StarCraft II

[Malakili]

It's not strategy if what limits you are reflexes.

Again, it is the difference between knowing to call a hit and run, and actually hitting the ball.  Calling a hit and run can be the best choice, but if the player doesn't actually put his bat on the ball, it doesn't matter.

That is to say nothing of the idea that most new players strategies don't actually acknowledge the rules of the game.  A starcraft strategy looks something like this "I am going to build a strong economy by taking 3 bases behind some early aggression designed to keep my opponent on his side of the map, after which I will build up to a large army and try to win the game."  That is just one strategy.  It is super broad (intentionally for this example).  But it isn't as if most new players are coming up with that idea and just failing to execute.  They are sitting on one base, building a bunch of stuff that looks kind of neat maybe, and then getting crushed when someone else shows up with a huge army because they DID actually take economy into account, etc. 

They are different issues, but I think the failure to understand how the game actually works is actually more prevalent than then speed issue.  Every single person reading this can type quickly (I'll wager).  You have the finger speed to play starcraft at a reasonable level if you want to.  Sure, maybe you haven't built up the muslce memory that allows you to play as easily as you can type, but the physical limitation is drastically overstated and people with terrible mechanics can make it up as high as platinum.

[Kail]

That is to say nothing of the idea that most new players strategies don't actually acknowledge the rules of the game.  A starcraft strategy looks something like this "I am going to build a strong economy by taking 3 bases behind some early aggression designed to keep my opponent on his side of the map, after which I will build up to a large army and try to win the game."  That is just one strategy.  It is super broad (intentionally for this example).  But it isn't as if most new players are coming up with that idea and just failing to execute.  They are sitting on one base, building a bunch of stuff that looks kind of neat maybe, and then getting crushed when someone else shows up with a huge army because they DID actually take economy into account, etc. 

I don't think people are disputing this, what's being argued is that it's not "strategy" as the term is normally used.  Baseball can get away with this, but Starcraft calls itself a "strategy" game, which to most newbies minds, does not mean the things that playing Starcraft entails.

There is a strategy to winning a tic-tac-toe game, but you don't call tic-tac-toe a strategy game.  That's the disconnect here, I think.

[MediumHigh]

I agree with Malakiii, understanding the basics is its own gate keeper that you have to pass to play the game at the strategic level. If you want a slower game with the same amount of control you want a turn based game. Or something like battleforge with no real upper cap in resources you can generate and no logistics to worry about. Any game that requires you to manage both logistics and actual combat at the same time will inevitable be more twitch oriented. In a lot of ways SC2 resembles the actual meaning of strategy in a war time situation simple because of the sheer speed involved.

[calapine]

It's not strategy if what limits you are reflexes.

Let's call it Real Time Skills and everyone is happy.

On an aside, a lot of insights in this thread. Sometimes F13 really feels like reading wikipedia.

[calapine]

They are different issues, but I think the failure to understand how the game actually works is actually more prevalent than then speed issue.  Every single person reading this can type quickly (I'll wager).  You have the finger speed to play starcraft at a reasonable level if you want to.  Sure, maybe you haven't built up the muslce memory that allows you to play as easily as you can type, but the physical limitation is drastically overstated and people with terrible mechanics can make it up as high as platinum.

Being able to type fast/perform tasks in a quick sequence isn't the same as being able to stand up to real-time stress though.

That's what caused me stop playing SC1 ladder (or 1vs1 in general) as either after 15-20 mins I had won the game or the pressure of competition built up to such point I had to /forfeit and get up and walk around in my room a bit to calm down.

[lamaros]

That is to say nothing of the idea that most new players strategies don't actually acknowledge the rules of the game.  A starcraft strategy looks something like this "I am going to build a strong economy by taking 3 bases behind some early aggression designed to keep my opponent on his side of the map, after which I will build up to a large army and try to win the game."  That is just one strategy.  It is super broad (intentionally for this example).  But it isn't as if most new players are coming up with that idea and just failing to execute.  They are sitting on one base, building a bunch of stuff that looks kind of neat maybe, and then getting crushed when someone else shows up with a huge army because they DID actually take economy into account, etc. 

I don't think people are disputing this, what's being argued is that it's not "strategy" as the term is normally used.  Baseball can get away with this, but Starcraft calls itself a "strategy" game, which to most newbies minds, does not mean the things that playing Starcraft entails.

There is a strategy to winning a tic-tac-toe game, but you don't call tic-tac-toe a strategy game.  That's the disconnect here, I think.

