...Let me get this out of the way: StarCraft 2 is more strategic than StarCraft 1. Both are RTS (Real Time Strategy) games, but they have different emphasises. SC1 is a Real Time Strategy game, and SC2 is a Real Time Strategy game.
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...
Oh yeah he said some stuff about the GSL finals and Rain and KeSPA and stuff too.
But basically I'm posting this just to fish for a response from Rekrul
I feel like I just walked into a room full of TL writers and moderators as cats in the home of a cat lady, and here we have Waxangel, the beta, waltzing right over to Rekrul's litter box, and pissing in it, long and slow, while staring him in the eyes the entire time.
He just means the strategy has more room in SC2 because mechanics aren't as hard as in BW, so the player with the best strategy can often wins against the player with the best mechanics.
I like that Artosis compared the strategic beauty of sc2 with the beauty of sc1 micro (muta, vulture and reaver were explicitly mentioned). The only thing I'd add is that there is no reason sc2 can't incorporate better micro ala sc1 (Depth of Micro by Lalush). Sorry for harping on this again but I can't see why this can't be added.
I actually agree with his point. Strategies have a lot more room in SC2. Mvp would never ever win his 4th GSL title if not for that very reason. He won the title purely off his strategic brilliance. However, it doesn't really mean SC1 lacks Strategy or SC2 lacks mechanic requirement. SC1 still has immense strategic value and the same goes for SC2 mechanical skill.
Got me too...the only thing more strategical about SC2 compared to BW is the fact that SC2 has way more abilities than BW, I would honestly go as far to say that BW is more strategical than SC2, and SC2 just has more abilities, more and more like a MOBA.
Got me too...the only thing more strategical about SC2 compared to BW is the fact that SC2 has way more abilities than BW, I would honestly go as far to say that BW is more strategical than SC2, and SC2 just has more abilities, more and more like a MOBA.
My response to this is that I am not really sure which is more strategical. They are just.. different.
I guess I would have to lean towards sc:bw being a little more strategical because the mining system has way more depth.
Though, if artosis considers army positioning to be part of "strategy", which I guess it is... then maybe I would agree with him that there is more strategy in sc2. Compared to bw, sc2 is insanely unforgiving when it comes to making a mistake with the positioning of your army.
On June 30 2015 13:40 travis wrote: My response to this is that I am not really sure which is more strategical. They are just.. different.
I guess I would have to lean towards sc:bw being a little more strategical because the mining system has way more depth.
Though, if artosis considers army positioning to be part of "strategy", which I guess it is... then maybe I would agree with him that there is more strategy in sc2. Compared to bw, sc2 is insanely unforgiving when it comes to making a mistake with the positioning of your army.
how would army positioning not be part of strategy?
well I said, "which I guess it is". But it could be argued that it also starts to fall into the realm of micro. When you look at these split second battles of armies in sc2 when does it stop being "strategy" and start being "unit control"?
Anyways reading the article I do have a gripe with something he says:
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 really isn't a very good point. Just because sc2 doesn't take as much mechanics as bw does not mean it takes more strategy.
Well, this is not going to end well lol. I disagree though, both games have strategies and you are punished even more imo in SCII due to the hard counter aspect. Also, obviously, whoever makes more units will win and this applies to either game as well.
On June 30 2015 13:44 travis wrote: well I said, "which I guess it is". But it could be argued that it also starts to fall into the realm of micro. When you look at these split second battles of armies in sc2 when does it stop being "strategy" and start being "unit control"?
Anyways reading the article I do have a gripe with something he says:
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 really isn't a very good point. Just because sc2 doesn't take as much mechanics as bw does not mean it takes more strategy.
I think his point about strategy vs mechanic is not these lines. they are above.
On June 30 2015 13:46 BigFan wrote: Well, this is not going to end well lol. I disagree though, both games have strategies and you are punished even more imo in SCII due to the hard counter aspect. Also, obviously, whoever makes more units will win and this applies to either game as well.
That's his point though. He didn't say which game has more strategies but he said which is more strategic which likely means which put higher emphasis on strategies.
I'll actually agree with him on this. There were certainly a lot of brood war games that I won by just constantly mass producing hydras and moving them towards my opponent. He could have storms whatever, and it still worked, usually really well. Course I wasn't a pro player or anything, but even at mid level SC2 I can't really do that in the same way, units counter each other too well, and its much easier for both players to max out on armies. If I play a macro game against protoss I usually have to at the very least do some tech switches.
I haven't followed sc2 esports in a while but I remember it being very make one bad engagement/decision and lose the entire game. That does not mean it has more strategic depth though...
On June 30 2015 13:46 BigFan wrote: Well, this is not going to end well lol. I disagree though, both games have strategies and you are punished even more imo in SCII due to the hard counter aspect. Also, obviously, whoever makes more units will win and this applies to either game as well.
That's his point though. He didn't say which game has more strategies but he said which is more strategic which likely means which put higher emphasis on strategies.
Didn't realize that it was an article, thought it was some tweet or something lol. I still don't agree with it though. Hard counters just mean that you need to be more careful at how you engage an army but that works the same way in BW. Anyone who has played terran against a zerg who played the race savior style (hopping and constantly translocating lurkers) will tell you that its suicidal to engage lurkers in any chokes and that you have to be constantly on the lookout because it's so easy to run into lurkers, even more so stop lurkers. The strategy and positioning involved just from those units is massive. I'm too lazy to write more but I'm sure someone else will elaborate in depth soon enough
One of the big differences at the professional level of play in brood war was simply the time of most games. In Sc2 the game can be decided by a very small split decision mistake which happened far less BW.
I've thought about this before but in BW I felt because each individual decision has less impact on the outcome of the game, the better player often wins over the series of the game because they make successively better decisions over the course of longer games. In sc2, even a player who plays a game at a very high level can lose the entire match because of a very small mistake that barely implied that he is an inferior player to his opponent.
Also because of these factors, along with easier mechanical requirements, It feels like a lot of the best progamers in sc2 are not just mechanical talented, but also players who are willing to play mindgames and take risks in games.
For me at least the fact that games tended to last much longer and that the game was often decided by a larger number of variables was the main reason that a player like Flash was able to be so dominant
other things make this a possibility aswell: more randomness (particularly in games involving protoss) in scouting, the weakness of the defenders advantage in sc2, etc. I also think the longer micro battles tend to mean that players with more talent tend to win more often than weaker players).
I think if there's a point to be had here is that SC2 and BW are just really, really different games, and it's kind of hard to compare them. It's just not at all true that "BW is a better SC2" or "BW is harder" or whatever. Both have a similar set of things for the player to deal with (macro, building placement, teching, unit control, large army positioning), but how each one works, their proportions relative to each other in importance and difficulty, and how the basic flow game unfolds is really different.
It would probably be a lot better if people just got used to thinking of them as much more separate than they do now. Artosis is a smart guy, though.
I was waiting for the TL troops to come in and clusterbomb this thread :D
I'm not going to comment on which game is more strategic than the other, but I will say that I agree with artosis about sc2 being a very strategic game. I think the strategy incorporated into each game is very underrated, under noticed, and under appreciated. I think because you see similar compositions and similar openings in each game many people just don't notice all the subtle strategies going on between the 2 players, the clutch decision making on the fly with limited information.
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...
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...
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.
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 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 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 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.
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 15:13 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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 15:13 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.
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 .
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 15:31 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.
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.
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.
On June 30 2015 15:45 w3c.TruE wrote: I actually agree with Artosis (as usual). BW skill is much more about mechanics, than about strategy.
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.
I mean I still like and play sc2, but I am definitely more a fan of winning by executing things better than my opponent instead of surprising my opponent with a strategy, or capitalising on a single mistake he made, to end the game.
Edit: To elaborate on that single mistake:
In wc3 when I made an army movement mistake I could still TP. Damn now I am 350 gold behind and even lost 1 or 2 units during the port. I am now behind, but the game is not over. Maybe I can still win by playing pefectly from now on?
In sc2 I walk my units down a ramp, his army is waiting there and I didn't notice. I get forcefielded and lose most of my army without being able to do anything. Game over.
On June 30 2015 15:05 ppshchik wrote: 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.
Disagree completely. The reason of why FS or Python are played is not in great part caused by the system, but because players simply don't like to torture themselves by needing to adapt to other than the standard maps. This is specially true regarding heavily nonstandard maps,
Player and people in general like to blame other things for their mistakes or for not being able to do wherever they want, in BW and SC2 there are not as many escape goats because they are 1v1 games, but one of the very few are the maps.
You can clearly see this on not only BW, but SC2, AoEx, or any RTS, where the player base sits around a limited amount of possible map layouts, and when the big core of players are pushed to play on maps outside of this set of layouts/maps gets really uncomfortable. And it is understandable! They are out of their comfort zone.
Also, loving the discussion
Just one thing regarding the strategic depth, there's an infinite amount of numbers between 1 and 2, just like there is an infinite amount of numbers between 1 and 50k.
Saying that SC2 has more strategic depth is like saying that BW Mech has more strategic depth than BW Bio. Both of them have near infinite strategic possibilities, even when one is more viable than the other.
On June 30 2015 15:45 w3c.TruE wrote: I actually agree with Artosis (as usual). BW skill is much more about mechanics, than about strategy.
have you studied both games equally?
No, I have to admit, that I didn't play BW nearly as much as I was playing SC2. But my point of view is, that BW is so much more mechanicaly demanding, than SC2, that there is much less room left for strategy... Mechanics are the main deciding factor in both games, but in BW it's much more true, than in SC2. At least according to my humble opinion
On June 30 2015 15:05 ppshchik wrote: 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.
Disagree completely. The reason of why FS or Python are played is not in great part caused by the system, but because players simply don't like to torture themselves by needing to adapt to other than the standard maps. This is specially true regarding heavily nonstandard maps,
Player and people in general like to blame other things for their mistakes or for not being able to do wherever they want, in BW and SC2 there are not as many escape goats because they are 1v1 games, but one of the very few are the maps.
You can clearly see this on not only BW, but SC2, AoEx, or any RTS, where the player base sits around a limited amount of possible map layouts, and when the big core of players are pushed to play on maps outside of this set of layouts/maps gets really uncomfortable. And it is understandable! They are out of their comfort zone.
Also, loving the discussion
Just one thing regarding the strategic depth, there's an infinite amount of numbers between 1 and 2, just like there is an infinite amount of numbers between 1 and 50k.
Saying that SC2 has more strategic depth is like saying that BW Mech has more strategic depth than BW Bio. Both of them have near infinite strategic possibilities, even when one is more viable than the other.
haha smart words. They also blame the racial imbalance.
other blame the game and blizz entirely. Just check out some of the sc2 blogs.
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.
I mean I still like and play sc2, but I am definitely more a fan of winning by executing things better than my opponent instead of surprising my opponent with a strategy, or capitalising on a single mistake he made, to end the game.
Edit: To elaborate on that single mistake:
In wc3 when I made an army movement mistake I could still TP. Damn now I am 350 gold behind and even lost 1 or 2 units during the port. I am now behind, but the game is not over. Maybe I can still win by playing pefectly from now on? In sc2 I walk my units down a ramp, his army is waiting there and I didn't notice. I get forcefielded and lose most of my army without being able to do anything. Game over.
Okay Well that's actually contrary to what artosis said about strategy, you have to be careful of how you control your units, which I agree that it's needed in SC2.
And to me that fragility is definitely not a reason to claim that SC2 is "more strategic"
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 .
lol as if you would be interested in what Marius Copil has to say about tennis. Who is he? #187 in the ATP rankings, yeah that's about where I'd rank Artosis in both bw and sc2. You can't be more strategic with 1ctrl army, just watch the minimap in a game of bw, then in a game of sc2. If he's talking about "strategies" as in crisp timings/attack with a certain composition in a certain location then it's all about execution, so he kinda invalidates his own point.
On June 30 2015 16:16 juvenal wrote: lol as if you would be interested in what Marius Copil has to say about tennis. Who is he? #187 in the ATP rankings, yeah that's about where I'd rank Artosis in both bw and sc2. You can't be more strategic with 1ctrl army, just watch the minimap in a game of bw, then in a game of sc2. If he's talking about "strategies" as in crisp timings/attack with a certain composition in a certain location then it's all about execution, so he kinda invalidates his own point.
I think 187 is ridiculously high. Probably more like 1187... No that's too high too. But he doesn't need to be a top player to have an opinion or be a good analyst.
"more strategic"? What does that even mean!? WHAT DOES IT MEAN!?
This whole thread feels like bait, and the fish sure are biting. Well played, Artosis. Causing forum drama is the most strategickest game of all, and he has mastered it.
On June 30 2015 16:28 OtherWorld wrote: I don't even get the point of this thread
It's just Wax baiting and an opportunity to post paint graphs and argue! Obviously you can also make fun of Artosis and discredit all his years of SC in a single sentence .
Micro and Tactics as well as a little strategie Would describe SC BW for me very well. Adaption Micro and Strategie Speed are the four things describing SC2 for me. So yeah i guess Artosis is right in a way. The thing is i really loved to see tactical Moves from pros and thats what im missing in SC2. (Forward moving Flash was the most beautifull thing in BW) In SC2 Tactics are still rewarding and nice to see but everything is always over so fast. Two good players still create nice games to watch thou.
On June 30 2015 16:15 Musicus wrote: So I had to bust out the paint skills here for one more point: + Show Spoiler +
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 .
This graph makes no sense and none of the arguments in this whole thread make any sense.
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.
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 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.
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?
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.
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 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
: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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 .
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
On June 30 2015 15:05 ppshchik wrote: 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.
Disagree completely. The reason of why FS or Python are played is not in great part caused by the system, but because players simply don't like to torture themselves by needing to adapt to other than the standard maps. This is specially true regarding heavily nonstandard maps,
Player and people in general like to blame other things for their mistakes or for not being able to do wherever they want, in BW and SC2 there are not as many escape goats because they are 1v1 games, but one of the very few are the maps.
You can clearly see this on not only BW, but SC2, AoEx, or any RTS, where the player base sits around a limited amount of possible map layouts, and when the big core of players are pushed to play on maps outside of this set of layouts/maps gets really uncomfortable. And it is understandable! They are out of their comfort zone.
I can understand where he is coming from but I think the way he phrased it is wrong. A better title would be
"mechanical prowess is no guarantee of success in Sc2" or "strategy can overcome mechanical weakness"
They are both highly strategic games, perhaps he is also considering how brood war was figured out towards the end of its life so that both players knew what the other one was going to do so it came down to execution.
On June 30 2015 18:02 bo1b wrote: All these people who've played at most 5 games of broodwar in there life commenting on sc2 being more strategic is the most funny thing of this thread
I played Broodwar for 12 years (1998-2010). I also think that sc2 is more strategic but BW is more tactical and i personally prefer tactical gameplay.
The whole article is really great and well written (putting aside the fact that Artosis doesn't no how parentheses are called). Also I read it all in Artosis's voice, which was a little disturbing.
I sometimes imagine that I can meet a SC2 celebrity on an airport or such (as I travel a lot and they do) and I think about how weird it would be, to hear a voice that I have so deepl linked to a computer screen out in the open, I would probably trip and fall if that was to happen.
But yeah, I came from Age of Empires background and sc1/bw graphics was just something horrible that I couldnt play more.
My post is just as much meaningful than most of the posts in this thread
Whaaaaaaaaaaat? I think the BW graphics are some of the more beautiful in any game I have played. Far superior to the SC2 graphics in my opinion. The BW graphics were so colorful and strong. And the effects were awesome. Just look at Valkyrie missles or all the blood effects on zerg units. Or the gorgeous siege tank blast explosions.
But yeah, I came from Age of Empires background and sc1/bw graphics was just something horrible that I couldnt play more.
My post is just as much meaningful than most of the posts in this thread
Whaaaaaaaaaaat? I think the BW graphics are some of the more beautiful in any game I have played. Far superior to the SC2 graphics in my opinion. The BW graphics were so colorful and strong. And the effects were awesome. Just look at Valkyrie missles or all the blood effects on zerg units. Or the gorgeous siege tank blast explosions.
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 .
I would like to expound on your graph, if I may, by using the parable of the Artosis the Struggling Blogger and the Door of Viewcount.
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 .
I would like to expound on your graph, if I may, by using the parable of the Artosis the Struggling Blogger.
Beautiful!
But I think this graph shows how one could still improve it.
Also no idea how you did it, but your stickman actually somehow looks like Artosis :D.
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 .
I would like to expound on your graph, if I may, by using the parable of the Artosis the Struggling Blogger.
Beautiful!
But I think this graph shows how one could still improve it.
red ends the graph on a higher note than blue, red=zerg, don't push your zerg agenda
absolutely disagree - is Quake a 'less strategic' game than CS because it's more mechanically demanding?
It's the general consensus that BW has more units and game mechanics that reward great positioning, which is essentially the basis of strategy - certain parts of the map, you want to have control of more, which allows you to build your game plan around.
Well, polt is one of the best players in the history of sc2 despite having relatively weak mechanics. Would he have been equally succesful in BW? If the answer to that question is no then artosis is right.
On June 30 2015 19:38 Charoisaur wrote: Well, polt is one of the best players in the history of sc2 despite having relatively weak mechanics. Would he have been equally succesful in BW? If the answer to that question is no then artosis is right.
I was really surprised to see this article, but I think it just boils down to how you define "strategy". Comparing the games like that though is quite odd. And if Starbow has done anything, it is to show that BW is still very strategic even if you remove all the mundane mechanical tasks.
On June 30 2015 19:29 Ej_ wrote: did someone say graph thread?
This graph is so deep. It perfectly captures the exponential increase in forcefields through energy regeneration per sentry, balanced off by the logarithmic players incapability to use all that power. It's beautiful!
I think that any time a great game is boiled down to mechanics or technical ability an enormous amount of the game is completely overlooked. In fact I'd almost say that the more mechanical the game the more strategy involved, see basically any vod of tasteless playing starbow and explaining whats going on, or for a pro game check out boxer vs hiya
On June 30 2015 19:38 Charoisaur wrote: Well, polt is one of the best players in the history of sc2 despite having relatively weak mechanics. Would he have been equally succesful in BW? If the answer to that question is no then artosis is right.
Has bisu won an OSL? If the answer to that question is no then artosis is wrong. + Show Spoiler +
On June 30 2015 19:38 Charoisaur wrote: Well, polt is one of the best players in the history of sc2 despite having relatively weak mechanics. Would he have been equally succesful in BW? If the answer to that question is no then artosis is right.
Has bisu won an OSL? If the answer to that question is no then artosis is wrong. + Show Spoiler +
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 .
I would like to expound on your graph, if I may, by using the parable of the Artosis the Struggling Blogger and the Door of Viewcount.
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 .
I would like to expound on your graph, if I may, by using the parable of the Artosis the Struggling Blogger.
Also no idea how you did it, but your stickman actually somehow looks like Artosis :D.
it's just protoss. protoss is more strategic, and it always was extremely strategic. protoss in bw involved the most strategy, and it's not going to be any easier in the final installation of sc2. the fact that protosis sees the game differently is a testament to protoss and its ability to reform players. most grandmaster level randoms from the bw era onward have acknowledged at one point or another that protoss is not at all easy. whether by design or incidentally protoss is really hard and forces some incredibly creative plays.
On June 30 2015 19:38 Charoisaur wrote: Well, polt is one of the best players in the history of sc2 despite having relatively weak mechanics. Would he have been equally succesful in BW? If the answer to that question is no then artosis is right.
No. Brood War has a higher mechanical skill floor. That doesn't mean that it has a lower strategic skill ceiling, or floor.
On June 30 2015 19:38 Charoisaur wrote: Well, polt is one of the best players in the history of sc2 despite having relatively weak mechanics. Would he have been equally succesful in BW? If the answer to that question is no then artosis is right.
No. Brood War has a higher mechanical skill floor. That doesn't mean that it has a lower strategic skill ceiling, or floor.
congratulations on being the only person arguing in this thread who actually understands the importance of skill floor (as opposed to the always mentioned, never correctly, skill ceiling)
On June 30 2015 19:38 Charoisaur wrote: Well, polt is one of the best players in the history of sc2 despite having relatively weak mechanics. Would he have been equally succesful in BW? If the answer to that question is no then artosis is right.
No. Brood War has a higher mechanical skill floor. That doesn't mean that it has a lower strategic skill ceiling, or floor.
congratulations on being the only person arguing in this thread who actually understands the importance of skill floor (as opposed to the always mentioned, never correctly, skill ceiling)
...Let me get this out of the way: StarCraft 2 is more strategic than StarCraft 1. Both are RTS (Real Time Strategy) games, but they have different emphasises. SC1 is a Real Time Strategy game, and SC2 is a Real Time Strategy game.
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...
Oh yeah he said some stuff about the GSL finals and Rain and KeSPA and stuff too.
But basically I'm posting this just to fish for a response from Rekrul
He's says a whole bunch of stuff. Some of it is just damn straight laughable and the fact of the matter is he hasn't been around BW for quite some time so ofc he's going to say something tongue in cheek when he's been playing and doing all sorts of shit besides BW.
SC didn't become a game of speed and mechanics overnight derpa derpa doo. Not by a long shot and the game was studied to death and to this day it still is.
When you have a dev who is changing things nonstop with game and still producing another expansion to boot. You're going to get new timings and new shit to play around with.
When was the last patch in BW? Ages ago. Does BW really need to be patched? Fuck no. The game is pretty balanced. Can you say the same for SC2? To a certain extent.
Now I really wish people wouldn't go overboard over something someone said especially when they used to consider themselves a pro gamer in BW. *cough*
Sorry Dan and other Dan (for beating you to the punch). I could go HAM on this all day.
In the end Artosis meant strategy is more important in sc2 cause you won't be able to get very far purely on mechanics, no? He didn't really mean to say that one game is strategically depper than the other, i think?
Hard to say really. In Sc2 the top guys all have close to perfect macro and and there is little between them in terms of mechanics. I guess that can allow for strategical play to shine and play a bigger part in who wins a series.
On June 30 2015 21:34 The_Red_Viper wrote: In the end Artosis meant strategy is more important in sc2 cause you won't be able to get very far purely on mechanics, no? He didn't really mean to say that one game is strategically depper than the other, i think?
On June 30 2015 21:34 The_Red_Viper wrote: In the end Artosis meant strategy is more important in sc2 cause you won't be able to get very far purely on mechanics, no? He didn't really mean to say that one game is strategically depper than the other, i think?
I don't think he meant that, actually.
(But, if SC2 had come first, there would be people complaining that SC1 lacks the deeper strategy that SC2 offers. These strategic choices that people are making have their own beauty…beauty which can be pretty hard to see. End of aside.)
(Oh, by the way, here’s a second aside. Part of the reason why SC2 is so strategic is the hard counters. 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. These units truly punish you for poor moves or decisions, in ways nothing from SC1 ever could. There’s a lot more to the strategic depth than those of course, just a fun little side point I wanted to make.)
On June 30 2015 21:42 KrOmander wrote: Hard to say really. In Sc2 the top guys all have close to perfect macro and and there is little between them in terms of mechanics
The same is true for Brood War. It's just that Brood War's mechanical skill floor is higher.
On June 30 2015 21:34 The_Red_Viper wrote: In the end Artosis meant strategy is more important in sc2 cause you won't be able to get very far purely on mechanics, no? He didn't really mean to say that one game is strategically depper than the other, i think?
(But, if SC2 had come first, there would be people complaining that SC1 lacks the deeper strategy that SC2 offers. These strategic choices that people are making have their own beauty…beauty which can be pretty hard to see. End of aside.)
(Oh, by the way, here’s a second aside. Part of the reason why SC2 is so strategic is the hard counters. 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. These units truly punish you for poor moves or decisions, in ways nothing from SC1 ever could. There’s a lot more to the strategic depth than those of course, just a fun little side point I wanted to make.)
Wax should have quoted these parts instead then, haha :D (or i should have read everything)
After reading the whole thing, yeah i don't like it at all. He doesn't really explain his thoughts, he just states things without any real examples. "There is a lot more to the strategic depth of course", yeah well then maybe you should talk about this if you want to be taken seriously? Kinda disappointed by this blog, no real content to argue about tbh. except the conclusion which comes out of nowhere obviously
On June 30 2015 19:38 Charoisaur wrote: Well, polt is one of the best players in the history of sc2 despite having relatively weak mechanics. Would he have been equally succesful in BW? If the answer to that question is no then artosis is right.
No. Brood War has a higher mechanical skill floor. That doesn't mean that it has a lower strategic skill ceiling, or floor.
congratulations on being the only person arguing in this thread who actually understands the importance of skill floor (as opposed to the always mentioned, never correctly, skill ceiling)
I'd be interested in knowing how Artosis defines the word "strategy" because he seems to exclude mecanics, speed and army movements from it eventhough good logistics is a key ingredient to win a war and logistics play a way more important role in BW than in Sc2.
People saying that MVP winning leagues thanks to his strategic prowess could not happen in BW should watch some games of FlaSh or sAviOr. E.g. FlaSh vs. Jaedong in the finals of BigFile MSL, Hana Daetoo MSL or NATE MSL...
On June 30 2015 22:10 algue wrote: I'd be interested in knowing how Artosis defines the word "strategy" because he seems to exclude mecanics, speed and army movements from it eventhough good logistics if a key ingredient to win a war and logistics play a way more important role in BW than in Sc2.
From the sounds of it he means deeper decisions with how you set up. So I guess what he wants to say with it is that there are more playable build orders, more playable unit compositions, more playable timing attacks. Ergo he concludes:
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.
Which is the reversed situation in SC1 according to him.
I've only watched BW from Grrr.... to sAviOr + some of JaeDong's+Bisu's matches aswell. From then I switched to WC3 and followed that proscene. Back in the day BW was far less mechanical and was very strategy based, BoXeR comes to mind. Obviously none of that strategic depth has gone away and playing a long time on the same maps and getting better mechanically only enforces that strategic depth. APM+Strategy goes hand in hand, because a large part of strategy in specifically BW goes into where to spend your time, do I micro, do I macro, there's always tons of stuff to do, even more so than in SC2.
It's not really a fair comparison either, since BW has been played at a high level for so much longer than SC2, ofc that will mean the well of strategy deepens and you always build on top of that, making it much harder to get into the game as a newcomer.
Now SC2 is neither > BW in strategy nor < BW in mechanical skill. But one can consider the one more crucial in the one game and less in the other and vice versa, but more importantly there's plenty of skills inside the broad catagories of mechanics&strategy. We even see in SC2 what a positional genius Flash is and what a genius Jaedong is in his sheer power to find an alternative win condition that no mortal would think of. On the flip side, I'd argue that reaction/reflex is a much more prelavent skill toi have in SC2 and one that challenges the mechanics of BW. While rythm and high amount of tasks done in BW>SC2, SC2>BW in how you need to be ready for ANYTHING on a micro level. SC2 is in general a faster game than BW, so while BW needs constant attention and high APM, in SC2 I'd say it spikes more, some moment you can do almost nothing and just stare at your shit, but at some times, you NEED to spike to high APM, moreso than in BW. As for normal battle micro I'd say no game is more surperior than the other in the amount of stuff you can do, but it would be a crime to say that SC2 micro is as important.
I'm kind of all over the place, but I find it cool that there's actually room for players such as Elfi or Space(WC3,) where even though they have such inferior mechanics(non-micro,) they can still prevail with stellar decision making. It would be a shame if a true genius of RTS could find no room in the game, because of inferior mechanics, but ofc, you need to cut the line somewhere, since strategy&mechanics go so hand in hand.
SC2 is still a young game and we see strategic depth still evolve on maps such as King Sejong Station that have "been figured out" and that is the sort of strategic depth that could potentially challenge that of BW one day, but in time and with LotV I really think SC2 could become and overall harder game in not only the strategy department, but overall.
I totally agree with what Artosis is saying...but I think Broodwar is the superior game regardless.
In SC2, making a few poor decisions can absolutely cost you the game. In Broodwar, because of the increased importance of tactics (including but not limited to micro) and (somewhat) decreased importance of strategy poor decisions can more easily be recovered from. IMO the extra strategic intensity of SC2 is what makes it the weaker game of the two. That said, SC2 is still my 2nd favourite game of all time .
I don't think SC2 is by nature more strategic. I think that BW is harder mechanically so that strategy is relatively less important because simply being able to make more stuff can get you ahead.
Macro in SC2 is relatively easier to at the pro level the games are more about strategy and less about who can click buttons faster.
That's not to say strategy and mechanics are not important in either game.
On June 30 2015 22:31 althaz wrote: I totally agree with what Artosis is saying...but I think Broodwar is the superior game regardless.
In SC2, making a few poor decisions can absolutely cost you the game. In Broodwar, because of the increased importance of tactics (including but not limited to micro) and (somewhat) decreased importance of strategy poor decisions can more easily be recovered from. IMO the extra strategic intensity of SC2 is what makes it the weaker game of the two. That said, SC2 is still my 2nd favourite game of all time .
is tac tic toe more "strategic" than chess because 1 bad decision = gg? this argument doesn't make any sense to me. because it's more volatile does not mean it's more strategic.
I'm skeptical of that claim, simply because how does one objectively quantify something like "strategic depth"? I have no idea how to even begin to think of that in an actually measurable way, so this thread basically boils down to peoples' general subjective opinions with no real capacity for resolution.
That being said, anyone who says BW doesn't have strategic depth needs to go watch the Flash vs. Jaedong MSL game where Flash successfully goliath timing pushed jaedong (goliaths in TvZ are a rare and fringe strat) because he correctly (a-priori) anticipated that Jaedong would make a transition from mutas into hydras (not a common strat in TvZ, either) on a particular map. That was some next level-gaming shit there, and would classify (in my subjective mind) as an example of BW having very deep strategic depth. Does it have more than SC2? That's tough to say, but in both games both players have to make constant complex strategic decisions based on their perceptions of the opponent's strategy.
Both have a large amount of strategic depth, I think trying to compare "which one has more" is a bit silly, and ultimately unresolvable in any kind of meaningful way.
On June 30 2015 22:44 DinoMight wrote: I don't think SC2 is by nature more strategic. I think that BW is harder mechanically so that strategy is relatively less important because simply being able to make more stuff can get you ahead.
Macro in SC2 is relatively easier to at the pro level the games are more about strategy and less about who can click buttons faster.
That's not to say strategy and mechanics are not important in either game.
So I can agree with Artosis here.
That's a weird way of looking at it though. I can say the same about sc2 gold league vs gm, strategy is irrelevant cause one player is mechanically way better than the other. strategy becomes relevant when this isn't the case anymore, when both players are reasonable close to each other mechanically. In BW this "reasonably closer" might be harder to achieve (maybe?) and thus mechanics play a more important role, that doesn't really say anything about strategic depth though, you simply need two players close to each other, and that in BOTH games.
On June 30 2015 22:44 DinoMight wrote: I don't think SC2 is by nature more strategic. I think that BW is harder mechanically so that strategy is relatively less important because simply being able to make more stuff can get you ahead.
Macro in SC2 is relatively easier to at the pro level the games are more about strategy and less about who can click buttons faster.
That's not to say strategy and mechanics are not important in either game.
So I can agree with Artosis here.
That's a weird way of looking at it though. I can say the same about sc2 gold league vs gm, strategy is irrelevant cause one player is mechanically way better than the other. strategy becomes relevant when this isn't the case anymore, when both players are reasonable close to each other mechanically. In BW this "reasonably closer" might be harder to achieve (maybe?) and thus mechanics play a more important role, that doesn't really say anything about strategic depth though, you simply need two players close to each other, and that in BOTH games.
Well I think what he means is that most SC2 pros can macro/control their units WELL ENOUGH that strategy becomes more of a deciding factor.
As opposed to BW where even among pros there was a visible disparity between the top tier players and the rest of the pack. The good players would just have a ton more stuff.
BW is all about mechanics until the pro level. SC2 is all about mechanics until the high diamond or master level. So I would argue SC2 is therefore strategic for a greater percentage of its players.
On June 30 2015 22:44 DinoMight wrote: I don't think SC2 is by nature more strategic. I think that BW is harder mechanically so that strategy is relatively less important because simply being able to make more stuff can get you ahead.
Macro in SC2 is relatively easier to at the pro level the games are more about strategy and less about who can click buttons faster.
That's not to say strategy and mechanics are not important in either game.
So I can agree with Artosis here.
That's a weird way of looking at it though. I can say the same about sc2 gold league vs gm, strategy is irrelevant cause one player is mechanically way better than the other. strategy becomes relevant when this isn't the case anymore, when both players are reasonable close to each other mechanically. In BW this "reasonably closer" might be harder to achieve (maybe?) and thus mechanics play a more important role, that doesn't really say anything about strategic depth though, you simply need two players close to each other, and that in BOTH games.
Well I think what he means is that most SC2 pros can macro/control their units WELL ENOUGH that strategy becomes more of a deciding factor.
As opposed to BW where even among pros there was a visible disparity between the top tier players and the rest of the pack. The good players would just have a ton more stuff.
See my point is that this concept is relative to the people playing the game vs each other. If Maru plays vs lesser protoss players (like for example Myungsik) he simply beats them cause his mechanics are superior and not cause he uses a better strategy. (i think micro and multitasking is part of mechanics) If he plays vs Parting this might not be true anymore. It doesn't matter what game we are looking at, the importance of strategy is decided by how close the players are mechanically. It's true for BW and it's true for sc2 as well. Someone might say that in sc2 in general more (pro) players are close to each other and thus the strategic part is more important in general (1), maybe that's true, i don't know. Now Artosis also talks about "deeper strategy" though, which is an entirely different argument to make. I don't know much about BW strategy so i won't comment on it too much, but even if (1) is true, the jump from it to 'sc2 is a deeper strategical game' is simply not logical without additional reasonings. He failed to deliver those imo, which is why i disliked the blog.
On June 30 2015 22:44 DinoMight wrote: I don't think SC2 is by nature more strategic. I think that BW is harder mechanically so that strategy is relatively less important because simply being able to make more stuff can get you ahead.
Macro in SC2 is relatively easier to at the pro level the games are more about strategy and less about who can click buttons faster.
That's not to say strategy and mechanics are not important in either game.
So I can agree with Artosis here.
That's a weird way of looking at it though. I can say the same about sc2 gold league vs gm, strategy is irrelevant cause one player is mechanically way better than the other. strategy becomes relevant when this isn't the case anymore, when both players are reasonable close to each other mechanically. In BW this "reasonably closer" might be harder to achieve (maybe?) and thus mechanics play a more important role, that doesn't really say anything about strategic depth though, you simply need two players close to each other, and that in BOTH games.
Well I think what he means is that most SC2 pros can macro/control their units WELL ENOUGH that strategy becomes more of a deciding factor.
As opposed to BW where even among pros there was a visible disparity between the top tier players and the rest of the pack. The good players would just have a ton more stuff.
See my point is that this concept is relative to the people playing the game vs each other. If Maru plays vs lesser protoss players (like for example Myungsik) he simply beats them cause his mechanics are superior and not cause he uses a better strategy. If he plays vs Parting this might not be true anymore. It doesn't matter what game we are looking at, the importance of strategy is decided by how close the players are mechanically. It's true for BW and it's true for sc2 as well. Someone might say that in sc2 in general more (pro) players are close to each other and thus the strategic part is more important in general (1), maybe that's true, i don't know. Now Artosis also talks about "deeper strategy" though, which is an entirely different argument to make. I don't know much about BW strategy so i won't comment on it too much, but even if (1) is true, the jump from it to 'sc2 is a deeper strategical game' is simply not logical without additional reasonings. He failed to deliver those imo, which is why i disliked the blog.
Yeah but there are a few things here...
1) Maru is the best Terran in the world.
2) Maru plays a specific STRATEGY.... which is to skip Vikings and Ghosts, sacrificing long-term compositional viability to abuse his ridiculous mechanics early on.
3) There will always be outliers... Maru, Parting, Life.. who can simply beat people with Micro/Mechanics. But when you look at Rogue or Hyun.... the primay differentiator between them is not mechanics. It's strategy. Rogue is muuuuch more sophisticated in his play.
And that's what I think Artosis means. Sure there are outliers. But when you look at a rando selection of pros, the mechanical skill is more even than it was in BW, in part because Blizzard made macro and controling your units easier.
I completely agree with Artosis. SC2 is more about making correct decisions based off the information you're able to gain from scouting, while BW is more about having insane mechanics and making more units than your opponent. Obviously both games require good mechanics and strategy though.
On June 30 2015 21:57 Espers wrote: lol professional sc2 caster says his game is better than its predecessor, shocker!
Precisely. Of course Shell employees deny that climate change is real, they have an agenda.
Now imagine how fervently they'd attack climate change if Shell were on the brink of bankruptcy. There'd be Shell to pay.
He didn't say it's a better game.
You guys need to re-read what he said and stop trolling.
He said SC2 is more strategic and hence BW is more shallow. We do not agree that BW is akin to Typing Maniac when compared to SC2. It only appears so because of the demonstrated Musicus effect below.
On June 30 2015 23:26 Doodsmack wrote: BW is all about mechanics until the pro level. SC2 is all about mechanics until the high diamond or master level. So I would argue SC2 is therefore strategic for a greater percentage of its players.
BW is a chore to play.
Yes, but that's due to the Musicus effect, first demonstrated by Dr Musicus from Germany:
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 .
I'm a noob and BW doesn't feel like a chore but FUN, like a rollercoaster
I might be off-base with this but it's something to think about.
Perhaps broodwar had the illusion of such great balance and strategic options precisely because of the difficulty of the mechanics. Since mechanics counted so much all races would stay fairly close as long as the relevant pros were of comparable level.
Also the game still evolving after 10 years is an indication as well. The mechanics were difficult so it took pros a very very long time to slowly increase asymptotically towards an (unreachable?) cap. As they get better and better more options open up changing the meta...but only at the rate allowed by increased mechanical skill.
Sorry if this has been posted and I"m making no claims as to which game is better. Just a possible way to view things.
On June 30 2015 14:09 dAPhREAk wrote: should have posted this in sc:bw general so the butthurt would truly flow.
Hahaha this thread. And still no Rekrul hehe.
A bit more on-topic: BW is indeed about making units. But I'd actually counter-argue that since pros make units at the same rate, the difference of a win or loss is about the strategic and tactical decisions made by the players so that they end up either in a position where they have more units or can produce more units, faster than their opponent.
On June 30 2015 23:58 Bannt wrote: I might be off-base with this but it's something to think about.
Perhaps broodwar had the illusion of such great balance and strategic options precisely because of the difficulty of the mechanics. Since mechanics counted so much all races would stay fairly close as long as the relevant pros were of comparable level.
Also the game still evolving after 10 years is an indication as well. The mechanics were difficult so it took pros a very very long time to slowly increase asymptotically towards an (unreachable?) cap. As they get better and better more options open up changing the meta...but only at the rate allowed by increased mechanical skill.
Sorry if this has been posted and I"m making no claims as to which game is better. Just a possible way to view things.
This times a billion. Seriously, I don't know how people don't see this.
On June 30 2015 23:50 SC2Towelie wrote: I completely agree with Artosis. SC2 is more about making correct decisions based off the information you're able to gain from scouting, while BW is more about having insane mechanics and making more units than your opponent. Obviously both games require good mechanics and strategy though.
So how do you explain that in BW scouting is very important too? Maybe scouting to be able to build MOAAAARR units?
BTW unit caps are reached much faster in sc2... so what does that tell me about making MOOAAARR units?
On June 30 2015 23:58 Bannt wrote: I might be off-base with this but it's something to think about.
Perhaps broodwar had the illusion of such great balance and strategic options precisely because of the difficulty of the mechanics. Since mechanics counted so much all races would stay fairly close as long as the relevant pros were of comparable level.
Also the game still evolving after 10 years is an indication as well. The mechanics were difficult so it took pros a very very long time to slowly increase asymptotically towards an (unreachable?) cap. As they get better and better more options open up changing the meta...but only at the rate allowed by increased mechanical skill.
Sorry if this has been posted and I"m making no claims as to which game is better. Just a possible way to view things.
You are completely off base but it's okay because you're not coming from a place of arrogance.
