|
Warning for everyone in this thread: I WILL moderate your posts very harshly from now on if you can't have a civil discussion. |
What really boggles my mind is how people repeatedly argue that there is "not enough room for strategy" in SC2 and then the same people show BW as an example of a great game. If you think that "mechanics is everything" in SC2, have you even played BW? Because in BW, the mechanical skill needed for your strategy to begin to matter is almost incomparably higher than in SC2.
I think the basis for this misunderstanding is the vast difference in the current playerbase between the two games. Because it might well be that the percentage of players that really needs to care about strategy instead of just macroing better, is larger in BW than it is in SC2. But that's not because of a miraculously greater design of the former, but because all of the scrubs have left two decades ago.
I have never been better than diamond in SC2 and probably my macro sucks. I am quite sure that a high masters player can beat me with almost any "strategy". However that doesn't take anything from the fun of playing. Yes, I could rank higher if I focused on improving my macro, but why would I do that? What good would that do for me? I play the game because of the enjoyment and I do get exactly that. So I don't focus on macroing the best I could, instead I just enjoy all the options the game gives me. Thanks to the insanely good matchmaking system, I win about every other game.
Saying that there is not enough time for strategy at the top level is even more ridiculous, have you guys even watched a game lately?
|
On April 19 2016 19:36 opisska wrote:
What really boggles my mind is how people repeatedly argue that there is "not enough room for strategy" in SC2 and then the same people show BW as an example of a great game. If you think that "mechanics is everything" in SC2, have you even played BW? Because in BW, the mechanical skill needed for your strategy to begin to matter is almost incomparably higher than in SC2.
I think the basis for this misunderstanding is the vast difference in the current playerbase between the two games. Because it might well be that the percentage of players that really needs to care about strategy instead of just macroing better, is larger in BW than it is in SC2. But that's not because of a miraculously greater design of the former, but because all of the scrubs have left two decades ago.
I have never been better than diamond in SC2 and probably my macro sucks. I am quite sure that a high masters player can beat me with almost any "strategy". However that doesn't take anything from the fun of playing. Yes, I could rank higher if I focused on improving my macro, but why would I do that? What good would that do for me? I play the game because of the enjoyment and I do get exactly that. So I don't focus on macroing the best I could, instead I just enjoy all the options the game gives me. Thanks to the insanely good matchmaking system, I win about every other game.
Saying that there is not enough time for strategy at the top level is even more ridiculous, have you guys even watched a game lately?
Non-sequitur. You're trying to argue that because a game has a high mechanical requirement this somehow affects its extent of strategy? Unless the mechanical demand would be so high that a human can't reach it, this is clearly not the case.
Also a common misconception. Strategy matters very much between players of relatively equal skill in bw.
The only place where strategy wouldn't matter much is when you have really large differences in skill such as A lvl player in bw playing vs a D lvl player or a pro player playing some random A lvl player.
|
On April 19 2016 22:41 B-royal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2016 19:36 opisska wrote:
What really boggles my mind is how people repeatedly argue that there is "not enough room for strategy" in SC2 and then the same people show BW as an example of a great game. If you think that "mechanics is everything" in SC2, have you even played BW? Because in BW, the mechanical skill needed for your strategy to begin to matter is almost incomparably higher than in SC2.
I think the basis for this misunderstanding is the vast difference in the current playerbase between the two games. Because it might well be that the percentage of players that really needs to care about strategy instead of just macroing better, is larger in BW than it is in SC2. But that's not because of a miraculously greater design of the former, but because all of the scrubs have left two decades ago.
I have never been better than diamond in SC2 and probably my macro sucks. I am quite sure that a high masters player can beat me with almost any "strategy". However that doesn't take anything from the fun of playing. Yes, I could rank higher if I focused on improving my macro, but why would I do that? What good would that do for me? I play the game because of the enjoyment and I do get exactly that. So I don't focus on macroing the best I could, instead I just enjoy all the options the game gives me. Thanks to the insanely good matchmaking system, I win about every other game.
