 160 supply of whatever. Just because you keep repeating nonsense doesn't make it true. Strategy is employed at all levels of play. It's just not to your liking. Footler, I totally agree with you, but that doesn't mean you have to be overly aggressive with Magpie. Sure our views on strategic depth differs from Magpie, but please try to keep a level of respect to all posters. It serves no purpose to call his opinion nonsense, no matter how much he repeats himself.
Opinions and misinformation are different. I do not respect people coming into an SC2 forum attempting to spread misinformation in an attempt to belittle the game.
|
So sometimes I wonder if people argue just out of spite, for the sake to argue, I don't seem to find anything this thread that talks about the future of RTS, just people trying to prove others wrong lol...
|
On February 04 2015 13:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2015 13:25 althaz wrote:On February 04 2015 09:16 SoSexy wrote:On February 04 2015 09:08 BisuDagger 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. Brood war is the furthest thing from light on strategy. High mechanics are just another requirement to execute the best ones. However, flash was considered a low apm player and still was the most dominant. Low apm in bw is what? 250? 200? Too much for a casual player, way too much 180 was enough to get to B level if you made good decisions. Obviously 300+ is better, but anything over 100-120 made the game extremely playable. Comments like this is just outright elitist and insulting. The average gaming audience you bump into in the street will have 20-40 apm after trying their hardest. Only people that *stick* with it get above 50. For example, grab a random person who has never played Starcraft before, ask them to play the game, whats their APM? 5-10? Tell them to play for a month, then it will go up to 20-30, sometimes 40. Ask them to actually practice a few days a week--they start getting above 50. Tell them to focus on mechanics, have practice sessions focusing on just specific aspects of the game and they will start getting to the 60-75 range. Random comments saying people only need 100+ apm does not take into account that majority of the total gamer pool will NEVER reach that high an APM. Heck, most of the total Starcraft player pool does not reach 100+ APM let alone the totality of all gamers.
It is better for few to be awestruck of a deep and magnificent thing, than for many to merely be entertained by a shallow and simple thing.
I'm not saying this because I am one of the few. If I was an outsider, I would say the same thing, and tip my hat to the ones on the inside. In fact, I do, when it comes to Go and some kinds of music.
|
On February 07 2015 14:54 Footler wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2015 14:32 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:On February 07 2015 13:01 Footler wrote:On February 07 2015 12:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:
In SC2 the choice is gone. You need to be able to make X supply by Y time or you will lose no matter what other decisions you make. No amount of micro tricks will stop 200 supply worth of marines A-Moved vs your 160 supply of (whatever). This is why strategy doesn't not occur until masters (as I keep repeating). Making mechanics more important than strategy.
I've lost games to stupid shit like DTs or Banshees despite an early lead. Am I bad at the game? Probably but I certainly lost for reasons other than a lack of X supply at Y time. Also, anyone with basic knowledge of the SC2 could stop 200 supply worth of marines with 160 supply of whatever. Just because you keep repeating nonsense doesn't make it true. Strategy is employed at all levels of play. It's just not to your liking. Footler, I totally agree with you, but that doesn't mean you have to be overly aggressive with Magpie. Sure our views on strategic depth differs from Magpie, but please try to keep a level of respect to all posters. It serves no purpose to call his opinion nonsense, no matter how much he repeats himself. Opinions and misinformation are different. I do not respect people coming into an SC2 forum attempting to spread misinformation in an attempt to belittle the game.
Some of what he said I don't agree with, but that doesn't mean he is misinformed. He formed his own opinions based on his observations with SC2 and its predecessor BW. As well, he is right about a lot of things, especially his comparison between SC2 and BW. In BW some players had weak macro, but could supplement that with superior micro, while it was completely opposite for other players. In SC2, mechanics is such a huge roll that players with weak mechanics find it difficult to supplement it with superior micro or strategy.
And Magpie is right, to a certain degree. His opinion is that up until masters, strategy doesn't have much of an effect because mechanics is such a huge component in SC2.
