My original title was "Why I hate SC2" and then I was going explain why I hate Supreme Commander 2... maybe if I wasn't a banling. I don't want to start fires
Anyways, every time a thread comes up on how SC2 could improve, there is a certain line of thinking that really frustrates me. It frustrates me because there is a fairly common misunderstanding of the sort of strategic options available in BW that simply don’t exist in SC2 in a meaningful way as of yet. And this is despite some fairly big names including the ever positive Day9 stating the contrary.
This is not SC2 vs BW. This is not how I want SC2 be another BW. (I don’t. I want it to be better.) This is trying to correct a false idea of mechanics and strategy by looking at Broodwar, Supreme Commander 2, and Starcraft 2.
The problem: These are a selection of quotes that I could easily find much more. I couldn’t find the most egregious which compared BW actions to having to perform 30 pushups before completing an action.
The Micro aspect overall is a smaller portion of the gameplay as in BW, so is the Macro aspect. Meaning that strategy is what will win the game.
And at the end of the day, I want to play a strategy game where I have to think about how to win. Not one where I won because solely I clicked faster and microed so godly that I didn't have to put any thought into it.
the mechanical skill required may be less than BW, but that only results in the strategical aspect of Sc2 being more important in the skill cap. And strategy has most certainly not hit a skill cap yet. For a strategy game, strategy is where the skill cap should be, not in the mechanics necessary to pull it off.
Players shouldn't have to fight against the game engine or deal with arbitrary mechanics.
The common idea is that BW has all these extra/ unnecessary steps that SC2 streamlines. Therefore, SC2 is the more cerebral game where the person with the best strategy wins.
Premise: If we disagree at this stage, then we have a more fundamental disagreement of what a strategy game should be about.
I play lots of strategy board games: Settlers of Catan, Axis and Allies. I’ve combined Settlers with Axis and Allies and Monopoly with Stock Ticker and I’ve created a giant Star Wars strategy game with different sized ships. using poker chips for pieces.
Fun games in their own right, but have you ever tried combining them?
All of those games are strategy combined with luck (dice). It’s all cerebral- choose the best strategy, buy the right stuff, attack at the right time and hope the dice are with you.
I have also played Civ 2, 3, and 4 which are massive turn based strategy games. And I’m really into all those games. But that’s not what I like about RTS.
When I play an RTS, I want to be able to build the right stuff, but when it comes to a battle, I want to be the significant factor in influencing the battle. I don’t want to simply send my troops into battle and worry about something else. At the same time as I’m building new units, I want to be making snap decisions that require quick reaction time on the battle field.
One of my biggest frustrations with Age of Empires 2 is once the battle started, the troops would run amuck and there was really no proper attack move, but at least units responded fairly quickly. Battle for Middle Earth was extremely dull because the units were so sluggish. It was impossible to properly control the units.
So my starting premise is I want to be able to precisely control my troops rapidly- pre-battle, mid-battle, post-battle. Or more simply, it’s not just what I make, but how well I use it.
This is not Civilization armies and fleets sprawling across continents where I have all the time in the world to plan and strategize.
This is a game of no mechanics and all strategy
Defining our Terms To make sure we are on the same page, we’re dealing with Real Time Strategy. Strategy Generally being a plan of action designed to achieve a vision. And being in Real Time (not Blizzard time), time is a valuable commodity. If there are things to do and a limited time to do it, multi-tasking and prioritizing becomes part of your strategy.
Mechanics From Liquidpedia:
When someone refers to a players mechanics they are referring to the non strategical aspects of a players game. Aspects of mechanical skill include:
* Micro * Macro * Multitasking
Mechanical skill in StarCraft is closely related with a players handspeed (APM), good mechanical players will generally have higher APM.
Of that, what I’m most interested in for this thread is Micro and Multitasking.
Argument. Now while Liquidpedia defines Mechanics as non-strategical, I would make the argument that Mechanics is Strategy. It isn’t the whole of Strategy and so I wouldn’t say Strategy is Mechanics. But rather my Mechanics is a subset of Strategy. Or perhaps that Mechanics opens up new options for Strategy. With our Mechanics, we can plan new actions to fulfill our vision (Ultimately winning, but it could also apply to smaller goals along the way.)
See, what the people I quoted are arguing is that they want this great cerebral game. Where whoever thinks up the best strategy, is the one that wins. Rather than the one that clicks the fastest.
This very argument is one used by Supreme Commander 2 forum fans that dislike Starcraft 2. I’ve read several places where Starcraft 2 is referred as an APM spamfest. Once again the idea is, if only we can cut out the mechanical requirements, then we can have even more time to devise ingenious plans.
However, the problem then becomes, what can you do? What strategy is there really? Granted, I’m pretty newbie at SupCom2- I hate it too much to play much after figuring it’s mechanical limitations.
Using the arguments I quoted, Supreme Commander 2 should be THE most strategic game. There is very mechanical requirement for production or resource collection. (Unless you can get to mass conversion.) Build an extractor and it will continue extracting for the rest of the game. You can queue of a cycle of units in a factory to endlessly produce units without ever going back to your base- though you may need to pause production to free up resources.
The RTS game I regret buying the most.
And army control! The army fights for you. Never mind smartcasting. How about an army that requires no commands in the middle of a battle? All that time to plan devious plots... or the other way of saying this...
You cannot control your armies. Or rather the control you have is in pre-planning. Units have a gigantic turn radius, which means there is no rapid action control (premise). In fact, trying to target firing units proves a difficult challenge because the AI is so smart that only half will actually obey your commands. No amount of clicking will change their mind from their auto fighting.
You can set up attack runs for bombers, but the flight paths are so circuitous so as to prevent any rapid response retreat mid flight.
You can really zoom out in SupCom2. When I’m in a bad mood, I sometimes feel this is the only view you need.
So in the end, it’s all about composition. With my friends, I made the second most units in the game and killed 10 units, lost 300 or so- that’s simply not possible in Starcraft unless you make pure workers and medivacs I simply made the wrong composition (1:1 air to air and air to ground) and was hard countered. There wasn’t any more use I could get out of the units, they just died. And once they were committed to battle, they were committed, the attack run is so lengthy, there is little hope of rapidly retreating. And even in retreat they have their own smart pathing that prevents me from microing them away from combat in the shortest route.
That’s the strategy. Scout the right tech path and counter with correct counter. Kill resource extractors. Kill commander. Kill whatever objective you happen to want. Multiple front engagements. Very little mechanical requirements.
And yet I feel I have nothing to do. I feel like my strategy options are limited. I can’t change the tide mid-battle.
Mechanics actually create strategic options. I will grant you MBS and auto-mining. I don’t really care about those. I don’t want them in BW, but it’s not what I feel is holding back SC2 as a game.
Consider BW Mutalisk micro:
This is a mechanical skill as defined at the beginning. And it is a very difficult one. I can micro (sort of) but I can’t do that and build stuff at my base at the same time. It’s very demanding.
But it helps fulfill my premise- once I have mastered the mechanical skill of right click forward, h, right click back, then I can use this deadly pack of mutalisks like dagger point. I jab in and out of the base, hitting wherever there’s a weak spots. I can absolutely pick apart my friends with my muta micro and on iCCup, I get absolutely picked apart as my crisis management is often not up to the task.
It’s the same thing with dragoon micro.
It’s a mechanical skill to master hold position moving, attacking and retreating dragoons to keep them alive, doing damage. However, once the skill is learned, then you can use your new found mechanical skill as a tool to attack or defend aka strategy.
Last Friday I practiced game after game trying to beat an early push against vs marines, vultures with mines and a tank. It was all about unit control, while trying to continually build more units. And I needed that repetition because I hadn’t really ever built up the skill to defuse or avoid mines, snipe tanks, attack retreat back, gathering more troops and maybe sneaking out a shuttle to zealot bomb.
But once I have that skill, I will suddenly be able to use that very same skill for early game pushes. New strategic options can open up and not just early game. At any point, I can dragoon micro to get a little extra effectiveness out of the goons.
Or Reaver control
Difficult as anything. Mechanical skill. But once learned, it’s a tool that can pick apart an enemy. It is a mechanical skill that opens up entirely new strategy. It’s not just what you make, but how well you use it.
And this is where my frustration comes in. People dismiss the mechanical difficulty as getting in the way of strategy. That you need to do 30 pushups before you can click a unit forward. That it’s only about who clicks the most and not about who thinks the most.
Certainly Dragoons are kinda buggy and we don’t really need their bugginess in a new game. But they also have tremendous potential to be microed. In fact they can be quite precise and extremely effective. You need to know how to handle them, but once you do, they are yours to control. As opposed to auto-clumping that actively thwarts your micro efforts every step of the way. About as ‘smart’ ai as the SupCom2 flight paths.
Another example is something like smart-casting. I hate this because it has led to the nerfing one of one of my favourite units- high templar (well that and unit auto-clump.) But I guess we’re hoping that this will make things more strategic. We will have more time to do... what exactly?
Why stop there. Why not have autocast? Age of Mythology has auto cast for its Medusas. This would lessen the mechanical skill and allow the more cerebral player to win. Just make the right amount of high templar at the right time. Pre-position them before battle and let them do their work.
Or marines splits vs banelings and shoot and scoots. That’s all about who is the fastest. If we just auto-mated that, we would have even more time for strategy.
