4 ms·

The problem is, as ActionButton argues in this review of Diablo 2 [0], Starcraft is a game that may contain some amount of strategy, but wherein the element of

The problem is, as ActionButton argues in this review of Diablo 2 [0], Starcraft is a game that may contain some amount of strategy, but wherein the element of strategy is strongly over-powered by a reflex-based combat system more akin to Street Fighter than anything else. [0] http://www.actionbutton.net/?p=518 http://www.actionbutton.net/?p=518

TulliusCicero 11y ago
If that was true, then bots would already easily dominate humans, just like they can for fighting games. But they don't; even moderately competitive players can beat the best bots.
- Umn44 11y ago
  "But they don't; even moderately competitive players can beat the best bots." That's because the programmers are bad at AI for that kind of game. It just means human beings don't understand how to make a good AI for a game like starcraft. AKA the human being being the idiot that doesn't understand how to make one.
ktRolster 11y ago
wherein the element of strategy is strongly over-powered by a reflex-based combat system This isn't true, in general a bigger army will beat a smaller army every time. After you can make equal size armies, the next problem is army positioning and when to take engagements. Finally, after you can do all that, then you can get an extra bonus to your power by microing really well. But not every micro is about speed - most of the time it's about knowing what to do. And even at the most extreme, it's less about clicking quickly and more about clicking precisely.
- drwl 11y ago
  It's not always the case where smaller armies lose to big armies. There are many situations in Starcraft where superior micro of less units can taken on more units. One example is Phoenixes versus mutalisks. For those who don't play, Phoenixes are faster and have slightly longer range than mutalisks. Phoenixes can infinitely shoot and run and kill of mutalisks.
  - ktRolster 11y ago
    That's true, I should have added "unit composition" in there right after "army size"
  - TulliusCicero 11y ago
    I'm not sure this is true, even with infinite APM micro, and I have a whole of experience microing phoenixes against mutas. Well, maybe after the range upgrade it is.
    - drwl 11y ago
      you're right - the phoenixes will take damage. They'll take virtually nothing with range upgrade. But this 6 v 22 trade off https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6g1GCzJfCKo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6g1GCzJfCKo
dwaltrip 11y ago
The strategic complexity of StarCraft is easily several orders of magnitude above Street Fighter.
- StavrosK 11y ago
  The GP didn't disagree. He said that the strategic component is overpowered by the need for reflexes.

TulliusCicero 11y ago

If that was true, then bots would already easily dominate humans, just like they can for fighting games. But they don't; even moderately competitive players can beat the best bots.

Umn44 11y ago
"But they don't; even moderately competitive players can beat the best bots." That's because the programmers are bad at AI for that kind of game. It just means human beings don't understand how to make a good AI for a game like starcraft. AKA the human being being the idiot that doesn't understand how to make one.

ktRolster 11y ago

wherein the element of strategy is strongly over-powered by a reflex-based combat system This isn't true, in general a bigger army will beat a smaller army every time. After you can make equal size armies, the next problem is army positioning and when to take engagements. Finally, after you can do all that, then you can get an extra bonus to your power by microing really well. But not every micro is about speed - most of the time it's about knowing what to do. And even at the most extreme, it's less about clicking quickly and more about clicking precisely.

drwl 11y ago
It's not always the case where smaller armies lose to big armies. There are many situations in Starcraft where superior micro of less units can taken on more units. One example is Phoenixes versus mutalisks. For those who don't play, Phoenixes are faster and have slightly longer range than mutalisks. Phoenixes can infinitely shoot and run and kill of mutalisks.
- ktRolster 11y ago
  That's true, I should have added "unit composition" in there right after "army size"
- TulliusCicero 11y ago
  I'm not sure this is true, even with infinite APM micro, and I have a whole of experience microing phoenixes against mutas. Well, maybe after the range upgrade it is.
  - drwl 11y ago
    you're right - the phoenixes will take damage. They'll take virtually nothing with range upgrade. But this 6 v 22 trade off https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6g1GCzJfCKo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6g1GCzJfCKo

dwaltrip 11y ago

The strategic complexity of StarCraft is easily several orders of magnitude above Street Fighter.

StavrosK 11y ago
The GP didn't disagree. He said that the strategic component is overpowered by the need for reflexes.