BW was imba as hell. The races were balanced by the maps. BW can be easily made imba towards a desired matchup by crafting maps to in a way that achieves that.
And it's not an illusion of balance. There's statistical evidence.
On June 30 2015 23:58 Bannt wrote: I might be off-base with this but it's something to think about.
Perhaps broodwar had the illusion of such great balance and strategic options precisely because of the difficulty of the mechanics. Since mechanics counted so much all races would stay fairly close as long as the relevant pros were of comparable level.
Also the game still evolving after 10 years is an indication as well. The mechanics were difficult so it took pros a very very long time to slowly increase asymptotically towards an (unreachable?) cap. As they get better and better more options open up changing the meta...but only at the rate allowed by increased mechanical skill.
Sorry if this has been posted and I"m making no claims as to which game is better. Just a possible way to view things.
This times a billion. Seriously, I don't know how people don't see this.
Because it's completely wrong. Seriously I don't know why people who don't know the game are making assumptions.
On June 30 2015 22:48 BallinWitStalin wrote: I'm skeptical of that claim, simply because how does one objectively quantify something like "strategic depth"?
its hard to give a numerical measure to strategic depth. but, i bet some experts in AI, math, and game theory have developed a measurement system of some kind.
but the layman can compare 2 games and assess strategic depth.
examples:
chess has more strategic depth than checkers
texas hold'em has more strategic depth than 5 card stud.
On June 30 2015 23:58 Bannt wrote: I might be off-base with this but it's something to think about.
Perhaps broodwar had the illusion of such great balance and strategic options precisely because of the difficulty of the mechanics. Since mechanics counted so much all races would stay fairly close as long as the relevant pros were of comparable level.
Also the game still evolving after 10 years is an indication as well. The mechanics were difficult so it took pros a very very long time to slowly increase asymptotically towards an (unreachable?) cap. As they get better and better more options open up changing the meta...but only at the rate allowed by increased mechanical skill.
Sorry if this has been posted and I"m making no claims as to which game is better. Just a possible way to view things.
You are off base but it's okay because you're not coming from a place of arrogance.
BW was imba as hell. The races were balanced by the maps. BW can be easily made imba towards a desired matchup by crafting maps to in a way that achieves that.
On June 30 2015 23:58 Bannt wrote: I might be off-base with this but it's something to think about.
Perhaps broodwar had the illusion of such great balance and strategic options precisely because of the difficulty of the mechanics. Since mechanics counted so much all races would stay fairly close as long as the relevant pros were of comparable level.
Also the game still evolving after 10 years is an indication as well. The mechanics were difficult so it took pros a very very long time to slowly increase asymptotically towards an (unreachable?) cap. As they get better and better more options open up changing the meta...but only at the rate allowed by increased mechanical skill.
Sorry if this has been posted and I"m making no claims as to which game is better. Just a possible way to view things.
This times a billion. Seriously, I don't know how people don't see this.
Because it's completely wrong. Seriously I don't know why people who don't know the game are making assumptions.
Lol. And who are you to tell me I know nothing about the game? People like you make forums an awful place. I played SC1 on release day buddy.
SC2 can also be balanced by maps... you guys remember how much fun TvP was on heavy rain?
On June 30 2015 22:44 DinoMight wrote: I don't think SC2 is by nature more strategic. I think that BW is harder mechanically so that strategy is relatively less important because simply being able to make more stuff can get you ahead.
Macro in SC2 is relatively easier to at the pro level the games are more about strategy and less about who can click buttons faster.
That's not to say strategy and mechanics are not important in either game.
So I can agree with Artosis here.
That's a weird way of looking at it though. I can say the same about sc2 gold league vs gm, strategy is irrelevant cause one player is mechanically way better than the other. strategy becomes relevant when this isn't the case anymore, when both players are reasonable close to each other mechanically. In BW this "reasonably closer" might be harder to achieve (maybe?) and thus mechanics play a more important role, that doesn't really say anything about strategic depth though, you simply need two players close to each other, and that in BOTH games.
Well I think what he means is that most SC2 pros can macro/control their units WELL ENOUGH that strategy becomes more of a deciding factor.
As opposed to BW where even among pros there was a visible disparity between the top tier players and the rest of the pack. The good players would just have a ton more stuff.
See my point is that this concept is relative to the people playing the game vs each other. If Maru plays vs lesser protoss players (like for example Myungsik) he simply beats them cause his mechanics are superior and not cause he uses a better strategy. If he plays vs Parting this might not be true anymore. It doesn't matter what game we are looking at, the importance of strategy is decided by how close the players are mechanically. It's true for BW and it's true for sc2 as well. Someone might say that in sc2 in general more (pro) players are close to each other and thus the strategic part is more important in general (1), maybe that's true, i don't know. Now Artosis also talks about "deeper strategy" though, which is an entirely different argument to make. I don't know much about BW strategy so i won't comment on it too much, but even if (1) is true, the jump from it to 'sc2 is a deeper strategical game' is simply not logical without additional reasonings. He failed to deliver those imo, which is why i disliked the blog.
Yeah but there are a few things here...
1) Maru is the best Terran in the world.
2) Maru plays a specific STRATEGY.... which is to skip Vikings and Ghosts, sacrificing long-term compositional viability to abuse his ridiculous mechanics early on.
3) There will always be outliers... Maru, Parting, Life.. who can simply beat people with Micro/Mechanics. But when you look at Rogue or Hyun.... the primay differentiator between them is not mechanics. It's strategy. Rogue is muuuuch more sophisticated in his play.
And that's what I think Artosis means. Sure there are outliers. But when you look at a rando selection of pros, the mechanical skill is more even than it was in BW, in part because Blizzard made macro and controling your units easier.
1) and 2) aren't important at all. The same can be said about Bisu in BW for example.
3) Ok so the point is that if we look at a certain mechanical skill level X and go Y% in both directions (Y is the point where mechanics still won't give you the edge) there will be more players in that zone for sc2? Thus the strategic part is more important? Is that even true though?
But as i said, Artosis doesn't stop here, he calls sc2 "deeper", also because of hardcounters. This alone is a part of his blog which is just bad, he says hardcounters "add depth", he completely neglects that BW had also game mechanics which aren't present in sc2 though. Adding hardcounters and thus more importance to perfect unit compositions doesn't automatically mean there is more strategic depth. I really dislike his blog :/
On June 30 2015 22:44 DinoMight wrote: I don't think SC2 is by nature more strategic. I think that BW is harder mechanically so that strategy is relatively less important because simply being able to make more stuff can get you ahead.
Macro in SC2 is relatively easier to at the pro level the games are more about strategy and less about who can click buttons faster.
That's not to say strategy and mechanics are not important in either game.
So I can agree with Artosis here.
That's a weird way of looking at it though. I can say the same about sc2 gold league vs gm, strategy is irrelevant cause one player is mechanically way better than the other. strategy becomes relevant when this isn't the case anymore, when both players are reasonable close to each other mechanically. In BW this "reasonably closer" might be harder to achieve (maybe?) and thus mechanics play a more important role, that doesn't really say anything about strategic depth though, you simply need two players close to each other, and that in BOTH games.
Well I think what he means is that most SC2 pros can macro/control their units WELL ENOUGH that strategy becomes more of a deciding factor.
As opposed to BW where even among pros there was a visible disparity between the top tier players and the rest of the pack. The good players would just have a ton more stuff.
See my point is that this concept is relative to the people playing the game vs each other. If Maru plays vs lesser protoss players (like for example Myungsik) he simply beats them cause his mechanics are superior and not cause he uses a better strategy. If he plays vs Parting this might not be true anymore. It doesn't matter what game we are looking at, the importance of strategy is decided by how close the players are mechanically. It's true for BW and it's true for sc2 as well. Someone might say that in sc2 in general more (pro) players are close to each other and thus the strategic part is more important in general (1), maybe that's true, i don't know. Now Artosis also talks about "deeper strategy" though, which is an entirely different argument to make. I don't know much about BW strategy so i won't comment on it too much, but even if (1) is true, the jump from it to 'sc2 is a deeper strategical game' is simply not logical without additional reasonings. He failed to deliver those imo, which is why i disliked the blog.
Yeah but there are a few things here...
1) Maru is the best Terran in the world.
2) Maru plays a specific STRATEGY.... which is to skip Vikings and Ghosts, sacrificing long-term compositional viability to abuse his ridiculous mechanics early on.
3) There will always be outliers... Maru, Parting, Life.. who can simply beat people with Micro/Mechanics. But when you look at Rogue or Hyun.... the primay differentiator between them is not mechanics. It's strategy. Rogue is muuuuch more sophisticated in his play.
And that's what I think Artosis means. Sure there are outliers. But when you look at a rando selection of pros, the mechanical skill is more even than it was in BW, in part because Blizzard made macro and controling your units easier.
1) and 2) aren't important at all. The same can be said about Bisu in BW for example.
3) Ok so the point is that if we look at a certain mechanical skill level X and go Y% in both directions (Y is the point where mechanics still won't give you the edge) there will be more players in that zone for sc2? Thus the strategic part is more important? Is that even true though?
But as i said, Artosis doesn't stop here, he calls sc2 "deeper", also because of hardcounters. This alone is a part of his blog which is just bad, he says hardcounters "add depth", he completely neglects that BW had also game mechanics which aren't present in sc2 though. Adding hardcounters and thus more importance to perfect unit compositions doesn't automatically mean there is more strategic depth. I really dislike his blog :/
Well I think if all units can fight each other somewhat reasonably then your choice of units is less important.
But if certain units are really good vs other kinds (hard counters) then the decision to produce one kind of unit or another is more impactful.
On June 30 2015 22:44 DinoMight wrote: I don't think SC2 is by nature more strategic. I think that BW is harder mechanically so that strategy is relatively less important because simply being able to make more stuff can get you ahead.
Macro in SC2 is relatively easier to at the pro level the games are more about strategy and less about who can click buttons faster.
That's not to say strategy and mechanics are not important in either game.
So I can agree with Artosis here.
That's a weird way of looking at it though. I can say the same about sc2 gold league vs gm, strategy is irrelevant cause one player is mechanically way better than the other. strategy becomes relevant when this isn't the case anymore, when both players are reasonable close to each other mechanically. In BW this "reasonably closer" might be harder to achieve (maybe?) and thus mechanics play a more important role, that doesn't really say anything about strategic depth though, you simply need two players close to each other, and that in BOTH games.
Well I think what he means is that most SC2 pros can macro/control their units WELL ENOUGH that strategy becomes more of a deciding factor.
As opposed to BW where even among pros there was a visible disparity between the top tier players and the rest of the pack. The good players would just have a ton more stuff.
See my point is that this concept is relative to the people playing the game vs each other. If Maru plays vs lesser protoss players (like for example Myungsik) he simply beats them cause his mechanics are superior and not cause he uses a better strategy. If he plays vs Parting this might not be true anymore. It doesn't matter what game we are looking at, the importance of strategy is decided by how close the players are mechanically. It's true for BW and it's true for sc2 as well. Someone might say that in sc2 in general more (pro) players are close to each other and thus the strategic part is more important in general (1), maybe that's true, i don't know. Now Artosis also talks about "deeper strategy" though, which is an entirely different argument to make. I don't know much about BW strategy so i won't comment on it too much, but even if (1) is true, the jump from it to 'sc2 is a deeper strategical game' is simply not logical without additional reasonings. He failed to deliver those imo, which is why i disliked the blog.
Yeah but there are a few things here...
1) Maru is the best Terran in the world.
2) Maru plays a specific STRATEGY.... which is to skip Vikings and Ghosts, sacrificing long-term compositional viability to abuse his ridiculous mechanics early on.
3) There will always be outliers... Maru, Parting, Life.. who can simply beat people with Micro/Mechanics. But when you look at Rogue or Hyun.... the primay differentiator between them is not mechanics. It's strategy. Rogue is muuuuch more sophisticated in his play.
And that's what I think Artosis means. Sure there are outliers. But when you look at a rando selection of pros, the mechanical skill is more even than it was in BW, in part because Blizzard made macro and controling your units easier.
1) and 2) aren't important at all. The same can be said about Bisu in BW for example.
3) Ok so the point is that if we look at a certain mechanical skill level X and go Y% in both directions (Y is the point where mechanics still won't give you the edge) there will be more players in that zone for sc2? Thus the strategic part is more important? Is that even true though?
But as i said, Artosis doesn't stop here, he calls sc2 "deeper", also because of hardcounters. This alone is a part of his blog which is just bad, he says hardcounters "add depth", he completely neglects that BW had also game mechanics which aren't present in sc2 though. Adding hardcounters and thus more importance to perfect unit compositions doesn't automatically mean there is more strategic depth. I really dislike his blog :/
Well I think if all units can fight each other somewhat reasonably then your choice of units is less important.
But if certain units are really good vs other kinds (hard counters) then the decision to produce one kind of unit or another is more impactful.
I meant this one aspect doesn't mean that the overall strategic depth is greater, there is more to depth than the importance of unit compositions. He mentions hardcounters (aka importance of unit compositions) as an added aspect of strategic depth, as if BW had no strategic game mechanics which aren't in sc2. He also talks about "depth" and not really relative importance here if you ask me. I read his blog as 'the absolute straetgic depth of sc2 is greater' He doesn't really explain WHY that is though, which is disappointing
On June 30 2015 23:58 Bannt wrote: I might be off-base with this but it's something to think about.
Perhaps broodwar had the illusion of such great balance and strategic options precisely because of the difficulty of the mechanics. Since mechanics counted so much all races would stay fairly close as long as the relevant pros were of comparable level.
Also the game still evolving after 10 years is an indication as well. The mechanics were difficult so it took pros a very very long time to slowly increase asymptotically towards an (unreachable?) cap. As they get better and better more options open up changing the meta...but only at the rate allowed by increased mechanical skill.
Sorry if this has been posted and I"m making no claims as to which game is better. Just a possible way to view things.
You are off base but it's okay because you're not coming from a place of arrogance.
BW was imba as hell. The races were balanced by the maps. BW can be easily made imba towards a desired matchup by crafting maps to in a way that achieves that.
On July 01 2015 00:00 DinoMight wrote:
On June 30 2015 23:58 Bannt wrote: I might be off-base with this but it's something to think about.
Perhaps broodwar had the illusion of such great balance and strategic options precisely because of the difficulty of the mechanics. Since mechanics counted so much all races would stay fairly close as long as the relevant pros were of comparable level.
Also the game still evolving after 10 years is an indication as well. The mechanics were difficult so it took pros a very very long time to slowly increase asymptotically towards an (unreachable?) cap. As they get better and better more options open up changing the meta...but only at the rate allowed by increased mechanical skill.
Sorry if this has been posted and I"m making no claims as to which game is better. Just a possible way to view things.
This times a billion. Seriously, I don't know how people don't see this.
Because it's completely wrong. Seriously I don't know why people who don't know the game are making assumptions.
Lol. And who are you to tell me I know nothing about the game? People like you make forums an awful place. I played SC1 on release day buddy.
SC2 can also be balanced by maps... you guys remember how much fun TvP was on heavy rain?
what's your max rank? Because you sound like you have no idea about BW, that's why he suspected that.
On June 30 2015 23:58 Bannt wrote: I might be off-base with this but it's something to think about.
Perhaps broodwar had the illusion of such great balance and strategic options precisely because of the difficulty of the mechanics. Since mechanics counted so much all races would stay fairly close as long as the relevant pros were of comparable level.
Also the game still evolving after 10 years is an indication as well. The mechanics were difficult so it took pros a very very long time to slowly increase asymptotically towards an (unreachable?) cap. As they get better and better more options open up changing the meta...but only at the rate allowed by increased mechanical skill.
Sorry if this has been posted and I"m making no claims as to which game is better. Just a possible way to view things.
You are off base but it's okay because you're not coming from a place of arrogance.
BW was imba as hell. The races were balanced by the maps. BW can be easily made imba towards a desired matchup by crafting maps to in a way that achieves that.
On July 01 2015 00:00 DinoMight wrote:
On June 30 2015 23:58 Bannt wrote: I might be off-base with this but it's something to think about.
Perhaps broodwar had the illusion of such great balance and strategic options precisely because of the difficulty of the mechanics. Since mechanics counted so much all races would stay fairly close as long as the relevant pros were of comparable level.
Also the game still evolving after 10 years is an indication as well. The mechanics were difficult so it took pros a very very long time to slowly increase asymptotically towards an (unreachable?) cap. As they get better and better more options open up changing the meta...but only at the rate allowed by increased mechanical skill.
Sorry if this has been posted and I"m making no claims as to which game is better. Just a possible way to view things.
This times a billion. Seriously, I don't know how people don't see this.
Because it's completely wrong. Seriously I don't know why people who don't know the game are making assumptions.
Lol. And who are you to tell me I know nothing about the game? People like you make forums an awful place. I played SC1 on release day buddy.
SC2 can also be balanced by maps... you guys remember how much fun TvP was on heavy rain?
what's your max rank? Because you sound like you have no idea about BW, that's why he suspected that.
what was Rob Pardo's maximum rank?
i agree with Dinomight's and Bannt's perspectives on this.
On July 01 2015 00:33 RKC wrote: To those who claim that SC2 is more 'strategic' than BW (whatever that means, in your book), here's a question:
Who do you consider the most strategic players in SC2? (feel free to name different players for different eras i.e. 2011-2015)
Loaded question! Let's see.
MVP for sure. Dude's hands were numb from injury while he played some of those GSL games.
sOs. Proleague players are TERRIFIED of him because they never know what he's going to do. His super unorthodox builds take players by surprise and put him in control of the game.
Taeja. Dude's game sense and decision making is insane. Always knows exactly what the opponent is up to even with minmal scouting.
San. Let's face it, his mechanics are horrible lol. Won with builds/strategy alone.
Leenock. At his prime he was busting out all sorts of ridiculous builds that nobody was prepared for.
Compare that to players like Parting, Maru, Bomber, Rain or Innovation... where you know exactly what they're doing but struggle to hold it anyway.
On July 01 2015 00:48 jinorazi wrote: It's really quiet simple, no need to argue about mechanics and strategy.
Bw: basketball with 10ft rim. sc2: basketball with 6ft rim.
So everyone can dunk and feel goodie goodie.
more sports analogies while we wait for the ms paint people to make more charts:
bw: normal soccer/football, you have to dribble the ball and stuff, but oh no, that's artificial difficulty!
sc2: soccer 2.0, you can hold the ball and throw it, and people can't tackle you since that's mean. it's more strategic since now it's all about positioning and catching your opponent by surprise since you can't outplay them with dribbling mechanics
On June 30 2015 23:58 Bannt wrote: I might be off-base with this but it's something to think about.
Perhaps broodwar had the illusion of such great balance and strategic options precisely because of the difficulty of the mechanics. Since mechanics counted so much all races would stay fairly close as long as the relevant pros were of comparable level.
Also the game still evolving after 10 years is an indication as well. The mechanics were difficult so it took pros a very very long time to slowly increase asymptotically towards an (unreachable?) cap. As they get better and better more options open up changing the meta...but only at the rate allowed by increased mechanical skill.
Sorry if this has been posted and I"m making no claims as to which game is better. Just a possible way to view things.
You are off base but it's okay because you're not coming from a place of arrogance.
BW was imba as hell. The races were balanced by the maps. BW can be easily made imba towards a desired matchup by crafting maps to in a way that achieves that.
On July 01 2015 00:00 DinoMight wrote:
On June 30 2015 23:58 Bannt wrote: I might be off-base with this but it's something to think about.
Perhaps broodwar had the illusion of such great balance and strategic options precisely because of the difficulty of the mechanics. Since mechanics counted so much all races would stay fairly close as long as the relevant pros were of comparable level.
Also the game still evolving after 10 years is an indication as well. The mechanics were difficult so it took pros a very very long time to slowly increase asymptotically towards an (unreachable?) cap. As they get better and better more options open up changing the meta...but only at the rate allowed by increased mechanical skill.
Sorry if this has been posted and I"m making no claims as to which game is better. Just a possible way to view things.
This times a billion. Seriously, I don't know how people don't see this.
Because it's completely wrong. Seriously I don't know why people who don't know the game are making assumptions.
Lol. And who are you to tell me I know nothing about the game? People like you make forums an awful place. I played SC1 on release day buddy.
SC2 can also be balanced by maps... you guys remember how much fun TvP was on heavy rain?
what's your max rank? Because you sound like you have no idea about BW, that's why he suspected that.
what was Rob Pardo's maximum rank?
fine, I'll ask this then: what's the default build orders in bw ZvT for both sides? What happens in the late game and why?
On June 30 2015 23:58 Bannt wrote: I might be off-base with this but it's something to think about.
Perhaps broodwar had the illusion of such great balance and strategic options precisely because of the difficulty of the mechanics. Since mechanics counted so much all races would stay fairly close as long as the relevant pros were of comparable level.
Also the game still evolving after 10 years is an indication as well. The mechanics were difficult so it took pros a very very long time to slowly increase asymptotically towards an (unreachable?) cap. As they get better and better more options open up changing the meta...but only at the rate allowed by increased mechanical skill.
Sorry if this has been posted and I"m making no claims as to which game is better. Just a possible way to view things.
You are off base but it's okay because you're not coming from a place of arrogance.
BW was imba as hell. The races were balanced by the maps. BW can be easily made imba towards a desired matchup by crafting maps to in a way that achieves that.
On July 01 2015 00:00 DinoMight wrote:
On June 30 2015 23:58 Bannt wrote: I might be off-base with this but it's something to think about.
Perhaps broodwar had the illusion of such great balance and strategic options precisely because of the difficulty of the mechanics. Since mechanics counted so much all races would stay fairly close as long as the relevant pros were of comparable level.
Also the game still evolving after 10 years is an indication as well. The mechanics were difficult so it took pros a very very long time to slowly increase asymptotically towards an (unreachable?) cap. As they get better and better more options open up changing the meta...but only at the rate allowed by increased mechanical skill.
Sorry if this has been posted and I"m making no claims as to which game is better. Just a possible way to view things.
This times a billion. Seriously, I don't know how people don't see this.
Because it's completely wrong. Seriously I don't know why people who don't know the game are making assumptions.
Lol. And who are you to tell me I know nothing about the game? People like you make forums an awful place. I played SC1 on release day buddy.
SC2 can also be balanced by maps... you guys remember how much fun TvP was on heavy rain?
what's your max rank? Because you sound like you have no idea about BW, that's why he suspected that.
what was Rob Pardo's maximum rank?
fine, I'll ask this then: what's the default build orders in bw ZvT for both sides? What happens in the late game and why?
By default your question implies SC2 has more strategic depth than BW.
On June 30 2015 23:58 Bannt wrote: I might be off-base with this but it's something to think about.
Perhaps broodwar had the illusion of such great balance and strategic options precisely because of the difficulty of the mechanics. Since mechanics counted so much all races would stay fairly close as long as the relevant pros were of comparable level.
Also the game still evolving after 10 years is an indication as well. The mechanics were difficult so it took pros a very very long time to slowly increase asymptotically towards an (unreachable?) cap. As they get better and better more options open up changing the meta...but only at the rate allowed by increased mechanical skill.
Sorry if this has been posted and I"m making no claims as to which game is better. Just a possible way to view things.
You are off base but it's okay because you're not coming from a place of arrogance.
BW was imba as hell. The races were balanced by the maps. BW can be easily made imba towards a desired matchup by crafting maps to in a way that achieves that.
On July 01 2015 00:00 DinoMight wrote:
On June 30 2015 23:58 Bannt wrote: I might be off-base with this but it's something to think about.
Perhaps broodwar had the illusion of such great balance and strategic options precisely because of the difficulty of the mechanics. Since mechanics counted so much all races would stay fairly close as long as the relevant pros were of comparable level.
Also the game still evolving after 10 years is an indication as well. The mechanics were difficult so it took pros a very very long time to slowly increase asymptotically towards an (unreachable?) cap. As they get better and better more options open up changing the meta...but only at the rate allowed by increased mechanical skill.
Sorry if this has been posted and I"m making no claims as to which game is better. Just a possible way to view things.
This times a billion. Seriously, I don't know how people don't see this.
Because it's completely wrong. Seriously I don't know why people who don't know the game are making assumptions.
Lol. And who are you to tell me I know nothing about the game? People like you make forums an awful place. I played SC1 on release day buddy.
SC2 can also be balanced by maps... you guys remember how much fun TvP was on heavy rain?
what's your max rank? Because you sound like you have no idea about BW, that's why he suspected that.
what was Rob Pardo's maximum rank?
fine, I'll ask this then: what's the default build orders in bw ZvT for both sides? What happens in the late game and why?
i edited in a line to my post that answers this... fast action here on TL forums
On June 30 2015 23:58 Bannt wrote: I might be off-base with this but it's something to think about.
Perhaps broodwar had the illusion of such great balance and strategic options precisely because of the difficulty of the mechanics. Since mechanics counted so much all races would stay fairly close as long as the relevant pros were of comparable level.
Also the game still evolving after 10 years is an indication as well. The mechanics were difficult so it took pros a very very long time to slowly increase asymptotically towards an (unreachable?) cap. As they get better and better more options open up changing the meta...but only at the rate allowed by increased mechanical skill.
Sorry if this has been posted and I"m making no claims as to which game is better. Just a possible way to view things.
You are off base but it's okay because you're not coming from a place of arrogance.
BW was imba as hell. The races were balanced by the maps. BW can be easily made imba towards a desired matchup by crafting maps to in a way that achieves that.
On July 01 2015 00:00 DinoMight wrote:
On June 30 2015 23:58 Bannt wrote: I might be off-base with this but it's something to think about.
Perhaps broodwar had the illusion of such great balance and strategic options precisely because of the difficulty of the mechanics. Since mechanics counted so much all races would stay fairly close as long as the relevant pros were of comparable level.
Also the game still evolving after 10 years is an indication as well. The mechanics were difficult so it took pros a very very long time to slowly increase asymptotically towards an (unreachable?) cap. As they get better and better more options open up changing the meta...but only at the rate allowed by increased mechanical skill.
Sorry if this has been posted and I"m making no claims as to which game is better. Just a possible way to view things.
This times a billion. Seriously, I don't know how people don't see this.
Because it's completely wrong. Seriously I don't know why people who don't know the game are making assumptions.
Lol. And who are you to tell me I know nothing about the game? People like you make forums an awful place. I played SC1 on release day buddy.
SC2 can also be balanced by maps... you guys remember how much fun TvP was on heavy rain?
what's your max rank? Because you sound like you have no idea about BW, that's why he suspected that.
what was Rob Pardo's maximum rank?
fine, I'll ask this then: what's the default build orders in bw ZvT for both sides? What happens in the late game and why?
By default your question implies SC2 has more strategic depth than BW.
care to elaborate? I just want to understand how well do you understand BW if at all.
On June 30 2015 23:58 Bannt wrote: I might be off-base with this but it's something to think about.
Perhaps broodwar had the illusion of such great balance and strategic options precisely because of the difficulty of the mechanics. Since mechanics counted so much all races would stay fairly close as long as the relevant pros were of comparable level.
Also the game still evolving after 10 years is an indication as well. The mechanics were difficult so it took pros a very very long time to slowly increase asymptotically towards an (unreachable?) cap. As they get better and better more options open up changing the meta...but only at the rate allowed by increased mechanical skill.
Sorry if this has been posted and I"m making no claims as to which game is better. Just a possible way to view things.
You are off base but it's okay because you're not coming from a place of arrogance.
BW was imba as hell. The races were balanced by the maps. BW can be easily made imba towards a desired matchup by crafting maps to in a way that achieves that.
On July 01 2015 00:00 DinoMight wrote:
On June 30 2015 23:58 Bannt wrote: I might be off-base with this but it's something to think about.
Perhaps broodwar had the illusion of such great balance and strategic options precisely because of the difficulty of the mechanics. Since mechanics counted so much all races would stay fairly close as long as the relevant pros were of comparable level.
Also the game still evolving after 10 years is an indication as well. The mechanics were difficult so it took pros a very very long time to slowly increase asymptotically towards an (unreachable?) cap. As they get better and better more options open up changing the meta...but only at the rate allowed by increased mechanical skill.
Sorry if this has been posted and I"m making no claims as to which game is better. Just a possible way to view things.
This times a billion. Seriously, I don't know how people don't see this.
Because it's completely wrong. Seriously I don't know why people who don't know the game are making assumptions.
Lol. And who are you to tell me I know nothing about the game? People like you make forums an awful place. I played SC1 on release day buddy.
SC2 can also be balanced by maps... you guys remember how much fun TvP was on heavy rain?
what's your max rank? Because you sound like you have no idea about BW, that's why he suspected that.
what was Rob Pardo's maximum rank?
fine, I'll ask this then: what's the default build orders in bw ZvT for both sides? What happens in the late game and why?
By default your question implies SC2 has more strategic depth than BW.
care to elaborate? I just want to understand how well do you understand BW if at all.
It's amusing that you think you are the authority to quantifiy his BW knowledge. edit: Oh you come from the BW forums, who would have thought!
On July 01 2015 00:07 DinoMight wrote: SC2 can also be balanced by maps... you guys remember how much fun TvP was on heavy rain?
Can you make a map that's as good for Terran in TvP as Heavy Rain, Polar Night, and Yeonsu were for Protoss?
Current map pool is moving in that direction (also those maps wouldn't be AS good today because of the nerfs, still good for P tho).
3rds that are far from the main by ground but close by air with no way to blink in between.
Destructible back door rocks.
Fewer ramps / chokes and more open ground near the 3rd / 4th / middle of the map.
Larger maps, to allow T to take advantage of their superior mobility.
If you wanted to make an imba TvP map you could... Heavy Rain, Polar Night, and Yeonsu were imba by accident. I think the Blink maps honestly made map makers think harder about design, which is good.
...Let me get this out of the way: StarCraft 2 is more strategic than StarCraft 1. Both are RTS (Real Time Strategy) games, but they have different emphasises. SC1 is a Real Time Strategy game, and SC2 is a Real Time Strategy game.
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...
Oh yeah he said some stuff about the GSL finals and Rain and KeSPA and stuff too.
But basically I'm posting this just to fish for a response from Rekrul
The only thing I can think of that is more strategical in Broodwar was Terran positioning and the use of terrain by map builders to give Terran the quirkiest map advantages anybody has ever seen. I just don't see much room for discussion here. StarCraft 2 isn't about fighting the UI and unit pathing like Broodwar was. StarCraft 2 isn't requiring you to clone actions like Broodwar. StarCraft 2 allows for more play and is probably currently more balanced than Broodwar ever was as well (although StarCraft 2 has seen imbalance that was greater than anything other than season 3 of StarCraft).
I mean, I'm not surprised I guess. He was pretty notorious for thinking there were only 1-2 "real" strategies (aka standard cookie-cutter macro builds) in BW, making him painfully easy to predict and beat. Anything else was "dirty cheese" and "dumb luck", not real strategy at all.
Apparently hard counter units are the definition of strategy here (ignoring that BW does have its own set of hard counter relationships ..), not actual build variety itself. Learned something new I guess.
On June 30 2015 23:58 Bannt wrote: I might be off-base with this but it's something to think about.
Perhaps broodwar had the illusion of such great balance and strategic options precisely because of the difficulty of the mechanics. Since mechanics counted so much all races would stay fairly close as long as the relevant pros were of comparable level.
Also the game still evolving after 10 years is an indication as well. The mechanics were difficult so it took pros a very very long time to slowly increase asymptotically towards an (unreachable?) cap. As they get better and better more options open up changing the meta...but only at the rate allowed by increased mechanical skill.
Sorry if this has been posted and I"m making no claims as to which game is better. Just a possible way to view things.
You are off base but it's okay because you're not coming from a place of arrogance.
BW was imba as hell. The races were balanced by the maps. BW can be easily made imba towards a desired matchup by crafting maps to in a way that achieves that.
On July 01 2015 00:00 DinoMight wrote:
On June 30 2015 23:58 Bannt wrote: I might be off-base with this but it's something to think about.
Perhaps broodwar had the illusion of such great balance and strategic options precisely because of the difficulty of the mechanics. Since mechanics counted so much all races would stay fairly close as long as the relevant pros were of comparable level.
Also the game still evolving after 10 years is an indication as well. The mechanics were difficult so it took pros a very very long time to slowly increase asymptotically towards an (unreachable?) cap. As they get better and better more options open up changing the meta...but only at the rate allowed by increased mechanical skill.
Sorry if this has been posted and I"m making no claims as to which game is better. Just a possible way to view things.
This times a billion. Seriously, I don't know how people don't see this.
Because it's completely wrong. Seriously I don't know why people who don't know the game are making assumptions.
Lol. And who are you to tell me I know nothing about the game? People like you make forums an awful place. I played SC1 on release day buddy.
SC2 can also be balanced by maps... you guys remember how much fun TvP was on heavy rain?
what's your max rank? Because you sound like you have no idea about BW, that's why he suspected that.
what was Rob Pardo's maximum rank?
fine, I'll ask this then: what's the default build orders in bw ZvT for both sides? What happens in the late game and why?
By default your question implies SC2 has more strategic depth than BW.
care to elaborate? I just want to understand how well do you understand BW if at all.
It's amusing that you think you are the authority to quantifiy his BW knowledge. edit: Oh you come from the BW forums, who would have thought!
what I asked him is a simple test to reveal if he knows the Most Basic things about bw, because I suspect he doesn't. His actual bw knowledge - I don't care. edit: nice to see such friendly attitude from a sc2-forumer.
On July 01 2015 01:02 ArvickHero wrote: I mean, I'm not surprised I guess. He was pretty notorious for thinking there were only 1-2 "real" strategies (aka standard cookie-cutter macro builds) in BW, making him painfully easy to predict and beat. Anything else was "dirty cheese" and "dumb luck", not real strategy at all.
Apparently hard counter units are the definition of strategy here (ignoring that BW does have its own set of hard counter relationships ..), not actual build variety itself. Learned something new I guess.
This is the reason why the entire "Foreigners suck" series by Rekrul came to be.
On July 01 2015 01:09 TerranosaurusWrecks wrote: What's the difference between skill floor and ceiling?
The skill floor is the level that you need to attain in order to do something at all. For example, playing a guitar decently. The skill ceiling is the highest possible skill level attainable. Something like tic tac toe has a low skill ceiling. You can easily play a perfect game of tic tac toe.
On June 30 2015 23:58 Bannt wrote: I might be off-base with this but it's something to think about.
Perhaps broodwar had the illusion of such great balance and strategic options precisely because of the difficulty of the mechanics. Since mechanics counted so much all races would stay fairly close as long as the relevant pros were of comparable level.
Also the game still evolving after 10 years is an indication as well. The mechanics were difficult so it took pros a very very long time to slowly increase asymptotically towards an (unreachable?) cap. As they get better and better more options open up changing the meta...but only at the rate allowed by increased mechanical skill.
Sorry if this has been posted and I"m making no claims as to which game is better. Just a possible way to view things.
You are off base but it's okay because you're not coming from a place of arrogance.
BW was imba as hell. The races were balanced by the maps. BW can be easily made imba towards a desired matchup by crafting maps to in a way that achieves that.
On July 01 2015 00:00 DinoMight wrote: [quote]
This times a billion. Seriously, I don't know how people don't see this.
Because it's completely wrong. Seriously I don't know why people who don't know the game are making assumptions.
Lol. And who are you to tell me I know nothing about the game? People like you make forums an awful place. I played SC1 on release day buddy.
SC2 can also be balanced by maps... you guys remember how much fun TvP was on heavy rain?
what's your max rank? Because you sound like you have no idea about BW, that's why he suspected that.
what was Rob Pardo's maximum rank?
fine, I'll ask this then: what's the default build orders in bw ZvT for both sides? What happens in the late game and why?
By default your question implies SC2 has more strategic depth than BW.
care to elaborate? I just want to understand how well do you understand BW if at all.
It's amusing that you think you are the authority to quantifiy his BW knowledge. edit: Oh you come from the BW forums, who would have thought!
what I asked him is a simple test to reveal if he knows the Most Basic things about bw, because I suspect he doesn't. His actual bw knowledge - I don't care. edit: nice to see such friendly attitude from a sc2-forumer.
both of you have the same attitude towards each other.
On July 01 2015 01:02 ArvickHero wrote: I mean, I'm not surprised I guess. He was pretty notorious for thinking there were only 1-2 "real" strategies (aka standard cookie-cutter macro builds) in BW, making him painfully easy to predict and beat. Anything else was "dirty cheese" and "dumb luck", not real strategy at all.
Apparently hard counter units are the definition of strategy here (ignoring that BW does have its own set of hard counter relationships ..), not actual build variety itself. Learned something new I guess.
This is the reason why the entire "Foreigners suck" series by Rekrul came to be.
This is why we're waiting for Rekrul to post.
this is why Naniwa at his peak was so fun to watch, he was the opposite of the philosophy you bolded, if he saw his opponent was prone to greedy play he'd relentlessly start 2-gating.
On June 30 2015 23:58 Bannt wrote: I might be off-base with this but it's something to think about.
Perhaps broodwar had the illusion of such great balance and strategic options precisely because of the difficulty of the mechanics. Since mechanics counted so much all races would stay fairly close as long as the relevant pros were of comparable level.
Also the game still evolving after 10 years is an indication as well. The mechanics were difficult so it took pros a very very long time to slowly increase asymptotically towards an (unreachable?) cap. As they get better and better more options open up changing the meta...but only at the rate allowed by increased mechanical skill.
Sorry if this has been posted and I"m making no claims as to which game is better. Just a possible way to view things.
You are off base but it's okay because you're not coming from a place of arrogance.
BW was imba as hell. The races were balanced by the maps. BW can be easily made imba towards a desired matchup by crafting maps to in a way that achieves that.
On July 01 2015 00:00 DinoMight wrote: [quote]
This times a billion. Seriously, I don't know how people don't see this.
Because it's completely wrong. Seriously I don't know why people who don't know the game are making assumptions.
Lol. And who are you to tell me I know nothing about the game? People like you make forums an awful place. I played SC1 on release day buddy.
SC2 can also be balanced by maps... you guys remember how much fun TvP was on heavy rain?
what's your max rank? Because you sound like you have no idea about BW, that's why he suspected that.
what was Rob Pardo's maximum rank?
fine, I'll ask this then: what's the default build orders in bw ZvT for both sides? What happens in the late game and why?
By default your question implies SC2 has more strategic depth than BW.
care to elaborate? I just want to understand how well do you understand BW if at all.
It's amusing that you think you are the authority to quantifiy his BW knowledge. edit: Oh you come from the BW forums, who would have thought!
what I asked him is a simple test to reveal if he knows the Most Basic things about bw, because I suspect he doesn't. His actual bw knowledge - I don't care. edit: nice to see such friendly attitude from a sc2-forumer.
You realize that you come into this thread being condescending as fuck? If you have something to say about the topic, just do so. Sry that people don't like to answer your arbitrary questions about maximum rank or build orders. So yes, i am kinda rude cause your reaction is the reaction i would have expected from people out of the BW forum.
On July 01 2015 01:09 TerranosaurusWrecks wrote: What's the difference between skill floor and ceiling?
The skill floor is the level that you need to attain in order to do something at all. For example, playing a guitar decently. The skill ceiling is the highest possible skill level attainable. Something like tic tac toe has a low skill ceiling. You can easily play a perfect game of tic tac toe.
Which is why i think people (should) mean when talking about skill ceiling: Not the theoretical one, this will never be achieved by humans anyway. But the skill level on which humans can be (in like even if you get 2% better, it won't really change the outcome anymore, the reward just isn't there)
On July 01 2015 01:02 ArvickHero wrote: I mean, I'm not surprised I guess. He was pretty notorious for thinking there were only 1-2 "real" strategies (aka standard cookie-cutter macro builds) in BW, making him painfully easy to predict and beat. Anything else was "dirty cheese" and "dumb luck", not real strategy at all.
Apparently hard counter units are the definition of strategy here (ignoring that BW does have its own set of hard counter relationships ..), not actual build variety itself. Learned something new I guess.
This is the reason why the entire "Foreigners suck" series by Rekrul came to be.
