EPT
and watch more rage unfold.Artosis says SC2 is more strategic than BW - Page 20
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
ninazerg
United States7291 Posts
and watch more rage unfold. | ||
|
pretensile
135 Posts
Rain could use any number of immortal sentry all-ins, proxy oracles, blink rushes, etc., etc. Very deep; a multitude of pressures, cheeses, and build orders. But would you watch any of these countless number of games again? Or would you rather watch Marineking's classic splits vs banelings, Bisu's or Stork's reaver drops,or Jaedong's mutalisk micro? | ||
|
BeStFAN
483 Posts
On May 06 2013 04:12 Hot_Bid wrote: It just sounds like OP wants StarCraft to be something it isn't. He thinks RTS should be more about strategy and less about the mechanical element but it's not. The core of an RTS is that it is a game played with mechanics. The mistake the OP makes is that he believes people who macro better don't deserve the win or that this kind of win shouldn't exist in a "true RTS." It's just what he believes an RTS should be and what the rest (just about everyone else) believes it is. It's interesting, a lot of people (ie: mostly those who are bad at macro) believe that by removing some or all of the mechanical requirement of starcraft you get more strategies and that "outsmarting" your opponent will be what decides matches. In reality, the opposite is true. No competitive game or RTS can exist without a mechanical requirement of some sort, or the game devolves into copycatting the best strategy and some sort of rock paper scissors guessing game. If you can't out-execute your opponent then you can't consistently beat him. It is very difficult to out-innovate your opponents every time because in today's environment coaches, practice partners, replay analysis, etc your strategies will get analyzed and you will lose, eventually. Added mechanical ceiling actually adds strategical options. An example would be Bisu in SC1, his DT-corsair strategy isn't new or even super innovative, but it never worked in the proscene before him because nobody could pull it off because of its so ridiculously high skill ceiling. The same is true for a lot of the openings Flash did, he was just so good at positioning and defense that he can take greedy expansions. Remove the mechanical requirements and you remove a lot of the potential innovation and strategy. | ||
|
RKC
2848 Posts
On July 01 2015 15:44 pretensile wrote: Even if Artosis is right... he realizes that for most people, pure mechanics make for much more entertaining games than "strategic depth," right? Rain could use any number of immortal sentry all-ins, proxy oracles, blink rushes, etc., etc. Very deep; a multitude of pressures, cheeses, and build orders. But would you watch any of these countless number of games again? Or would you rather watch Marineking's classic splits vs banelings, Bisu's or Stork's reaver drops,or Jaedong's mutalisk micro? SC2 Rain is like BW Flash inverted. Started out being solid, defensive and predictable. Now starting to mix all-ins and cheeses in his arsenal of builds. I would definitely enjoy re-watching his G1 vs Byul in the recent GSL finals - epic snipes, epic comeback. That said, I find myself re-watching more BW games than SC2 games. As some people have said, BW may be harder to play, but more enjoyable to watch. (Okay, this post has nothing to do with strategic depth, complex graphs and bust sizes.) | ||
|
JieXian
Malaysia4677 Posts
On July 01 2015 16:07 BeStFAN wrote: Corrected that for you. Though in reality all the debate is unnecessary since his blog wasn't about sc2 vs bw but "Thoughts on the GSL KeSPA defeat" He just failed to realise that non-kespa players can play games as a full time job now, unlike how it was in BW. | ||
|
RKC
2848 Posts
On July 01 2015 16:15 JieXian wrote: Corrected that for you. Though in reality all the debate is unnecessary since his blog wasn't about sc2 vs bw but "Thoughts on the GSL KeSPA defeat" He just failed to realise that non-kespa players can play games as a full time job now, unlike how it was in BW. Actually, I have no idea why he needed to bring up the 'BW v SC2 strategy' debate in a topic about the successes of non-KeSPA players in the last 2 GSL Finals. The causal link is tenuous. He should've brought up the 'elephant in the room' debate instead. Even more clickbaits and drama. | ||
lichter
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
 | ||
|
BeStFAN
483 Posts
imo artosis deserves all criticism and mocking for being arrogant and making preaching comment when he is completely eating from star2 hands. he has funny way of expressing love, it sounds more like he only loves himself. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On July 01 2015 16:07 BeStFAN wrote: I'm sorry but that's just blatantly untrue. Almost all high level strategy is 100% disconnected from execution. Its the reason chess players and generals don't have to fiddle with the board in order for their chits/pieces to make moves. Its the reason the police chief doesn't have to tell each officer he has how to do their jobs. Strategy in the real world is making decisions, passing down those decisions to people who are executing those orders, and seeing the results of your strategy afterward. RTS games pulls away from pure strategy concepts for the sake of tactical immediacy. An RTS needs mechanics because otherwise you should just play actual war games. RTS games are mainly tactics games with some amount of strategy on the back-end. The whole point of them is that a player can't just say "I have X and you have Y, so I win" but instead an RTS is really about being able to say "I do ___ with X, you do ____ with Y, and so one of us wins." The smaller the "real time" of RTS is emphasized, the more the strategy is emphasized--and vice versa. This doesn't mean there is no strategy in mechanic heavy games. But the strategy just becomes less important. The less mechanics you have, the important the strategy becomes because you can't just "make it work" if you chose the wrong strategy. If a general needs a squad of ___ to take a hill--he doesn't have the option of running over there and telling them how to take the hill. If a chess player told his queen to take a pawn--he doesn't need to explain to his queen how that actually happens. That is strategy at its most pure. But its also boring. No one "watches" chess screaming and hollering in excitement. No one watches a panzer general player and get wet in their nether regions at how they decided between X% chance of victory and a Y% chance of victory is worth sending tanks to a hex. Its just boring, pure strategy is boring because its one sided and looks like what RTS players call "build order losses." Lets say you think all you need is 1 squad to take a hill. And the enemy sent 2 squads to that hill. You just lost a squad of people and you wouldn't even know until 4-5 hours after you made the decision. Its a numbers game. When a piece captures another piece in chess--there is no surprise of "how did that knight do it!" because it was pure decision making. Knight moves there, you lose a piece now. What is exciting are things that are more kinetic--like sports or tv dramas or live entertainment. Things that are all about execution and immediate experience. RTS wants to combine the exciting aspects of tactics and execution with the cerebral parts of strategy. The goal is to find the proper balance between the two. People need to stop taking this so personally. | ||
|
BeStFAN
483 Posts
No competitive game or RTS can exist without a mechanical requirement of some sort, or the game devolves into copycatting the best strategy and some sort of rock paper scissors guessing game. "I'm sorry but that's just blatantly untrue. Almost all high level strategy is 100% disconnected from execution." ??? it did not say strategy requires mechanics. I think you are the one who is taking things personally lol... you just made same basic points as thing you think is untrue... | ||
|
Ej_
47656 Posts
On July 01 2015 16:26 lichter wrote: next person to mistakenly use the concept of skill ceiling/floor gets a warning from me is the skill ceiling to become a moderator just pretending to be funny????? | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On July 01 2015 17:09 BeStFAN wrote: "I'm sorry but that's just blatantly untrue. Almost all high level strategy is 100% disconnected from execution." ??? it did not say strategy requires mechanics. I think you are the one who is taking things personally lol... you just made same basic points as thing you think is untrue... Is that really your argument? Chess is the prime example of a what most game attempt to be seen as when it comes to strategy. And its literally the memorization of copycat moves and making certain you copied the correct moves and your opponent did not. | ||
|
lichter
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
| ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20344 Posts
sc2 does not have anywhere near as wide of a skill floor-ceiling there by the time you reach high level play and as a result that part of the skill ceiling for the game is lowered, also when compared to brood war there is a disproportionate focus on everything else that's NOT simply playing the game efficiently and making the most marines. With that slice of the pie gone, all of the others become bigger deciders for who actually wins a game. I don't think this is really my opinion - it's an observation of how things are | ||
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On July 01 2015 17:58 lichter wrote: i get excited whenever thieving magpie gets coaxed into explaining things :o especially when it's completely wrong | ||
|
lichter
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
Read harder | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
Sry it doesn't get any better that way :/ | ||
|
Cele
Germany4016 Posts
On July 01 2015 16:31 BeStFAN wrote: "Lots of people from StarCraft 1 complain about the “problems” with StarCraft 2. Now for the record, not one of these people loved SC1 more than I." imo artosis deserves all criticism and mocking for being arrogant and making preaching comment when he is completely eating from star2 hands. he has funny way of expressing love, it sounds more like he only loves himself. this # | ||
|
seom
South Africa491 Posts
On July 01 2015 20:52 The_Red_Viper wrote: Sry it doesn't get any better that way :/ yeah the chess analogy is just wrong, and that's not how chess functions at all (apart from opening game - usually) also, minesweeper is obviously the most strategic game like ever. | ||
|
TheBloodyDwarf
Finland7524 Posts
 | ||
| ||
