|
Keep "my game is better than yours"-slapfights out of this. If the discussion devolves into simple bashing, this thread will be closed. |
LSN, you list 4 point for each race, decide that those for point is what "should" dictate what TvZ looks like, then you write an essay of analysis of why it isn't as you would like.
To me, it is obvious that the one property that governs TvZ and PvZ is that you build either drones or units from the larvae, allow zerg to more quickly and extremely move between using resources for units or economy.
This makes any zerg build in those matchup to "drone as much as I can while surviving, spending as little and late as possible on defence, until I can launch my attack". Anything else would just be worse strategy.
And I am perfectly fine with that dynamic, and is the reason I play zerg. In fact, I think sc2 would be a significantly more "stale" game without it.
|
On February 08 2015 10:56 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2015 06:39 Excludos wrote:On February 08 2015 06:16 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote: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. Making supply depots because barracks and units need them is not strategy. Building buildings because they make units is not strategy. Making units and moving them somewhere is not strategy. Memorizing an efficient build and executing it perfectly is not strategy. Deviating from perfecting the execution of that build when executing perfectly is the better thing to learn is not strategy. Up until masters league there is only one correct choice, picking a build and executing it perfectly allowing you to make the maximum amount of units in a set time limit. Being unable to mechanically replicate this as close to 100% of the time is serving no one but your opponents. When you get to masters the difference in mechanical efficiency goes away for the most part, strategy now becomes important because your decisions no longer is "make more stuff than the other guy." You now have strategic decision making and sometimes having less than the opponent (for, say, a tech advantage) is actually good decision making. Before you get to that point, all options outside of maximizing mechanics is just the wrong decisions akin to shooting your own workers because you are a sadist. This is because in SC2, there is very little that can be done when one player has a shit tonne more dudes than you. His entire army can be brought to bear. Unit select limitations means having great unit control is as much a skill as great macro capabilities. So choosing between being as efficient as possible with build orders or choosing to not have great builds but good unit control is actually a choice. When there is only one correct choice the existence of other options is the same as having no other options at all. For example, you can choose to not move or make any more units once the game begins. Just let your starting workers mine until you die. It is technically a strategic decision, but at the same point it's not a fucking strategy. The existence of bad strategies does not mean that they exist, it means there are ways for you to hurt yourself instead of help yourself. When there is only one good strategy (make a lot of dudes) and that strategy trumps all other strategies, then there is no other strategies. This does not make sc2 a bad game since I enjoy watching players who are masters and up play. But to call sc2 casual friendly just because the controls are easier than BW is like calling boxing easy because the tactics are less complex than chess. Sc2 is very very hard for 98 % of the player base and most of them will stop playing. Strategy is not an option for them until far too late in the games learning curve. Now they can choose to suck and be okay with that (that's my boat), but that doesn't mean their weaker options makes the game more strategic.
I think its hilarious you seem to presume people below masters don't know what a buildorder or timing attack is. You can keep arguing how much you want, but as long as there is ANY form of decision making in a game, strategy is involved. This is a fact you can not repute.
I understand what you're trying to argue, which is that there isn't enough strategic depth in the lower leagues, and that mechanics are superior. I'm not going to argue that point (even thought I disagree), but you have to stop using the phrase "zero strategy", which is simply false.
|
On February 08 2015 20:31 Cascade wrote:
LSN, you list 4 point for each race, decide that those for point is what "should" dictate what TvZ looks like, then you write an essay of analysis of why it isn't as you would like.
To me, it is obvious that the one property that governs TvZ and PvZ is that you build either drones or units from the larvae, allow zerg to more quickly and extremely move between using resources for units or economy.
This makes any zerg build in those matchup to "drone as much as I can while surviving, spending as little and late as possible on defence, until I can launch my attack". Anything else would just be worse strategy.
And I am perfectly fine with that dynamic, and is the reason I play zerg. In fact, I think sc2 would be a significantly more "stale" game without it.
I think you haven't captured my points.
Let me give some easy to understand examples:
In many cases:
If zerg loses his 3rd vs a 2 base terran he can leave and the game is done. If a zerg loses his 4th against a 3 base terran: the same. If zerg overcomes the terran push without any big casualties, then the game is over too as zerg either can kill terran with the counter or can focus on economy and tech that much so that he will get a big advantage, as he has enough units left to defend the potential next attack.