How is it not strategy?

Also there is no strategy to winning tic-tac-toe, unless "playing someone really really stupid" constitutes a strategy?

[Kail]

I don't think people are disputing this, what's being argued is that it's not "strategy" as the term is normally used.  Baseball can get away with this, but Starcraft calls itself a "strategy" game, which to most newbies minds, does not mean the things that playing Starcraft entails.

How is it not strategy?

I'm not saying it's not strategy, or that there's no strategy in Starcraft, or anything like that.  I'm saying the strategy in Starcraft doesn't correlate with the picture the average guy on the street has in his head of what "strategy" means.  The things you do to win at Starcraft are not the things you'd do strategically to win a war against space bugs "in real life" (or, the expectations of what such a war would be like).  The farther you get into Starcraft, the bigger this rift gets, as the game starts becoming more about meta concepts like pathfinding and APM.  Starcraft has this problem because it calls itself a strategy game, while games like Street Fighter 2 or Countersrtike do not (despite also involving a similar type of strategy).

Also there is no strategy to winning tic-tac-toe, unless "playing someone really really stupid" constitutes a strategy?

The strategy would be to get 3 in a row, and block the opponent from getting 3 in a row.  A total lack of strategy would mean making moves at random, which would see you losing most of your games.  He didn't say the strategy was very DEEP.

[lamaros]

I don't think people are disputing this, what's being argued is that it's not "strategy" as the term is normally used.  Baseball can get away with this, but Starcraft calls itself a "strategy" game, which to most newbies minds, does not mean the things that playing Starcraft entails.

How is it not strategy?

I'm not saying it's not strategy, or that there's no strategy in Starcraft, or anything like that.  I'm saying the strategy in Starcraft doesn't correlate with the picture the average guy on the street has in his head of what "strategy" means.  The things you do to win at Starcraft are not the things you'd do strategically to win a war against space bugs "in real life" (or, the expectations of what such a war would be like).  The farther you get into Starcraft, the bigger this rift gets, as the game starts becoming more about meta concepts like pathfinding and APM.  Starcraft has this problem because it calls itself a strategy game, while games like Street Fighter 2 or Countersrtike do not (despite also involving a similar type of strategy).

Also there is no strategy to winning tic-tac-toe, unless "playing someone really really stupid" constitutes a strategy?

The strategy would be to get 3 in a row, and block the opponent from getting 3 in a row.  A total lack of strategy would mean making moves at random, which would see you losing most of your games.  He didn't say the strategy was very DEEP.

No, those are the victory conditions/rules.

I'm not sure what you mean by strategy? A huge part of SC2 is build orders and timing - all of which is strategic. You seem to be talking about SC2 not being very tactical. Just because the average guy in the street doesn't know what strategy means doesn't mean SC2 isn't vastly more strategic than CS and SF...

[Kail]

[tic-tac-toe stuff]

No, those are the victory conditions/rules.

It is entirely possible to play badly in tic-tac-toe, and there are no rules against it.  If your opponent has two squares, you can try to block the third one, or you can play in any other square and lose the next turn.  That's strategy.  Again, not DEEP strategy, but I don't think that it's particularly relevant to Malakili's argument anyway.

If you're going to dismiss "do what it takes to win" as just being a restatement of the victory conditions, then no game ever has strategy.

I'm not sure what you mean by strategy? A huge part of SC2 is build orders and timing - all of which is strategic. You seem to be talking about SC2 not being very tactical. Just because the average guy in the street doesn't know what strategy means doesn't mean SC2 isn't vastly more strategic than CS and SF...

No.  I'm not slamming the skill it takes to play Starcraft or anything.  Not trying to say it's not strategic or that it's a game for dummies.

What I'm saying is that when people in general are bitching about Starcraft being not very strategic, they're bitching about it not lining up with the idea they have in their head of what military strategy entails.  They aren't disputing that having a higher APM or better macro means you will win (i.e. that it literally has no strategy), they're frustrated that the game is about having a higher APM or better macro, because it doesn't line up with their expectations.  It absolutely is the winning strategy in this game, sure, but that's not something you understand until you're already fairly invested in the game, and it's not always a welcome discovery.

[lamaros]

I disagree on this. SC2 is about strategy, but it's also about APM and micro. In terms of getting better at the game inventing or copying strategies (macro) are the most important - at the high level this is somewhat balanced among players however, so play comes down to apm and micro.

