|
On September 18 2013 12:25 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 12:22 shaftofpleasure wrote:On September 18 2013 12:19 ZenithM wrote:On September 18 2013 12:04 shaftofpleasure wrote:
SC2 should make their own pimpest plays. With the amount of players claiming they are hella good, there should be a long list of pimp plays we can watch and let's try to compare those to BW. for example, are there any games comparable to Boxer vs Joyo?
I'm tired of all these SC2 people claiming that their game is as equally hard as BW yet in BW few can claim to be the best while in SC2, almost everyone in a sponsored is considered the best by their peers. What? Doesn't make any sense haha. There are like 4-5 players that we say can pretend to the title of "best". Like 1 or 2 per race... and in BW there's 1. Well, there is hardly more than one guy playing the game now so it's not that hard. But seriously, was there? You're thinking Flash? He was certainly the most successful, but was he the best at the end of BW? Not Jangbi? Not Fantasy?
It depends on your bias. And no, not Jangbi. He may won the last but he's not the best. Nor is Flash, successful but not the best.
|
On September 18 2013 12:29 shaftofpleasure wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 12:25 ZenithM wrote:On September 18 2013 12:22 shaftofpleasure wrote:On September 18 2013 12:19 ZenithM wrote:On September 18 2013 12:04 shaftofpleasure wrote:
SC2 should make their own pimpest plays. With the amount of players claiming they are hella good, there should be a long list of pimp plays we can watch and let's try to compare those to BW. for example, are there any games comparable to Boxer vs Joyo?
I'm tired of all these SC2 people claiming that their game is as equally hard as BW yet in BW few can claim to be the best while in SC2, almost everyone in a sponsored is considered the best by their peers. What? Doesn't make any sense haha. There are like 4-5 players that we say can pretend to the title of "best". Like 1 or 2 per race... and in BW there's 1. Well, there is hardly more than one guy playing the game now so it's not that hard. But seriously, was there? You're thinking Flash? He was certainly the most successful, but was he the best at the end of BW? Not Jangbi? Not Fantasy? It depends on your bias. And no, not Jangbi. He may won the last but he's not the best. Nor is Flash, successful but not the best.
LOL ok man. So there is 1, but there is one per TL user?
That's fine by me, I for one think that MarineKing is the single best SC2 player.
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
On September 18 2013 12:18 shaftofpleasure wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 12:11 lichter wrote:On September 18 2013 12:04 shaftofpleasure wrote:
SC2 should make their own pimpest plays. With the amount of players claiming they are hella good, there should be a long list of pimp plays we can watch and let's try to compare those to BW. for example, are there any games comparable to Boxer vs Joyo?
I'm tired of all these SC2 people claiming that their game is as equally hard as BW yet in BW few can claim to be the best while in SC2, almost everyone in a sponsored is considered the best by their peers. BW is clearly harder mechanically. Anyone who argues otherwise is nuts. But mechanics isn't the only thing that makes a game difficult. Decision making and strategy in SC2 is far more difficult because everything is so punishing and quick. Unless you keep making the right decisions you can let your opponent back in the game. In a way, the fact that there isn't a steady list of dominant players just shows how difficult it is to master that side of SC2; basically, noone has done it yet. Whether or not that is the kind of 'difficult' or 'hard' that makes the game more pleasing to watch is beside the point that both games have facets that are harder than the other. What the fuck are you talking about? Do you think BW doesn't have this? It practically created the Decision making + strategy in RTS. SC2 is a rock/paper/scissors game. It is not complicated. Decision making and strategy is almost non-existent in SC2 because there is no time for it. It's all about countering what your opponents is making and that is not fucking strategy and this is based on most games I saw. You do not see that in BW.
Of course BW has this. But in BW it is possible to make up for lapses in judgement with superior micro and macro. It is more difficult in SC2 to separate one's mechanics from the rest of the pack since these aspects of the game are easier. The only differentiator between most of the top players is their decision making, strategy (builds, overarching game plans), tactics (army movement, flanks, harass, etc), star sense and mental fortitude. The lack of other differentiators, coupled with death balls and terrible terrible damage, amplify the importance of the abovementioned factors.