Now the question here, that I brought up, is: Why is the meta wrapped around terran attacking and zerg defending while each of the races intrinsic strength is the exact opposite? If the meta instead was about zerg attacking and if terran manages to establish his 3rd or 4th or not, it would by default end up in a completely different situation:
1. The race mechanics of zerg would allow it to recover better from failed or semi efficient attacks as zerg can replace and switch different units and economy quickly with his flexibility and would be given enough time to do so when fights happen in front of terran doors instead of in front of his base always. This flexibility doesn't come to effect in the current meta, where zerg is always on the verge of dieing and has to build as many banelings as necessary and as many drones and expansions possible throughout the first 20 minutes of every game only.
2. Terran can defend better and recover better from losing an expansion (as zerg has by nature also higher costs to perform such attacks). This doesn't come into effect either that much as terran is in the offensive position throughout the game and once there are 35 mutas in your base it doesn't matter if you have 3 or 8 turrets there and the zerg cannot and will not attack the terran before he is in an greatly advantageous position (no matter then if its then 35 mutalisks or 70 banelings that roll in).
These would be action packed games where both sides could make use of more different strategies and unit compositions. Breaking a terran is way harder than breaking a zerg and it is harder to be cost efficient in this and have left overs. When a zerg breaks a terran's 3rd then he will have likely put more efforts into it which set him behind (missing out on drones/tech/upgrades/expansions=investment and by default lose more units in order to break the terran's better defensive mechanics and abilities) than a terran that is breaking a zerg's 3rd or 4th. Therefore it would be better balanced and not end up in predeciding and unrecoverable situations that oftenly which feel unfair, unrewarding and not balanced well.
The game would get more dynamic: Does terran focus 100% on establishing his third or does he setup a banshee or drop harrass meanwhiles and take his 3rd while being at risk more but then can just lift it and let it just be delayed for a bit? Does zerg want to deny/delay terran third at all costs (at the cost of his own drones/tech/upgrades/expansion or does he just fake an attack and instead tries to get his 4th meanwhiles, what opens the doors to the same scenario in a 4vs3 base situation. The meta would be much more variable and affected by both players decisions and strategy.
A zerg in the current meta, in contrast to that, must always focus on defending his bases at all costs and cannot setup an effective counter meanwhiles and so on. This is repetitive, boring, denies strategy and variety. There is basically the same setup of TvZ in every game, as soon as there are no cheeses or semi-cheeses being played from any of the players and even if cheeses are being played the games gonna end up in this same scenario with the advantage on either one or the other side.
In a situation Z3 vs T2 base where terran wants to establish his 3rd and zerg tries to deny or delay it:
- it is not directly hit or miss. If terran's 3rd gets denied or delayed the terran can recover from that much more easily than a zerg recovering from losing his 3rd against a 2 base terran (or losing 4th vs 3 base terran) because that is what their race intrinsic strengths and weaknesses enable or disable them to do.
- Z3 vs T2 is the natural balance as a zerg should have always one base more:
1. If the zerg attack on terran is doing the job we have 3 base vs 2 base left (kinda balanced situation still).
2. if the zerg attack fails then we have 3 base vs 2+1 base while the one is just starting up at this point and zerg had the chance to early figure that his attack wont hit and go for a 4th base himself (only a bit late then).
This is technically better, more forgiving and more strategically flexible than what is happening now in this meta. If terran breaks a zerg base or gets completely denied and loses all bio it ends up either into +2 bases for zerg situations or +0/+1 base for terran situations which are hard to recover from. It would also be better if the fight is even and terran neither hits on zerg's expansion nor is getting overwhelemed completely. Because then it just continues to be more bling/ling/muta vs more bio - a pure numbers and zero strategy game with a bit of tactics and maneuvers only - until the next fight.
This is about ZvT only. The other matchups have their own things what make them good or bad but I wanna focus on TvZ here with these examples that show why this matchup is stale, highly repetitive and therefore boring and unfun to watch and play in the long term.
And it is how you balance games to be good, appealing, fair and fun. Not by only looking at winratios of certain levels of players. TvP is alot worse than TvZ imo. I wouldn't even know where to begin there to get things straight in this very moment. If SC2 continues to stay the way it is, there is imo no way that more ppl get appealed to watch and play SC2 in the future.
