What I’m trying to say here is, it is far more important to be in the top 95% of macro players and know all the different reactionary branches of your build orders, than to be in the top 99.9% of macro players and have a general idea of what to do.
This isn't a good point because the it means almost nothing, or is a miserable failure at expressing a meaningful thought: top 95% of macro players =95/100 macro players... top 99.9% of (yes he says it again) macro players = 99.9/100 macro players...
So I think he wanted to turn the numbers upside down and one of these macros is micro?
What I’m trying to say here is, it is far more important to be in the top 95% of macro players and know all the different reactionary branches of your build orders, than to be in the top 99.9% of macro players and have a general idea of what to do.
This isn't a good point because the it means almost nothing, or is a miserable failure at expressing a meaningful thought: top 95% of macro players =95/100 macro players... top 99.9% of (yes he says it again) macro players = 99.9/100 macro players...
So I think he wanted to turn the numbers upside down and one of these macros is micro?
No, he means what he's saying. He's saying in broodwar literally being the best in macro meant you'd never lose to a top semi-pro (see the example about Sea having 7 more marines). Whereas in sc2 he's saying you can be that slight cut below in macro and still win if you have a much better idea what strategic branches come along as the game develops.
My fellow SC2 friends: I'm not bashing SC2 today im refuting Artosis The main factor for the Kespa defeat is money and time. Artosis seems to have forgotten that it did not pay to play BW outside of kespa, unlike SC2. Of course things will change! Koreans don't have some special "mechanics" gene.
Now everyone else can play SC2 full time whereas only kespa players in bw could play it full time. It completely natural that the playing field be level.
His entire article is now rubbish but I'll refute it anyway.
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...
of course you don't need to move units in the right way as much because it's just blob vs blob, with many exceptions of course, and he's basically saying that you don't need to move units in the right way in SC2. Imagine not needing to shoot a basketball in the right way. how is that a plus point?
The units we love to hate, the Marauder, the Roach and the Immortal actually themselves add a whole different type of depth that just doesn’t exist in SC1.
rock paper scissors isn't depth.
2 lurkers can sometimes kill 40 marines, while 3 marines can sometimes kill 2 lurkers, all depending on how you use them. Now that's depth.
The first is pretty straight forward. There’s such a multitude of different strategies, with so much variation in the meta game, that the ladder is actually useful. Radically new approaches for matchups are constantly popping up all over the place. These strategies move most quickly through the ladder environment.
when blizz is making new units every few years and making game changing balances of course the meta will vary
By playing ladder you are exposed to every single pro, as well as amateur thought which moves up the ranks.
then you will literally never beat him by practicing on the ladder.
true, but you won't be able to beat the pros regardless of whether you are exposed to them or not.
The second is kind of related to what is written above. Once you have become a top level progamer, you already have acceptable mechanics. You can’t get there otherwise.
So he's admitting you need good mechanics in both games, which is good to hear.
In SC1, a lot of winning was about practicing with the best.
I didn't know you could win in sc2 by not practising with the best
If Sea[Shield] can get 11 more Marines than the average top Ladder player by the 12 minute mark, then you will literally never beat him by practicing on the ladder. On the contrary, in SC2, if you know your opponent is going Roaches, it doesn’t matter if he has 12 or 17 in the mid game push quite as much, because you are taking the fight in a choke with Immortal tech and Forcefields.
does artosis love his rps that much? Anyway we do that in ZvT too, 2 lurkers can guard a ramp against a billion Marines, which is way more effective than the number of immortals and forcefields needed.
Also, surely a top SC2 pro can get way more than 11 marines than an average ladder player in sc2 by the 12 minute mark
Artosis is talking funny... is Blizz pointing a gun at his head while he was writing that?
He is probably right because SC1 was so mechanically demanding, though I played and watched very little BW.
But his post is very confused when it comes to hard counters and ladder.
While there is strategy in rock-paper-scissors, the presence of hard counters makes the game pretty darn dull and the game usually reserved for settling which bar you're going to go to.
And the same can be said for SC2's use of hard counters. Without going into too much detail, Day[9] once said (and this isn't an exact quote, but the general idea is from him) that you don't build Immortals to counter Tanks, you build Immortals so your opponent doesn't build Tanks.
And we all know how that worked out for Tanks in TvP.
