There is nothing I fail to grasp in what you said but what makes no sense at all.
You actually know what failing to grasp or not understanding means, right? Because you know you can actually understand something that's illogical... understanding it is actually quite useful in refuting it.
ProMeTheus112 wrote:There is nothing I fail to grasp in what you said but what makes no sense at all. Of course RTS require strategy skills AND other skills, and you certainly never pointed out what exactly in the things I said to describe strategy was in fact not strategy.
No, i never ever said over 100 times that reaction time (what RTS require that TBS don't) isn't strategy... ain't selective memory great?
You're whole point was that SC is better because you have to react in real time while in a TBS you don't (that and that you can just use one build order over and over to win no matter what, which is a pretty n00bish idea, one other have about SC too btw, and still counts as a strategy, albeit a very bad one)
Alternatively, I did point out what in the things you said to describe strategy in Heroes was in fact not strategy.
You mean using exploits.... sure, i bet in a real combat situation everyone obeys the rules.
And all those military classes where they teach strategies used through out history aren't really teaching strategy...
Those where meant to show you that strategy isn't what you think, not to show that Heroes is more strategic then SC... remember that my original statement was that Civilization is more strategic (way more options), with HoMM not being clearly one way or the other because in the end better tactics on the Battlefield can make up for a weaker strategy (same thing with SC, better micro makes up for having less units etc.).
I do recall giving credit to the idea that SC might be considered better strategically on the point that it's better balanced then most games (like chess compared to certain real life "wars"), so i most certainly not saying SC has no strategy...
Speed is not really a determining factor between good players. It is mainly one of the large gaps you find between a noob and a decent player. It is not the main skill that good RTS such as Starcraft focus on.
Then why is every pro-gamer comment i heard is against MBS (true, not that many, but no pro MBS ones either)?
You sure it's not just that most pro-players have close enough apm/speed that it doesn't really shows that much?!
And if you're really arguing that a player that micro's his units faster in battle (not overall apm, that one is skewed by the warming up they do in the beginning that doesn't affect gameplay, some players might warm up faster etc) isn't better at SC then you're the one that should check out those replays on teamliquid.net some more.
Competitive players gather around sites such as Teamliquid.net or Gosugamers.net. You will also find noobs on those two sites as well, but at least there are a lot of good ones too.
Sure, coz obviously the OP of that thread didn't use to spam the forum with teamliquid links... but hey, let's just brand anyone you don't agree with a n00b without bother checking.
Plus, you're assuming that playing a video game well makes you an authority on what is strategy... someone that only plays Diablo for example wouldn't know much about Role-playing because despite the game's classification as an RPG it's a pure hack-and-slash with mininal role playing... heck, even the best computer RPG has little role playing options when compared to pure combat options (try finishing them using high Charisma with a character who doesn't use it for combat effects).