4 ms·

That's the type of experience that is a big turn off for me in games as well. People spend so much time studying the mechanics and economics of the game that ev

That's the type of experience that is a big turn off for me in games as well. People spend so much time studying the mechanics and economics of the game that eventually, pretty much every match plays out in exactly the same form. For RTS games, the build trees often get set in stone. Deviate from the one feasible tree and you might as well just be giving up because after a few minutes your opponent has just enough units to wipe you (and, since you didn't follow the build tree, you won't be able to counter it in time). For team FPS games, if your team gets good enough, the first few kills almost always determine the winner of the match, because whoever wins the first wave controls map flow. They control weapon drops, ammo drops, and they probably have the spawn points and probabilities memorized too. I suppose there is a certain mathematical attraction in pushing a game to its limits like that. But I've never been able to actually enjoy playing that way.

DominikR 13y ago
There are hundreds of builds you could go that work in certain situations. And then there are builds that usually don't work in a situation, but some people can use it because of their superior micromanagement or macro. What you probably mean is the metagame - that definitely exists and constantly changes, but in a best of 3/5/7 setup you'll usually see players use multiple builds, either as a reaction to the build the opponent used in the last game, or due to the map you are playing on and sometimes just to try catching the opponent off guard by doing something unexpected
nickik 13y ago
You could say that for every sport. If anything your avg. Star Craft game is suprising more often then your avg. football or whatever game. So often you see players doing something strang, and quite often, if you look at Star Craft 1, one change in startagy by one person has huge impact on that matchup. So your avg. match changes a lot, end even if you are in a time where games play out simularly quite often, good players use that and trie to win doing something diffrent.
lgieron 13y ago
I wholeheartedly recommend tournament-level magic:the gathering (available online as magic online). The game has mind-blowing depth while not being a clickfest. It's similar to deep board games like chess and go, but the random element and the variability introduced by thousands of available cards make it much more fun IMO. The drawback I guess is that it can be pretty expensive, but the price is justified by unmatched quality of the gameplay. Plus, if you're good, it doesn't cost anything (you're actually making some money while playing).
giblaz 13y ago
I usually don't log in, but your post had some common noob misconceptions about Starcraft and I wanted to clear them up before people take them as fact. >People spend so much time studying the mechanics and economics of the game that eventually, pretty much every match plays out in exactly the same form. Maybe on ladder, but in a tournament you will never see the same Best of 3 on a map... ever. That's the beauty of a tournament setting - the players are mostly playing each other and trying to metagame one another. On ladder, that's a problem that is solved by new maps in the map pool. Yes, maps get learned and then players will learn if pressure builds or fast expoing are strong on the map, but even then players can metagame their opponent on those maps (like going for a super early all-in on a map that favors macro play). SCOUTING IS THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT SKILL IN THE GAME. Players with phenomenal mechanics like ForGG & MarineKingPrime lose professional games constantly because of their bad scouting, on the same maps, vs the same opponents, because their opponent is doing strategies to counter what they usually do. It doesn't play out the same, ever. (although MKP needs to stop going CC first on the low ground and losing :) ) >Deviate from the one feasible tree and you might as well just be giving up because after a few minutes your opponent has just enough units to wipe you (and, since you didn't follow the build tree, you won't be able to counter it in time). Starcraft 2 has harder counters than SC:BW did, but SC2 still has maintained the beautiful quality that SCBW did in that you can counter any strategy with a number of options, and each has their benefits and disadvantages to you as the game progresses. It's a commonly stated and completely wrong opinion that the game is so figured out that there are exact responses you must do in certain situations. When you're lower league (Bronze to Diamond) it will help to play more robotically, but as you get better you must be willing to throw your opponent off and respond to what they're doing unexpectedly. It benefits you to have the "knowledge" advantage in that game, unsurprisingly. I'd like to mention that I've been Masters 8 seasons in a row, so this post comes from someone who has invested a lot of time into the game. Hopefully I didn't come off as too much of an ass but given how complex the game TRULY is, when people try to simplify it and then paint the game negatively for that simplified aspect... well I can't be having that. =]

DominikR 13y ago

There are hundreds of builds you could go that work in certain situations. And then there are builds that usually don't work in a situation, but some people can use it because of their superior micromanagement or macro. What you probably mean is the metagame - that definitely exists and constantly changes, but in a best of 3/5/7 setup you'll usually see players use multiple builds, either as a reaction to the build the opponent used in the last game, or due to the map you are playing on and sometimes just to try catching the opponent off guard by doing something unexpected

nickik 13y ago

You could say that for every sport. If anything your avg. Star Craft game is suprising more often then your avg. football or whatever game. So often you see players doing something strang, and quite often, if you look at Star Craft 1, one change in startagy by one person has huge impact on that matchup. So your avg. match changes a lot, end even if you are in a time where games play out simularly quite often, good players use that and trie to win doing something diffrent.

lgieron 13y ago

I wholeheartedly recommend tournament-level magic:the gathering (available online as magic online). The game has mind-blowing depth while not being a clickfest. It's similar to deep board games like chess and go, but the random element and the variability introduced by thousands of available cards make it much more fun IMO. The drawback I guess is that it can be pretty expensive, but the price is justified by unmatched quality of the gameplay. Plus, if you're good, it doesn't cost anything (you're actually making some money while playing).

giblaz 13y ago

I usually don't log in, but your post had some common noob misconceptions about Starcraft and I wanted to clear them up before people take them as fact. >People spend so much time studying the mechanics and economics of the game that eventually, pretty much every match plays out in exactly the same form. Maybe on ladder, but in a tournament you will never see the same Best of 3 on a map... ever. That's the beauty of a tournament setting - the players are mostly playing each other and trying to metagame one another. On ladder, that's a problem that is solved by new maps in the map pool. Yes, maps get learned and then players will learn if pressure builds or fast expoing are strong on the map, but even then players can metagame their opponent on those maps (like going for a super early all-in on a map that favors macro play). SCOUTING IS THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT SKILL IN THE GAME. Players with phenomenal mechanics like ForGG & MarineKingPrime lose professional games constantly because of their bad scouting, on the same maps, vs the same opponents, because their opponent is doing strategies to counter what they usually do. It doesn't play out the same, ever. (although MKP needs to stop going CC first on the low ground and losing :) ) >Deviate from the one feasible tree and you might as well just be giving up because after a few minutes your opponent has just enough units to wipe you (and, since you didn't follow the build tree, you won't be able to counter it in time). Starcraft 2 has harder counters than SC:BW did, but SC2 still has maintained the beautiful quality that SCBW did in that you can counter any strategy with a number of options, and each has their benefits and disadvantages to you as the game progresses. It's a commonly stated and completely wrong opinion that the game is so figured out that there are exact responses you must do in certain situations. When you're lower league (Bronze to Diamond) it will help to play more robotically, but as you get better you must be willing to throw your opponent off and respond to what they're doing unexpectedly. It benefits you to have the "knowledge" advantage in that game, unsurprisingly. I'd like to mention that I've been Masters 8 seasons in a row, so this post comes from someone who has invested a lot of time into the game. Hopefully I didn't come off as too much of an ass but given how complex the game TRULY is, when people try to simplify it and then paint the game negatively for that simplified aspect... well I can't be having that. =]