What is the most intellectually competetive game right now

Is it LoL, DotA, WoW or something else and what is it. Put an elaborate answer on why you think it is.

Attached: 1555231648639.jpg (2048x1360, 3.05M)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/XdkDjsBiO58?t=242
youtube.com/watch?v=a-lbS7-odJ4
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Fortnite

bump

bump

Speedrun games but don't dwell in the community, compare the records against your previous ones

Super Mario 64 speedrunning

At least you bumped the thread, thanks.

bump

Cmon guys.

>At least
they're right though,or play chess i dunno

Forhonor

>LoL, DotA, WoW
>the most intellectually compet"e"tive game

If you're not baiting or an actual 12 years old, i feel sorry for you.

/thread

>they're right though
They aren't. Its a repetitive mind numbing experience
I'm fairy sure you're the one baiting or a redditor who tries to fit in. Not only you couldn't explain why they are not but you couldn't give any examples. They might not be complex COMPARED to other games but the amount of player pool who are competitive in it still requires a great amount of intellectual effort.

Might as give an actual answer. Battlefleet Gothic: Armada and its sequel managed to nail the perfectg trifecta of fleet building, micromanagement and enough multiplayer functionality to create two of the best strategy games in a decade.

It is basic as fuck what are you talking about.

Game still being played - probably something weird like runescape iron man speed runs due to the amount of variables to keep track of.

Games ever made - Achron - the time traveling rts so complex brainlets everywhere gave it a bad score cause muh grafix.

bump

Hard to believe these are.

The most intellectually competitive game is some obscure game that, at most, about 100 people play because everyone else is to uptight about losing that they never even gave the game a shot.

It will always be chess, not some click to move faggot zoomer trash

>games are zoomer trash
Most games are more complex than chess and just because they have non-realistic graphics it doesn't mean that are not.

I don't see how chess has a higher skill ceiling than MOBAs, and I hate MOBAs. There are too many variables for there to be one.

It has to be an rts by definition but there are no good rts out right now so i really don't know.

bump

...

Dota because LoL is a sad clone and WoW is brainless

pretty sure it's still Go. most vidya that people play competitively has a very high focus on execution and skill and the like. your Melee, your fighting games, rts and dota-clones. you can be a top level intellectual strategy genius in any of these games and still suck unholy ass in tournament because you don't think or move fast enough and just get whipped by real players

Probably Dota. It's too bad the game at all levels has too many minorities playing it.

I feel like adding that Dota has some pretty insane big brain strategy at every stage of play. But it's actually so weird and hard to understand that a lot of it can be made irrelevant by poor snap decision making, bad execution, bad reaction time, etc that I would still hesitate to call it the most intellectual game

>Hating on WoW
I feel sorry for you my friend. Not able to enjoy a video game raiding with 19 other people who you form friendships with and have a great time doing something together every week.
but hey not all of us are good at being social am i right?

Attached: 1555798280749.png (412x610, 475K)

Reaction times and mechanical memory are not intellectual.
Competitive games in general are not intellectual.
The only games that come close are puzzle games.

leave house
have sex

ctrl + f (starcraft 2)

>no results

fucking kiddies

bw: apm contest
sc2: rps

and this is from someone who likes bw

Coming up with strategies on the spot and dismantling those of your opponents is the "intellectual" layer of these games. Just because they are mixed in with a lot of the gamey aspects, like APM and so on, doesn't make them less intellectual.

Chess.

No reload full clear Baldur's Gate / SoA / ToB runs with SCS, Ascension and some Tactics components.
HOMM3 hota multiplayer.

Arma 3 objectively

Why not, but a good strategy game is basically chess with more options and better art.

No, it isn't even as complex as Go, how is it supposed to compete with RTS?

It's a purely strategic game. No mechanical cheesing or cheap strategies like your average RTS.

>No mechanical cheesing or cheap strategies
Even if this wasn't a complete bullshit argument, if both players have access to these options, then they cancel each other out.

They do make it less intellectual because they dilute the intellectual aspect.
The team aspect being the biggest cause of intellectual castration because you're limited in your tactics by having to coordinate with other people devising their own plans.