You know what would make this video even better? If marine splits were automated. More time to think up cool strategies don’t you know.
And even harassment. Just give some medivacs and some marines the orders “Harass” and they’ll auto fly/ split up to the 3 spots you indicated, auto-harass and then retreat when it becomes too dangerous. Assign units to their respective roles and let them act independently. You have more important, strategic things to think about.
Maybe a little extreme, but I’m trying to highlight this unfortunate idea that getting rid of mechanical requirements, the game will suddenly have more strategy because we will have more time to ponder. I feel like people arguing for a game, where if they think the right thoughts, they will win. That mechanics get in the way of their strategy. When in fact, the mechanics open up entirely new arsenal that will now inform your strategy.
So you use, your muta micro to keep them back on their back feet while you expand behind it. Or you use you vulture micro to drop their worker and zergling count while you reinforce your army behind it.
Conclusion: RTS strategy (of the kind I prefer) is not simply what you make and when you attack and from what angle, but how well you use your units during the entire battle. Mechanics are not an arbitrary hindrance that prevent you from doing what you want to be doing. Often mechanics is what you want to be doing. Free up macro time with MBS so you have MORE time to cast storms like Jangbi, muta micro like Jaedong, etc.
Pretty much sums up my biggest gripes with SC2. Great read.
I find it fascinating how a game with minimal macro and a completely different gameplay style, Warcraft 3, managed to not suffer from the horrific oversimplification that SC2 does. I swear, if the map pool was properly maintained in war3, it would've been bigger than BW. What a good game... Always more to do.
SC2 suffers way way way too much from "well I made the wrong units/attacked at the wrong time/didn't scout the hidden tech" into GG.
On March 20 2012 09:13 EternaLLegacy wrote: Pretty much sums up my biggest gripes with SC2. Great read.
I find it fascinating how a game with minimal macro and a completely different gameplay style, Warcraft 3, managed to not suffer from the horrific oversimplification that SC2 does. I swear, if the map pool was properly maintained in war3, it would've been bigger than BW. What a good game... Always more to do.
SC2 suffers way way way too much from "well I made the wrong units/attacked at the wrong time/didn't scout the hidden tech" into GG.
Yea.. it's not like wc3 died 1 year after release in Korea or anything >_< also while people tried to make it like bw
its interesting because MBS is in a way like supcom endless queue; while BW forced you to return to the base to build units and break your strategy flow / "unit control mechanics", with MBS, a few presses of the keyboard in the littlest of seconds enables you to stay focused in the battle at hand. so by that account, sc2 would enable the player to be more micro orientated than bw was.
I don't know too much about WC3. WC2 is my true nostalgia game that isn't as good in retrospect although I like to play the campaign every now and then. I recently bought WC3 and am playing through the expansion campaign for the first time.
I'm not sure. On one hand, I found it very good practice for army control groups- one of the bad habits I picked up going to SC2 was not hotkeying any army. It's fun, but not quite the same. Ultimately, I want to have the giant armies that WC3 and even SC2 can't offer (because of so many supply heavy units), but still have the micro potential.
Regarding SC2 having more time for micro and therefore would be more micro oriented. You would think so, but I don't think it is. Mind you, I'm no pro-gamer. But from my perspective, many units don't have that same micro potential- or it remains undiscovered.
Smart-casting for instance is the opposite direction. MBS should free up APM to have more time to do regular casting- and therefore spells would still be allowed to be super powerful. The easier it is to do, the less strong it can become. If smart casting was changed to autocasting, storms would have to be nerfed even further because it would be too easy to blanket the entire army.
I also think it's wrong to say that mechanics are not fun. Even though I was never good at BW (or even knew that there was a pro scene until much later), every match felt like an epic struggle against the game. It was fun having to do everything yourself.
Imagine if in SC2 queens could be set to autocast larva inject on the nearest hatchery. Imagine if you could script your CC to produce an SCV every time 50 minerals became available. Things like that would eliminate mechanical elements, but it wouldn't make the game any more fun.
What about the recent Gumiho vs. DRG series, though? Gumiho showed us a glimpse of what people are going to be able to do with all that extra apm in sc2...
I'm not trying to argue your point; I agree with you. But I think there's a happy medium between bw and the way sc2 is today.
On March 20 2012 09:42 Gheed wrote: I also think it's wrong to say that mechanics are not fun. Even though I was never good at BW (or even knew that there was a pro scene until much later), every match felt like an epic struggle against the game. It was fun having to do everything yourself.
Oh I agree. I don't know why, but I find something extremely fun when I'm hopping from Nexus to Nexus or powering through my gateways. It becomes so rote and so fast and now I'm finding more and more time to focus on my shuttle or probe scouting now that early base building is so fast. And there's something to that rhythm of 5sz6sz7sd8sh9sh0sz.
But it's an argument I'll concede for the sake of other arguments.
On March 20 2012 09:50 sam!zdat wrote: What about the recent Gumiho vs. DRG series, though? Gumiho showed us a glimpse of what people are going to be able to do with all that extra apm in sc2...
I'm not trying to argue your point; I agree with you. But I think there's a happy medium between bw and the way sc2 is today.
In all my past debates, I don't think I've ever argued there isn't micro potential. Rather there's not enough. It's the reason why, for these arguments, I will always bring up marines splits, shoot and scoot, or stalker micro pre-concussive shell upgrade. It exists, but not to the same level as BW had. But whenever this argument comes up, what I hear back is that people are 'fighting against the computer' and that it's all about 'who's the fastest rather than who's the smartest.'
Whereas, I think RTS involves both speed and intellect and right now there's not quite enough possibilities to separate mice from men. To some extent yes, but not what it could be.
Did anybody find this difficult to read? I might just be getting old and less willing to mold my brain to new things, but this whole thing is worded and paced like you're trying to be too profound in your message. It read like some philosophical piece that was translated five times over before finally being published in English.
Anyway, I agree with the premise of your message, but I feel people oversimplify SC2 too much. While you aren't being taxed physically with all the keyboard pressing and mentally burdened with the more menial things like assigning workers to mineral fields at each base, the game is still very fast-paced and unforgiving. Microing in this game has gone more from small-scale squads of units being individually microed to split-decision positioning with mid- to large-sized forces. The necessity to micro individual units with the subsequently large payoffs still exist, but the shift is off that a little more in this game.
That said, if Blizzard felt compelled enough to simplify things any further I might just lose my faith in their ability to make the right decisions :[
edit: there is also the issue of design philosophy with some units. The ratio of effectiveness to work put in is too skewed for some units, IMO (collosus, maurader with concussive shells, and infestors come to mind immediately).
I know I'm going to get flamed to shit for this, but what the hell, why not.
Pro players have not fully utilized/mastered micro in SC2. Yeah, I said it.
No, sc2 doesn't have air unit stacking. No, it doesn't have patrol/attack micro. Even the stop command micro is largely limited to terran bio. It is probably worth mentioning that ALL of these things were, by every indication, complete accidents/flukes in the sc1 engine, and the game was not designed with these things to be purposely used.
If there was one thing I took away from the "Starcraft Master" minigame, it that Blizzard was trying to say "most of you still aren't doing this." Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but that is what I saw. How often do you see a pro player drop micro like is required on the 30th challenge? Basically never (I know someone is going to link a youtube video of some immortal drop, but guess what, that rarely occurs at that level on a regular basis). Even simpler stuff like the banshee "moving shot" is rarely executed flawlessly. ForGG probably has the best SC2 banshee micro I've seen, and he still gets hit by marines.
I know what people are going to say. Micro in BW was more rewarding. Micro in BW had a lot more depth than sc2 micro. Maybe (and only maybe) those things are true. But don't tell me that micro is meaningless in SC2. Not a single pro player has come even close to executing the consistent, top tier micro that the game engine allows for.
The thing that you miss, I think, is that the general distaste towards micro-oriented play stems from the early life of SC2 where everything was 1base all-ins all day. People wanted "strategic" games and not "twitch" games. Now that SC2 has matured and a wider breadth of strategy can be employed, This attitude is not warranted, but micro still carries baggage from before.
That said, everyone knows (or should) that a lot of the "mechanical" tasks in BW were just technical limitations. Blizzard didn't arbitrarily make the game more difficult. Things like worker rally, smart casting and cohesive unit movement aren't "training wheels", they are just the benefit of having a modern game engine. As much as you love BW, honestly, the game was buggy as shit, poorly maintained and poorly designed (from a code perspective, not a comment about the game itself).
I also disagree with the idea that SC2 doesn't have enough mechanical tasks, it certainly does. The fact that terrans can queue up drops without microing them isn't the game's fault, its the receptive player's fault. Most people are still running around with the majority of their army in 2-3 control groups. Also build order doesn't play into it as much as people say either - Mechanically superior players get out of those situations almost every time. If anything, I'd say the SC2 AUDIENCE and PLAYERBASE is the problem - we blame things on build orders, coin flips, and gimmicks. Once the SC2 audience matures and has years upon years of experience with every nuance of the game, this QQ will fade away.
On March 20 2012 09:56 HardlyNever wrote: I know I'm going to get flamed to shit for this, but what the hell, why not.
Pro players have not fully utilized/mastered micro in SC2. Yeah, I said it.
No, sc2 doesn't have air unit stacking. No, it doesn't have patrol/attack micro. Even the stop command micro is largely limited to terran bio. It is probably worth mentioning that ALL of these things were, by every indication, complete accidents/flukes in the sc1 engine, and the game was not designed with these things to be purposely used.
