|
Clearly SC2 is more strategically focused. You guys are being completely irrational. You miss the point and instead focus on this odd debate over which competitive multiplayer game is more challenging (whatever the fuck that means in this context).
You're letting emotions cloud your ability to reason here. This had nothing to do with some sort of subjective comparison of the quality of the two games. It's simply stating an obvious fact which is that the gameplay of the two games emphasize different skill sets. SC2 with less focus on macro and micro mechanics, allows a greater focus strategy which becomes a more important factor in winning a match.
If you took BW and made a custom map without the need for macro/micro mechanics, that map would be a more strategical game than a regular melee game. Is it harder? Who knows, that's not the point! The point is there exists a balance of what a player needs to focus on and accomplish in a match to win. Removal of one area leaves room for growth in another.
This is simply common sense and should not require lengthy debates threads. It's clear the debate is simply rooted in a meaningless battle between two games. It is nothing but emotions and fanboyism. Think with your head for a moment instead of "LOL noob sellout thinks sc2 is harder than bw"
|
On July 02 2015 03:48 JieXian wrote:Show nested quote +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 It's not intended by the dev - just like stacked mutas isn't. But it's not a hack; it's simply playing the game in a weird way and making use of the game's own broken engine. Exactly like stacked mutas.
|
On July 02 2015 05:26 figq wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 03:48 JieXian wrote: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 It's not intended by the dev - just like stacked mutas isn't. But it's not a hack; it's simply playing the game in a weird way and making use of the game's own broken engine. Exactly like stacked mutas.
People like you is the reason we have weird game rules like traveling in basketball 
"But what if we never dribble the ball sir? How can they get it? Just get one point ahead and hold on for dear life."
|
On July 02 2015 05:22 Befree wrote:
Clearly SC2 is more strategically focused. You guys are being completely irrational. You miss the point and instead focus on this odd debate over which competitive multiplayer game is more challenging (whatever the fuck that means in this context).
You're letting emotions cloud your ability to reason here. This had nothing to do with some sort of subjective comparison of the quality of the two games. It's simply stating an obvious fact which is that the gameplay of the two games emphasize different skill sets. SC2 with less focus on macro and micro mechanics, allows a greater focus strategy which becomes a more important factor in winning a match.
If you took BW and made a custom map without the need for macro/micro mechanics, that map would be a more strategical game than a regular melee game. Is it harder? Who knows, that's not the point! The point is there exists a balance of what a player needs to focus on and accomplish in a match to win. Removal of one area leaves room for growth in another.
This is simply common sense and should not require lengthy debates threads. It's clear the debate is simply rooted in a meaningless battle between two games. It is nothing but emotions and fanboyism. Think with your head for a moment instead of "LOL noob sellout thinks sc2 is harder than bw"
What do you even mean with "more strategical" ? Do you mean strategy in relation to mechanics is more important to win a game? Or do you mean the strategy in the game is deeper?
This are two different concepts.
If you mean the former: No, as i said before (and nobody pointed out some flaws yet i think) as long as you take two players with similar mechanical skill, strategy will always be the more important part to win a game. In your example you remove mechanics alltogether, obviously strategy is more important when it's the only factor.
I can give such a mediocre example too: Let's imagine you take chess and add an arbitrary mechanical part to it, let's say you have to hit a button one hundred times then you are allowed to move (it isn't turn based anymore).
Now all of a sudden there is a mechanical requirement, hitting that button is a factor too. If both players are of similar skill at hitting the button fast, almost nothing will change about the strategy (yes it would be faster, more similar to speed chess, but that's not the point here, we can change the number of times you have to hit the button to get closer to normal chess)
If one player is simply a lot faster at hitting the button, he will be able to move more times in the same timeframe, strategy will be less of a deciding factor.
The point is: Mechanical skill is only important at deciding the game if one player/team is mechanically superior to the other.
We obviosly can reduce mechanics/strategy to zero (or very very close to it) and this changes everything, but this simply isn't the case if we look at bw/sc2.
ps: yes i know this example was stupid, but hey whatever.