Where is the strategic depth there? If your opponent builds Tanks, you just win, and if they don't you might lose? That isn't exactly deep "reactionary branching" of build orders. And most of the reactionary branching is so quite simple in SC2 unfortunately... "oh look my opponent has Colossus, better build Vikings... oh look he has High Templars now, better build Ghosts."
And what exactly does the Roach hard counter? Zealots? Not without those mechanics... Marines? Not really. The Roach is a pretty plain run of the mill unit, it doesn't hard counter anything really.
I also disagree about the usefulness of ladder. If SC1 was all about mechanics, then ladder is perfect practice because the game is more about grinding mechanics until you can't get them wrong. And what better place to do than ladder?
In SC2, you're not going to see the most creative builds on ladder from top pros in SC2. Remember Nestea's Spine Crawler rush vs a FFE? My guess is he didn't practice that over and over on ladder. Or Naniwa's amazing two base build versus Mutalisk Zergs that got him to the finals of MLG versus a variety of Koreans? Yeah he would've been stupid to practice that on the ladder prior to the tournament.
In other words, if the game is about strategy, then ladder is not a good place to practice, but if it is about mechanics, ladder is a perfect place.
Usually I see eye to eye with Artosis, but we shouldn't be surprised here. He is paid to cast SC2, and I don't think he is dumb enough to bite the hand that feeds him.
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...
of course you don't need to move units in the right way as much because it's just blob vs blob. With many exceptions of course, and he's basically saying that you don't need to move units in the right way. Imagine not needing to shoot a basketball in the right way. how is that a plus point?
SC2, if you know your opponent is going Roaches, it doesn’t matter if he has 12 or 17 in the mid game push quite as much, because you are taking the fight in a choke with Immortal tech and Forcefields.
The units we love to hate, the Marauder, the Roach and the Immortal actually themselves add a whole different type of depth that just doesn’t exist in SC1.
rock paper scissors isn't depth.
2 lurkers can sometimes kill 40 marines, while 3 marines can sometimes kill 2 lurkers, all depending on how you use them. Now that's depth.
Saying you don't need to move your army the right way or it's just blob vs blob vs SC2 is objectively wrong. And the same example of marine vs lurker could be applied to marine vs baneling.
On June 30 2015 14:51 BronzeKnee wrote: He is probably right because SC1 was so mechanically demanding, though I played and watched very little BW.
But his confusing defense of hard counters is sad. While there is strategy in rock-paper-scissors, the presence of hard counters makes the game pretty darn dull and the game usually reserved for settling which bar you're going to go to.
And the same can be said for SC2's use of hard counters. Without going into too much detail, Day[9] once said (and this isn't an exact quote, but the general idea is from him) that you don't build Immortals to counter Tanks, you build Immortals so your opponent doesn't build Tanks.
And we all know how that worked out for Tanks in TvP.
Where is the strategic depth there? If your opponent builds Tanks, you just win, and if they don't you might lose? That isn't exactly deep "reactionary branching" of build orders. And most of the reactionary branching is so quite simple in SC2 unfortunately... "oh look my opponent has Colossus, better build Vikings... oh look he has High Templars now, better build Ghosts."
And what exactly does the Roach hard counter? Zealots? Not without those mechanics... Marines? Not really. The Roach is a pretty plain run of the mill unit, it doesn't hard counter anything really.
Usually I see eye to eye with Artosis, but we shouldn't be surprised here. He is paid to cast SC2, and I don't think he is dumb enough to bite the hand that feeds him.
It's not as simple as colossi>viking High templar>ghost. There are many factors into play that you have to take into consideration. The example is how Maru lately haven't been making vikings and such. It's pretty much wrong that Day9 said that you don't build to counter but to prevent. Siege Tank and Immortal may be the only case that's true. You have to build collosi as Protoss even if there are vikings. You still see roaches even with Immortal.
The point you said about the game settling which bar you gonna go is not really a new thing considering BW didn't really have more varied unit compositions than in SC2.
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...
of course you don't need to move units in the right way as much because it's just blob vs blob. With many exceptions of course, and he's basically saying that you don't need to move units in the right way. Imagine not needing to shoot a basketball in the right way. how is that a plus point?
SC2, if you know your opponent is going Roaches, it doesn’t matter if he has 12 or 17 in the mid game push quite as much, because you are taking the fight in a choke with Immortal tech and Forcefields.
hard counters. tell me how is that a plus point?
