EPT
Artosis says SC2 is more strategic than BW - Page 22
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
figq
12519 Posts
| ||
|
radscorpion9
Canada2252 Posts
On May 06 2013 04:12 Hot_Bid wrote:.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. Others have discussed this a bit (Lalush) but I really feel it bears repeating. When you say 'no competitive game can exist without a mechanical requirement' I feel like a pretty clear counterexample is chess. Chess does have some degree of copycatting in terms of basic openings and counter-openings, but because there is such a large variation in the types of moves a person can make after those openings, calculating or memorizing all of the 'best' responses past a certain point is virtually impossible. Does anyone really believe that GM players like Viswanathan Anand or Magnus Carlsen 'memorize' everything, and what they play out in their grand final matches is all scripted? Its clearly absurd. Neither is it anything remotely close to rock-paper-scissors like gameplay. If a game is sufficiently complex, it doesn't matter whether no mechanics exist, you simply won't be able to predict what the ideal move is because there are too many variables. In that case, the player who can think furthest ahead at all of the possible counter-moves and counter-counter-moves (and so on) in order to obtain the most advantageous position is most likely to win the game. In a word, the 'smartest' player would win. Unless you are comfortable with memorizing tens of thousands of games (at the very least), well okay yes you have a point. But clearly human beings do not have the memory banks of a supercomputer. Anyway if you mean strictly in terms of SC2 (i.e. just removing the mechanical requirement, nothing else), then there may indeed be far too few variables in order to create the necessary complexity. But I don't think its an obvious argument and I think that hypothesis would really need to be tested. | ||
|
Darksoldierr
Hungary2013 Posts
On July 02 2015 02:29 figq wrote: SC2 is good game and BW is good game. | ||
EsportsJohn
United States4883 Posts
On July 02 2015 01:39 MaestroSC wrote: I feel like this is just PR more so than anything... Blizzard has successfully killed the BW scene..and it does Artosis 0 good, and would be bad for his career to be like "actually Starcraft 2 sucks compared to BW"... since there is no future professionally for him in BW. Don't forget that Passionstone is still a profitable avenue for ESPORTS careers ^^. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17805 Posts
On July 02 2015 02:33 radscorpion9 wrote: Others have discussed this a bit (Lalush) but I really feel it bears repeating. When you say 'no competitive game can exist without a mechanical requirement' I feel like a pretty clear counterexample is chess. Chess does have some degree of copycatting in terms of basic openings and counter-openings, but because there is such a large variation in the types of moves a person can make after those openings, calculating or memorizing all of the 'best' responses past a certain point is virtually impossible. Intellivision Utopia. huge amount of strategic depth. 30 APM is all you need. | ||
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19384 Posts
On July 02 2015 01:39 MaestroSC wrote: I feel like this is just PR more so than anything... Blizzard has successfully killed the BW scene..and it does Artosis 0 good, and would be bad for his career to be like "actually Starcraft 2 sucks compared to BW"... since there is no future professionally for him in BW. 1. BW is most definitely alive 2. Brood War mega sponsor Sonic is also keeping the SC2 scene healthy 3. There is always the potential for OGN to add official English casters in the future 4. I english casted the GomTV Classic Season 4 so GomTV so yes there is even English Casting already in place. But I agree, there is most likely not a future in Brood War for him specifically. | ||
|
BeStFAN
483 Posts
if that is case then isnt football also competitve game to contrast?? lol... | ||
|
jinorazi
Korea (South)4948 Posts
| ||
|
figq
12519 Posts
:+ Show Spoiler + Broken mechanic requiring high APM Clarification, if it's needed: + Show Spoiler + Nozdormu is the 8/8 on the board, it makes turns only last 15 seconds. Animations that stack at the end of opponent's turn have to end before you can act, so they can take time from your turn. By stacking Nozdormu and infinitely replacing bouncing pandas, you force animations to always take your whole opponent's turn time, so he never can do any action at all. | ||
|
TMagpie
265 Posts
On July 02 2015 03:01 jinorazi wrote: Brood war and sc2 are rts that requires high amount of apm, or at least efficient apm to be ahead of the opponent. Sounds like many people want that ceiling lowered...like lowering a rim so anyone can dunk. How dare only tall and/or athletic people be allowed to dunk. If I can create the greatest playbook and call tactics, I should be able to dunk too. (stop bringing up chess, its not even remotely comparable to starcraft. its like comparing how airplane can fly then compare it to how superman flies) Most athletes can dunk, we should make the rim higher so only a very small number of people can dunk to show true skill. | ||
