|
On June 30 2015 15:12 Subversive wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 14:44 JieXian wrote: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: Show nested quote +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...
Right that makes sense and I'm glad to have been mistaken :D Thank you for the clarification. will edit.
My point still stands:
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.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/488983-artosis-says-sc2-is-more-strategic-than-bw?page=3#43
+ Show Spoiler +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.
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?
|
On June 30 2015 15:01 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Yes, the guy who personally wrote the entire Top 15 Players of All Time series never does enough to make and defend his points of view on the game.
EDIT: Damn, he already defended himself with the same point.
|
On June 30 2015 15:15 Circumstance wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 15:01 BronzeKnee wrote: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. Yes, the guy who personally wrote the entire Top 15 Players of All Time series never does enough to make and defend his points of view on the game.
Classic. Just because someone once argued something well, doesn't mean they are now. Check his response quoted below:
On June 30 2015 15:11 stuchiu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 15:01 BronzeKnee wrote: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. You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. On June 30 2015 14:55 Wildmoon wrote: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.
I see, so the solution to the problem is one liners.
I bet you really enjoy all the threads on Sherdog, which are pretty much all like this: http://forums.sherdog.com/forums/f2/big-tim-often-fought-more-times-one-night-than-many-fighters-today-fight-year-3020561/index2.html
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
why waste a paragraph when one line is enough to get a point across
|
On June 30 2015 15:13 SuperFanBoy wrote:
Sc2 is harder and more strategic than Sc1.
That is why MVP goes down as the greatest Starcraft player ever.
But broodwar is more diverse, you can have macro based players (like Flash) or micro based players (like Shine who can win off pure muta micro), whilst in SC2 it is only limited to strategy.
|
On June 30 2015 15:18 ppshchik wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 15:13 SuperFanBoy wrote:
Sc2 is harder and more strategic than Sc1.
That is why MVP goes down as the greatest Starcraft player ever. But broodwar is more diverse, you can have macro based players (like Flash) or micro based players (like Shine who can win off pure muta micro), whilst in SC2 it is only limited to strategy.
You can really just be good at everything like Maru. Perhaps that's why Flash never gets anywhere in SC2.
|
Fiddler's Green42661 Posts
On June 30 2015 15:15 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 15:15 Circumstance wrote:On June 30 2015 15:01 BronzeKnee wrote: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. Yes, the guy who personally wrote the entire Top 15 Players of All Time series never does enough to make and defend his points of view on the game. Classic, check his response quoted below: Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 15:11 stuchiu wrote:On June 30 2015 15:01 BronzeKnee wrote: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. You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. On June 30 2015 14:55 Wildmoon wrote: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. I see, so the solution to the problem is one liners. I bet you really enjoy all the threads on Sherdog, which are pretty much all like this: http://forums.sherdog.com/forums/f2/big-tim-often-fought-more-times-one-night-than-many-fighters-today-fight-year-3020561/index2.html
You don't see the irony in your response at all? I wrote two points on why I didn't write an argument, but you ignored the second point with another pointless one-liner.
|
On June 30 2015 15:17 lichter wrote:
why waste a paragraph when one line is enough to get a point across
We need a lecture from Professor Greg "IdrA" Fields!
|
On June 30 2015 15:19 stuchiu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 15:15 BronzeKnee wrote:On June 30 2015 15:15 Circumstance wrote:On June 30 2015 15:01 BronzeKnee wrote: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. Yes, the guy who personally wrote the entire Top 15 Players of All Time series never does enough to make and defend his points of view on the game. Classic, check his response quoted below: On June 30 2015 15:11 stuchiu wrote:On June 30 2015 15:01 BronzeKnee wrote: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. You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. On June 30 2015 14:55 Wildmoon wrote: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. I see, so the solution to the problem is one liners. I bet you really enjoy all the threads on Sherdog, which are pretty much all like this: http://forums.sherdog.com/forums/f2/big-tim-often-fought-more-times-one-night-than-many-fighters-today-fight-year-3020561/index2.html You don't see the irony in your response at all? I wrote two points on why I didn't write an argument, but you ignored the second point with another pointless one-liner.
