|
On July 03 2015 23:54 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2015 23:52 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 03 2015 23:47 Hider wrote: If we took all of the modernizations of SC2 (unit selection, MBS, no defenders advantage, etc) and applied them to BW, would BW have the same issues? Or would the BW unit design and balance hold up and provide us with a similar level of strategy and micro? Defenders advantage? If you are talking about holding position with a minimum of units, that's certainly something that is very important to the gamedynamic of BW. BW doesn't have "defenders advantage" it has an uphill mechanic. Something used just as much for making strong attacks (until maps were designed against it) as it was for defending. There's a reason Lost Temple and its mirrors eventually stopped being a design with its near unstoppable cliff sieges. I am not only talking about hills. I am talking about how Dark Swarm, Lurkers and Siege Tanks functioned --> Allowed you to defend a certain location extremely cost efficient w/ a minimum of units. Personally, I think high ground is an unneceasry and overly complicated way of creating a defenders advantage. I think its must better to tweak abilities and macromechanics to get the desired effect.
That's not what defenders advantage means though. Those are units used defensively.
Defenders advantage are ingrained mechanics in the game that gives advantage to players on the defensive. Examples of this are things like like town halls in age of empires, a mechanic designed specifically to make rushes and early attacks fruitless.
When you start talking about specific units you start getting people mentioning how Broodfestor was all about zerg having defenders advantage and how it almost killed the game. Or how Ravens with their low powered Dark Swarm is too powerful.
|
Defenders advantage are ingrained mechanics in the game that gives advantage to players on the defensive.
Which is exactly what the above mentioned units and abilities do.
When you start talking about specific units you start getting people mentioning how Broodfestor was all about zerg having defenders advantage and how it almost killed the game. Or how Ravens with their low powered Dark Swarm is too powerful.
The cost efficiency of Infestors and Broods were often just as good when attacking as when defending. Instead, the issue with these units when attacking was that they would make it impossible for you to hold off against a counterattack at the same time --> Leading to stales games.
That differs from how Lurker + DS works since you can actually defend a location with a minimum of units while attacking with your main army. You could also argue that the "can't attack while attack at the same time" is an indirect defenders advantage, but it's really the worst approach as it leads to stale gameplay.
|
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.
Pretty much what I tried to say, but with less words. Communication is a difficult thing. Not as difficult as bw though.
|
On July 04 2015 00:15 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +Defenders advantage are ingrained mechanics in the game that gives advantage to players on the defensive. Which is exactly what the above mentioned units and abilities do. Show nested quote +When you start talking about specific units you start getting people mentioning how Broodfestor was all about zerg having defenders advantage and how it almost killed the game. Or how Ravens with their low powered Dark Swarm is too powerful. The cost efficiency of Infestors and Broods were often just as good when attacking as when defending. Instead, the issue with these units when attacking was that they would make it impossible for you to hold off against a counterattack at the same time --> Leading to stales games. That differs from how Lurker + DS works since you can actually defend a location with a minimum of units while attacking with your main army. You could also argue that the "can't attack while attack at the same time" is an indirect defenders advantage, but it's really the worst approach as it leads to stale gameplay.
The quality of the game play is a different thing than the existence/non-existence of a defenders advantage. And as someone who has died to lurkers, siege tanks, and dark swarm plenty of times in BW--I know for a fact that they are siege breakers first, defensive units second.
I would say the biggest problem with the defensive units in SC2 was that they were only powerful en mass. In BW, 1-3 lurkers could essentially be game over if they got to your base. As such, 1-3 lurkers in the middle of the field was powerful. However, 1-3 Swarm Hosts does nothing either offensively or defensively. 10-20 Swarm Hosts on the other hand, that's a different matter.
I think what you miss are spells and damage powerful enough to stop entire armies, that way when you have small groups of them they can scare off people. Not something I disagree with--I strongly believe in slow attack speed + high DPS design in a lot of the siege weapons in SC2.
|
I guess the statement is true for the casual player.
But when you know the game it's the opposite. As sc2 mechanics let no more room for strategy. It's becoming very quickly...boring. BW mechanics are so hardcore that the gap between players allows for strategy. Macro and micro have a real meaning that will be amplify according to the strategy.
edit: i dont mention maps because sc2 and maps.....:p
|
Canada11417 Posts
To me trying to figure out whether mechanics or strategy have the greater impact in BW or SC2 seems like a futile exercise. Because the game is in real time (and is not turn-based), mechanics and strategy become very, very interrelated- often by so much that it is impossible to separate out. If strategy involves decision making, then part of decision making is deciding where to spend your energy/ apm. Furthermore, the mini micro games like muta micro, vulture patrol, reaver-shuttle are mechanically intensive, true. However, they also open up new tactics that effects your gameplan, aka strategy.
So is reaver micro, fundamentally, a mechanical skill or a tool / tactic to be used in your strategy? It's both and trying to separate the two is impossible. Without the microbility of the unit, you would have one less tool to use in your strategy. The two are intricately linked (which was the point of my Mechanics IS Strategy blog from back in the day.
|
On July 04 2015 01:19 Cazimirbzh wrote:
I guess the statement is true for the casual player.
