Artosis says SC2 is more strategic than BW - Page 21

On May 06 2013 04:12 Hot_Bid wrote:. 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.

On July 01 2015 08:59 NonY wrote:
The only thing I'd like to point out is that many pro-level games of SC2 are lost because of a lapse of mechanics. Pros don't think or talk about this too much because they figure mechanics are a thing that naturally improve with practice and strategy is important enough that it's what the mind should be focusing on. Commentators don't talk about it because they're too busy talking about other things. They typically talk about mechanics only when they're particularly good or particularly bad, but games are lost within a tighter variance of mechanics than they pay attention to, which gives the illusion that they aren't as important as they are. Analysts don't talk about it because mechanics can almost always be improved, so it's not interesting to say it every time, and people are more interested in hearing the narrative of strategy. And in general, it's impolite and not good for the tone of a competitive event for commentators and analysts to nitpick every lapse in mechanics.

It is possible for an SC2 player to have virtually completely unoriginal strategy, and very simple decision trees throughout games and very little improvisation, and to win tournaments by having the best mechanics. And it was possible for BW players to win on strategy. In fact, Proleague was definitely more focused on strategy than mechanics. There were also rock-paper-scissors relationships between trios of players based on matchup strength and strategical style, which you wouldn't expect to get from a game that valued mechanics significantly higher than SC2.

If I had to point out anything interesting or weird, it'd be that even though it seems that it's easier to achieve the mechanical skill required to be a pro SC2 player than it was for BW, there is about an equally significant range of mechanical skill amongst the pros in both games. Honestly I think this is more of a socio-psychological thing than revealing something inherent about the games themselves. Once players get "good enough" mechanics some settle for that while focusing on other things, but other players work to have the best mechanics.

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.

[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.

On July 01 2015 21:08 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:
Just close this. Only reason this is still open is becoz Wax posted it

On July 01 2015 21:24 Textual wrote:


I think "strategy" is being used too vaguely. To say chess is more strategic than SC2, for example, is pretty much meaningless. Chess has no mechanics, obviously, and there is incredible foresight and calculation possible in chess, but it's also a game of mutual and full information.

For instance, chess players talk about strategy and tactics. A tactical idea in chess requires foresight and planning, but it is not the same thing as your strategy. The deep calculation involved in chess is often tactical in nature, and the strategy is mostly just about getting pieces on good squares.

"Memorization of copycat moves?" Have you ever played chess? Have you ever watched a tournament or World Championship match? Your bizarre summary of the game gives me the impression that you haven't.

"Strategy" is used differently by different people though. The army talks about three levels of war: the strategic, the operational, and the tactical. So it's hard to generalize what the word means. In SC2, it seems like it pretty much just means choosing what phase of the game you want to win in, what defenses you will need to survive until you attack, and what your attack should be composed of. Artosis seems to be saying essentially that SC2 units hard-counter each other more than BW units, meaning that having a few extra of the wrong unit won't save you, meaning that the selection of units and timings is relatively more important.

On July 01 2015 23:48 SC2John wrote:
Personally, I think SC2 is completely bereft of real strategy. There are millions of small details you can change which slightly change the course of your game plan throughout the game, but if you slip up even once mechanically, there is no strategic way to get out of a bad situation. If we're going to compare SC to Chess, I'll make a comparison:

1) SC2 is like speed chess. Your moves are mostly predetermined with several different variations which are all memorized and pre-planned. If you get to the latter parts of the game and you're low on time, you begin to make positional errors, and it only takes 2-3 bad moves to put you into a 100% losing spot. At that point, you're just hoping that the game is going so fast your opponent makes a mistake as well. Even then, comparing SC2 and chess is a difficult comparison due to the fact that SC2 lacks strong positional play.

2) BW is more like strategic chess. The game unfolds a lot more slowly, and players have a lot more time in the early/mid game to set up their game plan while each player has a chance to counter the other player's game plan with their own based on scouting. Mistakes can be punishing, but because the game is about map control and awareness (and also because moving armies is a bitch), you have a lot more wiggle room to reposition your units and find ways to get back into the game. In LotV, you're put on even more of a timer.