Well the thread has devolved into unnuanced arguments and overgeneralized blanket statement.
What was your point of writing a paragraph?
On June 30 2015 15:17 lichter wrote:
why waste a paragraph when one line is enough to get a point across
Because one liners are overgeneralized blanket statements and unnuanced arguments.
And no, I see no irony stuchiu =)
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
On June 30 2015 15:19 JieXian wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 15:17 lichter wrote:
why waste a paragraph when one line is enough to get a point across We need a lecture from Professor Greg "IdrA" Fields!
he's more from the "why waste one line when one finger is enough" school of thought xD
|
|
|
On June 30 2015 15:21 lichter wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 15:19 JieXian wrote:On June 30 2015 15:17 lichter wrote:
why waste a paragraph when one line is enough to get a point across We need a lecture from Professor Greg "IdrA" Fields! he's more from the "why waste one line when one finger is enough" school of thought xD
hahaha such deep wisdom from the spokesman of Master Fields.
we want more!
On June 30 2015 15:23 Lunareste wrote:
Brood War fans feint
hahaha it's just Artosis, his reputation hasn't been the best. Back during the BW days around 2008-2010 he has made stupid threads complaining about TvP
However I might cry if Day9 posted something like that one day
|
On June 30 2015 15:13 SuperFanBoy wrote:
Sc2 is harder and more strategic than Sc1.
That is why MVP goes down as the greatest Starcraft player ever.
Which is ironic because Artosis always touted Mvp's mechanics as a reason why he was such a rising star in BW and conversely, great sc2 player.
Which he wasn't by the way, he made a quarters or something which Artosis never shuts up about, but as a Woongjin fan I cannot begin to tell you the pain of watching them lose each week because of their terran lineup (Mvp and PianO). A team that had Free, Zero and Soulkey losing because they were forced to play one of their two 40% wunderkind terrans was miserable. And Soulkey was a beast then as well. You basically had three close generation aces.
|
On June 30 2015 15:18 ppshchik wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 15:13 SuperFanBoy wrote:
Sc2 is harder and more strategic than Sc1.
That is why MVP goes down as the greatest Starcraft player ever. But broodwar is more diverse, you can have macro based players (like Flash) or micro based players (like Shine who can win off pure muta micro), whilst in SC2 it is only limited to strategy.
Chess would be a lot less diverse if the queen dies trying to capture a pawn because lol micro.
On the other hand boxing would be a lot less athletic if how hard you punched didn't matter as much as where you swing.
Different things are different. Some games rely on how quick you right click a mineral patch, other games rely on decision making. Whatever floats your boat.
|
So my real thoughts on this topic: I think in SC2 certain choices or strategies have a bigger impact than in BW or also WC3. In SC2 a bad choice or build order can result in an instant loss more easily, while in BW/WC3 you could make up for a bad choice/strategy/build with superior execution. BW and WC3 were more straight up and you wouldn't get surprised as often as in SC2. Not sure I would call that SC2 being more strategic or just less forgiving. You get punished real hard in SC2 for a wrong move/build and I don't think that's good but rather bad.
I am no BW expert though and he knows way more about it, so maybe I am wrong. I'm confident about WC3 though. Nice blog from Artosis, I would love to hear his thoughts more frequently  .
|
The amount of Brood War I've watched compared to pretty much any current esport is far too little to have a meaningful opinion on the subject of comparing the two games. What I am curious about, however, which I think Artosis only slightly touched on somewhat, was what is really meant by "strategic". Is it merely a matter of a number of decisions, or is the weight fo the decisions involved, and what exactly does that mean in terms of game design and interaction? For those who favor BW, is there such a thing as too strategic? If any kind of meaningful discussion is going to take place, it's my opinion that this word has to be dissected.
|
On June 30 2015 15:31 Musicus wrote:So my real thoughts on this topic: I think in SC2 certain choices or strategies have a bigger impact than in BW or also WC3. In SC2 a bad choice or build order can result in an instant loss more easily, while in BW/WC3 you could make up for a bad choice/strategy/build with superior execution. BW and WC3 were more straight up and you wouldn't get surprised as often as in SC2. Not sure I would call that SC2 being more strategic or just less forgiving. You get punished real hard in SC2 for a wrong move/build and I don't think that's good but rather bad. I am no BW expert though and he knows way more about it, so maybe I am wrong. I'm confident about WC3 though. Nice blog from Artosis, I would love to hear his thoughts more frequently .