If there was one thing I took away from the "Starcraft Master" minigame, it that Blizzard was trying to say "most of you still aren't doing this." Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but that is what I saw. How often do you see a pro player drop micro like is required on the 30th challenge? Basically never (I know someone is going to link a youtube video of some immortal drop, but guess what, that rarely occurs at that level on a regular basis). Even simpler stuff like the banshee "moving shot" is rarely executed flawlessly. ForGG probably has the best SC2 banshee micro I've seen, and he still gets hit by marines.
I know what people are going to say. Micro in BW was more rewarding. Micro in BW had a lot more depth than sc2 micro. Maybe (and only maybe) those things are true. But don't tell me that micro is meaningless in SC2. Not a single pro player has come even close to executing the consistent, top tier micro that the game engine allows for.
unit ai makes it so that overmicroing is bad in sc2 at worst, inffective at best. for instance, if marines didn't clump together like they do in sc2 forgg's shees wouldn't get hit at all, but because the banshee and marine range are so close the clumping causes forgg to always get hit.
I will disagree to your statements that mechanics are strategy, but I will agree that (superior) mechanics allow for better or more complex strategies. So.. I'd agree with the overall statement that mechanics are kind of bound to strategy.
If you look at the difference between BW and SC2 there really isn't much that's different. Old School fanboys want to say the simpler things and improved AI hinder the games skill cap, but I disagree. It's just different.
SC2 simplified:
- auto-mining (something only the top .02% could maintian in BW) - constant production (same thing. you constantly have to look away from your army just to make one unit)
Of course BW has been dumbed down mechanicallly to accomodate mroe players. That's what happens when you are trying to sell a new game, but considering how top BW players like Nada, Julyzerg, and forGG have switched to SC2 and current BW teams have been practicing the game, I'm tired of BW fanboys saying the game is too casual. The mechanics required are there but instead of only 200 players playing at the top level (and mostly only koreans) now 3,000 people can do so simply because you don't have to assign mining to every harvester and click back to every building you want to produce from.
SC2 was designed for more action from less mechanical players. I think the difference is too subtle to really complain about. Nice read by the way.
How did this become debate between BW vs SC2 again? My impression was that the OP wanted to counter people who wanted to dismiss Brood War on the grounds of it being 'mechanic-focused game' and that SC2 are therefore 'strategically superior'.
On March 20 2012 09:56 HardlyNever wrote: I know I'm going to get flamed to shit for this, but what the hell, why not.
Pro players have not fully utilized/mastered micro in SC2. Yeah, I said it.
No, sc2 doesn't have air unit stacking. No, it doesn't have patrol/attack micro. Even the stop command micro is largely limited to terran bio. It is probably worth mentioning that ALL of these things were, by every indication, complete accidents/flukes in the sc1 engine, and the game was not designed with these things to be purposely used.
If there was one thing I took away from the "Starcraft Master" minigame, it that Blizzard was trying to say "most of you still aren't doing this." Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but that is what I saw. How often do you see a pro player drop micro like is required on the 30th challenge? Basically never (I know someone is going to link a youtube video of some immortal drop, but guess what, that rarely occurs at that level on a regular basis). Even simpler stuff like the banshee "moving shot" is rarely executed flawlessly. ForGG probably has the best SC2 banshee micro I've seen, and he still gets hit by marines.
I know what people are going to say. Micro in BW was more rewarding. Micro in BW had a lot more depth than sc2 micro. Maybe (and only maybe) those things are true. But don't tell me that micro is meaningless in SC2. Not a single pro player has come even close to executing the consistent, top tier micro that the game engine allows for.
Very well said... BW is a very fleshed out and established game, and I feel like people have too glossy-eyed of a view of it to sometimes even give SC2 a chance
On March 20 2012 09:58 darkscream wrote: The thing that you miss, I think, is that the general distaste towards micro-oriented play stems from the early life of SC2 where everything was 1base all-ins all day. People wanted "strategic" games and not "twitch" games. Now that SC2 has matured and a wider breadth of strategy can be employed, This attitude is not warranted, but micro still carries baggage from before.
I could be out to lunch, but I actually think the micro-oriented distate came from BW players view of WC3. Units had too much health and died too slowly and it was too micro-oriented. So what we got was a big swing away from both. Units die even more quickly than BW and there's less ability to micro. Not that there isn't any. But if you compare Phoenix micro to Wraith micro, it's not at all the same.
I think we probably got what we wanted based on what was complained about, but it was too much and some of the subtleties of BW got lost. Someone can tell me if I'm full of crap if that's not the case.
But the main thing is that people are looking for more cerebral play... and mechanics is actually apart of that. Perhaps interconnected would be better rather than Strategy is Mechanics as Type|NarutO says. I would argue that's integral and certainly not that one gets in the way of the other.
On March 20 2012 10:02 Hesmyrr wrote: How did this become debate between BW vs SC2 again? My impression was that the OP wanted to counter people who wanted to dismiss Brood War on the grounds of it being 'mechanic-focused game' and that SC2 are therefore 'strategically superior'.
I thought it was him clearing up misconceptions that people had about mechanics and how it hindered strategy in general. Never once did he say that SC2 didn't have such mechanics that could advance strategy.
In a REAL TIME strategy game, speed will always be a factor, more or less. If you don't like a game that combines strategy with mechanical skill, that's fine, it's not your cup of tea. But it irritates me how people say that removing mechanics will somehow make the game more strategic. That's such a dumb logical fallacy. Not only can mechanics add to strategy and give you more to think about, as is described in the OP (You can distract your opponent and throw lots of things at him to tax his multitasking, for example - that's a strategic decision), but even if that wasn't the case, removing mechanics will only make it so that bad players who otherwise wouldn't be able to can "focus more on strategy". Good players will focus on strategy just fine while still executing the mechanical parts of the game. Why would you want to remove parts of the game?
Even if mechanics didn't add to the strategical aspect, removing them altogether would still be bad for the game, in my opinon. Why have just strategy when you can have strategy and mechanical skill? It makes the game more fun,
In a FPS like Quake or Unreal Tournament, you have mechanical skill and you have strategy. You need reaction time and aim, and you also need to be thinking about where your opponent is, where he will move, what items he will go for, when items will respawn and how you will react to it, and so on. Why would you want to remove the aiming part?
On March 20 2012 09:56 HardlyNever wrote: No, sc2 doesn't have air unit stacking. No, it doesn't have patrol/attack micro. Even the stop command micro is largely limited to terran bio. It is probably worth mentioning that ALL of these things were, by every indication, complete accidents/flukes in the sc1 engine, and the game was not designed with these things to be purposely used.
this is true to an extent; that is, when you look at the vulture for example, vultures are designed to stop first, then fire, like basically every unit in the game. but the engine allowed enough input, and the speed of the input, that you could make it appear the the vulture has a moving shot.
so when you look at SC2 with phoenix moving shot, you question why blizzard felt the need to allow the game do this for the player when high level terrans have no issue with 'moving shot' marines
Dividing things into strategical vs. mechanical is wrong.
You still want people not to fight the interface, you still want to maximize decision-making. Your extreme examples of mechanical things...
Why stop there. Why not have autocast? Age of Mythology has auto cast for its Medusas. This would lessen the mechanical skill and allow the more cerebral player to win. Just make the right amount of high templar at the right time. Pre-position them before battle and let them do their work.
Or marines splits vs banelings and shoot and scoots. That’s all about who is the fastest. If we just auto-mated that, we would have even more time for strategy.
And even harassment. Just give some medivacs and some marines the orders “Harass” and they’ll auto fly/ split up to the 3 spots you indicated, auto-harass and then retreat when it becomes too dangerous. Assign units to their respective roles and let them act independently. You have more important, strategic things to think about.
...the reasons these are interesting is not because they have a high mechanical requirement; they're interesting because each requires a ton of small decisions about how to split, whether to engage, when to retreat, etc. This is the same reason why bw muta or goon micro is fun.
I suspect SupCom sucks not because there's no mechanics, but because there aren't 300+APM worth of decisions to make.
On March 20 2012 09:58 darkscream wrote: The thing that you miss, I think, is that the general distaste towards micro-oriented play stems from the early life of SC2 where everything was 1base all-ins all day. People wanted "strategic" games and not "twitch" games. Now that SC2 has matured and a wider breadth of strategy can be employed, This attitude is not warranted, but micro still carries baggage from before.
I could be out to lunch, but I actually think the micro-oriented distate came from BW players view of WC3. Units died too quickly and it was too micro-oriented. So what we got was a big swing away from both. Units die even more quickly than BW and there's less ability to micro. Not that there isn't any. But if you compare Phoenix micro to Wraith micro, it's not at all the same.
I think we probably got what we wanted based on what was complained about, but it was too much and some of the subtleties of BW got lost. Someone can tell me if I'm full of crap if that's not the case.
But the main thing is that people are looking for more cerebral play... and mechanics is actually apart of that. Perhaps interconnected would be better rather than Strategy is Mechanics as Type|NarutO says. I would argue that's integral and certainly not that one gets in the way of the other.
Maybe I'm misreading your post, but I played a LOT of WC3, and I never heard anyone who thought the units died too FAST. If anything, most people felt like the units had a little too much health.