|
jinorazi
Korea (South)4948 Posts
On July 02 2015 03:15 TMagpie wrote: Most athletes can dunk, we should make the rim higher so only a very small number of people can dunk to show true skill. the point is balance and already a small number of nba players below 6' can dunk. | ||
|
TMagpie
265 Posts
On July 02 2015 03:18 jinorazi wrote: the point is balance and already a small number of nba players below 6' can dunk. I watch basketball, lots of players dunk, why not have it so fewer players can dunk, game becomes about lay ups and positioning. true skill. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/05/20/should-the-basketball-rim-be-raised/with-higher-rims-basketball-would-be-a-better-game http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/05/20/should-the-basketball-rim-be-raised/honor-basketball-by-switching-to-11-foot-rims | ||
|
DSK
England1110 Posts
On July 01 2015 07:53 Ej_ wrote: that would be way too easy Hotkey for Marine in BW is M. Then I stand corrected! :D | ||
|
_fool
Netherlands685 Posts
On July 02 2015 03:01 jinorazi wrote: Brood war and sc2 are rts that requires high amount of apm, or at least efficient apm to be ahead of the opponent. Sounds like many people want that ceiling lowered...like lowering a rim so anyone can dunk. How dare only tall and/or athletic people be allowed to dunk. If I can create the greatest playbook and call tactics, I should be able to dunk too. (stop bringing up chess, its not even remotely comparable to starcraft. its like comparing how airplane can fly then compare it to how superman flies) When people say "X and Y are not comparable!" they usually mean "X and Y are perfectly comparable, and they are very different from each other" | ||
|
JieXian
Malaysia4677 Posts
On July 02 2015 03:11 figq wrote: By the way, this is the analogue of stacked mutas in Hearthstone :+ Show Spoiler + Broken mechanic requiring high APM Clarification, if it's needed: + Show Spoiler + Nozdormu is the 8/8 on the board, it makes turns only last 15 seconds. Animations that stack at the end of opponent's turn have to end before you can act, so they can take time from your turn. By stacking Nozdormu and infinitely replacing bouncing pandas, you force animations to always take your whole opponent's turn time, so he never can do any action at all. This isn't stacked mutas this is hax! interesting nonetheless | ||
NonY
8751 Posts
| ||
|
Bannt
United States73 Posts
It's not the best analogy in all situations, but there are definitely certain aspects in which chess and starcraft are indeed very similar. | ||
|
Mahavishnu
Canada396 Posts
| ||
|
TMagpie
265 Posts
On July 02 2015 04:55 NonY wrote: I feel like chess shouldn't be used in discussions about games because it's such a weird one (full information, no mechanics). It gets a lot of credit because it's old and has been prestigious for a long time, but it seems more like a puzzle than a game. Languages can call chess and poker and starcraft the same thing but the presence or absence of mechanics and full information should put them in incomparable categories. I'd call chess a puzzle, poker can be called a game, and starcraft is a sport. The common name for them all should be competition, which we already know people can compete over virtually anything. Chess is brought up because the the dialectic of conversation equates it to strategy--specifically because of the association that strategy is mental and tactics is physical. The prime example being that an athlete is less strategic than a chess player, but a chess player is less capable of execution than an athlete. The example can be changed--but the reasoning of the example remains the same. The closer to abstraction you get, the more strategic you are. The closer to physicality you get, the more mechanical you are. Neither is deemed superior to the other, they are just different. The closer you get to physicality, the more precise your discussions become. Breathing techniques, body reads, foot play, etc... The more abstract you are the more generalized and structured the nomenclature such as "action A gets response B, respond to B with C while preparing D in case of E." SC2 is more abstracted. Its more build order dependent, less micro dependent. Less being a very very relative term--SC2 would be considered highly mechanical and less strategic than civ games, for example. As an example: Boxing is more strategic than arm wrestling. Soccer is more strategic than boxing. Go is more strategic than soccer. ad nauseam. But none of them are objectively superior than the others, they're just different. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
| ||
| ||