Lets hope for legacy of the void. Our expectations should realistically not be too high when we consider what was done with swarmhosts, mothership core and so on at hots introduction. But lets see.
|
On February 08 2015 08:03 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2015 07:59 Eliezar wrote:
If you think the possibilities are endless in broodwar but not StarCraft 2 that is an opinion. The only thing that was limitless in broodwar was fighting the AI instead of the opposing player. Why bother to make this statement? It's a myopic assertion of BW that will only cause negative reactions. The difference between you and the poster before is that he stated his comment as an opinion and you stated your last sentence as if it was fact.
It is a fact, is there a single person who has ever posted that doesn't believe the UI in Broodwar is what caused so much high end difficulty and complexity. Well UI, 12 unit selection, very small screen view...its been repeated and repeated and repeated by pretty much everybody.
|
On February 09 2015 00:26 Eliezar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2015 08:03 BisuDagger wrote:On February 08 2015 07:59 Eliezar wrote:
If you think the possibilities are endless in broodwar but not StarCraft 2 that is an opinion. The only thing that was limitless in broodwar was fighting the AI instead of the opposing player. Why bother to make this statement? It's a myopic assertion of BW that will only cause negative reactions. The difference between you and the poster before is that he stated his comment as an opinion and you stated your last sentence as if it was fact. It is a fact, is there a single person who has ever posted that doesn't believe the UI in Broodwar is what caused so much high end difficulty and complexity. Well UI, 12 unit selection, very small screen view...its been repeated and repeated and repeated by pretty much everybody.
What? Are you serious? If you are I'll post an answer.
Edit: Did you say BW's complexity is caused by its UI and has nothing to do with its game design?
|
On February 08 2015 20:33 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2015 10:56 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 08 2015 06:39 Excludos wrote:On February 08 2015 06:16 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote: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. Making supply depots because barracks and units need them is not strategy. Building buildings because they make units is not strategy. Making units and moving them somewhere is not strategy. Memorizing an efficient build and executing it perfectly is not strategy. Deviating from perfecting the execution of that build when executing perfectly is the better thing to learn is not strategy. Up until masters league there is only one correct choice, picking a build and executing it perfectly allowing you to make the maximum amount of units in a set time limit. Being unable to mechanically replicate this as close to 100% of the time is serving no one but your opponents. When you get to masters the difference in mechanical efficiency goes away for the most part, strategy now becomes important because your decisions no longer is "make more stuff than the other guy." You now have strategic decision making and sometimes having less than the opponent (for, say, a tech advantage) is actually good decision making. Before you get to that point, all options outside of maximizing mechanics is just the wrong decisions akin to shooting your own workers because you are a sadist. This is because in SC2, there is very little that can be done when one player has a shit tonne more dudes than you. His entire army can be brought to bear. Unit select limitations means having great unit control is as much a skill as great macro capabilities. So choosing between being as efficient as possible with build orders or choosing to not have great builds but good unit control is actually a choice. When there is only one correct choice the existence of other options is the same as having no other options at all. For example, you can choose to not move or make any more units once the game begins. Just let your starting workers mine until you die. It is technically a strategic decision, but at the same point it's not a fucking strategy. The existence of bad strategies does not mean that they exist, it means there are ways for you to hurt yourself instead of help yourself. When there is only one good strategy (make a lot of dudes) and that strategy trumps all other strategies, then there is no other strategies. This does not make sc2 a bad game since I enjoy watching players who are masters and up play. But to call sc2 casual friendly just because the controls are easier than BW is like calling boxing easy because the tactics are less complex than chess. Sc2 is very very hard for 98 % of the player base and most of them will stop playing. Strategy is not an option for them until far too late in the games learning curve. Now they can choose to suck and be okay with that (that's my boat), but that doesn't mean their weaker options makes the game more strategic. I think its hilarious you seem to presume people below masters don't know what a buildorder or timing attack is. You can keep arguing how much you want, but as long as there is ANY form of decision making in a game, strategy is involved. This is a fact you can not repute. I understand what you're trying to argue, which is that there isn't enough strategic depth in the lower leagues, and that mechanics are superior. I'm not going to argue that point (even thought I disagree), but you have to stop using the phrase "zero strategy", which is simply false.
Having false choices is the same as having no choices. Why choose strategy A instead of B when strategy A is always the right choice? And what happens when strategy A is the only right choice up until masters? It doesn't matter that there is an entire alphabet of other options when all other options are wrong.