WC3 was definitely a micro-oriented game, and was built that way from the start. However, I don't think many people thought the units died too fast for a micro-oriented game.
Uh, sorry. Should have been the other way around. Units had too much health. I'll fix that.
Did anybody find this difficult to read? I might just be getting old and less willing to mold my brain to new things, but this whole thing is worded and paced like you're trying to be too profound in your message. It read like some philosophical piece that was translated five times over before finally being published in English.
Haha. I don't know, the ideas have been swirling around in my head for a couple months now. I was going to do my 2K post on it, but I spent it on congratulating in/uncontrol and then I got modded. But maybe the ideas got over-baked
Combine this with some of the other major discussions about SC2 (Day9's frisbee/baseball discussion, the maps having too many resources, etc.) and you have a very compelling argument that Blizzard really really really really needs to take into consideration.
On March 20 2012 10:02 Hesmyrr wrote: How did this become debate between BW vs SC2 again? My impression was that the OP wanted to counter people who wanted to dismiss Brood War on the grounds of it being 'mechanic-focused game' and that SC2 are therefore 'strategically superior'.
Idiots like picking fights wherever they possibly can.
I feel it's a bit of a slippery slope argument just because a game that side-lines mechanics isn't the most strategic game ever that makes any side-lining of mechanics less strategic I don't feel is true. The actual argument, which I agree with is that the combination of mechanics and strategy make real time strategy games fun, not one or the other. For the most part the things you talk about in your post are tactics by definition, not strategy.
Your smart cast example I think follows on from this premise, but to me is the best example. When you want to cast a storm 99% of the time you only want one storm, not all the templars to storm on top of the same point which is what cloning accomplishes. Saying that it might as well be auto-cast completely diminishes the importance of when and where you want to cast the storm, rather than the physical actions required to tell a unit to do something you don't want them to do 99% of the time. Imagine for instance that you HAD auto-cast, and instead of having to tell a unit to storm, you instead had to issue the stop command every 10 seconds to tell it to NOT storm... would that be better? probably not, but that's the slippery slope in the other direction.
On March 20 2012 09:58 darkscream wrote: The thing that you miss, I think, is that the general distaste towards micro-oriented play stems from the early life of SC2 where everything was 1base all-ins all day. People wanted "strategic" games and not "twitch" games. Now that SC2 has matured and a wider breadth of strategy can be employed, This attitude is not warranted, but micro still carries baggage from before.
I could be out to lunch, but I actually think the micro-oriented distate came from BW players view of WC3. Units had too much health and died too slowly and it was too micro-oriented. So what we got was a big swing away from both. Units die even more quickly than BW and there's less ability to micro. Not that there isn't any. But if you compare Phoenix micro to Wraith micro, it's not at all the same.
I think we probably got what we wanted based on what was complained about, but it was too much and some of the subtleties of BW got lost. Someone can tell me if I'm full of crap if that's not the case.
But the main thing is that people are looking for more cerebral play... and mechanics is actually apart of that. Perhaps interconnected would be better rather than Strategy is Mechanics as Type|NarutO says. I would argue that's integral and certainly not that one gets in the way of the other.
I totally agree. QXC put this very bluntly as well that everyone's mechanics are bad, even koreans, and that they just need more time with the game.
Is it a slippery slope argument? Because that implies a continued devolution. Whereas it's more likely to maintain status quo- until expansion or whatever. Perhaps thinking of it on a spectrum would be more helpful. Where SupCom 2 is on an extreme end- being mechanically and strategically lacking and BW on the other end mechanically and strategically. SC2 is somewhere between the two. I would argue too close to SupCom2, although it is FAR from being SupCom.
As for tactics vs strategy. I think that's more a nomenclature issue with the genre itself and not one that's going to change anytime soon. Whatever it's called the type of game I like to play is where I have quick, precise control on the battlefield (amongst other things.)
Couldn't agree more. Partly what you are saying is that you want more of both Depth and Breadth in SC2 (or something like that). Breadth in a macro, spread out sense; Depth in a unit diversity, versatility, and strategical strength sense. But also mechanics to make those things harder to do, opening up even more opportunities. All of which combining to make epic drawn-out STRATEGICAL scenarios. I secretely rage extremely hard at people who say there is more strategy in SC2 than BW. I know it's just not true, it's really frustrating.
Breadth of Gameplay in SC2 is my best attempt at giving SC2 what it is missing in this sense. But I know it needs more than just breadth.. it also needs more depth in the units themselves (which is really coming with HotS I feel)... and also harder mechanics to make executing these things harder which simply opens up opportunities and adds another level to the whole thing. I'm not sure if SC2 will ever have harder mechanics though.
By the way, easier mechanics is *somewhat* counteracted by just having a lot of stuff, especially if it's spread out.
Anyways, I think Breadth, Depth, and Mechanics are all rather distinct, but they are intrinsically part of the same thing as you are suggesting. A thing called strategy.
On March 20 2012 09:59 slytown wrote: If you look at the difference between BW and SC2 there really isn't much that's different. Old School fanboys want to say the simpler things and improved AI hinder the games skill cap, but I disagree. It's just different.
SC2 simplified:
- auto-mining (something only the top .02% could maintian in BW) - constant production (same thing. you constantly have to look away from your army just to make one unit)
Of course BW has been dumbed down mechanicallly to accomodate mroe players. That's what happens when you are trying to sell a new game, but considering how top BW players like Nada, Julyzerg, and forGG have switched to SC2 and current BW teams have been practicing the game, I'm tired of BW fanboys saying the game is too casual. The mechanics required are there but instead of only 200 players playing at the top level (and mostly only koreans) now 3,000 people can do so simply because you don't have to assign mining to every harvester and click back to every building you want to produce from.
SC2 was designed for more action from less mechanical players. I think the difference is too subtle to really complain about. Nice read by the way.
I don't really think the improvements to the UI are really the main thing that sets SC2 apart from BW. I have no real problem with a simplified UI that saves you fairly mindless clicks, so long as there is a meaningful sink to throw that freed up apm/mental multitask into.
But I think the main gripe the BW 'old guard' have with SC2, and may indeed be at the root of why we feel that SC2 in some way never really captured the 'feel' of sc, is that the newer UI often tries to takes control away from the player. While there is plenty of avenue for you to perform more micro tasks, the effects of micromanaging a unit more seems to be greatly diminished because the UI will eventually take control away from you to the extent that paying more attention to a unit may actually reduce it's efficiency.
For me I felt that units like the vulture, the wraith and the mutalisk truly encapsulated what micro was like in BW, and the thing they all have in common is that the are very quick, VERY responsive units. It may well have been simply a fluke of the engine, but it still stands that between moving shot, very short turning times/radii, and for the air units the ability to keep them very closely clumped allowed a certain.... artistry.. to their use that doesn't really exist in sc2. What I mean is that these units increased in efficiency the more attention you paid to them, with an upper limit that was virtually infeasible for any player to actually assign to them, so that when you had spare actions you could pretty much always dump them into these units to make them more effective.
Whereas between unit auto-clumping, and superior default ai, it seems that with SC2, at a certain limit, once you try to dump more control on your units, you actually end up fighting the UI because it is automatically trying to make your units do things that would have helped at a lower level but become annoying as you try to micro them more because it fights you for control of your own units.
Another minor gripe is that July, Nada, and Forgg had all become irrelevant by the time they switched, the former 2 were legends, but by no means were any of them anywhere near 'top players' by the time they switched. The current BW teams are also not 'practicing sc2' they pretty much play it casually, or have their minor B team players practice it.
As for BW players calling SC2 more casual, I don't think that actually comes from the simple UI cleanups like MBS and smartcast, (I could be wrong) but I think it stems from the feel of the UI. Whereas BW is annoying at low mechanical levels because you need to constantly fight the UI and AI to get anything done, it gives you an incredible amount of control and freedom once you have the APM and multitask to control your army at some semblance of competence. Whereas it feels that the SC2 UI is great for low level mechanics because it does some of the essential things eg, pathing, unit surrounds really well, but it feels increasingly like a burden that tries to take control away from you the more you try to micromanage your units.
While I disagree the differences are very subtle, I agree that we shouldn't really be complaining about it. SC2 is a very different game from BW, it was probably not designed to be all that similar to BW, and as such really shouldn't be judged next to BW. And you know what, once you isolate SC2 from comparisons with BW it is a pretty good game in it's own right. I think we BW 'Old guard' just need to accept that despite being in the same genre and the same franchise, SC2 is a very different game from BW and you really shouldn't go into SC2 expecting to get what you get out of BW, it was not designed to do that and we really need to judge it on it's own merits.
More on topic: I agree with the OP that less mechanics does not make a game more strategic. But that said I think they also do have a point.
I think the issue here is most advocates of the "less mechanics = more strategy" school of thinking are confusing in game strategy with metagame strategy.
While less mechanics does nothing to make any given game of SC2 more strategic, I think it in the long run it does allow more people to realistically contribute to the metagame, and therefore mature the metagame faster. That is to say, whereas you or I are probably so mechanically inept that it is unrealistic to make any meaningful strategic contributions to BW since we can't really be sure if we or our opponents are even getting everything done on the right timing. The everyday person is more likely to be at a level of mechanics that are 'close enough', and that if they made some kind of strategic discovery, it is more likely to be significant than because their opponent failed to execute a build order correctly etc.
