|
On July 02 2015 06:45 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 06:39 TMagpie wrote: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?
He's saying that mechanical skill has less of bonus in SC2 than it does in BW. As such, the % that mechanics makes a difference in SC2 is smaller than it is in BW. As such, mechanics has less of an impact (relatively) in SC2 than in BW. As such, the decision of what strategy is chosen in SC2 is becomes more critical (relatively) than BW because "doing things better" is less important in SC2 than in BW (relatively).
Since your conclusion to his statement was "doesnt add more depth to it" shows that you didn't understand what he was saying since he did not in the least talk about depth.
|
??? third person and 2 accounts now... lol?
|
Artosis also mentioned strategic variables that add depth, which do not exist in BW. He said that there are beautiful things about SC2 that are not in SC1, which are harder to notice than Brood War's beauty.
He said that hard counters are one such thing. So he wasn't only saying that strategy is relatively more important in SC2.
|
On July 02 2015 06:57 TMagpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 06:45 jinorazi wrote:On July 02 2015 06:39 TMagpie wrote: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? He's saying that mechanical skill has less of bonus in SC2 than it does in BW. As such, the % that mechanics makes a difference in SC2 is smaller than it is in BW. As such, mechanics has less of an impact (relatively) in SC2 than in BW. As such, the decision of what strategy is chosen in SC2 is becomes more critical (relatively) than BW because "doing things better" is less important in SC2 than in BW (relatively). Since your conclusion to his statement was "doesnt add more depth to it" shows that you didn't understand what he was saying since he did not in the least talk about depth.
the original post says since mechanics is easier, it puts more focus on strategy and my point was mechanics make no difference in strategy, hence it does not add more depth. unit design is a different matter not related to mechanics.
the results of unit design is what makes strategy(what unit to make) more important, not the difference of sc2 and bw's mechanics.
|
On July 02 2015 07:11 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 06:57 TMagpie wrote:On July 02 2015 06:45 jinorazi wrote:On July 02 2015 06:39 TMagpie wrote: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? He's saying that mechanical skill has less of bonus in SC2 than it does in BW. As such, the % that mechanics makes a difference in SC2 is smaller than it is in BW. As such, mechanics has less of an impact (relatively) in SC2 than in BW. As such, the decision of what strategy is chosen in SC2 is becomes more critical (relatively) than BW because "doing things better" is less important in SC2 than in BW (relatively). Since your conclusion to his statement was "doesnt add more depth to it" shows that you didn't understand what he was saying since he did not in the least talk about depth. the original post says since mechanics is easier, it puts more focus on strategy and my point was mechanics make no difference in strategy, hence it does not add more depth. unit design is a different matter not related to mechanics. the results of unit design is what makes strategy(what unit to make) more important, not the difference of sc2 and bw's mechanics.
See, you're getting confused again. You keep bringing up "hence it does not add more depth" when nkr says nothing of that.
nkr literally says that mechanics has a bigger impact in BW and less of an impact in SC2. That is all he is positing. As such, the results of a game depends less on mechanics in SC2 relative to BW. Assuming that both mechanics and strategy is the cause of victories in both games, the percentage that mechanics take responsibility of that victory is smaller in SC2 than it is in BW. As such, the percentage of the responsibility of that victory coming from strategy in SC2 is higher than it is in BW because mechanics has a bigger effect in BW than in SC2.
You are bringing up a qualitative value of the strategy (by describing it as depth) and not listening to what nkr is saying.
|
On July 02 2015 07:25 TMagpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 07:11 jinorazi wrote:On July 02 2015 06:57 TMagpie wrote:On July 02 2015 06:45 jinorazi wrote:On July 02 2015 06:39 TMagpie wrote: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? He's saying that mechanical skill has less of bonus in SC2 than it does in BW. As such, the % that mechanics makes a difference in SC2 is smaller than it is in BW. As such, mechanics has less of an impact (relatively) in SC2 than in BW. As such, the decision of what strategy is chosen in SC2 is becomes more critical (relatively) than BW because "doing things better" is less important in SC2 than in BW (relatively). Since your conclusion to his statement was "doesnt add more depth to it" shows that you didn't understand what he was saying since he did not in the least talk about depth. the original post says since mechanics is easier, it puts more focus on strategy and my point was mechanics make no difference in strategy, hence it does not add more depth. unit design is a different matter not related to mechanics. the results of unit design is what makes strategy(what unit to make) more important, not the difference of sc2 and bw's mechanics. See, you're getting confused again. You keep bringing up "hence it does not add more depth" when nkr says nothing of that. nkr literally says that mechanics has a bigger impact in BW and less of an impact in SC2. That is all he is positing. As such, the results of a game depends less on mechanics in SC2 relative to BW. Assuming that both mechanics and strategy is the cause of victories in both games, the percentage that mechanics take responsibility of that victory is smaller in SC2 than it is in BW. As such, the percentage of the responsibility of that victory coming from strategy in SC2 is higher than it is in BW because mechanics has a bigger effect in BW than in SC2. You are bringing up a qualitative value of the strategy (by describing it as depth) and not listening to what nkr is saying.
ahem* the original post says:
"...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier."
