|
ALLEYCAT BLUES50629 Posts
On June 30 2015 15:24 JieXian wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 15:21 lichter wrote: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! 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
speaking of Day[9], did you know that he wanted BW SCVs to be 45 HP instead of 60.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/brood-war/22214-thoughts-balance-change
|
On June 30 2015 13:36 Hier wrote:
Proportionally? Yes. Relatively? No.
This.
/thread
|
On June 30 2015 16:15 Musicus wrote:So I had to bust out the paint skills here for one more point: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/oIzhv2o.png) I think in sc2 strategy is more impactful than in BW because the impact of perfect execution is lower. But that does not mean sc2 is more strategic, it just seems this way since execution is less important. Well I think the graph explains what I mean  .
Strategies being more impactful means it's more strategic based.
|
You also have to realize that SC:BW is an older game with little change since its release. Optimal strategies have been developed for each match up, with variations depending on the map. SC2 has had tons of balance patches as well as two expansions now. Lack of diversity doesn't necessarily mean less strategy is involved.
On a side note, when is the last time Rekrul even posted?
|
United Kingdom12025 Posts
Not in a million years does SC2 have more strategic depth than Broodwar considering the complete lack of builds and playstyles there are in SC2. Also map wise pretty much every map in SC2 still plays out the same and there's very few maps if any that have any unique features. All maps revolve around each player not spreading out from their own corner of the map where they can find either 4 or 5 bases (3 (maybe 4 with a mineral only) was pretty much the max per corner and even the third was further in BW) so there's very little reason to ever leave your side of the map and the second you lose an engagement it's pretty much game over.
I'm not saying SC2 is a bad game, because I played it for a while and enjoyed it and it all comes down to personal preference at the end of the day. It's just I think depth wise I don't think SC2 can compete strategically.
|
On June 30 2015 16:48 Qikz wrote:
Not in a million years does SC2 have more strategic depth than Broodwar considering the complete lack of builds and playstyles there are in SC2. Also map wise pretty much every map in SC2 still plays out the same and there's very few maps if any that have any unique features. All maps revolve around each player not spreading out from their own corner of the map where they can find either 4 or 5 bases (3 (maybe 4 with a mineral only) was pretty much the max per corner and even the third was further in BW) so there's very little reason to ever leave your side of the map and the second you lose an engagement it's pretty much game over.
I'm not saying SC2 is a bad game, because I played it for a while and enjoyed it and it all comes down to personal preference at the end of the day. It's just I think depth wise SC2 is nowhere near as strategic. Terran for instance are funneled down a certain path every game and that's part of the reason I stopped playing and watching SC2.
You should elaborate on the first one and the second one is simply not true since I watch almost all GSL matches and that's rarely the case. The third one comparatively not true if you compare it to BW whether you means unit compositions or builds.
|
On June 30 2015 16:43 Wildmoon wrote:Show nested quote +Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it a gambling-like, RPS-like, WIFOM choice? It's a reward that is undeserved, as opposed to gathering information and making choices based on that. There are choices that are gambling and there are ones that are not. There are not a lot of gambling in SC2 at the top anymore. Otherwise you wouldn't see mostly expected faces at the final of GSL.
Alright, I wasn't implying that SC2 was about gambling, was merely focusing on choices being too rewarding is undeserving if it came from gambling, or RPS.
Then again I'm not exactly sure what choices you're talking about because I'm not sure what choices you were referring to.
On June 30 2015 16:46 BLinD-RawR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 15:24 JieXian wrote:On June 30 2015 15:21 lichter wrote: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 speaking of Day[9], did you know that he wanted BW SCVs to be 45 HP instead of 60. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/brood-war/22214-thoughts-balance-change
:D it was 2005 after all and Yellow didn't know the right "strategy" to fight against a bunker rush yet. When I watched the games in 2014 I couldn't believe the bunker rush worked that well.
However I'm zerg so I wouldn't mind it :D but 45 is a bit low.
|
People trying so hard to get offended at a post that is not offending to bw in any way.
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
On June 30 2015 16:48 deathgod6 wrote:
On a side note, when is the last time Rekrul even posted?
He has posted a few times in the voided bets/matchifixing/Pinnacle threads
|
I'll never be a pro or even that good at either. So for someone like me, SC2 is more fun to play while BW is way more fun to watch.
|
ALLEYCAT BLUES50629 Posts
On June 30 2015 16:54 Kleinmuuhg wrote:
People trying so hard to get offended at a post that is not offending to bw in any way.
keyword there is trying, I don't think anyone is taking this seriously.
|
Alright, I wasn't implying that SC2 was about gambling, was merely focusing on choices being too rewarding is undeserving if it came from gambling, or RPS.
Then again I'm not exactly sure what choices you're talking about because I'm not sure what choices you were referring to.