Mistakes and bad decisions in SC2 are more punishing. One wrong stim and you lose. One wrong unsiege on creep and you lose. One wrong move command on your mutas and you lose. A bunch of badly placed forcefields and you lose. Perhaps the approach of making fewer mistakes, as opposed to playing better, ends up making a lot of SC2 games dull or unsatisfying--for example, the Inno vs Mvp game mentioned where Xiphos attributes the win to Innovation's mistakes--but that does not mean the game is any easier (or any harder, for that matter).
I find that the rock-paper-scissors argument is true to a certain extent, but it does not invalidate the strategic depth of SC2. It's more like rock-paper-scissors-lizard-superman-shoes-wallet-felafel-textbook.....
|
Noooo everyone is retiring 
|
10387 Posts
that's so bullshit, BW has the same level of difficulty in strategy and decision making. You can say the exact same thing in BW. In PvP, losing your Shuttle/Reaver early game is GG. In ZvT, a single mismicro w/ your Mutas flying into an mnm squad is GG. In ZvP, a lapse in map awareness can mean the complete loss of your drone lines and GG. In PvP, your army gets caught out of place like say on a bridge and it's GG. In TvP, you are caught completely unsieged during a push and it's GG. etc etc etc.
I can go on and on and on. Decision-making/strategy isn't far more difficult, it's just more punishing in some aspects (two different things). It'd be more difficult if SC2 actually introduced more/different elements that players would have to consider (like idk, neutral creeps, night/day system, heroes .. :d), but SC2 and BW are essentially the same game but w/ different units and different graphics/engine so it's really the same ..
|
On September 18 2013 12:31 lichter wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 12:18 shaftofpleasure wrote:On September 18 2013 12:11 lichter wrote:On September 18 2013 12:04 shaftofpleasure wrote:
SC2 should make their own pimpest plays. With the amount of players claiming they are hella good, there should be a long list of pimp plays we can watch and let's try to compare those to BW. for example, are there any games comparable to Boxer vs Joyo?
I'm tired of all these SC2 people claiming that their game is as equally hard as BW yet in BW few can claim to be the best while in SC2, almost everyone in a sponsored is considered the best by their peers. BW is clearly harder mechanically. Anyone who argues otherwise is nuts. But mechanics isn't the only thing that makes a game difficult. Decision making and strategy in SC2 is far more difficult because everything is so punishing and quick. Unless you keep making the right decisions you can let your opponent back in the game. In a way, the fact that there isn't a steady list of dominant players just shows how difficult it is to master that side of SC2; basically, noone has done it yet. Whether or not that is the kind of 'difficult' or 'hard' that makes the game more pleasing to watch is beside the point that both games have facets that are harder than the other. What the fuck are you talking about? Do you think BW doesn't have this? It practically created the Decision making + strategy in RTS. SC2 is a rock/paper/scissors game. It is not complicated. Decision making and strategy is almost non-existent in SC2 because there is no time for it. It's all about countering what your opponents is making and that is not fucking strategy and this is based on most games I saw. You do not see that in BW. Of course BW has this. But in BW it is possible to make up for lapses in judgement with superior micro and macro. It is more difficult in SC2 to separate one's mechanics from the rest of the pack since these aspects of the game are easier. The only differentiator between most of the top players is their decision making, strategy (builds, overarching game plans), tactics (army movement, flanks, harass, etc), star sense and mental fortitude. The lack of other differentiators, coupled with death balls and terrible terrible damage, amplify the importance of the abovementioned factors. Mistakes and bad decisions in SC2 are more punishing. One wrong stim and you lose. One wrong unsiege on creep and you lose. One wrong move command on your mutas and you lose. A bunch of badly placed forcefields and you lose. Perhaps the approach of making fewer mistakes, as opposed to playing better, ends up making a lot of SC2 games dull or unsatisfying--for example, the Inno vs Mvp game mentioned where Xiphos attributes the win to Innovation's mistakes--but that does not mean the game is any easier (or any harder, for that matter). I find that the rock-paper-scissors argument is true to a certain extent, but it does not invalidate the strategic depth of SC2. It's more like rock-paper-scissors-lizard-superman-shoes-wallet-felafel-textbook.....
