Sponson

Right, not being magnetized is the only way they won't budge. You can tell by the little static particle effects around the opponent, and all of Tager's drives will cause varying lengths of magnetism.

Sounds like a terrible friend.

Yes it takes longer to achieve a competitive set of skills in starcraft, but thats just time and practice. And you're a pretty intelligent fellow, I know that you probably won't argue that taking a longer time to develop a set of physical skills to get to "end game" makes the game any less strategic. Its like learning the rules, the more complex the rule set, the more time spent learning the rules than formulating strategies, but once you have it all down it becomes a rewarding game to play. Just because Blazblue is more accessible from an execution standpoint doesn't make it more accessible from a strategic standpoint. And beginners of both games all end up spending a lot of time to get good. Also the arbitrary numbers for strategy might be horribly off, but I just threw them out there. If starcraft already has names for openings and gambits just like chess, I would imagine the strategy number to be way higher. I don't claim to be very good at BB nor SC so I don't really know just how complex strategies get at end game to judge properly, I can only derive that a (good) RTS will involve a lot more strat than an equally good fighter game. I also just made the correlation of hatch blocking to chess. "You moved your pawn up to deny my bishop a check, what kind of strategy is that? Just moving your guy up to prevent something. Thats not strategy thats just moving a piece around." Edit: The thing here is that if you understand a fast 2nd hatch expo is a detriment to your victory, then you already know the strategy behind the 2nd hatch, which is experience and knowledge of that stratagem, and in short, blocking it is the strategy - it may be moving a piece around which is simple, but the knowledge of the situation far outplays execution in this scenario (imagine you're gonna do a long ass combo with Litchi, so what does the person do to stop you? poke you before you make your first move, its stupid and lame but man tell me if that doesn't work). If you didn't understand the danger of that strat, you wouldn't have hatch blocked in the first place -> thus lack of strategic forethought.

You mentioned hatch blocking. Yes you move your probe and block it from building yes its very simple. But thats like saying "wheres the strategy in Inferno Divider!?". You're right, what strategy? Its a strategy that falls under the line of "trick". You anticipate it and then deny it, and cantrip if you will. And as for APM? That all falls under execution, and you know without proper execution in any game you will fail. Sure SC requires an intense amount of it, but it doesn't mean its strategy is any less, because face it, if both people have a legitimate strategy (and in this RTS of 12 years you know theres a lot of it), and one basically outplays the other because they can control better, can you say its the fault of the game? If you answered yes, I would refer you to chess. You also broke down SC into "basic" strategies, yes... you basically reworded the rock, paper, scissors template that applies to every game. In blazblue, pure offense will lose to traps, traps will lose to pure defense, and pure defense will lose to pure offensive. Theres your basic strategy. We could spend a lot of time and break down what traps are. And we could break down what the early expo demands in terms of strategy. An over simplification. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong in routing your forces so they don't die. It takes a lot more than holding back+ A&B in BB, but thats just the nature of the game and I don't think thats a bad thing. All twitch? Maybe, but you can't sit there and tell me IB -> GETB isn't twitch, and that it won't save you a game, and I'm not gonna sit here and even pretend to say that starcraft isn't twitch orientated because you're right on all accounts that the requirement for execution in SC is very high. Also look at it from a metaphysical standpoint. If starcraft really was all just execution and no strategy, it would have died a long time ago because it would be labeled as a poor game equivalent to whack a mole. But no, its varied structure that doesn't pidgeon hole it into 4 bnb setups is what allowed it to be strategy, and just because the strategy requires levels of execution doesn't knock it off as bad. Think of the M&M build like a combo in BB, you set it up and you execute it. If the person reads you right then they can set up to counter it. If they don't read it or fail to build appropriate counters, well they lose if they don't do execution just perfect because of soft counters(we're assuming equal skill levels). If they build the appropriate counter, they still have to execute it right to stop it because it isn't just "hurr durr I send units". Yeah, no. Strategy is the fundamental thought and reasoning behinds games. Having a tough level of execution doesn't dumb down strategy or completely override it (I don't know if this was your point, that the execution shoves away stratagem, but thats what I got out of your post). When you have more buildable units, techs, and buildings in an rts than you do moves in a fighter, can you claim that it requires less strategy? When you say that it requires more twitch/execution because of that fact, does it make it a bad game, or a more challenging one, or simply a game where execution comes with the territory? Your videos of the marines attacking that lurker isn't anything special or new. Speaking of "Nu", dodging a projectile attack with close timing and proper manuvering and then counter attacking within a certain time frame? Sounds... familiar. (P.S. theres no reason why there would ever be just one marine attacking one lurker, or just having lurkers unsupported within a reasonable time frame(unless the support is already dead)) The way I see it is if we assign arbitrary values to strategy and execution (impossible but just for sake of comparison), BB might be Strategy: 10, Execution: 14 and Starcraft would be Strategy: 12, Execution: 26 or something. I mean we choose games because we love them, not because they're better than other games on an arbitrary level. And I love fighters, BB got me hooked, and I really don't care for starcraft. But I really try not to bias it because no matter how you stack it, the quality of a game thats been elevated to national past time must be pretty good on all accounts of intellectual and physical prowess. Edit: and this whole time just to establish the fact that starcraft does indeed require more execution than fighters to be good.