I was talking about SC2 when you quoted me earlier.
|
I visit these threads for the poster icons.
|
On June 30 2015 16:47 Wildmoon wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 16:15 Musicus wrote:So I had to bust out the paint skills here for one more point: I think in sc2 strategy is more impactful than in BW because the impact of perfect execution is lower. But that does not mean sc2 is more strategic, it just seems this way since execution is less important. Well I think the graph explains what I mean . Strategies being more impactful means it's more strategic based.
True! And I guess that's what Artosis is saying in the end.
|
United Kingdom12025 Posts
On June 30 2015 16:51 Wildmoon wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 16:48 Qikz wrote:
Not in a million years does SC2 have more strategic depth than Broodwar considering the complete lack of builds and playstyles there are in SC2. Also map wise pretty much every map in SC2 still plays out the same and there's very few maps if any that have any unique features. All maps revolve around each player not spreading out from their own corner of the map where they can find either 4 or 5 bases (3 (maybe 4 with a mineral only) was pretty much the max per corner and even the third was further in BW) so there's very little reason to ever leave your side of the map and the second you lose an engagement it's pretty much game over.
I'm not saying SC2 is a bad game, because I played it for a while and enjoyed it and it all comes down to personal preference at the end of the day. It's just I think depth wise SC2 is nowhere near as strategic. Terran for instance are funneled down a certain path every game and that's part of the reason I stopped playing and watching SC2. You should elaborate on the first one and the second one is simply not true since I watch almost all GSL matches and that's rarely the case. The third one comparatively not true if you compare it to BW whether you means unit compositions or builds.
It's been a long time since I've watched Starcraft 2 or played it so maybe on the second point I'm wrong, but an instance from back when I played for example is due to the RPS game mechanics something like mech simply doesn't work very well in TvP. I did it every single game on ladder, because I wanted the challenge but eventually it just felt like I was putting myself behind at the start of every game and only ever won if the opponent fucked up.
The same can be said about when I saw some pros try to do mech timing pushes in SC2. It never felt like they got ahead by their mechanics or strategic thinking. They only ever seemed to get ahead if the opponent had a brain fart and a-moved his entire army into tanks with the wrong unit composition and died. People always use Broodwar as an example where "In TvP you can only mech" and that simply isn't true. There's a good different number of timing pushes in TvP regarding bionic and even some cheeses for example BBS, Shallow Two, Deep-Six (Timing push) and others although they're not really on Liquipedia and more rely on different numbers of barracks and you leaving your base at different times.
Protoss when I used to watch all seemed to go Voidray, Sentry, Immortal, Storm in PvZ when I was watching and Zerg no matter what the matchup all went Swarmhost into turtle with a million static defenses. The games probably evolved from that now, but considering I was watching HoTS I think for a year and most games played out the same I kind of gave up wanting to watch it anymore. The only matchup with real strategic diversity is TvT and it was the only matchup I ever truely enjoyed watching in SC2. You could go bionic, pure bio, pure mech and heck you could even rush battlecruisers which was cool to see Flash do vs FanTaSy.
I'm not offended and I respect that Artosis has his own opinion, but I just think differently to him.
|
|
|
I agree with Artosis.
BW is first and foremost one of the most mechanically demanding game. You can purely win with your mechanics than using strategy because the game allows for this. You can make up the strategical disadvantage with better executions which stem from ones micro/macro. The ceiling is so high that players can really differentiate themselves in terms of play style.
E.g. One could imagine Jaedong playing on BNET and not losing ONCE period.
E.g.2 I see the terran bio bunched up. Can I successfully land even one storm?
SC2 is more strategical because if you dont react accordingly you get punished and lose the game (build orders and unit compositions). You cannot purely win with your mechanics unless its like a wood leaguer vs a masters player. There are too many situations like 5 marines vs Oracle where one cannot do anything to stop the incoming world of hurt.
E.g. One could imagine Life playing on BNET and losing a few times (ty the book of protoss b..)
E.g.2 I see the terran bio bunched up. Good bye bio *TTTT*.
|
I've not played BW, but I've played a little bit of starbow and some SC2, and I like to watch BW.
I think Artosis is right in a particular sense: more SC2 games appear to hinge on top-level whole-game-plan types of decisions; target army compositions, timings etc. BW games are often impacted by these decisions, but single decisions tend not to decide so much of the game.
However, from the BW I've watched and the starbow I've played, I think those games have the better end of it. If I go to see a band I'm not going hoping that they decide to play the right songs; I want to witness their artistry and feel their passion, and if they choose good songs to do the job then all the better.
Less metaphorically, I don't feel as much that I need an optimised timed-out strategy in a starbow game as I do in an SC2 game, and I like that (the difference is small, admittedly).
|
On June 30 2015 16:54 Kleinmuuhg wrote:
People trying so hard to get offended at a post that is not offending to bw in any way.
I don't know about the rest but for me there's a difference between being offended and thinking he is wrong and stupid, because I read it as him saying non kespa players an win because BW is more shallow. Kespa players were only good at a shallow game.
Eg You won't be offended if I said that the earth was flat. Because you know it isn't.