If we are talking about the depth of strategy in a game, i think it would be more of a question about how many different actions/decisions are (somewhat) viable at every given situation.
If you only have little options (Rock-paper-scissors) we cannot really say the game has a lot of strategic depth, even though strategy is clearly the more important part in my example.
So what exactly does Artosis mean? The former or the latter?
It's important to the discussion.
|
"strategic importance" just flies over my head when people talk about it. its knowing what to do and executing it. it doesnt take "strategic thinking" to know if you're down, distract opponent by constantly poking or dropping while i do a hidden expansion or something. this isnt some brilliant strategy but rather executing it efficiently of something that is common sense or best route of action depending on circumstances. even with the most perfect strategy ever conceived, it means nothing if it isnt executed properly and if a player has very good mechanics, they can win whole lot of games just massing marines against infestors and banelings.
throughout the game its small decision making here and there and executing those decisions. to me it has little to do with strategy, but maybe its just my play style since i'm no pro, i just do everything on the fly including build orders after 21st supply and i have no problem winning.
"greater focus on strategy" means nothing because whatever strategy that may be, it all comes down to execution so mechanics are a huge deal in starcraft no matter what.
|
On July 01 2015 21:06 seom wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 20:52 The_Red_Viper wrote:On July 01 2015 20:44 lichter wrote:On July 01 2015 20:36 The_Red_Viper wrote: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 Read harder 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.
Agreed. Choosing an opening in chess is a little like picking a build order. You can aim for a slow developing macro game or something explosive and tactical. Until someone deviates from the build order it will follow a fairly predictable pattern. Then inevitably someone does something unexpected and the game really starts. There's no such thing as simply memorizing and copying moves.
Frankly, not sure how Chess got dragged into this, it's a totally different game and unrelated to SC2 vs BW.
|
On July 02 2015 03:28 DSK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 07:53 Ej_ wrote:On July 01 2015 06:39 DSK wrote:
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.
that would be way too easy Hotkey for Marine in BW is M. Then I stand corrected! :D
And that is why you had 11 Marines less - you pressed "A"! 
|
What he says in his text isn't that there's more strategy in the game, but rather that it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier. Removing or restricting something in a game doesn't suddenly make the other things more evolved, it just puts more emphasis on them.
|
On July 02 2015 06:19 nkr wrote:
What he says in his text isn't that there's more strategy in the game, but rather that it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier. Removing or restricting something in a game doesn't suddenly make the other things more evolved, it just puts more emphasis on them.
it may seem that way but i dont think that is the case. you can still do in bw whatever "more focused strategy" you can do in sc2. its just easier to do with smartcast/mbs but it doesnt add more depth to it.
|
On July 02 2015 05:22 Befree wrote:
Clearly SC2 is more strategically focused. You guys are being completely irrational. You miss the point and instead focus on this odd debate over which competitive multiplayer game is more challenging (whatever the fuck that means in this context).
You're letting emotions cloud your ability to reason here. This had nothing to do with some sort of subjective comparison of the quality of the two games. It's simply stating an obvious fact which is that the gameplay of the two games emphasize different skill sets. SC2 with less focus on macro and micro mechanics, allows a greater focus strategy which becomes a more important factor in winning a match.
If you took BW and made a custom map without the need for macro/micro mechanics, that map would be a more strategical game than a regular melee game. Is it harder? Who knows, that's not the point! The point is there exists a balance of what a player needs to focus on and accomplish in a match to win. Removal of one area leaves room for growth in another.
This is simply common sense and should not require lengthy debates threads. It's clear the debate is simply rooted in a meaningless battle between two games. It is nothing but emotions and fanboyism. Think with your head for a moment instead of "LOL noob sellout thinks sc2 is harder than bw"
You are ignoring the thought that needs to be put in to managing apm well. When there is too much apm, it's easy to decide what to do, because you can do almost everything without any sacrifice.