This is why we're waiting for Rekrul to post.
mehhh, it's not gonna be that fun unless artosis himself replies to rekrul
Once you have become a top level progamer, you already have acceptable mechanics. You can’t get there otherwise. In SC1, a lot of winning was about practicing 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.
holy shit this is funny, Artosis thinks having 11 more marines by the 12min mark is what really matters in the TvZ matchup.
On July 01 2015 01:02 ArvickHero wrote: I mean, I'm not surprised I guess. He was pretty notorious for thinking there were only 1-2 "real" strategies (aka standard cookie-cutter macro builds) in BW, making him painfully easy to predict and beat. Anything else was "dirty cheese" and "dumb luck", not real strategy at all.
Apparently hard counter units are the definition of strategy here (ignoring that BW does have its own set of hard counter relationships ..), not actual build variety itself. Learned something new I guess.
This is the reason why the entire "Foreigners suck" series by Rekrul came to be.
This is why we're waiting for Rekrul to post.
this is why Naniwa at his peak was so fun to watch, he was the opposite of the philosophy you bolded, if he saw his opponent was prone to greedy play he'd relentlessly start 2-gating.
You are off base but it's okay because you're not coming from a place of arrogance.
BW was imba as hell. The races were balanced by the maps. BW can be easily made imba towards a desired matchup by crafting maps to in a way that achieves that.
[quote]
Because it's completely wrong. Seriously I don't know why people who don't know the game are making assumptions.
Lol. And who are you to tell me I know nothing about the game? People like you make forums an awful place. I played SC1 on release day buddy.
SC2 can also be balanced by maps... you guys remember how much fun TvP was on heavy rain?
what's your max rank? Because you sound like you have no idea about BW, that's why he suspected that.
what was Rob Pardo's maximum rank?
fine, I'll ask this then: what's the default build orders in bw ZvT for both sides? What happens in the late game and why?
By default your question implies SC2 has more strategic depth than BW.
care to elaborate? I just want to understand how well do you understand BW if at all.
It's amusing that you think you are the authority to quantifiy his BW knowledge. edit: Oh you come from the BW forums, who would have thought!
what I asked him is a simple test to reveal if he knows the Most Basic things about bw, because I suspect he doesn't. His actual bw knowledge - I don't care. edit: nice to see such friendly attitude from a sc2-forumer.
You realize that you come into this thread being condescending as fuck? If you have something to say about the topic, just do so. Sry that people don't like to answer your arbitrary questions about maximum rank or build orders. So yes, i am kinda rude cause your reaction is the reaction i would have expected from people out of the BW forum.
isn't it so condescending of you to judge bw-forum ♥ Ok I'll explain myself if you're so sensitive: the guy made a statement implying he knows the game well. I simply asked him his rank, I see no reason to be pissed at such a question. Then he just tried to talk his way out of the situation so I asked an even more harmless question. Then came you, a social justice warrior.
Lol. And who are you to tell me I know nothing about the game? People like you make forums an awful place. I played SC1 on release day buddy.
SC2 can also be balanced by maps... you guys remember how much fun TvP was on heavy rain?
what's your max rank? Because you sound like you have no idea about BW, that's why he suspected that.
what was Rob Pardo's maximum rank?
fine, I'll ask this then: what's the default build orders in bw ZvT for both sides? What happens in the late game and why?
By default your question implies SC2 has more strategic depth than BW.
care to elaborate? I just want to understand how well do you understand BW if at all.
It's amusing that you think you are the authority to quantifiy his BW knowledge. edit: Oh you come from the BW forums, who would have thought!
what I asked him is a simple test to reveal if he knows the Most Basic things about bw, because I suspect he doesn't. His actual bw knowledge - I don't care. edit: nice to see such friendly attitude from a sc2-forumer.
You realize that you come into this thread being condescending as fuck? If you have something to say about the topic, just do so. Sry that people don't like to answer your arbitrary questions about maximum rank or build orders. So yes, i am kinda rude cause your reaction is the reaction i would have expected from people out of the BW forum.
isn't it so condescending of you to judge bw-forum ♥ Ok I'll explain myself if you're so sensitive: the guy made a statement implying he knows the game well. I simply asked him his rank, I see no reason to be pissed at such a question. Then he just tried to talk his way out of the situation so I asked an even more harmless question. Then came you, a social justice warrior.
guys come on, this isn't the place for this, at least take it to PMs, don't make it personal here, please.
On July 01 2015 00:38 juvenal wrote: [quote] what's your max rank? Because you sound like you have no idea about BW, that's why he suspected that.
what was Rob Pardo's maximum rank?
fine, I'll ask this then: what's the default build orders in bw ZvT for both sides? What happens in the late game and why?
By default your question implies SC2 has more strategic depth than BW.
care to elaborate? I just want to understand how well do you understand BW if at all.
It's amusing that you think you are the authority to quantifiy his BW knowledge. edit: Oh you come from the BW forums, who would have thought!
what I asked him is a simple test to reveal if he knows the Most Basic things about bw, because I suspect he doesn't. His actual bw knowledge - I don't care. edit: nice to see such friendly attitude from a sc2-forumer.
You realize that you come into this thread being condescending as fuck? If you have something to say about the topic, just do so. Sry that people don't like to answer your arbitrary questions about maximum rank or build orders. So yes, i am kinda rude cause your reaction is the reaction i would have expected from people out of the BW forum.
isn't it so condescending of you to judge bw-forum ♥ Ok I'll explain myself if you're so sensitive: the guy made a statement implying he knows the game well. I simply asked him his rank, I see no reason to be pissed at such a question. Then he just tried to talk his way out of the situation so I asked an even more harmless question. Then came you, a social justice warrior.
guys come on, this isn't the place for this, at least take it to PMs, don't make it personal here, please.
It got the place as soon as the typical BW guys came in here and started to post while not responding to the actual topic at all. Which obviously isn't really new, that's just how BW people on this site rule. (there obviously are exceptions, but exceptions prove the rule, bla bla) It's not personal, it's a general forum thing
fine, I'll ask this then: what's the default build orders in bw ZvT for both sides? What happens in the late game and why?
By default your question implies SC2 has more strategic depth than BW.
care to elaborate? I just want to understand how well do you understand BW if at all.
It's amusing that you think you are the authority to quantifiy his BW knowledge. edit: Oh you come from the BW forums, who would have thought!
what I asked him is a simple test to reveal if he knows the Most Basic things about bw, because I suspect he doesn't. His actual bw knowledge - I don't care. edit: nice to see such friendly attitude from a sc2-forumer.
You realize that you come into this thread being condescending as fuck? If you have something to say about the topic, just do so. Sry that people don't like to answer your arbitrary questions about maximum rank or build orders. So yes, i am kinda rude cause your reaction is the reaction i would have expected from people out of the BW forum.
isn't it so condescending of you to judge bw-forum ♥ Ok I'll explain myself if you're so sensitive: the guy made a statement implying he knows the game well. I simply asked him his rank, I see no reason to be pissed at such a question. Then he just tried to talk his way out of the situation so I asked an even more harmless question. Then came you, a social justice warrior.
guys come on, this isn't the place for this, at least take it to PMs, don't make it personal here, please.
It got the place as soon as the typical BW guys came in here and started to post while not responding to the actual topic at all. Which obviously isn't really new, that's just how BW people on this site rule. It's not personal, it's a general forum thing
I answered on the topic earlier, now calm the hell down with your "bw people" shit. All I want is to check if the dude knew the game at all. You got offended thinking that I myself know all about it and want to judge someone else's ability, which I never meant.
fine, I'll ask this then: what's the default build orders in bw ZvT for both sides? What happens in the late game and why?
By default your question implies SC2 has more strategic depth than BW.
care to elaborate? I just want to understand how well do you understand BW if at all.
It's amusing that you think you are the authority to quantifiy his BW knowledge. edit: Oh you come from the BW forums, who would have thought!
what I asked him is a simple test to reveal if he knows the Most Basic things about bw, because I suspect he doesn't. His actual bw knowledge - I don't care. edit: nice to see such friendly attitude from a sc2-forumer.
You realize that you come into this thread being condescending as fuck? If you have something to say about the topic, just do so. Sry that people don't like to answer your arbitrary questions about maximum rank or build orders. So yes, i am kinda rude cause your reaction is the reaction i would have expected from people out of the BW forum.
isn't it so condescending of you to judge bw-forum ♥ Ok I'll explain myself if you're so sensitive: the guy made a statement implying he knows the game well. I simply asked him his rank, I see no reason to be pissed at such a question. Then he just tried to talk his way out of the situation so I asked an even more harmless question. Then came you, a social justice warrior.
guys come on, this isn't the place for this, at least take it to PMs, don't make it personal here, please.
It got the place as soon as the typical BW guys came in here and started to post while not responding to the actual topic at all. Which obviously isn't really new, that's just how BW people on this site rule. It's not personal, it's a general forum thing
I consider myself as BW guy, you don't seem to have a problem with how I post.
when he posts he represents himself not all of BW forums, please don't lump every one of them together, so please don't tell me its not personal.
On July 01 2015 00:51 juvenal wrote: [quote] fine, I'll ask this then: what's the default build orders in bw ZvT for both sides? What happens in the late game and why?
By default your question implies SC2 has more strategic depth than BW.
care to elaborate? I just want to understand how well do you understand BW if at all.
It's amusing that you think you are the authority to quantifiy his BW knowledge. edit: Oh you come from the BW forums, who would have thought!
what I asked him is a simple test to reveal if he knows the Most Basic things about bw, because I suspect he doesn't. His actual bw knowledge - I don't care. edit: nice to see such friendly attitude from a sc2-forumer.
You realize that you come into this thread being condescending as fuck? If you have something to say about the topic, just do so. Sry that people don't like to answer your arbitrary questions about maximum rank or build orders. So yes, i am kinda rude cause your reaction is the reaction i would have expected from people out of the BW forum.
isn't it so condescending of you to judge bw-forum ♥ Ok I'll explain myself if you're so sensitive: the guy made a statement implying he knows the game well. I simply asked him his rank, I see no reason to be pissed at such a question. Then he just tried to talk his way out of the situation so I asked an even more harmless question. Then came you, a social justice warrior.
guys come on, this isn't the place for this, at least take it to PMs, don't make it personal here, please.
It got the place as soon as the typical BW guys came in here and started to post while not responding to the actual topic at all. Which obviously isn't really new, that's just how BW people on this site rule. It's not personal, it's a general forum thing
I answered on the topic earlier, now calm the hell down with your "bw people" shit. All I want is to check if the dude knew the game at all. You got offended thinking that I myself know all about it and want to judge someone else's ability, which I never meant.
Juvenal he doesnt know the game at all, that is why he diverted the controversy about it, about The Red_Viper he always says that about BW forumers, so just ignore him. case closed, and you are right.
Well I was looking forward to the hilarious chess comparisons and unwarranted levels of elitism once I read the Artosis post, and I have not been disappointed. The only thing more hilarious was how much foreign players sucked in bw as a lot of the Europeans were playing better games like CS and Wc3 and it was mostly left to American players to try and cut it, and we all know how that works out in gaming. Shit, instead of sending out people like Idra to compete with the Koreans maybe we could have gone with some fast button mashers/pro-typists without autism. They probably would have gotten further in tournaments. That's for sure.
poor Artosis, did build his whole career on Sc2 and now has to struggle hard to yet again convince people "it's the best game ever". Well, i hope you earned enough money man, so you can stop this little campaign of yours.
I haven't read all the pages but here's what I think people miss in the first few.
Just because Artosis says sc2 is more strategic than bw doesn't mean he's saying micro and mechanics aren't very important in sc2 or that macro isn't important in bw. He even says it when he's making the point.
On July 01 2015 01:57 Cele wrote: poor Artosis, did build his whole career on Sc2 and now has to struggle hard to yet again convince people "it's the best game ever". Well, i hope you earned enough money man, so you can stop this little campaign of yours.
I don't think Artosis did anything wrong, he just expressed his opinion, there's always place for opinions. This thread is what provoked a holywar. Btw day9 has said similar things about strategic aspects of bw and sc2 and he's obviously more credible a source of bw wisdom. Much of the discussion is due to the definitions conflict: different people perceive "strategy" differently (duh) but since no one points that out loud enough they start arguing.
On July 01 2015 01:02 ArvickHero wrote: I mean, I'm not surprised I guess. He was pretty notorious for thinking there were only 1-2 "real" strategies (aka standard cookie-cutter macro builds) in BW, making him painfully easy to predict and beat. Anything else was "dirty cheese" and "dumb luck", not real strategy at all.
Apparently hard counter units are the definition of strategy here (ignoring that BW does have its own set of hard counter relationships ..), not actual build variety itself. Learned something new I guess.
On June 30 2015 23:58 Bannt wrote: I might be off-base with this but it's something to think about.
Perhaps broodwar had the illusion of such great balance and strategic options precisely because of the difficulty of the mechanics. Since mechanics counted so much all races would stay fairly close as long as the relevant pros were of comparable level.
Also the game still evolving after 10 years is an indication as well. The mechanics were difficult so it took pros a very very long time to slowly increase asymptotically towards an (unreachable?) cap. As they get better and better more options open up changing the meta...but only at the rate allowed by increased mechanical skill.
Sorry if this has been posted and I"m making no claims as to which game is better. Just a possible way to view things.
You are off base but it's okay because you're not coming from a place of arrogance.
BW was imba as hell. The races were balanced by the maps. BW can be easily made imba towards a desired matchup by crafting maps to in a way that achieves that.
On July 01 2015 00:00 DinoMight wrote:
On June 30 2015 23:58 Bannt wrote: I might be off-base with this but it's something to think about.
Perhaps broodwar had the illusion of such great balance and strategic options precisely because of the difficulty of the mechanics. Since mechanics counted so much all races would stay fairly close as long as the relevant pros were of comparable level.
Also the game still evolving after 10 years is an indication as well. The mechanics were difficult so it took pros a very very long time to slowly increase asymptotically towards an (unreachable?) cap. As they get better and better more options open up changing the meta...but only at the rate allowed by increased mechanical skill.
Sorry if this has been posted and I"m making no claims as to which game is better. Just a possible way to view things.
This times a billion. Seriously, I don't know how people don't see this.
Because it's completely wrong. Seriously I don't know why people who don't know the game are making assumptions.
Lol. And who are you to tell me I know nothing about the game? People like you make forums an awful place. I played SC1 on release day buddy.
Playing the game on day1 is not an indication of skill level. And since you used a bad indication of skill level we know where you stand
"SC2 can also be balanced by maps... you guys remember how much fun TvP was on heavy rain?"
Completely irrelevant. I was telling Bannt very nicely that BW was balanced by maps , not by mechanics (in fact mechanics makes BW imba at lower levels) Nobody was talking about SC2 in that list of replies but yet you had to bring that up.
On July 01 2015 01:57 Cele wrote: poor Artosis, did build his whole career on Sc2 and now has to struggle hard to yet again convince people "it's the best game ever". Well, i hope you earned enough money man, so you can stop this little campaign of yours.
I don't think Artosis did anything wrong, he just expressed his opinion, there's always place for opinions. This thread is what provoked a holywar. Btw day9 has said similar things about strategic aspects of bw and sc2 and he's obviously more credible a source of bw wisdom. Much of the discussion is due to the definitions conflict: different people perceive "strategy" differently (duh) but since no one points that out loud enough they start arguing.
And we are expressing our opinions about his opinion too
I've said similar things in the past and of course 100% agree with what Artosis is saying although i don't think he really means that "SC2 is more strategic than bw."
When Artosis or anyone says SC2 is more strategic than SC1 i think what they really meant is that the decisions you make in SC2 are weighed more heavily than the decisions you make in SC1.
Both games obviously require insane strategy, if not the same amount of strategy.
But whereas in SC1 it's 99% mechanics in order to implement your strategy, you have a lot of room decision making wise to mess up because per minute you are making way more decisions in SC1.
In SC2, there are a lot less decisions you're making because the mechanics of the game are so much easier, but the decisions you make have much more impact on whether or not you win or lose the game aka "SC2 is more strategic."
An example of this would be microing vultures, where to place the mines, where to move your vultures, microing the vultures, and so on. This requires intense mechanical play to achieve and you are making a ton of decisions in a short time span with these units, and just because you made these units does not mean you will suddenly lose the game...because vulture/mines are a soft counter and do well against most units in the game, even units in the game that are meant to counter the vulture such as the dragoon.
Whereas in SC2...the mere act of deciding to build hellions and having them on the map changes the entire course of the game by itself. You chose to build hellions...hellions are only useful against light units...if you're opponent has stalkers...your hellions become utterly useless and the game swings more heavily due to your simple decision to make hellions instead of tech labbing your factory in the first place.
In the above examples, SC1 you make a decision to make vultures and you are not punished so severely and the unit is still useful because there are no hard counters. In SC2 you make a decision to make hellions and you sometimes can just autolose the game if your opponent decided to go roach first ZvT or for blink stalkers.
However people want to interpret it semantically, it's true that SC2 decisions have a higher impact on the course of an SC2 game than decisions did in SC1. If people want to shorthand that as, "SC2 is more strategic than SC1" then go for it.
Making one mistake and losing the game for it makes SC2 a not so strategic game. If it weren't for that, we could discuss it, but as it is, BW is more strategic.
one could argue that having more opportunities to make decisions would mean it's more "strategic".
one could also say that making those kinds of micro decisions actually fall under "tactical" decision-making, since strategy pertains to a macroscopic view of the game.
On July 01 2015 02:56 quirinus wrote: No, you guys don't get it.
Making one mistake and losing the game for it does not make SC2 a good strategic game. If it weren't for that, we could discuss it, but as it is, BW is more strategic.
Making one mistake and losing the game in sc2 is the most boring TL troll cliché out there. Some mistakes are game ending, yes. But comebacks happen all the time.
On July 01 2015 02:57 ArvickHero wrote: one could argue that having more opportunities to make decisions would mean it's more "strategic".
one could also say that making those kinds of micro decisions actually fall under "tactical" decision-making, since strategy pertains to a macroscopic view of the game.
I think in terms of absolute number of decisions sure, you might say more are made in BW because, for example, you have 10 Vultures with 3 Spider Mines each... that's 30 decisions! Wow!
But I think that's not what "strategy" really is. Strategy to me is the DECISION to make Vultures in the first place.
Strategy is anticipating your opponent will open a certain way and responding with a build. When MVP proxy raxes in game 7 of a GSL finals, that's strategy. He's read his opponent, anticipated his next move, and executed a build that counters it.
On July 01 2015 03:05 BisuDagger wrote: Well I can't open page 14 at work (which I already did once). Not to ruin fun, but please spoiler the pictures.
On July 01 2015 02:57 ArvickHero wrote: one could argue that having more opportunities to make decisions would mean it's more "strategic".
one could also say that making those kinds of micro decisions actually fall under "tactical" decision-making, since strategy pertains to a macroscopic view of the game.
I think in terms of absolute number of decisions sure, you might say more are made in BW because, for example, you have 10 Vultures with 3 Spider Mines each... that's 30 decisions! Wow!
But I think that's not what "strategy" really is. Strategy to me is the DECISION to make Vultures in the first place.
Strategy is anticipating your opponent will open a certain way and responding with a build. When MVP proxy raxes in game 7 of a GSL finals, that's strategy. He's read his opponent, anticipated his next move, and executed a build that counters it.
yea that's what my second line is implying, that it's actually a tactical decision and not a strategic one
but watch out, Artosis doesn't think proxy rax is a strategy, he thinks it's a dirty cheese relying on dumb luck and therefore not real strategy
On July 01 2015 02:57 ArvickHero wrote: one could argue that having more opportunities to make decisions would mean it's more "strategic".
one could also say that making those kinds of micro decisions actually fall under "tactical" decision-making, since strategy pertains to a macroscopic view of the game.
I think in terms of absolute number of decisions sure, you might say more are made in BW because, for example, you have 10 Vultures with 3 Spider Mines each... that's 30 decisions! Wow!
But I think that's not what "strategy" really is. Strategy to me is the DECISION to make Vultures in the first place.
Strategy is anticipating your opponent will open a certain way and responding with a build. When MVP proxy raxes in game 7 of a GSL finals, that's strategy. He's read his opponent, anticipated his next move, and executed a build that counters it.
yea that's what my second line is implying, that it's actually a tactical decision and not a strategic one
but watch out, Artosis doesn't think proxy rax is a strategy, he thinks it's a dirty cheese relying on dumb luck and therefore not real strategy
Artosis doesn't like playing against cheese so he is a bit biased. If you've ever seen him lose to cheese on the ladder you'll know what I'm talking about haha.
But I mean... something like Naniwa's proxy gates vs Hyun in game 7 at IEM... that is definitely strategy. Dude had been going 3 hatch before pool.
Or Life's ling rush vs. Parting last GSL game 7. Parting played greedy expecting life to play greedy.. life cheesed his ass. Next level thinking right there.
I have to wonder. Is a game that has been solved strategic any longer? For example, is tic-tac-toe a strategy game even when anyone can play it with strategic perfection? If not, then is it true that any game that has been explored more in terms of its strategy considered less strategic to play than a comparable game that hasn't been explored as much? If that proposition is true, BW might be less strategic purely based on people having spent more time figuring it out.
Really, I have no opinion on the matter and don't care to hold one. It's just interesting to think about.
On July 01 2015 02:57 ArvickHero wrote: one could argue that having more opportunities to make decisions would mean it's more "strategic".
one could also say that making those kinds of micro decisions actually fall under "tactical" decision-making, since strategy pertains to a macroscopic view of the game.
I think in terms of absolute number of decisions sure, you might say more are made in BW because, for example, you have 10 Vultures with 3 Spider Mines each... that's 30 decisions! Wow!
But I think that's not what "strategy" really is. Strategy to me is the DECISION to make Vultures in the first place.
Strategy is anticipating your opponent will open a certain way and responding with a build. When MVP proxy raxes in game 7 of a GSL finals, that's strategy. He's read his opponent, anticipated his next move, and executed a build that counters it.
yea that's what my second line is implying, that it's actually a tactical decision and not a strategic one
but watch out, Artosis doesn't think proxy rax is a strategy, he thinks it's a dirty cheese relying on dumb luck and therefore not real strategy
Artosis doesn't like playing against cheese so he is a bit biased. If you've ever seen him lose to cheese on the ladder you'll know what I'm talking about haha.
But I mean... something like Naniwa's proxy gates vs Hyun in game 7 at IEM... that is definitely strategy. Dude had been going 3 hatch before pool.
Or Life's ling rush vs. Parting last GSL game 7. Parting played greedy expecting life to play greedy.. life cheesed his ass. Next level thinking right there.
this is nothing I would dispute nor disagree with lol
On July 01 2015 02:57 ArvickHero wrote: one could argue that having more opportunities to make decisions would mean it's more "strategic".
one could also say that making those kinds of micro decisions actually fall under "tactical" decision-making, since strategy pertains to a macroscopic view of the game.
I think in terms of absolute number of decisions sure, you might say more are made in BW because, for example, you have 10 Vultures with 3 Spider Mines each... that's 30 decisions! Wow!
But I think that's not what "strategy" really is. Strategy to me is the DECISION to make Vultures in the first place.
Strategy is anticipating your opponent will open a certain way and responding with a build. When MVP proxy raxes in game 7 of a GSL finals, that's strategy. He's read his opponent, anticipated his next move, and executed a build that counters it.
yea that's what my second line is implying, that it's actually a tactical decision and not a strategic one
but watch out, Artosis doesn't think proxy rax is a strategy, he thinks it's a dirty cheese relying on dumb luck and therefore not real strategy
Of course he thinks it is a real strategy. It is just a bad one in a vacuum, because you put the odds on circumstances you cannot control and that are lower than the odds of a macro strategy (which are 50% in a balanced game).
However he has said on many occasions that mixing in cheese to increase your overall winchances over the course of multiple games (by becoming less predictable) is a good strategy. And that if you don't believe you have that winchance in a macro game because you are mechanically worse, it makes sense to cheese and put your hope on odds that neither you, nor your superior opponent can control overly well.
On July 01 2015 03:13 Acritter wrote: I have to wonder. Is a game that has been solved strategic any longer? For example, is tic-tac-toe a strategy game even when anyone can play it with strategic perfection? If not, then is it true that any game that has been explored more in terms of its strategy considered less strategic to play than a comparable game that hasn't been explored as much? If that proposition is true, BW might be less strategic purely based on people having spent more time figuring it out.
Really, I have no opinion on the matter and don't care to hold one. It's just interesting to think about.
The difference I think is that imperfect execution can lead you to weird scenarios where you have to change your strategy. The best players are those who are able to quickly analyze a situation and decide what the optimal strategy from that point on are.
This happens after failed all-ins, or in a base-race scenario.
In a game like tic-tac-toe there is no execution risk so as long as you understand the basic rules you will draw every game.
On July 01 2015 02:56 quirinus wrote: No, you guys don't get it.
Making one mistake and losing the game for it does not make SC2 a good strategic game. If it weren't for that, we could discuss it, but as it is, BW is more strategic.
Making one mistake and losing the game in sc2 is the most boring TL troll cliché out there. Some mistakes are game ending, yes. But comebacks happen all the time.
Stop it already.
No! Comebacks don't exist in SC2. In SC2, there are only throws, no comebacks
On July 01 2015 02:56 quirinus wrote: No, you guys don't get it.
Making one mistake and losing the game for it does not make SC2 a good strategic game. If it weren't for that, we could discuss it, but as it is, BW is more strategic.
Making one mistake and losing the game in sc2 is the most boring TL troll cliché out there. Some mistakes are game ending, yes. But comebacks happen all the time.
Stop it already.
What? How is it a troll cliche when it's completely true. I don't understand some people... And I didn't say all games are like that, way to generalize; but there ARE a lot more games like that in SC2 than in BW.
rekrul posted big ass saggy boobs (presumably a reference to sc2) and then posted model boobs (presumably a reference to sc:bw) and said it is true that the former are bigger than the latter (presumably a reference to sc2 maybe having bigger or better X, but we still want to fuck sc:bw). at least thats how i interpreted it. who the fuck knows.
On July 01 2015 03:23 dAPhREAk wrote: rekrul posted big ass saggy boobs (presumably a reference to sc2) and then posted model boobs (presumably a reference to sc:bw) and said it is true that the former are bigger than the latter (presumably a reference to sc2 maybe having bigger or better X, but we still want to fuck sc:bw). at least thats how i interpreted it. who the fuck knows.
On July 01 2015 03:23 dAPhREAk wrote: rekrul posted big ass saggy boobs (presumably a reference to sc2) and then posted model boobs (presumably a reference to sc:bw) and said it is true that the former are bigger than the latter (presumably a reference to sc2 maybe having bigger or better X, but we still want to fuck sc:bw). at least thats how i interpreted it. who the fuck knows.
His post was so deep we can write an essay on it. Like even if they are bigger they are ugly and repulsive.
On July 01 2015 03:19 OtherWorld wrote: Shit, I missed rekrul's post ): we really need an uncensored version of TL
On July 01 2015 03:16 w3c.TruE wrote: What did mighty Rekrul post? Please PM me.
I don't remember the exact words but they were :
"In other news:
[picture of a fat, obese woman with huge z-cup tits]
MOD EDIT: Removed NSFW pictures. Sorry, google doesn't like it.
For your information U should Consider turning TL in less of a Kafkaesque caricature of a regulatory nightmare. In this case, Naughty posts can really lighten up a Gloomy thread like this.
Not that I don't Appreciate the effort of the mods, but come on. Z-cup breasts, showing some cleavage, there Is nothing wrong with that. Shit, this belongs into the website-feedback section.
On July 01 2015 02:56 quirinus wrote: No, you guys don't get it.
Making one mistake and losing the game for it does not make SC2 a good strategic game. If it weren't for that, we could discuss it, but as it is, BW is more strategic.
Making one mistake and losing the game in sc2 is the most boring TL troll cliché out there. Some mistakes are game ending, yes. But comebacks happen all the time.
Stop it already.
it is also a cliche that pathfinding and "stupid dragoons" decide anything in bw. Those things matter in like 1% of all games. Well yes, they matter among worse players, much like platinum player's reaction time and micro disallow him proper biomine TvZ in sc2.
MOD EDIT: Removed NSFW pictures. Sorry, google doesn't like it.
For your information U should Consider turning TL in less of a Kafkaesque caricature of a regulatory nightmare. In this case, Naughty posts can really lighten up a Gloomy thread like this.
Not that I don't Appreciate the effort of the mods, but come on. Z-cup breasts, showing some cleavage, there Is nothing wrong with that. Shit, this belongs into the website-feedback section.
Well, let's see how long this lasts...
Probably about an hour for a months worth of gaol.
Btw, I believe that Artosis is the reason why we believe that there are no comebacks in SC2. He and Tasteless have been the most influencial opinionformers by far in the scene. His teachings about "getting further ahead" being the best play have led to people believing that you should never lose once you have achieved an advantage. Hence, anytime someone loses it is a "throw" of the player that had the lead, not a "comeback" of the player that was behind.
But from a greater strategic perspective it could be argued that it is the exact same thing. The game only has two states: you lose, or you don't. If you didn't lose the game despite your opponent making no major mistake, then one could aruge you never were behind. So no comeback is possible without an opponent throwing and vis-verca.
On July 01 2015 03:38 juvenal wrote: Who even believes that? It's more of a joke/banter really. There were countless comebacks of all possible calibre.
Sadly as with any fandom anywhere, many, many people.
On July 01 2015 02:56 quirinus wrote: No, you guys don't get it.
Making one mistake and losing the game for it does not make SC2 a good strategic game. If it weren't for that, we could discuss it, but as it is, BW is more strategic.
Making one mistake and losing the game in sc2 is the most boring TL troll cliché out there. Some mistakes are game ending, yes. But comebacks happen all the time.
Stop it already.
it is also a cliche that pathfinding and "stupid dragoons" decide anything in bw. Those things matter in like 1% of all games. Well yes, they matter among worse players, much like platinum player's reaction time and micro disallow him proper biomine TvZ in sc2.
Never said that. What I did say is that pathfinding and dumb as fuck Dragoons require better MECHANICS to oversee.
A human being can only do so many things per second. And if more of your energy is going into moving units the way you want and producing additional units, there is less energy/physical ability left to make strategic decisions.
On July 01 2015 02:56 quirinus wrote: No, you guys don't get it.
Making one mistake and losing the game for it does not make SC2 a good strategic game. If it weren't for that, we could discuss it, but as it is, BW is more strategic.
Making one mistake and losing the game in sc2 is the most boring TL troll cliché out there. Some mistakes are game ending, yes. But comebacks happen all the time.
Stop it already.
it is also a cliche that pathfinding and "stupid dragoons" decide anything in bw. Those things matter in like 1% of all games. Well yes, they matter among worse players, much like platinum player's reaction time and micro disallow him proper biomine TvZ in sc2.
Never said that. What I did say is that pathfinding and dumb as fuck Dragoons require better MECHANICS to oversee.
A human being can only do so many things per second. And if more of your energy is going into moving units the way you want and producing additional units, there is less energy/physical ability left to make strategic decisions.
I genuinely doubt an average bw pro invests more into making his units move properly than an average sc2 pro invests into making his army not clump into one big useless ball that can be wrecked by aoe any second.
On July 01 2015 02:56 quirinus wrote: No, you guys don't get it.
Making one mistake and losing the game for it does not make SC2 a good strategic game. If it weren't for that, we could discuss it, but as it is, BW is more strategic.
Making one mistake and losing the game in sc2 is the most boring TL troll cliché out there. Some mistakes are game ending, yes. But comebacks happen all the time.
Stop it already.
it is also a cliche that pathfinding and "stupid dragoons" decide anything in bw. Those things matter in like 1% of all games. Well yes, they matter among worse players, much like platinum player's reaction time and micro disallow him proper biomine TvZ in sc2.
Never said that. What I did say is that pathfinding and dumb as fuck Dragoons require better MECHANICS to oversee.
A human being can only do so many things per second. And if more of your energy is going into moving units the way you want and producing additional units, there is less energy/physical ability left to make strategic decisions.
I genuinely doubt an average bw pro invests more into making his units move properly than an average sc2 pro invests into making his army not clump into one big useless ball that can be wrecked by aoe any second.
So. Are you saying, that SC2 is more mecchanically demanding, than BW?
On July 01 2015 02:56 quirinus wrote: No, you guys don't get it.
Making one mistake and losing the game for it does not make SC2 a good strategic game. If it weren't for that, we could discuss it, but as it is, BW is more strategic.
Making one mistake and losing the game in sc2 is the most boring TL troll cliché out there. Some mistakes are game ending, yes. But comebacks happen all the time.
Stop it already.
it is also a cliche that pathfinding and "stupid dragoons" decide anything in bw. Those things matter in like 1% of all games. Well yes, they matter among worse players, much like platinum player's reaction time and micro disallow him proper biomine TvZ in sc2.
A human being can only do so many things per second. And if more of your energy is going into moving units the way you want and producing additional units, there is less energy/physical ability left to make strategic decisions.
That's the beauty of Broodwar, though.
Pro-Gamers like Flash, Jaedong and Artosis expanded the boundaries of what was previously thought impossible for human beings. Physically and mentally.
They transcended the status of mere humans and proved time and time again, in OSL, MSL and WCG USA East Qualifier 5, that the frontier of the human mind was more expandable than you and I could even fathom.
On July 01 2015 02:56 quirinus wrote: No, you guys don't get it.
Making one mistake and losing the game for it does not make SC2 a good strategic game. If it weren't for that, we could discuss it, but as it is, BW is more strategic.
Making one mistake and losing the game in sc2 is the most boring TL troll cliché out there. Some mistakes are game ending, yes. But comebacks happen all the time.
Stop it already.
it is also a cliche that pathfinding and "stupid dragoons" decide anything in bw. Those things matter in like 1% of all games. Well yes, they matter among worse players, much like platinum player's reaction time and micro disallow him proper biomine TvZ in sc2.
Never said that. What I did say is that pathfinding and dumb as fuck Dragoons require better MECHANICS to oversee.
A human being can only do so many things per second. And if more of your energy is going into moving units the way you want and producing additional units, there is less energy/physical ability left to make strategic decisions.
I genuinely doubt an average bw pro invests more into making his units move properly than an average sc2 pro invests into making his army not clump into one big useless ball that can be wrecked by aoe any second.
So. Are you saying, that SC2 is more mecchanically demanding, than BW?
I'm only addressing the myth that dumb ai of bw units takes a genius to overcome. Shuttle is streaming right now, anyone can go count the situations when ai matters a slightest bit.
I guess one could make that argument. Sc1 requires more mechanics due to the fact that its easier to be able to ponder your situation in the game than in sc2.
I think it does come to personal flavour however. My main problem with SC2 in terms of strategy ahs always been that there are so many builds that its hardly possible to play a standard economical, long term game unless you have full information.
This would certainly carry over to broodwar as well (the game that flash lost tvp becasue he did not scan the reaver drop comes to mind), however it would be much less so, since even in making the wrong strategial decision, skill could overcome the disadvantage.
I do not see that happen often in sc2 (again, it does happen, just not often).
The last part that I do not like regarding sc2 is that micro looses a lot of its importance once army compositions become one sided.
In broodwar, armies were very, very rearly one sided assuming both players managed to be in similar economical positions in the game.
I think that was one of the key things that made broodwar so popular and so interesting to watch:
On paper, one of the two players would have the better army, yet with very fast, clean and precise micro, it was quite possible to even the odds. (This was something considered very bold, becasue if it failed, it was in most cases your doom).
In SC2 this would happen as well, but again, in very very few cases, due to the fact that doing something like flanking colosus to beat them without vikins for example would take quite a lot of carefull control, while setting a few forcefields would be far easier at that point for the Protoss.
Its not that broodwar had better micro or more difficult micro, but allowed for creativity in micro. In sc2, those moments are rare due to how simple it is to counter them, provided you ahve the right army.
In the end for me, it was more about enjoying those moments when I did something I did not expect to work and at a moment of desperation, true jems of micro appeared. I never had that feeling in SC2 (creating something myself, something others never thought about, or at least, not taht I knew of).
i'm going through scforall videos trying to find where artosis said that because sc2 is more strategic that foreigners will be better than koreans.
let you guys know when i find it.
edit: actually he said something correct, he said that creative foreigners will find ways to beat koreans at first but eventually koreans will dominate, sorry for getting anyone's hopes up
On July 01 2015 02:56 quirinus wrote: No, you guys don't get it.
Making one mistake and losing the game for it does not make SC2 a good strategic game. If it weren't for that, we could discuss it, but as it is, BW is more strategic.
Making one mistake and losing the game in sc2 is the most boring TL troll cliché out there. Some mistakes are game ending, yes. But comebacks happen all the time.
Stop it already.
it is also a cliche that pathfinding and "stupid dragoons" decide anything in bw. Those things matter in like 1% of all games. Well yes, they matter among worse players, much like platinum player's reaction time and micro disallow him proper biomine TvZ in sc2.
A human being can only do so many things per second. And if more of your energy is going into moving units the way you want and producing additional units, there is less energy/physical ability left to make strategic decisions.
That's the beauty of Broodwar, though.
Pro-Gamers like Flash, Jaedong and Artosis expanded the boundaries of what was previously thought impossible for human beings. Physically and mentally.
They transcended the status of mere humans and proved time and time again, in OSL, MSL and WCG USA East Qualifier 5, that the frontier of the human mind was more expandable than you and I could even fathom.
On July 01 2015 02:56 quirinus wrote: No, you guys don't get it.
Making one mistake and losing the game for it does not make SC2 a good strategic game. If it weren't for that, we could discuss it, but as it is, BW is more strategic.
Making one mistake and losing the game in sc2 is the most boring TL troll cliché out there. Some mistakes are game ending, yes. But comebacks happen all the time.
Stop it already.
it is also a cliche that pathfinding and "stupid dragoons" decide anything in bw. Those things matter in like 1% of all games. Well yes, they matter among worse players, much like platinum player's reaction time and micro disallow him proper biomine TvZ in sc2.
A human being can only do so many things per second. And if more of your energy is going into moving units the way you want and producing additional units, there is less energy/physical ability left to make strategic decisions.
That's the beauty of Broodwar, though.
Pro-Gamers like Flash, Jaedong and Artosis expanded the boundaries of what was previously thought impossible for human beings. Physically and mentally.
They transcended the status of mere humans and proved time and time again, in OSL, MSL and WCG USA East Qualifier 5, that the frontier of the human mind was more expandable than you and I could even fathom.
and artosis
are you kidding
I told you not to post here. I TOLD YOU IT WAS A TRICK.
On July 01 2015 02:57 ArvickHero wrote: one could argue that having more opportunities to make decisions would mean it's more "strategic".
one could also say that making those kinds of micro decisions actually fall under "tactical" decision-making, since strategy pertains to a macroscopic view of the game.
You can't have a discussion about words which aren't well defined and everyone in this thread has a different interpretation of the words strategy, mechanics and decision making. It's an interesting topic, but it shouldn't be held in the context of this post, which tries to provoke SC2 vs BW flame wars.
On July 01 2015 00:48 jinorazi wrote: It's really quiet simple, no need to argue about mechanics and strategy.
Bw: basketball with 10ft rim. sc2: basketball with 6ft rim.
So everyone can dunk and feel goodie goodie.
more sports analogies while we wait for the ms paint people to make more charts:
bw: normal soccer/football, you have to dribble the ball and stuff, but oh no, that's artificial difficulty!
sc2: soccer 2.0, you can hold the ball and throw it, and people can't tackle you since that's mean. it's more strategic since now it's all about positioning and catching your opponent by surprise since you can't outplay them with dribbling mechanics
I don't really want to contribute any arguments to this thread, but your post reminds me of something I wrote the other day and which I'll quote without context:
Strategy and mechanics are related. I have some examples for this for football (soccer) which I play on an amateur level against players of variable skill. If I play against another team for the first time I'm often lost. I don't know how to position myself because I can't tell if the player with the ball has the skill to make a pass. I don't know if the player I'm supposed to defend against is left or right footed, I don't know his speed and technique. I need to know an attacker's quirks and tricks to accurately defend and predict his actions. I need to know if I can afford to pressure a player and try to take the ball from on or whether he's going to exploit me being out of position because of his superior technique. And all of this depends on my own speed, stamina, skill, which differs per day. Most decision making would be trivialized if not for the mechanics of football, the physical and technical part. You're constantly taking calculated risks based on your assessment of your own skill and the skill of your team mates and opponents. In Starcraft, if you can't outmicro your opponent in a battle then this aspect of the game is just gone. Strategy stops being dependent on your opponent's skill (this includes decisions to pressure, stretch your opponent's multitasking, force engagements, steer the game towards areas your opponent is bad at). Players like Maru and Life will no longer exist.
