EPTArtosis says SC2 is more strategic than BW - Page 15
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
SixStrings
Germany2046 Posts
| ||
|
Penev
28512 Posts
| ||
|
avilo
United States4100 Posts
When Artosis or anyone says SC2 is more strategic than SC1 i think what they really meant is that the decisions you make in SC2 are weighed more heavily than the decisions you make in SC1. Both games obviously require insane strategy, if not the same amount of strategy. But whereas in SC1 it's 99% mechanics in order to implement your strategy, you have a lot of room decision making wise to mess up because per minute you are making way more decisions in SC1. In SC2, there are a lot less decisions you're making because the mechanics of the game are so much easier, but the decisions you make have much more impact on whether or not you win or lose the game aka "SC2 is more strategic." An example of this would be microing vultures, where to place the mines, where to move your vultures, microing the vultures, and so on. This requires intense mechanical play to achieve and you are making a ton of decisions in a short time span with these units, and just because you made these units does not mean you will suddenly lose the game...because vulture/mines are a soft counter and do well against most units in the game, even units in the game that are meant to counter the vulture such as the dragoon. Whereas in SC2...the mere act of deciding to build hellions and having them on the map changes the entire course of the game by itself. You chose to build hellions...hellions are only useful against light units...if you're opponent has stalkers...your hellions become utterly useless and the game swings more heavily due to your simple decision to make hellions instead of tech labbing your factory in the first place. In the above examples, SC1 you make a decision to make vultures and you are not punished so severely and the unit is still useful because there are no hard counters. In SC2 you make a decision to make hellions and you sometimes can just autolose the game if your opponent decided to go roach first ZvT or for blink stalkers. However people want to interpret it semantically, it's true that SC2 decisions have a higher impact on the course of an SC2 game than decisions did in SC1. If people want to shorthand that as, "SC2 is more strategic than SC1" then go for it. | ||
|
quirinus
Croatia2489 Posts
Making one mistake and losing the game for it makes SC2 a not so strategic game. If it weren't for that, we could discuss it, but as it is, BW is more strategic. | ||
ArvickHero
10387 Posts
one could also say that making those kinds of micro decisions actually fall under "tactical" decision-making, since strategy pertains to a macroscopic view of the game. | ||
|
DinoMight
United States3725 Posts
On July 01 2015 02:56 quirinus wrote: No, you guys don't get it. Making one mistake and losing the game for it does not make SC2 a good strategic game. If it weren't for that, we could discuss it, but as it is, BW is more strategic. Making one mistake and losing the game in sc2 is the most boring TL troll cliché out there. Some mistakes are game ending, yes. But comebacks happen all the time. Stop it already. | ||
|
DinoMight
United States3725 Posts
On July 01 2015 02:57 ArvickHero wrote: one could argue that having more opportunities to make decisions would mean it's more "strategic". one could also say that making those kinds of micro decisions actually fall under "tactical" decision-making, since strategy pertains to a macroscopic view of the game. I think in terms of absolute number of decisions sure, you might say more are made in BW because, for example, you have 10 Vultures with 3 Spider Mines each... that's 30 decisions! Wow! But I think that's not what "strategy" really is. Strategy to me is the DECISION to make Vultures in the first place. Strategy is anticipating your opponent will open a certain way and responding with a build. When MVP proxy raxes in game 7 of a GSL finals, that's strategy. He's read his opponent, anticipated his next move, and executed a build that counters it. | ||
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19307 Posts
| ||
|
DinosaurJones
United States1000 Posts
On July 01 2015 03:05 BisuDagger wrote: Well I can't open page 14 at work (which I already did once). Not to ruin fun, but please spoiler the pictures. Definitely had the same problem, lol. | ||
|
ArvickHero
10387 Posts
On July 01 2015 03:03 DinoMight wrote: I think in terms of absolute number of decisions sure, you might say more are made in BW because, for example, you have 10 Vultures with 3 Spider Mines each... that's 30 decisions! Wow! But I think that's not what "strategy" really is. Strategy to me is the DECISION to make Vultures in the first place. Strategy is anticipating your opponent will open a certain way and responding with a build. When MVP proxy raxes in game 7 of a GSL finals, that's strategy. He's read his opponent, anticipated his next move, and executed a build that counters it. yea that's what my second line is implying, that it's actually a tactical decision and not a strategic one but watch out, Artosis doesn't think proxy rax is a strategy, he thinks it's a dirty cheese relying on dumb luck and therefore not real strategy | ||