Tell me if I'm wrong here again, but in this quote. Now judging by the poster, you clearly didn't talk about other games, but this guy did, and thats what I was referring to. The statement that "where other games rely more on instinct[sic] and reflexes" is referring to other games right? Or maybe I'm delusional and assumed that "games" meant actual other games instead of straight fighter genre. Which wouldn't make an ounce of sense because the part right after? Yeah, it compares the "other games" to fighters. Wouldn't make sense to compare fighters and then differentiate it with fighter. --- Also, yeah I agree now that what I said earlier was stupid (it was in my last post). I didn't know what "strategy" exactly encompassed because I lumped it with basic playing. But hey, I get bouts of retardation sometimes. Experience is the only thing you get after you need it. Now I never said the truth of the statement was retarded, just the statement itself (subtle difference, but its there). It simply doesn't need to be stated. Otherwise we'd be saying things like "If you don't breathe you'll suffocate" and "If you don't eat you'll starve" and get applauded for it. Just because its true, doesn't make it any less redundant, unnecessary, and condescending. Think about it. But I digress, this is getting off topic. And to steer this back, I always play to win unless I'm not.

All valid points, nothing I can really refute at this point. So the claim is that strategy isn't a quantifiable situation in which an outcome has a clear advantage. >Make an argument with no solid points >Someone disagrees and points out flaws in statement. >Exaggerate everything, ignore everything, attack them verbally. >VICTORY! Yeah... you're original statement was that you need more reflex and instincts and less strategy and practice with non-fighter games. I'm still calling bullshit on that. If you want to discuss go ahead but I already gave my 2 cents about starcraft, and you didn't even bother with that. And I'll still also call bullshit on not needing a healthy amount of reflex and instincts in a fighter game.

Okay... you just totally flipped whatever I just said and tried to make me look stupid by posting an extremely exaggerated version of my post. Good job. Let me put this in perspective for you, in starcraft when you scout that proxy gateway, you know zealots are coming to rape you asap, however you still have time to react if you scouted properly. If you scout an 8pool, well you have time to react. And by "time" I mean a minute or so. This minute buffer really stops reflex from being important because as long as you're reasonable with the response, its not going to matter. In a fighting game, you have quite literally fractions of a second to respond. Take hellsfang, supers, sledge, noel's drive..." etc. to react to. Thats reflex. Backdashing a Chain Revolver into a 360a is reflex. Its independent from strategy, its synonymous with practice. Infact I'll go ahead and say that you don't need strategy at all. Theres no "high ground" or "cover". Theres just you and the opponent and the wall of perception. You don't go and say "oh he's doing the orwellian opening I have all the time in the world to choose my move". And if you think countering something with something else is strategy... well you're right. But you're wrong in assuming the game relies "heavily" on it. Yeah, you should always x the y when z, but if that doesn't change, I hardly call that strategy, but more of a counter, and knowing a counter is just practice. Without reflex and timing, you will never pull off that counter-super because the opponent surprised you with something that wasn't in your "strategy". And about practice? yeah everytime you play its called "practice", drilling is a form of practice... yes, but drilling a combo when you already know it flat is useless. You're basically saying "If you don't play this game you're not going to get better", which is a tautological statement that sounds retarded. And unless you're just spamming buttons (which doesn't count as practice), well.

Its simple, he has no idea what he's talking about. In fact its usually the complete other way around. Take starcraft for example, the macro and micro sure, its good to do it really fast and precise, but you don't really need to. Its about scouting, build orders, and adaptability. Nothing about reflex, just a good mind about where you are. Fighter games are all 'bout reflex. Because you only have the timeframe between attacks to get around and counter. Also note: You can spam early on and win - can't do that in other games, can't even conceptualize that in other games. Its true that you need practice, but you know what, you don't need to drill like ping pong. Spam in counterstrike? You're just shooting. Spam in starcraft? You're not doing anything. Edit: ITT people who takes games too seriously. Edit: Edit: Like I'm all for play to win but jesus, talk about a joy kill sometimes.

Is it? My bad. "The more you know".

A natural-born condition < not knowing how to use spell check < knowing what the person meant, then still nit-picking it Also... >Judgment issues >Judgment >Spellcheck hahaha, but seriously now. If a couple Jin players are wondering how to catch arakune, I can only wonder what Tager players are thinking. I also seriously doubt you guys caught the end of the shit stick. So... problems with match up? Yeah... but don't think its as bad as you make it out to be.

Rachel because she was adorable. Then realized thats not my playstyle at all and chose Tager because he's huge and awesome and POWER OF SCIENCE.