On July 01 2015 02:57 ArvickHero wrote: one could argue that having more opportunities to make decisions would mean it's more "strategic".
one could also say that making those kinds of micro decisions actually fall under "tactical" decision-making, since strategy pertains to a macroscopic view of the game.
You can't have a discussion about words which aren't well defined and everyone in this thread has a different interpretation of the words strategy, mechanics and decision making. It's an interesting topic, but it shouldn't be held in the context of this post, which tries to provoke SC2 vs BW flame wars.
On July 01 2015 00:48 jinorazi wrote: It's really quiet simple, no need to argue about mechanics and strategy.
Bw: basketball with 10ft rim. sc2: basketball with 6ft rim.
So everyone can dunk and feel goodie goodie.
more sports analogies while we wait for the ms paint people to make more charts:
bw: normal soccer/football, you have to dribble the ball and stuff, but oh no, that's artificial difficulty!
sc2: soccer 2.0, you can hold the ball and throw it, and people can't tackle you since that's mean. it's more strategic since now it's all about positioning and catching your opponent by surprise since you can't outplay them with dribbling mechanics
I don't really want to contribute any arguments to this thread, but your post reminds me of something I wrote the other day and which I'll quote without context:
Strategy and mechanics are related. I have some examples for this for football (soccer) which I play on an amateur level against players of variable skill. If I play against another team for the first time I'm often lost. I don't know how to position myself because I can't tell if the player with the ball has the skill to make a pass. I don't know if the player I'm supposed to defend against is left or right footed, I don't know his speed and technique. I need to know an attacker's quirks and tricks to accurately defend and predict his actions. I need to know if I can afford to pressure a player and try to take the ball from on or whether he's going to exploit me being out of position because of his superior technique. And all of this depends on my own speed, stamina, skill, which differs per day. Most decision making would be trivialized if not for the mechanics of football, the physical and technical part. You're constantly taking calculated risks based on your assessment of your own skill and the skill of your team mates and opponents. In Starcraft, if you can't outmicro your opponent in a battle then this aspect of the game is just gone. Strategy stops being dependent on your opponent's skill (this includes decisions to pressure, stretch your opponent's multitasking, force engagements, steer the game towards areas your opponent is bad at). Players like Maru and Life will no longer exist.
I was mostly exaggerating other people's arguments, you could replace "BW" with "SC2" and "SC2" with "other esports" in my post and it would still make sense. SC2 is still really hard mechanically and players like Maru push the limits of skill.
In SC2, your strategic decisions will better define whether you will win or not. In BW, your strategic decisions might or might not be important depending on the opponent
The reason you can "micro your way out" of a problem in BW is exactly what is being talked about.
Strategy is needed in both, and micro is needed in both. But while perfect micro can even out or beat a better strategy in BW, well decided strategies will even out or beat superior mechanics in SC2.
The conclusion should not be that BW has no/low strategy for the same reason that we shouldn't conclude that SC2 has low/no mechanics. Lay down fanboyism on both sides for once. Neither game is being attacked here.
On July 01 2015 02:57 ArvickHero wrote: one could argue that having more opportunities to make decisions would mean it's more "strategic".
one could also say that making those kinds of micro decisions actually fall under "tactical" decision-making, since strategy pertains to a macroscopic view of the game.
You can't have a discussion about words which aren't well defined and everyone in this thread has a different interpretation of the words strategy, mechanics and decision making. It's an interesting topic, but it shouldn't be held in the context of this post, which tries to provoke SC2 vs BW flame wars.
On July 01 2015 00:48 jinorazi wrote: It's really quiet simple, no need to argue about mechanics and strategy.
Bw: basketball with 10ft rim. sc2: basketball with 6ft rim.
So everyone can dunk and feel goodie goodie.
more sports analogies while we wait for the ms paint people to make more charts:
bw: normal soccer/football, you have to dribble the ball and stuff, but oh no, that's artificial difficulty!
sc2: soccer 2.0, you can hold the ball and throw it, and people can't tackle you since that's mean. it's more strategic since now it's all about positioning and catching your opponent by surprise since you can't outplay them with dribbling mechanics
I don't really want to contribute any arguments to this thread, but your post reminds me of something I wrote the other day and which I'll quote without context:
Strategy and mechanics are related. I have some examples for this for football (soccer) which I play on an amateur level against players of variable skill. If I play against another team for the first time I'm often lost. I don't know how to position myself because I can't tell if the player with the ball has the skill to make a pass. I don't know if the player I'm supposed to defend against is left or right footed, I don't know his speed and technique. I need to know an attacker's quirks and tricks to accurately defend and predict his actions. I need to know if I can afford to pressure a player and try to take the ball from on or whether he's going to exploit me being out of position because of his superior technique. And all of this depends on my own speed, stamina, skill, which differs per day. Most decision making would be trivialized if not for the mechanics of football, the physical and technical part. You're constantly taking calculated risks based on your assessment of your own skill and the skill of your team mates and opponents. In Starcraft, if you can't outmicro your opponent in a battle then this aspect of the game is just gone. Strategy stops being dependent on your opponent's skill (this includes decisions to pressure, stretch your opponent's multitasking, force engagements, steer the game towards areas your opponent is bad at). Players like Maru and Life will no longer exist.
What your soccer analogy is describing is called "basics" or "mechanics" or "micro." Those are the literal inputs and outputs you have at your disposal. Strategy is more abstract and is normally the culmination of questions and observations.
Strategists take in observed/given/assumed data, and then architect a system of proactive and reactive responses to the data set presented. The execution of those responses are mechanics.
For example: you don't need to be able to do marine splits to know that splitting marines vs bane lings is a good tactic. And so you can strategize that sending squad A to location B for mission C should produce D even if you don't have the mechanics to pull it off.
That's the difference between generals and squad leaders. Generals tell you where to go and what to accomplish, squad leaders do whatever tactics are needed to accomplish said objective, but the overall strategy is disconnected from those field tactics.
In an RTS it gets confusing since you're expected to be both the general and the squad leader. As such, people get confused which actions are strategic and which ones are tactical.
On July 01 2015 06:08 Thieving Magpie wrote: I don't see where the confusion is.
In SC2, your strategic decisions will better define whether you will win or not. In BW, your strategic decisions might or might not be important depending on the opponent
The reason you can "micro your way out" of a problem in BW is exactly what is being talked about.
Strategy is needed in both, and micro is needed in both. But while perfect micro can even out or beat a better strategy in BW, well decided strategies will even out or beat superior mechanics in SC2.
The conclusion should not be that BW has no/low strategy for the same reason that we shouldn't conclude that SC2 has low/no mechanics. Lay down fanboyism on both sides for once. Neither game is being attacked here.
In sc2 there was a kid named Maru who played with his aggressive drop style vs phoenix+colossus. He fought vs a style countering his, but in the end it didn't even matter.
Point is: In both sc2 and bw strategy being THE deciding factor (and in almost any other game/sports) starts being the case when both players/teams are close to each other in mechanical skill.
The question now is if at the top lvl (let's say top 30 players, arbitrarily) the mechanical skill differences between the players are comparable between the games (maybe we have to neglect the absolute top players here). If it is somewhat comparable it's very hard to say that one game is more reliant on strategy than the other. (relatively to mechanics) If we talk about strategic depth of each game this former part doesn't matter at all. (and i have no idea which game might have the edge here) Probably the game which gives you more 'viable' actions/decisions for each situation.
SC2 is just easier to get along with, mechanics wise. Multiple building selection, being able to add more than 12 units to a control group, queuing up commands, better movement AI - these all make for an easier time for a player to get to grips with the game.
From my understanding of BW, you flat out need to be amazing unit control wise, because the movement AI is so poor (due to the nature of how Blizzard design it in SC1), you have to select individual production buildings one at a time to produce units, using only the camera controls to go to the aforementioned production buildings, no command queuing, 12 units per control/selection group at any one time.
For me, playing BW is a fucking nightmare, and that's partly because I'm terrible at it, but also because it requires more mechanical nuance and leg work. I can't just bind all my barracks to control group 4 and spam A for marines (like the noob I am). I have to go to where the barracks are on the screen and click each one individually and then press A to produce marines from each.
So from just that lowly example, you can start to see that a player who is better mechanically and can produce more units than his opponent can beat someone who can't or is less able to.
When the requirements for being good at mechanics are decreased and improved upon, and with lots of "streamlining" (and I say this in a good way, even if Total Annihilation had most of the things SC2 has way back in 1997, a year before SC1 came out), you don't need to be as mechanically-orientated as BW, and so the onus naturally moves towards strategy, optimal unit control and composition, unit/army positioning and concaves - let's not forget that SC2 changed the way units interact with terrain too.
ive played both games, although ive put way more hours into broodwar. i have to say i do think sc2 is more strategic because the amount of abilities and various unit compositions (especially if you factor in LotV units). but i think broodwar is overall harder because of the amount of apm and good mechanics it requires. there is alot more of baby sitting of units and economy in broodwar
so much sensationalism in the title, don't really like when something is reported that way xD
He is just saying that in sc1, the mechanics ceiling is high enough that you can have people making good strategic choices and still be punished due to the execution requirement, thus opening the possibility to loose to a dumber but faster player.
In SC2 the ceiling in mechanics is lower and thus pros are more even on this side so that the actual strategy they go for matters more in the outcome.
He never said there are more possible strategies or higher diversity in sc2, just that the strategy you go for is a more impactfull choice on the outcome than control.
On July 01 2015 06:39 DSK wrote: For me, playing BW is a fucking nightmare, and that's partly because I'm terrible at it, but also because it requires more mechanical nuance and leg work. I can't just bind all my barracks to control group 4 and spam A for marines (like the noob I am). I have to go to where the barracks are on the screen and click each one individually and then press A to produce marines from each.
Well, I think in many ways Wax was successful. I think we've all arrived at a very special place spiritually, ecumenically, grammatically. He certainly got far more out of Rekrul than I expected- I thought BlinDwaR had nailed the awaited response: + Show Spoiler +
On July 01 2015 08:08 Falling wrote: Well, I think in many ways Wax was successful. I think we've all arrived at a very special place spiritually, ecumenically, grammatically. He certainly got far more out of Rekrul than I expected- I thought BlinDwaR had nailed the awaited response: + Show Spoiler +
On July 01 2015 06:08 Thieving Magpie wrote: I don't see where the confusion is.
In SC2, your strategic decisions will better define whether you will win or not. In BW, your strategic decisions might or might not be important depending on the opponent
The reason you can "micro your way out" of a problem in BW is exactly what is being talked about.
Strategy is needed in both, and micro is needed in both. But while perfect micro can even out or beat a better strategy in BW, well decided strategies will even out or beat superior mechanics in SC2.
The conclusion should not be that BW has no/low strategy for the same reason that we shouldn't conclude that SC2 has low/no mechanics. Lay down fanboyism on both sides for once. Neither game is being attacked here.
In sc2 there was a kid named Maru who played with his aggressive drop style vs phoenix+colossus. He fought vs a style countering his, but in the end it didn't even matter.
Point is: In both sc2 and bw strategy being THE deciding factor (and in almost any other game/sports) starts being the case when both players/teams are close to each other in mechanical skill.
The question now is if at the top lvl (let's say top 30 players, arbitrarily) the mechanical skill differences between the players are comparable between the games (maybe we have to neglect the absolute top players here). If it is somewhat comparable it's very hard to say that one game is more reliant on strategy than the other. (relatively to mechanics) If we talk about strategic depth of each game this former part doesn't matter at all. (and i have no idea which game might have the edge here) Probably the game which gives you more 'viable' actions/decisions for each situation.
I thought the assumption was based on the majority of players and not just the 30+ at the top.
Merely because the balance has shifted towards 'strategy', more appropriately, the macro mechanics, does not mean that BW has a lesser absolute amount of strategic play. The proportion may have changed, but, I believe that BW is still comparable or superior in terms of amount of strategy involved.
On July 01 2015 08:23 Jaedrik wrote: Merely because the balance has shifted towards 'strategy', more appropriately, the macro mechanics, does not mean that BW has a lesser absolute amount of strategic play. The proportion may have changed, but, I believe that BW is still comparable or superior in terms of amount of strategy involved.
You're not understanding what Artosis is talking about then.
His example of Sea being able to make X more units than most ladder players means that until you close that gap the average ladder game will be one sided. As such, before you can even worry about strategy in BW, you have to make certain your mechanics are crisp. And being that BW has a much higher skill floor than SC2, the amount of effort needed to reach that level is much higher. As such, a larger percentage of ladder games in SC2 requires good strategy as opposed to BW where a large majority of ladder games requires mechanics.
Notice that I'm not talking about "amount" of strategy--since that's kind of meaningless. How relevant is the strategy choice is the real question at hand. If you decided to mass stalkers and your opponent massed marauders--you lose. If you decided to mass dragoons and your opponent massed tanks--its still a game. Since you could micro out of hard counters the decision to counter your play is less important. Not unimportant mind you, just less so.
The only thing I'd like to point out is that many pro-level games of SC2 are lost because of a lapse of mechanics. Pros don't think or talk about this too much because they figure mechanics are a thing that naturally improve with practice and strategy is important enough that it's what the mind should be focusing on. Commentators don't talk about it because they're too busy talking about other things. They typically talk about mechanics only when they're particularly good or particularly bad, but games are lost within a tighter variance of mechanics than they pay attention to, which gives the illusion that they aren't as important as they are. Analysts don't talk about it because mechanics can almost always be improved, so it's not interesting to say it every time, and people are more interested in hearing the narrative of strategy. And in general, it's impolite and not good for the tone of a competitive event for commentators and analysts to nitpick every lapse in mechanics.
It is possible for an SC2 player to have virtually completely unoriginal strategy, and very simple decision trees throughout games and very little improvisation, and to win tournaments by having the best mechanics. And it was possible for BW players to win on strategy. In fact, Proleague was definitely more focused on strategy than mechanics. There were also rock-paper-scissors relationships between trios of players based on matchup strength and strategical style, which you wouldn't expect to get from a game that valued mechanics significantly higher than SC2.
If I had to point out anything interesting or weird, it'd be that even though it seems that it's easier to achieve the mechanical skill required to be a pro SC2 player than it was for BW, there is about an equally significant range of mechanical skill amongst the pros in both games. Honestly I think this is more of a socio-psychological thing than revealing something inherent about the games themselves. Once players get "good enough" mechanics some settle for that while focusing on other things, but other players work to have the best mechanics.
On July 01 2015 08:59 NonY wrote: If I had to point out anything interesting or weird, it'd be that even though it seems that it's easier to achieve the mechanical skill required to be a pro SC2 player than it was for BW, there is about an equally significant range of mechanical skill amongst the pros. Honestly I think this is more of a socio-psychological thing than revealing something inherent about the games themselves.
Two questions with regards to this.
Do SC2 players practice less than BW players? If so, why? Are most of these mechanical lapses related to micro or macro?
On July 01 2015 08:59 NonY wrote: The only thing I'd like to point out is that many pro-level games of SC2 are lost because of a lapse of mechanics. Pros don't think or talk about this too much because they figure mechanics are a thing that naturally improve with practice and strategy is important enough that it's what the mind should be focusing on. Commentators don't talk about it because they're too busy talking about other things. They typically talk about mechanics only when they're particularly good or particularly bad, but games are lost within a tighter variance of mechanics than they pay attention to, which gives the illusion that they aren't as important as they are. Analysts don't talk about it because mechanics can almost always be improved, so it's not interesting to say it every time, and people are more interested in hearing the narrative of strategy. And in general, it's impolite and not good for the tone of a competitive event for commentators and analysts to nitpick every lapse in mechanics.
It is possible for an SC2 player to have virtually completely unoriginal strategy, and very simple decision trees throughout games and very little improvisation, and to win tournaments by having the best mechanics. And it was possible for BW players to win on strategy. In fact, Proleague was definitely more focused on strategy than mechanics. There were also rock-paper-scissors relationships between trios of players based on matchup strength and strategical style, which you wouldn't expect to get from a game that valued mechanics significantly higher than SC2.
If I had to point out anything interesting or weird, it'd be that even though it seems that it's easier to achieve the mechanical skill required to be a pro SC2 player than it was for BW, there is about an equally significant range of mechanical skill amongst the pros in both games. Honestly I think this is more of a socio-psychological thing than revealing something inherent about the games themselves. Once players get "good enough" mechanics some settle for that while focusing on other things, but other players work to have the best mechanics.
Would you consider this true in relation to the example Artosis provided: Comparing Sea's skills versus the ladder as opposed to Proleague or the top 1% of players.
For example, when does base mechanics normalize in SC2 versus when do they normalize in BW? In SC2, the roach max Stephano did would only be a 2-3 minutes faster than plat players. Would the same be true for BW where C level players are only 2-3 minutes behind pros in mechanics?
On July 01 2015 08:23 Jaedrik wrote: Merely because the balance has shifted towards 'strategy', more appropriately, the macro mechanics, does not mean that BW has a lesser absolute amount of strategic play. The proportion may have changed, but, I believe that BW is still comparable or superior in terms of amount of strategy involved.
You're not understanding what Artosis is talking about then.
His example of Sea being able to make X more units than most ladder players means that until you close that gap the average ladder game will be one sided. As such, before you can even worry about strategy in BW, you have to make certain your mechanics are crisp. And being that BW has a much higher skill floor than SC2, the amount of effort needed to reach that level is much higher. As such, a larger percentage of ladder games in SC2 requires good strategy as opposed to BW where a large majority of ladder games requires mechanics.
Notice that I'm not talking about "amount" of strategy--since that's kind of meaningless. How relevant is the strategy choice is the real question at hand. If you decided to mass stalkers and your opponent massed marauders--you lose. If you decided to mass dragoons and your opponent massed tanks--its still a game. Since you could micro out of hard counters the decision to counter your play is less important. Not unimportant mind you, just less so.
You're right, I probably am. I also did not consider different skill levels in relation to the proportion and importance of macro vs micro in each game. At this point, it might not matter, but, this is where we part ways and I say that proportion is not as important. What is important is the amount important choices made. Again, in BW, there were just as many macro / strategic decisions to make, regardless of how well good micro can make them less consequential. But, it also occurs at most skill levels that it's something that often can't be dispensed with. By contrast, there are far less micro decisions to make in SC2 at most skill levels, and it is far easier to dispense with them more and still do well. The sum of important decisions has gone down from BW to SC2, the amount of important decisions to make in micro has gone way down, but the amount of important decisions to make in macro has stayed about the same. I have a feeling this has something to do with the skill floor you mentioned as well.
BW's proleague had some pretty sick countermoves with strategies specifically tailored to take down their opponents strategies. That included making use of units that were not normally used in the matchup, but were the perfect counter. I recall a TvP where Fantasy made just one wraith (almost nobody makes wraiths in TvP) in order to snipe (I think it was Stork) shuttle-reaver. Yes there are lots of standard games, but it is a game continually sees innovation in strategy and that is one reason I love it.
i think it all went wrong when tasteless and artosis were the experts of bw/sc2 for the general viewers. maybe its just me but i kinda think of them as stephen a smith and skip bayless of sc2 with less character.
as far as i know, mechanics werent everything. just from top off my head i know boxer, nal_ra, gundam werent mechanically talented players but they're also old school and frankly i dont know much of the new school players who are like flash or the opposite. so i'd like to think there are players who use strategy rather than mechanics to win, i'm sure they exist as always but i dont know who they are
I like that Artosis compared the strategic beauty of sc2 with the beauty of sc1 micro (muta, vulture and reaver were explicitly mentioned). The only thing I'd add is that there is no reason sc2 can't incorporate better micro ala sc1 (Depth of Micro by Lalush). Sorry for harping on this again but I can't see why this can't be added.
I agree with this guy. SC1 and SC2 are both beautiful games in their own respect but if SC2 incorporated the depth of micro that SC1 had I think everyone would be in for one hell of a game. Still great games regardless, though.
i cannot understand how a star1 player can only cite micro example in star1 and ignore so much else...
goal and tactics/build for that goal is very dynamic in star1 depending on map. star2 is always the same, you either cheese or you play strategy for big army...
Disagree completely, but then again I disagree with a lot of Artosis's opinions, like the thread where he and Idra argued that Really was a "better player" than Leta just because he played a macro style despite losing a hell of a lot more and never accomplishing nearly as much.
On July 01 2015 03:52 SixStrings wrote: Pro-Gamers like Flash, Jaedong and Artosis expanded the boundaries of what was previously thought impossible for human beings. Physically and mentally.
They transcended the status of mere humans and proved time and time again, in OSL, MSL and WCG USA East Qualifier 5, that the frontier of the human mind was more expandable than you and I could even fathom.
Hahahahaha. So good. Best thing I've read in the thread.
On July 01 2015 11:01 writer22816 wrote: Disagree completely, but then again I disagree with a lot of Artosis's opinions, like the thread where he and Idra argued that Really was a "better player" than Leta just because he played a macro style despite losing a hell of a lot more and never accomplishing nearly as much.
Yeah I remember his hyping of Really. It was nice, and the guy certainly had a lot of talent, but like a lot of Artosis' picks he never really made it. Artosis seems to be incredibly blind to his own bias.
This argument is the best. It accurately describes the relationship between SC2 and BW, and highlights that when top players have similar mechanical skill, it's impossible to declare that one game has more strategic depth than the other.
This can only be void (and Artosis right) if we conclude that top BW players only won through superior mechanics and that therefore Jaedong and Bisu were simple inferior to Flash in this respect. And that each successive champ simply had better and better mechanics than all previous ones. A pretty sad argument.
On July 01 2015 06:29 The_Red_Viper wrote: In sc2 there was a kid named Maru who played with his aggressive drop style vs phoenix+colossus. He fought vs a style countering his, but in the end it didn't even matter.
Point is: In both sc2 and bw strategy being THE deciding factor (and in almost any other game/sports) starts being the case when both players/teams are close to each other in mechanical skill.
The question now is if at the top lvl (let's say top 30 players, arbitrarily) the mechanical skill differences between the players are comparable between the games (maybe we have to neglect the absolute top players here). If it is somewhat comparable it's very hard to say that one game is more reliant on strategy than the other. (relatively to mechanics) If we talk about strategic depth of each game this former part doesn't matter at all. (and i have no idea which game might have the edge here) Probably the game which gives you more 'viable' actions/decisions for each situation.
the first page filled with TL writers and mods Anyway I kinda of agree with Artosis. And I do remember reading something similar (from Day9 irrc) about this on TL.
I think you people need to remember that Artosis is being paid now a days to cast SC2, not BW. Look back to the time when we had BL/Infestor, GomTvT or Blink Era, he rarely if at all talked about the state of balance and I doubt he'll say anything bad overall about SC2 until he transitions to a different game.
On May 06 2013 04:12 Hot_Bid wrote: It just sounds like OP wants StarCraft to be something it isn't. He thinks RTS should be more about strategy and less about the mechanical element but it's not. The core of an RTS is that it is a game played with mechanics. The mistake the OP makes is that he believes people who macro better don't deserve the win or that this kind of win shouldn't exist in a "true RTS." It's just what he believes an RTS should be and what the rest (just about everyone else) believes it is.
It's interesting, a lot of people (ie: mostly those who are bad at macro) believe that by removing some or all of the mechanical requirement of starcraft you get more strategies and that "outsmarting" your opponent will be what decides matches. In reality, the opposite is true. No competitive game or RTS can exist without a mechanical requirement of some sort, or the game devolves into copycatting the best strategy and some sort of rock paper scissors guessing game. If you can't out-execute your opponent then you can't consistently beat him. It is very difficult to out-innovate your opponents every time because in today's environment coaches, practice partners, replay analysis, etc your strategies will get analyzed and you will lose, eventually.
Added mechanical ceiling actually adds strategical options. An example would be Bisu in SC1, his DT-corsair strategy isn't new or even super innovative, but it never worked in the proscene before him because nobody could pull it off because of its so ridiculously high skill ceiling. The same is true for a lot of the openings Flash did, he was just so good at positioning and defense that he can take greedy expansions. Remove the mechanical requirements and you remove a lot of the potential innovation and strategy.
On July 01 2015 15:44 pretensile wrote: Even if Artosis is right... he realizes that for most people, pure mechanics make for much more entertaining games than "strategic depth," right?
SC2 Rain is like BW Flash inverted. Started out being solid, defensive and predictable. Now starting to mix all-ins and cheeses in his arsenal of builds. I would definitely enjoy re-watching his G1 vs Byul in the recent GSL finals - epic snipes, epic comeback.
That said, I find myself re-watching more BW games than SC2 games. As some people have said, BW may be harder to play, but more enjoyable to watch.
(Okay, this post has nothing to do with strategic depth, complex graphs and bust sizes.)
On May 06 2013 04:12 Hot_Bid wrote: Added mechanical ceiling actually adds strategical options. An example would be Bisu in SC1, his DT-corsair strategy isn't new or even super innovative, but it never worked in the proscene before him because nobody could pull it off because of its so ridiculously high skill ceilingfloor. The same is true for a lot of the openings Flash did, he was just so good at positioning and defense that he can take greedy expansions. Remove the mechanical requirements and you remove a lot of the potential innovation and strategy.
Corrected that for you.
Though in reality all the debate is unnecessary since his blog wasn't about sc2 vs bw but "Thoughts on the GSL KeSPA defeat"
He just failed to realise that non-kespa players can play games as a full time job now, unlike how it was in BW.
On May 06 2013 04:12 Hot_Bid wrote: Added mechanical ceiling actually adds strategical options. An example would be Bisu in SC1, his DT-corsair strategy isn't new or even super innovative, but it never worked in the proscene before him because nobody could pull it off because of its so ridiculously high skill ceilingfloor. The same is true for a lot of the openings Flash did, he was just so good at positioning and defense that he can take greedy expansions. Remove the mechanical requirements and you remove a lot of the potential innovation and strategy.
Corrected that for you.
Though in reality all the debate is unnecessary since his blog wasn't about sc2 vs bw but "Thoughts on the GSL KeSPA defeat"
He just failed to realise that non-kespa players can play games as a full time job now, unlike how it was in BW.
Actually, I have no idea why he needed to bring up the 'BW v SC2 strategy' debate in a topic about the successes of non-KeSPA players in the last 2 GSL Finals. The causal link is tenuous. He should've brought up the 'elephant in the room' debate instead. Even more clickbaits and drama.
"Lots of people from StarCraft 1 complain about the “problems” with StarCraft 2. Now for the record, not one of these people loved SC1 more than I."
imo artosis deserves all criticism and mocking for being arrogant and making preaching comment when he is completely eating from star2 hands. he has funny way of expressing love, it sounds more like he only loves himself.
On May 06 2013 04:12 Hot_Bid wrote: It just sounds like OP wants StarCraft to be something it isn't. He thinks RTS should be more about strategy and less about the mechanical element but it's not. The core of an RTS is that it is a game played with mechanics. The mistake the OP makes is that he believes people who macro better don't deserve the win or that this kind of win shouldn't exist in a "true RTS." It's just what he believes an RTS should be and what the rest (just about everyone else) believes it is.
It's interesting, a lot of people (ie: mostly those who are bad at macro) believe that by removing some or all of the mechanical requirement of starcraft you get more strategies and that "outsmarting" your opponent will be what decides matches. In reality, the opposite is true. No competitive game or RTS can exist without a mechanical requirement of some sort, or the game devolves into copycatting the best strategy and some sort of rock paper scissors guessing game. If you can't out-execute your opponent then you can't consistently beat him. It is very difficult to out-innovate your opponents every time because in today's environment coaches, practice partners, replay analysis, etc your strategies will get analyzed and you will lose, eventually.
Added mechanical ceiling actually adds strategical options. An example would be Bisu in SC1, his DT-corsair strategy isn't new or even super innovative, but it never worked in the proscene before him because nobody could pull it off because of its so ridiculously high skill ceiling. The same is true for a lot of the openings Flash did, he was just so good at positioning and defense that he can take greedy expansions. Remove the mechanical requirements and you remove a lot of the potential innovation and strategy.
I'm sorry but that's just blatantly untrue. Almost all high level strategy is 100% disconnected from execution. Its the reason chess players and generals don't have to fiddle with the board in order for their chits/pieces to make moves. Its the reason the police chief doesn't have to tell each officer he has how to do their jobs. Strategy in the real world is making decisions, passing down those decisions to people who are executing those orders, and seeing the results of your strategy afterward. RTS games pulls away from pure strategy concepts for the sake of tactical immediacy.
An RTS needs mechanics because otherwise you should just play actual war games. RTS games are mainly tactics games with some amount of strategy on the back-end. The whole point of them is that a player can't just say "I have X and you have Y, so I win" but instead an RTS is really about being able to say "I do ___ with X, you do ____ with Y, and so one of us wins." The smaller the "real time" of RTS is emphasized, the more the strategy is emphasized--and vice versa.
This doesn't mean there is no strategy in mechanic heavy games. But the strategy just becomes less important. The less mechanics you have, the important the strategy becomes because you can't just "make it work" if you chose the wrong strategy.
If a general needs a squad of ___ to take a hill--he doesn't have the option of running over there and telling them how to take the hill. If a chess player told his queen to take a pawn--he doesn't need to explain to his queen how that actually happens. That is strategy at its most pure. But its also boring. No one "watches" chess screaming and hollering in excitement. No one watches a panzer general player and get wet in their nether regions at how they decided between X% chance of victory and a Y% chance of victory is worth sending tanks to a hex. Its just boring, pure strategy is boring because its one sided and looks like what RTS players call "build order losses."
Lets say you think all you need is 1 squad to take a hill. And the enemy sent 2 squads to that hill. You just lost a squad of people and you wouldn't even know until 4-5 hours after you made the decision. Its a numbers game. When a piece captures another piece in chess--there is no surprise of "how did that knight do it!" because it was pure decision making. Knight moves there, you lose a piece now. What is exciting are things that are more kinetic--like sports or tv dramas or live entertainment. Things that are all about execution and immediate experience.
RTS wants to combine the exciting aspects of tactics and execution with the cerebral parts of strategy. The goal is to find the proper balance between the two.
No competitive game or RTS can exist without a mechanical requirement of some sort, or the game devolves into copycatting the best strategy and some sort of rock paper scissors guessing game.
"I'm sorry but that's just blatantly untrue. Almost all high level strategy is 100% disconnected from execution."
??? it did not say strategy requires mechanics. I think you are the one who is taking things personally lol...
you just made same basic points as thing you think is untrue...
No competitive game or RTS can exist without a mechanical requirement of some sort, or the game devolves into copycatting the best strategy and some sort of rock paper scissors guessing game.
"I'm sorry but that's just blatantly untrue. Almost all high level strategy is 100% disconnected from execution."
??? it did not say strategy requires mechanics. I think you are the one who is taking things personally lol...
you just made same basic points as thing you think is untrue...
Is that really your argument?
Chess is the prime example of a what most game attempt to be seen as when it comes to strategy. And its literally the memorization of copycat moves and making certain you copied the correct moves and your opponent did not.
I think it's pretty clear that the barrier for entry on BW mechanics and general fighting with the UI stuff is pretty high. Like Artosis said, if you're a strategic genius but the other dude has 10 more marines at X timestamp, you'll just lose.
sc2 does not have anywhere near as wide of a skill floor-ceiling there by the time you reach high level play and as a result that part of the skill ceiling for the game is lowered, also when compared to brood war there is a disproportionate focus on everything else that's NOT simply playing the game efficiently and making the most marines. With that slice of the pie gone, all of the others become bigger deciders for who actually wins a game.
I don't think this is really my opinion - it's an observation of how things are
On July 01 2015 16:31 BeStFAN wrote: "Lots of people from StarCraft 1 complain about the “problems” with StarCraft 2. Now for the record, not one of these people loved SC1 more than I."
imo artosis deserves all criticism and mocking for being arrogant and making preaching comment when he is completely eating from star2 hands. he has funny way of expressing love, it sounds more like he only loves himself.
On May 06 2013 04:12 Hot_Bid wrote:. In reality, the opposite is true. No competitive game or RTS can exist without a mechanical requirement of some sort, or the game devolves into copycatting the best strategy and some sort of rock paper scissors guessing game. If you can't out-execute your opponent then you can't consistently beat him.
is this historically true with all of the first simplistic RTS games that had a very low mechanical requirement ? Intellivision Utopia has a brutally low mechanical requirement and it never devolves into a series of copycat strats and some sort of rock/paper/scissors guessing game.
On July 01 2015 08:59 NonY wrote: The only thing I'd like to point out is that many pro-level games of SC2 are lost because of a lapse of mechanics. Pros don't think or talk about this too much because they figure mechanics are a thing that naturally improve with practice and strategy is important enough that it's what the mind should be focusing on. Commentators don't talk about it because they're too busy talking about other things. They typically talk about mechanics only when they're particularly good or particularly bad, but games are lost within a tighter variance of mechanics than they pay attention to, which gives the illusion that they aren't as important as they are. Analysts don't talk about it because mechanics can almost always be improved, so it's not interesting to say it every time, and people are more interested in hearing the narrative of strategy. And in general, it's impolite and not good for the tone of a competitive event for commentators and analysts to nitpick every lapse in mechanics.
It is possible for an SC2 player to have virtually completely unoriginal strategy, and very simple decision trees throughout games and very little improvisation, and to win tournaments by having the best mechanics. And it was possible for BW players to win on strategy. In fact, Proleague was definitely more focused on strategy than mechanics. There were also rock-paper-scissors relationships between trios of players based on matchup strength and strategical style, which you wouldn't expect to get from a game that valued mechanics significantly higher than SC2.
If I had to point out anything interesting or weird, it'd be that even though it seems that it's easier to achieve the mechanical skill required to be a pro SC2 player than it was for BW, there is about an equally significant range of mechanical skill amongst the pros in both games. Honestly I think this is more of a socio-psychological thing than revealing something inherent about the games themselves. Once players get "good enough" mechanics some settle for that while focusing on other things, but other players work to have the best mechanics.
On May 06 2013 04:12 Hot_Bid wrote: It just sounds like OP wants StarCraft to be something it isn't. He thinks RTS should be more about strategy and less about the mechanical element but it's not. The core of an RTS is that it is a game played with mechanics. The mistake the OP makes is that he believes people who macro better don't deserve the win or that this kind of win shouldn't exist in a "true RTS." It's just what he believes an RTS should be and what the rest (just about everyone else) believes it is.
It's interesting, a lot of people (ie: mostly those who are bad at macro) believe that by removing some or all of the mechanical requirement of starcraft you get more strategies and that "outsmarting" your opponent will be what decides matches. In reality, the opposite is true. No competitive game or RTS can exist without a mechanical requirement of some sort, or the game devolves into copycatting the best strategy and some sort of rock paper scissors guessing game. If you can't out-execute your opponent then you can't consistently beat him. It is very difficult to out-innovate your opponents every time because in today's environment coaches, practice partners, replay analysis, etc your strategies will get analyzed and you will lose, eventually.
Added mechanical ceiling actually adds strategical options. An example would be Bisu in SC1, his DT-corsair strategy isn't new or even super innovative, but it never worked in the proscene before him because nobody could pull it off because of its so ridiculously high skill ceiling. The same is true for a lot of the openings Flash did, he was just so good at positioning and defense that he can take greedy expansions. Remove the mechanical requirements and you remove a lot of the potential innovation and strategy.
I'm just gonna weigh in and say that you get this fucking shit when you have to deal with the god damn cyclone and that what this is basically dustin browder's unranked season average and if you think it amounts to strategy then you just don't understand the game.
[Chess is the prime example of a what most game attempt to be seen as when it comes to strategy. And its literally the memorization of copycat moves and making certain you copied the correct moves and your opponent did not.
I think "strategy" is being used too vaguely. To say chess is more strategic than SC2, for example, is pretty much meaningless. Chess has no mechanics, obviously, and there is incredible foresight and calculation possible in chess, but it's also a game of mutual and full information.
For instance, chess players talk about strategy and tactics. A tactical idea in chess requires foresight and planning, but it is not the same thing as your strategy. The deep calculation involved in chess is often tactical in nature, and the strategy is mostly just about getting pieces on good squares.
"Memorization of copycat moves?" Have you ever played chess? Have you ever watched a tournament or World Championship match? Your bizarre summary of the game gives me the impression that you haven't.
"Strategy" is used differently by different people though. The army talks about three levels of war: the strategic, the operational, and the tactical. So it's hard to generalize what the word means. In SC2, it seems like it pretty much just means choosing what phase of the game you want to win in, what defenses you will need to survive until you attack, and what your attack should be composed of. Artosis seems to be saying essentially that SC2 units hard-counter each other more than BW units, meaning that having a few extra of the wrong unit won't save you, meaning that the selection of units and timings is relatively more important.
Not only do I disagree (having played SC1 for 15 years and SC2 for 5, not particularly SKILLFULLY but still) but I don't even remember the last time Artosis even played SC1.
Personally, I think SC2 is completely bereft of real strategy. There are millions of small details you can change which slightly change the course of your game plan throughout the game, but if you slip up even once mechanically, there is no strategic way to get out of a bad situation. If we're going to compare SC to Chess, I'll make a comparison:
1) SC2 is like speed chess. Your moves are mostly predetermined with several different variations which are all memorized and pre-planned. If you get to the latter parts of the game and you're low on time, you begin to make positional errors, and it only takes 2-3 bad moves to put you into a 100% losing spot. At that point, you're just hoping that the game is going so fast your opponent makes a mistake as well. Even then, comparing SC2 and chess is a difficult comparison due to the fact that SC2 lacks strong positional play.
2) BW is more like strategic chess. The game unfolds a lot more slowly, and players have a lot more time in the early/mid game to set up their game plan while each player has a chance to counter the other player's game plan with their own based on scouting. Mistakes can be punishing, but because the game is about map control and awareness (and also because moving armies is a bitch), you have a lot more wiggle room to reposition your units and find ways to get back into the game. In LotV, you're put on even more of a timer.
Both take massive amounts of required mechanics, though SC2 execution is more about babysitting your army than BW was. Overall though, the important factor missing from SC2 is space control. The terrain is basically flat due to how weak high ground vision and mobility is, and it's impossible for few units to zone out an entire army effectively in the mid to late game without being broken when massed. Without space control, SC2 lacks a lot of the important positional decision making that made BW and even WC3 really deep and complex.
[Chess is the prime example of a what most game attempt to be seen as when it comes to strategy. And its literally the memorization of copycat moves and making certain you copied the correct moves and your opponent did not.
I think "strategy" is being used too vaguely. To say chess is more strategic than SC2, for example, is pretty much meaningless. Chess has no mechanics, obviously, and there is incredible foresight and calculation possible in chess, but it's also a game of mutual and full information.
For instance, chess players talk about strategy and tactics. A tactical idea in chess requires foresight and planning, but it is not the same thing as your strategy. The deep calculation involved in chess is often tactical in nature, and the strategy is mostly just about getting pieces on good squares.
"Memorization of copycat moves?" Have you ever played chess? Have you ever watched a tournament or World Championship match? Your bizarre summary of the game gives me the impression that you haven't.
"Strategy" is used differently by different people though. The army talks about three levels of war: the strategic, the operational, and the tactical. So it's hard to generalize what the word means. In SC2, it seems like it pretty much just means choosing what phase of the game you want to win in, what defenses you will need to survive until you attack, and what your attack should be composed of. Artosis seems to be saying essentially that SC2 units hard-counter each other more than BW units, meaning that having a few extra of the wrong unit won't save you, meaning that the selection of units and timings is relatively more important.
