|
On July 01 2015 00:02 JieXian wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 23:58 Bannt wrote:
I might be off-base with this but it's something to think about.
Perhaps broodwar had the illusion of such great balance and strategic options precisely because of the difficulty of the mechanics. Since mechanics counted so much all races would stay fairly close as long as the relevant pros were of comparable level.
Also the game still evolving after 10 years is an indication as well. The mechanics were difficult so it took pros a very very long time to slowly increase asymptotically towards an (unreachable?) cap. As they get better and better more options open up changing the meta...but only at the rate allowed by increased mechanical skill.
Sorry if this has been posted and I"m making no claims as to which game is better. Just a possible way to view things. You are off base but it's okay because you're not coming from a place of arrogance. BW was imba as hell. The races were balanced by the maps. BW can be easily made imba towards a desired matchup by crafting maps to in a way that achieves that. Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 00:00 DinoMight wrote:On June 30 2015 23:58 Bannt wrote:
I might be off-base with this but it's something to think about.
Perhaps broodwar had the illusion of such great balance and strategic options precisely because of the difficulty of the mechanics. Since mechanics counted so much all races would stay fairly close as long as the relevant pros were of comparable level.
Also the game still evolving after 10 years is an indication as well. The mechanics were difficult so it took pros a very very long time to slowly increase asymptotically towards an (unreachable?) cap. As they get better and better more options open up changing the meta...but only at the rate allowed by increased mechanical skill.
Sorry if this has been posted and I"m making no claims as to which game is better. Just a possible way to view things. This times a billion. Seriously, I don't know how people don't see this. Because it's completely wrong. Seriously I don't know why people who don't know the game are making assumptions.
Lol. And who are you to tell me I know nothing about the game? People like you make forums an awful place. I played SC1 on release day buddy.
SC2 can also be balanced by maps... you guys remember how much fun TvP was on heavy rain?
|
On June 30 2015 23:40 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 23:35 The_Red_Viper wrote:On June 30 2015 23:06 DinoMight wrote:On June 30 2015 22:48 The_Red_Viper wrote:On June 30 2015 22:44 DinoMight wrote:
I don't think SC2 is by nature more strategic. I think that BW is harder mechanically so that strategy is relatively less important because simply being able to make more stuff can get you ahead.
Macro in SC2 is relatively easier to at the pro level the games are more about strategy and less about who can click buttons faster.
That's not to say strategy and mechanics are not important in either game.
So I can agree with Artosis here. That's a weird way of looking at it though. I can say the same about sc2 gold league vs gm, strategy is irrelevant cause one player is mechanically way better than the other. strategy becomes relevant when this isn't the case anymore, when both players are reasonable close to each other mechanically. In BW this "reasonably closer" might be harder to achieve (maybe?) and thus mechanics play a more important role, that doesn't really say anything about strategic depth though, you simply need two players close to each other, and that in BOTH games. Well I think what he means is that most SC2 pros can macro/control their units WELL ENOUGH that strategy becomes more of a deciding factor. As opposed to BW where even among pros there was a visible disparity between the top tier players and the rest of the pack. The good players would just have a ton more stuff. See my point is that this concept is relative to the people playing the game vs each other. If Maru plays vs lesser protoss players (like for example Myungsik) he simply beats them cause his mechanics are superior and not cause he uses a better strategy. If he plays vs Parting this might not be true anymore. It doesn't matter what game we are looking at, the importance of strategy is decided by how close the players are mechanically. It's true for BW and it's true for sc2 as well. Someone might say that in sc2 in general more (pro) players are close to each other and thus the strategic part is more important in general (1), maybe that's true, i don't know. Now Artosis also talks about "deeper strategy" though, which is an entirely different argument to make. I don't know much about BW strategy so i won't comment on it too much, but even if (1) is true, the jump from it to 'sc2 is a deeper strategical game' is simply not logical without additional reasonings. He failed to deliver those imo, which is why i disliked the blog. Yeah but there are a few things here... 1) Maru is the best Terran in the world. 2) Maru plays a specific STRATEGY.... which is to skip Vikings and Ghosts, sacrificing long-term compositional viability to abuse his ridiculous mechanics early on. 3) There will always be outliers... Maru, Parting, Life.. who can simply beat people with Micro/Mechanics. But when you look at Rogue or Hyun.... the primay differentiator between them is not mechanics. It's strategy. Rogue is muuuuch more sophisticated in his play. And that's what I think Artosis means. Sure there are outliers. But when you look at a rando selection of pros, the mechanical skill is more even than it was in BW, in part because Blizzard made macro and controling your units easier.