I agree overall, even though I think there are quite a few other arguments in favor of your thesis that would be good here. What I really like is that you made reference to other games. The sc2 vs bw debates on tl have become so cyclic and repetitive that we now get some nonsense like "bw and sc2 are too very different games", which is blalantly false, but it kinda pleases both sides so it never gets challenged.
People need to get back and think a little more on those sort of thing. The numerous complaints in user reviews about how the game did not really feel like a new one should tip people off.
I have a friend who is a CoH players, and he also complains that SC2 ius just a clickfest and about the ball mechanics. For the micro question, SC2 micro does indeed exists, but I feel its main problem is it lacks variety.
Never commented in Barrin's thread, but I think that maynarding is not rewarded enough in SC2, not sure diminishing the number of patches will really influe on that.
BW was really popular in around 2000-2001 when, and my memory might be completely failing me, less than half of those micro tricks had been discovered. The truth is that people watch and play strategy games for the strategy aspect, and mechanics are a way to execute strategies, not the strategies themselves. The problem with SupCom 1/2 is that the mechanics actually get in the way of executing strategies (tactics really), which makes the game less appealing to watch and play. Even games like LoL and DotA that get bashed on TL because you only control one unit don't have mechanics that get in the way of tactical execution.
So what I'm trying to say is that arguments like "why not automate marine splitting too?" are fallacies because it's pretty easy for a good developer to see what automation helps tactical execution for new players while not getting in the way of a skilled player's execution.
Mechanics don't have anything to do with strategy imo. Mechanics is what you have to have to be able to play the game at a strategical level. To play chess strategically requires no mechanics at all, but it's certainly a strategical game. To play starcraft strategically, you must be able to execute, or else a superior maco/micro player will obliterate you with swarms of whatever.
Strategy is really about choice. One change SC2 made was to allow unlimited control groups. That doesn't take away any choices, but it decreases the mechanical requirement needed to play the game strategically. If you take Brood War and give it unlimited control groups, the basic strategy in the game would not change, but you would have a larger pool of player who are able to execute mechanically at a high level, so players with excellent micro would find themselves at less of an advantage.
A much bigger change SC2 makes is in the spacing between units and the rise of blobs and AoE, and I think everyone can agree that that does make a difference in how the game is played. Very possibly it makes the game less strategically interesting.
When we say that less reliance on mechanics means more reliance on strategy it doesn't mean that SC2 is strategically deeper, it means that more people are allowed to play at a strategic level. Look at Boxer for example. He is certainly not the worst BW player strategically, but he was no longer able to compete reasonably well at the game with Flash/Bisu/etc., while he more or less can in SC2. It may well be that he feels that BW is the deeper game, but that's pointless if he can't show it. My point is that people overemphasize the mechanical changes between games when I think that's a red herring. Being able to send dragoons where you want them is mechanics, and deciding where you want them is strategy.
One of my biggest frustrations with Age of Empires 2 is once the battle started, the troops would run amuck and there was really no proper attack move, but at least units responded fairly quickly. Battle for Middle Earth was extremely dull because the units were so sluggish. It was impossible to properly control the units.
hey in the Age series you had to use patrol in stead of attack move, or hit stop on units close to the battle.
The worst decision of all time was putting "autoqueue" in AOM:The Titans, where you could push a button and your production buildings would automatically requeue the same unit as each one finished. jesus I can't believe they did that. As usual, the people who played the game said it added strategic depth because you didn't need to spend so much attention managing your production, but it really took a lot away from the game.
On March 20 2012 11:34 Cassel_Castle wrote: BW was really popular in around 2000-2001 when, and my memory might be completely failing me, less than half of those micro tricks had been discovered. The truth is that people watch and play strategy games for the strategy aspect, and mechanics are a way to execute strategies, not the strategies themselves. The problem with SupCom 1/2 is that the mechanics actually get in the way of executing strategies (tactics really), which makes the game less appealing to watch and play. Even games like LoL and DotA that get bashed on TL because you only control one unit don't have mechanics that get in the way of tactical execution.
So what I'm trying to say is that arguments like "why not automate marine splitting too?" are fallacies because it's pretty easy for a good developer to see what automation helps tactical execution for new players while not getting in the way of a skilled player's execution.
Your memory is failing you. I also bolded another part of your message that wasn't true.
This is a much nicer piece than most of the blogs I read about this topic.
On March 20 2012 11:34 Cassel_Castle wrote: BW was really popular in around 2000-2001 when, and my memory might be completely failing me, less than half of those micro tricks had been discovered. The truth is that people watch and play strategy games for the strategy aspect, and mechanics are a way to execute strategies, not the strategies themselves. The problem with SupCom 1/2 is that the mechanics actually get in the way of executing strategies (tactics really), which makes the game less appealing to watch and play. Even games like LoL and DotA that get bashed on TL because you only control one unit don't have mechanics that get in the way of tactical execution.
So what I'm trying to say is that arguments like "why not automate marine splitting too?" are fallacies because it's pretty easy for a good developer to see what automation helps tactical execution for new players while not getting in the way of a skilled player's execution.
Your memory is failing you. I also bolded another part of your message that wasn't true.
This is a much nicer piece than most of the blogs I read about this topic.
Link to 2001 VOD of muta stacking/vulture patrol micro? And I don't see how automated flight paths/marine splitting is in any way equivalent to auto-surround/unlimited unit select/etc. Most gamers complain SC2 is too hard if anything.
On March 20 2012 11:34 Cassel_Castle wrote: BW was really popular in around 2000-2001 when, and my memory might be completely failing me, less than half of those micro tricks had been discovered. The truth is that people watch and play strategy games for the strategy aspect, and mechanics are a way to execute strategies, not the strategies themselves. The problem with SupCom 1/2 is that the mechanics actually get in the way of executing strategies (tactics really), which makes the game less appealing to watch and play. Even games like LoL and DotA that get bashed on TL because you only control one unit don't have mechanics that get in the way of tactical execution.
So what I'm trying to say is that arguments like "why not automate marine splitting too?" are fallacies because it's pretty easy for a good developer to see what automation helps tactical execution for new players while not getting in the way of a skilled player's execution.
Your memory is failing you. I also bolded another part of your message that wasn't true.
This is a much nicer piece than most of the blogs I read about this topic.
Link to 2001 VOD of muta stacking/vulture patrol micro? And I don't see how automated flight paths/marine splitting is in any way equivalent to auto-surround/unlimited unit select/etc. Most gamers complain SC2 is too hard if anything.
On March 20 2012 12:07 ymir233 wrote: Mechanics IS strategy.
Or are backstabbing/flanking/multi-prong attacks not allowed in Starcraft because the defender is forced to click too fast?
That exists in every strategy game, it's just hard to do in SC2 and extremely hard to do in BW (without macro slipping)
That's I was talked about specific mechanical micro demands as tools. Each of those tools adds to the your overall strategy or is at least an option to choose from. I don't really want to talk about unlimited selection so as to focus the discussion and is something I could go either way anyways.
The sort of mechanics is specifically related to how units move- something doubleupgradedobies explained much better than I. And some things are categorically gone. Mutalisk micro as it stand in BW is gone. JulyZerg popularized it, but without it, he's just a blah aggressive Zerg. With it, it was a tool, an option that he used as part of his strategy. The "give SC2 more time" that some* give isn't actually a counter argument. That's actually admitting the importance of difficult micro maneuvers in strategic play (and in viewership).
Without difficult to micro mechanics, what sort of strategic things are we actually thinking about that players will now have time for? Harassment? That's actually improved if you have awesome units that perform exceedingly better when controlled. Unit composition I guess? And multi-prong attacks? But again, units that have tremendous potential to be precisely microed (and therefore mechanically demanding) gives you an even wider range of options when you attack. And therefore more strategies. What exactly are these more strategic things we can do when our units are less responsive?
Some (not all or even most) units will simply never have undiscovered micro. Ignoring casters, if they don't turn on a dime and are extremely sluggish to commands, there is nothing fancy you can do with them. Just as SupCom will never pull out crazy micro tricks after a decade of playing- how the unit handles, limits the way it can be used.
And that takes options off the table and therefore the strategy of SupCom2.
Being able to send dragoons where you want them is mechanics, and deciding where you want them is strategy.
You can do both of these things in SupCom2. The difference is- can you tell the unit HOW it will move? And does telling it how to move, make a massive difference in its combat effectiveness? That's where you get more tools to use in your overall strategy for RTS.
@ymir233 Exactly this. That's why I mentioned all those board games. They are VERY strategic. But there is no mechanical ability and it's fine. But for an RTS, you are racing against time, which means who can get the first with the most. But what makes things interesting is can you control how they are used? This increases the mechanical skill, but also opens up new options.
@Barrin Yeah, there's something to be said for decreasing the rate of resources. My cousin developed a strategy board game for a school project. But in certain situations, there was a terrible flaw. It became too easy to gain the resources you needed to rebuild your fleets and with a low fleet number, it was too easy to remax. This led to massive stand-offs where no-one could gain the advantage. Now SC2, you can just skip that, and base trade, but still. I'm not sure if it's the fundamental issue, but breadth is certainly an issue.
@all Thanks for keeping this discussion level headed.
*Now that I think about, 'some' used to be me. And I'm still keeping my mind open when I see some of the more interesting players
It just goes by the general gist of "The greater the challenge, the greater the reward". Winning a more challenging game will always give more pleasure than winning an easy game. It's the same bloody thing with women, imagine didn't have to do any sweet talking, buying gifts n shit and they will sleep with you. Takes the fun out of it.