But it can be said that most of the strategic depth in SC2 is disturbingly tied to having the right composition. A game of counters hence the rock-paper-scissors vibe. If a player's composition is slightly wrong to the ideal one.. it can be so punishing to the point where the player's entire army gets wiped out so fast in an head on engagement. I would not have made this statement if SC2 had high ground mechanics because this could be used to counter balance the counters in an engagement. Unfortunately SC2 has none of those so the cool looking terrain rarely means much outside positioning.
I think this is one of the most frustrating aspect of this game. A good example I can think of is.. comparing a cloaked wraith opener to a cloaked banshee opener. The game is far too punishing for even the slightest of mistakes, especially when it is a compositional one where as in BW, there was alot more general units which meant that you were winning not because of the composition but rather from micro/macro/decision making/engagements etc. I can't remember the last time i thought the player won because of the better composition in BW (outside that free vs Hiya game with cloaked wraiths and nukes xD vs protoss).
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
Of course those same things happen in BW; a lot of the units and the general concept of the game is the same. But big battles in BW often happen at lower supplies and smaller portions of one's army. This means that big engagements and mistakes in those engagements don't always result in the loss of one's entire army and don't always allow an immediate counter attack to simply win. Also, it is possible to hold off superior numbers of troops with micro and multitask (rallying units effectively, producing units consistently, for example).
Again, the argument isn't that BW lacks strategic depth or that its depth itself is inferior to SC2. That's an incredulous claim.
The argument is that, because there are smaller margins for differentiators of skill in SC2 (because micro and mechanics are easier), the importance of strategy and decision making is elevated, and their impact on the game is increased. This in turn makes those aspects more difficult because there are fewer ways to recoup from mistakes in those aspects through other means. In fact, SC2's oft maligned counter-recounter system also makes strategy harder because the margins for error are tighter. It is a shallow type of difficulty, I agree, but we aren't arguing the quality of the game here, just different modes of difficulty.
I am not arguing that SC2 is somehow superior to BW, or that it has more depth. They are similar in many ways, and they are different in many ways as well, and that is a completely different argument. But to insist that BW is absolutely more difficult (in a 'what it takes to win' over other competitors sort of way) in every aspect to SC2 is pure bias.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On September 18 2013 13:31 lichter wrote:
Of course those same things happen in BW; a lot of the units and the general concept of the game is the same. But big battles in BW often happen at lower supplies and smaller portions of one's army. This means that big engagements and mistakes in those engagements don't always result in the loss of one's entire army and don't always allow an immediate counter attack to simply win. Also, it is possible to hold off superior numbers of troops with micro and multitask (rallying units effectively, producing units consistently, for example).
Again, the argument isn't that BW lacks strategic depth or that its depth itself is inferior to SC2. That's an incredulous claim.
The argument is that, because there are smaller margins for differentiators of skill in SC2 (because micro and mechanics are easier), the importance of strategy and decision making is elevated, and their impact on the game is increased. This in turn makes those aspects more difficult because there are fewer ways to recoup from mistakes in those aspects through other means. In fact, SC2's oft maligned counter-recounter system also makes strategy harder because the margins for error are tighter. It is a shallow type of difficulty, I agree, but we aren't arguing the quality of the game here, just different modes of difficulty.
I am not arguing that SC2 is somehow superior to BW, or that it has more depth. They are similar in many ways, and they are different in many ways as well, and that is a completely different argument. But to insist that BW is absolutely more difficult (in a 'what it takes to win' over other competitors sort of way) in every aspect to SC2 is pure bias.
gotta agree with some of these points. I think this relates to the terrible terrible damage that keeps getting thrown around. If you make a single mistake, it's harder to recover unlike in BW where mechanics are important thus you can get rolled right away. SCII is heavily focused on composition and if your composition isn't the right one, you'll get rolled easy. I do want to say that I think decision making in both games is very important but strategy though, I think strategy in SCII is much harder due to how fast units kill each other. In a way, it means you have to micro faster to gain an advantage but in another way, it also means there is less opportunity for micro. It's also the reason you can do many different strategies and make them work. It comes down to your execution, micro and decision making but that's harder if you have to play a certain way in SCII.