1) and 2) aren't important at all. The same can be said about Bisu in BW for example.
3) Ok so the point is that if we look at a certain mechanical skill level X and go Y% in both directions (Y is the point where mechanics still won't give you the edge) there will be more players in that zone for sc2?
Thus the strategic part is more important? Is that even true though?
But as i said, Artosis doesn't stop here, he calls sc2 "deeper", also because of hardcounters.
This alone is a part of his blog which is just bad, he says hardcounters "add depth", he completely neglects that BW had also game mechanics which aren't present in sc2 though. Adding hardcounters and thus more importance to perfect unit compositions doesn't automatically mean there is more strategic depth.
I really dislike his blog :/
|
On July 01 2015 00:10 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 23:40 DinoMight wrote:On June 30 2015 23:35 The_Red_Viper wrote:On June 30 2015 23:06 DinoMight wrote:On June 30 2015 22:48 The_Red_Viper wrote:On June 30 2015 22:44 DinoMight wrote:
I don't think SC2 is by nature more strategic. I think that BW is harder mechanically so that strategy is relatively less important because simply being able to make more stuff can get you ahead.
Macro in SC2 is relatively easier to at the pro level the games are more about strategy and less about who can click buttons faster.
That's not to say strategy and mechanics are not important in either game.
So I can agree with Artosis here. That's a weird way of looking at it though. I can say the same about sc2 gold league vs gm, strategy is irrelevant cause one player is mechanically way better than the other. strategy becomes relevant when this isn't the case anymore, when both players are reasonable close to each other mechanically. In BW this "reasonably closer" might be harder to achieve (maybe?) and thus mechanics play a more important role, that doesn't really say anything about strategic depth though, you simply need two players close to each other, and that in BOTH games. Well I think what he means is that most SC2 pros can macro/control their units WELL ENOUGH that strategy becomes more of a deciding factor. As opposed to BW where even among pros there was a visible disparity between the top tier players and the rest of the pack. The good players would just have a ton more stuff. See my point is that this concept is relative to the people playing the game vs each other. If Maru plays vs lesser protoss players (like for example Myungsik) he simply beats them cause his mechanics are superior and not cause he uses a better strategy. If he plays vs Parting this might not be true anymore. It doesn't matter what game we are looking at, the importance of strategy is decided by how close the players are mechanically. It's true for BW and it's true for sc2 as well. Someone might say that in sc2 in general more (pro) players are close to each other and thus the strategic part is more important in general (1), maybe that's true, i don't know. Now Artosis also talks about "deeper strategy" though, which is an entirely different argument to make. I don't know much about BW strategy so i won't comment on it too much, but even if (1) is true, the jump from it to 'sc2 is a deeper strategical game' is simply not logical without additional reasonings. He failed to deliver those imo, which is why i disliked the blog. Yeah but there are a few things here... 1) Maru is the best Terran in the world. 2) Maru plays a specific STRATEGY.... which is to skip Vikings and Ghosts, sacrificing long-term compositional viability to abuse his ridiculous mechanics early on. 3) There will always be outliers... Maru, Parting, Life.. who can simply beat people with Micro/Mechanics. But when you look at Rogue or Hyun.... the primay differentiator between them is not mechanics. It's strategy. Rogue is muuuuch more sophisticated in his play. And that's what I think Artosis means. Sure there are outliers. But when you look at a rando selection of pros, the mechanical skill is more even than it was in BW, in part because Blizzard made macro and controling your units easier. 1) and 2) aren't important at all. The same can be said about Bisu in BW for example. 3) Ok so the point is that if we look at a certain mechanical skill level X and go Y% in both directions (Y is the point where mechanics still won't give you the edge) there will be more players in that zone for sc2? Thus the strategic part is more important? Is that even true though? But as i said, Artosis doesn't stop here, he calls sc2 "deeper", also because of hardcounters. This alone is a part of his blog which is just bad, he says hardcounters "add depth", he completely neglects that BW had also game mechanics which aren't present in sc2 though. Adding hardcounters and thus more importance to perfect unit compositions doesn't automatically mean there is more strategic depth. I really dislike his blog :/
Well I think if all units can fight each other somewhat reasonably then your choice of units is less important.