When I played SC2, I had perfect macro every game (By perfect macro, I mean that I spent my money and didn't get supply blocked. Of course, I could have made better economical decisions, which is also part of macro). I never had to choose between micro and macro.
I admit, I played Zerg, and not Terran, but in Brood War I can play Protoss (the least mechanically demanding race) and have to make interesting and mentally stimulating choices about apm spending.
If you want to call it tactics rather than strategy, I understand. But in ZvT, it is so significant that a Zerg can base his entire strategy around it. It allows for more kinds of different strategies, thus adding to the strategic diversity and depth of the game.
If you are a methodical player who wants to keep Zerg under control, and if you value flawless macro, then you probably want to transition to mech early in Terran vs Zerg.
But if you don't mind floating on money when the opportunity arises to do good damage with micro, then you can stay on bio longer. Or even for the entire game.
What I value the most about real time strategy games, is the meeting of execution and planning. The mixture of strategy and skill. That is what real time strategy has over turn based strategy - the management of time and attention. The state of pure focus it puts you in, as you push your mind and your dexterity to their limits, is irreplaceable
StarCraft II doesn't focus on this aspect as much. As a result, strategic and stylistic diversity and depth suffer.
I understand the argument that a lower mechanical skill floor, and skill ceiling, make strategy relatively more important. That is true, but at higher levels of Brood War, every one has good mechanics anyway. So it's not about who has better mechanics - it's about who spends his apm better. And that is a mental ability, not one of dexterity.
Flash didn't win because he had better mechanics. He was leagues above Hyuk, despite Hyuk having significantly higher apm. Flash won because he was the best strategist, being able to use multiple styles as if he was a specialist in each of them. Being able to formulate good strategies for the map and player at hand, and being able to deal with unexpected situations on the fly.
|
On July 02 2015 05:50 jinorazi wrote:
"strategic importance" just flies over my head when people talk about it. its knowing what to do and executing it. it doesnt take "strategic thinking" to know if you're down, distract opponent by constantly poking or dropping while i do a hidden expansion or something. this isnt some brilliant strategy but rather executing it efficiently of something that is common sense or best route of action depending on circumstances. even with the most perfect strategy ever conceived, it means nothing if it isnt executed properly and if a player has very good mechanics, they can win whole lot of games just massing marines against infestors and banelings.
throughout the game its small decision making here and there and executing those decisions. to me it has little to do with strategy, but maybe its just my play style since i'm no pro, i just do everything on the fly including build orders after 21st supply and i have no problem winning.
"greater focus on strategy" means nothing because whatever strategy that may be, it all comes down to execution so mechanics are a huge deal in starcraft no matter what.
Artosis never said that mechanics don't matter...
He said one game emphasis one over another but he never made it an exclusive binary.
Both games require mechanics.
Both games require strategy.
Games where execution of mechanics are less important, punishes mistaken strategies more.
Games where execution of mechanics is more important, gives higher possibility of recovering from strategic mistakes.
Neither mechanics nor strategy is inherently "better" than the other. They're different. Different games emphasize one more than the other--but its not like that means anything concrete.
Rekrul's post was a joke--but it really did get to the heart of the matter the most succinctly.
Kate Upton is not sexy *because* she has big boobs, for there are many ugly people with bigger boobs than her. As such, using "bust size" to denote quality doesn't actually say anything. Its the whole package that denotes quality. So when statements like "SC2 is more strategy focused that BW" does it really tell us what the quality of SC2 is over BW? Or, much like Rekrul's picture, does the size of one's "strategy" really equate to how sexy one is?