|
10387 Posts
that's not strategy/decision-making being more difficult, it's just winning consistently is more difficult in SC2 due to design.
|
On September 18 2013 13:21 YyapSsap wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 12:31 lichter wrote:On September 18 2013 12:18 shaftofpleasure wrote:On September 18 2013 12:11 lichter wrote:On September 18 2013 12:04 shaftofpleasure wrote:
SC2 should make their own pimpest plays. With the amount of players claiming they are hella good, there should be a long list of pimp plays we can watch and let's try to compare those to BW. for example, are there any games comparable to Boxer vs Joyo?
I'm tired of all these SC2 people claiming that their game is as equally hard as BW yet in BW few can claim to be the best while in SC2, almost everyone in a sponsored is considered the best by their peers. BW is clearly harder mechanically. Anyone who argues otherwise is nuts. But mechanics isn't the only thing that makes a game difficult. Decision making and strategy in SC2 is far more difficult because everything is so punishing and quick. Unless you keep making the right decisions you can let your opponent back in the game. In a way, the fact that there isn't a steady list of dominant players just shows how difficult it is to master that side of SC2; basically, noone has done it yet. Whether or not that is the kind of 'difficult' or 'hard' that makes the game more pleasing to watch is beside the point that both games have facets that are harder than the other. What the fuck are you talking about? Do you think BW doesn't have this? It practically created the Decision making + strategy in RTS. SC2 is a rock/paper/scissors game. It is not complicated. Decision making and strategy is almost non-existent in SC2 because there is no time for it. It's all about countering what your opponents is making and that is not fucking strategy and this is based on most games I saw. You do not see that in BW. Of course BW has this. But in BW it is possible to make up for lapses in judgement with superior micro and macro. It is more difficult in SC2 to separate one's mechanics from the rest of the pack since these aspects of the game are easier. The only differentiator between most of the top players is their decision making, strategy (builds, overarching game plans), tactics (army movement, flanks, harass, etc), star sense and mental fortitude. The lack of other differentiators, coupled with death balls and terrible terrible damage, amplify the importance of the abovementioned factors. Mistakes and bad decisions in SC2 are more punishing. One wrong stim and you lose. One wrong unsiege on creep and you lose. One wrong move command on your mutas and you lose. A bunch of badly placed forcefields and you lose. Perhaps the approach of making fewer mistakes, as opposed to playing better, ends up making a lot of SC2 games dull or unsatisfying--for example, the Inno vs Mvp game mentioned where Xiphos attributes the win to Innovation's mistakes--but that does not mean the game is any easier (or any harder, for that matter). I find that the rock-paper-scissors argument is true to a certain extent, but it does not invalidate the strategic depth of SC2. It's more like rock-paper-scissors-lizard-superman-shoes-wallet-felafel-textbook..... I can't remember the last time i thought the player won because of the better composition in BW
You must have a terrible memory, it happens regularly. BC/wraith/carrier/muta switches. Mixing in extra firebats for a bust vs lings. Going deep six vs protoss. Bio-goliath vs zerg. Probably the most composition dependent mu is zerg vs mech as it has plenty of options and unit mixes for both players become really important. The mu's that are less composition based are the ones that are so stable that you see the same comp's played out again and again.
On September 18 2013 13:41 ArvickHero wrote:
that's not strategy/decision-making being more difficult, it's just winning consistently is more difficult in SC2 due to design.
I'd like to see a comparison of individual winrates for prepared leagues (GSL + PL vs OSL/MSL + PL). Win rates for the top players don't seem that different to those in BW. I doubt guys like JD and Taeja are getting lucky, they seem to be amazingly consistent lately.
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
On September 18 2013 13:41 ArvickHero wrote:
that's not strategy/decision-making being more difficult, it's just winning consistently is more difficult in SC2 due to design.
I am not sure we mean 'difficult' in the same way here.