Actually, that's exactly how chess is. All openings are already mapped out. All responses and the responses to those responses are already mapped out. Taking time to reinvent anything in chess is a bit silly since the patterns have already been deciphered. That doesn't make it not strategic, but it becomes about being able to read the game state and respond appropriately to the moves presented and the sequence presented. That is why they can program AI to be unbeatable at chess (vs humans) but cannot do so for more abstract games like Go.
This why the military differentiates different command responsibilities based on how much breadth of decision making to give to someone. With high level strategy on one end, and individual micro in the other. What seems to get a lot of people in a rage is thinking a phrase such as "more strategic than X" means the same as "is better than X" when that is furthest from the truth. Different descriptors are different.
On July 01 2015 23:48 SC2John wrote: Personally, I think SC2 is completely bereft of real strategy. There are millions of small details you can change which slightly change the course of your game plan throughout the game, but if you slip up even once mechanically, there is no strategic way to get out of a bad situation. If we're going to compare SC to Chess, I'll make a comparison:
1) SC2 is like speed chess. Your moves are mostly predetermined with several different variations which are all memorized and pre-planned. If you get to the latter parts of the game and you're low on time, you begin to make positional errors, and it only takes 2-3 bad moves to put you into a 100% losing spot. At that point, you're just hoping that the game is going so fast your opponent makes a mistake as well. Even then, comparing SC2 and chess is a difficult comparison due to the fact that SC2 lacks strong positional play.
2) BW is more like strategic chess. The game unfolds a lot more slowly, and players have a lot more time in the early/mid game to set up their game plan while each player has a chance to counter the other player's game plan with their own based on scouting. Mistakes can be punishing, but because the game is about map control and awareness (and also because moving armies is a bitch), you have a lot more wiggle room to reposition your units and find ways to get back into the game. In LotV, you're put on even more of a timer.
Both take massive amounts of required mechanics, though SC2 execution is more about babysitting your army than BW was. Overall though, the important factor missing from SC2 is space control. The terrain is basically flat due to how weak high ground vision and mobility is, and it's impossible for few units to zone out an entire army effectively in the mid to late game without being broken when massed. Without space control, SC2 lacks a lot of the important positional decision making that made BW and even WC3 really deep and complex.
I agree with you completely, however your points are what makes sc2 great for the average player.
I was C+ peak in my BW days but still pretty bad overall, I hit my brick wall in skill level (tiny improvements without massively increasing playing time) with roughly 250apm as protoss. Every game at the C/C+ level was a real struggle for me and a drain on my body, I was just frantically clicking more than anything to keep up with the macro and very slight amounts of multitasking. Strategy more or less "unfolded" subconsciously, as the macro builds were pretty set in stone and my active processing was much more focused on processing visual information for the very moment to build as many units as I could, and to move out the right way (especially important for protoss).
Nowadays, I play at the low masters level as random, and can comfortably macro more or less perfectly with 100-150apm depending on race until the 8 minute mark, and the game is suddenly leagues easier due to the more efficient macro mechanics in sc2, giving me more time to cycle through my control groups, more time to glance at the mini-map while I 5 -> shift+Z -> spam click in a circle instead of clicking on individual gateways which requires you to fixate your central vision around your probe, etc. Compounded by the faster unit interactions and more punishing unit movements inherent in sc2, suddenly I'm forced to pay much more attention to constant scouting/poking in order to babysit my armies in the right places at the right times.
With all that said, I enjoy the new player interactions in sc2 more, where it's a constant dance of your attentions between you and your opponent. I enjoy this much more than the overwhelming emphasis on raw mechanics and APM, where I almost always lost to B- 300+ APM players, watched my replays, knew that the problem was that I was too slow, but couldn't do anything about it. Whereas compared to nowadays, I rarely even have to watch my losses because I pretty much know in game when I've already messed up and how to avoid the situation in the future.
I enjoy mind battles more than sweating my ass off trying to spam my best and failing. I just like beating the occasional high masters or GM with a well executed cheese, and still enjoy facing challenging diamond players.
No competitive game or RTS can exist without a mechanical requirement of some sort, or the game devolves into copycatting the best strategy and some sort of rock paper scissors guessing game.
"I'm sorry but that's just blatantly untrue. Almost all high level strategy is 100% disconnected from execution."
??? it did not say strategy requires mechanics. I think you are the one who is taking things personally lol...
you just made same basic points as thing you think is untrue...
Is that really your argument?
Chess is the prime example of a what most game attempt to be seen as when it comes to strategy. And its literally the memorization of copycat moves and making certain you copied the correct moves and your opponent did not.
Chess is that in your opinion.
I'd argue very strongly chess is just as much a balance of tactics and strategy. A singular move, in isolation without context, may very well be "pure decision making", with a set outcome, and said move's immediate physical effect may very well be evident to all. But I don't find that to be a comprehensive nor a good representation of Chess.
Memorizing moves is relevant if we're talking about openings and common well studied lines up to your first 10-20 moves. In Chess it is, as you mention, common for a player to try to force games into lines which are familiar and explored to themselves but (hopefully) unfamiliar to their opponents. That's a huge part of strategy in Chess.
One way you could explain the purpose and benefits of preparation and memorization in chess, is for players to be able to perform "more/better decision making with less processing". And the reason they're able to do more decision making is because they've pre-processed the decision trees they otherwise would have had to process in real time during a live chess game.
In my opinion, this process is very similar to a professional SC player preparing a specific opening and a build order for proleague. The progamer then proceeds by working through his opponent's possible responses. He comes up with variations and adjustments to his build order based on different triggers. In essence this progamer is "pre-processing" the potential decision trees he might otherwise have been faced with processing in real time. This frees up time for better/faster decision making. Studying, preparing and memorizing is the art of saving time and optimizing performance.
How can these things be true in chess though, if chess by some arbitrary standard is to be labelled as a game of pure strategy and pure decision making? Do we simply ignore the existence of a time component in chess? Do we simply choose to overlook the fact that a singular move, when put in a broader context, tends to be the result of a player taking into account a massive amount of possible variations and potential future outcomes?
If a chess player told his queen to take a pawn--he doesn't need to explain to his queen how that actually happens.
I find this quote to be typical of the way you support your arguments, which is why I absolutely detest your posts. If a starcraft player tells his marines to attack a natural base -- does he need to explain to his marines how that actually happens? No. The marines will require no further input to perform the attack. Pure decision making.
Now, would I affect the outcome of the attack if I were to put some more thought and action into performing it? Probably yes. Is it wise to attack the opponent's natural with my marines? How do I position them? How do I retreat? Can I safely retreat from the situation? What happens if he counterattacks me while I commit my marines? Can I control the marines to achieve a greater effect?
These are all relevant considerations, among dozens of others, which you continually have to evaluate and re-evaluate throughout a Starcraft game. Similarly, in a chess game, if you order your queen to take a pawn -- while it may be true that you do not need to explain to your queen how that happens -- it most probably helps the outcome and it most certainly would have helped your extremely stilted analogy were you to consider and process the potential ramifications of the move. You do not explain the queen's move to the queen. But if you hope to be a good chess player you do explain every single detail of the queen's move to yourself.
If I move this queen to take a pawn, do I leave myself exposed to a counter attack? Will my queen be under threat? What future moves can I make as a result of taking the pawn? How and where do I retreat if that knight threatens my queen? Processing. Processing. Processing under the pressure of time, limited by the speed and efficacy of my neurons and synapses.
Starcraft and chess are similar in the sense that the further you delve into a game, the less likely you are to be familiar with the exact situation you're faced with. That's where general pattern recognition and endgame tactics kick in. Why do you think Magnus Carlsen is such a beast of a chess player? Because he has the best openings and best memorization? No, the guy is most recognized for his tactical precision and his mid and endgame technique. He grinds out wins from positions other players would be content to draw in.
Acknowledging that these days getting an advantage from the opening is well-nigh impossible, as everyone relies on top-notch computers for research, he tries to reach positions in which he is confident that he will outplay his opponents in the middle- or endgame. - Dirk Jan ten Geuzendam
The act of moving a queen to take a pawn is like a-moving marines to their death without further input. You're probably not going to be impressed by the single move. The incredibly creative, and unforeseen, sequence of moves leading to a mate or a queen capture, however, do have the potential to impress and awe.
No competitive game or RTS can exist without a mechanical requirement of some sort, or the game devolves into copycatting the best strategy and some sort of rock paper scissors guessing game.
"I'm sorry but that's just blatantly untrue. Almost all high level strategy is 100% disconnected from execution."
??? it did not say strategy requires mechanics. I think you are the one who is taking things personally lol...
you just made same basic points as thing you think is untrue...
Is that really your argument?
Chess is the prime example of a what most game attempt to be seen as when it comes to strategy. And its literally the memorization of copycat moves and making certain you copied the correct moves and your opponent did not.
you sound delusional as artosis imo.. I feel like your interpretation of games is from person who does not play
For what it's worth I completely agree with magpie that strategy becomes more "important" in less execution heavy games. I think using the word important gives a misleading impression though.
The way I see it strategy becomes more and more the primary factor which influences and controls the outcome of a game the less demanding the game is in the execution department.
I don't think the above says anything about how much strategy there is present in execution based games. It just says stuff about the relevance of strategy in the outcome of a game.
Don't think it's at all relevant to SC2 or BW.
And I tend to overreact to magpie's posts. I apologize magpie. I'm an idiot.
I feel like this is just PR more so than anything...
Blizzard has successfully killed the BW scene..and it does Artosis 0 good, and would be bad for his career to be like "actually Starcraft 2 sucks compared to BW"... since there is no future professionally for him in BW.
I compare Sc2 to checkers, while BW is chess..
one is easier for more people to play one has a much higher skillcap and allows the people with true ability/understanding to absolutely shit on everyone else..
On July 02 2015 01:39 MaestroSC wrote: one has a much higher skillcap and allows the people with true ability/understanding to absolutely shit on everyone else..
Ughhh I've had enough of people mistakenly using skill ceiling as an argument in this thread. I'm too lazy to elaborate so I'll just quote myself
People who argue that the skill ceiling in BW is higher have no idea what a skill ceiling is and how complicated it is to quantify.
The reason why identifiable and unique micro and mechanics aren't as widespread in SC2 is the fact that the game is too fast. There are so many more things that pros can do, such as medivac dropping for EMPs/warp prism hot pick up for HTs, individually microing mutas back and forth for health regen, individually burrow/unburrowing roaches for regen, better splitting, individual hellion transformations, zealot stop command to save charge cooldown, improved phoenix control, individual mine burrow/unburrow for improved targeting... the list of things that pros can still do is limitless. Yet even the most mechanically impressive players are still unable to perform these actions consistently because the game is too fast. It's not that there is nothing more to do; it is that the pros who could perform more in BW don't yet have the speed nor ability to do these things in SC2.
The difference is that similar tasks had to be performed in BW to make the most of several units, and there was time to perform these actions due to game speed and a combination of lower damage/longer battles. The fact that many of the BW pros who could perform impressive feats of micro and develop undeniable moments of brilliance have had a difficult time replicating their heroics in SC2 does not necessarily mean that there are no such avenues for genius in the game. As mentioned earlier, the number of things that pros can improve is limitless; whether it is possible for a player to reach a level of skill that allows him to do things no one else can consistently is a question of the limitations of the player, not the game.
It can be argued that the risk/reward ratio in doing impressive micro tricks in SC2 is lower, and that players have more incentive to macro and take key positional and strategic advantages instead of individual ones. Perhaps the divide between the mechanically elite and the also rans could be widened by lowering the game speed slightly to a threshold where some can perform while others cannot. Perhaps it's better to wait and see if someone will finally reach the speed of thought and dexterity required to impress us with their control.
That is game design and has nothing to do with skill ceilings that are hypothetically impossible to reach. If anything the speed of thought and reaction time required in SC2 is higher than BW and in that respect makes it more difficult. BW of course is more difficult in other areas. Neither game is easier nor harder; they are easier or harder in different ways because they are different games.
While Blizzard removed some skills from BW, it added several others. Storms are much easier to cast and unit clumping is automatic, so splitting and prepositioning units is far more important in SC2. It is the same for just about every other change; it has lowered the skill required for one thing only to increase emphasis on another.
That isn't a skill ceiling though. That is the skill floor. The barrier to entry is much lower in SC2 and even bad players can have a good day. It takes a little less effort to play at a sufficiently decent competitive level. That is what a skill floor is, not a skill ceiling.
A skill ceiling is the maximum attainable skill level, not the minimum required level to be good. The fact that there are thousands of other ways to play better that have not been explored suggests that the skill ceiling has nothing to do with the perceived randomness or luck factor involved in the game.
However it can be argued that the competitive skill floor is too low and the weight for improvement is too heavy. Not enough players are able to elevate towards the skill ceiling, and as I suggested it may be due to the speed of the game. On the other hand, the skill floor has been increasing over time (compare today's games vs 2011); the problem is no single player has been able to improve by leaps and bounds more than other players. In a way that is the true cause for the lack of a bonjwa: the gravity for improvement is too heavy, and everyone improves at a similar pace.
However, as I mentioned earlier, is that a limitation of the game, or the limitation of the players?
for the love of god stop talking about the skill ceiling as if it's relevant
I thinke the biggest difference are the maps, actually. In SC2 the game play is pretty similiar. In SC BW on pro and amateur level the maps changed so much what strategy was played and feasable.
On May 06 2013 04:12 Hot_Bid wrote:.It's interesting, a lot of people (ie: mostly those who are bad at macro) believe that by removing some or all of the mechanical requirement of starcraft you get more strategies and that "outsmarting" your opponent will be what decides matches. In reality, the opposite is true. No competitive game or RTS can exist without a mechanical requirement of some sort, or the game devolves into copycatting the best strategy and some sort of rock paper scissors guessing game. If you can't out-execute your opponent then you can't consistently beat him. It is very difficult to out-innovate your opponents every time because in today's environment coaches, practice partners, replay analysis, etc your strategies will get analyzed and you will lose, eventually.
Others have discussed this a bit (Lalush) but I really feel it bears repeating. When you say 'no competitive game can exist without a mechanical requirement' I feel like a pretty clear counterexample is chess. Chess does have some degree of copycatting in terms of basic openings and counter-openings, but because there is such a large variation in the types of moves a person can make after those openings, calculating or memorizing all of the 'best' responses past a certain point is virtually impossible.
Does anyone really believe that GM players like Viswanathan Anand or Magnus Carlsen 'memorize' everything, and what they play out in their grand final matches is all scripted? Its clearly absurd. Neither is it anything remotely close to rock-paper-scissors like gameplay.
If a game is sufficiently complex, it doesn't matter whether no mechanics exist, you simply won't be able to predict what the ideal move is because there are too many variables. In that case, the player who can think furthest ahead at all of the possible counter-moves and counter-counter-moves (and so on) in order to obtain the most advantageous position is most likely to win the game. In a word, the 'smartest' player would win. Unless you are comfortable with memorizing tens of thousands of games (at the very least), well okay yes you have a point. But clearly human beings do not have the memory banks of a supercomputer.
Anyway if you mean strictly in terms of SC2 (i.e. just removing the mechanical requirement, nothing else), then there may indeed be far too few variables in order to create the necessary complexity. But I don't think its an obvious argument and I think that hypothesis would really need to be tested.
On July 02 2015 01:39 MaestroSC wrote: I feel like this is just PR more so than anything...
Blizzard has successfully killed the BW scene..and it does Artosis 0 good, and would be bad for his career to be like "actually Starcraft 2 sucks compared to BW"... since there is no future professionally for him in BW.
Don't forget that Passionstone is still a profitable avenue for ESPORTS careers ^^.
On May 06 2013 04:12 Hot_Bid wrote:.It's interesting, a lot of people (ie: mostly those who are bad at macro) believe that by removing some or all of the mechanical requirement of starcraft you get more strategies and that "outsmarting" your opponent will be what decides matches. In reality, the opposite is true. No competitive game or RTS can exist without a mechanical requirement of some sort, or the game devolves into copycatting the best strategy and some sort of rock paper scissors guessing game. If you can't out-execute your opponent then you can't consistently beat him. It is very difficult to out-innovate your opponents every time because in today's environment coaches, practice partners, replay analysis, etc your strategies will get analyzed and you will lose, eventually.
Others have discussed this a bit (Lalush) but I really feel it bears repeating. When you say 'no competitive game can exist without a mechanical requirement' I feel like a pretty clear counterexample is chess. Chess does have some degree of copycatting in terms of basic openings and counter-openings, but because there is such a large variation in the types of moves a person can make after those openings, calculating or memorizing all of the 'best' responses past a certain point is virtually impossible.
Intellivision Utopia. huge amount of strategic depth. 30 APM is all you need.
On July 02 2015 01:39 MaestroSC wrote: I feel like this is just PR more so than anything...
Blizzard has successfully killed the BW scene..and it does Artosis 0 good, and would be bad for his career to be like "actually Starcraft 2 sucks compared to BW"... since there is no future professionally for him in BW.
1. BW is most definitely alive 2. Brood War mega sponsor Sonic is also keeping the SC2 scene healthy 3. There is always the potential for OGN to add official English casters in the future 4. I english casted the GomTV Classic Season 4 so GomTV so yes there is even English Casting already in place.
But I agree, there is most likely not a future in Brood War for him specifically.
Brood war and sc2 are rts that requires high amount of apm, or at least efficient apm to be ahead of the opponent. Sounds like many people want that ceiling lowered...like lowering a rim so anyone can dunk. How dare only tall and/or athletic people be allowed to dunk. If I can create the greatest playbook and call tactics, I should be able to dunk too. (stop bringing up chess, its not even remotely comparable to starcraft. its like comparing how airplane can fly then compare it to how superman flies)
Nozdormu is the 8/8 on the board, it makes turns only last 15 seconds. Animations that stack at the end of opponent's turn have to end before you can act, so they can take time from your turn. By stacking Nozdormu and infinitely replacing bouncing pandas, you force animations to always take your whole opponent's turn time, so he never can do any action at all.
On July 02 2015 03:01 jinorazi wrote: Brood war and sc2 are rts that requires high amount of apm, or at least efficient apm to be ahead of the opponent. Sounds like many people want that ceiling lowered...like lowering a rim so anyone can dunk. How dare only tall and/or athletic people be allowed to dunk. If I can create the greatest playbook and call tactics, I should be able to dunk too. (stop bringing up chess, its not even remotely comparable to starcraft. its like comparing how airplane can fly then compare it to how superman flies)
Most athletes can dunk, we should make the rim higher so only a very small number of people can dunk to show true skill.
On July 02 2015 03:01 jinorazi wrote: Brood war and sc2 are rts that requires high amount of apm, or at least efficient apm to be ahead of the opponent. Sounds like many people want that ceiling lowered...like lowering a rim so anyone can dunk. How dare only tall and/or athletic people be allowed to dunk. If I can create the greatest playbook and call tactics, I should be able to dunk too. (stop bringing up chess, its not even remotely comparable to starcraft. its like comparing how airplane can fly then compare it to how superman flies)
Most athletes can dunk, we should make the rim higher so only a very small number of people can dunk to show true skill.
the point is balance and already a small number of nba players below 6' can dunk.
On July 02 2015 03:01 jinorazi wrote: Brood war and sc2 are rts that requires high amount of apm, or at least efficient apm to be ahead of the opponent. Sounds like many people want that ceiling lowered...like lowering a rim so anyone can dunk. How dare only tall and/or athletic people be allowed to dunk. If I can create the greatest playbook and call tactics, I should be able to dunk too. (stop bringing up chess, its not even remotely comparable to starcraft. its like comparing how airplane can fly then compare it to how superman flies)
Most athletes can dunk, we should make the rim higher so only a very small number of people can dunk to show true skill.
the point is balance and already a small number of nba players below 6' can dunk.
I watch basketball, lots of players dunk, why not have it so fewer players can dunk, game becomes about lay ups and positioning. true skill.
On July 01 2015 06:39 DSK wrote: For me, playing BW is a fucking nightmare, and that's partly because I'm terrible at it, but also because it requires more mechanical nuance and leg work. I can't just bind all my barracks to control group 4 and spam A for marines (like the noob I am). I have to go to where the barracks are on the screen and click each one individually and then press A to produce marines from each.
On July 02 2015 03:01 jinorazi wrote: Brood war and sc2 are rts that requires high amount of apm, or at least efficient apm to be ahead of the opponent. Sounds like many people want that ceiling lowered...like lowering a rim so anyone can dunk. How dare only tall and/or athletic people be allowed to dunk. If I can create the greatest playbook and call tactics, I should be able to dunk too. (stop bringing up chess, its not even remotely comparable to starcraft. its like comparing how airplane can fly then compare it to how superman flies)
When people say "X and Y are not comparable!" they usually mean "X and Y are perfectly comparable, and they are very different from each other"
Nozdormu is the 8/8 on the board, it makes turns only last 15 seconds. Animations that stack at the end of opponent's turn have to end before you can act, so they can take time from your turn. By stacking Nozdormu and infinitely replacing bouncing pandas, you force animations to always take your whole opponent's turn time, so he never can do any action at all.
I feel like chess shouldn't be used in discussions about games because it's such a weird one (full information, no mechanics). It gets a lot of credit because it's old and has been prestigious for a long time, but it seems more like a puzzle than a game. Languages can call chess and poker and starcraft the same thing but the presence or absence of mechanics and full information should put them in incomparable categories. I'd call chess a puzzle, poker can be called a game, and starcraft is a sport. The common name for them all should be competition, which we already know people can compete over virtually anything.
The comparison to chess comes from knowledge of the metagame i believe. Given 'good enough' mechanics, players can plan their strategic choices based on what works in the metagame, and the player who can think further ahead, or knows how each strategic branch plays better than another will have an advantage and likely win. In this sense, it is very much like chess. Given a powerful enough computer and enough time, SC2 could be "solved" in the same way chess can be.
It's not the best analogy in all situations, but there are definitely certain aspects in which chess and starcraft are indeed very similar.
Starcraft 2 is basically faster in smaller scale micro stuff, rending a lot of it to a lower priority compared to longer production of tech stuff and scouting more often than SC1. If you could measure "strategery" somehow it would pretty similar but have a certain skew like this.
On July 02 2015 04:55 NonY wrote: I feel like chess shouldn't be used in discussions about games because it's such a weird one (full information, no mechanics). It gets a lot of credit because it's old and has been prestigious for a long time, but it seems more like a puzzle than a game. Languages can call chess and poker and starcraft the same thing but the presence or absence of mechanics and full information should put them in incomparable categories. I'd call chess a puzzle, poker can be called a game, and starcraft is a sport. The common name for them all should be competition, which we already know people can compete over virtually anything.
Chess is brought up because the the dialectic of conversation equates it to strategy--specifically because of the association that strategy is mental and tactics is physical. The prime example being that an athlete is less strategic than a chess player, but a chess player is less capable of execution than an athlete. The example can be changed--but the reasoning of the example remains the same. The closer to abstraction you get, the more strategic you are. The closer to physicality you get, the more mechanical you are. Neither is deemed superior to the other, they are just different. The closer you get to physicality, the more precise your discussions become. Breathing techniques, body reads, foot play, etc... The more abstract you are the more generalized and structured the nomenclature such as "action A gets response B, respond to B with C while preparing D in case of E." SC2 is more abstracted. Its more build order dependent, less micro dependent. Less being a very very relative term--SC2 would be considered highly mechanical and less strategic than civ games, for example.
As an example: Boxing is more strategic than arm wrestling. Soccer is more strategic than boxing. Go is more strategic than soccer. ad nauseam. But none of them are objectively superior than the others, they're just different.
I find it difficult to agree with Artosis's statement. It may be that the lowered need for mechanics in SC2 increases the perceived importance of strategy in the game, but I'd say that it's a matter of perception. In BW, it was much more common for insane mechanics and impeccable micro to win games and to give the impression that micro did it alone. The insanely flashy micro stole the show, and the overarching strategy was lost to our eyes but it still very much took place.
Clearly SC2 is more strategically focused. You guys are being completely irrational. You miss the point and instead focus on this odd debate over which competitive multiplayer game is more challenging (whatever the fuck that means in this context).
You're letting emotions cloud your ability to reason here. This had nothing to do with some sort of subjective comparison of the quality of the two games. It's simply stating an obvious fact which is that the gameplay of the two games emphasize different skill sets. SC2 with less focus on macro and micro mechanics, allows a greater focus strategy which becomes a more important factor in winning a match.
If you took BW and made a custom map without the need for macro/micro mechanics, that map would be a more strategical game than a regular melee game. Is it harder? Who knows, that's not the point! The point is there exists a balance of what a player needs to focus on and accomplish in a match to win. Removal of one area leaves room for growth in another.
This is simply common sense and should not require lengthy debates threads. It's clear the debate is simply rooted in a meaningless battle between two games. It is nothing but emotions and fanboyism. Think with your head for a moment instead of "LOL noob sellout thinks sc2 is harder than bw"
Nozdormu is the 8/8 on the board, it makes turns only last 15 seconds. Animations that stack at the end of opponent's turn have to end before you can act, so they can take time from your turn. By stacking Nozdormu and infinitely replacing bouncing pandas, you force animations to always take your whole opponent's turn time, so he never can do any action at all.
This isn't stacked mutas this is hax!
interesting nonetheless
It's not intended by the dev - just like stacked mutas isn't. But it's not a hack; it's simply playing the game in a weird way and making use of the game's own broken engine. Exactly like stacked mutas.
Nozdormu is the 8/8 on the board, it makes turns only last 15 seconds. Animations that stack at the end of opponent's turn have to end before you can act, so they can take time from your turn. By stacking Nozdormu and infinitely replacing bouncing pandas, you force animations to always take your whole opponent's turn time, so he never can do any action at all.
This isn't stacked mutas this is hax!
interesting nonetheless
It's not intended by the dev - just like stacked mutas isn't. But it's not a hack; it's simply playing the game in a weird way and making use of the game's own broken engine. Exactly like stacked mutas.
People like you is the reason we have weird game rules like traveling in basketball
"But what if we never dribble the ball sir? How can they get it? Just get one point ahead and hold on for dear life."
On July 02 2015 05:22 Befree wrote: Clearly SC2 is more strategically focused. You guys are being completely irrational. You miss the point and instead focus on this odd debate over which competitive multiplayer game is more challenging (whatever the fuck that means in this context).
You're letting emotions cloud your ability to reason here. This had nothing to do with some sort of subjective comparison of the quality of the two games. It's simply stating an obvious fact which is that the gameplay of the two games emphasize different skill sets. SC2 with less focus on macro and micro mechanics, allows a greater focus strategy which becomes a more important factor in winning a match.
If you took BW and made a custom map without the need for macro/micro mechanics, that map would be a more strategical game than a regular melee game. Is it harder? Who knows, that's not the point! The point is there exists a balance of what a player needs to focus on and accomplish in a match to win. Removal of one area leaves room for growth in another.
This is simply common sense and should not require lengthy debates threads. It's clear the debate is simply rooted in a meaningless battle between two games. It is nothing but emotions and fanboyism. Think with your head for a moment instead of "LOL noob sellout thinks sc2 is harder than bw"
What do you even mean with "more strategical" ? Do you mean strategy in relation to mechanics is more important to win a game? Or do you mean the strategy in the game is deeper? This are two different concepts. If you mean the former: No, as i said before (and nobody pointed out some flaws yet i think) as long as you take two players with similar mechanical skill, strategy will always be the more important part to win a game. In your example you remove mechanics alltogether, obviously strategy is more important when it's the only factor. I can give such a mediocre example too: Let's imagine you take chess and add an arbitrary mechanical part to it, let's say you have to hit a button one hundred times then you are allowed to move (it isn't turn based anymore). Now all of a sudden there is a mechanical requirement, hitting that button is a factor too. If both players are of similar skill at hitting the button fast, almost nothing will change about the strategy (yes it would be faster, more similar to speed chess, but that's not the point here, we can change the number of times you have to hit the button to get closer to normal chess) If one player is simply a lot faster at hitting the button, he will be able to move more times in the same timeframe, strategy will be less of a deciding factor. The point is: Mechanical skill is only important at deciding the game if one player/team is mechanically superior to the other. We obviosly can reduce mechanics/strategy to zero (or very very close to it) and this changes everything, but this simply isn't the case if we look at bw/sc2.
ps: yes i know this example was stupid, but hey whatever.
If we are talking about the depth of strategy in a game, i think it would be more of a question about how many different actions/decisions are (somewhat) viable at every given situation. If you only have little options (Rock-paper-scissors) we cannot really say the game has a lot of strategic depth, even though strategy is clearly the more important part in my example.
So what exactly does Artosis mean? The former or the latter? It's important to the discussion.
"strategic importance" just flies over my head when people talk about it. its knowing what to do and executing it. it doesnt take "strategic thinking" to know if you're down, distract opponent by constantly poking or dropping while i do a hidden expansion or something. this isnt some brilliant strategy but rather executing it efficiently of something that is common sense or best route of action depending on circumstances. even with the most perfect strategy ever conceived, it means nothing if it isnt executed properly and if a player has very good mechanics, they can win whole lot of games just massing marines against infestors and banelings.
throughout the game its small decision making here and there and executing those decisions. to me it has little to do with strategy, but maybe its just my play style since i'm no pro, i just do everything on the fly including build orders after 21st supply and i have no problem winning.
"greater focus on strategy" means nothing because whatever strategy that may be, it all comes down to execution so mechanics are a huge deal in starcraft no matter what.
On July 01 2015 17:58 lichter wrote: i get excited whenever thieving magpie gets coaxed into explaining things :o
especially when it's completely wrong
Read harder
Sry it doesn't get any better that way :/
yeah the chess analogy is just wrong, and that's not how chess functions at all (apart from opening game - usually)
also, minesweeper is obviously the most strategic game like ever.
Agreed. Choosing an opening in chess is a little like picking a build order. You can aim for a slow developing macro game or something explosive and tactical. Until someone deviates from the build order it will follow a fairly predictable pattern. Then inevitably someone does something unexpected and the game really starts. There's no such thing as simply memorizing and copying moves.
Frankly, not sure how Chess got dragged into this, it's a totally different game and unrelated to SC2 vs BW.
On July 01 2015 06:39 DSK wrote: For me, playing BW is a fucking nightmare, and that's partly because I'm terrible at it, but also because it requires more mechanical nuance and leg work. I can't just bind all my barracks to control group 4 and spam A for marines (like the noob I am). I have to go to where the barracks are on the screen and click each one individually and then press A to produce marines from each.
that would be way too easy
Hotkey for Marine in BW is M.
Then I stand corrected! :D
And that is why you had 11 Marines less - you pressed "A"!
What he says in his text isn't that there's more strategy in the game, but rather that it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier. Removing or restricting something in a game doesn't suddenly make the other things more evolved, it just puts more emphasis on them.
On July 02 2015 06:19 nkr wrote: What he says in his text isn't that there's more strategy in the game, but rather that it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier. Removing or restricting something in a game doesn't suddenly make the other things more evolved, it just puts more emphasis on them.
it may seem that way but i dont think that is the case. you can still do in bw whatever "more focused strategy" you can do in sc2. its just easier to do with smartcast/mbs but it doesnt add more depth to it.
On July 02 2015 05:22 Befree wrote: Clearly SC2 is more strategically focused. You guys are being completely irrational. You miss the point and instead focus on this odd debate over which competitive multiplayer game is more challenging (whatever the fuck that means in this context).
You're letting emotions cloud your ability to reason here. This had nothing to do with some sort of subjective comparison of the quality of the two games. It's simply stating an obvious fact which is that the gameplay of the two games emphasize different skill sets. SC2 with less focus on macro and micro mechanics, allows a greater focus strategy which becomes a more important factor in winning a match.
If you took BW and made a custom map without the need for macro/micro mechanics, that map would be a more strategical game than a regular melee game. Is it harder? Who knows, that's not the point! The point is there exists a balance of what a player needs to focus on and accomplish in a match to win. Removal of one area leaves room for growth in another.
This is simply common sense and should not require lengthy debates threads. It's clear the debate is simply rooted in a meaningless battle between two games. It is nothing but emotions and fanboyism. Think with your head for a moment instead of "LOL noob sellout thinks sc2 is harder than bw"
You are ignoring the thought that needs to be put in to managing apm well. When there is too much apm, it's easy to decide what to do, because you can do almost everything without any sacrifice.
When I played SC2, I had perfect macro every game (By perfect macro, I mean that I spent my money and didn't get supply blocked. Of course, I could have made better economical decisions, which is also part of macro). I never had to choose between micro and macro. I admit, I played Zerg, and not Terran, but in Brood War I can play Protoss (the least mechanically demanding race) and have to make interesting and mentally stimulating choices about apm spending.
If you want to call it tactics rather than strategy, I understand. But in ZvT, it is so significant that a Zerg can base his entire strategy around it. It allows for more kinds of different strategies, thus adding to the strategic diversity and depth of the game.
If you are a methodical player who wants to keep Zerg under control, and if you value flawless macro, then you probably want to transition to mech early in Terran vs Zerg.
But if you don't mind floating on money when the opportunity arises to do good damage with micro, then you can stay on bio longer. Or even for the entire game.
What I value the most about real time strategy games, is the meeting of execution and planning. The mixture of strategy and skill. That is what real time strategy has over turn based strategy - the management of time and attention. The state of pure focus it puts you in, as you push your mind and your dexterity to their limits, is irreplaceable
StarCraft II doesn't focus on this aspect as much. As a result, strategic and stylistic diversity and depth suffer.
I understand the argument that a lower mechanical skill floor, and skill ceiling, make strategy relatively more important. That is true, but at higher levels of Brood War, every one has good mechanics anyway. So it's not about who has better mechanics - it's about who spends his apm better. And that is a mental ability, not one of dexterity. Flash didn't win because he had better mechanics. He was leagues above Hyuk, despite Hyuk having significantly higher apm. Flash won because he was the best strategist, being able to use multiple styles as if he was a specialist in each of them. Being able to formulate good strategies for the map and player at hand, and being able to deal with unexpected situations on the fly.
On July 02 2015 05:50 jinorazi wrote: "strategic importance" just flies over my head when people talk about it. its knowing what to do and executing it. it doesnt take "strategic thinking" to know if you're down, distract opponent by constantly poking or dropping while i do a hidden expansion or something. this isnt some brilliant strategy but rather executing it efficiently of something that is common sense or best route of action depending on circumstances. even with the most perfect strategy ever conceived, it means nothing if it isnt executed properly and if a player has very good mechanics, they can win whole lot of games just massing marines against infestors and banelings.
throughout the game its small decision making here and there and executing those decisions. to me it has little to do with strategy, but maybe its just my play style since i'm no pro, i just do everything on the fly including build orders after 21st supply and i have no problem winning.
"greater focus on strategy" means nothing because whatever strategy that may be, it all comes down to execution so mechanics are a huge deal in starcraft no matter what.
Artosis never said that mechanics don't matter...
He said one game emphasis one over another but he never made it an exclusive binary.
Both games require mechanics. Both games require strategy.
Games where execution of mechanics are less important, punishes mistaken strategies more. Games where execution of mechanics is more important, gives higher possibility of recovering from strategic mistakes.
Neither mechanics nor strategy is inherently "better" than the other. They're different. Different games emphasize one more than the other--but its not like that means anything concrete.
Rekrul's post was a joke--but it really did get to the heart of the matter the most succinctly.
Kate Upton is not sexy *because* she has big boobs, for there are many ugly people with bigger boobs than her. As such, using "bust size" to denote quality doesn't actually say anything. Its the whole package that denotes quality. So when statements like "SC2 is more strategy focused that BW" does it really tell us what the quality of SC2 is over BW? Or, much like Rekrul's picture, does the size of one's "strategy" really equate to how sexy one is?
There are many many games out there. Many many acts of competition, many many types of entertainment. There near infinite number of things more mechanically difficult than BW. There is also near infinite things more strategic than BW. The existence of those things does not reduce the value of BW because BW is not defined by that one metric. Rarely is the quality of anything actually defined by a single metric. There is no need to see statements like the ones artosis made as attacks on BW for the same reason that the statements he made were not praises of SC2.
On July 02 2015 03:01 jinorazi wrote: Brood war and sc2 are rts that requires high amount of apm, or at least efficient apm to be ahead of the opponent. Sounds like many people want that ceiling lowered...like lowering a rim so anyone can dunk. How dare only tall and/or athletic people be allowed to dunk. If I can create the greatest playbook and call tactics, I should be able to dunk too. (stop bringing up chess, its not even remotely comparable to starcraft. its like comparing how airplane can fly then compare it to how superman flies)
Most athletes can dunk, we should make the rim higher so only a very small number of people can dunk to show true skill.
On July 02 2015 05:50 jinorazi wrote: "strategic importance" just flies over my head when people talk about it. its knowing what to do and executing it. it doesnt take "strategic thinking" to know if you're down, distract opponent by constantly poking or dropping while i do a hidden expansion or something. this isnt some brilliant strategy but rather executing it efficiently of something that is common sense or best route of action depending on circumstances. even with the most perfect strategy ever conceived, it means nothing if it isnt executed properly and if a player has very good mechanics, they can win whole lot of games just massing marines against infestors and banelings.
throughout the game its small decision making here and there and executing those decisions. to me it has little to do with strategy, but maybe its just my play style since i'm no pro, i just do everything on the fly including build orders after 21st supply and i have no problem winning.
"greater focus on strategy" means nothing because whatever strategy that may be, it all comes down to execution so mechanics are a huge deal in starcraft no matter what.
Artosis never said that mechanics don't matter...
He said one game emphasis one over another but he never made it an exclusive binary.
Both games require mechanics. Both games require strategy.
Games where execution of mechanics are less important, punishes mistaken strategies more. Games where execution of mechanics is more important, gives higher possibility of recovering from strategic mistakes.
Neither mechanics nor strategy is inherently "better" than the other. They're different. Different games emphasize one more than the other--but its not like that means anything concrete.
Rekrul's post was a joke--but it really did get to the heart of the matter the most succinctly.
Kate Upton is not sexy *because* she has big boobs, for there are many ugly people with bigger boobs than her. As such, using "bust size" to denote quality doesn't actually say anything. Its the whole package that denotes quality. So when statements like "SC2 is more strategy focused that BW" does it really tell us what the quality of SC2 is over BW? Or, much like Rekrul's picture, does the size of one's "strategy" really equate to how sexy one is?
There are many many games out there. Many many acts of competition, many many types of entertainment. There near infinite number of things more mechanically difficult than BW. There is also near infinite things more strategic than BW. The existence of those things does not reduce the value of BW because BW is not defined by that one metric. Rarely is the quality of anything actually defined by a single metric. There is no need to see statements like the ones artosis made as attacks on BW for the same reason that the statements he made were not praises of SC2.
my post wasnt about artosis, i personally just pass that off as his own opinion. it was about the post above about "strategy focus in sc2" and some chess reference.
On July 02 2015 05:50 jinorazi wrote: "strategic importance" just flies over my head when people talk about it. its knowing what to do and executing it. it doesnt take "strategic thinking" to know if you're down, distract opponent by constantly poking or dropping while i do a hidden expansion or something. this isnt some brilliant strategy but rather executing it efficiently of something that is common sense or best route of action depending on circumstances. even with the most perfect strategy ever conceived, it means nothing if it isnt executed properly and if a player has very good mechanics, they can win whole lot of games just massing marines against infestors and banelings.
throughout the game its small decision making here and there and executing those decisions. to me it has little to do with strategy, but maybe its just my play style since i'm no pro, i just do everything on the fly including build orders after 21st supply and i have no problem winning.
"greater focus on strategy" means nothing because whatever strategy that may be, it all comes down to execution so mechanics are a huge deal in starcraft no matter what.
Artosis never said that mechanics don't matter...
He said one game emphasis one over another but he never made it an exclusive binary.
Both games require mechanics. Both games require strategy.
Games where execution of mechanics are less important, punishes mistaken strategies more. Games where execution of mechanics is more important, gives higher possibility of recovering from strategic mistakes.
Neither mechanics nor strategy is inherently "better" than the other. They're different. Different games emphasize one more than the other--but its not like that means anything concrete.
Rekrul's post was a joke--but it really did get to the heart of the matter the most succinctly.