Saying that there is not enough time for strategy at the top level is even more ridiculous, have you guys even watched a game lately? Non-sequitur. You're trying to argue that because a game has a high mechanical requirement this somehow affects its extent of strategy? Unless the mechanical demand would be so high that a human can't reach it, this is clearly not the case. Also a common misconception. Strategy matters very much between players of relatively equal skill in bw. The only place where strategy wouldn't matter much is when you have really large differences in skill such as A lvl player in bw playing vs a D lvl player or a pro player playing some random A lvl player.
No, that's what the people in this very thread are arguing! Well actually it turns out that if I wasn't lazy to go through the last couple of pages, I would have found that this idea comes mostly from one person, so I could have just quoted him to avoid the confusion. So, this
On April 18 2016 18:56 Incognoto wrote:
There's also little room for strategy. Strategy is about making the right strategic decisions which allows for a player to attack another player with an inherent advantage (more units, better unit composition, etc.). In starcraft 2, "strategy" at most levels (until you hit Korean levels, I guess) is just about not missing depots or production cycles and attacking when your upgrades hit. You can't get an advantage using strategy like you can with with pure mechanics: how is that "fun"?
I think is pure bullshit for reasons stated above. I am being clear now?
|
Well I've never compared anything to Brood War, so I wouldn't know where that comes from.
I do believe that strong mechanics much more heavily influence the outcome of the game than strategy. Examples, I guess:
"I missed a few depots and was supply blocked for a minute"
"I missed a production or warp-in cycle"
"I missed a round of injects"
"I failed to properly split my lings vs those banelings"
^Those will lose games, much more than:
"I took my third too late"
"3 rax reaper should not work against that opening"
"I opened with 6 hellions to take map control and thus delayed the zerg's third, which allowed me to gain a macro mechanic lead"
"protoss made dark templar or oracles, which is easily countered by my safe build using an ebay"
"I perfectly hit my 1-1 timing"
Take that last example, the 1-1 timing. A 1-1 timing only ever makes strategically sense if you applied that with perfect production. A 1-1 timing which hits after I've been supply blocked for a minute is much less powerful than simply hitting the same timing, without 1-1, without missing depots.
Strategy just doesn't influence the game to the same extent as mechanics due if you're under masters. The only thing which will ever lose you games is "I did not have enough units at the right time". :/
Assuming that both players do NOT get supply blocked, miss production cycles, or anything like that, then strategy becomes relevant. Because what becomes the limiting factor is the race you're playing itself, so that means that you need to have the right builds and make the right decisions. Below masters, the limiting factor is the player, so whichever player manages to macro less shittily than his opponent wins.
Go look at a platinum or gold level game. What decides those games is whoever had more units than the other guy whenever a fight took place. What decides THAT is the mechanics the player was able to perform during the game; the strategy chosen has little influence over that.
|
On April 19 2016 19:36 opisska wrote:
What really boggles my mind is how people repeatedly argue that there is "not enough room for strategy" in SC2 and then the same people show BW as an example of a great game. If you think that "mechanics is everything" in SC2, have you even played BW? Because in BW, the mechanical skill needed for your strategy to begin to matter is almost incomparably higher than in SC2.
The point isn't that SC2 is more "mechanically difficult." It's that mechanics trump strategy (tech, positioning) in SC2. In BW, strategy nullified mechanics. Do you know why no one builds marines and medics in BW TvP? Because they'll get a big old fuck off psi storm or scarab and there will be marine guts everywhere. In SC2 you stim2win, snipe that lonely, shitty colossus, and /dance in the protoss's natural. Everything has been tilted in favor of mechanics in SC2. Units are faster, AOE is weaker, and DPS is higher. Also why is it 2016 and mech still isn't viable? Because it results in slower games and we can't have that in esportsCraft.
|
As a big BW lover, mechanics also trumped strategy in BW. Probably even more than in SC2.
No matter how you look at it, if a player gathers and spends a thousand more of gas/minerals than the other, the strategies of choice won't matter much at that point. The player with more will win, almost always. The game would need to be flawed (have broken strategies) or to have a system of units with extreme hard counters to topple that difference imo.
|
Strategy is always based off of what is mechanically possible anyway.
There isn't a build out there which takes into account players missing supply or having idle production time. Nor should there be.
However, in Starcraft 2, macro mechanics are so fast-paced that strategy is really inaccessible to the casual player; mostly because macro mechanics just influence the outcome of the game so much more.