Two players moving at the exact same rate of APM to hit each other with zergs might cancel each other out, but the point is that it's still possible to have a mechanical edge in an RTS. The same cannot be said of board games like Chess.

>Most games are more complex than chess
Ahahahahahaha
Call me when Ninja has bested the worlds best Chess Grand Masters you underage brainlet.

>They do make it less intellectual because they dilute the intellectual aspect.
They do not. They make its relevancy more dynamic, in the sense that if two players have mastered the aspect of execution, then the one with the better strategy will prevail.
>The team aspect being the biggest cause of intellectual castration because you're limited in your tactics by having to coordinate with other people devising their own plans
That is for the individual. Combined strategical effort still makes for the same equation.

osrs pking

100% orange juice
at first it may seem to depend entirely on chance but you can do some serious keikaku tier shit and it tests your ability to adapt
also no mechanical advantage
pure mind games

What the fuck is this post? Why would someone win against someone else in a game he doesn't play? Magnus Carlsen would get his ass whooped at Fortnite.

Dota is, or was, the most strategic video game
no other game even comes close
RTS games devolve into micromanagement, and there aren't really any other mulitplayer games which are remotely strategic

To expand a bit on that, both games rely on very rich, complex and interesting rules, and do not rely at all on your ability to click fast. They're also two games that appear full of RNG to the noob, and the goal of a successful no reload run or a multiplayer victory is negating RNG, which you can 100% of the time. Lastly, they don't have the boring perfectly equal balance of Dota shit and its wannabe successors, and make do with what appears at first as sub optimal starting conditions or using late game 'game breaking' abilities (and learning how to counter them) is not only immensely fun but very stimulating.
Not for everyone, HOMM3 is pretty easy to start but takes a long while to master at even a low competitive level, and Baldur's Gate with SCS takes at least a couole complete standard runs before starting considering a no reload full clear.
Really wish there were actual competitive multiplayer games based off D&D 2nd or 3rd ed rules.

Of course he would, after all Fortnite is more complex than Chess, right?
So surely someone as skilled as Ninja could pick up a "less complex" game like Chess, easily, right?

Single player strategy games can never compare to multiplayer, you find the dominant strategy and you've conquered the game, you aren't playing against a human player who adapts

No, because professional chess play is more optimized, therefore the top players have spent more effort getting where they are. This thread talks about hypothetical skill ceilings, and these factually higher on RTS games than shit like chess.

Read the post, I'm talking about HOMM3 multiplayer with Horn of the abyss

>and these factually higher on RTS games than shit like chess.
Prove it.

Tabletop Simulator Chess

Strategy does not prevail in the high levels of these games though.
I've never seen anything clever materialize in high level matches.
It's mostly mechanical mastery and a few simple well known strategies being employed. Like splitlanes, pushcomps and so on.
Never have I came away from the game under the impression that one team outthought the other.

Attached: dcwrv6uzvfo11.jpg (721x602, 53K)

Chess is basically a puzzle game and RTS games are about mechanical skill
why are you even comparing them

Do you lack any common sense? Install any MOBA, play one game, and look at the amount of variables to consider in a single match. Compared to that, general chess stratagems are a lot more obvious. Are you fucking stupid?

>Never have I came away from the game under the impression that one team outthought the other.
That's because you don't understand the game
Strategic play and adaptation is never obvious to the uninitiated
Same applies to military strategy or anything else

First Player Advantage, bitch
It's pretty prevalent in most abstract games.

Compare the number of possible variations in a game of chess to the number of possible variations in an RTS.
Compare the number of unique units in chess to the number of unique units in an RTS.
Compare the mobility/movment options/board size in chess to that of an RTS.
Eliminating a turn based system allows for variables like movespeed to matter as well.

I'd actually be more surprised if you could name some objective metrics in which chess is a more complex game than a good RTS.

t.brainlet who's never played high level chess.
Not really surprised that you're too dumb to even make an intelligent, let alone informed opinion.

Must be that these games aimed at children are too smart for me, and not that they lack any depth and that a few choices players have no information to know are right or wrong snowball the game one way or the other.
Mhm

moba =/= rts

>was
?
does dota not exist any more or did it become less strategic

Any game without perfect information is inherently less intellectual than a game with perfect information because it's more about "predictions" and responses than sheer intellectual overpowering.

are we talking about Dota, or League?
because if it's League then your passive aggressive shitpost is on-point. but if it's Dota then it is in fact too smart for you.

