|
On July 10 2015 18:39 saddaromma wrote: Hmm, 3-base 200/200 deathball is more strategic than BW?
I should really rethink my life.
Right clicking mineral patches for 45 minutes? So strategic  Takes 200 APM to get up a ramp? So strategic 
If physical difficulty was what determined strategy then arm wrestling is more strategic than being the general of the US army.
Please don't oversimplify either game sir.
|
On July 04 2015 02:01 Barrin wrote:Get ready, I'm about to make Artosis look silly. --- He doesn't define "strategy"  , but thankfully he gives us an example of what he means: Show nested quote +SC1 is a game of speed and mechanics. Yes, there is a lot of strategy, of course, but it is certainly secondary to being able to make as many units as possible and to move those units in the right way.
SC2 is a game of strategy. Yes, there are lots of mechanics and speed required, of course, but those are much less punishing than making incorrect strategic choices. He's basically measuring "strategy" by how much mechanics/execution influences the outcome. In other words, the harder it is to "make as many units as possible and to move those units in the right way", the less "strategy" is involved. Conversely, the less "mechanics and speed" are required, the more "strategy" is involved. Did I get that right? Yes? Good. Let us reiterate, *ahem*: the less "mechanics and speed" are required, the more "strategy" is involvedBy this logic, all turn-based games are more "strategic" than any real-time game, because they require less mechanics and speed. That's right: by Artosis' logic, Chess is more strategic than SC2. Indeed -- according to this logic -- Hearthstone is more strategic than SC2. Yes.. even Tic Tac Toe is more strategic than SC2.+ Show Spoiler [poll] +Poll: "Strategy" ______is overrated. (2) 11% needs a [better] definition. (17) 89% 19 total votes Your vote: "Strategy" ______ (Vote): is overrated. (Vote): needs a [better] definition.
/thread
In terms of percentage of importance, chess absolutely is more strategic than SC, either version.
|
On June 30 2015 12:44 Waxangel wrote: But basically I'm posting this just to fish for a response from Rekrul First time I am missing the Facebook "LIKE" button on a TL response. GJ Wax!!
|
I don't agree. If you were to remove smart, limit control groups to 12 and prevent grouping of production, does sc2 become less strategic? I don't think so. The strategy remains the same only now the mechanics require to execute them increases. That's Broodwar imo. Equivalent strategic depth of sc2 with much harder execution. The harder execution does not necessarily require less strategy.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On July 10 2015 22:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2015 18:39 saddaromma wrote: Hmm, 3-base 200/200 deathball is more strategic than BW?
I should really rethink my life. Right clicking mineral patches for 45 minutes? So strategic  Takes 200 APM to get up a ramp? So strategic  If physical difficulty was what determined strategy then arm wrestling is more strategic than being the general of the US army. Please don't oversimplify either game sir. Right click mineral fields for 45 minutes? Once you set up your eco which is usually in the first 10-15 min, unless your opponent is dropping you or doing all kinds of shenanigans to make you lose workers, you'll likely be focusing on unit production (and eventually take another exp etc...). As for the ramp part, hehe, nothing beats managing to move up a ramp just in time before ultras arrive and you block them off using a medic block or d-matrix a unit and leave it on the ramp. I would say its strategic because you read the situation and executed said decision to make sure your army survives.
|
He should've just said "SC2 has better graphics"...would've probably created the same response but would be even funnier to read :D
|
|
this debate is getting tedious, lol
I just don't get why there's so much salt
|
So far BW is only more strategic if you change the definition of strategic and BW is only something more than right clicking minerals if te opponent does nothing and you never expand or make workers.
Or you could take what Artosis said at face value and not assume he is suggesting one game is better than the other.
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
On July 11 2015 10:22 cheekymonkey wrote: I just don't get why there's so much salt
because if my dick isn't the longest it rots and falls off
|
On June 30 2015 17:26 NasusAndDraven wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 13:24 LastManProductions wrote: He would know, as he was/is a professional in both sc1 and sc2. I admit i dont know much about the bw scene, but on what scale was artosis a professional at sc1? .
there are korean progamers, A team progamers, B team progamers, semi-pro, high level foreigner, medium level foreigner, then, good foreigners, then artosis, he was a decent american terran, not even top 10 in USA.
|
Lol how is this thread still going? Guys, I calculated it, the average SC2 game has 47 units of strategy, BW games only have 46 on average. If you factor in that SC2 has way more matches per year than BW that puts SC2 WAY ahead in strategy units per year, no contest.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On July 11 2015 12:32 Die4Ever wrote: Lol how is this thread still going? Guys, I calculated it, the average SC2 game has 47 units of strategy, BW games only have 46 on average. If you factor in that SC2 has way more matches per year than BW that puts SC2 WAY ahead, no contest. Reported for inciting war!
|
On July 11 2015 13:25 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2015 12:32 Die4Ever wrote: Lol how is this thread still going? Guys, I calculated it, the average SC2 game has 47 units of strategy, BW games only have 46 on average. If you factor in that SC2 has way more matches per year than BW that puts SC2 WAY ahead, no contest. Reported for inciting war! It's just how the math works out!
|
On July 11 2015 12:16 XenOsky- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 17:26 NasusAndDraven wrote:On June 30 2015 13:24 LastManProductions wrote: He would know, as he was/is a professional in both sc1 and sc2. I admit i dont know much about the bw scene, but on what scale was artosis a professional at sc1? . there are korean progamers, A team progamers, B team progamers, semi-pro, high level foreigner, medium level foreigner, then, good foreigners, then artosis, he was a decent american terran, not even top 10 in USA.
He was definitely top 10 USA around 2000 - 2002. He just failed to keep up as the game developed.
|
only top 10 players can make comments about a game and be correct
|
On July 11 2015 16:26 Fatam wrote: only top 10 players can make comments about a game and be correct
I hope that you are being sarcastic.
|
People still talking about BW!? amazing... the gfx kills me before i even start to play.. and same as always in the comments: sc2 soo bad, bw soo good, always.the same jargong..
|
On July 11 2015 16:31 vOdToasT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2015 16:26 Fatam wrote: only top 10 players can make comments about a game and be correct I hope that you are being sarcastic.
yes. I would have put "k_appa" after it but if you write that word you get auto-warned by the TL bots lol and I think 2nd time gets you a small ban
|
On July 11 2015 16:26 Fatam wrote: only top 10 players can make comments about a game and be correct
Sad that flash too chobo to talk about SC2 then
|
|
|
|