There are many many games out there. Many many acts of competition, many many types of entertainment. There near infinite number of things more mechanically difficult than BW. There is also near infinite things more strategic than BW. The existence of those things does not reduce the value of BW because BW is not defined by that one metric. Rarely is the quality of anything actually defined by a single metric. There is no need to see statements like the ones artosis made as attacks on BW for the same reason that the statements he made were not praises of SC2.
|
On July 02 2015 03:15 TMagpie wrote:Show nested quote +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.
why you got two accounts dude
|
On July 02 2015 06:31 TMagpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 05:50 jinorazi wrote:
"strategic importance" just flies over my head when people talk about it. its knowing what to do and executing it. it doesnt take "strategic thinking" to know if you're down, distract opponent by constantly poking or dropping while i do a hidden expansion or something. this isnt some brilliant strategy but rather executing it efficiently of something that is common sense or best route of action depending on circumstances. even with the most perfect strategy ever conceived, it means nothing if it isnt executed properly and if a player has very good mechanics, they can win whole lot of games just massing marines against infestors and banelings.
throughout the game its small decision making here and there and executing those decisions. to me it has little to do with strategy, but maybe its just my play style since i'm no pro, i just do everything on the fly including build orders after 21st supply and i have no problem winning.
"greater focus on strategy" means nothing because whatever strategy that may be, it all comes down to execution so mechanics are a huge deal in starcraft no matter what. Artosis never said that mechanics don't matter... He said one game emphasis one over another but he never made it an exclusive binary. Both games require mechanics. Both games require strategy. Games where execution of mechanics are less important, punishes mistaken strategies more. Games where execution of mechanics is more important, gives higher possibility of recovering from strategic mistakes. Neither mechanics nor strategy is inherently "better" than the other. They're different. Different games emphasize one more than the other--but its not like that means anything concrete. Rekrul's post was a joke--but it really did get to the heart of the matter the most succinctly. Kate Upton is not sexy *because* she has big boobs, for there are many ugly people with bigger boobs than her. As such, using "bust size" to denote quality doesn't actually say anything. Its the whole package that denotes quality. So when statements like "SC2 is more strategy focused that BW" does it really tell us what the quality of SC2 is over BW? Or, much like Rekrul's picture, does the size of one's "strategy" really equate to how sexy one is? There are many many games out there. Many many acts of competition, many many types of entertainment. There near infinite number of things more mechanically difficult than BW. There is also near infinite things more strategic than BW. The existence of those things does not reduce the value of BW because BW is not defined by that one metric. Rarely is the quality of anything actually defined by a single metric. There is no need to see statements like the ones artosis made as attacks on BW for the same reason that the statements he made were not praises of SC2.
my post wasnt about artosis, i personally just pass that off as his own opinion. it was about the post above about "strategy focus in sc2" and some chess reference.
|
On July 02 2015 06:31 TMagpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 05:50 jinorazi wrote:
"strategic importance" just flies over my head when people talk about it. its knowing what to do and executing it. it doesnt take "strategic thinking" to know if you're down, distract opponent by constantly poking or dropping while i do a hidden expansion or something. this isnt some brilliant strategy but rather executing it efficiently of something that is common sense or best route of action depending on circumstances. even with the most perfect strategy ever conceived, it means nothing if it isnt executed properly and if a player has very good mechanics, they can win whole lot of games just massing marines against infestors and banelings.
throughout the game its small decision making here and there and executing those decisions. to me it has little to do with strategy, but maybe its just my play style since i'm no pro, i just do everything on the fly including build orders after 21st supply and i have no problem winning.
"greater focus on strategy" means nothing because whatever strategy that may be, it all comes down to execution so mechanics are a huge deal in starcraft no matter what. Artosis never said that mechanics don't matter... He said one game emphasis one over another but he never made it an exclusive binary. Both games require mechanics. Both games require strategy. Games where execution of mechanics are less important, punishes mistaken strategies more.