Being able to predict likely lines of play or situations is in itself an intellectual undertaking. Sorry you're a brainlet user.

Melee

It's not a matter of intelligence, it's a matter of experience, although dismissing something as shallow because you don't understand it is fairly unintelligent

Making something more inherently complex does not make it more competitive which is the entire basis of the discussion.

Is giving two men 100 sticks to choose from with which to beat each other more competitive than giving each man the same stick?

Literal fucking brainlet.

SC2

Read the thread you fucking retard and don't ever reply to me again.

It's changed too much for me to understand what is going on at a deep level since I played, so I can't say for sure if it's still any good, because alot of the changes they make look totally fucked up

>Cannon rushing in StarCraft beats someone that plays the long game, therefore it's more intellectual

compare the 1 added turn white gets in chess to the potentially boundless extra moves a player would get in a game where all players move concurrently.

idk probably tekken 7 or starcraft because thats what all the gooks play and they literally never lose to any other races

>He thinks WoW is for social people

If you're under the impression the those two games function differently, you're a fanboy.
I've enough experience with multiple dotalikes, it's not thinking that wins these games, it's who fucks up the hardest that loses the game. This stays true from the elo-hell to the pro scene.

The "entire basis of the discussion" doesn't matter. The point that you EXPLICITLY asked someone to prove was when talked about "hypothetical skill cielings". I'm not sure if you're illiterate or just so bad at debate you think that pathetic attempt at disguising the fact you can't refute my point was smart; but consider either conceding the point that you were wrong or refute my claim.
Recognizing that your opponent is more likely to do X and therefore your best option is to do Y is in fact a form of strategy. I assume you recognize that real military strategists didn't have perfect information yes? And yet the most renowned generals in history are considered better strategists than the most renowned chess players.

I did, you're an idiot, I informed you of the fact and why, and now you're chimping out.

All in all a productive thread.

>The "entire basis of the discussion" doesn't matter.
Excellent, then we can just call you a retarded nigger and move on.

It's still Quake.

youtu.be/XdkDjsBiO58?t=242

youtube.com/watch?v=a-lbS7-odJ4

You haven't done any of that. You attempted to change the topic in another discussion and said some dismissive shit like I would expect from a pseudo-intellectual lured to this thread. My last (You) I'm handing out for free.

Quake 3

based and quakepilled

Attached: 100332-tub.jpg (604x403, 58K)

>I've enough experience with multiple dotalikes
clearly you haven't if you think your uncoordinated pubs where you win by the enemy team fucking up are anything like pro games
All strategy games have a micromanagement layer with some skill requirement for strategy to even have a context in which to exist, so no strategy game will ever be a purely intellectual exercise like a puzzle game, that doesn't mean that strategy is not an intellectual activity in its own right

literally tekken

>quake champions will never get the support it needs

Attached: ghtd.jpg (1920x1080, 302K)

I'm not saying strategies within a system that has imperfect information are less intellectual than every systems that are perfect information, but imagine if chess had a fog of war and you could only see the 1-2 spaces next to your pieces.

In this situation, it becomes mitigating risk, rather than forcing your opponent to do something/predicting what they will do, because you have to manipulate probabilities more than manipulating your opponent.

With that said, grand scale war is definitely more complex than chess is. War is inherently an unsolvable system so tactics and strategy are infinitely more valuable than what is essentially a solvable game.

It was their fault for outsourcing that shit to a Russian shovelware studio. It doesn't feel like a Quake game at all, it doesn't have that idtech snappiness. They could have used idtech 6.

>If you're under the impression the those two games function differently, you're a fanboy.
yeah because you would know, lol. I'm just going to do myself a favor and not reply again because you're unreachable and just trying to prove something to yourself about chess (?), for anyone reading this conversation we've both already said enough for them to know the whole story. No point in repeating

Also chess with fog of war would probably be cool and I think I would play that.

Yes because the individual can pick the stick best suited to his strategy to win. This enables further variations than stick fighter1.

lol okay zoomer

In comparing literal war with a board game you've shifted away from the actual topic.

But chess is a game of war.