But when you know the game it's the opposite. As sc2 mechanics let no more room for strategy. It's becoming very quickly...boring. BW mechanics are so hardcore that the gap between players allows for strategy. Macro and micro have a real meaning that will be amplify according to the strategy.
edit: i dont mention maps because sc2 and maps.....:p
lol. you're mistaking strategy for micro skill.
|
On July 02 2015 14:32 G5 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 13:56 JieXian wrote:strategy / macro (used here to mean the same thing)
mechanics / micro (used here to mean the same thing)
wrong. mechanics definitely = macro + micro (according to convention) like being tall, able to run fast, jump high and shooting accurately in basketball. strategy might mean any dam thing as he didn't define it and everyone is confused Strategy is the type of build order you use, where you decide to take fights, when you decide to attack, when you decide to defend, what type of units you decide to make. Strategy can almost completely be synonymous with decision making. Micro involves very limited decision making. There is a perfect way to micro your units in basically every situation but rarely does micro perfection ever happen. However, your micro skill level is basically dependent on how close to that perfect engagement/unit movement/targeting that you can get consistently. Macro involves very limited decision making. Your strategy determines when you will expand and whether you're going for a more high economy ("macro-style") or low economy style but regardless, whether you have 1 command center or 2 command centers, you have to make SCV's and keeping on top of that, along with your army production, infrastructure, etc. The pure ability to keep up with the necessary actions that your strategy requires like producing workers, units, buildings, etc. that is required in every game IS MACRO. The only real decision making involved in macro is deciding where you will spend your time when time is limited and your attention is divided onto multiple screens.
WHOA. Someone who understands the game!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
On July 04 2015 01:19 Falling wrote:
To me trying to figure out whether mechanics or strategy have the greater impact in BW or SC2 seems like a futile exercise. Because the game is in real time (and is not turn-based), mechanics and strategy become very, very interrelated- often by so much that it is impossible to separate out. If strategy involves decision making, then part of decision making is deciding where to spend your energy/ apm. Furthermore, the mini micro games like muta micro, vulture patrol, reaver-shuttle are mechanically intensive, true. However, they also open up new tactics that effects your gameplan, aka strategy.
So is reaver micro, fundamentally, a mechanical skill or a tool / tactic to be used in your strategy? It's both and trying to separate the two is impossible. Without the microbility of the unit, you would have one less tool to use in your strategy. The two are intricately linked (which was the point of my Mechanics IS Strategy blog from back in the day. I agree--which is why I think broodwar is more strategic. The higher the mechanics and the higher the potential of the units (contrast a lurkers potential to a baneling which has a fixed 'best' result) the more strategy and tactics that can be involved in the game.
|
|
|
United States23455 Posts
I'm sorry but I must ask
ARE PEOPLE REALLY STILL ON ABOUT THIS?!
|
your Country52797 Posts
On July 04 2015 02:03 Darkhorse wrote:
I'm sorry but I must ask
ARE PEOPLE REALLY STILL ON ABOUT THIS?!
Waxangel is very good at baiting people into this. 
|
On July 04 2015 01:19 Falling wrote:
To me trying to figure out whether mechanics or strategy have the greater impact in BW or SC2 seems like a futile exercise. Because the game is in real time (and is not turn-based), mechanics and strategy become very, very interrelated- often by so much that it is impossible to separate out. If strategy involves decision making, then part of decision making is deciding where to spend your energy/ apm. Furthermore, the mini micro games like muta micro, vulture patrol, reaver-shuttle are mechanically intensive, true. However, they also open up new tactics that effects your gameplan, aka strategy.
So is reaver micro, fundamentally, a mechanical skill or a tool / tactic to be used in your strategy? It's both and trying to separate the two is impossible. Without the microbility of the unit, you would have one less tool to use in your strategy. The two are intricately linked (which was the point of my Mechanics IS Strategy blog from back in the day.
Its not that hard to separate the two...
Tactics are the tools strategists use to make decisions.
Micro Creates Tactics, Tactics Provides Options, Options Allows Decisions.
Reaver Micro is a tactic that a Strategist Can use. Knowing how to reaver micro is not as important to a strategist than knowing that reaver micro is an option.
This is why coaches usually dictates the strategy, and players execute the strategy. Phil Jackson doesn't need to know how to dunk a ball to tell shaq that he has to dunk a ball. This is where the confusion really comes from. Strategy is just decision making. Micro gives you options, but being able to micro is not strategy.
However:
A game can be purely mechanical and be fun to watch. (running for example)
A game without mechanics is purely strategic--but is also more boring to watch. (Go, for example)
|
Canada11417 Posts
I don't think they are opposed to another. At least in the way it works in BW, a lot of micro opens up new strategic options that otherwise wouldn't exist if they were just a-move units... which all units, excluding pure spellcasters, are to some degree. Even tanks in BW can be a-moved, it just so happens that siege lines and clever use of cliffs and buildings are usually the better choice. Sieging and unsiege is a mechanical requirement, but the design of the tank, including over-kill, and splash damage, and minimum range, combined with miss change on high ground, and difficult to navigate choke points, opens up a whole host of strategic options. Mechanics and strategy can be and are complementary.
|
On July 04 2015 08:49 Falling wrote:
I don't think they are opposed to another. At least in the way it works in BW, a lot of micro opens up new strategic options that otherwise wouldn't exist if they were just a-move units... which all units, excluding pure spellcasters, are to some degree. Even tanks in BW can be a-moved, it just so happens that siege lines and clever use of cliffs and buildings are usually the better choice. Sieging and unsiege is a mechanical requirement, but the design of the tank, including over-kill, and splash damage, and minimum range, combined with miss change on high ground, and difficult to navigate choke points, opens up a whole host of strategic options. Mechanics and strategy can be and are complementary.