No one cares about a Carrier rush which I put together which works against Bronze level players. I can come up with 50 different working strategies for Bronze league, since mechanics are meaningless there. This also means that Bronze league strategies are equally meaningless.
|
On April 20 2016 00:31 Incognoto wrote:
Strategy is always based off of what is mechanically possible anyway.
There isn't a build out there which takes into account players missing supply or having idle production time. Nor should there be.
However, in Starcraft 2, macro mechanics are so fast-paced that strategy is really inaccessible to the casual player; mostly because macro mechanics just influence the outcome of the game so much more.
No one cares about a Carrier rush which I put together which works against Bronze level players. I can come up with 50 different working strategies for Bronze league, since mechanics are meaningless there. This also means that Bronze league strategies are equally meaningless.
Why is it meaningless? Because it doesn't work on higher lvls?
If you are in Bronze and you play vs other bronze players who are equally as good/bad as you in mechanical ability strategy becomes more important.
The same is true for any match where two players of similar skill (which most of the time means mechanical skill) play against each other.
That's not even a starcraft thing, this concept is universal. You still confuse "getting better in the game mostly about mechanics" with "strategy doesn't mean anything in any given game up until x" X is completely arbitrary btw
|
On April 20 2016 00:21 Salteador Neo wrote:
As a big BW lover, mechanics also trumped strategy in BW. Probably even more than in SC2.
No matter how you look at it, if a player gathers and spends a thousand more of gas/minerals than the other, the strategies of choice won't matter much at that point. The player with more will win, almost always. The game would need to be flawed (have broken strategies) or to have a system of units with extreme hard counters to topple that difference imo.
Ok so you all you did was contradict me without providing any evidence or arguments to back it up. Here is an example of a player who has been outharassed, outmacroed, and outmicroed but still wins the game: Jangbi vs Nada. Jangbi was way behind due to some devastating vulture harassment leading up to this point. Nada has a huge army but Jangbi deletes it all with some money psi storms/stasis fields and ends up winning the game.
What annoys me about SC2 is when you counter a build and lose anyway. Marines should not beat psi storm or banelings. Look at that Jangbi video again. In BW marines do way worse against psi storm than tanks do. And yet in SC2 they just walk it off. Sigh. Maybe I should just go back to BW.
|
The style of thedwf is a pretty annoying and the party in which he talks about the communication of Blizzard seems a bit off, for me, they are just totally clueless and not even cynical, however, their intention of making a game for the viewers were clears and a fundamental error, I agree with that.
Moreover, the part on the control is exactly what I feel about the game. An unit like the phoenix is a typical exemple of harass tool in which you have absolutly no control as a zerg, it just dépends of the protoss errors. It is the opposite of the hots version of the reaper harass and then the helion which involved great micro and control from both sides, no frustration, just skill and pleasure!
|
On April 19 2016 22:41 B-royal wrote:
Unless the mechanical demand would be so high that a human can't reach it, this is clearly not the case.
I agree that strategy matters at all levels, assuming players have equal mechanical skill. Surely there becomes a point where strategy doesn't matter because one player is just so much better mechanically, but the reverse is true too. One player might have better mechanics, but if he is massing Zerglings versus Hellbats there is a point where macro won't be over to overwhelm that.
I do think the mechanical demand of SC2 is so high that a human can't reach it. I don't see how anyone could play the perfect game in all respects. As TheDwf pointed out, if you have 4 Banelings coming and you have 8 SCV's to split, that is much easier than 20 Banelings coming and 40 SCV's to split. So, the larger the army gets, the less effective any micro will be and more potential to play perfectly is lost. Which is again, why he pointed out that some of the best micro interactions that give the players the most control come during low unit count interactions.
And that is especially true with the amount of abilities Protoss units have. There is just too many units with too many abilities for anyone, even for top players to use all of them effectively. When a unit has no worth unless it gets significant attention (ie Disruptors) then it means you won't have the time to micro other units as effectively, no matter how fast you are.
There is a way to alleviate a significant portion of this problem, by allowing players to set hotkey that will work no matter what units you have select. So if you have a group of Sentries and High Templars, you can select that group and press F and get a Forcefield everytime, no matter if the High Templar is the priority unit in the selection.