For example, breaking your monitor with a baseball bat is a strategic choice you have. An option of next steps after a game starts, if you will. Sure, breaking your monitor with a baseball bay doesn't increase your odds at winning as say moving units in the game, but it does exist as a strategic choice. False choices always exist. But if they're all false choices, then there really isn't any choices. Up until masters, almost all "strategic" choices that isn't "make as many units as possible" is beaten by simply having more units. It's not until you reach masters that you no longer have the option of "just have more units" and you start actually having strategic choices. Path A is now as good as Path B, and only when the choices you have are equal is there actually choices.
Non-game example. If I'm hungry I technically have two options--starve to death, or eat food. Now, no one really chooses "starve to death" and so even if it is technically an option, it's not really an option. False choices will always be present in all games. The goal of games is for your choices to have equal merits with each other.
The way these choices are equalized are done either by mechanical limitations, or Rock/Paper/Scissors design. Rock/paper/scissor design allows players to play reactively to the opponent's decisions. This is usually done in slower paced games with more game awareness to give time for the opposing players to respond to the new threat. Mechanical limitations are imposed to prevent snowballing by limiting a player's ability to push their advantage.
SC2 doesn't really have enoug of either. There is just enough rock/paper/scissor that a lot of uni interactions are one sided, but not enough rock/paper/scissor that if you scouted wrong you have time to adapt to the new units. There is also enough mechanical limitations that it is hard to play efficiently, but not enough limitations to prevent snowballing from happening due to instant army movement.
The hard counters and mechanical limitations balances out in SC2 once you get to masters where people play fast enough to keep up with the hard counters while they produce efficiently enough that you don't die from random death balls.
Before then, there is only one real choice in how to play the gAme and all the other choices are false choices.
|
lol thieving magpie. The above post can be summed up as thus. There is only one way to play SC2 and that is my way. All other choices are false choices. Ergo there is no strategy in SC2 till an arbitary skill level which I have chosen.
To make this argument I will now descibe how "breaking your monitor with a baseball bat is a strategic choice you have."
|
On May 14 2014 05:28 plogamer wrote:
I usually watch Starcraft 2. But this one time I was watching Dota 2, someone in my family noted that the casting had improved. So sad.
Starcraft 2 casting is often times like listening to a golf game or test cricket match. Ugh.
LOL clearly you have never watched maynarde cast
|
On February 09 2015 01:21 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
lol thieving magpie. The above post can be summed up as thus. There is only one way to play SC2 and that is my way. All other choices are false choices. Ergo there is no strategy in SC2 till an arbitary skill level which I have chosen.
To make this argument I will now descibe how "breaking your monitor with a baseball bat is a strategic choice you have."
Does that mean you think telling lowbies that focusing on mechanics is bad advice?
It's not playing it my way, it actually is the way you're supposed play to become a better player. Focus on mechanics, learn to make stuff, choices outside of not missing unit production, worker production, and supply production are wrong choices.
|
What exactly is the point of this argument?
If you wanna have the best training possible and get to the highest lvl you are capable of, YES then mechanics are all that matters till X (not sure if your statement about masters is right, but that's not really important)
A lot of people don't think this is a fun way of playing though, that's the reason they choose to "make the false decisions", here: focus on other things than mechanics.
Is it bad if you wanna get better? Yes! But that doesn't mean that these players don't make decisions in their games ("strategy", "tactis").
Matchmaking allows exactly that, you play vs players of your skill level, so each decision is just as valuable as if both of you would play mechanically "perfect".
|
On February 09 2015 01:21 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
lol thieving magpie. The above post can be summed up as thus. There is only one way to play SC2 and that is my way. All other choices are false choices. Ergo there is no strategy in SC2 till an arbitary skill level which I have chosen.
To make this argument I will now descibe how "breaking your monitor with a baseball bat is a strategic choice you have."
I think its time to wave goodbye, pack our bags and leave the trolls alone. Before I facepalm through my head. When people get stuck in a certain pattern of thinking, nothing will make them see different. Luckily, the truth doesn't care about opinions, it just is.
There is no reasonable discussion to be had from this.
|
On February 09 2015 01:51 The_Red_Viper wrote:
What exactly is the point of this argument?