"...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier."
"...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier."
i agree sc2 matters less on mechanics and more on what units to make (kind of), im against how that conclution came to be; its unit design, NOT MECHANICS. my point, once again is that easier mechanics does not add more focus/depth/emphasis on strategy.
|
On July 02 2015 07:28 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 07:25 TMagpie wrote:On July 02 2015 07:11 jinorazi wrote:On July 02 2015 06:57 TMagpie wrote:On July 02 2015 06:45 jinorazi wrote:On July 02 2015 06:39 TMagpie wrote: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? He's saying that mechanical skill has less of bonus in SC2 than it does in BW. As such, the % that mechanics makes a difference in SC2 is smaller than it is in BW. As such, mechanics has less of an impact (relatively) in SC2 than in BW. As such, the decision of what strategy is chosen in SC2 is becomes more critical (relatively) than BW because "doing things better" is less important in SC2 than in BW (relatively). Since your conclusion to his statement was "doesnt add more depth to it" shows that you didn't understand what he was saying since he did not in the least talk about depth. the original post says since mechanics is easier, it puts more focus on strategy and my point was mechanics make no difference in strategy, hence it does not add more depth. unit design is a different matter not related to mechanics. the results of unit design is what makes strategy(what unit to make) more important, not the difference of sc2 and bw's mechanics. See, you're getting confused again. You keep bringing up "hence it does not add more depth" when nkr says nothing of that. nkr literally says that mechanics has a bigger impact in BW and less of an impact in SC2. That is all he is positing. As such, the results of a game depends less on mechanics in SC2 relative to BW. Assuming that both mechanics and strategy is the cause of victories in both games, the percentage that mechanics take responsibility of that victory is smaller in SC2 than it is in BW. As such, the percentage of the responsibility of that victory coming from strategy in SC2 is higher than it is in BW because mechanics has a bigger effect in BW than in SC2. You are bringing up a qualitative value of the strategy (by describing it as depth) and not listening to what nkr is saying. ahem* the original post says: "...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier." "...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier.""...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier."
Yeah the mechanics are easier, but the skill cap is still outside of reach.
What's up with you man? lol... bw apologist? Want to go back to no mouse keyboard only rts games?
|
On July 02 2015 07:31 loft wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 07:28 jinorazi wrote:On July 02 2015 07:25 TMagpie wrote:On July 02 2015 07:11 jinorazi wrote:On July 02 2015 06:57 TMagpie wrote:On July 02 2015 06:45 jinorazi wrote:On July 02 2015 06:39 TMagpie wrote: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? He's saying that mechanical skill has less of bonus in SC2 than it does in BW. As such, the % that mechanics makes a difference in SC2 is smaller than it is in BW. As such, mechanics has less of an impact (relatively) in SC2 than in BW. As such, the decision of what strategy is chosen in SC2 is becomes more critical (relatively) than BW because "doing things better" is less important in SC2 than in BW (relatively). Since your conclusion to his statement was "doesnt add more depth to it" shows that you didn't understand what he was saying since he did not in the least talk about depth. the original post says since mechanics is easier, it puts more focus on strategy and my point was mechanics make no difference in strategy, hence it does not add more depth. unit design is a different matter not related to mechanics. the results of unit design is what makes strategy(what unit to make) more important, not the difference of sc2 and bw's mechanics. See, you're getting confused again. You keep bringing up "hence it does not add more depth" when nkr says nothing of that. nkr literally says that mechanics has a bigger impact in BW and less of an impact in SC2. That is all he is positing. As such, the results of a game depends less on mechanics in SC2 relative to BW. Assuming that both mechanics and strategy is the cause of victories in both games, the percentage that mechanics take responsibility of that victory is smaller in SC2 than it is in BW. As such, the percentage of the responsibility of that victory coming from strategy in SC2 is higher than it is in BW because mechanics has a bigger effect in BW than in SC2. You are bringing up a qualitative value of the strategy (by describing it as depth) and not listening to what nkr is saying. ahem* the original post says: "...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier." "...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier.""...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier." Yeah the mechanics are easier, but the skill cap is still outside of reach. What's up with you man? lol... bw apologist? Want to go back to no mouse keyboard only rts games?