I disagree with him, because strategy is still an important component at all levels of play. Its just a matter of how important. At bronze level, strategy plays almost no roll because at this level no mechanics has been established. If new players manage to learn proper mechanics (not easy for many players), they can start to perform rudimentary strategies. As mechanics improve, more strategies start to open up, but winning games is still majorly determined by mechanics. Its only at the upper echelon of mechanics does strategy really have a large part to winning.
I believe that Magpie doesn't like this model. From my interpretation, he believes a good rts game should have a balance between mechanics and strategy, such that poor mechanics can be supplemented with strategy and tactics with some effectiveness, and vice versa.
You automatically dismiss his opinion only because you disagree with him, and then you proceed to disrespect him because you believe he is "attempting to spread misinformation in an attempt to belittle the game".
I don't know what you were reading, but in no way was Magpie trying to belittle the game. He is only stating what his opinion.
Please try to keep an open mind when you read other people's replies. In no way was Magpie trying to belittle the game, but in many ways you are being an asshole.
|
On February 07 2015 20:43 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2015 14:54 Footler wrote:On February 07 2015 14:32 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:On February 07 2015 13:01 Footler wrote:On February 07 2015 12:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:
In SC2 the choice is gone. You need to be able to make X supply by Y time or you will lose no matter what other decisions you make. No amount of micro tricks will stop 200 supply worth of marines A-Moved vs your 160 supply of (whatever). This is why strategy doesn't not occur until masters (as I keep repeating). Making mechanics more important than strategy.
I've lost games to stupid shit like DTs or Banshees despite an early lead. Am I bad at the game? Probably but I certainly lost for reasons other than a lack of X supply at Y time. Also, anyone with basic knowledge of the SC2 could stop 200 supply worth of marines with 160 supply of whatever. Just because you keep repeating nonsense doesn't make it true. Strategy is employed at all levels of play. It's just not to your liking. Footler, I totally agree with you, but that doesn't mean you have to be overly aggressive with Magpie. Sure our views on strategic depth differs from Magpie, but please try to keep a level of respect to all posters. It serves no purpose to call his opinion nonsense, no matter how much he repeats himself. Opinions and misinformation are different. I do not respect people coming into an SC2 forum attempting to spread misinformation in an attempt to belittle the game. Some of what he said I don't agree with, but that doesn't mean he is misinformed. He formed his own opinions based on his observations with SC2 and its predecessor BW. As well, he is right about a lot of things, especially his comparison between SC2 and BW. In BW some players had weak macro, but could supplement that with superior micro, while it was completely opposite for other players. In SC2, mechanics is such a huge roll that players with weak mechanics find it difficult to supplement it with superior micro or strategy. And Magpie is right, to a certain degree. His opinion is that up until masters, strategy doesn't have much of an effect because mechanics is such a huge component in SC2. I disagree with him, because strategy is still an important component at all levels of play. Its just a matter of how important. At bronze level, strategy plays almost no roll because at this level no mechanics has been established. If new players manage to learn proper mechanics (not easy for many players), they can start to perform rudimentary strategies. As mechanics improve, more strategies start to open up, but winning games is still majorly determined by mechanics. Its only at the upper echelon of mechanics does strategy really have a large part to winning. I believe that Magpie doesn't like this model. From my interpretation, he believes a good rts game should have a balance between mechanics and strategy, such that poor mechanics can be supplemented with strategy and tactics with some effectiveness, and vice versa. You automatically dismiss his opinion only because you disagree with him, and then you proceed to disrespect him because you believe he is "attempting to spread misinformation in an attempt to belittle the game". I don't know what you were reading, but in no way was Magpie trying to belittle the game. He is only stating what his opinion. Please try to keep an open mind when you read other people's replies. In no way was Magpie trying to belittle the game, but in many ways you are being an asshole.