I think a lot of people are stuck in the mindset that every argument is actually about which is the better game, and that tarnishes everything with bias. It isn't the case. Discussions can be had about both games without having to imply either being universally better or superior or one being deficient.
|
NO LIGHT
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
|
10387 Posts
On September 18 2013 13:49 lichter wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 13:41 ArvickHero wrote:
that's not strategy/decision-making being more difficult, it's just winning consistently is more difficult in SC2 due to design. I am not sure we mean 'difficult' in the same way here. I think a lot of people are stuck in the mindset that every argument is actually about which is the better game, and that tarnishes everything with bias. It isn't the case. Discussions can be had about both games without having to imply either being universally better or superior or one being deficient.
well no I'm not even arguing that BW is better or w/e. I'm objectively defining more difficult as "harder to perform/execute/figure out". And when you look at the two, it's the same level of difficulty, because both games are essentially the same in terms of strategy and decision-making. BW's micro can be considered more difficult overall due to UI limitations and such, but SC2 has it's own quirks that can make its micro more difficult in certain aspects (forcefielding, clumping).
In the case of BW and SC2 though, the difficulty in executing/creating strategies and builds are essentially the same. You're arguing that SC2 places more importance on these aspects, because they have a bigger relative impact on the game, and therefore is more difficult. That's like saying strategy in Advance Wars is more difficult than SC2 strategy, because strategy has a bigger relative impact in AW (since there's no micro).
more important =/= more difficult
|
On September 18 2013 13:49 Scarecrow wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 13:21 YyapSsap wrote:On September 18 2013 12:31 lichter wrote:On September 18 2013 12:18 shaftofpleasure wrote:On September 18 2013 12:11 lichter wrote:On September 18 2013 12:04 shaftofpleasure wrote:
SC2 should make their own pimpest plays. With the amount of players claiming they are hella good, there should be a long list of pimp plays we can watch and let's try to compare those to BW. for example, are there any games comparable to Boxer vs Joyo?
I'm tired of all these SC2 people claiming that their game is as equally hard as BW yet in BW few can claim to be the best while in SC2, almost everyone in a sponsored is considered the best by their peers. BW is clearly harder mechanically. Anyone who argues otherwise is nuts. But mechanics isn't the only thing that makes a game difficult. Decision making and strategy in SC2 is far more difficult because everything is so punishing and quick. Unless you keep making the right decisions you can let your opponent back in the game. In a way, the fact that there isn't a steady list of dominant players just shows how difficult it is to master that side of SC2; basically, noone has done it yet. Whether or not that is the kind of 'difficult' or 'hard' that makes the game more pleasing to watch is beside the point that both games have facets that are harder than the other. What the fuck are you talking about? Do you think BW doesn't have this? It practically created the Decision making + strategy in RTS. SC2 is a rock/paper/scissors game. It is not complicated. Decision making and strategy is almost non-existent in SC2 because there is no time for it. It's all about countering what your opponents is making and that is not fucking strategy and this is based on most games I saw. You do not see that in BW. Of course BW has this. But in BW it is possible to make up for lapses in judgement with superior micro and macro. It is more difficult in SC2 to separate one's mechanics from the rest of the pack since these aspects of the game are easier. The only differentiator between most of the top players is their decision making, strategy (builds, overarching game plans), tactics (army movement, flanks, harass, etc), star sense and mental fortitude. The lack of other differentiators, coupled with death balls and terrible terrible damage, amplify the importance of the abovementioned factors. Mistakes and bad decisions in SC2 are more punishing. One wrong stim and you lose. One wrong unsiege on creep and you lose. One wrong move command on your mutas and you lose. A bunch of badly placed forcefields and you lose. Perhaps the approach of making fewer mistakes, as opposed to playing better, ends up making a lot of SC2 games dull or unsatisfying--for example, the Inno vs Mvp game mentioned where Xiphos attributes the win to Innovation's mistakes--but that does not mean the game is any easier (or any harder, for that matter). I find that the rock-paper-scissors argument is true to a certain extent, but it does not invalidate the strategic depth of SC2. It's more like rock-paper-scissors-lizard-superman-shoes-wallet-felafel-textbook..... I can't remember the last time i thought the player won because of the better composition in BW You must have a terrible memory, it happens regularly. BC/wraith/carrier/muta switches. Mixing in extra firebats for a bust vs lings. Going deep six vs protoss. Bio-goliath vs zerg. Probably the most composition dependent mu is zerg vs mech has plenty of options and unit mixes for both players becomes really important. The mu's that are less composition based are the ones that are so stable that you see the same comp's played out again and again..