I suggested that to Blizzard, but it went the same way pretty much every other community suggestion goes.
|
I'm actually in the opposing camp myself. In my opinion, the easier the game is mechanically, the less strategy there is.
If for example, all you do is set medivac on auto harass patrol, setting specific waypoints, or have marines auto split vs banelings, marauders autokite, spells being all on autocast, production automatic, then surely there will be more room for strategy, no?
Actually no, then we will experience pure build order wins.
We are going in circles with this one.
Give mbs, smartcast, unlimited unit selection. Whine that game is too easy. Give macro mechanics, spells galore to compensate. Whine that too much of it diminishes strategy. What do you people want now?
Make spells even easier to cast or set on autocast? Then blizzard will introduce even more stupid mechanics to compensate.
It is mechanics that allow for strategy to exist.
If you don't have the awerness and multitasking to do a double drop and macro at the same time, don't. Go for a different build. Devise a different strategy.
Hell, take mine example. I can't split and control ling bane muta, having switched to sc2 only at the start of this year.
I despise the ravager. So I had to work on making my own style of ling festor corruptor work at diamond level. And damn, it was fun to play.
Or in zvp, I exclusively play overpool aggression into tunnel roach harass into roach hydra lurker timing
http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/322084-mechanics-is-strategy
This is my point of view on stragegy vs mechanics.
|
Apparently, the main problem of SC2 is being too easy and too hard at the same time ...
On April 20 2016 00:15 BaronVonOwn wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2016 19:36 opisska wrote:
What really boggles my mind is how people repeatedly argue that there is "not enough room for strategy" in SC2 and then the same people show BW as an example of a great game. If you think that "mechanics is everything" in SC2, have you even played BW? Because in BW, the mechanical skill needed for your strategy to begin to matter is almost incomparably higher than in SC2. The point isn't that SC2 is more "mechanically difficult." It's that mechanics trump strategy (tech, positioning) in SC2. I n BW, strategy nullified mechanics. Do you know why no one builds marines and medics in BW TvP? Because they'll get a big old fuck off psi storm or scarab and there will be marine guts everywhere. In SC2 you stim2win, snipe that lonely, shitty colossus, and /dance in the protoss's natural. Everything has been tilted in favor of mechanics in SC2. Units are faster, AOE is weaker, and DPS is higher. Also why is it 2016 and mech still isn't viable? Because it results in slower games and we can't have that in esportsCraft.
This is exactly the problem I was talking about. The only BW players left on this forum are too good to even appreciate that the bolded statement is purely absurd for anyone who would play BW even a little "casually". Most of you can probably beat me in BW even if we played TvP and you build nothing but pure marines, because you would simply have twice as many workers than myself come the fifth minute. Your, albeit anecdotal, view of SC2 is then purely simplistic and it resembles battle.net level balance whine.
I still also don't understand what exactly is that "strategy" you demand so badly. Would you prefer that both players just submit their build orders in writing and a jury decides the victor?
|
On April 20 2016 04:56 opisska wrote:Apparently, the main problem of SC2 is being too easy and too hard at the same time ... Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 00:15 BaronVonOwn wrote:On April 19 2016 19:36 opisska wrote:
What really boggles my mind is how people repeatedly argue that there is "not enough room for strategy" in SC2 and then the same people show BW as an example of a great game. If you think that "mechanics is everything" in SC2, have you even played BW? Because in BW, the mechanical skill needed for your strategy to begin to matter is almost incomparably higher than in SC2. The point isn't that SC2 is more "mechanically difficult." It's that mechanics trump strategy (tech, positioning) in SC2. I n BW, strategy nullified mechanics. Do you know why no one builds marines and medics in BW TvP? Because they'll get a big old fuck off psi storm or scarab and there will be marine guts everywhere. In SC2 you stim2win, snipe that lonely, shitty colossus, and /dance in the protoss's natural. Everything has been tilted in favor of mechanics in SC2. Units are faster, AOE is weaker, and DPS is higher. Also why is it 2016 and mech still isn't viable? Because it results in slower games and we can't have that in esportsCraft. This is exactly the problem I was talking about. The only BW players left on this forum are too good to even appreciate that the bolded statement is purely absurd for anyone who would play BW even a little "casually". Most of you can probably beat me in BW even if we played TvP and you build nothing but pure marines, because you would simply have twice as many workers than myself come the fifth minute. Your, albeit anecdotal, view of SC2 is then purely simplistic and it resembles battle.net level balance whine. I still also don't understand what exactly is that "strategy" you demand so badly. Would you prefer that both players just submit their build orders in writing and a jury decides the victor?
