|
On June 30 2015 17:11 Wildmoon wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 17:03 Qikz wrote: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.
If your a BW pro, you could bio every game in TvP and win almost all vs commoners on ladder. It can be done. A SC2 pro doing TvP mech on ladder, your going to have a really rough time on ladder vs commoners.
|
On June 30 2015 17:14 YyapSsap wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 17:11 Wildmoon wrote:On June 30 2015 17:03 Qikz wrote: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. If your a BW pro, you could bio every game in TvP and win almost all vs commoners on ladder. It can be done. A SC2 pro doing TvP mech on ladder, your going to have a really rough time on ladder vs commoners.
Are you really going to use that argument? I have seen a high level player toying with people in TvT with mass ravens you know.
|
Lorning
Belgica34432 Posts
I can't do anything but agree with Artie McTosis
|
Northern Ireland22212 Posts
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  .
the graphs are here, this thread is now legit
|
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?
Now artosis kinda is a bad example, but pretty easy to say that making a living from casting starcraft in no way means that the person actually knows the game.
|
I think that Artosis says it because he had such bad mechanics, that on his level, games were decided mostly by mechanical skill alone - not by strategy, and not even by the area of thinking that deals with how to best use a limited amount of apm.
Once a player gets to a certain level in BW, the game stops being about good basic macro, because both players have them. No matter how good your mechanics are, you will not have more units than your opponent. So it becomes about two things:
Micro
Decision making
|
Bisutopia19366 Posts
Well, we've made it to 7 pages. Does it really matter that the community shares the opinion of Artosis or proves him wrong? I've been watching SC1 for over 10 years and sc2 for five. You simply can not compare red apples to green apples.
|
On June 30 2015 17:27 BisuDagger wrote:
Well, we've made it to 7 pages. Does it really matter that the community shares the opinion of Artosis or proves him wrong? I've been watching SC1 for over 10 years and sc2 for five. You simply can not compare red apples to green apples.
red apples are a worthless joke because you can pick up more than 12 at once
|
On June 30 2015 17:27 BisuDagger wrote:
Well, we've made it to 7 pages. Does it really matter that the community shares the opinion of Artosis or proves him wrong? I've been watching SC1 for over 10 years and sc2 for five. You simply can not compare red apples to green apples.
Red apples are way too cliché. Only casuals like red apples.
|
No rekrul post.
Maybe inControL will post 3 or 5 post in a row in full caps for nostalgia.
|
ALLEYCAT BLUES51070 Posts
On June 30 2015 17:33 FFW_Rude wrote:
No rekrul post.
Maybe inControL will post 3 or 5 post in a row in full caps for nostalgia.
Mortal Kombat?
|
United Kingdom12041 Posts
|
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? Now artosis kinda is a bad example, but pretty easy to say that making a living from casting starcraft in no way means that the person actually knows the game.
Well, artosis was your average/goodish "pro" foreigner, he participated in wcg (back when that was a thing) a couple of times. So by most means of measure, he was quite good (essentially top GM NA). That being said, the gap between koreans and non-koreans in sc2 is pretty big, and it was 10 times bigger in bw.
|
I agree. SC2 is more strategical while BW is more tactical. Just too different kinds of rts games.
|
|
|
On June 30 2015 17:35 ejac 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? Now artosis kinda is a bad example, but pretty easy to say that making a living from casting starcraft in no way means that the person actually knows the game. Well, artosis was your average/goodish "pro" foreigner, he participated in wcg (back when that was a thing) a couple of times. So by most means of measure, he was quite good (essentially top GM NA). That being said, the gap between koreans and non-koreans in sc2 is pretty big, and it was 10 times bigger in bw.
Ok ty
|
This argument is really silly, because Artosis describes something which is negative about SC2 (it's less mechanical than BW) but then phrases it as something positive about SC2 (it's more strategical than BW) which has the exact same meaning, but is designed to provoke different associations and function as flame bait.
|
1296 Posts
How exactly does he define "Strategy"? What is the criteria that a game has to have to be strategic?
For example, he says SC1 is about:
make as many units as possible and to move those units in the right way.
And making the correct units, positioning them on the map; knowing when to move out and when to hold position and having a large economy that supports the construction of those units is what I consider to be strategic elements.
|
|
|
Everyone saying sc2 is more strategic is retarded, artosis included.
User was warned for this post
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