Both take massive amounts of required mechanics, though SC2 execution is more about babysitting your army than BW was. Overall though, the important factor missing from SC2 is space control. The terrain is basically flat due to how weak high ground vision and mobility is, and it's impossible for few units to zone out an entire army effectively in the mid to late game without being broken when massed. Without space control, SC2 lacks a lot of the important positional decision making that made BW and even WC3 really deep and complex.

On July 01 2015 17:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:


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.

If a chess player told his queen to take a pawn--he doesn't need to explain to his queen how that actually happens.

Acknowledging that these days getting an advantage from the opening is well-nigh impossible, as everyone relies on top-notch computers for research, he tries to reach positions in which he is confident that he will outplay his opponents in the middle- or endgame. - Dirk Jan ten Geuzendam

On July 01 2015 17:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:


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.

On July 02 2015 01:39 MaestroSC wrote:
one has a much higher skillcap and allows the people with true ability/understanding to absolutely shit on everyone else..

People who argue that the skill ceiling in BW is higher have no idea what a skill ceiling is and how complicated it is to quantify.

The reason why identifiable and unique micro and mechanics aren't as widespread in SC2 is the fact that the game is too fast. There are so many more things that pros can do, such as medivac dropping for EMPs/warp prism hot pick up for HTs, individually microing mutas back and forth for health regen, individually burrow/unburrowing roaches for regen, better splitting, individual hellion transformations, zealot stop command to save charge cooldown, improved phoenix control, individual mine burrow/unburrow for improved targeting... the list of things that pros can still do is limitless. Yet even the most mechanically impressive players are still unable to perform these actions consistently because the game is too fast. It's not that there is nothing more to do; it is that the pros who could perform more in BW don't yet have the speed nor ability to do these things in SC2.

The difference is that similar tasks had to be performed in BW to make the most of several units, and there was time to perform these actions due to game speed and a combination of lower damage/longer battles. The fact that many of the BW pros who could perform impressive feats of micro and develop undeniable moments of brilliance have had a difficult time replicating their heroics in SC2 does not necessarily mean that there are no such avenues for genius in the game. As mentioned earlier, the number of things that pros can improve is limitless; whether it is possible for a player to reach a level of skill that allows him to do things no one else can consistently is a question of the limitations of the player, not the game.

It can be argued that the risk/reward ratio in doing impressive micro tricks in SC2 is lower, and that players have more incentive to macro and take key positional and strategic advantages instead of individual ones. Perhaps the divide between the mechanically elite and the also rans could be widened by lowering the game speed slightly to a threshold where some can perform while others cannot. Perhaps it's better to wait and see if someone will finally reach the speed of thought and dexterity required to impress us with their control.

That is game design and has nothing to do with skill ceilings that are hypothetically impossible to reach. If anything the speed of thought and reaction time required in SC2 is higher than BW and in that respect makes it more difficult. BW of course is more difficult in other areas. Neither game is easier nor harder; they are easier or harder in different ways because they are different games.

While Blizzard removed some skills from BW, it added several others. Storms are much easier to cast and unit clumping is automatic, so splitting and prepositioning units is far more important in SC2. It is the same for just about every other change; it has lowered the skill required for one thing only to increase emphasis on another.

That isn't a skill ceiling though. That is the skill floor. The barrier to entry is much lower in SC2 and even bad players can have a good day. It takes a little less effort to play at a sufficiently decent competitive level. That is what a skill floor is, not a skill ceiling.

A skill ceiling is the maximum attainable skill level, not the minimum required level to be good. The fact that there are thousands of other ways to play better that have not been explored suggests that the skill ceiling has nothing to do with the perceived randomness or luck factor involved in the game.

However it can be argued that the competitive skill floor is too low and the weight for improvement is too heavy. Not enough players are able to elevate towards the skill ceiling, and as I suggested it may be due to the speed of the game. On the other hand, the skill floor has been increasing over time (compare today's games vs 2011); the problem is no single player has been able to improve by leaps and bounds more than other players. In a way that is the true cause for the lack of a bonjwa: the gravity for improvement is too heavy, and everyone improves at a similar pace.

However, as I mentioned earlier, is that a limitation of the game, or the limitation of the players?