What? I don't even... LOL. Pure marines new meta in BW? I like how you complain about absurd statements and people not understanding BW, then immediately follow it up with that. Nothing else to say really.
|
The mechanical barrier isn't really the issue, it's what you can or can't do with your units. Unmicroed, your units have 1x efficiency. In SC2, your units have a 1.2x efficiency with micro, if that. In BW, good micro could give your units up to a 10x efficiency. As a result, build orders in SC2 revolve so much more around the macro, and build timings, than they do with micro and controlling your units intelligently. In BW, certain builds could be made that were only possible because you were good enough at using your units a certain way, simply because the potential for good control was so high.
Another thing that SC2 is failing with is the importance of terrain. It started with the lack of proper high ground advantage like you had in BW, but it doesn't stop there. Since HotS, air units have been made to be increasingly powerful, which is a grave mistake. Air units are supposed to pay in some fashion for the fact that they fly. They ignore the terrain in a map, therefore they should be generally weaker than ground units to compensate, and make ground units appealing options as well. But they don't, Oracles destroy mineral lines in seconds if left unchecked, Mutalisks are a low-risk harassment option with their speed and regeneration, Medivacs and Oracles are also insanely fast, Liberators are extremely powerful and effective space control units, filling the role that should have been filled by the siege tank(a ground unit). In BW you could tailor a build to a map using the combination of your unit control and specific terrain features in the map. You can't do this in SC2, because unit control has a much smaller impact, and the terrain often has no impact.
|
On April 20 2016 07:24 NewSunshine wrote:
The mechanical barrier isn't really the issue, it's what you can or can't do with your units. Unmicroed, your units have 1x efficiency. In SC2, your units have a 1.2x efficiency with micro, if that.
Unmicroed Sentries, Disruptors, Phoenixes, Stalkers, High Templars, Oracles, ect are all terrible. Protoss in particular has a lot of core units with abilities that require constant attention.
|
On April 20 2016 07:10 BaronVonOwn wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 04:56 opisska wrote:Apparently, the main problem of SC2 is being too easy and too hard at the same time ... On April 20 2016 00:15 BaronVonOwn wrote:On April 19 2016 19:36 opisska wrote:
What really boggles my mind is how people repeatedly argue that there is "not enough room for strategy" in SC2 and then the same people show BW as an example of a great game. If you think that "mechanics is everything" in SC2, have you even played BW? Because in BW, the mechanical skill needed for your strategy to begin to matter is almost incomparably higher than in SC2. The point isn't that SC2 is more "mechanically difficult." It's that mechanics trump strategy (tech, positioning) in SC2. I n BW, strategy nullified mechanics. Do you know why no one builds marines and medics in BW TvP? Because they'll get a big old fuck off psi storm or scarab and there will be marine guts everywhere. In SC2 you stim2win, snipe that lonely, shitty colossus, and /dance in the protoss's natural. Everything has been tilted in favor of mechanics in SC2. Units are faster, AOE is weaker, and DPS is higher. Also why is it 2016 and mech still isn't viable? Because it results in slower games and we can't have that in esportsCraft. This is exactly the problem I was talking about. The only BW players left on this forum are too good to even appreciate that the bolded statement is purely absurd for anyone who would play BW even a little "casually". Most of you can probably beat me in BW even if we played TvP and you build nothing but pure marines, because you would simply have twice as many workers than myself come the fifth minute. Your, albeit anecdotal, view of SC2 is then purely simplistic and it resembles battle.net level balance whine. I still also don't understand what exactly is that "strategy" you demand so badly. Would you prefer that both players just submit their build orders in writing and a jury decides the victor? What? I don't even... LOL. Pure marines new meta in BW? I like how you complain about absurd statements and people not understanding BW, then immediately follow it up with that. Nothing else to say really.