I don't quite agree with your statement that it happened on a regular basis. The biggest difference is that a comp switch in SC2 is far more effective than BW. Sure the opposition went for surprise BC (for one you cant rush for these things or good luck trying), but it isn't the end of the world. I start getting MASS goliaths/turret rings everywhere because I can immediately activate by plan B i.e. turtle with tanks/turrets/goliaths then get my own set of BCs.
Carrier switches also are a risk because the moment it is detected, say hello to an endless amount of goliaths. Its quite different because in SC2, a tech switch = your units getting hard countered = just 1A to their base into victory. BW quite didn't work like that because you couldn't just 1A your army. They would instantly produce the units that was required to deal with the new threat. Sure the momentum swings the other way but no way its the end of the game unlike SC2.
Deep six? thats more of an all in cheese that rarely sees the light of the day because the success rate is so low. The thing about BW is that its so rare to pull out a fast one to seal the deal (relying purely on comp alone vs execution/micro). All three races have very very strong AA units (goliaths, scourge, corsairs/storms/archons w/e) so switching to an air composition is very difficult to pull off. Ground units tend to not hard counter each other so generally speaking, you can hold up your own. I guess the damage system also attribute to this unit dynamics in BW.
The fact of the matter is that for instance in the TvZ matchup, just because he produced A units doesnt necessarily mean im going to flat out die because of no unit B to counter. A good analogy would be in SC2 mentality, oh he got marines, so i better get lurkers or im going to die since mutas will just evaporate. But the fact is that you might not even need lurkers and rely 100% on mutas alone (say hello to JDs mutas.. frightening to watch) even if they have a friggn science vessel.
Its quite hard to portray what im trying to say unless you've seen/played a ton of games but its clear enough that it was less punishing in the BW meta if you were "outcomped" unless its something along the lines of i dont have AA and you only got air units (or i got no ovies and DTs are everywhere).. Only because of the high ground mechanics, possibly pathing, less hard counters (especially the air vs ground unit relationship) and the ability to micro the unit for x10 the effectiveness to overcome these "out-comped" scenarios.
|
On September 18 2013 09:36 larse wrote:![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nUeWq14.jpg)
That's not even KT anymore. KTFlash will never have been more true.
Well that aside hopefully we'll get to see Light stream BW.
|
I like how in the BW vs SC2 debate, anyone who argues for BW is usually around D+ on iccup, which is around masters SC2 (with a week of exclusively playing SC2, which I'm sure each of them has given to it). Most of the people arguing for SC2 are diamond or below, which is E. Minus.
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
On September 18 2013 14:23 ArvickHero wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 13:49 lichter wrote:On September 18 2013 13:41 ArvickHero wrote:
that's not strategy/decision-making being more difficult, it's just winning consistently is more difficult in SC2 due to design. I am not sure we mean 'difficult' in the same way here. I think a lot of people are stuck in the mindset that every argument is actually about which is the better game, and that tarnishes everything with bias. It isn't the case. Discussions can be had about both games without having to imply either being universally better or superior or one being deficient. well no I'm not even arguing that BW is better or w/e. I'm objectively defining difficult as "harder to perform/execute/figure out". And when you look at the two, it's the same level of difficulty, because both games are essentially the same in terms of strategy and decision-making. BW's micro can be considered more difficult overall due to UI limitations and such, but SC2 has it's own quirks that can make its micro more difficult in certain aspects (forcefielding, clumping). In the case of BW and SC2 though, the difficulty in executing/creating strategies and builds are essentially the same. You're arguing that SC2 places more importance on these aspects, because they have a bigger relative impact on the game, and therefore is more difficult. That's like saying strategy in Advance Wars is more difficult than SC2 strategy, because strategy has a bigger relative impact in AW (since there's no micro). more important =/= more difficult
The equation I propose isn't as straightforward as you present. As mentioned earlier:
1. Players have fewer avenues of differentiation due to the improvements/simplification in UI and mico/macro mechanics.
2. Because it is difficult to gain an advantage through these means, the impact of strategy and decision making is heightened.