If people think a space game should also involve tactical play - which, again, seems to be what you are talking about - then they are under a misunderstanding about what distinguishes strategy and tactics. SC2 could have a deeper tactical game, yes, but the fact that it doesn't does not make it any less of a strategy game.

Tic-tac-toe will always be a draw with any two barely competent players. There are no strategic decisions to make, you either make the correct one or you lose. What is and isn't correct is readily apparent. There is no strategy in the game at all in this regard.

This is clearly not the case in SC2, as you have a large number of decisions to make in regard to what race you play, what buildings/units you build in what order, etc. These are strategic decisions.

[K9]

This seems like a really silly semantic point to argue over

[Malakili]

This seems like a really silly semantic point to argue over

It would be if it were just people arguing and nothing else, but a lot of people seem to actually quit the game because of it.

[Ratman_tf]

The things you do to win at Starcraft are not the things you'd do strategically to win a war against space bugs "in real life" (or, the expectations of what such a war would be like).  The farther you get into Starcraft, the bigger this rift gets, as the game starts becoming more about meta concepts like pathfinding and APM.

I believe every video game ever made has this breakdown. It's a concequence of gameplay being an abstraction. Eventually, the abstract rules are far more important to grok in order to advance in mastery of the game. Or just don't advance. I only play SCII campaign and little VS. between friends, because I don't care to master it past that point.

[El Gallo]

Have they removed sentries or colossus yet? Found a way to make zerg playable without the equally shitty fungal growth spell?

[Malakili]

Have they removed sentries or colossus yet? Found a way to make zerg playable without the equally shitty fungal growth spell?

No.

[Fordel]

Again, it is the difference between knowing to call a hit and run, and actually hitting the ball.  Calling a hit and run can be the best choice, but if the player doesn't actually put his bat on the ball, it doesn't matter.

How is this not what I said before? Being able to execute a bad plan is far superior to half assing a good one.


The actual thinking part of SC doesn't apply until you're at the top level of play. Me practicing and following a single color by numbers build order is going to net me FAR more success then any attempt I have on adjusting a build order to match my opponents and the general flow of the game. Spending actions and time to identify my opponents build doesn't actually help me if that time distracts from my pylon, probe, warp warp warp warp.


Once you hit that 10-5% at the top, then you have your adjustments and counters and map decisions and whatnot.

[lamaros]

Again, it is the difference between knowing to call a hit and run, and actually hitting the ball.  Calling a hit and run can be the best choice, but if the player doesn't actually put his bat on the ball, it doesn't matter.

How is this not what I said before? Being able to execute a bad plan is far superior to half assing a good one.


The actual thinking part of SC doesn't apply until you're at the top level of play. Me practicing and following a single color by numbers build order is going to net me FAR more success then any attempt I have on adjusting a build order to match my opponents and the general flow of the game. Spending actions and time to identify my opponents build doesn't actually help me if that time distracts from my pylon, probe, warp warp warp warp.


Once you hit that 10-5% at the top, then you have your adjustments and counters and map decisions and whatnot.

TBH I see that as Basic Strategy > Complex Strategy > Tactics.

Build orders are strategy. Just because you can copy someone else's strategy without having to think much doesn't change that.

[Fordel]

Lets say Malakili and I played a few rounds of SC2 against each other. We both pick the same race and the EXACT same build order. I can guarantee you, Malakili would beat me 9 times out of 10, simply because he could execute the build order more efficiently and reach the attack point long before I could.


He could pick a completely inferior build order in fact and still probably win 9 times out of 10.


At no point will my strategic decisions ever actually matter at my level of play. Merely my ability to carry any of them out.

[El Gallo]

Game is overwhelmingly about macro (what you'd call "micromanagement" in any other game) at the sub-pro level.  Which is all about being able to do several tasks, each of which is utterly trivial independently, at the same time, which makes it hard.  It's like writing the greek alphabet on paper with your right hand, typing the sentence "the quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog" into a keyboard with your left hand, and reciting the Pledge of Allegiance orally.  All three at the same time, over and over again, as fast as you can.  That's actually extremely hard to do, but it's hardly "strategy."  In what most people would think of as a good strategy game, all that stuff is automated.  But it's not automated in SC.  In fact, they go the other way with the intentionally shitty UI to make it even harder to remember if the next word is "jumped" or "over" and oh my god what comes after "...'tis of thee" alpha alpha alpha FUCK...