But if certain units are really good vs other kinds (hard counters) then the decision to produce one kind of unit or another is more impactful.
|
I am glad Wax still post on TL to provide quality content like this.
I will take this as serious as Artosis predictions about the mech revolution
|
United Kingdom20276 Posts
Both are RTS (Real Time Strategy) games, but they have different emphasises. SC1 is a Real Time Strategy game, and SC2 is a Real Time Strategy game.
lol that doesn't really work in quote
|
Japan11285 Posts
On July 01 2015 00:02 Musicus wrote:
Not enough graphs on the last two pages!
Since Wax is still fishing for Rekrul
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/XdxprC9.png)
|
I got one too!!!
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/rUb5uCq.png)
|
On July 01 2015 00:18 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 00:10 The_Red_Viper wrote:On June 30 2015 23:40 DinoMight wrote:On June 30 2015 23:35 The_Red_Viper wrote:On June 30 2015 23:06 DinoMight wrote:On June 30 2015 22:48 The_Red_Viper wrote:On June 30 2015 22:44 DinoMight wrote:
I don't think SC2 is by nature more strategic. I think that BW is harder mechanically so that strategy is relatively less important because simply being able to make more stuff can get you ahead.
Macro in SC2 is relatively easier to at the pro level the games are more about strategy and less about who can click buttons faster.
That's not to say strategy and mechanics are not important in either game.
So I can agree with Artosis here. That's a weird way of looking at it though. I can say the same about sc2 gold league vs gm, strategy is irrelevant cause one player is mechanically way better than the other. strategy becomes relevant when this isn't the case anymore, when both players are reasonable close to each other mechanically. In BW this "reasonably closer" might be harder to achieve (maybe?) and thus mechanics play a more important role, that doesn't really say anything about strategic depth though, you simply need two players close to each other, and that in BOTH games. Well I think what he means is that most SC2 pros can macro/control their units WELL ENOUGH that strategy becomes more of a deciding factor. As opposed to BW where even among pros there was a visible disparity between the top tier players and the rest of the pack. The good players would just have a ton more stuff. See my point is that this concept is relative to the people playing the game vs each other. If Maru plays vs lesser protoss players (like for example Myungsik) he simply beats them cause his mechanics are superior and not cause he uses a better strategy. If he plays vs Parting this might not be true anymore. It doesn't matter what game we are looking at, the importance of strategy is decided by how close the players are mechanically. It's true for BW and it's true for sc2 as well. Someone might say that in sc2 in general more (pro) players are close to each other and thus the strategic part is more important in general (1), maybe that's true, i don't know. Now Artosis also talks about "deeper strategy" though, which is an entirely different argument to make. I don't know much about BW strategy so i won't comment on it too much, but even if (1) is true, the jump from it to 'sc2 is a deeper strategical game' is simply not logical without additional reasonings. He failed to deliver those imo, which is why i disliked the blog. Yeah but there are a few things here... 1) Maru is the best Terran in the world. 2) Maru plays a specific STRATEGY.... which is to skip Vikings and Ghosts, sacrificing long-term compositional viability to abuse his ridiculous mechanics early on. 3) There will always be outliers... Maru, Parting, Life.. who can simply beat people with Micro/Mechanics. But when you look at Rogue or Hyun.... the primay differentiator between them is not mechanics. It's strategy. Rogue is muuuuch more sophisticated in his play. And that's what I think Artosis means. Sure there are outliers. But when you look at a rando selection of pros, the mechanical skill is more even than it was in BW, in part because Blizzard made macro and controling your units easier. 1) and 2) aren't important at all. The same can be said about Bisu in BW for example. 3) Ok so the point is that if we look at a certain mechanical skill level X and go Y% in both directions (Y is the point where mechanics still won't give you the edge) there will be more players in that zone for sc2? Thus the strategic part is more important? Is that even true though? But as i said, Artosis doesn't stop here, he calls sc2 "deeper", also because of hardcounters. This alone is a part of his blog which is just bad, he says hardcounters "add depth", he completely neglects that BW had also game mechanics which aren't present in sc2 though. Adding hardcounters and thus more importance to perfect unit compositions doesn't automatically mean there is more strategic depth. I really dislike his blog :/ Well I think if all units can fight each other somewhat reasonably then your choice of units is less important. But if certain units are really good vs other kinds (hard counters) then the decision to produce one kind of unit or another is more impactful.