People KNOW that BW is more demanding, even the fangirls know. It is why it's so fun/tense to watch brood war.
Keeping your money low in SC2 while you micro in battle is like "yawn....", but unlike BW, there's a 'Wow' factor in it.
Rather than saying that mechanics IS strategy I think it's better to say that mechanical skill limits how well you can execute a strategy and, a factor limiting how well your opponent can deal with the strategy.
On March 20 2012 09:56 HardlyNever wrote: I know I'm going to get flamed to shit for this, but what the hell, why not.
Pro players have not fully utilized/mastered micro in SC2. Yeah, I said it.
No, sc2 doesn't have air unit stacking. No, it doesn't have patrol/attack micro. Even the stop command micro is largely limited to terran bio. It is probably worth mentioning that ALL of these things were, by every indication, complete accidents/flukes in the sc1 engine, and the game was not designed with these things to be purposely used.
If there was one thing I took away from the "Starcraft Master" minigame, it that Blizzard was trying to say "most of you still aren't doing this." Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but that is what I saw. How often do you see a pro player drop micro like is required on the 30th challenge? Basically never (I know someone is going to link a youtube video of some immortal drop, but guess what, that rarely occurs at that level on a regular basis). Even simpler stuff like the banshee "moving shot" is rarely executed flawlessly. ForGG probably has the best SC2 banshee micro I've seen, and he still gets hit by marines.
I know what people are going to say. Micro in BW was more rewarding. Micro in BW had a lot more depth than sc2 micro. Maybe (and only maybe) those things are true. But don't tell me that micro is meaningless in SC2. Not a single pro player has come even close to executing the consistent, top tier micro that the game engine allows for.
Of course progamers aren't microing to the fullest potential. I see many of them make silly mistakes like running infestors and templar into the enemy army because they can't even use a different control group or something. The thing about Starcraft Master is that a few of the challenges are actually meant to be done in a far easier fashion than the way you would expect them to be done - in those, less is more. About banshee micro, the reason people get hit by the marines is because the range difference between banshees and marines is only 1, and banshees have a delay before they fire their rockets. And challenge 30, the one with 1 tank 1 medivac vs 3 stalkers, that trick was invented by Boxer a decade ago, but it fell out of use in BW because it is simply an inefficient allocation of APM. Even now, it requires you to 1. select the tank 2. right click the medivac to load 3. press D (i noticed, in challenge 30, there was a bit of a delay preventing me from unloading immediately, completely fucked up my rhythm) and 4. click on the ground to unload, all in the time that stalkers take to shoot (1.44 ingame seconds, 1.04 real seconds), which is roughly 240 EAPM used up by doing that alone.
The problem with the whole "All these tricks weren't found out about at BW release...!" is that SC2 is artificially designed to be a competitive game. BW wasn't.
Assuming BW never existed, a feature like the magic box or mutalisk stacking would be seen as a bug and would have been patched out asap, because the designers assume they understand how a game should evolve and how balance should work out.
BW saw huge phases of one race being very dominant over the others, if this would happen in todays world the community would bitch about imbalances until the developers fix something.
What ALL the games we consider as the greatest of their class have in common is that they had "bugs" which turned into awesome features that no dev could have anticipated. Imagine Quake 3 without strafejumping. Imagine BW without the magic box. Imagine CS without the "fixed" weapon recoil.
ALL those examples are examples of (originally) bad code that players found out about and learned to (ab-)use it. Modern "clean" games still consider this stuff bad programming which gets patched out immediately because it was not intended to be there.
tl;dr: Todays games are aimed for a community that loves fast-food solutions and spoon-fed answers. You don't have 50% winrate vs something? Must be OP, better bitch and cry till someone fixes it. I'm not sure whether the devs or the communities started this, but the goal go design a strong game vs the overpatching of anything that goes against some devs original intention is what, imo, ruins todays games more than anything else.
Apart from this short rant the only question someone could really ask the OP is: Are you single? /mancrush. <3
PS: What I'm trying to say is that developers should stop pretending that they can glaze into some crystal ball that makes them understand how the future of their game works out. A game that has to be solved in the way the dev wants to is called a puzzle.
Players should stop pretending that they have some god-given right for balance right now, right here. Imagine if Boxer would have written letters to Blizzard instead of seeing it as a challenge to do well with Terran. -_-
I was a little weirded out by the title, as I have a pretty strict definition of mechanics, but you made me question that in a brilliantly well thought out post. And in the end, I understood your point and it made perfect sense.
@the OP: I think you're mixing up tactics and strategy more than anything.
Strategically, you know you have to keep your opponent's income down while increasing your own. There's all sorts of ideas here to beat the other guy. Macro and unit composition is part of your strategy. Tactically, you're moving your units in ways to make them effective, or *more* effective. These are sorts of things you do to win battles and encounters. Unit micro.
Since time is finite in SC2, your game mechanics, clicking and pressing buttons, may dictate how well you can execute your strategies and tactics.
I'm not sure what difference that makes. I've heard it argued that RTS shouldn't be called Real Time Strategy at all as it's mostly just Tactics. (Actually, I think it was the guy who created SupCom2 that argued that... so take from that what you will.)
A lot of the game is macro and choosing unit composition without out a doubt. But it's the how to make the units more effective that feels lacking. If that's tactics, then it's tactics. But tactics are mechanically demanding. So it's not the case that mechanics get in the way of Tactics/Strategy/planning with objectives. It's that mechanics are the result of having really excellent tools to work with than you personally can control/ execute.
And Axis and Allies is not for everyone and I haven't played it in a loooong time. But when I was in high school, that was THE game we played. Settlers is a lot easier game to recruit people for. But Settlers and Allies? Oh yes. We got that working in two separate sessions, we just needed increase the movement speed by 1 to break the stalemate.
Inspiring. I'm not a good player but this reminds me why I play SC2 in the first place, instead of say, Sins of a Solar Empire. Sins is very slow paced (They had "fast" settings in vanilla -- they've now upgraded to faster and fastest and it's still painfully slow half the time) and very cerebral but I always feel a little annoyed with it. In SC2 even if I'm at something of a disadvantage, I at least feel like I can weasel my way back into the game with clutch micro, a well timed counter attack, or the perfect surround.
On March 20 2012 11:34 Cassel_Castle wrote: BW was really popular in around 2000-2001 when, and my memory might be completely failing me, less than half of those micro tricks had been discovered. The truth is that people watch and play strategy games for the strategy aspect, and mechanics are a way to execute strategies, not the strategies themselves. The problem with SupCom 1/2 is that the mechanics actually get in the way of executing strategies (tactics really), which makes the game less appealing to watch and play. Even games like LoL and DotA that get bashed on TL because you only control one unit don't have mechanics that get in the way of tactical execution.
So what I'm trying to say is that arguments like "why not automate marine splitting too?" are fallacies because it's pretty easy for a good developer to see what automation helps tactical execution for new players while not getting in the way of a skilled player's execution.
That's a really shit argument. Just because the game was popular before a few micro tricks had been discovered doesn't mean that people like Brood War just for its strategy. Brood War has always been a game of both strategy and mechanical skill, even in 2001. Besides, the popularity of proffessional Brood War peaked around 2006, when those tricks HAD been discovered.
Also, listen to the damn crowd when Jaedong does mutalisk micro or BoxeR lifted tanks in to dropships as dragoon shots were in the air moving towards the tanks, making the dragoon shot hit air. The fangirls SHOUT when that stuff happends. They obviously like it, which means that they appreciate both the strategic AND the mechanical aspect of the game.
You're also disregarding the connection between strategy and mechanics. Some things take less actions, and therefor less time, to perform than they take to counter. For example, dropping defilers and a few zerglings in a terran base takes a lot of apm for the Zerg user, but it takes even more for the Terran user. This means that unless the Terran user has much more apm than the Zerg, defiler drops have a strategic value beyond the obvious. They soak the apm of the Terran user, causing him to fail in other areas of the game, or they do more damage than they should inside his base, if he chooses to neglect the drop and still focus 100% on other things. Either way, you made a strategic decision to tax the multitasking and speed of your opponent in an attempt to make him mess up and become less efficient, by using a tactic that takes less apm for you to do than it takes for him to counteract.
A drop like this doesn't just have strategic value because it can cause damage and beacuse it forces the enemy to send units back to defend, it also has value because it is a mechanical challenge that he has to overcome.
Another example is recalls. They take so much less apm to perform than they take to defend. All Protoss has to do is hit a few buttons, and that forces the Terran to unsiege tanks, maynard SCVs, use scans, re-siege tanks in a leapfrogging fashion, hit emp's, lay mines, replace supply depots, and lift off the command center and tell it to move somewhere safer. If you are aware of this, you can use this to your advantage by recalling in multiple spots, or recalling and doing an attack at the same time - either a full frontal one or a storm drop.
Throwing down some dark swarms and burrowing lurkers in the middle of a Terran base, or just casting plague on buildings, is SO hard to deal with as Terran. Even proffessional players fail to repair all their buildings in time sometimes, even after cleaning up the units. I actually saw Jaedong drop nothing but two defilers in a Terran base, plague supply depots, and then attack in the middle of the map at the same time. The terran was unable to repair his supply depots while microing in the battle, and he lost them, even though with infinite apm, he wouldn't have.