Games where execution of mechanics is more important, gives higher possibility of recovering from strategic mistakes.Neither mechanics nor strategy is inherently "better" than the other. They're different. Different games emphasize one more than the other--but its not like that means anything concrete. Rekrul's post was a joke--but it really did get to the heart of the matter the most succinctly. Kate Upton is not sexy *because* she has big boobs, for there are many ugly people with bigger boobs than her. As such, using "bust size" to denote quality doesn't actually say anything. Its the whole package that denotes quality. So when statements like "SC2 is more strategy focused that BW" does it really tell us what the quality of SC2 is over BW? Or, much like Rekrul's picture, does the size of one's "strategy" really equate to how sexy one is? There are many many games out there. Many many acts of competition, many many types of entertainment. There near infinite number of things more mechanically difficult than BW. There is also near infinite things more strategic than BW. The existence of those things does not reduce the value of BW because BW is not defined by that one metric. Rarely is the quality of anything actually defined by a single metric. There is no need to see statements like the ones artosis made as attacks on BW for the same reason that the statements he made were not praises of SC2.
This completely neglects the fact that we play vs other players and not vs the game.
It doesn't matter how hard the mechanics are, there will always be someone close to your mechanical skill (unless you are the absolute best/worst, that might be an exception)
If mechanics would be more important in one game that only means that the mechanical skill of said playerbase is highly different. If the differences in mechanical skill of players are similar between games, you simply cannot say that strategy is more important in one game. It makes no sense.
|
On July 02 2015 06:27 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 06:19 nkr wrote:
What he says in his text isn't that there's more strategy in the game, but rather that it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier. Removing or restricting something in a game doesn't suddenly make the other things more evolved, it just puts more emphasis on them. it may seem that way but i dont think that is the case. you can still do in bw whatever "more focused strategy" you can do in sc2. its just easier to do with smartcast/mbs but it doesnt add more depth to it.
I think you're having a language issue. Because it seems you didn't understand what nkr said.
|
On July 02 2015 06:39 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 06:31 TMagpie wrote:On July 02 2015 05:50 jinorazi wrote:
"strategic importance" just flies over my head when people talk about it. its knowing what to do and executing it. it doesnt take "strategic thinking" to know if you're down, distract opponent by constantly poking or dropping while i do a hidden expansion or something. this isnt some brilliant strategy but rather executing it efficiently of something that is common sense or best route of action depending on circumstances. even with the most perfect strategy ever conceived, it means nothing if it isnt executed properly and if a player has very good mechanics, they can win whole lot of games just massing marines against infestors and banelings.
throughout the game its small decision making here and there and executing those decisions. to me it has little to do with strategy, but maybe its just my play style since i'm no pro, i just do everything on the fly including build orders after 21st supply and i have no problem winning.
"greater focus on strategy" means nothing because whatever strategy that may be, it all comes down to execution so mechanics are a huge deal in starcraft no matter what. Artosis never said that mechanics don't matter... He said one game emphasis one over another but he never made it an exclusive binary. Both games require mechanics. Both games require strategy. Games where execution of mechanics are less important, punishes mistaken strategies more.
Games where execution of mechanics is more important, gives higher possibility of recovering from strategic mistakes.Neither mechanics nor strategy is inherently "better" than the other. They're different. Different games emphasize one more than the other--but its not like that means anything concrete. Rekrul's post was a joke--but it really did get to the heart of the matter the most succinctly. Kate Upton is not sexy *because* she has big boobs, for there are many ugly people with bigger boobs than her. As such, using "bust size" to denote quality doesn't actually say anything. Its the whole package that denotes quality. So when statements like "SC2 is more strategy focused that BW" does it really tell us what the quality of SC2 is over BW? Or, much like Rekrul's picture, does the size of one's "strategy" really equate to how sexy one is? There are many many games out there. Many many acts of competition, many many types of entertainment. There near infinite number of things more mechanically difficult than BW. There is also near infinite things more strategic than BW. The existence of those things does not reduce the value of BW because BW is not defined by that one metric. Rarely is the quality of anything actually defined by a single metric. There is no need to see statements like the ones artosis made as attacks on BW for the same reason that the statements he made were not praises of SC2. This completely neglects the fact that we play vs other players and not vs the game. It doesn't matter how hard the mechanics are, there will always be someone close to your mechanical skill (unless you are the absolute best/worst, that might be an exception) If mechanics would be more important in one game that only means that the mechanical skill of said playerbase is highly different. If the differences in mechanical skill of players are similar between games, you simply cannot say that strategy is more important in one game. It makes no sense.