Are you even trying to understand what other people say, or have you come here just to shout whatever just comes through your mind into an empty chamber?
|
3358 Posts
in a strategy game there are a lot of moments where you decide micro isn't worth it.
maybe you notice it and consciously do it, maybe not.
you need to decide what you're placing your focus and attention on and do one task at a time. multitasking is a small myth in groups of casual players because issuing long move commands and timing when you'll take control again is regarded as doing a couple different things at once. i don't think so. i think a lot of players have an aversion for using fancy mechanics that would most assuredly net an edge if done in tandem with macro.
i very seldomly (let alone consistently) see players try to abuse ai by using one zergling to draw a pack of melee units around and buy time for a proper engagement--or rather, relying on such things and benefiting from the resources it frees up.
this is all because it is already so difficult to manage your economy without hiccups and without something that's diverting your attention and is equally as important to focus on.
so with that in mind, i feel that strategy in these games deals with small decision making, almost entirely.
because it is all real-time, that further adds onto the feeling that you're in control of everything about to happen.
the situation where you can lose workers and still eventually overtake in mining from a small base advantage is entirely to be expected from both players. there's the likelihood that the defending player is too taxed to minimize damage as well as continue producing, which makes that entire strategy plausible in the first place. your attacking player needs to decide whether to continue attacking or immediately take the opportunity to expand with the remaining control they have left.
there are examples earlier in this thread of situations that are more game-winning than others. i disagree with each one of them because there are ways to spin those moments around. my point is that most people won't even bother or think of doing it. it's the reward aspect of all of it.
as much as people will argue against it, i originally thought people just loved mech because they like how empowering it is and seeing blue goo all over the ground, and the sound of protoss units dying. i still don't think that's far off.
i just don't like the idea of pretending that the reasons for it is more complicated than it really is.
i guarantee that most people who main terran for this feeling will not be admitting that it's thrilling to play from the protoss perspective playing into the mech but have experiences of the opposite.
as much as starcraft 2 is about overarching strategy and being able to deal with certain builds from every race, on every map, scbw is about feel and pacing. feel and pacing is the way units control and represent a part of the map, respectively.
a group of zerglings can be scarier for a longer time depending on if you know or how you typically deal with them.
you can get away with a lot of stuff just by having the right unit and doing the right control.this plays into a lot of (potentially) complex situations where there's no obvious answer and low economy and a slower game becomes the standard.
in starcraft 2 the macro is quite easy to understand and to benefit from, so your stronger early-game strategies abuse and abuse until you need to move on in the game. there is still easy-to-medium obtainable tech that you can get to swing the situation around quite quickly.
i don't know how to explain the thought at all, but the games have and give you a different focus and both have limiting options influenced by your enjoyment [of] or preference in the mechanics involved.
for all purposes i just like dragoons more than stalkers or vultures more than hellions.
stalkers provide a lot more durability and movement compared to dragoons and so if i'm forced to make something else than dragoons then that's fine as well. i'll make zealots or reavers because those are cool with me too. in star2 i can continue producing batches of stalkers if i want to because they're good for many situations. or, i could just fast tech with the right scouting and pretend they never existed.
there tends to be a discussion on the fast pace of the game and the difficulty. i just don't see it.
you make the game as difficult as it is both in the sense that there are less cushions and that your preferences reflect on your other options. i tend to think that lazier or more narrow-minded players feel more limited in how they can play or win.. which is totally fine. you know, you can't just do whatever you want and win however you want. you can't just not practice something and expect it to work; everyone understands this. someone is on the other side hopefully playing like you exist and as though have a mind of your own. it's just the level of thinking beyond all that is what is limiting players in starcraft 2 it feels--that, along with a less rewarding experience through it all.
you want to do equally sick control as something you did in your BW BGH yesteryears? you can do that in sc2. you just have to work hard and obtain workable skills that incorporate that control and ultimately make it something meaningful.
|
" mechanics also trumped strategy in BW. Probably even more than in SC2."
Sorry but that's just not accurate, mechanics were important but they weren't to the point of doing constantly monotonous easily removed tasks so that your giant ball of junk can crush the enemy's giant ball in 2 inches off center of the map.
Positioning actually mattered, and not the composition hard counters you made.
|
I heard strategy means something about being smart - i'm a smart person - i'll claim strategy>mechanics, though i don't really understand what all these words mean and what makes a RTS gameplay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
