Got me too...the only thing more strategical about SC2 compared to BW is the fact that SC2 has way more abilities than BW, I would honestly go as far to say that BW is more strategical than SC2, and SC2 just has more abilities, more and more like a MOBA.

you completely miss the point then

Deleted User 3420

24492 Posts

June 30 2015 04:40 GMT

#24

My response to this is that I am not really sure which is more strategical. They are just.. different.

I guess I would have to lean towards sc:bw being a little more strategical because the mining system has way more depth.

Though, if artosis considers army positioning to be part of "strategy", which I guess it is... then maybe I would agree with him that there is more strategy in sc2. Compared to bw, sc2 is insanely unforgiving when it comes to making a mistake with the positioning of your army.

Die4Ever

United States17588 Posts

June 30 2015 04:41 GMT

#25

On June 30 2015 13:40 travis wrote:
My response to this is that I am not really sure which is more strategical. They are just.. different.

I guess I would have to lean towards sc:bw being a little more strategical because the mining system has way more depth.

Though, if artosis considers army positioning to be part of "strategy", which I guess it is... then maybe I would agree with him that there is more strategy in sc2. Compared to bw, sc2 is insanely unforgiving when it comes to making a mistake with the positioning of your army.

how would army positioning not be part of strategy?

Deleted User 3420

24492 Posts

June 30 2015 04:44 GMT

#26

well I said, "which I guess it is". But it could be argued that it also starts to fall into the realm of micro. When you look at these split second battles of armies in sc2 when does it stop being "strategy" and start being "unit control"?

Anyways reading the article I do have a gripe with something he says:

What I’m trying to say here is, it is far more important to be in the top 95% of macro players and know all the different reactionary branches of your build orders, than to be in the top 99.9% of macro players and have a general idea of what to do.

This really isn't a very good point. Just because sc2 doesn't take as much mechanics as bw does not mean it takes more strategy.

BigFan

TLADT24920 Posts

June 30 2015 04:46 GMT

#27

Well, this is not going to end well lol. I disagree though, both games have strategies and you are punished even more imo in SCII due to the hard counter aspect. Also, obviously, whoever makes more units will win and this applies to either game as well.

Wildmoon

Thailand4189 Posts

June 30 2015 04:47 GMT

#28

On June 30 2015 13:44 travis wrote:
well I said, "which I guess it is". But it could be argued that it also starts to fall into the realm of micro. When you look at these split second battles of armies in sc2 when does it stop being "strategy" and start being "unit control"?

Anyways reading the article I do have a gripe with something he says:

Show nested quote +

This really isn't a very good point. Just because sc2 doesn't take as much mechanics as bw does not mean it takes more strategy.

I think his point about strategy vs mechanic is not these lines. they are above.

Wildmoon

Thailand4189 Posts

June 30 2015 04:50 GMT

#29

On June 30 2015 13:46 BigFan wrote:
Well, this is not going to end well lol. I disagree though, both games have strategies and you are punished even more imo in SCII due to the hard counter aspect. Also, obviously, whoever makes more units will win and this applies to either game as well.

That's his point though. He didn't say which game has more strategies but he said which is more strategic which likely means which put higher emphasis on strategies.

TerranZerg

Russian Federation145 Posts

June 30 2015 04:52 GMT

#30

Artosis is a noob

ZombieFrog

United States87 Posts

June 30 2015 04:58 GMT

#31

I'll actually agree with him on this. There were certainly a lot of brood war games that I won by just constantly mass producing hydras and moving them towards my opponent. He could have storms whatever, and it still worked, usually really well. Course I wasn't a pro player or anything, but even at mid level SC2 I can't really do that in the same way, units counter each other too well, and its much easier for both players to max out on armies. If I play a macro game against protoss I usually have to at the very least do some tech switches.

blabber

United States4448 Posts

June 30 2015 04:59 GMT

#32

i feel like what he meant is there is more varied strategies in sc2. but the issue is that the game becomes more towards rock paper scissors

N.geNuity

United States5111 Posts

June 30 2015 05:01 GMT

#33

http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/maps/200_Outsider

lisward

Singapore959 Posts

June 30 2015 05:05 GMT

#34

I haven't followed sc2 esports in a while but I remember it being very make one bad engagement/decision and lose the entire game. That does not mean it has more strategic depth though...

BigFan

TLADT24920 Posts

June 30 2015 05:05 GMT

#35

On June 30 2015 13:50 Wildmoon wrote:

Show nested quote +

That's his point though. He didn't say which game has more strategies but he said which is more strategic which likely means which put higher emphasis on strategies.

Didn't realize that it was an article, thought it was some tweet or something lol. I still don't agree with it though. Hard counters just mean that you need to be more careful at how you engage an army but that works the same way in BW. Anyone who has played terran against a zerg who played the race savior style (hopping and constantly translocating lurkers) will tell you that its suicidal to engage lurkers in any chokes and that you have to be constantly on the lookout because it's so easy to run into lurkers, even more so stop lurkers. The strategy and positioning involved just from those units is massive. I'm too lazy to write more but I'm sure someone else will elaborate in depth soon enough

On June 30 2015 14:01 N.geNuity wrote:
http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/maps/200_Outsider

<3 this map. One of the greatest BW maps ever!

bo1b

Australia12814 Posts

June 30 2015 05:08 GMT

#36

One of the stupider posts artosis has ever made

Alucen-Will-

United States4054 Posts

June 30 2015 05:09 GMT

#37

One of the big differences at the professional level of play in brood war was simply the time of most games. In Sc2 the game can be decided by a very small split decision mistake which happened far less BW.

I've thought about this before but in BW I felt because each individual decision has less impact on the outcome of the game, the better player often wins over the series of the game because they make successively better decisions over the course of longer games. In sc2, even a player who plays a game at a very high level can lose the entire match because of a very small mistake that barely implied that he is an inferior player to his opponent.

Also because of these factors, along with easier mechanical requirements, It feels like a lot of the best progamers in sc2 are not just mechanical talented, but also players who are willing to play mindgames and take risks in games.

For me at least the fact that games tended to last much longer and that the game was often decided by a larger number of variables was the main reason that a player like Flash was able to be so dominant

other things make this a possibility aswell: more randomness (particularly in games involving protoss) in scouting, the weakness of the defenders advantage in sc2, etc. I also think the longer micro battles tend to mean that players with more talent tend to win more often than weaker players).

dAPhREAk

Nauru12397 Posts

June 30 2015 05:09 GMT

#38

should have posted this in sc:bw general so the butthurt would truly flow.

Captain Peabody

United States3091 Posts

June 30 2015 05:12 GMT

#39

I think if there's a point to be had here is that SC2 and BW are just really, really different games, and it's kind of hard to compare them. It's just not at all true that "BW is a better SC2" or "BW is harder" or whatever. Both have a similar set of things for the player to deal with (macro, building placement, teching, unit control, large army positioning), but how each one works, their proportions relative to each other in importance and difficulty, and how the basic flow game unfolds is really different.

It would probably be a lot better if people just got used to thinking of them as much more separate than they do now. Artosis is a smart guy, though.

LastPoet

Canada11 Posts

June 30 2015 05:19 GMT

#40

I was waiting for the TL troops to come in and clusterbomb this thread :D

I'm not going to comment on which game is more strategic than the other, but I will say that I agree with artosis about sc2 being a very strategic game. I think the strategy incorporated into each game is very underrated, under noticed, and under appreciated. I think because you see similar compositions and similar openings in each game many people just don't notice all the subtle strategies going on between the 2 players, the clutch decision making on the fly with limited information.