But if the reason that you are better than someone else is primarily because of mechanical skill and not strategical skill, then the game focuses heavily on mechanics.
In both SC2 and BW, you will be better than many people based on mechanics, until you reach a certain level. At that level, mechanics start meaning less and strategy starts meaning more. Mechanical improvements past this point give diminishing returns. The only difference is that in SC2, this level is reached sooner. In BW, it is reached later, but when it is reached, it makes for a better game, because choosing how to spend apm is a fun part of the game that isn't emphasized much in SC2.
|
On July 02 2015 06:40 vOdToasT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 06:39 The_Red_Viper wrote:On July 02 2015 06:31 TMagpie wrote:On July 02 2015 05:50 jinorazi wrote:
"strategic importance" just flies over my head when people talk about it. its knowing what to do and executing it. it doesnt take "strategic thinking" to know if you're down, distract opponent by constantly poking or dropping while i do a hidden expansion or something. this isnt some brilliant strategy but rather executing it efficiently of something that is common sense or best route of action depending on circumstances. even with the most perfect strategy ever conceived, it means nothing if it isnt executed properly and if a player has very good mechanics, they can win whole lot of games just massing marines against infestors and banelings.
throughout the game its small decision making here and there and executing those decisions. to me it has little to do with strategy, but maybe its just my play style since i'm no pro, i just do everything on the fly including build orders after 21st supply and i have no problem winning.
"greater focus on strategy" means nothing because whatever strategy that may be, it all comes down to execution so mechanics are a huge deal in starcraft no matter what. Artosis never said that mechanics don't matter... He said one game emphasis one over another but he never made it an exclusive binary. Both games require mechanics. Both games require strategy. Games where execution of mechanics are less important, punishes mistaken strategies more.
Games where execution of mechanics is more important, gives higher possibility of recovering from strategic mistakes.Neither mechanics nor strategy is inherently "better" than the other. They're different. Different games emphasize one more than the other--but its not like that means anything concrete. Rekrul's post was a joke--but it really did get to the heart of the matter the most succinctly. Kate Upton is not sexy *because* she has big boobs, for there are many ugly people with bigger boobs than her. As such, using "bust size" to denote quality doesn't actually say anything. Its the whole package that denotes quality. So when statements like "SC2 is more strategy focused that BW" does it really tell us what the quality of SC2 is over BW? Or, much like Rekrul's picture, does the size of one's "strategy" really equate to how sexy one is? There are many many games out there. Many many acts of competition, many many types of entertainment. There near infinite number of things more mechanically difficult than BW. There is also near infinite things more strategic than BW. The existence of those things does not reduce the value of BW because BW is not defined by that one metric. Rarely is the quality of anything actually defined by a single metric. There is no need to see statements like the ones artosis made as attacks on BW for the same reason that the statements he made were not praises of SC2. This completely neglects the fact that we play vs other players and not vs the game. It doesn't matter how hard the mechanics are, there will always be someone close to your mechanical skill (unless you are the absolute best/worst, that might be an exception) If mechanics would be more important in one game that only means that the mechanical skill of said playerbase is highly different. If the differences in mechanical skill of players are similar between games, you simply cannot say that strategy is more important in one game. It makes no sense. But if the reason that you are better than someone else is primarily because of mechanical skill and not strategical skill, then the game focuses heavily on mechanics. In both SC2 and BW, you will be better than many people based on mechanics, until you reach a certain level. At that level, mechanics start meaning less and strategy starts meaning more. Mechanical improvements past this point give diminishing returns. The only difference is that in SC2, this level is reached sooner. In BW, it is reached later, but when it is reached, it makes for a better game, because choosing how to spend apm is a fun part of the game that isn't emphasized much in SC2.
That only means you chose to look at two players with highly different mechanical skills.