|
DinoMight
United States3725 Posts
On July 01 2015 03:06 ArvickHero wrote: yea that's what my second line is implying, that it's actually a tactical decision and not a strategic one but watch out, Artosis doesn't think proxy rax is a strategy, he thinks it's a dirty cheese relying on dumb luck and therefore not real strategy Artosis doesn't like playing against cheese so he is a bit biased. If you've ever seen him lose to cheese on the ladder you'll know what I'm talking about haha. But I mean... something like Naniwa's proxy gates vs Hyun in game 7 at IEM... that is definitely strategy. Dude had been going 3 hatch before pool. Or Life's ling rush vs. Parting last GSL game 7. Parting played greedy expecting life to play greedy.. life cheesed his ass. Next level thinking right there. | ||
|
Acritter
Syria7637 Posts
Really, I have no opinion on the matter and don't care to hold one. It's just interesting to think about. | ||
|
ArvickHero
10387 Posts
On July 01 2015 03:09 DinoMight wrote: Artosis doesn't like playing against cheese so he is a bit biased. If you've ever seen him lose to cheese on the ladder you'll know what I'm talking about haha. But I mean... something like Naniwa's proxy gates vs Hyun in game 7 at IEM... that is definitely strategy. Dude had been going 3 hatch before pool. Or Life's ling rush vs. Parting last GSL game 7. Parting played greedy expecting life to play greedy.. life cheesed his ass. Next level thinking right there. this is nothing I would dispute nor disagree with lol | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On July 01 2015 03:06 ArvickHero wrote: yea that's what my second line is implying, that it's actually a tactical decision and not a strategic one but watch out, Artosis doesn't think proxy rax is a strategy, he thinks it's a dirty cheese relying on dumb luck and therefore not real strategy Of course he thinks it is a real strategy. It is just a bad one in a vacuum, because you put the odds on circumstances you cannot control and that are lower than the odds of a macro strategy (which are 50% in a balanced game). However he has said on many occasions that mixing in cheese to increase your overall winchances over the course of multiple games (by becoming less predictable) is a good strategy. And that if you don't believe you have that winchance in a macro game because you are mechanically worse, it makes sense to cheese and put your hope on odds that neither you, nor your superior opponent can control overly well. | ||
|
w3c.TruE
Czech Republic1055 Posts
| ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
| ||
|
DinoMight
United States3725 Posts
On July 01 2015 03:13 Acritter wrote: I have to wonder. Is a game that has been solved strategic any longer? For example, is tic-tac-toe a strategy game even when anyone can play it with strategic perfection? If not, then is it true that any game that has been explored more in terms of its strategy considered less strategic to play than a comparable game that hasn't been explored as much? If that proposition is true, BW might be less strategic purely based on people having spent more time figuring it out. Really, I have no opinion on the matter and don't care to hold one. It's just interesting to think about. The difference I think is that imperfect execution can lead you to weird scenarios where you have to change your strategy. The best players are those who are able to quickly analyze a situation and decide what the optimal strategy from that point on are. This happens after failed all-ins, or in a base-race scenario. In a game like tic-tac-toe there is no execution risk so as long as you understand the basic rules you will draw every game. | ||
|
w3c.TruE
Czech Republic1055 Posts
On July 01 2015 02:59 DinoMight wrote: Making one mistake and losing the game in sc2 is the most boring TL troll cliché out there. Some mistakes are game ending, yes. But comebacks happen all the time. Stop it already. No! Comebacks don't exist in SC2. In SC2, there are only throws, no comebacks  | ||
|
quirinus
Croatia2489 Posts
On July 01 2015 02:59 DinoMight wrote: Making one mistake and losing the game in sc2 is the most boring TL troll cliché out there. Some mistakes are game ending, yes. But comebacks happen all the time. Stop it already. What? How is it a troll cliche when it's completely true. I don't understand some people... And I didn't say all games are like that, way to generalize; but there ARE a lot more games like that in SC2 than in BW. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
| ||
| ||
