EPTArtosis says SC2 is more strategic than BW - Page 17
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
FeyFey
Germany10114 Posts
| ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3483 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://media.tumblr.com/ddaa1cbe01b79f887872675875fc70c6/tumblr_inline_mi8nzb9sTC1qz4rgp.jpg) BW: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://www.traveloutthere.com/files/photo_gallery/457x306/sumo%20suit%20wrestling7.jpg) | ||
|
SuperHofmann
Italy1741 Posts
| ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On July 01 2015 04:45 SuperHofmann wrote: And Hearthstone is more strategic than Magic. LOL. This is why GSL need a new caster imho No, Artosis is into Heroes of the storm now, it's more strategic than Dota for sure! | ||
|
malady
United States600 Posts
On July 01 2015 04:50 The_Red_Viper wrote: No, Artosis is into Heroes of the storm now, it's more strategic than Dota for sure! haha I wouldn't be surprised, good ol artosis trying to stay relevant. | ||
|
iloveav
Poland1481 Posts
Sc1 requires more mechanics due to the fact that its easier to be able to ponder your situation in the game than in sc2. I think it does come to personal flavour however. My main problem with SC2 in terms of strategy ahs always been that there are so many builds that its hardly possible to play a standard economical, long term game unless you have full information. This would certainly carry over to broodwar as well (the game that flash lost tvp becasue he did not scan the reaver drop comes to mind), however it would be much less so, since even in making the wrong strategial decision, skill could overcome the disadvantage. I do not see that happen often in sc2 (again, it does happen, just not often). The last part that I do not like regarding sc2 is that micro looses a lot of its importance once army compositions become one sided. In broodwar, armies were very, very rearly one sided assuming both players managed to be in similar economical positions in the game. I think that was one of the key things that made broodwar so popular and so interesting to watch: On paper, one of the two players would have the better army, yet with very fast, clean and precise micro, it was quite possible to even the odds. (This was something considered very bold, becasue if it failed, it was in most cases your doom). In SC2 this would happen as well, but again, in very very few cases, due to the fact that doing something like flanking colosus to beat them without vikins for example would take quite a lot of carefull control, while setting a few forcefields would be far easier at that point for the Protoss. Its not that broodwar had better micro or more difficult micro, but allowed for creativity in micro. In sc2, those moments are rare due to how simple it is to counter them, provided you ahve the right army. In the end for me, it was more about enjoying those moments when I did something I did not expect to work and at a moment of desperation, true jems of micro appeared. I never had that feeling in SC2 (creating something myself, something others never thought about, or at least, not taht I knew of). | ||
|
Cheren
United States2911 Posts
let you guys know when i find it. edit: actually he said something correct, he said that creative foreigners will find ways to beat koreans at first but eventually koreans will dominate, sorry for getting anyone's hopes up | ||
|
Endymion
United States3701 Posts
On July 01 2015 03:52 SixStrings wrote: That's the beauty of Broodwar, though. Pro-Gamers like Flash, Jaedong and Artosis expanded the boundaries of what was previously thought impossible for human beings. Physically and mentally. They transcended the status of mere humans and proved time and time again, in OSL, MSL and WCG USA East Qualifier 5, that the frontier of the human mind was more expandable than you and I could even fathom. and artosis are you kidding | ||
|
ninazerg
United States7291 Posts
I told you not to post here. I TOLD YOU IT WAS A TRICK. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 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. You can't have a discussion about words which aren't well defined and everyone in this thread has a different interpretation of the words strategy, mechanics and decision making. It's an interesting topic, but it shouldn't be held in the context of this post, which tries to provoke SC2 vs BW flame wars. On July 01 2015 00:51 Cheren wrote: 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 I don't really want to contribute any arguments to this thread, but your post reminds me of something I wrote the other day and which I'll quote without context: + Show Spoiler + Strategy and mechanics are related. I have some examples for this for football (soccer) which I play on an amateur level against players of variable skill. If I play against another team for the first time I'm often lost. I don't know how to position myself because I can't tell if the player with the ball has the skill to make a pass. I don't know if the player I'm supposed to defend against is left or right footed, I don't know his speed and technique. I need to know an attacker's quirks and tricks to accurately defend