I meant this one aspect doesn't mean that the overall strategic depth is greater, there is more to depth than the importance of unit compositions.
He mentions hardcounters (aka importance of unit compositions) as an added aspect of strategic depth, as if BW had no strategic game mechanics which aren't in sc2.
He also talks about "depth" and not really relative importance here if you ask me.
I read his blog as 'the absolute straetgic depth of sc2 is greater'
He doesn't really explain WHY that is though, which is disappointing
|
To those who claim that SC2 is more 'strategic' than BW (whatever that means, in your book), here's a question:
Who do you consider the most strategic players in SC2? (feel free to name different players for different eras i.e. 2011-2015)
|
ALLEYCAT BLUES49505 Posts
On July 01 2015 00:22 c3rberUs wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 00:02 Musicus wrote:
Not enough graphs on the last two pages! Since Wax is still fishing for Rekrul
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/QnnSETF.png)
I see your graph and raise you flowchart.
|
On July 01 2015 00:07 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 00:02 JieXian wrote:On June 30 2015 23:58 Bannt wrote:
I might be off-base with this but it's something to think about.
Perhaps broodwar had the illusion of such great balance and strategic options precisely because of the difficulty of the mechanics. Since mechanics counted so much all races would stay fairly close as long as the relevant pros were of comparable level.
Also the game still evolving after 10 years is an indication as well. The mechanics were difficult so it took pros a very very long time to slowly increase asymptotically towards an (unreachable?) cap. As they get better and better more options open up changing the meta...but only at the rate allowed by increased mechanical skill.
Sorry if this has been posted and I"m making no claims as to which game is better. Just a possible way to view things. You are off base but it's okay because you're not coming from a place of arrogance. BW was imba as hell. The races were balanced by the maps. BW can be easily made imba towards a desired matchup by crafting maps to in a way that achieves that. On July 01 2015 00:00 DinoMight wrote:On June 30 2015 23:58 Bannt wrote:
I might be off-base with this but it's something to think about.
Perhaps broodwar had the illusion of such great balance and strategic options precisely because of the difficulty of the mechanics. Since mechanics counted so much all races would stay fairly close as long as the relevant pros were of comparable level.
Also the game still evolving after 10 years is an indication as well. The mechanics were difficult so it took pros a very very long time to slowly increase asymptotically towards an (unreachable?) cap. As they get better and better more options open up changing the meta...but only at the rate allowed by increased mechanical skill.
Sorry if this has been posted and I"m making no claims as to which game is better. Just a possible way to view things. This times a billion. Seriously, I don't know how people don't see this. Because it's completely wrong. Seriously I don't know why people who don't know the game are making assumptions. Lol. And who are you to tell me I know nothing about the game? People like you make forums an awful place. I played SC1 on release day buddy. SC2 can also be balanced by maps... you guys remember how much fun TvP was on heavy rain?
what's your max rank? Because you sound like you have no idea about BW, that's why he suspected that.
|
What's to discuss about, Artosis is absolutely right.
SC2=brains; BW=reflexes
|
On July 01 2015 00:38 juvenal wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 00:07 DinoMight wrote:On July 01 2015 00:02 JieXian wrote:On June 30 2015 23:58 Bannt wrote:
I might be off-base with this but it's something to think about.
Perhaps broodwar had the illusion of such great balance and strategic options precisely because of the difficulty of the mechanics. Since mechanics counted so much all races would stay fairly close as long as the relevant pros were of comparable level.