You know, it's funny... I think you, Barrin, and I all are saying the same thing in different ways. Philosophy of Design/Breadth of Gameplay/Mechanics is Strategy are really all about the same core issue.
Starcraft 2 lacks interesting options. It's a very stale game =/
On March 20 2012 13:21 Demonhunter04 wrote: Rather than saying that mechanics IS strategy I think it's better to say that mechanical skill limits how well you can execute a strategy and, a factor limiting how well your opponent can deal with the strategy.
On March 20 2012 09:56 HardlyNever wrote: I know I'm going to get flamed to shit for this, but what the hell, why not.
Pro players have not fully utilized/mastered micro in SC2. Yeah, I said it.
No, sc2 doesn't have air unit stacking. No, it doesn't have patrol/attack micro. Even the stop command micro is largely limited to terran bio. It is probably worth mentioning that ALL of these things were, by every indication, complete accidents/flukes in the sc1 engine, and the game was not designed with these things to be purposely used.
If there was one thing I took away from the "Starcraft Master" minigame, it that Blizzard was trying to say "most of you still aren't doing this." Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but that is what I saw. How often do you see a pro player drop micro like is required on the 30th challenge? Basically never (I know someone is going to link a youtube video of some immortal drop, but guess what, that rarely occurs at that level on a regular basis). Even simpler stuff like the banshee "moving shot" is rarely executed flawlessly. ForGG probably has the best SC2 banshee micro I've seen, and he still gets hit by marines.
I know what people are going to say. Micro in BW was more rewarding. Micro in BW had a lot more depth than sc2 micro. Maybe (and only maybe) those things are true. But don't tell me that micro is meaningless in SC2. Not a single pro player has come even close to executing the consistent, top tier micro that the game engine allows for.
Of course progamers aren't microing to the fullest potential. I see many of them make silly mistakes like running infestors and templar into the enemy army because they can't even use a different control group or something. The thing about Starcraft Master is that a few of the challenges are actually meant to be done in a far easier fashion than the way you would expect them to be done - in those, less is more. About banshee micro, the reason people get hit by the marines is because the range difference between banshees and marines is only 1, and banshees have a delay before they fire their rockets. And challenge 30, the one with 1 tank 1 medivac vs 3 stalkers, that trick was invented by Boxer a decade ago, but it fell out of use in BW because it is simply an inefficient allocation of APM. Even now, it requires you to 1. select the tank 2. right click the medivac to load 3. press D (i noticed, in challenge 30, there was a bit of a delay preventing me from unloading immediately, completely fucked up my rhythm) and 4. click on the ground to unload, all in the time that stalkers take to shoot (1.44 ingame seconds, 1.04 real seconds), which is roughly 240 EAPM used up by doing that alone.
What the fat?! It is still being used actually. Dont simply say things.
The more options an RTS gives the player, the deeper the strategy becomes, assuming that those options are balanced for human competition. An RTS that gives the player many options in all aspects of itself will naturally require a high degree of mechanical speed to make use of those options. For example, squad based RTS games prevent the player from using individual units strategically. Likewise, node based income RTS games remove options for fine tuning your economy to gain small advantages over long periods.
It is often seen backwards; that if a game requires a high degree of physical output, then it must not be cerebral. However, it is that Starcraft simply gives the player so many small-scale strategical options through very dynamic economic structures, very precise individual unit control, and a favor toward soft-counters due to micro management resulting in an incredible diversity of choices. This means that the more cerebral the player becomes about their play, the faster they must be. This is actually a good thing.
Edit:
On March 20 2012 13:21 Demonhunter04 wrote: 1. select the tank 2. right click the medivac to load 3. press D (i noticed, in challenge 30, there was a bit of a delay preventing me from unloading immediately, completely fucked up my rhythm) and 4. click on the ground to unload
1. Press the load hotkey, click the tank 2. Press the unload hotkey, click the medivac.
Edit 2:
On March 20 2012 14:32 mykyoyo wrote: @the OP: I think you're mixing up tactics and strategy more than anything.
Strategically, you know you have to keep your opponent's income down while increasing your own. There's all sorts of ideas here to beat the other guy. Macro and unit composition is part of your strategy. Tactically, you're moving your units in ways to make them effective, or *more* effective. These are sorts of things you do to win battles and encounters. Unit micro.
Since time is finite in SC2, your game mechanics, clicking and pressing buttons, may dictate how well you can execute your strategies and tactics.
A strategy can depend greatly on premeditated tactics. Knowing you have the mechinical ability to defend a certain early game attack with minimal defenses can result in you taking a very early third and getting away with it. Likewise, having confidence in executing certain tactics during an attack may result in a major strategical decision. Tactics and strategy are semantic words resulting out of a need for convenient communication. They are not so different things.
When I first read the title I thought this would be a rather ill-constructed argument but after reading I see what your point was. I don't think that Mechanics are Strategy but I agree with your statement that they open up new options. You give good examples in regards to SupCom2 and it made me think about SC2 without the mechanics portion integrated. Marine splitting was a good choice to include. If there was no such thing, marine styles would be almost pointless at the pro level against Zerg. Early pressure without micro would also be pointless. Who would honestly send a marine and marauder in against a zealot and stalker if the zealot could close the gap. In a way, this actually makes me glad that clumping exists in SC2. Macro mechanics might not be as straining anymore but the system which clumps units can be combated like the BW system with goon ai and the ability to muta stack. There is still the aspect of "fighting the system" to optimize play styles which would otherwise be impossible to use. Magic box with hold position and focus fire was developed as an improvement to a normal magic box. Hold position units abusing the aggro function in the game is also something that has a lot of potential in the future. These tricks are things that are being exploited within the confines of the game and they'll continue to show up as the game ages. With HotS we should see more units added which have micro intensive abilities and the game will mature in response. We still have a long way to go before this machine is worked out. Without all of these interesting finds, mechanics are less useful...it makes sense that SC2 will continue to require more and more mechanically out of players. Without the need to focus on menial tasks, that unused energy/effort can be used elsewhere.
Semantically I just can't agree with the idea that mechanics should fall under the strategy category. Mechanics is a physical component of the game that improves with practice, and in that respect there's really not distinction between amazing muta micro and clicking to look at your base (which I would be quite surprised if you considered that strategic).
Obviously mechanics are a means to an end. If you aren't physically fast enough to multitask and hit all your injects on time, you might not have enough units to successfully carry out a timing push. I think that is basically what you are saying-- the more physical skill you have the more success your strategy may have, or the more strategies may be available to you. I agree with this.
However, I hesitate to say that sc2 needs more of this. Right now other things tend to make or break the game for players. I think this is obvious for anyone you might consider who is not a professional player; issues like macro or poor scouting are usually why players lose games in lower leagues. Even at a professional level I don't see that many games where I think to myself-- if only he had microed/multitasked better he would have won. My personal feeling is the reason that these micro/multitasking mechanics play less of a role in sc2 is because people are lazy. If they don't need to explore these options yet to win, then they just keep focusing on other issues. It isn't bad to focus on other things, they are just limiting their strategic options by not expanding their mechanical toolset.
I think there will always be room to improve the mechanical execution of old strategies, but in the future mechanics may be somewhat of a limiting factor to exploring new strategies. At the moment though I think its not that mechanical options aren't there, it's that players aren't exploring them. Thus I don't think it's fair to say that it's the game's fault for not being mechanically challenging/broad/whatever (at this point in time).
(Good examples of underutilized/explored options are of course things like nydus, overseers, drop, burrow-- to use a few zerg specific examples, since that is my race. :D)
EDIT:
On March 20 2012 17:45 bgx wrote: What i mean is there is no definitive moment in current sc2 gameplay when you have to sacriface something IMPORTANT because of lack of APM. Yes you sacriface some macro or unit control but because many mechanics were automated, clever players will queue their actions in a way they will lose only 5%-10% efficiency.
I think this is a very interesting, but separate topic. I would like to see more game-changing sacrifices in sc2 than all-ining. It certainly does add a certain tension to the game when a player must knowingly make a decision to give up something 'important' for something else-- and then hope they made the correct choice.
"Mechanics" are much more abusable part of strategy in professional BW compared to SC2. Actually the vast of current BW metagame was built around using players resources (his tendencies, reflex, apm, multitasking ability, stamina). While this part is also valid in SC2 (a specially in late game) there is always lacking a defenitive punch. What i mean is there is no definitive moment in current sc2 gameplay when you have to sacriface something IMPORTANT because of lack of APM. Yes you sacriface some macro or unit control but because many mechanics were automated, clever players will queue their actions in a way they will lose only 5%-10% efficiency.
While in BW, even when talking about cream of the top you will see many shifts in players presence, Flash and Jaedong are so good not only because they have good mechanics but because they are capable of properly prioritizing their actions. Suddenly such miniscule things as building placement, can make a big difference, player with better placed production ficilities will "outmacro" a faster player, simply because he will have all of them in 1 screen while faster player will lose 5 more actions to produce from the same ammount of buildings. The best BW players not only produce more actions but they are better at molding their own strategy / build order to fit their mechanics, so even if they will be put in a position where they will have to sacriface some actions it will be comparable to only 5-10% of efficiency lost.