The second part is kinda the definition of mechanical skill floor, nothing more.
|
On July 02 2015 06:41 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 06:40 vOdToasT wrote:On July 02 2015 06:39 The_Red_Viper wrote:On July 02 2015 06:31 TMagpie wrote:On July 02 2015 05:50 jinorazi wrote:
"strategic importance" just flies over my head when people talk about it. its knowing what to do and executing it. it doesnt take "strategic thinking" to know if you're down, distract opponent by constantly poking or dropping while i do a hidden expansion or something. this isnt some brilliant strategy but rather executing it efficiently of something that is common sense or best route of action depending on circumstances. even with the most perfect strategy ever conceived, it means nothing if it isnt executed properly and if a player has very good mechanics, they can win whole lot of games just massing marines against infestors and banelings.
throughout the game its small decision making here and there and executing those decisions. to me it has little to do with strategy, but maybe its just my play style since i'm no pro, i just do everything on the fly including build orders after 21st supply and i have no problem winning.
"greater focus on strategy" means nothing because whatever strategy that may be, it all comes down to execution so mechanics are a huge deal in starcraft no matter what. Artosis never said that mechanics don't matter... He said one game emphasis one over another but he never made it an exclusive binary. Both games require mechanics. Both games require strategy. Games where execution of mechanics are less important, punishes mistaken strategies more.
Games where execution of mechanics is more important, gives higher possibility of recovering from strategic mistakes.Neither mechanics nor strategy is inherently "better" than the other. They're different. Different games emphasize one more than the other--but its not like that means anything concrete. Rekrul's post was a joke--but it really did get to the heart of the matter the most succinctly. Kate Upton is not sexy *because* she has big boobs, for there are many ugly people with bigger boobs than her. As such, using "bust size" to denote quality doesn't actually say anything. Its the whole package that denotes quality. So when statements like "SC2 is more strategy focused that BW" does it really tell us what the quality of SC2 is over BW? Or, much like Rekrul's picture, does the size of one's "strategy" really equate to how sexy one is? There are many many games out there. Many many acts of competition, many many types of entertainment. There near infinite number of things more mechanically difficult than BW. There is also near infinite things more strategic than BW. The existence of those things does not reduce the value of BW because BW is not defined by that one metric. Rarely is the quality of anything actually defined by a single metric. There is no need to see statements like the ones artosis made as attacks on BW for the same reason that the statements he made were not praises of SC2. This completely neglects the fact that we play vs other players and not vs the game. It doesn't matter how hard the mechanics are, there will always be someone close to your mechanical skill (unless you are the absolute best/worst, that might be an exception) If mechanics would be more important in one game that only means that the mechanical skill of said playerbase is highly different. If the differences in mechanical skill of players are similar between games, you simply cannot say that strategy is more important in one game. It makes no sense. But if the reason that you are better than someone else is primarily because of mechanical skill and not strategical skill, then the game focuses heavily on mechanics. That only means that you chose to look at player with highly different mechanics, nothign more
You can also be better than someone because you have better strategy, that is true. Which shows us that StarCraft and StarCraft 2 are games of strategy AND skill.
edit:
I think that StarCraft II is only a relatively more strategic game than BW. I don't think that it actually has more strategic depth. It just has less of other things, which shifts the spotlight more towards strategy. But when a certain mechanical skill level is reached in BW, raw mechanics aren't what decide games anyway...
|
On July 02 2015 06:39 TMagpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 06:27 jinorazi wrote:On July 02 2015 06:19 nkr wrote:
What he says in his text isn't that there's more strategy in the game, but rather that it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier. Removing or restricting something in a game doesn't suddenly make the other things more evolved, it just puts more emphasis on them. it may seem that way but i dont think that is the case. you can still do in bw whatever "more focused strategy" you can do in sc2. its just easier to do with smartcast/mbs but it doesnt add more depth to it. I think you're having a language issue. Because it seems you didn't understand what nkr said.