Also the game still evolving after 10 years is an indication as well. The mechanics were difficult so it took pros a very very long time to slowly increase asymptotically towards an (unreachable?) cap. As they get better and better more options open up changing the meta...but only at the rate allowed by increased mechanical skill.
Sorry if this has been posted and I"m making no claims as to which game is better. Just a possible way to view things. You are off base but it's okay because you're not coming from a place of arrogance. BW was imba as hell. The races were balanced by the maps. BW can be easily made imba towards a desired matchup by crafting maps to in a way that achieves that. On July 01 2015 00:00 DinoMight wrote:On June 30 2015 23:58 Bannt wrote:
I might be off-base with this but it's something to think about.
Perhaps broodwar had the illusion of such great balance and strategic options precisely because of the difficulty of the mechanics. Since mechanics counted so much all races would stay fairly close as long as the relevant pros were of comparable level.
Also the game still evolving after 10 years is an indication as well. The mechanics were difficult so it took pros a very very long time to slowly increase asymptotically towards an (unreachable?) cap. As they get better and better more options open up changing the meta...but only at the rate allowed by increased mechanical skill.
Sorry if this has been posted and I"m making no claims as to which game is better. Just a possible way to view things. This times a billion. Seriously, I don't know how people don't see this. Because it's completely wrong. Seriously I don't know why people who don't know the game are making assumptions. Lol. And who are you to tell me I know nothing about the game? People like you make forums an awful place. I played SC1 on release day buddy. SC2 can also be balanced by maps... you guys remember how much fun TvP was on heavy rain? what's your max rank? Because you sound like you have no idea about BW, that's why he suspected that.
what was Rob Pardo's maximum rank?
i agree with Dinomight's and Bannt's perspectives on this.
|
On July 01 2015 00:33 RKC wrote:
To those who claim that SC2 is more 'strategic' than BW (whatever that means, in your book), here's a question:
Who do you consider the most strategic players in SC2? (feel free to name different players for different eras i.e. 2011-2015)
Loaded question! Let's see.
MVP for sure. Dude's hands were numb from injury while he played some of those GSL games.
sOs. Proleague players are TERRIFIED of him because they never know what he's going to do. His super unorthodox builds take players by surprise and put him in control of the game.
Taeja. Dude's game sense and decision making is insane. Always knows exactly what the opponent is up to even with minmal scouting.
San. Let's face it, his mechanics are horrible lol. Won with builds/strategy alone.
Leenock. At his prime he was busting out all sorts of ridiculous builds that nobody was prepared for.
Compare that to players like Parting, Maru, Bomber, Rain or Innovation... where you know exactly what they're doing but struggle to hold it anyway.
|
It's really quiet simple, no need to argue about mechanics and strategy.
Bw: basketball with 10ft rim.
sc2: basketball with 6ft rim.
|
It's easier to make units in sc2, coupled with hard counter units like the immortal. What artie said makes sense to me.
|
On July 01 2015 00:48 jinorazi wrote:
It's really quiet simple, no need to argue about mechanics and strategy.
Bw: basketball with 10ft rim.
sc2: basketball with 6ft rim.
So everyone can dunk and feel goodie goodie.
more sports analogies while we wait for the ms paint people to make more charts:
bw: normal soccer/football, you have to dribble the ball and stuff, but oh no, that's artificial difficulty!
sc2: soccer 2.0, you can hold the ball and throw it, and people can't tackle you since that's mean. it's more strategic since now it's all about positioning and catching your opponent by surprise since you can't outplay them with dribbling mechanics
|
On July 01 2015 00:47 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 00:38 juvenal wrote:On July 01 2015 00:07 DinoMight wrote:On July 01 2015 00:02 JieXian wrote:On June 30 2015 23:58 Bannt wrote:
I might be off-base with this but it's something to think about.
Perhaps broodwar had the illusion of such great balance and strategic options precisely because of the difficulty of the mechanics. Since mechanics counted so much all races would stay fairly close as long as the relevant pros were of comparable level.
Also the game still evolving after 10 years is an indication as well. The mechanics were difficult so it took pros a very very long time to slowly increase asymptotically towards an (unreachable?) cap. As they get better and better more options open up changing the meta...but only at the rate allowed by increased mechanical skill.