Thank you fellow wc3 player. Yes, rps elements are bad and shallow for me too.
But if some people like it, it's their choice to play the game they like, we have different tastes.
|
On June 30 2015 15:31 Musicus wrote:So my real thoughts on this topic: I think in SC2 certain choices or strategies have a bigger impact than in BW or also WC3. In SC2 a bad choice or build order can result in an instant loss more easily, while in BW/WC3 you could make up for a bad choice/strategy/build with superior execution. BW and WC3 were more straight up and you wouldn't get surprised as often as in SC2. Not sure I would call that SC2 being more strategic or just less forgiving. You get punished real hard in SC2 for a wrong move/build and I don't think that's good but rather bad. I am no BW expert though and he knows way more about it, so maybe I am wrong. I'm confident about WC3 though. Nice blog from Artosis, I would love to hear his thoughts more frequently .
You being punished hard kinda means the other side is rewarded more for his choice. That being said, there are not a lot of pro games these day that are won or lost by initial build order. There are still some but not a lot comparatively.
|
Fiddler's Green42661 Posts
On June 30 2015 15:31 Musicus wrote:So my real thoughts on this topic: I think in SC2 certain choices or strategies have a bigger impact than in BW or also WC3. In SC2 a bad choice or build order can result in an instant loss more easily, while in BW/WC3 you could make up for a bad choice/strategy/build with superior execution. BW and WC3 were more straight up and you wouldn't get surprised as often as in SC2. Not sure I would call that SC2 being more strategic or just less forgiving. You get punished real hard in SC2 for a wrong move/build and I don't think that's good but rather bad. I am no BW expert though and he knows way more about it, so maybe I am wrong. I'm confident about WC3 though. Nice blog from Artosis, I would love to hear his thoughts more frequently .
Ted was a god, never forget undead winning WCG
|
On June 30 2015 15:34 stuchiu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 15:31 Musicus wrote:So my real thoughts on this topic: I think in SC2 certain choices or strategies have a bigger impact than in BW or also WC3. In SC2 a bad choice or build order can result in an instant loss more easily, while in BW/WC3 you could make up for a bad choice/strategy/build with superior execution. BW and WC3 were more straight up and you wouldn't get surprised as often as in SC2. Not sure I would call that SC2 being more strategic or just less forgiving. You get punished real hard in SC2 for a wrong move/build and I don't think that's good but rather bad. I am no BW expert though and he knows way more about it, so maybe I am wrong. I'm confident about WC3 though. Nice blog from Artosis, I would love to hear his thoughts more frequently . Ted was a god, never forget undead winning WCG
Damn straight, or even Happy. You could see how he could do things with his fiend micro were other players would just have been helpless in the exact same situation.
On June 30 2015 15:34 Wildmoon wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 15:31 Musicus wrote:So my real thoughts on this topic: I think in SC2 certain choices or strategies have a bigger impact than in BW or also WC3. In SC2 a bad choice or build order can result in an instant loss more easily, while in BW/WC3 you could make up for a bad choice/strategy/build with superior execution. BW and WC3 were more straight up and you wouldn't get surprised as often as in SC2. Not sure I would call that SC2 being more strategic or just less forgiving. You get punished real hard in SC2 for a wrong move/build and I don't think that's good but rather bad. I am no BW expert though and he knows way more about it, so maybe I am wrong. I'm confident about WC3 though. Nice blog from Artosis, I would love to hear his thoughts more frequently . You being punished hard kinda means the other side is rewarded more for his choice. That being said, there are not a lot of pro games these day that are won or lost by initial build order. There are still some but not a lot comparatively.
Yeah that's a good way to see it in a more positive light. Yeah I think it's gotten better (although Terrans might disagree when they can't scout, prepare for a proxy oracle and then get blink stalker all-ined  ) and will only get better in LotV.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