and predict his actions. I need to know if I can afford to pressure a player and try to take the ball from on or whether he's going to exploit me being out of position because of his superior technique. And all of this depends on my own speed, stamina, skill, which differs per day. Most decision making would be trivialized if not for the mechanics of football, the physical and technical part. You're constantly taking calculated risks based on your assessment of your own skill and the skill of your team mates and opponents. In Starcraft, if you can't outmicro your opponent in a battle then this aspect of the game is just gone. Strategy stops being dependent on your opponent's skill (this includes decisions to pressure, stretch your opponent's multitasking, force engagements, steer the game towards areas your opponent is bad at). Players like Maru and Life will no longer exist. | ||
|
Cheren
United States2911 Posts
On July 01 2015 05:42 Grumbels wrote: You can't have a discussion about words which aren't well defined and everyone in this thread has a different interpretation of the words strategy, mechanics and decision making. It's an interesting topic, but it shouldn't be held in the context of this post, which tries to provoke SC2 vs BW flame wars. I don't really want to contribute any arguments to this thread, but your post reminds me of something I wrote the other day and which I'll quote without context: + Show Spoiler + Strategy and mechanics are related. I have some examples for this for football (soccer) which I play on an amateur level against players of variable skill. If I play against another team for the first time I'm often lost. I don't know how to position myself because I can't tell if the player with the ball has the skill to make a pass. I don't know if the player I'm supposed to defend against is left or right footed, I don't know his speed and technique. I need to know an attacker's quirks and tricks to accurately defend and predict his actions. I need to know if I can afford to pressure a player and try to take the ball from on or whether he's going to exploit me being out of position because of his superior technique. And all of this depends on my own speed, stamina, skill, which differs per day. Most decision making would be trivialized if not for the mechanics of football, the physical and technical part. You're constantly taking calculated risks based on your assessment of your own skill and the skill of your team mates and opponents. In Starcraft, if you can't outmicro your opponent in a battle then this aspect of the game is just gone. Strategy stops being dependent on your opponent's skill (this includes decisions to pressure, stretch your opponent's multitasking, force engagements, steer the game towards areas your opponent is bad at). Players like Maru and Life will no longer exist. I was mostly exaggerating other people's arguments, you could replace "BW" with "SC2" and "SC2" with "other esports" in my post and it would still make sense. SC2 is still really hard mechanically and players like Maru push the limits of skill. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
In SC2, your strategic decisions will better define whether you will win or not. In BW, your strategic decisions might or might not be important depending on the opponent The reason you can "micro your way out" of a problem in BW is exactly what is being talked about. Strategy is needed in both, and micro is needed in both. But while perfect micro can even out or beat a better strategy in BW, well decided strategies will even out or beat superior mechanics in SC2. The conclusion should not be that BW has no/low strategy for the same reason that we shouldn't conclude that SC2 has low/no mechanics. Lay down fanboyism on both sides for once. Neither game is being attacked here. | ||
|
Xiphias
Norway2223 Posts
| ||
|
DinosaurJones
United States1000 Posts
| ||
|
Serejai
6007 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On July 01 2015 05:42 Grumbels wrote: You can't have a discussion about words which aren't well defined and everyone in this thread has a different interpretation of the words strategy, mechanics and decision making. It's an interesting topic, but it shouldn't be held in the context of this post, which tries to provoke SC2 vs BW flame wars. I don't really want to contribute any arguments to this thread, but your post reminds me of something I wrote the other day and which I'll quote without context: + Show Spoiler + Strategy and mechanics are related. I have some examples for this for football (soccer) which I play on an amateur level against players of variable skill. If I play against another team for the first time I'm often lost. I don't know how to position myself because I can't tell if the player with the ball has the skill to make a pass. I don't know if the player I'm supposed to defend against is left or right footed, I don't know his speed and technique. I need to know an attacker's quirks and tricks to accurately defend and predict his actions. I need to know if I can afford to pressure a player and try to take the ball from on or whether he's going to exploit me being out of position because of his superior technique. And