Kate Upton is not sexy *because* she has big boobs, for there are many ugly people with bigger boobs than her. As such, using "bust size" to denote quality doesn't actually say anything. Its the whole package that denotes quality. So when statements like "SC2 is more strategy focused that BW" does it really tell us what the quality of SC2 is over BW? Or, much like Rekrul's picture, does the size of one's "strategy" really equate to how sexy one is?
There are many many games out there. Many many acts of competition, many many types of entertainment. There near infinite number of things more mechanically difficult than BW. There is also near infinite things more strategic than BW. The existence of those things does not reduce the value of BW because BW is not defined by that one metric. Rarely is the quality of anything actually defined by a single metric. There is no need to see statements like the ones artosis made as attacks on BW for the same reason that the statements he made were not praises of SC2.
This completely neglects the fact that we play vs other players and not vs the game. It doesn't matter how hard the mechanics are, there will always be someone close to your mechanical skill (unless you are the absolute best/worst, that might be an exception) If mechanics would be more important in one game that only means that the mechanical skill of said playerbase is highly different. If the differences in mechanical skill of players are similar between games, you simply cannot say that strategy is more important in one game. It makes no sense.
On July 02 2015 06:19 nkr wrote: What he says in his text isn't that there's more strategy in the game, but rather that it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier. Removing or restricting something in a game doesn't suddenly make the other things more evolved, it just puts more emphasis on them.
it may seem that way but i dont think that is the case. you can still do in bw whatever "more focused strategy" you can do in sc2. its just easier to do with smartcast/mbs but it doesnt add more depth to it.
I think you're having a language issue. Because it seems you didn't understand what nkr said.
On July 02 2015 05:50 jinorazi wrote: "strategic importance" just flies over my head when people talk about it. its knowing what to do and executing it. it doesnt take "strategic thinking" to know if you're down, distract opponent by constantly poking or dropping while i do a hidden expansion or something. this isnt some brilliant strategy but rather executing it efficiently of something that is common sense or best route of action depending on circumstances. even with the most perfect strategy ever conceived, it means nothing if it isnt executed properly and if a player has very good mechanics, they can win whole lot of games just massing marines against infestors and banelings.
throughout the game its small decision making here and there and executing those decisions. to me it has little to do with strategy, but maybe its just my play style since i'm no pro, i just do everything on the fly including build orders after 21st supply and i have no problem winning.
"greater focus on strategy" means nothing because whatever strategy that may be, it all comes down to execution so mechanics are a huge deal in starcraft no matter what.
Artosis never said that mechanics don't matter...
He said one game emphasis one over another but he never made it an exclusive binary.
Both games require mechanics. Both games require strategy.
Games where execution of mechanics are less important, punishes mistaken strategies more. Games where execution of mechanics is more important, gives higher possibility of recovering from strategic mistakes.
Neither mechanics nor strategy is inherently "better" than the other. They're different. Different games emphasize one more than the other--but its not like that means anything concrete.
Rekrul's post was a joke--but it really did get to the heart of the matter the most succinctly.
Kate Upton is not sexy *because* she has big boobs, for there are many ugly people with bigger boobs than her. As such, using "bust size" to denote quality doesn't actually say anything. Its the whole package that denotes quality. So when statements like "SC2 is more strategy focused that BW" does it really tell us what the quality of SC2 is over BW? Or, much like Rekrul's picture, does the size of one's "strategy" really equate to how sexy one is?
There are many many games out there. Many many acts of competition, many many types of entertainment. There near infinite number of things more mechanically difficult than BW. There is also near infinite things more strategic than BW. The existence of those things does not reduce the value of BW because BW is not defined by that one metric. Rarely is the quality of anything actually defined by a single metric. There is no need to see statements like the ones artosis made as attacks on BW for the same reason that the statements he made were not praises of SC2.
This completely neglects the fact that we play vs other players and not vs the game. It doesn't matter how hard the mechanics are, there will always be someone close to your mechanical skill (unless you are the absolute best/worst, that might be an exception) If mechanics would be more important in one game that only means that the mechanical skill of said playerbase is highly different. If the differences in mechanical skill of players are similar between games, you simply cannot say that strategy is more important in one game. It makes no sense.
But if the reason that you are better than someone else is primarily because of mechanical skill and not strategical skill, then the game focuses heavily on mechanics.
In both SC2 and BW, you will be better than many people based on mechanics, until you reach a certain level. At that level, mechanics start meaning less and strategy starts meaning more. Mechanical improvements past this point give diminishing returns. The only difference is that in SC2, this level is reached sooner. In BW, it is reached later, but when it is reached, it makes for a better game, because choosing how to spend apm is a fun part of the game that isn't emphasized much in SC2.
On July 02 2015 05:50 jinorazi wrote: "strategic importance" just flies over my head when people talk about it. its knowing what to do and executing it. it doesnt take "strategic thinking" to know if you're down, distract opponent by constantly poking or dropping while i do a hidden expansion or something. this isnt some brilliant strategy but rather executing it efficiently of something that is common sense or best route of action depending on circumstances. even with the most perfect strategy ever conceived, it means nothing if it isnt executed properly and if a player has very good mechanics, they can win whole lot of games just massing marines against infestors and banelings.
throughout the game its small decision making here and there and executing those decisions. to me it has little to do with strategy, but maybe its just my play style since i'm no pro, i just do everything on the fly including build orders after 21st supply and i have no problem winning.
"greater focus on strategy" means nothing because whatever strategy that may be, it all comes down to execution so mechanics are a huge deal in starcraft no matter what.
Artosis never said that mechanics don't matter...
He said one game emphasis one over another but he never made it an exclusive binary.
Both games require mechanics. Both games require strategy.
Games where execution of mechanics are less important, punishes mistaken strategies more. Games where execution of mechanics is more important, gives higher possibility of recovering from strategic mistakes.
Neither mechanics nor strategy is inherently "better" than the other. They're different. Different games emphasize one more than the other--but its not like that means anything concrete.
Rekrul's post was a joke--but it really did get to the heart of the matter the most succinctly.
Kate Upton is not sexy *because* she has big boobs, for there are many ugly people with bigger boobs than her. As such, using "bust size" to denote quality doesn't actually say anything. Its the whole package that denotes quality. So when statements like "SC2 is more strategy focused that BW" does it really tell us what the quality of SC2 is over BW? Or, much like Rekrul's picture, does the size of one's "strategy" really equate to how sexy one is?
There are many many games out there. Many many acts of competition, many many types of entertainment. There near infinite number of things more mechanically difficult than BW. There is also near infinite things more strategic than BW. The existence of those things does not reduce the value of BW because BW is not defined by that one metric. Rarely is the quality of anything actually defined by a single metric. There is no need to see statements like the ones artosis made as attacks on BW for the same reason that the statements he made were not praises of SC2.
This completely neglects the fact that we play vs other players and not vs the game. It doesn't matter how hard the mechanics are, there will always be someone close to your mechanical skill (unless you are the absolute best/worst, that might be an exception) If mechanics would be more important in one game that only means that the mechanical skill of said playerbase is highly different. If the differences in mechanical skill of players are similar between games, you simply cannot say that strategy is more important in one game. It makes no sense.
But if the reason that you are better than someone else is primarily because of mechanical skill and not strategical skill, then the game focuses heavily on mechanics.
In both SC2 and BW, you will be better than many people based on mechanics, until you reach a certain level. At that level, mechanics start meaning less and strategy starts meaning more. Mechanical improvements past this point give diminishing returns. The only difference is that in SC2, this level is reached sooner. In BW, it is reached later, but when it is reached, it makes for a better game, because choosing how to spend apm is a fun part of the game that isn't emphasized much in SC2.
That only means you chose to look at two players with highly different mechanical skills.
The second part is kinda the definition of mechanical skill floor, nothing more.
On July 02 2015 05:50 jinorazi wrote: "strategic importance" just flies over my head when people talk about it. its knowing what to do and executing it. it doesnt take "strategic thinking" to know if you're down, distract opponent by constantly poking or dropping while i do a hidden expansion or something. this isnt some brilliant strategy but rather executing it efficiently of something that is common sense or best route of action depending on circumstances. even with the most perfect strategy ever conceived, it means nothing if it isnt executed properly and if a player has very good mechanics, they can win whole lot of games just massing marines against infestors and banelings.
throughout the game its small decision making here and there and executing those decisions. to me it has little to do with strategy, but maybe its just my play style since i'm no pro, i just do everything on the fly including build orders after 21st supply and i have no problem winning.
"greater focus on strategy" means nothing because whatever strategy that may be, it all comes down to execution so mechanics are a huge deal in starcraft no matter what.
Artosis never said that mechanics don't matter...
He said one game emphasis one over another but he never made it an exclusive binary.
Both games require mechanics. Both games require strategy.
Games where execution of mechanics are less important, punishes mistaken strategies more. Games where execution of mechanics is more important, gives higher possibility of recovering from strategic mistakes.
Neither mechanics nor strategy is inherently "better" than the other. They're different. Different games emphasize one more than the other--but its not like that means anything concrete.
Rekrul's post was a joke--but it really did get to the heart of the matter the most succinctly.
Kate Upton is not sexy *because* she has big boobs, for there are many ugly people with bigger boobs than her. As such, using "bust size" to denote quality doesn't actually say anything. Its the whole package that denotes quality. So when statements like "SC2 is more strategy focused that BW" does it really tell us what the quality of SC2 is over BW? Or, much like Rekrul's picture, does the size of one's "strategy" really equate to how sexy one is?
There are many many games out there. Many many acts of competition, many many types of entertainment. There near infinite number of things more mechanically difficult than BW. There is also near infinite things more strategic than BW. The existence of those things does not reduce the value of BW because BW is not defined by that one metric. Rarely is the quality of anything actually defined by a single metric. There is no need to see statements like the ones artosis made as attacks on BW for the same reason that the statements he made were not praises of SC2.
This completely neglects the fact that we play vs other players and not vs the game. It doesn't matter how hard the mechanics are, there will always be someone close to your mechanical skill (unless you are the absolute best/worst, that might be an exception) If mechanics would be more important in one game that only means that the mechanical skill of said playerbase is highly different. If the differences in mechanical skill of players are similar between games, you simply cannot say that strategy is more important in one game. It makes no sense.
But if the reason that you are better than someone else is primarily because of mechanical skill and not strategical skill, then the game focuses heavily on mechanics.
That only means that you chose to look at player with highly different mechanics, nothign more
You can also be better than someone because you have better strategy, that is true. Which shows us that StarCraft and StarCraft 2 are games of strategy AND skill.
edit:
I think that StarCraft II is only a relatively more strategic game than BW. I don't think that it actually has more strategic depth. It just has less of other things, which shifts the spotlight more towards strategy. But when a certain mechanical skill level is reached in BW, raw mechanics aren't what decide games anyway...
On July 02 2015 06:19 nkr wrote: What he says in his text isn't that there's more strategy in the game, but rather that it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier. Removing or restricting something in a game doesn't suddenly make the other things more evolved, it just puts more emphasis on them.
it may seem that way but i dont think that is the case. you can still do in bw whatever "more focused strategy" you can do in sc2. its just easier to do with smartcast/mbs but it doesnt add more depth to it.
I think you're having a language issue. Because it seems you didn't understand what nkr said.
??? he (poster he refers to) says sc2 puts more focus (emphasis) on strategy since mechanics are easier, and i said that is not the case (that it doesnt not put more focus on strategy and it makes no difference in the end). are you sure i'm not understanding correctly?
On July 02 2015 05:50 jinorazi wrote: "strategic importance" just flies over my head when people talk about it. its knowing what to do and executing it. it doesnt take "strategic thinking" to know if you're down, distract opponent by constantly poking or dropping while i do a hidden expansion or something. this isnt some brilliant strategy but rather executing it efficiently of something that is common sense or best route of action depending on circumstances. even with the most perfect strategy ever conceived, it means nothing if it isnt executed properly and if a player has very good mechanics, they can win whole lot of games just massing marines against infestors and banelings.
throughout the game its small decision making here and there and executing those decisions. to me it has little to do with strategy, but maybe its just my play style since i'm no pro, i just do everything on the fly including build orders after 21st supply and i have no problem winning.
"greater focus on strategy" means nothing because whatever strategy that may be, it all comes down to execution so mechanics are a huge deal in starcraft no matter what.
Artosis never said that mechanics don't matter...
He said one game emphasis one over another but he never made it an exclusive binary.
Both games require mechanics. Both games require strategy.
Games where execution of mechanics are less important, punishes mistaken strategies more. Games where execution of mechanics is more important, gives higher possibility of recovering from strategic mistakes.
Neither mechanics nor strategy is inherently "better" than the other. They're different. Different games emphasize one more than the other--but its not like that means anything concrete.
Rekrul's post was a joke--but it really did get to the heart of the matter the most succinctly.
Kate Upton is not sexy *because* she has big boobs, for there are many ugly people with bigger boobs than her. As such, using "bust size" to denote quality doesn't actually say anything. Its the whole package that denotes quality. So when statements like "SC2 is more strategy focused that BW" does it really tell us what the quality of SC2 is over BW? Or, much like Rekrul's picture, does the size of one's "strategy" really equate to how sexy one is?
There are many many games out there. Many many acts of competition, many many types of entertainment. There near infinite number of things more mechanically difficult than BW. There is also near infinite things more strategic than BW. The existence of those things does not reduce the value of BW because BW is not defined by that one metric. Rarely is the quality of anything actually defined by a single metric. There is no need to see statements like the ones artosis made as attacks on BW for the same reason that the statements he made were not praises of SC2.
This completely neglects the fact that we play vs other players and not vs the game. It doesn't matter how hard the mechanics are, there will always be someone close to your mechanical skill (unless you are the absolute best/worst, that might be an exception) If mechanics would be more important in one game that only means that the mechanical skill of said playerbase is highly different. If the differences in mechanical skill of players are similar between games, you simply cannot say that strategy is more important in one game. It makes no sense.
You're assuming that players always face versus someone of exactly equal skill each time. This is where you are mistaken.
Look back at Artosis' example. Sea vs some random guy on the ladder. What are the chances that if Sea faces some random player on the ladder that he is facing vs a former pro that practices the same as him? And what are the chances that unless Sea makes sure that the person he finds is the same skill level than him that he will simply win because he has kespa training and most random ladder players do not. In fact, if you took a kespa BW player and had them face against A level players on iccup they would absolutely roflstomp them because Kespa mechanics are so much ahead of the competition.
What if we reverse that? What are the chances that random masters players can take games off of pros in SC2? Pretty high actually, because if the SC2 pro makes the wrong strategic choice he can't just use his superior mechanics to always get back in the game.
Why is this? Because in BW, the difficulty of the game is high enough that most players are unable to execute strategies as effectively as they should to get wins off of pros. The reverse is not true in SC2. In SC2, a lot of pros will lose to people on the ladder with worse mechanics than them because they made the wrong units or decided to attack on the wrong time.
This is what Artosis means about one game being more reliant on one thing over another. The reason Chess and Sports and Board Games and Poker get brought up is in an attempt to show what the relationship of mechanics and strategy is as a concept in order to be able to discuss it without the biased need to prove one game is superior/inferior to the other.
On July 02 2015 06:19 nkr wrote: What he says in his text isn't that there's more strategy in the game, but rather that it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier. Removing or restricting something in a game doesn't suddenly make the other things more evolved, it just puts more emphasis on them.
it may seem that way but i dont think that is the case. you can still do in bw whatever "more focused strategy" you can do in sc2. its just easier to do with smartcast/mbs but it doesnt add more depth to it.
I think you're having a language issue. Because it seems you didn't understand what nkr said.
??? he (poster he refers to) says sc2 puts more focus (emphasis) on strategy since mechanics are easier, and i said that is not the case (that it doesnt not put more focus on strategy and it makes no difference in the end). are you sure i'm not understanding correctly?
He's saying that mechanical skill has less of bonus in SC2 than it does in BW. As such, the % that mechanics makes a difference in SC2 is smaller than it is in BW. As such, mechanics has less of an impact (relatively) in SC2 than in BW. As such, the decision of what strategy is chosen in SC2 is becomes more critical (relatively) than BW because "doing things better" is less important in SC2 than in BW (relatively).
Since your conclusion to his statement was "doesnt add more depth to it" shows that you didn't understand what he was saying since he did not in the least talk about depth.
Artosis also mentioned strategic variables that add depth, which do not exist in BW. He said that there are beautiful things about SC2 that are not in SC1, which are harder to notice than Brood War's beauty. He said that hard counters are one such thing. So he wasn't only saying that strategy is relatively more important in SC2.
On July 02 2015 06:19 nkr wrote: What he says in his text isn't that there's more strategy in the game, but rather that it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier. Removing or restricting something in a game doesn't suddenly make the other things more evolved, it just puts more emphasis on them.
it may seem that way but i dont think that is the case. you can still do in bw whatever "more focused strategy" you can do in sc2. its just easier to do with smartcast/mbs but it doesnt add more depth to it.
I think you're having a language issue. Because it seems you didn't understand what nkr said.
??? he (poster he refers to) says sc2 puts more focus (emphasis) on strategy since mechanics are easier, and i said that is not the case (that it doesnt not put more focus on strategy and it makes no difference in the end). are you sure i'm not understanding correctly?
He's saying that mechanical skill has less of bonus in SC2 than it does in BW. As such, the % that mechanics makes a difference in SC2 is smaller than it is in BW. As such, mechanics has less of an impact (relatively) in SC2 than in BW. As such, the decision of what strategy is chosen in SC2 is becomes more critical (relatively) than BW because "doing things better" is less important in SC2 than in BW (relatively).
Since your conclusion to his statement was "doesnt add more depth to it" shows that you didn't understand what he was saying since he did not in the least talk about depth.
the original post says since mechanics is easier, it puts more focus on strategy and my point was mechanics make no difference in strategy, hence it does not add more depth. unit design is a different matter not related to mechanics.
the results of unit design is what makes strategy(what unit to make) more important, not the difference of sc2 and bw's mechanics.
On July 02 2015 06:19 nkr wrote: What he says in his text isn't that there's more strategy in the game, but rather that it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier. Removing or restricting something in a game doesn't suddenly make the other things more evolved, it just puts more emphasis on them.
it may seem that way but i dont think that is the case. you can still do in bw whatever "more focused strategy" you can do in sc2. its just easier to do with smartcast/mbs but it doesnt add more depth to it.
I think you're having a language issue. Because it seems you didn't understand what nkr said.
??? he (poster he refers to) says sc2 puts more focus (emphasis) on strategy since mechanics are easier, and i said that is not the case (that it doesnt not put more focus on strategy and it makes no difference in the end). are you sure i'm not understanding correctly?
He's saying that mechanical skill has less of bonus in SC2 than it does in BW. As such, the % that mechanics makes a difference in SC2 is smaller than it is in BW. As such, mechanics has less of an impact (relatively) in SC2 than in BW. As such, the decision of what strategy is chosen in SC2 is becomes more critical (relatively) than BW because "doing things better" is less important in SC2 than in BW (relatively).
Since your conclusion to his statement was "doesnt add more depth to it" shows that you didn't understand what he was saying since he did not in the least talk about depth.
the original post says since mechanics is easier, it puts more focus on strategy and my point was mechanics make no difference in strategy, hence it does not add more depth. unit design is a different matter not related to mechanics.
the results of unit design is what makes strategy(what unit to make) more important, not the difference of sc2 and bw's mechanics.
See, you're getting confused again. You keep bringing up "hence it does not add more depth" when nkr says nothing of that.
nkr literally says that mechanics has a bigger impact in BW and less of an impact in SC2. That is all he is positing. As such, the results of a game depends less on mechanics in SC2 relative to BW. Assuming that both mechanics and strategy is the cause of victories in both games, the percentage that mechanics take responsibility of that victory is smaller in SC2 than it is in BW. As such, the percentage of the responsibility of that victory coming from strategy in SC2 is higher than it is in BW because mechanics has a bigger effect in BW than in SC2.
You are bringing up a qualitative value of the strategy (by describing it as depth) and not listening to what nkr is saying.
On July 02 2015 06:19 nkr wrote: What he says in his text isn't that there's more strategy in the game, but rather that it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier. Removing or restricting something in a game doesn't suddenly make the other things more evolved, it just puts more emphasis on them.
it may seem that way but i dont think that is the case. you can still do in bw whatever "more focused strategy" you can do in sc2. its just easier to do with smartcast/mbs but it doesnt add more depth to it.
I think you're having a language issue. Because it seems you didn't understand what nkr said.
??? he (poster he refers to) says sc2 puts more focus (emphasis) on strategy since mechanics are easier, and i said that is not the case (that it doesnt not put more focus on strategy and it makes no difference in the end). are you sure i'm not understanding correctly?
He's saying that mechanical skill has less of bonus in SC2 than it does in BW. As such, the % that mechanics makes a difference in SC2 is smaller than it is in BW. As such, mechanics has less of an impact (relatively) in SC2 than in BW. As such, the decision of what strategy is chosen in SC2 is becomes more critical (relatively) than BW because "doing things better" is less important in SC2 than in BW (relatively).
Since your conclusion to his statement was "doesnt add more depth to it" shows that you didn't understand what he was saying since he did not in the least talk about depth.
the original post says since mechanics is easier, it puts more focus on strategy and my point was mechanics make no difference in strategy, hence it does not add more depth. unit design is a different matter not related to mechanics.
the results of unit design is what makes strategy(what unit to make) more important, not the difference of sc2 and bw's mechanics.
See, you're getting confused again. You keep bringing up "hence it does not add more depth" when nkr says nothing of that.
nkr literally says that mechanics has a bigger impact in BW and less of an impact in SC2. That is all he is positing. As such, the results of a game depends less on mechanics in SC2 relative to BW. Assuming that both mechanics and strategy is the cause of victories in both games, the percentage that mechanics take responsibility of that victory is smaller in SC2 than it is in BW. As such, the percentage of the responsibility of that victory coming from strategy in SC2 is higher than it is in BW because mechanics has a bigger effect in BW than in SC2.
You are bringing up a qualitative value of the strategy (by describing it as depth) and not listening to what nkr is saying.
ahem* the original post says:
"...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier." "...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier." "...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier."
i agree sc2 matters less on mechanics and more on what units to make (kind of), im against how that conclution came to be; its unit design, NOT MECHANICS. my point, once again is that easier mechanics does not add more focus/depth/emphasis on strategy.
On July 02 2015 06:19 nkr wrote: What he says in his text isn't that there's more strategy in the game, but rather that it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier. Removing or restricting something in a game doesn't suddenly make the other things more evolved, it just puts more emphasis on them.
it may seem that way but i dont think that is the case. you can still do in bw whatever "more focused strategy" you can do in sc2. its just easier to do with smartcast/mbs but it doesnt add more depth to it.
I think you're having a language issue. Because it seems you didn't understand what nkr said.
??? he (poster he refers to) says sc2 puts more focus (emphasis) on strategy since mechanics are easier, and i said that is not the case (that it doesnt not put more focus on strategy and it makes no difference in the end). are you sure i'm not understanding correctly?
He's saying that mechanical skill has less of bonus in SC2 than it does in BW. As such, the % that mechanics makes a difference in SC2 is smaller than it is in BW. As such, mechanics has less of an impact (relatively) in SC2 than in BW. As such, the decision of what strategy is chosen in SC2 is becomes more critical (relatively) than BW because "doing things better" is less important in SC2 than in BW (relatively).
Since your conclusion to his statement was "doesnt add more depth to it" shows that you didn't understand what he was saying since he did not in the least talk about depth.
the original post says since mechanics is easier, it puts more focus on strategy and my point was mechanics make no difference in strategy, hence it does not add more depth. unit design is a different matter not related to mechanics.
the results of unit design is what makes strategy(what unit to make) more important, not the difference of sc2 and bw's mechanics.
See, you're getting confused again. You keep bringing up "hence it does not add more depth" when nkr says nothing of that.
nkr literally says that mechanics has a bigger impact in BW and less of an impact in SC2. That is all he is positing. As such, the results of a game depends less on mechanics in SC2 relative to BW. Assuming that both mechanics and strategy is the cause of victories in both games, the percentage that mechanics take responsibility of that victory is smaller in SC2 than it is in BW. As such, the percentage of the responsibility of that victory coming from strategy in SC2 is higher than it is in BW because mechanics has a bigger effect in BW than in SC2.
You are bringing up a qualitative value of the strategy (by describing it as depth) and not listening to what nkr is saying.
ahem* the original post says:
"...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier." "...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier." "...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier."
Yeah the mechanics are easier, but the skill cap is still outside of reach.
What's up with you man? lol... bw apologist? Want to go back to no mouse keyboard only rts games?
On July 02 2015 06:19 nkr wrote: What he says in his text isn't that there's more strategy in the game, but rather that it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier. Removing or restricting something in a game doesn't suddenly make the other things more evolved, it just puts more emphasis on them.
it may seem that way but i dont think that is the case. you can still do in bw whatever "more focused strategy" you can do in sc2. its just easier to do with smartcast/mbs but it doesnt add more depth to it.
I think you're having a language issue. Because it seems you didn't understand what nkr said.
??? he (poster he refers to) says sc2 puts more focus (emphasis) on strategy since mechanics are easier, and i said that is not the case (that it doesnt not put more focus on strategy and it makes no difference in the end). are you sure i'm not understanding correctly?
He's saying that mechanical skill has less of bonus in SC2 than it does in BW. As such, the % that mechanics makes a difference in SC2 is smaller than it is in BW. As such, mechanics has less of an impact (relatively) in SC2 than in BW. As such, the decision of what strategy is chosen in SC2 is becomes more critical (relatively) than BW because "doing things better" is less important in SC2 than in BW (relatively).
Since your conclusion to his statement was "doesnt add more depth to it" shows that you didn't understand what he was saying since he did not in the least talk about depth.
the original post says since mechanics is easier, it puts more focus on strategy and my point was mechanics make no difference in strategy, hence it does not add more depth. unit design is a different matter not related to mechanics.
the results of unit design is what makes strategy(what unit to make) more important, not the difference of sc2 and bw's mechanics.
See, you're getting confused again. You keep bringing up "hence it does not add more depth" when nkr says nothing of that.
nkr literally says that mechanics has a bigger impact in BW and less of an impact in SC2. That is all he is positing. As such, the results of a game depends less on mechanics in SC2 relative to BW. Assuming that both mechanics and strategy is the cause of victories in both games, the percentage that mechanics take responsibility of that victory is smaller in SC2 than it is in BW. As such, the percentage of the responsibility of that victory coming from strategy in SC2 is higher than it is in BW because mechanics has a bigger effect in BW than in SC2.
You are bringing up a qualitative value of the strategy (by describing it as depth) and not listening to what nkr is saying.
ahem* the original post says:
"...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier." "...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier." "...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier."
Yeah the mechanics are easier, but the skill cap is still outside of reach.
What's up with you man? lol... bw apologist? Want to go back to no mouse keyboard only rts games?
On July 02 2015 06:19 nkr wrote: What he says in his text isn't that there's more strategy in the game, but rather that it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier. Removing or restricting something in a game doesn't suddenly make the other things more evolved, it just puts more emphasis on them.
it may seem that way but i dont think that is the case. you can still do in bw whatever "more focused strategy" you can do in sc2. its just easier to do with smartcast/mbs but it doesnt add more depth to it.
I think you're having a language issue. Because it seems you didn't understand what nkr said.
??? he (poster he refers to) says sc2 puts more focus (emphasis) on strategy since mechanics are easier, and i said that is not the case (that it doesnt not put more focus on strategy and it makes no difference in the end). are you sure i'm not understanding correctly?
He's saying that mechanical skill has less of bonus in SC2 than it does in BW. As such, the % that mechanics makes a difference in SC2 is smaller than it is in BW. As such, mechanics has less of an impact (relatively) in SC2 than in BW. As such, the decision of what strategy is chosen in SC2 is becomes more critical (relatively) than BW because "doing things better" is less important in SC2 than in BW (relatively).
Since your conclusion to his statement was "doesnt add more depth to it" shows that you didn't understand what he was saying since he did not in the least talk about depth.
the original post says since mechanics is easier, it puts more focus on strategy and my point was mechanics make no difference in strategy, hence it does not add more depth. unit design is a different matter not related to mechanics.
the results of unit design is what makes strategy(what unit to make) more important, not the difference of sc2 and bw's mechanics.
See, you're getting confused again. You keep bringing up "hence it does not add more depth" when nkr says nothing of that.
nkr literally says that mechanics has a bigger impact in BW and less of an impact in SC2. That is all he is positing. As such, the results of a game depends less on mechanics in SC2 relative to BW. Assuming that both mechanics and strategy is the cause of victories in both games, the percentage that mechanics take responsibility of that victory is smaller in SC2 than it is in BW. As such, the percentage of the responsibility of that victory coming from strategy in SC2 is higher than it is in BW because mechanics has a bigger effect in BW than in SC2.
You are bringing up a qualitative value of the strategy (by describing it as depth) and not listening to what nkr is saying.
ahem* the original post says:
"...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier." "...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier." "...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier."
i agree sc2 matters less on mechanics and more on what units to make (kind of), im against how that conclution came to be; its unit design, NOT MECHANICS. my point, once again is that easier mechanics does not add more focus/depth/emphasis on strategy.
I don't think you know what that phrase means...
If I decided to put more focus on my studies than my work--does that mean my studies gain more depth? If I decided to put more focus on eating salads than eating burgers--does that mean salads gain more depth? If I decided to put more focus on strategy than mechanics--does that mean strategy gains more depth?
Or does it simply mean that it takes up a larger percentage of the attention/focus? Does it mean that its simply a bigger part of the overall whole?
I don't necessarily think your posits are wrong, I just don't think you understood what the phrase actually said.
On July 02 2015 06:19 nkr wrote: What he says in his text isn't that there's more strategy in the game, but rather that it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier. Removing or restricting something in a game doesn't suddenly make the other things more evolved, it just puts more emphasis on them.
it may seem that way but i dont think that is the case. you can still do in bw whatever "more focused strategy" you can do in sc2. its just easier to do with smartcast/mbs but it doesnt add more depth to it.
I think you're having a language issue. Because it seems you didn't understand what nkr said.
??? he (poster he refers to) says sc2 puts more focus (emphasis) on strategy since mechanics are easier, and i said that is not the case (that it doesnt not put more focus on strategy and it makes no difference in the end). are you sure i'm not understanding correctly?
He's saying that mechanical skill has less of bonus in SC2 than it does in BW. As such, the % that mechanics makes a difference in SC2 is smaller than it is in BW. As such, mechanics has less of an impact (relatively) in SC2 than in BW. As such, the decision of what strategy is chosen in SC2 is becomes more critical (relatively) than BW because "doing things better" is less important in SC2 than in BW (relatively).
Since your conclusion to his statement was "doesnt add more depth to it" shows that you didn't understand what he was saying since he did not in the least talk about depth.
the original post says since mechanics is easier, it puts more focus on strategy and my point was mechanics make no difference in strategy, hence it does not add more depth. unit design is a different matter not related to mechanics.
the results of unit design is what makes strategy(what unit to make) more important, not the difference of sc2 and bw's mechanics.
See, you're getting confused again. You keep bringing up "hence it does not add more depth" when nkr says nothing of that.
nkr literally says that mechanics has a bigger impact in BW and less of an impact in SC2. That is all he is positing. As such, the results of a game depends less on mechanics in SC2 relative to BW. Assuming that both mechanics and strategy is the cause of victories in both games, the percentage that mechanics take responsibility of that victory is smaller in SC2 than it is in BW. As such, the percentage of the responsibility of that victory coming from strategy in SC2 is higher than it is in BW because mechanics has a bigger effect in BW than in SC2.
You are bringing up a qualitative value of the strategy (by describing it as depth) and not listening to what nkr is saying.
ahem* the original post says:
"...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier." "...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier." "...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier."
i agree sc2 matters less on mechanics and more on what units to make (kind of), im against how that conclution came to be; its unit design, NOT MECHANICS. my point, once again is that easier mechanics does not add more focus/depth/emphasis on strategy.
I don't think you know what that phrase means...
If I decided to put more focus on my studies than my work--does that mean my studies gain more depth? If I decided to put more focus on eating salads than eating burgers--does that mean salads gain more depth? If I decided to put more focus on strategy than mechanics--does that mean strategy gains more depth?
Putting more focus on your studies sounds like you start to study more. Studying the same amount, but doing other things less (and therefor just sitting around doing nothing with the gained time) is a more accurate metaphor.
On July 02 2015 06:19 nkr wrote: What he says in his text isn't that there's more strategy in the game, but rather that it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier. Removing or restricting something in a game doesn't suddenly make the other things more evolved, it just puts more emphasis on them.
it may seem that way but i dont think that is the case. you can still do in bw whatever "more focused strategy" you can do in sc2. its just easier to do with smartcast/mbs but it doesnt add more depth to it.
I think you're having a language issue. Because it seems you didn't understand what nkr said.
??? he (poster he refers to) says sc2 puts more focus (emphasis) on strategy since mechanics are easier, and i said that is not the case (that it doesnt not put more focus on strategy and it makes no difference in the end). are you sure i'm not understanding correctly?
He's saying that mechanical skill has less of bonus in SC2 than it does in BW. As such, the % that mechanics makes a difference in SC2 is smaller than it is in BW. As such, mechanics has less of an impact (relatively) in SC2 than in BW. As such, the decision of what strategy is chosen in SC2 is becomes more critical (relatively) than BW because "doing things better" is less important in SC2 than in BW (relatively).
Since your conclusion to his statement was "doesnt add more depth to it" shows that you didn't understand what he was saying since he did not in the least talk about depth.
the original post says since mechanics is easier, it puts more focus on strategy and my point was mechanics make no difference in strategy, hence it does not add more depth. unit design is a different matter not related to mechanics.
the results of unit design is what makes strategy(what unit to make) more important, not the difference of sc2 and bw's mechanics.
See, you're getting confused again. You keep bringing up "hence it does not add more depth" when nkr says nothing of that.
nkr literally says that mechanics has a bigger impact in BW and less of an impact in SC2. That is all he is positing. As such, the results of a game depends less on mechanics in SC2 relative to BW. Assuming that both mechanics and strategy is the cause of victories in both games, the percentage that mechanics take responsibility of that victory is smaller in SC2 than it is in BW. As such, the percentage of the responsibility of that victory coming from strategy in SC2 is higher than it is in BW because mechanics has a bigger effect in BW than in SC2.
You are bringing up a qualitative value of the strategy (by describing it as depth) and not listening to what nkr is saying.
ahem* the original post says:
"...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier." "...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier." "...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier."
i agree sc2 matters less on mechanics and more on what units to make (kind of), im against how that conclution came to be; its unit design, NOT MECHANICS. my point, once again is that easier mechanics does not add more focus/depth/emphasis on strategy.
I don't think you know what that phrase means...
If I decided to put more focus on my studies than my work--does that mean my studies gain more depth? If I decided to put more focus on eating salads than eating burgers--does that mean salads gain more depth? If I decided to put more focus on strategy than mechanics--does that mean strategy gains more depth?
Putting more focus on your studies sounds like you start to study more. Working the same amount, but doing other things less (and therefor just sitting around doing nothing with the gained time) is a more accurate metaphor.
Then the sentence would be "put more focus on my studies, than other things I do outside of work" but the sentence remains the same. Twisting the word makes it sound like nkr was making a judgement of which game was better than the other with BW defenders coming in to stand up for BW against someone who literally wasn't saying anything against it.
On July 02 2015 06:19 nkr wrote: What he says in his text isn't that there's more strategy in the game, but rather that it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier. Removing or restricting something in a game doesn't suddenly make the other things more evolved, it just puts more emphasis on them.
it may seem that way but i dont think that is the case. you can still do in bw whatever "more focused strategy" you can do in sc2. its just easier to do with smartcast/mbs but it doesnt add more depth to it.
I think you're having a language issue. Because it seems you didn't understand what nkr said.
??? he (poster he refers to) says sc2 puts more focus (emphasis) on strategy since mechanics are easier, and i said that is not the case (that it doesnt not put more focus on strategy and it makes no difference in the end). are you sure i'm not understanding correctly?
He's saying that mechanical skill has less of bonus in SC2 than it does in BW. As such, the % that mechanics makes a difference in SC2 is smaller than it is in BW. As such, mechanics has less of an impact (relatively) in SC2 than in BW. As such, the decision of what strategy is chosen in SC2 is becomes more critical (relatively) than BW because "doing things better" is less important in SC2 than in BW (relatively).
Since your conclusion to his statement was "doesnt add more depth to it" shows that you didn't understand what he was saying since he did not in the least talk about depth.
the original post says since mechanics is easier, it puts more focus on strategy and my point was mechanics make no difference in strategy, hence it does not add more depth. unit design is a different matter not related to mechanics.
the results of unit design is what makes strategy(what unit to make) more important, not the difference of sc2 and bw's mechanics.
See, you're getting confused again. You keep bringing up "hence it does not add more depth" when nkr says nothing of that.
nkr literally says that mechanics has a bigger impact in BW and less of an impact in SC2. That is all he is positing. As such, the results of a game depends less on mechanics in SC2 relative to BW. Assuming that both mechanics and strategy is the cause of victories in both games, the percentage that mechanics take responsibility of that victory is smaller in SC2 than it is in BW. As such, the percentage of the responsibility of that victory coming from strategy in SC2 is higher than it is in BW because mechanics has a bigger effect in BW than in SC2.
You are bringing up a qualitative value of the strategy (by describing it as depth) and not listening to what nkr is saying.
ahem* the original post says:
"...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier." "...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier." "...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier."
i agree sc2 matters less on mechanics and more on what units to make (kind of), im against how that conclution came to be; its unit design, NOT MECHANICS. my point, once again is that easier mechanics does not add more focus/depth/emphasis on strategy.
I don't think you know what that phrase means...
If I decided to put more focus on my studies than my work--does that mean my studies gain more depth? If I decided to put more focus on eating salads than eating burgers--does that mean salads gain more depth? If I decided to put more focus on strategy than mechanics--does that mean strategy gains more depth?
Or does it simply mean that it takes up a larger percentage of the attention/focus? Does it mean that its simply a bigger part of the overall whole?
I don't necessarily think your posits are wrong, I just don't think you understood what the phrase actually said.
whoa, you're taking that word "depth" to a whole new level where i'm not even sure what you're trying to say. my point was it doesnt add more to it then what it is, it does not make it more meaningful, it does not make it more important, it does not make it more complicated. a choice of word, friend. if you have a grief with my choice of word just say so, no need to waste so many paragraphs talking around it to avoid criticizing my choice of word incase it hurts my feelings
the poster said mechanics is easier so it puts more focus on strategy. i said that is not the case, no more no less...yet you went so far to explain what artosis was trying to say when i wasnt even talking about what artosis said, i only made the point for that phrase i posted above 3 times. i have no idea why you're trying to paraphrase what he said with what artosis is saying, i just took what nrk said for what it is and not cross-referencing with what artosis said.
"...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier." is not some parable or riddle where it could be taken with so many meanings...its very plane to me. it simply says strategy has more focus because mechanics is easier. if he maent something else when he said that, fine by me and i dont fault him but that phrase is wrong in my eyes.
It may be that sc2 strategy is higher relative to its own mechanics, but that doesn't mean there is less strategy in BW compared to sc2, simply that the strategy component is less important within BW itself. As Hier wrote:
On June 30 2015 13:36 Hier wrote: Proportionally? Yes. Relatively? No.
And Red Viper elaborated about 7 pages ago for those who needed a lengthier explanation (and has repeated himself in various forms over the last few pages). Most people seem to be saying the same thing in different ways. The rest of the thread is just people arguing about other things and nitpicking each other.
On July 02 2015 06:19 nkr wrote: What he says in his text isn't that there's more strategy in the game, but rather that it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier. Removing or restricting something in a game doesn't suddenly make the other things more evolved, it just puts more emphasis on them.
it may seem that way but i dont think that is the case. you can still do in bw whatever "more focused strategy" you can do in sc2. its just easier to do with smartcast/mbs but it doesnt add more depth to it.
I think you're having a language issue. Because it seems you didn't understand what nkr said.