Until you have that down pat (something most players will never achieve) thinking isn't necessary.  Hell, it's usually harmful. 

Just don't get supply blocked, hit every single inject/chrono/mule, keep making workers, and spend all your money building literally anything else and you're in master league.  Probably GM if you're protoss.

 

[Ingmar]

The single player is entertaining at least. 

[Malakili]

Lets say Malakili and I played a few rounds of SC2 against each other. We both pick the same race and the EXACT same build order. I can guarantee you, Malakili would beat me 9 times out of 10, simply because he could execute the build order more efficiently and reach the attack point long before I could.


He could pick a completely inferior build order in fact and still probably win 9 times out of 10.


At no point will my strategic decisions ever actually matter at my level of play. Merely my ability to carry any of them out.

That is true of any game which isn't turn based, literally any game.

[Ingmar]

Nah, there are slower paced real time games where a mediocre execution of a good plan will beat a good execution of a bad plan. RTSes don't have to be that way. Total Annihilation would be a good example of an RTS with far more strategic depth and less reliance on micromanaging clicks - when your army of THE CANs takes 10 minutes to walk across the map a few seconds of derp in selecting and moving them isn't going to make a difference, and the resource gathering model was far more macro than micro.

[Trippy]

Total Annihilation would be a good example of an RTS with far more strategic depth and less reliance on micromanaging clicks

I don't know, cheesing your opponent to death with Big Bertha's took a lot of micro

[lamaros]

Game is overwhelmingly about macro (what you'd call "micromanagement" in any other game) at the sub-pro level.  Which is all about being able to do several tasks, each of which is utterly trivial independently, at the same time, which makes it hard.

You're confusing terms here. In regard to build orders, etc, you're talking about macro. In regard to multitasking and clicking you're talking micro. Micro is literally micromanagement.

At no point will my strategic decisions ever actually matter at my level of play. Merely my ability to carry any of them out.

Umm... the ability to plan something and for it to be a good plan is necessarily linked to the ability to do said thing, that's never going to be otherwise.

If you play Malakili and make him play a "build no units early and tech to carriers - NR 20min" or somesuch, and you go with a timed zealot/zergling/marine push you would beat him more times than you lose.

That Malakili would never pick such an absurd build order has everything to do with strategic decisions and little to do with his ability to carry said things out.

Nah, there are slower paced real time games where a mediocre execution of a good plan will beat a good execution of a bad plan. RTSes don't have to be that way. Total Annihilation would be a good example of an RTS with far more strategic depth and less reliance on micromanaging clicks - when your army of THE CANs takes 10 minutes to walk across the map a few seconds of derp in selecting and moving them isn't going to make a difference, and the resource gathering model was far more macro than micro.

Which is not to say that SC2 isn't very strategic (I will grant it is not especially tactical), just that all the strategy has a lot of micro in execution. And that this micro is (for a large number of people, including me) unfun and stressful.

And that the higher level you get the more the strategy becomes important (despite not being especially deep) as the micromanagement/execution becomes similar across the board. (Thanks Malakili)

[Malakili]

And that the higher level you get the more the strategy becomes irrelevant (as it's not hugely deep) and the micromanagement/execution becomes everything.

I think you've actually got this exactly backwards.  At high levels of play strategy is very deep and important, precisely because everyone has a high level of execution.  

But to say that I would win vs. someone because I've been fundamentals, and that therefore strategy isn't important is like saying playcalling isn't important in football and using the New England Patriots beating up on a High School Team as evidence.

[Lantyssa]

If a winning strategy isn't the determining factor in the majority of games, it isn't a strategy game.

That doesn't mean it's good or bad, just that it isn't focused around strategy.  You'd think we kicked your dog.  It's about APM.  If APM is equal, then, and only then, is strategy relevant, so y'all have this exactly backwards.

(Which Malakili actually agrees with as I'm posting.)

[lamaros]

And that the higher level you get the more the strategy becomes irrelevant (as it's not hugely deep) and the micromanagement/execution becomes everything.

I think you've actually got this exactly backwards.  At high levels of play strategy is very deep and important, precisely because everyone has a high level of execution.  

But to say that I would win vs. someone because I've been fundamentals, and that therefore strategy isn't important is like saying playcalling isn't important in football and using the New England Patriots beating up on a High School Team as evidence.

You're right. I think I even meant to say that (I am arguing for SC2 being a strategic, but unfun, game after all).