you're not understanding the context of that post 
|
On July 02 2015 07:28 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 07:25 TMagpie wrote:On July 02 2015 07:11 jinorazi wrote:On July 02 2015 06:57 TMagpie wrote:On July 02 2015 06:45 jinorazi wrote:On July 02 2015 06:39 TMagpie wrote: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? He's saying that mechanical skill has less of bonus in SC2 than it does in BW. As such, the % that mechanics makes a difference in SC2 is smaller than it is in BW. As such, mechanics has less of an impact (relatively) in SC2 than in BW. As such, the decision of what strategy is chosen in SC2 is becomes more critical (relatively) than BW because "doing things better" is less important in SC2 than in BW (relatively). Since your conclusion to his statement was "doesnt add more depth to it" shows that you didn't understand what he was saying since he did not in the least talk about depth. the original post says since mechanics is easier, it puts more focus on strategy and my point was mechanics make no difference in strategy, hence it does not add more depth. unit design is a different matter not related to mechanics. the results of unit design is what makes strategy(what unit to make) more important, not the difference of sc2 and bw's mechanics. See, you're getting confused again. You keep bringing up "hence it does not add more depth" when nkr says nothing of that. nkr literally says that mechanics has a bigger impact in BW and less of an impact in SC2. That is all he is positing. As such, the results of a game depends less on mechanics in SC2 relative to BW. Assuming that both mechanics and strategy is the cause of victories in both games, the percentage that mechanics take responsibility of that victory is smaller in SC2 than it is in BW. As such, the percentage of the responsibility of that victory coming from strategy in SC2 is higher than it is in BW because mechanics has a bigger effect in BW than in SC2. You are bringing up a qualitative value of the strategy (by describing it as depth) and not listening to what nkr is saying. ahem* the original post says: "...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier." "...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier.""...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier."i agree sc2 matters less on mechanics and more on what units to make (kind of), im against how that conclution came to be; its unit design, NOT MECHANICS. my point, once again is that easier mechanics does not add more focus/depth/emphasis on strategy.
I don't think you know what that phrase means...
If I decided to put more focus on my studies than my work--does that mean my studies gain more depth?
If I decided to put more focus on eating salads than eating burgers--does that mean salads gain more depth?
If I decided to put more focus on strategy than mechanics--does that mean strategy gains more depth?
Or does it simply mean that it takes up a larger percentage of the attention/focus? Does it mean that its simply a bigger part of the overall whole?
I don't necessarily think your posits are wrong, I just don't think you understood what the phrase actually said.
|
On July 02 2015 07:48 TMagpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 07:28 jinorazi wrote:On July 02 2015 07:25 TMagpie wrote:On July 02 2015 07:11 jinorazi wrote:On July 02 2015 06:57 TMagpie wrote:On July 02 2015 06:45 jinorazi wrote:On July 02 2015 06:39 TMagpie wrote: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? He's saying that mechanical skill has less of bonus in SC2 than it does in BW. As such, the % that mechanics makes a difference in SC2 is smaller than it is in BW. As such, mechanics has less of an impact (relatively) in SC2 than in BW. As such, the decision of what strategy is chosen in SC2 is becomes more critical (relatively) than BW because "doing things better" is less important in SC2 than in BW (relatively). Since your conclusion to his statement was "doesnt add more depth to it" shows that you didn't understand what he was saying since he did not in the least talk about depth. the original post says since mechanics is easier, it puts more focus on strategy and my point was mechanics make no difference in strategy, hence it does not add more depth. unit design is a different matter not related to mechanics. the results of unit design is what makes strategy(what unit to make) more important, not the difference of sc2 and bw's mechanics. See, you're getting confused again. You keep bringing up "hence it does not add more depth" when nkr says nothing of that. nkr literally says that mechanics has a bigger impact in BW and less of an impact in SC2. That is all he is positing. As such, the results of a game depends less on mechanics in SC2 relative to BW. Assuming that both mechanics and strategy is the cause of victories in both games, the percentage that mechanics take responsibility of that victory is smaller in SC2 than it is in BW. As such, the percentage of the responsibility of that victory coming from strategy in SC2 is higher than it is in BW because mechanics has a bigger effect in BW than in SC2. You are bringing up a qualitative value of the strategy (by describing it as depth) and not listening to what nkr is saying. ahem* the original post says: "...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier." "...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier.""...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier."i agree sc2 matters less on mechanics and more on what units to make (kind of), im against how that conclution came to be; its unit design, NOT MECHANICS. my point, once again is that easier mechanics does not add more focus/depth/emphasis on strategy. I don't think you know what that phrase means... If I decided to put more focus on my studies than my work--does that mean my studies gain more depth? If I decided to put more focus on eating salads than eating burgers--does that mean salads gain more depth? If I decided to put more focus on strategy than mechanics--does that mean strategy gains more depth?
Putting more focus on your studies sounds like you start to study more. Studying the same amount, but doing other things less (and therefor just sitting around doing nothing with the gained time) is a more accurate metaphor.