I'm fairly certain I only quoted what I disagreed with which was his claim that SC2 requires zero strategy. This is not an opinion, it flat out isn't true.
|
On February 07 2015 12:35 xyzz wrote:
I know we shouldn't bring up other games in this thread, but has anyone been watching the DAC in Dota this week? The production value isn't amazing (atleast for the English stream), yet it's attracting 500K+ people watching over all language streams, and the prize pool is over 3 million dollars. It's not even the biggest tournament of the year. TI5 will probably have 10 million dollars in the prize pool, and these e-sport heroes will be legit millionaires. Has noone noticed that YYF's Chinese Dota stream has nearly a million viewers at peak hours? Not 300 viewers, or 400, or 10K viewers, but a million. For those of us who have been around online games 15 years or so it's pretty ground breaking to see e-sports finally becoming so big.
I play SC2, but I've enjoyed watching many of the games (Secret vs VG the most recent) and consider them extremely good entertainment both for serious players and for casuals. The games in that genre are never completely identical as the drafts and team strategies change all the time, and then individual players can do all sorts of plays to affect the outcome greatly.
It's hard to compare the entertainment value of an 1on1 RTS game to that. I'm not sure it's at all even possible. There's just much less going on in a Starcraft game, and many of the games are repetitions of each other. In early parts of the game the casters dont even have anything to talk about, and there's no pre-game hype about what possible strategies or playstyles might come out. The skill requirement at an elite level Broodwar game could quite possibly be higher than it is for an elite level MOBA game for a single player, but it doesn't really make a difference in whether the game is spectator friendly or not.
One thing I'll mention though which keeps getting ignored like it's not an issue at all, is that the game needs serious top level competitors from western countries, in order to keep the large masses in western countries interested in watching it. It doesn't matter if the Chinese or the Koreans are the best, but every now and then a championship has to go to a westerner in order to keep mainstream appeal in the west. The ideal situation is that Asia, Europe and Americas are evenly matched and champions come from all over. Otherwise the game will be in a slow decline in the weak continents and eventually becomes a fringe game.
I agree with everything you said except one thing. YYF doesn't get that many viewers, chinese streaming platforms don't display the correct viewer number.
Also, it is quite interesting that in Dota all regions have a top team. Right now at DAC you had RAVE, a SEA team coming 5/6th and there is 1 NA, 1 EU and 2 CN teams fighting for the top 4 spots.
|
On February 08 2015 02:41 Footler wrote:
I'm fairly certain I only quoted what I disagreed with which was his claim that SC2 requires zero strategy. This is not an opinion, it flat out isn't true.
He never claimed SC2 requires zero strategy. He claimed SC2 requires zero strategy below master's league.
As well, an opinion is neither true nor false, its just an opinion. If you don't believe or agree with his opinion, that doesn't mean you have to be aggressive and attack him.
But if you feel that another person's opinion is worthless because it doesn't align with your opinion, I would like to introduce you to bigots and racists.
As I said before, we need to keep an open mind when talking to others, and this includes conversations on the forums of the Internet.
|
On February 08 2015 06:16 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2015 02:41 Footler wrote:
I'm fairly certain I only quoted what I disagreed with which was his claim that SC2 requires zero strategy. This is not an opinion, it flat out isn't true. He never claimed SC2 requires zero strategy. He claimed SC2 requires zero strategy below master's league. As well, an opinion is neither true nor false, its just an opinion. If you don't believe or agree with his opinion, that doesn't mean you have to be aggressive and attack him. But if you feel that another person's opinion is worthless because it doesn't align with your opinion, I would like to introduce you to bigots and racists. As I said before, we need to keep an open mind when talking to others, and this includes conversations on the forums of the Internet.
Nope, this is not an opinion, its false. And it can be proven:
Do you play better by making buildings and/or units in a certain order? Do people do this below master league? Aka there is NOT "zero strategy" below master. Just because its not optimal doesn't mean its not strategy.
Only if people win by placing their nose on the F key and roll their face from side to side can you call it zero strategy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