If you wanna have the best training possible and get to the highest lvl you are capable of, YES then mechanics are all that matters till X (not sure if your statement about masters is right, but that's not really important)
A lot of people don't think this is a fun way of playing though, that's the reason they choose to "make the false decisions", here: focus on other things than mechanics.
Is it bad if you wanna get better? Yes! But that doesn't mean that these players don't make decisions in their games ("strategy", "tactis").
Matchmaking allows exactly that, you play vs players of your skill level, so each decision is just as valuable as if both of you would play mechanically "perfect".
By that logic, all games are equally well designed so long as players self gimp themselves.
|
On February 09 2015 02:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2015 01:51 The_Red_Viper wrote:
What exactly is the point of this argument?
If you wanna have the best training possible and get to the highest lvl you are capable of, YES then mechanics are all that matters till X (not sure if your statement about masters is right, but that's not really important)
A lot of people don't think this is a fun way of playing though, that's the reason they choose to "make the false decisions", here: focus on other things than mechanics.
Is it bad if you wanna get better? Yes! But that doesn't mean that these players don't make decisions in their games ("strategy", "tactis").
Matchmaking allows exactly that, you play vs players of your skill level, so each decision is just as valuable as if both of you would play mechanically "perfect".
By that logic, all games are equally well designed so long as players self gimp themselves.
So chess doesn't have any strategy because people who aren't pro can't execute the same strats as they do? Non-optimal strategy is zero strategy after all..? Seriously, your points make so little sense I'm not sure you even know what you're arguing for yourself anymore.
|
On February 09 2015 02:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2015 01:51 The_Red_Viper wrote:
What exactly is the point of this argument?
If you wanna have the best training possible and get to the highest lvl you are capable of, YES then mechanics are all that matters till X (not sure if your statement about masters is right, but that's not really important)
A lot of people don't think this is a fun way of playing though, that's the reason they choose to "make the false decisions", here: focus on other things than mechanics.
Is it bad if you wanna get better? Yes! But that doesn't mean that these players don't make decisions in their games ("strategy", "tactis").
Matchmaking allows exactly that, you play vs players of your skill level, so each decision is just as valuable as if both of you would play mechanically "perfect".
By that logic, all games are equally well designed so long as players self gimp themselves.
I am still not sure what you even argue tbh. Right now you even wanna value what "good design" means in regards to mechanics:strategy?
|
On February 09 2015 01:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2015 20:33 Excludos wrote:On February 08 2015 10:56 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 08 2015 06:39 Excludos wrote:On February 08 2015 06:16 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote: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. Making supply depots because barracks and units need them is not strategy. Building buildings because they make units is not strategy. Making units and moving them somewhere is not strategy. Memorizing an efficient build and executing it perfectly is not strategy. Deviating from perfecting the execution of that build when executing perfectly is the better thing to learn is not strategy. Up until masters league there is only one correct choice, picking a build and executing it perfectly allowing you to make the maximum amount of units in a set time limit. Being unable to mechanically replicate this as close to 100% of the time is serving no one but your opponents. When you get to masters the difference in mechanical efficiency goes away for the most part, strategy now becomes important because your decisions no longer is "make more stuff than the other guy." You now have strategic decision making and sometimes having less than the opponent (for, say, a tech advantage) is actually good decision making. Before you get to that point, all options outside of maximizing mechanics is just the wrong decisions akin to shooting your own workers because you are a sadist. This is because in SC2, there is very little that can be done when one player has a shit tonne more dudes than you. His entire army can be brought to bear. Unit select limitations means having great unit control is as much a skill as great macro capabilities. So choosing between being as efficient as possible with build orders or choosing to not have great builds but good unit control is actually a choice. When there is only one correct choice the existence of other options is the same as having no other options at all. For example, you can choose to not move or make any more units once the game begins. Just let your starting workers mine until you die. It is technically a strategic decision, but at the same point it's not a fucking strategy. The existence of bad strategies does not mean that they exist, it means there are ways for you to hurt yourself instead of help yourself. When there is only one good strategy (make a lot of dudes) and that strategy trumps all other