If a winning strategy isn't the determining factor in the majority of games, it isn't a strategy game.

That doesn't mean it's good or bad, just that it isn't focused around strategy.  You'd think we kicked your dog.  It's about APM.  If APM is equal, then, and only then, is strategy relevant, so y'all have this exactly backwards.

(Which Malakili actually agrees with as I'm posting.)

Well, technically you could also have a point where the strategy difference is so great that it would also offset an APM difference. This would be most obvious in new players with limited knowledge but high APM playing experienced players with great knowledge who sit below the top bracket in the APM stakes. It would only happen fleetingly though, as those new players would reasonably quickly gather the knowledge required to bridge the gap (if they cared), while the APM gate would still lock their opponent out.

[El Gallo]

Game is overwhelmingly about macro (what you'd call "micromanagement" in any other game) at the sub-pro level.  Which is all about being able to do several tasks, each of which is utterly trivial independently, at the same time, which makes it hard.

You're confusing terms here. In regard to build orders, etc, you're talking about macro. In regard to multitasking and clicking you're talking micro. Micro is literally micromanagement.

I don't think I am.  People say DongRaeGu has amazing macro because he hits 75 supply at 8 minutes (or whatever).  That involves a metric fuckton of fast clicking and multitasking (hitting injects and avoiding supply blocks and spending money).  But SC people, in my experience, don't say he has amazing "micro" because of that.  They say he has amazing micro when he kills a zealot with 4 lings (or whatever) and none of them die because he draws back the damaged ones.  

[Malakili]

Game is overwhelmingly about macro (what you'd call "micromanagement" in any other game) at the sub-pro level.  Which is all about being able to do several tasks, each of which is utterly trivial independently, at the same time, which makes it hard.

You're confusing terms here. In regard to build orders, etc, you're talking about macro. In regard to multitasking and clicking you're talking micro. Micro is literally micromanagement.

I don't think I am.  People say DongRaeGu has amazing macro because he hits 75 supply at 8 minutes (or whatever).  That involves a metric fuckton of fast clicking and multitasking (hitting injects and avoiding supply blocks and spending money).  But SC people, in my experience, don't say he has amazing "micro" because of that.  They say he has amazing micro when he kills a zealot with 4 lings (or whatever) and none of them die because he draws back the damaged ones.  

Yeah, Macro is used to denote things like base management, building units, getting upgrades, etc.  Micro can basically map directly onto the term "unit control"

[Ingmar]

Yeah, thirding that. It's a quirk of SC2 lingo; Lamaros would be right in general terms but specifically SC2 argot has that weird version of micro/macro.

[lamaros]

Game is overwhelmingly about macro (what you'd call "micromanagement" in any other game) at the sub-pro level.  Which is all about being able to do several tasks, each of which is utterly trivial independently, at the same time, which makes it hard.

You're confusing terms here. In regard to build orders, etc, you're talking about macro. In regard to multitasking and clicking you're talking micro. Micro is literally micromanagement.

I don't think I am.  People say DongRaeGu has amazing macro because he hits 75 supply at 8 minutes (or whatever).  That involves a metric fuckton of fast clicking and multitasking (hitting injects and avoiding supply blocks and spending money).  But SC people, in my experience, don't say he has amazing "micro" because of that.  They say he has amazing micro when he kills a zealot with 4 lings (or whatever) and none of them die because he draws back the damaged ones.  

They say it's amazing macro because it's a product of the build order/strategic planning, not because it's a product of his multitasking. In regard to SC slang maco = economy, micro = controlling units. In reality the execution of everything is micro, people just don't apply it to economic management in SC because it's somewhat redundant and less obvious.

Edit: Guess that makes me fourthing?

[Malakili]

Just as a general set of lingo:

Macro - Almost always used to describe building units, spending all of your money (and having the infrastructure to actually spend all that much), and not getting supply blocked.

Micro - give orders to individual or small groups of units to increase their cost efficiency.

Multitasking - the ability to just generally do lots of stuff at the same time (micro or macro related).  This is probably the term for what we've been talking about.

[Malakili]

Release Date: March 12.

http://us.battle.net/en/int?r=sc2

[Ceryse]

Too far from the original SC2 release for me to care, especially since the zerg are my least favourite race to play.

[calapine]

Yeah, no thanks. By the same release schedule Starcraft 2: Protoss Power will be out on 27th October 2015.

That's a Tuesday as well, mark your calendars everyone.