Thats why you see certain players affinities to their trademark strategies. Leta is more subject to use 2port vs zerg, Jaedong will muscle out you in long macro game, Flash will turtle into timing, Jangbi will pwn you with templars, Bisu will harass the zerg till he bleed etc. These are stereothypes and players of course will prioritize more optimal strategies over their tendencies however STILL in a grand scheme of things if we look at history of BW and their most notable players all of them presented certain trademark styles.
Mechanics/ and proper usage of it (efficiency) is a hidden part of BW strategy on a first glance. Ver in his article about Savior's brilliance made a good highlights about his tendency to exploit his opponents mechanics(who many of them were way faster players than him!). The trademark drop while your opponent attack is a most evident use of forcing opponents to make a split second judgement which in most cases will be sub optimal (because of human nature), which will result in a complete turnaway in a game flow. There is no player in BW who is immune to "tricks", however the faster the player and/or smarter the exploitable gap is that much smaller.
There are many examples of Flash brilliance in proper usage of his "resources", for example he will almost never go out of his usual apm range (300-350) but you will never see him get "outmultitasked" even by 100-200 apm faster players. It is because he closes the "gaps" with proper game sense, he will send a scout or scan in an exact right moment and he will prepare for it, he will construct the whole flow of the game so even his faster opponent will look slower than him even if the numbers says the otherwise.
edit: I agree that Mechanics on paper are not a strategy, if we assume all players have infinite actions so the human --> game relation has no "lag" yes, however in all levels of gameplay many physical influentions are part of choice or prioritizations which leans to strategy (because its a matter of choice). If we commend marathonists or cyclists for the proper use of their stamina (and refer to it as a tactic or a plan) why wouldnt we a bw players/sc2 players.
OP you are way off with this one. Mechanics means the player's use of the input devices and game interface to issue orders to the units in the game.
Also analogous to the way you transform an algorithm from human language into machine understandable language.
There is your inner world, the game world, and in between them an interface that transforms one into the other. While it is true that better mechanics means you have more tactical options, and therefore more strategical options, this does not make mechanics strategy. I would say, in order to sound smart and be convoluted of course, that strategy can be in a very restricted way a function of mechanics, but mechanics cannot be a function of strategy.
While it is true that better mechanics means you have more tactical options, and therefore more strategical options
I think that's more or less what I'm arguing, but that doesn't fit so well for a title. Or rather, good tactical options in an RTS forces a higher mechanical level. More tactical option allows for a greater diversity in strategic play. People want great strategy, but if the tools are gone in order to make it mechanically easier, the strategy suffers as a result.
However, I hesitate to say that sc2 needs more of this. Right now other things tend to make or break the game for players. I think this is obvious for anyone you might consider who is not a professional player; issues like macro or poor scouting are usually why players lose games in lower leagues. Even at a professional level I don't see that many games where I think to myself-- if only he had microed/multitasked better he would have won. My personal feeling is the reason that these micro/multitasking mechanics play less of a role in sc2 is because people are lazy. If they don't need to explore these options yet to win, then they just keep focusing on other issues. It isn't bad to focus on other things, they are just limiting their strategic options by not expanding their mechanical toolset.
I'm not sure I can agree with this. Particularly the lazy part. Yes there are the FruitDealers of the world, but there is a lot of very hard working and experimental players that have taken up SC2. A JulyZerg is going to try to muta micro- turns out it doesn't work so well. We catch glimpses of it like early game stalker micro vs marines. And the concussion shells shuts it down. But as it currently stands, it doesn't exist to the same extent as in BW. Not that we should be looking for parallel micro options. But there's just less of it overall.
At the risk of stirring the pot a bit.
However, I hesitate to say that sc2 needs more of this.
I could be over-interpreting things, but I hear rumblings that SC2 does need for more of this. Day9's baseball vs frisbee Idra's constant griping about the game Destiny's
That being said, the "strategy" aspect of Starcraft 2 is insanely lacking. I've given up trying to convince casuals of that, but I'd gladly discuss that aspect with any other pro gamer, and I'm pretty certain they'd agree with me.
Nestea on State of the Game Ep 64 1:43:00 "I feel like, from fans? and other players. Whenever I play WoL, whenever I see it, it's pretty much all same. Same builds, almost. Same styles. Over and over. And it seems like we... reach end of Wings of Liberty And I just hope Heart of Swarm comes as soon as possible."
I don't think you could argue Nestea is just being lazy.
And again, if the issue is 'give it more time.' Well, that's just stating the importance of having even more interesting micro option that feed into the greater strategy.
It takes mechanics to do and intelligence to apply which is why I see the interrelation between two rather than one being the hindrance of the other.
Allow me to introduce a topic I read up (one of those bronze league blogs).
Knowledge vs Skill.
Using your supreme commander 2 game as an example, provided that you had the knowledge of counters and what to do, you would be very decent at that game. Simply because the game requires no 'skill' to play, this is because the nature of the game does not require 'refined actions'.
Similarly to Civ 5, a turn based game. It requires no skill because all you need is knowledge of what to build, how to build and in what cases to attack or defend.
Bring in starcraft 2. It also requires knowledge of units, counters, and builds. However, it requires skill to exert your knowledge. To separates into two attributes:
Physical - construct workers, make units, attack/defend Mental - developing a strategy to best your opponent
Now believe me, you could get an 8 year old to play a game and simply tell him what to click on the screen and what to press on the keyboard. Then the game requires no skill, therefore, purely knowledge is required, and hence, no mechanics are needed.
Now for good old Brood War. This game is of sheer beauty, it requires an extra level of knowledge and skill to perform well in this game. A person can box every unit in SC2 and tell it to attack a base, but not everyone can move an army smoothly in SC:BW. SC2 has taken alot of skill required (and replaced with mediocre ones).
Examples: 1) Enhanced knowledge of range (siege tanks), there aint no circle around a sieged tank) 2) Enhanced macro skills (to be able to quickly build from 20 gateways and send worker to mine every time) 3) Muta stacking, Reaver dropping 4) Enhanced knowledge of Maps (it's all black at the start)
TL:DR - If you can tell a kid what to click and win a game, then it requires no mechanics (ie: no skill).
Most people know how the pieces move, you can give a 5 year old perfect knowledge of the game, but you will get great variation in chess ability between these 5 year olds. Where does this variability come from? This is where the concept of "depth" of a game becomes useful. One way to approximate this "depth" is to look at the number of possible variations in a game, in relation to how much knowledge the players must have. Here once again chess is an excellent example of a very deep game. An example of a "shallow" game would be something like poker, where you basically have as many game positions as there are rules.(even though the rules naturally come out of probability of drawing each hand)
Few would argue that both sc and sc2 are quite deep. One of the questions implied in the last post is whether or not increasing the mechanical skill to actually play the game increase or decrease the depth of the game. As most players know, practically any automation in the micro decreases the player's control over the units and decreases depth. There is an exception to this when the mechanical "skill" of the game takes up so much of the player's attention that they are physically unable to execute deeper strategies that may actually be present in the game but are humanly impossible. This seems to be the case in brood wars, where the top players have become more machine than human. The main point here is that possible depth of the game that could in theory be explored by the players is never reached, because 99% of the players are working on their mechanical skills to be able to compete. This is the problem that was attempted to be solved in going from sc to sc2. It is clear that the top players are still machines and it is difficult to say whether or not the changes did more adding or subtracting from the depth, but they did allow more players to actually play the game. Seems like a good decision to me.
This is nowhere near the rape that was done to supcom 1 going to supcom 2. The changes where so drastic that entire concepts where removed in the name of making the game more accessible. The result is a very shallow game in comparison to the original and shouldn't be mention in any comparison to either starcraft or supcom 1. Be happy that blizzard didn't rape sc 1 like that.
I completely agree with you that mechanics plays an important role in a RTS game, and shouldn't be relegated to a lower tier than strategy.
However, I disagree that mechanics is strategy. In business terms, mechanics would be what we call "operational effectiveness" or basically, doing similar activities as your competitors, more efficiently (e.g. worker production, supply blocks, battle micro). Strategy, the other side of the coin, consists of doing different activities than your competitors (e.g. build order, unit composition). Both are important factors to the success of a business, or in this case, the game, so rather than say mechanics is strategy, we just need to recognize its importance.
Now, that brings up some interesting questions regarding the diminishing importance of mechanics once everyone reaches the same level, and whether or not the "lower" mechanical ceiling in SC2 will result in gamers hitting that barrier more quickly, but that can be saved for another discussion.
Well in bw terms if you have good mechanics you have more strategic options available to you since you can produce more units and micro them well you can control the map more easily, punish your opponent for opening hole in his defence and in the mean time get the necessary economical advantage . So yes I think good mechanics in a game like bw definitely reward the better player .
This is an incredibly good post that I was unlucky not to come across before.
A post that should be even more in the view of TLers and Blizz, in this unique time where things can still be improved upon before Hots release, This is the reason why I bump it! As a veteran StarCrafter, I believe it explains a very important point excellently.
I had a hard time understanding much of the post but if I'm understanding correctly i think i can add something to this. By adding hard counters to the game like lurkers, cyclones and adepts you remove a lot of the mechanical aspects of the game. I think instead of adding hard counter units like the lurker we can add other units similar to the baneling where there is a certain requirement to micro your army rather than burrow and forget, this is why i think spells like forcefield and blink are so engaging and entertaining while units like the cyclone and lurker are dull and boring because there is little to be done aside from making the correct unit in the first place.