strategies, then there is no other strategies. This does not make sc2 a bad game since I enjoy watching players who are masters and up play. But to call sc2 casual friendly just because the controls are easier than BW is like calling boxing easy because the tactics are less complex than chess. Sc2 is very very hard for 98 % of the player base and most of them will stop playing. Strategy is not an option for them until far too late in the games learning curve. Now they can choose to suck and be okay with that (that's my boat), but that doesn't mean their weaker options makes the game more strategic. I think its hilarious you seem to presume people below masters don't know what a buildorder or timing attack is. You can keep arguing how much you want, but as long as there is ANY form of decision making in a game, strategy is involved. This is a fact you can not repute. I understand what you're trying to argue, which is that there isn't enough strategic depth in the lower leagues, and that mechanics are superior. I'm not going to argue that point (even thought I disagree), but you have to stop using the phrase "zero strategy", which is simply false. Having false choices is the same as having no choices. Why choose strategy A instead of B when strategy A is always the right choice? And what happens when strategy A is the only right choice up until masters? It doesn't matter that there is an entire alphabet of other options when all other options are wrong. For example, breaking your monitor with a baseball bat is a strategic choice you have. An option of next steps after a game starts, if you will. Sure, breaking your monitor with a baseball bay doesn't increase your odds at winning as say moving units in the game, but it does exist as a strategic choice. False choices always exist. But if they're all false choices, then there really isn't any choices. Up until masters, almost all "strategic" choices that isn't "make as many units as possible" is beaten by simply having more units. It's not until you reach masters that you no longer have the option of "just have more units" and you start actually having strategic choices. Path A is now as good as Path B, and only when the choices you have are equal is there actually choices. Non-game example. If I'm hungry I technically have two options--starve to death, or eat food. Now, no one really chooses "starve to death" and so even if it is technically an option, it's not really an option. False choices will always be present in all games. The goal of games is for your choices to have equal merits with each other. The way these choices are equalized are done either by mechanical limitations, or Rock/Paper/Scissors design. Rock/paper/scissor design allows players to play reactively to the opponent's decisions. This is usually done in slower paced games with more game awareness to give time for the opposing players to respond to the new threat. Mechanical limitations are imposed to prevent snowballing by limiting a player's ability to push their advantage. SC2 doesn't really have enoug of either. There is just enough rock/paper/scissor that a lot of uni interactions are one sided, but not enough rock/paper/scissor that if you scouted wrong you have time to adapt to the new units. There is also enough mechanical limitations that it is hard to play efficiently, but not enough limitations to prevent snowballing from happening due to instant army movement. The hard counters and mechanical limitations balances out in SC2 once you get to masters where people play fast enough to keep up with the hard counters while they produce efficiently enough that you don't die from random death balls. Before then, there is only one real choice in how to play the gAme and all the other choices are false choices.
Perfecting some sort of one base all in for each match or or cheese is probably an easier way to get to your arbitrary level of masters. You can be mechanically inferior to an opponent and still beat them as you took them surprise or maybe had better decision making, at least in that game.
I think most would agree that focusing first and foremost on macro mechanics is the best way for a player to become solid and genuinely good. Ranking up to masters? (your arbitrary level) Not so sure. Maybe if I also have such tunnel vision I could say spending vast amounts of time improving macro mechanics is actually a false choice when a less demanding option is available.
|
On February 09 2015 03:52 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2015 02:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 09 2015 01:51 The_Red_Viper wrote:
What exactly is the point of this argument?
If you wanna have the best training possible and get to the highest lvl you are capable of, YES then mechanics are all that matters till X (not sure if your statement about masters is right, but that's not really important)
A lot of people don't think this is a fun way of playing though, that's the reason they choose to "make the false decisions", here: focus on other things than mechanics.
Is it bad if you wanna get better? Yes! But that doesn't mean that these players don't make decisions in their games ("strategy", "tactis").
Matchmaking allows exactly that, you play vs players of your skill level, so each decision is just as valuable as if both of you would play mechanically "perfect".
By that logic, all games are equally well designed so long as players self gimp themselves. I am still not sure what you even argue tbh. Right now you even wanna value what "good design" means in regards to mechanics:strategy?