|
On July 02 2015 07:50 vOdToasT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 07:48 TMagpie wrote:On July 02 2015 07:28 jinorazi wrote:On July 02 2015 07:25 TMagpie wrote:On July 02 2015 07:11 jinorazi wrote:On July 02 2015 06:57 TMagpie wrote:On July 02 2015 06:45 jinorazi wrote:On July 02 2015 06:39 TMagpie wrote: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? He's saying that mechanical skill has less of bonus in SC2 than it does in BW. As such, the % that mechanics makes a difference in SC2 is smaller than it is in BW. As such, mechanics has less of an impact (relatively) in SC2 than in BW. As such, the decision of what strategy is chosen in SC2 is becomes more critical (relatively) than BW because "doing things better" is less important in SC2 than in BW (relatively). Since your conclusion to his statement was "doesnt add more depth to it" shows that you didn't understand what he was saying since he did not in the least talk about depth. the original post says since mechanics is easier, it puts more focus on strategy and my point was mechanics make no difference in strategy, hence it does not add more depth. unit design is a different matter not related to mechanics. the results of unit design is what makes strategy(what unit to make) more important, not the difference of sc2 and bw's mechanics. See, you're getting confused again. You keep bringing up "hence it does not add more depth" when nkr says nothing of that. nkr literally says that mechanics has a bigger impact in BW and less of an impact in SC2. That is all he is positing. As such, the results of a game depends less on mechanics in SC2 relative to BW. Assuming that both mechanics and strategy is the cause of victories in both games, the percentage that mechanics take responsibility of that victory is smaller in SC2 than it is in BW. As such, the percentage of the responsibility of that victory coming from strategy in SC2 is higher than it is in BW because mechanics has a bigger effect in BW than in SC2. You are bringing up a qualitative value of the strategy (by describing it as depth) and not listening to what nkr is saying. ahem* the original post says: "...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier." "...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier.""...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier."i agree sc2 matters less on mechanics and more on what units to make (kind of), im against how that conclution came to be; its unit design, NOT MECHANICS. my point, once again is that easier mechanics does not add more focus/depth/emphasis on strategy. I don't think you know what that phrase means... If I decided to put more focus on my studies than my work--does that mean my studies gain more depth? If I decided to put more focus on eating salads than eating burgers--does that mean salads gain more depth? If I decided to put more focus on strategy than mechanics--does that mean strategy gains more depth? Putting more focus on your studies sounds like you start to study more. Working the same amount, but doing other things less (and therefor just sitting around doing nothing with the gained time) is a more accurate metaphor.
Then the sentence would be "put more focus on my studies, than other things I do outside of work" but the sentence remains the same. Twisting the word makes it sound like nkr was making a judgement of which game was better than the other with BW defenders coming in to stand up for BW against someone who literally wasn't saying anything against it.
|
On July 02 2015 07:48 TMagpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 07:28 jinorazi wrote:On July 02 2015 07:25 TMagpie wrote:On July 02 2015 07:11 jinorazi wrote:On July 02 2015 06:57 TMagpie wrote:On July 02 2015 06:45 jinorazi wrote:On July 02 2015 06:39 TMagpie wrote: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? He's saying that mechanical skill has less of bonus in SC2 than it does in BW. As such, the % that mechanics makes a difference in SC2 is smaller than it is in BW. As such, mechanics has less of an impact (relatively) in SC2 than in BW. As such, the decision of what strategy is chosen in SC2 is becomes more critical (relatively) than BW because "doing things better" is less important in SC2 than in BW (relatively). Since your conclusion to his statement was "doesnt add more depth to it" shows that you didn't understand what he was saying since he did not in the least talk about depth. the original post says since mechanics is easier, it puts more focus on strategy and my point was mechanics make no difference in strategy, hence it does not add more depth. unit design is a different matter not related to mechanics. the results of unit design is what makes strategy(what unit to make) more important, not the difference of sc2 and bw's mechanics. See, you're getting confused again. You keep bringing up "hence it does not add more depth" when nkr says nothing of that. nkr literally says that mechanics has a bigger impact in BW and less of an impact in SC2. That is all he is positing. As such, the results of a game depends less on mechanics in SC2 relative to BW. Assuming that both mechanics and strategy is the cause of victories in both games, the percentage that mechanics take responsibility of that victory is smaller in SC2 than it is in BW. As such, the percentage of the responsibility of that victory coming from strategy in SC2 is higher than it is in BW because mechanics has a bigger effect in BW than in SC2. You are bringing up a qualitative value of the strategy (by describing it as depth) and not listening to what nkr is saying. ahem* the original post says: "...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier." "...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier.""...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier."i agree sc2 matters less on mechanics and more on what units to make (kind of), im against how that conclution came to be; its unit design, NOT MECHANICS. my point, once again is that easier mechanics does not add more focus/depth/emphasis on strategy. I don't think you know what that phrase means... If I decided to put more focus on my studies than my work--does that mean my studies gain more depth? If I decided to put more focus on eating salads than eating burgers--does that mean salads gain more depth? If I decided to put more focus on strategy than mechanics--does that mean strategy gains more depth? Or does it simply mean that it takes up a larger percentage of the attention/focus? Does it mean that its simply a bigger part of the overall whole? I don't necessarily think your posits are wrong, I just don't think you understood what the phrase actually said.
whoa, you're taking that word "depth" to a whole new level where i'm not even sure what you're trying to say. my point was it doesnt add more to it then what it is, it does not make it more meaningful, it does not make it more important, it does not make it more complicated. a choice of word, friend. if you have a grief with my choice of word just say so, no need to waste so many paragraphs talking around it to avoid criticizing my choice of word incase it hurts my feelings
the poster said mechanics is easier so it puts more focus on strategy. i said that is not the case, no more no less...yet you went so far to explain what artosis was trying to say when i wasnt even talking about what artosis said, i only made the point for that phrase i posted above 3 times. i have no idea why you're trying to paraphrase what he said with what artosis is saying, i just took what nrk said for what it is and not cross-referencing with what artosis said.
