How did I do ?

Chess

Yeah that obviously.
Chess and other non-realtime games would have exactly zero in the muscle memory aspect, right ?
What would be the opposite of that, what game is almost completely lacking any kind of strategy and is just about muscle memory ?

...

starcraft 2 is known for being extremely technical OP…

Quake 3?

You obviously play r6 and you played cs casually on your childhood. You play dota2 regularly so you figured it would be too smug to put it as the best strategy oriented, then you remember sc2 exists

0/10 you don`t have any idea what the hell you are talking about kill yourself

...

I like and play only SC2 out of all those games
I hate most FPSs and dont take them seriously as competitive games
Thats why I asked how did I do, as most of those were a guess from what I know about those games
But nice try, youre pretty smart !

You did terribly.

extremely technical at lower levels, strategical at higher

you can stomp noobies just with good macro, sure, but just macro wont do you much good against good players

oh fuck, that is actually it

how did I do?

10/10

pretty cool
you got the no-contribution-to-the-thread combined with ad hominem and a funny picture

Where would you put Q3A/CPMA and SC Brood War? It seems pretty accurate given those games except Dota 2 requires more strategy but much less muscle memory than SC2.

...

funny picture where? give me funnies!!

just google a picture of OP. you'll never stop laughing once you see him.

Quit playing all that casual baby shit and pick up a real man's game.

Obvious bait thread have a gander at these similar Hindu-Arabic numeral symbols

SC2 is fucking trash, sorry to tell you since its obvious your game.

you're really bad at this

For me Quake would clearly sit to the right of CS, just not sure how much far next to it would it be.

And brood war should have more strategy involved than SC2, since it has most of what SC2 offers and tops it off with all the wonky pathfinding, collision and silly placements, which brings more variety to the possible execution of ides. And all those mechanics also bring up the neccesary muscle memory to master the game I think. So BW would be to the top right of SC2, more leaning to the muscle memory area.

Also, I realied that I compared those games while having their most played modes in mind (SC2 - 1v1, Dota 2 - 5v5). And now Im not sure if that is not bullshit when were talking about the strategy ceiling of a game.

ur dumb :D

what do you mean by muscle memory

...

The clearest example to explain that would be in a classic FPS.
Your ability to precisely aim at a head and take the headshot in the least time possible. That is affected just by your muscle memory, its just something you get better over time as your brain adjusts to how much it has to move your hand in order to take the shot.

congratz, you can repeat oppinions you heard from other people

Maybe if you could name any actual strategy-based series that isn't starcraft or ASSFAGGOTS people would take you seriously. Oh, and you stop sperging out when someone calls starcraft 2 or dota shit which they are

I fixed your image, OP.

But he's right. SC2 has barely any strategy compared to most popular RTS games. It's comparable to the tank spam that comes out of C&C RTS games, except where C&C games are won by having the better fighting ability (bigger army, better micro, picking your fights), SC2 is won by doing the most economic damage. One of the worst thing SC2 did was make designated harassing units such as the Banshee and Reaper.
RTS games with actual strategy and depth like AoE2 and SupCom: FA require different playstyles and aren't won off the back of biggest economy, likely because the unit cap is these games is much higher and doesn't often get maxed out so it doesn't become a game of out-lasting your opponents ability to produce armies as it is whittling down your opponents ability to produce armies. SupCom: FA is the high point of this, being that you can win without even needing to take out everything your opponent has, just one unit, leading to clutch plays where you can suddenly turn a defeat into a win due to your opponents lack of scouting and lack of preparation.
SC2 is the pinnacle of RTS esports, in that its total garbage to play and watch and doesn't have all that much depth at all.
Mobas are in a whole other league of terrible.

Yes, taking out the source of economy of the enemy is a good strategy in many scenarios, but it is not always how "SC2 is won".
Obviously a long battles of attrition where none of the players is coming on top can happen, but that doesnt mean most of the games are like that.
You are joking now right ? Suprise attack with cloaked/ burrowed/ highly mobile units, sniping important production buildings, drops that take out important targets, ambushes, various tech rushes or switches that can kill the opponent if he doesnt know what should he be scouting for. Yeah, SC2 has none of that.

People who bash SC2 seem to know very little about it.

And i fixed your image.

you cool noncomformists

This isn't reddit.

The only real nonconformism here is to agree with op.

Great observation skills. But dont worry, you can go back at any time.

how did I do ?

Stop playing death match or ice world you mouth breather.

That was hard to deal with. There's no better, colder measure of losing an edge to age.

...

What a waste of trips.
SC2 is won by killing workers, sniping CC's and mineral patches running out. Most times the game is won because one person harassed the others minerals. In fact I'm glad you brought up stealth and drops, because they are mostly done just to kill workers. Rarely is a tech structure the focus when you can just eliminate 5+ workers, pick up your drop and bail out to do it again later. If your opponent sees you coming you won't do much damage anyway, so might as well hit the workers. Cheaper and more reliable.
This is because losing in a max supply fight could mean you lose the entire game, so nobody wants to do a direct confrontation, leading to max-supply stalemates about picking off units and hitting your opponents money as a constant tax until they lose. There is rarely direct fighting in SC2, and when there is, its because someone wasn't paying attention or because its a stomp.
Good thing you didn't just try to use cheese as a defence for why SC2 has strategy, because that would have been pretty stupid.
The infamous 2hr (?) game in SC2 highlights these problems to the maximum, and the game hasn't improved since then.

Quake is much more about strategy than technical skill though. You certainly need a lot of technical skill to be good but the factor that differentiates players at the top skill level is their high-level decision making skills.

lol Witcherfags

RTS games are muscle memory shit too

So if you put someone who cannot aim properly but can pick up upgrades against someone who can aim but doesnt know much about pickups, the first guy will win in most cases ?

Not this video again. This retard looked at the accuracy of the players without noticing that they use suppression tactics.

no. chess has a set number of moves. it's been around so long that the best strategies have been figured out in detail. at this point it's more about memorization than strategy.

Tactics =/= Strategy

Hitler is right. Watching grand master level chess is really depressing now. The commentators are little more than an interface for a few standard chess AIs to tell you how correct the play was and what the correct next move would be.

Quake 1 deathmatch prevented this retarded meta bullshit. It's the Q3A duelfags that ruined it.

it's strange too because even as the game has gotten more accessible and we've developed better means of getting good, the most 'historical' games are ones where mistakes were made. i think that's how it should be too; the humanity element of games and compensating for it through a clutch play or mind game is what makes it fun to watch and play.

High level quake is all about strategy though. It does not matter if one guy has 50% accuracy and the other has 40%, if one of them has armor and the other doesn't, and at high level the gaps aren't even that big. Map/powerup control decides games, which comes down to planning, prediction and timing.

more accurate