His argument gets weirder every time he lays it out anew. Previously it was all about there being no strategy. Now it's about "producing more units" actually being a superior strategy to anything else. Previously he said that picking one unit and mass producing it was the best strategy at low levels. I don't see how mass producing pure marines is any superior to mass producing marines and having a starport producing medivacs in lowlevels, because MM is better suited for everything that M is suited for (you don't even need to drop to make the medivacs pay off hugely). He is plainly wrong here and its annoying because he spams the same beliefs on every page. Given that he has never defined what a strategy is in his opinion, it is completely pointless to discuss anything. He is just arbitrarily dismissing stuff as "not strategy" that clearly falls under the category "strategy". Even if we clear the strategies from the board that are plainly always going to lose (hence translating his sledgehammer example into SC2 gameplay), then there is still no argument that doesn't tell me how a 2gate or a canon rush is ultimately inferior to his mass production of marines or stalkers. There is going to be times when a 2gate will get the job done, but the mass marine build doesn't, so the mass marine cannot be superior in every way, hence 2gate is on board when talking strategies. And we can play that through with so many build orders that there is going to be a million ways to play that are still not excluded by his sledghammer-method... We need a definition or it's useless to discuss any further.
|
On February 09 2015 03:37 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2015 02:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 09 2015 01:51 The_Red_Viper wrote:
What exactly is the point of this argument?
If you wanna have the best training possible and get to the highest lvl you are capable of, YES then mechanics are all that matters till X (not sure if your statement about masters is right, but that's not really important)
A lot of people don't think this is a fun way of playing though, that's the reason they choose to "make the false decisions", here: focus on other things than mechanics.
Is it bad if you wanna get better? Yes! But that doesn't mean that these players don't make decisions in their games ("strategy", "tactis").
Matchmaking allows exactly that, you play vs players of your skill level, so each decision is just as valuable as if both of you would play mechanically "perfect".
By that logic, all games are equally well designed so long as players self gimp themselves. So chess doesn't have any strategy because people who aren't pro can't execute the same strats as they do? Non-optimal strategy is zero strategy after all..? Seriously, your points make so little sense I'm not sure you even know what you're arguing for yourself anymore.
All strategic options in chess is available to all players since there is no mechanical limitation stopping new players from implementing them. One does need strong mechanics to move pawns, you do need strong mechanics to execute moves in SC2/BW
|
On February 09 2015 05:55 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2015 03:52 The_Red_Viper wrote:On February 09 2015 02:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 09 2015 01:51 The_Red_Viper wrote:
What exactly is the point of this argument?
If you wanna have the best training possible and get to the highest lvl you are capable of, YES then mechanics are all that matters till X (not sure if your statement about masters is right, but that's not really important)
A lot of people don't think this is a fun way of playing though, that's the reason they choose to "make the false decisions", here: focus on other things than mechanics.
Is it bad if you wanna get better? Yes! But that doesn't mean that these players don't make decisions in their games ("strategy", "tactis").
Matchmaking allows exactly that, you play vs players of your skill level, so each decision is just as valuable as if both of you would play mechanically "perfect".
By that logic, all games are equally well designed so long as players self gimp themselves. I am still not sure what you even argue tbh. Right now you even wanna value what "good design" means in regards to mechanics:strategy? His argument gets weirder every time he lays it out anew. Previously it was all about there being no strategy. Now it's about "producing more units" actually being a superior strategy to anything else. Previously he said that picking one unit and mass producing it was the best strategy at low levels. I don't see how mass producing pure marines is any superior to mass producing marines and having a starport producing medivacs in lowlevels, because MM is better suited for everything that M is suited for (you don't even need to drop to make the medivacs pay off hugely). He is plainly wrong here and its annoying because he spams the same beliefs on every page. Given that he has never defined what a strategy is in his opinion, it is completely pointless to discuss anything. He is just arbitrarily dismissing stuff as "not strategy" that clearly falls under the category "strategy". Even if we clear the strategies from the board that are plainly always going to lose (hence translating his sledgehammer example into SC2 gameplay), then there is still no argument that doesn't tell me how a 2gate or a canon rush is ultimately inferior to his mass production of marines or stalkers. There is going to be times when a 2gate will get the job done, but the mass marine build doesn't, so the mass marine cannot be superior in every way, hence 2gate is on board when talking strategies. And we can play that through with so many build orders that there is going to be a million ways to play that are still not excluded by his sledghammer-method... We need a definition or it's useless to discuss any further.
Yeah I stopped debating with him already. His beliefs are set already, no point trying to prove against it.
|
On February 09 2015 05:55 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2015 03:52 The_Red_Viper wrote:On February 09 2015 02:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 09 2015 01:51 The_Red_Viper wrote:
What exactly is the point of this argument?