"...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier." is not some parable or riddle where it could be taken with so many meanings...its very plane to me. it simply says strategy has more focus because mechanics is easier. if he maent something else when he said that, fine by me and i dont fault him but that phrase is wrong in my eyes.
|
It may be that sc2 strategy is higher relative to its own mechanics, but that doesn't mean there is less strategy in BW compared to sc2, simply that the strategy component is less important within BW itself. As Hier wrote:
On June 30 2015 13:36 Hier wrote:
Proportionally? Yes. Relatively? No.
And Red Viper elaborated about 7 pages ago for those who needed a lengthier explanation (and has repeated himself in various forms over the last few pages). Most people seem to be saying the same thing in different ways. The rest of the thread is just people arguing about other things and nitpicking each other.
|
On July 02 2015 07:55 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 07:48 TMagpie wrote:On July 02 2015 07:28 jinorazi wrote:On July 02 2015 07:25 TMagpie wrote:On July 02 2015 07:11 jinorazi wrote:On July 02 2015 06:57 TMagpie wrote:On July 02 2015 06:45 jinorazi wrote:On July 02 2015 06:39 TMagpie wrote: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? He's saying that mechanical skill has less of bonus in SC2 than it does in BW. As such, the % that mechanics makes a difference in SC2 is smaller than it is in BW. As such, mechanics has less of an impact (relatively) in SC2 than in BW. As such, the decision of what strategy is chosen in SC2 is becomes more critical (relatively) than BW because "doing things better" is less important in SC2 than in BW (relatively). Since your conclusion to his statement was "doesnt add more depth to it" shows that you didn't understand what he was saying since he did not in the least talk about depth. the original post says since mechanics is easier, it puts more focus on strategy and my point was mechanics make no difference in strategy, hence it does not add more depth. unit design is a different matter not related to mechanics. the results of unit design is what makes strategy(what unit to make) more important, not the difference of sc2 and bw's mechanics. See, you're getting confused again. You keep bringing up "hence it does not add more depth" when nkr says nothing of that. nkr literally says that mechanics has a bigger impact in BW and less of an impact in SC2. That is all he is positing. As such, the results of a game depends less on mechanics in SC2 relative to BW. Assuming that both mechanics and strategy is the cause of victories in both games, the percentage that mechanics take responsibility of that victory is smaller in SC2 than it is in BW. As such, the percentage of the responsibility of that victory coming from strategy in SC2 is higher than it is in BW because mechanics has a bigger effect in BW than in SC2. You are bringing up a qualitative value of the strategy (by describing it as depth) and not listening to what nkr is saying. ahem* the original post says: "...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier." "...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier.""...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier."i agree sc2 matters less on mechanics and more on what units to make (kind of), im against how that conclution came to be; its unit design, NOT MECHANICS. my point, once again is that easier mechanics does not add more focus/depth/emphasis on strategy. I don't think you know what that phrase means... If I decided to put more focus on my studies than my work--does that mean my studies gain more depth? If I decided to put more focus on eating salads than eating burgers--does that mean salads gain more depth? If I decided to put more focus on strategy than mechanics--does that mean strategy gains more depth? Or does it simply mean that it takes up a larger percentage of the attention/focus? Does it mean that its simply a bigger part of the overall whole? I don't necessarily think your posits are wrong, I just don't think you understood what the phrase actually said. whoa, you're taking that word "depth" to a whole new level where i'm not even sure what you're trying to say. my point was it doesnt add more to it then what it is, it does not make it more meaningful, it does not make it more important, it does not make it more complicated. a choice of word, friend. if you have a grief with my choice of word just say so, no need to waste so many paragraphs talking around it to avoid criticizing my choice of word incase it hurts my feelings the poster said mechanics is easier so it puts more focus on strategy. i said that is not the case, no more no less...yet you went so far to explain what artosis was trying to say when i wasnt even talking about what artosis said, i only made the point for that phrase i posted above 3 times. i have no idea why you're trying to paraphrase what he said with what artosis is saying, i just took what nrk said for what it is and not cross-referencing with what artosis said. "...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier." is not some parable or riddle where it could be taken with so many meanings...its very plane to me. it simply says strategy has more focus because mechanics is easier. if he maent something else when he said that, fine by me and i dont fault him but that phrase is wrong in my eyes.
This is the reason why I think you're confusing. nkr did not suggest any of the things you said. Because your understanding of the word focus is not accurate to what the word means. It is impossible for something being put on focus to magical have something "added" to it. Because the word itself literally means to be looked at more closely.
Which is why when you say "you can still do in bw whatever "more focused strategy" you can do in sc2" it doesn't make sense because the quality of the strategy is not what is in question. The value of the strategy is not in question. Its a very simple statement. If you cannot lean on mechanics, then you have to lean on making the right decisions. When mechanics does not help improve the decision--then the act of deciding becomes more important than the mechanics needed to implement said decision. The more capability one's mechanics can affect the decision, the less the act of deciding accurately is important as being able to maximize the decision at hand. But whether any given decision is added to, made important, or seen as meaningful is not what is at stake.
Think about it this way.