??? he (poster he refers to) says sc2 puts more focus (emphasis) on strategy since mechanics are easier, and i said that is not the case (that it doesnt not put more focus on strategy and it makes no difference in the end). are you sure i'm not understanding correctly?
He's saying that mechanical skill has less of bonus in SC2 than it does in BW. As such, the % that mechanics makes a difference in SC2 is smaller than it is in BW. As such, mechanics has less of an impact (relatively) in SC2 than in BW. As such, the decision of what strategy is chosen in SC2 is becomes more critical (relatively) than BW because "doing things better" is less important in SC2 than in BW (relatively).
Since your conclusion to his statement was "doesnt add more depth to it" shows that you didn't understand what he was saying since he did not in the least talk about depth.
the original post says since mechanics is easier, it puts more focus on strategy and my point was mechanics make no difference in strategy, hence it does not add more depth. unit design is a different matter not related to mechanics.
the results of unit design is what makes strategy(what unit to make) more important, not the difference of sc2 and bw's mechanics.
See, you're getting confused again. You keep bringing up "hence it does not add more depth" when nkr says nothing of that.
nkr literally says that mechanics has a bigger impact in BW and less of an impact in SC2. That is all he is positing. As such, the results of a game depends less on mechanics in SC2 relative to BW. Assuming that both mechanics and strategy is the cause of victories in both games, the percentage that mechanics take responsibility of that victory is smaller in SC2 than it is in BW. As such, the percentage of the responsibility of that victory coming from strategy in SC2 is higher than it is in BW because mechanics has a bigger effect in BW than in SC2.
You are bringing up a qualitative value of the strategy (by describing it as depth) and not listening to what nkr is saying.
ahem* the original post says:
"...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier." "...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier." "...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier."
i agree sc2 matters less on mechanics and more on what units to make (kind of), im against how that conclution came to be; its unit design, NOT MECHANICS. my point, once again is that easier mechanics does not add more focus/depth/emphasis on strategy.
I don't think you know what that phrase means...
If I decided to put more focus on my studies than my work--does that mean my studies gain more depth? If I decided to put more focus on eating salads than eating burgers--does that mean salads gain more depth? If I decided to put more focus on strategy than mechanics--does that mean strategy gains more depth?
Or does it simply mean that it takes up a larger percentage of the attention/focus? Does it mean that its simply a bigger part of the overall whole?
I don't necessarily think your posits are wrong, I just don't think you understood what the phrase actually said.
whoa, you're taking that word "depth" to a whole new level where i'm not even sure what you're trying to say. my point was it doesnt add more to it then what it is, it does not make it more meaningful, it does not make it more important, it does not make it more complicated. a choice of word, friend. if you have a grief with my choice of word just say so, no need to waste so many paragraphs talking around it to avoid criticizing my choice of word incase it hurts my feelings
the poster said mechanics is easier so it puts more focus on strategy. i said that is not the case, no more no less...yet you went so far to explain what artosis was trying to say when i wasnt even talking about what artosis said, i only made the point for that phrase i posted above 3 times. i have no idea why you're trying to paraphrase what he said with what artosis is saying, i just took what nrk said for what it is and not cross-referencing with what artosis said.
"...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier." is not some parable or riddle where it could be taken with so many meanings...its very plane to me. it simply says strategy has more focus because mechanics is easier. if he maent something else when he said that, fine by me and i dont fault him but that phrase is wrong in my eyes.
This is the reason why I think you're confusing. nkr did not suggest any of the things you said. Because your understanding of the word focus is not accurate to what the word means. It is impossible for something being put on focus to magical have something "added" to it. Because the word itself literally means to be looked at more closely.
Which is why when you say "you can still do in bw whatever "more focused strategy" you can do in sc2" it doesn't make sense because the quality of the strategy is not what is in question. The value of the strategy is not in question. Its a very simple statement. If you cannot lean on mechanics, then you have to lean on making the right decisions. When mechanics does not help improve the decision--then the act of deciding becomes more important than the mechanics needed to implement said decision. The more capability one's mechanics can affect the decision, the less the act of deciding accurately is important as being able to maximize the decision at hand. But whether any given decision is added to, made important, or seen as meaningful is not what is at stake.
Think about it this way.
He says that since you can't really save yourself from wrong decisions as well, you have to be more certain that the decisions you make are good. And you tell him that the difficulty of saving himself from wrong decisions doesn't make his decisions better. And I'm left wondering, why would it matter how good or meaningful or complicated or better the decision was? Hence my comment that I'm pretty certain there was a misunderstanding.
I think people are confusing the issue of what's more enjoyable vs. what's more strategic. If by "more strategic" you mean, "how many blink stalkers/force fields can you make" then yeah, SC2 > BW. But the heart palpitations caused by immaculately timed science vessels vs. mutalisks, sunkens vs. medic/marine rushes, "eehan timing", etc...there's just no comparison IMO.
On July 02 2015 09:20 mierin wrote: I think people are confusing the issue of what's more enjoyable vs. what's more strategic. If by "more strategic" you mean, "how many blink stalkers/force fields can you make" then yeah, SC2 > BW. But the heart palpitations caused by immaculately timed science vessels vs. mutalisks, sunkens vs. medic/marine rushes, "eehan timing", etc...there's just no comparison IMO.
Tactics are tools in strategists use to make decisions. And while strategy is more important in SC2, the toolbox offered by BW is cum worthy!
Double irradiate vessels? Mine drags with zealots? Clone splitting with scourge? Eng Bay spotting? magic box storms? hold position lurkers?
The list goes on and on and on. All these weird unintended tactics that needed a lot of game knowledge to execute properly was what made BW sexy. Dragoon micro? Impressive but not *that* impressive. Vulture harass? Exciting, but not that much more exciting than most drop play in SC2.
But the non-standard options? Like the double medic + marine wall off vs zerglings with the floating rax to prevent zerg from right-clicking your medics? Or the mass hallucination arbiter drops + the leftover "retreat" arbiter to allow you to save some amount of your army if the drop failed? Or watching July Zerg do the 300 supply push for the first time?
The tactics available to BW are just so much sexier than the tactics available to SC2. I mean, sure, SC2 has a LOT of tactics that get me hot and bothered also. And its definitely one of my most watched games. But there's just something so clean and intended about the tactics available in SC2. You never feel like you're breaking the rules of how the spell or units were designed to be used. Well... warp ins, swarm hosts, and reapers definitely did not come out as intended. But if this was BW then the wouldn't have changed anything and simply had us make maps that make those units not stupid.
it may seem that way but i dont think that is the case. you can still do in bw whatever "more focused strategy" you can do in sc2. its just easier to do with smartcast/mbs but it doesnt add more depth to it.
I think you're having a language issue. Because it seems you didn't understand what nkr said.
??? he (poster he refers to) says sc2 puts more focus (emphasis) on strategy since mechanics are easier, and i said that is not the case (that it doesnt not put more focus on strategy and it makes no difference in the end). are you sure i'm not understanding correctly?
He's saying that mechanical skill has less of bonus in SC2 than it does in BW. As such, the % that mechanics makes a difference in SC2 is smaller than it is in BW. As such, mechanics has less of an impact (relatively) in SC2 than in BW. As such, the decision of what strategy is chosen in SC2 is becomes more critical (relatively) than BW because "doing things better" is less important in SC2 than in BW (relatively).
Since your conclusion to his statement was "doesnt add more depth to it" shows that you didn't understand what he was saying since he did not in the least talk about depth.
the original post says since mechanics is easier, it puts more focus on strategy and my point was mechanics make no difference in strategy, hence it does not add more depth. unit design is a different matter not related to mechanics.
the results of unit design is what makes strategy(what unit to make) more important, not the difference of sc2 and bw's mechanics.
See, you're getting confused again. You keep bringing up "hence it does not add more depth" when nkr says nothing of that.
nkr literally says that mechanics has a bigger impact in BW and less of an impact in SC2. That is all he is positing. As such, the results of a game depends less on mechanics in SC2 relative to BW. Assuming that both mechanics and strategy is the cause of victories in both games, the percentage that mechanics take responsibility of that victory is smaller in SC2 than it is in BW. As such, the percentage of the responsibility of that victory coming from strategy in SC2 is higher than it is in BW because mechanics has a bigger effect in BW than in SC2.
You are bringing up a qualitative value of the strategy (by describing it as depth) and not listening to what nkr is saying.
ahem* the original post says:
"...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier." "...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier." "...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier."
i agree sc2 matters less on mechanics and more on what units to make (kind of), im against how that conclution came to be; its unit design, NOT MECHANICS. my point, once again is that easier mechanics does not add more focus/depth/emphasis on strategy.
I don't think you know what that phrase means...
If I decided to put more focus on my studies than my work--does that mean my studies gain more depth? If I decided to put more focus on eating salads than eating burgers--does that mean salads gain more depth? If I decided to put more focus on strategy than mechanics--does that mean strategy gains more depth?
Or does it simply mean that it takes up a larger percentage of the attention/focus? Does it mean that its simply a bigger part of the overall whole?
I don't necessarily think your posits are wrong, I just don't think you understood what the phrase actually said.
whoa, you're taking that word "depth" to a whole new level where i'm not even sure what you're trying to say. my point was it doesnt add more to it then what it is, it does not make it more meaningful, it does not make it more important, it does not make it more complicated. a choice of word, friend. if you have a grief with my choice of word just say so, no need to waste so many paragraphs talking around it to avoid criticizing my choice of word incase it hurts my feelings
the poster said mechanics is easier so it puts more focus on strategy. i said that is not the case, no more no less...yet you went so far to explain what artosis was trying to say when i wasnt even talking about what artosis said, i only made the point for that phrase i posted above 3 times. i have no idea why you're trying to paraphrase what he said with what artosis is saying, i just took what nrk said for what it is and not cross-referencing with what artosis said.
"...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier." is not some parable or riddle where it could be taken with so many meanings...its very plane to me. it simply says strategy has more focus because mechanics is easier. if he maent something else when he said that, fine by me and i dont fault him but that phrase is wrong in my eyes.
This is the reason why I think you're confusing. nkr did not suggest any of the things you said. Because your understanding of the word focus is not accurate to what the word means. It is impossible for something being put on focus to magical have something "added" to it. Because the word itself literally means to be looked at more closely.
Which is why when you say "you can still do in bw whatever "more focused strategy" you can do in sc2" it doesn't make sense because the quality of the strategy is not what is in question. The value of the strategy is not in question. Its a very simple statement. If you cannot lean on mechanics, then you have to lean on making the right decisions. When mechanics does not help improve the decision--then the act of deciding becomes more important than the mechanics needed to implement said decision. The more capability one's mechanics can affect the decision, the less the act of deciding accurately is important as being able to maximize the decision at hand. But whether any given decision is added to, made important, or seen as meaningful is not what is at stake.
Think about it this way.
He says that since you can't really save yourself from wrong decisions as well, you have to be more certain that the decisions you make are good. And you tell him that the difficulty of saving himself from wrong decisions doesn't make his decisions better. And I'm left wondering, why would it matter how good or meaningful or complicated or better the decision was? Hence my comment that I'm pretty certain there was a misunderstanding.
you're over complicating things.
i think you're trying to say; if a player can't hit 3 pointers, he has no business attempting 3 pointers, until he can. player's decision on strategy being based on his limitations on his mechanical skill....its not even related to what i'm saying and so obvious i wouldnt even have brought it up.
nkr, paraphrasing someone else said easier mechanics puts focus on strategy. i'm saying mechanics and strategy are not related, hence it doesnt add anything to the other if you take something out from the other. you're trying to make the connection using topics that are outside the subject, it makes it more confusing.
its very simple what i'm saying bro. nkr says easier mechanics = focus on strategy. if i take that at face value, its wrong but as you point out, he means something else. if he meant sc2 focuses more on strategy than mechanics because bad mechanics are less forgiving in bw, thats fine. my point is the focus on strategy comes from unit design, not mechanics because as i point out, despite the harder mechanics bw has, it doesnt take it away from strategy and the vice versa applies with sc2. my point is mechanics is not the problem or has any connection with strategy, as in it doesnt put more or less focus on strategy because of some change in mechanics.
you're talking about balance between mechanics and strategy, i'm talking about relationship between mechanics and strategy outside of player's ability since this varies so much. nkr spoke the relationship between the two, he said "more focus on strategy because mechanics is easier. Because its easier." i say no, being easier has nothing to do with it.
I think you're having a language issue. Because it seems you didn't understand what nkr said.
??? he (poster he refers to) says sc2 puts more focus (emphasis) on strategy since mechanics are easier, and i said that is not the case (that it doesnt not put more focus on strategy and it makes no difference in the end). are you sure i'm not understanding correctly?
He's saying that mechanical skill has less of bonus in SC2 than it does in BW. As such, the % that mechanics makes a difference in SC2 is smaller than it is in BW. As such, mechanics has less of an impact (relatively) in SC2 than in BW. As such, the decision of what strategy is chosen in SC2 is becomes more critical (relatively) than BW because "doing things better" is less important in SC2 than in BW (relatively).
Since your conclusion to his statement was "doesnt add more depth to it" shows that you didn't understand what he was saying since he did not in the least talk about depth.
the original post says since mechanics is easier, it puts more focus on strategy and my point was mechanics make no difference in strategy, hence it does not add more depth. unit design is a different matter not related to mechanics.
the results of unit design is what makes strategy(what unit to make) more important, not the difference of sc2 and bw's mechanics.
See, you're getting confused again. You keep bringing up "hence it does not add more depth" when nkr says nothing of that.
nkr literally says that mechanics has a bigger impact in BW and less of an impact in SC2. That is all he is positing. As such, the results of a game depends less on mechanics in SC2 relative to BW. Assuming that both mechanics and strategy is the cause of victories in both games, the percentage that mechanics take responsibility of that victory is smaller in SC2 than it is in BW. As such, the percentage of the responsibility of that victory coming from strategy in SC2 is higher than it is in BW because mechanics has a bigger effect in BW than in SC2.
You are bringing up a qualitative value of the strategy (by describing it as depth) and not listening to what nkr is saying.
ahem* the original post says:
"...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier." "...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier." "...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier."
i agree sc2 matters less on mechanics and more on what units to make (kind of), im against how that conclution came to be; its unit design, NOT MECHANICS. my point, once again is that easier mechanics does not add more focus/depth/emphasis on strategy.
I don't think you know what that phrase means...
If I decided to put more focus on my studies than my work--does that mean my studies gain more depth? If I decided to put more focus on eating salads than eating burgers--does that mean salads gain more depth? If I decided to put more focus on strategy than mechanics--does that mean strategy gains more depth?
Or does it simply mean that it takes up a larger percentage of the attention/focus? Does it mean that its simply a bigger part of the overall whole?
I don't necessarily think your posits are wrong, I just don't think you understood what the phrase actually said.
whoa, you're taking that word "depth" to a whole new level where i'm not even sure what you're trying to say. my point was it doesnt add more to it then what it is, it does not make it more meaningful, it does not make it more important, it does not make it more complicated. a choice of word, friend. if you have a grief with my choice of word just say so, no need to waste so many paragraphs talking around it to avoid criticizing my choice of word incase it hurts my feelings
the poster said mechanics is easier so it puts more focus on strategy. i said that is not the case, no more no less...yet you went so far to explain what artosis was trying to say when i wasnt even talking about what artosis said, i only made the point for that phrase i posted above 3 times. i have no idea why you're trying to paraphrase what he said with what artosis is saying, i just took what nrk said for what it is and not cross-referencing with what artosis said.
"...it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier." is not some parable or riddle where it could be taken with so many meanings...its very plane to me. it simply says strategy has more focus because mechanics is easier. if he maent something else when he said that, fine by me and i dont fault him but that phrase is wrong in my eyes.
This is the reason why I think you're confusing. nkr did not suggest any of the things you said. Because your understanding of the word focus is not accurate to what the word means. It is impossible for something being put on focus to magical have something "added" to it. Because the word itself literally means to be looked at more closely.
Which is why when you say "you can still do in bw whatever "more focused strategy" you can do in sc2" it doesn't make sense because the quality of the strategy is not what is in question. The value of the strategy is not in question. Its a very simple statement. If you cannot lean on mechanics, then you have to lean on making the right decisions. When mechanics does not help improve the decision--then the act of deciding becomes more important than the mechanics needed to implement said decision. The more capability one's mechanics can affect the decision, the less the act of deciding accurately is important as being able to maximize the decision at hand. But whether any given decision is added to, made important, or seen as meaningful is not what is at stake.
Think about it this way.
He says that since you can't really save yourself from wrong decisions as well, you have to be more certain that the decisions you make are good. And you tell him that the difficulty of saving himself from wrong decisions doesn't make his decisions better. And I'm left wondering, why would it matter how good or meaningful or complicated or better the decision was? Hence my comment that I'm pretty certain there was a misunderstanding.
you're over complicating things.
i think you're trying to say; if a player can't hit 3 pointers, he has no business attempting 3 pointers, until he can. player's decision on strategy being based on his limitations on his mechanical skill....its not even related to what i'm saying and so obvious i wouldnt even have brought it up.
nkr, paraphrasing someone else said easier mechanics puts focus on strategy. i'm saying mechanics and strategy are not related, hence it doesnt add anything to the other if you take something out from the other. you're trying to make the connection using topics that are outside the subject, it makes it more confusing.
its very simple what i'm saying bro. nkr says easier mechanics = focus on strategy. if i take that at face value, its wrong but as you point out, he means something else. if he meant sc2 focuses more on strategy than mechanics because bad mechanics are less forgiving in bw, thats fine. my point is the focus on strategy comes from unit design, not mechanics because as i point out, despite the harder mechanics bw has, it doesnt take it away from strategy and the vice versa applies with sc2. my point is mechanics is not the problem or has any connection with strategy, as in it doesnt put more or less focus on strategy because of some change in mechanics.
you're talking about balance between mechanics and strategy, i'm talking about relationship between mechanics and strategy outside of player's ability since this varies so much. nkr spoke the relationship between the two, he said "more focus on strategy because mechanics is easier. Because its easier." i say no, being easier has nothing to do with it.
That makes absolutely no sense. Strategy comes purely from the ability to make decisions, not units. GO only has dots on a board, and it has strategy. Boxing has no units at all, and it has strategy. What units are available has nothing to do with what strategy is.
How dependable and easy to execute the actions you have available is the only thing that affects strategy. The easier to execute the decisions, the more focus is placed on the decision itself. The more difficult it is to execute a decision, the less focus is placed on any given decision.
Unit design is what puts focus on what decision to make. Unit design, not the existence of units. Hard counter makes sc2 more punishing than bw's mechanics.
And to your second paragraph, the players ability varies from noob to expert and their strategy should be related to that. Players ability is the limiting factor, not the game mechanics.
I'm not sure I'm comfortable boiling down 'strategy' to unit composition and build order, which is what Artosis seems to be doing. But if that is what he means by 'strategy', then sure, that's true I guess: SC2 is more build-ordery and compositional than Brood War. OK, great.
Personally, I prefer units that give rise to interesting positional decisions over Hearthstone cards with walking and attack animations.
Nozdormu is the 8/8 on the board, it makes turns only last 15 seconds. Animations that stack at the end of opponent's turn have to end before you can act, so they can take time from your turn. By stacking Nozdormu and infinitely replacing bouncing pandas, you force animations to always take your whole opponent's turn time, so he never can do any action at all.
This isn't stacked mutas this is hax!
interesting nonetheless
It's not intended by the dev - just like stacked mutas isn't. But it's not a hack; it's simply playing the game in a weird way and making use of the game's own broken engine. Exactly like stacked mutas.
People like you is the reason we have weird game rules like traveling in basketball
"But what if we never dribble the ball sir? How can they get it? Just get one point ahead and hold on for dear life."
SC1 definitely requires more mechanics and than SC2 does, but I wouldn't put it in the way Artosis did. SC2 has not developed as solid of a game as BW has. Lots of SC2 mechanics and concepts are still being explored, patch after patch. The fact that SC2 HOTS still have new builds churning out of pros' gameplays is the proof. Although time is of the essence, overall sc2 will eventually develop into sc1, with the eventual end to the trilogy that is lotv.
Below is an attempt to find common ground. Please correct and clarify as concisely as possible.
Proportionally speaking, strategy / macro (used here to mean the same thing) is more important to Starcraft 2 at most skill levels. Therefore, mechanics / micro (used here to mean the same thing) are proportionally more important in Brood War at most skill levels. Absolutely speaking, there are about the same amount of non-depth sapping or gameplay detrimental, important strategic / macro decisions to make in both games at most skill levels. Additionally, there are more non-depth sapping or gameplay detrimental, important micro decisions to make in Brood War at most skill levels. Therefore, Brood War requires more important and non-depth sapping decisions to be made per game time around its design at most skill levels. Insofar as Artosis meant proportionally, he is correct. Insofar as he meant absolutely relating to the amount of important and non-degenerate decisions to be made per game or per game time, he is incorrect.
strategy / macro (used here to mean the same thing) mechanics / micro (used here to mean the same thing)
wrong.
mechanics definitely = macro + micro (according to convention) like being tall, able to run fast, jump high and shooting accurately in basketball.
strategy might mean any dam thing as he didn't define it and everyone is confused
Well then. That makes this thread nothing but flaming news, and Artosis' words inane.
I always thought macro AND strategy were the same thing as anything related to build order, workers and their management to an extent, and adjustments to be made depending on what information is gathered during and out of the game. 'Tis a good thing I made that clear, then, otherwise there'd be even more confusion.
strategy / macro (used here to mean the same thing) mechanics / micro (used here to mean the same thing)
wrong.
mechanics definitely = macro + micro (according to convention) like being tall, able to run fast, jump high and shooting accurately in basketball.
strategy might mean any dam thing as he didn't define it and everyone is confused
Strategy is the type of build order you use, where you decide to take fights, when you decide to attack, when you decide to defend, what type of units you decide to make. Strategy can almost completely be synonymous with decision making.
Micro involves very limited decision making. There is a perfect way to micro your units in basically every situation but rarely does micro perfection ever happen. However, your micro skill level is basically dependent on how close to that perfect engagement/unit movement/targeting that you can get consistently.
Macro involves very limited decision making. Your strategy determines when you will expand and whether you're going for a more high economy ("macro-style") or low economy style but regardless, whether you have 1 command center or 2 command centers, you have to make SCV's and keeping on top of that, along with your army production, infrastructure, etc. The pure ability to keep up with the necessary actions that your strategy requires like producing workers, units, buildings, etc. that is required in every game IS MACRO. The only real decision making involved in macro is deciding where you will spend your time when time is limited and your attention is divided onto multiple screens.
strategy / macro (used here to mean the same thing) mechanics / micro (used here to mean the same thing)
wrong.
mechanics definitely = macro + micro (according to convention) like being tall, able to run fast, jump high and shooting accurately in basketball.
strategy might mean any dam thing as he didn't define it and everyone is confused
Strategy is the type of build order you use, where you decide to take fights, when you decide to attack, when you decide to defend, what type of units you decide to make. Strategy can almost completely be synonymous with decision making.
Micro involves very limited decision making. There is a perfect way to micro your units in basically every situation but rarely does micro perfection ever happen. However, your micro skill level is basically dependent on how close to that perfect engagement/unit movement/targeting that you can get consistently.
Macro involves very limited decision making. Your strategy determines when you will expand and whether you're going for a more high economy ("macro-style") or low economy style but regardless, whether you have 1 command center or 2 command centers, you have to make SCV's and keeping on top of that, along with your army production, infrastructure, etc. The pure ability to keep up with the necessary actions that your strategy requires like producing workers, units, buildings, etc. that is required in every game IS MACRO. The only real decision making involved in macro is deciding where you will spend your time when time is limited and your attention is divided onto multiple screens.
I agree In short, mechanics = macro + micro ~ athleticism in sports
and imo Strategy = fast expanding or going allin or going for broodlords + queens because:
1 it works well in this map, or 2 because you know your opponent's playstyle in this map would make it advantageous for you to do so, etc (to quote a few examples)
strategy / macro (used here to mean the same thing) mechanics / micro (used here to mean the same thing)
wrong.
mechanics definitely = macro + micro (according to convention) like being tall, able to run fast, jump high and shooting accurately in basketball.
strategy might mean any dam thing as he didn't define it and everyone is confused
Well then. That makes this thread nothing but flaming news, and Artosis' words inane.
I always thought macro AND strategy were the same thing as anything related to build order, workers and their management to an extent, and adjustments to be made depending on what information is gathered during and out of the game. 'Tis a good thing I made that clear, then, otherwise there'd be even more confusion.
Honest question, does anyone here really seriously truthfully think that BW is more strategic than SC2? I was not able to see the height of BW, I just saw most of it through YT based on what people say about BW players, but Artosis is 100000% correct here. In BW, it mostly mechanics and speed, while SC2 allows greater emphasis on strategy since mechanics is mainly autoed.
On July 03 2015 20:37 OkMong wrote: Honest question, does anyone here really seriously truthfully think that BW is more strategic than SC2? I was not able to see the height of BW, I just saw most of it through YT based on what people say about BW players, but Artosis is 100000% correct here. In BW, it mostly mechanics and speed, while SC2 allows greater emphasis on strategy since mechanics is mainly autoed.
Please realise that you cannot make a proper judgement while having a lack of knowledge, and thank you for realising you don't know enough
For example:
I have never been to Germany or known any Germans. I just saw most of them through WW2 videos on YT. Based on what people say about Germans, they hate the jews, they scream when they talk and they are very efficient.
See how wrong it can be?
Also, Dr Musicus has demonstrated how the bolded part being true doesn't equate to BW being less strategic:
On June 30 2015 16:15 Musicus wrote: So I had to bust out the paint skills here for one more point:
btw Honest reply: yes. I was excited during the release of SC2. Got my BW friend together, played sc2 for 6 months and got into high plat but I stopped and went back to BW because I personally felt that it was too shallow.
On July 03 2015 20:37 OkMong wrote: Honest question, does anyone here really seriously truthfully think that BW is more strategic than SC2? I was not able to see the height of BW, I just saw most of it through YT based on what people say about BW players, but Artosis is 100000% correct here. In BW, it mostly mechanics and speed, while SC2 allows greater emphasis on strategy since mechanics is mainly autoed.
I've played BW for a long time. This is a very loaded question because of what is implied by "more strategic."
For example: Chess has way more mechanics than Go. And Go technically is more strategic than Chess. But what can be gleaned from that information? MMA has way more mechanics than Boxing. And Boxing is technically more positional than MMA. But what can be gleaned from the information?
BW is definitely more mechanics focused than SC2--but not by much. And SC2 is definitely more Strategy focused than BW--but not by much either.
A lot of SC2 haters complain that the game is too fast and you can't micro as well. The reason is because SC2 is all about decision making. You have less than a second to decide the correct move or you lose everything. In BW you were forgiven for mistakes, and because of this people "felt" that they had more control. But when emphasis is put on making correct choices moreso than how many choices you can execute, people whine that the game is too fast because they're used to not having to making those decisions right then and there. This is part of what is meant when people say that SC2 is more strategic. With an emphasis on decision making, players are not as afforded wrong strategic choices as they are in BW--albeit, not by very much, just enough to be noticeable. A lot of BW haters do the opposite with BW, thinking that 90% of the game is right-clicking mineral patches and getting units through ramps when there are just as many decisions to be made in BW. The game is slower paced, and it forgives your strategic mistakes more often than SC2 forgives your strategic mistakes, but it also punishes your mechanical mistakes more often than SC2 punishes your mechanical mistakes. But what can be gleaned from that information?
The games are very very similar to each other, and they put focus on different aspects of the RTS experience than each other. For example, a side effect of BW's mechanics focus is that people describe strategy by what units are made and how well they are used. "He made 1 wraith" or some other non-sense like that. While SC2 the opposite happens where strategy is discussed abstractly through compositions and map positioning. "He made this unit comp and engage here" is what is usually used to discuss strategy. Why? Because a more mechanics focused game leans more heavily on what you do with your units and more strategic focused game cares less about how your units perform, but that if your units fits the role needed in the overall strategy.
Has any modder or theorycrafter ever explored the idea of either a) slowing SC2 down or b) increasing unit defenses/decreasing unit damage and/or speed. I ask simply because a common complaint is how quickly a match can be decided from one large fight where there was not enough time to properly micro. Is this not the situation that leads people to scream "build order loss!" Just thinking out loud, not necessarily my stance.
On July 03 2015 22:43 Footler wrote: Has any modder or theorycrafter ever explored the idea of either a) slowing SC2 down or b) increasing unit defenses/decreasing unit damage and/or speed. I ask simply because a common complaint is how quickly a match can be decided from one large fight where there was not enough time to properly micro. Is this not the situation that leads people to scream "build order loss!" Just thinking out loud, not necessarily my stance.
There are 3 misconceptions with your post:
(1) It's a common misunderstanding that damage numbers is what leads to "quick battles". In reality though damage numbers in BW were much higher (relative to HP). Instead, the issue is lackluster ability-design.
(2) If its just one battle and GG, this is due an issue with the dynamic of the game (like lack of defenders advantage or escape mechanic).
(3) Build-order losses is a completely different topic.
On July 03 2015 22:43 Footler wrote: Has any modder or theorycrafter ever explored the idea of either a) slowing SC2 down or b) increasing unit defenses/decreasing unit damage and/or speed. I ask simply because a common complaint is how quickly a match can be decided from one large fight where there was not enough time to properly micro. Is this not the situation that leads people to scream "build order loss!" Just thinking out loud, not necessarily my stance.
The complaint is not that there is only one fight in the end--this happens in all games. The complaint is that jockeying for positioning in SC2 looks boring.
BW as an example, jockeying for position equated to engagements. Small part of your army fought a small part of their army and you kind of took losses on both sides.
In SC2 the jockeying is more abstract with lots of "almost" engagements. So the army comps in SC2 threaten to take a space, and then move back and forth until both sides are happy with their position, and then they fight.
Let me go back to the Chess vs Go analogy.
In Chess, which is more mechanics focused than go, jockeying for position usually is done through trading of pieces. I take your piece, you take my piece, etc... There is action, there is drama, and someone wins at the end. In Go, nothing happens for about 100 moves as you just fill the board with these deathballs--and in one well placed piece the one side of the board literally disappears all at once. Neither game is wrong for putting more focus on mechanics over strategy. They are what they are *because* of their focus.
On July 03 2015 22:43 Footler wrote: Has any modder or theorycrafter ever explored the idea of either a) slowing SC2 down or b) increasing unit defenses/decreasing unit damage and/or speed. I ask simply because a common complaint is how quickly a match can be decided from one large fight where there was not enough time to properly micro. Is this not the situation that leads people to scream "build order loss!" Just thinking out loud, not necessarily my stance.
There are 3 misconceptions with your post:
(1) It's a common misunderstanding that damage numbers is what leads to "quick battles". In reality though damage numbers in BW were much higher (relative to HP). Instead, the issue is lackluster ability-design.
(2) If its just one battle and GG, this is due an issue with the dynamic of the game (like lack of defenders advantage or escape mechanic).
(3) Build-order losses is a completely different topic.
I definitely agree that lackluster ability-design and really unit design in general is what needs to change but I just wanted to see what others thought in regards to some sort of universal change to the game. For the sake of discussion, isn't BW slower in gamespeed than SC2? Obviously, they are two completely different games running on different engines with different units but just in general BW played a bit slower than SC2. Sort of like going to WC3 from BW felt like trying to run in water (not hating WC3, but it was slow in comparison). This is sort of what I was getting at in terms of change to SC2 but just not as drastic.
For (2) and (3) I don't necessarily agree with the whole 'build order loss' BS, I was just bringing it up since it's a somewhat common complaint. If we took all of the modernizations of SC2 (unit selection, MBS, no defenders advantage, etc) and applied them to BW, would BW have the same issues? Or would the BW unit design and balance hold up and provide us with a similar level of strategy and micro?
On July 03 2015 22:43 Footler wrote: Has any modder or theorycrafter ever explored the idea of either a) slowing SC2 down or b) increasing unit defenses/decreasing unit damage and/or speed. I ask simply because a common complaint is how quickly a match can be decided from one large fight where there was not enough time to properly micro. Is this not the situation that leads people to scream "build order loss!" Just thinking out loud, not necessarily my stance.
The complaint is not that there is only one fight in the end--this happens in all games. The complaint is that jockeying for positioning in SC2 looks boring.
BW as an example, jockeying for position equated to engagements. Small part of your army fought a small part of their army and you kind of took losses on both sides.
In SC2 the jockeying is more abstract with lots of "almost" engagements. So the army comps in SC2 threaten to take a space, and then move back and forth until both sides are happy with their position, and then they fight.
Let me go back to the Chess vs Go analogy.
In Chess, which is more mechanics focused than go, jockeying for position usually is done through trading of pieces. I take your piece, you take my piece, etc... There is action, there is drama, and someone wins at the end. In Go, nothing happens for about 100 moves as you just fill the board with these deathballs--and in one well placed piece the one side of the board literally disappears all at once. Neither game is wrong for putting more focus on mechanics over strategy. They are what they are *because* of their focus.
I agree that BW was more interesting in this regard but I wouldn't necessarily say SC2 is 'almost' engagements. SC2 is usually more ability based jockeying (EMPs, fungals, force fields, etc) whereas BW had a lot more emphasis on position and taking those smaller engagements as you said.
Regardless, the only reason I bring any of this is up is because many people are preoccupied trying to get Blizzard to fix the economy when in reality that's just going to leave SC2 with the same unit design and interaction problems. Or am I missing something on how the economy fix will make these interactions more interesting?
On July 03 2015 22:43 Footler wrote: Has any modder or theorycrafter ever explored the idea of either a) slowing SC2 down or b) increasing unit defenses/decreasing unit damage and/or speed. I ask simply because a common complaint is how quickly a match can be decided from one large fight where there was not enough time to properly micro. Is this not the situation that leads people to scream "build order loss!" Just thinking out loud, not necessarily my stance.
There are 3 misconceptions with your post:
(1) It's a common misunderstanding that damage numbers is what leads to "quick battles". In reality though damage numbers in BW were much higher (relative to HP). Instead, the issue is lackluster ability-design.
(2) If its just one battle and GG, this is due an issue with the dynamic of the game (like lack of defenders advantage or escape mechanic).
(3) Build-order losses is a completely different topic.
I definitely agree that lackluster ability-design and really unit design in general is what needs to change but I just wanted to see what others thought in regards to some sort of universal change to the game. For the sake of discussion, isn't BW slower in gamespeed than SC2? Obviously, they are two completely different games running on different engines with different units but just in general BW played a bit slower than SC2. Sort of like going to WC3 from BW felt like trying to run in water (not hating WC3, but it was slow in comparison). This is sort of what I was getting at in terms of change to SC2 but just not as drastic.
For (2) and (3) I don't necessarily agree with the whole 'build order loss' BS, I was just bringing it up since it's a somewhat common complaint. If we took all of the modernizations of SC2 (unit selection, MBS, no defenders advantage, etc) and applied them to BW, would BW have the same issues? Or would the BW unit design and balance hold up and provide us with a similar level of strategy and micro?
On July 03 2015 22:43 Footler wrote: Has any modder or theorycrafter ever explored the idea of either a) slowing SC2 down or b) increasing unit defenses/decreasing unit damage and/or speed. I ask simply because a common complaint is how quickly a match can be decided from one large fight where there was not enough time to properly micro. Is this not the situation that leads people to scream "build order loss!" Just thinking out loud, not necessarily my stance.
The complaint is not that there is only one fight in the end--this happens in all games. The complaint is that jockeying for positioning in SC2 looks boring.
BW as an example, jockeying for position equated to engagements. Small part of your army fought a small part of their army and you kind of took losses on both sides.
In SC2 the jockeying is more abstract with lots of "almost" engagements. So the army comps in SC2 threaten to take a space, and then move back and forth until both sides are happy with their position, and then they fight.
Let me go back to the Chess vs Go analogy.
In Chess, which is more mechanics focused than go, jockeying for position usually is done through trading of pieces. I take your piece, you take my piece, etc... There is action, there is drama, and someone wins at the end. In Go, nothing happens for about 100 moves as you just fill the board with these deathballs--and in one well placed piece the one side of the board literally disappears all at once. Neither game is wrong for putting more focus on mechanics over strategy. They are what they are *because* of their focus.
I agree that BW was more interesting in this regard but I wouldn't necessarily say SC2 is 'almost' engagements. SC2 is usually more ability based jockeying (EMPs, fungals, force fields, etc) whereas BW had a lot more emphasis on position and taking those smaller engagements as you said.
Regardless, the only reason I bring any of this is up is because many people are preoccupied trying to get Blizzard to fix the economy when in reality that's just going to leave SC2 with the same unit design and interaction problems. Or am I missing something on how the economy fix will make these interactions more interesting?
You have not. Skim through those econ threads and you'll see me being the dick telling everyone that the economy doesn't matter since its an arbitrary stopgap whose only goal is to put a linear pacing to army growth.
What I also meant by "almost engagements" is that you normally stay out of range of each other, but try to position yourself to have the better concave. You see the same thing in Street Fighter games where players walk back and forth throwing "random" punches to gauge position, range, and to try to punish sudden dash-forwards. And usually spells does the pokes--but Vikings and muta snipes poke the deathball just as often as well. But yeah, I think we're in agreement.
If we took all of the modernizations of SC2 (unit selection, MBS, no defenders advantage, etc) and applied them to BW, would BW have the same issues? Or would the BW unit design and balance hold up and provide us with a similar level of strategy and micro?
Defenders advantage? If you are talking about holding position with a minimum of units, that's certainly something that is very important to the gamedynamic of BW.
If we took all of the modernizations of SC2 (unit selection, MBS, no defenders advantage, etc) and applied them to BW, would BW have the same issues? Or would the BW unit design and balance hold up and provide us with a similar level of strategy and micro?
Defenders advantage? If you are talking about holding position with a minimum of units, that's certainly something that is very important to the gamedynamic of BW.
BW doesn't have "defenders advantage" it has an uphill mechanic. Something used just as much for making strong attacks (until maps were designed against it) as it was for defending. There's a reason Lost Temple and its mirrors eventually stopped being a design with its near unstoppable cliff sieges.
If we took all of the modernizations of SC2 (unit selection, MBS, no defenders advantage, etc) and applied them to BW, would BW have the same issues? Or would the BW unit design and balance hold up and provide us with a similar level of strategy and micro?
Defenders advantage? If you are talking about holding position with a minimum of units, that's certainly something that is very important to the gamedynamic of BW.
BW doesn't have "defenders advantage" it has an uphill mechanic. Something used just as much for making strong attacks (until maps were designed against it) as it was for defending. There's a reason Lost Temple and its mirrors eventually stopped being a design with its near unstoppable cliff sieges.
I am not only talking about hills. I am talking about how Dark Swarm, Lurkers and Siege Tanks functioned --> Allowed you to defend a certain location extremely cost efficient w/ a minimum of units. Personally, I think high ground is an unneceasry and overly complicated way of creating a defenders advantage. I think its must better to tweak abilities and macromechanics to get the desired effect.
On July 03 2015 22:43 Footler wrote: Has any modder or theorycrafter ever explored the idea of either a) slowing SC2 down or b) increasing unit defenses/decreasing unit damage and/or speed. I ask simply because a common complaint is how quickly a match can be decided from one large fight where there was not enough time to properly micro. Is this not the situation that leads people to scream "build order loss!" Just thinking out loud, not necessarily my stance.
There are 3 misconceptions with your post:
(1) It's a common misunderstanding that damage numbers is what leads to "quick battles". In reality though damage numbers in BW were much higher (relative to HP). Instead, the issue is lackluster ability-design.
(2) If its just one battle and GG, this is due an issue with the dynamic of the game (like lack of defenders advantage or escape mechanic).
(3) Build-order losses is a completely different topic.
I definitely agree that lackluster ability-design and really unit design in general is what needs to change but I just wanted to see what others thought in regards to some sort of universal change to the game. For the sake of discussion, isn't BW slower in gamespeed than SC2? Obviously, they are two completely different games running on different engines with different units but just in general BW played a bit slower than SC2. Sort of like going to WC3 from BW felt like trying to run in water (not hating WC3, but it was slow in comparison). This is sort of what I was getting at in terms of change to SC2 but just not as drastic.