Its not that they are opposed, they are just different things that happen to occur at the same time during certain preset circumstances.
In the realm of an RTS, its hard to differentiate strategy and mechanics. Because that's the point of an RTS. Its supposed to be a strategy game with heavy mechanics put into it. The two do not causate each other.
In a traditional war game, turns are taken sequentially and combat is decided by a random number generator (usually dice rolls) to determine which squad/unit/force performed well. The game becomes much more strategic in nature because you can't use your mechanics to determine outcomes. You simply make strategic decisions, and hope they were the correct decisions. The less and less mechanics present, the less you are able to depend on "control" to determine the outcome of your decisions. At some point, the whole thing becomes purely just "what strategy should I use to solve a problem" and you just make the best decision you can.
In a real time game, we want to micro those decisions. This makes the results less depended on strategy (relatively) as engagements are more determined by mechanical execution (ie mechanics). Go too far this direction, and you eventually care more about mechanics than the strategy itself. Long distance runners may not be intellectual savants, but they definitely have strategies when they go on the field. It just so happens that how smart you are in track is not as important as how fast you are.
RTS games are inherently more mechanical than turn based games, but they are also inherently more strategic than track sports. You can have a lot of strategy without mechanics, and you can have a lot of mechanics without strategy. But in the realm of RTS specifically, the goal is to meld them. How much of one or the other should be implemented becomes highly philosophical.
Neither has more or less value than the other.
|
If you're posting on page 26, nobody is ever going to read what you have to say on this subject. I guess we all just have to accept that SC2 is more strategical.
|
On July 04 2015 09:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2015 08:49 Falling wrote:
I don't think they are opposed to another. At least in the way it works in BW, a lot of micro opens up new strategic options that otherwise wouldn't exist if they were just a-move units... which all units, excluding pure spellcasters, are to some degree. Even tanks in BW can be a-moved, it just so happens that siege lines and clever use of cliffs and buildings are usually the better choice. Sieging and unsiege is a mechanical requirement, but the design of the tank, including over-kill, and splash damage, and minimum range, combined with miss change on high ground, and difficult to navigate choke points, opens up a whole host of strategic options. Mechanics and strategy can be and are complementary. Its not that they are opposed, they are just different things that happen to occur at the same time during certain preset circumstances. In the realm of an RTS, its hard to differentiate strategy and mechanics. Because that's the point of an RTS. Its supposed to be a strategy game with heavy mechanics put into it. The two do not causate each other. In a traditional war game, turns are taken sequentially and combat is decided by a random number generator (usually dice rolls) to determine which squad/unit/force performed well. The game becomes much more strategic in nature because you can't use your mechanics to determine outcomes. You simply make strategic decisions, and hope they were the correct decisions. The less and less mechanics present, the less you are able to depend on "control" to determine the outcome of your decisions. At some point, the whole thing becomes purely just "what strategy should I use to solve a problem" and you just make the best decision you can. In a real time game, we want to micro those decisions. This makes the results less depended on strategy (relatively) as engagements are more determined by mechanical execution (ie mechanics). Go too far this direction, and you eventually care more about mechanics than the strategy itself. Long distance runners may not be intellectual savants, but they definitely have strategies when they go on the field. It just so happens that how smart you are in track is not as important as how fast you are. RTS games are inherently more mechanical than turn based games, but they are also inherently more strategic than track sports. You can have a lot of strategy without mechanics, and you can have a lot of mechanics without strategy. But in the realm of RTS specifically, the goal is to meld them. How much of one or the other should be implemented becomes highly philosophical. Neither has more or less value than the other.
But we can all agree that seeing some badass micro against the odds is always fun to execute and/or watch!
|
On July 04 2015 09:46 ninazerg wrote:
If you're posting on page 26, nobody is ever going to read what you have to say on this subject. I guess we all just have to accept that SC2 is more strategical. Not if we get the thread locked and this is the last page!
So, we're all agreed, right? We've all been talked out. Artosis is wrong etc.
On July 04 2015 10:25 Footler wrote:But we can all agree that seeing some badass micro against the odds is always fun to execute and/or watch! AND that it takes skill worthy of reward. :D
|
Let's end this whole discussion: semantics started this whole thing. I love the English language.
|
Bisutopia19307 Posts
On July 04 2015 12:12 HaloLegend98 wrote:
Let's end this whole discussion: semantics started this whole thing. I love the English language.
Had this been a discussion in German would the argument have been settled? What language would allow us to finish this debate?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