??? he (poster he refers to) says sc2 puts more focus (emphasis) on strategy since mechanics are easier, and i said that is not the case (that it doesnt not put more focus on strategy and it makes no difference in the end). are you sure i'm not understanding correctly?
|
On July 02 2015 06:39 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 06:31 TMagpie wrote:On July 02 2015 05:50 jinorazi wrote:
"strategic importance" just flies over my head when people talk about it. its knowing what to do and executing it. it doesnt take "strategic thinking" to know if you're down, distract opponent by constantly poking or dropping while i do a hidden expansion or something. this isnt some brilliant strategy but rather executing it efficiently of something that is common sense or best route of action depending on circumstances. even with the most perfect strategy ever conceived, it means nothing if it isnt executed properly and if a player has very good mechanics, they can win whole lot of games just massing marines against infestors and banelings.
throughout the game its small decision making here and there and executing those decisions. to me it has little to do with strategy, but maybe its just my play style since i'm no pro, i just do everything on the fly including build orders after 21st supply and i have no problem winning.
"greater focus on strategy" means nothing because whatever strategy that may be, it all comes down to execution so mechanics are a huge deal in starcraft no matter what. Artosis never said that mechanics don't matter... He said one game emphasis one over another but he never made it an exclusive binary. Both games require mechanics. Both games require strategy. Games where execution of mechanics are less important, punishes mistaken strategies more.
Games where execution of mechanics is more important, gives higher possibility of recovering from strategic mistakes.Neither mechanics nor strategy is inherently "better" than the other. They're different. Different games emphasize one more than the other--but its not like that means anything concrete. Rekrul's post was a joke--but it really did get to the heart of the matter the most succinctly. Kate Upton is not sexy *because* she has big boobs, for there are many ugly people with bigger boobs than her. As such, using "bust size" to denote quality doesn't actually say anything. Its the whole package that denotes quality. So when statements like "SC2 is more strategy focused that BW" does it really tell us what the quality of SC2 is over BW? Or, much like Rekrul's picture, does the size of one's "strategy" really equate to how sexy one is? There are many many games out there. Many many acts of competition, many many types of entertainment. There near infinite number of things more mechanically difficult than BW. There is also near infinite things more strategic than BW. The existence of those things does not reduce the value of BW because BW is not defined by that one metric. Rarely is the quality of anything actually defined by a single metric. There is no need to see statements like the ones artosis made as attacks on BW for the same reason that the statements he made were not praises of SC2. This completely neglects the fact that we play vs other players and not vs the game. It doesn't matter how hard the mechanics are, there will always be someone close to your mechanical skill (unless you are the absolute best/worst, that might be an exception) If mechanics would be more important in one game that only means that the mechanical skill of said playerbase is highly different. If the differences in mechanical skill of players are similar between games, you simply cannot say that strategy is more important in one game. It makes no sense.
You're assuming that players always face versus someone of exactly equal skill each time. This is where you are mistaken.
Look back at Artosis' example. Sea vs some random guy on the ladder. What are the chances that if Sea faces some random player on the ladder that he is facing vs a former pro that practices the same as him? And what are the chances that unless Sea makes sure that the person he finds is the same skill level than him that he will simply win because he has kespa training and most random ladder players do not. In fact, if you took a kespa BW player and had them face against A level players on iccup they would absolutely roflstomp them because Kespa mechanics are so much ahead of the competition.
What if we reverse that? What are the chances that random masters players can take games off of pros in SC2? Pretty high actually, because if the SC2 pro makes the wrong strategic choice he can't just use his superior mechanics to always get back in the game.
Why is this? Because in BW, the difficulty of the game is high enough that most players are unable to execute strategies as effectively as they should to get wins off of pros. The reverse is not true in SC2. In SC2, a lot of pros will lose to people on the ladder with worse mechanics than them because they made the wrong units or decided to attack on the wrong time.
This is what Artosis means about one game being more reliant on one thing over another. The reason Chess and Sports and Board Games and Poker get brought up is in an attempt to show what the relationship of mechanics and strategy is as a concept in order to be able to discuss it without the biased need to prove one game is superior/inferior to the other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