For (2) and (3) I don't necessarily agree with the whole 'build order loss' BS, I was just bringing it up since it's a somewhat common complaint. If we took all of the modernizations of SC2 (unit selection, MBS, no defenders advantage, etc) and applied them to BW, would BW have the same issues? Or would the BW unit design and balance hold up and provide us with a similar level of strategy and micro?
On July 03 2015 22:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On July 03 2015 22:43 Footler wrote: Has any modder or theorycrafter ever explored the idea of either a) slowing SC2 down or b) increasing unit defenses/decreasing unit damage and/or speed. I ask simply because a common complaint is how quickly a match can be decided from one large fight where there was not enough time to properly micro. Is this not the situation that leads people to scream "build order loss!" Just thinking out loud, not necessarily my stance.
The complaint is not that there is only one fight in the end--this happens in all games. The complaint is that jockeying for positioning in SC2 looks boring.
BW as an example, jockeying for position equated to engagements. Small part of your army fought a small part of their army and you kind of took losses on both sides.
In SC2 the jockeying is more abstract with lots of "almost" engagements. So the army comps in SC2 threaten to take a space, and then move back and forth until both sides are happy with their position, and then they fight.
Let me go back to the Chess vs Go analogy.
In Chess, which is more mechanics focused than go, jockeying for position usually is done through trading of pieces. I take your piece, you take my piece, etc... There is action, there is drama, and someone wins at the end. In Go, nothing happens for about 100 moves as you just fill the board with these deathballs--and in one well placed piece the one side of the board literally disappears all at once. Neither game is wrong for putting more focus on mechanics over strategy. They are what they are *because* of their focus.
I agree that BW was more interesting in this regard but I wouldn't necessarily say SC2 is 'almost' engagements. SC2 is usually more ability based jockeying (EMPs, fungals, force fields, etc) whereas BW had a lot more emphasis on position and taking those smaller engagements as you said.
Regardless, the only reason I bring any of this is up is because many people are preoccupied trying to get Blizzard to fix the economy when in reality that's just going to leave SC2 with the same unit design and interaction problems. Or am I missing something on how the economy fix will make these interactions more interesting?
You have not. Skim through those econ threads and you'll see me being the dick telling everyone that the economy doesn't matter since its an arbitrary stopgap whose only goal is to put a linear pacing to army growth.
What I also meant by "almost engagements" is that you normally stay out of range of each other, but try to position yourself to have the better concave. You see the same thing in Street Fighter games where players walk back and forth throwing "random" punches to gauge position, range, and to try to punish sudden dash-forwards. And usually spells does the pokes--but Vikings and muta snipes poke the deathball just as often as well. But yeah, I think we're in agreement.
So then the question that remains is can interesting unit design alone create the interesting interactions that everyone desires (if that is what people actually desire)?
If we took all of the modernizations of SC2 (unit selection, MBS, no defenders advantage, etc) and applied them to BW, would BW have the same issues? Or would the BW unit design and balance hold up and provide us with a similar level of strategy and micro?
Defenders advantage? If you are talking about holding position with a minimum of units, that's certainly something that is very important to the gamedynamic of BW.
That is why I asked the question. Obviously it would change the way BW is played but would the game still be interesting with these changes?
EDIT: Read your other post and realized we were talking about different things. The question still stands I suppose, though.
If we took all of the modernizations of SC2 (unit selection, MBS, no defenders advantage, etc) and applied them to BW, would BW have the same issues? Or would the BW unit design and balance hold up and provide us with a similar level of strategy and micro?
Defenders advantage? If you are talking about holding position with a minimum of units, that's certainly something that is very important to the gamedynamic of BW.
BW doesn't have "defenders advantage" it has an uphill mechanic. Something used just as much for making strong attacks (until maps were designed against it) as it was for defending. There's a reason Lost Temple and its mirrors eventually stopped being a design with its near unstoppable cliff sieges.
I am not only talking about hills. I am talking about how Dark Swarm, Lurkers and Siege Tanks functioned --> Allowed you to defend a certain location extremely cost efficient w/ a minimum of units. Personally, I think high ground is an unneceasry and overly complicated way of creating a defenders advantage. I think its must better to tweak abilities and macromechanics to get the desired effect.
That's not what defenders advantage means though. Those are units used defensively.
Defenders advantage are ingrained mechanics in the game that gives advantage to players on the defensive. Examples of this are things like like town halls in age of empires, a mechanic designed specifically to make rushes and early attacks fruitless.
When you start talking about specific units you start getting people mentioning how Broodfestor was all about zerg having defenders advantage and how it almost killed the game. Or how Ravens with their low powered Dark Swarm is too powerful.
Defenders advantage are ingrained mechanics in the game that gives advantage to players on the defensive.
Which is exactly what the above mentioned units and abilities do.
When you start talking about specific units you start getting people mentioning how Broodfestor was all about zerg having defenders advantage and how it almost killed the game. Or how Ravens with their low powered Dark Swarm is too powerful.
The cost efficiency of Infestors and Broods were often just as good when attacking as when defending. Instead, the issue with these units when attacking was that they would make it impossible for you to hold off against a counterattack at the same time --> Leading to stales games.
That differs from how Lurker + DS works since you can actually defend a location with a minimum of units while attacking with your main army. You could also argue that the "can't attack while attack at the same time" is an indirect defenders advantage, but it's really the worst approach as it leads to stale gameplay.
On July 02 2015 06:19 nkr wrote: What he says in his text isn't that there's more strategy in the game, but rather that it has a bigger focus since the mechanics are easier. Removing or restricting something in a game doesn't suddenly make the other things more evolved, it just puts more emphasis on them.
it may seem that way but i dont think that is the case. you can still do in bw whatever "more focused strategy" you can do in sc2. its just easier to do with smartcast/mbs but it doesnt add more depth to it.
I think you're having a language issue. Because it seems you didn't understand what nkr said.
??? he (poster he refers to) says sc2 puts more focus (emphasis) on strategy since mechanics are easier, and i said that is not the case (that it doesnt not put more focus on strategy and it makes no difference in the end). are you sure i'm not understanding correctly?
He's saying that mechanical skill has less of bonus in SC2 than it does in BW. As such, the % that mechanics makes a difference in SC2 is smaller than it is in BW. As such, mechanics has less of an impact (relatively) in SC2 than in BW. As such, the decision of what strategy is chosen in SC2 is becomes more critical (relatively) than BW because "doing things better" is less important in SC2 than in BW (relatively).
Since your conclusion to his statement was "doesnt add more depth to it" shows that you didn't understand what he was saying since he did not in the least talk about depth.
Pretty much what I tried to say, but with less words. Communication is a difficult thing. Not as difficult as bw though.
When you start talking about specific units you start getting people mentioning how Broodfestor was all about zerg having defenders advantage and how it almost killed the game. Or how Ravens with their low powered Dark Swarm is too powerful.
The cost efficiency of Infestors and Broods were often just as good when attacking as when defending. Instead, the issue with these units when attacking was that they would make it impossible for you to hold off against a counterattack at the same time --> Leading to stales games.
That differs from how Lurker + DS works since you can actually defend a location with a minimum of units while attacking with your main army. You could also argue that the "can't attack while attack at the same time" is an indirect defenders advantage, but it's really the worst approach as it leads to stale gameplay.
The quality of the game play is a different thing than the existence/non-existence of a defenders advantage. And as someone who has died to lurkers, siege tanks, and dark swarm plenty of times in BW--I know for a fact that they are siege breakers first, defensive units second.
I would say the biggest problem with the defensive units in SC2 was that they were only powerful en mass. In BW, 1-3 lurkers could essentially be game over if they got to your base. As such, 1-3 lurkers in the middle of the field was powerful. However, 1-3 Swarm Hosts does nothing either offensively or defensively. 10-20 Swarm Hosts on the other hand, that's a different matter.
I think what you miss are spells and damage powerful enough to stop entire armies, that way when you have small groups of them they can scare off people. Not something I disagree with--I strongly believe in slow attack speed + high DPS design in a lot of the siege weapons in SC2.
I guess the statement is true for the casual player. But when you know the game it's the opposite. As sc2 mechanics let no more room for strategy. It's becoming very quickly...boring. BW mechanics are so hardcore that the gap between players allows for strategy. Macro and micro have a real meaning that will be amplify according to the strategy. edit: i dont mention maps because sc2 and maps.....:p
To me trying to figure out whether mechanics or strategy have the greater impact in BW or SC2 seems like a futile exercise. Because the game is in real time (and is not turn-based), mechanics and strategy become very, very interrelated- often by so much that it is impossible to separate out. If strategy involves decision making, then part of decision making is deciding where to spend your energy/ apm. Furthermore, the mini micro games like muta micro, vulture patrol, reaver-shuttle are mechanically intensive, true. However, they also open up new tactics that effects your gameplan, aka strategy.
So is reaver micro, fundamentally, a mechanical skill or a tool / tactic to be used in your strategy? It's both and trying to separate the two is impossible. Without the microbility of the unit, you would have one less tool to use in your strategy. The two are intricately linked (which was the point of my Mechanics IS Strategy blog from back in the day.
On July 04 2015 01:19 Cazimirbzh wrote: I guess the statement is true for the casual player. But when you know the game it's the opposite. As sc2 mechanics let no more room for strategy. It's becoming very quickly...boring. BW mechanics are so hardcore that the gap between players allows for strategy. Macro and micro have a real meaning that will be amplify according to the strategy. edit: i dont mention maps because sc2 and maps.....:p
strategy / macro (used here to mean the same thing) mechanics / micro (used here to mean the same thing)
wrong.
mechanics definitely = macro + micro (according to convention) like being tall, able to run fast, jump high and shooting accurately in basketball.
strategy might mean any dam thing as he didn't define it and everyone is confused
Strategy is the type of build order you use, where you decide to take fights, when you decide to attack, when you decide to defend, what type of units you decide to make. Strategy can almost completely be synonymous with decision making.
Micro involves very limited decision making. There is a perfect way to micro your units in basically every situation but rarely does micro perfection ever happen. However, your micro skill level is basically dependent on how close to that perfect engagement/unit movement/targeting that you can get consistently.
Macro involves very limited decision making. Your strategy determines when you will expand and whether you're going for a more high economy ("macro-style") or low economy style but regardless, whether you have 1 command center or 2 command centers, you have to make SCV's and keeping on top of that, along with your army production, infrastructure, etc. The pure ability to keep up with the necessary actions that your strategy requires like producing workers, units, buildings, etc. that is required in every game IS MACRO. The only real decision making involved in macro is deciding where you will spend your time when time is limited and your attention is divided onto multiple screens.
WHOA. Someone who understands the game!!!!!!!!!!!!!
On July 04 2015 01:19 Falling wrote: To me trying to figure out whether mechanics or strategy have the greater impact in BW or SC2 seems like a futile exercise. Because the game is in real time (and is not turn-based), mechanics and strategy become very, very interrelated- often by so much that it is impossible to separate out. If strategy involves decision making, then part of decision making is deciding where to spend your energy/ apm. Furthermore, the mini micro games like muta micro, vulture patrol, reaver-shuttle are mechanically intensive, true. However, they also open up new tactics that effects your gameplan, aka strategy.
So is reaver micro, fundamentally, a mechanical skill or a tool / tactic to be used in your strategy? It's both and trying to separate the two is impossible. Without the microbility of the unit, you would have one less tool to use in your strategy. The two are intricately linked (which was the point of my Mechanics IS Strategy blog from back in the day.
I agree--which is why I think broodwar is more strategic. The higher the mechanics and the higher the potential of the units (contrast a lurkers potential to a baneling which has a fixed 'best' result) the more strategy and tactics that can be involved in the game.
On July 04 2015 01:19 Falling wrote: To me trying to figure out whether mechanics or strategy have the greater impact in BW or SC2 seems like a futile exercise. Because the game is in real time (and is not turn-based), mechanics and strategy become very, very interrelated- often by so much that it is impossible to separate out. If strategy involves decision making, then part of decision making is deciding where to spend your energy/ apm. Furthermore, the mini micro games like muta micro, vulture patrol, reaver-shuttle are mechanically intensive, true. However, they also open up new tactics that effects your gameplan, aka strategy.
So is reaver micro, fundamentally, a mechanical skill or a tool / tactic to be used in your strategy? It's both and trying to separate the two is impossible. Without the microbility of the unit, you would have one less tool to use in your strategy. The two are intricately linked (which was the point of my Mechanics IS Strategy blog from back in the day.
Its not that hard to separate the two...
Tactics are the tools strategists use to make decisions.
Reaver Micro is a tactic that a Strategist Can use. Knowing how to reaver micro is not as important to a strategist than knowing that reaver micro is an option.
This is why coaches usually dictates the strategy, and players execute the strategy. Phil Jackson doesn't need to know how to dunk a ball to tell shaq that he has to dunk a ball. This is where the confusion really comes from. Strategy is just decision making. Micro gives you options, but being able to micro is not strategy.
However:
A game can be purely mechanical and be fun to watch. (running for example) A game without mechanics is purely strategic--but is also more boring to watch. (Go, for example)
I don't think they are opposed to another. At least in the way it works in BW, a lot of micro opens up new strategic options that otherwise wouldn't exist if they were just a-move units... which all units, excluding pure spellcasters, are to some degree. Even tanks in BW can be a-moved, it just so happens that siege lines and clever use of cliffs and buildings are usually the better choice. Sieging and unsiege is a mechanical requirement, but the design of the tank, including over-kill, and splash damage, and minimum range, combined with miss change on high ground, and difficult to navigate choke points, opens up a whole host of strategic options. Mechanics and strategy can be and are complementary.
On July 04 2015 08:49 Falling wrote: I don't think they are opposed to another. At least in the way it works in BW, a lot of micro opens up new strategic options that otherwise wouldn't exist if they were just a-move units... which all units, excluding pure spellcasters, are to some degree. Even tanks in BW can be a-moved, it just so happens that siege lines and clever use of cliffs and buildings are usually the better choice. Sieging and unsiege is a mechanical requirement, but the design of the tank, including over-kill, and splash damage, and minimum range, combined with miss change on high ground, and difficult to navigate choke points, opens up a whole host of strategic options. Mechanics and strategy can be and are complementary.
Its not that they are opposed, they are just different things that happen to occur at the same time during certain preset circumstances.
In the realm of an RTS, its hard to differentiate strategy and mechanics. Because that's the point of an RTS. Its supposed to be a strategy game with heavy mechanics put into it. The two do not causate each other.
In a traditional war game, turns are taken sequentially and combat is decided by a random number generator (usually dice rolls) to determine which squad/unit/force performed well. The game becomes much more strategic in nature because you can't use your mechanics to determine outcomes. You simply make strategic decisions, and hope they were the correct decisions. The less and less mechanics present, the less you are able to depend on "control" to determine the outcome of your decisions. At some point, the whole thing becomes purely just "what strategy should I use to solve a problem" and you just make the best decision you can.
In a real time game, we want to micro those decisions. This makes the results less depended on strategy (relatively) as engagements are more determined by mechanical execution (ie mechanics). Go too far this direction, and you eventually care more about mechanics than the strategy itself. Long distance runners may not be intellectual savants, but they definitely have strategies when they go on the field. It just so happens that how smart you are in track is not as important as how fast you are.
RTS games are inherently more mechanical than turn based games, but they are also inherently more strategic than track sports. You can have a lot of strategy without mechanics, and you can have a lot of mechanics without strategy. But in the realm of RTS specifically, the goal is to meld them. How much of one or the other should be implemented becomes highly philosophical.
If you're posting on page 26, nobody is ever going to read what you have to say on this subject. I guess we all just have to accept that SC2 is more strategical.
On July 04 2015 08:49 Falling wrote: I don't think they are opposed to another. At least in the way it works in BW, a lot of micro opens up new strategic options that otherwise wouldn't exist if they were just a-move units... which all units, excluding pure spellcasters, are to some degree. Even tanks in BW can be a-moved, it just so happens that siege lines and clever use of cliffs and buildings are usually the better choice. Sieging and unsiege is a mechanical requirement, but the design of the tank, including over-kill, and splash damage, and minimum range, combined with miss change on high ground, and difficult to navigate choke points, opens up a whole host of strategic options. Mechanics and strategy can be and are complementary.
Its not that they are opposed, they are just different things that happen to occur at the same time during certain preset circumstances.
In the realm of an RTS, its hard to differentiate strategy and mechanics. Because that's the point of an RTS. Its supposed to be a strategy game with heavy mechanics put into it. The two do not causate each other.
In a traditional war game, turns are taken sequentially and combat is decided by a random number generator (usually dice rolls) to determine which squad/unit/force performed well. The game becomes much more strategic in nature because you can't use your mechanics to determine outcomes. You simply make strategic decisions, and hope they were the correct decisions. The less and less mechanics present, the less you are able to depend on "control" to determine the outcome of your decisions. At some point, the whole thing becomes purely just "what strategy should I use to solve a problem" and you just make the best decision you can.
In a real time game, we want to micro those decisions. This makes the results less depended on strategy (relatively) as engagements are more determined by mechanical execution (ie mechanics). Go too far this direction, and you eventually care more about mechanics than the strategy itself. Long distance runners may not be intellectual savants, but they definitely have strategies when they go on the field. It just so happens that how smart you are in track is not as important as how fast you are.
RTS games are inherently more mechanical than turn based games, but they are also inherently more strategic than track sports. You can have a lot of strategy without mechanics, and you can have a lot of mechanics without strategy. But in the realm of RTS specifically, the goal is to meld them. How much of one or the other should be implemented becomes highly philosophical.
Neither has more or less value than the other.
But we can all agree that seeing some badass micro against the odds is always fun to execute and/or watch!
On July 04 2015 09:46 ninazerg wrote: If you're posting on page 26, nobody is ever going to read what you have to say on this subject. I guess we all just have to accept that SC2 is more strategical.
Not if we get the thread locked and this is the last page! So, we're all agreed, right? We've all been talked out. Artosis is wrong etc.
On July 04 2015 10:25 Footler wrote:But we can all agree that seeing some badass micro against the odds is always fun to execute and/or watch!
On July 03 2015 22:43 Footler wrote: Has any modder or theorycrafter ever explored the idea of either a) slowing SC2 down or b) increasing unit defenses/decreasing unit damage and/or speed. I ask simply because a common complaint is how quickly a match can be decided from one large fight where there was not enough time to properly micro. Is this not the situation that leads people to scream "build order loss!" Just thinking out loud, not necessarily my stance.
The complaint is not that there is only one fight in the end--this happens in all games. The complaint is that jockeying for positioning in SC2 looks boring.
BW as an example, jockeying for position equated to engagements. Small part of your army fought a small part of their army and you kind of took losses on both sides.
In SC2 the jockeying is more abstract with lots of "almost" engagements. So the army comps in SC2 threaten to take a space, and then move back and forth until both sides are happy with their position, and then they fight.
Let me go back to the Chess vs Go analogy.
In Chess, which is more mechanics focused than go, jockeying for position usually is done through trading of pieces. I take your piece, you take my piece, etc... There is action, there is drama, and someone wins at the end. In Go, nothing happens for about 100 moves as you just fill the board with these deathballs--and in one well placed piece the one side of the board literally disappears all at once. Neither game is wrong for putting more focus on mechanics over strategy. They are what they are *because* of their focus.
bw can be chess or go depending on the matchup. TvT is definitely a Go type game.
On July 03 2015 22:43 Footler wrote: Has any modder or theorycrafter ever explored the idea of either a) slowing SC2 down or b) increasing unit defenses/decreasing unit damage and/or speed. I ask simply because a common complaint is how quickly a match can be decided from one large fight where there was not enough time to properly micro. Is this not the situation that leads people to scream "build order loss!" Just thinking out loud, not necessarily my stance.
The complaint is not that there is only one fight in the end--this happens in all games. The complaint is that jockeying for positioning in SC2 looks boring.
BW as an example, jockeying for position equated to engagements. Small part of your army fought a small part of their army and you kind of took losses on both sides.
In SC2 the jockeying is more abstract with lots of "almost" engagements. So the army comps in SC2 threaten to take a space, and then move back and forth until both sides are happy with their position, and then they fight.
Let me go back to the Chess vs Go analogy.
In Chess, which is more mechanics focused than go, jockeying for position usually is done through trading of pieces. I take your piece, you take my piece, etc... There is action, there is drama, and someone wins at the end. In Go, nothing happens for about 100 moves as you just fill the board with these deathballs--and in one well placed piece the one side of the board literally disappears all at once. Neither game is wrong for putting more focus on mechanics over strategy. They are what they are *because* of their focus.
bw can be chess or go depending on the matchup. TvT is definitely a Go type game.
Go has no micro. I refuse to believe that BW TvT has no micro.
On July 04 2015 12:20 BisuDagger wrote:Had this been a discussion in German would the argument have been settled? What language would allow us to finish this debate?
Lojban. The most superior language. In Lojban, there is no such thing as a word with multiple meanings, therefore, everything is crystal clear. It's also abundantly clear when someone is being purposefully ambiguous.
On July 04 2015 12:20 BisuDagger wrote:Had this been a discussion in German would the argument have been settled? What language would allow us to finish this debate?
Lojban. The most superior language. In Lojban, there is no such thing as a word with multiple meanings, therefore, everything is crystal clear. It's also abundantly clear when someone is being purposefully ambiguous.
I assert Klingon is has more strategy then Lojban because it has higher speech mechanics.
...Let me get this out of the way: StarCraft 2 is more strategic than StarCraft 1. Both are RTS (Real Time Strategy) games, but they have different emphasises. SC1 is a Real Time Strategy game, and SC2 is a Real Time Strategy game.
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...
Oh yeah he said some stuff about the GSL finals and Rain and KeSPA and stuff too.
But basically I'm posting this just to fish for a response from Rekrul
I am not sure if this thread title reflect properly artosis's comment, it is true that bad mech and speed is less punishing than "incorrect strategic choices" compare to brood war but that doesn't make the game more strategic. sc2 relies essentially on strategic choices because the speed and mech aspect has been annihilated with all that "cpu does it for you"
a bad build order or engagement will get you as much in trouble in bw than sc2. I don't know if it's just me but you can make greater come back in sc2, come back that is nearly impossible to make in bw because of the speed mech aspect.
...Let me get this out of the way: StarCraft 2 is more strategic than StarCraft 1. Both are RTS (Real Time Strategy) games, but they have different emphasises. SC1 is a Real Time Strategy game, and SC2 is a Real Time Strategy game.
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...
Oh yeah he said some stuff about the GSL finals and Rain and KeSPA and stuff too.
But basically I'm posting this just to fish for a response from Rekrul
I am not sure if this thread title reflect properly artosis's comment, it is true that bad mech and speed is less punishing than "incorrect strategic choices" compare to brood war but that doesn't make the game more strategic. sc2 relies essentially on strategic choices because the speed and mech aspect has been annihilated with all that "cpu does it for you"
That does make it more strategic in an academic sense. Its just that, strategic =/= exciting.
...Let me get this out of the way: StarCraft 2 is more strategic than StarCraft 1. Both are RTS (Real Time Strategy) games, but they have different emphasises. SC1 is a Real Time Strategy game, and SC2 is a Real Time Strategy game.
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...
Oh yeah he said some stuff about the GSL finals and Rain and KeSPA and stuff too.
But basically I'm posting this just to fish for a response from Rekrul
I am not sure if this thread title reflect properly artosis's comment, it is true that bad mech and speed is less punishing than "incorrect strategic choices" compare to brood war but that doesn't make the game more strategic. sc2 relies essentially on strategic choices because the speed and mech aspect has been annihilated with all that "cpu does it for you"
That does make it more strategic in an academic sense. Its just that, strategic =/= exciting.
...Let me get this out of the way: StarCraft 2 is more strategic than StarCraft 1. Both are RTS (Real Time Strategy) games, but they have different emphasises. SC1 is a Real Time Strategy game, and SC2 is a Real Time Strategy game.
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...
Oh yeah he said some stuff about the GSL finals and Rain and KeSPA and stuff too.
But basically I'm posting this just to fish for a response from Rekrul
I am not sure if this thread title reflect properly artosis's comment, it is true that bad mech and speed is less punishing than "incorrect strategic choices" compare to brood war but that doesn't make the game more strategic. sc2 relies essentially on strategic choices because the speed and mech aspect has been annihilated with all that "cpu does it for you"
That does make it more strategic in an academic sense. Its just that, strategic =/= exciting.
i get your point -_-
People come for the mechanics, and stay for the strategy Without impressive mechanics, then it won't be a spectator sport Without strong strategy, it won't be a talked about sport You need a good balance of both
Brood War is not perfect, but its pretty damn close to it. Sure it could probably be improved in certain aspects and make some units more viable like the never played protoss air unit forgot the name, zerg's corruptor could be improved to be more efficient and better, terran can also have the air unit that has ground and air attack improved a little bit, etc...
I definitely had to improv a lot more with BW compared to SC2... Hard to explain but SC2 has felt a lot more cookie cutterish in the way you play certain match-ups and maps.
Strategically - I donno; it's all the same. You play your match-up and the map; try to do a strategy or do a counter, make sure you upgrade, etc.
I wouldn't say one was harder than the other - they both require a lot more than just strategy. I will say though that I was able to get into a sick ass Korean clan back in BW.
SC2...? I gave up at being just a Diamond player =*(...
On July 04 2015 23:24 iFU.pauline wrote: I am not sure if this thread title reflect properly artosis's comment, it is true that bad mech and speed is less punishing than "incorrect strategic choices" compare to brood war but that doesn't make the game more strategic. sc2 relies essentially on strategic choices because the speed and mech aspect has been annihilated with all that "cpu does it for you"
a bad build order or engagement will get you as much in trouble in bw than sc2. I don't know if it's just me but you can make greater come back in sc2, come back that is nearly impossible to make in bw because of the speed mech aspect.
I agree with you excepted on the comeback part, it will be almost impossible to make a comeback on BW vs a better player, but it will be definitely easier to comeback on BW BECAUSE of the speed and mech aspect. From my little experience of SC2, when I was behind, the game was over due to the hard counter units system and the lack of defensive advantage. You'll eventually lose the final fight because of the simplified mechanics which don't allow you to do a comeback, if your opponent doesn't fuck up.
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 involved
By 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
Positioning, multi prong attacks and harassment are all tactics. Army composition, Builds, counter builds and timings are all strategy. There are strategical elements in tactics, but no tactics in strategical choices. Broodwar had the simmilar tactics but it was harder to execute, on top of harder purely mechanical requirements.
Its true, since SC2 has easier mechanics, tactical execution and control, the player must focus more on strategy to get an advantage. On broodwar you could rely on the units and tactics you are good with, even if they are not the optimal choice strategically, thus making strategy less important in competition. However that doesn't mean it has less strategical depth.
Broodwar could be as strategic as SC2 even if strategy is less important relatively because it takes more skill in other areas. If its true or not im not sure but its barely debated on the thread.
But i do undestand that Artosis meant SC2 is more strategic in a competitive environment, and with that i absolutely agree.
edited: Surely its not just matter of how hard or easy each game is on each area, its also about how punished or rewarded you are for each skill. But that just reinforce that SC2 is more strategic, since its so unforgiving on this matter, while BW punished harder and rewarded even more the micro.
On July 12 2015 00:27 Big J wrote: People trying to make it sound the strategies in SC2 are a byproduct of bad game design. What a great thread, much value, so wow!
I find it quite funny that you out of all say that tbh. AFAIK you really, really dislike "coinflipping", which is exactly what it is cause strategy might be more important in relation to mechanics. If you make a game where strategy is that important and you have imperfect information this is bound to happen.
On July 11 2015 17:08 MidnightZL wrote: 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..
yep, doubt it'll change anytime soon. hehe maybe try to learn the game and give it a fair chance (gfx are fine to me, no need for things to be shiny) then let us know which one you enjoy more
I kinda disagree a bit about taking out the mechanic elements of the game from strategy. This is because to execute certain strategies and tactics you need a good execution. A good plan need logistics and so on. This is part of the whole thing IMO. No matter what your strategy is, you need it to be properly executed. In war or any other aspect of life, no matter how brilliant is your plan, if you neglect or lack certain control elements, your plan will fail or not be proper.
In BW I would say it was harder to execute properly any given strategy or tactics. Also tactics were also emphasized as well as death balls were less explosive. In SC2 any given strategy were easier to do. I don't think both games have more or less strategy than each other in general. It was harder in BW and also you could improvise your own strategy with tactics tricks on the go. Strategic readjustments were more possible in BW. In SC2 if you botch or choose the wrong one, micro an emergency tactic may not be feasible to rearrange your strategy in the long term.
I think in the end it's also about maps. The map design will be the threshold of how many strategies can be played. SC2 took a bit longer to get it done right as being the newer game and also Blizzard lacking a bit in this aspect compared to BW competitive scene.
On July 12 2015 00:27 Big J wrote: People trying to make it sound the strategies in SC2 are a byproduct of bad game design. What a great thread, much value, so wow!
I find it quite funny that you out of all say that tbh. AFAIK you really, really dislike "coinflipping", which is exactly what it is cause strategy might be more important in relation to mechanics. If you make a game where strategy is that important and you have imperfect information this is bound to happen.
I disagree here, though I fully stand behind the notion that "more strategy" doesn't equal "good gameplay". But I believe well-implemented strategy just means that you have multiple options to solve the same problem. The outcome still depends on the interacting strategical choices made and there may be a "best" solution for each problem. But there may be other solutions that work too. An example would be that I can choose between lurkers or banelings to fight a marinebased army. They may lead to different outcomes to the current situation but as long as either gets the job done (if well-played) it is a strategical choice that than in return imposes different problems to my opponent (and for which hopefully he has multiple solutions).
Of course, on the flipside having 15different allins that are somewhat viable also makes for more strategy, but that isn't the only thing creating more strategical choices.
And yes, I believe many SC2 matchups are strategically deeper than their broodwar counterparts in that regard. For example ZvZ and TvT are massive improvements strategically compared to broodwar. Maybe also in bad strategies (scouting-luck based ones) but also in the good ones, by in having multiple good responses to the problems your opponents imposes on you, rather than "oh my, he is playing mutas. I guess I have to play mutas" or "it's a terran, time to mass siege tanks and vultures".
I mean i agree with your general notion that good strategy should mean having multiple options for any given situation. The problem i personally see is that if it's kinda more important what choice you make (how many units X,Y and Z do i have to make to counter his army?) in a game with imperfect information ( i hate when people bring up chess, it just makes no sense) you will gamble a lot more. In a game where you have also mutiple options and the execution of said options is more important, i think this game would be better for the concept of imperfect information.
I am not even talking about BW/sc2 here, but adding more importance to strategy in a game where you cant even make 100% educated choices cause you lack information seems like a weird concept in itself tbh. If that makes sense. Maybe the factor of imperfect informations isn't big enough to really influence this dynamic though. Or the solution for players (taking educated risks) works well enough.
Your point about BW: I think army composition isn't really the only strategical factor we should investigate here though. It's only one aspect. I am not really that knowledgable about BW builds though, i just like to watch it from time to time :D
On July 12 2015 01:37 The_Red_Viper wrote: I mean i agree with your general notion that good strategy should mean having multiple options for any given situation. The problem i personally see is that if it's kinda more important what choice you make (how many units X,Y and Z do i have to make to counter his army?) in a game with imperfect information ( i hate when people bring up chess, it just makes no sense) you will gamble a lot more. In a game where you have also mutiple options and the execution of said options is more important, i think this game would be better for the concept of imperfect information.
I am not even talking about BW/sc2 here, but adding more importance to strategy in a game where you cant even make 100% educated choices cause you lack information seems like a weird concept in itself tbh. If that makes sense. Maybe the factor of imperfect informations isn't big enough to really influence this dynamic though. Or the solution for players (taking educated risks) works well enough.
Eliminating imperfect information is part of the strategy and execution though. How much you are willing to gamble is often your own choice and scouting is rather cheap eventually, besides the early game. Once you get into those 2-3basish scenarios in SC2 whether you don't know something your opponent is doing is mainly your own fault. And I believe at a certain point in the game these "coinflips" become valueable parts of strategy, just not early when it's not reasonable to waste in-game resources on often times insufficient scouting. It's only the early game where I really dislike the imperfect information, because there is often nothing you can do about it, or what you can do about it can be deterred without having to invest extra into hiding (you just get that sentry or stalker anyways, you may as well kill that overlord with it) or is insufficient (that scan will not reveal his base completely and I cannot really have more scouting tools right now without being weak to nearly everything that comes due to heavy scouting investments).
Your point about BW: I think army composition isn't really the only strategical factor we should investigate here though. It's only one aspect. I am not really that knowledgable about BW builds though, i just like to watch it from time to time :D
Same here and fully agree. Composition isn't everything when investigating strategy. I guess I should have specified that a bit more, especially since I don't really want to get deep into those bw vs sc2 arguments, when all I really care for is how to make sc2 better, without giving a damn about games I don't play.
On July 11 2015 17:08 MidnightZL wrote: 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..
This is the attitude that is ruining so many games being released today, for both console and PC. Our obsession with graphics and how pretty the packaging is how overtaken the focus of working on good gameplay. Too many games are designed with how pretty the packaging can be while completely forgoing the aspect of the game that draws someone to come back over and over again.
Sure there are a few exceptions here and there for this, but overall, this attitude is all that is wrong about many industries today (I'm thinking about movies that spend 100+ million dollars to make something that looks cool, but the storyline is such crap, you can't get into it: I'm looking at you Jupiter Ascending). We the consumers need to demand that mediocre games dressed in fancy tinsel will not fly anymore! And if you are part of the majority who won't touch a game simply by how it looks... i have no hope for you all. It sounds to me like the ignorant people who judge someone for looking different, or refusing to read a book simply based on what the cover looks like.
On October 26 2015 09:37 InfCereal wrote: I think I would argue month old bumps are killing forums. ^
That said, Broodwar's graphics do suck. You're a bit jaded to think otherwise. They really didn't age well.
2d stuff tends to age extremely well; we have not got that much better better at rendering it for a long time.
Looks fine to me. Could have better effects and such but cheaply done (in terms of computing power) 2d looks a thousand times better than 20 year old trying-to-3d-render 10 polygon stuff.
I think BW still looks good. As Cyro says, 2d ages decently. That screenshot is cool, too. Those positions were so hard to crack as protoss because the units were big and clunky and they were hard and fun to micro. Terran didn't have too many units but they could dish out a lot of damage. It all made sense and it was elegant, and looked elegant too. Tank + high ground was a force to be reckoned with. And dropping units to break those reinforced positions in the mid game was no small matter, it was always an investment.
On October 26 2015 09:37 InfCereal wrote: I think I would argue month old bumps are killing forums. ^
That said, Broodwar's graphics do suck. You're a bit jaded to think otherwise. They really didn't age well.
2d stuff tends to age extremely well; we have not got that much better better at rendering it for a long time.
Looks fine to me. Could have better effects and such but cheaply done (in terms of computing power) 2d looks a thousand times better than 20 year old trying-to-3d-render 10 polygon stuff.
You are right that early 3D is worse than 2D. That doesn't mean that sc1 graphics is any good by today's standards.
Your posted picture isn't an accurate measure of what you actually see in the game. It is 4 (I think?) pasted screen that are scaled down to fit inside the TL width. The in-game graphics is if you take about 1/4 of your image and make it fill most of the screen. Unless you want to play in a tiny windowed mode. It doesn't look as nice at that point. If they would redo the 2D images to benefit from the screen resolutions we have today it could be a lot better, but don't see that coming.
On October 26 2015 09:37 InfCereal wrote: I think I would argue month old bumps are killing forums. ^
That said, Broodwar's graphics do suck. You're a bit jaded to think otherwise. They really didn't age well.
2d stuff tends to age extremely well; we have not got that much better better at rendering it for a long time.
Looks fine to me. Could have better effects and such but cheaply done (in terms of computing power) 2d looks a thousand times better than 20 year old trying-to-3d-render 10 polygon stuff.
You are right that early 3D is worse than 2D. That doesn't mean that sc1 graphics is any good by today's standards.
Your posted picture isn't an accurate measure of what you actually see in the game. It is 4 (I think?) pasted screen that are scaled down to fit inside the TL width. The in-game graphics is if you take about 1/4 of your image and make it fill most of the screen. Unless you want to play in a tiny windowed mode. It doesn't look as nice at that point. If they would redo the 2D images to benefit from the screen resolutions we have today it could be a lot better, but don't see that coming.
The graphics can easily be argued to be fine. There are games where the gameplay is great but the graphics are so unsightly that they're annoying to play. Some examples would be Goldeneye 007 (which maintains some charm somehow), Age of Empires, Deus Ex and the likes.
Yet there are other games that age just fine, like Super Mario World on SNES. Starcraft is one of those, IMO. It's not the prettiest but it's very utilitarian and clear. Very responsive, the animations don't feel jagged, no stuttering, no clipping, everything behaves as it should. I'd say there's nothing unsightly about SCBW.
Your posted picture isn't an accurate measure of what you actually see in the game. It is 4 (I think?) pasted screen that are scaled down to fit inside the TL width. The in-game graphics is if you take about 1/4 of your image and make it fill most of the screen. Unless you want to play in a tiny windowed mode.
No, the only problem there is that you are upscaling 640x480 to your whole screen, don't do that!
Here, i got the link for those who don't know how to drag the image to view actual size. http://i.imgur.com/ZS7Uy.jpg
This is what the game looks like if you open it, do nothing else but use a hack to make the window bigger because now, 640x480 would be a small window on our screens. We played on much smaller and also some lower pixel density screens back then.
On October 26 2015 09:37 InfCereal wrote: I think I would argue month old bumps are killing forums. ^
That said, Broodwar's graphics do suck. You're a bit jaded to think otherwise. They really didn't age well.
2d stuff tends to age extremely well; we have not got that much better better at rendering it for a long time.
Looks fine to me. Could have better effects and such but cheaply done (in terms of computing power) 2d looks a thousand times better than 20 year old trying-to-3d-render 10 polygon stuff.
You are right that early 3D is worse than 2D. That doesn't mean that sc1 graphics is any good by today's standards.
Your posted picture isn't an accurate measure of what you actually see in the game. It is 4 (I think?) pasted screen that are scaled down to fit inside the TL width. The in-game graphics is if you take about 1/4 of your image and make it fill most of the screen. Unless you want to play in a tiny windowed mode. It doesn't look as nice at that point. If they would redo the 2D images to benefit from the screen resolutions we have today it could be a lot better, but don't see that coming.
The graphics can easily be argued to be fine. There are games where the gameplay is great but the graphics are so unsightly that they're annoying to play. Some examples would be Goldeneye 007 (which maintains some charm somehow), Age of Empires, Deus Ex and the likes.
Yet there are other games that age just fine, like Super Mario World on SNES. Starcraft is one of those, IMO. It's not the prettiest but it's very utilitarian and clear. Very responsive, the animations don't feel jagged, no stuttering, no clipping, everything behaves as it should. I'd say there's nothing unsightly about SCBW.
Yeah, sc1 is doing fine compared to other old games, so I am fine with saying that it aged well. I think I meant that if you put sc1 and sc2 next to each other, sc2 looks a lot better. Which is entirely expected of course, but still something to take into account when you compare the two.
edit: I also meant that cyros image isn't representative of what you have on your screen when playing.
EPT
) and will only get better in LotV.![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/oIzhv2o.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/AQJH3W3.gif)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ScsCH8A.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ja0Oj3r.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/oV7SsNf.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/4ipoEM7.png)
![[image loading]](http://defiler.ru/chat/smiles-hidden/1-koreans/bisu2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/XdxprC9.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/rUb5uCq.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/QnnSETF.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8HshrOt.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/vWjMAWi.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://media.tumblr.com/ddaa1cbe01b79f887872675875fc70c6/tumblr_inline_mi8nzb9sTC1qz4rgp.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.traveloutthere.com/files/photo_gallery/457x306/sumo%20suit%20wrestling7.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/I2HXegN.png)
, but thankfully he gives us an example of what he means:![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZS7Uy.jpg)