3. Build orders and compositions are more precise in SC2 (due to counter-recounter), and there are very few catch-all builds. All ins are also understood to be stronger in SC2. This makes scouting early on very important, as missing a gas count on a single geyser can mean the difference between victory and defeat. For example, droning up to ~65 as opposed to ~58 against an immortal sentry all in can spell disaster for a player scouting late.
4. A proper counter or composition is necessary when facing certain others (roaches necessary versus hellbat marauder timings; corruptors vs mass phoenix; ghosts vs HTs; etc). You can't just stick with your composition and win with micro/macro. Again, knowing what your opponent is doing is necessary if you want to counter it effectively.
Again, all of this is present in BW, but because of a combination of terrible terrible damage, easier macro and rallying, shorter battles, weaker defenders advantage, lesser impact of micro/macro strength, and more exact counter/recounter builds and compositions, there is a slimmer margin for error in choosing strategies and tactics. In BW there is more strategic leniency in terms of builds/compositions (since by game design it is not a series of hard-counters) as well as in their execution (since it is possible to make up the difference in micro/macro).
So it's more like:
Greater impact on outcome + Fewer ways to gain advantages + More exact builds + More exact compositions = More difficult
Difficult can also mean that something causes hardships or is problematic.
I don't know about Advance Wars so I cannot comment on that analogy. I suppose if I saw enough depth and complexity in its strategy (despite being less than that of BW or SC2) I would call it difficult, yes.
|
On September 18 2013 15:17 lichter wrote:
So it's more like:
Greater impact on outcome + Fewer ways to gain advantages + More exact builds + More exact compositions = More difficult
Difficult can also mean that something causes hardships or is problematic.
I don't know about Advance Wars so I cannot comment on that analogy. I suppose if I saw enough depth and complexity in its strategy (despite being less than that of BW or SC2) I would call it difficult, yes.
I recognize that you are trying to attribute coin-flips to strategy, but at the end of the day, SC2 is baseballs and BW is frisbees.
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
On September 18 2013 15:50 Phyanketto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 15:17 lichter wrote:
So it's more like:
Greater impact on outcome + Fewer ways to gain advantages + More exact builds + More exact compositions = More difficult
Difficult can also mean that something causes hardships or is problematic.
I don't know about Advance Wars so I cannot comment on that analogy. I suppose if I saw enough depth and complexity in its strategy (despite being less than that of BW or SC2) I would call it difficult, yes. I recognize that you are trying to attribute coin-flips to strategy, but at the end of the day, SC2 is baseballs and BW is frisbees.
It's not a sophisticated or interesting type of difficulty, I agree.
|
10387 Posts
No, builds and compositions are in no way more precise in SC2. A huge part of BW (I'm assuming we're talking about the pro level) were pros continually innovating and refining builds to the extreme limits, Flash being the best at this (and called God). Bisu dominated PvZ in 2011 for his incredibly refined timings, being just seconds faster than other pros. The most extreme variant of 2 hatch muta is called the 5:30 build (or something like that, maybe it was 6:30). Proleague was full of snipers that practiced specific timing builds (Dear vs Flash on Ground Zero is a good example). There might not be a wealth of community resources detailing builds down to the exact second like SC2 has, but that doesn't mean BW was in any way less exact.
Also in BW if you had the wrong comp, you lost, just like in SC2. I don't think I need to really extrapolate on this point. Leta vs Jaedong on Jade if you want to watch a game.
So really, your equation is Greater impact + fewer ways to gain advantages. And I disagree that "fewer ways to gain advantages" actually counts, since we're arguing how difficult the strategy/decision-making is, not how you can win ezpz. So all you have is just greater impact, when the strategy is, again, essentially the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