He says that since you can't really save yourself from wrong decisions as well, you have to be more certain that the decisions you make are good. And you tell him that the difficulty of saving himself from wrong decisions doesn't make his decisions better. And I'm left wondering, why would it matter how good or meaningful or complicated or better the decision was? Hence my comment that I'm pretty certain there was a misunderstanding.
|
I think people are confusing the issue of what's more enjoyable vs. what's more strategic. If by "more strategic" you mean, "how many blink stalkers/force fields can you make" then yeah, SC2 > BW. But the heart palpitations caused by immaculately timed science vessels vs. mutalisks, sunkens vs. medic/marine rushes, "eehan timing", etc...there's just no comparison IMO.
|
On July 02 2015 09:20 mierin wrote:
I think people are confusing the issue of what's more enjoyable vs. what's more strategic. If by "more strategic" you mean, "how many blink stalkers/force fields can you make" then yeah, SC2 > BW. But the heart palpitations caused by immaculately timed science vessels vs. mutalisks, sunkens vs. medic/marine rushes, "eehan timing", etc...there's just no comparison IMO.
Tactics are tools in strategists use to make decisions. And while strategy is more important in SC2, the toolbox offered by BW is cum worthy!
Double irradiate vessels?
Mine drags with zealots?
Clone splitting with scourge?
Eng Bay spotting?
magic box storms?
hold position lurkers?
The list goes on and on and on. All these weird unintended tactics that needed a lot of game knowledge to execute properly was what made BW sexy. Dragoon micro? Impressive but not *that* impressive. Vulture harass? Exciting, but not that much more exciting than most drop play in SC2.
But the non-standard options? Like the double medic + marine wall off vs zerglings with the floating rax to prevent zerg from right-clicking your medics? Or the mass hallucination arbiter drops + the leftover "retreat" arbiter to allow you to save some amount of your army if the drop failed? Or watching July Zerg do the 300 supply push for the first time?
The tactics available to BW are just so much sexier than the tactics available to SC2. I mean, sure, SC2 has a LOT of tactics that get me hot and bothered also. And its definitely one of my most watched games. But there's just something so clean and intended about the tactics available in SC2. You never feel like you're breaking the rules of how the spell or units were designed to be used. Well... warp ins, swarm hosts, and reapers definitely did not come out as intended. But if this was BW then the wouldn't have changed anything and simply had us make maps that make those units not stupid.
|
On July 02 2015 09:07 TMagpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 07:55 jinorazi wrote:On July 02 2015 07:48 TMagpie wrote:On July 02 2015 07:28 jinorazi wrote:On July 02 2015 07:25 TMagpie wrote:On July 02 2015 07:11 jinorazi wrote:On July 02 2015 06:57 TMagpie wrote:On July 02 2015 06:45 jinorazi wrote:On July 02 2015 06:39 TMagpie wrote:On July 02 2015 06:27 jinorazi wrote:
[quote]
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? He's saying that mechanical skill has less of bonus in SC2 than it does in BW. As such, the % that mechanics makes a difference in SC2 is smaller than it is in BW. As such, mechanics has less of an impact (relatively) in SC2 than in BW. As such, the decision of what strategy is chosen in SC2 is becomes more critical (relatively) than BW because "doing things better" is less important in SC2 than in BW (relatively). Since your conclusion to his statement was "doesnt add more depth to it" shows that you didn't understand what he was saying since he did not in the least talk about depth. the original post says since mechanics is easier, it puts more focus on strategy and my point was mechanics make no difference in strategy, hence it does not add more depth. unit design is a different matter not related to mechanics. the results of unit design is what makes strategy(what unit to make) more important, not the difference of sc2 and bw's mechanics. See, you're getting confused again. You keep bringing up "hence it does not add more depth" when nkr says nothing of that. nkr literally says that mechanics has a bigger impact in BW and less of an impact in SC2. That is all he is positing. As such, the results of a game depends less on mechanics in SC2 relative to BW. Assuming that both mechanics and strategy is the cause of victories in both games, the percentage that mechanics take responsibility of that victory is smaller in SC2 than it is in BW. As such, the percentage of the responsibility of that victory coming from strategy in SC2 is higher than it is in BW because mechanics has a bigger effect in BW than in SC2. You are bringing up a qualitative value of the strategy (by describing it as depth) and not listening to what nkr is saying. ahem* the original post says: "...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier." "...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier.""...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier."i agree sc2 matters less on mechanics and more on what units to make (kind of), im against how that conclution came to be; its unit design, NOT MECHANICS. my point, once again is that easier mechanics does not add more focus/depth/emphasis on strategy. I don't think you know what that phrase means... If I decided to put more focus on my studies than my work--does that mean my studies gain more depth? If I decided to put more focus on eating salads than eating burgers--does that mean salads gain more depth? If I decided to put more focus on strategy than mechanics--does that mean strategy gains more depth? Or does it simply mean that it takes up a larger percentage of the attention/focus? Does it mean that its simply a bigger part of the overall whole? I don't necessarily think your posits are wrong, I just don't think you understood what the phrase actually said. whoa, you're taking that word "depth" to a whole new level where i'm not even sure what you're trying to say. my point was it doesnt add more to it then what it is, it does not make it more meaningful, it does not make it more important, it does not make it more complicated. a choice of word, friend. if you have a grief with my choice of word just say so, no need to waste so many paragraphs talking around it to avoid criticizing my choice of word incase it hurts my feelings the poster said mechanics is easier so it puts more focus on strategy. i said that is not the case, no more no less...yet you went so far to explain what artosis was trying to say when i wasnt even talking about what artosis said, i only made the point for that phrase i posted above 3 times. i have no idea why you're trying to paraphrase what he said with what artosis is saying, i just took what nrk said for what it is and not cross-referencing with what artosis said. "...