On June 30 2015 17:01 Wildmoon wrote:Show nested quote +Alright, I wasn't implying that SC2 was about gambling, was merely focusing on choices being too rewarding is undeserving if it came from gambling, or RPS.
Then again I'm not exactly sure what choices you're talking about because I'm not sure what choices you were referring to.
I was talking about SC2 when you quoted me earlier.
Yes but i was focusing on choices.
You being punished hard kinda means the other side is rewarded more for his choice.
On June 30 2015 17:06 YyapSsap wrote:
I agree with Artosis.
BW is first and foremost one of the most mechanically demanding game. You can purely win with your mechanics than using strategy because the game allows for this. You can make up the strategical disadvantage with better executions which stem from ones micro/macro. The ceiling is so high that players can really differentiate themselves in terms of play style.
E.g. One could imagine Jaedong playing on BNET and not losing ONCE period.
E.g.2 I see the terran bio bunched up. Can I successfully land even one storm?
SC2 is more strategical because if you dont react accordingly you get punished and lose the game (build orders and unit compositions). You cannot purely win with your mechanics unless its like a wood leaguer vs a masters player. There are too many situations like 5 marines vs Oracle where one cannot do anything to stop the incoming world of hurt.
E.g. One could imagine Life playing on BNET and losing a few times (ty the book of protoss b..)
E.g.2 I see the terran bio bunched up. Good bye bio *TTTT*.
no argument about the skill ceiling point.
Protoss uses storm against bio in both BW and SC2, and they don't have problems landing it in BW. You clearly don't know enough. -.- Which is exactly why Terran seldom goes bio in BW, because storm and reavers are too good.
Please don't imply that people don't have to react properly in BW. -.- And yes you can win by mechanics. I got placed into gold in SC2 without knowing anything and using BW build orders. I later realised that I needed to make queens and got into platinum.
Once again, RPS isn't deep strategy. It's fragility.
|
On June 30 2015 17:03 Qikz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 16:51 Wildmoon wrote:On June 30 2015 16:48 Qikz wrote:
Not in a million years does SC2 have more strategic depth than Broodwar considering the complete lack of builds and playstyles there are in SC2. Also map wise pretty much every map in SC2 still plays out the same and there's very few maps if any that have any unique features. All maps revolve around each player not spreading out from their own corner of the map where they can find either 4 or 5 bases (3 (maybe 4 with a mineral only) was pretty much the max per corner and even the third was further in BW) so there's very little reason to ever leave your side of the map and the second you lose an engagement it's pretty much game over.
I'm not saying SC2 is a bad game, because I played it for a while and enjoyed it and it all comes down to personal preference at the end of the day. It's just I think depth wise SC2 is nowhere near as strategic. Terran for instance are funneled down a certain path every game and that's part of the reason I stopped playing and watching SC2. You should elaborate on the first one and the second one is simply not true since I watch almost all GSL matches and that's rarely the case. The third one comparatively not true if you compare it to BW whether you means unit compositions or builds. It's been a long time since I've watched Starcraft 2 or played it so maybe on the second point I'm wrong, but an instance from back when I played for example is due to the RPS game mechanics something like mech simply doesn't work very well in TvP. I did it every single game on ladder, because I wanted the challenge but eventually it just felt like I was putting myself behind at the start of every game and only ever won if the opponent fucked up. The same can be said about when I saw some pros try to do mech timing pushes in SC2. It never felt like they got ahead by their mechanics or strategic thinking. They only ever seemed to get ahead if the opponent had a brain fart and a-moved his entire army into tanks with the wrong unit composition and died. People always use Broodwar as an example where "In TvP you can only mech" and that simply isn't true. There's a good different number of timing pushes in TvP regarding bionic and even some cheeses for example BBS, Shallow Two, Deep-Six (Timing push) and others although they're not really on Liquipedia and more rely on different numbers of barracks and you leaving your base at different times. Protoss when I used to watch all seemed to go Voidray, Sentry, Immortal, Storm in PvZ when I was watching and Zerg no matter what the matchup all went Swarmhost into turtle with a million static defenses. The games probably evolved from that now, but considering I was watching HoTS I think for a year and most games played out the same I kind of gave up wanting to watch it anymore. The only matchup with real strategic diversity is TvT and it was the only matchup I ever truely enjoyed watching in SC2. You could go bionic, pure bio, pure mech and heck you could even rush battlecruisers which was cool to see Flash do vs FanTaSy. I'm not offended and I respect that Artosis has his own opinion, but I just think differently to him.
The problem here is you are focusing on BW and bring it over to SC2 to point out that where somethings are not viable. Bio was not viable in BW as a legit composition in TvP. Just like mech is rare in SC2 in TvP. In this case they are equal in variety just different. SC2 also has some timings with tanks in TvP. The fact is in both games you can not just use whatever units and be successful. There are specific set of units that are good against specific race. Bio is not viable in TvT in BW but that doesn't really mean the MU sucks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