Sorry if this has been posted and I"m making no claims as to which game is better. Just a possible way to view things. You are off base but it's okay because you're not coming from a place of arrogance. BW was imba as hell. The races were balanced by the maps. BW can be easily made imba towards a desired matchup by crafting maps to in a way that achieves that. On July 01 2015 00:00 DinoMight wrote:On June 30 2015 23:58 Bannt wrote:
I might be off-base with this but it's something to think about.
Perhaps broodwar had the illusion of such great balance and strategic options precisely because of the difficulty of the mechanics. Since mechanics counted so much all races would stay fairly close as long as the relevant pros were of comparable level.
Also the game still evolving after 10 years is an indication as well. The mechanics were difficult so it took pros a very very long time to slowly increase asymptotically towards an (unreachable?) cap. As they get better and better more options open up changing the meta...but only at the rate allowed by increased mechanical skill.
Sorry if this has been posted and I"m making no claims as to which game is better. Just a possible way to view things. This times a billion. Seriously, I don't know how people don't see this. Because it's completely wrong. Seriously I don't know why people who don't know the game are making assumptions. Lol. And who are you to tell me I know nothing about the game? People like you make forums an awful place. I played SC1 on release day buddy. SC2 can also be balanced by maps... you guys remember how much fun TvP was on heavy rain? what's your max rank? Because you sound like you have no idea about BW, that's why he suspected that. what was Rob Pardo's maximum rank?
fine, I'll ask this then: what's the default build orders in bw ZvT for both sides? What happens in the late game and why?
|
On July 01 2015 00:07 DinoMight wrote:
SC2 can also be balanced by maps... you guys remember how much fun TvP was on heavy rain?
Can you make a map that's as good for Terran in TvP as Heavy Rain, Polar Night, and Yeonsu were for Protoss?
|
On July 01 2015 00:51 juvenal wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 00:47 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On July 01 2015 00:38 juvenal wrote:On July 01 2015 00:07 DinoMight wrote:On July 01 2015 00:02 JieXian wrote:On June 30 2015 23:58 Bannt wrote:
I might be off-base with this but it's something to think about.
Perhaps broodwar had the illusion of such great balance and strategic options precisely because of the difficulty of the mechanics. Since mechanics counted so much all races would stay fairly close as long as the relevant pros were of comparable level.
Also the game still evolving after 10 years is an indication as well. The mechanics were difficult so it took pros a very very long time to slowly increase asymptotically towards an (unreachable?) cap. As they get better and better more options open up changing the meta...but only at the rate allowed by increased mechanical skill.
Sorry if this has been posted and I"m making no claims as to which game is better. Just a possible way to view things. You are off base but it's okay because you're not coming from a place of arrogance. BW was imba as hell. The races were balanced by the maps. BW can be easily made imba towards a desired matchup by crafting maps to in a way that achieves that. On July 01 2015 00:00 DinoMight wrote:On June 30 2015 23:58 Bannt wrote:
I might be off-base with this but it's something to think about.
Perhaps broodwar had the illusion of such great balance and strategic options precisely because of the difficulty of the mechanics. Since mechanics counted so much all races would stay fairly close as long as the relevant pros were of comparable level.
Also the game still evolving after 10 years is an indication as well. The mechanics were difficult so it took pros a very very long time to slowly increase asymptotically towards an (unreachable?) cap. As they get better and better more options open up changing the meta...but only at the rate allowed by increased mechanical skill.
Sorry if this has been posted and I"m making no claims as to which game is better. Just a possible way to view things. This times a billion. Seriously, I don't know how people don't see this. Because it's completely wrong. Seriously I don't know why people who don't know the game are making assumptions. Lol. And who are you to tell me I know nothing about the game? People like you make forums an awful place. I played SC1 on release day buddy. SC2 can also be balanced by maps... you guys remember how much fun TvP was on heavy rain? what's your max rank? Because you sound like you have no idea about BW, that's why he suspected that. what was Rob Pardo's maximum rank? fine, I'll ask this then: what's the default build orders in bw ZvT for both sides? What happens in the late game and why?
By default your question implies SC2 has more strategic depth than BW.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