all of this depends on my own speed, stamina, skill, which differs per day. Most decision making would be trivialized if not for the mechanics of football, the physical and technical part. You're constantly taking calculated risks based on your assessment of your own skill and the skill of your team mates and opponents. In Starcraft, if you can't outmicro your opponent in a battle then this aspect of the game is just gone. Strategy stops being dependent on your opponent's skill (this includes decisions to pressure, stretch your opponent's multitasking, force engagements, steer the game towards areas your opponent is bad at). Players like Maru and Life will no longer exist. What your soccer analogy is describing is called "basics" or "mechanics" or "micro." Those are the literal inputs and outputs you have at your disposal. Strategy is more abstract and is normally the culmination of questions and observations. Strategists take in observed/given/assumed data, and then architect a system of proactive and reactive responses to the data set presented. The execution of those responses are mechanics. For example: you don't need to be able to do marine splits to know that splitting marines vs bane lings is a good tactic. And so you can strategize that sending squad A to location B for mission C should produce D even if you don't have the mechanics to pull it off. That's the difference between generals and squad leaders. Generals tell you where to go and what to accomplish, squad leaders do whatever tactics are needed to accomplish said objective, but the overall strategy is disconnected from those field tactics. In an RTS it gets confusing since you're expected to be both the general and the squad leader. As such, people get confused which actions are strategic and which ones are tactical. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On July 01 2015 06:08 Thieving Magpie wrote: I don't see where the confusion is. In SC2, your strategic decisions will better define whether you will win or not. In BW, your strategic decisions might or might not be important depending on the opponent The reason you can "micro your way out" of a problem in BW is exactly what is being talked about. Strategy is needed in both, and micro is needed in both. But while perfect micro can even out or beat a better strategy in BW, well decided strategies will even out or beat superior mechanics in SC2. The conclusion should not be that BW has no/low strategy for the same reason that we shouldn't conclude that SC2 has low/no mechanics. Lay down fanboyism on both sides for once. Neither game is being attacked here. In sc2 there was a kid named Maru who played with his aggressive drop style vs phoenix+colossus. He fought vs a style countering his, but in the end it didn't even matter. Point is: In both sc2 and bw strategy being THE deciding factor (and in almost any other game/sports) starts being the case when both players/teams are close to each other in mechanical skill. The question now is if at the top lvl (let's say top 30 players, arbitrarily) the mechanical skill differences between the players are comparable between the games (maybe we have to neglect the absolute top players here). If it is somewhat comparable it's very hard to say that one game is more reliant on strategy than the other. (relatively to mechanics) If we talk about strategic depth of each game this former part doesn't matter at all. (and i have no idea which game might have the edge here) Probably the game which gives you more 'viable' actions/decisions for each situation. | ||
|
MoosyDoosy
United States4519 Posts
eyyy....... | ||
|
DSK
England1110 Posts
From my understanding of BW, you flat out need to be amazing unit control wise, because the movement AI is so poor (due to the nature of how Blizzard design it in SC1), you have to select individual production buildings one at a time to produce units, using only the camera controls to go to the aforementioned production buildings, no command queuing, 12 units per control/selection group at any one time. For me, playing BW is a fucking nightmare, and that's partly because I'm terrible at it, but also because it requires more mechanical nuance and leg work. I can't just bind all my barracks to control group 4 and spam A for marines (like the noob I am). I have to go to where the barracks are on the screen and click each one individually and then press A to produce marines from each. So from just that lowly example, you can start to see that a player who is better mechanically and can produce more units than his opponent can beat someone who can't or is less able to. When the requirements for being good at mechanics are decreased and improved upon, and with lots of "streamlining" (and I say this in a good way, even if Total Annihilation had most of the things SC2 has way back in 1997, a year before SC1 came out), you don't need to be as mechanically-orientated as BW, and so the onus naturally moves towards strategy, optimal unit control and composition, unit/army positioning and concaves - let's not forget that SC2 changed the way units interact with terrain too. In summation: disregard this, I suck cocks. | ||
|
shid0x
Korea (South)5014 Posts
| ||
| ||