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier." is not some parable or riddle where it could be taken with so many meanings...its very plane to me. it simply says strategy has more focus because mechanics is easier. if he maent something else when he said that, fine by me and i dont fault him but that phrase is wrong in my eyes. This is the reason why I think you're confusing. nkr did not suggest any of the things you said. Because your understanding of the word focus is not accurate to what the word means. It is impossible for something being put on focus to magical have something "added" to it. Because the word itself literally means to be looked at more closely. Which is why when you say "you can still do in bw whatever "more focused strategy" you can do in sc2" it doesn't make sense because the quality of the strategy is not what is in question. The value of the strategy is not in question. Its a very simple statement. If you cannot lean on mechanics, then you have to lean on making the right decisions. When mechanics does not help improve the decision--then the act of deciding becomes more important than the mechanics needed to implement said decision. The more capability one's mechanics can affect the decision, the less the act of deciding accurately is important as being able to maximize the decision at hand. But whether any given decision is added to, made important, or seen as meaningful is not what is at stake. Think about it this way. He says that since you can't really save yourself from wrong decisions as well, you have to be more certain that the decisions you make are good. And you tell him that the difficulty of saving himself from wrong decisions doesn't make his decisions better. And I'm left wondering, why would it matter how good or meaningful or complicated or better the decision was? Hence my comment that I'm pretty certain there was a misunderstanding.
you're over complicating things.
i think you're trying to say; if a player can't hit 3 pointers, he has no business attempting 3 pointers, until he can. player's decision on strategy being based on his limitations on his mechanical skill....its not even related to what i'm saying and so obvious i wouldnt even have brought it up.
nkr, paraphrasing someone else said easier mechanics puts focus on strategy. i'm saying mechanics and strategy are not related, hence it doesnt add anything to the other if you take something out from the other. you're trying to make the connection using topics that are outside the subject, it makes it more confusing.
its very simple what i'm saying bro. nkr says easier mechanics = focus on strategy. if i take that at face value, its wrong but as you point out, he means something else. if he meant sc2 focuses more on strategy than mechanics because bad mechanics are less forgiving in bw, thats fine. my point is the focus on strategy comes from unit design, not mechanics because as i point out, despite the harder mechanics bw has, it doesnt take it away from strategy and the vice versa applies with sc2. my point is mechanics is not the problem or has any connection with strategy, as in it doesnt put more or less focus on strategy because of some change in mechanics.
you're talking about balance between mechanics and strategy, i'm talking about relationship between mechanics and strategy outside of player's ability since this varies so much. nkr spoke the relationship between the two, he said "more focus on strategy because mechanics is easier. Because its easier." i say no, being easier has nothing to do with it.
|
On July 02 2015 09:56 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 09:07 TMagpie wrote:On July 02 2015 07:55 jinorazi wrote:On July 02 2015 07:48 TMagpie wrote:On July 02 2015 07:28 jinorazi wrote:On July 02 2015 07:25 TMagpie wrote:On July 02 2015 07:11 jinorazi wrote:On July 02 2015 06:57 TMagpie wrote:On July 02 2015 06:45 jinorazi wrote:On July 02 2015 06:39 TMagpie wrote:
[quote]
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? He's saying that mechanical skill has less of bonus in SC2 than it does in BW. As such, the % that mechanics makes a difference in SC2 is smaller than it is in BW. As such, mechanics has less of an impact (relatively) in SC2 than in BW. As such, the decision of what strategy is chosen in SC2 is becomes more critical (relatively) than BW because "doing things better" is less important in SC2 than in BW (relatively). Since your conclusion to his statement was "doesnt add more depth to it" shows that you didn't understand what he was saying since he did not in the least talk about depth. the original post says since mechanics is easier, it puts more focus on strategy and my point was mechanics make no difference in strategy, hence it does not add more depth. unit design is a different matter not related to mechanics. the results of unit design is what makes strategy(what unit to make) more important, not the difference of sc2 and bw's mechanics. See, you're getting confused again. You keep bringing up "hence it does not add more depth" when nkr says nothing of that. nkr literally says that mechanics has a bigger impact in BW and less of an impact in SC2. That is all he is positing. As such, the results of a game depends less on mechanics in SC2 relative to BW. Assuming that both mechanics and strategy is the cause of victories in both games, the percentage that mechanics take responsibility of that victory is smaller in SC2 than it is in BW. As such, the percentage of the responsibility of that victory coming from strategy in SC2 is higher than it is in BW because mechanics has a bigger effect in BW than in SC2. You are bringing up a qualitative value of the strategy (by describing it as depth) and not listening to what nkr is saying. ahem* the original post says: "...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier." "...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier.""...