The units we love to hate, the Marauder, the Roach and the Immortal actually themselves add a whole different type of depth that just doesn’t exist in SC1.
rock paper scissors isn't depth.
2 lurkers can sometimes kill 40 marines, while 3 marines can sometimes kill 2 lurkers, all depending on how you use them. Now that's depth.
Saying you don't need to move your army the right way or it's just blob vs blob vs SC2 is objectively wrong. And the same example of marine vs lurker could be applied to marine vs baneling.
you're completely right. i did say "with many exceptions". And im not bashing sc2 but refuting artosis because he seems to be bashing sc2 without being aware of it.
and he's basically saying that you don't need to move units in the right way.
On June 30 2015 14:55 stuchiu wrote: I like how this thread has already devolved into unnuanced arguments and overgeneralized blanket statements.
Welcome to Team Liquid.
I see you've joined the club of people (actually, you might not just be a member, but the President at this point) who make one liners and don't delve into the conversations because then you might actually have to make an argument.
On June 30 2015 14:51 BronzeKnee wrote: He is probably right because SC1 was so mechanically demanding, though I played and watched very little BW.
But his confusing defense of hard counters is sad. While there is strategy in rock-paper-scissors, the presence of hard counters makes the game pretty darn dull and the game usually reserved for settling which bar you're going to go to.
And the same can be said for SC2's use of hard counters. Without going into too much detail, Day[9] once said (and this isn't an exact quote, but the general idea is from him) that you don't build Immortals to counter Tanks, you build Immortals so your opponent doesn't build Tanks.
And we all know how that worked out for Tanks in TvP.
Where is the strategic depth there? If your opponent builds Tanks, you just win, and if they don't you might lose? That isn't exactly deep "reactionary branching" of build orders. And most of the reactionary branching is so quite simple in SC2 unfortunately... "oh look my opponent has Colossus, better build Vikings... oh look he has High Templars now, better build Ghosts."
And what exactly does the Roach hard counter? Zealots? Not without those mechanics... Marines? Not really. The Roach is a pretty plain run of the mill unit, it doesn't hard counter anything really.
Usually I see eye to eye with Artosis, but we shouldn't be surprised here. He is paid to cast SC2, and I don't think he is dumb enough to bite the hand that feeds him.
It's not as simple as colossi>viking High templar>ghost. There are many factors into play that you have to take into consideration. The example is how Maru lately haven't been making vikings and such. It's pretty much wrong that Day9 said that you don't build to counter but to prevent. Siege Tank and Immortal may be the only case that's true. You have to build collosi as Protoss even if there are vikings. You still see roaches even with Immortal.
That could very well be true. But it doesn't change the fact that reactionary branching is quite simple in SC2. You build X to counter Y, you might go with a non-traditional counter, such as trying to beat back Mutalisks with Blink Stalkers and HT/Archons instead of Phoenixes, or beat Colossus with Marauders, but in the end it is more about how you control said units (mechanics) than thinking hard about what units counter said units and making a difficult decision (strategy).
If you want to argue that SC2 is a great strategic game, that is fine, but using the presence of simple counters isn't a good example.
On June 30 2015 14:55 Wildmoon wrote: The point you said about the game settling which bar you gonna go is not really a new thing considering BW didn't really have more varied unit compositions than in SC2.
Broodwar and WC3 require literally 100x more strategy and skill than sc2. SC2 build order losses and lack of finesse micro is a big issue IMO. Units like the oracle, blink, and force fields are really dumb forms of micro. In wc3 you can win with 1 hero vs 3 heroes and 50 food armies if you are good enough, but in sc2 I can't think of any similar situations. Losing in sc2 never feels like I have been outplayed either. The fact I can offrace protoss and proxygate life and win without using my keyboard is just bad game design.
I will say lotv has a lot more promise if they tweak units like the ravagers correctly.
I agree that map diversity is a huge problem in BW since 90% of the makers host FS or Python, but it has more to do with the outdated ladder system than the game / community itself.
But I completely disagree with this statement
"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."
In BW games especially in PvT or TvT, you can build more units / max out than your opponent quick and still throw the game if you just blindly A move towards well positioned siege tanks.