If you wanna have the best training possible and get to the highest lvl you are capable of, YES then mechanics are all that matters till X (not sure if your statement about masters is right, but that's not really important)
A lot of people don't think this is a fun way of playing though, that's the reason they choose to "make the false decisions", here: focus on other things than mechanics.
Is it bad if you wanna get better? Yes! But that doesn't mean that these players don't make decisions in their games ("strategy", "tactis").
Matchmaking allows exactly that, you play vs players of your skill level, so each decision is just as valuable as if both of you would play mechanically "perfect".
By that logic, all games are equally well designed so long as players self gimp themselves. I am still not sure what you even argue tbh. Right now you even wanna value what "good design" means in regards to mechanics:strategy? His argument gets weirder every time he lays it out anew. Previously it was all about there being no strategy. Now it's about "producing more units" actually being a superior strategy to anything else. Previously he said that picking one unit and mass producing it was the best strategy at low levels. I don't see how mass producing pure marines is any superior to mass producing marines and having a starport producing medivacs in lowlevels, because MM is better suited for everything that M is suited for (you don't even need to drop to make the medivacs pay off hugely). He is plainly wrong here and its annoying because he spams the same beliefs on every page. Given that he has never defined what a strategy is in his opinion, it is completely pointless to discuss anything. He is just arbitrarily dismissing stuff as "not strategy" that clearly falls under the category "strategy". Even if we clear the strategies from the board that are plainly always going to lose (hence translating his sledgehammer example into SC2 gameplay), then there is still no argument that doesn't tell me how a 2gate or a canon rush is ultimately inferior to his mass production of marines or stalkers. There is going to be times when a 2gate will get the job done, but the mass marine build doesn't, so the mass marine cannot be superior in every way, hence 2gate is on board when talking strategies. And we can play that through with so many build orders that there is going to be a million ways to play that are still not excluded by his sledghammer-method... We need a definition or it's useless to discuss any further.
If you're in bronze-gold, simply having the mechanics to not be supply blocked will win you games. Trying to mix and match could win you game, but so too will just massing zealots/marines/roaches. Better to learn not to be supply blocked than to learn how to micro tanks or reaver drops. Get to play Diamond and suddenly it becomes important to follow a build order correctly than it is to try mimicking innovation correctly. Just pick an arbitrary unit comp and stick with that build. When you get to masters and supply blocks are no longer a hindrance and executing build orders is finally something you can do efficiently, only then can you start doing other moves. Before masters the only strategy is making dudes, not getting supply blocked, and not fucking up the execution of one build (let alone multiple builds).
It's not rocket science, it's not a complicate concept. Before masters there is no strategy, since straying from learning mechanics is just a quick ticket to teach yourself to be a bad player forever complaining that the ladder system is broken. You quickly end up with all your friends not playing SC2 because tey don't want to spend their nights clicking on the worker button or clicking tapping through hot keys.
Making workers is more important than tactics. Making pylons is more important than maneuvers. Literally, until masters, doing anything but making more dudes than the other guy is not helping you as a player. Strategy in SC2 does not exist below masters level players who finally know how to execute a build order properly without needless unforced supply blocks.
|
Your assumptions, Magpie, would only be right if a player of any level played against an S GSL player in every game. Then of course nothing else than mechanics count as no matter what strategy he uses, he is gonna lose. Performing a 1/2 base all in from the book perfectly (with perfect mechanics) would be his only viable strategy to get a small chance on a win.
But as players of gold level with low mechanics play against other gold players with low mechanics, the strategy comes back into play and has effect on their level.
Anyway you are arguing for the wrong thing and right thing at the same time:
SC2 is very limted in its strategical options, which is right.
You don't realize that the options get lower the higher the skill is.
Just by the way, this is the reason for SC2 monotony. The higher your level gets the more you are forced into this thing called meta which only allows you to do nothing else than the most effective things in the end.
Following your logic one could come to this result: On the low level you can play basically every strategy you want and make it viable against an opponent of the same level by just performing it well. On high level this gets very thin and only few things remain to be viable with tiny deviations.
On silver level it is a viable strategy to go for a dt rush, let the opponent scout it, then attack anyway with one dt and pull his overseer out of position, then attack with 4-5 new dark templar while his overseer is not in position and deal enough damage to win the game. This doesn't exist at high level play, just like hundreds of other viable low level strategies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