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier."i agree sc2 matters less on mechanics and more on what units to make (kind of), im against how that conclution came to be; its unit design, NOT MECHANICS. my point, once again is that easier mechanics does not add more focus/depth/emphasis on strategy. I don't think you know what that phrase means... If I decided to put more focus on my studies than my work--does that mean my studies gain more depth? If I decided to put more focus on eating salads than eating burgers--does that mean salads gain more depth? If I decided to put more focus on strategy than mechanics--does that mean strategy gains more depth? Or does it simply mean that it takes up a larger percentage of the attention/focus? Does it mean that its simply a bigger part of the overall whole? I don't necessarily think your posits are wrong, I just don't think you understood what the phrase actually said. whoa, you're taking that word "depth" to a whole new level where i'm not even sure what you're trying to say. my point was it doesnt add more to it then what it is, it does not make it more meaningful, it does not make it more important, it does not make it more complicated. a choice of word, friend. if you have a grief with my choice of word just say so, no need to waste so many paragraphs talking around it to avoid criticizing my choice of word incase it hurts my feelings the poster said mechanics is easier so it puts more focus on strategy. i said that is not the case, no more no less...yet you went so far to explain what artosis was trying to say when i wasnt even talking about what artosis said, i only made the point for that phrase i posted above 3 times. i have no idea why you're trying to paraphrase what he said with what artosis is saying, i just took what nrk said for what it is and not cross-referencing with what artosis said. "...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier." is not some parable or riddle where it could be taken with so many meanings...its very plane to me. it simply says strategy has more focus because mechanics is easier. if he maent something else when he said that, fine by me and i dont fault him but that phrase is wrong in my eyes. This is the reason why I think you're confusing. nkr did not suggest any of the things you said. Because your understanding of the word focus is not accurate to what the word means. It is impossible for something being put on focus to magical have something "added" to it. Because the word itself literally means to be looked at more closely. Which is why when you say "you can still do in bw whatever "more focused strategy" you can do in sc2" it doesn't make sense because the quality of the strategy is not what is in question. The value of the strategy is not in question. Its a very simple statement. If you cannot lean on mechanics, then you have to lean on making the right decisions. When mechanics does not help improve the decision--then the act of deciding becomes more important than the mechanics needed to implement said decision. The more capability one's mechanics can affect the decision, the less the act of deciding accurately is important as being able to maximize the decision at hand. But whether any given decision is added to, made important, or seen as meaningful is not what is at stake. Think about it this way. He says that since you can't really save yourself from wrong decisions as well, you have to be more certain that the decisions you make are good. And you tell him that the difficulty of saving himself from wrong decisions doesn't make his decisions better. And I'm left wondering, why would it matter how good or meaningful or complicated or better the decision was? Hence my comment that I'm pretty certain there was a misunderstanding. you're over complicating things. i think you're trying to say; if a player can't hit 3 pointers, he has no business attempting 3 pointers, until he can. player's decision on strategy being based on his limitations on his mechanical skill....its not even related to what i'm saying and so obvious i wouldnt even have brought it up. nkr, paraphrasing someone else said easier mechanics puts focus on strategy. i'm saying mechanics and strategy are not related, hence it doesnt add anything to the other if you take something out from the other. you're trying to make the connection using topics that are outside the subject, it makes it more confusing. its very simple what i'm saying bro. nkr says easier mechanics = focus on strategy. if i take that at face value, its wrong but as you point out, he means something else. if he meant sc2 focuses more on strategy than mechanics because bad mechanics are less forgiving in bw, thats fine. my point is the focus on strategy comes from unit design, not mechanics because as i point out, despite the harder mechanics bw has, it doesnt take it away from strategy and the vice versa applies with sc2. my point is mechanics is not the problem or has any connection with strategy, as in it doesnt put more or less focus on strategy because of some change in mechanics. you're talking about balance between mechanics and strategy, i'm talking about relationship between mechanics and strategy outside of player's ability since this varies so much. nkr spoke the relationship between the two, he said "more focus on strategy because mechanics is easier. Because its easier." i say no, being easier has nothing to do with it.
That makes absolutely no sense. Strategy comes purely from the ability to make decisions, not units. GO only has dots on a board, and it has strategy. Boxing has no units at all, and it has strategy. What units are available has nothing to do with what strategy is.
How dependable and easy to execute the actions you have available is the only thing that affects strategy. The easier to execute the decisions, the more focus is placed on the decision itself. The more difficult it is to execute a decision, the less focus is placed on any given decision.
|
Unit design is what puts focus on what decision to make. Unit design, not the existence of units. Hard counter makes sc2 more punishing than bw's mechanics.
And to your second paragraph, the players ability varies from noob to expert and their strategy should be related to that. Players ability is the limiting factor, not the game mechanics.
|
United States8 Posts
I'm not sure I'm comfortable boiling down 'strategy' to unit composition and build order, which is what Artosis seems to be doing. But if that is what he means by 'strategy', then sure, that's true I guess: SC2 is more build-ordery and compositional than Brood War. OK, great.
Personally, I prefer units that give rise to interesting positional decisions over Hearthstone cards with walking and attack animations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