The rate of worker production in SC2 (mule / chronoboost / inject larva) also makes aggressive harass strategies / comebacks less common. Reminds me of a game between Flash and Soo in previous GSL seasons where Flash played a perfect harass opening and killed like 20~ drones and still lost the game since Soo can replenish his workers quickly.
EDIT: Here's the link of the game, there is no way Soo would've came back in BW terms if he was harassed like that. Which proves Artosis wrong since a well planned aggressive opening can still be equalized with mechanics like inject larva
On June 30 2015 14:55 stuchiu wrote: I like how this thread has already devolved into unnuanced arguments and overgeneralized blanket statements.
Welcome to Team Liquid.
I see you've joined the club of people who make one liners and don't delve into the conversations because then you might actually have to make an argument.
On June 30 2015 14:51 BronzeKnee wrote: He is probably right because SC1 was so mechanically demanding, though I played and watched very little BW.
But his confusing defense of hard counters is sad. While there is strategy in rock-paper-scissors, the presence of hard counters makes the game pretty darn dull and the game usually reserved for settling which bar you're going to go to.
And the same can be said for SC2's use of hard counters. Without going into too much detail, Day[9] once said (and this isn't an exact quote, but the general idea is from him) that you don't build Immortals to counter Tanks, you build Immortals so your opponent doesn't build Tanks.
And we all know how that worked out for Tanks in TvP.
Where is the strategic depth there? If your opponent builds Tanks, you just win, and if they don't you might lose? That isn't exactly deep "reactionary branching" of build orders. And most of the reactionary branching is so quite simple in SC2 unfortunately... "oh look my opponent has Colossus, better build Vikings... oh look he has High Templars now, better build Ghosts."
And what exactly does the Roach hard counter? Zealots? Not without those mechanics... Marines? Not really. The Roach is a pretty plain run of the mill unit, it doesn't hard counter anything really.
Usually I see eye to eye with Artosis, but we shouldn't be surprised here. He is paid to cast SC2, and I don't think he is dumb enough to bite the hand that feeds him.
It's not as simple as colossi>viking High templar>ghost. There are many factors into play that you have to take into consideration. The example is how Maru lately haven't been making vikings and such. It's pretty much wrong that Day9 said that you don't build to counter but to prevent. Siege Tank and Immortal may be the only case that's true. You have to build collosi as Protoss even if there are vikings. You still see roaches even with Immortal.
On June 30 2015 14:55 Wildmoon wrote: The point you said about the game settling which bar you gonna go is not really a new thing considering BW didn't really have more varied unit compositions than in SC2.
I once wrote 63 pages about the greatest players of all time in SC2 and learned in those thousands of posts that most people don't read what I write, make bad arguments, straw man, get caught out, deny they made bad arguments, said I was biased, said I wasn't biased enough. Basically what I learned was that the people that I'd be arguing against aren't here to argue so I don't see the point in it.
And more than that, I respect BW enough as a game to know that the meager few hundreds hours I've watched does not qualify me as an expert of its strategic depth.
If Sea[Shield] can get 11 more Marines than the average top Ladder player by the 12 minute mark, On the contrary, in SC2, if you know your opponent is going Roaches, it doesn’t matter if he has 12 or 17 in the mid game push quite as much, because you are taking the fight in a choke with Immortal tech and Forcefields.
oh ya and his sentence isn't coherent. We are all left in suspense not knowing what happens if sea gets 11 more marines
His sentence is coherent. For some reason you've just butchered it:
If Sea[Shield] can get 11 more Marines than the average top Ladder player by the 12 minute mark, then you will literally never beat him by practicing on the ladder. On the contrary...
On June 30 2015 15:04 duckk wrote: Broodwar and WC3 require literally 100x more strategy and skill than sc2. SC2 build order losses and lack of finesse micro is a big issue IMO. Units like the oracle, blink, and force fields are really dumb forms of micro. In wc3 you can win with 1 hero vs 3 heroes and 50 food armies if you are good enough, but in sc2 I can't think of any similar situations. Losing in sc2 never feels like I have been outplayed either. The fact I can offrace protoss and proxygate life and win without using my keyboard is just bad game design.
I will say lotv has a lot more promise if they tweak units like the ravagers correctly.
err WC3 is the least strategic of them all due not having real macro and upkeep mechanic. You said strategy then proceed to describe micro...
EPT
